| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think one has to be very careful. People are supplying gas. The question is the basis on which they are doing so. If other countries have long-term gas contracts and we
9 Oct 2006 : Column 9
Immigration: Tuberculosis Testing
3 pm
Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty’s Government:
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, currently, we screen for TB those arriving from countries with a high rate of TB who want to remain for longer than six months. We also screen abroad applicants for entry clearance in six countries that are high-risk for TB. We will shortly be making an announcement on the next phase of this overseas screening programme, which will extend the scheme to other high-risk countries.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I declare an interest in that I had TB in my teens, so I know how infectious this disease is. Now that we are threatened with the spread of this new TB strain, which apparently is drug-resistant, what are we going to do about that?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that we are taking every step to ensure that we have a robust response. The first step is to screen those who are coming into this country and, if they are identified as carriers of tuberculosis, to deal with it before they come here. The second step is to ensure that those who come to this country are progressively screened so that we can identify the disease early and deal with it more robustly.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, how effective is the BCG vaccination, who is having it, and should we not be protecting our children, who may be mixing with children with tuberculosis?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the BCG vaccination has been causing concern. There is an issue about whether children should be given it at 12. The new procedure has meant that we are now looking more at the neonatal stage and giving the vaccination to children much earlier. We know that there is an anxiety about older children, but it is very much part of the Department of Health’s agenda to deal aggressively with this matter and ensure that people are reassured that the changes are safely being made.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reassuring answer. I ask her to note that the incidence of TB is not restricted simply to immigrants either from abroad or in this country. Will she explain
9 Oct 2006 : Column 10
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not have a specific answer, but the noble Lord will know that, in the general way in which we are now trying to give information, we are providing information in as many languages as possible so that those who may be affected by it are better able to understand it. All government departments have been carrying out that process with a great deal of energy for some time. I assure noble Lords that I know of nothing that indicates that we are not doing exactly the same in this regard. But if that is the case, I will certainly undertake to write to the noble Lord about that.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister have any figures for the occurrence of bovine TB either in the immigrant community or in the indigenous community, particularly the farming community if we drink unpasteurised milk on farms?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I regret to tell the noble Countess that I do not have the figures for bovine TB. That is a great tragedy for me because I saw the noble Countess earlier in the House and I should have anticipated this question.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, in formulating government policy on this important question of public health, have the Government sought advice from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot answer that question specifically, but I know, as will the noble Lord, that in developing these procedures we try ordinarily to collate as much information as possible from those who may have specialist knowledge. I therefore assume that that has been done, but I regret again that I am deficient and do not know the answer. I shall certainly undertake to ensure that the noble Lord has a reply. I should say that, although I answer for the Government, I would have thought that this was perhaps more of a Home Office-type question.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, according to the Health Protection Agency, only 27 per cent of those entering this country from places with a high prevalence of TB are X-rayed at the port of entry, and that a third of all high-risk entrants are not being referred for medical examination at all? Do the Government consider that to be adequate, and what plans do they have to ensure a more rigorous testing programme?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Earl will know that the Department of Health took the rise of TB incredibly seriously and launched the TB action plan in 2004. The key strands were to increase awareness and to provide strong commitment
9 Oct 2006 : Column 11
North Korea: Nuclear Test
3.05 pm
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:
What action Her Majesty’s Government have taken or propose urgently to take in response to the nuclear test conducted by North Korea.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, in response to the nuclear test, the Prime Minister issued the following Statement at 8.15 this morning:
“I condemn this completely irresponsible act by the government of the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea). The international community has repeatedly urged them to refrain from both missile testing and nuclear testing. This further act of defiance shows North Korea’s disregard for the concerns of its neighbours and the wider international community and contravenes DPRK’s commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and UN Security Council Resolution 1695”.
The UN Security Council will meet later today in New York to discuss the international response to the nuclear test, further to the council’s presidential statement of 6 October. We will work closely with our partners in the Security Council to ensure a swift and robust response.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for repeating that Statement and commenting on the words of his right honourable friend. Does he agree that it is extremely important for the United Nations Security Council to decide on firm and definite action? Is it not the case that there have been endless deadlines and a great many carrots—all kinds of sweeteners—offered to North Korea, all of which have been simply ignored or turned down, and that all attempts to go along that route seem to have come to a dead end? Should these new measures include not only additional sanctions, which are clearly called for on top of existing sanctions, but also the tightening up of the Proliferation Security Initiative? That would help to limit North Korea’s weapons exports more effectively, which have been all too profligate in the direction of Iran and other countries.
Finally, is it not immensely helpful that Shinzo Abe, the new Japanese Prime Minister, who is this country’s very good friend, was in Beijing this weekend and gained full Chinese support against
9 Oct 2006 : Column 12
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I also welcome the new Japanese Prime Minister’s visit to Peking. It was helpful in ensuring that regional security issues rose to the top of the agenda, as in the circumstances they should. The Security Council faces a severe task. In my view, it has the following component parts: it must try to get the same unanimity as it got on the presidential statement on 6 October, because unanimity with China’s involvement is essential; it must try to get the unanimity that Security Council Resolution 1695 achieved; and it must deal with the issues robustly. That will probably require a very detailed discussion. However, I do not think that anybody could doubt the anger expressed over the past 24 hours—even more so in the past 12—by the Chinese Government, along with everyone else in the international community. That leaves me feeling that the chances of unanimity on a robust position are good.
Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, is it not clear that North Korea is prepared to defy international opinion and, for its own reasons, to pay a very heavy political price? In the Government’s view, are there any sanctions or pressure points that are likely to be effective, and what are the prospects of achieving an international consensus to prevent the seepage of nuclear materials to North Korea?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, as I have just said, a very stringent approach will need to be taken in the new Security Council discussion this afternoon and it is hard to prejudge all the elements in the programme on which the council will find unanimity. However, the economic sanctions introduced under Security Council Resolution 1695 had in themselves a stinging effect on the regime, not least because they affected some people personally. I expect a fuller array of sanctions on this occasion. I hope the House will forgive me if I do not try to guess what all the parties to the discussion today will bring to the table. I suspect that over the next few days we will have an opportunity to consider it specifically.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I noted the Prime Minister’s reference to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, although I believe that North Korea is no longer a signatory to it. Will the Minister give an assurance that the British Government will be equally scrupulous in attending to the terms of the treaty when we come to consider the upgrading of Trident?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, today I shall try to focus on the affront caused by North Korea in the international community. As the House knows, a thorough review on the United Kingdom’s position on Trident is to be published later.
9 Oct 2006 : Column 13
Article 10 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty sets out specifically how states can withdraw from it, because it is always within a state’s power to do so. We do not believe that North Korea has gone through the process at all. I know that others in the international community believe that it may have, but having looked at the papers this morning, I am clear that nothing approximating full adherence to Article 10 has taken place.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we should all recognise that Britain cannot be a key player in any response to North Korea and that our influence must be exerted through multilateral channels, in what we hope may be a more coherent European approach to China as the key external influence, and of course through the United Nations. How satisfied is the Minister that the European relationship with China, as a key player in the region, is becoming more coherent and constructive, and is there full awareness of the political importance of that dialogue?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I have absolutely no doubt of the political importance of that dialogue. Obviously this could become a kitchen with far too many cooks in it, and the bargaining strategy has been to try to concentrate it around six parties. However, we do a great deal of work with the European Union, which is an appropriate channel for us. There is no doubt that the Union is working seriously not only with China but also with other neighbours in the Korean peninsula to ensure that there is a regional understanding of the need for security. It is partly through those channels that I am so confident in saying today to the House that the anger of all those partners with whom both we and the European Union have been dealing is acute.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I remind the House of my non-financial interest as chairman of the All-Party British-North Korea Group. In the 1990s some 2 million people died in North Korea as a result of the violations which took place in that excessively Stalinist regime. That should have concentrated the minds of the country’s leaders on tackling their domestic problems rather than using nuclear weapons. Does the Minister not agree that to add to the woes of the North Korean people by imposing through China, which provides 80 per cent of the country’s aid, anything that might affect the food aid programme is not the way to proceed, and that what is needed is a naval blockade around North Korea to prevent the seepage of nuclear materials to other states which might use them?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, perhaps I may take the questions in reverse order. Of course we need to take every step to ensure that nuclear materials do not get to other states or, indeed, to non-state actors—terrorist groups and others who might very well exploit them. I do not believe that Her Majesty’s Government have any intention of trying to persuade people to inflict further starvation on the people of North Korea. They are as much victims of this as
9 Oct 2006 : Column 14
Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that, historically, sanctions have not influenced the leaders of recalcitrant countries such as North Korea but they have had a massive impact on poor people, who then starve, as they have been doing in North Korea?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, that is a very fair point. Let me emphasise one of the sanctions which I believe has caused acute irritation to the ruling clique of what I regard as a regime bent on what amount to lunatic methods of dealing with its international neighbours: severe financial sanctions. I mention that because those sanctions have had a personal impact on a group of people who apparently live in great modesty but appear very concerned about whether their cash is found in banks overseas.
Business
3.16 pm
Lord Grocott: My Lords, perhaps I may make a short business statement about a repeated Statement that we shall have later this afternoon. The subject is children and young people in care. With the leave of the House, we shall take this at a convenient time after four o’clock. The Statement will be repeated by my noble friend Lord Adonis.
Police and Justice Bill
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clause 1,Schedule 1,Clauses 2 and 3,Schedule 2,Clauses 4 to 8,Schedule 3,Clause 9,Schedule 4,Clauses 10 to 14,Schedule 5,Clauses 15 to 18,Schedule 6,Clauses 19 to 21,Schedule 7,Clauses 22 to 26,Schedule 8,Clauses 27 to 34,Schedule 9,9 Oct 2006 : Column 15
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Police and Justice Bill
Schedule 1 [National Policing Improvement Agency]:
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I must advise the House that if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 2 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 1:
“(b) the Association of Police Authorities, (c) the Association of Chief Police Officers, and”The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of both the government amendment and the amendment on the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is to reinforce the tripartite framework which governs policing. We attach considerable importance to the tripartite framework and have sought to reinforce it through the recent creation of the National Policing Board, a development which has been welcomed both by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities. The board underpins the position of the Home Secretary, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities, as well as the collective leadership of the police service.
The noble Baroness tabled an amendment in Committee which would have named the Association of Chief Police Officers in the Bill in relation to a duty to consult in respect of the National Policing Improvement Agency. In responding, I indicated that we were sympathetic in principle but that a number of questions needed to be resolved in relation to that amendment. We undertook to explore the options of putting both the ACPO and the APA on a statutory footing, together with relevant stakeholders. ACPO has put to us that the Police Act 1996 does not properly recognise the position of the association within the tripartite framework. There are many references to the Secretary of State but where the legislation refers to ACPO officers as the professional leaders of the service it does so only indirectly. At present, the 1996 Act and other legislation place a number of duties on the Home Secretary to consult
9 Oct 2006 : Column 16
The amendments will make it plain that such consultation should be with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities. As such, they will accord appropriate recognition to the two associations and their place in the tripartite framework. While both the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities are long-established organisations, we need to guard against the possibility that they might at some stage consider changing their title. To accommodate such a possibility, Amendment No. 55 includes an order-making power which will enable the Government to change the statutory references to either association to reflect any new nomenclature.
For the record, I emphasise that on any matters which affect the terms and conditions of employment of chief officers, we will continue to consult the Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association rather than the Association of Chief Police Officers, which represents chief officers on such matters.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |