You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Lords Publications > Lords Hansard > Lords Hansard by Date > Daily Hansard


17 May 2007 : Column 281

House of Lords

Thursday, 17 May 2007.

The House met at eleven o’clock: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.

Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Asylum Seekers: Torture Victims

Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty’s Government:

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, it is not Home Office policy to refer detained asylum seekers who allege that they have been tortured or raped directly to the Medical Foundation or other medical practitioners. However, where it appears that there may be some basis to their allegation, I am satisfied that effective procedures are in place to enable detained asylum seekers to access such services.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, this is a difficult matter, which has been going on for years. Is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern that the Home Office has been breaching its own guidelines? Is it not the case that medical records on paper seldom reveal whether someone is a torture survivor and that staff at removal centres, even the health staff, are not trained to identify such people? Will the Government therefore do everything necessary to ensure that alleged cases are referred to experienced practitioners?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I assure the House that the Home Office is not in breach of its own guidelines. I am aware that, as the noble Lord says, there has been concern about the issue. In the light of the recent changes to the asylum process that have now been rolled out across the country, the Border and Immigration Agency will look again at how we deal with the Medical Foundation and work to develop new processes during the next few months.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister may be satisfied with the effectiveness of the process, but Anne Owers, the chief inspector, in three successive reports on Dungavel, Campsfield House and Harmondsworth, found that healthcare staff were not trained in handling victims of torture. Although pro forma letters were sent to the IND in accordance with Rule 35, notifying allegations of torture, there was hardly ever any feedback. Will the noble Baroness undertake to publish the internal audit by Mr Stuart Hyde by placing a copy in the Library, and is she satisfied that Mr Hyde had access to proper medical and legal advice in conducting his investigation?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, it is not usual to publish such internal reports. I will certainly take that matter back to see what we can do. The change in the process that we have now adopted with case management enhances the opportunity accurately to identify those cases where individuals may need additional support. With the work that we have undertaken together with representatives, we believe that we are now better able to identify appropriate cases.

The Lord Bishop of Leicester: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many asylum seekers who are currently in detention centres are known to have recorded independent evidence of having been tortured? What is the average length of time that they spend there in those circumstances?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly give the right reverend Prelate statistics on how many of the detained are fast-tracked through NSA procedures. At Harmondsworth, the intake was 990 cases, of which 40 were released for Medical Foundation appointments pre-decision and four were released post-decision. In Yarl’s Wood, the intake was 412, including 30 NSAs. Thirty-six cases, including three NSA cases, were released for Medical Foundation appointments pre-decision. Four were released post-decision. At Oakington, the total intake was 2,893. Seventy-two cases were released for Medical Foundation appointments pre-decision and none was released post-decision.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the report by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons into healthcare at Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre, where women and children are held. She will also be aware that the report was very critical of aspects of the healthcare, particularly for the victims of torture held in detention. She will be aware, too, that the management of Yarl’s Wood changed earlier this year and that there have been reports of demonstrations against the new management because of a deterioration in the treatment. Can she tell the House what has been happening at Yarl’s Wood? Has the situation been resolved, and what effects has it had on the very vulnerable women and children who are held there?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are taking steps in relation to Yarl’s Wood. As the noble Baroness said, there have been a number of protests at Yarl’s Wood, fuelled by fears that the regime will be reduced following the transfer of the operating contract from GSL to Serco. This will involve changes, and staff at Yarl’s Wood have been proactive in dealing with these fears and protests, including food refusals, which have now been dealt with. These issues are of concern, but I assure the House that everything is being done to ensure that appropriate standards are maintained throughout.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to join me in praising the valuable work that the Medical Foundation does on behalf of victims of torture? I understand that over half those who are referred to it come from African countries such as Cameroon, Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia. Will she take the opportunity today to tell the House what pressure the Government are putting on the Governments of those countries to end these barbaric practices?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely endorse what the noble Baroness says about the excellent work that is being done by the Medical Foundation, and indeed by a couple of other organisations that have targeted this as an issue. She will know that we are making strenuous efforts in this whole area to try to ensure that there is better understanding of what needs to be done to stop this sort of behaviour. The work that we are doing through DfID is extremely important and we are, we think, helping to make a difference.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, will the Minister do what the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, I and other members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights have done and visit Yarl’s Wood, see the inmates on their own without staff and then see the staff? Will she then tell us the results of that, because we were horrified?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I would of course be delighted so to do, but the noble Lord will know that I have the pleasure of now being the Minister of State responsible for crime reduction. My honourable friend Liam Byrne is the Minister responsible for Yarl’s Wood, which I believe he has visited on a number of occasions. If the opportunity arose to visit it, I would be more than happy to do so.

Terrorism: Inquiries

11.15 am

Lord Hamilton of Epsom asked Her Majesty’s Government:

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government deprecate all leaks, especially leaks of information about counter-terrorism operations. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on leak inquiries in order not to reveal specific techniques or information that could jeopardise investigations or operations. I can, however, assure the noble Lord that the Government attach the highest priority to public safety and do everything in their power to ensure that it is maintained.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, but she will know that on 9 May a civil servant, David Keogh, was convicted under the Official Secrets Act for attempting to leak a document about conversations between the Prime Minister and President Bush on Iraq. If that document had hit the public domain, it would have caused the Government great embarrassment and damaged international relationships. However, that pales into insignificance compared with the leaking of the police investigation in Birmingham into terrorist suspects, which could have put lives at risk. Why have the Government refused to have an official inquiry into this? Is it to do with the fact that one of the chief suspects is the special adviser to the Home Secretary?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, it would be quite improper to make any such comment or assertion. I have made it plain that it is our practice not to comment on leak inquiries in order not to reveal specific techniques or information. Therefore, I cannot comment on what the noble Lord has said, but perhaps I may say to him that it would be quite improper to make the assumptions that have just been implicitly made in that statement.

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that the case of David Keogh demonstrates the importance of rigorous investigation. Perhaps that is an example of what happens to those who behave improperly and trespass in this dangerous way. I can certainly assure the House and the noble Lord that every step will be taken to make sure that that is fully understood by those who seek to put our country in danger in that way.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, when opposition spokesmen are briefed on intelligence and security matters, are they required to have signed the Official Secrets Act or is it done on privy counsellor terms? If they subsequently disclose publicly the information in that briefing, what sanctions can be taken against them?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, privy counsellor terms depend on the honour of the privy counsellor. We would be desperately disappointed if any privy counsellor proved not to be worthy of that name.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Peter Clarke, described as beneath contempt those who leaked information about intelligence in relation to the Birmingham incident. There may not be any prima facie evidence at this stage, but this is far too serious a matter, which can compromise the security of this country. Is it possible to invite the Independent Police Complaints Commission to investigate whether there is any substance in the allegation made by Peter Clarke?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord knows well that decisions on whether to take proceedings are for the police. Perhaps the case of David Keogh is an example of how things are done. Noble Lords will know that no indication was made before that gentleman was dealt with as to whether there was or was not a leak inquiry. The police were able to look at the matter. They took the necessary course. He was charged, duly tried, convicted and sentenced, which is exactly what should happen to anyone who betrays their country in that way.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, has the Minister heard the allegations that there are officers in the Metropolitan Police and other police constabularies who are on the payroll of national newspapers to sell information, including highly sensitive information, which puts the public at even further risk in these cases of alleged terrorism? Does my noble friend think that there is any virtue in asking the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to inquire into this and in asking the Press Complaints Commission to see what it can do from that end of the business?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear of those concerns and, of course, read the newspapers, as does my noble friend and a number of others. It really is for the commissioner to decide what further or other steps to take in relation to inquiring and bringing those to justice if evidence is available to indicate that their culpability needs to be brought to book.

Lord Dear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it beggars belief that police officers at the centre of the terrorist inquiry we are now debating would themselves have given that information? Does she further agree that Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke would hardly have said what he did a week or 10 days ago had he had any belief at all that his officers were involved?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it beggars belief that any serving officer entrusted with such a delicate task would seek to betray his office in that way. I am also confident that if it proved to be the case, the deputy assistant commissioner would deal with any such officer very robustly.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, it seems that a new doctrine is being advanced here—that it is improper ever to announce a leak inquiry. In practice, there would often be such an inquiry. Does the noble Baroness agree that when she said in her Answer that she was against this sort of thing happening, she gave no indication of what the Government are actually doing about an extremely serious matter, as the noble Lord made clear from his experience?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the House as clearly as I can that it is not practice to indicate whether there is a leak inquiry, not least because if we were so to indicate, it might alert those who may be subject to such an inquiry. It is therefore not our practice so to do. Once information is referred to the police, it is entirely a matter for them, together with the Crown Prosecution Service, to take appropriate action if they deem it necessary to do so.

Roads: Nichols Report

11.21 am

Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in a Statement made in the other place on 14 March 2007, the Government fully accepted the recommendations of the Nichols review. A copy of that Statement was placed in the Library of the House. The Department for Transport and the Highways Agency have now set up a dedicated team to implement the recommendations as a priority.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. He will be aware that the Nichols report states that the cost estimates of Highways Agency schemes have gone up by 25 per cent in 18 months. Does he agree that that is a worse escalation than took place in the worst days of Railtrack, which caused the Government of the day to put a moratorium on investment? Would my noble friend consider putting a moratorium on road investment until the Nichols team has got going and satisfied him that the costs are under control?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are extremely grateful to Mr Nichols for his work. There were problems in early scheme development, which is why the review was set up. We now have a team to deliver the Nichols review recommendations as a priority, and we anticipate that the majority of them will be implemented by the end of the financial year. For those reasons, it would be very ill-advised to order a moratorium on spending.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, following on from the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I too would not want to see a moratorium on investment in road improvements. I am concerned that, because of the tremendous escalation in costs revealed by Nichols, road schemes might not be started or will be cancelled. Can the Minister assure us that planned road schemes will continue according to the current programme?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is indeed the case. Since 2001, 45 major schemes have been completed, 21 schemes are under construction and the Highways Agency’s current programme comprises 67 schemes each worth over £5 million. We are cracking on with important road improvements.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, has not the Nichols report been supplemented by a further report from the National Audit Office showing that the costs of a number of road schemes are now completely out of control? The worst example is probably the A3 improvement at Hindhead, which is now running at 247 per cent over the original estimate. Bearing in mind that my noble friend’s department has cancelled very good tramway and light-rail schemes in places such as Leeds, Liverpool and south Hampshire, is it not time that we had a proper value-for-money study of road schemes against public transport?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the department is extremely conscious of its obligation to secure value for money. For both road and public transport schemes, we require that a cost increase be subject to a reappraisal to ensure that the scheme still offers value for money at the higher cost. Many road schemes retain high value for money despite cost increases. Tram schemes are in much the same position where lower cost alternatives are available.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, the Government’s method for reducing the demand for roads is by introducing road pricing. Where are they on their plans to trial road pricing? Under any such trials, how will they ensure that the personal privacy of drivers, in terms of where they have been driving, is protected?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not able to supply the detail for which the noble Lord asks today. We are looking at road pricing; it has been a constant theme in policy development in recent years. Like everyone else, we value and respect people’s personal privacy.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, are comparisons being made between the cost-effectiveness of further investment in widening roads and that of further investment in the railways? On the east coast, a great deal has been invested in roads to help in transporting containers from east-coast ports to the north and so on, but we are not investing in railways, which could take a lot of that heavy transport. Is the cost-effectiveness of investment in roads being compared to that of rail investment within a single budget?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not like to say it, but that is a simplistic way of looking at things. We must look at each scheme to ensure that it secures value for money. I understand the road-versus-rail argument, but in a complex modern economy we require both. That is why we invest heavily in rail and road networks.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, are the Government aware that the Luxembourg and French Governments have just announced a new freight line from Perpignan to Luxembourg which will also take juggernaut lorries? Why do we not do that here?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that interesting development is to be applauded. I am sure that we would all like to see more freight going on to the railway network, and we have ensured that since we have been in government. In the past 10 years—my noble friend Lord Berkeley can probably confirm the figure—freight on rail has increased by some 60 per cent.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Minister said that the Government would look at road pricing. Will he give an assurance that they will look at it and then discard it?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Earl is entitled to his view, but I always think it is unwise to jump to early conclusions.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I can help my noble friend by saying that there has been a 60 per cent increase in rail freight. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. In response to my noble friend Lord Faulkner’s question about the Hindhead bypass cost escalation, the Minister said that any project in which there had been a serious cost escalation would be subject to a review. Has there been a recent review of that project to determine whether it still offers value for money?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, under the general rubric I issued on that point earlier, it will have been subject to a review. I shall check that with the department and inform my noble friend in writing.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page