Jeremy Corbyn MP
working for you in Islington North

Jeremy Corbyn: I have four minutes in which to deal with the world’s human rights, so I will do my best. There is a message in that comment—this situation is ludicrous. Allowing one and a half hours to discuss the human rights of the whole planet, in what is apparently the first debate on this subject since 2008, is ludicrous. I appeal to the powers that be to ensure that something changes in that regard.

Very quickly, there are several points that I want to make. The first is about participation in the UN Human Rights Council. Britain is a full participant in that council, which I frequently attend on behalf of a non-governmental organisation called Liberation. The council has greatly reformed its ways, and the in-country peer group review that takes place every three years is a valuable tool, which we should use to the full. The British Government appear to have broken with the tradition of allowing the European Union to represent us at the council, and they make regular contributions, particularly on the death penalty. I hope that that extremely important new tradition continues. If we allowed ourselves to be represented solely through the European Union, an awful lot of cases would simply never be raised, such as the treatment of Roma people in Hungary and other places, so it is important to maintain an independent representation.

My first point is about human rights in Europe. I was present, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who presided over it, at the launch of Human Rights Watch’s “World Report 2012”. In the report is a fascinating essay by Benjamin Ward of that organisation, part of which states:

“At first glance, the idea of a human rights crisis in Europe might seem farfetched. But scratch beneath the surface and the trends are truly worrying. Four developments stand out: the rollback of civil liberties in state responses to terrorist attacks; the debate around the place of minorities and migrants in Europe, a debate too often laced with xenophobia; the rise of populist extremist parties and their baleful influence on public policy; and the diminishing effectiveness of traditional human rights institutions and tools. Unless governments wake up to the scale of the threat, the next generation of Europeans may see human rights as an optional extra instead of a core value.”

Those are very tough words, and very well put.

The narrative that has been developed by the popular press of constant attack on the European Court of Human Rights and its processes and potential judgments, is very unfortunate and misplaced, and it is damaging and dangerous to our own human rights. I regret the way in which the Prime Minister decided to go to the Court, and how it has been presented as an inefficient, incompetent organisation. Yes, there is a very large number of outstanding cases. Most of them are inadmissible. The issue, however, is one of resources for the court rather than of criticism of it. The Chagos islanders have a case before the Court’s grand jury, and I look forward to the result. I hope that the Government accept and abide by whatever decision the court takes, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm that they will.

We attack the institutions of human rights at our peril, and I hope that the Minister will say that the British Government intend to continue their participation in the European Court of Human Rights, and to continue with their acceptance of the European convention on human rights and its place in British law. The convention is an instrument of defence. Roma people in Hungary, and Travellers in other countries, have nowhere else to go, and victims of racist attacks across Europe are in part protected by the judgments made. We do well to state our strong view that we believe in human rights, and in the UN and European conventions. We should be proud of that, not afraid of it, frightened by it or intimidated by it.

Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the fact that we are having a debate on India and on human rights; I also welcome the Select Committee reports and the responses by DFID and the Foreign Office. However, it is unfortunate that two debates are being conflated into one afternoon. Traditionally, for the past 10 years or so, there has been a specific one-day debate here on human rights. I hope that what has happened today is not a harbinger of a future when the human rights debate will be added to something else, rather than being given a stand-alone debate. That is not something for Members at this sitting to decide, but I hope the message will get back to the Backbench Business Committee that an undertaking was previously given that human rights would take up a whole day throughout this Parliament. I hope that that will be adhered to in future.

I want, if I may, to refer to both human rights and India in the debate, which I understand goes on for three hours and can cover both subjects. Am I correct on that, Mr Davies?

Philip Davies (in the Chair): The first half is about India. The second half is about human rights.

Jeremy Corbyn: So why does the Order Paper say they are together?

Philip Davies (in the Chair): One follows the other. The next debate is about human rights.

Jeremy Corbyn: And at what time are we concluding this one?

Philip Davies (in the Chair): We conclude this first and the next debate will be about human rights.

Jeremy Corbyn: So I am half right; I have got half the time.

Philip Davies (in the Chair): The hon. Gentleman can speak in the next debate—I think he indicated that he wanted to speak in it.

Jeremy Corbyn: Yes indeed.

Philip Davies (in the Chair): Human rights should wait for the next debate, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to speak about India he can do so now.

Jeremy Corbyn: I shall briefly make a couple of points on India. My points will be half made, because, as I said, time is restricted and it should not be.

I welcome what has been said about the enormous poverty in India, and the number of people involved. I do not agree with the view in the popular press that we should not give aid to India; I think we should. I want to draw attention, as I did when I intervened on the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), to the treatment of Dalit peoples. I say that because I am chair of the trustees of the Dalit Solidarity Network.

26 Jan 2012 : Column 157WH

Dalits are the largest group of people in the world who are systematically discriminated against on the basis of their descent and caste. They perform the worst jobs in the dirtiest conditions, and have the shortest life expectancy, the lowest level of education, the worst housing and the lowest pay and employment levels of any group in India or, indeed, the rest of the world. After numerous meetings with DFID, I accept that its assurance that British aid is tied; the Department makes the point that we are not going to be involved unwittingly or otherwise in discrimination against Dalit peoples through our aid programmes, and that several projects and programmes enhance the lifestyle, values and opportunities of Dalit peoples. I welcome and support that aspect of what is happening.

I want to draw attention to the issue on a wider scale. It was raised at the Durban millennium summit in 2000 and will no doubt continue to be raised elsewhere. It cannot be right that a country with India’s aspirations to modernity and to taking its place in the world, including a permanent place on the UN Security Council—a country that is obviously a major power in every aspect—can allow such discrimination to continue. Whenever I have raised that matter with Ministers or politicians in India, during visits to India, or with the high commission here, those concerned always point to the Indian constitution, which was written by the great Dr Ambedkar, who was himself a Dalit, although he later changed his faith from Hindu to Buddhism. Dr Ambedkar’s constitution is a remarkable document and clearly outlaws discrimination on the basis of caste or descent. However, it is equally clear that in reality Dalit people’s opportunities to get access to justice do not exist in many parts of the country. Denial of access to the law, discrimination against them by the police and by employers, and the traditions that are continued in many villages, are inimical to the interest of Dalit people.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to discrimination against Dalits, and not just Hindu Dalits. There is continuing discrimination even among people who identify themselves as Christians, or even Buddhists or Muslims, who are from Dalit families and communities. However, he must acknowledge the long-standing campaign by the Government of India to reduce discrimination and provide work opportunities. The Government should take considerable credit for the progress that they have tried to make with an admittedly enormous social problem.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, and I accept and understand that, because of the constitution and pressure from leaders of the Dalit community—which he rightly points out is not entirely Hindu but includes many different faiths—for a long time the Government of India have established reserved occupations and employment levels for people of Dalit descent. There is therefore a certain level of public employment of Dalit peoples, which is often the only access to any kind of normal, sustainable employment. The discrimination operates through the informality of other work, and through discrimination by a large number of private sector employers—but, interestingly,

26 Jan 2012 : Column 158WH

not usually the international ones; it is much more likely to be the smaller, local businesses. Some progress has been made, but the protection of a proportion of employment in public service for Dalit people often enables Governments to feel satisfied that they are doing their bit. However, it does not address the wider issues of the fundamental discrimination that goes on elsewhere.

I know that the Minister is fully aware of the matter, and I hope that the Select Committee on International Development, and the rest of the world, will keep its eye on it. The way in which 200 million people in India and in some other countries, such as Tibet, are treated because of discrimination by caste and descent is simply wrong. Apartheid in South Africa was wrong, and Dalit discrimination is equally wrong anywhere in the world.

Wednesday 25 January 2012

by Jeremy Corbyn

The drumbeats of war are sounding again. In a carefully choreographed series of events of increasing pace, more US naval forces, including an aircraft carrier, have been deployed into the Persian Gulf from the naval base in Bahrain.

The United Nations (UN) Security Council and the European Union have imposed some sanctions against Iran, complaints have been made to and by the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), Press TV has lost its broadcasting licence in Britain and there has been a general denigration of the Islamic Republic for its military capabilities and its development of civil nuclear power.

In response to an Iranian threat that it would block the Straights of Hormuz in the event of sanctions against the sale of its oil, the US, Britain and France heightened the tension by arrogantly sailing a naval flotilla through these troubled waters last weekend.

The superficial background to this is that Iran has developed a substantial civil nuclear power programme and, it is claimed, is enriching uranium to a level approaching weapons grade which would be the essential ingredient of a nuclear bomb.

There is huge debate about nuclear power around the world but, even though I am adamantly opposed to it in any form, I have to concede that Iran does have a legal right to develop civil nuclear power.

Indeed this right is set out in the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Iran is signatory to, and in the operations of the IAEA.

The last nuclear NPT review conference concluded with a very strong statement in favour of a nuclear weapons-free Middle East which was supported by all nations present, including Iran and the US.

But to achieve this currently seems nigh on impossible because Israel, which possesses 200 nuclear warheads and has a delivery system capable of attacking a wide range of targets, is not a signatory of the NPT.

Indeed Israel has only obliquely acknowledged its possession of such weapons.

The situation becomes ever more desperate and ever more dangerous.

Foreign Secretary William Hague made a statement in Parliament on Tuesday in response to a Tory back-bench request from arch-hawk Robert Halfon, claiming that Britain had no problem with the Iranian people, but that we had to be prepared to deal with any eventuality against the Iranian government.

At no time during his statement did he show any understanding of the history of Britain’s relations with Iran or the political structures that exist in Iran today.

No-one can deny that there are huge issues of human rights in Iran over the treatment of trade unionists, religious and linguistic minorities and many of those who protested about how the last presidential elections were conducted.

It should however, be acknowledged that there is a huge civil society movement in Iran, that elections are due soon and that historically Iran and its culture have been invaded, occupied and vilified by the West on many occasions.

The 1952 secular government of Mohammad Mosaddegh was removed by an Anglo-US coup which brought the Shah and his regime to power and, with it, enormous profits for BP and other oil companies.

The Islamic revolution ended the Shah’s rule and robustly asserted Iranian independence.

It’s a big mistake by Western military analysts to assume that all those who have legitimately criticised the regime and system in Iran actually want military intervention.

The most likely effect of any military action is to unify people against a common adversary.

Throughout the Foreign Secretary’s statement, no mention was made of Israel and, indeed, the most hawkish people in the House of Commons only ever refer to Israel’s “security” and never its aggressive stance towards all of its neighbours.

While the West has not yet declared a military war against Iran, there is no question that the economic sanctions are having a huge effect with a rapid reduction in the value of the currency, the riel, a big price rise in consumer goods and food and increasing state security concerns.

These the security concerns are real. We have seen several months of targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and officials and a number of unexplained explosions outside garrisons and military establishments, which in effect mean that a dirty war has begun.

In response to a question from John McDonnell, Hague emphatically stated that Britain was not involved in this but declined to say who he thought might be.

Since 2001 Britain has now been involved in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. It has developed, along with the US, a strange view of the value of human rights around the world.

Saddam Hussein was, quite rightly condemned for abuses of human rights, as were Gadaffi and the Taliban.

But the wars that followed from that narrative have not delivered civil security, human rights or protection for minorities in the countries concerned. All have suffered huge death rates as a result of the post-war chaos and disorder following Western intervention.

In the strange parallel universe of Western logic, the denial of certain human rights in Saudi Arabia is ignored, as is its occupation of Bahrain in support of its king.

Indeed, David Cameron’s recent lightning visit to Saudi Arabia was, as ever, accompanied by a posse of BAE Systems arms salespeople, the better to arm Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Co-operation Council countries to become Western allies in any war against Iran or, for that matter, military intervention in Syria.

The drum beats of war are being aggressively pounded out in Europe with constant denials that Iran might be prepared to meet or negotiate.

Across the Atlantic, the US Republican presidential candidates vie with each other at each primary as to who will be the first to bomb Iran and start another war.

Yet all over western Europe and the US there are increasing levels of unemployment, cuts in public expenditure and a whole generation of young people have had their hopes for the future crushed.

Political leaders all imagine that waving the flag of patriotism and war will somehow or another magic away the misery of austerity.

They are wrong. The generation that opposed the Afghan and Iraq wars in their millions is not going to stand for yet another conflict to waste resources, destroy lives and make the world and even more dangerous place.

Jeremy Corbyn is Labour MP for Islington North.
This Saturday Stop the War Coalition has called a demo outside the US embassy in Grosvenor Square in London from 2-4pm to demonstrate our belief in peace, justice and humanity.

If you have enjoyed this article then please consider donating to the Morning Star’s Fighting Fund to ensure we can keep publishing your paper.

Donate to the Fighting Fund here

I hope after this week that Ed Miliband and his team of advisers will be thinking quite carefully about the effect on Labour voters and potential supporters of the announcement of a continuation of the cuts agenda and freezing public-sector pay.

Praise from the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and the economics correspondents of the BBC and Sky might make party leadership feel “responsible” and effective, but the reality is somewhat different.

Ask anyone what their concerns are in life. They will tell you they are worried about rising food prices, increasing private-sector rents, jobs for young people and, if they’re employed in the public sector, the security of their work.

Many will also say they’re worried about the cuts in their pension scheme entitlement, both in the public and the private sector, and will tell you that they feel uncertain about their own future and that of their own local community and local services.

Less than a year ago half a million people marched through London for an alternative and the Trade Union Congress (TUC) banners quite rightly said there is a different way of dealing with things.

Platform speaker after platform speaker at that magnificent rally in Hyde Park blamed the unregulated banking sector for the crisis and drew attention to the obscene levels of bonus and profits made by individual bank executives at the expense of the rest of us.

In 2008, at the height of the banking crisis, the government took into public ownership several of the major banks in Britain and attempted to stave off a recession by increasing benefits and an investment programme including house-building. It was absolutely the right thing to do. The problem was, it should have gone further.

The banks should not have been taken into the possession of a holding company to protect their privileged position, but taken into proper public ownership and made to function as facilitators and servants of the economy not its masters.

The Con-Dem coalition embraced 1980s’ Tory monetarism. That is, controlling the entire economy by means of money supply and finance, rather than examining the real economy – manufacturing, agriculture, the health service, construction, transport infrastructure and all of the things that really matter.

While so farm Britain’s economic status has not been downgraded by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the credit rating agencies, we don’t have to look very far to see the consequences of where this debt repayment strategy leads us to.

Unemployment across Greece, Italy, Portugal and Ireland is rising very fast. In Spain it stands at 21% overall but a staggering 40% for young people.

Borrowing decisions on the levels of payment made by national economies for borrowing are made by credit rating agencies. They can decide whether, in their estimation, a government is likely to be able to repay its debts or not and on that basis the voracious bond market then ups the interest rate for loans to that government. Last week a number of European countries including France and Austria were downgraded and Greece has been downgraded to the level of “junk.”

All this underlines the ludicrous situation we’re in, where an insufficiently regulated banking system encourages rising levels of consumer debt, created the crisis of 2008 and now presumes to solve the problem by imposing a very strict repayment regime and enormous cuts in public expenditure to meet those needs.

The issue has to be: what is the function of the labour movement and indeed of the Labour Party.

Len McCluskey’s excellent article in the Guardian pointed out that the function of the labour movement is to stand for something different, to stand for the principles of socialism wherein services are provided for everyone.  The duty of the political parties of the working class is to ensure education, health, jobs and housing for everyone.

Those who believe that the way forward for Labour is to repeat the new Labour mantra of retreating away from everything we believe, in order to gain media support, should think very carefully.

Where social democratic parties fail to deliver for the people that they represent, two things can happen: One is a move to the far-right, as has happened in France on several occasions in the past decade; or the other is simply a disillusionment with parties of the left and further victories for the right as has just happened in Spain.

McCluskey’s article has sparked renewed interest in radical alternatives among the leadership of other unions. How on earth can we legitimately oppose the vicious Con-Dem cuts if at the same time the Labour Party supports a freeze on public sector workers’ pay.

In May there will be local elections including for the mayor of London. I’ve never known the Labour Party more active at a local level than it is at the present time.

Our movement was founded for collective solutions to poverty, injustice and exploitation – a tradition that has sustained it for the past century whatever the opinions of the right-wing press.

We should remember from where we came and where we are trying to go.

Jeremy Corbyn is Labour MP for Islington North.

If you have enjoyed this article then please consider donating to the Morning Star’s Fighting Fund to ensure we can keep publishing your paper.

Donate to the Fighting Fund here

by Jeremy Corbyn

Phase three in the “war on terror” now looks closer than ever. An attack on Iran.

On Wednesday an Iranian nuclear scientist became the latest of his colleagues to be assassinated. The method used was, again, a magnetic mine attached to the victim’s vehicle by a motorcyclist who sped off unharmed. These sophisticated weapons explode into the car killing the occupants but not necessarily endangering anyone nearby – or the person placing the bomb.

Iran has accused Israel of planting the devices. The US has specifically denied any involvement.

Tehran remains a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There have been disputes about its adherence to a voluntary additional protocol, but Iran claims that it has abided by all of the statutory conditions required by the main treaty.

Western and UN-imposed sanctions against Iran are likely to backfire against Western economies, and interests with any oil embargo are likely to be followed by a threatened Iranian naval blockade of the Straits of Hormuz. This in turn would choke off a large proportion of European oil supplies and force the price up to as high as $140 per barrel.

The role of Britain and the US in stoking up the flames of resentment against Iran is particularly scandalous. Any war with Iran would have more awful consequences than that in Afghanistan or Iraq.

None of this is to deny that serious human rights abuses are being perpetrated by the Iranian government against trade unionists, ethnic and religious minorities, and/or people who protested against the outcome of the last elections.

In the Commons on Wednesday I drew attention to the continuing imprisonment of Tehran bus workers’ leader Reza Shahabi and an EDM which I tabled in December supporting “the rights of independent trade unionists in Iran to represent their members without the threat of imprisonment.”

However it must be noted that none of the long-standing critics of the government within the country want outside intervention or a war. Any conflict is more likely to unite than divide people in Iran.

Political change comes from within a country, and not at the barrel of a Nato gun.

The basis of the Western objections to Iran is its alleged development of nuclear weapons and nuclear reprocessing.

At last year’s NPT Review Conference a clear resolution was adopted calling for a nuclear-free Middle East, which would mean that Israel would have to publicly admit to ownership and possession of nuclear weapons, and be prepared to engage in negotiations for disarmament along with the continued non-possession of nuclear weapons of every other country in the region.

I have tabled a parliamentary motion which reads: “That this House welcomes the government’s support for the establishment of a Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone in the Middle East since the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference; welcomes progress in appointing a host country and facilitator in Finland and Jaakko Laajava; notes that with growing tension the establishment of the zone is vital to the long-term peace and security of the region; believes it vital that no state in the region develops, produces, acquires or permits the stationing on their territories, or territories under their control, of nuclear weapons; and urges the government to do all it can to ensure that a conference involving all states in the region takes place in 2012.”

Barack Obama signalled a historic shift in US defence strategy during his recent Asia-Pacific tour. His speech last week on the future role of the US armed forces provided further evidence of this change.  The path he has mapped out echoes the country’s 19th-century strategy of domination over the Caribbean and Pacific regions rather than the European theatre, where its involvement was rooted in World War I, II and the Cold War period through Nato.

The US already has an enormous number of bases in Asia, constructed during the Vietnam War, or more recently during George W Bush’s “war on terror” period after 2001.  It has now openly stated that China is its new adversary because of Beijing’s rising economic and political influence.

Washington has recently worked with astonishing speed to achieve a rapprochement with the generals in Myanmar.  In Australia, the Labor government has agreed to the construction of a big US base in the northern city of Darwin.

At a press conference this week, Pentagon officials were asked what they thought of Chinese expressions of concern at US military expansion across the region. They laughingly described it as “advice that we note.”

The Chinese economy is growing fast and in the foreseeable future it could overtake the US. Its holdings of dollars and other foreign currencies are enormous, as are its investment power in the US and other economies. It appears that the US military has now decided that this growing competition has to be countered by a huge deployment in Asia.

The Stop the War Coalition has called a demonstration at the US Embassy on (Saturday) January 28 calling for no war against either Iran or Syria.

If you have enjoyed this article then please consider donating to the Morning Star’s Fighting Fund to ensure we can keep publishing your paper.

Donate to the Fighting Fund here

by Jeremy Corbyn

On Tuesday Parliament will be back again with a Budget due in two months, the Euro falling in value and the austerity measures of the last eighteen months biting harder.

The Economist Intelligence Unit has reported a frightening list of unemployment rates across Europe. Predictably, those countries with the most savage austerity measures have the highest rate of unemployment.

At the top of this depressing poll is Spain with 21.2%, followed by Greece at 20.7% and Ireland at 14.5%.

In Spain this figure is accompanied by the frightening statistic of youth unemployment at 43%. In the cases of Greece and Spain the figures are masked by substantial emigration.

Ireland has seen a huge exodus of young people in the last few months – something not seen since the late ’70s and early ’80s.

Since 2008 a common feature of the crisis has been that governments who carry out the European Central Bank (ECB) orthodoxy of cuts and retrenchment lose office. The once all-powerful Pasok socialist movement in Greece effectively threw in the towel and handed over to an ECB appointee.

In Spain the PSOE – once the heroes of the fight against fascism – lost office in the election amid a welter of deteriorating jobless figures and was replaced by direct descendants of the Franco-era right.

The new government has now pledged a further €8.6 billion austerity package. One can only dread what that will do to the already stressed and impoverished towns of Spain.

A few common features emerge from the last few years of European austerity. The gap between the rich and the poor widens, youth unemployment is higher than the average and the banks are allowed to behave as though none of this was ever anything to do with them.

In Britain unemployment is rising with 8.6% registered at the start of this year, youth unemployment at well over 20% and huge disparities of inner-city and industrial areas compared to the relatively wealthy commuter towns of south-east England.

Other trends are also emerging – the Citizen’s Advice Bureau is overwhelmed with calls for debt advice as one million people regularly seek payday loans to meet rent or mortgage demands.

Seven million people regularly use credit cards to pay everyday household bills, interest rates by loan sharks on “payday loans” are astronomical and usury and credit cards are at least three times any normal personal loan rate from a bank – if they’re available at all.

Amid this the grim reaper awaits as hundreds of thousands of public-sector jobs are due to go after last year’s Budget, with a rapid knock on effect in the private sector.

The idea that somehow a public-private split is the issue is laughable and dangerous. Defending already meagre public-sector pensions is vital, and in so doing will help strengthen the fightback in the private sector. The Unilever strike showed that.

Before Christmas, Lib-Dem Treasury Secretary Danny Alexander claimed that he was about to agree a new settlement with all the unions except the PCS, which was a crude cue for MPs to join in condemning the excellent Mark Serwotka and his union.

Only a few hours later the whole deal was unravelling as the government, through Eric Pickles, tried to freeze employer contributions to the local government scheme.

Thursday’s news that Unite is rejecting the deal may well be a cue for a general rejection. Why should public-sector workers accept an offer – in reality a threat – to work longer, to pay more to receive less?

The pensions issue will return to Parliament, and Labour should be clearly on the side of those taking action, not cowering from what the Daily Mail or Daily Telegraph might say.

Those in work are clearly under threat of job losses and worsening conditions, and those on benefits are feeling the pinch too.

Chancellor Osborne’s first action, way back in June 2010, was to take a scythe to benefits and to pursue through Duncan Smith a perverted series of “reform,” some of which were new Labour ideas, such as the work test for those on Incapacity Benefit.

Atos tests, running at 2,000 per day, cause unbelievable stress and fear to many people. While many deemed fit to work do subsequently win appeals, many do not and eventually can lose all access to benefits.

Duncan Smith is proud of claiming that a benefit of £500 per week for a family is a huge amount of money.

He has either lost touch with reality or never was in touch with it.

Private rented accommodation accounts for about 16% of the entire population, but that figure is rising fast. In urban areas it is often double that.

There is no control on private rents, and as housing benefit is now being capped at well below market rates many are forced to either move out or become homeless.

Liam Byrne’s curious assumption that the Housing Benefit Bill – currently standing at £20bn per year – is too big would only make any sense if accompanied by a policy of private-sector rent controls and all-out opposition to the government’s welfare strategy.

Indeed his and Ed Milliband’s New Year message both seemed to fall into the same trap of dividing the working from the non-working poor.

Many in work on low wages receive benefits either through tax credits or Housing Benefit.

Surely the message is that those affected by the austerity measures – in work, out of work, private or publicly employed – need to be brought together in common endeavour.

Last year’s (March 26^th) demonstration was a massive display of unity.

Left parties have lost office in Europe because of their inability to articulate an alternative to austerity and cuts. The right offers individualism, a huge and growing wealth gap and a mean and divided society.

It’s time for a united alternative of real tax collection among the rich and corporate evaders, a transaction charge, and control of the already mainly publicly owned banks. Investment in public services and infrastructure will also have a rapid knock-on effect of job creation in the private sector.

The whole notion of a welfare state and universal benefits was envisaged at a time of great poverty and stress, and the Left has traditionally defended it as a common endeavour.

Socialism is the sharing of wealth, the contribution of ability for the common good, and unity in defending our achievements against attack.

It’s also our only hope.

If you have enjoyed this article then please consider donating to the Morning Star’s Fighting Fund to ensure we can keep publishing your paper.

Jeremy Corbyn

On Tuesday at lunchtime a self-confident Danny Alexander proclaimed, to loud Tory cheers, that the “deal” with the public-sector unions would save the country billions and billions” – he said that twice – that the deal was fair and all the public-sector pensioners would be well off in their (later) retirement.

For good measure, he and his Tory supporters cast aspersions on the public-sector workers for being “better off” than their private-sector counterparts.

Alexander also claimed that all the unions except the pesky PCS (Public and Commercial Services Union) had signed up to the agreement.

Cue Lib Dem and Tory – plus a few Labour – MPs castigating PCS.

A few hours later it was all unravelling as the unions quickly distanced themselves from the supposed “agreement.”

A lot of PCS members must have been deeply angered by the letter from William Hague, the head of the Civil Service (not to be confused with the Foreign Secretary – yes, there are two of them) stating that unless the union representatives specifically accepted the Civil Service deal they would be no longer be deemed to be part of the negotiations.

Communities Minister Eric Pickles – a Christmas figure in the Scrooge mould – then cast the whole scheme into doubt when he issued a letter imposing a cap or freeze on employer contributions for local government staff, that hadn’t been agreed. Alexander then furiously backtracked, but the damage was done.

However, all of this wrangling cannot disguise the fundamental injustice – the government wants all public-sector workers to work for longer, pay more to get less and to “understand” that Alexander and Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude have made them all better off.

An average civil servant will have to pay £63 per month more to work for longer to get less. Similar figures apply to all the other schemes.

The coalition must not be allowed to get away with the argument that the economic crisis was somehow caused by greedy pensioners, greedy public-sector workers, or those legitimately claiming incapacity or housing benefits or receiving income support or jobseekers’ allowance.

The last parliamentary day of the year was an object lesson in the coalition’s studied hypocrisy and the way its media friends present the reality of divided Britain.

The crisis of 2008, which has not yet abated, was created by greedy bankers and lenders, the US property collapse and excessive credit.

Britain took a particularly hard hit because successive governments from Thatcher onwards have developed an economy based on financial services, rather than making or growing things.

The financial services sector has led a charmed life in comparison to the rest of the economy.

The solution was to “nationalise” the banks and pour “liquidity” (ie money) into the economy for the government to borrow back.

But the public ownership of the banks hardly resulted in joyful demonstrations in the streets or signs saying “managed by the people” outside.

The shares are held by a holding company whose duty is to sell them as soon as possible to the private sector, hence the sale of Northern Rock’s best bits to Virgin Money.

This economic orthodoxy is designed to protect the market system, creating huge discrepancies between the rich and poor. Then the high priests of economics somehow contrive to blame it all on the profligate public sector and benefits system.

On Monday the Defence Secretary told me that just over £5 bn has been committed to building new submarines, and on weapons manufacturing capability in preparation for a parliamentary decision in 2016 on whether to replace the Trident nuclear missile system.

Just think on that for a second. £5 billion – many believe it is really much more – on a system that has not been approved.

I could write the 2016 Defence Secretary’s speech… “We have invested so much already it would be an irresponsible waste of resources and endanger our national interests not to go ahead with this huge engineering achievement.”

We have become a steadily more militarised and securitised society ever since 2001.

Hodge left in the dark.

The powerful public accounts committee issued its report on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs this week.

Committee chairwoman Margaret Hodge (below) explained on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme her frustration at not being told by the tax commissioners how much was actually owed by the various big companies the HMRC was negotiating with.

She was told it was a matter of “commercial confidentiality.” However estimates of unpaid corporate tax are frequently put at around £25 billion.

The committee heard that the negotiations between HMRC and the big companies’ high-flying corporate suits are really tough – so tough that they have lunch and dinner together and reach an “agreement.” This is all so sensitive that none of us mere mortals are allowed to know what’s going on.

Contrast this with the taxman’s pursuit of small, often struggling, businesses which cannot reach such deals; or with workers who may have two jobs and when tax is not efficiently collected are given no grace periods. Or those who have been overpaid tax credits and are then made to repay them, often very quickly under great hardship.

Where are our priorities?

On government figures, £9 bn has been spent on bringing about death and mayhem in Iraq and Afghanistan and £5 bn has been spent on Trident.

Youth unemployment figures are the highest in 17 years, homelessness is rising fast and pension poverty is increasing.

Next year will be a turning point. We will see the austerity measures of southern Europe creeping northwards as unemployment rises and cuts deepen.

The real problem is inequality – and the need for a wholly different strategy of peace abroad and social justice at home.

If you have enjoyed this article then please consider donating to the Morning Star’s Fighting Fund to ensure we can keep publishing your paper.

by Jeremy Corbyn

I was up early today to support the public-sector workers strike in defence of their pensions.

To psyche myself up I turned on the BBC news and found a turgid dribble of “concern” for those people who are affected by the strike and very little analysis of the way in which the public-sector pension is being damaged and destroyed by Con-Dem policies.

Suitably irritated by this, I cycled rapidly up to Finsbury Park station to take a crowded Tube down to Westminster.

The picket line outside Parliament was well-supported from security and catering departments of Parliament and I was proud to stand alongside them.

They look after and support us all year round. The government has no right to damage their pension prospects.

The PCS bus came past bang on cue and very helpfully threw us all healthy fruit cereal bars to eat.

Having shown my presence there, I ran to the station and took the Northern Line up to Archway in my constituency.

I joined the picket line outside the office the Public Guardian which has suffered job losses and removal of much of its core activity to a call centre in Birmingham thus abandoning the more direct face-to-face approach.

Our picket line was supported by local residents including a 73-year-old woman who was carrying a shopping bag with a design based on a WWII ration book.

Running from there, I jumped on a 43 bus and had an amiable chat with a constituent facing housing difficulties.

I was then joined by my good friend Mick Gilgunn, secretary of the Islington Trades Council, carrying a beautiful and enormous banner.

Ten minutes later on Holloway Road we were outside City and Islington College with a huge picket of NUT and UCU members showing their support for the strike and their demand for decent pensions.

I thanked the crowd and told them they were part of a campaign for decency and justice in our society.

I then reconnected with my bicycle down to Islington Town Hall and found a very busy Highbury Corner festooned with Unison posters demanding fair pensions for all.

Outside the Town Hall hundreds of local authority workers, NHS workers, pensioners and supporters joined a rally.

We had great speeches from each union representative, a message by War on Want from the public-sector workers in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

In my speech I pointed out that the multinational contract cleaning and service companies that have done so much to destroy workers conditions in Africa and South Asia have the same plans for Britain.

I also pointed out that the bond dealers are making vast profits out of the interest rates paid by the Portuguese, Irish, Greek, Italian and Spanish governments.

We are not all in this together. The government’s strategy is to divide people.

To much amusement I asked the tough “Marmite question” of the audience and to my surprise I found the majority in favour of Marmite.

I got even bigger cheers when I told them that Marmite workers in Burton on Trent had voted to take strike action to defend their final-salary pension scheme.

I left the rally in the very capable hands of Islington Council leader Catherine West who was there to give her solidarity and peddled furiously to St Pancras Hospital to address a crowd of NHS workers in the nearby park, most of whom specialise in mental health needs.

I told them that they were the core of our health service, thanked them for what they do and said that this wasn’t private versus public sector but a day for unity. They then all set off happily down the road to join the big march from Lincoln’s Inn.

Leaving there I then resumed my furious peddling to get myself up to the Whittington hospital at Archway where ITN were filming the picket line and there was a wall of solidarity made of cardboard boxes where we could all write messages.

I signed that I love the NHS and all its workers. They supported the action to save the Whittington hospital two years ago but were on strike to ensure that they and the next generation of workers get a decent pension.

Quickly racing down Highgate Hill to my great friends at the Cafe Metro, the Palestinian-run coffee shop, I sat down with a great coffee to send my messages to the Morning Star – solidarity to all our workers, let us defeat the Con-Dem plans to make the already yawning gap between the rich and the poor and unbridgeable chasm.

Jeremy Corbyn is Labour MP for Islington North.

If you have enjoyed this article then please consider donating to the Morning Star’s Fighting Fund to ensure we can keep publishing your paper.

Tuesday 15 November 2011

by Jeremy Corbyn

It’s beginning to feel awfully like November 2002 – just substitute “Iraq” for “Iran.”

We’ve seen persistent claims of Iran’s development of weapons of mass destruction, endless media comment on what may or may not happen and military analysis of what a bombing campaign would look like and how it could be achieved.

Just like in 2002, there is already a huge US naval deployment in the gulf, British troops are in the area and Nato, fresh from its “triumph” in Libya, stands ready to offer itself for military action.

Also, again a parallel with Iraq, there are huge and wholly legitimate concerns about human rights in Iran including the treatment of minorities, trade unionists and women.

What is less frequently reported by the media is the growing strength of opposition forces in Iran and some of the successes they have achieved.

The media has also mainly ignored tensions between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government and the Guardian Council on the direction that the country should take.

The issues of nuclear power and nuclear weapons are inextricably linked.

It is impossible to have nuclear weapons and weapons-grade plutonium without a nuclear reactor that can produce enriched uranium, as well as the processing system that can further refine it.

In law, Iran clearly has the right to develop nuclear power, however environmentally unsustainable and dangerous that might be.

However, to develop nuclear weapons is clearly illegal within the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Iran remains a signatory to.

The International Atomic Energy Authority has inspected and monitored Iran ever since it started developing a nuclear power facility and the most recent report indicated concerns over the production of quantities of enriched uranium.

This has led to speculation as to whether Iran is about to develop a nuclear weapon or not.

At its five-yearly review conference in 2010 the NPT signatories agreed, without dissent, to promoting a nuclear weapons-free Middle East which would include all countries in the region.

Most countries are already signatories to the NPT and therefore bound by law to refrain from developing nuclear weapons. With one exception – Israel.

The world came to know of Israel’s nuclear weapons through the bravery of whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu and since then, Israel’s ability to manufacture nuclear weapons and a delivery system to target them, have been developed and enhanced.

Thus the attempt at a nuke-free Middle East is a significant development. To ensure no country develops nuclear weapons, Israel must join the discussions to cease the rush toward the possession of nuclear armaments in the region.

This cannot be done within the framework of the NPT as Israel is not a signatory, and as a possessor of nuclear weapons out with the treaties arrangements, it cannot join. Therefore the only option is an international nuclear weapons’ convention, which is what was envisaged at the end of the 2010 review conference.

However, none of this works in isolation. The US has made huge military deployments within the region and successive statements by Nato and US officials about the possibility of war with Iran make the situation ever more dangerous.

Britain has a special role in this. As a 19th century colonial power it constantly sought to undermine Iran and following the discovery of oil it established the Anglo-Persian Oil Company which later became British Petroleum under state ownership from 1909.

Britain made huge amounts of money out of Iran’s oil, but after the Iranian people elected the nationalist government in 1952, Britain conspired with the US to mount a coup which overturned the will of the people and established the Shah in power.

He then ruled with great brutality with the support of an aggressive secret service until the Islamic revolution in 1979.

We would do well to understand that the popular feeling about Britain in Iran is far from sympathetic, owing to our colonial past within the region.

While there are huge political differences within Iran, an external attack is likely not to exacerbate those. Rather it would bring about an enormous sense of national unity against external aggression.

The dangers are huge and increasing. In the current febrile atmosphere of US politics there seems to be a cavalier approach to defence issues among the Republican candidates.

Most support waterboarding as a legitimate form of torture against suspects and in a recent debate most candidates supported military action against Iran, with the exception of Ron Paul who said “it’s not worthwhile to go to war.”

Barack Obama has demonstrated that apart from his opposition to the Iraq war in 2003, before his election to the senate, he has been just as prepared as George W Bush to act illegally in targeted assassinations of perceived opponents and in the continuation of the travesty of international law at Guantanamo Bay.

The danger is that the US presidential debate will degenerate into name-calling between Obama and whoever the Republican candidate turns out to be and the US will be goaded into the diversion of yet another foreign war.

The most likely source of an attack on Iran is not necessarily an overt Nato/US operation but Israel acting as a proxy.

The numerous meetings Liam Fox and Adam Werrity had with the Israeli military and their unabashedly staunchly zionist approach to Israel’s relations with the rest of the region, increased the concerns even more.

Werrity for example, is reported by Craig Murray, former ambassador and now human rights activist, to have told the Israeli government that Britain supported plots against Ahmadinejad, which would therefore directly implicate Britain in the further degeneration of relations with Iran.

There has to be a different way. Surely we have learned the lessons of 10 years of occupation of Afghanistan, with desperate poverty, appalling abuses of human rights especially of women and children, the protected power of the warlords and the damage and destruction to the lives of poor people.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have cost the British taxpayer £9 billion and left behind a residue of pollution, corruption, violence and danger from unexploded weapons and depleted uranium.

To commit human rights abuses in the name of eliminating someone else’s human rights abuses is hardly a way forward.

In reality, it is popular movements from within that change societies and not external aggression which profits the arms companies and weapons suppliers.

Opposition to the danger of a war with Iran needs to be mobilised and support given to organisations such as the Stop the War Coalition, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which has established a serious campaign throughout the Middle East to bring about a nuclear weapons-free region.

Ever since September 11 2001 the Western public has been fed an unrelenting diet of opinion that only military power solves any problem.

The dead might be in flag-draped coffins or they might be lying by a roadside in Iraq or Afghanistan but they are all lives lost, families bereaved and hopes wrecked.

That is what war leaves behind – and that’s why we should be promoting dialogue and peace with Iran, not reaching once again for the gun to start another conflict.

Written Questions

Libya: Politics and Government, 19 October

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military aid, training or equipment has been offered to the Transitional National Council of Libya; and if he will make a statement. [74315]

Mr Philip Hammond [holding answer 13 October 2011]: The UK has not provided any military training to the National Transitional Council (NTC) of Libya. However, a military mentoring team in Libya has enabled the NTC to better protect civilians and civilian areas by providing the NTC with mentoring on information handling, internal organisation and processes, logistics, communications, and planning.

The UK has also provided £1.5 million to fund civilian experts assisting in a weapons disposal programme. As part of this commitment, we have provided a small team of UK military specialists to work alongside the Libyans and United States in preventing the proliferation of surface-to-air missiles.

To support the NTCs security efforts, the UK has provided communications equipment, body armour, and police uniforms for use by police in Benghazi.

As the previous Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), announced during his visit to Tripoli, the UK has gifted items including binoculars, GPS systems, and lifejackets with a value of approximately £65,000 to help the Libyans recommence naval security operations. All equipment provided is fully in line with UNSCRs 1970 and 1973 including the arms embargo.

On 15 September 2011, the Prime Minister announced an additional £600,000 funding for the Mines Advisory Group to protect civilians from unexploded devices in Libya. This brings the UK’s contribution to the clearance of explosive remnants of war in Libya to £780,000.

Libya: Armed Conflict, 24 October

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel from the (a) Royal Navy, (b) Royal Air Force and (c) Army have been deployed in relation to the NATO operation in Libya since March 2011. [74314]

Mr Philip Hammond [holding answer 13 October 2011]: Information on the number of service personnel who have participated in the NATO operation in Libya is not held in the format requested. As at 10 October 2011 the number of service personnel deployed overseas in support of Operation Ellamy, the UK contribution to the NATO operation, was:

The number of personnel overseas fluctuates on a daily basis for a variety of reasons including temporary absence for training, evacuation for medical reasons, the roulement of forces, and visits. We do not, therefore, publish actual figures for personnel deployed.

Colombia: Human Rights, 26 October

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans to raise human rights with the President of Colombia during his visit to the UK. [76760]

Mr Jeremy Browne: Human rights remain an integral part of our relationship with Colombia and we regularly raise human rights with senior members of the Colombian Government.

Our discussions with President Santos during his visit will cover a range of issues, including human rights, as well as trade, prosperity, international cooperation, climate change, science and innovation and counter-narcotics.

Private Rented Housing, 27 October

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether he has any plans to bring forward proposals in respect of (a) rent levels, (b) security of tenure and (c) energy efficiency of private sector accommodation. [76757]

Grant Shapps: The current legislative framework is intended to provide a balance between rights and responsibilities for landlords and tenants. We therefore have no plans to change tenure arrangements in the sector. Private rents are market led and, therefore, significantly driven by housing supply. Excessive regulation would drive up rents and reduce choice for tenants. Rent controls, historically, resulted in the size of the private rented sector shrinking from 55% of households in 1939 to just 8% in the late 1980s. Rent controls also meant that many landlords could not afford to improve or maintain their homes.

This Government are committed to seeing a major increase in the supply of new homes where they are needed and wanted. Energy efficiency in the private rented sector is being tackled through measures in the Energy Act including the Green Deal.

Sri Lanka: Defence Equipment, 27 October

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which date the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State’s recent visit to Sri Lanka (a) started and (b) ended; which Sri Lankan Government Ministers and officials he met during the visit; whether the export of military, security and police equipment was discussed; and if he will make a statement. [76944]

Alistair Burt: I arrived in Sri Lanka on 21 February and left on 23 February. The Sri Lankan Government members I met were Economic Development Minister Basil Rajapaksa, Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Foreign Minister G.L. Peiris. I also met with members of the Tamil National Alliance and the United National Party. The export of military, security and police equipment was not discussed.

Adam Werritty, 31 October

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings HM ambassador to Israel has had with the Secretary of State for Defence (a) in Israel, (b) in the UK and (c) elsewhere since May 2010; whether Mr Adam Werritty was present on any such occasion; and which (i) other officials and (ii) other people were present on each occasion. [76970]

Alistair Burt: All meetings which our ambassador to Israel has had with the former Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) since May 2010 are set out in the Cabinet Secretary’s report of 18 October 2011. Our ambassador to Israel was also invited by the former Defence Secretary to a private social engagement in summer 2010 at which Adam Werritty was present.

Arms Trade: Israel, 31 October

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills whether any export licences for components for (a) F-16s and (b) Apache helicopters for use by Israel have been granted since May 2010; and on what dates any such licences were granted. [76992]

Mr Prisk: No export licences of this type have been granted since May 2010.

Crime Prevention, 31 October

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the evidential basis was for the development of the domestic abuse, stalking and honour-based violence risk identification checklist. [76948]

Lynne Featherstone: The Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Honour based Violence (DASH) Model (2009) was developed by Associated Chief Police Officers (ACPO) from the good practice of previous risk assessment models. It was also informed by a comprehensive literature review, consultation with national and international academic experts and practitioners, officer/practitioner and victim focus groups and piloting in several areas.

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what (a) evidence and (b) research her Department has evaluated on the effect of the use of (i) SPECSS+ and (ii) DASH by police services on levels of domestic homicide, serious incidents and repeat victimisation. [76949]

Nick Herbert: There has been no evaluation by the Home Office of the effect of the use of (i) SPECSS+ and (ii) DASH by police services.

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police services have fully implemented the domestic abuse, stalking and honour-based violence risk identification checklist. [76993]

Lynne Featherstone: The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) agreed that the Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Honour Based Violence (DASH) Risk Identification, Assessment and Management Model could be implemented across all police services in the UK from March 2009. Although we understand that the majority of forces currently use DASH it is for individual forces to decide which risk assessment models to use and the training their officers and staff receive.

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used in deciding which domestic abuse, stalking and honour-based violence crimes are referred to the Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference. [76994]

Lynne Featherstone: Agencies referring cases to a Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) use an evidence based risk assessment tool to establish if the victim is at high risk of harm. The threshold for high risk is determined by each local area.

Domestic Waste: Waste Disposal, 31 October

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what payments his Department has made available to local authorities for the purposes of maintaining weekly refuse collection. [76971]

Robert Neill: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) on 24 October 2011, Official Report, column 61W.

Waste Disposal: Greater London, 31 October

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what information his Department holds on the total amount of (a) domestic and (b) commercial refuse (i) collected and (ii) recycled in each London borough in each of the last three years. [76969]

Robert Neill: DEFRA hold data on domestic and commercial refuse handled by local authorities within their WasteDataFlow database. Annual data on all individual English local authorities can be accessed online at

http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/environment/waste/wrfg23-wrmsannual/

In addition, a national survey of commercial and industrial waste was carried out by DEFRA in 2009. Data on all business waste generated in London boroughs is included in the report which can be accessed via

http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/environment/waste/wrfg03-indcom/

The WasteDataFlow data on local authority collected waste demonstrates the overall increase in levels of recycling which our new initiative, the Weekly Collection Support Scheme, will also promote. The scheme will encourage councils to combine better weekly services with improved recycling. Detail on this scheme will be available shortly.

Domestic Waste: Waste Disposal, 31 October

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what assessment he has made of the effect on recycling rates of bi-weekly collection of refuse. [76972]

Robert Neill: My Department has not undertaken any specific assessment on this issue. Ministers do not believe that it is necessary to have fortnightly rubbish collections to try to increase recycling.

The cuts to frontline rubbish services encouraged by the last Administration were a lazy option. We believe that more joint working, better procurement, positive incentives and new technology are better ways of improving value for money, while maintaining regular and comprehensive services for local residents.

Our Weekly Collections Support Scheme initiative will help councils deliver better weekly collections, and in the process make it easier for families to go green and improve amenity and the local environment.

Sri Lanka, 31 October

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State most recently visited Sir Lanka; which Ministers and officials in the government of Sri Lanka he met; whether the export of military, security or police equipment was discussed; and if he will make a statement. [77404]

Alistair Burt: I visited Sri Lanka between 21 and 23 February. I met the Economic Development Minister, Basil Rajapaksa, Defence Secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, and Foreign Minister, GL Peiris. I also met with members of the Tamil National Alliance and the United National Party. The export of military, security and police equipment was not discussed.

Deportation: North Africa, 2 November

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were returned to (a) Libya, (b) Algeria and (c) Tunisia under the provisions of memoranda of understanding in each of the last five years. [77050]

Damian Green: The following table shows the total number of removals and voluntary departures of Libyan, Algerian and Tunisian nationals from the UK to their respective countries of origin in each year from 2006 to 2010.

The Home Office publishes quarterly and annual statistics on the number of persons removed or departed voluntarily from the UK within ‘Immigration Statistics’. The data on removals and voluntary departures are available in tables rv.01 to rv.08 from the Library of the House and from the Home Office Science, research and statistics web pages at:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/research-statistics/migration/migration-statistics1/

Adam Werritty, 14 November

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Adam Werritty was present during any meetings which his predecessor had with representatives of the US administration at which the Trident replacement programme was discussed. [80227]

Mr Philip Hammond: Not to my knowledge.

Libya: Human Rights, 14 November

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Libyan Transitional National Council on the safety and security of sub-Saharan African nationals in Libya. [80272]

Alistair Burt: During his visit to Libya last month, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), raised concerns about reports of human rights abuses committed by Free Libya Forces including the recent reporting by Amnesty International on the treatment of detainees, in particular sub-Saharan Africans. The Chairman of the National Transitional Council (NTC) assured him that they were taking action to meet Libya’s international human rights obligations and had already begun investigations into these reports. The new Prime Minister, Abdurrahim al-Kib, reiterated the NTC’s commitments in this respect the day after taking office. We will continue to raise the issue of minority rights with the NTC and the Transitional Government when formed.

Oral Questions and Debates

Ministry of Defence (Procurement), 19 October

Jeremy Corbyn: I am sorry that I was not present at the start of the debate and I will be brief because other colleagues wish to speak. I want to introduce a wider issue of defence procurement and I hope that the Minister will respond to my contribution. The issue concerns the large amounts of money that are being spent in advance of a parliamentary decision on the replacement of Britain’s nuclear weapon system. The Minister is smiling but I am not sure why—perhaps it is out of desperation at the amount of money flowing out of his Department and into the hands of contractors as we speak.

I would like the Minister to answer a number of questions about the costs of replacing our nuclear weapon system. The main gate decision on the Trident replacement is not due before the House until 2016. Out-turn prices were estimated in the initial gate report to be £25 billion for the replacement of the submarine, and costs for the successor system, including the warhead and infrastructure development, were between £30 billion and £32 billion. So far, £900 million has been spent on planning and replacement, and £3 billion is due to be spent on detailed design before 2016. The rest will be spent after the main gate decision in 2016.

A number of serious questions must be raised. This is not a discussion on foreign policy and we are not debating nuclear negotiations. Nevertheless, when we are faced with a massive deficit, and people in every community in the country are being told to make savings, why is the Ministry of Defence calmly ploughing ahead to get rid of £100 billion of public money on a nuclear missile system that many of us believe to be illegal, unnecessary and dangerous? All the money being spent is going into the pockets of various contractors around the world and not being put to any socially useful purpose.

Whatever choice is reached in 2016, major elements of the vessels will already have been ordered before Parliament has had a chance to debate the issue. That includes £380 million spent on the first submarine, £145 million on the second and £6 million on the third —those are the submarine costs alone. I hope that the MOD will be more open about what that expenditure is for and why it is necessary to make it ahead of any parliamentary decision. I was told by a Minister in another debate that such actions are the normal way of doing things in the Ministry of Defence, and that it does things on a sort of custom and practice basis. If it is custom and practice for the MOD to spend such sums of money without parliamentary approval, I suggest that that custom and practice needs to stop. There should be specific parliamentary approval for each element of expenditure, but that has not happened in this case.

Further spending is taking place at Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston and Burghfield, and the full cost of project Pegasus—the proposed new facility for manufacturing enriched uranium components for nuclear warheads and reactor fuel for nuclear-powered submarines—was priced at £747 million when it received initial approval in 2007. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether that figure is correct. If it is not, will he give the Chamber an accurate figure and state how much more money is expected to be spent on project Pegasus at AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield?

The relationship between the MOD and defence contractors is interesting. Poachers who join the side of the gamekeeper are obviously extraordinarily welcome, and the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) brought a particular expertise to the debate. He seemed, however, to underline an issue that needs questioning concerning the close relationship between the MOD, defence contractors and the defence industry, and the large amounts of money being spent. Parliament exists to control what the Government do. MPs exist to represent their constituents and hold the Executive to account, and there are serious questions about the decision-making process surrounding the replacement of Trident, the purpose of Trident, and the vast expenses that are being undertaken without any parliamentary approval.

Nick Smith: … Does my hon. Friend agree that transparency is vital in cases such as that under discussion, so that Parliament can scrutinise expensive defence procurement issues?

Jeremy Corbyn: Absolutely. Parliament must scrutinise such expenditure. One of the greatest weaknesses of the British parliamentary system relates to its ability to scrutinise expenditure. We do not traditionally do line-by-line budget voting in this country, and although the Public Accounts Committee does a good job, it can look into only one theme or area of expenditure at a time. Perhaps we need tougher scrutiny, particularly where the Ministry of Defence is concerned and given the levels of expenditure being discussed.

I have two final points. Some colleagues present today represent constituencies that have embarked—or are likely to embark—on the manufacture and development of submarines and nuclear warheads, and some represent constituencies that have a big defence interest. I do not have a big defence interest in my constituency but I understand what the position of my colleagues may be. However, there are enormous skills in the defence industry in this country. We make planes, ships and all kinds of things very well, and we have a highly skilled work force. How much better would it be to have a longer-term trajectory for using those skills to make other things such as socially useful products that will develop, sustain and support people, rather than weapons of war or, in the case of nuclear weapons and submarines, weapons of mass destruction that can only kill large numbers of civilians?

Concerns have been raised that the cost of the Trident replacement programme puts significant stresses on the rest of the Ministry of Defence budget. I hear complaints from many people throughout the armed services that they are experiencing various shortages at present. All hon. Members in the Chamber will be able to relate to that. None of those shortages will be met while we continue with the massive expenditure on nuclear weapons and the preparation for replacing the submarines and missiles.

A document entitled “Looking into the Black Hole” by the Royal United Services Institute states:

“The largest, and politically most difficult, procurement programme over the next two decades will be the construction of a successor to the Trident nuclear deterrent submarines. The MoD is due to spend £7 billion over the decade to 2020 on the initial concept, design and development phases of this project, equivalent to around 11 per cent of the new equipment budget over the decade from 2011/12 to 2020/21. But the bulk of spending on the successor submarines, total costs of which are projected at £25 billion, is due to occur during the decade after 2020/21. The Main Gate decision, which gives permission for the Demonstration and Manufacture phase to begin, is due to be made in 2016. If this schedule remains, spending on the successor programme will rise sharply, probably reaching a peak of around 30 per cent of the new equipment budget by 2021/22 or 2022/23, when the first-of-class begins production. It is likely to remain close to this level until after the planned delivery of the first submarine”.

We are on a trajectory to spend a great deal of money before Parliament has even made the decision. I could write now the speech for the Secretary of State, whoever it will be, in 2016—“We’ve spent so much, done so much and made such preparations. Let’s spend another £60 billion on this project.” Why can we not have that debate, discussion and decision now, rather than leaving it for another five years, until 2016, when all this money will have been spent?

Arms Export Controls, 20 October

Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate. I thank the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) for the way in which he introduced it and the thorough nature of the report. Parliament has come a long way over the past 15 years. We now have the Committees to monitor arms exports, an annual debate and the facility to hold the Government to account on individual export licences. That is a great improvement from the past, when there was no facility whatsoever to discuss the issues in any way. I therefore want to thank the MPs who have campaigned for that successful change in Parliament’s procedures on the issue over the years. Clearly, if the procedures are to work, this debate has to work, and it is more than a little disappointing that so few Members are present this afternoon. Many Members regularly sign early-day motions and other things condemning human rights abuses and arms exports to repressive regimes, so it is a shame that they cannot be here to develop that case.

I want to raise many issues, but I realise that even with the paucity of Members, there is still a limit on time. I want to draw attention to the points made by the Select Committee report, particularly the reference made to the judgment and misjudgment of successive Governments concerning what is happening in the Arab world, north Africa and the middle east in particular.

There is a recommendation on enforcement, particularly against brass-plate companies, which are companies that are registered in the UK but trading in arms from overseas locations. I realise that that is quite a complex and difficult legal area to deal with, but we have to be tough on British-based operations that in reality evade any export controls on arms that end up being used for repression. Page 3 of the report states that

“there is no justification for allowing a UK person to conduct arms exports overseas that would be a criminal offence if carried out from the UK and we recommend that the Government extends extra-territoriality to all items on the Military List in Category C.”

The last point to which I wish to draw attention is the end-use of torture equipment, much of which is not obviously torture equipment but ends up being used as such when it arrives in the hands of a particularly repressive regime.

Earlier, I intervened on the right hon. Gentleman to ask about the revocation of arms export licences to Bahrain, but the same could apply to a number of other places. It simply is not good enough to decide that an armed force in a particular country is following all the relevant Geneva conventions when there is a civil conflict going on in that society. I mentioned Colombia, but I could have also included the Congo and many other societies around the world, where the army is simply not an insular institution that is following Government orders. It is often dominated by rogue elements, and there is an inevitable crossover between them, militia activities, criminal activities and drug-related gangs. The same could apply in many other countries in Central America where there is not a large volume of British arms exports but nevertheless there are deep suspicions of the involvement of armed forces in wholly illegal and illicit activities that provoke civilian conflict. At one level, the army presents itself as a reasonable organisation, but at another level, it is not.

If we think back to the 1970s, British planes and other equipment and arms were sold to Chile under the elected Government of Salvador Allende. Those planes were then used to bomb the presidential palace, which resulted in the death of the President and the terrible night of Pinochet’s years. Selling arms has an effect, even if they are sold to a regime that we might agree with or, at that stage, approve of. We must be careful to condemn human rights abuses when the arms concerned have been provided by us in the first place.

On the question of the suspension of arms exports to Israel, particularly surrounding Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) had an interesting exchange of views with the Chair of the Select Committee. On 10 February 2011, he said:

“I can confirm that UK policy on the export of controlled goods and equipment to Israel has not changed since the Coalition Government took office. All export licence applications to Israel are considered on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Export Licensing Criteria.”

The Select Committee then quite rightly said:

“We further recommend that if the Government is unable to identify any such arms or components of arms, it formally withdraws the statement of policy quoted in this paragraph.”

There is a belief that the weapons are actually used to further the occupation of the west bank and Gaza and not for the national defence of Israel. This is a critical area of policy that needs to be further examined.

We have been listening to what is happening in Libya. The death of Colonel Gaddafi was announced a few hours ago, and there will now be a different Government. An interesting picture appeared on Facebook yesterday, showing a montage of European leaders literally having hugs and kisses and embraces with Colonel Gaddafi. No one was spared and no one is missing and all the pictures were taken in the last two years. The arms that have been sold to Libya were being delivered up until March of this year, and we were training Libyan forces until then, too. There was a close economic relationship with Colonel Gaddafi’s Government, as I do not doubt there will now be with the Transitional National Council. It looks a tad of a short space of time, between March 2011 and October 2011, to be selling arms to a Government who, a month later, we decided were deeply oppressive and had to be opposed by all means— indeed, NATO forces helped to oppose that particular Government—to the current situation. What goes round comes round. The suggestion of hypocrisy in the policies conducted by successive western European Governments must be considered very carefully.

I am pleased that arms exports to Bahrain have been stopped. The human rights abuses there are serious. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) mentioned the Gulf Co-operation Council forces that are in Bahrain. Yes, they are in Bahrain and they are part of the Gulf Co-operation Council agreement, but, in reality, their presence there bolsters the Government of Bahrain and protects them in their wish to continue their existence.

Human rights abuses in Bahrain are not new. I first met people from Bahraini human rights groups at a UN conference in 1986, which is an awfully long time ago. They were concerned about the suspension of the constitution, the lack of parliamentary democracy, or its limited nature, and the discrimination in that society and they have been bravely campaigning on those issues ever since then. The request to suspend arms sales to Bahrain is not a new one, and I am glad that it has now been carried out. We have also exported a great deal of surveillance equipment to the country, which has been used on the opposition and resulted in imprisonment, torture and all kinds of other things. I welcome the suspension of sales, which appears in great detail in the Select Committee report and the Government’s response to it.

Saudi Arabia, which has been mentioned by two of the previous speakers, is the biggest single importer of British arms. The sales between Britain and Saudi Arabia are absolutely massive. It still makes me angry to think about how the previous Prime Minister bar two, Tony Blair, intervened to suspend a Serious Fraud Office investigation into the al-Yamani arms contract with Saudi Arabia. He said that it was not in the national interest to investigate that particular contract because it was too big and too important to BAe Systems. I am sorry but if we are serious about human rights, democracy and protecting people’s lives, we should be equally serious about what we sell, what we export, what we profit from and what practices we condone by not being prepared to investigate them. I hope that the regime of control of arms exports that the Committees suggest is something that the Government will take on board.

The last couple of points that I want to mention come from the Amnesty briefing, which says:

“It is vital that a strong commitment to human rights and international law are a core part of the final ATT.”

It then urges the UK Government to

“Prevent sceptical governments from trying to use the ‘consensus’ as a way of watering down or de-railing the ATT process.

Prevent a weak treaty from being a dangerous backwards step for human rights and international law.

Express support for the ATT to include the ‘Golden Rules’ that prevent transfers”—

so that there is a proper end-user system, and—

“Support comprehensive scope, including conventional weapons of all kinds.”

We are talking in part about highly sophisticated weaponry, night-sight equipment, surveillance equipment and all the rest of it, but I have seen—as have other Members in this Chamber—the most appalling abuses of human rights in the Congo and other places. There is nothing sophisticated about any of it. There is nothing sophisticated about the weaponry that is used. It is a lot of second-hand Kalashnikovs and second-hand weapons that have been bought on the open market anywhere around the world. Those weapons are used to create the most appalling mayhem that kills a very large number of wholly innocent people who are merely trying to survive in an area that, unfortunately, is blessed with huge mineral wealth, which is of greater interest to mining companies than the human rights of the people concerned.

We have a lot to learn from what has happened in the past few months. I welcome the fact that arms exports have been suspended in many cases. I hope that the Minister will take on board the point that I made in an intervention to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South concerning the examination of the role of a military in a particular society, the quasi-independence under which the military operate and the activities that the military might be wholly illegally engaged in. It is not good enough for the Government of a particular country to come along and say, “Our military do what we say,” when we have a great deal of suspicion—indeed, there may well be a lot of common suspicion among other countries—about what the military in that country actually do.

My hon. Friend asked a very specific question about Sri Lanka and I thought that it was a very good and very fair question. The Government of Sri Lanka were very quick to use the ceasefire process to stock themselves up with large amounts of arms while arms sales to Sri Lanka are currently suspended. There is a huge diplomatic initiative by the Government of Sri Lanka to be allowed to buy arms all around the world. The human rights situation in Sri Lanka is not right: there are still too many people in prison; there are still too many people suffering; and there is still a lack of a rehabilitation process that can bring about a proper peace there. Given those factors, we have no business to be selling arms to Sri Lanka.

Mr Prisk: I did not have the chance earlier, because the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) moved on to other topics, but for his assurance, the House’s assurance and the assurance of the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), I am happy to say that the policy on Sri Lanka has not changed, and that is a categorical position.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister for that intervention and I am very relieved to hear that, because the lobbying on this matter by the Sri Lankan Government is quite intensive.

In conclusion, I want to echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark). If we as a country rely on a large volume of arms exports and on an arms industry, we run the risk of being culpable in the abuse of human rights, the killing of civilians and the promotion of conflict. We should think quite seriously about these things and about the role that we play. Perhaps we should instead embark on a longer-term strategy of being less dependent on the arms industry and arms exports, and put the skills in the arms industry towards the creation of more socially useful products. The skills and abilities in the arms industry are fantastic, and the knowledge in the industry is incredible, but that knowledge can be used for good things just as much as it can be used to produce weapons that can end up causing the most appalling destruction, even if that was not the intention behind their use when they were initially exported.

Central Asia, 25 October

Jeremy Corbyn: Until fairly recently central Asia was awash with nuclear weapons, but following the declaration by Kazakhstan and a number of other nations, a nuclear-weapon-free zone has been established there. Does the Minister welcome its establishment, and will he guarantee that NATO will comply with the zone and not overfly it with any nuclear weapons or nuclear-armed aircraft so that we show respect for that attempt to introduce peace to what was once a very tense region?

Mr Lidington: We welcome any moves to reduce the threat from nuclear proliferation worldwide, and we look not only to the central Asian republics but to all signatories to the non-proliferation treaty to live up to their obligations fully.

Affordable Rent Scheme, 31 October

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister tell us how much money is being provided to local authorities to develop new council homes? Why are his Government insisting that any self-funded local development be provided by increasing council rents to 80% of market value, which makes those rents totally unaffordable in many urban parts of this country?

Andrew Stunell: I want to set the hon. Gentleman straight, because the ratio of the rent packages under the affordable rent offer in London is averaging 65% of market rents across London. Of course, tenants of those homes are eligible for housing benefit, as required.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, 31 October

Jeremy Corbyn: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman made the valid point that in the past the police did not take domestic violence seriously. Does he agree that there is currently a problem in that the police often do not take elder abuse seriously, and often avoid getting seriously involved in such cases because it is not a specific crime?

Mr Buckland: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I am sure that he will have come across appalling instances of the mistreatment of relatives when reading the contents of his mailbag and inbox—as, indeed, we all have. In that scenario, the police often face the same difficulty that confronts them when dealing with cases involving vulnerable, and often young, women who are the victims of domestic violence: the complainants—the victims—are often not in a position to provide clear evidence. Because of their vulnerability or their age, they are seen as a soft target who might crumble if put under pressure in court. That is why it is incumbent upon all of us to consider different mechanisms in which their particular vulnerabilities can be accommodated so that the truth will out.

Gangs and Youth Violence, 1 November

Jeremy Corbyn: Everybody abhors gang violence and the cultures that go with it, but does the Home Secretary recognise that some young people are attracted by a perverse sense of glamour towards gangs as an escape from overcrowded housing or as an escape from the lack of job opportunities or youth facilities? Because they cannot develop themselves in those ways, they see a gang as something worth looking at. Should we not instead invest in jobs, housing and communities as much as in all the other palliative measures that the Home Secretary has suggested?

Mrs May: A great many young people live in difficult circumstances but do not turn to gangs. Of course it is important for us to look at gang membership and youth violence in the round rather than arresting our way out of the problem, because it is not possible for us to arrest our way out of it. As I said earlier, young people coming out of prison who claim jobseeker’s allowance will go straight on to the Work programme. We must make a real effort to deal with problems such as unemployment, and to help those young people to find a different route through life.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, 1 November

Jeremy Corbyn: Like other speakers, I shall be as brief as possible, because a good many Members clearly want to say something about this issue. I commend the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the way in which he presented them, and the background information he provided.

New clause 26 first saw the light of day only a few days ago. This is effectively a Second Reading debate, but it provides the only chance that the House will have to discuss a major change in legislation that will result in criminalisation. I predict that in years to come, Government and, indeed, Opposition Members will complain that a person has been criminalised because they were homeless—that a person who occupied someone else’s house was put in prison for a year, which would cost the rest of the community about £50,000.

This country has a long and chequered history when it comes to squatting. It goes back to the Forcible Entry Act 1381, which became law during the Black Death. The issue has arisen time and again during periods of great stress: it arose at the end of the Napoleonic wars, at the end of the first world war and at the end of the second world war, when there was widespread squatting because of a terrible shortage of housing.

The Criminal Law Act 1977, which I mentioned in an intervention earlier, was introduced after a great deal of consultation by the then Labour Government. There was a fair amount of opposition to the legislation, which distinguished specifically between the act of taking someone’s house when that person was occupying it and the act of occupying a property that was being kept empty. The property might be empty as a result of the inefficiency of a local authority or housing association—or, in some cases, a charitable landlord—but more often it would be kept empty deliberately while a property speculator waited for its value to rise before seeking to possess it and sell it to someone else; and, at the same time, a large number of people were homeless on our streets.

Crisis and other charities have produced interesting statistics and arguments. It has been claimed that 40% of homeless people in the country have squatted at some point, and that because the housing crisis means that there will be more people on the housing waiting lists and more without access to houses, there is likely to be more squatting.

Let me tell the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) that it is very easy to stand up in the House and say that no one should ever occupy any empty property, but it is another matter for someone who is homeless, has applied for local authority housing but is deemed not to be vulnerable as a single person, and is therefore not eligible to be nominated for a council or housing authority property. Those who try to rent a property in the private sector anywhere in London will find that renting a one-bedroom flat costs a minimum of £150 to £200 a week, renting a two-bedroom flat costs £250, and renting a house costs between £400 and £500. When the very same Government who are lecturing someone about occupying a property that has been deliberately left vacant are preventing that person from obtaining housing benefit to pay such rents, what can the person do? It is all very well for us to lecture, but what can that person actually do?

I believe that the existing law can deal with most of the concerns that have been expressed. There are some cases in which people have behaved disgracefully and driven others out of their homes when they should not have done so, but the 1977 Act is designed to deal with such cases. They can be dealt with through selective, specific and well-thought-out legislation, rather than through the approach that is being adopted in the House this evening.

We shall press amendment (a), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, to a Division. It covers only residential property that “has been empty for six months or more”. Parliament has a responsibility to recognise that there are 700,000 empty properties across the country and a very large number of people who are either homeless and sleeping on the street, sofa-surfing before they run out of friends entirely, sleeping in cars, or just trying to get somebody to put them up for a night before they move on. I assume all Members have met such people in their advice surgeries. What do we say to them? Do we say, “It’s your problem; you go and solve it,” or are we a society that tries to help everyone and make sure everyone gets somewhere to live and has a secure roof over their head?

I shall conclude by quoting from a letter from Sarah Evans. She was the Labour parliamentary candidate for North West Hampshire in 2010, but, unfortunately, she was not elected. Her letter is directed more to people in my party than to anybody else:

“It beggars belief what sick logic can bring a government to condemn and criminalise some of the most vulnerable people in society for successive governments’ failures to build enough council homes—a policy which is forcing people to live on sofas and the streets.

We have five million people in 1.8 million households on council waiting lists, there are many more ‘sofa-surfers’ who don’t even register on the homeless figures.

We have a hyper-inflated housing market caused by the shortage of council homes.”

In order to deal with this issue, we must invest in homes. We must invest in council properties, control rents and stop the obscene profits that the private rented sector is making as a result of the housing shortage. Then, we will begin to see a solution. Criminalising people is not a solution.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, 2 November

Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased to be able to contribute briefly to this debate. I am one of a minority of hon. Members in the Chamber who is not legally qualified, but on this occasion I am grateful that so many solicitors and barristers are Members of the House. They have made this a much better debate and brought experience to it. I hope the Minister has listened carefully to what has been said, particularly in relation to the removal of clause 12.

When the House learns from its mistakes, it can introduce much better legislation. I have been here long enough to have gone through the experience of the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, Stefan Kiszko and many other appalling miscarriages of justice. It is true that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 made a big difference and brought about a much fairer system of investigation. However, unfortunately it did not lead to the release of people who were wrongly convicted in Birmingham, which came much later as a result of a huge campaign, which in turn led to establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which has hopefully reduced the chances of future miscarriages of justice.

My experience and that of many other hon. Members of dealing with immigration cases, miscarriages of justice and many other misfortunes that befall our constituents is that problems often come from the initial point of contact with authority, be that a police or immigration officer, a housing official or someone else. People who are not represented at the initial point of contact when they should be might confess to things that they did not do, suggest they have done things that they could not possibly have done or just become hopelessly confused and accept whatever the official says. How many of our constituents have told us that they have said all kinds of things in good faith to an official, things they clearly did not understand because they were intimidated by the experience? It is at that point that our constituents—all of them—deserve the right of independent legal representation.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) made a good point about the delays that will happen in a police station if clause 12 is operated as drafted. It will be utterly ludicrous if the police arrest somebody and want to interview them, but are unable to get the basic information that they require and so have to keep them at the police station for a long time. That will take up police time and space when releasing the person might be the best course of action, all because there is an argument about whether a solicitor should be available.

On the point about wealthy people getting advice, I am quite sure that Roman Abramovich goes around with the numbers of half a dozen solicitors in his wallet, or at least that his security staff do. I am not particularly worried about the ability of such oligarchs to gain access to lawyers should they fall on the wrong side of the police. I am worried about people who cannot afford to get a solicitor, who do not carry a number with them and who cannot get a duty solicitor because they cannot prove that they are entitled to legal aid. I suggest that the Government should simply accept this point and withdraw clause 12 in its entirety.

I want to make two more quick points about the effect of the trajectory of legal aid. I was concerned about the trajectory of legal aid under the previous Government, as were many Members. The Liberal Democrats used to be concerned, but they have had a damascene conversion. Something far worse is now happening and they support it. When something less bad was happening, they opposed it. I do not know what has happened. Perhaps somebody can explain it to me at another time. I am too simple a soul to understand it.

The changes in legal aid have been devastating for many good solicitors’ practices in inner-urban areas. Many have closed in my area because they cannot survive any longer. There is not enough other work so that they can cross-subsidise within the company. I am not sure that that would be a good principle even if they could do it. The shortage of funding for legal advice has hit law centres badly and they are trying hard to survive. As a result, many people who should be legally represented go unrepresented.

I have the utmost time, respect and admiration for Islington law centre, but it is creaking at the seams with the pressure of the work that has fallen to it because of the number of solicitors’ practices that have closed and the number of people who are in desperate situations and want its help. It is doing its best. It relies heavily on pro bono work and trainee solicitors who work at the law centre as part of their training. That is not a bad thing—in fact, it is a good thing—but the whole system should not rely on pro bono solicitors and on the good will of trainees. I am very grateful to those people, but the system should not rely on them.

Likewise, Islington council, despite the huge problems and pressures it is facing, like every inner-urban area, has to its credit found the time, political determination and resources to open a citizens advice bureau on Upper street, opposite the town hall. It is absolutely packed out, largely dealing with debt advice. A lot of the advice that is given does not require legally qualified people, but can be given by good advisers. However, the resources have to be there to ensure that it happens.

Stephen Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is proposed by those of us in Parliament who work closely with Citizens Advice would still lead to a reduction in cost from the current £25.5 million to £16.5 million, which as I said earlier is a 40% reduction? Citizens advice bureaux are trying to be productive to ensure that they can retain their funding.

Jeremy Corbyn: Citizens advice bureaux do a fantastic job and they do their best to be as productive as possible. It is hard to measure productivity when one is dealing with advice. It is hard to measure how long it takes to explain to people the seriousness of their situation. As we all know from our advice surgeries, some people get it quickly and others take a long time to understand the reality of their situation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) said, it sometimes takes several visits. A solicitor or advice bureau cannot do that; only MPs can do that. That is why we are vulnerable to such visitations every Friday evening, or whenever we hold our advice surgeries.

The other point I wanted to make is about the effect of these provisions on the legal profession. Like other hon. Members, I visit universities and colleges on occasion, and I meet and talk to students. I meet many enthusiastic young law students who are working hard and doing well. They want to work in criminal law and advice, but they cannot get work in those areas. We are turning out a generation of lawyers who pursue property and commercial cases because that is where the money is, and the criminal law will suffer, along with the rights of the individual. The poorest people in the poorest communities in this country will suffer as a result.

The legal aid changes will lead to an inequality of justice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford made two very important points. The first was about family reunion cases in immigration law. Notwithstanding the problems with the Border and Immigration Agency, there is a cost implication of removing legal aid for family reunion, because it will lead to children being taken into care, more misery for families—sometimes with accompanying abuse—and children under-achieving in school because they are so stressed by being divided from a family in a refugee camp in Kenya, Sudan or the horn of Africa, as is often the case in my constituency. Those children deserve to be represented so that they can have a family around them to give them support.

The second point was about housing. Like every other constituency in London, mine is increasingly dominated by the private rented sector, which is now bigger than the owner-occupier sector and is increasing fast. Tenants face short-term tenure, difficulties with landlords, absentees and problems with repairs, and all the other insecurities involved in such situations, and they need, deserve and should have access to appropriate legal advice to ensure that the law is carried out and they receive the protection that is due to them.

Yes, legal aid is expensive. When it was introduced in the 1940s by the very progressive Labour Government, it was seen as part of the welfare state. The welfare state included social security, housing, health, unemployment benefits and a right to access to justice. I honestly believe that the trend of cuts in legal aid means that universal access to justice is slowly disappearing before our very eyes, and that is wrong.

Eurozone Crisis, 3 November

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Minister agree that condemnation of the Greek people’s right to have a referendum is entirely incorrect and that they do have that right to hold a referendum; that the people of Greece have suffered greatly through cuts, wage reductions, cuts to pensions and everything else—and they are due to suffer even more; and that it is entirely wrong for the eurozone leaders to try to impose a Government of so-called national unity on the people of Greece to drive through an austerity package without giving the people a choice to decide themselves on their own future?

Mr Hoban: I do not think anyone in this House is suggesting that we interfere in the decisions to be made by the Greeks.

G20, 7 November

Jeremy Corbyn: Was there any discussion at the G20 about the unaccountable power of the rating agencies to decide the future of national economies, or about the massive profits being made on short-term loans out of the poverty and austerity of Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland—any discussion about control over the banking system, rather than bowing down to it?

The Prime Minister: There were concerns expressed, and they are frequently expressed, about the role of the ratings agencies and the way they are regulated. Sometimes, they come from politicians who have had a particularly rough time with the ratings agencies, but it is very important that we use organisations such as the Financial Stability Board to make sure that we get the answers right, rather than do it according to political fiat.

UK Border Force. 7 November

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Home Secretary consider the question of staffing levels throughout the UK Border Agency? I am talking about the effect they have in respect of enormous queues at Heathrow and other airports, which become a deterrent to legitimate travellers; the inability of that agency to respond to written inquiries from people, including MPs; and the situation where the agency apparently cannot cope with its work load.

Mrs May: As I made clear in my statement, this was not an issue about staffing levels; this was a pilot that was intended to help us understand whether it was possible, with different arrangements, to make more intelligence-led checks on higher-risk individuals. We have made it clear that it is going to be possible to improve the border operations through the use of greater technology—the use of e-gates is an important element in that. The hon. Gentleman refers to letters written by MPs, but I must say to him that my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is responsible for signing— dealing with—about 60,000 letters on immigration matters each year.

Indeterminate Sentences, 8 November

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State consider the problem of pre-release of prisoners where insufficient preparation is made for training or, particularly, for somewhere to live or some kind of community support? That means, in turn, that they either stay longer in prison or are released into the community, where they are inadequately supervised and end up back in a whole regime of crime.

Mr Clarke: We are looking at that problem very seriously, and we hope to produce a substantial improvement on the present situation. In particular, I am working with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to try to ensure that offenders leaving prison can have instant access to the work programmes that we are developing for other people seeking work. Enabling people to get back into employment is one of the best ways of improving the chances that they will not offend again.