European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Lester of Herne Hill

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I regret that I was not able to speak at the Committee stage, but I want to make one brief point. It is extremely important for us, through the Government and Parliament, to recognise the service given by our fellow citizens when they serve in the European institutions. I have made the point in the past so far as judges are concerned. It is vital to get good British judges to serve in Europe. But exactly the same applies elsewhere in the European public service.

The example that comes to my mind is that of an admirable civil servant, now retired, called Simon Palmer. He has lived in France for more than 15 years. He lives there because during the whole of that time he served the Council of Europe as a member of the European civil service. He takes his holidays in England and he is thoroughly British, but he has brought up his family in Europe. I see no good reason why he should suffer the penalty of being disqualified from the referendum simply because he has lived there for the wrong side of 15 years. His connection with this country is no weaker, and it is very important that through this debate and what comes of it, we should recognise the vital public service given by people like him by giving them the ability to vote in this crucial referendum.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I too, support this amendment, to which I have added my name. There are many people living all over the European Union who, as the noble Lord has said, have done fine service for our country and who are still receiving pensions from this country and paying tax in this country, and they deserve a voice. This is one of the most important votes that will have happened in their lifetime, and they certainly deserve a voice, as I say.

I respect the coherent position of my own party, although I disagree with it, but I do not understand the incoherent position of the party opposite, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and other noble Lords. The Conservative Party has, I believe quite rightly, said that it will extend the franchise. This is the most important vote for many of those people to whom the franchise will be extended, so why cannot it be extended now? Why cannot that legislation be brought forward before we have the referendum? That is a simple question, and I believe it is the proper one to ask.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Lester of Herne Hill

Monday 8th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, the law on traditional marriage is contained in the Marriage Act 1949. Nothing in the Bill affects the rights and duties under the Marriage Act 1949 of what is called traditional marriage. If it did so, the amendment might have some kind of purpose, but it does not. If it does not undermine the ability to marry under the Marriage Act, does it create any sort of belief that that form of marriage is in some way undesirable? No, it does not. Nothing in the Bill suggests anything wrong with the traditional view of marriage. What it does do is to create another form of marriage and treat it as part of the concept of marriage. That does not undermine traditional marriage unless you take the view, as some do, that we should not have the Bill at all.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dear, spoke of traditional marriage being worthy of respect. Indeed, traditional marriage, in his words, is worthy of respect. But, the great thing is that after the passing of this Bill, same-sex marriage will be equally worthy of respect. That will be a matter for celebration. This is because at the moment marriage is a voluntary union of one man and one woman, but with the passing of this Bill I am delighted that marriage will be extended to the voluntary union of one man and one man, and one woman and one woman. I think that we are really motoring along.

No one is asking people to abandon their beliefs. The Bill does not suggest in any way that they should or that they must, as has been said so many times in the debates thus far. The reality is that it is absolutely clear that alongside the protections in the Human Rights Act, the common law protection of freedom of speech and the existing protections in the Equality Act 2010, religion or belief will continue to ensure that it is unlawful for an employer, service provider, public body or anybody else to discriminate. There is absolute freedom of speech. The Minister could not have been clearer when she said in Committee that:

“The Bill absolutely makes it lawful, and continues to make it lawful, for people to believe that marriage should be only between a man and a woman”.—[Official Report, 17/6/13; col. 72.]

That is clear.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Lester of Herne Hill

Monday 6th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

Is the noble Baroness not satisfied that the Human Rights Act, which her Government introduced, ensures that all these powers have to be prescribed by law in a legally certain way and that they must be exercised in a proportionate way in order to protect our rights of personal privacy, home and correspondence? Why is that not good enough as a general standard which applies to future legislation as well as to past legislation?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, the Human Rights Act is an extremely important Act which provides the safeguards that the noble Lord suggests. However, I think that when some of these powers are being exercised, they are not always exercised according to the standards that should be imposed by the Human Rights Act. I also know that the very fact that there are these countless powers gives a lot of people concern that their very rights are being infringed. We have to look at all these things in the round.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Lester of Herne Hill

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, Amendment 4 would seek to instate a more proportionate limit of six years for the retention of DNA and fingerprint data for those arrested and/or charged with a qualifying offence such as rape or serious assault. We return to the difficult balance to be struck between protecting people's freedom from police and government interference and protecting their freedom not to become victims of interference or violence from criminals or terrorists. As was mentioned in our debate in Committee, there is no more important series of cases involving DNA evidence than serious sexual crimes, rape and other offences against women, which cause huge anxiety, shame and sorrow for the victims. That fact is one of the major catalysts for the amendments before us.

The six-year limit proposed by my Government was based on Home Office analysis and reflected a proportionate response to the European Court of Human Rights ruling that the blanket retention of DNA violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In Committee I cited the 23,000 criminals a year who go on to commit further offences, and who will not be covered by the Government's proposed three-year retention limit. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who is not in his place, whether that figure included minor offences. I confirm that it does, but also that each year 6,000 of those individuals will go on to commit serious crimes including rape and other sexual offences, murder and manslaughter. This analysis comes from the House of Commons Library and from Home Office research given to the Minister, Mr James Brokenshire, in July 2010. I think that the research was buried for some time.

As noble Lords will know, the three-year limit for the retention of DNA comes from the Scottish model, which was based on no real analysis of the risk to public security. The coalition Government made a commitment to the three-year limit based on no new evidence, simply a judgment that this was the appropriate balance between privacy and public safety. The Opposition fundamentally disagree with this judgment. When it comes to offences such as rape and serious assault, we believe that the balance should be in favour of protecting the public and that a more cautious, evidence-based limit should be set.

I was particularly struck by the speech in Committee of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill of Bengarve, about the reality of what is stored, and how it is stored, on the National DNA Database, because this reaches the heart of the issue about the invasion of privacy. She said:

“The information that is retained from a genetic profile for the purposes of the forensic database is not revealing information, such as susceptibility to disease or other genetic factors. It is a selection of the DNA evidence that used to be referred to as ‘junk DNA’, which is not known to code for any personally sensitive feature of persons. In that respect it is what in other aspects of privacy legislation is called an identifier. That suggests that in some ways it is less personal than a photograph of someone's face”.—[Official Report, 29/11/11; col. 145.]

I recognise that how far the state should keep sensitive information on its citizens is a sensitive and highly important issue. However, I believe that the noble Baroness’s detailed explanation about the data on individuals and how those data are actually held removes many of the core concerns voiced about the retention of biometric information. If more citizens understood that they would be willing to cede this tiny amount of personal privacy in exchange for the arrest and conviction of murderers or rapists.

The Government have recognised that there will be situations when there is a clear need to retain an individual's DNA beyond the three-year limit. That is why new Section 63F, “Retention of section 63D material: persons arrested for or charged with a qualifying offence”, contains a provision for allowing police officers to apply for a two-year extension to the limit. However, we have serious concerns about transferring the burden of responsibility for these decisions to the police. It would seem that the Government are abdicating responsibility for the adverse consequences that may result from their decision to set a limit of three years.

We know that in practice such a safeguard does not work. In evidence given to the Public Bill Committee, ACPO stated that the Scottish system on which this is based has not led to a single application for an extension,

“because there are 6 million records on the national DNA database. We have always argued that it is impossible to create a regime of individual intervention for a database of 6 million … In effect, the Scottish model has to rely on a judgment being made against an individual profile when it reaches three years”.—[Official Report, Commons, Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee, 22/3/11; col. 9.]

More fundamentally, the thrust of these provisions is to pass the burden of responsibility for these decisions over to the police. The Government, as I said, are abdicating responsibility for the impact on public safety that may result from their decision to limit the retention period to three years, by suggesting that it is up to the police to decide whether the three-year limit or a five-year limit is more appropriate for each individual who is on the DNA database for a serious offence.

Passing that responsibility on to the police would be wrong on any occasion but it is wholly wrong to do so in these straitened times when intense burdens are placed on the police as a consequence of the cuts. The Government are taking a huge and very risky step in the Bill by reducing to three years the limit for which DNA and fingerprint data are retained for those arrested and/or charged with a qualifying offence such as rape or serious assault. Any such move should—indeed, must—be accompanied by robust evidence, but I do not believe that the evidence is there. I ask the Minister to think again.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, I wonder whether I might speak briefly as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, because Members of the House will have the benefit of our report on the Bill, which is in the Printed Paper Office. In that report the committee—which is of course all-party, and beyond party—expressed the view that the scheme in the Bill is more proportionate and more likely than the previous regime under the Crime and Security Act 2010 to pass muster with the Marper judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.

I am not going to bore the House by referring in detail to what the report says, as it explains the issues very briefly and clearly. However, one matter that we expressed concern about, which I think is relevant, is that the committee said that it could not,

“reach a firm conclusion on the proportionality of these measures”,

without fuller information, including statistics on the operation of the National DNA Database, and asked the Government,

“to collect better records on the contribution made to the prevention and detection of crime by the retention and use of biometric material in the future”.

Paragraph 8 of the report states that,

“the measures in the Bill are likely to be a significant improvement on the measures in the Crime and Security Act 2010”.

As for the three-year versus the six-year period, with a renewal of two years, the committee commended and welcomed that as a,

“decision that a narrower approach to retention is appropriate”—

and so on.

The noble Baroness makes the point that Parliament should set a six-year term rather than having a three-year term renewed on application under the Bill. It seems no more rational or sensible to adopt a six-year period than to have a discretionary ability to increase for a further two years for a cause, as experience shows, but it is a matter of judgment about the better approach that one adopts. I say simply that the Government have the support of the committee itself in its report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this brief debate and for the information provided by the Minister. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that I have huge respect for the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights but, on this occasion, I do not agree with its conclusions wholeheartedly. I noticed that other noble Lords have noted, as the noble Lord said himself, that the Committee was asking for better recording in future and for more evidence, in effect. It has become apparent during the debate that the coalition Government are now moving towards three years but are saying that, although they want three years, in some cases five years is more appropriate. They are, as many noble Lords would agree, putting that burden on the police.

In my earlier speech, I mentioned that ACPO had said that not one single application for an extension had been made in Scotland. That is very relevant to our deliberations this evening. I completely agree with all noble Lords who have spoken that this is a matter of balance and of which side of the line one comes down on. On these Benches, I think everyone comes down on the side of wishing to preserve people’s freedom to live, protected from crime, rather than having more protection for people’s privacy. We believe that the citizens of this country would prefer that. We are worried that in future—

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

Does the noble Baroness accept that this is not a “rather than” situation? She keeps using the phrase “rather than”. Of course we all want to protect ourselves against disorder and crime, but it is not a question of “rather than” but of balance. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has been looking at Marper and at the evidence and as an all-party and beyond-party committee it came to the conclusion that the balance was correct. Does the noble Baroness accept that it is a question of balance?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I accept that it is a question of balance, as I have said on numerous occasions. However, I believe that it is also a question of “rather than”. We believe that, rather than people's privacy being the be-all and end-all in this argument, it is more important to retain DNA for a longer period. I see people nodding against me, if you see what I mean. I do not expect all noble Lords to agree with me but on this question of balance we come down on the protection of individuals rather than on the privacy of individuals. That is where we are.

I do not intend to move to a vote but I would be grateful if the noble Lord could come back to me with some more information which I may wish to pursue at Third Reading in relation to the three years and the five years. If this is a key plank within the arguments put forward by the Minister, as I believe it to be, it is very relevant that in Scotland it has not been used on a single occasion. I would like to know why the police in Scotland have not felt able to use this or have not felt it necessary to use it. I would be grateful if the Minister could bring back further information before Third Reading.

Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Lester of Herne Hill

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

No, my Lords. It defines certain disadvantages, but it does not mean to say that some people are more equal than others. We are not in an Animal Farm situation. We are saying that every individual has their intrinsic worth as a human being, and that they should be treated in an equal manner and given equality of opportunity. That is what I believe we are all—or most of us—agreed upon in this Chamber.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, the word “protected” simply means those protected against discrimination in those categories. However, it seems to me that the noble Baroness was giving a very narrow interpretation, which may be why she agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Low. May I try to say what I think the regulations mean? Regulation 3 says that each public authority,

“must prepare and publish one or more objectives it thinks it should achieve to do any of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c)”,

but that does not mean, in my judgment—no doubt the Minister will want to respond to this—that if they publish only one objective, that is sufficient.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I do not think I know the difference, since I am asking a question. The question that I am asking, if I may be permitted to do so, is whether the Minister—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I am not the Minister.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I am so sorry. I meant to ask whether the noble Baroness, looking at the wording, accepts that there would be a judicial review, or something worse, if one were simply to do what she suggests.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, these are questions for the Minister. I am just putting my views as the spokesperson for the Opposition. I go back to what I was going to say, about transparency. The Government rightly stress the need for transparency and accountability. However, it is difficult to understand how these can be enhanced when the public and public sector employees will not be able to compare the equality performance of similar bodies because the information will not always relate to the same issues or be measured in a standard way. Access to data is crucial, but it is difficult to interpret those data if they are not given in a standard way. Therefore, it will be more difficult for public authorities and those they serve to discover and understand what good practice is. There is a possibility that there will be a new postcode lottery. The Government have failed to provide clarity with these regulations. It could well be that the burden on public bodies will increase in some way. As the Council for Disabled Children says in its excellent briefing,

“the requirements should be clear to all public bodies who are required to comply with the specific duties. This purpose is better served by making these requirements explicit in the Regulations rather than leaving public bodies open to challenge because ‘implicit’ requirements have not been made clear to them”.

I have to say that I fundamentally disagree with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in relation both to freedom of religion and conscience and to burdens and bureaucracy. I must also disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who is in many ways my noble friend. During the passage of the Equality Bill we debated these issues long and hard and they were subject, as he rightly said, to amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was wrong when he made the arguments at that time and he is wrong now. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for pointing out the difference between the law of the land, which I believe is correct, and mischievous misinterpretations of that law, of which there are undoubtedly many. While I respect that around this Chamber we have different views, I am concerned that perhaps some of the voices opposite are those of the modern Conservative Party. I know that some on my Benches will disagree with me on that.

When we debated the Equality Bill, there was wide agreement on all Benches that the Bill—now the Act—was the right way to address discrimination and advance equality of opportunity in our tolerant British society. I believe that that is still the case. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, says that specific regulations would be a burden on the public sector. However, I remind him that good regulations serve an important purpose. In this case it is to ensure that systematic inequalities can be challenged so that all members of our society can live and flourish without discrimination. The noble Lord dismisses the importance of equality of outcomes, whereas I suggest that outcomes and opportunity are equally important.

The noble Lord, Lord Low, is right to stress the need for the general equality duty to produce tangible and positive outcomes. I fear that the regulations have been weakened to such an extent that the outcomes will be neither tangible nor positive. In the other place, the Minister made a commitment to review the duties in two years’ time. That is very welcome, but I ask the Minister to confirm that such a review will take place and to provide further information about a timetable for it. How will the evidence be gathered? Will the review be based on progress towards the aims set out in the general duty, rather than simply on the aspects covered by the specific duties, and will it be public? I also ask the noble Baroness for a clear commitment that the specific duties will be amended if the review reveals that public bodies have not made sufficient progress in eliminating discrimination and advancing equality of opportunity.

The equality duty should be one of the most effective ways of combating institutional discrimination and putting the public sector at the forefront of efforts to secure equality. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said, in this seemingly fractured society I believe that issues relating to equality and discrimination have assumed greater importance and that regulations to define the specific duties are vital to delivering the general equality duty. As I said earlier, I would be very happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Low, should he wish to vote on his amendment.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Lester of Herne Hill

Monday 4th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, it is my turn now to pay tribute to the Minister. This is a greatly improved Bill and it is with grateful thanks to our Minister in this House that those profound changes have been made. Amendment 60A is a testament to one of the big changes in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, was right to point out that many of the problems relating to the Bill came from the speed with which it was introduced. There was no excuse for that because the Bill should not have been introduced so expeditiously. I in no way blame the Minister for that and he has been exemplary in the way in which he has engaged with Members on all sides of the House.

In relation to Amendment 60A, I appreciate that the Government have moved substantially in setting the criteria for making an order. We particularly appreciate subsection (1) of the amendment:

“A Minister may make an order under sections 1 to 5 only if the Minister considers that the order serves the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions, having regard to”.

We believe that to be particularly important but I still think that improvements could be made. It is clear, as my noble friend Lord Soley and others have said, that there is still a nebulous area over which more discipline could be exercised and which could feed the fees of lawyers and be long debated in the courts. It would be good if there could be a little more clarification.

The Delegated Powers Committee said:

“It is for the House to consider whether amendment 60A provides an effective indication of the purposes for which Parliament will expect Ministers to use their very broad powers under clauses 1 to 5”.

I think the House will probably agree that the noble Lord has met the necessary criteria. However, as noble Lords have said, perhaps one or two tweaks could be made. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, who we miss greatly today, because I think he has done a fabulous job on this Bill; not just because he happens to have agreed with some of the things we have said but because he has been courageous to be a Member of the government Benches and to stand steadfast on things in which he passionately believes. His amendment, which we are discussing today, is particularly important. As the Minister himself said, the intentions of the amendment are laudable and at the heart of the coalition Government’s approach. I do not know why the Minister would not feel comfortable with having regard to the objectives of achieving fairness, justice, openness and transparency being in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, other words have been included in the Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, might say were otiose. It is a “belt and braces” approach. We would feel a lot more comfortable if the Government were able to accept the excellent amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Newton.

In relation to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayter, she has also done some sterling work during the passage of the Bill. Something that she has pressed for throughout is for Ministers to have regard to the purpose for which the bodies were created in statute. The Minister has moved a long way towards that and it has largely been accomplished. I, too, have received some excellent briefing from the World Wildlife Fund, especially in relation to its concerns on behalf of the Marine Management Organisation. We should like to have further clarification from the Minister on that point.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

Unfortunately, I was not able to be here when the Minister spoke. Therefore, strictly I am being unmannerly in saying anything at all, but if he and the House will permit me to make a couple of brief remarks, I would be grateful to do so. No one is looking cross, so I will continue, briefly. I regard Amendment 60A as an important step forward. I do not think that Amendment 61A on independence will be necessary in the light of the changes that we made in Committee and the safeguards that we put into Clause 16 on restrictions on ministerial powers. Those deal with the necessary independence criteria and seem to be adequate.

With regard to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether when his Amendment 60A refers to,

“improving the exercise of public functions”,

it is intended to mean the functions as defined in the legislation creating the body. If that is right, then it seems that what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is seeking to achieve, with which I agreed at Second Reading, is achieved. The Minister, in making the order, will have to have regard to the aims and objectives of the body as they are specified in legislation. For example, the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s aims and objectives are defined in the Equality Act 2006. I assume that, when any change is made in relation to that body by delegated legislation, the Minister, in having regard to improving the exercise of the commission’s public functions, will have regard to those public functions as prescribed in the equality legislation. It could not really be otherwise because the functions are those defined by Parliament in that Act. If he could clarify that that is so, I do not think that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, would be necessary.

On Amendment 60AB, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, again, it seems that openness and transparency are meant to be dealt with by the super-affirmative procedure itself and the requirements that the Minister makes. I thought that we had dealt with fairness and justice in the changes that we made to Clause 16 when we were dealing with restrictions on Ministers’ powers, which were to achieve the rule of law and fairness in doing so. I do not regard those as necessary amendments. I am grateful to have been listened to.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Lester of Herne Hill

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

The noble Baroness was talking about the Select Committee and the kinds of matters that it would deal with but, as she spoke, the list became quite long. Does she think that in three months it would be possible to look, for example, at all the bodies listed in Schedule 7? I could understand it if she were saying, “Keep it narrow. Keep to procedure and safeguards”, but is she considering something wider than that?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I think that it should be a fairly narrow committee and that it should meet regularly. I do not think that it would be appropriate or possible, for example, to invite people to give evidence in relation to every single body mentioned in Schedule 7, but it would be appropriate for the committee as a whole to consider the entire schedule. It is a vast schedule listing a jumble of different organisations and I think that some order needs to be put into it. The Select Committee would provide an opportunity to take evidence from some of the most important quangos, if I may put it that way, included in Schedule 7.

I urge the Government to heed the wise words that we are about to hear in the debate. I also urge them to take full account of the genuine and extensive concerns of this House’s Select Committee on the Constitution and to take the opportunity to improve the Bill, as is sorely needed.