Dawn Primarolo: I agree with my hon. Friend. Opposition Members have become so obsessed with attacking elements of the tax credits system in the House that they are not listening to thousands of their constituents who are benefiting from the presence of tax credits and support them. As the Treasury Committee report says, tax credits enjoy widespread support within our communities. Opposition Members are foolish to ignore that point.

Mr. Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con): I have a constituent who has had to give up work because of tax credits. HMRC keeps telling her that she is disabled, but she is in fact a dance teacher. The Paymaster General should know that the system is not working for many hundreds of thousands of people.

What is the Government’s estimate of the amount of money lost through eastern European nationals who have come to the UK, set up tax credit claims, and then headed home while the Government continue to pay taxpayers’ money into their bank accounts?

Dawn Primarolo: I should remind the hon. Gentleman that the rules that are followed with regard to European nationals are those laid down by the European Union. Provided that they are registered with the Home Office workers registration scheme, nationals from the new member states who are working in the UK are entitled to tax credits on the same basis as other European economic area nationals working here—for example, French or German nationals. If the hon. Gentleman has proof of the allegations that he makes, he should bring them forward. I have made it clear today that, as is demonstrated by the National Audit Office report and the other publications that I have put before the House, the Department takes seriously any attempt at tax credit fraud and is dealing with it.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): My question is about recovering overpayments. Many claimants report changed circumstances to the tax credit people in a phone call, and a great dispute often subsequently takes place about who said what. What point have we reached with keeping a record of—and perhaps digitising—telephone calls so that there is an accurate record of what happened?

Dawn Primarolo: That has always been part of the tax credit system. All calls to the contact centres are recorded and, when the content of the call is disputed, it can be recalled and presented to the claimants so that they can hear exactly what was said and when.

Stewart Hosie (Dundee, East) (SNP): Last year, the parliamentary ombudsman said in “Tax Credits: Putting Things Right” that

“recovery of overpayment... of tax credits can be challenged if the overpayment was due to official error and in circumstances where a customer thought they were being paid the correct amount.”

In the statement, the Paymaster General said that HMRC would pursue “a number of measures”, including “improving the information given with the award notice such as providing a ready reckoner.” Given that tax credits can be complex, especially for those on low and variable incomes, does the Paymaster General seriously believe that a ready reckoner is all that is required? Several of my constituents receive numerous letters—sometimes on the same day—from HMRC, detailing different amounts. Does not the proposal constitute complacency? Is not it simply a sticking plaster covering a gaping hole?

Dawn Primarolo: A series of statements have been made to the House about the improvements in the award notice, the guidance notes of two pages and explaining exactly what claimants should check on receiving the award notice and the facts that are presented to them. I suggested today that we could take those attempts to reassure the claimants further by adding a ready reckoner. I did not offer it as a solution. If the hon. Gentleman cares to read any of the tax credit literature, he will realise that it clearly sets out the basis on which claimants should check the information that HMRC confirms has been supplied to them.

Active constituency Member of Parliament though the hon. Gentleman may be, I doubt whether he has personally spoken to the many thousands of families in his constituency who benefit from tax credits and are grateful for them.

Ann McKechin (Glasgow, North) (Lab): Since the introduction of tax credits, which has benefited the largest income group in Glasgow, the number of occupied shop units in the poorest areas of the city has rapidly increased. It would be greatly beneficial if the Treasury could, in future, make some assessment of the economic regeneration effects of the introduction of tax credits.

Dawn Primarolo: I agree with my hon. Friend. Surely all hon. Members agree that we would all be better off if child poverty were eradicated from our society. It is about time that Opposition parties started to support that aspiration instead of constantly trying to undermine it.

Alistair Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): The individual learning account scandal of four or five years ago exposed the dangers of trying to encourage take-up while disregarding basic security checks in pursuing a political commitment. We could all have done so much more with that money for the people whom we want to help. Why did not the Treasury learn any lessons from that previous fraud scandal?

Dawn Primarolo: The Department had security checks in the system. If the hon. Gentleman examines the report, he will realise that the Comptroller and Auditor General specifically refers to them and how well they worked. Paragraph 2.35 contains a specific statement to the effect that the arrangements were adequate and have worked. The lessons that the hon. Gentleman claims that we need to draw are predicated on his belief that the system did not contain preventions to squeeze out fraud. He is wrong about that, and there is no proof of it.

Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, South-West) (Lab/Co-op): Does the Paymaster General accept that tax credits have been enormously beneficial to large numbers of my constituents and a great help to many poor families? However, does she also accept that the scheme is not perfect? A recruitment company in my area reported to the Treasury that some employees from the accession countries have made false claims. Although that has been drawn to the Treasury’s attention, it has told the company to go ahead and pay them. The problem applies especially to seasonal workers, who come here for a time, return home and continue to claim tax credit throughout that period. That undermines the credibility of the whole system.

Dawn Primarolo: What undermines credibility is the continual assertion of allegations without the support of facts. Whenever an allegation is made to the Department, there is an investigation into the facts. I have explained to my hon. Friend before how the rules
11 July 2006 : Column 1292
work with regard to the A8 accession countries. If he is asking me to admit that I am not perfect, of course I would agree with that. The system that is operating now might be able to be improved, but if it were eradicated, child poverty would rise again, which would be a disaster for our constituents.

Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk) (Con): In her statement, the Paymaster General referred to a fraud and overpayment situation in 2003-04 of between £1.24 billion and £1.74 billion. It would be very helpful if she could give us the cumulative total since the inception of the scheme.

Dawn Primarolo: There is not a cumulative total. We are looking at the scheme’s first year of operation and putting together all the figures that we now have available for that year. What confuses Conservative Members is that they are trying to mix figures from 2003-04 with those from 2004-05, and they are all saying slightly different things. That leads them to draw the wrong conclusions.

Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con): The Paymaster General has made an astonishing statement today. A year ago, the National Audit Office said that a fraud and error rate of 3.4 per cent. was unacceptable, yet the right hon. Lady has just announced that that rate has doubled in a year. When the new tax credits came in, Ministers promised that fraud and error would halve. Who is going to take responsibility for this failing policy? Will it be the Paymaster General or her ever-gallant Chancellor?

Dawn Primarolo: The fraud figure is £70 million. That is the figure that is in the report, and the hon. Gentleman will know that because I expect that he has taken the time to read it. He is trying to blur the lines. The fact is that, when compared with the comparable figures for the first year of operation of the working families tax credit, income support or jobseeker’s allowance, the fraud and error rates for tax credits are better, although of course they have to be improved. He mentioned the rate of 3.4 per cent., but he knows full well that that was an interim figure that was given with huge health warnings pointing out that the exercise was only 30 per cent. complete and that it would be necessary to wait for the full figures. The full figures are now here, and the facts are before the House.

Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con): Did the Paymaster General by any chance watch “Doctor Who” on Saturday? If she did, she might understand why her statement today reminds me of a cyberman coming, appropriately, through a portal from a parallel universe and insisting that its purpose was to upgrade humanity to achieve perfection. I freely acknowledge that the tax credit system has done much good, but in the universe in which I live, I hear of another case of despair and misery caused by the malfunctions in the system virtually every day. Unlike the heartless cybermen in “Doctor Who”, will the right hon. Lady at least acknowledge that harm has been done and apologise to the families who have suffered so much?

Dawn Primarolo: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to travel back in the Tardis and experience the despair and destitution that existed when his party was in government and child poverty doubled. That was a disgrace, and it is about time that he joined the real world and supported the Government’s objective to eradicate child poverty, and of reaching our first target of halving it as soon as we can.

US-UK Extradition Treaty

5.43 pm

Mr. Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD): I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate an important matter that requires specific and urgent consideration, namely,

the extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister’s defence of this lop-sided treaty in the House last week posed more questions than it answered. The British people simply do not understand why we are stringently enforcing a treaty that has still not been ratified in Washington, why three British citizens will be extradited on Thursday when our own judicial authorities saw no reason to prosecute them here in Britain, and why there appears to be such an imbalance between the minimal information required to extradite a UK citizen to the US and the more substantive justification required to extradite US citizens to the UK.

This is an issue of overwhelming public interest, yet it has been a real struggle to get the Government to acknowledge its significance. A letter placed in the Library of the House last month reveals that the extradition treaty was not even raised during the last visit of the US Secretary of State to the UK at the end of March, despite the then Foreign Secretary’s assurances on 21 March that he would write to her prior to her visit.

This comes at a time when extradition from the US to the UK has dropped from six cases in 2003, before the Extradition Act 2003 came into force, to two last year. Extradition from the UK to the US, however, has more than doubled to 13 cases. The treaty was negotiated in secret and was granted only cursory scrutiny in the House in December 2003, when the only Members who signalled their objections were my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Southport (Dr. Pugh). I am sure that the House will wish to applaud their foresight. There is now a strong feeling on both sides of the House that we should make up for the absence of scrutiny then with a full debate in the House today, not least in view of the controversy surrounding the fate of the three former NatWest employees.

I understand from contacts with US officials that there is some disagreement over whether the terms of the treaty are reciprocal. Even if there is a debate to be had on those legal details, it is difficult to understand why the Government should enact such important legislation without also exercising the political pressure in Washington, which is only this week belatedly being brought to bear, to encourage the US Congress to enact its side of the bargain.

In keeping with Standing Order No. 24, I hope that I have demonstrated that this is a specific and important matter that merits the full and urgent attention of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter, which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely the extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom. I am satisfied that the matter is proper to be discussed under the Standing Order.

The leave of the House having been given, the motion stood over under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business tomorrow.

Points of Order

5.48 pm

Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Beckenham) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This morning, I learned that the Mayor of London has announced that on Thursday he will hold a joint press conference with a Minister from the Department for Communities and Local Government on the transfer of further powers over Londoners to him. As this transfer of powers will involve the legislative process in the House, have you had a request from any Minister from that Department to come to the House to inform us of what is proposed, as is only right and proper?

Mr. Speaker: If legislation is involved, which the House is required to pass, the House will obviously get an opportunity to discuss the matter in full.

Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of Back Benchers, may I have your support in relation to our next item of business, which is the discussion of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s annual report? As at 11 o’clock today, the Government’s response to the report was not available in the Vote Office. I do not regard that as dealing from the top of the pack. The notion that we have simultaneously discussed the report and the response is a fiction. It is only by accident that I know of the existence of the response. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that very few Back Benchers and just a few Opposition Privy Councillors are aware that it was available, yet history will show that, apparently, we took its contents into account this afternoon. That is unacceptable, and I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will admonish the Government on this occasion.

Mr. Speaker: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s case, but, as he has stated, that matter can be debated in the business after the ten-minute Bill, and there is nothing to prevent him from raising it when the Home Secretary makes his opening remarks. I hope that is helpful.

5.50 pm

Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Animals Act 1971 to make it a defence in law for the owner of an animal involved in an accident to show that he took all reasonable steps to keep the animal in a secure enclosure; and for connected purposes.

I should first of all declare that I am chairman of the all-party horse group, and, although I am not required to register the following interest, I declare that my partner is the proprietor of a riding school.

In introducing the Bill, I seek to remove an inequity that can see, and has seen, blameless people being held liable for damages, following accidents that no person could have prevented. Members will know that there are very few strict liability offences under English law—when an instance occurs, it is overwhelmingly so that people can mitigate the case against them by showing that they took all reasonable steps to avoid an incident taking place.

Further, in English criminal law, a guilty action amounts to an offence only if the person involved has a guilty mind—in legal speak, mens rea—meaning that the person must have had intent to cause the incident or must have been reckless as to its likely occurrence. That, I am sure, is how the House would want the situation to be, under both the civil and criminal law. The alternative—that one can be held liable for an event about which one knew nothing, and, indeed, that one had taken all reasonable steps to prevent—is a chilling scenario, much more suited to the worst totalitarian states than to democracies.

On 12 April 2006, the Court of Appeal held that absolute offences, which may subject a person to conviction and punishment in circumstances where he had done nothing wrong, may well be an infringement of his human rights. Yet there are one or two provisions in English law that can lead to that very situation, and it is one of those that my Bill seeks to address today. It exists in section 2 of the Animals Act 1971.

The wording of the Act, as might be expected, is a little tortuous and unclear, but it seems to suggest that the owner of an animal is always liable for damages if that animal is involved in an accident, regardless of the steps taken to avoid such an accident happening. Although the Act is somewhat ambiguous to a layman, it was interpreted in the House of Lords to mean precisely that—that someone can be held liable in all such cases. In the case of Mirvahedy v. Henley in March 2003, the House of Lords held the defendants liable for damages for injuries caused to a motorist, Hossein Mirvahedy, in an accident after their horse had escaped from a field.

I do not for one moment make light of the serious injuries sustained by Mr. Mirvahedy, who was a blameless individual whose misfortune it was to be involved in the accident. Nor do I say that, in all circumstances, animal owners should be relieved of all responsibility for their animals—not at all, as there may well be cases where they are liable—but I do question how any reasonable
11 July 2006 : Column 1298
person could attach blame to Mr. and Mrs. Henley when they had taken all reasonable steps to avoid such an incident occurring.

If that iniquity is not removed, the knock-on effect could be considerable. For example, given the new right to roam, would farmers be responsible for any accident that resulted from one of their sheep escaping on to a road if a rambler had crossed the farmer’s field and left a gate open? Following the House of Lords ruling, presumably they would be held responsible, yet that would be manifestly unfair. What exactly is the farmer expected to do in those circumstances?

Let us take the case of riding schools, which are a source of much enjoyment to people of all ages, especially children. If a horse escapes from a secure field, which horses do, and causes an accident, is the owner to be liable for damages even though there are no steps that he could reasonably have been expected to take to avoid such an occurrence? If a horse bolts when startled by a loud and sudden noise close to it, is the owner of the animal equally held liable for any damage? Again, apparently, yes: the owner of the horse would, following the House of Lords ruling, be liable. We could then reach the situation where riding schools close down, which benefits nobody, unless they can afford the increasingly expensive insurance polices that would cover them against such damage—policies that will surely become even more expensive following the ruling. We could reach a situation whereby farmers, who are struggling financially in any case, decide that it simply is not worth it any more. Where would we be then?

Surely the best way to avoid those undesirable outcomes is to amend the Animals Act in that respect, which is what I seek to do. I should therefore like to insert a new clause into the Act, which states:

“It shall be a defence to any action brought under this Act for the keeper of the animal to show that he took all reasonable care in the circumstances to avoid any accident or incident occurring, or damage being caused to a Third Party or their property”.

I am hopeful of making some progress because the Government are sympathetic to what I am saying. I tabled a parliamentary question in April, and the response from the Minister was as follows:

“The Animals Act 1971 currently has the effect of placing strict liability on the owner of animals that cause harm whatever the circumstances. This appears to be inconsistent with current liability law in other areas which allow for a general defence of reasonable care. The Government have acknowledged that there may be a case for an amendment to the Animals Act and expects to launch a consultation shortly”.—[ Official Report, 25 April 2006; Vol. 445, c.971W.]

I am not sure whether that consultation has yet been launched, but the law certainly needs amending sooner rather than later, and I am pleased that the Government have acknowledged that.

The Bill has support from Members of four political parties, and I am grateful to Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Democratic Unionist Members for their enthusiastic support. They realise that the present situation represents an anomaly in the law. I am also grateful to the British Horse Society for its support.

I repeat that I have the utmost sympathy for anyone involved in an accident caused by an animal and I accept that animal owners have a responsibility to take all reasonable steps to avoid such accidents. However,
11 July 2006 : Column 1299
the fact that someone has taken all reasonable steps to avoid such incidents should be a defence in law against litigation, and it is that balance in the law that the Bill seeks to strike. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Laurence Robertson, Mr. Mark Todd, Mr. Peter Atkinson, Philip Davies, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. Richard Benyon, Kate Hoey, Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson, Mr. David Anderson and Lembit Opik.