| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that concerns a slightly different matter from the importation of drugs, but it is beginning to have an effect.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Lord has given figures showing that the amount of drugs detected has doubled. However, is he sure that a larger proportion has been detected or could it be that the total amount of drugs coming in has increased?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I wish I could answer that question. If we knew how many illegal drugs were coming in and where they were they would be seized. We cannot possibly say whether the figure represents a greater proportion of the total. However, there is another measurement which could be useful to the noble Lord and that is the value of drugs prevented from entering the UK. That information comes from intelligence sources. Success in this area is achieved mainly by breaking up smuggling gangs. The figure has risen from an estimated £500 million in 1990 to £1.677 billion in 1995-96.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, the Minister has told the House that the amount of drugs detected coming into the country has increased enormously. Will he confirm that in the Treasury fundamental expenditure review of 1994-95 there was a decision to cut 292 front-line anti-smuggling Customs officers from the staff of Customs and Excise? Will he also confirm that the Government are now planning to cut a further 300 front-line staff from Customs and Excise? Will
the Minister tell the House whether he thinks there is any relationship between these significant cuts in anti-smuggling staff and the amount of narcotics coming into the country? Will he also tell the House why the Conservative Party is soft on drug smuggling?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I resent the suggestion that the Conservative Party is soft on drug smuggling. Of the 292 anti-smuggling posts that were cut in the first reduction, 50 of those posts were recycled into investigation and intelligence work where most of our success in this area is derived. A report on the emerging impact of that first tranche is being considered at the moment. No further cuts will be made until the impact has been fully assessed.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Treasury had announced that it had planned a reduction of 300 posts in the Customs service which is now being considered?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I repeat what I have said. No decision on further cuts will be made until the impact of the previous cuts has been fully evaluated.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, did not my noble friend find that accusation from the noble Lord opposite a little unacceptable? Will he not consider inviting the noble Lord opposite to substantiate that serious and quite unfounded charge?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I think that I said I found it offensive. The accusation cannot be substantiated, so to ask the noble Lord to do so would achieve no purpose whatever.
The Earl of Strafford: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that less than the estimated 10 per cent. of illegal drugs entering the country are intercepted? Does the Minister accept that that level of seizure has remarkably little effect on the street availability of drugs?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the point relates to the question asked previously. We do not know what illegal drugs are coming in. Therefore an assessment of 10 per cent. is purely guesswork.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that something like 80 per cent. of the heroin entering Europe comes via Turkey? What consideration have the Government given to the flow of reports from Turkey about the links between the Turkish mafia and high level politicians in that country which appear to be facilitating the entry of these harmful drugs into our continent?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I believe that that is a question for our intelligence services. It is not a subject which is passed on to me.
General Election: Comments by EU Commissioners
2.51 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether, without prejudice to such action as they may wish to take at intergovernmental or European Council level, they will apply to the European Court for the issue of an injunction addressed to the European Commission prohibiting individual Commissioners or any officer acting on their behalf from participating by speech or otherwise in any of the matters at issue or under discussion among the electorate of the United Kingdom in the forthcoming general election.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, no, we have no such plans.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps I may express my disappointment at the less than hoped for robust Answer to my Question. Is the Minister aware that the responsibilities and duties of individual Commissioners in the European Community, as laid down in Article 157 of the treaty, do not include a duty to intervene in political matters inside member states or even between member states? Is he also aware that the attitude of some, but by no means all, Commissioners over the past few months has become increasingly strident, involving outright criticism of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition? It is not the business of those Commissioners to intervene in political matters within and between member states. I was rather hoping that the Government were going to do something about it.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that there is no duty on Commissioners to intervene in matters within a member state. The Commissioners' duties are to be independent of member state governments and to act within accordance of their obligations set down in the treaties in the furtherance of the Community's business. It is no part of the Commissioners' role to become involved in internal politics of any member state, although as private individuals they may participate in elections.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, bearing in mind that European Commissioners take an oath of exclusive allegiance to the European Community, that Privy Counsellors take an oath of allegiance to the Crown and that my right honourable friend Sir Leon Brittan is both a Privy Counsellor and a European Commissioner, can my noble friend the Minister say which oath the Government would expect Sir Leon to honour if the interests of the United Kingdom and the Community were to be in conflict?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, since that latter eventuality is not the case, there is no inherent problem.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I find his answer to the question quite robust? It is an extraordinary question and deserves the short answer that he gave.
Is the Minister also aware that the Commission is not a monastic order and that no Commissioner takes a vow of silence--nor for that matter a vow of chastity or obedience either? Will the Government be firm in rejecting this quite extraordinary attempt by certain Members of this House to curb the right of two electors in a British election from expressing their views?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most reassured that the noble Lord can from personal experience confirm that the Commissioners are human. The position as he expressed it is absolutely right.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the European Court even has power to issue an injunction in those circumstances? Is he aware that even if it has such power, it could not exercise it unless there was clear evidence of an intention by members of the Commission to take part in our general election?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is right. There is a series of procedural and other legal impediments to achieving what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, seeks. In order to gain an injunction, it is necessary for there to be an abuse which is threatening. In this case there is no such threat.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the Foreign Secretary of this country is making speeches in the Community critical of the member state in whose country he is making the speech. That is a right in the interests of freedom of speech within the European Union. So is it not strange that there should be this attempt to prevent European Commissioners, including those from this country, expressing their views? Would the Minister like to speculate on why the Eurosceptics on both sides of this House are now running so scared?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I do not stand at this Dispatch Box to indulge in speculations. However, as the noble Lord says, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is fully entitled to contribute to the debate about European issues.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, will my noble friend tell us the answer had the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred to Whitehall civil servants? That is relevant to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. If the position is different as regards Whitehall, will the Minister explain the difference, and why?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page