Alcohol: Minimum Pricing
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I know he sought to clarify the position but I am not sure he really has. In the final paragraph of the Statement, he said:
“On minimum unit pricing … We have to ensure that we base our decision on a careful consideration of all the representations”,
in relation to the consultation. That consultation document states:
“In the Strategy, the Government committed to introducing a minimum unit price. However, in other areas, this consultation seeks views on the introduction of policies”.
It refers to “other areas”. The consultation was not about minimum unit pricing. Less than a year ago, the Home Secretary said that,
“the problem is now so acute that we need to go further. We will therefore introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/3/12; col. 1071.]
There were no ifs, no buts, no qualification and no equivocation. So determined were the Government, they even refused to consult on the principle. What changed?
Electronic Commerce Directive (Trafficking People for Exploitation) Regulations 2013
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, these regulations are a technical measure to implement the EU directive on electronic commerce, known as the e-commerce directive, in respect of the new Section 59A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, on trafficking people for sexual exploitation, and amended Section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, on trafficking people for labour and other exploitation. These changes to trafficking offences were made by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The e-commerce directive supports free movement in the provision of information society services; broadly speaking, commercial activities that take place online in Europe. It covers online activities, such as selling goods and services, hosting a website or providing web or e-mail access. The trafficking offences can be committed online where the arranging or facilitating takes place over the internet. Therefore the e-commerce directive needs to be implemented in respect of the human trafficking offences.
I should mention some of the history regarding the implementation of the e-commerce directive, which was originally implemented by regulations in 2002. Those regulations applied the directive to all offences that existed at that time. For offences created after that date, as in this case arising from amendments to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have to implement the directive on a case-by-case basis.
I will address briefly some of the details of the regulations. Regulations 3 and 4 implement the directive’s country of origin rules. These rules broadly say that a provider of information society services must be regulated by the state in which the provider is established, not the state in which the services are received. This is provided for by Regulation 3.
Similarly, the country of origin principle means the UK must not restrict the freedom of service providers established in another European Economic Area state to provide their services in the UK unless certain conditions apply. Such providers will generally be regulated by the state in which they are based. We would expect EU member states, all of which are bound by the human trafficking directive, to pursue prosecutions under their relevant domestic trafficking offences.
Regulation 4 sets out that proceedings may not be brought against a service provider established in another European Economic Area state, unless specific public interest conditions are satisfied. The key question for these purposes will be whether a prosecution is proportionate. The CPS will take into account all relevant factors, including, first, whether a prosecution is to be brought under the domestic law of the state in which the service provider is established—if such a prosecution is to be brought, it will be difficult to show that it is proportionate to prosecute here as well; secondly, where the evidence is located; and thirdly, the nature of the offending that has taken place, for example, whether the service provider part of an organised crime gang focused on trafficking persons into the UK. Overall, the CPS will need to decide whether the conditions are met on a case-by-case basis.
Regulations 5, 6 and 7 implement the requirements of the directive in relation to intermediary service providers which carry out certain activities essential for the operation of the internet: those that act as mere conduits and those providers that cache or host information. The directive requires us to limit the liability of such intermediary service providers in specified circumstances. For example, a host is not liable if it had no knowledge, when the information was provided, that it was part of the commission of a trafficking offence. It is important that we do not unnecessarily criminalise service providers that will not always be aware of the use being made of their services.
The UK has always been a world leader in fighting human trafficking and has a strong international reputation in this field. In July 2011, the UK applied to opt in to the EU directive on human trafficking. Opting in sends a strong message that the UK is not a soft touch on this issue and supports the collaborative international work that is a vital element in dealing with such complex international organised crime. The UK already has a strong basis for such collaboration through the work the Serious Organised Crime Agency undertakes with foreign law enforcement agencies. In recent years, police forces have participated in a number of joint investigation teams, in support of the investigation and prosecution of traffickers.
The Government’s human trafficking strategy, published on 19 July 2011, identified four core themes: improving identification and care of victims; enhancing our ability to act early before harm reaches the UK; smarter action at the border; and more co-ordination of our law enforcement efforts in the UK. An update on the strategy was included in the first report of the Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group on Human Trafficking, published on Anti-Slavery Day, 18 October 2012.
At its heart, human trafficking involves the movement of individuals for the purposes of exploitation. That movement and exploitation, particularly when it has an international dimension, can involve extensive co-ordination in the planning, recruitment and transportation of victims. It is likely that criminals are using new technologies, or old technologies in more complex ways, to facilitate their communications and avoid detection. It is not known whether the use of new technologies has increased trafficking in persons, but it is believed that increased use of technologies has made trafficking activities much easier to perform.
We are commencing the amendments made by the Protection of Freedoms Act on 6 April, in line with the Government’s wider timetable for implementing the EU directive on trafficking in human beings. It is our intention that these regulations come into force at the same time. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. These are very technical regulations. They are the kind of regulations that you wade through as the sun goes down and hope that you will follow all the information they contain. Therefore, the Minister’s explanation was helpful. Although the regulations are technical, they are extremely important. He, like noble Lords on this side of the Committee, will fully appreciate just how awful human trafficking is.
In preparing for today’s discussion, I read some accounts of people who had virtually been sold into slavery to provide cheap labour for companies or often to engage in illegal activities and prostitution. It really is horrendous. Modern technology is usually a way forward, but it is not always a force for good. In this case, it is a force for evil and enabling illegal activities, which is why these regulations are so necessary. Therefore, I welcome the regulations and am pleased that they have been brought forward today. One of the reasons why we are pleased to see them is because the Government were rather tardy in bringing forward the relevant measure as regards the previous EU directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims. In fact, they were going to opt out of those provisions. However, I am pleased to say that the Government subsequently changed their mind, for whatever reason, and rightly decided to opt into that directive. These regulations extend that commitment, and we are grateful for them.
However, I wish to press the Minister a little further on opting in and out. An issue that has concerned me, and which the noble Lord and I have discussed across the Floor of the House, is that the Government intend to opt out of policing and criminal justice measures. I am worried that if they do so, these regulations would no longer be valid because they would have opted out of these provisions. I entirely agree with the noble Lord about their importance and am very concerned that we may face a situation whereby the Government decide to opt out of these provisions, having already opted in—a bit of a hokey-cokey, really. I hope that we stay in.
I have specific questions in relation to these regulations and to the other anti-trafficking orders that the Government have brought forward. My understanding is that the Government are now consulting on and preparing for measures to opt out of police and criminal justice. In that case, what consideration are the Government giving to interim measures? As the Minister and I know, those who are subject to trafficking in this way are among the most vulnerable of humans, in the most vulnerable position and need protection. If we are to opt out, it is all very well looking to opt back in in six months, a year or whenever we are given permission to do so by other member states, but there would be an immediate problem that these regulations would not be valid because we had opted out. I am not clear whether, in that situation, the Government would need to revoke these regulations individually or whether there would be a general opt-out and we would automatically be opted out of all EU police and criminal justice matters. I hope the Minister is able to say something about that. I agree with him about the reasons why he has brought these regulations forward today and about why they are so important.
My only other question is on the review. What will be the timescale for it? Will it coincide with the Government’s plans to opt out of police and criminal justice or will there be a set period? Normally such regulations say that they will be reviewed within three or five years, but there is no timescale in these regulations, and I wonder whether that is connected to the Government’s intention to try to opt out of policing and criminal justice. We support the regulations and think they are right, which is why I am concerned about this opt-out hokey-cokey that the Government have announced.
Citizenship Test
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, we introduced the citizenship test in 2005 and remain committed to it, but clearly a significant amount of time, effort and money has gone into these changes and the questions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. It has to be said that when the Prime Minister failed the test on live television in America, one has to doubt whether we have all the right questions. Given that 20% fewer foreign criminals have been deported and given the lengthy delays in the processing of visas, far exceeding what is reasonable or should be expected, as Her Majesty’s Inspector has pointed out, should the priority be changes to the citizenship test or should the key focus be on sorting out the problems connected with immigration and visas?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I do not think that it is necessary to tackle just one task at a time. Making this test relevant was an important task. Noble Lords will know that the current handbook has been in use for six years. It was time to have an update and to make it more relevant. The noble Baroness referred to serious issues on the part of UKBA, particularly its ability to cope with appeals. We are well aware of this and I am absolutely certain that the chairman of UKBA has this matter at the top of his agenda.
Police Integrity
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in your Lordships’ House today. We certainly welcome the direction of travel on this issue, and many of the measures outlined are sensible in principle. Obviously, a lot of detail has yet to be revealed and I hope that we will have the opportunity to contribute to that debate in your Lordships’ House.
British policing has an enviable reputation across the world for low levels of corruption, high standards of integrity and our tradition of policing by consent. That is why, when there are cases where standards fall below the level that we expect, we are rightly appalled and action has to be taken to address that. On many occasions when I have asked police officers why they have joined the police, without exception all have very high on their list a very simple reason: to help people. The vast majority of police officers join the force to help the public and keep people safe from crime and harm, and they take great risks when doing so.
Most people, when they go out to work in the morning, know that they will never face a situation where their life could be at risk. However, in Greater Manchester, there is now the trial for the killing of two police officers who were shot down for answering a routine 999 call. Officers such as those and their colleagues know that this is a risk they face. Every day, police officers across the country face incidents and disturbances. They have to inform families if their loved ones have been injured or killed. They have to deal with some very unpleasant situations and they undertake those responsibilities with great integrity and without regard to their own safety.
However, police officers are deeply concerned about serious cases that undermine confidence in policing. The vast majority of police officers want action against officers who let down the force and the public. They also want action to improve standards. We must have robust and meaningful action to tackle those who have weakened public confidence and respect. The Minister mentioned some examples; others include hacking and the Hillsborough tragedy. It is clear that there are also problems with some undercover officers, and it is right that we address cases where policing has failed to protect the public or deliver justice. We must ensure that we have a framework in place to make such cases less likely and take effective action against those individuals involved.
In the light of that, many of the Home Secretary’s measures are sensible. We support the implementation of the Leveson recommendations. Your Lordships’ House made it clear that it wishes the rest of Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals to be implemented with similar speed. We support a code of ethics, stronger professional standards and stronger action when these are breached. The Stevens commission has taken evidence on issues around codes of ethics, national registers, the role of the College of Policing, and proposals for striking off police officers, and is likely to make new proposals in this area.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister some questions around this matter. I would appreciate his answering me today, but if he cannot it would be welcome if he wrote to me. Can he say any more about the professional register? My understanding from the Statement is that the new College of Policing will manage and publish the register and have a duty to ensure that those guilty of misconduct will not be allowed to work for any other police force. The Minister said that they will be “struck off”, but from what? There is currently no register of police officers from which they could be struck off. Will there be a new comprehensive register of police officers, or will there instead be a list of those who have been found guilty of misconduct or other offences? What criteria willbe used?
The Statement implies that this will apply only to officers facing disciplinary action leading to dismissal, and there may be other cases where it would be right for someone to be on the register. Given the welcome commitment that disciplinary action will continue, even after an officer retires or resigns, will the Minister confirm that such officers will still be included on any list? What is meant by “publish”? Does that mean that the list will be publicly available or available only to the police? The Minister will be aware that former police officers often find employment in private security work of varying kinds, including, I am sure, in G4S. Will the information also be available to prospective employers?
I have one further point on this issue. As I have said, it is welcome that disciplinary action will continue even if police officers resign or seek early retirement, and we have called for such action. However, the Minister said in the Statement that those officers will face sanctions if misconduct is proven. What will those sanctions be? Being placed on a list or struck off a register is hardly a sanction if the officers have already resigned or retired.
On the issue of vetting, the Statement says that the college will establish a stronger system of vetting but that chief constables and police and crime commissioners have only to “consider” this. It does not appear to be binding. Is that the case, or have I misunderstood? Although candidates for chief officers’ posts will be vetted, it is not clear by whom. Given that the Government’s Statement places on the College of Policing additional responsibilities beyond those previously proposed, is the Minister confident that it has the necessary resources to undertake this very important work? Unless it is 100% accurate, it will not be worth very much or be that effective.
We welcome the code of ethics. Can the Government confirm that the activities of undercover officers such as using the identities of deceased children should be addressed in such a code?
Although there is much to welcome in the Statement, we are disappointed by the proposals regarding the IPCC. The Minister will be aware that Yvette Cooper, the shadow Home Secretary, has argued for the past year that the IPCC has neither the powers nor the resources needed to be really effective. We remain concerned that it will struggle to produce a timely response to the Hillsborough tragedy, and there are countless cases where the IPCC has failed to investigate swiftly.
The problem is that the Home Secretary’s reforms, which are outlined today to the IPCC, seem to be incremental. We are not convinced that the Government are doing enough to give the IPCC the real powers that it needs, or to create a proactive rather than a reactive culture to deal with problems, so there is a concern that it will not do enough to restore public confidence in the IPCC to solve problems swiftly, to get justice, and to ensure that lessons are learnt when policing goes wrong.
I am still not clear—I listened very carefully and I read the Statement before it came to this House—about the additional resources that will be available to undertake the extra work. It appears that all serious and sensitive cases will be dealt with by the IPCC rather than by individual police forces. How will “serious and sensitive” be defined, and who will define it? What about initially low-level cases that are deemed not to be serious or sensitive but which, as the investigation progresses, are deemed to be serious and sensitive? Will they be transferred to IPCC? How much of the total police forces’ budget will be transferred to allow the IPCC to deal with all serious and sensitive cases? Will the Government commit to ensuring that the adequacy of funding is kept under review?
In the Police Reform Act, Ministers argued that more cases should be dealt with by individual forces rather than by the IPCC. As a result, my understanding is that under the Government’s policies the number of commissioners roughly halved. Can the Minister confirm that he considers that that was a mistake and that the Government will now be recruiting more commissioners? It is hard to imagine that with additional work and investigating all serious and sensitive cases, more staff will not be needed, but where will those staff be found? How many staff and how much financial resource do the Government envisage transferring from police forces to the IPCC, or will they recruit in other ways? Will there be any new money from the Government, or are the Government confident that the IPCC can be fully and adequately resourced by this transfer of funds?
My final question, the Minister will be pleased to know, is whether he can also confirm that the additional powers for the IPCC, announced by the Home Secretary, will be introduced in this Parliament.
We are concerned that this incremental reform is a lost opportunity to introduce a new, robust organisation with a new framework. Currently, the IPCC, the PCC, the police and crime panels and the College of Policing all have a role to play. One has to ask whether one strong organisation with the appropriate framework and powers would be more appropriate. I really feel that the Government should look again at replacing the IPCC altogether with a new police standards authority, and with a new and coherent framework of standards and accountability for the police.
We all want to see well motivated, professional police officers who are keen to do a good job and serve the public. We have a duty to the public to ensure that they can have confidence in the work of the police and that action will be taken when things go wrong. We also have a duty to ensure that police officers get the support that they need and have a proper framework of accountability to keep standards high. The Statement today is welcome and responds to many of the concerns that we have raised, for which we are grateful. However, we remain concerned that it does not go far enough and that it will not deliver the kind of protection and framework that the police and the public need.
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2013
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, this is a draft amendment to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2011. The order concerns charging for visa, immigration and nationality services and it enables the UK Border Agency to specify applications, processes and services for which it intends to set a fee. I thank the noble Baroness for attending this debate, which is playing to a rather empty Room this evening. However, that does not belittle the importance of the measure, because specific fee levels will be set in separate legislation to be brought before this Committee in due course. For applications and services where we charge more than the administrative cost of delivery, the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure. Noble Lords will have the opportunity to ask questions about the fees themselves in the debate which follows that second piece of statutory legislation.
In accordance with our legal powers, this amendment to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2011 sets out new applications and services for which we intend a fee to be paid in future, and clarifies the powers under which some existing fees are set. The amendment enables the UK Border Agency to simplify its current charging structure for optional premium services and to widen the scope to develop and offer new optional services in the future. For example, there are currently two fees specified within the regulations for each application type made in the UK, depending on whether a migrant makes a postal application or one at a public inquiry office. Instead, there will be a single application fee and a single additional uplift fee payable for optional premium services that an applicant may wish to take up, such as making their application in person or seeking an expedited consideration of their application. This means that about 30 fees will be removed from the regulations, thus simplifying the legislation as well as giving greater flexibility to how the services are provided.
We want to extend the premium services that we offer to sponsors, and this change will give us greater flexibility to tailor services to meet sponsors’ needs. Rather than specifying applications for a change in the status of a sponsor licence, we want to clarify these as requests for optional services. As a first step, we will then look to extend premium sponsorship to tier 4 sponsors, building on the premium offer already available to those in tiers 2 and 5.
We also want to take the opportunity to make several clarifications. First, we wish to put on an appropriate statutory footing the basis on which fees are charged for tests administered for the purposes of the Immigration Rules. In addition, we are adding a power to set fees for the process of enrolling biometric information. We consider defining this as a process rather than as an application better fits the terminology used in the legislation that deals with the enrolment of biometrics.
We continue to value the economic, cultural and social contribution made by legal migrants to the UK and seek to ensure that the fees for visa, immigration and nationality services demonstrate that the UK retains its position as an attractive destination to work, study or visit.
As I have said, this order provides the enabling powers to set fees and we will return to Parliament in due course to debate further regulations, under the affirmative procedure, specifying the fee levels that rely on the powers in Section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and additional powers in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, as amended by Section 20 of the UK Borders Act 2007.
Noble Lords would want to ensure that the immigration system is paid for in a fair and sustainable manner, balancing the contribution made by taxpayers and those who use and benefit most from the system. The amendment contained within this statutory instrument will ensure that we can continue to strike the right balance, and I commend it to the Grand Committee.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very thorough and helpful explanation of the order. He need not worry; I have no fears of not playing to a full house. One thing I have learnt in my short time looking at immigration issues in your Lordships’ House is that these matters are always widely read afterwards. I am sometimes taken aback by the number of e-mails and the amount of correspondence that follows any legislation in your Lordships’ House relating to immigration. That is very helpful because it helps to inform our debates.
I do not disagree with the noble Lord’s comments. He is right when he talks about balancing the contribution between those who use the system and the taxpayer. I have a couple of questions about the order which perhaps he can help me with. First, looking at the policy background, the Minister made it clear that the key part of delivering the immigration system which the public expects is acquiring the necessary resources to fund delivery and improvements in the services we offer.
We are all aware, particularly from the reports of John Vine, about the backlog and the delays in the system and how urgently improvements are needed. The Minister may have heard a Mr Hearne on Radio 4 the other morning, who is about to celebrate—if that is the right word—his first wedding anniversary next month and yet his wife, having gone over the various hurdles that people should when seeking to make their home in this country, still has not had a final decision about whether they can live a normal married life together. I have had an e-mail today from a couple who were told that they would have to wait six months for a decision; they have now been told it will be another five months. It is those delays in the system that bring it into dispute. I do not blame entry clearance officers, the people making the decisions; I think it is a resources issue. If the Minister is able to say anything about when he thinks we are going to see some improvements in the length of time it is taking to make decisions and the ability to clear the backlog, that would be very helpful, given that it is specifically referred to in the Explanatory Notes.
Another point I am unclear on, looking again at the helpful Explanatory Notes to the order, is that under the heading “Legislative Context”, in paragraph 4.1, the first bullet point says that the purpose of the instrument is,
“to allow the UK Border Agency to set fees for providing optional arrangements for processing immigration and nationality applications (currently the cost of such services is reflected in the relevant application fee)”.
If the cost of those services is currently reflected in the application fee, is the Minister proposing to reduce the current application fee and have a separate fee, or will there be an additional and separate fee? The fourth bullet point says that,
“currently such fees are treated as part of the application fee”.
This seems to mean that there is going to be an additional cost on something that is already included. I am not quite clear about what it means.
The third bullet point says that the purpose of the instrument is,
“to put arrangements for charging fees for tests administered by the UK Border Agency (or those acting on its behalf) for the purposes of the immigration rules on a statutory footing”.
Who are those who would act on behalf of the UK Border Agency? It is something that I should be aware of but perhaps the Minister can enlighten me. I am not clear which organisations or individuals would act on behalf of the UK Border Agency.
It is entirely reasonable that there should be charges. When we look at the level of the charges, that may be an issue to debate as well, but I appreciate that that is not before us today. If the Minister is able to clear up those points I would be very grateful.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for raising these issues. She is quite right that in this area performance lies at the heart of everything. I am very grateful for the work being done by John Vine. He is driving improvements in the service by identifying points of weakness and the processes and individual cases about which the noble Baroness has communicated with me—and of which I was myself aware—in which there were delays in the consideration of someone’s personal position. Consideration has often been deferred, putting people in uncertainty.
The driver behind these changes is to make sure that the income that can be generated by fees is used to improve the service. This accounts for the pursuit of a premium service—which, I hasten to add, is not at the expense of the normal service but enables people for whom this is very important to have their cases dealt with in the most efficient way to suit their personal needs. It is exactly what we want to turn UKBA into: a consumer-oriented organisation that seeks to serve the people who wish to use its services.
I turn to the issues on which the noble Baroness questioned me. Most of the backlog in marriage cases was accounted for by people who had been refused by the normal process but were trying to circumvent the formal appeals process—the noble Baroness will know that there is an appeals process—by requesting an informal reconsideration. The 2,000 cases that were identified as requiring a decision have now been dealt with. The details of those who requested an informal reconsideration are being passed to Capita, who will contact them on behalf of the UK Border Agency as part of the work to ensure that those with no right to remain in the United Kingdom leave the country. If they refuse, I am afraid that their removal will have to be enforced.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I appreciate and fully understand that. I was not suggesting that somebody who is not entitled to remain in this country should be able to do so. I am a little concerned about the Minister’s reference to circumventing the process. My understanding is that the process by which people were refused and then looked to have their case reconsidered was part of the system. They were not going against the rules, but acting within them.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I accept that. That is why we were concerned about it and why John Vine was right to draw the attention of Parliament to the situation. We are very concerned to make sure that it does not continue. This statutory instrument is about trying to engage the involvement of the consumer in the payment of fees, to strengthen the service that can be provided by UKBA.
The noble Baroness asked which companies act on behalf of UKBA. Within the UK, the Post Office uses biometrics and provides a check-and-send service. Overseas, two commercial providers offer assistance with processing applications and premium services. I cannot provide the names of those organisations now, but I will drop a line to the noble Baroness. She also asked why the fee was not included as part of the application fee. That is because the UK Border Agency awarded the contract for the provision of the third-party biometric service to the Post Office. I hope she will understand that that is separate from the fee that is charged for the application.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am sorry; perhaps I was not quite clear. I understood why, at the third bullet point, it says,
“arrangements for charging fees for tests administered by … those acting on its behalf”.
My point is about it including the relevant application fees on the first one, whereas at the moment it says,
“the cost of such services is reflected in the relevant application fee”.
I am not sure why legislation is needed to have a charge if it is already included in the current application fee. It is the first bullet point.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, I agree with the noble Baroness. It might sound like a tautology but I am sure that it is relevant. I hope that the noble Baroness will excuse me if I do not explain the full details of that. I will certainly write to her about it.
The noble Baroness asked about the backlog of cases. The UKBA’s website would accept a reconsideration request if it was submitted before November 2012, when the question first arose. I hope that the noble Baroness is content with those responses. I have given an undertaking that I will write to her. I will do so, and put a copy in the Library. I commend the order to the Grand Committee.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2013
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, this order, which was laid before Parliament on 8 January, fits within the Government’s drug strategy and policies to tackle the threat posed by new psychoactive substances sold, in popular parlance, as “legal highs”. The Government welcome the recent contributions made by Parliament to inform our considerations in this area of our work. We are indeed much engaged in discussions and reviews of our policies.
Keeping our drug laws up to date remains a key element of this Government’s drug strategy to reduce drug harms, and we make no apologies for our third drug control order since coming into power. The order will implement the Government’s decision, in late 2012, to accept the advice of our independent experts—the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs—to control a number of new psychoactive substances as class B drugs. The order will amend Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 accordingly.
It will add O-desmethyltramadol to the list of class B drugs. This compound, currently sold as a legal high or as an undeclared but active ingredient in similar products in Europe, has not been detected in the UK. However, the ACMD advises that it poses a serious health threat. It has been associated with a number of deaths in Sweden. We agree with the ACMD that there is compelling evidence of harm to justify pre-emptive control to protect the UK public.
Noble Lords previously considered the 2009 drug control order on synthetic cannabinoids. These are man-made chemicals that mimic the effects of cannabis but also present similar harms. Over 140 of these compounds became controlled class B drugs. This was achieved by using a generic definition comprising five chemical families to capture these drugs. As these have mostly disappeared in the UK, as far as we can identify, new compounds have emerged. We have been monitoring them with the ACMD through UK and EU drugs early-warning systems.
The order will update four of the five chemical families identified in 2009 and increase their number to eight so that the generic definition captures more of the chemically related compounds. These include AM-2201 and MAM-2201, which have been identified in samples of the legal high products going under the brand names—if that is the phrase to use—Black Mamba and Annihilation, which have been linked to several hospitalisations.
The order will also make methoxetamine a controlled class B drug, as recommended by the ACMD. Noble Lords will recall that this drug has been subject to a temporary class drug order since April last year. The ACMD has also provided a generic definition to control the drug so that similar compounds which could replace it in the legal high market are also controlled.
The order will be complemented by two negative instruments in relation to the designation and scheduling of the drugs which will become controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. In line with the ACMD’s advice and following consultation with the healthcare sector and industry, they will be designated as schedule 1 drugs, meaning that activities relating to them will be permitted for research or other special purposes subject to the relevant Home Office licence.
The Government take seriously the protection of public health, and protection against the threat posed by potentially harmful emerging drugs in the UK and abroad is necessary. I commend the order to the Committee.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I feel that I may have been a little unkind to the Minister last week when I suggested that he might have to read out in full the names of all the drugs that we would be looking at today. It is perhaps more useful to use the street names, which are, for good reason, a lot easier.
I suspect—if it is not a very bad pun—that there is not a cigarette paper between us in looking at what we can do to end the scourge of drugs and the damage that they cause to so many young people in society. We therefore welcome the order and support action to protect young people from these substances. It is always wise, as is evident in the order, to act as early as possible. I welcomed the temporary ban placed previously on “mexxy”—MXE. The Minister may be aware that when we considered the relevant order—I appreciate that he was not the Minister at the time—I raised a couple of issues. Despite our full support for the order, we were concerned that it had taken a long time to get to your Lordships’ House. We were behind a number of other countries, such as Russia, which had already taken action. We welcome the fact that O-desmethyltramadol is being added to the list of class B drugs before any evidence is widely available in the UK. We know that the drug travels across Europe and that young people get it, and it is right that, based on the evidence of the danger that it causes, action should be taken as soon as possible.
When discussing the previous order, I asked about the Government’s relationship and co-operation with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction—EMCDDA. We were concerned then that the EMCDDA had identified 90 new substances in 2010 and 2011 and, I understand, even more in 2012. At that point, the Home Office’s early warning system had identified only 11 of those drugs. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, the Minister at the time, was unable to answer that point in Committee—I appreciate that the Minister may not have information today, but, again, I would be happy for him to write to me. I am concerned that we should not lag behind what the EMCDDA is doing. In the case of O-desmethyltramadol, it is clear that the Government are not lagging behind, but given that 90 new drugs were identified up to 2011 and even more in 2012, it would be interesting to know how many of them have been identified by the Home Office’s early warning system. How do the Government and the Home Office co-operate with the EMCDDA? It is quite clear that if the centre has information that is useful to us and allows early action to be taken, as with this particular drug, it would be very welcome.
Asylum Seekers: Support
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My noble friend makes a very good point. In the briefing that I had before answering this Question, I was surprised to discover that there were two levels of benefit. It is important to emphasise what I said in answer to the right reverend Prelate’s supplementary question: a review is going on and we should await that to see what recommendations it makes. It must be important to take on board the point that my noble friend makes.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, as we have heard, children are the most vulnerable and at their most vulnerable in asylum and immigration cases. In the coalition agreement, it was pledged to end all child detention for immigration, and the mid-term review states that that pledge has been kept. Up to October last year, 113 children have been detained, albeit some in the more family-friendly unit at the Cedars, but 41 were detained elsewhere. In October 2012, 16 children were being held in detention; there were eight in the Cedars and another eight in other centres, including Yarl’s Wood and Tinsley House which has not even been approved by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons. Can the Minister confirm whether any children are today in detention, including in the Cedars?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
No, I cannot confirm that to the noble Baroness; I do not have the up-to-date figures. As she indicated, there is a clear drive by the Government to eliminate situations where children are kept in those settings and to find alternative ways to accommodate families so that children are not separated, if that is possible.
I should point out that the level of support for families in this country is far greater for a family of four, for example, compared with Sweden or Denmark. Indeed, if there is any sector where there is a lesser payment than elsewhere, it tends to be for single adults.
Intelligence and Security Committee: Annual Report 2011-12
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, this is a welcome opportunity to debate this report today. Like the report, the debate has been both fascinating and very illuminating. As the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said at the start of his comments, it is right that we should thank the intelligence and security services for their work. By the very nature of the work they undertake, most of us will be unaware of anything more than the occasional headline or special report, but what is so important in what they do is the detail of their investigations and their analysis. In most spheres of life, failure is not a matter of life or death, but it can be for many in our three intelligence and security service agencies—possibly their own, and certainly the potential for the death of others if they get something wrong.
The Prime Minister has made a Statement which is being repeated in your Lordships’ House on the emerging details of the hostage situation and resulting military action in Algeria. That highlights and emphasises the current international situation our security services are faced with, while the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, stressed the need to understand how and when the threat of terrorism can emerge. It serves to highlight the importance and the dangers, and the bravery of the staff who work for the agencies and why their work is so important. It also highlights why the security and oversight of that work is so important and that we must have processes that examine and take evidence on the work of the agencies, in which Parliament and the public must have confidence. The comments from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton on confidence and transparency were important: it is crucial that Parliament has confidence in the work of the committee and the agencies.
We must also be assured that the agencies are using their powers appropriately and that the legislation and resources that the agencies work within are adequate and appropriate for the task. A crucial aspect of that work is assurance and trust that the committee has access to all the information it requires. The noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, when he was chairman of the committee, in November 1998, said:
“When a situation arises that gives serious cause for public concern …We shall not be able to help matters unless we can say that we have investigated the allegations, with … access to all the relevant information”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/98; col. 594.]
The committee reports directly to the Prime Minister and, in the main, its reports are published other than on issues of security. I am not aware of any disagreement between the committee and the Prime Minister on what constitutes an issue of national security. It is a huge and serious task that the committee is set and it has the respect, gratitude and confidence of the House. That comes from our faith in its honesty with the security services and agencies but also with politicians and the Prime Minister.
I turn to the details of the report and the Government’s response. We have briefly touched on the Olympics. Before the Games, when the report was published, there were huge concerns, but in all ways the Games were a great success, not least in terms of security and public protection. The report highlights the challenges that the Games presented for security, policing and counterterrorism, and it recognises the “unprecedented” pressure—I assume that the word is not used lightly—that the services were under. That was clearly made much more difficult by the appalling problems with accreditation and volunteers. We have said it before but should repeat our appreciation of the professionalism of all those involved in security for the Games, especially where emergency arrangements had to be made after the failings of G4S and those responsible for monitoring its plans and arrangements. It is worth re-emphasising our appreciation of the work of the security services, the Armed Forces and the agencies.
However, one area that gives cause for concern is the committee’s analysis of the approach to risk management. Page 25 of the report quotes the National Security Adviser, who said:
“Of course there will be greater risk. But with finite resources and a major national priority requiring greater effort over a defined period of time, it is inevitable that there will have to be a greater risk-taking in some parts of the Security Service business, and I think we have to depend on the professionalism of the Director General to decide where that risk can most safely be taken”.
In the Government’s response on this issue, they rightly state:
“The Government will never put national security at risk”.
However, in their response to the committee’s recommendation E, they state:
“The Government acknowledges that the Agencies will continue to face challenges in balancing the delivery of front-line counter-terrorism capabilities against achieving efficiencies that Government as a whole is committed to delivering”.
The rest of that paragraph is helpful in acknowledging that the agencies are facing challenges in meeting those savings targets but it also makes clear that the efficiency savings must continue.
The committee’s recommendation T puts on record, in a measured way, how concerned it is about the threat being faced and the financial situation. It welcomes the way that the agencies have responded to date, but expresses concern, in a specific recommendation to the Government, by saying that,
“we remain of the opinion that the Spending Review settlement must be kept under review to ensure that it is commensurate with the threat”.
That was the point made by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, about ensuring that the front-line capabilities are never at risk.
I am sure that the committee will continue to monitor the Government’s response, but it may be one that we have seen before, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said. I hope that we will move on from this. The response says:
“The Government welcomes the Committee’s conclusion. It was, and still is, recognised that the spending review settlement will be challenging for the SIA. The Agencies have put considerable effort in to managing their finances to live within this settlement. The settlement is still sufficient”—
thus admitting that it is not what it was—
“to enable a wide range of Agency capabilities and activities, in line with operational requirements and NSC prioritisation”.
That is an admission of how challenging it is, and the Government’s response bears out that it is right for the ISC to be concerned. I am confident, from the comments that have been made today by noble Lords who represent us on the committee, that the ISC is continuing to monitor this and is very much aware of the increased uncertainty that the services face and how they will cope with the further round of cuts in the next spending review.
We have also heard today about the Justice and Security Bill, which we debated at length in your Lordships’ House. We very much welcome the important changes that were made, even if other noble Lords would have perhaps liked to see some more openness—although not to the extent feared by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. The key issue for your Lordships’ House was that there should be parliamentary privilege for the ISC in terms of protection for witnesses and for the power to compel witnesses to give evidence.
There were different views on how that could best be achieved, whether by a Select Committee route with safeguards built in or by statute. At the time the Bill was being discussed, the Government gave assurances regarding privilege being conferred by statute, although the clerks have expressed their view that this could create legal uncertainty as to whether it is possible to grant privilege by statute rather than using a committee of Parliament, and the very real concern that the uncertainty could result in legal action to try to resolve the issue.
I am relaxed about the method of conferring privilege. If it is possible to confer it by statute, we would welcome that. In Committee on the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that it might be possible,
“to give the committee bespoke statutory immunities that would provide the committee with protections that would replicate certain aspects of parliamentary privilege … We are considering whether this is a viable approach and whether it is the best approach to tackling this issue, and we may bring forward amendments”.—[Official Report, 19/11/12; col. 1651.]
I appreciate that that was just a couple of months ago, in November last year, but the Bill is in the other place at the moment and it would be helpful if the noble Lord was able to repeat those assurances or give an update, if there is one, to your Lordships’ House.
I also found the report very interesting reading on the issue of counterterrorism and TPIMs, which the committee remains concerned about. We come back to the point on funding, which seems to be a theme throughout the report. The committee says:
“The lack of any direct correlation between risk levels and the additional funding made available to the Security Service and police to prepare for this only adds to our unease, as do the delays in putting the funding in place prior to the transition from Control Orders”.
In many walks of life when someone talks of unease, it is usually relatively benign, but I suspect that that word was carefully chosen by the committee. I am not convinced that the Government’s response fully addressed the concerns that were raised.
I have little knowledge of the interaction that the ISC has with similar bodies in other countries, or with other security services, but it is vital not only that the ISC and Parliament have confidence in adequate funding for the work of the security services but that other countries with which we co-operate also have that confidence. I do not want to overstate the point but this is something that is evident throughout the report and if the committee expresses unease, I share it. I hope that the Government genuinely welcome the recommendations in the report and will seek to find some way that links risk to funding so as not to increase the risk to a level that creates further unease.
Despite changes to enhanced TPIMs, the ISC also remains concerned because it considered that enhanced TPIMs were unworkable and said that,
“it seems unlikely that they would ever be implemented”.
The Minister will recall the recent Urgent Question regarding Ibrahim Magag, who was subject to a TPIM and absconded—apparently by hailing a black cab. Many noble Lords across the House, who had vast experience of counterterrorism issues, made the point that the removal of the control order’s power to relocate someone who was considered to be a danger made it easier for Mr Magag to abscond. The Minister was reluctant to confirm, in that short debate, that the Government’s policy change had to take some responsibility, but the fact remains that while Mr Magag was subject to a relocation order, he did not abscond. In fact, my understanding is that nobody absconded while the power to relocate was included in control orders.
Much has been said today about the Arab spring, or Arab awakening. Although the ISC recognises in its report that it can be impossible to predict how and when events such as the Arab spring will begin, it also questions whether the agencies should be better equipped to be able to better anticipate how events might unfurl. Page 15 of the report has a very helpful timeline that shows how quickly events can unfold. It can be difficult to identify or predict the trigger that unleashes events from an unstable situation, but I am not too clear—perhaps the Minister can help—whether our intelligence services were aware that the level of unrest was such that the potential for an escalation to the degree that we have since seen was likely. As I said, I understand the difficulty in identifying precisely how, when and why events will escalate—but was there an awareness that they could escalate in that way? If so, were the intelligence services able to advise Ministers accordingly?
I am not suggesting that it is on the same scale, but I think that the recent and current situation in Northern Ireland illustrates a similar point. I am sure that the intelligence and security agencies were, and are, aware of dissident activity. However, although they must have predicted that the flag issue in Belfast would be difficult, was there any sense that the political disengagement, anger and fear felt by some sections of society could have led to the violence we have seen? The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, commented in your Lordships’ House when we discussed this issue that this was nothing to do with flags—it was a wider resentment, fear and anger about a range of issues.
I am not necessarily expecting answers to those points, but the issue I am trying to raise is that the views and mood that led to the Arab spring, and also to the current violence in Northern Ireland, were not new. They did not rise up suddenly but were simmering. It then just takes one incident to trigger the events that we have seen. In its report, the ISC suggests that, in the case of the Arab spring, there was a lack of understanding about the region, and it makes recommendations to the Government on addressing this. Those recommendations are crucial because there is also a downside to the uprisings and changes in Libya, that of instability in the region. The situation in Syria, and events in Mali and, particularly, Algeria, illustrate how volatile and dangerous the situation currently is. The wisdom of the committee on this specific issue is something the Government should see as an asset and an advantage.
My final point is on cybersecurity and communications data. Clearly, the way in which we communicate and how we conduct our business, including financial business, has changed dramatically in a very short period of time, and the threat to the resilience of those communications has also increased. It is clear that the ISC shares the concerns that in the UK we are at an early stage in developing our capabilities to protect UK interests. In their response to the recommendations, the Government seem to accept that. There is further evidence if the noble Lord looks at the comments made in the recent report of the Defence Select Committee in the other place, which was published on 9 January. It states:
“The evidence we received leaves us concerned that with the Armed Forces now so dependent on information and communications technology, should such systems suffer a sustained cyber attack, their ability to operate could be fatally compromised”.
Those comments and others throughout the report give enormous cause for concern. Clearly, the committee will continue to monitor this, but there are grave concerns and we need to up our game and ensure that the work that has been undertaken moves much more quickly than it has done.
I have said “finally”, but my second finally is about the draft communications Bill, which is currently in a Joint Committee of both Houses. It is crucial that the Government bring forward a Bill that recognises the need to bring legislation up to date with the technology being used by criminals and terrorists. Parliament as a whole recognises that at the same time there must be strong protection for public privacy, including limits and safeguards on the use, storage and access to data, not just by the police and the ISC but by private companies and other agencies. I appreciate that this is a critical issue in which there is enormous public and parliamentary interest. The changes made need to be justified by the evidence and there have to be increased safeguards and protection.
My very final comment is to thank the committee for its report and for the work of all noble Lords involved. The value of the committee is the confidence that it enjoys in Parliament as a whole—in both Houses—but also the fact that it is honest with government, Parliament and the agencies. That trust is of enormous benefit to the Government and Parliament.
Ibrahim Magag: Disappearance
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question. He will understand that it is of enormous concern that Ibrahim Magag, who is subject to a TPIM—a terrorism prevention and investigation measure—has been able to abscond, particularly when the judge who reviewed his previous control order said that,
“it is too dangerous to permit him to be in London, even for a short period”.
The Minister referred to how many people had absconded under previous control orders, but the key issue was relocating those subject to an order. My understanding was that none absconded after they had been relocated. However, the Government took the decision to remove the power to relocate suspects when introducing TPIMs. Given that they allowed him to move back to London from the West Country, to where he had been relocated by the previous Government’s control order, can the Minister confirm whether that made it easier for him to abscond? Was he subject to any surveillance at the time?
Finally, is it true that he absconded by hailing a black cab?
Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 2012
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Winston, I am grateful to the Minister for the care and trouble that he took in setting out the Government’s approach to the regulations, which I think will be generally welcomed. I shall ask him about a number of issues which will, in my view, determine how well the regulations work in practice. It is important that they work well because, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, this area of public policy involving research involving experiments on animals is highly contentious. A wide range of ethical and philosophical considerations are in play. There are passionately held beliefs on all sides, and, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Winston, it applies in fields of scientific research which are developing extremely fast.
We have had a flavour of that today in the speeches that we have just heard from my noble friend Lord Winston and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The Government hold the ring in balancing all these competing views. That is a critical role because, if the public believe that animals have been cruelly treated or that there is no measurable benefit from the experiments being carried out on them, then their support will be withdrawn from the scientific and medical research that is currently being conducted using animals, and potentially invaluable research will be lost.
In that context, I have a number of questions for the Minister. The work done by Home Office inspectors is essential to maintaining and improving standards of animal welfare in experiments. This is not unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy; it is the vital guarantor of the highest standards of animal welfare in experiments. In that context, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether in the past three years there has been a decline in the number of Home Office inspectors, the number of visits that they make and the number of contact hours. What projections is the Home Office making about any further such declines?
I turn to the question of guidance, which clearly will be crucial to the way in which these regulations are implemented. The Minister mentioned that the guidance is going to be published in January but, as he will be well aware, these regulations come into force on 1 January, so it is obviously important that there is no further slippage in the publication of the guidance. I would be grateful if he could give the Committee reassurance to that effect today.
The directive includes a requirement for a national body to co-ordinate and fulfil various functions. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already mentioned the end of the Animal Procedures Committee, which I understand has now met for the last time. So far as I am aware, there is no new national body ready to be put in place, so I add my voice to that of the noble Lord in asking the Minister to give us a few more details about this national committee—when it is going to be in place, what the membership will be and, in particular, its remit.
I want to raise two issues with the Minister that in my view are fundamental to the successful implementation of these regulations and the successful management by the Government of this important area of public policy. Transparency is critical to good governance. As I understand it, the Government have accepted that the directive requires the reconsideration of Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Amending the section so that it does not apply to disclosures in response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act would increase transparency. That would mean, for example, that someone leaking information for commercial gain or to assist extremists would still be committing an offence, but that if an FOI request went to the Home Office, it could release that information so long as other relevant exemptions did not apply. Those exemptions, in my view, should be sufficient to protect legitimate interests such as health and safety, the locations of animal experimentation, the privacy of names and addresses of researchers, breach of confidence and any genuinely commercially sensitive information. When I raised this issue in your Lordships’ House a year ago, the Minister’s predecessor said that the Government would,
“consider how we might adapt Section 24 of the 1986 Act—the statutory bar to disclosure—to enable more information to be disclosed, again ensuring that proper safeguards are included”.—[Official Report, 24/10/11; col. 632.]
I would be grateful if the Minister could set out today what the outcome of those considerations has been, recognising that the longer that such action is delayed, the more concern is likely to grow about the maintenance and enhancement of standards of inspection and care of laboratory animals, and that is something that no one wants to see.
Beyond the directive and its implementation by these regulations, there remain fundamental questions about the use of non-human primates in experiments. As the Minister will be well aware, this area gives rise to particular public concern, notwithstanding the welcome protection that the Minister has already mentioned for great apes.
The Weatherall report was published in 2006. It argued for a national strategic plan for the use of such animals in experiments. I would be grateful if the Minister will tell the Committee what progress has been made in drawing up such a plan. When I raised this issue in your Lordships’ House a year or so ago, the Minister’s predecessor suggested that there had been no such call in the Weatherall report. He and I then embarked on a long and fruitless wrangle about what the report actually said, which concluded when I drew the Minister’s attention to page 140, in the chapter headed “Conclusions and Recommendations”, that states:
“All the stakeholders involved should work together in formulating a national strategic plan for non-human primate research”.
I hope the Minister will avoid another theological wrangle about what precisely the Weatherall report recommended and just let the Committee know today what progress has been made in the formulation of such a plan and what the Government intend to do to ensure that another six years do not elapse before such a plan is formulated.
I look forward to hearing answers from the Minister to all these questions.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I hope that the Minister takes from this debate that there is a significant welcome for the way he introduced his comments today and the great care he took when going through a number of the issues, some of which have been raised by noble Lords.
These are hugely significant regulations. I say at the outset that the Labour Party welcomes the introduction of the EU directive, although the key to the regulations is in the detail that will come though the codes of practice due to be published in January 2013. Will the Minister give an update on when they will be available because we are very close to January, and we would not want to be in the position we have been in with other issues in the Home Office when documents have been delayed? The noble Lord is smiling and nodding his head, which indicates to me that they will be ready in January, but I hope he can confirm that because this guidance and those regulations are crucial.
I am grateful to the RSPCA, FRAME and the BUAV for the information and technical briefing they have provided. As welcome as the directive is, there are some areas of concern, some of which the Minister has already referred to, which was very helpful. The main area is ensuring that the higher standards we have in the UK do not drop as a result of the directive coming into force. Under the rules of directives, higher standards cannot be implemented after a directive comes into force unless they are already within national legislation. There are a number of situations—the use of primates has been mentioned—where we have stronger and better regulations than those in the directive as a whole. I shall come back to some of them in a moment.
The number of animals being used in experiments in Great Britain has been steadily increasing for a number of years. It reached 3,700,000 in 2011, which is higher than at any time in the past 25 years. Despite the concerns of my noble friend Lord Winston, who referred to the three Rs, we support the pledge within the coalition agreement to,
“work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research”.
This revised directive—which many feel to be an improvement on the earlier draft—was published after eight years of discussion throughout Europe. The clear intention is not just to improve standards throughout the EU but to harmonise standards across member states. However, the UK already has a good law in this area: the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Government and the research community have often commented on how well regulated animal research is in the UK.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Certainly, and I hope that we will be able to arrange that in the new year. I think that that is realistic; we have few days left this year; but I am happy to do that. We might also discuss the Weatherall report and the primates strategy. We agree that it is important that the use of primates in research is appropriately monitored. We have made that clear in everything that we have said. We keep the Weatherall report under consideration at all times, but I cannot give a progress report. Perhaps by the time we meet, I might know the answer to the question about page 140. I will try to find it.
I move on to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. They joined up with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. I made it clear that the Animal Sciences Committee is being set up. It will be very similar to the previous committee, but we wanted to create a new committee and the directive requires us to have such a committee. As I said, we have recently advertised for a chair and members, including a member with expertise in ethics.
I have dealt with the question of timing. I have dealt with the guide. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was particularly interested in knowing in which particular areas standards have not been maintained or transposed. We are retaining all the higher UK standards in every case where it will ensure better animal welfare. If she feels that that is not the case in particular instances, I should be very grateful if she would let me know. That is certainly the objective.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That is extremely helpful; I am grateful to the noble Lord. One of the specific instances I mentioned in my comments was about annexes to the directive on humane killing. I do not expect him to answer that today. I take the point that he has made, but if he could write to me on that, that would be helpful.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I can answer it today, because I have the answer here, I hope. We are not transposing Annexe 4 as it stands. We are amending our current ASPA Schedule 1 to retain more humane methods. There is no question of clubbing kittens or chopping the heads off sparrows. I can assure the noble Baroness that we will maintain those higher standards.
There is a clear commitment to prohibit the use of great apes; I think that I made that clear at the beginning, and that continues. We also agree that the current high cage and enclosure sizes are good for welfare, which is why we have maintained all those standards in the transposed regulations.