Gateshead and Northumberland (Boundary Change) Order 2013

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Rosser

Thursday 28th February 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I support both these simple proposals, which reflect common sense. However, I am puzzled by one matter: why it has taken so long. The final recommendations were published in May 2012, based on the consultation a year ago. Why has it taken nine months for the matter to arrive now, in February of the following year? There may be explanations that I have not understood, but it strikes me as a long time when the consultation occurred almost a year ago. Any guidance or further details on the procedure being followed and the timetable to which those involved should keep would be helpful to know.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we have no objection to the orders, which are clearly not of the greatest significance for the nation. Indeed, when I read them—and in this position one surely has to try to speak for at least two or three minutes—I thought I had been reduced to reading extracts from the Oxford English Dictionary. I feel even more that way since the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has taken away about 90% of my contribution.

I will raise one or two points for clarification as much as anything. Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that, from its establishment, the Boundary Commission,

“has compiled and maintained a list of boundary anomalies that have been notified to it”.

It goes on to say that the Boundary Commission,

“has sought the views of the local authorities concerned on all these anomalies”.

It says further:

“In three cases there was local agreement”.

Are there in fact lots of cases that the Boundary Commission is looking at in which there is no agreement? Obviously, one inference can be drawn from that. If there is no agreement, are we to assume, as paragraph 7.2 rather implies, that the Boundary Commission would not put any recommendations in front of the Secretary of State? In the two cases that we are considering, I think the Minister has probably already answered the question in her opening comments, but who actually initiated these two? Was it one or more of the four local authorities concerned? Was it the Boundary Commission’s own initiative? I can hardly imagine it was at the request of the Secretary of State, which is the other basis on which a review might be undertaken.

I will make exactly the same point that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, so eloquently made as to what exactly has been going on over what appears to be the past 11 months since the consultation ended—on draft recommendations on which, we are told, there has been no significant disagreement. It would certainly be of interest to know why there has been this delay.

A further point that I should like to pursue—I am not seeking to suggest that it is a major point because clearly it is not—is that paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that the normal minimum period of consultation is six weeks. In the case of Gateshead and Northumberland it was less than six weeks. In fact, it appears to have been about four weeks, the argument being the small scale of the change. One might have some sympathy with that argument, but what exactly has been achieved by reducing the consultation from the normal minimum of six weeks to somewhere around four weeks? Looking at the timescale, I cannot see that anything at all has been achieved. I appreciate that it was a Boundary Commission decision, but does the Minister know why it was done if it has not speeded things up, or has the Secretary of State perhaps asked the Boundary Commission why it thought it necessary to reduce the period of consultation when it does not appear to have been done in order to speed up the process?

In her comments on the Gateshead and Northumberland order, the noble Baroness referred to those who had responded. However, can she be a bit more specific about how many people responded to the draft recommendations? No figures are given, but figures, including a breakdown by category, are given for the East Hertfordshire and Stevenage order. Paragraph 7.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the Gateshead and Northumberland order will affect only two electors. Are the residents of Ravenside Farm, who were not exactly supportive, the two electors in Northumberland referred to in paragraph 7.8? If they are, they are apparently the only ones affected by the Gateshead and Northumberland order. They did not appear to support it and if they are the two concerned, I suppose you could say somewhat facetiously that there was 100% rejection by the electors affected. I do not want to turn this into a major point, but it would be interesting to know.

My final point is very minor. Indeed, some might think that it is more nitpicking than anything else. Paragraph 7.3 says:

“In three cases there was local agreement that the anomalies should be addressed”.

The two in front of us are two of those three. However, paragraph 8.3 indicates a measure of disagreement from the residents of Ravenside Farm, which would appear to contradict what is said in paragraph 7.3. The reply may be that there is a distinction between agreement that the anomalies be addressed, and agreement over the recommendations and how they should be addressed.

I hope the noble Baroness will be able to respond to those points. I reiterate that we support the orders. I do not wish to suggest that the points that I have raised are of fundamental importance, although it is interesting that both the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I are extremely interested in why it has taken so long to bring these instruments forward.

Police and Crime Panels (Modification of Functions) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Rosser

Thursday 12th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, the purpose of the regulations is to stop a defaulting local authority from preventing the making of panel arrangements. This is understandable and should be supported. However, there are two issues of detail that I would appreciate the Minister’s clarification of in order to avoid doubt.

First, the Secretary of State has the power to nominate and appoint the appropriate number of members in the event of a failure by a relevant local authority to exercise its power to nominate or to appoint. It would be essential for the Secretary of State, in exercising this duty, to have due regard to the opinions of the other local authorities and to maintain due political and/or geographical balance in making such appointments. I say that because during the passage of the Bill there was significant discussion about the importance of geographical balance and political balance and, where there are two-tier authorities, of lower-tier councils having representation on the panels.

Secondly, will the Minister clarify the meaning of the words in paragraph 2:

“In the case of a multi-authority police area, all the relevant local authorities, with the exception of a defaulting local authority … must agree to the making or modification of the panel arrangements”?

I seek clarification of the words “must agree”. Do they mean that the relevant local authorities are compelled to agree by the decision of the Secretary of State—that is, they must agree to what the Secretary of State wants—or do they mean that only with the agreement of those authorities can the panel arrangements proceed? I took the Minister to mean that it was the latter, but I seek confirmation of my interpretation. If it is the former, I seek the Minister’s reassurance that due regard will be had by the Secretary of State to full consultation with the remaining local authorities and balance being secured in any nominations or appointments that the Secretary of State deems it necessary to make.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the Minister has explained the reasons for the order. I will be interested to hear the response to the two points that have been raised. On the second one, where reference is made to the wording,

“In the case of a multi-authority police area, all the relevant local authorities … must agree to the making or modification of the panel arrangements”,

it cannot be a requirement that they must agree or presumably the order would not be necessary, because the defaulting authority would not be able to block it. That would be my interpretation, at least, but of course it is what the Minister says about the Government’s interpretation of the wording that counts.

I have a couple of further points. Will the Minister confirm that the Local Government Association does not see any difficulties in implementing the order as it stands? I take it that this is, let us just say, to clarify certain wordings in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act.

The Minister made reference to police and crime panels. We have doubts, which we expressed during the passage of the Bill, about the extent to which they will be any meaningful check on the exercise of his or her power by the police and crime commissioner. Do the Government intend to monitor the development of the effectiveness of these panels when they are operational? Will it be their intention to brief Parliament on the findings of any monitoring exercise that they carry out if it is their intention to do so?

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Rosser

Monday 11th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, it has already been pointed out that under the current terms of the Bill, the powers of the police and crime panels are limited to a veto over the appointment of the chief constable and a veto over the precept. The purpose of this group of amendments, moved by my noble friend Lady Henig, is to provide police and crime panels with the powers to act as a much more effective check on the way the proposed police and crime commissioners exercise the considerable powers given to them under the terms of the Bill. As my noble friend Lady Henig has said, the main amendments refer specifically to conduct and complaints, and to the issues of accounts and audit.

The amendments provide for an independent sub-committee or sub-committees to deal with the issues of conduct, complaints and audit, with an independent person chairing the sub-committee, at least three other independent members and up to another three who are police and crime panel members, at least one of whom must be a co-opted member. These independent sub-committees must be established by the police and crime panels.

The amendments provide also for a police and crime panel to require information it needs from the police and crime commissioner and they would change the criteria relating to the powers to suspend the police and crime commissioner to include where the commissioner has breached any required standards of conduct pending investigation of the allegations brought against them. The amendments provide also for a code of conduct for police commission members to be formulated by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, covering standards of behaviour, commitment to equalities and conflicts of interest.

The amendments proposed by the Government, to which the Minister will presumably refer, appear to lack the strength and robustness in relation to police and crime panels of those proposed by my noble friend Lady Henig and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. As has been said, those amendments come back to the issue that has been raised on a number of occasions during our discussions on the Bill: namely, where are the checks and balances to address the abuse or misuse of the considerable personal powers given to the police and crime commissioners? What is the effective role and purpose of a police and crime panel if it is not to be able to provide part of those checks and balances and thus help ensure that a police and crime commissioner pays regard to the views and concerns of such panels, providing them with the information they need to carry out a meaningful role and thereby helping enhance confidence in the system and structure on the part of the public?

If the Government have really been listening to concerns expressed in your Lordships' House, including over appropriate financial and ethical governance arrangements, they will support the thrust of these amendments.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, parallel to our discussions on this Bill, the Localism Bill is in Committee. In that, there has been discussion both on a code of conduct and on the need for a standards committee. There has been discussion around whether the code of conduct should be voluntary or statutory—there is a strong view, I think, in your Lordships' House that it should be the latter. On standards committees, which are likely to be abolished under the Bill, I also detected in your Lordships' House strong support for each local council having such a committee.

Irrespective of that, there are two major issues of principle here. The first is the role of audit, which, it is important to bear in mind, is not the same as scrutiny and which has statutory force in local government. The second is that audit should be independently led. The powers currently given to the panels are insufficient to deliver those two principles.

Audit is not just about finance; it is also about a whole range of matters including procurement policy, contracting, managing very large budgets, procedures being followed, human resources policies and equal opportunities. An amendment is being made here which I hope the Government might find helpful. It proposes that audit be fundamental part of the checks and balances we need in relation to a police and crime commissioner. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause is right in stating that every police and crime panel should deal with complaints and conduct matters, monitor the discharge of the police and crime commissioner’s functions and monitor the accounts and audit matters of the relevant police commission, police and crime commissioner and chief constable as the case may be.

The question is whether that task should be undertaken simply by the panel or whether a slightly different structure is needed. I think that a different structure is needed, because audit is an important issue when public money is being looked after. There should be two sub-committees—I refer here to subsection (2) of the proposed new clause—one of which looks specifically at audit and the other at conduct and complaints.

The proposal in Amendment 117 relates to the nature of the independence of the sub-committee. To have someone who is independent and appointed according to Nolan principles chair that sub-committee is important. To have then at least three other independent people, balanced by up to three panel members, means that the public would gain confidence in that structure because they would see that there were more independent members than members of the panel.

At the heart of the problem is the fact that no governance structure lies underneath an elected police and crime commissioner. In other words, there is a perception in the Bill if you simply have direct election of a commissioner there is legitimacy in that. Well, of course there is, but one has to have checks and balances—which the coalition agreement has identified and said have to be strict. Having a clear audit function which is publicly accountable is a matter of fundamental importance; otherwise, those checks and balances cannot be properly delivered.

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

Debate between Lord Shipley and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Grand 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?