| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the noble Lord's speech, but the assessment in itself will be very influential. It should not be confined to the Treasury. As many speakers have pointed out, there are subjective elements in that assessment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not deny that. In fact, the next point that I was coming to was the role of the five economic tests. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, believes that those tests are irrelevant. I must say that he has come some way from his business success because, if one is making business decisions—this is in substantial part a business decision; it is a decision about our
economy—one does so on the basis of tests. One makes those tests as objective as possible and recognises that, under certain circumstances, the tests which one has set oneself will have an element of subjectivity.Perhaps I may make it clear for the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that the tests are not the same as a recital of the advantages. I admired his eloquent recital of the advantages, and I agreed with very much of what he said. But the self-evident advantages of, for example, the reduction of transactional costs between our currency and a common European currency do not need to be restated; they are evident to everyone. They are not part of the tests of the issues which, inevitably, are or could be in doubt. The issues of sustainable convergence, of flexibility to cope with economic change, of the effect on investment, of the impact on the financial services industry, and whether they are good for employment are, I believe—despite the element of subjectivity—the correct tests. In adding to them, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, did not attempt to subtract from them.
I considered the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, to be particularly interesting. He said that the first two tests were judgmental, but he took the view that the five tests were important. Indeed, in its 2001 Article IV Report, the IMF stated that the tests were,
- Xconsistent with the economic considerations that would be important in the decision whether or not to join".
Clearly these issues must be resolved before a decision is taken. We do not deny that the tests are challenging; nor do we deny that, even if it is considered that they have been achieved, there must be a period of stability and settled convergence before we can seriously consider membership. In speaking to the CBI conference on 4th November, the Chancellor said,
- Xthe assessment as to whether it is in the British national economic interest or not will be comprehensive and rigorous. It is only on this basis—taking into account all relevant economic information—that the Cabinet will decide whether to recommend membership to Parliament and then to the British people".
We have said—this is a firm commitment—that we shall produce an assessment of the five tests within two years of the start of the Parliament. What we shall not do is to make a running commentary on whether or not we are achieving the tests. The criteria are set out in the tests in the intervening period. We listen with great respect and great interest to all the comments made by Members of this House and by economic commentators in the press and, indeed, to those in other countries as well.
I do not need to prolong the debate by describing the preliminary assessments that are being made—they have not featured in the debate—except to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, about the media battle. I agree that it is necessary that the single currency should sell itself and that we should help to sell it. I believe that he was right—a number of noble Lords also said this—when he said that the effect of the
existence of the euro on the ground, in the pocket and in the wallet in less than a month's time would have a major effect on the views that the public of this country took about the success and the relevance of the euro to them.I had always believed that the word XEuro-creep" applied to a thing rather than to a person. But I suppose that if it applies to a person, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and I are Euro-creeps and I do not believe that we are too unhappy about it.
We have had some discussion of the other tests, but, except for those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, they have been mainly economic tests, and rightly so. I do not believe that it is right that we consider the exchange rate or a putative exchange rate as being the sixth test. We have made it clear that in our view there is no sixth test. But, clearly, the exchange rate at which sterling entered the single currency would need to be consistent with economic fundamentals in the United Kingdom and compatible with sustainable convergence between the United Kingdom and other euro economies.
However, I believe that the key here is what the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said. It is not so much a case of a particular rate that could be different at different times; it is a case of stability of exchange rates. That, of course, comes back to the idea of a clear advantage—an indubitable advantage—rather than one of the five tests.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, says about the European Central Bank. He is right that the Bank of England and the Treasury have different views from the European Central Bank about transparency and many other matters. But he is also right to say that what we have in common is most important; that is, a view of the objective of a low and stable rate of inflation.
Interestingly, there has been little discussion of the stability and growth pact and the fiscal policy framework. Perhaps that is because it is becoming more widely recognised that some of the scare talk which has circulated about a superstate does not in fact bear any relation to reality. Fiscal policy in EMU remains the responsibility of individual governments, subject to the avoidance of excessive deficits. That, I am glad to say, thanks to the wise management of the economy over the past four-and-a-half years, is not a problem for this Government. A centralised system of fiscal transfers in EMU is not on the agenda and no member state is arguing that it should be.
Similarly, I was glad not to hear talk of tax harmonisation in the debate. Clearly the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, set that agenda correctly in his speech. There is no reason why EMU should lead to a fiscal authority for Europe. The distance that we are from a fiscal authority—which may be wanted by some of the people quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, when we have a commitment in the current perspective to no more than 1.27 per cent of gross national product in the European Union budget—is evidence of how far away we are from the economic superstate which some Eurosceptics fear.
We have talked about the success of the euro and how close we are to the reality of it. I like the analogies of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about our pressing our noses to the glass outside the dance. I think that the dance will come outside to us even if we were not to join the euro. The effect of not joining the euro does not mean that we shall be isolated from the euro. That is what I understand by the phrase Xeuro-creep". With an increasing number of retailers and other businesses, including Government in their financial relations, saying that they will be prepared to deal in euros, I suspect that we shall find that the experience in Northern Ireland—it has been referred to—will apply to other parts of the country as well.
I do not want to say much about constitutional issues. I do not accept the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about surrender of sovereignty, apart from the fact that I do not think of sovereignty as being in any way analogous to,
- XThe grave's a fine and private place,
It has been a constructive debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for raising the issue. I am sorry if my speech has to be as boring and repetitive as it always is on these subjects. However, I leave the House with gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and all who have taken part in the debate.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I wish to make it clear that it is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord. We know the difficulty he is in. He must, inevitably, sometimes repeat himself. I thank all noble Lords who took part in this short but interesting debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
Channel Tunnel
8.22 p.m.
Lord Berkeley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they intend to ensure the free movement of goods by rail through the Channel Tunnel.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I must declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. Perhaps I may give your Lordships a summary of the present situation. Since 7th November, French railways (SNCF) has suspended all rail freight service through the tunnel through fear of attack on its workers by the potentially illegal immigrants seeking to come into this country. Subsequently, some traffic has restarted under police supervision. About 100 trains a week come into the UK; 32 ran last week. Some might say that that is not much of a problem.
However, the real challenge is that none of the operators or customers knows which trains are coming and when, so although one-third are getting through, everyone is extremely upset. It is a chaotic and unsustainable situation.The virtual suspension of rail freight represents about #8 million-worth of business lost every week. It has put 6,000 extra lorry journeys on to the roads and has caused congestion in the ports and on the approach roads. Equally importantly, there are many losers. There are the customers. I was privileged last week to visit the Marble Arch store of Marks & Spencer and to be shown the thousands of bottles of wine which normally arrive by train from the south of France and Spain, but which did not do so—at considerable extra cost to Marks & Spencer. Bottled water is a favourite; and it all comes by rail. Many of the parts for Ford cars in Dagenham and Halewood normally come by rail, but are not doing so.
Some of the terminal operators have already said that they will close at Christmas. Some operators are large American multinationals. One wonders what they think of the present situation. They have invested in rail, and look what has happened. The operator, ESW Railway, and Combined Transport Limited recently announced suspension of services. I calculate that there are probably about 8,000 jobs at risk.
What are the Government doing about it? I perceive much talk and correspondence. It was good that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote to the Prime Minister of France. I was slightly underwhelmed by his threat to reimpose fines on the French railways. I think everyone accepts that French railways will not pay. However, I liked his offer to help French railways with security and the offer of a meeting. I hope that those offers will be taken up.
SNCF, which runs the terminal, is in the process of raising the fence. There are doubts about its effectiveness, but that is an improvement and will help to keep out some of the people who gave rise to the original cause. Who will police it? How much will it cost? Eurotunnel recently put up a better fence. It is keeping many of the people out and probably diverting them to the rail freight terminal. But I am told that it costs Eurotunnel #8,000 a week to mend the holes cut in the fence by the illegal immigrants. It is employing 300 extra people on security. I do not have a clue about that cost, but it must be an enormous sum. French railways will be faced with similar costs.
Therefore it is worth reflecting on how the two governments have got into this mess. It started some time ago with the Conservative government requiring airlines to be unpaid frontier guards. The Government have extended that to lorries and then trains, adding—I suppose just for fun—fines of #2,000 per person imported, making those truckers and railway workers act as unpaid guards to boot. Many noble Lords and people in the industry warned the Government of the disaster ahead. I feel that that has now arrived. Some of your Lordships may have seen today's headline in the Evening Standard that,
- Xthe High Court delivered the crushing blow, saying that the fines [on lorries] were 'legislative overkill' and incompatible with the right of a fair trial under the European human rights convention".
I turn to some principles of frontier control. Although I am no expert, it is worth pointing out one or two issues. Some countries want to keep people in; others want to keep them out. The UK wants to keep people out. France does not want to keep the same people in, but does not really mind where they go. As the UK does mind, I believe that it is up to the UK Government to provide the measures—they may be fences, or whatever—and to police them.
At the time of building the Channel Tunnel and subsequently, the UK Government decided that the fence to keep people out should be located on its neighbour's land, in Calais. It is clear that the French Government accepted that. But I do not believe that that removes the obligation on the British Government to pay for suitable fences and patrols. It is illogical to expect France to pay for fences that it does not want. One cannot expect France to keep those fences very Xpeople-tight".
I turn to the European legislation. Articles 28 to 30 of the European treaty prohibit the restriction of movement of goods between member states. It is possible that the definition of Xgoods" may be excluded for reasons of security. That is Article 30. It is clear that the exclusion applies to items such as guns; in other words, one can exclude guns, explosives or other nasty things which one does not want brought in. However, it cannot apply to keeping people out. It does not allow the Government to ignore those basic rights because there are too many people around. I believe that security is an irrelevant excuse.
Governments have an obligation to allow the free movement of people and goods. I and several other people have complained to the European Commission under Regulation 2679/98 that the inaction of the two governments in failing to keep rail freight operating through the tunnel prevents that free movement. We await a response and it will be interesting to see what the Commission says.
I believe that it is a government problem and largely one for the British Government. I hope that they will recognise that rather than continue to threaten French railways and the French Government with more fines. Action is necessary before the industry bleeds to death.
What must be done? First, I urge the Government to stop the fines. In fact, they have stopped them, but they keep threatening to reimpose them. It really would be a good thing if they stopped them. It is more important to take action to save jobs.
Secondly, I suggest that the Government offer funding towards the cost of the fence in France and towards the cost of policing it. It could be simplified by extending the existing designated UK-controlled zone at the Eurotunnel terminal to include the French railways terminal because that would allow UK officials to operate there. Furthermore, perhaps the Government would like to send, say, four kilometres of razor-wire coils as a Christmas present to SNCF. It is a wonderful opportunity for Ministers to gain some good PR before Christmas and it would enable the fence to be built sooner.
Thirdly, and more importantly, the Government must begin to consider compensating the businesses which will fail due to their inability to maintain the trade routes. Eight million pounds a week is being lost. It was done in respect of the lorry blockades in France a few years ago and I believe that it should be done for the rail freight blockades.
In the longer term, it is essential that the Government sort out the immigration policy differences with France and the EU. In the mean time, the British Government must pay for the consequences of that difference.
In conclusion, I cannot over-emphasise the seriousness of the stoppage. I urge the two governments to stop playing this ping-pong game of blame and to take responsibility for the problem and for solving it. The Government must offer to provide and to pay for the fence; no quibbles. That would fit in with the Government's SRA strategy for rail freight, one of its objective's being:
- XTo realise the potential for international rail freight through the Channel Tunnel".
8.33 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for asking his Unstarred Question today and I strongly support his concerns. I intend to be brief. The noble Lord identifies a crucial weakness in our trade arrangements with the EU.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I both have interests in transport but in different sectors. He is, effectively XMr Rail" and I am, effectively, XMr Road". However, there is plenty of work in both sectors. It is not an either/or situation because each mode complements the other.
The poorer regions of the EU tend to be concentrated at the extremities of the EU; for instance, Calabria in southern Italy, Cornwall in the UK and Portugal. One obvious reason is that they enjoy poor
transport links with the richer and more prosperous parts of the EU. Therefore, if we improve the transport links, we improve trade and prosperity for all.Road transport to southern Italy, for example, is slow, environmentally unsound and probably not economic. However, it is relatively reliable at the moment, as the noble Lord explained. But it should not be: rail should be far more reliable than road haulage, which is an inherently unreliable system. I believe that rail haulage for freight is the preferred mode for long distance cross-Channel freight. There are various means of moving freight by rail—for instance, containers, piggy-back systems and so forth—but it is still an efficient system.
Does the Minister agree that we must quickly overcome the problems identified by the noble Lord and that we must take vigorous action in order to improve the prosperity of all the regions of the EU?
8.35 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, the Channel Tunnel opened for business in June 1994. It has therefore been in existence for only a short time. According to forecasts, by now we had hoped to move 10 million tonnes of freight by rail. This year, we have moved 2.3 to 2.5 million tonnes and next year we shall move very little if things go on as they are.
The reasons for that are manifold. We must admit that SNCF, the French railways, is chronically short of locomotives and drivers. Therefore, freight forwarders do not receive the service that they want from the railways. Little has been done to speed up the movement of freight on the railways in Europe and we should be doing a great deal better. According to the European White Paper, we should be setting up trans-European freight networks. We should be moving forward to through-freight trains in the very regions to which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred.
We on this side of the Channel should not be talking about running freight trains from Willesden down to the Channel on our side, examining them, running them through the Channel, stopping again at Fretun, examining them again and then moving gradually on into Europe. We should be talking about running through-freight trains from places such as Wembley to places such as Lille. That can be done. We have the technology available to do it and French railways have the locomotives because they run a pool similar to ours. They can travel through the tunnel and on the railway lines in both England and France. We have the tools available so that trains do not stop in Calais, and the more through-trains there are the fewer opportunities there are for illegal immigrants to board them. However, that does not preclude the immediate need for measures to be taken in Calais to stop illegal immigrants boarding. The erection of a fence would be an extremely cheap means of achieving that.
At present, the British Government are paying #26 million a year simply because they are not taking up the paths through the Channel Tunnel for freight trains. We have a minimum usage agreement with Eurotunnel which means that we must use a certain
amount. If we do not use it, we have to pay for it. Therefore, the Government are faced with paying it out of one pocket if they do not use it. It might not be the Treasury pocket, it might be the SRA pocket or the Department of Transport pocket, but it is coming out of one pocket or another and it is money wasted.We on these Benches believe it to be essential that the Government put up a decent fence—not something which people can easily cut through. The suggestion of extending the Coquelles terminal to include the freight marshalling yards at Fretun giving jurisdiction for the British Special Branch to arrest people has some logic.
That is not to suggest that freight through the Tunnel is not doing very well; it is, but on the roads. There were 1.3 million lorry movements through the Tunnel last year. Road freight has grown rapidly; the market is there. The figures have fallen not because of the market but because of the poor services, to which I have referred, and the effect of illegal immigrants. When they get on trains, they do not simply stow away; they also damage the goods that are in transit and they foul up the wagons because they often stow away for several days. That is not a minor problem that can be brushed away; it is a major problem. We have not raised the matter this evening—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, did not do so—for it to be brushed aside, and we want an answer from the Minister.
Much of British industry wants the arrangements to work, and it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that they do. Only the Government can take such action. Idly sitting by and watching while Rome burns will not do.
We have to pay #26 million a year until 2006. I repeat that plenty of money is available for taking effective measures. The traffic will return, provided that we have not done so much damage to our reputation that people give it up as a bad job.
Investors have spent much money—we tried to calculate how much—and the Government have spent #500 million on freight facilities for the Channel Tunnel. A huge sum is involved, which has been used on locomotives, the depots that have been constructed and other facilities. When the Channel Tunnel rail link is open, the priority should be to speed up trains, not trail them around the country, as is currently done. Trains should run directly to France and we should get on with the job of providing an efficient service. This sad story leads to fewer trains running in Britain and the possibility to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred; namely, redundancies, depot closures and much bad news for the Government during the next few months.
My noble friend Lord Greaves will deal with other issues, including illegal immigrants, about which I do not know very much. The Government have done very little and the danger is that business will be killed. We want the Government to explain the actions that they propose. Otherwise, international rail freight will be dead in the water, and the carcass will be laid at the Government's feet.
8.43 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, many justifiable criticisms have been levelled at the privatisation of this country's rail system, but rail freight has been the big success story of privatisation.
There has been a catastrophic decline in the share of freight that goes by rail within the UK—from 42 per cent 50 years ago to 15 per cent in the 1970s and 6.5 per cent in 1993. That was because of the cynical running down of freight by BR. The situation was dramatically turned around, following privatisation, by English, Welsh and Scottish Railways and Freightliner, despite the continuing loss of some core traffic and of coal in particular.
There was a further brief decline after 1993. The figure is now back to 7.5 per cent and we are—or were—on target to reach the objective that was set by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in 1994 of having 20 per cent of freight travelling within this country by rail by 2020. There has been enormous investment in new locomotives and new wagons, York Works has re-opened and much new business has been gained.
That is the background to the Channel Tunnel disaster, which has been unfolding since the beginning of November. In 1994, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution was forecasting the tripling of freight traffic through the Channel Tunnel between its opening and 1999. That has not been achieved. It has proved difficult to achieve growth in that vital traffic, despite the great efforts of extremely dedicated and hard-working businesses. Very long distance traffic—very long journeys, from the extremities of western Europe—is involved, which is ideal for rail freight. Potentially, rail freight can be very fast and efficient. However, that service has in reality been considerably frustrated by the dinosaur railway systems of continental Europe, particularly SNCF, and by the problems that are created by our own smaller loading gauge. The Government need to carry out serious work on that to ensure that we have at least a core route—from Scotland, Merseyside and the West Midlands, round London and to the Channel ports—that will take Berne gauge wagons.
It is heartbreaking and deeply dismaying to the many people who have been deeply committed to this important development in rail transport to see it falling apart because of the ridiculous crisis that has been unfolding during the past five weeks or so.
Why is this matter so important? It is not just a matter of one business taking over from another. That would involve saying, XIf you have a problem with freight, we can put it on the lorries. That would not much matter; so long as the stuff gets through, that is all right". But that is not all right. For environmental reasons, there have been huge increases in CO2 emissions from road freight. The figure has risen from 4.6 million tonnes in 1972 to 10.5 million tonnes in 1999. That enormous increase in CO2 emissions runs directly counter to our obligations to reduce CO2 emissions dramatically.
The famous Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution produced a report in June last year, which stated that we had to reduce those emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. We are already backsliders in respect of the percentage of rail freight domestically. Belgium, France and Germany all carry roughly twice the percentage of rail freight, measured by tonnes per kilometre, compared with the UK's figures.
We were beginning to turn that situation around in significant ways—we were beginning to win new traffic and significant customers were coming on board, particularly in terms of the long-distance traffic that requires the quick transit of perishable items. Some supermarkets are beginning to sign up to that. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned the traffic from Spain and the south of France. Cava and wines from the Languedoc come to Marks and Spencer, which was an extremely valuable customer and which signed up to that form of international rail freight.
Since 7th September that has virtually stopped. As noble Lords have heard, the number of trains has been cut by about 75 per cent. That requires an additional 6,000 lorry journeys a week; because the journeys are long, about 1.5 million lorry miles are involved. Traffic once lost is very difficult to regain. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, pointed out the extremely damaging effect that that is having on fragile new businesses, which are environmentally important and which are very significant in terms of business.
There is an extraordinary mismatch between, on the one hand, the Government's rhetoric about wanting there to be a significant transfer of freight from road to rail and their praiseworthy investment in much of the infrastructure, and, on the other hand, their incredibly feeble attitude towards the problem that arose recently.
I hope that following this debate Her Majesty's Government will take vigorous and effective action. The solutions are relatively simple. What currently seems to be lacking is the will and a sense of urgency.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, if only the solutions were as simple as the right reverend Prelate suggested.
I am one of those who habitually takes part in debates in your Lordships' House on railways. I want to consider the matter in terms of the underlying problem; that is, the large number of people who are trying to get to this country to claim political asylum.
The current position is a scandal. The rail freight industry and pretty well everyone else in this country support the policy of having more freight moving on railways, but that policy is being utterly undermined. People who have nothing whatever to do with the illegal movement of people or asylum seekers are being made to suffer because of what is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences.
One government policy—trying to keep people out of the country—is undermining another government policy—trying to get more freight on the railways and
more freight through the tunnel. Until the Government understand that, understand that the problem is not related to the railways and tackle the problem at its root, they will not solve it.This crisis has arisen as a result of government action. Earlier this year regulations were introduced: the Carriers Liability (Clandestine Entrants) (Application to Rail Freight) Regulations 2001 and subsequent regulations on a code of practice for freight shuttle wagons. Those government actions, which have allowed the imposition of fines on the rail operators, have caused this crisis.
Will we keep these people from entering the country on rail wagons by using all the technical methods that have been suggested? Travelling for any distance in a rail freight wagon is a highly undesirable means of transport. Every time the Government clamp down on one form of transport, they force desperate people on to yet more undesirable forms of transport. Efforts were made to prevent people coming to this country on the ferries or in aircraft, which are reasonably civilised means of transport, although I am not sure about aircraft. Many people came across on Eurostar. They bought tickets and presented themselves at Waterloo saying, XI should not be here really but I wish to claim asylum please". That has been clamped down on substantially, so people have turned to lorries.
I do not refer to people who have been moved across Europe and who arrive here in the lorry that they boarded in Sarajevo, Budapest or wherever. I refer to those who get into the lorries on the other side of the Channel. When that became more difficult because of the sophisticated devices that are used to find people in lorries, they started getting into and hanging underneath rail freight wagons. They put their lives in great danger. Some have walked through the tunnel, which caused the Daily Express to run a story on its front page for about 14 days in succession until it was interrupted by the general election.
People are being forced into more and more dangerous and difficult means of trying to get across the Channel. In a previous debate in your Lordships' House I forecast that there would be an increase in people coming across the Channel in small boats. There is much anecdotal evidence that that is happening. We know of people trying to get across in rubber dinghies. Will any of these measures stop that practice? I believe that the answer is no. The greater the security that is imposed, the more difficult and dangerous are the means of crossing. The problem is simply being moved around from one set of people to another and they are being fined because asylum seekers are found on their vehicles.
It has been suggested that perhaps a joint military force, between the British Army and the French Army, should stop people boarding vehicles. What will such a military force do when they find people taking that kind of action? They will threaten to shoot them. When people run away to avoid them, the military will shoot them because that is what soldiers do. That is the way in which soldiers maintain control. The whole situation is getting out of hand.
These people are desperate. Although there is no doubt that people are being trafficked across the Channel for economic reasons, particularly those from eastern Europe and from China, those causing the problem at Calais, those living in the Red Cross Xfactory"—that is what it is—at Sangatte are mainly people who want to come here to claim political asylum. Whether they are justified in doing that is a different matter, but that is their aim and purpose.
The Chinese gangs who run people into this country to work illegally in the catering industry, the sex industry and so on have far more sophisticated means and they do not put people in Sangatte. Those referred to as illegal immigrants are essentially people who want to come to this country to claim asylum.
There are anomalies. Recent statistics that I have seen suggest that about a third of the people at Sangatte who are trying to cross the Channel are from Afghanistan—yet in the past year, according to an Answer in another place, 80 per cent of the people from Afghanistan whose asylum claims were dealt with in the past year were given either political asylum or exceptional leave to remain in this country. When they are in Sangatte we do everything we possibly can to keep them out. They are undesirable, illegal immigrants. But once they come here, 80 per cent of those from Afghanistan are told, XYes, you have a good case; you can stay". There is no logic or sense to this. Until we have a system that is sensible and logical we shall not solve the basic problem.
I quote the Home Secretary, Mr Blunkett, speaking in reply to a question from my honourable friend Norman Baker. He said:
- XRefugees often suffer from trauma, and they have often been tortured, and they have often fled from the most desperate circumstances".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/01; col. 639.]
We are told that people come here because they think Britain is a soft touch. They may think that, but the more asylum seekers and refugees I meet, the more I am appalled by how badly they are treated in this country. Yesterday I visited an excellent place in Dagenham called Harmony House which provides services for many asylum seekers and refugees. Many of them told me their stories, and if anyone believes that this country is a soft touch, they do not understand the meaning of the phrase.
So what should we do? It has been suggested that we should remove the Red Cross building at Sangatte. But will that solve the problem? That building was erected as a humanitarian measure, although it is not a pleasant place, because previously people were sleeping on the streets and in the parks. The problem is not the building at Sangatte; the problem is that the
port and the railway line are there. People will not stop going to that part of France if Sangatte is closed. I do not believe closing it is a sensible idea.Over the years Ministers have spoken of the need for a European strategy, but there is always an assumption that in this country we must prevent our judges being too soft and undermining our nice, hard-line Government who want to keep people out. If we want a European strategy we have to persuade other European countries to be more liberal on this issue rather than this country adopting more draconian measures. The train operators may be able to carry out technical measures that noble Lords have mentioned. But if they succeed in reducing the numbers coming into the country in rail freight wagons, people will simply go elsewhere.
Clearly, for the benefit of the railway industry and the freight industry the fines have to stop. Today the Government should stand up and say that they will withdraw the orders that impose the fines. Fundamentally, the underlying asylum problem has to be tackled. Sooner or later they have to come up with a system under which asylum applications for residence in this country can be dealt with before people arrive here.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked a Written Question on 23rd October 2001. He asked the Minister what consideration the Government were giving to suggestions that there should be a joint Franco-British assessment of applications for asylum at Sangatte. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, replied that they cannot consider the merits of an asylum claim until the application has been made and that the Government have no obligation to do anything until the asylum seekers are here.
It is time that we stopped thinking about what we must do about the matter. We should start applying some common sense. If there are 2,000 people at Sangatte who are desperate to get to this country and who are damn well going to get to this country by hook or crook, why not deal with their claims while they are at Sangatte? Therefore, they will know the answer. The motivation for them to come will be a great deal less if the answer is no.
9 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for bringing this important topic to the attention of the House today. Before I reply from these Benches, I declare an interest as a newly appointed member of the Commission for Integrated Transport.
We have already heard that the current problems have their origins in the Government's decision back in March to impose fines of #2,000 per clandestine. On an average night with some 50 illegal immigrants trying to come through the tunnel that policy nets the Government something like #100,000. From these Benches, we do not argue that operators and Eurotunnel do not have some responsibility, but we are very clear that there has to be a limit to the extent to which they can act as unpaid border guards. In
addition, since on our side of the tunnel they do not have a remit until Dollands Moor near Folkestone, they appear to have responsibility without having any power.The situation, as we have heard, has now worsened considerably with the virtual suspension of rail freight services through the tunnel except for a few trains five nights a week between the hours of 9 pm and 3 am. The planning for the tunnel is based on some 15 intermodal trains per night.
Looking around the House, it is interesting that this debate has clearly been seen as relating to transport. With all due respect to noble Lords present and to the right reverend Prelate, we are rather the usual suspects in debates on transport, and rail in particular. But this is a very much wider issue. As well as transport, there are some clear business and investment dimensions to it. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Bradshaw of some #500 million worth of investment which potentially can be jeopardised by what is happening now. Above everything else, there are aspects of asylum and immigration policy which once again must be brought into question by what we are seeing. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Greaves for focusing on that aspect.
It is fascinating that at a time when our attention, in particular with regard to Afghanistan, is turned towards reconstruction and humanitarian issues that we often hear anti-humanitarian sentiments expressed about people trying to get into our country. These people are now so desperate that they will endanger themselves in order to get here and they, we must be honest, exercise considerable ingenuity in trying. Perhaps the tales of the enormous risks that they take are not so surprising when one hears the stories of what they have left behind.
The argument about whether or not Britain is a soft touch is not one that I intend to go into today. However, what matters in this context is perception as much as the reality. I wish that some politicians and the more populist parts of the press would consider that when they use this type of rhetoric, they are creating a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Greaves that whatever we do in the way of fences or CO2 detectors and guards is only really a short-term solution. What we really need to be looking for are much more effective asylum and immigration procedures. They should be implemented on a European basis. I can certainly commend to your Lordships the work done by our own sub-committee chaired by my noble friend Lady Harris.
Businesses are also suffering. The private sector has invested in facilities and equipment for cross-Channel rail freight in terms of rolling stock, terminals, locomotives and cranes. Certain sectors of British industry have been very badly affected by this development. These are primarily producers of cars, car parts, steel and whisky. It is yet another blow for our hard-pressed manufacturing industry. Perhaps the Minister in his reply can tell the House how he expects
the private sector to have any confidence in a future for rail freight when it can all apparently be put at risk so easily and with so little evident response from national governments and from the European Commission.According to The Times of 23rd November, Loyala de Palacio, the EU Transport Commissioner, said that France could be ordered to compensate the British rail freight industry as this was a clear breach of free market legislation. Can he tell us what has happened on that front? Also what has happened about the report of a meeting on 3rd December referred to in Questions in your Lordships' House the other day?
Given the importance of the private sector in all aspects of the Government's future plans for transport, does the Minister not agree that that must raise real issues of confidence in the way that people invest in transport in the future?
To return to transport, the Government's 10-year plan proposes an increase of 80 per cent in the amount carried by rail freight by the year 2010. It exhorts the industry to do its bit. Actually the industry has done its bit and now it is time for the Government to do theirs.
The European Commission's recently published transport White Paper adds another impetus to the development of rail freight. It seeks to ensure an EU-wide methodology for equalising charges between rail and road and it seeks interoperability of rail systems across Europe. All that is costly, particularly to the UK. What guarantees do companies have that when they make that kind of investment that it will not be jeopardised?
As my noble friend Lord Bradshaw has outlined, the Channel Tunnel is currently under capacity. For the period June to September, before the current crisis really began to bite, Eurotunnel figures show a 6 per cent reduction in cars and coaches, a 3 per cent reduction in the number of passengers using Eurostar and a fall of 11 per cent in the tonnage carried by SNCF and EWS. That new development will add yet more misery to all those involved in operations and will call into question most of the assumptions made in the 10-year plan and in the SRA rail freight strategy.
As the right reverent Prelate said, the growth of rail freight has been a success story. It is such a pity to see all that cast into the wind because of lack of action on the part of the Government. The perception of a lack of robust action and commitment on the part of Government to rail freight will cause a huge lack of confidence in the industry generally. I hope that the Minister can understand from the sentiments expressed tonight just how serious this problem is.
9.8 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, while this is a rail debate, the causes of this particular problem are nothing to do with either the success or failure of the industry, but with immigration and asylum policies and the fact that there is a large number of economic migrants who wish to come to this country. Some are genuine refugees, but to be in that category one is allowed to stay when one has reached a safe country. One of the difficulties is that a number of such people have passed through
four, five or six safe countries before reaching the other side of the Channel. They perceive something which makes this country more attractive. Who knows whether they regard it as more attractive on an economic basis or whether they believe that they are less likely to be returned if they are found to be bogus asylum seekers? There are many reasons.We return to the problem. If the Government followed the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to deal with asylum applications in Europe, we would become the focus of every economic migrant in the whole of Europe because we know that they would be pushed in our direction. I do not believe that the Government would welcome that.
It takes me back, as I sure it does the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to the time when he and I debated the Bill which he introduced to fine lorry drivers and rail operators #2,000. Today has not been a very good day for the Government because the High Court has ruled that that is incompatible with the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government are appealing against that decision.
It is somewhat unfair because lorry drivers have been fined many times and it is not their fault. Someone has climbed into their lorry and they have had no idea of their presence. But in some cases the rail operators have been excused such fines. It appears to me that there is a dual policy which is unfair. It is an issue which the Government will have to look at carefully and make sure that the rules are the same for everybody.
As I have said, there are many reasons why asylum seekers, including economic migrants, want to come to this country. As we have seen, up to 50 migrants can board one train. It is a huge problem for our Immigration and Customs services. Customs and Excise has an even bigger problem because of the difference in the excise duties here and on the Continent. They spend a great deal of their time searching cars and vans for excess beer, wines and cigarettes. Many complaints have been made to Brussels that Customs and Excise seem to be excessive. One of the difficulties is that we do not have enough Immigration and Customs officers working in connection with the Channel Tunnel to deal with the problem.
The Government largely blame the French in a polite way for not policing the Calais terminal properly. The French Government say that we have created a society which is too attractive to would-be immigrants and the problem is largely of our own making.
But the fact is that this muddle between two governments is causing a serious problem to the rail freight industry. It is likely to lose up to #8 million per week. We have heard that possibly a large number of jobs will be at risk, perhaps up to 8,000. It is causing freight to be put onto the roads from the railways. We heard from the right reverend Prelate how successful the rail freight industry has been and how much it carries. We now run the risk of losing that trade
because it is a problem about which both governments appear to blame each other, but neither is prepared to do something about it.One must understand that the French railways operators are under pressure. Their staff are attacked by stowaways. It is a serious problem. The effect has been that instead of 20 freight trains travelling through the tunnel each night, the figure has been cut to between three and five. What are we going to do about it? It is noticeable that the number of freight trains leaving this country for the Continent has not been cut. It is not a freight problem, but a problem of policing Calais and how to deal with the situation.
I do not totally blame the Government for the problem. It is long standing. I believe that their asylum and immigration policies have not helped. I was disappointed when I saw the letter which the Prime Minister wrote to M Jospin in which he said,
- XI just wanted to drop you a quick line about illegal immigrants".
What can the Government do? They can perhaps do two things. First, they should press the European Union on why it failed to investigate the action taken by SNCF when it clearly appears to be the hindrance on the free movement of goods by a Community member. The EU has almost refused to become involved. Secondly, the Government should talk to the French because, as has been said, we cannot ask every train operator or its staff to be unpaid frontier control guards. That is what we are doing, in effect. We must make the French responsible, as the more people who manage to climb on a train or get through the Tunnel, the less the problem becomes on the other side.
The way in which to press those matters would be for the Government to ask the French Government whether they would be willing to compensate those UK operators who have lost revenue. I dare say that the French would give a rather Gallic response to that, but it would focus their minds on the serious problems in the industry.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting and important debate, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for introducing it with his characteristically powerful arguments, together with fairness in presentation. I assure him and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who stressed the issue, that the Government are actively seeking the restoration of normal levels of rail freight service through the tunnel as soon as possible, free of the disruption caused by illegal immigrants.
It is an area in which we see the crucial importance of close co-operation with our colleagues in France. The construction of the Channel Tunnel was a landmark in developing closer ties with France and Europe as a whole. It is important to remember that we have a good working relationship with the French. One or two aspersions have been cast this evening about the good faith of the French in dealing with this problem, but I rather preferred those contributions that recognised the complexity of the problem and the fact that we need a joint approach in tackling it. I do not accept that the response of Her Majesty's Government has been feeble, as the right reverend Prelate suggested. The Government have been active, but it is not an issue that can be resolved by the British Government alone, as I am sure the right reverend Prelate recognises. We have to bring pressures to bear on the key actors in the matter and I hope to show that we have been doing so.
One of the main problems on which we have to work closely with the French has been recognised in all parts of the House. It is illegal immigration and the need to prevent clandestines from gaining access to cross-Channel transport. The UK and French Governments have introduced measures to that end. I accept the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that we should recognise the desperate state and circumstances of some refugees and the need to protect our long and proud history of proper regard for refugees. But he, too, must surely recognise that there are people queuing close to our shores and gaining entry to this country who are not justified in seeking asylum. Their applications are subsequently rejected and we have the right to take measures so that we minimise the incidence of illegal immigration to this country.
Within that framework the issue of the civil penalty has played its part. It has certainly reduced significantly the previously alarming rate of persons travelling to the UK hidden in lorries—often the victims of traffickers, who should receive no quarter from anyone for the way in which they perpetrate their evil trade. The civil penalty has had an effect.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, suggested gently that this has not been a particularly good day for the Government. Governments are never comfortable in the High Court. The noble Viscount will know that the Home Secretary in the not too distant past successfully appealed against another judgment that went against the Government. We shall pursue our appeal against this latest judgment vigorously.
We anticipated that tightening up in one area could displace persons intent on travelling here to look for other routes by which to come. Consequently, we extended the provisions to rail freight in March this year, and more recently to Eurotunnel freight shuttle services through the Channel Tunnel.
In response to the extension of the penalty to rail freight, SNCF took measures to secure its trains properly and to check them before allowing them to enter the Channel Tunnel. In the first instance, those
measures were effective. They have significantly reduced the number of persons arriving here in rail freight wagons. They additionally provided the company with a defence against the imposition of such civil penalties.In September, the Home Office advised SNCF that further penalties would not be imposed if the security system that it had implemented continued to work effectively. We also advised that if the situation changed we would expect the company to take urgent action to address any shortcomings.
Of course, the situation has changed. Following Eurotunnel's measures to increase security at its terminal in Coquelles, pressure is now being put back on the rail freight operation. SNCF's security measures have not been adequate for handling those increased pressures. In one incident, 57 people managed to breach security at the Calais yard and travel here.
The civil penalty legislation requires only that reasonable measures against unauthorised entry should be taken. We are currently satisfied that, for those trains that are running, reasonable measures are being taken. Of course I deplore the fact that only one-third of the trains are running now compared with when the situation was more normal. We are disappointed that, despite pressure, SNCF has not yet put in place fences, detection systems and improved lighting—all measures that it undertook last April to install by the end of this year. The situation is being kept under regular review. In response to the strong point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, we emphasised at the meeting a couple of days ago the expectation that SNCF would address those security issues at the marshalling yard.
I accept the desirability of improving rail systems so that we can have throughput of the trains, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, and they do not have to stop at Calais. I also accept the undercurrent of the debate, expressed most graphically by the right reverend Prelate and by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, stressing the virtues of rail travel over lorry travel for long-distance freight across Europe on environmental grounds and as a more efficient form of transport.
The development of rail freight is an important part of the Government's strategy. There are still some technical difficulties over ensuring that wagons that are loaded in Britain can go straight through, but I assure the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that, as with all technical difficulties, they are there to be overcome. They are a limitation at the moment, but we shall continue to put pressure on our French colleagues, who are responsible for the rail system in France, to improve the technical qualities and get over those difficulties.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page