asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, sadly, it is alleged that there are a number of mass gravesites in Afghanistan, including the one at Shiberghan. We have discussed these allegations with United Nations and United States officials, and we welcome Hamid Karzai's and regional leaders' statements that they will co-operate with investigations into these sites.

While it is for the Afghan Transitional Authority and the Afghan people themselves to decide how to deal with past crimes, we stand ready to play a supportive role if assistance is requested. We would expect the United Nations to be at the heart of any investigation.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, does she not agree that, apart from the seriousness of the situation that she describes in its own right, if we are to win the battle for hearts and minds in this great strategy in which we are all involved, it is absolutely essential that in Afghanistan we demonstrate not only a relentless commitment to resources and work for economic and social reconstruction, but an equally relentless commitment to justice and human rights? Does she not further agree that we can be neither directly nor indirectly part of any inadvertent attempt, perhaps, to cover up what may have happened and that these matters must be pursued with vigour and expeditiously??

Yes, my Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with what my noble friend said. So far, our discussions with the United Nations indicate that the most proper way forward would be to engage in a two-stage approach to the investigations—first, forensic investigations and the dignified reburial of those who are in the mass graves, and, later, when the security situation improves, more detailed witness interviews and investigations. The security position is such at the moment that there are concerns that to pursue matters rigorously right now with some of the potential witnesses might leave them open to danger. I hope that my noble friend will agree that that two-stage approach is sensible.

My Lords, will the Minister applaud the impressive work done by the government of Hamid Karzai to overcome the bitter ethnic rivalry that is the root of the violence that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to? Does she recognise that, if further massacres are to be avoided, we must build a stable, democratic, multi-ethnic regime in Afghanistan? Further to the Question by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, what help are we giving by enabling the Afghan Government to overcome ethnic conflict and, in particular, to uphold human rights?

My Lords, I agree with what the noble Baroness said. Although we are concerned with the example that my noble friend cited, I hope that my initial answer indicated that there are a number of these sites, which may have resulted from atrocities by different groups. It is important that all of them are pursued. The noble Baroness asked what we are doing in particular. The Tokyo Conference pledged some 4.5 billion US dollars to the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and the United Kingdom's contribution to that has been £260 million. In addition, we have contributed some 33 million dollars to security sector reform. The United Kingdom Government are playing a full part in the reconstruction effort.

My Lords, how many prisoners are still held by the Northern Alliance, and for how long will they be held? Will Her Majesty's Government use their best endeavours to make sure that those people are either tried or released?

My Lords, there are varying reports about the number of prisoners still held by the Northern Alliance. At the moment it is extremely difficult for our diplomats to get out of Kabul to verify what is happening in prisons in Afghanistan. The noble Lord will know that the security situation does not allow for that. However, the United Nations is sending out a human rights specialist this weekend. Ms Asma Jahangir will be looking in particular at mass gravesites, but that indicates the level of concern about human rights issues in general in Afghanistan. The noble Lord's question about what has happened in prisons is very pertinent and must be pursued.

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her welcome reappearance at the Dispatch Box, which all of us are delighted to see.

Are the recently suggested steps to extend the international security force beyond Kabul to other parts of Afghanistan not very urgent in the light of the evidence raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd? Are steps being taken to extend the reach of ISAF to other major cities and even beyond to the countryside of Afghanistan?

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind welcome back.

The United Nations Security Council resolution that authorised ISAF activities in the first place limited its area of operation to Kabul and the surrounding area. Any expansion of the ISAF area of operation would require an enormous commitment of resources, and there is no guarantee that what worked in Kabul would be effective throughout the country. Any expansion of ISAF beyond Kabul may make the task of leading the force much more complicated. However, I take the noble Baroness's point that it is not just a matter of what is happening in Kabul. Indeed, the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, demonstrate that there are concerns throughout the country. The international community must keep the matter under constant review.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the agreement between the Strategic Rail Authority and Virgin Trains covers both Virgin franchises for the current year and the Cross Country franchise for next year. The value to Virgin will not exceed £106 million this year, and it will be less next year. Following a full audit, the SRA will negotiate with Virgin about the long-term future of the franchises. If no agreement can be reached, they will be terminated early and a new competition held.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that full Answer. If his figures differ from mine, why was that information not published at the time of the announcement? It was published by Stagecoach; nothing has yet been announced by the SRA. My question is more fundamental. Around £200 million is being awarded to Virgin for three years interim. Is it normal for a government to hand out such slugs of money without any competitive tendering process?

My Lords, I do not recognise the £200 million that my noble friend referred to. I am surprised by what he said about the figures that I gave not being published before. I shall have to write to him; I understood that they were in the public zone.

We must distinguish two different stages. First, the payments for this year and next year. That was necessary, and it would have been necessary, for any franchisee. The company is losing money and greater progress on the West Coast main line modernisation had been expected. That would have brought more money in for the West Coast main line franchise. There is no advantage in having a change of franchisee now. That would be disruptive for those involved and, more importantly, disruptive for passengers. So this is the minimum necessary.

I said in my Answer that we would be renegotiating in good faith the company's long-term franchise. There is no undertaking that we will reach agreement. If we do not, there will be a competitive tender. That is the right time for a competitive tender.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real scandal is the fact that railway infrastructure costs have increased by between three and five times since the railways were privatised? Will he please give the House an assurance that the Government will use their best efforts with the Strategic Rail Authority, Network Rail and the rail regulator in order quickly to end this scandalous waste of public money, not on railway infrastructure, but on paying all the people who are hanging on to the coat-tails of the people who do the work?

My Lords, I am tempted to agree with the general condemnation made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. The Question is about the West Coast main line, and it is true that the cost has escalated from a little over £2 billion to £10 billion. That shows incredible lack of control and forethought by Railtrack. We must get a grip of it, and we are getting a grip of it. However, we were able to get a grip of it only after it went into administration and we were able to take the company back again.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that one must have sympathy with Virgin Trains? The fact is that it has purchased the new Pendolino fast train but cannot use it for a number of years because no suitable track is available.

My Lords, that is one of the reasons why we have had to make a stabilising grant over the next couple of years. Yes, it was expecting to benefit from the renewal and upgrade of the West Coast main line and that has not yet happened. Clearly, as a result, it is losing money and, clearly, to that extent it is not its fault.

My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that in any event in the first stage there will be a negotiation with Virgin Trains and that if it were not satisfactory to the Government, they would be prepared to call in the franchise and reoffer it? Why not do that at this stage when it is clear that things are not going anywhere near how they were expected to go?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, rightly recalls what I said. Yes, we would seek to negotiate first before terminating the franchise early, which is the position in which we would find ourselves. As has been pointed out, Virgin Trains has purchased the tilting Pendolino train, so surely it is best to try to reach an agreement first with those who have made an investment. If that does not work to the satisfaction of the Government, the taxpayers and the passengers, we have the power to terminate the agreement. I believe that that is the right way round.

My Lords, I want to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. Will my noble friend confirm that Virgin Trains has fulfilled its franchise in terms of refurbishing its rolling stock and ordering new trains? That is a strong reason why the agreement with the SRA as brokered is one we should welcome and look forward to.

My Lords, that is what I was trying to say but, as so often, my noble friend Lord Faulkner has said it better.

My Lords, will the Minister explain why the borrowings by the Strategic Rail Authority, which are after all borrowings in the public sector, will not count as public sector borrowings and are being managed off balance sheet?

My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has been misled by some of the publicity during the weekend. He must be talking about the speech Mr Bowker made on Tuesday. The proposal that Mr Bowker made for securitising fares for the future is only one of a number of options he is putting to the Government for the future financing of the Strategic Rail Authority. No decision has been taken on these financing options.

My Lords, would not extending sympathy to Virgin Trains be treated with complete derision by the hundreds of thousands of passengers who are fed up to the back teeth with its operations on the West Coast main line?

My Lords, my noble friend will have noticed that I confined my sympathy to the financial situation in which Virgin Trains finds itself through no fault of its own. I have made no comment on the quality of its service in other ways, in which other people—notably in this House—are more successful than I am.

asked He Majesty's Government:

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government welcome the Commission's intention to protect temporary agency workers and to promote agency work in the EU. But, by European standards, we have a large number of agency workers in this country and it is important that the directive works in practice in the UK and helps us to deliver full employment. To ensure this, we are seeking to introduce further flexibilities such as a longer derogation from the equal treatment principle.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he dissent from the press reports which appeared during the weekend and recently indicating that the Government are wholly opposed to the draft directive? Does he agree that temporary workers are among the most vulnerable of all workers and that new Labour is firmly on their side?

My Lords, I am pleased to confirm that we are not wholly opposed to the directive. However, we believe that it must be amended so that it will work in practice in the UK. Above all, we want to ensure that it will not lead to a situation where outsiders—that is, people entering the labour market for the first time—are penalised by insiders by too strong regulations which could lead to a substantial decline in agency work.

My Lords, is it not glaringly obvious that if one makes the employment of temporary workers more burdensome one will reduce the number of temporary work opportunities? Is that what the Government want?

My Lords, as I said, we want to introduce more flexibility so that it is not more burdensome. But, clearly, there are cases in which, for example, people are employed for a year and it is difficult to say that they are not in the same position as permanent employees. They are known in the jargon as "permanent temps" and they should have the same protection as people who are employed on a permanent basis.

My Lords, contrary to what has been said from the Benches opposite, does my noble friend agree that the philosophy behind the issue is that so-called atypical workers—that is, temporary, part-time, contract workers and so forth—in the European labour market become typical workers and that unless we are to have a two-tier labour force, and if we want to encourage such workers to be part of the labour force, we need to ensure that there are pro rata terms, in a broad sense, for them?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that part-time and temporary workers are becoming a large part of the labour force. The Government believe that all workers are entitled to decent and fair minimum standards. In the case of part-time and fixed-term work, directives covering those categories have led to those minimum fair standards being put in place. However, particular circumstances apply to agency workers and in giving them fair minimum standards we must be careful that we do not place on them disproportionate burdens, leading to a reduction in the number of agency workers. They perform a valuable service in the economy.

My Lords, I appreciate what the Minister said, but does he accept that, particularly during periods of relatively high employment in London and the South East, there is significant exploitation of temporary workers, particularly single-parent women? Should not the Labour Government be seeking to protect such groups?

My Lords, I do not think that there is significant exploitation. Our survey clearly shows that agency work suits a large number of people who want agency work rather than permanent employment. Indeed, agency work can help some people to effect a lifestyle choice as it enables them to fit in a job around family commitments. It is therefore by no means clear that people are being exploited. On the contrary, I think that agency work can be a stepping stone for labour market outsiders—the unemployed, starters and other non-participants before beginning agency work—to enter the market.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that although there are many legitimate reasons to employ temporary workers, such as to provide cover during holidays, employers sometimes employ them on a long-term basis, often denying them benefits such as sick pay, holidays and a superannuation scheme? Is there not a good case that such employers are exploiting temporary workers and should be taken to task?

My Lords, as I hope I made clear, we think that there are circumstances in which people can be exploited. We are therefore consulting on our relevant domestic legislation to ensure that people cannot be exploited, particularly in matters such as transfer fees. In this particular case, however, we think that a derogation of more than six weeks would be appropriate. Nevertheless, we agree that there is obviously a point at which people become permanent employees and should receive the same pay. There are situations in which people should be protected, but we think that the six-week time period is too short.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the states that already have stringent national legislation restricting the use of agency labour are experiencing high unemployment and have—in the case of France, and soon in that of Germany—economies that are in serious trouble? Will he confirm that he does not want to take us down that route?

My Lords, I hope that I have made it clear that we think that agency workers perform an important function, and that we are therefore concerned that this legislation should be made more flexible. Other European countries such as Ireland and Germany are sympathetic to our position and see the same problems with the directive.

My Lords, listening to the remarks from the Opposition Benches, has my noble friend been reminded of the fact that they opposed the minimum wage, which has now been widely accepted across the country?

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for reminding me of a fact to which I had foolishly not referred earlier in the debate.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government share the revulsion which has been widely expressed following events during England's match in Slovakia, and fully support the Football Association in the prosecution of its formal complaint to UEFA. Racist chanting is a criminal offence in the UK. Where this is not the case overseas, UEFA is responsible for working with national football federations to ensure that such behaviour is not tolerated. In the light of events in Slovakia, UEFA must be prepared to impose tough sanctions where necessary.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very robust and welcome reply. I am also sure that she will wish to join me in congratulating Wales on its magnificent victory last night over Italy, and perhaps in drawing a veil over England's performance against Macedonia. Reverting to the disgraceful scenes in Bratislava on Saturday—when Emile Heskey and Ashley Cole were subjected to taunts not only from the crowd, but incredibly from the stretcher bearers as well—is she aware that those were merely the latest in a long line of similar events involving British footballers playing at club level in Europe this season? Her comments on punishment will be widely welcomed. Does she agree that punishments should include the closure of grounds when such offences take place and the playing of matches behind closed doors?

My Lords, it was indeed a bad night for England last night, but my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn is a happy man today. I absolutely agree with the sentiment behind my noble friend's comments. We should remember, however, that this is a matter for UEFA. I am quite positive in my expectation that UEFA is taking extremely seriously the events in Slovakia. I also think that there is greater recognition in European football that it needs to follow the UK's example in combating racism in football, a very serious matter which damages this nation's great sport.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that sport, including football, has achieved so much in Britain in helping to break down racial barriers, particularly through role models from ethnic minority groups playing on our teams? Is she therefore not alarmed by recent press coverage of a leaked document from the Performance and Innovation Unit at No. 10 Downing Street stating that no evidence has been found to show that taking part in sport increases social inclusion or encourages the young from all communities, through our sporting icons, to participate in sport?

My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness's question is a rather long way from that on the Order Paper about racism in football. However, I believe that sport of all kinds, football included, is one of the many routes that should be taken to increase social inclusiveness for all young people.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that as the British Government have been very good about giving information about potential hooligans to all nations to which English football fans travel, it would only be just for us to expect those nations to enact at least some form of anti-racism policy where British players are exposed?

My Lords, I know that the Football Association frequently discusses these matters with UEFA. My right honourable friend the Minister for Sport is also discussing these matters with the Football Association. It is a matter for foreign and European Union governments to decide what legislation they wish to have to ensure that racism in football, and indeed in any other sport, is not accepted in those countries. As I said, however, there is evidence that other European countries are taking this matter seriously. They are looking at what has happened in the UK and at our legislation, and they may wish to take that up further.

My Lords, will my noble friend join me in congratulating Ashley Cole and Emile Heskey on being so bold as to call for banning the Slovakian team from coming to Britain? Does she also agree that, although the UK is doing very well, we still have a long way to go in ensuring that such incidents do not occur in our own stadiums? Will she assure the House that her department is doing all it can to ensure that British Muslim and Asian youngsters are encouraged into the football arena?

My Lords, it is very important that all English—indeed, all UK—football clubs take any form of racism among their supporters extremely seriously. Racist chanting is simply unacceptable. However, I think that there has been a big improvement in the way in which football supporters behave at football matches within the UK. I am nevertheless aware that it is very dangerous to be complacent about this, and we require the football clubs, governing bodies and supporters' clubs to continue to monitor and evaluate the situation.

As regards the second part of my noble friend's question, of course it is important that young people from any group, whatever their ethnic background, should be encouraged to play in all the sports that are available to them and that talent should be recognised whatever the racial background of the person concerned.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that such general racial abuse would indicate that there are general grounds for consideration when minority ethnic people from, such countries seek asylum here?

My Lords, I am not absolutely clear that I understood what was behind the right reverend Prelate's question. The matter of asylum seeking is far from that on the Order Paper. However, I should perhaps earlier have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, on all his work in promoting and supporting the Kick It Out campaign, of which he is the chairman, which has done so much to try to cut out all racism in our football stadiums.

My Lords, before the Statement I should briefly mention that, subject to the progress of business, the House will prorogue on Thursday, 7th November.

My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend Andrew Smith MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, I should like to make a statement on the reform of housing benefit. I am today publishing a prospectus setting out our proposals—Building choice and responsibility: a radical agenda for Housing Benefit.

"The system we have inherited is complicated, costly to administer, vulnerable to fraud and difficult for tenants to understand. For too many people it means endless form filling and delays in payment. It is often a factor preventing people from making the move from welfare into work.

"Currently we expect local authorities to reassess 4 million individual claims every year, whether they have changed or not. Nearly 2 million pensioners whose circumstances rarely change are expected to fill in a 40-page form every year just to get their housing benefit renewed. Local councils are compelled to deal with a bewildering array of overlapping rules for tenants in the private rented sector. This cannot be right.

"We need a system that puts real choice and responsibility in tenants' hands, one that supports work, and cuts the risk of fraud. Both the Work and Pensions Select Committee of this House and the Audit Commission have highlighted the need for change, as have many outside observers. It is time to get on with this reform.

"It is clear that we need to break fundamentally with the past and bring in a fairer, simpler system. So we propose to introduce standard local housing allowances for private rentals—initially in 10 pathfinder areas. The allowance will be flat rate, based on area and family size. The amount paid will, as now, be income related. It will be paid direct to the tenant, except where vulnerable tenants are unable to manage their own affairs, or where substantial arrears have built up.

"No one will be worse off when these pathfinder schemes start next year. In fact, tenants who find a suitable home with a rent less than the standard allowance will be able to keep the difference. This puts the decision and responsibility in their hands.

"The reforms will build on the steps we have already taken to improve administration and to begin the process of restructuring rents in the social rented sector. It is our intention to roll out reforms nationally and to develop ways of bringing in the social housing sector. This will be carefully informed by our assessment of the initial pathfinder areas where we will work closely with local authorities, landlords, tenants associations and advice agencies. Consultation will be led by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-secretary, Mr Wicks, for whose work on these proposals I am very grateful.

"The reformed system will offer greater simplicity and certainty for tenants and landlords; extend tenant choice and responsibility; dramatically cut delays, and support our wider aims of improving public services, tackling poverty and extending opportunity.

"Because they are simpler, standard local allowances will speed up the claims process, reducing the uncertainties people face as their circumstances change and make trying a job a more attractive option. What is more, later this month right across the country we will start introducing a rapid reclaim facility for when a job does not work out. We will also remove the need to make a new claim when someone gets a job. This means that housing benefit will simply run on until the in-work rate is calculated.

"We are taking other steps to improve the service for everyone: Jobcentre Plus clients will be able to make claims over the telephone, and from next autumn pensioners will no longer have to fill out a new housing benefit form every year.

"We are committed to working in partnership with councils to improve performance through clearer standards and increased accountability. We are already seeing progress. In March we set out clear standards for housing benefit performance. We will build on this by providing £200 million for training and modernisation over the next three years to help councils committed to improvement. We shall also challenge poor performance and stand ready to intervene where local authorities fail to deliver an acceptable service.

"It is crucial that we also crack down on fraud. This package of reform will do just that. First, it will simplify the housing benefit system in order to free resources for the fight against fraud. Secondly, the perverse incentive for corrupt landlords to collude with tenants to set high rents will be removed. Thirdly, we are providing £60 million to support the tighter checking of claims, stopping fraud getting into the system in the first place.

"The Government are committed to taking action against rogue landlords who abuse the system. As soon as parliamentary time allows, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister intends to legislate to tackle the minority of rogue landlords and boost our drive against poor conditions.

"It is also important that tenants understand their obligations to behave in a neighbourly way. As we made clear following the Private Member's Bill of my right honourable friend the Member for Birkenhead, the Government are looking at housing benefit sanctions, as part of our wider strategy to tackle nuisance neighbours through stricter tenancy agreements and improved anti-social behaviour orders.

"The reforms I am announcing today—by making tenants responsible for payment of their rent—reinforce the link between rights and responsibilities.

"In conclusion, reform of housing benefit is essential. These proposals combine simplicity and streamlined procedures with greater individual choice. They offer a better deal for tenants, a better deal for landlords and a better deal for local authorities. We must now work together to make them a success".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement on housing benefit made in another place. However, it begins rather strangely by referring to the deficiencies of the system which this Government inherited. But, of course, they inherited the system a considerable time ago. Indeed, the 1997 Labour Party manifesto put much stress on that. Since then, there has been little by way of action. A Green Paper was produced which I believe had only one chapter on housing benefit. Reports have been produced by the Social Security Select Committee and by the Audit Commission but I believe that this is the first time that specific proposals have emerged in this detailed area.

The 2001 Labour Party manifesto stated that the Labour Party would,

"simplify housing benefit and its administration, distinguishing between people of working age and pensioners".

I did not quite understand that at the time. Does the proposal that we are discussing do anything to fulfil that manifesto commitment? What is involved as regards legislation? Can these proposals be implemented by secondary legislation or do they require primary legislation both with regard to the pilot scheme and any extensive schemes which may develop from that? I am glad that the Government will consult the Social Security Advisory Committee which they seem to have neglected to some extent. Can we have an assurance that its views will be taken into account before the pilots are introduced?

There are one or two aspects of the Statement that, being a simple soul, I find rather puzzling. Page 3 of the document states that the present system,

"is tied too closely to actual rents, not to the local market".

I do not understand what the local market is apart from actual rents. Perhaps the Minister can explain.

I turn to more detailed aspects of the Statement. The Minister said very clearly in the Statement that no one will be worse off and estimates that half of housing benefit claimants in the deregulated market will gain. The combination of those two claims seems to imply a considerable increase in public expenditure: perhaps the Minister will tell us what that amounts to.

The Minister clearly told us that if what is now described as the standard local housing allowance is greater than the rent being paid, the individual will be allowed to keep the difference. That is a somewhat strange proposal because housing benefit is presumably intended to enable someone to have housing, and an adequate amount has to be provided. However, if the amount provided is greater than the actual rent, it is difficult to see how that balance can be described as a housing allowance. What happens if the standard local housing allowance is less than the rent being paid, given that this is a means-tested benefit? How is the individual supposed to pay the rent?

I have difficulty understanding some of the concepts involved. A combination of such points seems to involve considerable cost. When we see the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, will the amount being paid be the same as it is now or will it show a steady increase over time?

Will the Minister tell us exactly what is meant by "local" in the context of the standard local housing allowance? Will it be a standard amount for each local authority or will the amount be larger or less than the amount taken by local authority areas?

The Minister rightly referred to the question of fraud, which we debated in great detail during the passage of the Social Security Fraud Act. At the time of the 1997 manifesto, the then incoming government estimated that fraud was £2 billion a year. What is the Government's current estimate of housing benefit fraud

There is grave concern—we on these Benches have previously stressed it—about the relationship between central government and local authorities so far as the prosecution of offenders is concerned. A year ago, I believe, a Written Answer stated that for 2000–01 there were 100,000 or so cases in which fraud was established but that only 1,100 had been successfully prosecuted. Why is that so? Will the Minister give us up-to-date figures, which presumably are now available? There does not appear to be the degree of co-operation with central government that one would like from local authorities in tackling fraud.

Finally, will the Minister give us some idea about timing? The document states that the achievement of the universal standard rate will be achieved only towards the end of the decade. Does that refer to both markets: the social housing market and the private market? If so, when do the Government expect—perhaps I should say "hope"—that that change in the system will be introduced? I refer to the completion of the pilots and to the wider extension of the scheme. During that interim period, will only new applicants come on to the new system, not those in the present system, or will there at some stage be a big bang, as it were, by which all claimants who currently receive benefit will be included and changed to the new system?

My Lords, I have come to the conclusion that it is a capital error to prepare one's response to a Statement before it is delivered. This morning I picked up reports that the Government intended to introduce the flat-rate system. My party had considered the flat-rate system and in 1996 I had the honour of serving on the working party. At a consultation session at our Edinburgh conference, we turned that system down by 48 votes to nil.

I had prepared my preliminary response along those lines. I have not exactly torn up that response because there are still one or two valid points in it that I want to make. However, the majority of it the Minister will never hear; it will not see the light of day.

I had not anticipated the delightful ingenuity of the provision of paragraph 17, which states that if the tenant can find a property that is cheaper than the amount of housing benefit, the tenant will keep the difference. That creates a genuine incentive to look for a cheaper property. It brings us somewhere nearer to a genuine market and it meets the main concern of my party about the flat-rate proposal. We accepted the principle of the 1986 Act that income support is not meant to be used to pay the rent and that there is enough pressure on income support already; anything that meant that people would have to pay their rent out of income support would cause us great dismay.

The Government have found a way out of that. Remembering our debates on the Tax Credits Act, I am tempted—I appreciate that the Minister cannot possibly respond to this—to suggest that I see the Minister's own hand in the proposal. It involves her sort of ingenuity. If it is hers, I congratulate her on it; if it is not hers, I should like her to pass on my congratulations to those who are responsible.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins; that is, that there will be a public expenditure consequence. If the Minister can enlighten us on that, I should be glad to hear her response. If people cannot be housed, they cannot work, and if they cannot work they cannot pay income tax. That, too, has a public expenditure consequence. If we are to attempt to calculate the public expenditure consequences, we should take both points into account. Netting will be an extremely difficult operation but if it is not done we shall not have any idea of the net gain or loss. I am inclined to think that the gain may perfectly possibly be greater than the loss. In any case, the increase in the sum of human happiness would justify what is being done.

I also warmly welcome the run-on provisions in paragraph 26 of the Statement. That builds on Kenneth Clarke's idea of the original arrangement, which I believe lasted only eight days. In fact, I believe that the claiming period lasted only eight days; people were not always told within those eight days that they had to make a claim. I thought that the Minister had probably spotted that; I am very relieved that she has. If she can provide the details, I should be grateful.

Some questions still need answering. The first question that concerns me is whether housing allowances will be automatically uprated for inflation. If the answer is no, they will very rapidly lose their value and we might run into a considerable problem.

Secondly, I am concerned about the choice of area. The Minister mentioned 10 pathfinder areas. That is significantly different from the 11 regions that function as European parliamentary constituencies. I am interested in the reasons why there is a difference.

Thirdly, I am concerned by the fact that, in an area, rents are very different in different parts. Consider London, for example. Suppose that the allowance is sufficient to pay a rent in Plaistow and the person works in Golders Green. It certainly would not pay a rent in Golders Green. If he must live in Plaistow and travel to Golders Green, the fares will rapidly eat up a great deal of the benefit. Therefore, as the system beds down, I wonder whether there may be a case for considering rather smaller areas or rather greater allowances for variations within the areas. Off the cuff, I am not sure, having only just seen the proposals, what the answer is. But I am certain that some answer will need to be considered.

I also want to raise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Avebury, who has either departed or is about to depart to attend a Select Committee, the question of what is being done about housing benefit on gypsy sites. I understand that the Government have already promised to take action on that, and I hope that that promise is something on which action is being produced.

I believe that other matters need to be examined in relation to housing benefit. Some of them may be referred to in the White Paper, which I have not yet had time to read. It is possible to consider having one and not two forms of housing benefit and thus not having to fill in two separate forms—one for the Benefits Agency and one for the local authority. It is possible to use a fax machine and to send one form from one place to the other. But relations between those two authorities, which deal with housing benefit, have not always been happy. If the Minister could construct a way of producing greater collaboration between them, I believe that that would improve matters very much.

I must also—not for the first time—ask the Minister to pay attention to RATS. That does not refer to rodents; it refers to the remote access terminal system. It is the system by which local authorities are supposed to be able to communicate with the DSS in order to obtain information about housing benefit cases. I am advised by people who have been a great deal nearer the coalface than I have that the response of the Benefits Agency, when contacted through RATS, often leaves a great deal to be desired. If that could be improved, it would make the system work a great deal better.

With regard to the subject of change of circumstances, I had a great deal to say but I believe that, along with the principles of the Tax Credits Act, the Minister has already met most of my queries. Therefore, I do not need to detain the House with it.

However, I am afraid that I conclude on one note of regret, and that is that thought is still being given to the proposals in Mr Field's Bill concerning housing benefit sanctions. As the Minister knows, my party has fought that tooth and nail and will continue to do so. When questioned by my honourable friend Mr Davey about what would happen to the people who were deprived of their housing benefit—the same question that I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, last week—Mr Field replied that he simply did not care. We found that an unacceptable reply. Therefore, if such a measure is to come before this House, which I hope it is not, I hope that the Government will be able to answer that question before the Bill makes its appearance.

That is my one serious note of reservation on the Statement, which showed an ability to square the circle. That surprised me considerably and I believe the Minister is to be congratulated.

My Lords—

My Lords, I have only five minutes in which to respond to many questions from both the noble Lord and the noble Earl. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I try to deal with the main ones and follow up some of the detailed ones in writing. I shall treat the questions as a shopping list rather than dissect them because your Lordships have had the benefit of the Statement.

The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked, first, whether the legislation was secondary or primary. It is secondary and will be dealt with by regulations. Secondly, he asked whether we would consult the Social Security Advisory Committee and take heed of its advice. We always have regard to the views of that committee.

Thirdly, he asked what counts as "local"—a point also raised, I believe, by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. In terms of the 10 pathfinder areas, in particular—there will be one in Scotland, one in Wales and others in inner London boroughs and rural areas—they may be coterminous with a local authority area but basically the rent officer will decide what local areas to set, based on the local housing market.

Essentially, the rent officer could decide that in, say, Norwich, the local reference rent for a three-bedroomed family house which housing benefit would meet would be, say, £65. That would then be publicly available in the Jobcentre Plus office. Anyone on income support or JSA who came into that office and who was entitled to a three-bedroomed house by virtue of their family size before the income calculation came into play would know that, when they went to look for a property, they could obtain housing benefit of £65. If they spent less than that, they would keep it; if they spent more, that would be their choice. If they needed to spend more because of exceptional circumstances—for example, they might have a disabled child whose needs called for an extra bedroom, whereas a child of that age would not normally have such a requirement—they would be entitled to discretionary payments.

As of last year, a £50 million budget has been in place, of which the Government put in £20 million, and local authorities are still spending less than half that money—only 40 per cent. Therefore, there is headspace to respond to that type of circumstance as well as to protect vulnerable people. That is how the system will work. No one will be worse off; indeed, 60 per cent of people will gain, and the average gain will be between £10 and £15 a week.

I was asked about the cost of pathfinders. The cost is £20 million for the 10 pathfinders, which will cover some 5 to 10 per cent of tenants in the private rented sector.

The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked about fraud. Our current belief is that fraud is running at between £800 million to £1 billion a year. We are driving it down. We hope and expect to do so by at least 25 per cent by the year 2005–06. When we came to power in 1997, local authorities made 700 prosecutions. Last year, there were 1,700 prosecutions. In addition, the noble Lord will recall that in 1997 we introduced a new penalty in the fraud Act. In total, there have been 2,600 cautions and penalties. Therefore, whereas 700 prosecutions were made in 1997, the figure is now 4,000. However, we still have some way to go, and I would not dream of saying otherwise.

In terms of timing, if the pathfinders scheme proves satisfactory, we shall roll out the national scheme in approximately 2005–06. It cannot be introduced into the social rented sector—a point on which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pressed me—until the restructuring of social rents has taken place. We expect that to take until the end of the decade. As the noble Lord knows, local authority rents are based on pooled historic costs of construction as opposed to national averages reflecting current market values.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, knows that, at present, any individual seeking housing benefit must look at a property and then apply to the rent officer for a determination. In future, because that information will be known in advance, we shall be able to simplify and speed up the process. It is hoped that error and fraud will be reduced. No one will be worse off and half the people will be better off. As a result, I hope that the welcome offered today by the noble Earl will be fully endorsed by other Members of your Lordships' House.

As to the matter of the run-on, the situation is even better than the noble Earl described. Currently, if a person starts work, the run-on of his full housing benefit will continue, if he receives JSA, for four weeks. However, in future, he will continue to keep his existing housing benefit until the local authority has made the new determination. If the local authority takes 10 weeks, the tenant will enjoy it for six weeks and will not be expected to refund it. Therefore, there is a powerful incentive to local authorities to speed up their processes.

I was asked whether the benefit would be automatically uprated for inflation. It will be uprated by rent officers, reflecting movements in the local rental market. As the noble Earl will know, different areas increase their rental levels considerably over a year as compared to other areas, according to housing pressures. Therefore, an automatic national increase would simply not be reasonable or fair.

I have talked about pathfinders. Perhaps I may write to the noble Earl about gypsy sites. With regard to the Frank Field issues of antisocial behaviour orders, I was careful to say that the Government are seeking to make effective antisocial behaviour orders—very often at the request of local authorities. The people who most hate and detest antisocial behaviour are tenants in otherwise respectable council estates who find their lives made miserable by young thugs, graffiti, burnt-out cars, vandalism and drug purchasers, addicts and the like. It is in their name that we seek to act.

My Lords, I am glad to hear that reform is in prospect for housing benefit. Does the Minister agree that a large proportion of total benefit fraud in recent years has been in housing benefit? Is she aware that tightening the eligibility requirements and the monitoring system would be of real advantage, in particular to eligible disabled people? Is she entirely confident that the proposed changes will reduce fraud?

My Lords, yes. As the noble Lord will know, and as has been discussed in this House, the problem at present is that housing benefit is a high value benefit. It can be worth £450 per month in London. It is also a complex benefit to administer. There is also a steep withdrawal rate when a person moves back into work. If we put those three things together, we have a recipe for fraud. Local authorities continually seek to balance accuracy, given that it is a high value benefit, against speed of delivery, which allows tenants to make a quick decision and to go back into work or, if necessary, to come back out of work.

By moving in the direction we have today, I genuinely believe, in the words of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we are squaring the circle. It will allow for much greater simplicity. Everyone will know where they stand. At present 60 per cent of private sector tenants' rent is paid to the landlord. This fraud is often a landlord fraud. In future it will be paid primarily to tenants unless there are good grounds not to do so. That, too, should reduce fraud. By virtue of its ease, simplicity, transparency, the supporting administration and the direct payment to tenants, I am confident that we should be able to address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.

My Lords, I understood the noble Baroness to say in the first part of the Statement that deregulation would happen by secondary legislation. Will that happen under deregulation legislation? I do not want to waste the time of the House. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether that will happen.

My Lords, this is not about the deregulation of rent; it is about producing an "upfront" housing benefit payment. Therefore, it will be passed in the ordinary way by secondary legislation. It has no connection with the deregulation of rents. We are talking ultimately about restructuring social housing rents, which is a different issue. At present about 90 per cent of private sector rents are deregulated. As far as I know there are no proposals to change that.

My Lords, perhaps the Minister can clarify one matter. Does that mean secondary legislation to existing legislation, which allows for secondary legislation?

My Lords, yes, that is my understanding.

My Lords, I hope noble Lords will forgive my ignorance in this matter. This may affect a concern raised with me by mothers in temporary accommodation in Paddington about long waits in offices with shabby, unwelcoming interiors and little provision for children. Will the new measures allow an opportunity to consider where the distribution of and inquiries about housing benefit take place? Am I right in understanding that there will be fewer visits as a result of these measures and therefore less trouble for such parents?

My Lords, as regards the second point raised by the noble Earl, one proposal is that people will be able to make their housing benefit application by telephone. More generally, most people on benefit will normally be coming in and out of the new Jobcentre Plus offices. As the noble Earl will know, these new offices integrate the old employment service and benefit offices. If he has the opportunity to visit the new offices, I believe he will be as impressed as I was. They look like airport lounges with stripped pine floors and comfortable seating. When I last visited, there was free orange juice for the children. They are extremely comfortable and welcoming.

We hope that people will receive at that point an holistic service. They will be able to discuss their benefit entitlement; try to work out whether they could or should go into work; whether they should change their accommodation; and whether they can come out of a half-way house into full accommodation and like matters. All of that information will be available at Jobcentre Plus. Particular issues about individual claims will be a matter for local authorities. But at Jobcentre Plus all the information I have mentioned will be available to them.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what criteria the Government will use to judge the success or otherwise of the 10 pathfinder areas? How will young people on single-room rent benefit fare in these areas?

My Lords, first, anyone who is on single-room rent benefit will not be worse off. A substantial number of such people will be better off. At present, approximately 15,000 tenants receive single-room rent benefit; that is, around 2 per cent of all private tenants. Approximately three-quarters face a shortfall because they are in more expensive accommodation than the rent benefit provides. That is not just because of the way that housing benefit is set by the local authorities but by the way it is administered by local rent officers. Often they appear to have different interpretations of eligibility for single-room rent benefit. The proposals should help that situation considerably. It is also the case that many will gain, as will all other private rented tenants.

Perhaps the noble Baroness would be kind enough to repeat her first question?

My Lords, what criteria will the Government use to judge whether the 10 pathfinder areas are successful?

My Lords, normally this question is one asked by the noble Lord, Earl Russell. The 10 pathfinders will be independently assessed and evaluated by an independent research body. The tenders for the research assessment, whether that is to be done by a university body or whoever, are going out now. They will be properly assessed and reviewed and that information will be made available to us.

We are seeking to discover, first, whether this provision speeds up the claims for housing benefit; secondly, whether it reduces the claims for fraud; thirdly, whether it makes it easier for people to move into work and, finally, whether landlords and tenants as well as local authorities feel that as a result they are offering a better service to tenants.

My Lords, I warmly welcome the Statement and apologise for trying to ask a question too soon in the proceedings. The Rowntree Foundation has published a pile of reports about housing benefits. The Statement appears to answer nearly all of our long list of problems concerning what has been recently an abysmal benefit.

My question concerns the social housing sector and housing associations. I appreciate that the new measures will apply only to private landlords and that the new standard local housing allowance with its shopping incentive is appropriate only in relation to the private sector. Nevertheless, a number of features of the housing benefit system which are entirely wrong and a number of the complexities and bureaucratic delays built into it apply equally to the social housing sector and to housing associations.

I declare my interest as director of the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust as well as of the foundation which produces the research reports. Our tenants remain disturbed by the way in which they have to wait interminably to receive their housing benefit. The 40-page document which, as has been explained, pensioners must complete to continue to receive the benefit they received in the previous year falls upon the tenants of social landlords and housing associations just as much as in the private sector. Will the pilot study and the wonderfully important measures that will proceed—I do not refer to standard local housing allowance—such as speed and simplicity apply also to housing associations?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Best, is expert in housing matters. One warmly welcomes him to discussion on the Statement. He is right: we can reform housing benefit but unless the performance of local authorities—I refer not just to administering housing benefit for the private sector but for social rented housing apart from their own local authority housing—improves, the associations more generally and tenants in particular will continue to be at an extreme disadvantage.

The noble Lord will know, as well as I do the efforts being made to strengthen the administration, including simplification, of housing benefit in local authorities. For example, at present all housing benefit claims run for a maximum of only 60 weeks, and sometimes only 26 weeks. In future, as with income support and JSA, they will run continuously until there is a change of circumstance notified, although obviously there will be checks on that. People will not need to make repeat claims, which should reduce the workload for local authorities. When people move into work they will not have to complete a brand new form with all personal details, just the change of circumstance. Again, that will reduce the workload. There will be a rapid reclaim system if someone falls out of work within the first 12 weeks of starting work. Immediately he or she will receive the previous benefit, which will reduce the complexity and the amount of work involved.

In addition to that kind of strengthening of the administration, there is the performance standard fund of about £200 million, strengthening the IT packages of local authorities, and the performance improvement action teams. There are also the successful help teams which have made substantial improvements in about 20 local authorities. I was told of one example where a DWP help team, with the consent of the local authorities, worked on their backlogs and their processes as a result of which their outstanding claims dropped from 14,000 to 5,000 in the space of two-and-a-half months. Those are significant changes. They can bring national experience to bear on modest-sized authorities. On top of that, there are help funds for which local authorities bid. If at the end of all such incentives, encouragement, support systems and IT packages a local authority still fails to deliver, we can introduce directions, as we have with four local authorities, requiring them to abide by certain behaviours.

We are well aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, that unless a high value benefit is speedily but accurately delivered and claimed and reclaimed, all our efforts of welfare to work will flounder and many people will continue to experience insecurity and a risk of homelessness. Much rides on getting housing benefit administration right.

My Lords, this is a trivial observation, but we appear to have time on our side. At first blush I cannot see any reference to a publication date in the document Building choice and responsibility: a radical agenda for Housing Benefit. I would not be so cynical as to follow my noble friend Lord Higgins in suggesting that that was intended to disguise the Secretary of State's reference to the system that has been inherited. I acknowledge that there is some internal evidence, but I believe that in the future scholars would find such a document more helpful if it contained a publication date.

My Lords, sorry.

My Lords, like most government documents nowadays it does not contain an index. Although this one is not as long as some, the point has been made from these Benches before and it will continue to be made.

Another point, which noble Lords may consider superficial, is one of potential confusion. On page 13 the paper refers to proposals that the Government are already carrying out and states:

"Work is now under way to deal with the causes and consequences of low demand in nine of the worst-affected areas".

Such areas are known as "pathfinder areas" and include east Lancashire, which is the one that I know best. In those areas structures are being set up, new committees are being formed to which people are being appointed, people are applying for funding, and so on. Inevitably, the Government call them pathfinders, as do local people. If there are nine pathfinder areas in areas of low demand based on housing renewal and social renewal—that is what they are supposed to be about—and we are to have another 10 pathfinder areas dealing with something quite different, one wonders how many other issues there are for which the Government will create pathfinder areas.

As seems likely, if one or two of the areas are the same, or they overlap, there will be great confusion. Can the Government find other trendy, spin-like titles for their new projects rather than giving them all the same title thus causing confusion?

My Lords, I cannot see why the noble Lord believes that we should find nice spin-words for the description of such socially worthy causes. Spare the thought.

We are talking about pathfinders or pilots. When in opposition I regularly used to criticise the government Front Bench for not trying things out first and for not learning from experience. We are trying to build in a learning loop so that we can try things out and see whether they work and so that decisions are informed by the best research. In practice all kinds of things may happen and consequently we need to evaluate, revise and adjust matters.

Perhaps one of the differences between a pathfinder and a pilot is that a pathfinder carries with it a greater expectation of rolling out the scheme nationally. Quite rightly, so far as I am aware, the Government in all their interventions in social policy, which are not just about raising rates and so on, try to build in a learning loop. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to send me a Roget's Thesaurus of alternative words to "pathfinder" and "pilot" and I shall ensure that that is drawn to the attention of the correct person.

My Lords, I have two points. First, the issue of hospital downrating, which we discussed on the State Pension Credit Bill, and how it will be covered by the new proposals—particularly how the new systems will work with those of the NHS—is not mentioned in the document. Secondly, on implementation, how will the proposals overlap with "supporting people" initiatives and transitional housing benefit which are underway at the moment? Can the Minister tell us anything about that?

My Lords, unless I have missed the point, I do not see how it will have any interaction with hospital downrating. The policies on that have already been determined. Anyone in receipt of existing housing benefit will receive that housing benefit because it is adjusted already to the local reference rent. That will continue. Therefore, all the tapers and so on that we discussed earlier about hospital downrating will continue to operate on those rents.

Essentially, we are aligning housing benefit with standard reference rents and if one is paid less than that one keeps the difference. There is no big change in terms of people's financial circumstances. Having the matter up front allows one to handle the processes with speed, transparency and security. As for the "supporting people" initiatives, although we expect tenants to be paid directly, for the vulnerable special arrangements will continue to be made.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill in respect of Parts 3, 5 and 8.

moved Amendment No. 1:

I support these amendments. It may be convenient to the Committee if I make it clear that we welcome the recommitment of the Bill today. Throughout the afternoon our amendments will be probing amendments. How could we not welcome the new government clauses as, in most part, they appear to reiterate what my right honourable friend Michael Howard was trying to achieve in the 1996 Act. That appears to be the case and we shall consider later amendments with interest. That will govern the way in which we approach the debates today.

These are technical amendments and the noble Lord has our support. Obviously, much of the later discussion in the debate will be that of probing the Government's intention in the new amendments. Certainly, we shall give consideration at the appropriate time as to how to deal with them.

moved Amendment No. 2:

moved Amendment No. 3:

After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No.3, Amendment No. 3A:

I apologise for intervening now; I should have intervened after the Minister's speech on Amendments Nos. 3 and 5.

I wanted to explain that it was hoped that a report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights would be available for this re-commitment. That is not possible; the Committee is in India or Canada or somewhere. I am a member of that Committee, and I am told that it cannot meet until Tuesday and that, therefore, there cannot be a report. However, I have been shown a draft report from Professor David Feldman. I have disclosed it to no one, but I am entitled to say that I agree with it. It is highly critical of the amendments on various grounds. I ask that some of the questions that arise be supplied to the Committee, when it meets, so that the matter can be dealt with on Report.

Essentially, the questions are simple. First, can the Government give a categorical assurance that assistance would be available to all those who would, otherwise, be left destitute? Secondly, must there not be some causal connection between an act or omission of an improper nature and the fact of being left homeless and destitute? Thirdly, ought not the burden of proof, to which the Minister referred, to rest with the Secretary of State in establishing whether the conditions for withholding support are compatible with human rights and that the conditions have been met, if a person is to be left without adequate housing, food or clothing? Fourthly, given that there is to be no appeal to an adjudicator available to those adjudged ineligible for support, there is no power to provide support pending the outcome of an application for judicial review. Ought not we to consider whether that is an infringement of someone's rights?

The last question is whether adequate safeguards have been provided against the violation of the human rights of children, under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, of anyone else, under the European Convention on Human Rights, or of adults, under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Are there safeguards against the violation of convention rights, as defined by the Human Rights Act 1998? It would be a service to the Committee if in due course—and before Tuesday, when the Joint Committee meets—answers could be given to those questions.

I thank the Minister for these amendments on recommitment. He has set out broadly the context within which they have been framed and I take this opportunity to put forward the views of this side of the Committee. There are issues of concern in regard to the amendments and we shall explain our position during the debate. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Russell will be contributing on particular points.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for the point he raised. I was given to understand that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is abroad, may have expressed an opinion but that nothing will be published until next week. This is unfortunate because the results of the Joint Committee's deliberations would have been most helpful.

However, a few minutes ago I received a note informing me that,

"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has given preliminary consideration to the amendments and new clauses proposed by the Government to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill in the Lords.

"The Committee considers that these proposals all raise critical human rights issues, and it expects to publish a report next week to enable the House of Lords to take the Committee's views into account when debating the Government's proposals".

It would be extremely helpful to our deliberations if the Minister will explain whether or not he has access to the information from the Joint Committee. If not, at least will he explain whether the issue of human rights was taken into account when considering these amendments?

Another issue of concern reflects information that I have been given in another note. The Home Secretary's adviser on nationality, Sir Bernard Crick, when talking about the support mechanism for asylum seekers, is reported to have said in Scotland that NASS staff were,

"second-rate civil servants who were both angry at, and jealous of, the asylum seekers they were supposed to help".

Speaking at a debate on asylum seekers in Edinburgh, Sir Bernard said:

"NASS was hastily created and staffed by people who wanted better jobs in the civil service and didn't get them.

"They are not good at community work which is what they are in effect expected to do. They are low-paid, angry at their clients and jealous of their clients while trying to administer complex procedures".

I raise the issue because it is a matter of serious concern if these comments reflect the views of the Government's adviser on the issue of assistance—or, for that matter, withdrawal of assistance—for asylum seekers.

Further, Just existence, a report on the lives of asylum seekers who have lost entitlements to benefits in the United Kingdom, has recently been published. In the report, the comments of the chief executive of the Refugee Council on this issue are relevant to the amendments. He states:

"In this report you will read about some of the people who have suffered as a result. These are people who are in despair, who talk about their lives as deaths. People who are living on bread and water, who walk for miles to get a hot meal or who are sleeping on floorboards under blankets in empty flats, and who are being pushed from pillar to post. Many of them are too poor even to afford the bus fare to the solicitor dealing with their asylum claims.

"These are not young, healthy adults, but people who are already severely traumatised. Several have been tortured in the home countries, two have had to leave their children without the opportunity even to say goodbye.

"British asylum policy is not harsh by accident. It is the intention that by treating people badly here, others will be deterred from fleeing to the UK".

The report cites the cases of 15 individual asylum seekers and explains what has happened to them. I hope that the report does not reflect the basis of the way in which we treat people who are genuinely being persecuted in their home land and are looking to our civilised country for help and assistance. I should say that the report relates to the effects and implications of the 1996 Act.

I shall ask my noble friend Lord Russell to deal in detail with our objections to some of the issues identified in the amendments. I hope that the Government will seriously consider whether the withdrawal of assistance to refugees is, perhaps, not necessarily the right thing to do.

Before I deal in detail with the amendments, perhaps I may respond briefly to some of the Minister's initial comments. Before he accuses me of making a Second Reading speech, I should say that I did not have the privilege of making a Second Reading speech on the Bill because I thought that manners did not permit me to absent myself from my own farewell party. I need to explain why we believe that in some cases the Government are barking up the wrong tree and why we have put down our amendments.

I entirely took the reference of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to Mr Michael Howard. No one can look at these amendments without remembering the 1996 Bill. The resemblance is extremely close. However, I think that this Bill is the worse one—partly because any bad policy continually followed gets worse as it goes on, and partly because if you want to make people think you are a Conservative you do not have to try so hard if you actually are one. So I would rather have had Mr Michael Howard's Bill before us than this one.

The noble Earl referred to the 1996 Act. Does he recall that the provisions of that Act were to withdraw support from all in-country applicants—not, as provided in this Bill, only from those applicants who cannot give a good reason as to why they did not apply immediately after their arrival in the country?

The good reasons point I intend to be answering for most of the remainder of my speech. Mr Howard did allow benefits for those who claimed it at the ports. In Mr Howard's Russian roulette, there was at least one empty chamber in the revolver. By the time we are through with this Bill, under the provisions of the amendment, I wonder whether there will be any empty chambers in the revolver at all—and that doubt is a serious one.

The Minister expressed many doubts about why we get so many applicants. I think that he is wrong to concentrate on the gross numbers. Per capita is a much more accurate form of measurement and is the one genuinely used. Why, for example, the Netherlands get far more applicants per capita than we do is a serious question.

The Minister is obviously being selective in his data when he refers to our having the greatest number. During the Bosnian crisis, that honour fell very clearly to Germany as, for geographical reasons, it obviously must. One of the problems of applying the first safe country rule is that it places an appalling burden on any country that has a major refugee-producing crisis on its borders. There is a case for some sharing out.

There are other reasons for the large numbers involved. I was once taking part in a meeting outside this House with Diane Abbott from another place. She said:

"The reason why there are so many of us over here is that you were first over there".

There is some substance in that point. A great many of the countries concerned have in the past been part of the British Empire. They share with us a common language, which obviously makes a difference. They also share with us a common stop for airline routes. Heathrow prides itself on being the junction point in the network of the world's major airlines. That is clearly likely to attract applicants.

The Home Office expresses intense surprise—rather to my surprise—at the increase in the number of refugees world-wide since 1989. There are reasons for that which have nothing to do with the policy of this country. It is, incidentally, a world-wide phenomenon by which this country is little affected.

One reason is the ending of the Cold War, which, as one sees in the Middle East, provided the world with a sort of policing system—I stress the words "a sort of—which is not now available. Another, more important reason is the loss by the state of the monopoly of armed force—as we see clearly in places ranging from Angola to Northern Ireland. So there are a number of good reasons for the increase in the numbers of applicants which have nothing to do with the policy of any British government and cannot be changed or deterred by any change in British government policy.

That is the major reason why attempting to deter refugees from coming to this country by making their life here more unattractive is attempting to do the impossible. They can get more and more savage, and they will still not achieve their purpose; so they will think that they have to get more savage still. But they are attempting to do the impossible. Until they understand that, we shall not begin to get anywhere.

I turn to the detail of the amendments. Amendment No. 3A standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, provides for assistance to families with children and to those with special needs. We welcome the amendment so far as it goes. But it is, as I think the noble Baroness will admit, a crumb from the rich man's table. I have never understood how children can be adequately provided for while their parents have nothing. The mere sight of his or her parents starving is itself a severe infliction on the child. I simply do not understand it. As regards the guidelines, we have no objection.

Amendments Nos. 3C and 3D, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dholakia, go some way to meet the points made in the important speech by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, which I warmly welcome. They are designed to ensure that no one should be left absolutely destitute. They allow some of the deprivations that are introduced, but not all. If I may put it this way, they allow the Minister to take away the main course but insist on his still allowing the soup. It is not much, but small mercies occasionally do matter.

Amendment No. 3F by both Opposition parties. It would change "believes" in subsection 6(a) of the proposed new clause to "has reason to believe". There are many things that the Secretary of State believes which he has absolutely no reason to believe. For example, he believes—the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, repeated that belief in out debates last week—that people are attracted here by generous welfare benefits. By European standards, as Eurostat confirms, our welfare benefits are not generous. Secondly, the Home Office's own research, published only two weeks ago, indicates that welfare benefits are not among the important influences when refugees decide where to go. So if the Home Secretary believes that, he has no reason to believe it. Once one introduces the idea of reason, one introduces also the possibility of judicial review. That is an important safeguard and we are concerned about it.

Amendment No. 3J deals with a Henry VIII provision. It deals with alternative sources of support which are blocked off. The proposed new clause gives the Secretary of State the power to,

"add, remove or amend an entry in the list",

of authorities and sources that may not provide support. Our amendment would allow the Secretary of State to remove names from the list of those authorities that may not provide support, but not to add to it.

In including this paragraph, the Government probably had in mind the Collins judgment which followed the 1996 legislation and which ruled that asylum seekers were entitled to support under the National Assistance Act, which the Government had forgotten to include in the repeals schedule.

It reminds me of the sad story of Mr Jones, whose wife died, was taken to the undertakers and was put in a coffin. They carried the coffin down the hill, turned the corner into the churchyard and bumped into the church gate. A scrabbling noise was heard from the coffin. They found that Mrs Jones was alive. She lived another 20 years. When she died, she was taken to the undertakers, they put her in a coffin, the funeral procession began and the coffin was carried down the hill. As they turned the corner to enter the church gate, Mr Jones said, "Be careful not to bump against the corner"! The inclusion of this provision is a case of the Government "being careful not to bump against the corner". I would rather like to find Mrs Jones alive in the coffin.

I turn to the main amendment—which we on these Benches do not welcome. The question was raised of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights dealing with inhuman or degrading treatment. I know that counsel for the Human Rights Committee takes this seriously. I have corresponded with him on the matter. Perhaps the Minister can clarify a point that he made. He said that if people were reduced to "such a degree" of destitution that Article 3 was involved, the Government would take action. The concept of degrees of destitution interests me. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain which degrees of destitution he thinks fall within the provisions of Article 3 and which do not. I am puzzled.

I believe that the Government have got "rights" and "responsibilities" back to front. There is a right to life. Since, on the initiative of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, during the passage of the Human Rights Act, we finally abolished the death penalty, we treat that right as absolute. That right, in return, creates a responsibility on the Government to provide the conditions that sustain life. If any asylum seeker were allowed to die of starvation, I wonder whether that would involve Article 2 of the ECHR as well as Article 3.

I turn to the use of the words "as soon as reasonably practicable". The Minister may remember the case of ex parte B in 1996. It was the case that caused this House to legislate again on the circumstances in which benefits may be removed. "B", who came from Zaire, had naturally not been able to keep up with reports in the English press. When she arrived in this country on Eurostar, she walked all the way to Lunar House, in Croydon, to claim benefit, not having discovered from the Zaire press that she had to claim at the port or not at all. I do not see by what means it is made clear to applicants in refugee producing countries which do not have a free press exactly where or how they make a claim. They may lack the information to do it at the earliest practicable moment

In addition, it is a commonplace that the victims of torture—as is well known to the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture—often find it extremely difficult to tell their story. I do not know whether the Home Secretary has ever had the experience of dealing with a rape victim while that person is still in a state of shock. I have had that experience three times. I really do not know why people think that academics live in ivory towers. It is extremely difficult to persuade such people to tell their stories. The insistence that asylum seekers should do so immediately is not only impossible, but also inhuman. If the Secretary of State thinks otherwise, I believe him to be both ignorant and grossly destitute of imagination.

I should like to address myself to Amendments Nos. 3C, 3D, and 5F; and, more generally, to the government amendment. This morning, my attention was drawn by Shelter to the possible consequences of the Minister's amendment. Shelter's concern is that the successes that have been wrought in the past three years by this Government as regards reducing the number of rough sleepers by two-thirds might be undermined if this amendment were implemented. Hence my interest in Amendments Nos. 3C, 3D, and 5F, which would help to ensure that no one is left destitute as a consequence of these provisions.

In early 1999, I met a young Somali man at a hostel for young, homeless 16 to 21 year-olds run by Centrepoint in Berwick Street, Soho. If I remember correctly, his village had been razed and his parents killed. He had subsequently lost contact with his brothers who were engaged in the fighting elsewhere. He escaped because he had been befriended by a westerner. He had passed through a port of entry on arrival in this country, but did not make his application at that point. I do not know why, because I did not ask him. He was befriended here by a Somali woman and lived with her for several months before that relationship and assistance came to an end. Prior to my seeing him, that young man had spent three weeks sleeping underneath an arch in Kings Cross, and was absolutely exhausted due to a long deficit of sleep. I saw him over several weeks.

My concern is that we may be putting more young people back into the situation in which that young Somali found himself. I appreciate and understand the Minister's concern that we should instil public confidence in the asylum application process, and that we should process quickly such applications. However, in the pursuit of that end, the means employed should take account of the vulnerable.

Through Centrepoint, I am also aware of the difficulties that some asylum seekers face in terms of bureaucracy. The Minister listed many proposed safeguards, but, in practice, I am concerned that they may not be as effective as we would hope. Therefore, when he responds, perhaps the Minister would be good enough to address that concern. Is the noble Lord aware that these measures might inadvertently give rise to an increase in the number of rough sleepers and homeless people?

In his introduction, the Minister said that two-thirds of applications are presently made in-country and that his intention is that that number should fall dramatically. However, if I am correct, I believe that currently about 40,000 people would be affected by the amendment. We must consider their well-being, especially as at least half of them have gone through the asylum process and been accepted as refugees.

We need to remind ourselves of the purpose of the Bill, and the thinking behind it. We all have a responsibility—and this applies also to the other place—to win wider public support for our duty properly to consider claims for asylum. Part of that means that all reasonable steps must be taken to minimise fraud and abuse of the system. I believe that the public expect that; indeed, it is almost part of a deal. I have some difficulty with the fears that noble Lords have expressed in this afternoon's debate.

The nub of my noble friend's amendment is that support can be refused where,

"the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable after the person's arrival in the United Kingdom".

That must be wholly reasonable. When speaking to one of her amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked how someone entering the country in the back of a lorry would know where to go to make the claim for asylum, and so on. That is a perfectly reasonable question. I do not, for a moment, make light of this situation. However, if someone has climbed into the back of a lorry after having paid a trafficker money to be transported halfway across this planet because of a real fear of persecution—or, indeed, after having suffered torture, or real threats to his life—the first thing he would do is look for a person in uniform who would, be he a policeman or a member of the IND, soon put that asylum seeker on the right track.

Alternatively, if someone, for whatever reason, delays his application for a few days, he could subsequently walk into a police station to ask where he should go in order to make a claim for asylum. I do not doubt that that person would be given a cup of tea and asked to sit down while the Immigration and Nationality Directorate was contacted. In practice, I do not understand the origin of the fears that have been expressed. Underlying those fears is the thought at the back of some noble Lords' minds that there is a whole raft of reasons why people delay making applications for asylum. I have genuine difficulty in that respect.

We are talking about someone fleeing his country in certain circumstances, making the hideously difficult decision to leave his homeland and, in many cases, also his family. Why should there be any delay in making such an application? I can understand such a delay in the case of illness, and there could be other reasons. However, my noble friend's amendment does not say,

"unless these applications are made at the port of entry, all benefits will be withdrawn",

as was the case under the 1996 Act. Indeed, it does not say that at all. It says that in circumstances where,

"the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable",

support will be refused. I cannot for the life of me see what is the matter with the amendment.

I shall try to help the noble Lord, Lord Corbett. Let us suppose, for example, that a new arrival manages to get to this country by some means or another and is then lucky enough to receive hospitality from friends or relations. How is that person to know that he must claim immediately? In those circumstances, he will not have passed through induction or accommodation centres. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, rightly pointed out that such people can fall into a kind of limbo while their cases are being considered. Therefore, at the very least, it seems to me that there is a duty on the Government to publicise this obligation to claim immediately. However, I do not know by what means they should do so. I believe that there is a big information gap that needs to be considered in these circumstances.

I join my noble friend on the Front Bench in welcoming the amendment. The Government have a duty—not only to the people of this country who have been here always or for a long time but to people who have sought asylum recently and have been accepted—to reduce fraud. On the whole, the provisions work.

I am glad that the Minister gave us figures because they reminded the Committee—and if they are reiterated, will remind the public—of the extent of the big problem that the Government are trying to alleviate. Everyone in the Committee should assist them in that.

I am not sure why subsection (5) has to state that the Government must only act to the extent that it does not break existing law. Is that not taken for granted? I see that the Minister has the law by his side. Is subsection (5) just a belt-and-braces provision, so that the Government can say, "Of course that is not true. It is in subsection (5)"? Is that really required? We must be watchful that we do not put unnecessary legislation on the statute book. I ask that question as a non-lawyer because it struck me as important.

As to the relationship between committees in another place and this House, I am a little worried about the way that we debate the input of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Earlier, members of the committee addressed us on the report, assuming that we had not read it—so there was a good deal of repetition. I was not sure that was necessary. The points were not made particularly concisely but in some detail. No doubt noble Lords felt that was important for the House but I wonder whether it was good practice.

My noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale raised a very legitimate point that others have made, about destitution. I too am worried about that. He mentioned papers that have gone to the Joint Committee but which it has not yet discussed. I thought that a report from a committee was quite different from papers that go to a committee and we should not really consider a report until it comes to us. I appreciate that members of the committee are abroad, so it cannot meet until after today. However, that matter is one that the House needs to consider. I am not criticising the noble Lord but there is a problem—as there is with the Joint Committee on delegated powers, on which I sit. Sometimes, the same issue arises. We need to clarify the relationship of committees to the House.

Amendment No. 3B addresses a genuine point relating to guidelines. The decision is hugely important from the asylum seeker's point of view. The phrase "as soon as reasonably practicable" is used a lot in legislation but does not really seem adequate. I look forward to the Minister's comments.

I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate. If my noble friend the Minister has covered this point, I am sure that he will put me right.

The phrase in the proposed new subsection 3(b)

"the Secretary of State is not satisfied"

suggests that there might be occasions when a mistake is made. I am not saying that the Home Office often makes mistakes but we all know it might do so occasionally. If it is thought possible that the Secretary of State has made a mistake about an individual's delay in making a claim for asylum, does that person have any redress or right of appeal—possibly to an asylum support adjudicator? Is there any mechanism by which a person who feels that the Secretary of State has made an erroneous and mistaken decision can have it put right? Would that require legal aid? If so, would it be available—or could an appeal be made with the assistance of the Immigration Advisory Service or the Refugee Legal Centre?

My noble friend the Minister was very helpful in trying to set the context for the amendments. In doing so, he came precious near—I am sure that he agrees—to inviting us to have another Second Reading debate. I will forgo responding to that inherent invitation, except that when one sets a context, one must always examine whether it is the full context or partial. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I make the point again that we have a flawed international situation. We live—as we are constantly reminded—in the context of a global market with the free movement of capital but there is no free movement of labour. Given that basic flaw, there will inevitably be a problem with irregular migration, or however one describes it, and the rest.

In our society, when a community's economic circumstances change and an individual leaves it to put matters right for his family elsewhere within the bounds of the United Kingdom, such a person is regarded as a social hero—the right kind of citizen. When the same happens internationally, the individual is thought a pariah.

Having been involved directly and indirectly in such matters over a lifetime, I have reached the conclusion that the mistake is seeing an absolute dividing line between asylum and the others. The issue is much more complex. Often, the person whom we dismiss and almost condemn as an economic migrant is facing hell at home. It may not be political hell in the asylum sense but hell nevertheless. We should not be content about slipping into language and adopting an attitude that does not relate to that situation.

The phrase "earliest possible opportunity" speaks of insensitive, bureaucratic drafting. The gap between those of us who sit at tables talking about issues theoretically and the reality for people in asylum situations is immense. What is the "earliest possible opportunity"? People will have been through the most appalling experiences. It may take a long time before they work out what they should be doing and how. Simply to dismiss them and their opportunities because they did not make an application administratively as soon as possible seems altogether too inflexible. That kind of rigidity may be an attempted substitute for wisdom and firmness. Wisdom, firmness and self-confidence do not require inflexible, rigid language in legislation. Legislation should set the context in which the right thing will be done.

I hope that my noble friend the Minister—whom I genuinely hold in very high regard in all sorts of ways—will not mind my taking him slightly to task. The drafting smacks of "Do as we say, not as we do". What if we as legislators were to say, "We will only give serious consideration to proposals that were put before us at the earliest practicable moment"?

Will the Minister accept the figures that have been produced in support of Shelter's statement that in-country asylum applicants are just as likely to be successful in their initial claim as those who apply at the port of entry? It cites that in 2001, for example, 20,105 in-country applicants were granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain compared to 10,915 port applicants. A further 17,475 in-country applicants were granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain on appeal compared with 4,445 port applicants. Do those figures not support the point?

I am glad to give the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the opportunity to make that important observation. Governments encounter difficulties and changed circumstances during the passage of legislation that require them to introduce a recommitment process to reconsider points. Let us, therefore, consider what sometimes happens in the reality of life for some refugees as regards how they approach their rights and what they should or should not be doing. We should show more understanding of that.

I conclude with the observation that what matters is that every single person who is entitled to asylum gets it. What matters, therefore, is the case for asylum, not an administrative consideration of when an application was lodged or from where, whether it was a suitable place administratively for the Home Office, and so on. The issue is the merit of the case before us. If we lose sight of that, we have lost sight of the whole principle of commitment to asylum.

I follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on "as soon as reasonably practicable". The noble Earl, Lord Russell, will recall sitting in the Gallery when we were discussing these matters in the House of Commons in 1996. At that stage, for constituency reasons, I expressed concerns about the provisions that the then government were bringing in, particularly in the context of sleeping rough, to which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred a moment ago. The refugee whom the noble Earl describes, who has made the journey halfway across the planet, may not be quite as trusting of someone in uniform as the noble Earl believes him to be. Those who have come here because they are being harassed in their country of origin may have grounds for being unenthusiastic about people in uniform rather than the opposite. It may take them time to adjust to the circumstances here.

To give an indirect example, during the Recess I was talking to a family friend whose daughter is married to a farmer in Zimbabwe. At that time they were still farming. He said that he was not concerned about either his daughter or his son-in-law because they are adults and so can make up their minds about where and how they live and what they do. His concern was about his grandchildren, who are aged eight and four. He said that they came over during the Recess for a holiday with their grandparents. Within half an hour of their landing at Heathrow and his collecting them to take them home, the elder of the two boys asked in the car, "Granddaddy, are there war veterans in England?" Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings come such fears.

I apologise for troubling the Committee further. We have been reminded that Amendment No. 5 is grouped with Amendment No. 3. Nobody on these Benches has yet said anything to it, and I think that we should.

I am not clear about the exact aim of Amendment No. 5, and I would be grateful for clarification. Are we talking about information about the applicant's means of supporting himself, or about information on the asylum claim? Does every single misstatement disqualify an applicant under Amendment No. 5, or is it only the refusal to co-operate with the authorities? That is an important distinction, because I have seen applications being turned down because of an error of one day in the memory of an applicant who is in jail without access to paper. It is notorious that on chronology memoirs of all sorts are a particularly unreliable source.

The House may remember my intervention during the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, last week. In quoting a case from the reign of Richard II, I made an error of one year in the date that I gave, for which I apologise. I would not have thought, and I would hope, that that does not totally disqualify my credibility. If I can claim that, I hope that an applicant for asylum can claim it even more. I hope that this provision will not be applied in the case of every trivial error. The doctrine of de minimis non curat lex—the law takes no account of trifles—needs to be applied. If we were to include only the refusal to co-operate with enquiries, that might be reasonable. I hope that the Minister will reduce the provision to that rather than put it forward in this form. At present it is liable to lead exhausted officials into temptation, which they are not always very good at resisting.

One factor in people's failure to apply for asylum at the port of entry is that they may not have a passport, perhaps because they are not on good terms with the authorities in their own country. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what happens if someone applies later because they were concerned about applying without a passport.

This clause is based on the premise that refugees know that they need to apply for asylum. It would astonish the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, and, I think, many other Lords to learn that many refugees do not know that they need to apply for asylum. When people are in great danger, working and opposing a government in a country with very few laws, England seems like a beacon of light where they assume that they will be welcome. It does not occur to many refugees until a considerable time after they arrive here that they need to apply for asylum.

When I came to this country as a refugee 35 years ago, I thought that I would be welcome—as a lawyer, I ought to have known better. I did not know that in the United Kingdom, which was regarded as the one country that would be totally sympathetic to one, refugees needed to go through a process of applying for asylum. Many refugees still assume today that they do not need to do anything other than get to this country, which they have been brought up to believe is one where freedom prevails. Obviously, once refugees have been here for some time, almost all of them will learn otherwise. The basic assumption that refugees know that they need to apply when they arrive is not correct.

I support the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. I do not speak idly. I speak from experience as a lawyer in a local practice and in the West End of London. People do not readily understand the need to apply for asylum or their legitimate rights immediately. I wish that my noble friend would understand that. People are inarticulate, particularly if they have gone through a terrible time in their recent past.

I practised as a solicitor in the London Borough of Hackney for a number of years. I wished that all my clients had been articulate so that they could have expressed to me their rights and needs. But people are not always like that. It is easy for the authorities to expect too much and my noble friend is guilty of that.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Judd. We are both speaking from our knowledge of people; how they react; what are their immediate concerns; how they express themselves. I wish that they were more capable of articulating their cause, but they are not always.

I thank Members of the Committee for a good range of challenging questions. I shall try to deal with them as fully as I can without being unduly long-winded. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about the definition of "families with children": the family couple or lone parent with a dependant child under 18. "Dependant" is defined in Regulations 2.4 of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000, or regulations to be made under Clause 19 accommodation centres.

The noble Baroness also asked what is reasonable. Clearly, much careful thought must go into the definition of the guidance and into what can be put in the public domain. She gave an example of someone who landed in Dover and immediately developed acute appendicitis. It would be clear that it would not be reasonable to expect such a person immediately to have claimed asylum when he or she was in the throws of such an illness.

As regards advice, we would expect that people would have opportunities to receive advice. That would be true at induction centres and we would not always be of the view that legal advice was necessarily the sole or prime form of advice. Advice on how to make an application for NASS support would be the issue—it would be on how to make a timely application rather than about the detailed asylum regulations.

As regards the back-of-the-lorry example, I am reluctant to be drawn into detail from the Dispatch Box. The Secretary of State, or the NASS officials who would make a judgment in those circumstances, would have to decide whether, based on what the person told them, it appeared that he had reasonable grounds for delaying making a case for asylum and an application for support.

I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, how the local authority would know. Local authorities have for some years been identifying asylum seekers for a variety of reasons and we believe that they will not have much difficulty in identifying and refusing to support those who have been refused NASS support for making a late claim. We will of course be issuing extra guidance to help local authorities address this and will be consulting with the LGA and local authorities about those regulations. We would try to ensure that the situation was clear and that people were given the best help to act reasonably under the terms of the Act. I will not go into more detail on that. Rather than detain the Committee excessively now, I might write to the noble Baroness setting out the position in a little more detail and sending copies to all Front Benches.

I was asked whether guidance will be published. Yes, we will publish guidance on this matter, although it will be qualified by the point we referred to previously. It has to be pitched at a level which indicates the main principle without—how shall I put it without being pejorative?—making it a charter to help those who want to avoid or to deceive the system. It is not likely to be before Royal Assent, but clearly it has to be in the public domain and available to those who have to exercise the judgments and those who have a reasonable interest in understanding how the system will operate—for example, the NGOs—before the measures kick in.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked whether it was "or" or "and, and, and". It is an occasion on which I shall be careful in giving a short answer. We see no reason to restrict explicitly the possibility of declining to entertain an application for support in cases where the Secretary of State is not satisfied on two or more grounds rather than one. To put it more simply, there will be occasions on which insufficient information is given to allow an application to be considered but the application form has to be returned for provision of the missing information. That happens now and it could happen in the future. It is common sense.

Alternatively, an application form may have been completed fully but turn out to contain inaccurate information. That may be through error or intent. In either case, consideration of the application will have to await correction of the information, however complete the information will have been. I hope that that answers the question.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, challenged me to respond to a report of the JCHR before it had met and before it had published its report. On both grounds, he had the advantage over me but he gave us notice of the questions. It may be helpful if I give an initial view on them, making it clear that it is without prejudice, first, to further reflection and, secondly, having the opportunity to see what the JCHR actually states and being able to respond by the Report stage or earlier if time allows us, which it may well not.

He first asked for a categorical assurance that assistance will be available to all those who would otherwise be left destitute. The short answer is, no, only if they reach the Article 3 ECHR threshold. I will later respond to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about Article 3. It is up to the asylum seeker to ensure that he or she makes asylum claims as soon as is reasonably practicable.

Secondly, he asked whether there must be a causal connection between some improper act or omission by the person concerned on being left homeless or destitute. An asylum seeker must make his asylum claim as soon as reasonably practicable. Not to do so may suggest that he has come to the UK for reasons other than a genuine well-founded fear of persecution.

Are the Government prepared to consider the possibility that a delayed claim may be the result of trauma through torture or similar treatment? It happens and not to allow the possibility is not to consider the evidence completely.

The short answer is yes, the Government are prepared to consider that a delayed application might be the result of torture or inhumane treatment. I hope that I am clear on that. The test would be whether there appeared to a reasonable person to be evidence to support that.

Will my noble friend amend his remarks to include a threat of torture?

I shall not be drawn into drafting draft regulations from the Box. I shall reflect on the matter, but it seems that there is potentially a significant difference between a person who has experienced torture and a person who has felt threatened by torture. A person who has been threatened with torture may well have fled to this country for that reason. I would not, on the face of it, be convinced that there was not a reason for that person to claim asylum. I do not think that it would be particularly fruitful to go into great detail. If there are further reflections on the matter, I shall be pleased to write to Members. I am not saying that there necessarily will be further reflections.

The third question was whether the burden of proof should rest with the Secretary of State in establishing the conditions for withholding the support necessary to ensure compatibility with the human rights of those left without adequate housing, food or clothing. The Secretary of State has a duty under the Human Rights Act 1998 to act compatibly with the convention rights including Article 3. So, if a person claims Article 3 destitution, the Secretary of State will have carefully to examine his claim. I shall return to that issue and perhaps to others. I have missed out the last two.

The fourth question dealt with the issue of appeal to an adjudicator for those deemed ineligible for support, and the power to provide support pending the outcome of an application for judicial review. It is true that there is no such power, but applicants do not necessarily need state support in order to pursue the judicial review claim effectively. They can obtain advice and assistance from the relevant government-funded bodies. If they meet the merit test for legal support, they can also obtain funding for the application from the Legal Services Commission.

The fifth point was that there are no adequate safeguards under the UNCRC or the ECHR in relation to the violation of the rights of children, or under the ICESC in relation to those of adults. Those rights, however, protect against violation of the conventions as defined by the 1998 Act. Children are protected in the Government's amendments. Families with children will obtain support from the Secretary of State in the same way as at present, even if their asylum claim was made late.

I tell the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that I have not had sight of the Joint Committee on Human Rights report. However, we have carefully and fully considered ECHR issues. As for the alleged report about Sir Bernard Crick, I have not seen the report and I do not know whether it was accurate. I hope that it was not, and I would be surprised if it had been stated in quite that way. As they cannot respond, I do not think that civil servants should be berated in this Chamber even by means of reported speech. There is also a fairly well-founded tradition that, if affairs are not managed according to the standards which the House or others think appropriate, Ministers and not civil servants should bear the responsibility. I shall say no more about that now.

As for the reference to the Refugee Council, I shall look at the report, albeit it came out some time ago. It would be interesting to see it. I shall say no more about that now.

The question from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was in a sense about the 1996 Act, with which there were one or two problems. The matter was dealt with in primary—not secondary—legislation in which there were clearly one or two holes. I should perhaps not respond about the growth in numbers. We could benefit from a debate, perhaps during the dinner break when we have forgotten this Bill, on some of those issues. We could discuss, for example, what constitutes a better system and how to move towards it. I would welcome that opportunity from wherever it comes. We can discuss that matter when we have dealt with the important detail of this legislation. I may write to the noble Earl on some of those points rather than engage in them now. I do not want to delay our consideration of other issues, but I recognise the validity of those questions.

We are not trying to deter refugees, but we recognise that we have to act to deter illegal economic migrants. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is absolutely right. Many of those who come to this country, clandestinely or directly, and who use the asylum mechanism as a way of making a better life for themselves come from very poor countries and are desperate and destitute. One can understand why they attempt to come here. However, the Government have to operate under the 1951 Refugee Convention principles. An alternative argument is that there should be free movement of labour. People can make that argument if they wish, but I do not agree with them. I do not think that that position is a sane way of dealing with world poverty.

I am grateful to my noble friend. Not many of those putting forward the point that I tried to make would argue for the free movement of labour; we do not think that it is a practical proposition. We are, however, saying that the system is flawed. In a flawed system, we must be careful—in the language we use and the way in which we deploy our arguments—that we do not suggest that the unfortunate victims of this flawed system are pariahs. We should recognise that they are victims of a flawed system. Of course, we have to operate the flawed system as best we can, and that requires firmness. However, the language and the culture surrounding it are terribly important.

The language is important. Many of those trafficked into this country are victims of the system. At the same time, we are getting into 16th century theology, as they also have some free will and some measure of responsibility, albeit they may be trapped in particularly difficult circumstances. I shall not go further into that as it would delay our proceedings.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about "reason to believe". A belief must be reasonable if there is no expressed requirement on the face of the statute for the belief to be reasonable. Therefore, it is also judicially reviewable.

There was some debate about the differential between benefits in European Union states. These amendments are not arguing that our welfare support to asylum claimants is too great. That is why we have been arguing with our European Union colleagues about the importance of seeking to establish minimum reception conditions for asylum claimants across the European Union. In practice, the standards that are close to finalisation will produce a levelling up. They are not likely to require the United Kingdom to do much, if anything, to our standards. The amendments are not an argument or an attack on welfare support but address the issue of whether people should be entitled to the welfare support that the state provides.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right about the role of world events. I shall not go further into that now, for reasons that I have already given. Similarly, I shall not deal now with our welfare support levels compared with those of other European Union countries, although I should be happy to correspond on it with Members who are interested.

As to the more specific issue of Article 3 of the ECHR, it is accepted that, in certain circumstances, it is possible for the withdrawal of support from an asylum seeker or former asylum seeker to constitute treatment within Article 5 of the ECHR. Such withdrawal of support is clearly capable of being so treated. The mere fact that a person is destitute does not necessarily mean that he has reached the high threshold which the European Court has held is required before there can be a breach of Article 3. This high threshold has been held to be reached in cases where, for example, a person is to be returned to a country where he will face torture. The fact that someone is homeless does not necessarily mean that there has been a breach of Article 3.

I shall not go into more detail on that point, but I may write to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about it. However, we are talking not about the withdrawal of support, but about the decision not to grant support. I think that that has a significant bearing on how the law will apply in practice. I say that with my usual caution as a non-lawyer.

There have been some questions about how reasonable it is to expect people to know that they should apply for asylum when they come here. I shall, without prejudice, reflect on those questions. There have also been some good questions about how the Government should publicise such a responsibility. If a person did not know about the requirement, and could make a reasonably persuasive case that they did not know about it to the person exercising the judgment, he or she would clearly not be caught by the provision.

There is a further point; namely, to put it bluntly, it is in the interests of traffickers that the people they traffic into this country should get support as that increases the likelihood that those people will in some cases be able to send sustenance back to their home country and pay their debts. According to our evidence, many if not all traffickers are reasonably well-informed.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about a possible rise in the number of rough sleepers. The short answer is that the people we are discussing have been supported up to now and have been living somewhere up to now. However, I take his point about the importance of good information. The noble Earl also referred to the vulnerability of young asylum seekers. All we seek to achieve is that people claiming asylum and support should do so at the earliest possible opportunity. If they are delayed in doing so, it will be open to them to provide full and complete information explaining why. If that explanation is credible, we shall accept it.

I should also make clear the distinction between claiming asylum and claiming support. The clause we are discussing is concerned with claiming support. If a person claims asylum late, his or her case will still be considered in exactly the same way on exactly the same principles. As I say, the clause bears only on the question of support.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to an information gap. I believe that I have touched on that matter but I shall reflect on it further to see whether I can add to those comments. I am grateful for the welcome that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, gave to the amendment and to the need to try to bring more order into the system and to reduce fraud. I say in passing that there have been 167 prosecutions this year alone in regard to people who have submitted multiple applications for asylum and support. In other words, they have submitted multiple applications in either their own name or different names to access support.

Will not that offence be eliminated once the system of cards is universally applied?

We would hope so. I merely commented that there is fraud in the system, as I am sure no one in this House would deny. However, it is difficult to quantify how much for obvious reasons.

The proposed new subsection (5) in the amendment prohibits the Secretary of State from providing support. Without subsection (5), subsection (1) might be interpreted as meaning that support should not be provided even if a person has reached the Article 3 threshold. Subsection (5) makes clear that there is no intention to breach Article 3.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs—

Is that necessary? Why is it necessary? It simply states that the Secretary of State and those providing support must keep to the law.

I heard the point. I have given an initial answer. I do not think that I can do much better than that at the Dispatch Box today. However, I shall write to the noble Baroness. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy her on that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked whether there is a right of appeal if a person makes a mistake. There is not a right of appeal but there are certain safeguards. First, the person is at liberty at any time to ask to put further information before NASS. A person can say, "I have thought further and I want to tell you more about what happened, where I came from and where I have been". That door will be open. Secondly, if a person makes a second application, a second pair of eyes should consider it. That seems right and reasonable. Thirdly, the matter is open to judicial review and ultimately, in certain cases, challengeable under ECHR.

Will the Minister confirm that the staff of NASS and not those of the IND will interview applicants?

That is correct. I turn to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, some of which concern a debate that we may have subsequently.

If NASS does what we are discussing, would it not be judge and party in its own cause?

NASS would act for the Secretary of State and would be under a responsibility to act reasonably. NASS would act under guidance and would be aware of the importance of taking care in arriving at a judgment. I referred to a second pair of eyes as a means of trying to increase the robustness and the protection afforded by the measure. I hope that that provision is useful to the Committee.

I shall not refer to the points made about wider support for the system although I would be happy to discuss that matter outside the Chamber. I believe that I have answered most of the questions that can reasonably be answered at this point in time. However, if I discover when I read Hansard that that is not the case, I shall respond at that point.

I refer to a material matter on Amendment No. 5. Does the misleading information relate to the claim for support or the claim for entry?

I thank the noble Earl for referring to that important question. The measure requires a person to provide full and accurate information not only about his state of destitution but also about the timeliness of his asylum application; it is not concerned with the merits of the asylum claim itself. I believe that that addresses the nub of the noble Earl's question.

In summary, we believe that the measure we are discussing is necessary and that it will lead in time to a more orderly system. The measure will result in those who have a good case for refugee protection having their case heard earlier and will allow us to move towards a more stable system. I hope that that will increase public confidence as regards introducing more resettlement schemes. The measure constitutes a better means of addressing world refugee problems which are not adequately addressed under the current system.

Before my noble friend sits down, I hope that I may raise one point. His response to the points that were made was again exemplary. The courtesy and detail with which he treats the Committee is outstanding. I draw my noble friend's attention to the fact that he said that support was in the interests of traffickers. Migration and asylum are subject to a big criminal business which constitutes a cruel, cynical affair. I do not believe that anyone in this House believes that there should not be draconian treatment for those responsible for that. But is my noble friend really suggesting that one deals with these vicious, wicked people by punishing the innocent victims of their activity?

Before the noble Lord answers that question, I hope that he will forgive me if I put one further question to him. I did not wish to interrupt his flow earlier. He kindly responded to my question about a risk of increasing the number of people sleeping rough. If I understood him correctly, he said that the people we are discussing had been living somewhere up to the point of their application. I take that point. The boy that I mentioned was living somewhere. However, he was in stressed accommodation. Many of the people we are discussing live in very poor, overcrowded accommodation with all kinds of risk factors in terms of pushing them on to the street and into rough sleeping. Given the great efforts that this Government have made to tackle rough sleeping, which are universally acknowledged, I hope that the Minister will be good enough to write to me to offer me a little more reassurance. I hope that he can state that he does not think that the measure will lead to an increase in the number of people sleeping rough.

I shall write to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, although I am not certain that I can offer massive comfort. However, I shall do my very best to try to set his mind at rest. I take seriously the point made by my noble friend Lord Judd about traffickers. I am advised that I may have referred to Sir Bernard Crick as a civil servant, which is probably an insult to him and to civil servants. If that is the case, I wish to correct that.

Before the Minister concludes, I wish to ask him a question about the last matter that he raised. In response to remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, read out a statement about the relationship between responsible Ministers in Parliament and civil servants. I believe that the noble Lord said that, because responsible Ministers in Parliament answer for civil servants, it is inappropriate for a Member of Parliament, whether in another place or your Lordships' House, to criticise a civil servant. As I understand it, that was the import of his remarks.

That is a statement about a great parliamentary tradition which, alas, has long vanished. Some believe that it vanished soon after the famous resignation of Sir Thomas Dugdale over the Crichel Down affair. Surely the position now is that if a civil servant makes a mistake and the responsible Minister is not prepared to resign over it, it is perfectly appropriate for remarks to be addressed to that civil servant; otherwise, Parliament would wholly lose control of political events: it would be forbidden to reproach a civil servant although a Minister had done nothing about the civil servant's mistake.

I apologise for raising a matter that is not germane to the substance of the Bill; but the Minister read out a fairly stiff statement on this issue. I felt it important that the matter be aired a little more than it has been so far.

I shall enjoy and value reading what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said. I recollect Crichel Down and what has not happened—sometimes—since. The nub of what I was saying—perhaps I did not express it as clearly as I should have done—was that it felt to me (I put it no more strongly than this) uncomfortable to criticise, for example, how NASS runs and the civil servants who run NASS. That was not what was said. What was said was that the civil servants in NASS were second-grade people. That seemed to be a very different kind of remark; that has not been my experience of the civil servants whom I have met. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, was present when we addressed that issue. I was seeking to make that distinction in relation to the remark that I found particularly painful and offensive.

I was not seeking to underline the veracity or otherwise of the substance of what the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, quoted. I was responding to the reaction of the Minister to that quotation and asking him whether, on mature reflection, the degree of generalisation that he invoked was appropriate in our modern constitution. The Minister kindly said that he would look at what the noble Lord said. We may or may not return to this matter at a later stage.

The Minister has been very keen to move his Amendment No. 3. However, we have to follow rather arcane rules today because in recommitment our amendments are addressed to the noble Lord's amendment, which means that on this occasion I have to withdraw my amendment first—if that is what I am about to do; I assure the noble Lord that I am.

Our considerable and detailed debate proves that it was right for the Government to agree to the House's request that we should have a recommitment on these matters. I, and, I am sure, other noble Lords, will look carefully in Hansard at the Minister's full and careful answers. There have been a considerable number of speeches from different points of view from all parts of the Committee. The Minister and I have had the stereophonic sound of disagreement from behind us on these matters.

I repeat my opening remark that my amendments are probing amendments and that I support the government amendment in this regard. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will write to my noble friend Lady Carnegy, who, with her usual careful attention to drafting, has perhaps signalled where there may be otiose words in the Bill. I look forward to seeing his response to her. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 4:

After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—

This amendment gives one the opportunity to raise questions concerning the administration of NASS. As I understand it, that administration is very much centralised in its head office in Croydon. That has given rise to numerous complaints, many of which have been recorded by citizens advice bureaux. The national office of the citizens advice bureaux has published a pamphlet drawing attention to the volume of complaints which are concerned with the remoteness of the administration of NASS and the difficulty that individuals encounter in finding the right official to address when things begin to go wrong.

I also understand that no less than £68 million of lottery money has had to go to a whole range of voluntary organisations which deal with asylum seekers. Much of it has been directed to voluntary organisations which support people in the dispersal areas. That seems a strange lacuna; it indicates that something is seriously wrong with the way official support is provided by NASS. I hope that the Government will be able to consider this matter extremely carefully. It seems that several administrative improvements are most urgent.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for raising those questions. I am not sure that they are entirely relevant to the amendments before us, but I shall try to deal with some of the points raised.

We are aware of the recent NACAB report. All reports of such a nature fall to be acknowledged, thought through and understood. The department is closely considering some of the points which were properly included in the NACAB report. We have had discussions before on this issue. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the points again. We are happy to write to him on some of the issues that he has helpfully raised tonight.

In tabling the amendments we are seeking to work with a range of partner organisations and agencies. One might properly argue that that is a form of devolution, a sort of decentralisation. The point made by the noble Lord is valuable. We are grateful to him for raising such points. We are happy to try to clarify some of the points of detail in writing.

moved Amendment No. 5:

After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—

moved Amendment No. 6:

After Clause 55, insert the following new clause—

moved Amendment No. 7:

It has been explained to me by the Minister's department that the adjudicators will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor in Scotland. Will Scotland be considered a region under these amendments? I do not believe that that will go down well.

I do not have a specific answer to that. My gut reaction is that it will not. Perhaps I can write to the noble Baroness to let her know whether I am correct. I fully understand that there may be certain sensitivities if the matter is not dealt with appropriately.

moved Amendment No. 8:

moved Amendment No.9:

Page 50, line 11, leave out from "76(1)" to end of line 13 and insert "where the appellant has made an asylum claim or a human rights claim (or both)."

Why does the noble and learned Lord think that this is an adequate test when the Home Secretary in a letter to Labour MPs, which was discussed at his meeting with them yesterday, said that there was absolutely no risk at all?

We are talking here about adding countries not presently on the list. He is not saying that there would be no risk at all in any country ever.

This is exactly what he is saying. He said that,

'"where there can be absolutely no doubt about their safety".

Those are the words used by the Secretary of State in his letter to Labour MPs.

I have noted what the noble Lord says. He says that that is the test to be applied. I am saying that this is what is reflected in the Bill.

Secondly, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that removal to that country of persons entitled to reside there would not in general contravene the United Kingdom's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. In addition to inserting these two constraints in the Bill, the Home Secretary has said that we would consult with the independent advisory group that is being established about the assessment of risk in any country which the Government is thinking of adding to the list. Should circumstances change for the worse in any of the countries added by order they can, where appropriate, be removed from the list by order. So I think that concerns about the possible future use of this provision are satisfactorily addressed by the amendment.

The amendments to Clause 107 provide powers similar to those in Clause 88 but apply to appeals under the 1999 Act rather than to the new appeal arrangements created by Part 5 of the Bill. By amending the 1999 Act, Clause 107 will enable us to take action against clearly unfounded claims as soon as Royal Assent is achieved without waiting for Part 5 of the Bill to be brought into force. With the number of claims from accession states running at around 250 per month it is important that the new measures are activated at the earliest possible opportunity. That explains our amendments to Clause 88 and Clause 107 in relation to the list.

I now turn to the various opposition amendments tabled in response to the government amendments to Clauses 88 and 107. These amendments are concerned with a number of issues: the persons of a listed country to whom the provisions apply, the order-making powers to add to the initial list of 10 countries, and the ability to include parts of a state as well as a whole state on the list. It is additionally suggested that the non-suspensive process should not include refusals on human rights grounds. There is also an amendment to Clause 107 which would have the effect that during the transitional period from Royal Assent, when Clause 88 will come into force, to when the rest of Part 5 comes into force there would only be non-suspensive appeals against asylum refusals and not against a decision to refuse on human rights grounds.

I shall deal with each of the amendments individually. Amendments Nos. 12A, 12G and 12H would have the effect of somewhat expanding the category of people within a listed country to whom the new provisions apply. Under the government amendments they apply to those who are "entitled to reside" in a listed country. The main group of people we have in mind are nationals of the country in question. But there are also some people who live in a country who have not acquired citizenship of it. One example is Estonia where, although residents legally living there may apply for and acquire Estonian citizenship, not all do so. We believe that such people should be included since Estonia is their home country.

The proposed amendments go further by including those who are "temporarily" entitled to reside in a country. That could embrace people who are, for example, simply visitors or students there. We would not want the provisions to extend to these kind of cases. This would turn the provisions into something akin to third country removals since temporary visitors to a listed country would have a separate country of nationality against which an asylum or human rights claim would normally be assessed.

We think it is better to stick with the unqualified term and not to use the other adverb proposed in the amendments; that is, a person entitled to reside "permanently" in a listed country. Use of that term could cause difficulties. For example, in the United Kingdom there are people who do not have British citizenship but have indefinite leave to remain here. But they can be removed in extreme cases where deportation action is taken. This illustrates that the issue of permanency is not always that easy to pin down.

Amendment No. 12B seeks to omit the power to add to the list of 10 countries. I explained in some detail the safeguards that exist for how those powers can be used. But I have no doubt that the powers are needed. As time passes, it is to be hoped that an increasing number of states will strengthen their human rights records, such that their designation under this clause may become appropriate. It would be wrong not to be able to respond to real world situations by taking a power to add to the list of countries considered to be generally safe. That would simply lead to undue time being taken up by regularly passing primary legislation to update the list. I have no doubt that an order-making power, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, is the answer.

Amendments Nos. 12D to 12F and 12J would leave the order-making powers in existence but restrict the circumstances in which they could be used. Amendments Nos. 12D and 12J would enable an order to be made only where the Secretary of State was satisfied that there was no serious risk of persons being persecuted and no contravention of the United Kingdom's European Convention on Human Rights obligations in removing a person. At first blush, that seems a sensible amendment with which it is hard to argue.

The difficulty, however, is that it would mean that in effect the Secretary of State could designate a country only if it were safe for every one of its residents. I regret that such a situation, desirable as it may be, does not currently arise in the real world. There is always the possibility that one or two people in a given area will face persecution and that the removal of a person may occasionally breach the UK's obligations under the ECHR—possibly for reasons wholly unconnected with the country of intended removal. For example, there may be an Article 8 breach involving family life.

It is because there is always the possibility in an individual case of a person making out an arguable asylum or human rights claim that we have retained individual consideration of such claims and not included a provision for automatic refusal of cases from the list of safe countries. The corollary of that is that the condition for a state to be designated should be one relating to general rather than absolute safety.

Amendment No. 12E is along similar lines. It would enable a state to be designated only where there was "no risk" of persecution rather than where there was "no serious risk" of such persecution. We consider that we need to qualify the term "risk". The courts have noted the difference between a mere speculative risk that a person may face mistreatment if returned to their country and a "real" or "serious" risk that such mistreatment will occur. In the former case, a person will not have made out a well-founded fear of persecution; whereas in the latter case they will have done so, provided that the feared mistreatment amounts to persecution. So the word "serious" does not set as high a threshold as it may first appear. Rather, it distinguishes between speculative and concrete risk. A serious risk need not be a probability but it must be a reasonable possibility.

Amendment 12F is, I think, intended to remove the scope to designate part of a state. It would unnecessarily limit the provision to restrict its scope in that way. There will be cases where a defined area of territory will be generally safe, such that most claims from individuals living in that area are clearly unfounded. A recent example is Kosovo. Because Kosovo is not a state, it would be impossible to designate that discrete territorial area without a power to add part of a state to the safe country list. I cannot see the advantage of taking away the ability to designate in such cases, and I therefore cannot support such a restriction.

The final amendment on Clause 88 that I want to mention is Amendment No. 12K. Its effect would be to enable any of the 10 countries listed on the face of the Bill to be removed by order, should the Secretary of State consider that appropriate. It would be unhelpful to have such a power. Those countries are on the fast track to joining the European Union, so it is reasonable to suppose that they will continue to be safe countries until that time. It would not be helpful to leave open the door for legal challenges to the Secretary of State's refusal to delete one of those countries from the list. Such would be the risk with this amendment.

In the extremely unlikely event that matters turned for the worse in one such country, that would not lead to any removals in breach of our obligations, because in appropriate cases the Secretary of State would be satisfied that a claim was not clearly unfounded and would accordingly not certify the claim.

Perhaps I may deal briefly with the amendments proposed to Clause 107. They largely mirror those proposed to Clause 88, so I shall not detain the Committee by repeating arguments made about that clause. However, one set of amendments is different. Amendments Nos. 18A and 18B, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Avebury, would make a non-suspensive appeal possible only during the transitional period while Part IV of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 remains in force, in cases where there is a decision to refuse an asylum application that is clearly unfounded but not a human rights claim.

The effect of that would be that whenever a person put forward a human rights claim, he would be entitled to an in-country right of appeal, even if both that claim and the asylum claim were clearly unfounded. Such an outcome would defeat the purpose of the provision because, in the majority of cases, Article 3 human rights claims and asylum claims overlap considerably. That would make the non-suspensive appeal provision wholly ineffective. I do not know whether that is the intention of the noble Lords who tabled the amendment, but, having regard to the purpose of the government amendments, that is not something that we can accept.

I am sorry to have gone on for so long, but it is helpful to put in context our amendments and the amendments tabled to them. I urge the Committee to accept the government amendments for the reasons that I have given and to reject the proposed amendments to them. I beg to move.

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No.9, Amendment No. 9A:

Line 2, leave out "or a human rights claim (or both)"

I rise to speak to Amendment No. 12A. I shall refer also to Amendments Nos. 12D, 12F, 12H, 12J, 12K, 22D, 22G, 22K and 22L.

As my right honourable friend Mr Oliver Letwin has said, the Government's amendment to Clause 88 mirrors very closely a position advocated for some time by the Conservative Party and previously opposed by the Government, both when in opposition and when in government. Indeed, some two-and-a-half years ago, my right honourable friend, the then Leader of the Opposition in another place, said:

"It is extraordinary that we receive applications for asylum from countries which have now been formally accepted as candidates for EU membership. How can we say, on the one hand, that we accept that a country has the rule of law and good government that would qualify it to join the EU and, on the other, that we believe its citizens to be suffering systematic persecution?".

The amendments to the Government's amendment, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend, seek to probe points related to the detailed wording of the proposal before the Committee.

I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 12A, 12F and 12H, which relate to the term "entitled to reside", used by the Government in their amendment. The Committee will be aware that the Home Office's view of what constitutes a residency right was considered last month by the then senior judge of the Administrative Court, Mr Justice Scott Baker—now Lord Justice Scott Baker and a judge of the Court of Appeal—in his judgment in the case of The Queen (on the application of Ahmadi) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to be found at Administrative Reports [2002] EWHC 1897.

I shall not rehearse the detailed circumstances of the case, which attracted considerable publicity when the Ahmadi family were removed to Germany by the Home Office. The issue relevant to the debate is the Home Office's view of what constitutes an entitlement to reside. That is the test laid down in the Government's amendment for the certification of a claim from one of the states as "clearly unfounded".

The Home Office's decision letter to the family, dated 13th August and quoted by Mr Justice Scott Baker at paragraph 16 of his judgment, stated:

"the family are no longer asylum seekers in Germany, having been granted residence there on humanitarian grounds. Therefore the family will not be settled in a reception centre as these facilities are for people whose asylum claims are being processed, and not for people in this family's position who have been granted residence in Germany.

Accordingly upon their return to Germany, the family will have settled rights of residence. This means that they will be housed within the Community and, as they are lawfully entitled to reside there, they will have full access to the various social and welfare provisions of the German state".

However, Mr David Pannick QC, counsel for the family, pointed out that these statements were erroneous on four grounds. One of these grounds was that,

"The claimants"—

that is, the Ahmadi family—

"have not been granted residence. The grant of temporary protection in accordance with Section 53(6) of the Aliens Act entitles them only to tolerated status… The earliest they could be granted longer term residence status…is April 2003, but thereafter it is a matter for the discretion of the Bavarian authorities how they treat the period of this family's absence in the United Kingdom".

Mr Justice Scott Baker concluded at paragraph 54 of the judgment, by saying:

"Of more significance, however, is that there were significant discrepancies between what was said in the letter of 13 August and told to Mr Justice Roderick Evans"—

that is, in the appeal proceedings prior to the family's removal to Germany—

"and the position as it turned out in reality. I cannot say that these errors of fact were immaterial to the Secretary of State's decision".

The point I am seeking to make is that it is clear from this judgment that the Home Office's view of what entitles a person to reside in Germany is very confused and, according to the judgment I have just quoted, not on all fours with the position in reality.

What does the phrase in the Government's amendment, "entitled to reside", actually mean in practice? Does it cover only permanent residence, or does it also cover temporary residence and other forms of protected status? I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Minister will be able to clarify the issue.

Secondly, I turn to Amendments Nos. 22 and 22D, which relate to the test under which the Secretary of State will be able to add further countries to the list in the amendment. The Government's wording proposes that the Secretary of State will be able to do this if he is satisfied that there is,

"in general…no serious risk of persecution",

in that state, and that removal of persons to that state will not,

"in general contravene the United Kingdom's obligations under the Human Rights Convention".

The phrase "in general" is quite vague. What level of test will be applied by the Government when deciding whether or not to place a country on the list? Will there be an independent country risk assessment before the Government decide to include a country on the list? I ask these questions in particular because no less a luminary than the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, attacked the then Government in 1996 for seeking to use the same expression, at a time when he was Opposition spokesman for home affairs.

I have directed my attention to Hansard, and what do I find there? I find the following analysis of the expression "in general" by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He stated:

"It is extremely dangerous for us to accept that the judgment as to whether there should be a fast-track procedure for an asylum application is that there is 'in general' in any particular country a risk of persecution. Persecution does not happen in countries in general. It happens to people in particular. It happens particularly to minority groups in countries in which there is no risk of persecution in general to the majority but where there is a very serious risk to the minority.

Before I start to give examples, let me ask the Minister"—

the then Conservative Minister—

"these questions. What does 'in general' mean? How would it be interpreted? Does 'in general' mean that 75 per cent, 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the people in a particular country need fear no risk of persecution? Is it a matter of the severity of the persecution? Would it mean that the risk could involve detention but not torture? Is it a matter of whether there is persecution not of groups but of individuals? All those questions, to which there are and can be no adequate answers, reveal the inadequacy and danger of the phrase 'in general'".—[Official Report, 23/4/96; cols. 1061–62.]

Those were the words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, some six years ago.

Finally, Amendment No. 12 relates to the removal of countries from the list. As I read it, the Government's drafting of subsection (2D) of the amendment would mean that any country added to the list in future by an order passed under the affirmative resolution procedure could be removed by an order subject to the negative resolution procedure.

However, the countries, specified on the face of the amendment will not be removable except by primary legislation. Is that the position that the Government intend? I do not expect any of those countries, which, after all, are candidates for EU membership, suddenly to become dangerous. I simply make the point to the Government that, in the case of events occurring, which may be totally unforeseen at this time, they may wish to remove one or more of these countries from the list—and that the wording of subsection (2D) would deny them the flexibility to do so.

I am entirely in agreement with everything that my noble friend Lord Goodhart has said about the views of the UNHCR and shall therefore not repeat them. I am also entirely in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said about the words "in general". If I am imprisoned, I am not imprisoned "in general". I am imprisoned in particular; and I mind it in particular.

The question of whether a country is safe in the abstract is totally irrelevant. The question raised by the former Leader of the Opposition referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—namely, whether there is systematic persecution—is irrelevant to whether the person concerned happens to be being persecuted.

Perhaps I may give two examples from countries which are widely and reasonably regarded as safe. The first is our own country—and I hope that Ministers will realise by the time that I have finished my remarks that I intend no criticism whatever of this or any previous British government. The case I want to mention arose in County Tyrone, in the town of Dungannon. A group of masked men visited the village priest and asked him to convey to a certain pair of young men that their presence was no longer welcome and if they knew what was good for their health they would leave the country.

As I understand it, the two were perfectly willing to avail themselves of the protection of their own government but, given the circumstances in Dungannon, did not believe that they would be able to do so. In the words of Kirsty Wark of "Newsnight", it is a story in which there are no heroes. But it is not only heroes who are entitled to liberty. If those people had turned up in another country claiming to have a well-founded fear of persecution, their case would not have been manifestly unfounded. It would have been entitled to a hearing.

The other individual case that I want to cite arose in the United States. Mr Matthew Shepard, a homosexual man from Laramie, Wyoming, was discovered bound and spread-eagled against a fence, where he had been beaten to death. Had Mr Shepard succeeded in escaping, and had he turned up, let us say, in this country claiming asylum because he had a well-founded fear of persecution, I should have said that the fear was manifestly well founded. However safe a country the United States may be, he had a genuine claim to asylum. Such cases may arise anywhere.

At Question Time, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, drew attention to the racist chants in the match that took place last week between England and Slovakia. I thought that Mr Emile Heskey showed great dignity in his complaints that what he called "monkey chants" were being used even by the stretcher-bearers.

I have never understood why the Home Office is so indifferent to complaints about the treatment of the Roma. Its attitude is very different from that of the Foreign Office. I remember, during the case of the Roma who arrived at Dover in 1998, my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby putting a Question to the Foreign Office rather than to the Home Office. The Answer that she received was very different indeed from the Answers that she had received from the Home Office. In matters of foreign affairs there is a rebuttable presumption that the Foreign Office knows rather more than the Home Office.

An hour ago, I received a report entitled Unwanted Journey, published in 1999 by the Refugee Council. I opened it at random and found this statement:

"The ERRC [European Roma Rights Centre] have recorded a depressing litany of reported police harassment and violence against Roma in Slovakia. Such harassment has included the use of electric cattle-prods, knives and machine-guns by police during raids and interrogations. In Jarovnice osoba, police were even reported to have tied up a one year-old Romany girl, hung her up by the hair and beaten her on the feet. The Mayor of Jarovnice had been seen identifying Romany houses with police prior to the raid".

The report contains a great deal more to that effect, about which my noble friend Lord Avebury will say more.

One of the report's findings, set out in the executive summary, is as follows:

"…the UK Government's policy in regard to Romany asylum seekers was racist and discriminatory in outcome if not intent"—

that distinction is an important one—

"and is therefore in breach of a number of international commitments such as the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and specific recommendations of the Council of Europe's Commission Against Racism and Intolerance".

The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, may recall my tabling a Question for Written Answer regarding what sum the Government had set aside for legal action resulting from the Bill. His answer was none. He may live to regret that reply.

Before the noble Earl sits down, will he agree that the young man whose case he described who, unhappily, was beaten to death in Wyoming, could have easily found sanctuary in San Francisco or almost anywhere on the west coast, or on the east coast of the United States? There would have been no need for him to seek refuge in this country.

It is possible to be followed, and it is possible to move fairly rapidly from Wyoming to San Francisco. Had I been in his position, I might not have taken the risk. But in any case, he had every right to choose not to take it.

It was a pleasure to hear the words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, coming out of the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. Those of us who remember the debates that took place in 1996 and later are surprised to see the shift in the Government's position. I hope that those words will come back to haunt them. This Government wisely decided to do away with the white list, saying that it was unsatisfactory. I refer to the White Paper published in 1998. Now, it has quietly reappeared in the disguise of these new government amendments.

I grant that there may well be no perceived risk of persecution in the new EU member states, and that will eventually become one of the principles of their membership. But the risk is still debatable. The noble and learned Lord still needs to give fuller justification for reintroducing the list. Given his remarks, this is a case of our old friend "fast track" telling us what to do. It is a device of those who are anxious to be seen to get things done quickly. But surely that is not sufficient argument when we are reminded by the UNHCR that such lists are, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, at odds with the fundamental principle of asylum protection.

The noble and learned Lord accepts that there is always the possibility of a breach of the UN convention in individual cases. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, quoted from the latest UNHCR statement, which was strongly backed up by the Select Committee of this House. What concerns the UNHCR most is that the very presumption that applications from safe countries are invalid, without proper safeguards, could lead to erroneous decisions. Clearly this category of applicants will not be given the same opportunities as other asylum seekers to appeal against the decision, as they can hardly appeal from their country of residence.

I was glad to hear the noble and learned Lord answer the question that has not yet been put to him; namely, how do we know that other countries will not be added? I accept the safeguards that have been given, both in legislation and through the independent advisory group. However, there are questions that remain to be answered. I should prefer that the amendment was left out altogether.

Finally, I hope that the noble and learned Lord can comment on the concern raised by the ILPA on individual status determination; namely, that, contrary to what he said, the amendment undermines the fundamental principle that asylum seekers should have their status determined on an individual basis.