Border Control of People: ECC Report

HL Deb 05 April 1990 vol 517 cc1548-85

1.8 p.m.

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on 1992: Border Control of People (22nd Report, Session 1988–89, HL Paper 90).

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I think I should begin by saying a word or two about the background of the report which forms the subject matter of the Motion. The Single European Act introduced into the EEC Treaty a new Article 8A which required the Community to: adopt measures with the aim of progressively establishing the internal market over a period expiring on 31st December 1992".

The internal market is defined there as: an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, personal services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of this treaty".

Systematic border control in the three Benelux countries had already ended in 1960. In 1985 they became parties, with France and West Germany, to what has become known as the Schengen Agreement, which provided for a long-term objective of the abolition of controls at common borders, a process which started with permitting vehicles to cross at reduced speed but without stopping and subject to spot checks. The process was intended to be completed by 1st January of this year by a rather elaborate system of further agreements on matters such as extradiction, joint law enforcement and police co-operation. That has not in fact been achieved, largely, I believe, as a result of the opening of the border with East Germany.

The matter was carried one stage further in 1988 at a meeting of the European Council in Rhodes which set up a group of co-ordinators who reported in 1989 to the Council in Madrid. The report has been christened the Palma Document. It sets out a list of desirable measures to be adopted and defined for discussion. That report has since been adopted and endorsed by the Council.

The starting point of the inquiry on which Sub-committee E had been engaged and which led to the present report was a communication of the Commission to the Council in which it is stated: The Single European Act sets an objective which goes beyond the mere easing of frontier controls. The concept of an 'area without frontiers' necessarily implies that internal frontier controls must also be abolished".

However, it has to be borne in mind that on the adoption of the Single European Act, the final act of the conference of the representatives of the governments of the member states declared specifically in relation to Articles 13 to 19 of the Act: Nothing in these provisions shall affect the right of Member States to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of controlling immigration from third countries, and to combat terrorism, crime, the traffic in drugs and illegal trading in works of art and antiques".

Article 13 is the article which introduced the new Article 8A to which I have already referred. So the central problem is how to reconcile this general declaration with the stated object of the Commission in its communication.

Turning to the position of the United Kingdom, it may be said that we have lagged somewhat behind our European partners in the matter of easing frontier controls. But this country does enjoy the unique geographical distinction of having, with the exception of the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, no land frontiers with other member states. We have a particular security problem which militates very strongly against rendering our external frontiers more porous.

In the debate in the other place on the control of intra-Community frontiers which took place in May of last year, the then Home Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd, emphasised the Government's view that, frontier checks will continue to be useful, indeed an indispensable part of the protection afforded to our citizens against the evils of terrorism, drug trafficking and organised crime, and also against illegal immigration".

In 1983 the Select Committee, in reporting on an earlier proposal to ease border controls, concluded that it was unable to endorse the abolition of systematic border controls. It will be seen from the present report that that position has not changed.

So much for the general background. What has now happened is that we are presented with sweeping proposals— they are at the moment only proposals— governing the free movement of persons, the regulation of the movement of weapons and the total abolition of frontier controls as such as opposed to what may be called normal policing in frontier areas. These are conjoined with proposals for the dismantling of checks on grounds of animal and plant health which form the subject matter of a separate report on which the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, will shortly be addressing the House.

The text of the Commission's communication is in Appendix 4 which starts at page 40 of the committee's report. It proposes the total abolition of controls of people at intra-Community frontiers. That necessarily means abolition as regards all people, not merely Community citizens, because you cannot differentiate without imposing a control.

There are six corollaries. There has to be established a satisfactory control at all the external frontiers of the Community; co-ordination of visa policies with regard to persons entering from outside the Community; a significant strengthening both of cross-border police co-operation and of internal policing; a system in which confidence can be had for the prevention of international terrorism and drug trafficking; some co-ordination of control over the movement of weapons; and a reliable system of cross-border law enforcement and extradition. None of this necessary infrastructure is in place at present. The crucial question is whether these are objects which can be practically attained.

In commending the report of the committee on these proposals to the House, I should like to express gratitude to the Members of Sub-committee E and to the witnesses who gave evidence, both written and oral, on which the report is based. It will be seen that while the committee welcome the continuation of co-operative work between police and customs authorities, and attempts to harmonise criteria for the establishment of refugee status, it did not feel that the strengthening of the external boundary control, increased police co-operation and harmonisation of visa and drug enforcement policies, can offer, at any rate at the moment, an acceptable substitute for the present system of frontier controls on people entering the United Kingdom.

The report is a fairly lengthy one running to some 27 pages. It is not possible in the timescale of this debate to do much more than summarise its principal conclusions. When it came to be discussed in Sub-Committee E in its final form, I think there was a degree of unease that its conclusions were essentially negative and that it might be thought to display some psychological insularity. It is for that reason that I would like to draw the attention of the House to certain important aspects of the problem which I hope will explain how and why the committee came to express the conclusions that it did.

There are practical commercial advantages in the easing of controls in the form of the saving of time in crossing frontiers, the greater convenience of the travelling public and so forth. There are psychological advantages as well— the avoidance of the need to intrude into personal privacy and the increased sense of belonging to a single Community. But these have to be kept in proportion. In a recent article in the House Magazine, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, a Member of the European Parliament, was able to say that the average time required to check a Community passport was of the order of four seconds. As regards customs control of persons, the evidence was that some 95 per cent. of people walk or drive through the green channel without stopping.

The psychological advantages have to be weighed against the substantial practical advantages which border control confer on the states which impose them. To begin with, a system of efficient border checks tends to reduce the opportunity for international crime. The committee received some very valuable evidence from Professor Schermers, of Leiden University, from which it emerged that since the lessening of border controls under the Schengen Agreement, there has been a significant increase in international crime, an increase which he thought would get worse when border controls were lifted entirely. Particular aspects of this are drugs and weapons.

Evidence from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise indicated, first, that substantial seizures of drugs are made at points of entry and that, secondly, a very substantial part of the drugs imported from abroad arrive either from or through other member states. For instance, in 1987, 40 per cent. of the drugs seized by customs came from or via another Community country. It was and is the view of the customs that to rely simply on spot checks based on intelligence would mean the loss of a major deterrent to drug importation.

As regards weapons a draft directive of 1987 proposed the establishment of an elaborate system of registration which would make way for the free movement of weapons. That was heavily criticised and fresh proposals have now been made.

In principle, however, the free movement of weapons and any relaxation of the provisions of the Firearms Act 1988 for the sake of harmonisation of weapon control was strongly opposed by the Association of Chief Police Officers and by the Home Office. It is interesting that Professor Stein of Heidelberg University and of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law saw no alternative to systematic border controls unless and until it becomes possible to harmonise the weapons laws of the various member states and to impose a strict and uniform system of control on their acquisition and possession. The problem is not insignificant. Between March 1988 and March 1989, for example, 681 weapons were seized in frontier checks in this country.

Reference to control of weapons naturally prompts consideraton of another important aspect— the prevention and control of terrorist activity. The Commission's view is that international collaboration and intelligence can be an acceptable, and possibly even a more effective, substitute for border checks. That view is strongly dissented from by the Metropolitan Police Special Branch, which testified to many instances of terrorists or their associates being identified and arrested at ports. The tables on pages 174 and 175 of the evidence show the very sharp decline in the number of terrorist incidents in mainland United Kingdom since the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 first gave the police powers to carry out examinations at ports. It would be quite impossible to enforce the exclusion provisions of that Act without port controls.

A further important area of course is the control of immigration. Any relaxation of the internal controls necessarily postulates the establishment of an effective control at external borders and the adoption of some form of common visa policy. Apprehension was expressed by those concerned with the welfare of immigrants; first, that the dismantling of border controls might lead, of necessity, to the introduction of a system of compulsory identity cards and, secondly, that a common policy for the issue of visas would be likely to lead to the adoption of the standards of the least liberal member states of the Community. Similar fears were expressed by organisations concerned with the welfare of refugees. I am afraid that we have to recognise, whether or not justified, that there is a very real suspicion harboured by members of immigrant groups that increased internal controls may lead to police harassment.

The view was also expressed that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 put a substantial obstacle in the path of anyone seeking refugee status. That may be right, but it should be balanced against the statistics contained in the table on page 103 of the evidence which shows a sharp rise in the number of applications for refugee status in this country last year.

Finally, I should refer to the very formidable logistical difficulties involved in the reorganisation of, specifically, airports to cater for three streams of passenger traffic— domestic, intra-Community and extra-Community— and particularly baggage. The difficulties are particularly acute in relation to transit passengers— some of whom may be going on to destinations outside the Community— and to the segregation of passengers and baggage on international flights. The British Airports Authority is currently planning its investment strategy on the basis of there being no significant change in the method of processing passengers and their baggage; but if major restructuring is rendered necessary by the abolition of internal controls as regards Community passengers, they estimate capital costs running into many millions of pounds, all of which would ultimately have to be recovered, I suppose, by increased landing fees, which in turn would lead to increased fares. In addition, the process of restructuring would be a very lengthy one. The Association of European airlines estimated this to be a minimum period of five years.

In the end, the committee was compelled— I think that I can say it was reluctantly compelled— to the conclusion which is reflected in the report that checks for drugs and weapons would have to remain, and that systematic passport controls will continue to be necessary both to establish community citizenship and to prevent illegal immigation.

It is important to note that the Single European Act does not impose a legal obligation to abolish national frontier controls, though it is of course highly desirable that such controls should be carried out with the minimum of delay and intrusion. While therefore the Committee wishes to see every encouragement given to co-operation between member states as objectives desirable in themselves, it does not consider that the framework exists at present, or is likely to exist in the foreseeable future, for lifting restrictions entirely.

In his evidence to the committee Professor Stein observed: The decision completely to abolish all border controls"—

I have eliminated the split infinitive in that sentence— thus appears to be a political decision which one may welcome or not, but not a decision which is indicated by Community law as it stands".

If that is right, as I believe it is, I am sure I would be expressing the view of the whole committee if I say that it is a political decision that should be taken only if and when it is clear that the disadvantages of abolition referred to in the evidence before the committee can effectively be overcome. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on 1992: Border Control of People (22nd Report, Session 1988–89, HL Paper 90).— (Lord Oliver of Aylmerton.)

Lord Middleton

My Lords, I rise to speak to the Motion, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on 1992: Health Controls and the Internal Market (9th Report, Session 1988–89, HL Paper 47) and of the response from Her Majesty's Government (Cmnd. 815).

The concept of a Europe without internal frontiers is fundamental to the creation of the single market. The Commission is therefore seeking to do away with frontier controls. There are obvious difficulties. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, in presenting the report of Sub-Committee E on the Commission's proposals for relaxing border controls on people has reminded the House that where people and goods are able to move freely, so can undesirable people such as terrorists and undesirable goods such as drugs.

Sub-Committee D examined the Commission's proposals to relax the border controls on the passage of live animals and animal products and similar controls regarding the passage of plants and plant products. Where such goods can be moved freely, so can animal diseases and plant pests.

It is now nearly 11 months since my committee's report was completed. At this stage I should like to acknowledge our gratitude for the help given to the committee by our two specialist advisers, Dr. Andrews of the Royal Veterinary College and Dr. Maude of the Institute of Horticultural Research.

The Government responded to the report in October last, agreeing substantially with our conclusions and recommendations. Since that time new proposals affecting animals and animal products, as well as plants and plant products, have been put forward by the Commission and more are to come. Therefore, I propose to deal as briefly as possible with our 1989 report because the situation is changing all the time. It is on these newer developments and on what scope there may be for further improvements to the Commission's ideas about how to establish common animal and plant health standards throughout the Community that I shall listen with great interest when my noble friend replies for the Government.

First, however, I summarise the original proposals and my committee's reactions to them. The directive dealing with the veterinary checks proposed as a first step that existing checks on animals and animal products at the internal frontiers should be discontinued. Quarantine would be permitted but not as in the United Kingdom at the ports but only at the farm or place of destination. Thereafter, in order to prevent the introduction of disease, rules for veterinary checks will be established under Community legislation. A system of documentation would be established and the Commission would take on additional powers of control and inspection. There were similar proposals relating to plants and plant health.

Members of the committee were aware that the United Kingdom is free from serious animal diseases such as foot-and-mouth, swine fever, Newcastle disease of chickens and, above all, rabies. We are also aware of our own system of controls involving Customs and Excise, port health authorities and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food veterinarians and plant health inspectors which has been effective in protecting the high health status of the United Kingdom in respect of both animals and plants. The particular geographical characteristics inherent in our island status are a major factor in this respect.

The committee was wholly in sympathy with the chief veterinary officer of MAFF. He told us that the proposals as regards checks on animal products was, to use his word, "premature". He said that, the thrust should be to achieve harmonised, high health standards and then, having achieved that, you can consider the movement controls". He continued, All we are going to do by introducing these measures without introduction of harmonised standards is to produce more and more complications, more and more bureaucracy and introduce new systems when in fact the old systems have been perfectly effective in preventing importations when they should not occur". In regard to plants, we were told in evidence that the control of plant pests and diseases was more complex than the control of animal diseases. While the longer-term strategy for plant health outlined by the Commission commanded a degree of support in principle, it must be borne in mind that the process of establishing uniform Community standards over the control and prevention of plant diseases is at a far less developed stage than it is for animals and animal products.

In such circumstances the approach adopted by the Community for removing border controls before establishing common standards of control and testing throughout members states was, we were told, misguided. We agreed. Our report was sharply critical of the Commission, which we said was being irresponsible in appearing to sacrifice practical realities to the ideology of the single market. As I said, the concern expressed in the report was shared by the Government in their response.

Perhaps I may refer to the more recent proposals by the Commission. I shall deal first with animal health. The central proposal on veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to completion of the internal market has been amended and adopted in part as a directive. But it covers only animal products and it applies only until the end of 1992. Until then member states will be able to check meat and meat products for compliance with regulations on foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever, which are two particular concerns of the United Kingdom. Moreover, over this period the United Kingdom would be allowed to maintain checks on animals products at all ports and airports.

The Council of Ministers has now produced revised proposals on the more contentious issue of live animals. Although presented as transitional measures reviewable before the end of 1992, these proposals appear to represent a first step towards the establishment of uniform veterinary measures within the single market. However, I understand that the likely impact of these proposals is by no means clear and that the working group of the Council of Ministers has already narrowed the scope somewhat. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will be able to enlighten the House on that point.

In our report we emphasised that establishing common health standards and fair and effective methods of dealing with disease outbreaks remains the most urgent priority. We also considered that no arbitrary date could be set for allowing completely free movement of animals and animal products throughout the Community. Therefore, the following questions must be asked: first, whether the assumption by the Commission that by 1992 disease eradication programmes will be successful throughout the Community and common health standards established may not be very optimistic; secondly, what action member states would be able to take in the single market in order to protect their animal health status in the event of a serious outbreak elsewhere in the Community.

The Commission's proposal to prohibit vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease and to adopt a slaughter policy in line with that in the United Kingdom is a major step towards eradicating FMD throughout the Community. The Commission is to be congratulated. Intra-Community trade would, however, be allowed for vaccinated animals and birds, notably horses and poultry. Therefore, it may be asked how far the Government are pressing the Commission to undertake proper evaluations of the economics, the efficacy and indeed the safety of vaccination against serious diseases before coming forward with proposals for legislation.

There are other proposals now before the Council of Ministers concerning trade in horses, trade in rodents, trade in meat, meat products and poultry meat, trade in game (which could present considerable practical difficulties), trade in fish and milk, treatment of animal waste and other matters to which noble Lords may wish to refer. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has strong views about the proposed regulations affecting trade in game and deer but, unfortunately, he is not able to be here today.

The sheer weight of the task before the Council of Ministers in coming to decisions on all of these areas should not be underestimated. The issue which strikes me, therefore, is the glaring need to establish priorities for action in this field. It seems common sense to concentrate first on establishing uniform, Community-wide standards for those products or animals which are most extensively traded between member states.

However, in recent weeks Sub-Committee D has been confronted with numerous proposals. One dealt with a wide range of creatures, including buffaloes, monkeys, bees and parrots. If that proposal were adopted it could cause immense animal health problems. This at a time when common standards are still to be laid down for the trade in live sheep and when little progress has been made on the vital issue of deciding, and agreeing with our trading partners, what kind of uniform standards the Community should enforce at its own frontiers for livestock and genetic material.

Finally, in connection with animal health, all the proposals emanating from Brussels imply much greater demands being placed on vets. I know that the Government recently accepted proposals to expand the available university places for that profession. However, the worry is that in the short term there will be too few trained vets. Although we were given to understand that the supply of vets may be less of a problem in some other member states, it appears to be a serious potential obstacle to the establishment of harmonised conditions throughout the Community.

I turn now to plant health controls. The Commission has established a Plant Health Inspectorate and has put forward further proposals which provide a legislative framework for the implementation of the plant health strategy which we examined in our report. The proposal to establish health zones is in line with the recommendations in the report. The idea that once issued with a plant passport a plant should not be susceptible to further inspection has also been dropped. This is also in line with our recommendation, as are other proposals regarding plant passports.

So far, so good. It should, however, first be asked what progress has been made in establishing the Plant Health Inspectorate; secondly, what the timescale is for setting up harmonised standards and conditions and whether the Commission still thinks that this can be done by 1993. As recently as last week we were told that the Commission has now withdrawn its original proposal that border plant health checks should be phased out by 1992. Such checks will now continue until the measures proposed to implement plant health strategy have been agreed and implemented. This makes sense.

As I have indicated, there is movement on the part of the Commission in regard to the modification of its original proposals for animal and plant health and the relaxation of border controls. What part our 1989 report played in this continuing process I do not know— perhaps some, perhaps none. At any rate, there was a good deal of room for improvement. In my view that is still the case. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has to say.

1.40 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, first perhaps your Lordships will permit an apology, then a tribute, then an explanation. The apology is that unfortunately I shall have to leave shortly after the welcome stage has been reached of my sitting down, as a result of an urgent professional engagement. The tribute is to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, and the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, not only for their chairmanship of the two committees— I include in that tribute obviously the members of the committees— but also for the clarity with which both have addressed the House. The explanation is that I intend to deal only with the control of human beings. My noble friend Lord Gallacher will deal with other animate and inanimate objects which may be subject to control.

It is interesting that we are discussing proposals for the abolition of controls of persons at intra-Community borders. We have been clearly told by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, that his committee considered two bases upon which that abolition was recommended. The first was psychological. I merely choose the psychological heading to cover the unity of the EC family as the expression of that psychological objective. Then there was the practical objective— the ease of travel, the comfort for human beings, so often upset. A whole holiday may be ruined by delays at frontiers, whether travelling by air, sea or vehicle.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, mentioned, the same sub-committee of your Lordships' House considered back in 1983 and 1984 the question, not of abolition, but of easing controls. I had the privilege of being a member of that sub-committee and of sitting under the magnificent chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. His presence in the House is greatly missed.

We considered a great deal of evidence. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, mentioned, we studied the special geographical elements of the United Kingdom and why we were possibly an exception to what might otherwise be a general EC rule. Only because of its relevance to this afternoon's discussion do I venture to read, not the whole of our conclusions, I assure your Lordships, but a couple of paragraphs in the conclusions. I read from page xiii of the 4th report of the 1983–84 session. Paragraph 31 on the easing of frontier formalities states: In the case of the United Kingdom, these beneficial aspects of the proposals have to be weighed against the consequences of abandoning a system of immigration and security controls uniquely suited to an island nation. If, as the Committee believe, the consequence of abolishing systematic frontier controls would be a substantial increase in the number of undesirable persons entering the United Kingdom, a development which could only be avoided by the introduction of an unacceptable system of internal registration and police checks, the price to be paid for the benefits would be too high". That was exactly what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, and his committee concluded some six years later. I believe that it still holds true.

The sub-committee back in 1983–84 recommended— and we thought that we were doing something quite revolutionary— that there should be two channels: one for British subjects and one for EC members who travel through our airports and ports. Your Lordships will know that there is now one channel. At all events, it is an easing of travel for members of the EC. That was done only last year.

The consideration that we are giving is not something based upon careful planning and gradual methods over a period of approximately 10 years. We are asked to consider this as happening by the end of 1992. I was glad to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, say in the clearest possible terms that on the evidence that he and his committee had and the documents at which they looked, the best advice was that it was not a legal obligation to do so by 1992. I too have read the evidence and the expert view. I am delighted to be able, with respect, to support the view that there is no such obligation by 1992.

Obviously, in an ideal world, we should love to see frontiers disappear, except for the pleasure to be derived from looking at a map if the country happens to have substantial frontiers or possibly with commiseration if one's country has less substantial frontiers. I am reminded of what Mr. Ernest Bevin, as Foreign Secretary, gave as the aim of his foreign policy. It was to be able to take a ticket at Victoria Station and "go anywhere I damn well please". That put in most succinct language the whole philosophy as well as the political idealism. We should all love that. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, employed statistics I had proudly culled from the 1983–1984 report. I do not intend to repeat those statistics. I merely illustrate the point about the dangers that would exist, certainly with abolition and even— as we decided back in 1983–1984— with the easing of frontier controls in the manner suggested. I have 1987 figures; the Minister may have later ones. If he has, I shall naturally listen to them or rather read them in Hansard with interest in view of the apology that I have already made.

In 1987 our Customs seized some 90 per cent. or more by weight of the heroin, cocaine and cannabis that was seized in the whole of the United Kingdom. That occurred at the frontier. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, said, there is, unfortunately, a significant trade in drugs within the Community itself. That obviously has a relevance to frontier control. I believe the noble and learned Lord mentioned the figure of 40 per cent. in this connection. I am proud to say that I have a little more detail in regard to that 40 per cent. figure. I know that half of the weight of cannabis and one-third of cocaine that was seized by our Customs in 1988 came from or through EC countries. That is a formidable statistic. As the sub-committee so wisely suggested, more police co-operation would be welcome, as would more intelligence co-operation throughout the EC. The sub-committee also suggested that harmonisation of procedures would be welcome, in so far as that is possible.

However, I now come to the question of immigration, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, also touched upon. If there were an abolition of control in that regard as regards EC nationals, it would lead, without any doubt at all, to the abolition of the control at the frontier and to an increase in the control within our country itself. That would lead to police control, and, I suggest, almost without doubt, to the introduction of identity cards. I fear for the political party that endeavours to pass legislation making it imperative that our citizens carry identity cards and giving the right to stop people and request production of the card.

As regards non-EC citizens, the idea was that some kind of a girdle should be placed around the EC and that people wanting to enter EC territory would have to obtain permission at the frontier of one of the countries concerned. The choice of country might be one of necessity. But the country might have difficult regulations. Entry to another country, on the other hand, might be terrifically easy. I know of no appellate procedure that has been suggested; therefore the extraordinary situation would occur where a non-EC citizen would be debarred from entering any EC country if he failed to pass through the frontier of just one of the EC countries involved. He would not have a chance of applying at a frontier which was beyond the original frontier at which he had applied. Unless we have complete harmonisation and a great lessening of the evils with which we are faced, I am afraid that the question of abolition of frontier controls is, from our point of view, not on the cards.

I shall complete my remarks by referring to something that we on these Benches— although I believe that I speak for the whole House on this matter— regard as rather more important than the comfort of travellers, however important that is, and the psychological advantages of belonging to an EC family. We may possibly regard ourselves at this moment as being fortunate to belong to countries within the EC. However, the people I am thinking of are those who do not have that benefit and who crave asylum within one of the countries of the EC because of the persecution they are suffering in their countries of origin. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, referred to that point. One prays for a council within the EC to make life easier for those seeking asylum. We ask for a proper appellate procedure for those who are refused asylum by officials. I say that in no pejorative sense but merely in terms of a matter of justice. One should be able to appeal against the decision of an official who is possibly denying a person or a whole family the chance of a decent life, even if it is not a question of sheer survival.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, referred to an Act. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I, and other Members of this House discussed that Act some little time ago. We talked then from these Benches in terms of disappointment, if that is not an understatement, that we in this country were passing legislation which would fine airlines and make them take passengers back if those passengers did not possess the correct papers and were asking for asylum. We said from these Benches that that situation meant that carriers were adjudicating on the matter of whether a person was a genuine refugee.

I personally cannot put it better than a fine High Court judge of this country who was dealing with the decision of the Home Secretary in regard to six applications for asylum and certain directions for the removal of the people concerned. Having considered the regulations and the Act I have just referred to, the High Court judge said: He who wishes to obtain asylum in this country, short of a prior contract with the Home Secretary offering him asylum, has the option of lying to the UK authorities in their country in order to obtain a tourist or some other sort of visa; obtaining a credible forgery of a visa; or obtaining an airline ticket to a third country with a stopover in the United Kingdom". Neither the conscience of this country nor of a united Europe will rest when we treat asylum seekers in this way. I can only hope from these Benches that that Act will be repealed. I can only hope that a Europe of which we are happy to be members, an EC which we are proud to regard as a family, will be a family which exercises human rights for those who want, deservedly, to enter in order that they may receive relief from persecution and the possibility of a decent and safe life.

2 p.m.

Baroness Robson of Kiddington

My Lords, as a member of Sub-Committee E, which produced the report on 1992: Border Control of People, I should like first of all to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, for his able chairmanship of our committee and in particular for introducing our report so clearly and comprehensively. I should like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for his able introduction of his report, which was published some months ago. In particular I am grateful to him for bringing us up to date with what has been happening in Europe since the publication of the report. It is perfectly natural that we should discuss the two reports together as they both deal with border controls within the EC. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the conclusions of the two reports are very similar.

The noble Lord, Lord Oliver, said that he felt a certain amount of unease about his report being negative. When I heard that we were to investigate the subject of the easing of border controls I entered the first committee meeting thinking that we were to abolish border controls in Europe. However, those of us who would like the United Kingdom to be more positive about European integration are still fully conscious that we have to be very careful not to fall into the trap of blindly supporting any proposals coming from Brussels that seem to assist that end regardless of what other consequences they may have. It is in that light that I should like to discuss our report.

The noble Lord, Lord Oliver, has already referred to Article 8a of the EC treaty. In that article the internal market is defined as, an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured". That is now on our statute book. Therefore the discussion must focus on the interpretation of free movement of goods and people. Although the Commission takes the view that the "free movement of goods" means that there should be no border controls it has also been interpreted as meaning simply that there should be no substantive legal impediments to such movements. Since both interpretations are held by eminent people in the field the obligation to accept the removal of all border controls is not contained in our statute book as it stands. We must therefore decide whether we agree with the European Commission in believing such a move to be beneficial.

Both noble Lords, as chairmen of committees, have referred to what seemed to be the essential two reasons put forward by the Commission for the removal of border controls. The first is that citizens of Europe will feel more European if they do not have to show a passport when travelling from one country to another. The second is that it is needed for the creation of a single market because goods could travel more easily and much faster around Europe if there were no controls to delay their passage.

The first point seems to me to be rather spurious. I believe that there are many reasons why some people do not feel real citizens of Europe. I believe that the carrying of a passport through a border control is one of the minor ones.

The second argument is much more substantial. It is true that the long queues to pass through borders add to costs by slowing the movement of goods. Although totally removing border controls is one way of solving the problem, there are others. We could, for instance, as a palliative, increase the number of staff at border posts and substantially reduce or in some cases eliminate waiting time. We could harmonise laws in different member countries so that there are fewer items to be checked at a frontier. That would be one way of dealing with the problem that faces us.

There is a distinction between the direct benefits of removing border controls and the desirable measures that removing border controls would force us to take. We can choose to implement and reap all the benefits from the second category without removing border controls. We can choose, for example, to have much greater co-operation between our police forces in combating drugs, organised crime and terrorism. We can choose to establish pan-European organisations to monitor, control and eradicate animal and plant disease. We can choose to act together on foreign policy issues. In fact, we can choose: to co-ordinate and unify our actions on all manner of issues. All of that can be done without dogmatically insisting that we remove all border controls.

After reading the two reports that we are discussing today it is hard not to believe that the real reason the Commission is pushing so hard for the removal of border controls is that it knows that such a move will necessitate massive co-operation in the wide spectrum of issues which I have just mentioned. The rushed implementation of such co-ordination will be necessary simply in order to minimise the chaos that removal of borders would no doubt cause if implemented before such co-operation was properly up and running.

The proposed date of 31st December 1992 is an incredibly unrealistic timescale. I imagine that the Commission has introduced it because it feels that unless there is a timescale the goals of co-operation will not be achieved. It believes that it needs the impetus to get itself on the way to being able to remove the border controls, but we must be careful that we do not rush into implementation before the problems have been adequately considered.

All noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, have referred to the problems of immigrants from third countries, visitors and the movement of EC citizens around the Community. The Commission essentially believes that the simultaneous strengthening of borders with third countries will compensate for the effects of removing internal borders.

First, with regard to non-EC citizens— that is where the greatest problem appears— if there are no border controls within Europe at which visas would normally be checked, we shall have to have European visas rather than visas for specific countries. As has been said, the refugee organisations are more than worried that as a result the only people who will be allowed to come into Europe will be those who are acceptable to all member countries, so Europe might become a fortress which would exclude many people who would otherwise come to some parts of Europe.

Secondly, the different geographical conditions of countries have led to the development of different methods of controlling and detecting criminals, illegal immigrants and illegal substances. Those countries with long land borders such as Germany find that they cannot effectively control the borders as we do in this country. That is undoubtedly the reason why countries with long land borders have had to adopt an identity card system. I do not have to tell noble Lords that such a solution would not be very acceptable in this country. The British aversion to identity cards is well known. We need only look at what happened with the football spectators' identity card. However, if we abolish border controls, it might force us to introduce identity cards because that would be the only way in which control of undesirable individuals could be checked within the country.

The second report, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, deals with health controls within the internal market— the implications of the movement of plants and animals. Again, the solution to those problems and the rules and regulations that countries within Europe have adopted have grown up largely because of their geographical situation in Europe. For instance, it is no coincidence that Ireland, Denmark and the UK have the highest health status within the Community. They have the shortest land borders.

Some countries tackle disease through eradication, the higher cost of that being justified because it can be maintained. That is true of this country, Ireland and Denmark. Other countries with long land borders have to accept the recurrent costs of vaccination and crop spraying because it would not be practical to keep out the disease once eradicated. Different countries have developed different policies which are the most cost-effective and least costly given their own conditions. Taking away border controls will therefore significantly increase both health risks and costs. That could well jeopardise our trade with third countries, which would need guarantees that standards would not fall. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, that certain steps are being taken to move Europe towards a much more efficient system of eradication.

Those are just some examples of the problems involved. The Commission has said that present frontier controls are ineffective— no doubt some are— but it has also said that it is looking for the most effective and, in these days of shortages of manpower resources, above all more cost-effective controls. The abolition of internal frontiers will allow us to use our manpower and resources on the external frontiers of the European Community. So far as this country is concerned, I believe that the abolition of internal frontiers could increase to an unacceptable extent the cost of protecting our country.

The fact that different European countries have different policies with regard to border control must not prevent us from jointly pursuing the other and much more important objectives which I have already mentioned and which make up the bulk of these reports; namely, the greater co-operation of police forces and the co-ordination of external controls and foreign policy.

We must ask ourselves whether the benefits of removing border controls, feeling more European and having speedier transportation of goods are greater than the costs. The reports show that there are valid reasons why we should not support the indiscriminate removal of border controls. That does not imply that we are any less positive about the European ideal. Perfectly consistently we can still believe that we should move toward greater co-operation and co-ordination.

I hope that one day our policy of co-operation will have progressed so far as to have reduced the costs to the point where they will be outweighed by the benefits of a border-free Europe, at which time I should heartily welcome such a move. I believe that the present proposal to remove border controls by 1992 runs the risk of doing more harm than good to the ideal of a unified Europe.

2.16 p.m.

Lord Grantchester

My Lords, as another member of Sub-Committee E which produced this report, I wish to make a few very short general observations on the background against which it should be read. Like most matters which are considered by the sub-committees of the Select Committee, we looked at proposals which were under consideration by other bodies within the Community as well as the United Kingdom and which are likely to be altered before being finalised. In its report, the sub-committee looked at the underlying principle being put forward and then considered the various specific areas which might cause disadvantage and difficulties in its implementation.

Looking at the underlying principle from the point of view of the Economic Community as a free trade area, the abolition of border controls within the Community has much to commend it. It is therefore within the ideals of the free trade area. There will be major savings in the cost of transportation of goods, and the savings in costs will benefit the consumer by enabling manufacturers and producers throughout the Community to compete on a better and more equal basis.

Apart from the economic factor, there is another that may not be generally appreciated throughout the United Kingdom. All institutions must develop and change. The European Community is no exception to that rule. There is pressure now present in the Community to develop in a political as well as an economic area. Any proposal which not only has economic benefits but also is a step toward a wider political Community will have great impetus. For instance, there are two proposals now current to which this consideration especially applies: the abolition of border controls throughout the Community, and the granting of rights to vote in local elections on the basis of residence throughout the Community.

Other matters which tread on a political as well as perhaps an economic area are the establishment of a central bank under Community control through the Commission, and the talks which are taking place on the harmonisation of taxes and the reconstitution of the European Parliament. If we stay in Europe we cannot avoid being subject to the pressures to concur in the development of the Community along those lines. But in relation to border controls at which we are looking today, our geographical position is such that we are reluctant to make changes. This reluctance to make changes results in the report dealing extensively with the difficulties and other disadvantages that too hasty a move towards the abolition of frontier controls might produce.

I mention the three that stand out: the importation and exportation of firearms; the importation and exportation of drugs; and the admission of undesirable persons, terrorists and the like. Since the report was printed, I understand that proposals for the control of firearms throughout the Community on a Community basis have been made by the Commission involving the issue of Community firearms licences throughout the area. Such proposals are obviously the right way to tackle the problem and if proposals are (a) satisfactory, and (b) effectively controlled. I would submit that this disadvantage is thereby overcome. However, we are proceeding on the basis that this disadvantage is tackled on a Community level and effectively controlled before we abolish the border controls. Such an approach is the one that I believe the Community should be urged to follow under the other two areas that I mentioned: drugs and immigration.

Drugs are a difficult problem because the rules about illegality of drugs differ throughout the Community as does the enforcement. Whereas in the United Kingdom Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have very wide powers of search and arrest— not only at border points but also within the four countries— which we would wish to retain, in the European context we should like to see a unified form of control of drugs and an effective method of control by the countries involved.

Immigration is an even more difficult subject than drugs. These requirements are suggested by the Community to control immigration. However, policies throughout the European countries now differ widely. On this area, before we can proceed to the abolition of border control, we want a unified understood policy throughout the Community on immigration and the imposition at Community entrance points of some outer ring form of control before we dismantle ours. That is another matter which the countries themselves have to tackle. It is not a matter that the Commission can tackle because they have no executives, no administration, and they rely on the countries themselves to enforce the Community policy.

Therefore on these two subjects— drugs and immigration— from the point of view of abolition of border controls, the member countries should appoint ad hoc committees to consider such points. They should put forward to the Commission and to the countries a unified policy which would enable us to move towards the principle that we could then implement of abolition of border controls. I hope that eventually we can move towards the benefit of the abolition of border controls. However, the message should go back to the Commission that before we can do so steps must be taken by the countries in these difficult fields.

2.25 p.m.

Lord Walston

My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, and his committee for the report and for the exemplary way in which he presented it to us today. It would be arrogant of me to offer any criticisms or comments. However, I certainly do not accuse him, as have some people, of psychological insularity. Perhaps he could be accused, as undeniably could I, of physical insularity, but that is a different and realistic attitude.

He has outlined the difficulties which lie ahead as we approach 1992 and as we move beyond that to an even better and more closely integrated Europe. I shall not delay your Lordships by commenting further on the matter about which I am completely unqualified.

I shall now turn to the report and speech of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. Again— and to my disappointment because it is dull to have no criticisms— I am in complete agreement with his committee's report and the manner in which it is expressed. It covers a wide range of aspects, but I shall deal primarily with those involving animal health. However, first I remind noble Lords that this country is a substantial exporter and importer of different plants and the maintenance of their health is of great importance. It is vital that we should continue to import from countries such as Denmark, Germany and France the valuable new varieties and seeds which they produce and export to those and other countries, plants for which we are becoming increasingly and rightly famous. Therefore, the comments on the phytosanitary aspects of the proposals of the Commission are pertinent and wise.

On animal health certain aspects of the report are worth underlining even at the risk of repeating what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. However, I first wish to remind noble Lords that we are not alone in taking such an attitude. We have the benefit— which historically was enormous and remains a benefit in certain aspects, although in others it may well be a handicap— of being an island with no land frontiers. That is so with the exception of Northern Ireland. If we include ourselves with Ireland itself, we have complete protection by the sea from invasion— if one can use that word— by diseases carried by animals. We very nearly share that unique privilege with Denmark. That is not quite an island but very nearly so. It is worth remembering that Denmark's only boundary with continental Europe is something like 60 kilometres along the borders of Schleswig-Holstein. In order to preserve its integrity, it has erected a 2 metres high wire-mesh fence running along the whole of that area in order to make sure that it can maintain its high standards of animal health which is so vital to its agriculture in which it has for decades— and one can almost say generations— been a world leader.

Denmark is as dependent in its way as we are on the export of animals both live and dead to third world countries. Any risk to the health of their livestock and particularly pigs would have a very profound effect on its economy, and particularly exports to Japan which are rising all the time. Therefore, we should not look on that matter as one which affects only the United Kingdom. It affects all those countries which are susceptible to the protection which the sea has afforded to them.

There is a further aspect here which is becoming increasingly important for us to bear in mind. The Commission hopes, as we do, that it will be possible to establish throughout the whole of the Community equivalent high standards of animal health so that there will be no need for any impediment to the free movement of animals and also plants. That is the ambition.

The Commission proposes, as do the member states through their governments, various methods in order to raise standards of health. However, we cannot escape the purely geographical fact that many countries— and in particular Germany— have very long frontiers with Eastern Europe. Whatever success Germany may have in the next few years in improving its standards of animal health— and it has enormous expertise and very well developed agriculture in all aspects so that it has a good chance of succeeding in that— it will never be able to patrol, by a form of Berlin wall, against animal disease and prevent the influx of wild animals, which in many cases are carriers of disease, and to a certain extent smuggled animals. That will undo much of the good work which otherwise has been done.

For that reason, while we applaud and support the efforts of different countries to improve their own health standards, we must not forget that they do not have the advantages which we have and have always had and which have enabled us to become, as we once proudly boasted, the studfarm of the world, exporting pedigree livestock throughout the world.

That enviable position has for various other reasons been eroded but we must not allow what remains of it to be jeopardised by relaxing in any way the present disease controls.

I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one or two items from the report of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and his committee. In paragraph 96 the report speaks of a transitional period, which is a very important aspect of this subject. I draw your Lordships' attention to the following comments, The Committee are utterly opposed to the poposal that in the 'transitional' period up to 1992 health checks on imported goods should be carried out at the place of destination of the goods and not at the frontier. A system of checking imports at destination would provide neither the same degree of protection nor the cost-effectiveness of frontier checks. Moving to the next paragraph on quarantine, which is even more important, the report states: Quarantine is an essential defence for countries free from certain specially virulent diseases like foot-and-mouth and rabies. The Committee do not support the Commission's proposal that in the short term quarantine should take place at the holding destination. This increases the risk of spreading disease in transit through the importing country and would be prohibitively expensive. Quarantine facilities, if they are to be effective, must conform to the highest standards. It is quite unrealistic to suppose that such standards could be maintained at hundreds of separate potential destinations inland. Those are strong words, but the situation warrants strong words and it is important that we should always bear those words in mind.

I now turn to the question of vaccination, particularly vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease. Paragraph 100 states: Vaccination may mean that livestock are free of clinical disease but may also mean that they are a source of disease agents which are difficult to detect". That is vitally important. The paragraph continues: The United States and certain other countries therefore regard vaccination virtually as the same as infection. If no controls were to be applied to the trade in vaccinated stock, countries which do not vaccinate run the dual risk of infection of their fully susceptible animal population and of losing export markets in third countries". The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said that the latest proposals from Brussels indicate that they are proposing to discontinue vaccination. That is an admirable suggestion and I hope that we shall give them all the support that we can. However, we must be realistic and remember that it will take a long time before that can be achieved. Timescale is of vital importance in that matter. Again, the report quite rightly underlines that point in paragraph 118 where it states, It will be apparent that the Committee do not believe that all import controls can be abolished by 1992. This timescale is unrealistic. In the veterinary and plant health fields 1992 is more valuable as a slogan driving on the programme of harmonisation than as an achievable objective and the Committee think it now important to recognise this fact". To sum up what the report has made abundantly clear, the proposals which are the subject of the report are to my mind ill-thought out, inefficient and will be ineffective. I am glad that the Committee came down so strongly against them in such a constructive way.

2.39 p.m.

Lord Swansea

My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, for introducing this debate and also to my noble friend Lord Middleton for his contribution in a slightly different field.

I shall confine myself to one aspect of the report: that concerning weapons, and firearms in particular, together with shotguns. I declare my interest in that I am the current chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council, which acts as a watchdog body over all aspects of legislation concerning shotguns and firearms.

The intention of this directive is to control the importation from one country to another of firearms by criminals or terrorists. Such people, however, are the least likely to be affected by the laws of any country. They tend by their very nature to ignore laws. These directives, as with our own domestic legislation, will serve only to bear more harshly on the legitimate user, be he or she a sportsman or a target shooter.

The text of the directive is described in its own introduction as "complex and detailed". That is an understatement. It has suffered in translation from the original language: I am not sure whether that was French or German. Our own domestic legislation is more or less precisely drafted but, even so, it is still open to interpretation by the courts. The imagination boggles at what a United Kingdom court might make of having to interpret some of the provisions in this directive, which does not use one word where two will do.

Our own country now has the most restrictive legislation of any within the Community, and I believe that other countries are amazed at some of the restrictions to which our citizens are subject. The interchange of visits from one country to another, whether for sporting purposes or for target shooting, is all two-way traffic and it is one which is greatly cherished by the participants. The visits by overseas sportsmen to this country for game shooting are an important source of overseas revenue, and there are facilities here for shooting game of one sort or another which do not exist on the Continent and vice versa. Also for competitive shooting we regularly interchange visits. Teams from the United Kingdom go to countries overseas and we receive return visits. I hope that that situation may continue for a long time to come.

The directive makes no distinction, as our parliamentary legislation does, between different types of weapons: for example, shotguns, rifles, pistols, air weapons and so on. It merely divides them into three broad categories: prohibited weapons, weapons requiring authorisation and weapons requiring only declaration. Therefore there is a wide discrepancy between our legislation and that proposed for the European Community.

Article 5 of the directive proposes a minimum age limit of 18. This is completely out of step with our existing laws and I hope that the Government will no: accept that provision at least.

The directive also provides for a European firearms certificate or firearms passport— call it what you will. That will ease the movement of weapons for lawful purposes from one country to another, but nothing is said about the period of validity involved. I should like to think that it would be five or six years. I have said on more than one occasion that the period of validity of our own firearms and shotgun certificates should be more than three years. I say the same about the European firearms certificate. What is not made clear from anything I read is whether a certificate will cover more than one weapon. Will it be necessary to have a certificate for each weapon or can more than one weapon be included on the same certificate?

There is also a conflict between the directive and United Kingdom law concerning visitors' permits. I hope that that matter will receive some attention from Her Majesty's Government. It is too much to hope that this directive will result in any relaxation of our domestic laws, and I hope that the Government will think very carefully before they agree to accept some of these provisions.

2.46 p.m.

The Earl of Radnor

My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, for presenting his report so lucidly and also to my noble friend Lord Middleton for producing the report of Sub-Committee D. As regards the first report, the noble and learned Lord expressed a fear that some of his committee members felt that it was a little on the negative side. Having heard the speeches that followed, I was very pleased that it was and that it did not go along with some of the European suggestions.

As far as the admirable report prepared by my noble friend, it must have become evident to everyone that, first, the report is a little stale and, secondly, it now represents something of a moving target. There seem to be more directives coming through at the moment and more precise standards are being produced. I suppose that these factors are moves towards ultimate harmonisation.

As the last speaker before the gap, the only course open to me is to speak fairly broadly and to try not to repeat too much of what was said before. Having said that, I must begin by reinforcing something which has been said more than once. I refer to the unique position of the British Isles as far as plant and animal diseases are concerned. Apart from the internal border with Southern Ireland, the sea has provided us with a tremendous physical barrier which has made it very easy to check undesirable things coming in. Certain ports are allocated for quarantine and others are just for checking. There are not too many points of entry, which is a factor to be borne in mind.

There is a subsidiary point in that respect. As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, to check items when they arrive at their destination would be almost impossible. It came out very clearly in our inquiry that it would be literally impossible. It would demand the presence of so many environmental health officers, people from MAFF, veterinarians and so forth that we might just as well forget about it.

The other matter which I must touch on is that of change and harmonisation. When animals or plants start off on their journey towards their ultimate destination— presumably they have been purchased— they are meant eventually, because of harmonisation, to be acceptable. It appears to me— no one has yet mentioned it— that this is an open door to fraud. On the whole, it is the farmers who send produce from one place to another and from one country to another. They send animals from one place to another. Your Lordships well know that farmers are never dishonest, but they are quite capable of taking advantage of a market situation. I believe that there is a subsidiary problem brewing up.

The real and central problem, however, is timing and it is on that aspect that I intend to base my short speech. It would appear that the powers in Brussels have in fact read the report of Sub-Committee D, or so I like to think, because they have in certain respects bent towards our suggestions. Your Lordships will well remember that the final conclusion was that the Commission should think again. So perhaps it has.

Certainly in regard to foot-and-mouth disease the Commission has decided— it must have been a very harsh decision for it to make— that it will adopt a slaughter policy rather than a vaccination policy, which was a major block towards proper harmonisation. I believe that on the Continent it is a major blow to the pharmaceutical industry, which produces a considerable number of gallons of vaccine because vaccination has to be carried out every three months or so.

The Commission has bent a little on timing. If my memory is correct, 1992 has been stretched to 1993 to accomplish an amazing number of objectives. It is impossible to contemplate, as we said in our conclusion, that there can be any inspectorate in place that makes sense or any proper standard accomplished which might be agreed upon on paper. I think we said that progress in the foreseeable future is unlikely. I suggest that it is so unlikely, disease being no respecter of boundaries or harmonisation, that a completely different approach should be adopted.

I listened carefully to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that although boundaries between countries are to be abolished there is still some scope on interpretation. That should be used as much as possible.

I suggest that harmonisation of standards should go forward but that the border controls for each country should remain as they are. There is nothing new about that. If any noble Lords have passed from Victoria to South Australia, as I have, and had their fruit confiscated they will know that there are boundaries between the states, as there are throughout the world. It is nothing to do with a united Europe or anything of that nature. Therefore, interpretation will be important.

I would put in place a cross-country inspectorate; in other words, a small inspectorate of observers who would literally check to see that cheating does not take place. It could even be a roaming inspectorate. I believe that that proposal is worthy of consideration. Therefore, my whole theme is that all this mass of detail which has been coming forward— draft directives, new directives and so on— would be better swept aside and the whole issue turned on its head in the way I have described.

If noble Lords will bear with me for a moment longer, I have a particular matter that I should like to bring to the attention of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. During the discussions which took place in the committee I raised the question of live fish travelling across boundaries. It was quite clearly stated that that matter would not be dealt with in these directives from Brussels. However, since the report has been published a directive on live fish has recently appeared. I have read it, as no doubt has my noble friend. It seems to me to be a very sensible document. I think that I understand it entirely. I hope that conformity with this directive will in no way upset the present legislation on fish diseases which I had the privilege to take through your Lordships' House. The Act has served us very well indeed. I am quite sure that it should be left in place, come what may.

We can talk about foot-and-mouth disease, rabies, Colorado beetles and so on, but for the fish industry there are two diseases which have never occurred in this country and which we must not allow to be imported in any way, both for the sake of the industry and possibly for the sake of the wild fish in our rivers.

I noticed one part of the directive which stated that there would be zones. Of course I should like the zones to be the boundaries of countries, but these zones would be considered to be free of two diseases, one in list 1 and the other in list 2; namely, IHN and VHS. These zones would be considered to be contaminated until they had been examined four times by the veterinary inspectorate. After that time they would be cleared and presumably there would be cross-border fish sales. However, under the Act we do not import any salmonids, if I remember correctly. Moreover, I think that under regulations produced since that time we do not bring in ungutted salmonids. Those two points are most important and perhaps when my noble friend replies he will be able to deal with them.

I have spoken for long enough and perhaps a little controversially. However, I hope that what I have said has put an idea in people's heads that we may on this occasion as regards diseases interpret the harmonisation of Europe a little differently than perhaps we do in respect of the composition of chocolate or something of that nature.

3 p.m.

Lord Brain

My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, and the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for their very comprehensive introductions to these two reports. I hope that noble Lords will understand that because it is late in the afternoon, and also because I am not an expert in many of the matters covered by the reports, I shall concentrate on only two points.

The first concerns the report of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. I refer to the problem of the control of game and the veterinary control of game. I think that the noble Lord commented very constructively on the problems which are seen in this country in that respect. It is perhaps because our sporting fields are different from those in Europe that the techniques and controls must be different.

The second point concerns very much the same topic. In this respect, I shall follow the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, although I shall differ from him on certain points and also the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I refer to the control of the movement of firearms or weapons which is also commented upon in the report.

The committee was at a definite disadvantage. One day after it had reported, what I personally— unlike the noble Lord, Lord Swansea— feel is an excellent document was published, updating the frontier control and the proposals for frontier control of firearms. I suspect from what the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said and the general tenor of paragraph 85 of the original report, the committee would support the document but feel as the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, said, that it needed amendment.

The committee found in its evidence that there were three categories of users of weapons or firearms. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, in feeling that terrorists, by their nature, do not obey the law. Therefore they will probably not be concerned by any frontier controls other than the broad control by spot checks or something similar.

With criminals we are in a different position in England. We have no land frontiers. I suspect that most criminals will not normally carry arms across a frontier, whether a port or airport is involved. They will draw on a local pool to the extent needed. I know that the committee has doubts as to whether there is an illegal pool of arms. If one gets to talk to people at the Home Office or chief constables in a quieter moment and ask them to consider the situation, they will admit there almost certainly is. I suspect it is also occasionally topped up by illegally imported weapons. However, I should not have thought that there was necessarily a major traffic in weapons.

I should be interested to know how Customs and others estimated the destination of the 681 weapons which they quote as being found in one year. It may be that some were a bulk shipment, or from people who fall into my last class— sportsmen. The latter might have come in not realising the strict UK regulations on the movement of firearms, being used to the much more relaxed methods and techniques in Europe. They arrived and then fell foul of our legislation.

Sporting users cover stalkers, game sportsmen, target shooters, clay pigeon sportsmen and those using other targets. To those I add people who collect weapons. Again they may need them for lectures and similar purposes. It is a perfectly sensible reason for holding weapons. If the gun is properly certificated, I can see no great reason why it should not be moved across a frontier by a law abiding citizen.

Controls are required for the criminal and the terrorist. I hope that we can put into place a simplified, recognised set of controls that law abiding people will find easy to use, even if it means presenting the weapon with a certificate at a frontier post or something similar.

Where perhaps I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, is that I believe that we should work for a sound basis under the latest EC proposals. I hope that the Government will pursue the matter constructively and the result will be an acceptable European passport or certificate, call it what you will. That certificate will enable people lawfully entitled to hold weapons to bring them in. They know that certain classes of weapons may not be acceptable in certain countries. I quite accept that this may be true in the UK where the law is much stricter. I hope that there will be a degree of flexibility in that some or indeed many European countries have classes of weapons which might be allowed in here on a temporary importation basis, properly controlled. I have a feeling that the way things are going we could have a computer readable card so that people can clearly check that the person carrying the weapons is genuine and is entitled to carry them. If we ease the routine measures, more spot checks can be made to deter the illegal and criminal terrorist elements from moving weapons.

I was interested in the definition of weapons in the annex to this proposal. Again I disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Swansea. I agree that they are both prohibited and permitted, but I found the classification in Annex 1 constructive and useful. There is the question of what constitutes a weapon. I was glad to see the crossbow included in that list. I know that during the passage of the firearms legislation we had a debate on crossbows. Unfortunately, although the Government were pressed, they were unable to agree to the measures proposed on crossbows.

I also noticed that bows are included in the weapons list. Perhaps this will allow our civil servants or other negotiators a time of refighting the battle of Hastings in trying to allow the traditional English longbow to be moved around freely, whereas that is not the case for the crossbow. I think that the longbow is a less lethal weapon than the crossbow, but that is another matter.

There are some useful classifications of weapons which, if adopted, might prevent football hooligans from moving some of their equipment around. I hope that the Government will work constructively on this proposed new directive. On page 6 it is stated that travel with weapons will be made easier. It is stated that a person may hold, a European firearms certificate, which represents proof acceptable to all national administrations that the traveller is lawfully in possession of the firearm in question in his country of origin. Decisions concerning the movement of the weapon will also be recorded on the certificate". That is a positive hope. It will also mean that sportsmen will be able to travel with their weapons, on condition that they possess a European firearms certificate and that they can establish the purpose of their journey". I hope that the Government can negotiate a satisfactory position from those constructive points.

3.7 p.m.

Lord Gallacher

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, will recognise that my remit covers animate and inanimate objects. Therefore, I shall turn at once to the report on health controls and the internal market which was so excellently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton.

In my opinion the consideration of that report has taken too long to come before your Lordships' House. In that respect I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, not merely for the manner in which he introduced the report but also for the update which he was able to give us. I, however, must deal with the report as it stands. In doing so I consider that the key phrase it contains is given at paragraph 141, which states that 1992 is a useful slogan but not an achievable objective in these areas. To that could be added in the case of plant health that the cost of achievement outweighs benefits for member states from the dismantling of barriers.

As regards trade in plants, a distinction needs to be made between those used for food production and those used for domestic use. Both are important but plants used for food production are vital. As an example of that I refer to the recent Rhizomania case with sugar-beet, which fortunately has been contained so far.

The case for retention of border controls is dealt with at paragraph 122. It is stated that border controls should not be accepted until four conditions are met. That is well stated, but I wonder whether those controls can ever be fully met. The discontinuance of checks at the point of import would be risky, even when the Commission's system is in place. The United Kingdom has a good record of control at ports and benefits from the absence of land frontiers with other member states.

Even so, there are problems; for example, the recent case of lead in feedstuff's which came in via two ports, Teignmouth and Liverpool. Flagrant dishonesty was at the heart of this matter on the part of a foreign exporter, yet the fact is that the contaminated feedstuffs got in and were distributed. It required commendable speed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, backed by the Department of Health and the Milk Marketing Board, to contain an outbreak, which was described in a written reply in your Lordships' House and whose dimensions are considerably worrying to those who are responsible for the safety of food in this country.

I also ask whether the Community Inspectorate for Plant Health, details of which were described in paragraph 130 of the report as vague, can cope with the workload. I also wonder whether the passport system, which will be different for each product depending on the health status of the zone of production and the requirements of the destination zone, is really a starter in the race to 1992.

Tests of a common standard during growing, at harvest and post-harvest are not sufficient in all cases, according to paragraph 132. They are to be reinforced at any period before export even if a passport is issued. Again I ask myself whether that can really happen in 12 member states.

At paragraphs 109 and 110 the committee supports the development of health status zones for plants and animals, defined initially in terms of existing frontiers and zones where means of enforcement already exist, so removing unnecessary barriers between zones of similar status. That is good so far as its goes and will pave the way for their removal when it is safe to do so.

Turning to the safeguarding of meat supplies, as a result of a freer regime for trade between member states we confront the old policy of control by vaccination versus slaughter. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has advised the House today that the Commission has now chosen slaughter as an acceptable method. I believe that we all applaud that decision. The United Kingdom has prided itself on its livestock control. However, bovine spongiform encephalopathy reveals the risk even in the domestic market. The widespread nature of the disease in England and Wales calls in question the safety zone concept on the basis of 12 member states. Again the problem is feedstuffs derived, and protein from sheep, in which the disease is endemic in the form of scrapie, is thought to be the cause of the BSE outbreak in the United Kingdom.

Far from lifting barriers of health control, in my opinion it may be necessary to strengthen existing controls. Here I draw the attention of the House to the press release by the Ministry dated 28th March in which it is stated that the Government propose to take new powers to protect livestock from rare diseases which may be difficult to identify at an early stage of investigation. Therefore there is now the Movement of Animals (Restriction) Order 1990 which enables movement restrictions to be applied to livestock where a potentially serious situation appears to exist and where the disease in question is not already subject to control. The Ministry, I believe commendably, is making sure that we are prepared for any new disease which may require urgent and complete action internally. One must consider that care and caution in the context of the Commission's proposals to dismantle barriers.

Apart from ensuring humane conditions for travel to and health at the point of slaughter, the export of live animals is a fragmented operation in the United Kingdom, as indeed is the marketing process. Speeding controls at ports places great reliance on the accuracy of certification. Can such documents be fully trusted in every case in 12 member states?

Standards, including veterinary standards, at present vary widely and will certainly not be uniformly satisfactory by 1992. Even a Commission veterinary inspection service, though essential, will be fully stretched to do more than exercise limited control and influence progress towards a uniform standard. Criticisms of inspection systems under the common fisheries policy indicate the realities of life and the limitation of Community initiatives in the area of inspection. It may be that in that area, so far as concerns the export of livestock, there will ultimately need to be a system of licensing either by member states or even the Commission itself if present health controls on meat are to be removed. It will also be necessary to ensure that during the process of transport and slaughter not merely are humane conditions observed but full safety standards are applied.

In my view Her Majesty's Government is wise to continue with the training of vets. That point has already been touched upon. The Commission proposals will certainly add to costs. That may be a reason for the absence from the original proposals of what is described as a fiche financiè re. In particular, the quarantine proposals are both onerous and, if implemented as they stand, likely to be costly. The report wisely emphasises that aspect. If funds are to be established to compensate for animals slaughtered on the outbreak of contagious diseases— that seems likely now as the option to slaughter has partly been taken up— or even to recompense for an outbreak of a disease from plant importation, they should be based on sound insurance principles, even though not conducted for profit. In our view, the premium should relate to the degree of risk in each member state and practical experience of claims. Mutuality should be the keynote in all that.

The effect of the proposals on third world trade is wisely stressed in the report. If different regimes for control are used, exporters from third world countries will resent that and might reciprocate. Thus, two different systems of control will reduce any benefits which we may hope to obtain from the Commission's proposals. All that argues, as the report's conclusion does, for a controlled approach to implementation without the overriding pressure of a year for completion.

The report was commended by the Ministry of Agriculture as far back as 4th October 1989. We commend it equally today. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, asked for an update from the Minister who is to reply to the debate and we join him in asking that that be done. In the meantime we renew our congratulations to the sub-committee on its excellent report.

3.16 p.m.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, we have had an interesting debate and a very particular debate in a number of respects. We have dealt not only with our own country, but with other European countries, Community practice and future policy on individual problems as well as specific subjects ranging from bovine spongiform encephalopathy down to firearms and identity cards. I can only pay tribute to the authors of the two reports— the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, and my noble friend Lord Middleton— not only for their reports, but for having stimulated such a wide-ranging debate.

It is difficult to do justice to two important reports which cover such wide and intricate subjects. At first sight it is difficult to see what connection there could possibly be between such matters as measures against terrorism and the health of plants. The connection between the two, of course, is that both reports deal with the implications for the United Kingdom of developments in the European Community as we proceed to the establishment of the internal market after 1992. The matter at issue is what should be the nature of the controls at the common frontiers between member states.

It is axiomatic to say it, but it is nevertheless not a bad thing to remind ourselves that Britain is an island nation. We have come to cherish the advantages which we derive from our geographical position, not least of which is the value of the natural barriers which constitute our frontiers; in other words, the sea. Our natural advantages have helped us in two ways. Our national defences, such as immigration, customs and police controls, against threats from the outside world have been concentrated at ports of entry where they are most effective. Consequently, it has not been necessary for us to impose the kinds of internal measures and controls which many of our Community partners have found necessary because of the fact that the controls at their land frontiers are inevitably less effective.

Border controls are not considered to be vital in some other member states of the Community and some would be prepared to see them abolished. They are, of course, perfectly entitled to take whichever view best accords with their own circumstances. We would not seek to criticise the European Commission for advancing its vision of a Europe in which crossing national frontiers was as straightforward a process as is crossing in our country from Surrey to Berkshire.

However, border controls are important for this country. They provide a vital and effective first line of defence against drug traffickers, terrorists and criminals; illegal immigration; threats to human and animal health; and the spread of harmful plant pests and diseases.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that if one removes controls at borders it will inevitably increase controls within the country. He sent shivers down our spines by talking about police control, identity cards and so on. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, also expressed some concern about that. It was helpful to be reminded of those matters.

Perhaps I may first deal with the report on health controls and the internal market which was introduced by my noble friend Lord Middleton. The report deals with two aspects of health control; namely, animal health and plant health. I shall deal first with animal health. The Commission's aim to ensure that the completion of the single market is achieved without animal diseases being spread into parts of the Community where they are not at present established is very important. The Government support that aim. Until serious disease threats have been eliminated, effective measures have to be maintained in order to contain them. It is as well to remember that however frustrating controls may be, it is disease that creates the barriers and not the controls because the control measures are there after all only because of the disease.

A directive on veterinary checks on trade in meat and other specified animal products was agreed upon just before Christmas. The outcome reflected the United Kingdom's view that existing methods of control at the frontiers should not be dismantled if, by doing so, we were to increase the risk of the spread of disease. The directive has to be reviewed before the end of 1992 but, until then, we retain considerable discretion over maintaining our own border checks.

A lot of work remains to be done in the area of animal health. Discussions have started on veterinary checks on the movement of live animals. We are waiting for proposals from the Commission on the rules affecting imports from third countries. Progress towards the removal of frontier controls between member states will be impeded if one member state may import from a third country goods which another will not accept.

Above all, we await proposals on the disease control measures which are to apply after 1992. A Commission strategy document confirms that attaining a uniformly high health status throughout the Community is an objective. It envisages several categories of disease control, which will reflect the differing seriousness of individual diseases and the prospects of eradicating or controlling them.

My noble friend Lord Radnor was concerned that standards should not be dropped. The Government fully appreciate the risks posed by exotic diseases— fish diseases such as the ones he mentioned of viral haemorrhagic septicaemia and infectious haemotopoietic necrosis, which my noble friend described as IHN, an acronym which is a much easier form. We shall be seeking to negotiate arrangements which afford adequate protection to maintain our high fish health status with sound enforcement and the provision for safeguard action.

My noble friend Lord Middleton was concerned about the proposals on game meat. There has been no discussion yet in the Council of the Commission's proposal. However, the Government have secured some improvements in the Commission's proposals which take better account of the way in which game meat is produced and marketed; for example, allowing the importation of small game to be inspected on a sample basis rather than probably on a 100 per cent. basis. The Ministry of Agriculture is consulting interested organisations on the proposals as they now stand.

My noble friend also referred to rabies, which I know is a matter of concern to a great many people. The Government support the action that has been taken at Community level for the eradication of rabies. They would resist any suggestion that the Community should commit itself to any particular date for the elimination of quarantine. The Government's position is that the elimination of quarantine can only be considered when quarantine is no longer necessary in order to exclude the disease. We believe that eradication will take longer to achieve than three years. It is therefore likely that the quarantine will remain necessary beyond 1992.

My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Brain, also referred to the availability of veterinary surgeons. The Government asked the Page Committee to review veterinary manpower and education and broadly accepted its findings. Veterinarians from elsewhere in the Community are already free to establish themselves in the United Kingdom, and the Government are encouraging this. However, this is not the whole answer. For example, government veterinary surgeons need to be British nationals. The Government have therefore agreed to raise restrictions on the intake of the veterinary colleges— accepted in principle by the Universities Funding Council— with a view to realising an annual intake of some 400 students a year compared with the current figure of 335.

My noble friend asked how far the Government were pressing the Commission to assess the effectiveness of vaccination. In many cases vaccination can be a sensible way of dealing with animal diseases. For example, we are currently pursuing a voluntary vaccination policy for Newcastle disease in poultry but each case needs to be looked at on its merits. We always look very carefully at Commission proposals from the point of view of new cost effectiveness.

Plant health controls give rise to not dissimilar considerations. Border controls against the spread of plant health pests and diseases cannot be removed until satisfactory alternative defences are in place.

The European Commission strategy introduces a new concept for preventing the spread of harmful plant pests and diseases. The strategy hinges around a new control document, the plant passport, and it contains many new ideas. However, at present we can see only the framework of the new system. Fundamental points, as well as matters of detail, still remain in doubt. These will need to be developed during the future negotiations that we shall have. During these negotiations we shall take full account of the helpful views that the committee expressed in its report.

It is encouraging to note that since the committee's report was published, there have already been developments in some of the areas to which it drew attention. Last June the Council adopted a proposal to establish a Community plant health inspectorate which should play a valuable role in ensuring that plant health standards are applied equally across the Community.

My noble friend Lord Middleton asked what progress was being made on the inspectorate. The Commission has not yet announced any appointments; we expect to hear who the new chief inspector will be shortly. We shall be pressing for early action to be taken to set up the inspectorate.

My noble friend also wondered about the timescale for harmonised plant health standards. The Commission's declared aim remains to have the new arrangements in place by January 1993, but much has still to be settled. It remains to be seen whether that date will be achieved.

At the agricultural Council on 26th March, Ministers agreed that border checks should remain in place until new systems for checking material have been brought into effect. The Council also agreed that member states should retain the right to safeguard action against the threat of infected material arriving from elsewhere in the Community until the Commission has been able to investigate the extent of the threat and to propose measures to react to it. The views of the committee have been reflected in both those decisions.

The Commission has recognised the need to establish isolated or protected zones in order to allow them to remain free of diseases which are prevalent in other parts of the Community. Although the Commission's latest proposals give only a general framework for this aspect of its strategy, as the discussions progress in Brussels such issues as the enforcing of controls within the zones will become clearer. The Government will be concerned to ensure that they provide an effective plant health protection. It is our hope to aim for a higher level of plant health throughout the Community and not to lower standards.

The Government consider it essential to maintain our plant health status for the continued well-being of our industry, and we welcome the report of the Committee which has highlighted many of the areas of concern which we shall be examining with other member states and the Commission in the negotiations.

I now come to the report on border control of people which was introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver. If there is one area above all others in which the United Kingdom relies for its continued well-being on the maintenance of effective controls, it is in the movement of people. It is the Government's view that checks on people seeking to enter this country provide an essential defence against drug traffickers, terrorists and serious criminals. They also act against illegal immigration and they are a vital part of the enforcement of immigration control. Consequently, the Government are firmly of the view that border controls on the present pattern must remain in place. I am delighted that, having carefully considered the issues, the committee should have come to much the same view.

I was not surprised that my noble friend Lord Swansea referred to firearms and shotguns. He is well versed on the subject and is most concerned about it. The noble Lord, Lord Brain, referred to the effect on sporting users. He was particularly concerned about the possible implications for firearms of the European passport. He said that not only should controls be required; they should also be simple and effective. Controls are required. We see advantages in the proposed firearms certificate which makes it easier to obtain the necessary national certificates. It may not meet entirely with the noble Lord's wishes but it is essential that we have control over the weapons which are introduced into this country. We are not in favour of firearms permits being granted by other than our own author: ties. The control of firearms is less strict in some other countries than in the UK and, therefore, it is important that we have control over the types of firearms brought into this country. The British visitors, permit allows overseas sportsmen to come here with their weapons and with the minimum possible fuss. However, it involves authority from our police.

In particular, the committee endorsed the Government's interpretation of their obligations under the Single European Act. Its report confirms the value of border checks. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to the abolition of border controls which she said would produce problems in cases of theft. I believe that that is right. The report provides a convincing analytical framework against which the effectiveness of border controls might be assessed.

The committee emphasised the value of co-operation among member states in tackling questions about border controls. The Government agree with this wholeheartedly, and we are grateful for such an authoritative endorsement of our policies.

I fear that in the time which is available I shall be unable to do full justice to the committee's report which excels in the breadth as well as the depth of its analysis. However, there are two particular points on which I should like to offer comment. The first relates to arrangements at airports. The committee's report contains a cogent and illuminating assessment of the implications for airports of the possible developments in the field of frontier controls within the European Community. It concludes that, for the time being, no changes should be required to the structures and systems which at present operate at airports in Europe.

However, the committee recommends that serious efforts should be made to agree a common Community system which will respond to the wishes of travellers and to implement such a system over a long transitional period. As a matter of principle, I think that the Government could readily accept the wisdom of such an approach. In practice, though, I fear that we are still some way from a situation in which agreement on such a common policy is a realistic prospect.

At the heart of the problem lies the fact that arrangements at airports reflect, to a very large degree, the nature of the system of controls which are in force. Current negotiations on frontier controls in the Community are designed to determine the basis for those controls in future. Consequently, I think that we must accept that plans for airports cannot realistically be considered in isolation from the main issue which is the nature of frontier controls in Europe. And, at least in so far as the intention of other member states is concerned, the future is far from clear.

Certainly, the logic of our position on the retention of necessary frontier controls is that the operational arrangements and structures at our airports are likely to remain fundamentally unchanged. The Government therefore agree with the committee's recommendation that no changes should be contemplated at present. However, we accept that the issue of airports in particular is one which merits further study. I can tell your Lordships that an interdepartmental working group of officials is shortly to be established, under the leadership of the Department of Transport, to look at the implications of developments on frontiers in Europe for airports within the United Kingdom, given our position on border controls. Representatives from airports and airlines are being invited to join that study.

The second matter to which I wish to draw specific attention is one on which it is only fair to make it clear that the Government's approach differs in some respects from that which was recommended by the committee. This is the subject of refugees and asylum.

The committee recommended that the criteria for refugee status and procedures should be harmonised with the close involvement of the United Nationals High Commissioner for Refugees; that an agreement on which member states of the Community should be responsible for handling an asylum application should not be brought into operation until harmonisation is achieved; and that accepted refugees should be given the rights of free movement which is available to Community nationals.

The Government play an active part in the European discussions on refugees and asylum. The presidency of the European Council keeps the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees informed of these discussions. Member states have jointly recognised that it is desirable to work towards harmonised criteria and procedures for the grant of refugee status. This is, however, likely to be a sizeable task, given the different judicial and administrative systems involved, and I cannot guarantee that it will be thought right to postpone the coming into effect of the convention, which is under preparation, until harmonisation is achieved.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was concerned about the treatment of asylum seekers. There is a need to balance the importance of ensuring that genuine refugees are given asylum against the need to operate a firm but fair immigration policy. The noble Lord referred to the carriers liability legislation. There is a necessary reaction to immigration pressures. It is not aimed at refugees. The United Kingdom remains committed to obligations under the 1957 Geneva Convention.

The noble Lord was also concerned— and quite rightly so— about the position of drugs. He quoted the fact that the customs seized 90 per cent. of cocaine and heroin at airports. In 1988 93 per cent. by weight of all drug seizures were carried out by customs. The provisional figures for 1989 are that 49 per cent. of all drug seizures by weight came from or through the European Community countries. Sixty three per cent. of cocaine came from or through the European Community and 49 per cent. of cannabis.

The Select Committee considers that harmonisation of procedures for refugee status should be based on best national practice. We agree with that conclusion in general terms, but we do not accept that it necessarily means an automatic system of judicial appeals against decisions to refuse refugee status, as the report envisages. In those European countries which have such appeals systems, there is considerable anxiety about the delays which they create. Those delays often run into many years and they provide scope for abuse by applicants whose cases are unfounded.

It is the Government's view that any effective refugee determination procedure must be workable and must provide for quick and effective decisions both on those cases in which refugee status should be granted and on those cases which are without merit. We are not persuaded that a special case should be made in favour of those with refugee status from the general rule that freedom of movement under the Treaty of Rome does not extend to non-EC nationals.

If I conclude these observations of mine on a slightly negative note, that is only because I am anxious that the very warm welcome, which I am giving on behalf of the Government, to the report on border controls should not mislead your Lordships or the public as to these particular matters which of course form only a small part of the report.

Leaving those particular matters aside, I repeat the Government's admiration of the contribution which both these reports, under their distinguished chairmen, have made to the general debate, and I express our profound appreciation of the support which they have given the Government for the objectives which they are pursuing.

Lord Harvington

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps he will allow me to raise a question with regard to scrapie. I was chairman of the National Sheep Breeders of Great Britain in the 1950s and, if he looks into his files, he will find that I have raised the question many times. I hope the noble Lord who is to follow will allow me a few moments.

For years I have been asking for some assurances regarding the steps taken and the nature of the research into the disease of scrapie. I at once declare an interest in that subject because in 1951 I was a leading exporter of pedigree sheep to Australia and New Zealand. As a result of the imposition of a ban of all British sheep, due to scrapie, I naturally suffered considerably.

My main point is whether my noble friend is satisfed that everything possible has been done to improve research into the isolation of that ghastly virus, which has impeded the export of British sheep for so long. I apologise if that matter has already been dealt with, and for not being present at the beginning of the debate. If I had been I should have tried to take part earlier. However, I apologise for my absence and hope it will not be too difficult for my noble friend to give me an answer. I do not expect an answer now; perhaps, however, my noble friend will take the matter on board.

The matter arose in the time of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, when he was chairman, I believe, of the Agricultural Research Council.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, perhaps, for the Leader of the House, I might briefly answer that question. My noble friend has invited me to look into the files and I shall take up his invitation. I have been briefed on a great many matters, from firearms to immigration and plant health, but not specifically on scrapie. I am not quite sure what the connection is between my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and scrapie, but I am sure that it is a totally reputable connection. I will find the answer to my noble friend's question, and perhaps I may write to him.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton

My Lords, the afternoon is well advanced and I do not propose to take up a lot of time now. As chairman of the sub-committee which produced the report on border controls, and as the mover of this Motion, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and also to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who has been good enough to compliment the committee on the report. I am also grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, drew attention to the earlier report. It is interesting to see how closely the conclusions of two differently composed committees, separated by a period of six years, coincided. The noble Lord referred in terms which I think can have left nobody unmoved to the plight of those seeking asylum, and he suggested a council of the EC to ease the situation of the refugees, and also a common appeals procedure.

There may be some who are disappointed in the reaction of the Government to the suggestions contained in the report, and I think we would all agree on the desirability of some common approach to the refugee problem as a desirable objective. However it is approached, it is an end which can be pursued quite independently of the sweeping proposals of the Commission's communication. As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, observed, there are dangers to the position of those seeking asylum which lurk in the abolition of internal border controls and the substitution of what would be in effect an external wall round the Community.

The report refers to the psychological effect of border controls and more than one speaker has also referred to that aspect of the matter. There is a psychological feeling of belonging to a single community to some extent. That it exists and is important, I do not doubt; but I think it really has more to do with freedom of association than with border controls. I was interested to read in a newspaper that one of the first suggestions made by the Lithuanian Parliament was the establishment of border controls. So the absence of border controls in that instance does not seem to have led to any particular psychological feeling of belonging to a single community.

Everything that has been said this afternoon— and I think this is equally applicable in regard to the control of weapons— leads us inevitably, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and almost irresistibly, to the conclusion that the Commission, in proposing the abolition of border controls almost at breakneck speed by 1992, is putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps one should say that it is trying to construct the cart and the horse at the same time. At the moment it has got half a horse and, if I may be forgiven for trespassing on the area of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, it appears to be possibly a wooden horse which is suffering from a bad attack of dutch elm disease.

The objective of a frontier-free Europe is a desirable one, but this is not the way to go about it. The conditions in which a frontier-free Europe can operate do not follow from the abolition of border controls. The abolition of border controls can follow only from the creation of the conditions in which they would be possible; and it is that objective to which I think we must all work.

On Question, Motion agreed to.