| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Avebury: On the last occasion I inquired, the Government said that they had to wait until insurance contracts relating to other removal centres came up before they could see what the position was on premiums. Has the Minister anything further to tell us about that? It is obvious that the events at Yarl's Wood must have had a knock-on effect on the attitude of insurers to the premiums that they would charge for detention centres and, further, for PFI prisons, which, I understand, are privately insured.
The outcome of the urgent review that the noble Baroness mentioned is important, not just for the detention centres but for every other PFI contract relating to a location where such events might—even remotely—be possible. The repercussions for government spending are so enormous that, I am sure, the Government must have considered the matter urgently. They should produce some figures. If they cannot deal with the questions about the urgent review, they should at least say what happened when other contracts came up for renewal.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendment is certainly timely, and, in that sense, it is useful. It disinters an important issue. I do not claim that I can answer all the questions that have been posed in our short debate, but I recognise the great importance of that debate. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly asked some hard questions about where this matter might leave us with other projects. In truth, the matter will, in the end, have to be left to the outcome of the review undertaken following the events at Yarl's Wood.
We must be clear about what the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 provides for. It provides for compensation to be paid from the local police fund under certain circumstances for losses incurred through injury, destruction of premises or stealing or destruction of the contents of those premises by any person involved in a riot. The Act also allows for insurance claims agreed to by insurance companies and accepted by the police authority to be refunded to the insurance company by the local police authority.
The subject has been brought into focus by the Yarl's Wood case and the claim against Bedfordshire police. The Government are undertaking a fundamental and urgent review of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 because of the many implications and ramifications that flow from it. I make it plain again that, when we have completed that review, we will
report fully to Parliament. I cannot, at this stage, say whether any conclusions will be reached about the future of the Act within the timetable for the Bill. All three noble Lords who contributed to our discussion should understand exactly why that is. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, put his finger on it when he said that it was a complex subject. It seems unlikely that we will be able to conclude that review within the timetable for the Bill.We understand entirely the concern felt by the Bedfordshire Police Authority and all other police authorities, which act in good faith to quell disorder wherever it occurs but still suffer financial penalties. At the same time, we must weigh the position of those who have insurance and those who do not. That is an important consideration; some authorities are, effectively, self-insured. We must also consider the overall impact of removing the protection afforded by the Riot (Damages) Act, as proposed in the noble Baroness's amendment.
The Home Secretary made the Government's position on Yarl's Wood clear on 25th February in his Statement about the riots and the insurers' claim against Bedfordshire police. The claim being made by the insurers is, unquestionably, way beyond the resources of the Bedfordshire police, and, as a responsible government, we intend to take whatever advice is necessary and work with the police to protect their interests and those of the people whom they serve in Bedfordshire.
Although the amendment is timely, it is also difficult for us to consider in the context of this Bill. I suggest to the noble Baroness that although this is an opportunity for her to test the Government's resolve, it is perhaps not the best occasion on which to do so. I suggest that we should take more time and have more mature reflection on the consequences of this claim and its wider, broader and deeper implications.
I realise that that does not satisfy the noble Baroness in terms of answering all her questions. I fully recognise that they are very important, but I suggest that in view of those comments she might find it within herself to withdraw her amendment today.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: As always, I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who took part in this short debate as we canter towards the end of a long day. I thank the Minister for giving no answers to a series of questions. He did strive to give as many answers as he could manage not to; it might help if I were to get all my negatives together! The Minister referred to the fact that this is disinterring an important issue. My golly, this is an important issue which is well and alive to people in Yarl's Wood! Of course, I do not seek to make my measure retrospective. I fully appreciate the complexities of dealing with matters retrospectively, with all the legal consequences that follow. It is a live issue and a future one for the accommodation and removal centres which are at the core of this part of the Bill.
The Minister said that he could not answer the questions posed in this short debate. I do not believe that any of them came as a surprise to him as they were
raised in debate in another place, both in Westminster Hall and in the Chamber, and in a series of Questions for Written Answer. I have not posed any matter out of the blue.The Minister disappointed me when he was unable to say whether a conclusion would be reached on an urgent review by the end of discussions on the Bill. That is where my matter of principle arises. If the Government give a commitment to carry out an urgent review on such a vital matter, there are times when they have to have their resolve tested. The Minister was kind enough to say in the first sentence of his remarks that the debate was timely and useful. I believe that this is the time when a timely and useful amendment needs to be put to the Committee. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
9.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 102) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 102.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Arran, E.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Bhatia, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.
Bridgeman, V. [Teller]
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Burnham, L.
Byford, B.
Caithness, E.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Chan, L.
Colville of Culross, V.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Denham, L.
Eames, L.
Elton, L.
Ferrers, E.
Fookes, B.
Higgins, L.
Joffe, L.
Jopling, L.
Kimball, L.
Kingsland, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Lindsay, E.
Listowel, E.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
Mancroft, L.
Mar, C.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Monro of Langholm, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Norton of Louth, L.
Onslow, E.
Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Peel, E.
Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Renton of Mount Harry, L.
Sandwich, E.
Seccombe, B. [Teller]
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Stodart of Leaston, L.
Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Wakeham, L.
Walker of Worcester, L.
Acton, L.
Addington, L.
Alderdice, L.
Alli, L.
Amos, B.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Avebury, L.
Bach, L.
Barker, B.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Berkeley, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Borrie, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.
Brennan, L.
Brett, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Carter, L.
Chandos, V.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
Crawley, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Desai, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dixon, L.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Golding, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Greaves, L.
Grenfell, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Hamwee, B.
Hardy of Wath, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Harrison, L.
Haskins, L.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Islwyn, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Judd, L.
Layard, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lockwood, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Pendry, L.
Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rea, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Rooker, L.
Russell, E.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Simon, V.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Smith of Leigh, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Thornton, B.
Turnberg, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Walmsley, B.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.20 p.m.
Clause 15 [Support for destitute asylum-seeker]:
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page