Lords Sitting of 16 October 1996

Preamble
The House met at half—past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Lord Clyde
James John Clyde, Esquire (commonly called Lord Clyde), one of the Senators of the College of Justice in Scotland, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and thereby created a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Clyde, of Briglands in Perthshire and Kinross—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Woolf and the Lord Hoffmann.

NHS Hospital Trusts: Economic Viability
2.47 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take if any National Health Service hospital trust ceases to be economically viable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, if any NHS trust is unable to meet its obligations, the Secretary of State concerned will first act through the NHS executive to help resolve the problem and then, if necessary, take whatever action is considered appropriate in the circumstances.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that considerate reply, but she must be aware that senior members of the BMA, including the chairman, issued a statement earlier this month stating that this winter could be the most perilous one facing the National Health Service because of the present financial structure. The BMA said that substantial sums of extra money may well need to be found in certain areas if the service is not to collapse. Will the Minister give an undertaking that if that occurs patients will not be allowed to suffer and funding will be made available?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, this is nothing new. Nearly every winter we hear cries such as these from the BMA and indeed from other bodies. I remember that when the reforms were introduced the BMA said that the NHS would collapse. That is not the case. The NHS has become stronger and stronger and indeed we are putting more money than ever into it. The Prime Minister of course gave a guarantee only a few days ago that in our manifesto pledge the NHS will receive more money over and above inflation, year on year, throughout the next Conservative government.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend's answers on this matter are helpful, but does she realize
1680
that the providers of capital for the PFI in the health service are concerned that the Secretary of State cannot be forced to dissolve a trust and therefore transfer the liabilities to another body? Will my noble friend reassure the House that the NHS executive will ensure through its monitoring programme that the NHS trusts will always be able to fulfil their responsibilities and not allow liabilities to remain undischarged for ever? I do not think the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Act provides that comfort.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, because we were aware of these concerns we passed the residual liabilities Act earlier this year, as my noble friend has mentioned. However, I am aware that some people in the private sector would like us to go even further. The assurance I can give my noble friend is that the proposition that the Secretary of State would stand by and do nothing in circumstances where an NHS trust was unable to meet its liabilities is untenable given all his statutory responsibilities.
Lord Howell: My Lords, if the Government are putting more money into the National Health Service every year, why do we hear of more closures, especially of accident and emergency departments? Those two factors do not square up. Can the Minister assure the House that before people close accident and emergency services—I refer to Hillingdon—and refuse people over the age of 75, they are required to consult with neighbouring hospitals and to make known to the public the alternative arrangements made before they take such drastic action as we have seen at Hillingdon?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I would not deny that there is pressure in the National Health Service, partly because we are doing so much more. We are treating more patients. We have increased the number of hospital treatments by 25 per cent. in the past four years. The number of people treated as day cases has doubled. We are of course making changes as populations move, as demands change, and as high technology comes on stream. Clearly we are having to look at the hospital services that are provided.
Hillingdon is a very interesting case because there is a hospital closer to the population served. GPs are being asked to refer their patients to the Mount Vernon Hospital which is just up the road. Of course we shall see changes as circumstances change.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that pressures will always continue to mount within and upon the National Health Service? There is nothing surprising about that. It will always be a difficulty for every government. Will the Minister also agree that to treat the National Health Service as an arena for party politics, as so many questioners do, is profoundly unhelpful?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The pressures on the health service will continue as indeed they will all over the world in every health service. The more that we can keep party politics

1681
out of the National Health Service the better. We know that the staff in the National Health Service do not like it. Indeed when the National Health Service is diminished by party political argument it does nothing for recruitment or the confidence of patients.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as one of the surviving members who was responsible in a minor part for the introduction of the health service, I do not intend in any way to raise party politics in my question. It does not lie in the mouth of the Government even to mention party politics in connection with this matter. What assurance will the Government give that people who are over 75 years will receive treatment? Will the Minister guarantee that there will be no kind of capitation by the Government as regards the age at which people are entitled to full service under the National Health Service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his vision and foresight in establishing the National Health Service. As he refers to those over 75 years, I presume that he is declaring an interest in this matter. However, I can give him an assurance that the Secretary of State is very concerned about this issue. Indeed we shall be making some proposals later this year.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, while one may wish to take party politics out of the health service, is it not correct that one cannot take party policy out of it? The Minister stated today, as she has stated before, that this winter is no different from any other winter. Is she aware that many people within the service consider that this winter will be as bad as in 1987–88 simply because of the paucity of the settlement that the NHS received last year? Will the Minister tell the House exactly how many trusts and health authorities are forecasting financial deficits this year?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I was a chairman in 1987–88. In fact I was the chairman of the National Association of Health Authorities. I can tell the noble Baroness that it was far worse then. What is more, we were not providing nearly the services that we provide today. The National Health Service is a great deal stronger today than it was then. I understand that the majority of trusts will balance their books this year. Only one health authority is in severe economic problems. The remainder believe that they can manage their deficits before the end of the year.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords perhaps I may ask a question about organisation rather than politics. As my noble friends have illustrated this afternoon, is not the real problem that the organisation of the so called internal market means that healthcare is not delivered where people need it and at the time they need it? Does the Minister agree that at the local level
1682
services are now being driven by the rather spurious constraints of that market and not by a sensible strategy for the NHS?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, no. I believe that we are providing services which are much more sensitive to people, not least through primary care where we have seen GPs in their local surgeries, in their health centres, providing services that were undreamt of ever before. Therefore I cannot agree with the noble Baroness.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the noble Baroness explain this? In 1989 there was one senior administrative officer whereas today there are 10. Does she consider that the health service is hampered by too many administrative posts in relation to those connected with patients?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to be concerned about bureaucracy and administration. However, we believe that this £42 billion business needs good management. But we have reduced bureaucracy. We have reduced the staff in the department by 20 per cent. We have abolished regional health authorities. We have merged district health authorities and family health service authorities. We have reduced management costs by 5 per cent. this year alone. That is a saving of £300 million over two years.

Common Fisheries Policy
12.59 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking as a result of the report, published in July, of the Common Fisheries Policy Review Group.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Government have welcomed the report as making a constructive contribution to debate on how best to improve the common fisheries policy. The period of public consultation on the report has recently ended and the Government will respond formally to the report in the light of the results of that consultation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his encouraging reply. As the group recommended reform rather than unilateral withdrawal, do the Government recognise the strong support also from the fishermen's organisations representing the large majority of fishermen in this country? Do they also recognise that the EU requirement to reduce our fleet by 40 per cent. cannot be considered seriously unless it applies equally and fairly to the other members of the EU, and unless the quota hopping boats are not counted as being in the British fleet?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I cannot but agree with everything my noble friend says.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the central problem for the UK in the review of the

1683
common fisheries policy is quota hopping? Is he further aware that quota hopping can happen only if UK licence holders sell their licences to foreign owners? How many licence holders have been forced to sell because the UK Government refuse to use the European grants to assist in decommissioning? If boats had been decommissioned the owners would not have been forced to sell their licences. The Government have much to answer for on the problem of quota hopping.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is stretching the possibilities in his allegations. I do not follow his logic; nor do I understand how it is possible to suggest that our not taking up a grant for which we were not eligible diverted people from taking a free decision to sell their boats or their quota or that they might have taken other decisions. The noble Lord is far too speculative. I do not recognise that the consequences flow as alleged by the noble Lord.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the Government's support of the free market in licences is not a key factor in quota hopping?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the free market licence is part of the single market. There is no way in which we could overcome that without amending the Treaty of Rome.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the report in the Sunday Telegraph of 6th October? It stated that not only is there a plan far advanced in Brussels to finish the CFP in the year 2002 in favour of a permit system which would probably work even more against Britain, but also that his department has so far denied the existence of such a plan.
Lord Lucas: No, my Lords. It has always been known that in 2002 the current arrangements come to an end. It will then be necessary to negotiate their continuance. I have been made aware of the allegation that there is some great plot to create a single European fisheries policy, policed by a single European system and run entirely from Brussels as of 2002. We have seen the reports of the recent goings on where every single country in the European Union reacted fiercely against the Commission's proposals on fisheries. Anyone who has read those reports will realise that such allegations are complete nonsense.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will my noble friend say what will happen in the year 2002 if the United Kingdom resolutely resists the ideas which will come
1684
forward from the others—no doubt to cheat us still further? There will be no common fisheries policy or regime. What happens then?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I hope to be alive then, but not to see that.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that without some form of common fisheries policy there will be no fish?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is also possible that even with the common fisheries policy there will be no fish.

Teaching of English
3.3 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take concerning the teaching and examining of English in view of the data comparing 1980 with 1994, published by the University of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate (Occasional Research Paper 1996).
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, maintaining high standards is at the heart of the Government's approach to education. Since this small scale study was conducted, we have further strengthened English standards in our schools. Separate marks are required for spelling, punctuation and grammar in all GCSEs. A revised national curriculum that focuses on the basics and new GCSE syllabuses aligned with that have been introduced from this September. This summer's GCSE certificates show separate grades for spoken English, focusing attention on its importance.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Is he aware that many of us have felt for years that the quality of teacher training lies at the heart of our educational problems? We are therefore relieved to know this summer that the Government propose to take action on the matter. As for the University of Cambridge report which I have with me, it is small scale, yes, but any of the mitigating factors that one might think of in countering the report were taken seriously into account by researchers involved. They came to the conclusion that all the mitigating factors had to be rejected. Is not the plain fact that the writing of 16 year olds in 1993 and 1994 was found to be starkly inferior to that of their counterparts in 1980?
Lord Henley: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, he is right to emphasise the importance of teacher training. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced this summer that the Teacher Training Agency is developing a new curriculum for initial teacher training, beginning with primary English. We must get that right before we do anything else.

1685
On the noble Lord's second point, I wish to stress that it was a small scale report. As I understand it, the survey was an analysis of just 20 scripts from the three years involved. It examined merely the fourth sentence of each of those scripts, as I understand it. As the report itself made clear, it lacked:
"sufficient empirical evidence to conclude safely that overall writing in 1980 was better, grade for grade; or that grading standards which involved further judgments about reading and speaking etc. have changed".
Nevertheless, having said that, it is important to take note of the report. We have done so and will continue to take note of it.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it not a fact that this Cambridge report—which is not exactly small-scale, if you have to sit down and read it—plus the Southampton report which came out at about the same time and the Coram report the same year, proved irrefutably that standards of literacy had declined markedly since 1980? Why is it that the Government have stubbornly refused to implement the recommendations of the Kingman report of 1988 which stressed the importance of the teacher training element in reforms in the teaching of the English language? The Kingman report seems entirely to have vanished until this summer when we received the recommendations on teacher training, which appear to have come out of the air, from the Secretary of State. It is all there in the Kingman report. Why has it been ignored?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord rejects my claim that it was a small-scale report. One can only say that it was small-scale since it considered merely one sentence—the fourth sentence in each script—in 20 papers over three different years. I quoted from the report, making it clear that one could not read much into it. Nevertheless, we have done a great deal since the Kingman report and over the past few years. I could run through a whole host of different initiatives, starting with the national curriculum, virtually all of which have been opposed by the party opposite. I went on to emphasise that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recognised the importance of those matters and of getting right the teaching of English, standards of grammar and so on in schools. That is why she announced that the Teacher Training Agency was developing a new curriculum on such matters which would come forward in due course.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, is it not the case that the research report showed repeatedly or at least alleged that grade C in the current GCSE for 1993–94 corresponds to grades D or E in the GCE of the 1980s? Is the Minister concerned about the apparent grade inflation that has occurred?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the report makes allegations of that kind. In both GCSEs and A-levels it is important for us to be sure that we have maintained standards over time. That is why, a little under a year ago, my right honourable friend announced that there would be an
1686
inquiry under both SCAA and Ofsted into standards over time. However, it would be wrong to make judgments on the basis of a small scale report of this kind before SCAA and Ofsted have reported, which they are to do later this year. When they report, we shall respond.

Church Repairs and VAT
3.10 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the VAT charge on church repairs.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the repair and maintenance of churches will continue to be charged at the standard rate of VAT, as has been the case since the start of the tax in 1973.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which I am afraid is not worth a great deal. Is he aware that the congregations of very many churches that are part of our architectural history find it very difficult to carry out repairs, whereas a reduction in VAT of 5 per cent. would make matters much easier? We are not talking about one church in particular, though Lavington church is an excellent example, but of many churches and chapels throughout the country. A reduction of 5 per cent. in VAT would give all those congregations great heart to continue to keep in good order these buildings which are part of our national heritage.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I and my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who frequently speaks on Treasury matters at this Dispatch Box, are well aware of the concerns expressed in this House on a number of occasions from the Benches behind me, by right reverend Prelates and from the Benches opposite. Nevertheless, VAT is a broad based tax. To offer special treatment for churches would open the question as to whether it should be offered to others. To concede to demands from here, there or wherever for special treatment, would seriously erode the tax base. That revenue would have to be found from elsewhere. However, we are well aware of the concerns. That is why my noble friend made clear on a previous occasion that the Government provide considerable support, particularly through English Heritage, for churches in terms of restoration and repairs.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that country churches are kept in repair largely as a result of contributions by the congregation? Is it not oppressive that people who subscribe, sometimes at considerable personal sacrifice, to keep a country church in repair should be compelled also to pay tax on those contributions when, if they did not make any contribution, they would have no tax liability?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the point I was trying to make to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is that to concede to a demand from the Churches would open the door to

1687
other demands. The case is the same for all. It would seriously erode the tax base; we should have to consider where money could be raised elsewhere.
Her Majesty's Government recognise the importance of providing support for churches. I do not have the figures for 1995–96, but that is why, for example, in 1994–95 some £14 million was offered towards repairs for churches and chapels. That would include the sort of churches to which my noble friend referred. Similarly, since 1991 some £19.2 million has been allocated to England's 61 cathedrals. We will provide help but it is right to provide that help by means of grant rather than the less efficient method of tax concessions.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, will the Minister agree to look at relief on covenants? Surely that would provide a way out of the difficulty if he wishes to be as generous as he advocates.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is not for me to be generous in these matters; I suspect it is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall, however, pass that comment to my right honourable friend for consideration. To return to my original point, it is not an efficient use of resources to try to provide help by means of a tax concession. The better way is by means of grant, particularly through English Heritage and other agencies.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I am amazed by the generosity and devotion of ordinary people in maintaining their churches. Does the Minister believe it is just or fair to such people that the Government should take more than twice as much away from them in VAT than has been contributed through English Heritage? Is he aware that individual organisations such as the National Trust which have responsibility for ancient buildings believe that the Government should make special provision for church buildings? Alternatively, if the Minister holds to his present line, the grants need to be very much larger.
Lord Henley: My Lords, on the first point, with all due respect I am not sure I accept the right reverend Prelate's statement that the Government take twice as much as they give by means of grant. As I said, it would not be an efficient use of tax revenues to provide support through tax relief rather than by means of grants. I do not believe that the right reverend Prelate would suggest that we make the individual churches exempt from tax. We will continue to provide as much as possible through English Heritage and other agencies for maintaining the heritage of this country and the fabric of our churches. The amounts made available which I quoted are very large indeed.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those people who recently contributed to the tune of some £25 million to the charitable funds for the rebuilding of Guy's Hospital and then received a VAT bill for £2 million would be very upset to find that other charities did not pay VAT?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord, whether by intent or not, makes my original point; namely, that to
1688
concede the argument for churches would open the door for all the others. I believe the noble Lord will agree that the revenue shortfall would have to be found elsewhere.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we have listened very carefully to the Minister. He seems to be saying that so far as the Government and the Treasury are concerned VAT is levied on repairs and there is absolutely no reason to regard the Church or any other body as having priority in the matter. Is that what he is in fact saying? Is he aware that some people might take the view that there is a case for not having this uniform rule? Is he simply saying that the Church has to take its chances when it comes to repairs?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is the point I was trying to make. There are more efficient ways of providing support for what is termed heritage, or churches, than by means of tax concession. I could go through the sixth VAT directive, but I suspect it would bore most Members of the House to do so as this stage. Under that directive reliefs are available for housing. However, housing, sadly, on this occasion does not include the Church.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will Welsh churches benefit from the grants made by English Heritage?
Lord Henley: My Lords, English Heritage covers England. The appropriate agency in Wales would cover Wales.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister is clearly concerned that if he were to yield to the Church, he would be assailed by appeals from others. Will he, however, consider that the others from whom he would receive appeals would be freeholders, tenants or corporate bodies, whereas we are talking about groups of private individuals who are none of those but are trustees of a national heritage, and that payments at present given by grant are reduced by the amount of tax that is now paid on them?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if, to put it simply, my noble friend suggests that on this occasion the Church should be treated separately from others, I have to tell him that I do not agree.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in view of the support I have received from all sides of the House, will the Minister give an assurance that something will now be done along the lines suggested in my original Question?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that the support received was quite the 100 per cent. that the noble Lord sought. I believe the noble Lord will accept that I cannot give him the kind of assurances that he

1689
seeks. However, I am sure that my right honourable friend and others will take note of comments made this afternoon.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether it is in the power of this sovereign Parliament to take—
Noble Lords: Next business!

Business
3.19 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, 30 minutes having elapsed, perhaps I may make an announcement. At a convenient moment after four o'clock my noble friend Lord Lindsay will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Cullen Report. My noble friend Lady Blatch will then repeat a Statement on the Cullen Report (Firearms).

Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That if a Bill in the same terms as those in which the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill stood when it was brought to this House from the House of Commons in this Session of Parliament is brought to this House from that House in the next Session—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time and to have been reported from the Select Committee with amendments; and

(b) the Standing Orders of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in this Session or in the Session 1994–95, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session.—(Viscount Goschen.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Public Order (Amendment) Bill
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Dormand of Easington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
1690
Then, Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 15th October), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Asylum Applications: Designated Countries
3.23 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury rose to move to resolve, That this House deplores Her Majesty's Government's proposal to designate certain countries as subject to fast track appeals against refusal of asylum applications.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the new asylum order contains a list of countries in which, according to the Government,
"there is in general no serious risk of persecution",
and which are therefore being designated as subject to the fast track appeals procedure. That means that we are dividing states into two groups according to whether or not they are designated. In the larger group of countries which are not being designated it is to be inferred that there is in general a serious risk of persecution. But the idea of distinguishing between countries of that kind and countries of the kind that we are dealing with this afternoon is objectionable in principle and may also be unlawful, as I shall attempt to show.
The Government claim that up to the point at which a decision is made on an asylum application, the treatment of the applicant will be the same whether or not he is from one of the countries on the list. But nobody has the slightest doubt that by designating those countries as generally safe the idea is put into the minds of the officials who have to deal with the applications that the persons from those countries must be essentially bogus applicants. They will be influenced subconsciously by the very existence of the list.
Once a decision has been made and the applicant has lodged an appeal, a mere 10 days are allowed for the whole process of appeal: serving the papers; listing the appeal for hearing; and the decision by the appellate authorities. I submit that such a lightning process is manifestly unfair when complex issues relating to events in distant lands may arise and the refusal may need to be challenged on grounds which require communication with persons or organisations in the country of origin.
That is not to say that we argue for the prolongation of appeals. They should only take the time that they need. The Peat Marwick study showed that the real split was between "without foundation" cases and substantive appeals. The range was from 10 to 78 days in "without foundation" cases compared with 18 to 175 days in cases of substantive appeals. There may be some cases from the seven countries about which we are now talking that could be disposed of in 10 days without unfairness to the applicant. But it is wrong in principle to say that all applicants from certain countries will be afforded lesser rights of appeal.
In the UNHCR Executive Committee decision No. 8(XXVIII), Determination of Refugee Status, it was laid down in paragraph (vi) that:
"if the applicant is not recognised, he should be given a reasonable time to appeal for a formal reconsideration of the decision".
The UK has complied with that decision and the appeal system is a necessary consequence of our adherence to the convention. Therefore, any discrimination with regard to the rights of appeal is a breach of Article 3, which says that:
"The Contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin".
I noted the remarks made by the Minister in another place yesterday evening about my honourable friend's analysis of this provision. The Minister made the point in reply to my honourable friend that he had made an amazing blunder, because the article (which I quoted) refers to refugees and not to asylum seekers. If I may say so, it was the Minister who made an amazing blunder because she did not apparently understand that an asylum seeker can be a refugee, as the Court of Appeal found in the case of Alimas Khaboka v. Home Secretary (1993, IMM AR484).
Let me refer to that case briefly. It was found that the approach adopted by the Secretary of State must be substantially the same in all cases of applications for asylum. The applicant in that case submitted that he was a refugee both before and after his claim for asylum as such had been considered and accepted. In his judgment the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, referred to the UNHCR Handbook, which he quoted as follows:
"A person is a refugee within the meaning of the … Convention as soon as he fulfils the criteria contained in the definition. This would necessarily occur prior to the time at which his refugee status is formally determined. Recognition of his refugee status does not therefore make him a refugee but declares him to be one. He does not become a refugee because of recognition, but is recognised because he is a refugee".
So the term "refugee" includes someone who is only subsequently established as being a refugee. It follows that until an appeal is determined he has to be treated as though he were in fact a refugee.
The selection of the seven countries in the list was obviously intended to deter frivolous applications from countries which generate large numbers of applications. That was the reason, I remind your Lordships, why Nigeria was on the original list floated by the Home Office, with 5,800 applicants in 1995—far more than any other country. It was only when there was a public outcry that Nigeria was removed from the provisional list. The countries that remain, however, though not perhaps in the same league of human rights violators, are by no means without fault, as I hope we shall see this afternoon.
I shall refer solely to the case of Bulgaria, hoping that other noble Lords may deal with some of the other countries on the list. It is painful to me to have to record that Bulgaria, itself a victim of the Zaptiehs and Mudirs of the Ottoman oppression, chronicled unforgettably by Mr. Gladstone in The Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East, should now have become the oppressor in terms of its own minorities, set against a background of human rights abuses in general.
The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights lists a number of areas of concern in Bulgaria: lack of independence of the judiciary and the inadequate judicial system; denial of fair trial and the violation of the rights of persons detained; ill treatment by the police; absence of freedom of expression, of assembly and of association; attacks on freedom of religion; lack of protection for minorities; the death penalty; and bad prison conditions. The IHF discusses in some detail the restrictions on the media and the ways in which the government enforce them. Strict control is exercised over state radio and television. When, last November, 34 journalists from the most popular radio station protested against interference with programme content, the deputy director, who was accused of instigating the protest, was fired. Later, seven other signatories were also dismissed. There is a law of criminal libel in Bulgaria which has been invoked against journalists for criticising public officials; and the state exercises indirect control over newspapers through its monopoly of newsprint.
The Home Office country assessment on Bulgaria is an interesting document. It reproduces large chunks of the US State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 1995, and in the case of freedom of speech and the press lifts six paragraphs verbatim, with no acknowledgement to the US State Department. The State Department reports are an excellent starting point, but if the Home Office is to publish material of that kind, it might consider looking at other sources as well. Amnesty International, for instance, has expressed deep concern about the use of Article 148(1) of the Penal Code, which provides special protection for public officials against alleged defamation, to prosecute journalists. The Writers in Prison Committee of International PEN also raised the case of the most recent victims of that law in its case list for the first half of 1996.
On freedom of religion, the Home Office again plagiarises the State Department report, making one minor syntactical alteration to the first sentence and leaving out three paragraphs dealing with specific examples of religious discrimination. Among those are the exclusion of all but Orthodox students from the Department of Theology at Sofia University, the confirmation by the Council of Ministers of the refusal to register certain religious groups and the charge that the police break up the meetings of the groups which have been denied registration.
The Home Office note once more lifts the text of the State Department report verbatim in its sections dealing with religious and national minorities. Here, though mention is made of each of the main minorities, the problems that they face are not fully covered. The refusal of identity papers to ethnic Turks who left Bulgaria at the height of their persecution under the communists and have now returned is not mentioned; neither is the authorities appointment of Nedim Gendjev, formerly the chosen leader of the Moslems under the communist dictator Todor Zhivkov, to be chairman of the Moslem Supreme Religious Council and their discrimination against the anti Gendjev faction.
The Home Office mentions the authorities' refusal to recognise the Macedonian minority, in spite of the 1992 census having recorded 7,000 people identifying themselves as Macedonians. A much better treatment of this subject, if I may say so, and of minorities in Bulgaria generally is to be found in the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board's paper, Bulgaria: Ethnic Minorities, published in 1995. If the Home Office policy is, as it appears to be, to plagiarise other people's work, it should certainly take a look at the Canadian research. It is readable, thorough and well referenced, whereas the Home Office briefs do not contain a single reference—that applies not only to Bulgaria but to other countries as well.
Perhaps I may suggest—I should like an answer from the Minister when she replies—that we ask the Canadians, the Americans and any other allies who have been making their own countries' assessments whether we could have some more formal arrangements between us to produce common assessments, even on a more frequent basis, by pooling our research and information capacities and producing one document which will be used uniformly throughout all the countries so as to improve the uniformity of treatment of asylum applications.
Bulgaria has not signed the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and, as the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee says in its report, Human Rights in Bulgaria 1995, the generally low level of standards for the protection of ethnic minorities fell even further in 1995. Paradoxically, the end of communism and the partial restoration of freedom of expression led to the open expression of hatred and violence against minorities, and particularly the Roma. Neo Nazis targeted gypsies as well as foreigners and law enforcement officers either took no action over racist assaults or in some cases actually sided with the attackers. Quite a few examples are given in the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee's report; and in the Human Rights Watch/Helsinki report, Police Violence and Arbitrary Confinement, descriptions are given of gratuitous attacks on Roma children by racist policemen.
The latter report also describes the so called "Labour Education Schools" in Bulgaria, which are essentially penal institutions where children as young as eight are compulsorily detained by administrative procedures for minor offences or because someone has assessed them as being uncontrollable. Half the children in those establishments are Roma, though only 4 per cent. of the population were identified as belonging to that group in the 1992 census. The State Department, and hence the Home Office which copied it word for word, ignore all problems relating to children's rights and those of Roma children in particular.
It is estimated that there are between 12,000 and 14,000 street children between the ages of eight and 17 in Bulgaria, most of them Roma. There are reports of severe police brutality against those children, both physical and sexual. The police make no secret of their racist hostility towards Roma children.
The Bulgarian Government's violations of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and their treatment of Roma children in particular should have been known to the Home Office, even though the Bulgarian authorities have done their best to prevent human rights observers investigating those matters. Human Rights Watch expresses,
"deep concern over the lack of openness and co—operation demonstrated by governmental authorities towards external attempts to monitor conditions",
while Amnesty International, in its latest report, Bulgaria: Shootings, deaths in custody, torture and ill treatment by law enforcement officers, complains of the authorities' refusal to provide copies of the prosecutors' decisions or autopsy reports. Yet there is plenty of evidence from unofficial sources and Amnesty, like every other investigating agency, finds that many of the victims are Roma.
The list of ethnic, religious, political and human rights groups, some of whose members may suffer well founded fears of persecution in Bulgaria, is long. Few of them may reach our shores, but that does not mean that when they do we should treat them less favourably than asylum seekers from most other countries. They are entitled to exactly the same rights as the citizens of other countries, both on first consideration and at the stage of appeals against refusal.
There are other ways of speeding up the process of asylum without breaking our obligations under the convention, many of which are detailed in the Peat Marwick report, which would apply to all asylum seekers, and some of those are being implemented already. The reduction in the number of applications this year should also allow the appellate authorities to catch up with the backlog. We may not be able to prevent the implementation of two tier appeals this afternoon, but we can demonstrate the absence of both principle and necessity in the proposal before your Lordships. Not a single bogus asylum seeker would be allowed in as a result of retaining the single tier appeal system; but some genuine applicants are likely to fail because of the additional hurdle they will now have to jump. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House deplores Her Majesty's Government's proposal to designate certain countries as subject to fast track appeals against refusal of asylum applications.—(Lord Avebury.)
3.36 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, many of your Lordships who sat patiently throughout the long and extensive stages of this Bill will be amazed, as I am, that it has come back yet again after the endless files and papers had been neatly put away before the Recess. I find the Motion extraordinary as, in Committee stage during what I was told was one of the longest debates held recently in this Chamber, Parliament gave its view and voted. The part of the Bill concerning the fast track system, Clause 1, was agreed by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. It agreed also that it could be dealt with by the affirmative procedure.

1695
Once again we have a Motion that may look appealing to some at first reading, yet, like so many other parts of the Bill, has been misunderstood. Like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I should like to say a few words about Bulgaria, one of the designated countries of destination. It is covered by the Motion:
"That this House deplores Her Majesty's Government's proposal to designate certain countries as subject to fast track appeals against refusal of asylum applications".
The Motion does not relate to any other part of the Bill. I single out Bulgaria as it is one of the countries of which I have a small knowledge. But I am afraid I take a totally different line to that of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall—a time when eastern and central Europe were full of dreams and hopes of a free and democratic future—life alas has been very difficult. The challenge of the transition from a command economy to a market economy was not as simple as was envisaged. It was, despite the difficulties, a relatively peaceful transition. But the people of Bulgaria have suffered and are still suffering tremendous hardships. Having been a prosperous, fertile country before the communists, it is today a country, after two years of socialist government, suffering tremendous poverty. It is not fulfilling the IMF agreements and will probably need humanitarian aid this winter. Even though recently a past Prime Minister, the socialist MP Andrei Lukanov, was murdered, political murders are not unknown. Nor are they any reason to take Bulgaria off the list. We all remember President Kennedy's assassination, yet naturally America would not warrant similar treatment. Here I have to disagree yet again with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Bulgaria has held free and democratic elections and is preparing at this moment for the next presidential elections on 27th October. It has a new democratic constitution, democratic institutions and an independent judiciary. This is not a country where there is a serious risk of persecution. Economic hardship yes, but not persecution.
We should not forget that Bulgaria is an applicant country to the European Union. It also has the European agreement on trade. Bulgaria is party to the 1951 United Nations convention, a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and a member of the Council of Europe. That this Motion should propose taking Bulgaria off the designated list is ludicrous.
Designation does not amount to a blanket ban on applications from designated countries. We should not forget that all claims will continue to be considered on their individual merits. Applicants will continue to have an in—country right of appeal before removal to their country of origin. Designation is simply about speeding up the processing of the appeals of large numbers of applicants from countries that are considered to be generally safe.
Since the Bill has passed, the fall in the number of applications has been substantial. We are no longer seen as the soft touch in Europe. It is surely right that Britain should remain a sanctuary for people fleeing persecution—a safe haven but not a soft touch. That is
1696
heartening as we want to see genuine asylum seekers helped as quickly as possible. I oppose the Motion and urge your Lordships to do likewise.
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I wish to take issue very gently with the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. My understanding of this afternoon's debate is not that we are rehearsing arguments which we rehearsed during the debates on the Asylum and Immigration Bill but that we are taking issue with the Government over the designation of certain countries on the so called white list, the list of countries which are believed secure. I wish to speak about Pakistan, a country with which I have some personal links. My earliest memories are of what was then northern India. One of the markets in the great city of Lahore bears the name of my grandfather. Every time I meet anyone from that city I ask whether the market still goes by that name and I am assured that it does—Tollinton market.
I want to use as the basis of what I am going to say about Pakistan the assessment which has been produced by the Asylum Directorate. This information is intended as a background for those concerned with the asylum determination process. The assessment states that in 1995 there were 1,675 determinations, of which only 25 received exceptional leave to remain and only 10 were granted refugee status. Presumably it is on the basis of those very small numbers that the Government have decided that it is a secure country—since the vast majority of determinations did not give either refugee status or exceptional leave. But it is worth looking for a moment at the groups from whom asylum seekers come.
According to the Asylum Directorate document, since the return to power of Benazir Bhutto's government the majority of asylum applications have been from people claiming to be Ahmadis—I shall have a little to say about them in a moment—and there have also been a number of applications from members of the Mohajir Quami Movement (the MQM), which may be roughly translated as the national movement for refugees. There is a constant trickle of applications from members of Sindhi nationalist groups, Christians and Pakistanis who claim to have been persecuted because of their sex or sexual orientation.
Interestingly enough, the final sentence in the paragraph points out that applications from the Pakistan People's Party, the party now in power in Pakistan, have virtually disappeared. That does not seem to me to make out the case that the vast majority of applicants from Pakistan are economic migrants. If that were the case, why do they all come from groups which claim to be under threat? Why, since the PPP came to power, have applications from that group virtually vanished? This surely indicates that people come to this country to claim asylum not because they are looking for a better standard of living but because they believe themselves, rightly or wrongly, to be under threat in their own countries. I cannot answer the question why they are not granted either refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. It may well be that the threat is to the group rather than to a particular individual and they have not made out their case for being treated as refugees with a

1697
threat of individual persecution. But I believe that there is need for research into the background of those who apply for asylum in this country.
We have for a long time been debating whether those who apply are coming through genuine fear and a feeling of genuine threat or because they are seeking a better way of life. We do not know the answer to that question and as far as I am aware there has been no research which would enable us to determine it. Research has been undertaken by the Home Office on those whose applications have been accepted. The research shows that those who were granted refugee status came broadly from professional classes. They were articulate and they were normally in opposition to governments, as indeed one would expect from people of that background. These people bring considerable benefit to this country, but I am not aware of any research into the background of those who apply generally. I would invite the Government to initiate research into the background of all applicants so that once and for all we can have some basis of fact on which to determine whether the language of bogus and economic migrants is true or whether, as some of us claim, people come to seek asylum because they are in genuine fear.
The MQM is a group whose core membership is made up of those who came from the present country of India during the 1947 conflict and found themselves in Sindh among an indigenous population. There has developed over the decades a conflict between these two groups. The Home Office assessment of what is happening in the area reads as follows:
"over the last eighteen months there has been extreme violence in Karachi and elsewhere in Sindh. The main reason for the violence is the confrontation between the MQM and the government, but ethnic and sectarian violence is also a feature. Elsewhere in Pakistan, there have been incidents of sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni Muslims (and on occasions between Muslims, Ahmadis and Christians). There have been several bomb explosions in Pakistan over the last year".
I draw attention to the words "extreme violence in Karachi and elsewhere in Sindh". That is borne out by a report of the US Department of State dated March 1996 which gives details of the violence. It states:
"The number of extrajudicial killings, often in the form of deaths in police custody or staged encounters in which the police or paramilitary forces shoot and kill the suspects, increased in 1995. Most such killings occurred in Sindh province in clashes between the Government and factions of the MQM. In trying to restore order in Karachi, the Government regularly used excessive force, including torture and alleged encounter killings, against MQM activists. The rate of politically motivated murders in Karachi reached an average of 10 per day in July; by the year's end, over 1,800 people had been killed".
That bears out what the Home Office says about the extreme violence in Karachi.
The point is also borne out by what Amnesty International has said although its emphasis is slightly different. Its document of February 1996 stated:
"While law enforcement personnel appear to be responsible for some of these human rights violations, there is strong evidence that armed opposition groups have also perpetrated torture, hostage taking and killings in Karachi".
1698
Amnesty International is concerned that the Government do not seem sufficiently strong in terms of stamping out those human rights abuses. So the situation in that part of Pakistan hardly seems to bear out the contention that it is a safe and secure country.
I turn to two other groups among which asylum seekers are found. The first is the Christian group. The Home Office document claims that certain minority groups are under threat, among which are Christians. There is no strong or government led opposition to Christians, but as individuals they nevertheless suffer some persecution, particularly because of the blasphemy laws. Those laws mean that those who apparently blaspheme against the name of Mohammed are subject to the death penalty. Christians do not believe that the prophet Mohammed was the final prophet and their faith would require them to say so. Two Christians, Salamat and Rehmat Masih, were found guilty in the Lahore sessions court of blasphemy and were sentenced to death. That case received a high profile in the international press and the Lahore high court acquitted them of blasphemy when it found that insufficient evidence for conviction was presented. However, another Christian, Anwar Yaqub Masih, arrested in 1993 on the same charge, has already served two years in the Faisalabad district prison awaiting the conclusion of his trial. As far as I know, he remains in prison to this moment.
Therefore, although not government directed, there are persecutions against Christians, but more particularly such persecution is directed against Ahmadis. They are a group who claim to be Moslem but because they do not believe that Mohammed was the final prophet, that claim is not accepted by other Moslems or by the government of Pakistan. The Home Office document says that that group is recognised as a minority religious group. That is entirely right, but that is precisely the point. The Ahmadis do not believe themselves to be a minority religious group. They believe themselves to be part of the majority Moslem movement.
The Home Office document goes on to say that applications for asylum from Ahmadis are given "very careful scrutiny". It was that phrase that gave me pause for thought. If, indeed, it is the case that the advice from the Asylum Directorate is that applications for asylum from Ahmadis are given "very careful scrutiny" and if it is also the case that a large proportion of asylum applications come from people claiming to be Ahmadis, how is it that the country can be designated as "secure and safe"? How is it that a fast track approach can be designated for those people when, by the admission of the Home Office, their cases have to be given special scrutiny?
It seems to me that the Home Office document itself makes out the case that Pakistan is not a secure country. That is apparently reinforced by the view of the Foreign Office. There is a report of correspondence between the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary on this matter expressing the view of the Foreign Office that the situation of the Ahmadis does not warrant the country of Pakistan being placed on the secure white list. Whatever view may be taken of the existence of the

1699
white list, I hope that I have said enough to show that the placing of Pakistan on that list is based on insecure evidence. If the Government were to say that the rest of that country were secure and settled, the answer surely is that the applications are not coming from the rest of the country. They are coming precisely from those communities and parts of the country where there has been shown to be unrest and violence. I believe that to be a very insecure determination. I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision to include Pakistan on that list.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, this is a very sensitive issue and it is a pity that your Lordships seem so divided on it. I would assume that on the general issue before us we are very much in agreement. We all accept, I presume, that this country has a tradition of offering a haven to the politically persecuted and we would want that to continue.
We are proud of our role as the people who gave sanctuary to refugees from France, to the Huguenots and others who came here at the end of the 18th century. We are proud of our history and of the sanctuary that we gave to the Jewish refugees from Hitlerism in the 1930s. A quarter of a million refugees were allowed into this country then, the same number as were allowed into the United States of America, which is much larger. We are proud of the help that we gave to the Polish nation at the beginning of the 1940s and in 1945 when Prime Minister Churchill decided that no Pole should be forced to return to Poland, which had fallen under Communist rule. We are less proud, I suggest, of our role in 1945 when very large numbers of Russians in this country were forced to return to the Soviet Union and were subjected to horrific treatment by Stalin's government.
However, while bound by our international obligations, we are also cognisant of the fact that we have only limited resources. I am touched by the observation of the Home Office that its staff who are bound to deal with applications for political asylum have increased eightfold since 1988. Of course, that does not mean that we have any excuse for going back on our international obligations, but I believe that we should look carefully at how we consider such cases.
My noble friend Lady Rawlings spoke about Bulgaria. I should like to concentrate on Poland, a country that I have visited many times and about which I have a certain amount of knowledge. However, before turning to Poland, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister can clarify a question about Cyprus. It seems strange to find Cyprus on the list and being designated as a member. I wonder whether Cyprus as a whole has been included, whether the Turkish occupied part of Cyprus is to be included on the proposed white list or whether such inclusion relates only to the territory held by the forces of the Republic of Cyprus. May we have a little more information about the inclusion of Cyprus on that list?
As far as concerns Poland, I believe it is right that that country should be on the list. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would agree with that, were
1700
it not for the fact that he objects to the whole principle of the white list. I am glad to see that the noble Lord nods his head.
Since the disappearance of the communist government in 1989, there have been many great achievements in human rights in Poland. Poland had a bad human rights record under the communist government, although it was not as bad as that in some other communist countries. However, I suggest that since 1989 Poland, while not perfect—no country is in this regard—has had a record far better than most in Europe. Yet in 1995, 1,210 people applied for political asylum. None has been accepted. I conclude that this is because a number of Polish people have tried to use this route to enter the United Kingdom and circumvent the immigration rules.
The history of the Home Office and Polish entrants into this country has had its ups and downs in recent years. It will be remembered that until 1992 Poland alone among the new central European democracies required its citizens to have visas before they could come to the United Kingdom. For some strange reason, Poland is still excluded from the au pair system, whereas citizens of Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and other countries have access to that system.
It is thought that the Poles are more than usually likely to try to circumvent the immigration restrictions and enter this country through the back door. The fact that 1,210 Poles applied for political asylum in 1995 lends credence to that belief. It indicates that large numbers of Poles want to come to this country, perhaps because there is already a large Polish community here and there are strong links between Poland and this country.
I wish that more Poles could come and live in this country. A large number of British people of Polish origin return to Poland and take advantage of the improved conditions in the land of their ancestors because of economic and political changes. It would be good to have an exchange of citizens between this country and Poland on a temporary or permanent basis. However, since that is not so, I suppose that the normal immigration rules must be imposed on Poland, just as they are imposed on the others on the list.
I hope that I have made my point clearly enough, even to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, whose concerns in this matter I treat with the greatest respect. The noble Lord would probably not put Poland down as a serious human rights violator, even though no country is perfect and Poland is not perfect. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that there is now an Amnesty International prisoner of conscience in any Polish gaol. While there have been some manifestations of Right wing nationalism, chauvinism and even anti—semitism (although there is hardly any Jewish population left in Poland), I do not believe that the government of Mr. Kwasniewski or the government of his predecessor, Mr. Lech Walesa, can be placed at the bar of the accused in respect of any of these concerns.
Our resources are limited but I hope that we will continue to be generous in giving the right of political asylum to those who are persecuted for political or

1701
religious reasons. The Home Office is entitled technically speaking to try to find the most effective ways of implementing its guidelines in the acceptance or refusal of applications for political asylum. I believe that it makes good sense to have countries like Poland on a fast track system on a white list.
4.5 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on introducing this important debate. I do not believe that, with the modesty of his introduction, he deserved the persecution that was then poured upon him by the noble Baroness. To balance that, I should like to thank the noble Lord who has just spoken for his remarks about the consensus in this House on human rights, regardless of the detail. I have been among those who have had serious misgivings about various aspects of the new legislation, such as the fast track procedure.
I believe that the new background briefs, while intended to give guidance, work against the interests of genuine asylum seekers and send out the wrong signals about our understanding of current events overseas. Most of the 60 organisations which reported in April to Sir lain Glidewell's panel—whose work I enormously respect—would put it a lot more strongly than that. They are saying that in the process of tightening our asylum rules we are glossing over flagrant abuses of international law and human rights.
A letter from the Minister dated 6th September reassures me that these briefs "do not preclude" the assessment of a well founded claim where the evidence is convincing. I should hope not. I am not surprised to see that once again genuine asylum seekers (if any of them get as far as this under the new rules) are being handicapped. For various reasons, they are being treated as a category apart, condemned by the new procedure before they have time even to establish a claim. Ten days is simply not enough time. This could have very serious consequences for them in their own country if they are returned because it will add to the profile that they already have. In the case of children, this could be in breach of more than one UN convention.
Let us consider India. Most of us here have a great affection and admiration for that country and its democracy and institutions. Most of us have been pleased to see the development of a strong human rights lobby in India. But this does not mean that we must go along with the Home Office myth that India is generally a safe country to which asylum seekers can be swiftly returned if their applications are late or their documents are out of order. I submit that noble Lords would want to look at each case on its merits. We all know that there are many dangerous situations along India's frontiers and even inside the country, where remote local police stations can be a law unto themselves. It may be a vast country geographically, but that does not mean that asylum seekers can easily hide or escape, especially if they have already crossed an international border.
1702
I do not want to quarrel with the country assessment itself because I believe that it is the principle that is wrong. I am sure that some will find it useful. But there are a number of passages which I find worrying. For example, it contains such phrases as,
"Most of India is generally peaceful";
and,
"There are areas of great poverty … poor farmers have an economic motive in claiming asylum";
and again,
"There are occasional tensions between Hindus and Muslims".
I do not envy those who are charged with writing these briefs, but they must know that they are very brief indeed, perhaps even insulting to the intelligence of an adjudicator. Is this really, as the Minister says, the context in which consideration will be given to individual claims?
I will remind the House of the areas of conflict. In Jammu and Kashmir there are still hundreds of deaths every year from all aspects of terrorism and counter—terrorism. A recent report by the US State Department mentions a high level of extra—judicial killings of suspected militants by the security forces, as well as numerous cases of torture and incommunicado detention. Incidentally, India now has a National Human Rights Commission, but it has only limited powers to investigate these abuses.
In Punjab, where the activities of Sikh militants have been a major threat to law and order, any Sikh who expresses sympathy for a separate state, or even attends a rally for such a purpose, risks instant detention and may be risking his life. The Sikhs are a significant group among the UK asylum seekers. A new report by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, which has surveyed the group in detail, shows conclusively how even torture victims may suffer from the fast track procedure. That is important and I hope that the Minister can give the foundation a specific reassurance on the matter, remembering the critical vote on torture which was carried in this House.
Other sources of persecution in India include Assam, Nagaland and Tripura; the Naxalite rebellions in north-east India; and the communal violence which still simmers in Maharashtra, Gujarat and UP.
The number of asylum seekers from India has fallen, but it is hard to say whether that reflects the level of violence or the new legislation. Her Majesty's Government may feel some satisfaction that the numbers of new claims from Africa and Asia have fallen and that the backlog has been reduced. But that surely indicates the deterrent factor of the new procedure rather than the invalidity of the claims which are being processed. The fast-track procedure is bound to give asylum seekers a reduced service and thus less chance of receiving a fair hearing. That presumably is the red flag which the Government want to hoist to deter future asylum seekers, sending the message that they would rather not receive any at all.
We are speaking now of only small numbers of people getting into this country, contrary to the innumerable press reports which have exaggerated the

1703
situation. I am told that out of the 2,675 Indian decisions made so far this year, only five cases have been accepted and only 15 have been given exceptional leave to remain. The equivalent numbers for the former Yugoslavia were 745 and 225; that is 670 out of a total of only 1,485 decisions.
I am not making a direct comparison; it would be invidious. However, do not those numbers give some indication of a possible imbalance—even, I would argue, a degree of discrimination—in the procedure? That imbalance is itself a form of discrimination because it adds to the climate of disbelief which already works against the genuine asylum seekers. That imbalance was neatly described by Mr. Alex Carlile in another place last night as, "the rotten apples in the scales". We cannot get away from the fact that speeding up the procedure creates that imbalance.
Finally, I am concerned, as are many organisations, about our reputation as a place of refuge. How can we maintain our tradition of hospitality if we start sweeping clean whole territories on the map? I wonder what the old India hands in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office privately think about the briefs from the Home Office. I wonder how much time the case workers and adjudicators spend on them when they obviously need much more detailed information to determine a particular case. I know what the genuine asylum seekers think of them—that they are just another form of misrepresentation and prejudice which stands in their way.

The Cullen Report
4.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the Cullen Report which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the publication of the report of Lord Cullen's inquiry and the government response. On 21st March, following a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, I appointed the Honourable Lord Cullen to inquire into 'the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the events at Dunblane Primary School, to consider the issues arising therefrom, to make such interim and final recommendations as may seem appropriate and to report as soon as practicable.'
"Lord Cullen concluded that he should not make an interim report. He completed his report within the demanding timetable he set himself by the end of September. But I received a letter from the honourable Member for Hamilton saying that it would be 'wrong for the report to be published during any one of the party conferences'. I discussed that request with him, and with the honourable Members for Orkney and Shetland and Banff and Buchan, and with their approval I requested Lord Cullen to delay
1704
submitting his report to me until Monday 14th October. It is being published today, together with the Government's response, as a Command Paper. I can also tell the House that the report will be available on the Internet so that there will be access around the world for those who expressed support for the community of Dunblane.
"Madam Speaker, I am also grateful to you for your agreement that I should allow the families of the victims to receive copies of the report and the Government's response ahead of its presentation to Parliament.
"I am enormously grateful to Lord Cullen for the dedicated, prompt and efficient way in which he has carried out the inquiry. I appointed him in the knowledge of the careful way in which he conducted the Piper Alpha inquiry and the rigour and the practicality of his conclusions on that occasion. He approached the present inquiry with sensitivity, courtesy and care. As the inquiry proceeded, he deservedly gained the wide respect of the parties to the inquiry, the media and the general public. He has had to consider the most harrowing of circumstances and to acquaint himself with a number of very complex issues—issues which are of great concern to the people of Dunblane.
"It was right for there to be a full investigation of all the background to the events of that day and of the policy questions raised by them. And it was essential that the House had before it a full analysis and the facts before attempting to reach conclusions about further action.
"I can tell the House that we are going to accept all Lord Cullen's recommendations and in some respects intend to go further. Many of the recommendations relate to firearms legislation for which my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary has lead policy responsibility. He will be making a Statement about that immediately after me.
"Lord Cullen's report describes in detail the tragic events of Wednesday, 13th March. The gunman, Thomas Hamilton, entered Dunblane Primary School shortly after 9.30 a.m. and made his way to the gymnasium armed with two 9mm Browning self loading pistols and two 357 Smith and Wesson revolvers, together with 743 rounds of ammunition—all of which he lawfully held and which he legally kept at home together with more than 1,000 further rounds of ammunition. Within three or four minutes he fired 105 rounds with the 9mm Browning, resulting in the deaths of Mrs. Gwen Mayor and 16 children, injuring a further three teaching staff and 14 children. He then used the 357 Smith and Wesson to take his own life.
"Of the headteacher and his staff, the report says that they 'did everything that they possibly could to assist, far beyond what might reasonably have been expected of them.' Lord Cullen also commends the general quality of the work of Central Scotland Police and in particular the individual officers involved. He records the gratitude of the relatives and the school

1705
authorities for the help, support and professionalism of the force. From my own experience that day, and on the days that followed, I reinforce those tributes.
"He is, however, critical of the delay in providing information to victims' families. These criticisms were accepted by the Chief Constable of Central Scotland Police, who himself made a written submission to Lord Cullen identifying procedural inadequacies and suggesting improvements which Lord Cullen has endorsed. The Government will ensure that these issues are discussed with all police forces throughout the United Kingdom.
"An ambulance and a team of doctors and nurses from the local health centre were quickly on the scene. The health service's major incident plan was implemented and a number of expert teams from Stirling and Falkirk Royal Infirmaries went to the school. The report highlights the magnificent way in which all the health teams responded. The victims were taken to Stirling Royal Infirmary and the Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary. The most seriously injured were later transferred to Yorkhill Children's Hospital. The professionalism of all concerned undoubtedly saved lives.
"The report sets out the facts about Thomas Hamilton and his background, and Lord Cullen has considered, with expert advice from a psychologist and psychiatrist, what may have prompted Hamilton's atrocious act. He concludes that 'the violence which he used would not have been predictable.' Members of the House will want to study the report for themselves, but I conclude that this was an act of calculated wickedness.
"Lord Cullen's report considers in great detail the granting and renewal of the firearms licenses which Thomas Hamilton had held since 1977. He points to weaknesses in the system used by Central Scotland Police for the carrying out of enquiries and the making of decisions about firearms applications.
"In particular, the report is critical of the former Deputy Chief Constable of Central Scotland Police, Mr. Douglas McMurdo, who was appointed earlier this year to H.M. Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland. I thought it right, Madam Speaker, that Mr. McMurdo should have sight of the relevant paragraphs in the report and he has today offered his resignation, which I have accepted. He has informed the Scottish Office that he also intends to resign from Central Scotland Police. The House will respect his decision.
"The report makes two recommendations, which I have accepted, concerning improvements in school security. I will be introducing a specific grant to assist authorities to improve the security of school pupils and staff. All authorities will benefit, and I intend that councils should have as much discretion as possible on the measures to be taken. I would expect such measures to be in line with the action plans which Lord Cullen encourages individual schools to draw up. They will add to the measures which the
1706
Government announced in May in response to the recommendations of the working group on school security.
"Two further recommendations which I have accepted concern the vetting and supervising of adults working with children and young people. One concerns the development of a Scottish vocational qualification in respect of work with children, including the organisation of clubs and child development and protection. The other involves accreditation by a national body of clubs and groups involved with young people. This body would ensure that there are adequate checks on the suitability of leaders and workers with unsupervised access to children and young people. I also intend to introduce legislation to allow all youth organisations access to criminal records and to certain other information which does not relate directly to criminal convictions and is held by the police. I appreciate that this may cause concern in some quarters but I believe that the safety and protection of our children must come first.
"The whole country has been struck by the courage and dignity with which the community of Dunblane has worked together in the aftermath of this terrible atrocity. They now look to this House for rapid and united action."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland in another place. I also thank the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland for giving some of us the opportunity this morning to read the report of the Honourable Lord Cullen. I found it to be most helpful, although I should stress to the House that we read it in a state of purdah. We were pretty well locked in, so that there should be no premature exposure of the report until it was officially published.
The Minister has again told the House of the dreadful circumstances which occasioned the need for such a report and I too wish again to emphasise, and I make no apology for this, the enormity of the act which shocked all Scotland. In fact, the shock went much further afield. Put shortly—and I am repeating what was said by the Minister and Secretary of State—one man with four handguns and about 750 rounds of ammunition in a maximum time of four minutes killed 16 children and a teacher. A further 14 children and three teachers were injured.
I associate myself and this side of the House very strongly with the tributes paid by the Minister and the Secretary of State to the emergency services, the doctors, the nurses, the police and others, who worked as we have come to expect them to do in such circumstances. When we deal with the Bill which the Government have promised we must not forget this terrible background to our debates.
The Honourable Lord Cullen has produced a report which is commendably penetrating and informed. Some of us may think his conclusions lack bite but, on

1707
reflection, I think he carefully left the tough decisions to Parliament. That is, of course, as it should be because they are difficult decisions. He has given us the facts and pointed us in certain directions; it is for us to find out how we can change the law to make another Dunblane unthinkable.
The Statement made by the Secretary of State deals largely with what may be termed the Scottish responsibilities, but of course the whole of the United Kingdom is ultimately involved. The Home Office Minister and my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will deal with the problem of gun control. That must be a United Kingdom law: there is no other way of dealing with the matter.
I wish to say a very brief word about the deputy chief constable. It is always regrettable when a senior member of the police finds it necessary to resign from the force. It may well be that further scrutiny of the report will give some indication as to why Mr. McMurdo felt it necessary to take the action he has taken. As the Minister and the Secretary of State have said, he thought it was perhaps the most honourable thing for him to do. However, it is always regrettable when someone has given a lifetime to a career and then decides that he must go.
One of the difficulties shown by the report, to which there are no easy answers—in fact the Minister dealt with this—is the question of school security. It is not easy, without having pupils incarcerated in a Fort Knox look alike, to get real security in a school. Of course we do not want anything like that. Today one thinks of the success in town centres of street videos, which have reduced the incidence of crime. That is one way in which I hope we could use modern techniques. We should be conscious of the fact that, even in town centres, they have not completely eliminated crime. But they have undoubtedly helped.
When we get the Bill we shall have amendments moved in a spirit of co-operation and helpfulness, which we believe is what such a Bill demands. I believe that there should be a free vote in both Houses, although I am fairly sure that the Government will not be willing to go quite that far. I feel there are some matters on which we should take the view of the House and not by any means a party view.
We on this side of the House want a tough and uncompromising Bill dealing with the proliferation of guns, school safety and the rigid vetting of those involved with children at all ages and at all levels. The Secretary of State has promised support in terms of money to implement security in schools and also to increase the staff who will be able to vet and examine the background of people who deal with children. We thank him for that and assure him again that we shall co-operate in every way we can to achieve as much security as possible. All of us in both Houses of Parliament have a heavy responsibility. We will be closely watched by the people of Scotland, who are still haunted by the dreadful spectre of Dunblane.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too welcome the Secretary of State's Statement. I welcome the report
1708
which I had an opportunity to read this morning in somewhat restricted circumstances. Nevertheless, it is an extremely important report. It was a terrific responsibility on Lord Cullen who had to plumb the depths of human depravity in order to find out why this man acted in such a way and then of course—extremely important—assess how it was that he was able to do so. He had to look at the mechanics of our laws in Scotland and elsewhere to see where we went wrong.
There is no criticism of the police in their handling of the direct situation which was excellent. However, there is criticism of them in relation to the licensing process and it is absolutely essential to put that right. It is obvious that this man had a large collection of guns. He was able to fire off rapidly 107 rounds of ammunition killing 17 people and wounding others. He could do that only because there was enormous slackness in the application of our laws.
The report reveals that the deputy chief constable, who has now resigned, received a strongly—worded report about this man. Such was the complexity of dealing with the man, whom he knew, and the fact that an appeal might well not be successful, he took an easy course. We shall back the recommendations of the report: we are delighted that the Secretary of State is backing them all. The report contains the important recommendation that an appeal against a decision to grant a licence should be only on grounds of new circumstances or questions of fact; it should not question the judgment of the chief constable. That new provision will be absolutely vital in improving the system for the licensing of guns of all sorts.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in approving strongly of the decision to fund the improvement of security in schools. That funding should not only take account of improvements in security—fences, doors and that sort of thing—but also the provision of staff. In small schools in the countryside, a good janitor is of enormous importance. Permanent funding of staff for security purposes, as well as funding for structural matters, will have to be examined by the Secretary of State.
The main recommendation of Lord Cullen is that the licensing process and the holding of guns should be conducted through a system of gun clubs controlling everything to do with the firing of revolvers; locks on guns; the removal of parts; and holding guns in the gun club. The Government have rightly accepted the second recommendation which is a complete ban.
However, the ban is not complete. It is a complete ban on all guns over calibre 22. As we all know, a calibre 22 gun can do damage. Therefore, the 20 per cent. of guns which remain will have to be under the same strict control through gun clubs as was proposed by Lord Cullen for all handguns. Surely the same standards apply to 22 calibre guns as apply to the larger calibres which were used by Hamilton in his appalling act. That is the main snag I find with the admirable attitude and proposals of the Secretary of State with regard to the report.
It is extremely important that we get this matter right in order to restore public confidence. The report goes a long way towards that, as does the Government's

1709
attitude. We shall do all we can to help. I believe, however, that the remaining 20 per cent. of guns pose the same problems as the whole of the gun bulk.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the sentiments they expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, says that this is an extremely important report. That is an opinion which I commend to all noble Lords.
I am grateful also that both noble Lords have promised their support and co-operation in seeking to bring legislation to the statute book in what we hope will be a very small number of months, possibly this side of Christmas.
Both noble Lords drew attention to the firearms issue which lies at the heart of the incident and the report. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that the enormity of the statistics which attach to both Mr. Hamilton's personal ownership of guns and those which he took to the school are partly the reason that we now have 24 recommendations, from the 28 of Lord Cullen, on firearms alone.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, went on to discuss the remainder of the guns which are not to be banned outright. I remind the House that overall responsibility for firearms legislation rests with the Home Secretary. My noble friend Lady Blatch will shortly be repeating a Statement made by the Home Secretary and will be able to explore further that area with the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, focused rightly on school security and mentioned the progress being made by CCTV in other areas. Lord Cullen points out that it is very important to strike a balance in this area. On the one hand, schools are a vital part of the community. They welcome both parents and children throughout the day and very often welcome other community activities in the evenings, at weekends and holiday times. Therefore, there is a balance to be struck between the fortress and prison, which is one extreme, and completely open-plan style, which is the other. Lord Cullen makes that point in the report. I would commend anyone with an interest in that aspect to read that part of the report.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, mentioned the grounds on which appeals will be possible against a decision by a chief constable in refusing to grant a firearms licence. That is an issue which will go out to consultation. It is also an issue with which my noble friend Lady Blatch will deal in greater detail.
4.38 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I see from a very rapid look at the report that the Scottish Standing Conference of Voluntary Youth Organisations gave evidence to Lord Cullen on the matter of vetting adults involved in work with young people. As a member of the Council of the Guide Association in Scotland, I ask my noble friend whether the views of organisations like the Scouts and Guides, the Boys Brigade, the Girls
1710
Brigade and the cadet forces will be taken into account before any detailed decisions are taken which may involve their way of working.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I can reassure my noble friend Lady Carnegy. There will be full consultation on the proposals for accreditation and vetting.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I did not have the privilege of seeing the report until about half an hour ago and therefore, I cannot comment on the detail. However, I welcome what has been said with regard to achieving a consensus on all sides of the House. In the past few weeks I have been disturbed that newspapers in Scotland, particularly the popular press, and some politicians have started to develop a political campaign arising out of this tragedy. We would be failing the people of Dunblane, and we would be failing our own sense of responsibility, if we were to try in any way to exploit this situation to achieve any advantage of any kind. I hope very much that the assurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that the Opposition will play their full part in being helpful in devising good legislation will be accepted by the Government and that we shall have a real consensus in the development of sensible policies.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, makes a good point. From the start of this chain of events we have placed a high priority on moving forward in consensus and with as much co-operation as possible. Therefore, we similarly regret the excesses of some in recent weeks which have led them to introduce party politics into the Cullen Report and into the consideration of the Dunblane incident. That fails many more people than just those involved. I believe that the people of Dunblane and all those affected in any way by that incident expect the parliamentary response to the report and to the whole incident to show greater co-operation than some have displayed in recent weeks.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I wish to return to the accreditation of voluntary youth and community workers. I may have misheard the noble Earl but I think he said that voluntary youth organisations would have to be accredited rather than individuals. I hope that that is not right because I think it important that anyone taking part in youth and community work should be accredited, irrespective of how they work. Normally adults require great encouragement to become involved in youth work. Therefore I regret, but certainly accept, that accreditation may possibly be regarded as a hurdle. The good side is that not being accredited presumably means that one will not run youth clubs or similar organisations.
I have two further points. First, I believe it will be important to lay stress on the role of people who give references leading to accreditation. Secondly—I regret

1711
this—I believe there will need to be an appeals procedure because some people will no doubt be unhappy at not being accredited.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Earl raises some important issues on the proposals for accreditation and for vetting. As I said earlier, this is an area where we shall consult all those involved in order to find the best way forward. I should point out to the House that Lord Cullen himself decided against compulsory registration. However, he believes that voluntary accreditation by a national body would be a sensible way forward. What is also recommended, and accepted by the Government, is the need for wider access to information about individuals who may well be employed or involved in those groups and organisations. We very much hope that the consultation process surrounding these two proposals will address the concerns that many will have in this area. For instance, in Scotland alone there are an estimated 80,000 volunteers and 500,000 young people involved in youth activities. That gives one an indication of just how carefully the new proposals for this area must be constructed.

The Cullen Report (Firearms)
4.44 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, I join my right honourable friend in paying tribute to the community of Dunblane for their courage and dignity. I also join him in thanking Lord Cullen for the sensitive way in which he has undertaken his difficult inquiry and for the report which he has produced.
"I hope the House will forgive me for the length of the Statement which I am about to make. I am sure the House will understand that it deals with complex and important matters.
"The proposals which I am about to set out will apply to England, Wales and Scotland. My right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is carrying out a review of firearms law in the Province and will be issuing a Statement this afternoon about the possible implications for gun control in Northern Ireland arising from Lord Cullen's report.
"Among all the words which have been written since Dunblane, there is one irrefutable fact. The dreadful crimes committed on 13th March were committed with a gun which was legally bought and legally possessed. Those facts place an onerous duty on the Government to consider what controls there should be on the ownership and possession of guns.
"I agree with Lord Cullen that it is right that we should concentrate on handguns—mentioned at paragraph 9.50—although some of my proposals will
1712
affect all gun owners. Handguns are not used for shooting game and are easily carried and concealed. Many are weapons derived from military or police models or are intended for self-defence—a purpose which is not accepted in Great Britain as a reason for possessing a gun. I agree with Lord Cullen that there are compelling grounds for imposing stringent restrictions on their use and availability.
"Lord Cullen has made 23 recommendations for strengthening the regulatory controls on the ownership and licensing of all guns. We accept them all. The Government's detailed response has been placed in the Library.
"There are seven recommendations for improving the way in which the police handle all applications for firearms certificates. A further eight recommendations deal with the grounds for obtaining a firearms certificate. And there are seven recommendations about the suitability of individuals to hold firearms.
"I would draw particular attention to the following recommendations: in future anyone applying for a firearms certificate should be assessed against a checklist of criteria for suitability; a clear burden should be placed on the applicant to show that he is fit to have a gun; a new power should be created which would enable the police to revoke a certificate where there is no longer a good reason for having a firearm; and the grounds on which an appeal against the refusal of a certificate can be made should be significantly limited. Taken together these 23 recommendations add up to a drastic strengthening of controls on gun ownership.
"In addition to Lord Cullen's proposals there are four further measures which we intend to introduce. First, we will make it a requirement for all handgun shooters to obtain a certificate in order to fire a handgun at a gun club. Secondly, we shall make it an offence to fail to notify the police whenever a firearm or shotgun is sold, transferred, deactivated or destroyed.
"Thirdly, we propose to ban the sales of guns through the post. In future it will be unlawful to transfer a gun from one person to another except in person.
"Fourthly, one of the most shocking and distressing features of the tragic events in Dunblane was the use of expanding ammunition, which is designed to cause the maximum injury. There is no possible justification at all for it to be available for people whose only authority is for target shooting. In future, therefore, it will be illegal to possess expanding ammunition except for the purposes of shooting deer, in accordance with the Deer Act 1991.
"I now turn to the question which I know will be of greatest concern to the House and to the nation—the controls on the ownership of handguns. Lord Cullen confines his suggestions to self loading pistols and revolvers of all calibres. He does not consider that further restrictions are required for single shot handguns, which he would allow to be kept in the home as at present.

1713
"He suggests in paragraph 9.112 that owners of multi-shot guns should be required to disable them when keeping them at home. And he goes on to say in paragraph 9.113 that if, after consideration, these arrangements are found not to be practicable, there should instead be a ban on the possession of multi-shot handguns by individual owners. He envisages that it would still be possible for guns to be kept by a club secretary so that target shooting could continue to be carried on, using guns owned by the club.
"The Government have taken advice from the Forensic Science Service on the practicability of Lord Cullen's suggestions for disabling handguns. Lord Cullen himself recognised that there were considerably practical difficulties in removing key components from handguns. I refer to paragraph 9.86. The Forensic Science Service has confirmed that view. They are also not convinced that a barrel block could be made which someone with sufficient determination and access to metal working tools could not remove. That was Lord Cullen's other suggestion.
"As a result I have come to the conclusion that we cannot recommend this approach to the House.
"I therefore turn to Lord Cullen's alternative suggestion of banning multi-shot handguns from individual ownership. I propose to go considerably further than Lord Cullen has suggested in two respects. First, we will ban all handguns from people's homes. I do not agree with Lord Cullen that it would be safe to allow single shot handguns to remain in the home. I believe that they should be subject to the same controls which we impose on multi-shot handguns.
"Secondly, we will outlaw high calibre handguns of the kind used by Thomas Hamilton. Low calibre handguns—.22 rimfire—will have to be used and kept in licensed clubs. We believe that a distinction does need to be made between high calibre handguns, which are principally made for police and military use, and 22 rimfire handguns which are largely intended for target shooting. Although Lord Cullen decided against making such a distinction, he sets out in his report at paragraph 9.49 a table which demonstrates that a 22 handgun is some four to six times less powerful than higher calibre handguns.
"And at paragraph 9.44 of his report Lord Cullen points out that the expansion of the use of high calibre handguns has even led to many shooters being concerned about the use of those guns as symbols of personal power. In addition, target shooting with 22 handguns is an Olympic sport.
"There will be exceptions for the very few professionals, like vets, who need handguns outside gun clubs for the humane destruction of animals.
"These proposals will mean that at least 160,000 handguns—80 per cent. of those legally held at present—will be destroyed. Appropriate compensation will be paid.
1714
"The clubs in which it will still be possible to use 22 handguns will be subject to the most stringent security standards. We will consult as a matter of urgency with chief constables and other interested parties on the details of these standards, and we shall set them out clearly in guidance. In addition every individual club will need to be approved by the chief constable of the area in which it is situated.
"Handguns would be able to be removed from a club only for strictly limited purposes, which would be specified in law, and under the most stringent controls.
"Few, if any, existing gun clubs will be able to meet these requirements. When the powers become law we will therefore require any owner of a 22 rimfire handgun to hand his gun to the police for safekeeping until he is able to find a licensed club which he can join. We will then provide a period for clubs to improve their security, and to be inspected and licensed. Some handgun clubs may never be able to achieve an adequate level of security. If so they will have to close.
"The Government consider that these are the minimum acceptable conditions for the continuation of handgun shooting in Great Britain.
"Breaches of the conditions for the safekeeping of handguns will be criminal offences. The penalty for possession of a prohibited weapon was increased from seven to 10 years in 1994. Illegal possession of a higher calibre handgun will therefore carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. We intend to create a new offence of possession of a 22 rimfire handgun outside club premises. The maximum penalty will also be 10 years.
"The package of measures I have announced today will give this country some of the toughest gun control laws in the world. We will ban all handguns from the home. We will outlaw completely higher calibre handguns such as those owned by Thomas Hamilton. We will require 22 rimfire handguns to be kept in gun clubs under conditions of the most stringent security. And we will drastically strengthen the rules under which firearms certificates are granted. These proposals will lead to the destruction of 160,000 handguns: 80 per cent. of those legally held today.
"I believe that the priority for Parliament should be to put these measures on the statute book at the earliest possible moment. So I intend this month to publish a Bill giving effect to them. I urge the parties opposite to support that Bill. If they do I am confident that it could have Royal Assent by Christmas. The country expects nothing less".
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
4.58 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating that necessarily lengthy Statement. I start by echoing the tributes which the Home Secretary and the Minister paid, first, to the people of Dunblane for their courage and dignity in adversity, and, secondly, to Lord Cullen for a well thought out and well argued report. We agree

1715
with a great deal of the analysis of the report as far as concerns the control of handguns. Like the Government, we disagree with the conclusions that Lord Cullen draws from his own analysis. We believe that the analysis leads to tougher controls, as the Government recognised in the Statement to which we have just listened.
It is an irony that the proposals which the Home Secretary announced today are very close to the evidence which Jack Straw and George Robertson put to the Cullen inquiry this summer on behalf of the Labour Party. They said that there should be a total ban on handguns, with the possible exception of 22 rimfire handguns. Is it not the case that events, and the analysis of the Cullen Report, have overtaken both the position of the Labour Party last summer and of the Government now? Does not the Cullen Report state that an exception for single shot 22 handguns—there are over 40,000 in this country—would be impracticable because of the possibility of their being reconverted to more deadly use? Therefore if we follow the argument of the analysis of Lord Cullen rather than his conclusions, are we not drawn to a conclusion that there should be a total ban on handguns?
I do not wish to overemphasise the difference between us on this matter. I agree with what Mr. Jack Straw said in response to the Statement this afternoon: we can welcome almost everything in this Statement. When we examine in detail the Government's recommendations, we can see that they go very close—it is far closer than the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs would have wished—to a total ban on handguns. The restrictions which will be required, first, in banning lower calibre handguns from homes, and, secondly, as regards the security arrangements which will be necessary in gun clubs, mean that a large number of those 40,000 guns which will not be immediately destroyed will be unable to be used. The conditions which the Government propose in their printed response are so severe that they include, for example, a specific permit from the police every time a gun is removed from a licensed club. The problems of enforcement of such a partial ban will be great.
I can confirm that my party will give every support to the kind of legislation which the Government propose. However, as I have indicated, we disagree about 1 to 5 per cent. of the subject matter of the proposed legislation. We shall seek to make amendments to it, but it will not be at the expense of the passage of the essential legislation through this House.
In order to ensure that we have speedy legislation which achieves the bipartisan consensus which we all want, first, I ask the Minister to convey to the usual channels my party's view that there should be alternative clauses. That would allow for the possibility of a complete ban on hand guns produced by the Government rather than it being brought up by anyone else in Opposition. Secondly, we on this side expect there to be a free vote on the matter. We ask the Government to make the same facility available to their supporters. If that is the case and the result is that there can be cross-party, universal agreement in the House on
1716
almost all the recommendations which the Government put forward, I believe that we can move speedily to a satisfactory solution.
As Lord Cullen said, it is for Parliament to decide. We failed to take the necessary action after Hungerford; we cannot afford to do the same after Dunblane.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I welcome the Statement almost without reservation. The country was in a deeply despairing mood after the events at Dunblane. Lord Cullen's report and the Government's response are in line with public opinion. I believe that there is now a clear and established public view that the public interest rather than the interests of the shooting community must now be our central responsibility.
I wish to raise a number of detailed points with the noble Baroness. I welcome what she said on compensation and would be grateful to be told what sum the Government estimate will be the cost of implementing their proposals.
There are two important issues which deserve a response. The first is the right of appeal by owners of firearms to the Crown Court. I am sure that the Government are aware of the increasing concern about the issue in the police service over many years. The problem is that in the appeal the onus is on the chief constable to prove why the person asking for the firearms certificate should not have it. I note what the Government's Statement said about that and I heard the noble Baroness's colleague at the Scottish Office say a few moments ago that the matter was going out to consultation. I am not clear what the timescale is. The noble Baroness indicated that the Home Secretary expected the Bill to be on the statute book by Christmas. If that is so, the period of consultation will be pretty abbreviated. Perhaps the Minister could tell us something about that.
Secondly, there is the question of hand guns of 22 calibre. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that here we are going close to total prohibition. That is the reality because the Government have made it clear that there must be stringent security in gun clubs if the 22 weapons are to be held there. As is recognised, very few clubs will probably meet those conditions. It is a matter of considerable importance which I suspect will be raised during the course of debates in this House, if not in the other place.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is with us because my only other point is this. We will support the general principles contained in what the Government said today. Their policy statement meets with our approval. However, we will certainly want to discuss the legislation in detail which means that we must have adequate time to consider it. We could all think of other examples of legislation which we have been encouraged to pass in an abbreviated timescale; and yet, within a relatively few months major issues have arisen which indicate that if Parliament had done its job more satisfactorily some of the problems flowing from the legislation would not have arisen. Therefore, I repeat in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord

1717
Strathclyde, that we expect adequate time to discuss the legislation in this House. Subject to that, we will support the general principles behind the Government's Statement.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the spirit in which they made their comments and the degree to which they have agreed with the Government on the issue. I accept the tributes which are now on record which both speakers paid to all concerned in this tragic affair.
The first point is about our analysis being overtaken by events. That is right, and it was right to have the benefit of the report to set out the scene in such detail, as well as all the points for consideration. There are a large number of clear-cut, unequivocal recommendations and clear guidance pointing us to the few suggestions made by Lord Cullen for consideration. We shall devote our energies to them.
Perhaps I may paraphrase the main question posed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh: why not go for a complete ban? It is difficult. We believe that it is possible to give the public the protection they deserve and require without the complete prohibition of hand guns. That is possible and I believe we have a duty to do it. Perhaps we may consider the record of absolute prohibition. It usually drives the activity underground where there are no safeguards. We believe that the public are better protected if the activity can be seen to be, and is, protected under our proposals by regulatory conditions. No doubt that will be discussed at greater length.
I shall, of course, convey the messages that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked me to convey to the usual channels. He knows that we have had a meeting today and those points were put at the meeting and are now on the record.
On alternative clauses, perhaps I may give a personal, off-the-cuff reaction. The way in which this Chamber and the other place deal with alternative views to any legislation is by amendment. If we go down the road of alternative clauses, many people may have ideas about what the alternative clauses should be. With a Bill which we have promised will be brought before the House very soon, perhaps the way to deal with the legislation is by considering amendments. The most desirable outcome for the Bill would be to have no vote at all. On the matter of a free vote, I undertake to press that point. My right honourable friend in another place has undertaken to discuss the matter with the usual channels.
In reply to the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, relating to right of appeal to the Crown Court, there will be consultation. The detail of how the legislation will work will flow from the Bill and there has to be consultation. The noble Lord made a pertinent point regarding making legislation in haste and perhaps getting it wrong. It may therefore be right that the detail that flows from the Bill and how it will work in practice is better discussed with those who will have to implement it; namely, chief constables and police forces on both sides of the Border.
1718
I re-emphasise a point I made to which the noble Lord referred; namely, that we are shifting the burden onto the applicant. It is very important that an applicant should prove that he or she is a suitable person and that that onerous judgment is not left to chief constables.
The noble Lord raised the point about 22 calibre hand guns. Again, there will be a great deal more discussion of the details. I do not want to use this opportunity to go into them. We believe that at this stage there is a very good argument for considering protecting legitimate sporting activity using the hand guns which we have said will be permitted under the control of gun clubs.
Another point related to the security of gun clubs. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggested that in effect that means a total ban. We do not know that. We know that it will mean some 40,000 legitimately held guns. We know that some gun clubs will not be able to meet the criteria, and others will make a great deal of effort to meet the criteria. New gun clubs may well be established consistent with the criteria. We simply do not know that at the moment. This is a long-established sport; it has been going for well over 100 years at Olympics level. That is a consideration in our proposals.
Finally, regarding the amount to be paid in compensation, we will announce our proposals for a compensation scheme as soon as possible.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Government's proposals. I suggest that the Government announce an amnesty for the handing in as soon as possible of all firearms at present illegally held and an offer to those who hold hand guns or automatic weapons for which they are at present licensed. I suggest that they should be encouraged to hand them in to the police as soon as possible.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. I will take his suggestion away and it will form part of the discussions that will take place between now and the passing of the Bill.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness to reflect on the problem of mobility. It is likely that one of the weaknesses in the Government's proposals relates to the issue of booking guns out for competition purposes. If there is a weakness whereby someone can book out a gun under some degree of supervision for a competition, surely there is a danger that that opens a door for someone to book the weapon out spuriously for some ulterior motive. I ask the Minister to reflect deeply on that as a possible weakness in the proposals.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure I accept it as a weakness. However, that is an extremely good point and will have to be thought through very carefully. We do not want a system whereby there will be a great deal of movement of individual guns in and out of gun clubs. We have to create a framework whereby the number of movements of guns will be relatively limited. Guns will of course need to be moved out for repair.

1719
Even someone legitimately purchasing a gun will have to make secure arrangements for receiving the gun from an authorised dealer and for that gun then to be transported to a gun club. These are important points. I suspect that the forthcoming legislation will allow the sport to continue but without the to-ing and fro-ing that would invalidate the effectiveness of the policy that we want to put in place for sensible reasons.
I return to a question put by my noble friend Lord Renton which I did not answer. My noble friend suggested an amnesty. He will know that there was a recent amnesty. In June, nearly 23,000 weapons were handed in. The Government will consider the need for a further amnesty and will make an announcement in due course.
The Earl of Bathurst: My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome all the measures described by the Minister. However, will she consult with her right honourable friend about the difficulties that are certain to arise in regard to humane killers? A humane killer, which is effective and necessary for certain people, will almost certainly qualify as a hand gun. I refer to hunt servants, gamekeepers who need to shoot deer, and vets. The legislation could present a very severe problem. I hope the noble Baroness and her right honourable friend will look to that point in the Bill that will come before us.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I give my noble friend an assurance that the point will be given very serious consideration. He will have noticed that I made reference to a category of person who would be included; namely, somebody licensed to carry out humane killing.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, most of the points in the Statement will end in legislation. We must await that and discussion will then take place. I wish to raise one issue which does not require legislation. It is mentioned in section 25 of the Government's response on recommendations relating to school security. It states that:
"Those who have the legal responsibility for the health and safety of the teaching staff and pupils … should prepare a safety strategy…the Government will continue to take every opportunity to reinforce the importance of reviewing security and safety in this manner".
Who will do that? Most local education authorities have no expertise at all in this field. Is it a matter of consulting the local police force? Will local police be geared to giving advice to individual schools? This does not require legislation but it requires swift action. What have the Government in mind?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend referred to school security in his Statement for Scotland and I shall not tread on his territory. At this moment there is a great deal of activity on the issue of security in schools. In the recent round of bidding for CCTV, money was specifically set aside and ring—fenced to help certain schools install CCTV as part of their security measures. As the noble Lord will know, every school is different. The requirements for security arrangements are also different. A great deal of guidance comes from
1720
the Department for Education and Employment. There is a great deal of discussion with school governors and with schools themselves. The local authorities are involved in those discussions. I do not believe that there has been more positive action and concern in relation to making our schools as secure as possible. The Dunblane incident is not the only recent incident. There have been some tragic incidents in our English schools. I am the sponsor Minister for Teesside. It is not so long ago that a man ran amok with a knife in a school in Middlesbrough. The matter is very close to the heart of the Government. We will continue to pursue security in our schools.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, my noble friend may remember that between December 1995 and February 1996, through a series of Written Questions, I exposed, and in correspondence with her I discussed, what I saw as the uneven, inadequate and indeed shambolic administration of the present firearm and shotgun certificate arrangements.
In particular, I proposed that one of the things needed was a national computer-held register of all those who hold either firearms or shotguns through certificates. I note that Lord Cullen in his Recommendation No. 7 goes very much in that direction. I note also that in response to that recommendation the Government use the word "support" rather than "accept". Recognising, as I am afraid I do, that in the past the Home Office has tended to be a somewhat constipated department so far as actually getting things changed is concerned, I hope that my noble friend will be able to assure me that there will be a proper, central computer-held register of individuals who hold all these weapons so that police forces can exchange information and we can be sure that unsuitable people do not hold them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend reminds me of the correspondence that went between himself and my department and I am acutely aware of that particular point. He will also know that Lord Cullen addressed himself to many criticisms consistent with the ones made by my noble friend. Therefore, we give a positive commitment to addressing all those concerns. We more than support it; we shall be implementing it. Where we believe it is important to consult first, we shall do so.
On the point of using the computer, I genuinely believe that the technology is now in place to arrive at a registration scheme such as the one mentioned by my noble friend. I can assure him that that will be part of our discussions about this issue.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and declare an interest as a responsible gun owner. The Government suggest that they propose only a minor toughening up of Lord Cullen's recommendations on the private possession of pistols. Unfortunately, that is not so at all. The toughening up of Lord Cullen's proposals that they propose is extremely draconian and stands to deprive perhaps 150,000 law abiding and respectable citizens of their cherished pistols, many of which are of historical interest.

1721
The Government argue on page 6 of their response that these requirements are necessary to protect the public, without advancing any solid evidence for that claim. Let us remember that effective semi-automatic pistols of various calibres have been available for at least 125 years and until 1920 pistols could be bought by anybody without any licence at all. Yet, this is the first time—thank God!—that such a terrible event of such magnitude has occurred.
If the extensive yet less draconian changes recommended by Lord Cullen were adopted, there is no reason to suppose that a similar atrocity would occur for at least a further 225 years, if not longer. What would happen, after all, if 16 elderly and disabled people were murdered by a maniac armed with a pair of legally held shotguns, as is theoretically quite possible? Would the Government not then feel obliged by the logic of their present argument to ban all shotguns?
One paradox is that over the past five years almost certainly more people have been killed by decorative bull bars on the front of vehicles than have been killed by legally held pistols. Yet the Government have resolutely set their face against banning bull bars.
Yes, there is a great deal to welcome in the proposals, not least the banning of expanding ammunition and obtaining guns and ammunition by mail order. But I suggest the Government are going too far and it would have been better if they had stuck to the carefully thought out recommendations made by Lord Cullen.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord puts his personal point of view very strongly. One of the difficult aspects of being in government is doing what one believes is right. When all things have been considered, a judgment has to be made. I believe that the right judgment has been made. But, at the end of the day, it will be for Parliament to decide. I have no doubt that the points made by the noble Lord and others will be discussed during the passage of the Bill through Parliament.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may put a final question to the noble Baroness on consultation about the appeals procedure. She said that it is manifestly right to have consultation, and I agree with her. I should be grateful if she would write to me—I do not press for a response now—and tell me when the consultation period ends so far as that very important provision in the Government's proposals is concerned.
Baroness Blatch: Yes, my Lords.

Asylum Applications: Designated Countries
5.25 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Rea: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I oppose the order that we are debating. But,
1722
like him, I believe that the designation of any country as "in general" presenting "no serious risk of persecution" is an unsafe basis for policy on granting asylum. I suggest that it is likely to lead to unjust decisions.
At the Committee Stage of the Asylum Bill we spent some time taking to pieces the meaning of the words "in general". To summarise, the danger is that in so doing—I shall use the words—"the particular" will be missed. The fast-track appeal procedure will tend to bypass cases of any legal complexity where, for instance, it takes time to assemble evidence. Moreover, in just those countries where the observation of human rights is improving "in general"—I use the Government's words—the nature of harassment or persecution is likely to be most insidious and need the most careful consideration. As Alex Carlile said yesterday in another place, the fact that an asylum seeker has to argue against a "rebuttable presumption" that his claim is false constitutes a loading of the scales of justice against him.
Of the countries listed in paragraph 2 of the order, Ghana is the only one of which I have first-hand knowledge. I have great respect and affection for Ghanaians as a national group. They have provided some distinguished international civil servants and—generalising, of course—I feel that they have greater integrity than the citizens of some West African countries that I could name. Ghana was the first African country to gain independence in 1957 but democracy has been hard to achieve or maintain, as in other newly independent nations. President Rawlings seized power in a military coup in 1981 and become president after elections in 1992 which were given a qualified bill of health by some international organisations but strongly criticised by opposition parties in Ghana as fraudulent and rigged. The opposition subsequently boycotted parliamentary elections, leading to a virtual one-party state. The Ghanaian constitution calls for normal human rights to be respected. There is an independent judiciary and political parties are legal. There is also a Commission for Human Rights and Justice, but it is a government sponsored body which has not been known to criticise government policy, only individual cases of alleged corruption.
The president's rule seems externally to be basically benign, except when serious opposition is expected and then he can become very unpleasant. At the Committee Stage of the Asylum Bill on 23rd April this year the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, described two incidents in which Rawlings acted in a violent and foul-mouthed manner in front of others. In particular, at a Cabinet meeting last December he physically attacked and threw to the ground his vice-president, Mr. H. E. Kow Arkaah, a man 20 years his senior and a distinguished senior politician in Ghana. That gives a flavour of the strong-arm tactics used by the regime.
There have been several incidents in the past two years when demonstrations have been broken up violently with loss of life. Much publicity has been given to granting amnesties to former opponents of the regime over the past few years and it is probably true that there are now few convicted political prisoners in Ghana. On the other hand, there are prisoners in

1723
detention "while evidence is being collected". That is true, for instance, in the case of Alex Ofei—who, incidentally, is a British citizen—and five others, arrested on return from Britain where they had been students. They are accused of plotting to overthrow the government and have been held virtually incommunicado for more than two years. That is illegal under Ghana's constitution, which requires that if a detainee is not charged within a reasonable time he should be released unconditionally or at least subject to appropriate restrictions.
A letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, smuggled out of prison from John Kwado Owusu Boakye, one of those still held in detention says:
"for 25 months in detention without trial is really the most damnable situation any human being can bear".
He also points out that his wife and child (now in Britain) have not been granted asylum and fears for their safety if they have to return to Ghana.
Time does not allow me to describe the many other examples of which I am aware that testify to the far from perfect human rights situation in Ghana. For instance, there is interference with press freedom; three journalists were arrested earlier this year for publishing material which was;
"prejudicial to the interests of the state".
In the inter-tribal fighting in northern Ghana two to three years ago very large numbers of people—possibly up to 20,000—mere killed and there are 113,000 refugees from Ghana in neighbouring countries, according to the UN High Commission for Refugees. If there is
"no serious risk of persecution"
why do they not return home? I can provide accounts of those and other episodes testifying to the doubtful nature of the regime and its adherence to the International Convention of Human Rights.
The country report from the Home Office justifying the inclusion of Ghana in the order is complacent and over-optimistic about the real state of political freedom and protection of human rights in Ghana. For example, it is premature to state that the government:
"abides by the constitution or that ordinary Ghanaians enjoy freedom of speech and political assembly".
The evidence that I have described—as I have said, there is much more—suggests that the Government would do well to look again at the inclusion of Ghana in the order. But the best solution would be to drop the order altogether.
As a postscript I should say that I do not deny that many asylum seekers are driven to seek residence in countries of the north by poverty as well as political persecution. In the case of Ghana and some other African counties, poverty has increased as a result of the structural adjustment programmes of the IMF and the World Bank. If poverty increases, so does civil unrest. In response to that an authoritarian government—as we have seen, though Ghana is ostensibly a democracy, President Rawlings is a very authoritarian character—especially one that is insecure, responds by cracking down heavily on dissidents. That is one reason why, in
1724
the past decade, we have seen a large rise in the numbers of asylum seekers not only from Ghana but also from other countries in Africa.
The long-term answer to the increased pressure of asylum seekers is not to clamp down on those seeking asylum but to improve the terms of trade and lift the debt burden of the poorest nations from which the greatest pressure comes. But I agree that that is another story.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not have the advantage of having been to Ghana and therefore cannot answer the points made by the noble Lord in relation to its inclusion in the order. However, he made one point which rather played into the hands of the Government when he said that there is much poverty in Ghana. Bearing in mind the vast amount of poverty that exists throughout the world, the Government have had to be careful that we do not find people coming to Britain simply as economic migrants. Perhaps on reflection the noble Lord may feel that he did not strengthen his argument by making that point.
In opening the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested that the principle of designation and therefore of the order was unlawful. But there is nothing new in it. Section 1 of the 1996 Act, which we dealt with in the summer, replaces Schedule 2, paragraph 5 of the 1993 Act and there has never been any suggestion that the idea of designation is contrary to our international obligations.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. The suggestion was made in our debates in Committee at some length. Whether it is accepted is a matter for debate.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I shall not argue that point further with the noble Earl. I am prepared that the record should be allowed to stand. But there is nothing new about designation and it was practised before it became law. I say that from experience of long ago when I was responsible for immigration under the Home Secretary.
Designation is surely a compliment to the countries which we designate. It means that the United Kingdom Government and Parliament consider that there is no serious general risk of persecution in the countries chosen. In any event, in each case an asylum seeker from any of those countries will have his case considered on its merits, quite apart from the background of conditions pertaining in the country from which he came. Where a claim is well established by proving a genuine fear of persecution, asylum will be granted.
Of the seven countries mentioned in the order, I have been only to Cyprus and India. I was in the Greek southern part of Cyprus in February, though I visited the border between the north and the south in the Troodos Mountains. I found that the Greek Cypriots were kind and tolerant people, except towards the Turks. The Greeks and the Turks in Cyprus have been in a state of antipathy for centuries. But that antipathy has been dealt

1725
with satisfactorily by partition. Partition is not something which we welcome, but it provided a solution in Cyprus. It enables the people of Cyprus to live in greater peace than they have enjoyed for a long time. The Government of this country were responsible for achieving that.
I have travelled widely in India. In spite of the ancient tribal and religious conflicts that exist, which our long occupation of the country reduced—and it also gave them a common language which they had never had before—there is now freedom of movement and freedom of religious practice, except in Kashmir and to some extent in the Punjab. I have met Sikhs in various parts of India who seem to have got on all right, and indeed some regiments of the Indian Army contain Hindus, Sikhs and Moslems all serving together.
It is fully justified that we should include India in the order. The word "general" to which I referred earlier is necessary in the case of India because in Kashmir, for example, there is a great deal of conflict, some suppression and no doubt some persecution. But in our heavily populated country we cannot absorb every dissident group from throughout the world; it simply cannot be done. There are many countries where part of the population is under threat and there are hundreds of thousands of people in those groups throughout the world.
We have our own social problems—housing, unemployment, education and hospital waiting lists. Goodness me, Members on both sides of your Lordships' House ask Questions about those matters every week. We have juvenile crime. We even have some terrorism. For us just to have an open door and a very tolerant attitude towards the absorption of all people who are unhappy in their own countries would merely increase our own social problems and add, incidentally, to the burden on the taxpayer. The taxpayer has a heavy burden in administering our asylum law because we try to be so tolerant. Those noble Lords who oppose the order have perhaps overlooked the factors I have mentioned.
I do not want to say very much more, but I would just like to refer to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, for whom I have such an immense regard. He was a vicar in my former constituency, and a much loved and respected one. I have never doubted the sincerity of his opinions. However, referring to Pakistan, he said that there are groups there who believe themselves to be under threat. That cannot be a reason for us to admit a large number of such people. The groups are fairly big and in any event Pakistan is in a different state from India. We know that the Moslem fundamentalists are determined not only to oppose people who are not Moslems but to oppose some Moslems as well. There may be victims of such determination, but is that really a reason for us to increase our own social problems by having large numbers of them here?
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I thank him for his expression of appreciation. I remember well my
1726
time as archdeacon in Huntingdon. I wish to take issue with him. It seems to me that the question is not whether we admit large numbers of people who feel themselves to be under threat but rather whether we have proper determination procedures which are not made weaker by the designation of certain countries. I was trying to argue that there is a strong case for not weakening the determination procedures—not that all would be admitted but that all would have their case given proper consideration.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for what he has just said because to some extent it modifies what he said in his speech. I accept what he says. We should be grateful to him for that clarification and modification of what he was proposing.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the Government over this matter. I hope that if by some mischance it should come to a Division the Government will carry the day.
5.43 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, nobody can doubt the sincerity and commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to the cause of collective and individual human rights. It is true to say that I have broad concerns with procedural delays. I have expressed these on more than one occasion. The Minister has responded in writing explaining that my solutions would require primary legislation. I accept that and thank her. I am satisfied that there is no clash with the instrument before us today.
Certain it is that I, like any other fair-minded person, abhor human rights abuses. We have been given examples by previous speakers. For example, India, about which the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke, is listed. Everybody is aware of the difficulties in Kashmir. It has to be said that the border dispute, exacerbated by predominantly religious differences, bears a resemblance to our own situation in Northern Ireland. IRA members seek asylum elsewhere in much the same way as Kashmiris from the Valley. I recognise the sensitivity of the comparison, but it serves to illustrate the complexities.
It will also satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that both President Clinton and our Foreign Secretary on a recent trip to Islamabad have both said that they will turn their attention to Kashmir. I think that this House could usefully encourage the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Edinburgh to place this on the agenda.
I wish to leave a thought with the right reverend Prelate about MQM, about which he laboured. He might be concerned that MQM is spearheading its campaign from within the United Kingdom, using this country as a safe haven. Leading on from that, I have a question for the Minister. When might we find in place an extradition treaty with Pakistan?
It is not as though we are saying to asylum seekers from the countries on the designated list, "Sorry, full house". The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, was clear

1727
on this point. We are saying, "Come with a genuine case and your application will be approved". We have, and will continue to have, the mechanism in place to process genuine applications. The Government could have gone further—by compiling a list in reverse of purely undesirable countries and so by extension placing all others on this designated list.
I believe that there comes a point when decisions have to be made on balance and in the national interest. This is one of those occasions. I believe that the noble Lord and his supporters have misjudged the mood of the country at large, and certainly of the majority of both Houses of Parliament. The measures introduced in the Act are right and I suggest that the affirmative order before us today is an essential component of that Act. I am additionally satisfied with the pronouncement of the Minister of State in last night's debate on the order in another place when she told the House:
"We have taken into account not only detailed information and deliberation by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but a range of information from other bodies such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Amnesty International".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/96; cols. 692–3.]
Frankly, if people want to do something useful, they could do a lot worse than attempting to halt the hordes of applicants who come for purely economic gain. A number of our European partners have wrestled with the asylum question. They have gone down much the same road as this Government. The United States is the next country that will be doing so.
Finally, I have no quarrel with the additional list of safe third countries and see this as a natural progression.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on many occasions. This is not one of them. I recommend that his Motion be rejected.
5.48 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope I may begin by saying something which is not contentious. I should like, not for the first time, to congratulate the noble Baroness the Minister on her stamina. By the time we get to the end of today she may feel that she has completed the marathon over hurdles. I admire the patience and the determination with which she does it.
I was a little surprised though by the surprise of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that the debate is taking place. I agree that the House approved the conferring of certain powers in the course of discussing Clause 1 of the Bill, but it is normal that when the House approves the conferring of powers it does not automatically approve the particular exercise of those powers. Those of us who remember the Football Spectators Act 1989 remember that it is perfectly possible to confer powers on a government who nevertheless choose not to use them. Therefore, when the Government choose to use a power, it is perfectly proper for this House to scrutinise how those powers are being exercised.
There is a temptation in a debate like this (which I hope may be resisted on both sides) to make out that the countries concerned are either all black or all white. No country is like that. When it comes to human rights, all countries are lighter or darker shades of grey. A country
1728
with a perfect human rights record, if I may borrow James Bond's image, like a white crow or a pure geisha is unknown. A country with an entirely evil human rights record would be a country with no surviving population.
The question then is on which side this fact should tell. I think that it should tell on our side. It is a question of the burden of proof. Persecution is just as hard to bear if one is the only person subject to it as it is if one is in the company of many thousands. I do not agree with the adjudication which refused an applicant from Croatia on the ground that many other people were in the same position.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving way. Perhaps I should say that I am not merely engaging in tit for tat. The noble Earl mentioned the burden of proof in relation to persecution, but he must surely realise that the burden of proof has to lie upon the person who would have the knowledge. We cannot expect our immigration officers to have knowledge of all the kinds of persecution that take place around the world. That must always be for the asylum seeker to prove in relation to his own country.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we happen to be discussing this in the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, who is the author of the leading judgment on the burden of proof in this matter. I refer to the judgment in the case of Sivakumaran in the Appellate Committee of this House in 1993. That ruled that the burden of proof had to be to a reasonable degree of likelihood. Subject to the correction of the noble and learned Lord, I understand that to be the present basis of the law. It raises a misgiving which has been expressed about the words "serious risk of persecution" which appear in the Bill. The fear has been expressed that that introduces a more stringent standard of proof. I do not have the learning to judge whether that is so, but I would welcome the reflections of both the Minister and the noble and learned Lord on that point, which seems to me to be worth considerable thought.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: My Lords, I am afraid that I must apologise to the House because I do not remember what I said. I do not remember what the case was about and I have no thoughts at the moment as to what the appropriate burden would be.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon, but since he has given the leading judgment I thought it only proper to quote it. I was not expecting an instant judgment from the noble and learned Lord without having heard counsel. I realise that I could do no such thing with any propriety. I apologise if I appear to be doing otherwise.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, also suggested that this was not a matter of more stringent burden of

1729
proof or of greater likelihood of refusal, but simply of speed. I am not quite certain whether that stands up. The Home Office's explanatory notes on Section 1 of the Act state:
"Asylum caseworkers and adjudicators will be able to take account of the fact that the country has been designated … when considering claims regarding the general level of persecution in the designated country".
That appears to me to say that claims of persecution from such countries risk being found less credible than claims from other countries, in which case that will affect the chances of individual applicants and the scrutiny will not be of exactly the same standard as for other countries. I shall, of course, defer to the Minister on the exact meaning of those words and I await her reply with a great deal of interest.
My noble friend Lord Avebury and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised the question of legality. The potential conflict is with Article 3 of the UN convention which states that claims should be considered without respect to national origin. The Minister attempts to reject that on the ground that the word "refugee" in the convention applies only from the time the claim is recognised. The custodian of that convention is not the British Government; it is the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. The handbook is quite explicit that the word "refugee" applies under the convention from the moment the claim is made. My noble friend quoted the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, in the Khaboka case to the same effect. I must remind the Government that they are not the final and ultimate authority on the meaning of Acts of Parliament. That authority rests with the courts, which have, on the whole, tended to find against the Government.
I should like to refer briefly to Regulation 3 which extends the designation procedure to safe third countries under Sections 2 and 3 of the Act. I have some misgivings about Switzerland in this context. The Minister will know—at least, she should know because we have often told her so—that the question is not whether the country concerned is absolutely safe, but whether it is safe for the particular applicant and whether the applicant may gain access to the processes. Switzerland has a rule of law that you cannot gain access to the process if you spent 20 days in another country. I have here a Home Office adjudication—I shall give the Minister the reference if she would like it—which ruled that Switzerland was not a safe country to which to return people.
As with the United States, curious things sometimes happen with regard to immigration procedures. My mother once attempted to gain entry to the United States and was asked to sign a document saying that she did not believe that resistance to authorised government was justified under any circumstances whatsoever. She read it carefully and wrote, "I agree with this. I think that the United States should still be subject to the British Crown". It took all my father's diplomatic skill to get her into the country. The United States is a chancy country on occasion.
1730
I should like to concentrate today on Romania. I do not claim any first-hand knowledge, but I hope that I am as capable as any other person of reading evidence from a multiplicity of sources. I wonder whether the Home Office is the appropriate authority to form assessments of the state of human rights in foreign countries. I should have thought that the Foreign Office would be a great deal more qualified to do that—and there can be a difference.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the Minister of State in another place made it quite clear that she had taken the view of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office into account when preparing the Home Office assessments.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Viscount brings me directly to my next quotation which happens to be from the Independent of the day before yesterday. It deals with the case of the Ahmadis to whom the right reverend Prelate referred. The Foreign Secretary, writing to the Minister without portfolio on behalf of a constituent, said:
"Radical sectarian groups and individuals have carried out attacks against Ahmadis. In some cases there are credible reports that the local authorities have given tacit support to those actions.
We, and our EU partners, have expressed concern to the government of Pakistan about the treatment of minorities and blasphemy laws".
Compare that with the assessment of that country by the Home Office which states:
"Ahmadis are recognised as a minority religious group and rights are safeguarded under the constitution".
Again, there is a remarkable Home Office willingness to believe that what is said in a constitution is necessarily what is done. If the Home Office has taken account of representations from the Foreign Office I am not convinced that it has done so accurately.
In the case of Romania, the Home Office states that that country has been profoundly transformed and has turned into a democracy in which basic human rights are respected. I do not wish to attack Romania as a country. That country is making great efforts. I remind the House of what I said about shades of grey. I believe that it is never that simple. First, it takes a long time to remove from power all of the people who served the previous regime. That is true in all cases. Secondly, it takes a long time to learn the constitutional habits of thought of a free country. Thirdly, it takes a long time to learn the basic habits of thought necessary to have a police force who practise the rule of law.
I take one sentence from the assessment by the Home Office:
"the independent media continue to criticise governmental and political leaders freely and openly, although several journalists have been tried and sentenced to fines or prison terms for slander".
I do not believe that is quite what the British press means by a free press. Article 239.1 of the Romanian Penal Code provides:
"Insult, libel, slander or threats made directly or by direct means of communication against a functionary whose duties involve the exercise of state authority, and who is performing his duties, or such insults made with regard to acts accomplished during the performance of his duties are punishable by three months' to two years' imprisonment".

1731
If anything like that were in force here, would there be any noble Lord in this House, in one Parliament or another or in one government or another, who might not risk breaking it? There might be some but I believe that they would be very few in number. That is not a law that is easily reconciled with a free country.
Let us consider further freedom of the press and the case of Nicolae Andrei, who was told by the prosecutor that he had been found to be a confirmed oaf who lacked journalist training and experience and therefore was not familiar with the types of expression that could be used in criticising certain aspects of the lives and activities of state leaders. I am sure that Ministers of all parties in this country have often wanted to say that to journalists but, thank God, they cannot do it from a prosecutor's chair.
Under Article 200 of the penal code homosexuals are liable to imprisonment. Although I am aware that there may be those among your Lordships who are less distressed by that than I am, that is precisely why such people need protection. It is not those who are universally popular whose human rights need to be protected.
Finally, I touch on the treatment of the Roma. Amnesty International views the abuse of the Roma as a nationwide pattern. I see no reason to disagree with it; nor do I see any reason to disbelieve its evidence that Roma houses have been burned and Roma have been assaulted so savagely that one preferred to stay and burn to death in a burning house than go out and face the crowd, while the police looked on and did nothing. The Minister may say that these are occasional cases. There are a number of occasions. Abuses happen in the best regulated countries. Where they occur there may be genuine refugees. Where there are genuine refugees, we are bound by law, British and international, to give their claims proper examination. I am not certain that that is compatible with these regulations.
6.4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in proposing this order the Government have always said that three criteria apply to the designation of a country, in what we shall not call the white list, for the purposes of asylum legislation. The first criterion is that in general there should be no serious risk of persecution in that country. The second criterion is that there should be a significant number of claims from that country. The third criterion is that there should be a high proportion of those claims which are refused.
It is no good attempting to deal with the problems raised by the phrase "in general no serious risk of persecution". We recognise that the phrase has been designed in Europe and simply adopted by the Government for the purposes of UK legislation. There is no greater chance of changing it than there is chance (or threat) of our leaving the European Union. But it is still a profoundly unsatisfactory phrase because the words "in general" can never apply to any particular application. No one applies to be a refugee in this country because there is in general a threat of
1732
persecution in his country. He applies to be a refugee here because he is being persecuted; in other words, there is a particular threat of persecution.
Noble Lords who have spoken with great authority about particular countries on the list have revealed the extent to which, although there may be no general serious risk of persecution, many individuals and groups of individuals in those countries may face a very serious risk which demands just as serious treatment of their applications as those from any other country. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke about Bulgaria; the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon spoke about Pakistan; the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke about India; the noble Lord, Lord Rea, spoke about Ghana; and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke about Romania. All have provided details of the regimes in those countries which go far beyond the Home Office and, I accept, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office assessments of the conditions in those countries. But even if they did not go far beyond that point valid applications would still be likely to be made for particular purposes from countries put on to the white list and the criterion of no serious risk of persecution in general would not be adequate for the purpose. I suspect that the Government rely on the second and third criteria rather than the criterion recognised in European legislation.
What is the effect of the designation procedure? The Government deny that there is a presumption that an application is unfounded, or that because an application is unfounded it will be refused. They denied that consistently in the debate in another place yesterday and preferred to use the words "a rebuttable presumption". Clearly, that means that the principle of British law that a person is innocent until proved guilty is to be turned on its head for the purposes of this legislation. It means either that there will not be the same degree of consideration given to applications from these countries as is given to applications from other countries which are not designated under the order or it means nothing.
The Government do not claim that the consideration is the same. They do not deny that, for example, there is no possibility of appeal to a tribunal from the decision of an adjudicator in an accelerated case. They do not deny that the speed of consideration required of one of these accelerated applications will be so great that for many people it will be very difficult to assemble a case in the time that is provided for.
I do not believe that the Government are even addressing the issue raised by Sir lain Glidewell in his inquiry when, on the basis of substantial evidence, he showed that having a fast-track procedure for part of the backlog of applications will mean simply that there will be a slower track procedure for the rest. He showed convincingly what is well recognised: that is, the number of long outstanding applications; the fact that the applications and pending appeals are growing by the week rather than reducing; and that the introduction of fast-track procedures for applicants from certain countries will serve only to increase the delays for the rest. The effect of that can be only that in the end the Government will have to increase the number of exceptional leave to remain cases which are given not

1733
on the ground that the applicants are genuine refugees but that the delays in considering their cases have been in excess of those which are acceptable in natural justice.
Therefore, as a result of this procedure we might well end up with more rather than fewer people staying in this country, and in many cases we would end up with the wrong ones. Everyone acknowledges—and Sir Julian Critchley made it clear in a letter to The Times this summer—that there will be genuine applications from the most unlikely countries and you can distinguish between a genuine application and an unfounded application only after a proper examination of the case.
The order follows on logically from the legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, appeared to believe that it was an abuse of the procedure of this House to be considering such an order. However, she will acknowledge that the Government made it possible for the matter to be considered on the Floor of the House in response to the affirmative resolution procedure. It is accepted that we are considering the order in addition to the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I do not see what is improper about that. A few stalwart defences of the Government's position have repeated the arguments put forward during consideration of the Bill earlier this year. But there have also been five extremely well-informed speeches about individual countries which have shown the inadequacy of the consideration that is being given by government to the countries which are to be designated in the order.
There is no accusation of dereliction of duty on the part of government departments concerned. We are not saying that they have not done their best. We are saying that the attempt to make general assessments of the human rights positions of other countries is an unenviable and in many ways undesirable procedure. In the 1980s the United States considered having a white list. It decided that not only would it be impracticable but that it would put in question some of the foreign policy initiatives which it might wish to undertake in other areas. Of course, the existence of a white list which clears some countries means, by implication and deduction, that some other countries are not being cleared.
The United States realised that by having a white list it would by default be casting a general judgment on the human rights position of a large number of other countries. It decided that as a matter of commonsense and decent foreign policy it was not a good idea. I do not believe that it is a good idea now and I do not believe that the different consideration which is being proposed under the legislation and through the means of the order can possibly be in accordance with the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees.
In the debate in the other place last night, the Minister responsible, Miss Widdecombe, made a most extraordinary statement. She said that there was a difference between asylum seekers and refugees. She said that the article in the United Nations Convention:
1734
"is about refugees, not seekers of asylum … The order applies to those seeking to be recognised as refugees; the convention applies to those recognised as refugees".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/96; co1.714.]
The Minister could not have been more wrong. Of course the consideration of refugee status is in two parts. It is about the application to be a refugee and refugee status once it has been granted. The Government have recognised that by saying that nothing in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, which governs these matters, shall be legal if it is in conflict with the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees. This order is in conflict with the Government's own legislation. It should be opposed, although not to a Division today, and we, in government, will not implement it.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this has been a good and open debate, unlike, I am afraid, the debate through which I sat in another place last night, where I believe there was wilful misunderstanding of the asylum procedures.
The right reverend Prelate was wrong in saying that today's debate is not about going over old ground. I am afraid that it is about going over old ground because the Motion before the House takes us over old ground. It questions the principle and the policy of establishing a designated list at all, a decision which has already been taken by both Houses of Parliament.
I confess that, like my noble friend Lady Rawlings, I am surprised that your Lordships should be asked to debate the principle of designation of safe countries of destination in advance of the order which the Government will bring before your Lordships today.
The power to designate countries of destination was fully debated when Parliament approved Section 1 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. I do not intend to go into that debate once more. The fact is that Parliament decided to include that power in the legislation. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, as substituted by the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, empowers the Secretary of State to specify in an order countries in which it appears to the Secretary of State that there is in general no risk of persecution.
The order which has been laid before your Lordships in draft lists seven counties in which we believe there is in general no serious risk of persecution. The Government have made no secret of the counties they have been considering for such designation. These are Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ghana, India, Pakistan, Poland and Romania. They are the same seven countries which the Government indicated were being considered as candidates for designation when this House was considering the Asylum and Immigration Bill. Therefore, when Parliament decided to enact the power of designation it did so in the full knowledge that the Government considered these to be countries to which the new procedure might properly be applied. In view of this, I find it extraordinary that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, should now put forward a Motion deploring designation as a matter of principle.

1735
Each of the countries of destination specified in the order has functioning institutions, together with stability and pluralism, sufficient to support an assessment that the general level of risk to those living in the country is low enough to justify designation.
We have made available an explanatory note on the designation of these countries, together with background country assessments setting out the Government's view of the general conditions in each of the seven countries. We have from the outset made clear the three main criteria which need to be met for designation to be appropriate. These are, first, that there is in general no serious risk of persecution in the country or territory concerned; secondly, that the number of asylum applications in the United Kingdom from its nationals is significant; and, thirdly, that a very high percentage on examination are refused.
The Government have emphasised many times previously the safeguards built into the designation principle. But it is important for me to remind your Lordships again of two key points. First, there will be no blanket ban on claims from designated countries. Each claim will be considered on its merits. In this respect a claim will be treated no differently from any other asylum claim to be determined. Secondly, an applicant will still have an appeal to an independent adjudicator if the application is refused.
Last year, among nationals of the seven countries we propose to designate at least 97 per cent. of asylum claims were refused. That represents over 6,750 applications. Designation will enable an accelerated appeal procedure to be applied to claims which are refused. The accelerated procedure will apply only if the case has been certified individually and if there is no evidence establishing a reasonable likelihood that the applicant has been tortured in the country of destination. If the adjudicator agrees that the application is unfounded, that will bring the process to an end. There will be no further avenue of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
Designation will help the asylum system to deal quickly with the large number of unfounded applications we currently receive from countries which are, in general, safe. At the same time it will not detract in any way from the ability to consider the small number of applicants from such countries who may have a genuine claim. The United Kingdom is not the only country to have enacted a procedure of this kind. Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland already have similar arrangements.
In order to decide which countries should be designated we have had to assess whether the general level of risk to people living in a particular country is sufficiently low to warrant designation. That is made quite clear in paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1993 in the use of the words,
"in general no serious risk of persecution".
Designation does not mean that a country should be universally "safe" nor does it mean that a country's institutions should function to Western standards. The wording of the Act plainly excludes the designation of any country where there is a significant level of
1736
persecution, even if that persecution is targeted only at minorities. There are some countries which give rise to large numbers of unfounded asylum claims but in which there are nevertheless sufficient concerns about human rights that the requirement of the Act is not met. Nigeria is an obvious example. The list of countries we have proposed cannot, and clearly does not, include such countries.
The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, appears to concern itself only with that part of the order which designates countries of destination. With your Lordships' permission, I should like briefly to draw attention to the second part of the order which designates certain countries as safe third countries. The Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 provides that where an asylum seeker is to be removed to a member state of the European Union with the intention that any asylum claim should be pursued there, the applicant may exercise his right of appeal only after he has left the United Kingdom. This is on the basis that his claim will be properly considered in the country to which he is being removed.
The Act enables similarly safe third countries to be designated by order, and the present order designates the United States of America, Canada, Switzerland and Norway. I notice that it was only the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who made a specific reference to this and gave it his full support. I am assuming that the fact that it has not been referred to too much means that it has the support of the House. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, believes that the United States, Canada and Norway should not be included he did not say so. I should like to hear his reasons for that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She carefully did not mention Switzerland. It has been found by her officials on occasion that Switzerland is not a safe third country.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was an omission on my part. I will include Switzerland and I will also refer quite specifically to that reference later in my speech.
Together with the European Union states, these states account at present for the majority of cases in which an asylum claim is made by someone arriving here from a third country where his claim could properly have been made and which is safe.
I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will not press his Motion. If he does so, I must urge your Lordships to reject it. The order before your Lordships is made pursuant to a power which Parliament enacted in July of this year. It will be for your Lordships to say later today whether the order should receive approval.
But the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in effect invites the House to invalidate the very power in law which your Lordships so recently passed. I do not believe that that is what your Lordships would wish to do. I am sure that, instead, your Lordships would wish to reaffirm your support for the power of designation. It is a sensible power which recognises the need to make progress in dealing with the large number of unfounded

1737
asylum claims. These unfounded claims impose an unnecessary burden—a point made by my noble friend Lord Renton—and do no good at all to the cause of genuine asylum seekers whom the United Kingdom continues to welcome as refugees.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I turn now to the order and do not treat it as a second debate. The order is constituted in two parts. First, it lists the countries of destination to be designated further to paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, as substituted by the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. Secondly, it specifies the countries to be designated as safe third countries further to Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996.
I have already explained today why we have proposed for designation Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ghana, India, Pakistan, Poland and Romania as countries of destination. I shall therefore confine myself now to introducing the second part of this order in respect of the designation of safe third countries.
The 1996 Act provided that in cases where the safe third country concerned is a member state of the European Union, applicants may exercise their right of appeal only after they have left the United Kingdom. It was necessary to make this change because delays caused by the appeal process were substantially impairing our ability to make removals in cases where we were satisfied of the safety of the third country.
Section 2(3) of the 1996 Act provides for the Secretary of State to extend this provision to non-European Union states. We indicated during the passage of the Act through Parliament that we were considering using this power to designate the United States of America, Canada and Switzerland. The order includes these countries and adds Norway. Together, these states provide at present the majority of cases in which an applicant for asylum here may more appropriately pursue that claim in a third country.
I should like now to turn to some of the individual points because they were very important. First, the point was made initially by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, by others and finally by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that somehow or other this was in breach of our international conventions. It is true that most refugees who are recognised will have been refugees from their applications. But the vast majority are not recognised and their appeals fail. So we do not accept that all applicants have to be treated as refugees from the outset. Nor do we accept that the order breaches Article 3 of the convention. I am afraid on that point we will have to agree to differ.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the position of children in Bulgaria. As the country brief on Bulgaria makes clear, the Bulgarian government appear to be committed to protecting children's welfare and the vast majority of children are free from abuse in society. We have no evidence that children in Bulgaria are at general risk of persecution. In this respect I thought that my noble friend Lady Rawlings made a powerful speech from her knowledge and experience of that country.
1738
Our country briefs are based on information from a wide range of sources, again referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, including the UNHCR and Amnesty International, in addition to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which also give us information. The country brief on Bulgaria draws particularly on the United States departmental research, because it is clear from our consideration of the range of sources that this research is soundly based and provides an accurate picture of the conditions in Bulgaria.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon asked how we can designate countries and referred in particular to the Ahmadis. That simply goes to demonstrate that the principle of designation, which is the fundamental point of the debate, is that there should be no general risk of persecution, not that the country is universally safe or that no individual is ever persecuted.
Reference was made also to Karachi. I was asked about the communal violence and extra-judicial killings in the Karachi area. The security situation there continues to be kept under constant review but the violence appears to be confined to Karachi. It does not signify a general risk of persecution. Although most of Pakistan is relatively peaceful, over the past 18 months there has been serious violence in Karachi and elsewhere, as the right reverend Prelate said. The main reason for the violence is the confrontation between the MQM and the government but ethnic and sectarian violence is also a feature. On 20th September, Murtaza Bhutto, the estranged brother of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, died outside his Karachi home, caught in the cross-fire of police bullets. A period of unrest followed in which the supporters of the splinter faction of the PPP, which he formed, protested to government. Therefore, again, an individual coming from that country with a well-founded fear of persecution would be given full consideration for refugee status.
As regards the Ahmadis, at the initial stage of consideration of a case, all applications, including those from Ahmadis, are treated equally. If a well-founded fear of persecution under the United Nations convention terms is established, refugee status can be awarded. Should the case not be made out but it is felt that a certificate should not be issued, the adjudicator has the power to set aside the certificate and allow the case to go on for a tribunal hearing. If it is unfounded at the first stage and at the end of that stage the adjudicator has no difficulty in issuing a certificate, then the appeal judge, the adjudicator, can uphold that and that would be the end of the process.
Applications from Pakistan prove to be unfounded in a very high proportion of cases. In 1994, some 99 per cent of applications were judged to be unfounded and 98 per cent. in 1995. That high refusal rate continues. In general, there is no serious risk of persecution in Pakistan but while it is accepted that there is some discrimination and, indeed, harassment of Ahmadis and Christians, the two main religious minorities, it is not systematic or government-led or government-condoned.
The right reverend Prelate asked whether I had researched the backgrounds of Pakistani asylum seekers. In addition to the range of sources which we have

1739
consulted on preparing the country brief, we have taken into account our experience of the circumstances of people who have applied for asylum in recent years. A would-be asylum seeker is likely to be someone who has some factor in his background or circumstances which he hopes will persuade the authorities to grant him asylum. That does not mean that he necessarily has a well-founded fear of persecution.
My noble friend Lord Bethell asked a question about Cyprus. The designation of Cyprus means that applications from anywhere on the island, including that part controlled by the Turkish authorities, is included. We are aware of recent events in Cyprus. Again, that does not detract from it being generally safe. But an applicant coming from Cyprus who proves that he has a well-founded fear of persecution will be given very serious consideration for refugee status.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to appeals. We are entirely satisfied that the 10-day period for the determination of an appeal in a certified case is sufficient. Not all cases will be certified. As I have just said, it is open to an adjudicator not to agree with the certificate if he considers that it was wrong to have issued the certificate in the first place. He may also grant further time if he believes that it is needed and the applicant makes a good case for it. Again, each case will be looked at on its merits.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to a lack of information in the Indian country brief. The brief runs to 14 pages and deals in great detail with the institutions of India and with conditions in that country. We shall keep fluctuating situations under review.
The noble Earl referred also to the medical foundation's report on torture. It is recognised that there were severe disturbances in the Punjab in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But since then the situation has largely returned to normal. Therefore, it is unlikely that applicants now being considered for asylum would be able to demonstrate that they were still of interest to the authorities. However, in any event, under the 1996 Act certification would not be appropriate under the safeguards for applicants who have been tortured. That would be an overriding factor. The fact that an applicant had been tortured would override all those provisions whether or not he came from a designated country. Designation will not alter the way in which those cases are considered.
Reference was made to President Rawlings. President Rawlings received 58 per cent. of the vote in the November 1992 presidential election which was assessed as being largely free and fair by international observers. Parliamentary elections were boycotted by the main opposition parties with the result that the present government were elected almost without opposition.
Extra-parliamentary opposition from the parties which excluded themselves from the electoral process has been successful in challenging perceived unconstitutional actions and policies of the government through the courts. However, as regards the elections which are to be held in December of this year, the National Electoral Commission is eager to avoid the
1740
criticisms which emerged after the 1992 elections. Allegations of ballot rigging were probably a result of imperfect registration of voters and inefficiency rather than of any deliberate attempt to influence the outcome.
The NEC has invited independent observers who will include representatives of the United Nations electoral assistance division, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the European Union, the ODA, which will send 10 observers, and the United States. Therefore, I believe that there is a real intention to ensure that democracy rules in that country.
The Amnesty International report of 1995 identifies possible prisoners of conscience but six of those mentioned—the Accra five and Karim Salifu Adam—have been charged with treason and committed for trial. All six have access to legal representation and their cases have attracted considerable attention in the free Ghanaian press. There is no evidence that the defendants in either case will be treated unfairly, illegally or extra-judicially or that, if found guilty, any punishment would be disproportionately severe.
I know that the altercation was friendly between my noble friend Lord Renton, because I know him too well, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, for whom I personally have the highest regard. Determination procedures are not weakened by these measures. Any person who has a well-founded fear of persecution from any country, including the designated countries, will be given full and substantive consideration. It is only following that substantive consideration that a certificate would be awarded and, as I have already said, there is power for the adjudicator to set aside the certificate if there is any doubt about the issuing of it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, referred to a possible extradition treaty with Pakistan. I assure the noble Viscount that any evidence of terrorist or violent activity by any person claiming asylum here is taken fully into account before any decision is taken. The noble Viscount will understand that I cannot comment on the details of a particular case which may still be under consideration.
On the particular matter of extradition, I hope that the noble Viscount will forgive my caution. I should like to talk to my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I shall of course write to him with a full answer to his question.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in a slightly taunting way mentioned Switzerland as did the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I believe that Switzerland is a safe country. It is possible for a country to be in general safe but for a particular individual to be a dangerous place. The point of these procedures is that if an individual has a well founded fear of persecution, even from a country that is regarded as being generally safe, that person must be given full consideration. I do not know of the particular case that has been mentioned, but it is possible that for that person Switzerland was considered not to be a safe place.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the explanatory note which states that case workers will be able to take into account the fact that a country has been

1741
designated when considering claims. I believe the premise behind what he said was that somehow or other that would influence their judgment. It is important that the assessors know the backgrounds of all countries, whether or not they are deemed safe. All this wording means is that case workers will have regard to the assessment of conditions in the country concerned which have led to designation with, we hope, the approval of Parliament. It does not alter the standard of proof. The standard of proof remains the same in considering individual claims. The Sivakumaran judgment, which requires the applicant to establish reasonable likelihood of persecution, will continue to apply.
In referring to Pakistan, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, alleged conflict with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as regards Ahmadis. I believe I touched on that point but the noble Earl referred particularly to an article in the Independent newspaper of 14th October. There is no conflict between the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on this issue. We have always accepted that Ahmadis are subject to discriminatory legislation. But that legislation is not widely or systematically enforced. That was acknowledged in the Home Office assessment of Pakistan, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. The numbers involved are relatively small. The human rights commission of Pakistan has confirmed that 144 cases are outstanding against Ahmadis under the blasphemy laws and 516 under other sections of the Pakistani penal code. All applications for asylum from Ahmadis are given careful scrutiny. Applications from nationals of designated countries will continue to be considered substantively and on their merits. If an Ahmadi met the convention definition of a refugee, asylum would be granted.
Noble Lords may be relieved to hear that I shall not go into any further detail about the countries concerned. We have made available to Parliament appraisals for each country. These explain why we are satisfied that the states meet the key criteria for designation; namely, that returned asylum seekers would be treated in accordance with the United Nations convention. The appraisals include a description of the countries' asylum laws and procedures. These are all states with long established and respected human rights records. I commend the order to your Lordships.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I begin by echoing the thanks expressed by my noble friend Lord Russell to the Minister for the patience with which she has listened to all the speeches made in this debate. She also had to deal with two Statements which came in the middle of the debate. I pay tribute to her stamina and patience and I thank her for the careful attention she has paid to all the remarks made. I thank also all those who have taken part in the debate. Their contributions have, I believe, vindicated the decision to place this Motion on the Order Paper, notwithstanding the rather synthetic amazement expressed by the Minister and by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. After all, if there is an
1742
affirmative resolution procedure in the House which allows a debate of this kind to take place, surely it is legitimate that noble Lords should exercise the right to initiate such debates. If, as a result of that, further elucidation of government policy is achieved, both the Government and the Opposition benefit.
The Minister clarified certain points although she skated over others. She agreed that refugees will have been refugees from the outset if they are successful but she said that that did not mean that we should treat as refugees those who are still in the queue and whose cases have not yet been determined. I disagree with that because one does not know at the outset whether a particular individual will be successful in his appeal. Even if one says that 95 per cent. of those who come from a certain country have been refused in the past and those refusals have been upheld on appeal, I defy the Minister to say in advance which of the 5 per cent. will be successful. Therefore in order to comply with Article 3 of the convention, which has been discussed in detail today, one has to treat an applicant as if he were a refugee ab initio. If one does not do that, one risks violating the convention. If the noble Baroness has not taken that point on board as a result of this debate, she will be in difficulty and the matter will have to be referred to other authorities and in particular to those in the UNHCR who have the task of enforcing the convention.
The noble Baroness may have missed some of the points that were made. I hope that she will deal with them in correspondence. A point of great importance is the nature of the Home Office briefs. It emerged from the remarks that the noble Baroness has just made that the immigration and nationality department will take into account the fact that a country has been designated and will treat Home Office assessments as gospel as regards the conditions in the countries of origin when it evaluates individual claims. We have heard in this debate of serious defects in Home Office assessments. In one particular case—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Whether or not an assessor considers the country assessment to be gospel makes no odds. What is being considered by the assessor is the particular plight of the individual. If the individual has a proven case of a well founded fear of persecution, irrespective of the background of the country concerned that will qualify him for refugee status.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, that may be so. But if, for instance, the Home Office assessment of Romania says nothing about the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses, and the person presenting himself is a Jehovah's Witness from Romania, is not the officer making the determination likely to say that because that information is not in the Home Office brief he does not believe—
Baroness Blatch: No!
Lord Avebury: In that case we should be told what other sources the immigration and nationality department will refer to. They should be listed so that

1743
we can evaluate them just as today we have been able to evaluate the Home Office briefs which the noble Baroness kindly made available. That is an important point to emerge from today's debate.
I do not propose to discuss everything which has been said relating to individual countries. However, there is one matter which has run like a thread through the debate, and that is the question of the Ahmadis in Pakistan. I do not believe that the Government have quite taken on board what was said by the right reverend Prelate and a number of other noble Lords; namely, that we are not simply looking at the prosecutions of Ahmadis for offences under Article 295 of the criminal code, which was the legacy from General Zia's Ordnance 20 during military rule. What we are looking at is the whole climate in which Ahmadis suffer persecution and discrimination. That goes far wider than simply considering criminal prosecutions against them. We are talking about the climate of violence against Ahmadis, the number of Ahmadis who are murdered, the number of their religious buildings which are attacked, and the number of Ahmadis who are dismissed from their posts. This whole climate in which persecution of Ahmadis takes place goes far wider than simply the question of their position under the law. I do not believe that that was reflected either in the remarks of the noble Baroness or in the Home Office brief.
One could criticise so much of the perception by the Home Office of the situation in these countries of origin. Some issues have had light thrown upon them by the speeches of my noble friend Lord Russell and of other noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate who have taken part in today's debate. I believe that the debate has done good. It has drawn attention to the defects in the procedure which has been promulgated by the Government and the dangers which the fast-track asylum application system poses for asylum seekers from these countries. Having got that on the record, I am content to withdraw the Motion.
On Question, Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Asylum (Designated Countries of Destination and Designated Safe Third Countries) Order 1996
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blatch).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BSE
6.50 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the current situation regarding BSE.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I should begin by explaining why we are discussing BSE on an Unstarred Question. Your Lordships will remember that
1744
there was for some considerable time a government Motion on BSE on the Order Paper. It was intended to provide the slot for debate on the parliamentary orders which are required for the accelerated slaughter scheme. Those orders have not been laid and therefore the Government decided that there should be no debate. I believe that an Unstarred Question by an Opposition spokesman is not the proper way to deal with the crisis in British farming. We should be debating a government Motion.
However, the question that obviously arises is this. What is the position regarding the parliamentary orders that we were expecting? Will they be laid or postponed? Perhaps the Minister will tell the House and the industry the situation as regards those orders.
Arising from that, what are the government proposals regarding the accelerated slaughter scheme? It was an integral part of the Florence agreement. We have had the evidence from Oxford University which was reported in Nature. The Minister may well say that the Oxford evidence puts a rather different perspective on the numbers required to be slaughtered under the accelerated slaughter scheme. I remind your Lordships that the figure of 40,000 now suggested by Oxford University as the possible cull under the accelerated slaughter scheme is the same figure that was suggested when the scheme was first proposed by the Government. It was the Government who allowed themselves to be forced up in negotiation in Brussels and Europe from a figure of 40,000 to 120,000. Presumably they now have to justify a reduction back to the figure of 40,000 with which they started. It seems to me that the Government have allowed themselves to be put in a weak negotiating position.
It would be helpful if the Government would tell us their latest estimate of the numbers required to be slaughtered under the accelerated slaughter scheme to secure a lifting of the export ban. If lifting of the ban is unlikely, what is the Government's estimate of the numbers required under the scheme to reduce the incidence of BSE? I do not refer to eradication of BSE.
Clearly the timetable announced, in my view extremely unwisely, by the Prime Minister after the Florence Summit—he expected the backlog on the scheme for animals over 30 months to be cleared by October-November—is out of the window. We are now told that it is likely to be December. Some in the trade are saying that it will be March. What is the latest government estimate of the date by which the backlog will be cleared? Is it correct that there is today a backlog of 400,000 cattle?
What is the Government's latest view on the evidence regarding maternal transmission? Is there concern over the actual transmission of BSE from dam to calf? Alternatively, is there, as has been suggested, perhaps an inheritance of a predisposition to BSE if the animal is exposed to infected feed? If it is the latter, that is much more hopeful than the possibility of direct transmission from cow to calf.
We know that in the summer the Government renegotiated with slaughterhouses and renderers the arrangements and the price for slaughter. Can the

1745
Minister confirm that £22 million of excess profit earned by the slaughterers between March and June was not clawed back? That was the trade's price for continuing the scheme. I understand that in March there were quotes of £30 to £40 a head for slaughtering. So why did the Government fix on £87.50 and, it seems, waste some £22 million of public money?
What is the situation now regarding tallow, gelatine and semen? Has the ban on these products been lifted? We know that there were problems over gelatine. To be fair to the Government, they were problems within the trade rather than the government department. However, will the Minister now tell us the latest position regarding the lifting of the export ban on these products?
How much of the very welcome financial assistance that is being offered to farmers and others is genuine new money and how much is money that is being brought forward—it is welcome if it is paid early—but was in the department's estimates anyway? How much of what the Government have now announced is new money?
In passing, although the recently announced £16.6 million extra for cold storage is extremely welcome, I understand that extra cold storage was asked for by the NFU and the trade some months ago. Why has it taken so long for the Government to recognise the strength of the argument and to provide the resources for provision of cold storage?
Perhaps I may return to the accelerated slaughter scheme. When it was first proposed, in the document responding to it from Brussels and indeed in the Government's own proposals, the alternative restriction orders on affected farms rather than slaughter were proposed. That was later dropped but no explanation ever given. Anyone in farming might ask that if the animals are unable to leave the farm—they are restricted on the farm and continue in milk production, or whatever, but do not enter the food chain—why was it decided to drop the possibility of restriction orders and to concentrate entirely on slaughter as the way to deal with the issue?
We now have the news in today's Independent. The headline is:
"BSE fear for millions of British pets".
This is extraordinary. It arose from a Question from my colleague in another place, Mr. Martyn Jones, a microbiologist. He was told by Angela Browning, the Minister of Agriculture, that as confirmed in a written reply, mammalian meat and bone meal (MBM)—the powdered residue from culled and rendered cattle—is used in pet food. She states:
"Because of our concerns that pet food containing MBM might present a possible risk of cross-contamination of livestock feed, new measures to prevent this were introduced on 1 August".
It is clear that the Government have insisted now that this material has to be used in a separate building, with no contact with equipment or vehicles used in the production of livestock feed. Do the Government ever learn? We are told that cross-contamination was the reason for animals born after the ban being infected. The Commons Select Committee investigation into BSE was
1746
told in April that cats had tested positive for a form of spongiform encephalopathy. The committee was also told that while the high risk specified bovine material such as spinal chord would be incinerated, sides of meat would be rendered into meat and bonemeal which would then be disposed of either by landfill or incineration. There was no mention of MBM being used in pet food. That is an important point, not perhaps because of the dangers to pets but in particular because of the danger of cross-contamination. That posed an enormous problem through the failure of the Government to enforce the necessary regulations which led to the cross-contamination in the early 1990s. It seems that the Government were prepared to run the risk again with the MBM; we are now told that it has been used in pet food.
Finally, can we now assume that the Government's policy of nonco-operation with our European partners that was followed earlier this year has proved to be a complete failure? On Monday in the other place, in response to a Private Notice Question by my honourable friend Dr. Gavin Strang, the Minister, Mr. Hogg, said:
"Moreover, there is another development. It has become increasingly clear during the summer that the prospect of other member states agreeing to an early and substantial lifting of the export ban for the United Kingdom has lessened".
I like the word "lessened".
"That fact is likely to diminish the support that right hon. and hon. Members would wish to extend to a substantial accelerated cull policy".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/96; col. 165.]
What the Minister is saying, in other words, is that we have completely failed to convince our European partners and we cannot get the orders through Parliament anyway. What an epitaph for a thoroughly mishandled policy.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, first I apologise to the House because I shall be unable to stay in the Chamber for the full duration of this debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for setting down this Question because, despite his apologies about it, it provides an opportunity to look at the situation in relation to BSE.
It will surprise no one that BSE generates more questions than answers, and one of the reasons is that the disease is not like any other infectious disease. Hitherto, decisions have had to be made on assumptions, possibilities and plausible interpretations of findings and the much criticised control measures on BSE instituted in 1988 and in 1989: the slaughter of affected cattle and the ban on specified bovine offals. Despite those criticisms and despite the inadequacy of the policing of the ban on specified bovine offals, the prevalence and the incidence of BSE has shown a spectacular decrease in the United Kingdom since the peak of 1992–93. One might ask how much greater would that decrease have been had the ban on specified bovine offal feeding been applied as rigorously as now is the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the Oxford report of Professor Anderson which was published in Nature recently. That clearly indicates that BSE will

1747
disappear in five years. New infections from contaminated feed will be, in the report's words, close to zero shortly, and any new cases will be due to maternal transmission. The estimate is that maternal transmission cannot sustain the epidemic. The epidemic is likely to fade close to extinction by the year 2001 in the absence of culling. That is a very important conclusion that the Oxford study has come to.
Therefore, there is little justification for the accelerated culling programme agreed in Florence. Of course, the Oxford data were not available at that time, so the decision to slaughter 120,000 animals was taken before that information became known. There is, of course, an urgent need to review that decision based on the new evidence. The Oxford conclusion that the most effective option is to remove cohorts of animals associated with cases of BSE, complemented by a policy targeted on maternal transmission, would involve fewer than 40,000 cattle—in fact, slightly fewer than the original 40,000 proposed.
However, even the maternal transmission of this affliction is under doubt and reconsideration at this time and it may be that the selective slaughter based on maternal transmission also needs to be challenged and reassessed.
There are many problems associated with the slaughter of animals, even those in the over 30 months scheme. They have many important impacts on welfare and the disposal of carcasses, let alone the financial problems and implications of the backlogs that are occurring, as well as the ethical issues.
One of the major effects of the BSE crisis is a fall in demand for beef, not only in this country but in the European Union in general. There is a need to create a demand mechanism to avoid a further reduction in markets and the massive expense associated with the many tonnes of intervention beef that will be in storage. There is an opportunity here for British leadership in Europe with respect to the recovery of the beef industry. Hitherto, it would appear that we have always been playing off the back foot, if I may use a cricketing term with respect to BSE. Now is the opportunity to be more aggressive in our approach, and there is no doubt that the Minister will be aware of the demand-improvement scheme initiated for beef sponsored by the Meat and Livestock Commission. This initiative requires modest financial funding but will save massive expenditure on intervention payments and will certainly greatly enhance beef consumption in the United Kingdom and the European Union.
This should be coupled with a new approach and a new strategy towards BSE based on the new scientific evidence. I would propose that we abandon the culling agreements made in Florence. They were reached at a time when scientific evidence was not available to support them, and they cannot be supported by the new evidence. They are vastly unpopular with many bodies, including the Country Landowners' Association, the British Veterinary Association and many others, and they are unacceptable to many.
Noble Lords may know that in Switzerland, where they have had about 200 cases of BSE, there was a plan to slaughter out a large number of herds associated with
1748
this, involving a cull of nearly 250,000 cattle. This is unlikely to go forward because of the very strong opposition of livestock farmers and veterinary authorities in Switzerland. The same applies in this country to some extent.
I would like to see that cull replaced by a rigorous application of feed controls, culling of a limited nature to take in maternal transmission—which, if it is so, is the only scientific basis for culling—and the increased designation of herds as "safe herds" based on freedom from BSE and certification of feeding. The assured beef scheme, the certified herds scheme and the BSE-free herd scheme of certification are examples where this might pertain.
As BSE is likely to disappear well before 2001, certain areas such as Northern Ireland and Scotland could well be designated geographical areas in this country. I feel that this would be a much more incisive approach than the massive and, I and many other people believe, unnecessary culling previously proposed in Italy. There is no good evidence that the ban on beef exports would be lifted even if that cull took place, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Some European Union countries will lift the ban on British beef only when BSE has been eradicated. So why progress with this culling scheme, which offers no advantage over a scheme involving little or no culling or very limited culling at the most?
7.9 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for once again raising this important issue, which, it is important not to forget, is the most serious crisis facing farmers this century. Although a farmer, I have no interest to declare other than the wellbeing of my friends and neighbours whose cattle income this year will be down—even by the least pessimistic forecasts—by as much as 60 per cent.
Like other noble Lords, I agree that the export ban must be lifted, if only to restore consumer confidence here in the United Kingdom. If the ban is not lifted, the Scottish economy will be decimated. Last year, the export market was worth in excess of £120 million.
In Scotland, the cull has gone so much more smoothly than in other parts of the United Kingdom. For this, the noble Earl and his Secretary of State must be most warmly congratulated. His right honourable friend the Prime Minister gave his word in Aberdeen earlier this summer that the Florence agreement would be enacted in full. As the noble Earl is only too aware, the accelerated cull of cohorts has still to be implemented. As it only involves 5,400 cattle, I implore him tonight to put Scottish beef producers once and for all out of their misery.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have to declare an interest, in that I lost all compensation for an over 30 month-old bullock for committing the heinous crime of giving it a plastic tag instead of a metal one. Despite this Alice-in-Wonderland story, I am not, I have to admit, in overall loss on my beef production.

1749
I do not know whether, before asking my questions, I should pray for myself or my noble friend Lord Lindsay. I know that I do not have to pray for the noble Lord, Lord Carter. My first and most important question is similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. It is to ask my noble friend whether any future action to deal with BSE will be based on scientific evidence or political expediency. If the answer is that the Government will continue to follow the path agreed at Florence—which is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, suggested—and institute a further cull, can my noble friend give an assurance that no such cull will be put into operation until there is a firm promise that when such a cull is completed, British beef will be allowed to be exported?
Obviously, it is vitally important for the export market to be opened. I hope that my noble friend will confirm that it is the Government's intention to achieve that. I repeat the question, because it is market talk—indeed, my noble friend Lord Soulsby endorsed this—that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has given up the battle to achieve such an objective, as it is thought that he believes that his Continental counterparts will not give such a guarantee, whatever action he or we take. Perhaps I should remind your Lordships that it only requires a majority vote to lift the ban, so we could perhaps do without the Germans.
If, however, the Government still hope to persuade the EU to allow our beef to be exported if we abide by certain rules and culls, then I have with great regret to say that the Government will find it difficult, maybe impossible, to persuade the EU or to regain the confidence of the industry. I am sorry to say that both have lost confidence in the Minister of Agriculture but more particularly in those who have proved themselves totally incapable of giving him sound advice.
I have sympathy for some of the political problems that my right honourable friend has had to sort out. However, I have none whatsoever for the totally chaotic way the policy has been carried out in England and Wales, although I accept that north of the border there seems to have been a vast improvement. That must reflect on the advice given to my right honourable friend by his senior officials in his department.
Perhaps I may drive the knife in even further by saying that I am full of admiration for the unfortunate MAFF officials at grass roots who have the unpleasant task of explaining the chaos to me and my neighbouring farmers. My admiration for them is unstinted. I wonder too whether it was wise for a MAFF official, when representing my right honourable friend in the EU, to offer as an excuse that BSE was an act of God. It is the farmers' task every day to deal with acts of God. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Carter, nodding. It appears that MAFF is unable to seize the problem.
I could ask a multitude of questions illustrating the sad incompetence of MAFF and its veterinary department. I started with four questions; the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked one, so there remain three of which I gave my noble friend notice. First, can he tell
1750
me whether I can put a bullock into the food chain which is over 30 months old according to its CID, but has only two broad teeth? Can my noble friend tell me what happens if the bullock is pushing but not really showing its third tooth? What next? Does the farmer have to put 6p under the bullock's pillow to get him in?
Secondly, does my noble friend agree with my right honourable friend Mr. Freeman that some form of open air incineration might be accepted? Alternatively, does my noble friend agree with my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture that such a course would be unacceptable? Thirdly, what price will the Government pay for over 30 month-old beef after 31st October?
Finally, there is a vital lesson to learn from this tragedy. It is a tragedy, even though I have laughed at it at times, as one has to. The lesson is to ensure that in future there are some senior officials in responsible positions who have practical experience of farmers, farming and slaughtering. Some of the advice given to Ministers shows a total inability to understand those problems and, indeed, a certain arrogance.
I am truly sorry—and I mean it—that my remarks this evening are less restrained than when we debated the matter on 17th April. However, I am a Tory, I shall remain a Tory and I shall remain a farmer. I cannot mince my words.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Carter on bringing forward this subject so early on the House's return. I should declare an interest in that I own a dairy herd in Cheshire. I am disappointed to have to report to your Lordships that the Government's handling of the crisis means that there is still anger, turmoil and distress in the industry.
Following the ministerial announcements in March, farmers looked to the Government to provide an orderly scheme to remove by October the backlog of cattle waiting to be slaughtered. But instead of seeing progressive clearing, farmers have had to resort to all kinds of means to move cattle, and now, as winter approaches, most farmers still have as many cattle to be slaughtered as when the scheme started. So after seven months we are still no further forward.
Over the summer, farmers have been agonising over just who will take their cattle. Fields have been set aside from productive use to roam cattle. Is it any wonder, therefore, that farmers feel completely betrayed when the Minister announces, on his own initiative, a cut in the rate of compensation for the over 30-month cattle? He claims that:
"the level of compensation is too high, pro-rata to the beef trade".
Little wonder that farmers gave him such a rough reception in Bournemouth last week.
Having presided over the collapse of the beef trade, the Minister seems intent on bringing the rest of the industry down to the same level. He then insults it by claiming that farmers are using the scheme to improve their herds. We had a backlog in May and we still have one now. Only last week an announcement was made that a registration scheme for clearing the backlog would be established. This must be given priority.

1751
The slaughtering scheme has created a very murky trade. It is distorted by vendettas, favours and personal relationships among the people involved in it. Abattoirs and renderers are being paid well over any sensible rate. There are allegations of cash inducementsbackhanders—to enable cattle to be taken for slaughter.
Farmers are naturally unwilling to speak out because they fear retaliation. Many of the current arrangements may not technically be illegal but they distort trade and leave the farmer as a bystander. One example is that many abattoirs are buying in live cattle through dealers and dispersal sales to put them through the dead-weight schemes themselves.
Last month, my National Farmers Union branch in Nantwich conducted a survey on the size of the backlog. Nantwich is only one branch in Cheshire, but nevertheless the survey can be seen as representative of the problems facing us. The average holding had 13 head registered with the local market in April/May. How effectively have those been cleared? From that average of 13, two have gone through the local market on the official live-weight scheme; just less than an average of five have gone on a dead-weight basis; and just over four have gone as—I use the official term—"casualties".
Thus an average of two are still waiting. But once you add the normal summer throughput of cattle, a total of 12 head per holding are now waiting to go. So despite those cattle going for slaughter, the backlog is virtually the same now as it was then, back in May.
Many so-called casualties will be genuine, but farmers desperate to move cattle have deemed many to be casualties, as they have to be slaughtered immediately on welfare grounds. Having successfully had a casualty certified, farmers have then been incensed to be kept waiting for their money and to see transport charges of £ 1 per mile deducted from payments for transporting the casualty often 200 miles to what in normal times is no more than a pet crematorium.
Nationally, we are now slaughtering 35,000 head a week. That is an improvement on the 25,000 figure which applied earlier this year, and I applaud the Minister for achieving that increase. But, as the Country Landowners' Association has made clear, that needs to increase to 55,000 if there is to be any hope of clearing the backlog.
The registration scheme announced last week must create an orderly and even-handed system of access to slaughtering facilities. We still need answers to five questions. What do the Government intend to do with the figures they obtain? How will the scheme be administered? And by whom? What will be the priorities? And, most importantly, when can farmers see an end to this turmoil?
The intervention board has come in for universal criticism as it seems unwilling to take the lead in according any priority to the backlog. Yet farmers now hear—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—that the pay rates for intervention board staff have been increased much more than for staff elsewhere in the ministry.
1752
Slaughterhouses have been brought to book again and instructed to clear the backlog according to the lists they made in the spring. That gives a green light for the unsavoury practices to continue on an even greater scale.
The new registration scheme is needed immediately. Regulation of access must be put outside the control of slaughterhouses. A different policy is needed and control must rest with a truly independent body. The Meat and Livestock Commission has been suggested, but I should prefer the ministry's own regional service centres to be used.
That is the priority in the countryside, and only when it is dealt with can the industry regain credibility with the consumer in Britain and with the rest of Europe. We have waited far too long; the time to act is now.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for initiating the debate. I have no direct involvement in the cattle business myself, but my brother is prominent in the British Holstein Cattle Society and owns one of the most successful dairy herds in the country. I have many other contacts with others directly involved in the industry.
I have to keep reminding myself that it is the application of the precautionary principle to the cattle business as a result of the still unproven possibility of a link between BSE and CJD that lies behind the difficulties in the industry today. This is not an issue of animal health and welfare, important thought those subjects are. It is the possible risk of cross-species disease transmission that is the justification for the present state of turmoil in this great industry and the enormous expenditures being undertaken.
Research into BSE, if reports are correct, is costing some £9.7 million per year at the present time, a not unreasonable sum. The precautionary principle, however, is costing a great deal more: 600,000 cattle have already been slaughtered. Even if compensation averages £300 per cow—a remarkably, indeed unrealistically, low figure—that suggests expenditure already of £1.8 billion. That is an enormous sum of money, and we know that there is more to come. I would be interested to hear from my noble friend the Minister what the actual expenditure has been to date and what is the estimate for future expenditure.
Justification can come only when the results of the present research are known. But BSE and CJD research programmes are extremely time-consuming. We have to face the possibility that when the results finally come through they may show that all this expenditure was unnecessary. Are we really saying that the precautionary principle should apply regardless of cost? That seems to be the situation.
We all know that dairy and beef farmers are upset at the way this matter has developed. The problems have their roots in a regional disparity between cattle numbers and slaughtering and rendering capacity. Some regions are implementing successful schemes, but problems arise in those regions where there is an excess in cattle numbers. It is probably useful at this stage to put on

1753
record the experience of one particular herd (not my brother's) since it explains the ill-feeling that has developed.
That herd normally consists of 160 cows in milk with followers. When the possible CJD linkage was announced and the cull programme initiated, normal management of herd numbers had to be suspended—cull cows could only go for disposal. The herd manager estimated that he would lose 70 animals in the cull (that figure includes normal wastage). He therefore decided to keep 30 extra heifers in order to maintain herd numbers. Animals for slaughter were booked through the herd's normal agent to go in June. That agent has an allocation of 280 cows per week into the slaughter scheme but has been able to achieve that figure only twice. In the first week of this month he sent 260 animals for slaughter, but 400 more were added to his waiting list. He is at present clearing animals entered for slaughter in May. So no cattle have left the dairy herd to which I refer.
As a result, herd numbers are at present 210 and milk production is inevitably in excess of quota. The farm receives 25p. per litre for quota milk but has to pay a levy of between 32p. and 33p. for every litre by which it exceeds its quota. By good management it has contained excess production to 3½ per cent, but to bring it back within the quota it must increase the number of cows culled. In the meantime it has seen the value of the cull cows drop by more than £100 due to the cut in compensation introduced a short time ago. As winter approaches there is an increasing animal welfare problem due to a shortage of adequate housing and fodder.
That is a well-run herd owned by an agricultural college which has tried to abide by the rules. Needless to say, the college is not very pleased. I should add that the present situation which has affected so many people has had its effect in the market-place, where unscrupulous people are now operating unethical, if not illegal, practices. Also, it has become almost impossible to deal with the question of casualty animals sensibly.
What is to be done? This country has lost its export market. But the export ban is only a part of the problem, since continental markets have collapsed for other reasons in an even more dramatic way. So simply lifting the export ban is not the obvious solution it appears to be since there is not an export market to supply.
However, it seems that there would be export demand for Scottish beef where it is proved to be BSE free. I was pleased to note that the Irish are supporting the case for the export ban to be lifted from beef from Northern Ireland. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister would agree to a bit of fancy footwork by attempting what I would call an incremental approach to removing the export ban. Surely some progress is better than none at all. It would help if we could get the ban lifted from particular sectors.
I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider another point which might help in the present situation. I believe that the beef industry has a scheme of advance payments because the financial implications for the beef industry
1754
on cash flow is clearly so much greater than is the case in the dairy industry where milk cheques come in fairly regularly. However, with the advent of winter, the dairy herds are also now heading into crisis. I wonder whether the scheme of advance payments could be extended to the dairy sector, particularly to apply where there are herds in which it is well known that the cattle have been entered for slaughter for many months and it has not been possible to get them away from the farm.
I await with great interest the reply of my noble friend the Minister.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Rathcreedan: My Lords, in making comments following the most pertinent question of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I must declare an interest. I am not so regular an attender in your Lordships' House as I would like. My time is filled and my livelihood primarily derived as an auctioneer and valuer of livestock, principally dairy cattle. Among the animals that I have sold by auction have been many owned by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, from his fine herd in Cheshire and by the brother of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, from his equally fine herd which, as he said, recently won the prestigious competition for the best dairy herd of any breed. I found the noble Lords' comments most apposite to the situation and I hope that the Minister will answer the many queries that they raised.
In the course of my business I have been closely concerned with the problems caused by BSE since its discovery several years ago. But the situation at present is nothing short of a desperate and unprecedented crisis. When the Minister for Health made his fateful announcement on 20th March, I knew immediately that it spelled difficulties ahead for my profession. But how the events of the past seven months have unfolded almost beggars belief.
The principal problem that has affected those involved in the dairy farming industry concerns the over 30-month slaughter scheme and the way in which it has been carried out. In whatever form the Government envisaged it working, it seems to have been a complete shambles. The results can be felt on virtually every cattle farm, both beef and dairy, throughout the United Kingdom. There appears to have been little or no visible consultation with the industry at the outset as to whether the propositions for the over 30-month scheme were feasible or not. It has been akin almost to setting out across a desert with a limited amount of petrol in the tank of one's vehicle, not having the faintest idea of how many miles it is to the other side.
As other noble Lords pointed out, as we currently stand there is a huge backlog of cattle. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, quoted a figure of 400,000. That is the figure most generally quoted as the currently ongoing backlog. That has served to more than halve the price of dairy cattle at the present time and, as winter fast approaches, the situation is worsening. Those who have been unable to get cattle slaughtered have been forced to keep them, many of them still producing milk and adding to production quotas, both their own quotas and obviously the national quota. The current price of

1755
purchasing or leasing additional quota is now prohibitive to most dairy farmers. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, pointed out, in numerous cases milk producers have additional heifers calving this autumn for which they have no room, feed or quota and which are virtually worthless on the open market. Many of the cattle that have to be sold at the current market price owing to farmers retiring, relinquishing tenancies or being forced to sell due to financial restraints are making £100 to £200 less than could be obtained on the over 30-month slaughter scheme, if only farmers could get access to it.
Many of those cattle are perfectly serviceable dairy cows which in the normal course of events would be purchased by other farmers for milk production. The only people who are able to buy them at the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, pointed out, are those who have special connections with access to abattoirs. Those people are making substantial profits out of the scheme at the expense of the majority of the nation's farmers. Obviously, it is an ill wind that blows everybody off course. One can expect that there will always be people about to profiteer from a given situation. One has heard about abattoir owners slaughtering cows from several sources under the scheme and doing a worthwhile job who realised how much more they could make by purchasing the cows for themselves and slaughtering them. I do not say that every abattoir owner does it, but I have heard of such cases. The other day I was also told of an abattoir owner who bought a new top of the range car with a specially ordered number plate, P6 BSE, by which he celebrated making a million pounds in profit over the first six months of the BSE scenario.
There does not seem to have been any proper governmental organisation of the scheme. Abuse of its principles is rife. The secretary of the National Cattle Breeders' Association told me that, in company with other agricultural organisations, it warned the Government in April, shortly after the scheme was announced, of many of the problems associated with carrying out such a scheme and in particular told them of the need for a system of regulation to be instituted to ensure that the scheme worked smoothly and fairly for all. Now, in order possibly to fund tax cuts in the coming Budget in an attempt to have themselves re-elected, the Government have seen fit to cut the price paid in compensation. For those who have kept cattle since the spring, unable to get them killed, to be told that they are now worth even less is a rather bitter pill to swallow. It is no wonder that at present farmers feel betrayed by the Government.
What is of prime importance is that the Government take steps to resolve the situation as soon as possible. In nearly 25 years in the business, I have not faced any situation so grave as the present one. Neither have many of those with a lifetime's experience in farming. If the backlog of cattle awaiting slaughter can be cleared as swiftly as possible, it may help to put the industry on a forward track. The Minister of Agriculture last week announced a package described as £45 million of aid to farmers. A substantial proportion of that sum is not going anywhere near the pockets of farmers. It simply
1756
provides storage for carcasses pending rendering by an organisation whose monopoly has the industry in a stranglehold. We cannot blame the Government for that particular unfortunate circumstance, but we hope that steps might be taken in the future so that the situation cannot arise again.
What will happen when the storage capacity is filled? We shall be back to fewer numbers being killed and pictures taken by a voracious media of cattle starving to death in the fields as farmers are unable to feed them or have them humanely killed. Cannot the Government give serious consideration to open air incineration of cattle—at specially approved sites, of course—to clear the backlog as quickly as possible? That would have the benefit of releasing the industry from the stranglehold at present held on it by the renderers.
Over the past seven months there has been considerable debate on the merits or otherwise of an accelerated slaughter policy to rid the country of BSE and allow the beef export ban to be lifted. Such a policy was agreed by the Prime Minister at the Florence Summit in June, though subsequently, about two months after, it was dismissed as being without scientific justification. The more cynical among us might think that for those last words we should read: "We've done our sums now and can't afford it if we're going to cut taxes before the next election". Such a decision is in any case hypothetical until we have cleared the backlog in the over 30-month scheme and it will warrant further debate in the future.
For the present, I trust that the Government will face up to their responsibilities to the nation's farmers; that they will immediately implement a fair system of registration so that genuine farmers can get their barren cows disposed of; that the full payment as originally announced will be restored; and that the 30-month cull will proceed with due haste by whatever means are necessary in order to give those who provide the country's beef and dairy products a sense of purpose and hope for the future—commodities which are sadly lacking at present in the majority of the nation's farmers.
The cattle business, in all its forms, is probably this island's oldest industry. It dates from the time when our ancestors wore loincloths and hunted with spears. I have been proud to serve it for my entire working life and fervently hope that this great industry will not be destroyed on the altar of political expediency.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am beginning to feel sorry for the Minister, though he is looking remarkably cheerful. I hope that he heard the noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan—I understand that he did—who is an excellent auctioneer. He drove his points home and they were very good points.
It is a sorry tale of woe. It will not do any harm to remind the Minister of the sequence of events. First, the Government do not believe in regulation. When the renderers decided that a system of continuous rendering was much cheaper, the authorities simply let them go ahead. From that flowed without doubt the enormous incidence of BSE; the 160,000 cases of which we have

1757
heard and the follow-up slaughter cases. It does not do for governments to think that industrial peopleprofit-makers—think always of the good of the nation. They need regulation.
Then we went on to the Government's introduction of compensation. But they only paid half. That led to a reluctance on the part of farmers to part with cattle at half price when, perhaps by cheating, they could obtain the full price. Then we came to the handling of the crisis by two Ministers when they feared that there might be an epidemic of the new type of CJD caused by BSE. I am not surprised that the Germans were terrified—they are susceptible anyway—because the Minister frightened me. I really thought, when I heard him say that he would slaughter every beast in the country if necessary, that some terrible indication was on the way. The Government then made matters worse by saying, "But give us to the weekend and we will be able to tell you better what is going on". The mishandling of the whole affair was quite appalling.
We now come to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, who is a man I respect greatly. But I quarrel with one thing that he said. There is no new scientific evidence to alter the situation; there is a new scientific evaluation. However, a lot of us knew the figures anyway and realised that the whole thing was declining so fast that it would be finished by the time we came into the new century. But to make a promise that we would slaughter so many cattle—we knew it was a political promise—and then baldly to announce that there was new evidence and we would cancel it is not the way to obtain the co-operation of the people of Europe. We must have consistent policies, and that is what there has not been in the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, spoke well of the handling of the situation in Scotland. That is true, and the noble Earl may take some credit that it has been better handled there than in England. But that is not to say that there are not a great number of people in Scotland with a backlog of cattle that they cannot get rid of looking at the coming winter and at a lot of extra expense. To say to the people who are holding on to the cattle that they will receive £50 less than those who were fortunate enough to get rid of them before October is not encouraging. The Minister should think again in that regard.
I shall try not to go on too long; there are many comments that one could make—so many that it must be wearisome for the Minister listening to them. But the fact is that the situation is a mess. The sooner responsible people in the Government realise that and do something about it at the top—the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, mentioned the incompetence not only politically but apparently among the experts—the better everything will be. We need in political and other quarters a good deal of human culling, though I would not go so far as to advocate slaughter.
7.46 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, in reference to the
1758
last point, I am not sure what the difference is between a human cull and human slaughter. The noble Lord may tell me afterwards.
Like other noble Lords, I am genuinely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for raising this issue. It is of continuing importance to so many across the United Kingdom, and it is therefore appropriate that in this overspill period we should discuss it. I did not realise that there was quite so much cross-party trade in cattle in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, identified and owned up to the cattle links that he has with all sides of the Chamber. I have heard of the cross-sectional nature of the beef industry and BSE generally, but the cross-party nature of the trade is unusual.
I must put down one or two pointers to remind noble Lords what has been going on, before turning to some of the individual questions. We have been making and will continue to make a substantial effort to address the impact of the BSE crisis. As my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham indicated, it is unprecedented. It involves a science which is still only partly understood. The extent of the challenge is of a proportion of which few of us have had experience in the agricultural world. It has generally presented an immense challenge to everyone, both within the Government and within the industry itself. That is why we have committed £2,500 million in order to tackle some of the issues raised by BSE. If the noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, thinks that that commitment to the farming industry can in some way be linked to tax cuts at the next election, he is perhaps a better auctioneer than he is an analyst.
Throughout the past months, especially during the summer months, both myself in Scotland and my agricultural colleagues in other departments spent a huge amount of time with the beef industry, both at the producer end and at the slaughter, auctioneer and processor end in order to listen to them and to see that the measures we are bringing in are leading to good effect. We consulted and liaised extensively with the industry throughout the United Kingdom and with all the different parts of the industry. I therefore take grave objection to the accusation by the noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, that there has been a failure to consult. In fact, the most extraordinary assertion was that the 30-month scheme itself was something of a shambles as an idea in that it was the National Farmers Union which requested the scheme. It approached Ministers and said that that is what it wanted. We listened to the NFU and to the retailers. This is not a government inspired scheme; it is a National Farmers Union inspired scheme.
We are aware that, despite the £2.5 billion committed to date, we cannot address exactly the circumstances of every individual throughout the beef industry and the ancillary trades. But we can ensure that we put sufficient compensation, rescue aid and support into the essential links to the industry in order to ensure its long-term survival. By making sure that the essential links to the industry survive, we are also enabling the benefits of our aid to filter down into some of those ancillary trades. At the end of the day we need those links to survive the crisis in order that we come out the other side.

1759
The other truth, on top of the government support, is that consumer confidence will be the critical factor. We can carry on committing help to the industry, but if the consumer, both in this and other countries, is not back buying that beef, the industry will not survive in the form that we know it.
I could spend my entire time allocation detailing the measures we have brought forward regarding consumer confidence—the measures for producers, for abattoirs and cutting plants, for renderers and so on. However, a number of important questions have been raised by noble Lords and I wish to deal with them.
Many noble Lords spoke about the accelerated slaughter scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, introduced it early in his contribution. The Florence framework remains intact. I should point out that we have not reneged on it and we have not broken promises. We fought hard in Florence to ensure objective criteria—measurable elements regarding human and animal health—and that as far as possible science could be one of the bedrocks on which the Florence framework rested. We sought and won the concession that the Florence framework should be guided mostly by the veterinary committees and not by the Council of Ministers in order to minimise the politics of the timetable. Given the importance placed on objective criteria in the Florence framework—when the science attaching to BSE moves forward a stage when the Oxford group reports and when the interim report from the maternal transmission experiment comes in—it would be remiss of us all if we did not feed that new science into a framework which seeks to rest as much as possible on objective criteria.
It is not only the United Kingdom Government who have sought to assimilate this new science. It is also the Commission itself. In addition, no one should forget that scientists and politicians can declare a product safe; but, at the end of the day, if the consumer does not want to buy the product, the product will not sell, despite the best assurances of the other experts and anyone else involved. Therefore, the Florence framework rests on measures which are designed to bring consumer confidence back into play. That is why I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, about the importance of moving ahead with a selective cull as soon as we have identified the most appropriate selective cull to adopt. That decision will be taken by ourselves in consultation with the Commission and its experts who are studying the matter simultaneously.
My noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior felt that there was little justification for such a scheme but at the same time said it is important that we boost the demand for beef. The selective cull, if it triggers the lifting of the export ban, will do exactly that. I should point out that the numbers originally envisaged will drop significantly given the fact that the over 30-month scheme will absorb many of those which were envisaged as part of the original large number.
I would defend to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his officials. All the agriculture departments across the United Kingdom
1760
have had an immense amount of work to cope with in responding to the BSE crisis. Not only, as I have said before, is it unprecedented in its nature but all agriculture departments are anyway committed to a wide number of other schemes which are unrelated to BSE. Therefore, the additional work put on both Ministers and officials has been considerable. I believe that broadly we have been getting the right aid out in the right direction. That has been largely based on the extent to which we have maintained dialogue with the industry in all its parts. The efforts of my right honourable friend should not be underestimated or dismissed.
The backlog should be cleared by the end of the year. One can put various interpretations on the figures that have been produced, especially as surveys of farmers very often tempt them to identify more animals than they immediately want to put into the scheme. Being cautious souls, they are looking at some of the other animals that they know they will want to bring forward in the next few weeks and months.
The slaughterers themselves who have been playing a major part in the scheme have been receiving a fee since earlier this summer which is reduced from the first fee of £87.50 established at the start of the scheme. It was vital at the beginning to ensure that the slaughterers, renderers and everyone else involved in this crucial 30-month scheme came on board and responded with both their capacity and their determination to get numbers up immediately. There was a need to ensure that they forewent other business which they might otherwise have been able to pursue. For instance, a good number of scheme abattoirs have had literally to give up their links with other parts of the market in order to remain members of the scheme. I can give the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and others an assurance that we continue to scrutinise the compensation and payments that go to everyone involved in the 30-month scheme in order to identify any discrepancies or excesses. We continue to negotiate the best possible rate for the scheme.
I can inform my noble friend Lord Stanley that cattle coming into the scheme with documentation and teeth which suggest a slightly different story will be judged by the documentation. The documentation takes priority over the teeth.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but that is not happening at the moment. I can tell him of two abattoirs that are doing it on teeth.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I took advice on this matter just before speaking in order to give my noble friend a clear answer. If I have anything to add to that simple answer, I shall contact my noble friend.
My noble friend also asked about open air incineration. The noble Lord, Lord Rathcreedan, also mentioned it. There is no plan at present to use that option. The intervention board is already letting contracts to closed incinerators to become involved in the scheme. We have other options to pursue to increase capacity, but at the moment no consideration is given to open air incineration.

1761
My noble friend Lord Stanley also asked about the price he will be getting for his cattle after 31st October. While on 1st November he will continue to get a top-up for his clean beef and his bullocks and heifers, on 2nd November the top-up ends, as was always intended. That is based on the advice given to us by agricultural advisers north and south of the Border that farmers with six months' notice could with most herds achieve changes in their feeding patterns to ensure that they achieved a market weight under 30 months.
The drop in the basic rate from 1 ecu to 0.9 of an ecu reflects a number of issues. I would encourage all noble Lords who felt that was disappointing to think about two or three simple factors. First, the rate that is paid is meant to reflect the market that exists beyond the scheme. Otherwise, the scheme begins to distort the market. It can encourage farmers to grow cattle for the scheme itself. It can also begin to induce a movement of cattle into the United Kingdom—perhaps from the Republic of Ireland or from other places—because we are offering a compensation which is more than the market is offering. It was important that we avoided a distortion that had crept in. Secondly, it is important that the money that is available to help the beef industry is targeted as much as possible at the survival of the beef industry.
The cattle coming to the 30-month scheme serve a useful purpose in terms of consumer confidence and supply and demand, but it is important that the compensation that they attract is not above that which is fair within the market at the time. It is more important that the money that is available is used for specifically targeted schemes for the beef industry, which is suffering the most, than that we should over-compensate all those cattle across UK agriculture, be they dairy or beef, which happen to be coming in through the over 30-month scheme.
With the leave of the House, although I realise that I am now over my time limit, I should like to answer one or two more of the questions that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about progress with regard to tallow, gelatin and semen. Since the Commission decision lifting the ban on exports of gelatin and tallow made from UK raw materials was published, new scientific evidence has cast doubt on the conditions set out for the production of gelatin. However, manufacturers may continue to produce and export gelatin for those uses if it is made from imported raw materials. On tallow, legislation will be introduced soon which will implement the requirements of the decision. On semen, where the ban on exports was totally unjustified from the beginning, although the export markets are now open to us again, it is taking time to regain our lost markets.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about new money versus old money. It would take too long to mention all the schemes, but they all involve new money. A recent announcement stated that this autumn the first instalment of suckler cow premia and beef special premia will be paid at a rate of 80 per cent. instead of
1762
60 per cent. We recognise that that helps the cash flow of many farmers and that a good cash flow can mean the difference between survival and otherwise.
I was surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked why there had been such a delay with regard to cold storage. Cold storage has been available from an early date. Some cold storage facilities can be identified and accessed quickly because the construction and location are right and because they are empty. Other cold storage facilities have to be emptied of their existing contents and there needs to be negotiation. We are converting the government grain stores, but that involves a few months of building work. Within the next two weeks additional cold storage facilities coming on stream will provide extra capacity for about 118,000 carcasses. That gives some idea of the effort that has been made over many months to set up a continuous stream of new storage facilities.
I turn now to the restriction orders. The Florence criteria envisaged an accelerated slaughter programme which would simultaneously increase the already dramatic decline in the incidence of BSE, improve public confidence and answer some of the questions relating to animal health and public food safety. During the Florence negotiations, restricting animals on farms was not regarded as a factor of sufficient significance. Therefore, that matter is in the pending tray at the moment but, as all noble Lords know, not all the details of the BSE saga have remained unchanged. Issues such as restriction orders may well be back on the agenda at a later stage.
I turn now to the subject of BSE in pets. I regret the fact that the Independent ran such an alarmist article without getting its facts right. Indeed, I encourage members of the press to ponder their own actions throughout the BSE crisis and to work out to what extent they might have contributed to the sharp decline in consumer confidence in the initial phases through seeking headlines rather than prudent facts. Only material derived from non-specified bovine materials from animals under 30 months of age is permitted to be used in pet foods. Therefore, there is no chance of the sort of threat arising on which the Independent commented this morning. I understand that the Chief Veterinary Officer telephoned Mr. Jones this morning to try to explain the position. He left a message, but Mr. Jones failed to ring him back.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith asked about casualties. We take casualties seriously and it is increasingly our practice to make sure that the slaughter houses involved in the 30-month scheme are obliged to accept casualties as part of their continuing involvement in that scheme.
A number of noble Lords referred to the export market and asked how it might re-emerge. The 30-month scheme anticipates that we shall regain our export markets as a result of hard evidence and criteria and that that will happen on a phased basis. That confirms some of the sentiments expressed tonight by noble Lords. The Government maintain that the regional basis, about which the press have speculated, is not a sustainable or justifiable way of dealing with the matter.

1763
Indeed, the Florence framework recognised that certified herds would be the way in which the ban would begin to be lifted. Therefore, I can reassure my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith and others that we are seeking to re-establish our export markets as quickly as possible, that that will happen on a phased basis and by lifting the ban according to herds rather than by means of a less defensible regionally-based scheme. However, many of your Lordships will recognise that the criteria that will be agreed are likely initially to suit some parts of our beef industry better than others.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith also mentioned advance payments for the dairy herd. We have had a scheme for advance payments which was really aimed at the beef industry, which has been the hardest hit. We recognise that beef is an important by-product of the dairy industry, but it must be admitted that the dairy industry has a continuing cash flow from dairy produce. If and when a further advance payment scheme is introduced, we shall take that factor into account.
I hope that I have covered a good proportion of the points raised. I am grateful that all noble Lords have spoken from their own experience and knowledge. I am thinking particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Granchester, who is a substantial and famous dairy farmer. I welcome him to his new seat in the House. I did not see him there when he last spoke on this subject.
I apologise for taking some time to cover these points, but I hope that my response will have answered some of the questions which noble Lords have raised.
Perhaps I may conclude by advising the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that he must have a very short memory indeed if he thinks that non-co-operation was a failure. The noble Lord and others have given us some history tonight, so I shall do likewise. On 20th March, the announcement was made that the experts at SEAC had established a likely but unproven link between the two diseases. As experts in the subject, they felt that there was a possibility of a link and, as we have always said that we shall protect the public from theoretical risk as well as proven risk, we took that information seriously. Two months later our colleagues in Europe were continuing to ignore the science which we were able to present, the common sense and the other reassurances that we were able to demonstrate. Europe was also ignoring the World Health Organisation and the International Veterinary Organisation. Indeed, the Commission itself was inclined to agree with the science that we presented in our own defence. After eight weeks of receiving very little co-operation, we introduced a policy which was designed to make Europe concentrate on the strength of our case. We wanted to achieve the terms of the Florence agreement. It took just four weeks to do so. Those terms were agreed on 20th June. It was an extremely successful policy.
I return onshore, to the domestic dimension to this crisis. Government initiatives are important and vital. We have provided funds to the tune of £2.5 billion to help the industry survive. I repeat that at the end of the day consumer confidence in beef is the more important factor. Therefore, a considerable amount of that money
1764
is aimed at the consumer and to ensure we have a beef industry in future which sustains the jobs we know it can.
We have throughout worked extremely closely with the industry. We have sought to consult and achieve a consensus whenever and wherever possible. That is the theme of our approach in continuing to tackle this crisis. I assure the House that we will not rest for a minute in responding to the problem. The beef industry in the United Kingdom is a great one. We are determined to maintain our commitment to the industry and the jobs that rely upon it. I say to all noble Lords who have spoken that perhaps the grievances some of them feel they have are based on misconceptions about the extent to which we are working to put things right and working in partnership with the industry who deserve to have everything put right.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister and the House for forgetting to declare at the beginning of the debate my interest as a farmer. I should like to put a question to the Minister. He said that the Government intended to move ahead with proposals for a selective cull in consultation with the Commission. Can he give me any idea of the timetable involved?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, how long is a negotiation? We must make sure that the implications of the new scientific evidence and data are properly understood both by our own scientific community and the Commission's scientific community. I cannot speculate on exactly when any conclusions will be reached.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
A message was brought from the Commons earlier this day that they have made the following order—
That further proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament;
That if a Bill is presented to this House in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill stood at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in this Session—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first, second and third time; and

(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or (in the case of the Standing Orders relating to Private Business) dispensed with in this Session or in the Session 1994–95, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session;

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past eight o'clock.