| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Channel Tunnel Freight Services
3.30 p.m.
Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What action they plan to take to ensure the immediate resumption of full cross-Channel freight services following the disruption caused by asylum seekers.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government continue to press at the highest level for urgent action by the French Government to tackle the disruption to Channel Tunnel services caused by would-be illegal immigrants. We welcome the announcement by SNCF that it plans to restore services from next week.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. I am grateful for the Minister's reply, but unfortunately the same reply was given by SNCF two months ago, one month ago and on 2nd April, not 1st April.
I am sure that the Minister appreciates that this has been going on for five months. Will he suggest to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that he invite the new president of France, when elected, to visit Calais as a priority to look at the holes in the fence and the lack of policing and to try to understand how things are there, rather than viewing them from the centre of Paris or even London?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is a courteous thought. However, I hope—without being able to guarantee it—that we will see effective action well before the May presidential elections are resolved. If the French Government do what they said that they would do at the end of March, in response to the requests of the European Union, we shall see a substantial improvement to physical security around Fréthun and to the level of staffing, including SNCF guards, gendarmerie and the national paratroop branch of the gendarmerie. That will approximately double the number of security force personnel policing the area.
We have argued for a long time that physical security measures had to be put in place and that they had to be supervised by appropriate security staff.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, it has recently been reported that unauthorised immigrants have jumped on to trains. Is the vigilance of the British police being increased, so that such refugees can be questioned before they disappear off into our countryside?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Kent police, who carry much of the burden, are particularly aware of their responsibilities. They responded vigorously on Monday, when, as the noble Lord will know, 60 illegal immigrants found their way into Dover. The police managed to arrest, I think, 40 of those 60 within hours. We commend them on their vigilance. Of course, it should not be necessary for the police to act in that way; such people should be stopped before they enter the Tunnel.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. It is not only the French Government who should be approached by the British Government; most people at Sangatte get there with the aid of agents in their own country. Those agents are known. Could the Government communicate with the countries of origin, in order to make sure that the penalties for being an agent and trading in people—that is what it is—are enough to prevent such activity?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion. I shall certainly discuss it with my colleagues in the Home Office and see whether we already have such action in place. I expect that we have. As noble Lords will know, the Home Office published a White Paper on significant measures to improve security and deter illegal immigrants. Nevertheless, I shall take the issue forward. It is big criminal business, and it would be helpful if we could nip it in the bud in countries of origin.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the serious effects that the breakdown of freight movement through the Channel Tunnel is having on freight businesses? They have built up business valiantly over a long time, and now, in many cases, they face bankruptcy, the loss of jobs and the collapse of business.
Is the situation not inflicting a severely damaging blow on the environmental transport policy to which the Government are, in theory, committed? What proposals do the Government have to pay compensation to firms that go out of business because of the failure to tackle the disruptive behaviour of the asylum seekers and the failure of the French Government to deal with it?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I support the sentiments behind the initial part of the question. The
Government are concerned about the effect on the rail freight industry and on British and European targets for a modal shift of traffic off roads and on to rail.We are aware that some firms are claiming serious difficulty. Our advice—if they need it, which they may not—is that they should initially pursue a civil remedy under the terms of their contracts. They should also pursue remedies, where appropriate, under the European Union's "strawberry" regulation on the free movement of goods. The British Government will give support, in the form of non-legal advice and information; we will not provide financial compensation.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to say whether he will encourage the European Commission to take action, as it did against the French on the issue of British beef imports? The situation represents a contravention of the Treaty of Rome in exactly the same way.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government have had discussions with the European Commission. The Commissioners for trade and for transport are seriously and actively involved in the issue. My noble friend Lord Berkeley has, through the Rail Freight Group, had vigorous discussions with the trade Commissioner recently. The Commissioner is most interested to hear and see evidence of the action that is being taken by the responsible authorities on the other side of the Channel. We will support those efforts to find a resolution, although we recognise that the French Government have recently shown a commendable increase in commitment.
Proceeds of Crime Bill
3.36 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rooker, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Proceeds of Crime Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 140, Schedule 2, Clauses 141 to 255, Schedule 3, Clauses 256 to 271, Schedule 4, Clauses 272 to 325, Schedule 5, Clauses 326 to 330, Schedule 6, Clauses 331 to 442, Schedule 7, Clauses 443 to 448, Schedule 8,
Clause 449, Schedule 9, Clauses 450 to 454.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)On Question, Motion agreed to.
National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
3.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 104A:
- After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 104A is designed to improve the independence of the Commission for Health Improvement.
Clause 14 contains some useful measures relating to the independence of CHI. They take away the Secretary of State's power to consent to the appointment of CHI's chief executive and to give directions in relation to the terms and conditions of CHI staff. Amendment No. 104A goes further in several important respects by further amending the Health Act 1999.
Subsection (1) of the new clause would delete subsections (3) and (4) of Section 20 of the 1999 Act and, thereby, remove the Secretary of State's power to give directions to CHI and the corresponding
That may all sound rather complicated, but the bottom line is that, with such amendments, CHI would become more independent of government. Earlier in Committee, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege spoke powerfully about the need to take politics out of the NHS. One place that should be totally devoid of politics is the NHS' independent inspectorate. An inspectorate cannot be independent if its governing body is appointed by the Secretary of State. It cannot be independent if the Secretary of State can tell it what to do and it cannot be independent if its funding is determined by the whim of the Secretary of State. This amendment seeks to give CHI proper independence so that it can be totally free of political interference.
The mere existence of powers such as powers of direction reduces the independence of a body such as CHI. The power of direction does not have to be used as such, but the ability to use a power secures the effect of subservience; that is the history of powers of direction for public bodies. The powers are rarely used but are often relied upon.
I believe, or at least I hope, that the Government are edging towards a properly independent CHI. For that reason I hope that they will embrace these extra and essential components of that independence. I beg to move.
"COMMISSION FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT: INDEPENDENCE
(1) In section 20 of the 1999 Act (function of the Commission for Health Improvement) subsections (3) and (4) are omitted.
(2) Schedule 2(1) to the 1999 Act is amended as follows—
(a) in paragraph 2 (general powers) the words "Subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State" are omitted,
(b) in paragraph 4(a) and (c) (membership) for "Secretary of State" there is substituted "NHS Appointments Commission",
(c) in paragraph 6(1) and (2) (remuneration and allowance) for the words "the Secretary of State" there is substituted "it",
(d) in paragraph 6, sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) are omitted,
(e) in paragraph 10(1) (payment and loans to Commission)—
(i) for "may" there is substituted "shall", and
(ii) for "he considers appropriate" there is substituted "are agreed with the Commission",
(f) in paragraph 10, sub-paragraphs (7), (8) and (9) are omitted."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page