Airports: Border Force

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can certainly take that back, because I do not know the direct answer. That comment was made to me some weeks ago, but I shall take it back to the department and get a suitable reply for the noble Baroness.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, the lengthening and continuing delays at Heathrow for arriving passengers to clear immigration and passport control are at the very least causing reputational damage to the airport and the airlines affected. This has financial consequences for them as well as for our economy. Since the Government have not met—and are apparently still not meeting—all their service level targets on waiting times for passengers arriving at Heathrow, what level of compensation will be provided by the Government to the operator of Heathrow and the airlines involved? If no compensation is going to be provided by the Government, why not, bearing in mind that in other areas of activity, firms providing services for the Government would be liable to penalties for failing to deliver on their service level targets?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am not sure. I do not know the answer to whether there are actual financial penalties in terms of compensation from the Government for failing to meet service level standards. What I can say is that over 95% of passengers arriving at Heathrow are, in fact, dealt with through those service level agreements.

EU Settlement Scheme

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which has just been made and may still be being debated in the Commons. We, too, value the contribution of EU citizens and their rights need to be protected after Brexit.

The Government, as the Statement indicates, intend to introduce a new settlement scheme for EU citizens resident in this country. The uncertainty felt by EU citizens over their position in the country in the light of Brexit has had serious consequences. These have been reflected in a number of ways, including concerns over staffing shortages in key areas of the economy as the enthusiasm of EU citizens for being in this country has diminished. Providing clarity on their future position and rights is in our national interest, as has become all too obvious. Whether the Government’s actions and proposals will achieve the desired result is another matter. The absence of the promised immigration White Paper and Bill has done nothing to ease the damaging uncertainty that the Government have allowed to fester.

What is the Government’s estimate of the expected take-up rate by EU citizens of the registration scheme? What will be the consequences for EU nationals who do not register? Will EU citizens in this country post Brexit be allowed to travel and stay in other countries, including their country of origin, and retain their rights on their return? What additional resources, and at what cost, will be required to administer the scheme? What right of appeal will there be for those who believe they have been wrongly denied registration under the criteria against which registration will be determined? What publicity, and through what means, will the Government be providing for the procedures announced today?

According to today’s papers, the Government have expressed concern about the lack of detailed reciprocal plans from other EU countries and the Home Secretary has been quoted as saying it is “not good enough”. If the newspaper reports are correct, I am not quite as sure as the Government are that that is the kind of comment that will create an atmosphere of understanding and willingness to compromise in any forthcoming negotiations with the EU. Clarity of their objectives over Brexit has not exactly been a hallmark of this Government.

The Government must have a clear view about what they would regard as acceptable from the EU and other EU countries in response to the intentions and details set out in today’s further Statement. Can the Minister spell out what the Government would regard as an acceptable response from the EU and EU countries in respect of British citizens living in Europe post Brexit? Can the Minister say whether the Government have had any indication of whether the arrangements set out in today’s Statement will prove acceptable to the EU and EU member states?

Turning to some of the paragraphs in the Statement, towards the end of the first page it says:

“Irish citizens will not need to apply for status under the scheme but may elect to do if they wish”.


Can the Minister clarify what benefit, if any, there would be for Irish citizens in electing to apply for status under the scheme?

On the second page, the Statement says:

“Subject to parliamentary consideration of changes to the fees regulations, applications will cost £65, with a reduced fee of £32.50 for children under 16”.


How did the Government arrive at the figure for the proposed charge?

On the third page of the Statement, it is acknowledged that processing applications will prove a challenge but it says that,

“the Home Office already issues around 7 million passports and 3 million visas each year and so processing applications on the scale required is not new to us”.

Some might think that a trifle complacent, particularly those who recall what has happened over Windrush and those who recall the percentage of successful appeals against Home Office decisions. According to the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, the Home Office has a 10% error rate in immigration status checks. The Statement may also yet prove a little complacent in the light of the track record of the Home Office in managing to lose documents. I am sure a very close eye will be kept on the efficiency or otherwise with which the Home Office manages this scheme. Others—I think the Home Affairs Select Committee might be one—have identified weaknesses in recruitment, retention, training, decision-making and management, which would seem to cover most aspects of the department’s work.

The Statement says that there will be a dedicated customer contact centre to help people through the process. Who will that be staffed by? Will the Home Office be sufficiently dedicated to make sure that it is staffed by its own staff, or will it be staffed by an outsourced organisation?

The immigration exemption in the Data Protection Act denies people the right to access their data when they need it most. Will this exemption apply to EU citizens? Will employers, landlords and banks be required to check the documents of EU citizens in the same way as they have been required to check the immigration status of non-EU citizens?

In conclusion, if we leave the EU without a deal, what will happen to EU citizens? Will this agreement and their rights be protected? Finally, on the criminal check, which is one of the criteria against which registration will be assessed, what exactly will the threshold be, and how far back will offences be considered relevant?

I appreciate that I have asked a number of questions and I say to the Minister now that I will be more than happy to accept a written response if that is required.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We welcome it if we take it at face value, but the noble Baroness will understand that we need to probe.

The Statement gives the impression that the Home Office will be bending over backwards to help UK-resident EU citizens to apply for and be granted settled status or pre-settled status. This appears to be completely at odds with the Home Office’s attitude towards the Windrush generation. Can EU citizens have confidence in this Statement in the light of the Windrush fiasco?

The Statement says that persistent offenders or those who pose a security threat will not be eligible. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has already asked what the threshold might be in respect of which criminals will be excluded, allowed in or allowed to remain, and she may be ready to answer that. In the other place, the Minister said that UK criminal record databases and watch-lists would be searched and that applicants would be asked about overseas convictions. Currently, ECRIS can be searched by the UK, but access to ECRIS looks as though it is in jeopardy. How confident is the Home Office that its systems will be robust enough to identity those with serious overseas convictions?

The Statement says that close family members living abroad will be able to join EU citizens resident in the UK. Can the Minister confirm how close a relative would have to be in order to be able to join an EU citizen who is resident here?

The Statement also says that negotiations are under way with non-EU EEA countries with a view to extending the scheme to their citizens. I think it mentions EEA countries and Switzerland. I should declare an interest in that I am married to a Norwegian and own property in Oslo. Can the Minister say any more on what progress is being made with regard to EEA countries and Switzerland?

Penultimately, will these arrangements be dependent on reciprocal arrangements being put in place for UK citizens resident in the EU and EEA countries, or will they be in place no matter what the response from those countries is?

This is a detailed and complex proposal, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has indicated by the number of questions he has asked. Will the Minister agree to a debate to allow proper consideration of all the issues that we have raised today?

Drugs Licensing

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the House of Commons, and endorse the views expressed in it of sympathy for Billy Caldwell, Alfie Dingley and others like them, and for their parents, who, as the Statement says, have been under unimaginable stress and strain.

With yesterday’s Urgent Question in the other place on the medical use of a cannabis-based medicine uprated to today’s Statement on drugs licensing, this appears to be another example of the Government making decisions on the hoof, in a flap and in response to embarrassing media stories, rather than being a proactive Government who make measured, fully thought-through proposals to address developing issues before they hit the national headlines. Despite this, we still welcome the Home Secretary’s statement that the Government will look more closely at the use of cannabis-based medication in healthcare in the UK, and that they will review the scheduling of cannabis. As the Minister said, what started this off was the case of a 12 year-old boy suffering from severe epilepsy, whose cannabis-based medication was confiscated on arrival at Heathrow from Canada—a decision now modified by the Home Secretary. It contains THC, the primary psychoactive constituent of cannabis, which is illegal in this country but not in a number of other countries, including Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and much of America.

Yesterday, the Government said that the Chief Medical Officer for England had been asked to establish a panel to advise on an individual-case basis on when medicinal cannabis-based products should be prescribed. How many such cases per month do the Government anticipate the panel having to adjudicate on and advise, and against what criteria will that advice be given? What fresh instructions have been issued to officials over allowing through or confiscating cannabis oil and other medicinal cannabis products as from now at our borders and entry points in the light of the Billy Caldwell case? Through what procedure and process will an individual case reach the expert panel? How many instances have there been during the past 12 months of cannabis oil needed for medical use being confiscated at our borders and entry points, and how many of those cases were reviewed by the then Home Secretary, and with what result, under the powers which have apparently just been used by the current Home Secretary? What is the Government’s estimate of the time it will take for the two-stage review just announced by them to conclude its work?

The Statement says:

“If the review identifies that there are significant medical benefits, we will reschedule”.


In other words, the Government do not yet know whether there are such significant benefits. In which case, against what criteria or evidence will the expert panel of clinicians being set up to advise Ministers on any individual applications to prescribe cannabis-based medicines—based firmly on the medical evidence, as the Statement says—make its judgments? I ask that because the Government believe that a two-stage commission is needed to decide whether there is even a case for any change on scheduling in the light of the available evidence.

I come back to the Statement and the words:

“If the review identifies that there are significant medical benefits, we will reschedule”.


Would that apply if the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs came to the conclusion that there were also significant harms from rescheduling, which is what the ACMD is apparently being asked to consider under stage 2?

Finally, a recent report in Private Eye, under the heading “Pot and Kettle” and referring to the Alfie Dingley case as does the Statement, stated:

“A UN report this month found that the UK is in fact the largest producer of legal cannabis in the world—responsible for almost half the global total … As … the drug reform think tank Transform, said: ‘The government is denying that cannabis has medical uses but at the same time licensing production of the world’s biggest medical cannabis production and export market”.


Is that report correct?

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the Statement and thank the Minister for making it. I thank her also for her efforts in this cause and those of her noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, who is in his place. I welcome the fact that Professor Sally Davies will now review the mountain of evidence for the medicinal and therapeutic benefit of cannabis-based medicines. She will undoubtedly find that the fact that there are no legally recognised benefits is quite wrong and must change. By what means will Professor Davies hear evidence from the many patients who already know about the benefits? Their doctors know the benefits, too. If she does not already, I am quite sure that Professor Davies will soon know them as well.

I also welcome the fact that the Government will reschedule cannabis when Professor Davies demonstrates those benefits. It should never have been scheduled as a drug without any medical benefits in the first place. Can the Minister estimate how long this process will take, as thousands of patients await the outcome in pain and discomfort?

While we wait for this to be done, it is very welcome that the Government have set up an expert panel to advise Ministers on any applications to prescribe cannabis medicines. It is outrageous that the Dingley family’s heroic doctors should have been put through the wringer by the inappropriate processes which the Home Office has imposed on them during the past four months.

I cannot say how delighted I am that Alfie Dingley and Billy Caldwell will get their medicines at last. However, it should not have taken four months since the Prime Minister promised Alfie’s mother, Hannah Deacon, when she visited No. 10 with me and a group of Peers and MPs, that her son would get a licence for his cannabis medicines on compassionate grounds and speedily. During that four-month period Home Office officials were trying, mistakenly, to operate a system for licensing which was not intended for such cases but was intended for normal clinical trials. It became clear very quickly that the system they were trying to use was not fit for purpose, yet they persisted. I would like to be assured that a system that is fit for purpose will be put in place. Will the Minister give me that assurance? It should not have taken a child, Billy Caldwell, being put in a life-threatening situation for the Government to take this action but I am delighted that they now have.

During the campaign I have been convinced of the Minister’s good faith in this matter but, frankly, although she is always welcome in her place, it should be a Health Minister standing there at the Dispatch Box. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, in his place listening to this debate. Drug licensing is a health matter, not a Home Office matter and clearly the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care agrees with that, so how will the Department of Health and Social Care be involved in the new arrangements outlined in the Statement and those that will inevitably follow?

Yesterday the Prime Minister said a system is already in place for the medicinal use of cannabis and that government policy would be driven by “what clinicians are saying”. The system has failed thousands of patients, but it is good news that the Government are now trying to put that right, and I thank the Minister for that. Can she say whether expert evidence from countries such as the Netherlands, where cannabis medicines have been safely used for some time, will be heard during the review?

Home Office: Immigration

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. In and of itself, the fact that doctors and nurses have been taken out of the cap will improve the bureaucratic processes and help decisions to be made more quickly. As to those doctors and nurses who are not in the occupation shortage list, the sponsor still has to go through the resident labour market test. I expect this to go more smoothly and to free up the numbers within the cap for other occupations.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

In response to a question from my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford about tier 2 visas and recruiting medical professionals from overseas, the Government said:

“It is appropriate to take doctors only from countries that have their own very effective medical systems. To take them from third-world and developing countries is not acceptable”.—[Official Report, 12/6/18; col. 1575.]


That reply indicates there must be a government list of some sort of both third-world and developing countries from which it is deemed not acceptable to take doctors. There will be interest in which nations are included in the list of developing countries, in particular, from which it is considered not acceptable by the Government to take doctors; and, not least, how many and which countries from the Indian subcontinent are on that government list. Can the Minister make sure that the government list in question—in whatever form it exists and to which reference on this issue was made by the Government last week—is made available to Members of this House?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can answer the question about doctors from India because we issue a huge number of visas to them. As to recruitment from third-world countries—I did not answer the question from my noble friend Lord Cormack—rather than guess at it I shall get back to the noble Lord on those countries, although I suspect that there is not such a list.

International Development: Budget

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, this has been an interesting, albeit brief, debate. Like virtually every other speaker, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on his opening speech and on giving us the opportunity to receive, we hope, some clarification from the Government about their intentions on this issue.

The Government have previously said on more than one occasion that they are committed not only to achieving but to legislating for 0.7% of gross national income, in line with the United Nations target, to be spent on international aid and development. There was, of course, no mention of such legislation in the gracious Speech, and no indication has been given about when such legislation might appear or, indeed, why it has not appeared to date, as promised. On top of that, we are hearing suggestions from the centre of government that some United Kingdom aid might be directed to prop up a defence budget facing further cuts and also to promote trade interests and British business. As has been said, the Prime Minister announced just under four months ago that he was “very open” to spending money from the UK aid budget on peacekeeping and other security operations, and that he would like to see more of the aid budget diverted to defence by building up the Conflict Pool that is already used by the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development.

Clearly, today’s debate is an opportunity for the Government to put concerns at rest by explaining why the intended legislation has not appeared, and to give the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, is seeking that there are no government plans to transfer a portion of the international development budget to the budget of the Ministry of Defence. As the former International Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, said, legislating on this issue of the aid budget “takes it beyond doubt” and,

“takes it out of politics”,

in a situation where all three major parties made it clear at the time of the last general election that they would legislate.

We accept, as we have consistently said, that it is essential that international development and defence are better co-ordinated and that, indeed, there should be a co-ordinated approach to tackling conflict that brings together defence, diplomacy and development. We support how the Conflict Pool can be improved and targeted and how a cross-government approach can better prevent and tackle instability. However, any suggestion that aid money can be used to offset deep defence cuts is misleading, since UK aid money can legitimately be used, in accordance with internationally agreed guidelines, only for security, demobilisation and peacekeeping, and not for core military activities. The major proportion of UK aid money must continue to be used to alleviate poverty, improve basic services and support job creation, all of which are central to ending conflicts everywhere. In that regard, can the Minister say whether any DfID review, or a review by any other competent body or organisation, is being considered or undertaken in relation to the definition used for overseas development assistance, or of the interpretation of that definition, and if there is, the purpose of such a review?

International development aid works, since it saves lives, helps reduce inequality and gives people the chance of a better future. It is also in Britain’s interests, since the unrealised potential of developing nations and their peoples represents lost trade and growth for the UK, as well as for those developing nations and the global economy. It is now time for the Government, when they come to respond, to say why the Prime Minister made the statements he did—to which the noble Lord, Lord Empey, referred—if there is no change in policy. In the light of some recent off-the-record briefings and ad hoc policy statements, as well as the continuing absence of promised legislation, it is also for the Government to show that their direction and good intentions on international development aid will not be compromised by either the consequences of their failure to meet financial targets at home or the need to appease those within their ranks who give such aid little or no priority.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, as I am sure noble Lords anticipated, indeed expected, today’s debate has been wide-ranging and has covered a great many issues, from the Chagos islanders to cybersecurity and attacks. That was inevitable in a debate covering Foreign Office, international development and defence matters. However, that is not in any way a criticism. Particularly in a far from secure and stable world, defence policy, foreign policy and our international development goals should be geared towards agreed, co-ordinated objectives and priorities, with our diplomats and Armed Forces working in tandem alongside our international aid and development programmes to deliver them, recognising the role that the use of soft power can play.

Whether that has been the case, or is likely to be the case over the next two years, is another matter. The 2010 strategic defence and security review was not related to Foreign Office or international development goals. It was a straight exercise in rapidly cutting costs at a time when the economy had been restored to growth over the previous nine months. The consequences of rushed decisions were highlighted by a recent National Audit Office report that was scathing about the double U-turn since 2010—which means we are now back where we started from—on the Joint Strike Fighters for our future aircraft carriers. We now learn from Lockheed Martin, the programme’s main contractor, that US Government spending cuts could inflate the overall cost of the F-35 jet fighter, since a reduction in the number of aircraft under construction at any time could drive up unit costs. What is the Government’s assessment of the possible impact of US Government spending cuts on the cost of the Joint Strike Fighter? Has provision been made in the budget for an increase in cost or would such an increase mean that we have to purchase a smaller number of aircraft?

An indication of just how rushed was the 2010 SDSR came when the Government told us it could be some months—up to another seven months from now since the phrase used was “later this year”—before they could make a decision on whether to offer Afghan interpreters, fearful for their lives as our front-line troops withdraw, the same option to move to this country as was offered to Iraqi interpreters who had served our Armed Forces. The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde have already spoken on this issue far more eloquently than I could manage.

It seems odd that a Government prepared to make decisions on an SDSR in six months need longer than that to make what is surely a more straightforward single decision on Afghan interpreters. Perhaps it is a case of defence policy being determined by the objectives of others, rather than by co-ordinated Foreign Office, defence and international development objectives. I hope that the Minister will be able to update us on the current situation on Afghan interpreters when he replies and, if he cannot tell us what decision the Government have made, at least explain why it is taking so long to come to a conclusion.

At this point, I refer to the speech made by my noble friend Lady Whitaker and the issue of the Chagos islanders—a matter also referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Avebury. The issue is whether they should be able to return to the outer islands. My noble friend referred to the statement made in 2010 by the now Foreign Secretary that he would,

“work to ensure a fair settlement of this long-standing dispute”.

My noble friend asked what the Government were doing or intending to do in the light of that undertaking. I do not know what that statement by the Foreign Secretary was meant to mean. I hope that the Minister will provide a direct answer to my noble friend’s question when he responds.

It is not easy to ensure that defence, foreign office and international development actions are synchronised towards common policy goals if policy is changed for no clear reason. The Government have previously said more than once that they are committed to legislating for 0.7% of gross national income, in line with the UN target, to be spent on international aid and development. Several noble Lords have expressed concern that there was no mention of such legislation in the gracious Speech. No indication has been given about when such legislation may appear. We are now hearing suggestions emanating from the centre of government that UK aid should be redirected to prop up a defence budget facing further cuts—cuts about which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, expressed such powerful concern, to which I await the Minister’s response.

The previous Labour Government’s commitment to meet the UN target of spending 0.7% of gross national income on aid and to legislate on it by 2008 was taken on by the current Government and included in the coalition agreement. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what has happened to the undertaking on that legislation in the coalition agreement and what are the Government’s intentions on the issue, including how they consider that the absence of that previously promised legislation will promote international aid and development objectives.

A further area where policy appears to be shifting is over Europe; a number of your Lordships have spoken on that matter. The vision of the larger party in the coalition appears to be that the European Union should be a free trade area and nothing more. The Prime Minister has plans to try to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s membership and then hold a referendum in 2017. Large sections of his party want a referendum on our continuing membership as soon as possible, with a view to securing a no vote. What is clear is that the larger party in the coalition will probably spend much of its time between now and the general election contemplating its own navel over Europe. The statute in this country as it stands provides for a referendum if there is a significant transfer of sovereignty from Britain to Brussels. We have no plans to repeal that legislation. We are not in favour of the status quo and will make the case for reform of Europe but reform, not exit, must be the priority.

The gracious Speech indicated that we will be experiencing a relatively unusual event: a defence Bill that is separate and distinct from the five-yearly Armed Forces Bill. The defence Bill is to address the issue of changes that the Government wish to make in defence procurement arrangements and their intentions in respect of the expansion of our Reserve Forces. There have of course already been changes in the working arrangements between the Ministry of Defence and the private sector, following changes progressed under the previous Government by my noble friend Lord Drayson, which are resulting in improved co-operation and shared knowledge and expertise, particularly in fields of advanced technology, that enable better control of costs and enhanced value for money. It is not clear what impact the changes being contemplated by the Government for future procurement will have on these arrangements, and certainly not what improvement they would bring and how.

The noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, and my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde asked the Minister a number of questions about the effect and impact of the proposed GOCO. I will not repeat those questions but I am as interested as the noble Lord and my noble friend are in the answers that the Minister gives. We will want to be satisfied that any proposed changes by the Government will improve the present situation. We will want to be satisfied that any new arrangements involving the private sector will be transparent, ensure that there is value for money and, at the very least, not lead to less information about procurement activity and costs being in the public domain than is the case at present.

The Government’s defence Bill is also intended to help strengthen our Reserve Forces in the light of the decision that with the contraction in the size of our regular forces, the reserves will have a more prominent role. It would be helpful if the Minister could update the House with the progress being made on this issue. What is the most recent assessment of the willingness of business and industry to employ reservists on the basis of the greater commitment that will be required in future, and what is the feedback from existing and potential reservists on their willingness to be away from their civilian career for longer periods than at present? Are the Government still absolutely confident of finding sufficient reservists of the required quality, in the required timescale, to meet the increased role and level of commitment that will be needed under the Government’s future plans? Is there a plan B if the Government’s expectations are not realised and, if so, what is it?

At the beginning of this debate, some hours ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, paid tribute to our Armed Forces—to their bravery and commitment, and to the sacrifice that all too many of them have made on behalf of our country. On this side, we associate ourselves wholeheartedly with those tributes. We owe our Armed Forces clarity and consistency on their role, through co-ordinated defence, Foreign Office and international aid and development policies and objectives. We also owe them a determination to ensure that the resources we provide in all forms are sufficient, appropriate and relevant to ensure that the demands and objectives we place on our Armed Forces can be delivered.

Transport: HS2

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, for securing this debate, which provides an opportunity to discuss where we are with HS2 and to reiterate the point that, with the continuing growth in passenger and freight traffic, even during a recession, a new route is needed to address the inevitable and imminent line capacity problems, such as those on the west coast main line, where service frequencies are already well in excess of what they were a relatively few years ago.

We fully support the HS2 project, but we are concerned about its progress in the current Parliament. No legislation has been published, and the recent Command Paper suggested that Royal Assent for the Government’s first hybrid Bill would not be achieved until some point in 2015, and not by the time of the next election, as was previously intended. On top of that, the outcome of a judicial review is awaited. Perhaps the Minister could say when the Government expect to receive a judgment, and what impact a ruling against the Government would have on the timescale for the implementation of the HS2 project.

We have also expressed our concerns about the lack of a dedicated purpose-built link between HS1 and HS2, which would provide the proper links to enable HS2 to serve areas of the continent directly. Concerns have also been expressed that the Government do not propose to connect HS2 with our major city centres in some instances. There is also the issue of how HS2 will connect to Heathrow, which the Government have decided to park on one side pending the outcome of the Davies commission on aviation capacity, which will not report back before 2015. Our preference was to take HS2 directly via Heathrow. Now even the Government’s compromise position of a spur to provide a direct link to Heathrow has been taken off the table, at least for now.

The reality is that this Government are acquiring a reputation for dither and delay when it comes to major transport projects. A decision on airport capacity in the south-east has been put back until after the next general election. Now it looks as though there may be dither and delay over decision-making on HS2, not only as far as links to Heathrow are concerned but also because of apparent uncertainty over whether the Government still intend to pass the necessary legislation for even the first phase of HS2 through Parliament by the time of the general election. If the Government’s commitment to pass legislation in this Parliament still stands, can the Minister say what statutory issues in relation to HS2 that legislation will address?

The Minister owes it to everyone, whether they are supportive of HS2 or not, to clarify the Government’s intended actions with respect to the HS2 project between now and the general election in 2015. I hope that the Minister will respond to these points.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Monetary Penalty Notices and Consents for Interceptions) Regulations 2011

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the Government are pleased to bring forward these regulations which, through amendments to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, will provide additional protection for the users of electronic communications. The regulations address concerns expressed by the European Commission that the UK had failed adequately to transpose EU law requirements concerning the confidentiality of electronic communications, specifically concerning the interception of communications.

RIPA provides that interception of communications can be lawfully undertaken either in accordance with a warrant signed by the Secretary of State or, in other specified circumstances, without a warrant. The changes brought about by these regulations will impact on interception without a warrant.

Communications service providers may lawfully and legitimately intercept communications when it is necessary for them to do so—for example, in order to manage their networks. Where businesses choose to carry out interception to provide value-added services, an activity that is carried out at the discretion of service providers, RIPA requires the consent of both the sender and the recipient of the communications that will be intercepted. RIPA also provides for criminal sanctions against the intended, unlawful interception of communications.

However, to address deficiencies in the statutory regime identified by the European Commission, these regulations amend RIPA in two significant respects. First, they create a civil sanction for the unlawful interception of electronic communications that does not constitute an offence under Section 1 of RIPA. In other words, we are establishing a sanction for unintentional and unlawful interception of electronic communications. Fines of up to £50,000 can be imposed, together with a requirement that activity that has been determined to be unlawful under these regulations must stop. Secondly, the regulations clarify the nature of the consent that must be given by a party consenting to the interception of a communication in order to render that interception lawful. Reasonable grounds for believing that consent has been obtained will no longer be sufficient.

Under the regulations, the administration of the new civil sanction will be undertaken by the Interception of Communications Commissioner, whose expertise and independence will ensure that the new requirements are rigorously and fairly applied. He will be able to draw on technical assistance from Ofcom as and when required.

The regulations also provide for a comprehensive appeals process to the first tier tribunal. This will deal with appeals against the imposition of either monetary penalties or a requirement to stop an activity that the commissioner has determined is unlawful. The regulations reinforce and clarify the statutory regime under which interception of communications can be carried out lawfully and with proper respect for a person’s right to a private life. When interception is carried out unlawfully, appropriate penalties will be imposed. The regulations address the two main concerns raised during the consultation on these issues with communications service providers, civil liberties groups and others. They provide for an appropriate maximum monetary penalty for the new civil sanction and ensure that the scope of the sanction is sufficiently broad to cover all instances of relevant unlawful interception.

We expect any business impact on communications service providers to be minimal. The regulations will not stop activities that providers wish to undertake—for example, providing value-added services to their customers. However, when such activity amounts to the interception of communications, the regulations strengthen the requirement that the interception must be consensual and that there must be evidence of the consent of those affected. This will provide welcome reassurance to customers that their privacy is being properly respected, together with greater clarity to the industry on how to ensure that its activities are lawful.

We have worked constructively with the European Commission to ensure that its concerns have been addressed. The regulations will provide confidence that interception of communications is in all circumstances carried out lawfully and with due respect for fundamental rights. Where such respect is not observed and interception is unlawful, appropriate penalties can be imposed. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, first I thank the Minister for explaining in detail the regulations and their purpose. The main reason for this instrument, and for the stronger wording and stiffer penalties that it provides, appears to be the desire to meet the concerns of the European Commission that the United Kingdom has failed to incorporate properly into national law the European Union's privacy and electronic communications directive. It has been claimed that concerns were prompted by complaints received by the Commission from BT customers after it conducted unannounced, targeted advert trials through a software company that used its technology to intercept and monitor the web activity of BT customers to match adverts to the interests of users.

The Crown Prosecution Service recently decided not to proceed with action against BT and the software company as it did not consider that there was enough evidence to convict. However, last September the Commission referred the United Kingdom to the European Court of Justice, citing concerns that our laws did not adequately protect against intrusion into personal privacy. The concerns were that we had not created a sanction for all unlawful interception, only for intentional interception; that we had not created an independent authority responsible for the supervision of all interception activities; and that we had wrongly made it lawful to intercept a communication where the interceptor had a reasonable belief in the other party's consent to the interception.

On the basis of what the Minister said, the Government acknowledged the first and third points, but not the second on the independent authority. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. Perhaps she could also say whether the Government regard the provisions in this regulation are likely to bring to an end any proceedings at the European Court of Justice.

The Government proposed amendments to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act last November, and the outcome of the consultation showed strong support among the 39 respondents for the adoption of what were described as “unambiguous measures”, making it clear that users have to grant consent before companies can intrude on their communications, and that it should no longer be sufficient to maintain that including relevant information within the general terms and conditions of privacy policies would allow for a sufficient expression of consent. We note that guidance will be provided by the office of the Interception of Communications Commissioner and we understand the reasons for this statutory instrument. I also take it from the words used by the Minister that the Government are perfectly happy to proceed with this revision of the Act. They do not regard it as an example of what they would describe as unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation, and they do not regard themselves as having to do this simply because the European Commission has told them they ought to do it. I had the impression from what the noble Baroness said that the Government themselves believe that this is the appropriate action to take. I would be grateful if she would confirm what I believe she said in her introductory comments.

I conclude by asking when the guidance will be provided by the office of the Interception of Communications Commissioner. Will she also confirm that the anticipated additional workload and costs on the public purse is effectively nil?

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for proposing this statutory instrument. I do so because it strengthens the rights of the individual and is therefore most welcome. However, it is not clear why the privacy directive produced in 2003 was not put in place correctly at the time. It is now some eight years since that occurred. If the Minister is in a position to say a little more about why it has taken so long to put this right, that would be welcome.

Two of the three issues raised by the European Commission have now been addressed. Those are, first, the introduction of unintentional as well as intentional interception; and, secondly, the requirement for positive consent by an individual for interception. But a question remains around the role of the independent authority. I would like to be clear about this because the European Commission raised three concerns, the second of which was that:

“The UK had failed to create an independent authority responsible for the supervision of all interception activities as required by Article 28 of the Data Protection Directive”.

The Explanatory Notes to the regulations state simply that:

“The Government has not conceded the alleged defective transposition [from the directive] identified”.

It is not clear to me quite why the Government have not conceded that.

That takes me on to the issue of the Information Commissioner, as distinct from the Interception of Communications Commissioner. The office of the Information Commissioner submitted a lengthy response to the consultation to this RIPA regulation, from which I will quote from paragraph 1.5:

“If personal data is intercepted unlawfully under section 1(1) of RIPA this may also constitute a breach of the first data protection principle. It will be important therefore to draft the legislation in a way which allows the ICO to work with the IoCC once it has been established if an interception is unintentionally unlawful”.

The question is this: is the Office of the Information Commissioner satisfied with the result of the consultation and the statutory instrument?

I have two final points on which I would appreciate guidance from the Minister. First, are we clear on how consent will be given to the monitoring of communications? In other words, how the opt-in is taken by an individual is extremely important. Secondly, how soon might we review this statutory instrument? A year or two from now, will there be a further review to assess whether what we have proposed in meeting the European directive has been achieved?