|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Alan Johnson: We are seeking to address the legacy of cases involving families and dependents, and involving asylum seekers, as well as those inherited cases involving nationality. We are making progressI believe that we have a date, around 2012, by which we would have that backlog completedat the same time as dealing with current cases effectively. Some 60 per cent. of asylum seekers are now dealt with within six months, and that figure will be up to 90 per cent. very soon.
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): On the question of unnecessary police paperwork, is the Secretary of State aware that years and years ago, when the Select Committee on Home Affairs was looking into the issue and the Chairman was the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who is now the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Ministers came before the Committee and gave exactly the same answer that the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism has given this afternoon, namely that there might have been problems in the past, but the Government have just taken measures to put everything right? When the Home Secretary comes before the Home Affairs Committee, will he be prepared to quantify the figures that his right hon. Friend has given this afternoon and also explain what the Government
The Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism (Mr. David Hanson): I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that 2007-08 saw the fourth successive annual improvement on the percentage of time spent on front-line policing. If he looks at some of the measures that we have taken, such as scrapping the police time sheet, which has freed up an estimated 260,000 police hours, axing the stop-and-account form and introducing 18,500 extra handheld devices, he will see that the measures that we have taken have resulted in the improvements seen over that period.
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab):
What discussions has the Home Secretary had with the Foreign Office in respect of the arbitrary decision by the Premier of Bermuda to allow people from Guantanamo Bay to settle in Bermuda, when that is a matter for the competence of the United Kingdom Government in London and, I
believe, the responsibility of the Home Secretary? We need to be told what is happening.
Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the discussions have been robust, and we are absolutely at one on the basis of what happened. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is raising the matter with the American authorities.
Mr. Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): Does the Home Secretary understand the concern of the people of Berkshire about the large number of out-of-court disposals that are taking place, even for serious crimes such as grievous bodily harm? Is not this a worrying diversion from established local justice?
Mr. Hanson: It is sometimes important to use out-of-court disposals to ensure that there is swift and effective justice, and that we reduce police bureaucracy, exactly as the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has requested. That is why those out-of-court disposals are taking place. They have a positive benefit for the victims. They also have the positive benefit of not criminalising very young people who would otherwise go on to become involved in much more serious crime downstream.
Christopher Fraser (South-West Norfolk) (Con): Despite what the Government might say, police officers are spending more time on paperwork. Do the Government disagree with the chairman of the Police Federation, who has said:
Government red tape is the...obstacle standing in the way
Mr. Hanson: I have just given the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) the figures that show that front-line policing has seen its fourth successive annual improvement since 2003-04. The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser) will know that Jan Berry and the Police Federation have both been very supportive of the measures that we have taken to date. I am expecting a report from Jan Berry on bureaucracy shortly. The hon. Gentleman will see from the improvement measures that we have taken that there is a real difference on the ground, and that we are putting the police where they should be: on the beat in front of local people.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skillsor his representative on earthto make a statement on the Companies Act inquiry into the collapse of MG Rover, including an explanation of why the results of the Governments investigation cannot now be made public in whole or in part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Ian Lucas): I am very pleased to be here to respond to the right hon. and learned Gentlemans question. On 31 May 2005, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry appointed Guy Newey QC and Gervase MacGregor, a forensic accountant at BDO Stoy Hayward, to examine the issues raised by the Financial Reporting Review Panel and the events leading up to the appointment of administrators on 8 April 2005.
After the collapse of MG Rover, a number of factors concerning the affairs of the companyincluding issues raised by the Financial Reporting Review Panel, which examined the published accounts of the Rover Groupresulted in the Secretary of State deciding to appoint Companies Act inspectors to carry out a thorough investigation. The inspectors were appointed under section 432 of the Companies Act 1985 and had wide powers to require documents and the attendance of witnesses, including directors, officers and agents of the company. They investigated the affairs of the MG Rover Group, its parent company Phoenix Venture Holdings, and MGR Capital Ltd, between the purchase of MG Rover Group from BMW in May 2000 and the date of its entering administration. The inspectors are independent of the Department.
The inspectors carried out a thorough review, and delivered their report to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on 11 June 2009. The Secretary of State has studied the report in full and taken legal advice on the next steps. After considering the report in its entirety, he has asked the Serious Fraud Office to review the report and consider whether there are any grounds for a criminal investigation. Following legal advice, this report will not be published at this time, in order to ensure that any criminal investigation or prosecution that the SFO might decide to take is not prejudiced. Publication now could also prejudice the possibility of a fair trial. The discretion of the Secretary of State to publish a Companies Act report when inspectors are appointed under section 432 is only to publish the whole report. The legislation does not provide for the report to be published in part.
Mr. Clarke: Does not that reply show that the Governments consistent approach to difficult questions about the car industry has always been to put them into the long grass? Does the Minister recall that, on 31 May 2005, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, while declining to answer questions about the Governments role in the affair, set up the inquiry, saying:
I have asked them to report to me as quickly as possible and in a form which will enable the report to be made public.
Does the Minister not accept that four years later, after £16 million-worth of taxpayers money has been spent on this inquiry, it is quite inadequate now to decide to refer the issue againthis time to the Serious Fraud Office, which could have been brought in long ago? Is it not obvious that the whole point is to continue to avoid publication and to avoid answering questions about the Governments own role in this embarrassing affair?
Will the Minister try to answer today, if he is able, the question of why that particular consortium was selected by the Government to buy MG Rover from BMW in the first place, which was never clear? Will he also explain why, before the 2005 election, another Secretary of State spent £6.5 million-worth of taxpayers money on a loan to keep the company alive through the general election campaigna decision later described by the National Audit Office as a waste of public money?
Most particularly and finally, is the Minister not aware that the former MG Rover workers are hoping to benefit from the MG Rover trust fund, which holds £16 million from asset sales, but that none of that money can be disbursed until this report is published? The workers are innocent victims of the Secretary of States ingenious discovery of another reason to avoid publication. Will he not reconsider the decision and just reflect on the fact that the Governments policy towards the car industry today shows the same combination of indecision and inactivity that it has shown on the inquiry into the affairs of the late MG Rover, which we are considering today?
Ian Lucas: I made it clear in my statement that the investigation under the Companies Act 1985 was an independent investigation carried out by individuals who are entirely independent of Government. The length of time taken by the investigation has been the result of the work carried out by the inspectors, and it would have been quite inappropriate for the Government to intervene in that investigation. It is surely the correct decisionas the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), as a learned member of the Bar, will be awareto consider the report and the evidence as a whole before making any decision to refer any investigation to a criminal authority such as the Serious Fraud Office. That is precisely the approach that the Secretary of State has undertaken. The report was delivered as recently as 11 June. The Secretary of State has acted quickly and has made a decision based on consideration of the evidence to refer this matter to the Serious Fraud Office. That decision has not been taken lightly; it is a serious matter and the Secretary of State has taken the entirely correct approach.
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on any allegations concerning the specifics of the history of MG Rover, because any comment I make, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware, could itself be prejudicial to any future criminal inquiry. I am very well aware of the position of those former employees of the MG Rover group, and of the trust fund, because of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). I am afraid that it is quite appropriate to refer these matters to the Serious Fraud Office, and until that inquiry and investigation is resolved, I regret that no further steps can be taken with regard to the trust fund.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): The decision to make a referral in this way raises extremely serious questionsnot least, as has already been mentioned, concerning the manner in which the original investment decisions were taken, and what due diligence may or may not have been undertaken with regard both to the deal itself and to those involved in it. It also raises some fairly serious questions about what PricewaterhouseCoopers was doing for four years, and how the process has reached this particular point. In reaching the decision to make a referral to the Serious Fraud Office, what regard did the investigators have to the report of PWC, the administrators, which dealt with whether there was improper conduct? Can we now conclude that prima facie evidence of improper conduct has indeed been found?
May I pursue a point that has already been made? Notwithstanding the Ministers answer about the employees, it seems remarkably unfair that four years on they should still be waiting for payments. What can the Department do to expedite the payments that may be due to those employees?
Ian Lucas: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, it would be inappropriate to draw any conclusions at this stage from the Secretary of States decision to refer the matter to the Serious Fraud Office. Any specific allegations that have been made will be considered in the context of the report as a whole, and the Serious Fraud Office will report in due course. I think that it is in the interests of all parties for its report to be delivered as expeditiously as possible, but the decisions to be made are in its hands, and we shall simply have to wait until those decisions are made.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): May I pass on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who would be here if he were not stuck in traffic on his way to the House? May I also point out that Whips, who usually have to remain silent, are none the less present? For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe) is present, but is unable to speak on behalf of his constituents.
I hope that none of the parties will use the MG Rover affair as a political football. Having referred it to the Serious Fraud Office, Ministers have less influence on the timing of the final report than they had before. Once the Minister has been given an indication of how much longer it might be delayed, will he engage in serious discussions on whether the trust fund can be released before its publication? I think that after four years, the most important aspect of the affair must be the position of the workers. They have been most affected by it, and they have a right to look to us to resolve it as quickly as possible.
Ian Lucas: My hon. Friend has made an important point. The position of the former employees of the MG Rover group must now be at the forefront of our minds, and I will do all I can to deal with it as fast as is humanly possible.
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove) (Con):
As someone who represents a great many former Rover workers, may I tell the Minister that they are simply outraged at the time that it has taken for the report to be completed, and at the £16 million price tag that has been put on it?
They now want answers. They want to know why they lost their jobs, and why, on the demise of MG Rover in April 2005, none of the companys assets still belonged to it. Bearing in mind that there may be an investigation, can the Minister at least put a finite time limit on when the report will be put in the public domain, thereby ensuring that the people who have been most affected by this whole tragic case can have access to the £16 million trust fund that is their desert and right?
Ian Lucas: I have, of course, a great deal of sympathy for the former workers at MG Rover. I well understand their frustration over the time that the investigation has taken. However, as I said earlier, the investigation conducted under the Companies Act was an independent investigation, and it would not have been appropriate for the Government to curtail it. It has been a complex investigation involving a great deal of work over a longer time than any of us would have wished, and for that reason I hope that the further step of referring the matter to the Serious Fraud Office can be dealt with as soon as possible. However, as I have said, the Serious Fraud Office is an independent body, and the matter is now in its hands.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): I support what my Birmingham colleagues have said about the Rover work force. It is important for the trust issue to be resolved as quickly as possible. If my hon. Friend were to agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), would he ensure that precedents were addressed? I was not able to get reports on, for example, H. H. Robertsonwhich collapsed in the Tory daysinto the public domain. There must be consistency across the piece.
Ian Lucas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. His parliamentary memory is rather longer than mine, although it is probably not as long as that of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe.
Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con): Fairly or unfairly, at a time of deep political cynicism among the public, the general feeling will be that this is an attempt to delay an embarrassing admission of guilt until after the general election. Will the Minister therefore say whether it is likely that any parts of this report that are not sub judice will contain criticisms of the Government? Are there any such criticisms of the Government in the report?
Ian Lucas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, but I regret that it would not be appropriate for me to make specific comments on the content of the report because, as I have already pointed out, these issues are now in the hands of the Serious Fraud Office and any statements that I might make concerning the detail of the report could prejudice further criminal proceedings.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD):
I have to make a rather unusual declaration of interest because, along with Mike Whitby and Carl Chinn, I was one of the people who opened negotiations with BMW and then got kicked out as a community representative from the bid, and although we may have residual legal rights, we would not wish to exercise them other than in the interests of the wider community. It is the wider community, of which I too am a representative, that needs to be thought of. A cost of £16 million for a report, plus
£16 million in the trust fund, is a lot of money. I therefore ask the Minister to consider whether it might be possible to negotiate a further contribution towards that from the Phoenix directors, to ensure that we can bring this to a conclusion that will benefit those who have suffered the most: the work force.
Ian Lucas: I have already made it clear that I have great concerns for the work force and that I will discuss their position with colleagues in the Department. I am very concerned about the trust fund, and we clearly need to facilitate access to that as soon as possible. At this moment, however, I am afraid that the investigation and the referral to the SFO must take precedence.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): During the Ministers disappointing statement, should he not have apologised for the fact that the Government traduced the previous owners, BMW, whose headquarters are in my constituency, and which did the right thing by the work force by selling for nothing to the new owners? Should he not also apologise for the Governments failure to accept the bid from Alchemy, which was clearly seen by everybody who knew anything about the industry as the only way to save jobs?
Ian Lucas: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was disappointed by my statement, but I do not think it appropriate for the Government to comment on the detail of the report, because the matter has been referred to the SFO.
Mr. Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con): Everyone shares the desire, which the Minister has pointed to, for a expeditious report, but will he try to ensure that the SFOs report is comprehensive enough to take into account the actions of the Government in their negotiations before May 2000 when the bid took place? Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) have alluded to this concern. There is a feeling that the fraud did not start recently, but may have taken place as much as eight years ago.
Mr. Rob Wilson (Reading, East) (Con): Were Ministers or officials at the Department made aware of any concerns about illegal activity taking place at MG Rover at any time over the past four years? Is it really only since receiving the final report that Ministers became aware of a serious fraud?
Ian Lucas: As I have already made very clear, it is appropriate to consider all the evidence in this case. That is the step that was taken by the Secretary of State at the conclusion of the presentation of the report on 11 June, and it is on the basis of the consideration of all the evidence that the matter has now been referred to the SFO.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|