(HANSARD) in the second session of the fifty-third parliament of the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland commencing on the thirteenth day of june in the fiftieth year of the reign of
HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
VOLUME DCXLIV FOURTH VOLUME OF SESSION 200203 House of Lords
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Is not the reality that the operators paid their fines because the Secretary of State impounded their vehicles and that if they had not paid the fines in order to get their vehicles back they would have gone bankrupt?
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, if the Minister looks in Hansard he will see that we objected to this piece of legislation during the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. I think the Roth judgment has proved that we were right. Does the Minister consider that many firms paid up because the law was stacked against them? More importantly, they did not feel they wanted to waste more resources and time fighting something they were unable to defend at that stage.
In the light of that, does the Minister consider it appropriate to allow them at least a court hearing and for the court to decide, on the basis of the Roth criteria, whether or not their money should be refunded?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, no, because essentially the scale of the clandestine immigration problem requires a tough response. I do not need to remind the House of how serious that response should be. We cannot see any benefit in letting off people found to be in breach of legal requirements on vehicle security who have paid the appropriate penalties.
We are not asking a lot of transport operators. We are simply asking that they comply with a code of conduct and check that their vehicles are secured. That would cost them very little in capital equipment and in time. There have been persistent high levels of evidence that transport operators have allowed their vehicles to come into the country without checks having been put in place. It is essential, therefore, that we provide an incentive for them to take their responsibilities more seriously.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend can clarify one or two matters. I understand that the Question concerns lorry drivers who were charged with bringing in people before the Roth case. Is it true
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I refer my noble friend to the Answer I gave to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. In essence, approximately £2 million was paid before the Roth judgment. Of that, about £350,000 was paid by UK transport operators and the remainder by foreign operators. I can only repeat what I have said already: we can see no justification for repaying the money. It is essential that a clear signal is given to transport operators to comply with their responsibilities to secure their vehicles and stop clandestine immigrants getting into this country.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, would it not be more effective if the Government deported illegal immigrants as soon as they were discovered instead of directing them to the nearest welfare agencies? Can the noble Lord say whether he thinks the Government's reputation for fairness and justice will have been enhanced by the Answer he gave today?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, no, I do not think it would be more effective to seek to deport people in the circumstances the noble Lord describes. All the evidence is, and common sense dictates, that it is far more effective to stop people getting here in the first place if they are essentially economic migrants using an asylum route. That is why we expect transport operators to co-operate with us in stopping illegal migration into the country. I am certain that on reflection the noble Lord will support an approach which says that it is much more sensible to stop them getting here in the first place rather than having to support them while they go through the procedures under the asylum Acts.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if one has an object that is laudable but where nonetheless the law should not have been enacted, how can penalising and then refusing to refund the penalty be justified? How can that be equitable in any sense?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, because the Court of Appeal did not feel that the Act was unlawful. It found that a flat fine at a high level was potentially disproportionate to the circumstances, which was why, under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, we brought in the provision making it possible to levy differential fines in those circumstances.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the Government Office for Londonone of nine regional government officesdelivers programmes for nine government departments and promotes London within government. It acts as a contact between government departments and the Mayor and the Greater London Authority. London Underground is directly sponsored by the Department for Transport.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, how very interesting. Does the noble Lord agree that the time has come for action on the London Underground, and that the parties concernedor an awful lot of themshould stop arguing with, and blaming, each other, and start worrying about the misery and torture endured by passengers under this system? I do not wish to leave out any member of the infamous team: the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Transport, the Mayor of London, Mr Kiley and his team, from whom we had hoped for so much, and London Transport. The problem has gone on for so long as to be absolutely disgraceful. One is tempted to think that the Government have grown so much as to become like a very fat man who is unable to see his own feet anymore and, therefore, has no idea where he is going.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is a little on the extravagant side. In spending £15 billion on transport in London, this Government are making up for years of neglect of the London Underground. With the plans for PPP almost in place, we are now at the beginning of the end in improving the London Underground.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, the travelling public in London are dismayed that, following the accident at Chancery Lane, the Central line is to remain closed for several more weeks for track inspections. Does the noble Lord agree that that suggests that, like Railtrack before, London Underground's knowledge of its own tracks is less than we should expect? Given that background, is he still confident that the financial arrangements for the PPP are valid?
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page