| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which will be echoed almost unanimously in the Muslim community, including by its leaders. I was particularly pleased that the secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, Iqbal Sacranie, whom I know and enormously respect, sent a letter to colleagues throughout the country, making it absolutely clear that extremists and fanatics spoke not for the Muslim community but only for themselves. Indeed, he quoted a section from the Koran to show that the extremists were
against its edicts and teachings. We greatly welcome such leadership, and we will continue to work with him and his colleagues to deal with the problem.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) (LD): Reverting to immigration and asylum, will the Leader of the House, on behalf of his Cabinet colleagues, think carefully during the recess about the way in which the system is being reviewed? Frankly, there is a collapse of confidence in the integrity and credibility of the system, which will not be improved by today's events. The right hon. Gentleman should reflect seriously on the need for an independent, rather than internal, inquiry into the process. It should be undertaken separately from the Foreign Office and the Home Office so that the attitudes and actions of Ministers can be properly examined. Clearly, the Sutton inquiry cannot achieve that.
I heard the dignified personal statement made earlier this afternoon, but does the Leader of the House recall that only on Tuesday the Home Secretary asked the House:
- "Has the Minister of State done a first-class job? We all know that she has, so the answer to that question is yes, yes, yes. That is why she has our unequivocal backing and will continue to do so."—[Official Report, 30 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1444.]
Turning to the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, which has been published today, will the Leader of the House examine two important questions? First, there are recommendations about the way in which civil servants treat the Select Committees of the House. Paragraph 34 states:
- "One thing this inquiry has revealed beyond doubt is the inadequacy of the guidance on parliamentary privilege currently issued by departments, both for use by Non-Departmental Public Bodies, and for internal departmental use."
We have just heard that the Lord Chancellor personally apologised, and we accept that, but I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that the Committee report says unequivocally:
- "We therefore conclude, on the basis of the facts admitted in evidence, that, even in the absence of intent, the issuing of the letter of 11 December"—
- "and enclosures constituted a contempt."
Mr. Hain: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has puffed himself up in this aggressive way, which is not typical of him. The report also made it clear that there was no intent on the part of the Lord Chancellor, who has unreservedly apologised. I would have thought that that met the requests of the Standards and Privileges Committee. Paragraph 34 of the report states:
- "We are glad that the Government appears to have recognised this, and is taking steps to remedy this deficiency."
On the asylum and immigration system, I have to say that although the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is a respected parliamentarian whose work I value, he is getting into very bad company with the Conservatives in seeking to make cheap points about a Minister who has accepted that she unwittingly gave a misleading impression and has acted honourably in resigning. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. If I understood him correctly—he will tell me if I am wrong—he said that this afternoon's statement has not improved the position. I would have thought that, in the sense of showing high standards of honesty and integrity in public life, my right hon. Friend's statement has improved the position. As the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, my right hon. Friend acted decisively to cut down the number of asylum applications and doubled the number of removals. I would have thought that that would be welcomed throughout the House, including by the hon. Member for North Cornwall.
Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) (Lab/Co-op): Can we have an early debate on the implications of the interpretation of the Data Protection Act 1998 by public bodies, particularly by NHS trusts? My own local trust wrote to me to say that I needed to acquire a consent form from elderly people in hospital or anyone who telephones my office before I could make any representations on their behalf. Is that not an infringement of the rights of Members, and is it not clear that some public bodies are beginning to interpret the Data Protection Act in a way that undermines our right to represent our constituents and their families?
Mr. Hain: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised that matter and, given the reaction of Members on both sides of the House, he has clearly touched on a pertinent point. I remind the House that in 2002, on his behalf and on behalf of all Members, the Government amended the Data Protection Act by an order that came into force on 17 December, which removes the Act's restrictions on the disclosure of sensitive data to Members of Parliament and other elected representatives when they are dealing with constituents' cases.
The Department of Health and the health service are in a slightly different position, as information held by hospitals about the health of individuals is likely to be held in confidence and disclosure to a third party is governed by the common law of confidence. However, the crucial point for my hon. Friend is that the Department of Health has issued guidance for NHS organisations, including trusts, that they should accept an MP's word, when an MP clearly states that he or she has the patient's consent. In that case, it seems to me that the hospital or trust involved should have accepted my hon. Friend's word that he had the patient's consent,
as that is in line with the guidance issued by the Department of Health, so he should go back to the trust with that reminder.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) (Con): Can the Leader of the House assure us that the immigration supremo—namely, the Prime Minister, who is taking a close interest in immigration matters—will use the recess to study the impact of the Hillingdon judgment, to which I have referred the Leader of the House on other occasions? Is he aware that reimbursing boroughs such as Hillingdon, which have a port of entry, involves two Departments—the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills—and that they do not always integrate or co-ordinate their reimbursement programmes and are tardy in bringing them forward? In future, the process should be accepted as a national responsibility, especially with regard to unaccompanied young people, as assistance is given to adults who are over 18 and not only to unaccompanied children. That is a major matter, and the Prime Minister ought to consider it.
Mr. Hain: The Home Secretary and, no doubt, the Prime Minister will have noted the hon. Gentleman's points. I remind him, however, that, in the past year alone, we recruited 4,000 extra staff to deal with the problems of asylum and illegal migration, which compares with planned Conservative cuts in 1997 of 1,200. Furthermore, if the shadow Chancellor's planned cuts of £1 billion were implemented in the Home Office budget, the hon. Gentleman's problems would get much worse and the problems of dealing with asylum and illegal migration would escalate to an uncontrollable extent. We are getting a grip on the issue, but Conservative policies would make that impossible.
Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op): After the recess, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the Barker report on housing supply? Over the past few years, Britain has experienced not only the highest house price inflation on record but the lowest amount of housebuilding, and the report addresses that. The issues affect everyone in the country, whether they are the cost of buying their own home, which is unaffordable for many people, or the unacceptable level of homelessness. A debate would also give us an opportunity to expose some of the Opposition nimbyism, when they say that they support the Barker report but not in their backyard. There are many reasons for my right hon. Friend to hold such a debate, and it would give Parliament an opportunity to join in the consultation on the Barker review.
Mr. Hain: I very much agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's points. The issue is important, and that is why the Government acted in advance to commission the Barker review, which provides many of the solutions to the problem. I am sure that all Members find, like me, that the problem especially affects first-time buyers who find it extremely difficult to get on to the housing ladder. However, at least they have the confidence of very low mortgage rates and the certainty that, under the economic stability that the Government have locked in,
interest rates will remain low. Mortgages will thus remain low and people can plan ahead in security for a future in which they can own their own homes.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |