| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement and the fact that there will be an additional consultation period. Will he comment on current Government policy on consultation with friendly Governments when travel advice is to be altered? I am thinking in particular of Yemen. Although it is working hard in the international community to combat terrorism, travel advice on that country has changed over a period of time, making it difficult for people to visit it or keep up contacts with it. Will he comment on the situation in Yemen in the light of what he has said today?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. Current advice on Yemen advises against all travel except on essential business. I cannot say what new judgment we will come to if it is accepted that we will move to the new criteria proposed in the Command Paper, but if we make that move, I should want the
extent to which local law enforcement agencies are willing and able to fight terrorism to be taken into consideration. We already recognise the considerable work done by our friends in the Yemen Government and their agencies.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I welcome the statement and the policy outlined, and I realise what a difficult matter this is. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether Bali, Spain or Turkey were on the list of countries at risk before the terrorist outbreaks there, or will it always be the case in practice that we will react rather than foresee?
Mr. Straw: There was general advice in respect of Spain because of ETA terrorism, and the Foreign Office general travel advice contains a page about the threat from international terrorism. On Bali, part of the later examination of events there looked at whether the Foreign Office's travel advice had properly reflected available intelligence, and whether that had been used properly. We were subject to some criticism on that, which I accepted when I made a statement to the House in autumn 2002. The Intelligence and Security Committee made some specific recommendations, which we have followed through, and which are among the reasons for upgrading the system. We continue to work those through.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): I welcome, as have other Members, the Foreign Secretary's statement and the consultation process that he is about to enter. Will he consider another aspect of travel: advice given to overseas citizens on travel to this country? Many such people seem wholly unaware of our immigration rules, and I hope that our overseas posts can make greater use of local press and television to make quite clear what our rules and regulations are, so that no one is taken by surprise if they happen to be turned back at a port of entry in this country.
My other point is that if there is to be an order of priority in the security of our citizens overseas, surely the security of our diplomats in overseas posts should come first. They are not travelling abroad voluntarily as tourists, but are there as part of their official duties. I hope that the Foreign Secretary, following events in Istanbul and what I believe was the recent temporary closure of our embassy in Syria, will look after his civil servants overseas as a matter of priority, before worrying about voluntary travellers going overseas from this country.
Mr. Straw: First, I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on the ingenuity of his opening question. Although it was not directly on this point, I have to say that my Indian and Pakistani constituents and their families are well aware of the immigration rules, and that 99 per cent. of them follow those rules and accept the decisions made. Some do not, which is why there have to be effective scrutiny systems, but on the whole, those work well—although sometimes, as we know, they do not.
On the question of the security of posts, I take that extremely seriously. I did so before the appalling atrocity against the British consul general, Roger Short,
and his staff in Istanbul on 20 November, and I do so today. A review of security is taking place as a result of the Istanbul bombings, but quite a lot was being done before that. However, I make the point that there is no contradiction between our concern for the security of our staff—to whom we have a high-level duty of care—and our concern for the safety of British citizens. Both are of great and equal importance, and where there is any change in security arrangements in relation to our staff, we should make those public unless there are good intelligence reasons for not doing so. The public can then judge us not only on the advice that we give them but on what we are doing for the security of our own staff.
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD): The Foreign Secretary will know that his Department has issued a serious threat warning in respect of Bahrain, where the grand prix is being held this weekend. Many British citizens will have to attend that event, not as tourists but as employees of the successful British motor racing teams. They will naturally be concerned about the implications of the threat for their domestic insurance policies, such as those related to their mortgages. As well as looking at travel insurance, will the Foreign Secretary work with the insurance industry to ensure that there is clear advice to British workers on the relationship between threat warnings and any exclusions from their normal domestic insurance policies?
Mr. Straw: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and my answer is yes.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): I warmly congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his statement, not least because of the welcome apparent change of emphasis whereby only very serious threats will now be highlighted to travellers. Can he further confirm that it is in no one's interests for there to be too much, often unnecessary, information given? That leads people to become blasé and take absolutely no notice of the advice on his Department's website.
Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. When we receive information about terrorist threats, we will continue to describe that information in synopsis form, and say what we have received, as at present. The change proposed is that we will far less frequently say that we therefore advise against all but essential travel. It is in that respect that the currency has been devalued. People are blasé; we had advised against travel to Bali, but I gather that 30,000 British people still chose to go there. We advise against all but essential travel to Saudi Arabia because that is consistent with our current policy, but given that 30,000 of our people live there, what does advising against all but essential travel to Saudi Arabia mean, exactly, for those who live there and have to travel backwards and forwards? That advice is consistent with current arrangements, but it is the House's feeling that it is time those were changed, not least so that the value of the currency can be improved.
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): Although this is not at the heart of the statement, I welcome the
Government's setting-up of the new aviation health department. Could the FCO website give more details and advice to long-haul travellers on how they can take precautions to avoid deep vein thrombosis? That could and would save lives—and if a loved one dies, it really does not matter whether it is from terrorism or from DVT.
Mr. Straw: As one who has to take precautions in that department—I shall not specify what—my answer to the hon. Gentleman is yes.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Anyone who has had ministerial responsibility for travel cannot other than support what the Foreign Secretary has said today. One group that he will consult is destination countries. Travel advice is often seen as an issue for bilateral negotiation between destination countries, and they regard travel advice as a form of value judgment on them as countries. Is that not a problem, and can the Foreign Secretary make it clear to every destination country that travel advice is exactly that: advice that is not negotiable as a political bilateral issue, and which is simply designed to advise UK citizens whether, in the Government's judgment, it is safe or otherwise to travel?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The advice is not negotiable, but although advice on the nature of a threat has to be based on our unilateral judgment, our prescriptive warnings not to undertake all but essential travel inevitably also involve a judgment about the state and quality of local law enforcement agencies. It is that factor that embroils us in some rather difficult bilateral arguments. Countries sometimes say, "Hang on, you said 'all but essential travel' for us", and then proceed to question the decision in respect of certain other countries. They say, "We are co-operating with you more than those countries are, so why are we being picked off in this way?" Of course, we are not picking them off, but that is how it is perceived. That is another reason for pulling back from such prescriptive advice, except where it is really needed, and when people will take notice of it.
Business of the House
2.1 pm
The Leader of the House (Mr. Peter Hain): May I remind the House that Tuesday's business statement has been superseded by the House of Lords' acceptance of the will of the House of Commons? I am grateful that common sense has prevailed by 30 votes, and I am particularly grateful to those Labour peers who stood so solidly by the twin principles of House of Commons supremacy and greater voter participation through postal voting.
The business for the week after the Easter recess is as follows:
Monday 19 April—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.
Tuesday 20 April—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Wednesday 21 April—Opposition Day (9th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 22 April—A motion to approve a permanent security screen in the Chamber followed by a motion to approve the First Joint Report of the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Administration Committee on visitor facilities: access to Parliament.
Friday 23 April—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
Monday 26 April—Remaining stages of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill (Lords).
Tuesday 27 April—Progress on consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
Wednesday 28 April—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
Thursday 29 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by motion to approve a money resolution on the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill followed by Opposition half-Day (7th Allotted Day) (Part 2). There will be a half-day debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Friday 30 April—Private Member's Bills.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |