| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister agree that unlike earlier preparations such as Hemophil, which were derived from human blood products, the recombinant preparation is not made from human blood but is based upon genetically-produced factor VIII? Hence, it cannot in any circumstances transmit viral infection to those who receive it. In view of the Government's commitment to reducing the lottery of postcode prescribing in the National Health Service, would it not be appropriate rapidly to make this preparation available to all patients with haemophilia in England, of whatever age?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I do not question the noble Lord's interpretation of the recombinant factors. Indeed, I agree with what he said in that respect.
Prescribing recombinant factor VIII or IX for everyone is under consideration at present. However, some may not wish to have treatment with the recombinant factor. Supplies are not adequate at present to prescribe the recombinant factor for everyone concerned. The Government seek to ensure that resources are made available. As matters develop, they will be able to make a decision on the issue.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the Minister gave a full answer to part of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, but he said nothing about those who have been infected with life-threatening illnesses. What are the Government doing for those who have been infected with hepatitis C or HIV/AIDS? Are they considering compensation for such people, or at least special provision for their current needs?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the policy on compensation has remained the same for many years. Compensation is paid only when National Health Service staff or those working in the NHS are at fault. Before 1985 it was not possible to make blood products free from hepatitis C in sufficient quantities to treat all haemophiliacs in Britain. There are no reported cases of classical or variant CJD transmitted by blood or blood products. All the evidence suggests that classical CJD is not spread by blood products. It is too soon to detect any potential transmission of variant CJD by that route, although the possibility cannot be ruled out entirely.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I should like to pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which I am not sure that the Minister covered fully. What are the Government doing to address the serious shortage of recombinant products that has arisen in recent days?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, there is a shortage and the Government are seeking additional suppliers. I hope that there will be developments in that respect.
Channel Tunnel: Illegal Immigrants
2.52 p.m.
Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Following the announcement of the suspension of most Channel Tunnel rail freight services due to the introduction of charges on operators of £2,000 per illegal immigrant from 1st March, what action they plan to take, in conjunction with the French authorities, to ensure that only those who are in a position to prevent illegal immigrants from boarding these trains are liable for these charges.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I am not aware of any suspension of Channel Tunnel rail freight services following the extension of the penalty provisions on 1st March this year. Liability for civil penalty arises when there is an involvement in a service or operation that has brought clandestine entrants to this country. We shall continue to work with the railway operators to improve security to prevent unauthorised persons travelling in rail freight wagons. There is close contact with the companies concerned at ministerial and official level and we shall continue to engage in constructive dialogue.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer and I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. He is correct in saying that there has been no suspension so far, but is he aware that the level of fines has reached £250,000 in three weeks? I am sure that he agrees that no company can stand such fines for ever. Is it not unfair to expect a British company to take action against the French state and the French railways when the British Government have failed to do so? Surely the key is for the two governments to reach agreement. The two railway companies would then comply in stopping the terrible trade in immigrants.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am aware that since 1st March, £252,000 of civil liabilities have been placed on the rail companies in 23 penalty notices. It is interesting that as a product of that 126 clandestine entrants were detected. However, I cannot agree with the noble Lord's assumption. The companies jointly share the benefits and have a joint arrangement, so they jointly have to share the liabilities. That being the case, it is entirely proper that the civil penalty regime operates as it does.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in every other case involving the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, the operator has the opportunity to take precautions overseas against illegal immigrants coming in on their services. That is the case for the airlines, the shipping companies and other freight companies. In this case, it appears that the operators have no means to stop illegal immigrants coming in on the service. They can make an inspection only when the service gets into this country. The incentive for
them to declare illegal immigrants when they come into this country is being lost. At the moment they are doing it out of a spirit of co-operation with the Government. The alternative for the companies is simply to let the illegal immigrants slip into the undergrowth. Surely something must be done. The Government must co-operate with the French somehow to allow inspections in France before the carrier becomes liable for the fine.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says, but EWS and SNCF are working in co-operation with each other. They have always had joint liability. In addition to their joint liability under the new penalty provisions, EWS and SNCF are also liable for and share the costs of the detention and removal of illegal immigrants whom they have carried. In some cases, those costs could exceed £3,000 each time. That legislation has been on the statute books since 1971. The then Conservative Government took the view that liability should be shared. I invite the noble Lord to agree that our policy is consistent with that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord invites me to agree, but, as I have just said, in every other case the operator has the opportunity of dealing with the situation overseas. In this case, the operator has no such opportunity.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, because EWS and SNCF work together, they have the opportunity to design such measures. The Government have been working closely with our French colleagues. I am advised that SNCF has agreed to ensure that it fully plays its part. If it does so, it will have a defence against liability. That is the key issue at stake.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I declare an interest. Does the Minister believe that there is any hope of the 80 per cent increase in rail freight set out in the 10-year transport plan being achieved unless there is a significant increase in freight traffic through the Channel Tunnel? Will he also confirm that under the minimum usage contract in the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, if freight trains cease to run through the tunnel Her Majesty's Government will become liable to pay Eurotunnel a large sum of money until 2006?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not the Minister for Transport, although I speak for Her Majesty's Government. I am not in a position to answer the noble Lord's second, more technical question. We take the view that the course that we have operated is right. Of course we wish to encourage more rail freight through the tunnel. That makes perfect good sense in terms of our national strategy. However, I do not believe that the civil penalty regime that we have in place should act as a serious deterrent. The rail freight companies have a responsibility for the safety and security of everything that they carry on their
wagons. That must include those who seek to travel on their wagons illegally. Proper enforcement of the law and the regulations is in everybody's interests.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, may I check that I have understood the Minister correctly? Will the new relationship between EWS and SNCF result in a prompt end to the current situation, in which an operator can commit an offence that it has no means of preventing? We want to get away from that situation as soon as we can.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we take the view that both companies have an equal and shared liability. We seek to enforce that against both operating companies. They both have a responsibility and a defence against liability, which is to ensure that they can demonstrate that they have undertaken the necessary precautions.
Instruments of Torture
3 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is their attitude to the manufacture of instruments of torture.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government deplore the manufacture of instruments of torture. On 28th July 1997 my right honourable friend Robin Cook announced a ban on the export and transhipment of equipment which might be used for torture. That included electric-shock batons, electric-shock shields, stun guns, Tasers, leg-irons, gang chains, shackles (excluding normal handcuffs) and electric-shock belts designed for the restraint of a human being.
With our EU partners we have agreed a list of non-military equipment that should be subject to export controls for human rights reasons. That list includes the equipment covered by my right honourable friend's July 1997 statement. The European Commission is now working on an instrument to introduce EU-wide controls on the export of such equipment.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page