My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be undertaking a ministerial visit, first to Hong Kong, on 9th and 10th October, and then to Australia, from 11th October to 18th October inclusive, when the House will sit. In Hong Kong, I will be meeting the Chief Executive, the Chief Secretary and the Chief Justice. In Australia, I will be holding meetings with the Prime Minister and other Ministers and giving the inaugural Magna Carta lecture in the Parliament building. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as honorary Parliamentary advisor over many years to the Royal British Legion and as a co-opted member of the United States Congressional Committee of Inquiry into Gulf War Illnesses.

My Lords, we have carefully studied the reasons given by the president of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal for refusing leave to appeal to the High Court in the case of war pensioner Mr Shaun Rusling. The Ministry of Defence still believes that there is an error on a point of law in the tribunal decision dated 20th May 2002, and has therefore decided to exercise its right to apply direct to the High Court for leave to appeal.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Is she aware that the reaction of Gulf veterans to the Government's double defeat over Shaun Rusling's pension and indeed—I quote from the tribunal's judgment—failure even,

"to make a reasonably arguable case",

is that, if less time and money had been spent on contesting pension entitlements, more could have been done to help those left bereaved or in broken health by the conflict?

How many veterans secured their current pension entitlement only on appeal? How many others could be affected if the Shaun Rusling judgment stands? Finally, does not this landmark case demonstrate again that—at least until the Porton Down inquiry reports late next year—we could be involved in a second Gulf War without fully having learned all the lessons of the first?

My Lords, I recognise the great efforts that my noble friend has mounted on behalf of Gulf War veterans. As he will know, more than 4,600 Gulf veterans have been awarded a pension. Since 1991, there have been almost 900 appeals from Gulf veterans, about one-quarter of which have been successful. Only 270 of the 900 appeals were in respect of claims for Gulf-related illness; the remainder were in respect of claims for conditions that occurred during Gulf veterans' service career elsewhere than in the Gulf or for conditions not particular to the Gulf. About one-quarter of the 270 Gulf-related appeals were successful. I should also point out that many of the cases already had a war pension in payment and that the appeal in fact increased the level of the award.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, due to increasing evidence in relation to the nerve agent protection system which is now available, there is need for a swift public inquiry? Should not this inquiry be conducted before this form of protection is given to our troops who may take part in further action?

My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, there has been a continuing study into the interactive effects of the combination of vaccines and the nerve agent pre-treatment set tablets that were given out during the conflict. That work is being done at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down, and work is also being done at the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, where the effect of the specific combination of anthrax and pertussis vaccines is being examined. The work at Porton Down is very complex, and the need for initial dose range work, the establishment of sophisticated monitoring techniques and so on means that that work cannot be completed quickly. We also cannot hurry the assessments of the results. We hope, however, to have the final completed report by the end of 2003.

My Lords, in view of the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Redesdale, and in view of what might be happening in the Gulf in the next nine months, does the Minister feel that it is safe to wait until the end of 2003 for that report? Although I recognise that these things take time, and we have all seen that it took about 10 years to get as far on the matter as we did, is it really impossible to hurry things up a bit? It seems to me a very dangerous situation.

My Lords, the principle on which the Government have always proceeded on this matter is that any research must be peer reviewed so that it is credible and robust. For this study to be peer reviewed, we shall have to await its completion. We will of course produce interim reports and small pieces of research which are available before the end of 2003 in the form of posters for conferences and in other ways. However, the completed study will have to be peer reviewed if we are to ensure its credibility and robustness.

The noble Baroness, Lady Park, raised the issue of lessons learned. She is absolutely right that we will have to learn from the problems of the past, and I believe that we have learned some lessons. There have, for example, been great improvements in medical record keeping so that medical service personnel on the ground regularly record health events and inoculations. We are also keeping up to date with service standard vaccinations, which was a concern during the conflict.

Finally, there was again a routine lack of medical intelligence, during the conflict, of relevance to operational deployment. That problem will not arise in future because the Permanent Joint Headquarters now commissions up-to-date medical intelligence briefings for those areas of the world in which it is judged that UK forces are likely to operate.

My Lords—

My Lords, as a scientist who is regularly involved in the peer review of many articles and research publications, I know that it takes on average two or three weeks for the peer review of a paper in Nature. Why would it take so long for the peer review of this one topic for the Government?

My Lords, I can only repeat what I said in answer to the original Question of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester; that is, that when the study is completed—the particular study with which we are concerned, the interaction study, is not yet complete—and it goes to peer review, we will be very happy to publish the results.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the guidance that Her Majesty's Government give to customs officers and the general public is the same. As long as it is for their own use, travellers can bring into the UK as much EU duty paid alcohol and tobacco as they wish.

If travellers bring back large quantities of excise goods, they may be asked to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the goods are all for their own use. I stress that Customs is legally entitled to stop, question and, if necessary, search travellers as part of its duty to protect society from smugglers.

My Lords, given the obvious difficulty of drawing a distinction between amounts for personal use and amounts that are suitable for running a business, is not the present situation grotesquely unfair? It is unfair to Customs and Excise officers, who have a difficult job to do; it is unfair to retailers, who are losing much business; it is unfair to those people who cannot afford to travel and take advantage of cheap offers; and it is unfair to taxpayers, because of the millions—if not billions—of pounds that the Treasury is losing through that trade. Above all, does my noble friend agree that the process of allowing people to bring in tobacco so cheaply undermines the Government's policy of reducing tobacco smoking?

My Lords, I recognise all of the difficulties that my noble friend pointed out. There are indeed grave difficulties for legitimate business in this country if there is a great deal of smuggling. There are difficulties for those who obey the law—and they, after all, are the people we must, above all, seek to protect. However, we have a problem: our excise duties on tobacco and alcohol are very different from those in other European countries.

My Lords, following the recent High Court judgment, there still seems to be some confusion, despite the Minister's Answer, on this point. If it is true that individuals can bring back as much as they wish for their personal use, does that mean that the previous limits set by Customs and Excise or indicated by it no longer apply? More specifically, could the Minister clarify whether the onus of proof about whether something is for personal use is on the individual or Customs and Excise?

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is referring to the Hoverspeed judgment. Customs and Excise has appealed against that judgment. There are some matters outstanding on which it would not be possible for me to comment. However, although the Hoverspeed judgment questioned whether Customs was acting properly in terms of whether there was a reasonable suspicion to search anyone or to confiscate goods, it confirmed that it is illegal to bring back goods other than for personal use. It confirmed that it was acceptable for Customs to impose what is called an evidential burden on travellers that they should show. It confirmed that commercial imports—in other words, imports for sale or reimbursement—can be seized. Above all, it confirmed that there has been no breach by Customs and Excise of human rights.

My Lords—

My Lords, is it really right that the car should be impounded by Customs before a court has decided whether the goods have been brought in for personal use, not just on the ipse dixit of the Customs officer?

My Lords, Section 141 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 specifically provides for the impounding of the vehicle in which illegally imported goods are carried. Of course, it is open, within a month of the seizure, for the traveller to appeal. If the traveller challenges the judgment of the Customs officer, customs has to go before a magistrates' court to seek authority for that seizure. If it does not get it, the vehicle goes back.

My Lords, I know about that but I asked the noble Lord—

Order!

My Lords, I am sure the House will have much sympathy with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said. However, will the Minister accept that it is absolutely impossible for Customs and Excise to deal with the problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred while excise duty differentials are so great? Therefore, the only two options available to government are either to accept that nothing can be done about the issue or to begin to look at a long-term strategy which might lead to lesser differentials on excise duties between this country and the rest of the EU.

My Lords, I am not sure whether from his party's Front Bench the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is advocating tax harmonisation. When we last discussed the matter, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, did specifically advocate tax harmonisation. That may be the view of his party, in which case I am most interested to learn that. It is simply not true that nothing can be done. When we introduced the most recent Customs rules, in the first full year—that is, 2000–01—we cut cross-Channel smuggling by 76 per cent. Efforts are continuing to reduce the amount of smuggling.

My Lords, is it not unreasonable to expect a Customs officer to make a quick judgment on the spur of the moment of the capacity, the appetite and, even more difficult, the length of life of a consumer or traveller?

My Lords, indications are available to Customs officers—sometimes from intelligence and sometimes from the appearance of the people who pass before them. The Hoverspeed judgment made it clear that there must be reasonable grounds for stopping and searching a person and for asking questions. That issue is still before the courts. I received a most pathetic letter from a gentleman who complained about his vehicle being seized. When I inquired, I discovered that, on the occasion it was seized, he had with him 20,000 cigarettes and 17 kilos of hand-rolling tobacco. I also discovered that he was making that journey every two weeks.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, as part of our implementation of the NHS Plan, Her Majesty's Government are encouraging doctors to come to practise in the United Kingdom to increase the number of healthcare professionals working in the National Health Service.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. What are now the necessary qualifications in medicine, surgery and knowledge of the English language? Has the Minister seen the report—and is it correct—that recently arrived French and German medical teams have returned to their countries owing to misunderstandings, although their contributions and expertise were needed in this country?

My Lords, in order to practise in the UK, a doctor needs to be placed on the medical register by the GMC. With regard to a person with a primary medical qualification from outside the European economic area, the GMC is required by law to satisfy itself that that person has the necessary knowledge of English. EC law prevents the application of such a requirement to people qualifying in the EEA. But there is a responsibility on NHS employers to ensure that any person whom they appoint knows sufficient English to do the job properly.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is really the "sticking-plaster" policy for the NHS? Does he believe that scouring the world for doctors, who may be badly needed in their own countries or, if they are not, will cost us disproportionately, is the way to go? Would it not be better to invest in staff here, retaining the nurses who are leaving at the moment so that operating theatres can be kept open, investing in education and training, and tackling the overload on all staff, so that the NHS is better placed to keep their services?

My Lords, that seems to me to be an extraordinarily negative analysis of what we are doing in the NHS. There is a gap to be filled over the next few years because disastrous decisions were made by the previous government in relation to training places for doctors and nurses. We have taken decisive action to increase dramatically the number of such training places and have put in place recruitment and retention strategies. Those are beginning to pay off. However, in the meantime, it is surely right actively to recruit doctors and nurses from countries which have a surplus of such professionals to come to help the National Health Service.

My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government are concerned that, under the EU directive concerning the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, a doctor could practise here for 16 weeks per year before being required to register with the General Medical Council, which is the point at which a previous problem with a doctor may come to light?

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to draw attention to the draft directive proposed by the European Commission. The Government have concerns on a number of aspects of that directive. We are making representations in Europe and, of course, shall seek to ensure that, at all costs, patient safety is paramount.

My Lords, if South African doctors who practise in this country want to have further training to become surgeons, do they experience problems and how long does it take them?

My Lords, we certainly want to ensure that doctors who already practise here are eligible for help towards more specialist training. However, so far as concerns South African doctors in general, we have an ethical code. We do not actively recruit for the National Health Service nurses or other medical professionals from countries which need them for their own health services. However, of course some South African doctors practise in this country, as do doctors from other countries. Overall, through various schemes we are seeking both to recruit doctors to this country and to increase the number of medical and specialist training places in order to meet the targets set out in the NHS Plan. But we shall take a flexible approach in considering where improvements need to be made and in picking up the type of issue raised by the noble Baroness.

My Lords, what numbers of junior doctors are required in the Government's estimate, given the shortening of working hours in line with European practices?

My Lords, I do not have a specific figure relating to the increase in the number of junior doctors as a result of the Working Time Directive. However, we are expanding the number of medical school places by 1,000 on top of the 1,100 already announced. We also stated in the NHS Plan that by 2004 we shall have 1,000 more specialist registrars. With those increases and with the efforts made by individual NHS trusts to change and reform working practices, we are confident that we can meet the demands and pressures being placed upon us by the Working Time Directive. However, it will of course take a considerable number of years to implement the changes fully.

My Lords, how many doctors have been recruited from abroad since the publication of the NHS Plan?

My Lords, we have established a number of schemes in relation to recruiting doctors. The global recruitment campaign that we launched in August 2001 has resulted in more than 5,000 expressions of interest. Following that, 1,977 firm applications were received, and 705 have been sifted and considered suitable for employment in the NHS. We are now in a matching operation between those considered suitable for employment and individual NHS trusts. Various other schemes have come into operation. A series of French GPs have started work in south London and by the end of March next year we expect their number to reach 23. So far as concerns the international fellowship scheme, 26 offers of appointment have been accepted and we expect the majority to be in post by the end of the year. We also have evidence of four clinical teams who have started work in the NHS.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the summit made a commitment to develop and to disseminate alternative energy technologies with the aim of giving a greater share of the energy mix to renewable energies, improving energy efficiency and placing greater reliance on advanced energy technologies, including cleaner fossil fuel technologies. The Government supported the European Union proposal that renewables should contribute 15 per cent of total global energy use by 2010. Unfortunately that was not accepted by countries opposed to a target.

My Lords, while noting with satisfaction the positive role played by the United Kingdom and other EU members, does the Minister agree, as he implied in his Answer, that it was a little disappointing that the outcome of the summit on the subject of clean energy did not go further, and that after hours of fruitless negotiation there was a failure to agree targets for renewable energy, although many of the countries present have had such targets for a long time?

My Lords, clearly it was disappointing that we were not able to agree a target. We wanted one, but there was opposition from the United States and the G7 countries. The US accepted the targets on water and sanitation but not on renewables. We were disappointed. Targets are of great value in making firm commitments, but we were not able to achieve one.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the United Kingdom Government have expressed their support for the policy of contraction and convergence, as set out by the Global Commons Institute, as an equitable, scientifically-based energy policy? Did our representatives at Johannesburg speak in favour of contraction and convergence? Are the Government committed to try to enlist the support of other governments for that policy?

My Lords, we want the developing and the developed countries to take the targets seriously, out of which a convergence would be achieved, but such a move has to take place on both sides.

My Lords, while sympathising with Her Majesty's Government in their failure to achieve their policy objectives at Johannesburg in this area, can the Minister indicate what further steps the Government have in mind to achieve the policy of targets for clean energy, rather than the aims and objectives that we have now?

My Lords, the noble Lord poses two questions. We shall seek to implement the agreements reached. While targets were not involved, there was agreement on what we should try to achieve, which was why, at Johannesburg, we initiated the renewable energy and energy efficiency partnership. We shall take that forward in the months and years ahead. As part of REEP—the renewable energy and efficiency partnership—from 2003 we shall make available export credit guarantees. The department will provide £50 million worth of agreed credits for exports in the energy area. We also have our own targets for clean energy in this country.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that biofuels have an important role to play in meeting the Government's target in relation to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions?

Yes, my Lords, I believe that biofuels have a role to play, although I also believe that any achievement on the targets we are considering will rely on a range of fuels that are coming forward in different areas. For that reason we shall have an R&D programme that seeks to provide clean energy over a whole range. We cannot rely on one energy source to provide that.

My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that any clean energy targets will not include covering the hills and dales of England and Wales with unsightly wind farms that require a continuous back-up of fossil fuel energy, as wind is not a reliable generator of electricity?

My Lords, clearly wind turbines have a considerable part to play in the production of clean energy. In the nature of the debate, everyone is in favour of particular sources of energy so long as they are not in their back garden. Unfortunately, compromises will have to be made if clean energy targets are to be achieved. It cannot be done on a costless basis.

My Lords, what progress has been made in funding research for wave energy, which is a promising form of clean energy? Twenty years ago research funding for such energy was seriously cut by the previous government. Is the Minister aware of the findings of the Science and Technology Committee in another place that that was an extremely promising area, funding for which should be increased?

My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, we are rapidly increasing the amount of money spent on renewables. Spending will increase from £11 million in 1997–98 to £109 million in 2003–04 and£170 million in 2004–05. Recently, the Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry commissioned a review of the UK's public energy research from the Chief Scientist. He reviewed the R&D that was being carried out and produced a report which fed into the PIU review of energy policy. In that report he identified wave energy as being promising, it is an area we shall support with extra money for R&D.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at the recent Labour Party conference in Blackpool some effective lobbying was carried out on renewables and on helping us to meet our environmental objectives? The general feeling was that the Government are undertaking the right actions, but that a push is required to make people aware of the benefits, for example, of hybrid cars that are petrol and electricity driven, or the benefits of solar panels. Can the Government provide that push, given that their policies are moving in the right direction?

My Lords, the noble Lord is right. We have demanding targets for renewable energy. Reaching them will be challenging and how we do so will be set out in greater detail in the White Paper due to be published around the turn of the year. Undoubtedly, we shall have to put a great deal more effort into achieving the renewable energy targets.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so I shall offer a brief explanation of why we are proposing a slight change to the normal order of consideration of the Bill. As the House knows, the Government are tackling a complex and changing problem in terms of immigration and asylum. Over the summer events have taken place, requiring further action. We have identified further actions that we believe are necessary.

I apologise to the House for making these changes at this relatively late date, but we believe that it is important to use the Bill to take all necessary steps to address the challenge.

In practice the Motion moves Part 3 and Part 5 to later in the order of consideration, to give adequate time for the House to consider the amendments. I expect the final amendments to be tabled in the next day or so. This morning I wrote to all Peers seeking to set out a fuller explanation as to why we are doing this.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. The proposals in the Bill are of great interest to this House, to the other place and to the country at large. The Government ask us to approve what is called a "slight" change in the order by which the clauses will be considered. I believe it is more than "slight".

The first I heard of the matter was in an e-mail on Friday, just after the Government had cancelled my scheduled meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, in connection with the Bill. My colleagues on the Back Benches will not have had notice until today when they picked up the Order Paper. That is simply not good enough.

The Government have had a Recess of more than two months to get their act together and they have failed. The Government say in the note that was kindly circulated to Front-Benchers on Friday that,

"The aim is to give the House a little longer to consider some of the significant issues contained in Parts III and V",

to which the Minister has referred. Does that mean that the Government have agreed to extend Report stage beyond the three allotted days? If not, all the Government are saying today is that we can debate Parts 3 and 5 at a different time from that expected; in other words the third day, perhaps during the afternoon and evening rather than the early hours of the morning, pushing everything else on to Wednesday and Thursday. That will still leave parts of the Bill, which noble Lords believe are important, to be debated, we are told, in the middle of the night.

Just before the Recess the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House—whom I am always pleased to see in his place—talked to the House about the importance of changing our rules so that we finish by 10 o'clock. He said that the House was not at its best discussing amendments late at night. He is right. But that is exactly what the Government seem to be planning, not for minor technical adjustments but for fundamental changes. How long past 10 o'clock this Wednesday will we be expected to sit? The Government must already know this, since they must have decided it when they changed around the order of the clauses to be debated.

Before today, the Government had already added a significant number of amendments to the Report stage, including seven new clauses, two of which are significant and complex clauses, on British citizenship and juxtaposed controls. So the Government have been doing some work in the Recess, but not enough.

This morning I woke to my usual alarm call of Radio 4 news to learn that the Home Secretary intends to pile yet more new clauses into the Bill without prior warning to the House. The Home Secretary seems to prefer to tell The Times and the BBC how the Bill will be amended this week rather than telling Parliament, or indeed his own party at its conference last week. There was no sign of all this in his speech.

When will we see the clauses? We are told, "Soon". With such important changes, soon cannot be soon enough. We are told in the press that five significant new policies will be implemented by the new clauses. I shall refer only to two. That does not mean that I think that the others are any less important, but I am aware of the time. I do not want to hold your Lordships up for too long on something that is, after all, still a significant matter.

The Government tell us in the newspapers today that they will start accepting refugees through the United Nations High Commission of Refugees from 1st April next year. For the first time this will provide an external gateway for those fleeing persecution. That completely changes current approaches to processing of asylum claims. It is a totally and utterly different policy. We must ask whether people in Zimbabwe will qualify under this policy? If not, why not?"

I have the greatest respect for the UNHCR. I thank it for its briefing. I look forward to meeting it again in the future. But this measure appears to force us to surrender our own right to grant or to refuse certain applications for asylum. It creates a two-tier system. This has all the hallmarks of a panic measure to get the Home Secretary out of the hole he dug for himself in his chaotic handling of the asylum issue and his deal with Mr Sarcozy to persuade him to close Sangatte.

The second matter is the safe country list which the Government are now talking about introducing. The Minister will know that I have an amendment tabled for Report which uses that method to resolve the vexed issue of non-suspensive appeals. I cannot now see any reason why the Government will even think of rejecting my amendment. But we shall want to examine carefully the Government's proposals, when we are allowed to see them. But that is just what the Government seem determined to prevent—full discussion.

The Refugee Council's response to today's government press release is as follows:

"These measures are highly undemocratic given they will fundamentally change the legislation currently before Parliament with almost no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, and have all the feel of a Government in a state of panic".

I agree.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. During the Summer Recess he was very generous with his time. We had a number of meetings. I think that he will agree that we were able to iron out many of the issues that were raised in Committee.

I share the concern expressed by the Official Opposition. There are a number of issues that we need to address. Two days before the Bill's Report stage we are faced with—I counted earlier this morning—33, maybe more, new amendments. None of those has had detailed scrutiny in Committee. More importantly, the other place has had no knowledge of what the Government intend to introduce. The amendments have not been scrutinised by the Joint Human Rights Committee or the Delegated Powers Committee. More importantly, they have not had the scrutiny of Labour Party members. If they had been introduced 10 days before the party conference, at least then we would have had their views on these measures.

There are some serious issues of concern here. One of the amendments is designed to deal with the "liability to detention" interpretation. My first concern is that the Government cannot even await the Oakington judgment. The case has been heard by the House of Lords, but it has yet to give its decision. One of the government amendments pre-empts its decision. That cannot be right. Why are the amendments so late in the day? Surely it would have been easier and better if the proper process of consultation had taken place, not only in terms of past help but also with some of the key agencies, including the UNHCR. At least we could have agreed on some common ground on the basis of which we could have proceeded further.

I further quote from the statement which has just been issued by the Refugee Council. Its concern can be summed up. It states:

"We cannot understand how a Government that repealed the 1996 Conservative legislation that resulted in thousands left destitute, living on the streets and relying on soup kitchens and charity, can now reintroduce similar policies by the backdoor without consultation".

That causes a considerable problem. I do not believe that within the three days allocated to the Bill it is possible to deal in a substantive way with some of the Government's amendments.

My Lords, I should very much like to support warmly the indictment that my noble friend presented—she has not had much time to put it together—about the Government's cavalier treatment of the House in their handling of the Bill. I do not suppose that it is very much good my asking any particular questions of the Minister. There seems to be one overriding and much more important question, which perhaps the Leader of the House could deal with. That is, what on earth is the point of proceeding—as I imagine the Government intend—with proposals to make this House more efficient, and then to produce this kind of cavalier, sloppy and slovenly procedure which makes a mess of them? This is no part of the Opposition's handling of the Bill. This is just the Government not knowing how they ought to behave.

My Lords, I understand that government is like facing fast bowling with both ends bowling at once. I therefore resolved, when I had been here about a month, that I would never object to the ordering of government business simply for my own convenience. I believe myself to have lived up to that; at least I hope so. But we are not dealing simply with our own convenience. We are dealing with the lives and liberties, and perhaps worth, of many innocent people.

The measures announced today in The Times amount practically to a new Bill. Perhaps I may express the hope that these measures, which are of considerable importance, will not be taken in what Sherlock Holmes would have described as the hours of darkness in which the powers of the executive are exalted.

I was also somewhat disconcerted to observe the Home Secretary using the words, "We will amend the Bill". I thought that was a matter for Parliament. Will the Minister confirm that Parliament is not yet redundant?

My Lords, as a Back-Bencher involved in the Bill, the first I heard of these changes was when I picked up the Order Paper this afternoon. I am now told that I must consider matters which I have not yet seen beginning the day after tomorrow. Does the Minister accept that this simply is not democratic? This Bill is about many people who want to come and live in this country because they believe it to be deeply democratic. Will the Government consider not taking the measures under Report stage rules? The way in which we discuss matters on Report is that each person may speak only once; the person proposing the amendment speaks first and at the end the Government speak once. That is not a debate. People should know that it is assumed on Report that we have already discussed the matter in Committee. But the Government do not seem to be interested in democracy. That is deeply worrying—even more worrying than is what they may do with the Bill. Will the Minister tell us whether that is really considered to be democratic?

My Lords, I agree with noble Lords on the Conservative Benches. Not only are we being denied the right to discuss matters properly, as we can in Committee; we have been denied the right to a Second Reading debate on them. That practice has previously been unheard of unless there has been an emergency. Those matters should be carefully considered. I declare my interest as a member of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal, which at present is in a shambles because no one knows what will happen. We are extremely concerned about the process and I should be most grateful if the Minister would reconsider.

My Lords, I, too, am concerned about some aspects of the Government's policy on the matter but, in at least one respect, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has not got it right. We as a country have in the past had schemes under the United Nations High Commission for Refugees for people to come here as asylum seekers or refugees—in particular, the Bosnians, who came under a scheme agreed with the UNHCR. So that suggestion is not new; it is simply another instalment of the policy that was sensibly introduced some years ago by the government supported by the noble Baroness.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to the Motion. I especially regret not having had the pleasure of meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on Friday, as we had planned, but at that point I was not able to give her a definitive answer and I did not want to waste her time. That is why I had hoped that we could speak on the telephone today, but that was not possible, for reasons that I fully understand.

With regard to the question of whether Report will take three or four days, as the noble Baroness implied, that is clearly a matter for the usual channels. She is right to say that changes are proposed. Some of those are the result of the Government listening to what was said from the Opposition Benches in Committee; no doubt those will become apparent later. In other respects, the changes are proposed because the Government think that the situation demands them. No one with any sense wants to introduce late amendments to a Bill, but neither would any Government with any sense who believed that circumstances required it avoid trying to get a Bill that is before Parliament into a form that they thought right and appropriate. That is what we are doing.

With regard to the good question of when the amendments will be tabled, as ever, I should be happier if I had a copper-bottomed guarantee, but I am told that we shall do our utmost to table them tomorrow. If we cannot, we expect to table them on Wednesday.

With regard to the debate about the UNHCR, as those who participated in Committee will recall, the Bill already gives power to open up such a resettlement programme. We debated that. What my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced was when he would introduce the first live part of such a resettlement programme—a more rational and sensible measure towards which we believe it is extremely important to start to move.

With regard to our meetings with the French, they have been extremely co-operative about working with us to implement a system of juxtaposed control—which is why there is a measure in the Bill to that effect—which will make it increasingly possible to obtain their support and co-operation to stem the flow of illegal migration. I noted with interest what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned to me at the beginning of last week about the Conservative proposal for a safe country list; we look forward to discovering to what extent we are at one on that issue.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his generous comment recognising the amount of time that the Government spent in discussion with opposition Peers over the summer. It was a pleasure to do so, because we are obliged to try to answer all questions raised in Committee. We sought to do that both face to face and by sending more than 100 letters to Members of the House about the queries raised during Committee.

My Lords, I simply want to ask a question of fact. Is it impossible at this stage to revert to Committee to deal with the new business and to defer Report?

My Lords, the House will know its procedures as well, if not better, than I in that respect. Such a process would in practice destroy the Bill, and that is not in the interest of good government or of the proper consideration of the House.

My Lords, what the noble Baroness proposes was done in the case of the recommittal of the Jobseekers Bill and did not destroy that Bill.

My Lords, I suggest that such matters are normally discussed between the usual channels.

I stress that the Government are not acting lightly, flippantly or frivolously. Events over the summer have revealed significant abuses of our asylum system. In addition, the Government believe that we must—and have been working extremely hard over the summer to do so—bring before the House on Report the Bill that we think right. That is why, on this Bill as on many previous Bills, the Government have tabled amendments on Report. We have a duty to democracy and to the public to act in that way.

My Lords, why cannot the amendments to the Bill be introduced early in the new Session, rather than now?

My Lords, I should have thought that my noble friend would know the answer to that question. That would delay action that is urgently needed now for about nine months.

As an illustration—although I regret being in danger of being drawn into the substance of the issue rather than the process—during the summer we received a considerable number of asylum applications from people from countries which on all the evidence we believe to be perfectly safe. The number of such applications has been a considerable source of embarrassment to the source countries, but we are obliged to deal with those applicants in the system and, if they demand it, give them support. The Bill sets out what we consider to be balanced and reasonable proposals to deal with that. We think that the House should have an adequate opportunity—hence the proposal to change the order of consideration—to consider those proposals.

Turning, if I may, to other questions that were raised, it is clearly not every year that we have a Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill—at least, one hopes not. It is therefore important to use the measure while it is before the House. Clearly, the House, or Parliament, is sovereign in those respects. While we intend to and will table amendments, Parliament will decide what it thinks is right. I clearly expect and hope that Parliament will lend its support to what we think are good and right actions.

To address the remarks of the noble Countess, Lady Mar—as, in a sense, I already have—about issues on Second Reading, Bills change as they proceed and governments therefore introduce amendments at this stage.

My Lords, that is precisely why I asked that if entirely new clauses are to be inserted into the Bill we should be allowed to take them through the whole process. It is unfair to people outside for us to be bulldozed into having a Report stage only on entirely new amendments.

My Lords, although these are issues for the usual channels, I should hope that the House will have adequate time—and, I hope, not at too unseasonal an hour—to consider the new government amendments.

My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance here and now that the new amendments are consistent with the principle of the Bill? Surely, that is the point that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, was making.

My Lords, I can give that assurance strongly and clearly. The amendments are consistent with the principle that we set out at the beginning in the White Paper published in January. We shall continue to give four-square commitment to meeting our responsibilities under the Geneva Convention to defend people who are subject to political persecution. At the same time, we shall balance that by trying to develop economic migration, while recognising that many people, for understandable reasons, seek to use asylum as a means of economic migration.

The aim of the Government, the aim of the White Paper and the aim of the amendments is to ensure that we stand four-square with those issues and do not confuse them. We shall be resolute in their achievement.

My Lords, I must, first of all, say to the Minister that he did not answer the question about whether the Select Committee on Human Rights would have the opportunity to consider the new clauses. Secondly, I must say that, when we see the amendments—tomorrow or whenever it turns out to be—we shall need to consider whether to press for recommitment in respect of the new clauses that are being inserted into the Bill. It is being described—I say this provisionally, as none of us knows exactly what is in the new clauses—as a wholly new Bill.

We do not wish to hold up the existing Bill; we are suggesting that the House should examine properly the new clauses and new principles that are being inserted into the Bill. That is all the more important when we consider that, were the clauses to be inserted after any process or set of processes in this House, the only opportunity for the other place to examine them would be when it came to consider Lords amendments—that is to say, one brief debate. Under that House's new timetable arrangements, that represents an extremely brief opportunity to consider the new principles that are being inserted.

My Lords, we on these Benches will not oppose today's Motion because the new amendments come towards the end of the Bill. However, like the Official Opposition Front Bench, we must consider carefully whether it would be appropriate to put down a Motion for the recommittment of the parts of the Bill to which the amendments relate. The amendments introduce new matters and require proper consideration. It would be in the interests of the House for that to be agreed to through the usual channels.

My Lords, as is so often the case, I am grateful to both Opposition Chief Whips and am particularly grateful for the commitment given by the noble Lord, Lord Roper, that his party would not oppose the Motion at this point but would consider the matter. That was also the thrust of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley.

We will consider the issue of the involvement of the Select Committee carefully, but, essentially, the issues are for discussion and consideration by the usual channels. Those discussions will, of course, take place.

My Lords, the Minister cannot get away this afternoon with hiding behind the curtain of the usual channels and saying that he cannot discuss the possibility of recommitting the Bill. We understand that he cannot answer for the usual channels, but we ought to hear something from either the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House or the Chief Whip about the possibility of recommitting the clauses. That is an important point about our consideration.

As the Clerks will, no doubt, tell us, there are many examples of occasions on which the parliamentary consideration of a Bill has been put back one step because important new issues, which—to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy—are consistent with the principle of the Bill, have been parachuted in. I can remember one off the top of my head. In the late 1970s, in another place, Lord Peart, a former Minister of Agriculture, introduced some new clauses into an agriculture Bill. They were consistent with the Bill but gave rise to entirely new principles. We made exactly the sort of fuss that noble Lords have made this afternoon. As a result, the usual channels in another place agreed at the Committee stage that we would have a day to give the new clauses a Second Reading and discuss them properly. There must be many other examples of occasions on which a government have been prepared to go back a step when important new principles have been announced.

I hope that either we will now hear the two business managers in your Lordships' House say that they will consider seriously the recommitment of the clauses or that they will announce this afternoon that they will grant us an opportunity to do that.

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has explained very well—I hope, to the House's satisfaction—the reason why it was necessary to table the amendments on Report. It is by no means unprecedented for governments or anyone else to propose new clauses on Report. That is one of the reasons why we have Report stage.

I hope that your Lordships will agree that, when we have a fast-moving situation, it is appropriate that we, as one of the two Houses of Parliament, should be the lead Chamber in considering matters relating to any relevant legislation that is passing through Parliament, if that is the stage that the legislation has reached. I am sure that no one has any doubt that the House will properly consider the amendments, by whatever means are deemed to be fair and satisfactory. I have not the slightest doubt about that. We have a splendid reputation for doing that for all legislation and especially for legislation, such as this, which affects human rights, among other things.

I have had the pleasure of seeing the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, in operation in a senior capacity in another place, and I am sure that he knows that negotiations about precise procedures would not take place at the Dispatch Box. It is fair and reasonable to ask the House to accept that the usual channels—we heard from three of them today—should consider what the House has said and discuss the matter in the normal way. I hope that, in the meantime, the House will accept my noble friend's proposal.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

With the leave of the House, I shall now make a Statement on the Government's position on the Bill. On 25th July, we considered the scrapie provisions of the Bill, and I gave an undertaking that I would let noble Lords know how the Government intended to deal with the parts of the foot and mouth disease inquiry reports that relate to the Bill. I recently wrote to noble Lords who had participated in earlier debates, indicating how the Government had taken account of the reports of the FMD inquiries, with regard to the disease control parts of the Bill, and setting out my proposals for government amendments. I also indicated how I had taken account of the points made at Second Reading and during discussion of the two procedural Motions on the Bill in March and July. I shall expand on that in a moment.

First, however, I must apologise to noble Lords who received that letter. Not all the amendments to which I referred will be before the Committee today. Specifically, the amendments on the contingency plan and on import controls are not yet finalised. Due to unfortunate delays, I have been unable to table in time the amendments relating to the publication of reasons for using the new preventive slaughter power and the requirement to consult on and publish a disease control protocol and the amendment requiring that compensation for compulsorily slaughtered FMD vaccinates be set at 100 per cent of the market value of the animal at the time of slaughter. I can assure the Committee that all those amendments will be tabled for the Report stage and that they will follow the outline I gave in the letter to which I shall refer soon.

The Government, as a matter of priority and before finalising our full response to the Anderson and Royal Society reports, have been assessing the recommendations of those reports and of the National Audit Office in relation to the contents of the Bill. We have decided that we should amend the Bill in a number of ways to reflect the terms and recommendations of the inquiries and some of the points raised in this House and elsewhere. I believe that we have been able to address some of the concerns of the stakeholders, such as the NFU, with some of our proposed amendments.

I should make clear that our comprehensive response to the Lessons to be Learned and the Royal Society inquiries were intended to be published in late October or early November and I cannot pre-empt the publication of that response on other matters. However, we have given priority consideration to those aspects of the inquiries that could impact on the Bill.

The Lessons to be Learned inquiry, under Dr Anderson, mentions the issue of legislation and makes two recommendations. The first is that,

"The animal health legislative framework should be robust, unambiguous and fit for purpose. This was not the case during the 2001 epidemic. The powers available in the Animal Health Act 1981 should be re-examined, possibly in the context of a wider review of animal health legislation, to remove any ambiguity over the legal basis for future disease control strategies".

Secondly, it said that,

"Provision should be made for the possible application of pre-emptive culling policies, if justified by well-informed veterinary and scientific advice, and judged to be appropriate to the circumstances".

Those recommendations support the central part of this Bill, which deals with the new power to cull animals,

"to prevent the spread of the disease",

and, implicitly, to clarify the powers of entry.

I should also make it clear that although the Government do not agree that the Animal Health Act 1981 powers are "ambiguous", as suggested in the report, we nevertheless recognise that greater clarity would be desirable and that current powers do not go far enough to underpin some aspects of disease control—notably pre-emptive culling and emergency vaccination—which the inquiries advocate.

The Government's view is that we need to obtain the additional culling powers and powers of entry for vaccination or culling as soon as possible through the present Bill and that that should not wait for a wider review of animal health legislation. However, I believe that the recommendations in the Lessons to be Learned inquiry report clearly support the need to obtain the additional powers provided in the Bill as a matter of urgency.

I also need to deal with the issue of vaccination in the light of the reports which have appeared in the media from the EU and the concern about how we might use vaccination in a future outbreak. It is important to recognise that the powers in the Bill relate not only to slaughter but also to alternative and complementary strategies for combating the virus, specifically vaccination. For vaccination to be effective, it requires just the powers of entry and the speed of execution that the Bill will provide. Vaccination, even more than culling, will fail if there are loopholes in the system.

The option of emergency vaccination now forms part of the Government's interim contingency plan for the control of foot and mouth disease. The Government's view is that the powers in the Bill, particularly those allowing clearer powers of entry to vaccinate, are critical in ensuring that any future emergency vaccination programme could be completed comprehensively.

The Government's preference, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear in July, is that a vaccinate-to-live policy should be used wherever possible, in line with the Royal Society report. However, there will be scenarios where vaccinate-to-slaughter may be appropriate. The Bill will complete the powers we need effectively to implement whichever strategy is appropriate in the prevailing circumstances. Powers are also needed for serological surveillance through the administration of blood testing.

The Bill strengthens the powers in two main respects; first, the need for clear powers of preventive slaughter together with the power to slaughter vaccinated animals, and, secondly, the need for powers providing for swifter entry to farms for the purposes of vaccination, slaughter or testing. Together with existing legislation, these powers will provide for a wide range of disease control options.

The Government have tabled some amendments and, as I indicated, intend to table further amendments directly addressing concerns which noble Lords have raised about the nature of the Bill's powers. Those will introduce some significant changes to the Bill.

I shall table an amendment that requires the Secretary of State to publish the reasons for using the new preventive slaughter power. Before using the power, the Secretary of State will have to publish a justification of the need to use it in the prevailing circumstances. I shall also table an amendment introducing a requirement to consult on, and publish, a "disease control (slaughter) protocol".

I am aware that some have criticised the Bill for removing the so-called "right of appeal" against entry for vaccination, slaughter or other purposes, but that is not the case. The Bill replaces the current procedure for securing entry to premises on the authority of a High Court injunction with a far swifter procedure based on a magistrate's warrant. However, the existing procedure whereby a farmer may seek review by a senior vet of a decision to cull and make representations to him will continue to be available. However, in response to concerns regarding the warrant procedures, I have tabled amendments to strengthen the conditions in the Bill that a magistrate must be satisfied have been met before granting a warrant to obtain entry.

Concerns have also been expressed that the Government might not fully compensate farmers if vaccinated animals were compulsorily slaughtered for disease control purposes. I believe that there are strong grounds for clarifying the position. I shall therefore table an amendment requiring compensation for compulsorily slaughtered vaccinates to be set at 100 per cent of market value of the animal at the time of slaughter; that is, as if it had not been vaccinated.

I also had intended tabling an amendment providing for the Government to report annually on actions taken to prevent illegal imports of animal products, in addition to the existing requirement in the 1981 Act to report on diseased live animals imported into Great Britain. In view of the fact that we have not tabled an amendment in time for the Committee stage, I am prepared, with qualifications, to accept Amendment No. 96 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Livsey and Lord Greaves, to the same effect. It may be necessary to tidy it up subsequently, but the principle is accepted and I am prepared to accept the amendment.

One of the overriding themes of the inquiry reports is the need for contingency planning. We have done much work on that during the past year. Nevertheless, given the weight placed on that issue by the inquiries, it is appropriate that we require on the face of the Bill that the Government prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a national contingency plan. I had hoped that I could have tabled the amendment for the Committee stage, but I can assure noble Lords that I will table it in good time for Report.

Finally, the Bill provides for an adjusted compensation scheme designed to encourage high standards of biosecurity on farms by adjusting compensation where biosecurity provisions have not been observed. I am aware that in farming circles there has been considerable opposition to that part of the Bill. The inquiries do not help us here. The Government regret that the industry and the opposition parties have not felt able to go down that line, which could improve biosecurity. However, it is also true that the National Audit Office report points out some serious concerns about the whole operation of the valuation system and the system for compensation and raises the degree to which taxpayers should meet full compensation in all circumstances. In the light of that, we now intend a full-scale review of the basis of compensation and valuation in the case of foot and mouth and other diseases. As regards those other diseases, the arrangements differ somewhat. This will need to take into account issues of risk sharing and proposals for levy or insurance-based schemes and will therefore go considerably wider than the provisions of the Bill.

We have therefore decided not to proceed with this provision of the Bill and will be accepting the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, which deletes that part of the Bill and the associated schedule.

I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for repeating a quotation, but the point of the Bill is summarised in the Phillips inquiry into BSE. It stated that,

"legislation should clearly empower Ministers to take precautionary measures in a situation where the existence of a hazard is uncertain".

That is precisely why we brought forward the Bill.

It is true that the Bill adds to the sets of circumstances in which an animal could be culled the criterion "to prevent the spread of disease". But that should not lead to the culling of more animals. The opposite will be our aim, as considerable scientific evidence supports the view that by culling or, indeed, vaccinating quickly in the early stages we could prevent further spread of the disease.

The proposed amendments together provide a package which will result in a Bill that provides the Government with the powers they need but at the same time meets some of the concerns expressed in the House. They will ensure that the Bill is reasonable and proportionate and that decisions will be explained in an open and transparent manner. I apologise for the length of the Statement. I beg to move.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, do the Government have any intention of allowing noble Lords other than those on the Front Benches to have a copy of the very extensive and complicated Statement he has made? Going at the speed he did, the Minister was asking much too much of most of us if he expected us to digest this very detailed Statement. It would be quite unfair to the House—and especially to the Back-Benchers who had no notice of what he was going to say—to continue any discussion on the Bill until a copy of the Statement has been made available to all noble Lords.

My Lords, although not all of the amendments set out in the letters I sent to noble Lords who participated in the debate previously are tabled today, we intend to do so. The only additional information is that we propose accepting the amendment on import controls and the amendment to delete the adjusted compensation.

I shall ensure that a copy of the Statement is made available in the Printed Paper Office as rapidly as possible. This will ensure that noble Lords who are interested are informed of the Statement and will enable us to proceed appropriately when we reach those parts of the Bill.

I reiterate that the purpose of the Statement is to underline that the intentions in the letter, which most noble Lords who have previously participated have already received, will be fulfilled.

My Lords, I should like to add my concerns to those which I suspect will be expressed by other noble Lords. My noble friend asked when we received the Statement. I was surprised that my copy, which was brought up especially for me, arrived on my desk at 2.40 p.m. today. Had I been in the Chamber during Questions, I would not have received it. The Statement took some 12 minutes to read. I have had a chance to look at it, but obviously not in great detail. As my noble friend said, clearly we need to do so.

Perhaps I may make one or two comments on where we are. Today we have had a second Statement on a second Bill on which the Government, through their own fault, have got themselves into a mess yet again. That is nothing new with this Bill; it was running into a mess back in March. The Government have had six months to get their act together. Indeed, since we last debated the Bill, nine weeks have elapsed before the Government have decided to get their act together.

I am sure that most other noble Lords who tried to work on the Bill during the Recess—which most of us did—found it most difficult having to wait for government amendments which did not arrive. That is why I make no apology for Amendment No. 103A, to which we shall come later, being so huge and difficult. It seeks to force the Government at least to debate the broader issues to which the noble Lord referred. We have been very patient with the Government but on this occasion, on this Bill, they have dealt with us somewhat shabbily.

The Government said that they would wait for the reports of the National Audit Office, the Royal Society and Professor Anderson, look at the costs and the science surrounding the issue and come up with conclusions. If I were to refer to many of the issues which came out of the reports I would be accused of making a Second Reading speech—which, heaven forbid, I do not wish to do at this stage—but there are three matters arising which are relevant to the way in which we should now proceed.

One matter concerns the whole question of contingency plans. As it stands, the Bill deals only with slaughter; it does not deal with any other options. That is something we should look at. The reports deal also with the way in which the State Veterinary Service operated and with alternative measures. They were reinforced by the European Parliament's recently produced Working Group 5a report, of which other noble Lords have had copies. Paragraphs 50, 54 and 57 of that report—I could refer to many more—highlight the question of vaccination and how it should fit into some kind of animal health protection or animal health legislation.

Paragraph 50 refers to the fact that the decision on vaccination is in any case not a purely scientific matter but a political one, and yet we are being asked today to give approval to issues about which we need to talk more broadly than we are able to with the Bill as it stands. Paragraph 54 states that vaccinations are available which make it possible, at least on a herd by herd basis, to distinguish between infected and vaccinated animals. When we debated the Bill in March it was not said that it was possible to do that. It now is—and yet we still have the same Bill, with promised government amendments for which we are waiting. Paragraph 57 very tellingly states that vaccination must be considered as a first-choice option from the outset when an outbreak occurs. That is a major change from what we have been considering. Those three issues perhaps highlight the very difficult position in which the Government have placed us today.

Obviously there are many other points I should like to raise but I shall leave them and allow other noble Lords to make them in their contributions. I am grateful that the Minister has indicated the Government's acceptance of two of our points, but if it had not been for the push from our Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches and other noble Lords who have tabled amendments, I suspect that the Government would not have moved the Bill forward. We are going one step forward with at least two hands tied behind our backs because we do not have the amendments to which the Minister referred. It is a ridiculous position to be in.

Amendments were laid by the Opposition and other noble Lords in September—well before October—but we still await some government amendments. We acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has moved to rid the Bill of some of the worst conditions surrounding the issue of warrants and to clarify the kind of people who will be required to assist inspectors and to ensure that inspectors are reasonable in their demands for help. But the Government have had time to serve us better. They surely cannot accuse the previous government of putting them in this position. I wish to record my extreme unhappiness of continuing with a Bill—we shall be debating it again tomorrow—on which we have some information but still do not know when government amendments will be available or what they will include.

My Lords, as usual I declare a marginal interest—our very small herd of Welsh Black cattle in mid-wales.

Speaking as one of the usual suspects on the Bill, I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for the letters he has sent me, as promised, informing me of what the Government intended to do and giving me some of the amendments he planned to move. These letters were helpful and I have listened carefully to his Statement, although, like others, I shall wish to study it carefully.

The government amendments change some of the most unsatisfactory aspects of the Bill as it stood—for example, limiting the requirement to provide assistance to the keeper of the stock and those in charge of the animals. They also meet one or two of the other points made in earlier debates in the House. Finally they seek to meet some of the points made in the reports of the inquiries, to which the Government are only to respond at the end of this month or in early November.

But a number of the key recommendations seem to have been ignored. For example, the Royal Society's report, which struck me as particularly valuable, called for contingency plans to be brought before Parliament for debate and approval; the Government to bring before Parliament a framework for the contingency plans covering the principles involved in handling outbreaks of infectious exotic diseases; the tightening of import controls over meat, together with a much more co-ordinated approach at every level by all bodies concerned with import controls; a commitment to consider emergency vaccination as part of the control strategy from the start of any outbreak instead of as a last resort—the Royal Society says that emergency vaccination could be far more appropriate than the alternative of extensive culling—the preparation of a regulating framework and practical arrangements, including the supply of vaccines; consideration of ways to minimise animal movements; and a national strategy for animal disease research.

None of that was mentioned in the noble Lord's letters or covered by the government amendments but some of those matters were included in his statement. The noble Lord stated in his letter to me of 25th September that

"the central features of this part of the Bill remain unchanged".

I read that with despair. I said on Second Reading on 14th January that the Bill might more appropriately be entitled the "Animal Slaughter Facilitation Bill". On 26th March and 25th July, I said that Part 1 was,

"based entirely on legalising and extending the mass slaughter of animals".

I am astonished that under the huge weight of criticism in your Lordships' House and outside, the Government should still be keen on a policy of mass slaughter. Little wonder that Dr. Anderson called in the lessons to be learned report for a

"reappraisal of prevailing attitudes and behaviours"

within DEFRA. The Government and the department seem determined not to listen to their critics. Help is at hand. I am not an enthusiast of the European Union—I would be much happier if we came out of it—but we belong for the present. Agriculture is one of the areas for which we have handed over responsibility to Brussels—which has, it seems, decided to take over the running of foot and mouth policy from the UK and other member states. Reports in the Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times on 12th and 13th September said that the Commission was planning to take over responsibility for the handling of foot and mouth disease and to that end had prepared a draft directive that is to be published this month. Meantime, an interim report has been published by the rapporteur of the EU temporary committee on foot and mouth.

I have not seen the whole text but reports quote that committee as saying that,

"The mass slaughter policy employed to control foot-and-mouth disease last year was based on flawed scientific models and probably did not help curb the epidemic".

The policy was said to have,

"dubious legal grounds and may have led to animal welfare abuses".

The committee makes a number of recommendations, including

"vaccination as a 'first choice' control option in future".

It added that

"some farmers were intimidated and pressurised into having animals culled".

I would normally be reluctant to see responsibility moved from London—where we can at least put our views to the Government, however little attention they pay—to Brussels, where we have no influence. In this instance, I admit that in contrast to an invincibly obstinate British Government bent on making mass slaughter easier, the European Parliament's committee seems to be taking a much more enlightened view—almost identical with that of the Royal Society, laying the main emphasis on emergency vaccination-to-live.

My noble friend Lord May, president of the Royal Society, kindly sent me the text of a speech by Commissioner David Byrne to the EU temporary committee on 12th September, in which he said:

"It is no longer acceptable to the public that large numbers of animals can be slaughtered and destroyed now that new diagnostic tests have been developed and are available which differentiate between infected and vaccinated animals…the Commission is of the view that emergency vaccination should be moved to the forefront of the response mechanism in the event of future outbreaks…vaccination had been viewed as a weapon of last resort. It is now time to break with this approach".

Commissioner Byrne added that there would shortly be a Commission proposal for a European Council directive on foot and mouth disease on those lines, which he described as a "blockbuster" proposal running to more than 130 pages.

Like many of your Lordships, the Commissioner spoke also of,

"serious concerns that poor controls over imports from third countries were at the origin of last year's outbreak".

We have now heard from the boss. The draft directive is to be published this month. In the circumstances, surely it would be sensible to defer consideration of the Bill until we know exactly what the directive says, whether the Bill is compatible with it and whether we need a Bill at all now that the Commission is taking over the problem.

If we are to proceed, it would seem sensible for the Bill to have at least specific guidelines and powers for dealing with reactive vaccination, explicit requirements for contingency planning and regular consultations with experts on disease control. Those provisions need to be as clearly prescriptive as those for preventive slaughter and to provide for keeping fully up to date with scientific advances. We do not want the Bill to be out of date by the time it receives Royal Assent.

I hope that we shall hear from the Minister soon about his plans, now that he has heard his master's voice and had ample time to study the inquiry reports. I hope that the noble Lord will decide to wait until the draft directive is published.

A vote at this stage would not be appropriate, especially as the Official Opposition is holding its policy conference this week. However, if the Government remain obdurate, the House may wish to divide on the issue on Report.

My Lords, I have great sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who spoke with a great deal of wisdom and raised a number of important points. I thank the Minister for accepting our amendment on imports, for which we are most grateful.

It has been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to discuss the issues so I welcome the opportunity provided by the Statement to make a few comments. I cannot see how we can address a contingency plan adequately with no amendment before us. Nor is there any amendment on a new preventive slaughter policy, when the policy adopted in 2001 was so controversial.

Indeed, we await a disease slaughter control. Vaccination is a crucial aspect and one that caused frenetic debate at all levels during the 2001 outbreak. I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that the EU will tackle many of the issues within one month. There is also a report from the European Parliament on the British Government's conduct in 2001.

All those factors could contribute greatly to a far better Bill. I have reluctantly reached the conclusion that the department requires additional legislation in case of another outbreak before a new Act is in place. I view the Bill as interim legislation to cope with that situation but down the line much more comprehensive legislation will be required to ensure that our law is contiguous with that of the European Union. The points made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord could be taken into account to produce eventually a good Bill and Act. If the Minister's intention is that the Bill should serve as an interim measure, he should make that clearer than he has done.

My Lords, we should remember that the Marshalled List contains 320 amendments. Every subject that noble Lords, quite correctly, want to discuss in Committee is there. We can debate the contingency plan in dealing with Amendment No. 99. We can debate strategy in relation to Amendment No. 103A, vaccination in relation to Amendment No. 268, and the European Union report in relation to Amendment No. 316. The House is not being denied the chance to debate these matters in full and hear the Government's response.

The Government—unusually—have already said what they intend to do. The discussion in Committee will inform the drafting which the Government now say they will bring forward on Report. The situation has been extremely unusual. As a result of the way in which the Bill has been handled in this House the Government have already had the chance, before the House goes into Committee, to indicate their thinking on the various issues. We have seen the letter that has been sent out and some amendments have been proposed. So the Government have indicated their thinking. We can debate all the various issues in Committee, hear the Government's response and possibly improve the Government's thinking. Then, in the normal way, the Government will bring forward amendments at a later stage. That is entirely normal.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is right. That is the normal way to proceed. But the Minister has in effect just delivered a Second Reading speech at Committee stage, so we do not find ourselves, as it were, in the normal mode of procedure. The Minister wrote to many of us who are involved with the Bill, and I was grateful to receive his letter. But the noble Lord has raised important issues. Some clarity is required. Before we can proceed, we need to know what is happening.

On the question of vaccination, has new information come to light during the course of the summer which will have a bearing on the way in which this House will determine the outcome of the Bill? With the leave of the House, I should like to raise two specific questions on vaccination.

First, is it the Government's intention that compensation will be payable for animals which are vaccinated and not slaughtered? As matters stand, such animals may not necessarily be allowed to enter the food chain. It seems a gross injustice if an animal can be vaccinated, not be allowed into the food chain and not be compensated for. I should be grateful if the Minister would give the House a clear indication of what would happen in that case.

Secondly, in the letter that the Minister kindly circulated to us, he refers to the most appropriate strategy in any future outbreak. It is perfectly clear to me that the most appropriate strategy will be to try to find a system of accurately testing suspected livestock within as short a period as possible, thus ensuring that hundreds of thousands of animals are not slaughtered unnecessarily and that farmers' livelihoods are protected. Before the Summer Recess, it was my knowledge that such a system was not in place. But do I gather from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that matters have changed? If that is the case, the situation is very different and there should be incorporated within legislation a clause that makes effective testing mandatory before any culling can take place. If that is done, the farmer concerned can be satisfied that his stock have in fact contracted a particular disease, matters will be above board and everyone will be clear as to what is going on. Will the Minister be kind enough to tell the House whether that is now the situation? If so, it is very different from what it was when we discussed the Bill previously.

My Lords, I support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Moran. His wisdom, as always, should be listened to. The situation is fluid, as he and other speakers have made clear. I am concerned that we shall be discussing legislation that will be out of date in six months' time.

I recognise the Minister's need to be able to deal quickly with an outbreak of disease. He can probably have the assurance of most people in the farming industry who have been involved with the recent foot and mouth outbreak that they will have the support of the farmers whose animals are involved. I do not think that there is any doubt about that. However, the Minister needs to reassure us that the measures to be taken are not over the top.

The Minister may have heard a programme on Radio 4 on Friday or Saturday on which a Mrs Morris from my locality, Worcester, spoke about the numbers of animals that were killed unnecessarily because they were regarded as contiguous to animals that were not infected at all. We need to bring into legislation the new rapid diagnostic tests and all the differences in terms of vaccination—whether the vaccinated animals will be killed or whether they will live and possibly enter the food chain. There needs to be an exercise in public education. People need to understand that most of the animals that they eat now have already been vaccinated against a number of diseases and that we suffer no problems as a result.

So I have all kinds of concerns about the Bill. My own preference is to wait and see what the EU comes up with, then to introduce a Bill dealing with all those matters in one go, properly, at our leisure. The noble Lord should trust the farmers. Incidentally, he made a blanket reference to farmers. Most of the severe problems arose in relation to dealers. There is a need to distinguish in legislation between what I call proper farmers, and dealers. I should be grateful if the Minister would give that some thought.

My Lords, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, we are in an unusual position in debating these matters at Committee stage. I agree with the remarks of the noble Countess and the noble Earl, Lord Peel.

It is appropriate that we should consider in general terms why we are where we are in relation to the Bill at this stage. Most of us hoped that we should not be at this stage. At Second Reading in January, most of us criticised the Bill sharply. A great deal of time has elapsed since then and there has been a great deal of change, not least in the science of vaccination. Major reports have been published and others are pending. The European Union report is to be published shortly, and there is the Government's definitive response to their own inquiry reports. It seems extraordinary that we should be pursuing detailed Committee points on parts of the Bill when we still do not know what amendments the Government propose to bring forward on some critical and important matters.

We have just had an extended debate on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill and on the extraordinary procedural difficulties that we are in as a result of having substantive amendments moved on Report when the issues involved ought to have been discussed at Second Reading or at the very least in Committee. It places the House in an extraordinary position in trying to tackle important issues.

Because so many criticisms were levelled at this Bill at Second Reading, I believe that most noble Lords expected far more radical changes to be made by the Government. I echo what has been said in gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his kindness in writing to me and in sending in advance a copy of the essence of his Statement. I want to express gratitude for some of the government amendments which have met some of the criticisms that were made in the course of the Second Reading debate and the debate in March. However, I still feel that this is a deeply defective Bill.

Were I a theologian—I hesitate to claim that title—I would say that this is a sinful Bill, giving the word "sin" its proper root meaning. Every student of elementary New Testament Greek is told that the word "sin" comes from a word in classical Greek which does not mean "doing a bad thing"—that is the wide misunderstanding of sin—but which means "missing the mark". Thucydides refers to people throwing a spear or shooting an arrow and missing the target. There is reference to someone who takes the wrong turning on a journey. That is "sin". It is making a mistake of that kind, falling short of what you should be aiming at. In Plato and Aristotle the word has come to mean "an error of judgment". By any standard, this Bill misses the mark, falls short of where it should have gone, takes many wrong turns and fails to address a great many of the issues which were extremely pressing at the end of the foot and mouth outbreak this time last year.

One can imagine what was going on in DEFRA this time last year: an attitude of despair, total bewilderment and perplexity. The outbreak had been a disaster and its handling had been a catastrophe. There were various targets which could have been addressed by new legislation, in particular illegal meat imports. We still await action on that. If we simply debate the amendments we shall not have a serious debate about how we control illegal meat imports.

I returned twice to an airport in this country during the summer Recess. I had absolutely no indication that anyone minded what I brought with me. There was no notice, no questions, no sniffer dogs—nothing. The NFU survey of 10,000 people returning to this country produced exactly the same result. Ninety-nine percent of those people did not know about it. I looked for it. It is not in this Bill. It may be that we shall have the promise of further amendments at Report stage, but is that good enough?

Are proper information systems in place? There was such confusion over this matter during the outbreak. Have we the opportunity to debate that during the course of this Committee stage? The State Veterinary Service was dismantled by the previous Conservative government in the 1980s. That service needs to be rebuilt. There should be adequate contingency plans which are rehearsed and practised regularly.

We may have the chance to touch on some of these matters as we debate the amendments. But the fact of the matter is that, as several noble Lords have said, we need comprehensive, new legislation which goes to the root of all these issues and not simply to look at one aspect of one part of the solution to the problem, which is how we deal with an outbreak through culling or vaccination. I welcome the references to vaccination which have crept into these amendments, but I hope that there will be vaccination to live and only in exceptional cases would there be vaccination to slaughter.

We really do need new legislation. We need to go back to the drawing board and to produce a comprehensive Bill which will win the enthusiastic support of the farming and livestock industry. I am very worried that if we pursue this debate at this stage of the Committee proceedings on a limited number of amendments, we do so knowing that the farming community is deeply hostile to what is going on and still does not believe that the Government understand the position and the problems which farmers face and the despair which affects so many of them. The 407,000 people who took part in the march cannot have been wrong. Many agendas were running on that particular day. I fervently wish that we could be addressing more of those questions than simply the small number which will arise during this Committee stage.

My Lords, perhaps I may detain your Lordships' attention for a very short time. I totally accept what the right reverend Prelate has said about the need for a new and comprehensive Bill. I have tabled a series of amendments which are based on the assumption of slaughter. There is no other assumption. For that purpose certain new rights are claimed such as entry into premises and co-operation: if people co-operate this will happen; if they do not, then that will happen, with penal conditions and so forth.

Nobody has written to me about it and there is no reason why they should. I have been sitting here and listening to what is going on. It now appears that the whole scenario has changed. What am I supposed to do with my amendments? They are designed wholly for slaughter, but we are now going to talk about vaccination. I suppose that the best thing to do is to pack it in and, so to speak, shove off. But is that the way to deal with the Bill? How is it to be dealt with? Am I going to be given time to talk to a few of my friends in the farming community and redraft my amendments? Lord, no! There is not an earthly chance of that. It is the kind of imposition against which I personally protest and I do not believe that the House should indulge it.

My Lords, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, the right reverend Prelate and others, that we are following a slightly unusual procedure today because, under pressure from noble Lords during the first day of Committee, I was asked to make clear at the beginning of the second day how the Government intended to proceed with the remainder of the Bill. That was broadly welcomed by the House and that is why I made the Statement today, which is now available in the Printed Paper Office.

We need to recognise the history of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, asked if it was an interim measure. We first proposed this Bill several months ago in the shadow of the foot and mouth disease. The House voted not to proceed with it at that point until we had the outcomes of the committees of inquiry. We now have them. Since July we have considered in detail the implications for this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, said that he is unhappy that the central features of the Bill still remain. The reason is that there was very strong support for it in the two inquiry reports. They indicated very clearly, first, that we needed to widen the scope for slaughter and vaccination to ensure that we can carry out a disease-control strategy which had some pre-emptive culling or vaccination. Secondly, the powers of entry needed to ensure that we rapidly carried out those powers. Both those measures are now firmly based in the recommendations of the reports and that is why the central features of the Bill have not been significantly altered.

What has altered is the reassurances that people sought about the warrant procedure, the protocol and clarification of the reasons for such a policy. I am committed to all of them. They are either on the agenda today in my name or I am committed to producing them for Report stage. The same applies for contingency planning and import controls where I have indicated that I will accept the gist of the Liberal Democrat amendment.

We have also responded to the strong view from the industry that the provisions on adjusted compensation would not be appropriate and that as they stand they would alienate rather than help to carry out disease control. With that section being removed, I believe that the bulk of the farming industry would actually support the remaining provisions of this Bill. Therefore, I do not believe that it is going against the view among farmers in general, although some will have different opinions.

The issue of vaccination has obviously concerned a number of noble Lords who have spoken. I made clear from the early stages of this Bill that the powers we were seeking were those needed for a wholesale vaccination process as much as for a wholesale culling process. One needs powers for rapid entry in order to carry out vaccination as much as one needs them for culling. Indeed, it could be argued that for a vaccination process to be effective one needs even fewer loopholes than one can afford under the culling process.

It is true that the Royal Society and, it would appear, the European committee to which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, referred, and others, say that vaccination should be higher in the priority of weapons used in disease control. We made a Statement on 25th July which I repeated in this House. We indicated that we accepted the proposition that vaccination should be a weapon of first resort, where appropriate, rather than last. Not all circumstances will be appropriate: the vaccination available may not be appropriate. Moreover, we accept the recommendation that the procedure should be normally to vaccinate to live rather than was the case as regards the options we considered during the previous disease and the options followed in the Netherlands, namely, vaccinate to kill.

What is needed and what this Bill provides, are powers to cover all of those options so that we have flexibility, clarity of law and speed of operation to carry out vaccination to live or as a prelude to slaughter or to the culling process. The powers are the same. If the EU raises the priority given to vaccination, we shall still need these powers to carry out the vaccination programme.

Therefore, the issue of whether we carry out vaccination more substantially than we carry out culling and whether the balance changes represents an important signal to the farming community and to society at large as regards how we would deal with a future disease. However, in terms of the powers in this Bill, those same powers will be required. That is why the central part of the Bill has not changed. I am conscious of the anxieties about proportionality, about transparency, and about explanations given to farmers and other livestock owners. All such issues are now covered either by the amendments that I have tabled for today, by amendments tabled in the names of other noble Lords, or, indeed, by amendments that will be available on Report.

I believe that we shall end up with a better Bill than the one with which we began. It will certainly be a slightly narrower Bill than was the case originally. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said, that does not preclude our returning to some of these issues in pursuit of a more substantial piece of legislation at a later stage. When first proposed, this Bill was meant to cover us for the immediate period. It will still need to cover us for some considerable time until we have fully developed the animal health strategy that emerged from the reports, including the European report that will shortly be before the House.

However, in the immediate period, we have already lost several months by not having the powers that the Government were convinced we needed earlier in the year. The committees of inquiry support the fact that we need those powers and, by and large, with the compensation requirements removed, the farming community accept that we will need them. Without further ado, I suggest that we move forward to deal with the substantive amendments. Therefore, I beg to move, once again, that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.

My Lords, I have one suggestion for the Minister to consider. We have about four weeks until the State Opening of Parliament. Would it not be miles better to take away this Bill, reintroduce it in the dog days of the early part of the Session to your Lordships' House and do so in a way whereby we could have time to consider it properly and get it through this Chamber in, say, six weeks? We would have it ready to go to the Commons before Christmas, and it could be out of the other place fairly quickly. In those circumstances, the Bill would have been well scrutinised in this place and we would not have this gobbledegook of how not to approach legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is clever enough to realise the advantage of my suggestion. As for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, he is much cleverer than the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He can certainly see the advantage of such an approach. I am not being beastly to the Government; I am trying to suggest to them a way out of what is a ghastly legislative muddle. We must get this right. If we do it in the way now proposed, it is likely to become a sort of Mark 1, gold-plated "Dangerous Dogs Bill". I am sure that neither the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, nor the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would like to see that happen.

My Lords, without going into the merits of who is the cleverer, perhaps I may return to the simple question of vaccination. I believe that I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, told us that the powers of entry are the same whether or not vaccination is the means of controlling the disease or part of the culling process. I am sure we all acknowledge that fact; indeed, we all acknowledge the need for the Government to have such powers. However, I have one fundamental point to make and should be most grateful for the Minister's response.

I refer to the question of vaccinated animals that are not slaughtered but are prevented from entering the food chain. In such circumstances, is it the Government's intention that farmers with such animals will be fully compensated? The answer to that question is absolutely essential to the way that this Bill proceeds.

My Lords, the Minister said that he needs these measures. However, in a state of emergency, has he considered issuing orders to cover such matters? This has been done frequently to cover all sorts of situations in emergencies on previous occasions. Further, as other noble Lords, especially the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, have suggested, will the noble Lord consider taking away the Bill and rehashing it to take into account not only what the European Union is saying but also what the other reports have found? In that way, we would have something that is a composite, not a hotchpotch.

My Lords, I have three quick questions for the Minister. First, he said that the Government have reconsidered the position on vaccination. However, there is nothing mentioned in the Bill, which raises the question as to how he will proceed in that respect. Secondly, on the question of the amendments that the Government have not as yet tabled, we are told that we should wait for the Report stage. Can the Minister say whether or not we shall be able to debate those proposed amendments in Committee, rather than having but one chance to consider them on Report? Obviously, the Committee stage of a Bill gives us the chance to have a debate around the amendments that are laid. Clearly, if they are not brought forward before Report, we shall have a one-go-only situation.

Thirdly, I turn to compensation. I should like to put on record our thanks to the Minister for the fact that he has acknowledged the position with regard to compensation. When commenting, the Minister touched on insurance and levy systems that I know are under consideration. I believe that the latter would have implications but, again, there is nothing in the Bill in that respect.

My Lords, if I accepted the noble Baroness's amendments it would have the effect of removing compensation issues from the Bill, except for those in the specific clause regarding compensation for vaccinates to which I shall return shortly. It would mean that the whole system of compensation would be delayed until further policy decisions have been taken and further legislation introduced, and would include the wider issues of risk sharing and of possible insurance or levy-based schemes upon which the Government propose to consult at some length with the industry. Therefore, such issues are not appropriate for this Bill. All those matters now fall outside the scope of this legislation.

I turn to vaccination, which is referred to in the Bill and in some of the amendments. In particular, the powers of entry relate to entry for vaccination and for blood testing, as well as for culling. We will have some culling in any situation; for example, even if we maximise the use of vaccination elsewhere, we will kill the clearly diseased animals. Therefore, even if we fully adopt the recommendations for a vaccinate-to-live process, there will be a mixture of measures. A vaccinate-to-live process is very complicated to introduce as the mainstream choice of weapon to deal with the disease: it requires not only EU backing but there are also implications in the OIE review as regards how vaccinated meat is dealt within the trade.

Further, we must consider how the domestic meat industry and the retail industry deal with meat from vaccinated animals. Until the position is clear, it is difficult to answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Peel. The Bill provides for 100 per cent compensation for vaccinated animals where they are slaughtered. If a vaccinate-to-live programme were introduced, it would be largely dependent on the trade being prepared to take vaccinated meat on the same terms as non-vaccinated meat. If the situation were different we would have to consider the noble Earl's question, but we have not yet reached that point. Therefore, it is not covered in the Bill.

In relation to the issues raised by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, both of whom sought to delay the Bill, I should point out to the noble Countess that the use of orders would not fulfil the aims of this legislation. Orders can be put forward only within the confines of existing primary legislation. The Animal Health Act does not provide sufficient powers in terms of the scope of vaccination or slaughter and in terms of the scope of the powers of entry to enable us to deal with it through secondly legislation—

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but how does he compare this with the TSE 2002 regulations, which constitute an order and give huge scope; indeed, they cover everything, from taking one's computer out of one's home and killing every animal on the farm?

My Lords, as the noble Countess knows, that is a ludicrous interpretation of the TSE regulations. Those regulations stem primarily from European legislation, not primary legislation. Dealing with foot and mouth stems from the Animal Health Act 1981 and, therefore, in terms of orders and secondary legislation, we are confined by the terms of that legislation.

We have been considering the measures for a long time. We have the wisdom of three important reports, which broadly support the central thesis of the Bill. We have had plenty of comment from the farming industry, scientists, vets and Members of this House on the appropriateness or otherwise of the measures. Some 300 amendments have been tabled, so obviously a number of noble Lords can see ways of improving the Bill, which I hope that we can now go on to debate. I see no further need for delay.

My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer my question about whether we could debate fully on Report—as if we were in Committee—the amendments that the Government have not yet put down.

My Lords, the noble Baroness knows that it is in neither my power nor hers to alter the procedural rules of the House. Report stage will be as normal.

My Lords, I must correct the noble Lord. It is quite possible for the House to move that we can do that. It was done on the peerage Bill. It is called recommitment. Perhaps it might be a good idea to consider that procedure. I would much rather the Government started all over again, because I think that would be quicker and more sensible, but that is another argument.

My Lords, the noble Earl is clearly right that a resolution of the House would be required to alter the proceedings. That is a matter to be considered by the usual channels. As of today, Report stage will be as it normally is.

moved Amendment No. 96:

Before Clause 14, insert the following new clause—

It may be for the benefit of the Committee if I make it clear that, as has already been said, I am prepared to accept the amendment. Some marginal tidying up may be needed, but I accept the principle of what the noble Lord says.

The Government are already engaged on the other matters of enforcement of import controls, including looking at the jurisdiction of the various authorities involved. However, that is not a matter for legislation, most of which is European. The requirement here is to report to this House, to another place and to the National Assembly for Wales. We fully accept that.

The Minister should not expect to escape quite as easily as that. However, I am glad that he has agreed to accept the amendment in principle. I declare an interest—as I have many times in foot and mouth debates—as one who was deeply involved and who lost his stock. I feel very personally about some of the issues in the Bill.

It is quite right that we should have this type of detailed report from the Government each year. Had we had one over the past few years, I am sure that the country would have picked up the fact that the Government's contingency plans were totally inadequate. That, as it turned out, was indeed the fact. The three reports we have had have been a devastating criticism of the Government's handling of the foot and mouth epidemic. It would therefore be useful if the Government annually had an opportunity to show that none of the defects will recur and that they will be much nearer the ball in dealing with any future case of foot and mouth.

In moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, rightly pointed out the agriculture industry's grave concern about imports. I have raised the issue on various occasions in the past 18 months, but I have received pretty unsatisfactory replies. Today, the Minister has a chance to give more detail about what the Government have achieved in import control. We keep hearing that there will be more inspectors here and there, but what has happened on the ground? How many cases of illegal import have inspectors discovered? How many prosecutions have we had?

What is being done to deal with countries such as Argentina and South Africa where foot and mouth is endemic? Are those countries still sending unlimited quantities of beef to this country? As we know, there is currently complete turmoil in Argentina. Are we confident that the government services are operating effectively in the various designated areas which are supposed to be free of foot and mouth? Or is beef being shipped willy-nilly from that country, where foot and mouth is endemic, and are we picking it up in this country?

I am very concerned that we have not taken adequate steps since the foot and mouth outbreak to prevent the import of all sorts of meat into this country. I think that the majority of the farming community believes that the outbreak began in the Newcastle area from imported meat. Had we had strict controls, with luck, the whole issue of foot and mouth over the past two years would not have arisen. I ask the Minister to tell us now, in detail, the action that he has taken. That is the point of this amendment. It proposes an annual report to set out in detail the action being taken on import controls.

I should like to raise with the Minister one other important point—liaison between England, Wales and Scotland. Foot and mouth knows no boundaries; it crossed the border thousands of time during the epidemic. The Scottish Executive says it has taken action and introduced legislation and that all is well, and the Government are implying that this Bill will ensure that sufficient resources are available to deal with another outbreak, but I should like to think that there is genuine liaison between England, Scotland and Wales in relation to foot and mouth. I feel that the countries are currently going in slightly different directions and wonder whether, whatever action the Government take to prevent outbreaks, because of devolution and Scotland's legislative independence the link-up between countries is adequate to deal with cross-border problems such as foot and mouth, brucellosis and even scrapie.

I therefore believe that this amendment, which the Government have accepted in principle, will give them a chance to set out in detail each year the steps that they are taking to raise the standard of foot and mouth prevention in this country. I believe that the Government would have been defeated in the Lobby had they not accepted the amendment. It proposes an important way of ensuring that prevention and contingency planning remain a high priority within the Government. I certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, in his amendment.

I very strongly support the amendment; it is absolutely right that we should have an annual review of import controls. I also agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Monro, said. However, I am also struck by the fact that we have raised this issue every time the subject has been discussed, ever since January, and practically nothing has been done. The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Hereford, pointed out that he has twice recently come into this country but that no one asked or showed him anything in relation to meat imports.

Some noble Lords may have watched last night's "Panorama" programme about corruption in racing. Time and again during the programme, the representative of the Jockey Club was asked why it had done nothing. He said that the issue was all very difficult and that there was not enough evidence and so on. The comments seemed utterly futile and reminded me very much of the line that the Government have taken about the import of animal meat, which everyone agrees is probably the cause of last year's outbreak. Apart from reporting to the House annually, the Government should deal with this matter firmly and now.

Like the Minister, who I am absolutely sure has visited many farms and spoken to farmers and representatives of the industry over the summer, I have met my fair share of farmers. If one issue comes out more strongly than any other, it is the import of illegal meat products. I cannot stress powerfully enough how strongly the farming fraternity feels about the need for the Government to take urgent action to curtail this illegal trade.

The difficulties arise in two channels. The first is the conventional channel where the level of testing is simply not sufficiently rigorous. The second is the import by ordinary passengers in their suitcases of illegal meat products such as bushmeat which commands a very high price on the black market. I am very well aware that the Minister himself is deeply concerned about this issue; I have heard him speak about it on Radio 4 and have read his remarks in the newspapers. Concern and action, however, are two very different things.

Like my noble friend Lord Monro, I look forward to hearing in some detail the Government's plan to deal with the problem. One of the difficulties is that various agencies have responsibility for dealing with it. Perhaps the Government intend to introduce legislation to establish one agency to deal with it; the Minister may be able to expand on that possibility. I have no doubt, however, that Amendment No. 96 will go some way in helping us to learn what the Government are doing about the issue.

I suspect that the only way in which the difficulty can really be dealt with is to increase considerably both the level of commitment and the level of investment in personnel and surveillance equipment. Such equipment is already available and being used in Australia and America. Indeed, anyone who has visited America will know only too well how vigilant it is in these matters. Why we cannot emulate such countries, particularly in view of the fact that we are an island, I simply do not know.

I hope that the Minister will take this matter much more seriously than has so far appeared to be the case. Frankly, we would save ourselves a huge amount of money in future if we got the whole question of illegal importation sorted. The chances of reducing a future outbreak of foot and mouth or any other such disease would be greatly enhanced. I looked forward to the Minister's response.

I say to the Minister how pleased I am that the Government are to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey.

I have a question about the use of dogs. During the Recess, I heard that two trained dogs would be used in relation to illegal meat. Some time ago, with the Drugs Misuse Group, I visited the hangars at Heathrow to watch dogs working in relation to drugs. The hangars are absolutely vast. Two dogs are just a drop in a tiny ocean. The problem is a huge ocean and at least 200 dogs are needed. In the report, will we be told how the whole thing works and what is being done? As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, the import of illegal bushmeat is very worrying. Monkeys, gorillas and all sorts of tropical animals are coming in and being eaten.

I heard during the previous Session that the veterinary school for tropical diseases in Edinburgh will close. That is absolutely mad. We need it. It could help to provide aid to developing countries. Many of their veterinary officers have died of AIDS and other trained people are needed to replace them. If we really take this matter seriously, we have to consider many ways of preventing disease coming in.

I back up the comments of the noble Baroness.

The Minister may be aware that I have asked a number of Questions on this subject in recent months. He should be aware of that because he signed a good many of the Answers. In one Answer, he said that enforcement was not a matter for legislation; but—my gosh—it is a matter of concern: deep, deep concern. At the moment, the concern does not begin to be allayed.

The noble Baroness referred to the issue of two dogs. Let the Minister at least tell us the current and projected strength of the canine defence force of this country.

One of my Questions was about whether it was possible to discriminate, in terms of investigation and surveillance, at an airport between passengers arriving from different destinations. There are obviously limited resources; we should focus them where they are needed. The Answer that I got was that it was not appropriate to discriminate between passengers coming from different places. Is that really true? None of this gives one any confidence that anything is going to be done or is being done. I totally support the amendment of the noble Lord on the Liberal Front Bench; of course we support it. However, it is action that is needed, not just words. Frankly, to say that this is not a matter for legislation is not good enough.

I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer, although at the moment I have no livestock.

I was very struck by the speech of the right reverend Prelate. I had a similar experience the day before yesterday. I found myself on Saturday in the airport at Atlanta, Georgia. As my wife and I were mooching through the duty free shop, she picked up a sealed package of smoked ham and said to me, "Look, this is that very good smoked ham we had two or three days ago". I was about to say to her, "I hope you're not thinking of taking it back home", but, before I could do so, she said to me, "Oh my God! We should find ourselves on the front page of the newspapers if we took this home". With that in both our minds, when we came back into Gatwick yesterday, I, like the right reverend Prelate, looked very carefully to see what steps were being taken to warn passengers arriving by air that the importation of meat is illegal. At least I believe that it is illegal. I saw absolutely no signs of any sort.

I very much welcome the Government's announcement. In his Statement, the noble Lord said that he intends to table an amendment providing for the Government to report annually on actions to prevent the illegal import of animal products. We are all grateful for a copy of the Statement, which we have now received.

I strongly support the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that the Government might have to tidy up the new clause. We all understand that because careful drafting is needed. When the Government consider doing so, I hope that they will be prepared to add a new provision strengthening paragraph (a). I want a sub-paragraph to be added—I speak in broad terms—that will explain what steps have been taken at airports and seaports, as well as in relation to the Channel Tunnel, to warn people entering this country that it is illegal to import meat, that those doing so will be subject to very heavy fines and that anyone who did not know and who finds himself importing meat illegally should give it up before leaving the airport. That helpful step should be highlighted in the new clause.

Like other noble Lords, I am most concerned about the fact that the Government have just come round at this late stage—18 months after the outbreak last year—to the fact that something needs to be done about imported meat. We have all been saying for months and months that this is a major hole in our arrangements and that it causes great dangers of a new outbreak. The Government's incompetence in handling the outbreak is not in the past; it is still going on. They are still not addressing that problem sufficiently urgently.

When the Minister replies, I hope that he will tell us whether he will amend the new clause to ensure that each year the report will explain exactly what has been done to warn people entering this country of the illegality and folly of their actions if they have illegal meat with them.

Before the Minister responds to the many questions and comments, I add my voice to those who have spoken of their concern about this issue. You, Minister, are well aware of the many farmers around this country who have expressed their concern: this matter is their priority. We are concerned that there should not be another outbreak. We are also concerned that regulations should be in place so that, in the event of something happening, we are able to cope with it and the Government are very much in control.

But are we doing enough on the import front? It is appropriate that this matter should be raised before anything else in the debate, although it is taking a little time. However, it is appropriate that it is raised and that it is raised in this way. It is hoped that imports will appear as the first item in the Bill in terms of what the Government will do by way of control. Therefore, I support the proposal tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for an annual review of the activities of all departments to identify the nature and origin of imported products.

The Minister said clearly that he accepts the amendment, and we welcome that. Therefore, why are we spending time on it? We are doing so because—this very simple point has just been raised by my noble friend Lord Jopling—we need an answer. I am well aware that some time ago the Minister launched a publicity campaign aimed at raising public awareness of import rules and the reasons for them. What has that achieved? As was said by the right reverend Prelate—other noble Lords have supported his comment and I can, too—it has done absolutely nothing. Among the 10,000 people consulted on what was called "Holiday Watch", only 4 per cent said that they had noticed anything and 96 per cent said that they knew nothing.

As I came though an airport only last week, I asked what precautions were being taken or what advice was being given to people passing through the airport. The girl looked at me and said, "My dear, it's all over. You don't have to worry any more. Foot and mouth disease has finished". Something far stronger than that type of answer needs to be given to passengers. Surely consumers, producers and taxpayers would feel far better if positive action were taken and if the country were able to see that action was being taken in order effectively to bring about import controls.

I was not able to take part in the earlier debate but I have seen the report from Europe, as, I am sure, has the Minister. In it he will see that the question of regionalisation is raised, together with the difficulties relating to imports. Undoubtedly he will speak about that now. At the same time, that report contains the toughest measures on import controls that I have yet seen. Therefore, having seen the measures proposed, I hope that the Minister will incorporate them in the final report.

I, too, support all those who have expressed concerns about imports and the lack of controls that exist at present. Over and over again at Question Time, the Minister has been asked what is being done about import controls. He says that we are having meetings with this and that person and with this and that group and that everyone is being consulted. But at the end of the summer, 18 months after the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, all we have is two sniffer dogs.

When introducing the Bill at Second Reading, the Minister said how urgent and important the Bill was and how badly needed it was. He has—Ministers generally have—the power to stop imports coming into the country. I see the Minister shaking his head, but they do. Section 10 of the Animal Health Act 1981 states:

"The Ministers may by orders make such provision as they think fit for the purpose of preventing the introduction or spreading of disease into or within Great Britain through the importation of…animals and carcases…carcases of poultry and eggs; and…other things, whether animate or inanimate, by or by means of which it appears to them that any disease might be carried or transmitted".

The Minister has the powers to make orders to stop people bringing in such items. But what do we have? Two sniffer dogs. And all this talk, talk, talk achieves nothing.

I wonder whether Ministers have carried out a cost-benefit exercise on providing sniffer dogs and environmental health officers to inspect loads and baggage entering the country and the cost of the last foot and mouth outbreak. The benefits of import preventions and even posters on the walls at airports and ports would be enormous compared with doing nothing except having meetings. Frankly, I am appalled by the lack of action in these circumstances when something could have been done very much sooner.

If the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, will forgive me—this is his amendment—I believe that I should respond to one or two of the points raised, although I am not sure that many of them are apposite to the content of the Bill.

The regulation of imports from third countries into this country is governed by European legislation. The Government have recently been very successful in getting the EU—Commissioner Byrne—to agree that the one-kilogram exemption, which currently might have allowed Lady Jopling to bring in her smoked ham, assuming that it was not too large, should effectively be reduced to zero, with a number of exemptions. Nevertheless, the EU has moved very much in the way that we have advocated it should. That is the legislative structure.

With regard to the enforcement structure, noble Lords are right that more could be done. More has been, and will be, done. There will be additional personnel, and we have initiated a number of pilot schemes. The scheme involving sniffer dogs is a pilot; it is not intended that there should be only two dogs. If it works, clearly the scheme will be extended substantially. A number of spot checks are, and will be, based on far better sharing of intelligence. I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that, although we cannot discriminate, we base our spot checks on intelligence.

There is more that can be done on that front, including in relation to information. Despite the fact that no noble Lord seems to have seen them, a significant number of posters have now been mounted in airports for those entering the country on long-haul flights. Unlike America, the bulk of our passengers arrive from the European Community, and that is a single market. We are now taking steps to ensure that more people are informed both at the point of departure and on the airline. However, in order to be effective in that regard, we require the co-operation of the airlines and airports abroad. We have made a breakthrough on that front.

As regards the longer-term deployment of resources, we shall shortly receive the outcome of a risk assessment as to how disease might enter this country. That assessment will cover not only the legal and illegal paths of entry into this country but also the question of how disease might enter the food chain thereafter. It is important that Members of the Committee recognise that, however draconian the measures, one cannot be absolutely certain of keeping out diseased or illegal meat. In practice, tonnes and tonnes of illegal meat enter the United States and even Australia. Therefore, we need to combine internal controls with minimising the threat from outside.

As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and others who made this point, there is an overlap of jurisdictions of agencies. We are currently in the process of examining that overlap to see whether some rationalisation and enhancement would be helpful.

I believe that that deals with the points of regulation enforcement, information and jurisdiction. No doubt Members of the Committee would like to have more details and, once we have received the review of the operation of the various authorities, I shall let noble Lords who have taken part in this debate know the outcome of that review.

However, today we are debating the issue of an annual report covering all those actions. I believe that paragraph (a) of the new clause proposed in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, covers most of the areas. If it is necessary for it to be more explicit, no doubt we can consider that. But I support the noble Lord's amendment and ask the Committee to do so.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his comments. I know that he takes this matter extremely seriously and has stated so on numerous occasions. We have been calling for far stronger action, and I am grateful for the support shown for the amendment from all quarters of the Committee. There are currently many inadequacies. Some noble Lords have referred to those inadequacies; for example, the lack of dogs for ferreting out illegal imports. More dogs are required. We also need notices at airports and ports and warnings of the consequences for people who illegally import meat foodstuffs into this country, including confiscation at appropriate points. I thank the Government for accepting the amendment. It gives me pleasure to move Amendment No. 96 on the annual review of import controls as part of a new clause before Clause 14.

moved Amendment No. 97:

A dissolution order has been approved in draft by both Houses and was presented to Her Majesty in Privy Council on 26th March. Consequently the order received Her Majesty in Council's approval, so the functions of the Minister under the Animal Health Act 1981 were transferred to the Secretary of State on 27th March. An amendment to the Bill has been tabled and follows in the government amendment to delete Clause 14. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

That Her Majesty's present advisers do not know which department is responsible shows how sloppy the Bill is. We all want animal health to be carried out properly, but the whole Bill has not been thought through and it is sloppy and inconsequential. This is not how to conduct legislation. This is a perfect example of why the Bill is wrong. We want animal health to be protected properly and I include the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in that because I give him credit for wanting to do the right thing. Surely the Bill must be worded correctly rather than in this sloppy manner. There is a general indication of sloppy thinking—grade four minus, go to the back of the class and wear a dunce's hat!

The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is fully entitled to his opinion which he expresses with great force. I defend those who constructed the legislation. I have reported to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the factual position. In view of his long service in the House I am sure that the noble Earl knows that we have followed the appropriate procedure with Her Majesty in Privy Council.

I thank my noble friend for his intervention. While I could not possibly comment on it, it reinforces some of our concerns about the Bill. We are struggling to cope with the Bill in its present form. A serious point to take from my noble friend's contribution is that we are asked to give extra powers to this department without any checks or balances, although noble Lords have tabled amendments to ensure that there are some. However, I accept what the Minister has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I have already spoken to the Question whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill.

moved Amendment No. 98:

After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, that to a large extent this amendment is subsumed by the wording of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that has just been adopted. In so far as the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, feels that it is not, perhaps he will contact me before any tidying up is engaged in at a later stage. I believe that the point has already been covered.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 99:

Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—