Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2013

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Grand Committee

Moved By

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2013.

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

The order has our full support to protect people from drugs and from those who make huge amounts of money out of the suffering of others. Action needs to be taken and the Government have our support in doing so.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Baroness very much indeed for her support. The drugalyser is rather a focused piece of kit at the moment and deals with drugs that are commonly available and well recognised as impairing people’s ability to drive properly. I have no doubt that we will have an opportunity in future to debate how that particular piece of equipment will be used. It is a Department for Transport area of activity but of course we are very much involved and, indeed, it was included in the Crime and Courts Bill, which was led by the Home Office. We will continue to monitor it. The short answer is, of course, that such a piece of equipment will be unable to pick up all drugs, but that does not invalidate its introduction as a useful piece of equipment to monitor people’s misuse of drugs while driving.

This order has two elements, which are innovative and have been recognised and welcomed by the noble Baroness, the first of which is the pre-emptive strike. To pick up on the example of the chemical O-desmethyltramadol, we are making clear, before it gets here, that this highly damaging drug is illegal within this country.

The second is generic protection. As the noble Baroness said, this is difficult to put into legislation. However, I must say that page 2 in particular is an impressive piece of drafting. I had a modest education in organic chemistry and can see exactly what the drafters of the legislation sought to do. Almost all the manufactured, synthetic drugs are based on organic chains with psychoactive elements. The legislation recognises the derivation of these compounds, and their reassembly and reformulation to get round the ban will be very much more difficult through the construction of this generic, family-type ban. It will be very useful.

The noble Baroness asked a question to which I do not have the answer, although I should have had. She asked about the progress being made on the internet sale of drugs. I will find out if I can update her on that. Clearly it is an area where illegal marketing goes on. This is of concern and we would want to take every measure to try to stamp it out. I hope that noble Lords can see that this measure is particularly useful in addressing the advent of these legal highs, and I commend the order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Asylum Seekers: Support

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the basis for their decision not to increase provision for asylum support under Sections 4 and 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in 2012; and when they will decide on the level of such provision for 2013.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, there is no statutory obligation to carry out an annual review of asylum support rates and it would be wrong to raise expectations in this area given the current constraints on funding. However, we are committed to an approach to asylum support that is fair, balanced and reasonable. Rightly, no one who has sought our protection need be destitute while waiting for an application to be decided, but, if it is refused and the decision is upheld by the courts, we expect these people to return home.

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

My Lords, I am grateful for, but somewhat puzzled by, that Answer. If the purpose of the support is to prevent anyone falling into destitution, how can that support be reduced in real terms by 6.2% over two years without redefining destitution? Will the Minister commit himself to studying the evidence for destitution in the cross-party report on asylum support for children to be published next week and to take any action necessary to avoid destitution for all, especially children?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I hope that I can reassure the right reverend Prelate. There is an ongoing review of our approach to asylum support, which I expect to be concluded by the end of the financial year. That review will take into account the views of partners, including any recommendations set out in the report of the Children’s Society inquiry into asylum support for children and young people, due to be published next week, I believe.

I put on record my thanks to the right reverend Prelate for his involvement in the production of the report. As noble Lords might assume, any changes to the arrangements will be reported to Parliament.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Group on Children. Is my noble friend aware that it is unreasonable and unfair not to uprate the benefits paid to asylum seekers in common with all other recipients of benefit? With respect to Section 4 support, how much is saved by having a different regime for those people compared to those on Section 95 support? Would it not be better if every asylum seeker was on the same level of benefit, to avoid driving those on Section 4 support into destitution, as has happened?

[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.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

To come from a slightly different angle, so many of those from the European Union who come to the UK find themselves destitute here. What plans have the Government to publicise the availability of accessing national insurance payments that have been made in Poland, Estonia, or wherever, in the United Kingdom?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

As my noble friend rightly points out, this is a slightly different question. Indeed, those benefits are payable by the Department for Work and Pensions rather than the Home Office, but I am sure that I can communicate my noble friend’s suggestion to my colleague in that department.

Intelligence and Security Committee: Annual Report 2011-12

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2013 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, I am sorry to throw the furniture around; it is not a response to what has been a really helpful debate. It has been extremely well informed, as one would expect from the speakers we have had the privilege of listening to.

Before I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, I thank my noble friend the Lord of Lothian for opening this debate. I thank my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, as the two representatives of your Lordships’ House on the Intelligence and Security Committee, for their hard work and diligence. It is evidently no sinecure, as the former chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, has demonstrated to us in her observations.

Having started by thanking them, I put the committee into some context. We should not forget the other members of the committee coming from the other place, in particular the chairman, my right honourable friend Sir Malcolm Rifkind. I thank them all for their contributions to the report and I recognise the support provided by the staff of the committee. I am very impressed by the expertise within the committee and the sheer dedication to its role, which is evident in the quality and volume of work that is produced. Acknowledgement should also be given to the agencies and their excellent work. Noble Lords have been unanimous in their praise, and I join in those sentiments. I would particularly like to publicly congratulate them on helping to deliver a safe and secure Olympic and Paralympic Games. The Games were a perfect example of their ability to deliver under pressure and raised still further the agencies’ reputation here in the UK and internationally.

The ISC’s annual report focused on a number of matters of great importance to the Government. I start by addressing the Justice and Security Bill, on which the noble Baroness made some of her concluding remarks. It is, of course, of particular interest to the ISC. As noble Lords will be aware, I had the privilege of leading the Bill through Report stage in this House and participated in its full and thorough analysis. I thank noble Lords for another informative discussion today because Part 1 of the Bill concerns the oversight of the security and intelligence agencies. That is clearly of great importance and interest to the ISC. I agree with my noble friend the Lord Lothian that the new Bill must not put the ISC in a worse position than currently with regard to the oversight of operational matters. We intend to make amendments to the Bill that may be necessary to ensure that that is not the case.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and my noble friend the Marquess of Lothian made the important point that the ISC must not just be independent but it should be recognised by all as being independent. I agree wholeheartedly with that. The Justice and Security Bill will put the ISC on a stronger footing and enhance its powers, allowing for more effective oversight of intelligence and security matters. It will ensure that the ISC can no longer be open to the unfair accusation that it is just a creature of the Executive.

As I said to noble Lords on Report, it is our intention that the new ISC will be a statutory committee of Parliament, and the Government intend to table an amendment in the other place to make that clear. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, will be reassured by that and by what I am further able to say, because we also intend to give the committee bespoke statutory immunities that will provide it with protections that replicate certain aspects of parliamentary privilege. Specifically, I can reassure my noble friend the Lord Lothian that we are considering providing protection to witnesses before the ISC so that the evidence they give in good faith could not be used against them in criminal, civil or disciplinary proceedings. A lot of work is going on at the moment to make sure that the noble Lord’s ambitions for the ISC can be fulfilled. The Government agree that the ISC will require an uplift of resourcing to enable it to undertake its strengthened oversight functions and we are discussing with the committee the precise nature of that uplift.

Part 2 of the Justice and Security Bill has generated the most interest among colleagues and the media, with some unfairly suggesting that it is a tool to cover up agency wrongdoing. It is anything but a tool for cover-ups. Closed material proceedings will in fact allow for more cases involving the intelligence services to be heard, including cases that previously could not be heard at all. Nothing that is currently heard in open court will be heard in secret in the future. The Bill is about ensuring that allegations made against the Government involving intelligence material are fully investigated and scrutinised by the courts, while addressing the potentially severe implications that could arise if sensitive intelligence secrets were disclosed in open court. In response to the suggestion—made by some outside the debate today, I hasten to add—that CMPs are open to misuse, I would emphasise that judges, not the Executive, make the final decision as to whether a closed hearing can take place, and we have put in place safeguards to make sure that that is the case.

I am strongly of the view that the provisions in the Bill are a measured and proportionate response to the challenges we face. I appreciate the work of the ISC and of noble Lords in scrutinising the Bill during its passage through the Lords, and I anticipate that scrutiny in the House of Commons will lead to further refinement of its provisions.

The ISC report outlines major areas of the threat to our national security, including international and Northern Ireland-related terrorism, hostile foreign activity and nuclear proliferation. To ensure we continue to face these challenges appropriately, we need a clear strategic direction. As flagged in the their response, the Government support the committee’s recommendation that it is imperative that policy implications and analytical judgments remain separate in any intelligence assessment provided to Ministers.

I welcome the committee’s recognition of the agencies’ rapid response to the Arab spring. I also understand the committee’s concern that it was not foreseen. I must reiterate the points laid out in our response to the report that, in countries where you have tightly controlling regimes, it is often not possible to predict the extent to which people will take to the streets and demonstrate. It is impossible for our intelligence resources to cover the whole world at all times. The agencies rightly prioritise those countries where secret intelligence can add the greatest value. The challenge is to retain flexible capabilities that can be rapidly deployed to respond to emerging situations, such as the Arab spring—or the Arab awakening, as my noble friend Lord Lothian preferred to call it.

The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, quoted from our recent past history to illustrate graphically that we still depend on the exercise of judgment in prioritising intelligence gathered and indeed intelligence gathering.

With reference to the Olympics, I am extremely pleased to be able to say that the Games were a triumph for safety and security. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Butler, have referred to this. A considerable amount of work went into ensuring that the Games were secure, and the Security Service had to cope with an increased level of risk across its portfolio of work. It is a testament to the service that it managed this risk effectively and was able to maintain the appropriate levels of resourcing to cover areas of additional potential concern that were not terrorism-related. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said, it avoided the risks to the nation as well as to the Games.

A number of noble Lords have rightly talked about cybersecurity as another key theme within the annual report. The Government response explained our approach to improving cybersecurity in the United Kingdom and we will be extending this work going forward. This will include the rollout of a programme of public awareness initiatives, delivered in partnership with the private sector and aimed at increasing cyber confidence and improving online safety for both consumers and businesses. At every level, cybersecurity is an issue and I note noble Lords’ comments that, while they welcome the Government’s funding commitment, there is a need for a sustainable funding stream for this activity into the future.

We are also supporting the development of cybersecurity skills and education across the UK in schools, higher education and beyond, including the “Behind the Screen” initiative to provide cybersecurity education at GCSE level. The future lies in us all being well educated about risks that the failure to provide cybersecurity can bring. I agree with the committee that cybersecurity is a key issue for UK national security and I can reassure noble Lords that the Government take this extremely seriously.

The ISC annual report, quite rightly, refers to counterproliferation as a key issue and references, in particular, concerns regarding Iran and its continuing efforts to enrich uranium in violation of six UN Security Council resolutions. In response, we are committed to a dual-track approach of engagement and peaceful pressure. The past year saw a significant increase of pressure, including an EU oil embargo and enhanced financial sanctions. Iran and the E3+3 grouping, which consists of the UK, France, Germany, the US, China and Russia, met four times to discuss Iran’s nuclear programme and, in December 2012, a further round of talks was offered to Iran. I think that this is the right approach.

The noble Baroness mentioned TPIMs. The ISC report noted its concerns about the new terrorism and prevention investigation measures regime, and there have been suggestions that the abscond of Ibrahim Magag has shown that its concerns were well placed. National security is the Government’s top priority, and the police, security services and other agencies are doing everything in their power to apprehend this man as quickly as possible. I would emphasise that this is not a reflection on the effectiveness of the TPIM regime and that this abscond had nothing to do with the change from control orders to TPIMs. The TPIM Act provides rigorous measures to manage the threat posed by terror suspects who we cannot yet prosecute or deport by limiting their ability to communicate, associate and travel. This is the first abscond by someone subject to a TPIM, and it should be noted that, in the six years of control orders, there were seven absconds. David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said that:

“The only sure way to prevent absconding is to lock people in a high security prison”.

I agree, and said so in the debate we had on the Urgent Question. Where an individual cannot be prosecuted or deported, whatever steps are taken and wherever they are located in the country, there will always be a risk of their absconding, just as there were under control orders. It has been suggested that a review of the TPIM system should be undertaken. I am satisfied that the TPIM regime is a robust and effective system for dealing with terror suspects who we cannot yet prosecute or deport, but we will review our procedures following this incident. I remind noble Lords that, as part of his role as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson also conducts an annual report that covers TPIMs. I would expect him to examine this as part of his review.

We have spoken today, and there have been quite a lot of discussions, about budgets and resources and the pressures faced by the agencies. My noble friend Lord Lothian mentioned this in his introduction and many noble Lords have referred to it. It has been the policy of successive Governments not to reveal details of the individual agency budgets, and I do not intend to diverge from this particular practice. However, I am able to say that the Government welcome the ISC’s recognition of the vital role that, for example, Defence Intelligence plays within the Whitehall intelligence community. The reduction of the deficit is the Government’s top priority—all noble Lords will understand that—which means bearing down on public expenditure. The MoD, in common with the three agencies, will have to make economies to meet the demands placed on it by government, and no area of the MoD’s business can be exempt from those economies. However, I am confident that DI will continue to prioritise in those areas that matter most to UK national interests and defence. DI retains the ability to surge people into these areas, should the need arise, and work collaboratively with allies in areas of mutual interest where it is a national priority to do so.

The total security and intelligence agencies budget is approximately £2 billion per annum. It was and still is recognised that the spending review settlement will be challenging for the agencies. They will need to maximise value for money, efficiencies and collaborative working in order to live within this settlement. Agency heads are aware of the need to deliver efficiency savings while continuing to maintain capability; and there has been steady progress towards this over the past year.

The ISC has full access to the budgets of the agencies and I trust that it will continue to draw attention to any funding issues it feels warrant particular consideration. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee talked about the recruitment and retention of personnel. That must be a matter to which the Government and the ISC should pay proper attention. I note the committee’s concerns about the achievement of sustainable efficiencies, particularly from collaborative working. The National Security Adviser will continue to monitor the agencies’ ability to meet these matters.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee raised concerns over the agencies’ ability to maintain effective staffing levels. In response to changes in the nature of the threat and the economic climate, the agencies have reviewed their staffing and skills requirements to ensure that they are in the best shape to meet future national security challenges. Each agency undertook a programme of redundancies or early release. These programmes, alongside recruitment in key areas, have enabled the agencies to grow the skills and expertise that they need to meet their future objectives and provide greater room for capacity growth within the organisations. The Government recognise that recruitment and retention of internet specialists at GCHQ is a matter of the greatest importance. We have therefore been working closely and urgently with GCHQ to identify a sustainable package of measures to improve its capacity to attract and retain staff with the necessary internet skills and to implement these measures by the end of the year. We will of course continue to monitor the situation and review these new measures.

I should make a point about diversity. Vetting is essential to the agencies to ensure the security of their work. Nationality requirements can pose real challenges in the case of some minority applicants and I hope that noble Lords will understand that. However, we are working with the agencies to improve diversity. A number of recruitment campaigns online and in the printed media have been specifically designed to attract those from diverse backgrounds.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee also raised the issue of attendance at JIC and NSC. These two bodies have regular attendees. However, with neither body does this prevent others attending when a subject under discussion is relevant.

I am sorry if I have spoken at some length but this has been a substantial debate on an important matter of public interest. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in a debate on a wide-ranging report. I warmly welcome the annual report and look forward to future annual reports being equally or—given the new arrangements in train for the ISC—perhaps even more insightful. Finally, I conclude by paying tribute once again to the enormous contribution made by the security and intelligence agencies in ensuring that the British public are properly protected. The men and women who work in our agencies are hugely skilled, professional and dedicated. The burdens that secrecy imposes on their private lives can be great and we owe them a great debt of gratitude.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, I have thought hard if not long about how to respond to the debate on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hart. I recognise that many noble Lords will have their own reasons for lending their support to one side or the other. Sometimes this may be a matter of conviction. Sometimes one may see party advantage one way or another. I am going to ask noble Lords to put all that to one side. Before I challenge some of the issues raised by the debate, I would like to focus the attention of the Committee on the implications of passing the amendment.

Some might say that this is an amendment conceived in mischief. I know and like all the noble Lords whose names are on the amendment, but I expect all of them will have to acknowledge that they have been disingenuous, if persistent, in seeking to include it in the Bill, for it seeks to postpone the provisions of an Act passed by this House and by Parliament less than two years ago. We should not forget the context in which the many measures for providing for constitutional change were brought before Parliament. Following the expenses scandal all parties recognise the need for change. The reduction in the size of the House of Commons and the provision for an immediate boundary review to be repeated in each fixed-term Parliament were designed to restore public confidence in the political institutions of which this House is a part.

This was the manner in which the House debated the measure. It was thoroughly argued into the early hours and indeed, memorably, through the night on one occasion. Issues that I am sure are fresh in noble Lords’ minds were raised, argued and resolved from the bandwidth of variation in constituency size, the historic overrepresentation of some parts of the United Kingdom and the need to reconcile that with geographical, local and historical ties. From the Tamar valley to the Isle of Wight to Orkney and Shetland, the Bill was passed. It is the law.

How stands the House should it now say, without good cause, that the provisions of the near-completed boundary review should not be implemented for the election for which they were designed? How stand politicians who argue this way? How stands politics as a consequence? Where does it put this House in the eyes of the people should the Committee choose to pass the amendment? We will not be seen, as we would choose to be seen, as the guardians of constitutional propriety or active above and beyond narrow interests and loyalties. No, we will be seen as being no different from the rest of them, motivated by hubris and cynicism. We have recently won time to demonstrate the strengths of the House. Indeed, it would appear from the comments of my noble friend who attended the Constitutional Committee that the future form of this House is the subtext as to why the amendment is here today, and I am replying to it. We should see the trap that has been laid.

I have listened to the arguments of those supporting the amendment. It is still not clear whether there is agreement on the ambiguity at the heart of it. The current review, based on the December 2010 register, is one for which current law provides. How does its deferment stand under the amendment? Is it to be kept on ice and used for the 2020 election, despite the fact that it will then be based on a register that will be nearly 10 years old or is the work to be abandoned and a new review used for the May 2020 election? Whatever, it is clear that in the absence of the current boundary review, it would be the old boundaries, based on a register as old as February 2000 as far as England is concerned, that would be used for the May 2015 general election.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I think it is clear from the wording of the Act that, as a result of the amendment, if there was a review with a boundary review date of 2018, then the register that would be taken would be 1 December 2015.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am reassured that the noble and learned Lord makes that point, but that means that this particular boundary review has been a wasted effort in his mind. I would like to challenge why that is the case. This particular piece of legislation affects only individual electoral registration. It does not affect the boundaries of constituencies—certainly not for the next election. That lies in existing legislation that is not the subject of the Bill. If the Committee has had difficulty in addressing this issue, it rather proves the point of relevance. We have heard some marvellous speeches for and against individual registration of electors, which is the subject of the Bill before the Committee, but it is hardly going to be affected by this amendment because the 2015 boundaries are based on the 2010 register, which is already in existence and cannot be affected by a change of register for this occasion. That register has nothing to do with individual voter registration or the Bill.

There have been lots of contributions from all sides of the Committee about individual electoral registration and, in particular, criticisms of the transitional procedures. That is perfectly proper. That is what the Bill is about. The Bill is about the process of individual electoral registration. However, they are irrelevant as far as the amendment is concerned because it seeks to defer a boundary review that is based on the old system of registration, namely the 2010 register. That is why, I suspect, the clerks found it extremely difficult to find relevance in the amendment because it does not affect the subject of the Bill that is before the Committee of the House.

There has often been mention of the differing views within the coalition on the presentation and approval of the current review, which is now more or less completed. That may be so but, as the law stands, it is not the Government, or the coalition, that decide the response to the Boundary Commission; it is Parliament and it will have the final say. However, the amendment would deny this Parliament that opportunity by preventing the Boundary Commission finishing its work and so denying the House of Commons of this Parliament an opportunity to take an informed decision on the Commission’s proposals. Is it right that this House takes it upon itself to deny the House of Commons that opportunity? Herein lies the trap for those of us who believe in the unique contribution that this House can make to our parliamentary democracy and the delicate constitutional underpinning that lies beneath it. Noble Lords can, of course, ignore this and press ahead with their amendments. I hope they do not subsequently rue the day. Rather, I hope noble Lords will reflect further on where this amendment might put this House, and politicians and politics in general. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Chilton, to do so and to withdraw his amendment.

Should the noble Lord and his colleagues press on and seek the support of the Committee, I ask all noble Lords to think this matter through, as I have tried to do myself. It is a virtue of this place that I can address all the Benches and say that we in this House should be very wary of defying the will of this Parliament, as expressed in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act. I certainly do not seek to argue that the elections to another place are no concern of this House or this Committee—the Bill we are discussing is all about that—but I do say that we fail in our constitutional function if we deny another place fairness of constituency size.

[Lord Rooker]

With respect, the Minister has now said, on about three or four occasions, that we are tying the other place. If this amendment is passed, it has to go to the other place for agreement. The other place can choose not to accept it—we are not forcing legislation on the other place. The House of Lords cannot force legislation on the House of Commons; the House of Commons must agree to this and may choose not to.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That is perfectly correct. I was just asking noble Lords to consider where that puts this House in its relationship with the other place. Where does it put this House to provoke and to seek to deny, at our instigation, the Boundary Commission whose review both Houses of this Parliament determined should take place and should apply to the forthcoming election? I think it quite remarkable that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, seeks to pretend that there are not implications for this House in this particular amendment being passed. I think that there are and that it would be irresponsible of me not to advise the House that there are great dangers in this.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, how would the reputation of this House be damaged if the other place decided to follow exactly the position adopted in this House?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it would be because we will have shown that we are not in a position to take advice from our clerks, that we seek to trample roughshod over the conventions of this House and that we are passing an amendment that is not relevant to the Bill that we were considering when we formed this Committee this afternoon. When we went into Committee, we were discussing a Bill about individual electoral registration. That is right, proper and the subject of the Committee, and there can be varying views on that. We were not seeking to overturn an Act, passed by this House less than two years ago, which provided for electoral boundaries for a forthcoming election. What we will in effect be doing is forcing the other House to reject our ill considered—in my view—and unwise amendment.

We began this debate with my noble friend the Leader of the House explaining that there are two issues at stake here: the inadmissibility of this amendment, which is indisputable, and the substance—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

It is indisputable that the amendment is inadmissible. The House may overrule that, but it is inadmissible. The other issue is the substance of this amendment. The noble Lord the Leader of the House also explained that we would have to resolve both issues in a single vote. I would like to remind the House of just that. If the noble Lord, Lord Hart, wishes to press this matter to a vote, and noble Lords are inclined to support him, they will be forced to decide what their greater priority is: to support the substance of the amendment, and ignore the advice of the clerks or to uphold the advice of the clerks on inadmissibility and therefore vote to defeat this amendment.

If the noble Lord insists on pressing his amendment, I am clear where I stand. I will seek to uphold the advice of the clerks. I will therefore be voting against this amendment, and I urge all noble Lords who value the customs and practice of this place, from whatever part of the House they come, to do likewise.

[Lord Hart of Chilton]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to all the arguments put in this debate. I am afraid that I do not accept what the noble Lord has just said. I wish to test the opinion of the House and, in doing so, I repeat that there is no disrespect to the clerks. This is a genuine difference of opinion, for which this House must take the decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, there is no question of inadmissibility for these amendments. Indeed, questions were raised during the debate that we had a short while ago that addressed, in particular, the transitional arrangements to the new, individual electoral register.

Two subjects are under discussion and, if noble Lords will permit, I will deal with them in turn. The first is the removal of absent votes from those electors who do not register under IER in 2014. My noble friend Lord Rennard’s Amendment 50 and Amendment 51, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, speak to that issue. The amendments would leave in place absent votes for the 2015 general election for voters who have not registered or been verified under IER. To respond to my noble friend’s challenge, I think that he is saying that that is incompatible with the arrangements that we have elsewhere. One of the drivers of IER is tackling electoral fraud, and especially vulnerabilities to registration fraud, to restore voters’ confidence in the system. Moving to a position where all those casting postal votes or using proxies have been verified through IER will add an additional safeguard to the system at the earliest possible opportunity.

The Electoral Commission agrees with this position and stated in response to Amendment 50:

“We oppose this amendment because we believe that the security of the absent voting process should be improved in advance of the 2015 UK general election”.

The use of data matching to confirm entries will mean that a significant number of current postal voters are likely to be able automatically to retain their postal vote in the 2015 general election. Others who are not automatically confirmed on the new register will be given an opportunity and reminders to register under the new system in 2014 and, if they choose not to, will still be able to cast a vote—not a postal or proxy vote, but one in person—at the 2015 general election. We are not disfranchising anyone, but the driver is, of course, to get people to register under IER.

There will be clear communication to anyone with an absent vote who is invited to register under the new system about what will happen if they do not do so, and in the event that the person does not register, they will be written to again to inform them that they have lost their absent vote and giving them the opportunity to register under IER and reapply for their absent vote. This is a participatory exercise; it is not designed to remove legitimate voters from the register.

Those steps, alongside the addition of the other measures we have introduced to maintain completeness, such as the introduction of the civil penalty, minimise the risk of someone with an absent vote inadvertently losing it, which was one of the noble and learned Lord’s concerns, while as promptly as possible bringing in an important safeguard against fraud.

I now turn to Amendments 48, 49 and 58, each of which relate to the carry-forward of existing electors under IER. I briefly remind the Committee that, under our proposals, there is already a carry-forward function to include those from whom a canvass form has been received in the final pre-transition canvass, which we intend to conclude in spring 2014. Those who do not make a successful application to register and are not confirmed by data matching, which of course the vast majority will be, will remain on the register throughout the transition to TIER, including the register used for the 2015 general election.

Amendment 48, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, would have the effect of including in this carry-forward those electors who last registered in the canvass of 2012. This would retain until 2015 the entries of electors added to the register last year who did not respond positively to the final non-IER canvass. If entries from 2012 were kept on the register until 2015 without any subsequent evidence that the person was still resident there, the register for the next general election would contain entries where the ERO had not heard from the elector for more than two years. We believe that this is too long for the ERO to remain satisfied that the citizen is indeed still resident and that the effect of this amendment would be to increase the inaccuracies on the register, something I think all Members of the Committee would agree should be avoided. Indeed, much of the debate we had earlier was about inaccuracies on the register.

Amendment 49, also tabled by the noble and learned Lord, would extend the carry-forward for one year, so that non-IER entries on the register are not removed until 2016. Amendment 58, tabled by my noble friend Lord Rennard, would mean that the final transition to an electoral register made up solely of individually registered electors could take place only following Parliament approving a statutory instrument. We are not minded to adopt these proposals because of the likelihood of the inaccuracies they will bring to these early IER registers. We know that carrying forward non-IER entries on the register will result in some inaccurate entries being carried forward. We judge that this is an acceptable risk to take to protect the registers for the general election in 2015.

However, when the registers are published, after the 2015 canvass, in December 2015 it could have been nearly two years since the ERO had heard from the individuals in question here, which brings in the risk of a high degree of inaccuracy. Under the noble and learned Lord’s amendment these entries would remain on the register and under my noble friend’s amendment they would remain on the register if Parliament did not vote to engage the removals process in 2015. Furthermore, under our plans, by the time of publication of the registers in 2015, those individuals who are not confirmed automatically at the start of the transition will have had more than a year to register individually, over two canvasses, and will have been contacted a number of times by their ERO. There will also be a general election between the two canvasses—a time when awareness of politics and voting is at its highest. Our intention—and I hope this reassures noble Lords who are the authors of these amendments—remains that EROs will write to individuals who have neither registered nor been confirmed towards the end of the 2015 canvass to inform them that they will be removed and to offer them one further chance to apply to be registered.

I hope that is reassuring. The intention behind these amendments is to maintain the number of entries on the register, but in our view they risk reducing the accuracy of the register to an unacceptable degree. In the case of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Rennard there is also the difficulty of creating uncertainty for the public and administrators which could undermine the effectiveness of our plans for the transition. The Government are confident that our proposals for the transition to IER are about right. We will avoid the problems that this group of amendments is intended to address and, for the reasons I have set out, I urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive reply. Two things go through my mind. First, in relation to the 2014-15 change, he acknowledges that despite all the efforts being made to get people to register by IER it may not work. If that is right, why will it work in relation to postal or proxy votes but not in relation to individual registration? Secondly and separately, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, referred to the effect of the information that is coming out, and we know what the data-matching pilots are saying. Do they not make the Government think that a longer carryover period is be required? In particular, the data-matching pilots are showing that only about 70% of names are matching up, which may not be enough. I hope the Government will think about those matters. We will certainly think again and consider whether to come back on Report. I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, it is very hard to imagine that the Government will say anything but yes to the amendment—no, I do not think that I am quite getting that message back.

I am sorry about that. I hope that between now and Report, the Government will think about the amendment seriously. The numbers here may not be as full as they were earlier, but it is clear that it is pretty widely supported. We on all these Benches fully support it. As we have heard, so does the Electoral Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, suggested that it has been left up to individual assistant returning officers. It is not fair to put it on to their shoulders, particularly if there is a TV camera looking over them at that point, whether they decide to be sensible or not; whether the queue is inside or outside; or whether, if there is more than one ballot paper because we have a multiple election, as we often do, and people have one in their hand but not the other, they are to deny them that vote. It is not fair for the decision to be on the person in charge of that polling station.

I also do not think that it is fair that if you turn up at 10 o’clock in a nice, quiet area you can wander in—as sometimes one does in the Lobby here when there are not many on our side—but if you as an elector happen to turn up in a busy area, you will be discriminated against because other people will also have turned up late.

I had not heard of the government advice to turn up early. That is the reverse of what we had when I was young: it was called drinking-up time. We used to be allowed 10 minutes that way. That suggests that the Government want us all to be there at 10 minutes to the hour. We do risk assessments elsewhere, where we look at likelihood and impact. I think that the Government are right that the likelihood of this is low. Returning officers have realised that there are cameras and that they should not do that again. The likelihood may be low, but the impact will be high both on those going to the polling station—it is serious that they cannot vote—and on those watching on television people who have turned out to vote but who are not allowed to. We do not want that. I hope that the Government will think again about this.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, I thought that I had had enough excitement for today, but this is an interesting debate. At first sight, everyone was positively affronted by the fact that people intending to vote found themselves in a queue and were unable to do so. At the previous election it was a disgrace. If I remember the press reports right, one of the queues was well over 100 people long. It was clearly a huge error on the part of the people responsible for organising the polling stations. Contrary to what has been implied, these were not people turning up at the last minute. The queues had formed during the day and existed for quite a lot of the evening. Those of us involved in elections will know that the peak time for voting tends to be between 5 pm and about 8 pm. If a queue has formed then—it can happen; I think that most of us will have seen that—one would hope it is not big enough to disadvantage voters who come along later. However, the size of the queues at the previous election—which were reported during the day—clearly impaired the ability of people to vote, and that is not a good thing.

I am going to disappoint noble Lords, particularly those on the Constitution Committee, because I know that my honourable friend Chloe Smith talked to them last Wednesday. The answers she gave them are very similar to the answers I am going to give. I hope that the House will forgive me. It may be that those answers are right. We have to think through a change of this nature and think of the consequences. The Constitution Committee, as the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Lexden, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, also supported this aim and obviously has given this matter a great deal of thought. It takes the view that this would give greater clarity. We need to write the discretion of the polling station clerk into law so that they can do that. I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, but we are not entirely sure that it would help to clarify the present arrangements.

While it might seem initially like a sensible response to the queueing at 9.40 pm, there is a real danger of creating unintended consequences and reducing the clarity and certainty of the law. As it stands, the law is very clear—a ballot paper cannot be issued after 10 pm. Elections are quite precise affairs. Votes are a matter of quite fine delineation and that is particularly true in local government elections. Although queues in local government elections are relatively rare, they were referred to in the Scottish local government elections. Returning officers, polling station clerks and voters know where they stand because it is enshrined in law. The present certainty around the time of close of poll and what close of poll actually means—no issuing of the ballot paper—also facilitates other aspects, for example, the requirement that exit polls cannot be published until the polls have closed. If the polls have not closed somewhere because there is a queue this makes it much more difficult for those responsible for public exit polls to be sure that anything they say may not influence a potential voter. It may sound pedantic but we are talking about something which requires precision. What would be the impact of this on the timing of results if a significant number of electors queued up? I do not think it is beyond the wit of certain people to have a bit of fun with this and to form a queue. It can be done and it might occur. There is also the risk that some people might use this as an opportunity to make a public statement about elections, particularly in areas where tensions exist.

It has been remarked that controlling and delineating a queue is quite difficult. Where is a queue? What is a queue? Most of us think that we know one when we see one, but not many of us would like to take responsibility for actually harnessing a queue, particularly without the power of a police officer. After all, the police officer is not acting under the instructions of the returning officer. A police officer would not wish to interfere with what constituted a queue, while those administering the election might be better off issuing ballot papers rather than trying to organise a queue. I am suggesting that there are factors of people control and definition that are important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Baroness makes an interesting suggestion. It is rather like the doorkeepers here keeping the doors open after eight minutes; in exactly the same way, it is quite difficult to close the doors. It is definable, though, and I accept what the noble Baroness says. It is easier to manage a building in which the writ of the polling clerks actually operates than perhaps a street scene, where it would be quite difficult for polling clerks to define to an individual person that they were outside the scope of the queue because they joined the queue after 10 pm. That is in effect what we are having to suggest, is it not?

[Lord Tyler]

I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has just said because it showed an openness of mind that I confess I have not previously witnessed from Ministers on this issue. I wonder if I could take this a step further: has he any evidence that every single presiding officer in every single polling station in the country did not take what I would regard as the common-sense view, when someone was standing there in the polling station ready to get a ballot paper when the clock struck 10 pm, and issue them with a ballot paper?

The Minister has referred to exit polls. I do not think that Parliament should worry too much about those who conduct exit polls. Those polls are taken only when people come out of the polling station, so frankly they are not relevant in the present circumstances to what we have been discussing. However, I am very encouraged by his openness of mind; perhaps with an appropriate tweak to this amendment, we might all make some progress.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington]

My Lords, before the Minister replies, I would like to add one sentence: one of the legal advisers to the Constitution Committee said that he thought it was beyond common sense to suggest that it was impossible for the parliamentary draftsmen to define a queue in terms that would be properly understood in an Act or a piece of law.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not know; I am not a parliamentary draftsman, but I would hesitate to define a queue that stopped existing at 10 pm so that part of the queue was within a queue and another part was in a non-queue.

I am interested in what the noble Lord said. I think that he has misunderstood the point about exit polls. They cannot be published until polls have closed, for fear that they might influence people who have not yet voted. Therefore, voters who are queuing up could be listening to the radio and getting an exit poll, and that could influence the outcome. I am sorry, but that is the very purist view about the publication of exit polls. This shows the importance of defining these matters quite strictly, because one thing about elections is that you do not want people saying, “It is not fair”. That is what noble Lords are saying about people who have been excluded from voting because they were not given the opportunity of getting a ballot paper and casting it. I accept that: it was not acceptable. I suggest, however, that the way to deal with it is to ensure that the resources to process voters are adequate to ensure that queuing is not a problem.

I am delighted that my noble friend thinks I have an openness of mind; I always have an openness of mind and think it is very important in politics to have one. However, that does not necessarily mean that I am going to be able to come back with a response that is more positive than that which I have given previously. Noble Lords should understand that. The definition that lies behind the current arrangements provides clarity for both voters and those responsible for managing electoral processes, without any ambiguity at all. The Government would not wish to put on the statute book a provision which is not only unclear—because, although the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, says that it should be possible to make it clear what a queue is, I think it would be quite difficult—but might also send a message that queues are acceptable; that as long as the resources are adequate, if there happens to be a queue formed, then it is perfectly all right. I do not believe that that is the case; I think that those responsible for organising elections should make adequate provision to process voters so that queues do not form. That is the right way to proceed.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

I am very interested in the issues for which the Minister is identifying the problems and unintended consequences. Does he have evidence that any of these have occurred in the cases where the practice already exists? I wonder whether the words “holes” and “digging” come to mind.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I was not aware that I was in a hole, but I may be. I do not know what the noble Lord is referring to. Is he referring to the Scottish experience, for example?

[Lord Norton of Louth]

Yes.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

There is no experience there to suggest that there is any problem; the numbers involved are very small indeed. The noble Baroness—or possibly the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—talked about three voters. The note I have here says that possibly 10 voters may have been issued with a ballot paper after 10 pm under the more liberal regimes. This is nowhere near the scale of the 2010 general election situation here. I should say that in the United States, the majority of queues that form there are the result of mechanical voting and the breakdown of the technology used for voting. That is not the same sort of problem that we are talking about here.

I hope I have given noble Lords a run-down of the difficulties that Parliament would face if it chose to be more flexible in this area. I hope the noble Lord will feel free to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Pannick]

I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting debate, not least to the Minister, despite his surprising failure to fulfil the expectation of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and simply say yes to this amendment. The noble Lord recognised that at first sight, everyone would see the force of this amendment. I would hope that any reasonable observer would retain that opinion after considering the matter at length.

I cannot for my part see that the amendment would introduce any lack of clarity into this area of the law or that any minimal reduction in clarity should outweigh the fundamental right to vote. Concern about exit polls, deliberate queue forming and problems about what is a queue, all of which are factors to which the Minister referred, certainly demonstrate the noble Lord’s considerable debating skills. But whether these are realistic problems are matters on which I would take a different view. For my part, I would be very doubtful that a queue needs to be defined. I would be satisfied that a polling officer would be able to address any problem, not least with the assistance of any relevant guidance from the Electoral Commission and would know a queue when he or she saw one.

I will withdraw the amendment, not least because it would be inappropriate to vote on a 10 pm rule as the hour approaches 10 pm. There certainly would be no need for the doorkeepers to stand at the back of any queue were we to vote tonight. However, I say to the Minister that we will return to this matter on Report. I will carefully consider of course what he has said when I have read the debate. But at the moment I am wholly unconvinced by the arguments that he has put forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth is absolutely right to raise this issue in this context because the change to individual electoral registration provides a precise opportunity to think about this matter again. As he properly said, it already improves the situation and it is the right moment to be looking at this issue.

However, I confess that I am somewhat bemused. The most persuasive case for retaining the edited register has come from charities and credit agencies, both of which have a proper and natural interest that we should recognise. Theirs is a proper use of this data. It is rather unusual to hear a Conservative, of all people, apparently decrying that very proper interest of such organisations in accurate data of this sort.

It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is introducing a new idea, as he has done just now, by suggesting that some organisations of that sort should have access to the full register. That brings us to a very difficult problem of definition because under Amendment 56, he is apparently defining what a commercial purpose is. A credit agency would certainly be a commercial purpose. Is seeking to raise money for a charity not also a commercial purpose? I find it slightly bewitching at this time of night that a dedicated Conservative Peer appears to denigrate the idea of having a commercial purpose at all, as if it is somehow a disreputable activity. I therefore have a problem of definition under Amendment 56.

However, I return to my original point. It is perfectly right, proper and appropriate that we should ask the Government at this stage to be thinking about this matter. Amendment 57 is clearly the least objectionable option that the noble Lord has put forward, but I wonder whether, if electors had to opt into an edited register, many would do so and whether the whole exercise would become a wasteful bureaucratic nightmare. The opt-in option would, in that sense, be a red herring.

However, this is obviously the right moment to be asking Ministers to think again, and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will do just that. If he is unable to make progress in persuading the Committee in one direction or another, perhaps this is a matter that we will have to return to on Report.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I welcome that contribution from my noble friend Lord Tyler because he points to the fact that commercial activity is highly desired by this Government. We look for the growth agenda and when people are looking for a job, they perhaps think that that is a bigger principle than anything that my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth may have raised.

I should make it clear that, before 2002, the full register was available for purchase by commercial organisations. There was no opt-out and no edited version was available. The edited version was produced in order to protect individuals who did not want such purchases to happen, and that opt-out arrangement remains current and will continue through the change to individual voter registration.

There has been discussion with interested parties on this matter. This is not the Government making their mind up without having discussed these matters with commercial organisations and electoral organisers. The Government have decided, on balance, to retain the edited register and the current opt-out arrangements. However, were the edited register to be abolished, there would be strong pressure for increased access to the full electoral register, from which no one can opt out. The Government are concerned about the potential impact this could have on registration rates; if people did not want to be removed from this register by an opt-out, they may choose not to register at all. On balance, the Government believe that an edited register from which electors can choose to opt out is the right outcome. It is worth noting, as I said before, that before the creation of the edited register in 2002, the full electoral register, including everyone’s name, address and details, was available for purchase by any commercial or other organisation.

Amendment 56 is, as my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth says, a little by way of an “either/or”. It would prohibit the use of an edited edition of the electoral register for commercial purposes, and require the Secretary of State to define designated organisations. We are aware that some within the electoral community have argued that data collected for electoral purposes should not be used for commercial gain. On the other hand, I have presented the case for the use of the register as an aid to business and commerce. I hope that my noble friend will take that seriously. Others have argued that the edited register provides significant economic and social benefits. Crucially, anyone who does not wish their details to be used for commercial—or any other—purposes is able to opt out of the edited register.

Under IER, registration forms will also include a statement on the processing of the data supplied by the individual, including the uses of the registers. The Government are reviewing the name and description of the two versions of the electoral register to ensure that it is as clear as possible to registering voters what the circumstances are and to enable them to make a fully informed choice. Given this important safeguard, I see no reason to limit the uses to which the edited register can be put.

My noble friend’s Amendment 57 would remove the current opt-out arrangements for the edited version of the electoral register, in favour of an opt- in. The Government take the handling of personal information seriously and believe that providing electors with a choice to opt out, alongside sufficient information—of which I have given an indication to my noble friend—to allow the individual to make an informed choice, provides appropriate protection and control. Electors will also be familiar with the choice of an opt-out; this has been in operation for a decade now.

However, we believe that the current system, where most electors are asked to make a fresh choice each year about whether they wish to opt out, is unnecessary. We are therefore proposing that under IER an individual’s choice will be carried forward unless and until they inform their registration officer that they wish to make a new choice or they complete a new application to register. We also intend to make it as simple and straightforward as possible for electors to change their preference at any time.

I hope that noble Lords will believe that I have tried to give as positive a response as I can. We are sensitive to the issues which underlie my noble friend’s amendments, but I ask him to withdraw them.

Ibrahim Magag: Disappearance

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, I will now repeat the Answer to an Urgent Question asked in the other place earlier today. The Answer, given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, is as follows:

“On 26 December 2012, Ibrahim Magag, a Somali-born British national who is subject to a terrorism prevention and investigation measure, failed to report for his overnight residence requirement. As I told the House yesterday, the police believe that he has absconded, and his whereabouts are currently unknown.

On 31 December, at the request of the police, I asked the High Court to revoke the anonymity order that was in force in relation to Magag. The police subsequently issued a public appeal for information that might lead to his location and apprehension. The Government took steps to inform Parliament of this incident as soon as it was lawful and operationally possible to do so. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department spoke to the chairmen of the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee on 31 December. This was followed by letters to both committee chairmen, to the shadow Home Secretary and to you, Mr Speaker. Copies of those letters were placed in the Library of the House on the same day.

The statements that the police issued on 31 December and on 2 January confirm that, at this time, Magag is not considered to represent a direct threat to the British public. The TPIM notice in this case was intended primarily to prevent fundraising and overseas travel. The Government do not believe that Magag’s disappearance is linked to any current terrorism planning in the UK. Nevertheless, we are of course taking this matter very seriously.

The police are doing everything in their power to apprehend Magag as quickly as possible. Although I cannot give operational details, I can confirm that the police, the Security Service and other agencies are devoting significant resources to the search for Magag. Members of the public with any information relating to the search should contact the confidential police anti-terrorist hotline.

Before the shadow Home Secretary stands up again, I would like to remind the House that this is not the first abscond of a terror suspect. In six years of control orders, there were seven absconds. Of those seven cases, six were never apprehended. Magag’s abscond is serious, and the authorities are doing everything they can to locate him. I will update the House when there are further developments as soon as it is possible to do so”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I can confirm the latter point. The last time he was seen, he was reported as getting into a taxi.

The noble Baroness misconstrues the nature of the TPIM system, which succeeds the control order system but is designed to provide proportionate supervision for people where evidence does not exist to secure a conviction. The only true way of dealing with terrorists is to find the evidence to convict them and to put them into prison; that is the only secure place that we can put them. That is a process of law for which we require evidence. TPIM is a mechanism whereby we can at least prevent the movement and control the location of individuals in the way that we have done.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, Parliament rightly put TPIMs at the heart of our intelligence, but in the case of Ibrahim Magag they obviously did not work. Is the Minister satisfied that the system, particularly the machinery and equipment available, is adequate for the operation? If not, what further improvements are necessary?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

We can, of course, always review the circumstances of this particular incident in the light of experience, but we know that the resources available to deal with people such as Magag are considerable, and that they have been designed to prevent things like this from happening. As I said, it is very difficult to prevent people from absconding. We know that it happened under the old regime; this is the first—unfortunate—case under a TPIM.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

Does the Minister not understand that he misses the point? We all understand and accept that control orders and TPIMs are extraordinary measures. We understand that the ideal is to have a trial in a court of law with sufficient evidence. That is agreed. Nevertheless, the point is that, although control orders were inadequate—the Minister pointed to some absconding under them—the power to relocate was the biggest weapon in that inadequate arsenal. After the use of that no one, to my knowledge, absconded. However, the point is that the Government removed that one effective vehicle in the control orders when they brought in TPIMs. Will he now bear that in mind and at least assure the House that he will review the operations of TPIMs to see whether what I am saying is correct?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I cannot accept what the noble Lord says, but I accept that he speaks from considerable experience in this area. Governments would be very foolish not to learn from experience. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the fact that Magag was here in London particularly assisted his absconding on this occasion. I accept, as the noble Lord said, that incidents like this should be reviewed, and they will be.

[Lord Laming]

Will the Minister say what lessons have been learnt from this experience, and what steps have been taken to ensure that further lessons will be acted upon?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I hope that I have just given the noble Lord an indication of the way we think about these matters. It is too soon to say whether lessons can be learnt. The most important thing is to ascertain the whereabouts of this person and to apprehend him.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

Will the Minister accept that the fact that Mr Magag did not abscond while subject to a judicially approved relocation order, and that he absconded when that was removed, is in itself clear evidence of the poor decision to remove relocation orders? Will he also acknowledge that nobody absconded while subject to a relocation order, and that there were no absconds at all during the last four and a half years of control orders?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Again, the noble Lord speaks with a great deal of experience on this issue. I note the point that he makes, but I have given my answer and I hope that noble Lords will accept it.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, when I took over as Minister for Security we pushed hard to allow people to be moved out of the places where they were causing so much trouble, and from that moment not a single person absconded. Quite clearly, therefore, the fact that these people are not moved has an impact. Is it not true that TPIMs also take up more effort from the agencies and Security Service as well? Although none of us liked control orders, they were a way of ensuring the safety and security of our nation, particularly with those movement orders. I am afraid that the TPIMs, having removed those movement orders, put people at risk.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I believe that I have given the noble Lord the answer, which I have given before. Of course, we will learn from this experience, but there are no current plans to reintroduce controls over movement.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Will the Minister inform the House how many individuals are currently subject to TPIM orders, and how many of those individuals have been made subject to such orders on the grounds, if I have followed the noble Lord correctly, that they have been raising finance for foreign terrorists?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I can inform the House that 10 people are subject to TPIMs. I cannot give the grounds for any of those orders having been made.

[Lord Dubs]

The Minister said that this was an instance where there was not enough evidence to take the person to court. Perhaps I may say to the Minister, if we were to use intercept evidence, would we not be able to bring all these people to court? Is it not time for the Government to move forward on working out a system whereby intercept evidence could be used in these cases?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord moves the argument on considerably. We will have an opportunity to discuss all sorts of elements. Intercept is not communications data, but such data have been discussed in pre-legislative scrutiny by both Houses. Therefore, these matters are under consideration.

Lord Harris of Haringey: When introducing the legislation that brought about TPIMs, the noble Lord’s predecessor assured the House that not only would extra surveillance resources be made available to the police and the Security Service but also that extra technological measures would be taken to ensure that individuals did not abscond. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us whether the technological measures were the cause of failure in this instance and, if so, whether the technology that has been purchased has given value for money.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am not in a position to give an answer to that. I am sure that the noble Lord will understand why.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I have listened with great care because I have great respect for the Minister, but I do not hear a single argument in favour of getting rid of relocation. Will the Minister tell me what that argument is?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

When it was introduced to the House, the legislation did not provide for relocation as being a proportionate measure to be taken in such cases. It was debated by Parliament and the provision was made. Therefore, that provision currently does not exist in TPIMs.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

Does my noble friend agree that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which several Members of the opposition Benches were members, examined control orders extensively in 2009? It recommended wholeheartedly that relocation to distant places away from family and support systems was no different from house arrest and was deeply disproportionate. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said that, in terms.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have given the view of the Government that it is important to establish proportionality in all these cases, which is why TPIMs are constructed as they are.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Bill team for its support. This has been a long, complex Bill, and two departments of government have had to contend with two different Ministers. If I might say so, my noble friend Lord McNally and I have enjoyed working together on this Bill. My noble friend has, of course, had a change of partner since Committee stage, and I know that my noble friend Lord Henley would like to be associated with these remarks. I thank, too, those who have supported us through this Bill.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I echo the thanks to the Bill team for its support and to the Ministers. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on his new civil partnership. I also commend and thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his contribution. I feel as though I and my colleagues—I speak now for two opposition teams as well—are emerging from a six-month sentence, which is perhaps an appropriate way to regard these past few months dealing with this Bill. It has been a challenging but instructive and, at times, entertaining experience, and I am grateful that for the most part it has been conducted in the usual spirit of your Lordships’ House. We look forward to future pieces of legislation—preferably deferred for a while; some of us need some time to recover.

I am grateful to the ministerial team and, indeed, to noble Lords—especially noble and learned Lords—who have contributed so much to a very considered deliberation of an important measure.

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 2012

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29 October be approved.

Relevant documents: 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, considered in Grand Committee on 13 December.

Motion agreed.

Police and Crime Commissioners

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the proportion of successful candidates for police and crime commissioner posts who were independent of political parties.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, I am sure that the House will congratulate the 12 independent police and crime commissioners who have been elected as PCCs for their force areas. Nearly a third of PCCs are independents. Their experience and their willingness to serve the public in such a powerful office can only enhance and strengthen the ability of the police and the wider criminal justice partners to continue to reduce crime, hold the police to account and be the strong advocates of victims.

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

I thank the Minister for his Answer, but I think that there is something further to say. When I worked alongside provincial police forces in the 1990s, their members invariably agreed—and they were right—that policing should not be a subject for party politics, which should be left at the door of their meetings. Does the Minister agree that that sentiment has been clearly expressed once again in these recent elections, but this time by the public, through widespread abstention, an unprecedented proportion of spoiled ballots and a surprisingly high number of successful independent candidates? Does he therefore agree that in future elections all candidates should stand only as independents, on their record and aims alone and free of the encumbrance of party-political endorsement, which appears to be so off-putting to the public?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I hope that noble Lords will agree with me that there is nothing wrong with party politics in its right place. The key thing about the way in which the role of the police and crime commissioners is structured means that the operation of the police will not be politicised. Chief constables will decide all operational matters, such as who is arrested and how investigations are carried out—these will not become political decisions. The policing protocol helps to set out where the PCC’s role ends and that of the chief constable begins.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate]

My Lords, if a police and crime commissioner who represents a party finds that the public in the area he represents take a totally different view at the local level from the policies of that party, which policy should he implement? Should it be the policy of the public who elected him or the party policy?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

This is something that all elected politicians have to come to terms with and I see no conflict here. For the first time, we have direct democratic accountability through the role of the PCCs and I see the next PCC elections bearing witness as to how effective this will be, in the sense that people will be making choices, some for someone they think represents their political point of view, while others will be looking for other characteristics. Above all, however, they will be judging on how well the PCCs have performed. That is the challenge that faces those who have taken on this office.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, surely the high level of abstention to which the noble Lord, Lord Blair, referred, arose from the fact that most of the voters had not a clue who the candidates were. Must not something be done to remedy that before the next round?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think we have discussed this before. There have been a series of Questions on the arrangements for the elections. The Electoral Commission will be producing a report on these elections and the Home Office will take note of it.

[Lord Tomlinson]

Does the noble Lord agree that it is precipitate to be talking about the success of the next elections? The answer we can draw from the previous elections is that they were disastrous in every respect. They did not inspire people to go out and vote, they did not inspire independents to campaign with the effectiveness that many people would have liked to see, and they are by every stretch of the imagination an unacceptable result to which the word “democratic” cannot be properly added.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think the noble Lord has been carried away by his oratory. What I would like to know from the noble Lord is whether he represents a party that will abolish the PCCs. For my part, I see this extension of democratic accountability as unequivocally a good thing, and I hope noble Lords will agree with that.

[Lord Bradshaw]

My Lords, building on the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Blair, I know from my own experience that experienced, independent members were actually put off from standing for election for two reasons: they could not afford it and they had no means of publicising their candidature other than by spending a lot of their own money. The very fine chairman of one police authority, an independent elected by the elected members of that police authority, was unable to stand for those reasons. What are we going to do to see that this is not the case in the future?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that the outcome refutes the noble Lord’s suggestion. I am from Lincolnshire where there were two independent candidates along with the party candidates. I am sure that the very fact that people have chosen to elect independent candidates will encourage other independent candidates to put their names forward next time.

[Lord Condon]

My Lords, does the Minister share any of my concern that nearly a third of the newly elected commissioners have appointed well-paid deputies or assistant commissioners without any transparency, selection criteria or adherence to Nolan-type principles?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I should make it clear that the facility for the role of the deputy police and crime commissioner is written into the arrangements, but it is not mandatory. It is indeed not politically restricted and it is designed to assist the PCC in his role. The actual administration of the PCC’s office will be in the control of a finance officer and a head of paid staff. The head of paid staff serves as the monitoring officer. I know the circumstances to which the noble Lord has alluded, but as I have said before, the decisions made by PCCs will be judged by the electorate at the next elections.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of the independents who were elected had held high rank as serving police officers? Will he confirm that they will abjure any temptation to outguess a chief constable insofar as operational matters are concerned?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Yes, I think that I have made it absolutely clear. There is a protocol that sets down all these matters and I have no doubt that chief constables themselves will make sure that they keep their part of the bargain, as indeed will PCCs.

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 2012

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Grand Committee

Moved By

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 2012

Relevant documents: 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, the draft regulations amend the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to transpose European directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. The new directive was adopted in September 2010 and came into force on 9 November 2010. It replaces directive 86/609/EEC, which is transposed into current UK legislation by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

National legislation transposing the new directive must be implemented from 1 January 2013. The new directive has three main objectives: first, to rectify wide variations in the implementation of the previous directive by member states; secondly, to strengthen the protection of animals used in scientific procedures; and thirdly to promote the three Rs: strategies which replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in scientific procedures. It provides a practical framework for the regulation of animal research and testing in Europe and sets a benchmark for the rest of the world.

Many of the provisions of the new directive are similar to current UK legislation and practice. For example, the directive places a strong emphasis on minimising the use of animals and includes the promotion of the three Rs. We welcome the development of the directive because it will ensure that the framework in the European Union will reflect the structures that have worked well in the UK for the past 25 years, and should bring the rest of the European Union into line with those standards.

Some of its provisions are new or go further than current UK legislation. For example, the new directive extends protection to some invertebrate species—all cephalopods, including octopuses, squid and cuttlefish—and to animals bred primarily so that their tissues and organs can be used in scientific research. The new directive also requires member states to apply mandatory minimum standards of care and accommodation. There is a requirement for formal retrospective review of some types of project.

Other provisions are potentially less stringent than current UK requirements. For example, the 1986 Act, which we are amending, provides special protection for non-human primates, cats, dogs and horses. The directive extends special protection only to non-human primates.

Article 2 of the new directive allows member states to retain national provisions in force on 9 November 2010 that give more extensive protection to animals than those set out in the new directive so long as they are not used to inhibit the free market. We are making full use of this provision, as I will explain shortly.

A public consultation on the options for transposing the new directive was launched on 13 June 2011 and closed on 5 September 2011. Responses were received from more than 13,000 individuals and 98 organisations. The majority of responses supported the retention of current United Kingdom animal welfare requirements where these are stricter than those set out in the directive. Other responses suggested that we should use transposition to streamline regulation where this would not harm animal welfare.

The Government’s response to the public consultation was published on 17 May this year. It explained that we would retain most of our current, stricter, United Kingdom standards. These include: special protection for cats, dogs and horses; protection for immature forms of birds and reptiles; larger enclosure and cage sizes for dogs and a number of other species; and methods of killing animals that are more humane. We have also placed absolute bans on the use of great apes and stray animals of domestic species in the legislation. We believe that including and retaining these other stricter standards in the regulations is necessary and justified on animal welfare grounds and in order to maintain public confidence that animals used in experiments and testing will continue to be properly protected.

At the same time, we explained in the government response that we would simplify our system of personal licences, which authorise individuals to apply procedures to animals. We believe that a system of personal licensing is essential to ensure that procedures causing pain and suffering are applied to animals only by individuals who are properly trained and competent. At the same time, we accept that the system should not be overly bureaucratic. We have therefore made some small but important changes, through the regulations, to allow us to simplify the detail required in personal licences and the way we process applications for them.

Another important change transposed in the regulations is the requirement placed on member states to collect and publish statistical information on the severity of the procedures applied to the animals. Publication of information about the actual experience of the animals will be a major step forward in terms of transparency and, combined with the mandatory requirement to publish non-technical summaries of authorised projects, will help inform the debate on the use of animals in research and testing.

On the issue of severity classification, although the directive requires procedures to be classified by their severity, there is no requirement to ensure that these classifications are subsequently adhered to. Under current UK arrangements, licence holders are required to inform the Home Office if a severity limit is breached or likely to be breached. We intend to continue this requirement by retaining the existing condition on the project licence that sets a clear obligation to adhere to the severity limit and to notify the Secretary of State if the severity limit appears to have been, or is likely to be, breached. I can, therefore, assure noble Lords that we are not weakening the current requirement for project licence holders to ensure compliance with severity limits.

I will also give noble Lords an assurance as to how we will review the operation of the new legislation and, in particular, in relation to the application of the three Rs. Article 58 of the directive requires the Commission to carry out periodic, thematic reviews of the three Rs in consultation with member states. Although the obligation to carry out reviews is on the Commission, and does not require transposition in the draft regulations, we believe that similar reviews can play an important part in ensuring the effective operation of our national legislation. We therefore propose to carry out our own thematic reviews and to consult practitioners and other interest groups in due course on suitable topics. We will also encourage the Commission to ensure that Europe-wide thematic reviews become a reality.

Regarding implementation of the amended legislation, although we have not quite achieved the target date for transposition—we were looking at a November date—we are already working with current licence and certificate holders to ensure a seamless transition to the new arrangements. We have already issued a guide identifying a number of actions that need to be completed before 1 January. We also plan to issue a “quick start” guide to the main requirements of the amended legislation and the care and accommodation standards before Christmas. A full draft guidance note and revised code of practice will be published in January 2013 for consultation.

The transposition of the new directive has provided a valuable and timely opportunity to review and strengthen our legislation. We believe that the draft regulations provide a sound basis for the regulation of animal research and testing. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that the Minister understands that, although the directive is welcome, there are concerns that we must retain the standards that we currently have in the UK, ensuring that there is no slippage. Perhaps he can double check and tell me today—or, if not, write to me—whether there is any area under the directive where we will not be maintaining our high UK standards, other than the one I mentioned.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this has been a very productive debate in the sense that I have an enormous amount of paper in front of me. I hope that noble Lords will be patient, because if I can give answers, I will certainly try to do so.

I am very pleased that there has been a general welcome for the transposition. I am the Minister in the Home Office for this subject and also the Home Office Minister for transparency, and I think that there is a link between the two. We all recognise some of the difficulties that the industry and profession of animal experimentation has in communicating ideas to the public. What pleased me about a meeting I had the other day with the Society of Biology was the real willingness of scientists to recognise the need to communicate beyond their peer group, and even beyond those people who have a special interest in this area, to the public at large. I am sure that we all recognise that as being very helpful. It would help us; it would help the cause of animal experimentation; it would help drive the high standards that we have in this country.

It is a delight to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, because no one is more informed than he is about some of these specialties. I am delighted that he was able to attend the debate. He asked me a number of questions, and I will do my best to answer them. I hope that noble Lords will prompt me if they feel that I might be able to communicate a bit more information, if not today, in writing afterwards.

Our position as a Government is that we understand that it is important to maintain our competitiveness in this important area of science. Science is an important industry in this country. We have centres of excellence which are of global standards and it is quite right that we do not put ourselves at a disadvantage to our competitors. The noble Lord mentioned that some animal experimentation is bound to be necessary, because non-animal models are not always good alternatives. He went into the reasoning behind that. I do not disagree. I think that it is essential to choose the right methods. We do no service if we do not examine that, and the regulations recognise that alternatives must be scientifically sound if they are to be used rather than animal experimentation. There is no point in trying to do it in an alternative way if that does not support the science that we are seeking to explore.

The noble Lord also mentioned the attractiveness of animal use for students and the importance of attracting high-quality PhD students to work in this area. We welcome the scientific community’s recent public commitment to the need for animal research. This will help improve public confidence in the way in which this work is done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wills]

Would the Minister be prepared to meet me on that one point? Discussion about Section 24 has been going on for a very long time and, in my experience, there are always people opposed to transparency in every area of public life. I would very much welcome the opportunity to have a further exchange of views.

[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.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

Just before the Minister completes his remarks and sits down, I thank him for the offer of a meeting to discuss issues such as tetraploid complementarity and the other complex questions that he alluded to. Before that meeting takes place, would it be possible for his officials to prepare a note answering some of the specific questions that I put to him? For example, I raised the number of animal/human hybrid embryos that have been created; there were over 150 when I last tabled a Parliamentary Question about them. That kind of information would be very helpful in advance of the meeting that we are to have.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

If I understand the noble Lord correctly, he indeed asked a question about actual numbers. I do not have them to hand but I am sure that they are available, and if we do not have them we will see if the Department of Health does. We will do our best to inform the discussion that we are going to have with a certain amount of preparatory work on the questions that he has raised.

[Baroness Warnock]

Before the Minister finally sits down, I would like to raise a question about the numbers that were just mentioned. Does the Minister think it possible to persuade the Home Office to classify the numbers that are published under headings not just of severity but of the purpose of the experiment? We are constantly told that the number of experiments is rising but the document admits that many of them cause no pain at all and are to do with breeding rather than experiments in the normal sense. In the days of the pre-1986 committee, repeated efforts were made to get the publication classified by purpose as well as severity, and I do not know whether that is still a possibility.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That is certainly something that we are considering. One of the advantages of being able to assess severity as well as numbers is that there are new opportunities for presenting the figures as well as in overall number terms. I do not think that that was quite the question that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was asking, but I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s question because it has given me the chance to say that the way in which we present the numbers is something that we are looking at.

I am sorry that this has taken quite a long time, but it is an important aspect of an important issue and public interest is considerable. I hope that I have covered all the points but we will review the debate and see if there are any that I have not. Meanwhile, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.