Data Protection Bill [HL]

Viscount Eccles Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 10th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, I think I should introduce my wife to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell. She has some worries about Apple and, come to think of it, she has probably been snooping on me.

I shall spend my time on the European Union Committee’s third report. I very much welcome the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the very measured way he introduced the report. I heartily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones that we want the committee to go on studying these matters so that we come to understand them better than we do. That seems very important because an aspect of this Bill is that it is a pre-Brexit negotiation Bill. All the things in the Bill are of massive interest, as has been illustrated, but, as I understand it, in the Government’s mind it is a preparation for the negotiations that will inevitably follow, given the timing of the introduction of the GDPR and the triggering of Article 50. Of course, the provisions of the GDPR come under the single market in the systems of the European Union, which makes it even more important that we think very carefully about where we are and how we can make the best of it.

I have to admit that I do not think the starting point is a very good one. It seems to me that we used to understand that the European Union method of negotiation was that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but it has thrown that out of the window and this is not the way this negotiation is going. If nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, you have to have discussed everything before you come to the conclusion, but this is not where we are. The Commission keeps saying, “You are bad boys and have not offered us enough”, so the starting point is not very good, which raises the question of where data protection will come in to these negotiations.

I admire the Explanatory Notes—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, did—which are a pretty good document compared to other Explanatory Notes that I have seen in the past. I was also interested in the August statement of intent, which was full of good intentions. But I think I rely more on the evidence that was given to the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and on that committee’s conclusions. Its central conclusion was that we should seek to achieve an “adequacy” decision. The report goes on, positively, to make recommendations on other difficulties such as the arrangements with the United States, as well as on the maintenance of adequacy, how it might be achieved and the continuance of shared policy.

I will offer just a word about “adequacy” and the use of language. The word “fairly”, which has no meaning in a court, has been used this afternoon. The word “adequacy” is pretty subjective. It has always been the Commission’s tendency to want to use words that are difficult to understand and have no clear meaning in English, such as “subsidiarity”—although that has not come into this part of our campaigning. Common sense tells us that both we and the European Union would be sensible to want to maintain data flows, with adequate protection. That is to say, although the present regime is not perfect, we would want it to continue and to improve.

However, unfortunately, our Brexit vote of no confidence in the Commission and in the project that it pursues has left us in an embarrassing and, it must be said, unfriendly negotiating atmosphere. What is more, our previous contributions following the Council of Europe’s Convention 108 have been very considerable. We not only started the ball rolling, together with many other members of the European Union—Germany, Austria, France and so on—with legislation in 1984, but we assisted a great deal in the run-up to the directive of 1995, when the European Union came into the action, somewhat after it had started; 10 years in fact. Then we had the 1998 Act, on which people have commented. With its 74 clauses and 16 schedules, it has done rather well in the circumstances of a changing world. However, that now seems not to help us with the Commission. We have been very helpful but now we have decided to walk off the pitch, and I think people do not like it if you leave in the middle of the game.

What we need from the Commission, as we have had on other occasions, is a flexibility of response, but I am afraid that is not the Commission’s strong point. Nor is its attitude to the Council of Europe, which started the process of Convention 108. I am not convinced that it will be full of joy at the Council of Europe modernising Convention 108. The EU has made an effort to become a member of the Council of Europe, so far unsuccessful. A personal reflection: if it were to be successful, with 27 or 28 votes out of 47, I suppose it would hope to take charge.

We are the defaulters, seen as obstinate, self-interested and unable to recognise the need for ever-closer union. And so we have this Bill. It is a sensible effort to get and remain in line with EU regulation—to show and share equivalence—even if in two places, I suspect much to the parliamentary draftsman’s distress, we qualify it with the adverb “broadly”. I am also sure we are right that we should be looking for an adequacy decision but, despite the excellent report and its very clear and admirable conclusions, will the Commission reciprocate? It will always be easy to quibble with third-country adequacy. It is a very complex subject and there will never be any difficulty in disagreeing with something; your Lordships have demonstrated that very clearly this afternoon. There is no perfect answer, certainly not one that will withstand the changes that make even a very good answer not such a good one later. So I am afraid my conclusion is that, unless things change, the Commission will continue to find fault with however manfully we try to satisfy its requirements. Is there then a chance that there will be some political intervention, some repetition of the statesmanlike behaviour of European politicians in 1949, the starting year of the Council of Europe? We have about a year to find out. Maybe, but I would not bet on it. No deal on this matter by default seems increasingly likely.

Immigration Bill

Viscount Eccles Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Lords Chamber

Those remarks are just a supplement to the reasons carefully advanced by the noble Baroness. I hope that the Minister will look more carefully at this matter.

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, it is very risky for a non-lawyer to intervene in such a debate, but I would be most grateful if my noble friend on the Front Bench and, indeed, my noble friend proposing the amendment, would relate new subsection (5), which Clause 15(5) will substitute for Section 85(5) of the 2002 Act, to new subsection (6) because, if I have read it right, new subsection (6) attempts to define “new matter” in a rather narrow way and not in one that means that just anything can be considered by the Secretary of State to be a new matter and therefore referable back to the beginning. I feel that I need enlightening on the relationship between those two proposed new subsections.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

The reason why I suggested the word “previously” is because that is in new subsection (6) and would link in new subsection (5) with new subsection (6) to show that what one is talking about is exactly the kind of matter being referred to in the definition in new subsection (6).

Immigration Bill

Viscount Eccles Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, we return to migration. I was struck by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, when he asked us to remember things while we debated the Bill. Indeed, my theme, which may come to somewhat different conclusions, is about those whose immigration status here is out of order. That is basically my only theme. I should like to suggest some things that we might do well to remember while considering what to do about those whose immigration status is out of order.

Man, as we know, is an economic animal, has always migrated and will continue to do so. However, there is great pressure in today’s world on that willingness to move. There are no frontiers left. In the early years of the 20th century, more than 1 million people went through Ellis Island every year. There is no longer such capability. Some countries are willing to take substantial numbers of people, but nothing of the order that used to apply—and, of course, the world’s population has dramatically increased. In these circumstances, the utilitarian calculation of economic benefit versus loss is simply not adequate.

I learnt that long ago. I was, in an unlikely way, managing a steel foundry in Light Pipe Hall Road, Stockton-on-Tees, when the first people from the Indian subcontinent came, around the time of Suez. I took on a labourer whose name—I hope I will be forgiven—was Patel. After about a fortnight, the TGWU shop steward came to me and said: “John, do you know about this labourer you have taken on?”. “Tell me”, I said. “He lives with seven others, they call themselves brothers but I don’t think they are related. They live in a two-up, two-down terraced house and sleep in shifts”. “Well?”, I said. He said: “The lads don’t like it”. I do not know what the effect on that particular street was at the time. I suppose one could put the wonderful label of social cohesion on it somewhere. The problem solved itself, or maybe somebody found a solution for it, because Patel and his brothers went to Bradford where it is not quite as cold as it is on Teeside and where there were more of their brothers.

At the same time, incidentally, I learnt another thing. People are very good and, sensibly, know when it is right not to know the answer to things and be able to say: “I cannot cope. I do not know how to do this”. Yet if they had a roll-up and some mixed doubles put on at the local bookie by Eddie Rollinson and it came up, there would be no difficulty about knowing how much was to be distributed. Whatever the economic and social issues of people living without their immigration status being correct, the question of the law and what to do about it will remain with us. If there are indeed between 300,000 and 500,000 such people, or whether the figure is different, we have a real problem. We should also remember that this is not just about economic and social issues: there is a connection with security.

So what should happen? We have a choice. As suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and the right reverend Prelate, if you have people whose documents are out of order and you think it would be right for them to stay, then every effort should be made to put their documents right. It should not just be left that there is nothing one can do. If their documents cannot be put right, because the law does not allow it, then they should leave. Is that an unreasonable view? I do not think so: it has some element of reality in it.

At the moment, we need to relieve unsustainable pressures and manage this country of 60 million people and a medium-sized economy. While we are doing that, there are some things I suggest we remember. Our liberal democratic philosophy is at a discount out there in the world. There is no queue at the moment to join in. After Iraq, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Syria we have neither the will nor the means to do anything about it. Maybe we should talk less and listen more, and even remember that the Russians may—certainly do—know a great deal more about Islam that we do. It might, therefore, behove us to concentrate on managing our own affairs.

In this respect, we have 2.3 million unemployed people. If, through a combination of economic growth, education and training, and employers, who always talk their own book, doing as much about the training as possible, we could drive unemployment down by half a million people, we would make a great difference to the immigration pressures that exist. If teachers succeeded in managing our schools as well as they could be managed, and if we managed our hospitals as well as they could be managed, then maybe the problem of people who are here but do not have the right to stay would come to be seen as a great deal easier than is sometimes suggested. In an open and democratic society, is it unreasonable to ask, “Who are you?”, “Where do you come from?”, “Is your immigration status okay?” or “Is your family’s immigration status okay?”? There does not seem to be anything in that kind of inquiry that could not be handled in an adult democracy. Who supports people staying here without the right to do so without that being put right? Does anybody support that?

Of course, this matter has become a great muddle—life does from time to time become a great muddle—but is it not sensible to have a go at sorting it out every now and again with all the difficulties of achieving success? In respect of those whose documents are not in good order, this Bill is a step in the right direction.

EU Police and Criminal Justice Measures: EUC Reports

Viscount Eccles Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, given the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the other speeches, my noble friend on the Front Bench has a number of questions to answer. I can assure him that I shall not ask any questions; rather, I will try to sketch in some of the background that has led to the criticisms and problems that have been referred to extensively. I do not need to add to them.

When we see the manifestos of the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats, we may be able to analyse why some of these problems have arisen. They are not very far deferred but, when we see them, both manifestos may not read exactly the same. As a general comment on what has been said, it can be quite risky to live in the ivory tower where you think process is more important than outcome.

I was a recent member of Sub-Committee E. The two reports are very professional and admirable, and I am grateful to the two chairmen for the way in which the reports stayed with the evidence that the committee received with great accuracy and professionalism. In the light of the reports, particularly the first, it is quite surprising that the Government—if they had only considered the circumstances of the 130 and the 35 and your Lordships’ report—ever reached the decision they came to. We all agree that it is entirely sensible for the 28 members, 18 of whom are in the eurozone, to co-operate on the matters covered in the two reports. There seems absolutely no argument for not continuing that co-operation, whatever the political situation may be or may become.

As a subsidiary question, the Union does not seem to have a good way of repealing and reforming things, and it may not have been unreasonable to point that out at the time. However, the missing dimension is politics. I do not see how, after a 65-year journey from the beginnings of Europe, any decision now will escape political consideration as well as administrative and sensible co-operation consideration. The degree of political and constitutional change has been enormous since 1949—Strasbourg; Winston Churchill making his speech; the avoidance of war being foremost in everyone’s mind; some formidable political figures; the solution to the relationship between France and Germany, leading to the creation of the iron and steel community and so on; and always, of course, Soviet Russia and the threat of the Cold War.

The France-Germany dimension is now essentially solved. There may be a residual risk but it is nothing like the risk that was experienced by Europe from around 1870 until 1945. With that record, Europe had a lot to answer for, including the global reach of its colonial pretensions, from which we are still suffering today.

Does Europe have the capacity to start the third world war? I hardly think so. Then it was NATO and the Cold War, but if we look at the United Nations, which is comprised of nearly 200 countries, the picture has completely changed, and it does not need me to spell out the details of those changes. There is a big political question, but the question has changed from that of 65 years ago and indeed that of 30 years ago, before the Berlin Wall came down. What is the right place for 28 countries in a relatively declining Europe with around 5% of the world’s population? I do not think that the answer is self-evident, although sometimes when we consider matters European, there is an assumption that it is.

To me, this is no time for being inward-looking and thinking that these 28 countries are as important as they used to be and that nothing has changed in their relationships and potential relationships with the rest of the world. It is not a time when one can be confident that some journey to a Utopian version of western democracy will work. There is no doubt that there are people in the European system who, although they do not always tell us exactly what they are thinking, believe that they are on some Utopian journey to a version of western democracy. Past Utopian experiments have been patchy and some have been disastrous. There is not the same welcome for western democracy all over the world as we expected only a short time ago there might be. Indeed, one of our biggest problems is that there are quite a number of places we can name where there is no prospect of western democracy and the rule of law as we understand them. We have to think with great care about the European Union’s place in the wider world and not concentrate too closely on our own local problems.

The people of Europe are disenchanted, nervous and uncertain about what is happening. I have always been a keen European, but something is wrong: what exactly is it? Responses crying for the populist approach do not seem to answer the question, because who can draw the line with any accuracy between populism and being rightly in touch with public opinion? I associate myself with the big and uncertain question: where are we going? Are 28 disparate European countries to call for the end of the nation state? I think not. Will the world benefit from an inflexible European bloc? There must be doubts about that. We need, I think, a brand of political leadership of which there is no sign at present.

EU: Police and Criminal Justice Measures

Viscount Eccles Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I am a recently appointed member of Sub-Committee E. It has been an interesting baptism, dealing with the opt-out decision: all or nothing. From time to time it seemed that we were dealing with a booby trap on which was written, “I wonder how they’re going to get out of that”.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lord Bowness said, we came to a clear, utilitarian answer to a rather complicated question. We made quite a long answer to that question, which was that the case was not convincing. As the Irishman said when he was asked for directions, “I wouldn’t start from here”. Perhaps it never was a utilitarian question; perhaps it was political; and perhaps we came up with the wrong answer.

I am a European. I am in favour of co-operation and against centralised control. I was lucky enough to be in Strasbourg in 1949 when there were 10 members of the Council of Europe and Winston Churchill made the keynote speech. One member of the 10 is not a member of the Community, but now, 64 years later, there are 47 members of the Council of Europe, and more than half of them are members of the European Union. Since the Commission and the Council are, as it were, the children of the Council of Europe, they should refer to the Beatles’ song, “When I’m Sixty-Four”, the last line of which is:

“Will you still need me, will you still feed me,

When I’m sixty-four?”.

From time to time, any institution needs a renewal of its mandate. Many people in this country and elsewhere are not sure why the Commission and the Council should have that renewal. Every now and again, a wild card is thrown on the table that makes people worry. The preamble to the Lisbon treaty refers to,

“ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe,”

and,

“a new stage in the process of European integration”.

I suggest that many people will not know what either of those aspirations means. As far as I know, nobody has ever given them a clear definition. Are we still intent on the avoidance of a third world war? I rather think that we no longer have the weapons with which to create it. Are we just a trading bloc? Will harmonisation of law across Europe one day end the defence of members’ legal systems? In short, what is the European project now? Is it intent on enhanced co-operation or centralised control? The public do not know the answer. It is a very complex question—not just this decision but the whole state of Europe—and it needs clearing up. The complexity and uncertainties must be exposed and discussed, and this Government are doing just that.

Tonight, the decision to opt out and opt back in is about co-operation and not central control. It is almost a housekeeping issue. However, the uncertainty about where it might lead means that many people do not see it that way. Therefore, the Government are entirely right to decide to opt out and opt back in to the 35. They will do that successfully, and that will restore public confidence in their ability to level with the European Union—not always a certainty in many people’s minds, and certainly not seen by many members of the public as being the case.

The relationship with the Commission and with the Council will be improved by our willingness to enter into long and serious negotiations. Therefore, it is entirely right to take this opportunity to renegotiate a system of international justice to the best advantage of ourselves and of other members of the European Union. I fully support the Motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Well, my Lords, that was the authentic voice of dogmatic anti-Europeanism and Euroscepticism. Clearly, the noble Lord very honestly believes what he said. He is totally entitled to say it and those of us on the other side of the argument can only take comfort from how weak, emotional and, in respect of his remarks about the Select Committee report, footling his arguments were.

I have been enormously struck, as I imagine the whole House has been, by three aspects of the Government’s nature and manner of doing business, which have been thrown into relief by this whole episode. The first is their extraordinary incompetence in evidently not getting any legal advice before they proceeded down this road. Nobody in the private sector would dream of going into a complicated negotiation of a totally new kind, with new risks attached to it, with important partners on an important matter, and not getting appropriate legal advice.

It was quite clear from the embarrassment and evasion of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, when he was asked the question by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, earlier that he did not have the faintest idea as to whether or not the procedure proposed by the Government risks triggering a referendum under the Government’s own European Union Act. I hope that the Minister will have thought about this and perhaps got some legal advice by the end of the debate, but the Government should have got a definitive opinion from the Attorney-General before they set off down this road in the first place.

[Viscount Eccles]

Perhaps it may be of some help to say that the Minister who is set to reply from the Front Bench was asked that question earlier today and was able to give a very definitive reply, in a meeting to which all the Members of this House were invited, if they wished to attend.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am sure that the Minister is very grateful for the defence which the noble Viscount has just given him. No doubt at the end of proceedings the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will be able to deal with this matter definitively.

The second aspect of the Government’s conduct that strikes me, and I think would strike anybody, is the extraordinary way in which they have treated Parliament. Not to reply at all to a very weighty document produced by two sub-committees jointly, which is unusual procedure in this country, for three months until a few hours before the relevant debate arises, is either almost unbelievable incompetence or discourtesy to the House that borders, frankly, on insult.

This Government like to say that they wish that national Parliaments had a greater say in matters in the European Union. In future that sort of statement will be treated with ribaldry, as hot air—there is another English word that better describes it but it is probably an unparliamentary word so I certainly will not use it. It is quite clear that on this occasion the Government have provided a really appalling example of cynical and dismissive treatment of their own national Parliament and I hope that no other Government in the Union are tempted to follow them down that very bad path.

The third aspect of the Government’s performance is the one that most attention has quite rightly been focused on—the way in which they reach policy decisions and their policy-making procedures. When I was a Minister and was faced with difficult choices, I would draw up a balance sheet of costs and benefits of any particular measure. I would try to weight them to achieve a balance and use that as an intellectual framework for discussions with officials or, where necessary, with colleagues. I was never conscious that I was doing anything remarkable or unusual; I assumed that most responsible Ministers went through a similar kind of procedure either explicitly or implicitly. Not so this Government.

The Motion mentions national interest, but it is quite clear that national interest has not guided the Government in this matter at all. You might assume that if you have 135 measures and you want to opt out of 100 definitively and opt back in to 35, those 35 were in the national interest and the 100 were not, which is why you want to get rid of them. The Government are even prepared to pay a significant price in terms of uncertainty, use of good will on the continent with their continental and Irish partners, and the administrative cost of going through all sorts of elaborate renegotiations, no doubt having to cope with the lacunae and lapses that arise. They are prepared to do all that in order to save the country from being tied to the 100 measures that they wish to opt out from.

In fact, as has been said this evening, of those 100 measures that the Government do not want to be associated with, not one of them is contrary to the national interest. Some of them are regarded as defunct or unnecessary, in which case they have a neutral significance. They are neither positive nor negative. But some of them are useful, although not dramatically vital in the way that the European arrest warrant or Naples II are really vital to the national interest. However, the Government’s own document, the White Paper—which, believe it or not, I have read through—deals with some of the measures that the Government propose to drop, to opt out of and not to opt back in to. Take, for example, item number 2 on judicial co-operation. The Government’s own document says:

“We judge that non-participation in the network may diminish the ability of the UK to coordinate complex investigations”,

et cetera. So there is a cost to opting out of that, which the Government themselves acknowledge. It is not in the national interest to opt out, it is contrary to the national interest. It is a cost, not a benefit.

The same thing applies, for example, with item number 5 on the exchange of information on drugs. The Government say:

“We judge that there may be a minor reputational risk if the UK does not seek to rejoin this measure”.

It is minor; it is not very important, but it is nevertheless a negative. It is reducing the national interest, not enhancing it, to opt out.

On item number 20 on new synthetic drugs and a warning system, the Government state:

“The UK’s participation in time-sensitive EU wide information about prevalence and harms of new substances enables us to influence EU and Member States’ legal responses, supporting enforcement and judicial co-operation … especially with the role of the internet and use of internal transit countries”.

This is a positive thing that the Government are giving up; it is not negative.

Similarly, on anti-corruption measures at item number 5—they are important, one might suppose—the Government say that given the increasing focus on tackling corruption in public office:

“The costs of membership are minimal and there are some benefits”.

So the Government are again giving up some benefits by their own admission.

Item number 87 is on combating terrorism, which is an important matter. The Government state:

“The offences created by the Decision are a useful standard for terrorist offences and by ensuring other Member States can prosecute relevant terrorist behaviours a more hostile environment for terrorists ought to be created across Europe”.

The Government are again giving up something of positive importance.

On item number 43—the prevention of unauthorised entry, transit and residence—the Government state:

“The framework decision assists with EU-wide enforcement of UK law”.

Surely that is in our national interest.

On item number 66, on the exchange of information and co-operation concerning terrorist offences, the Government state:

“Continuing to share information is therefore important both operationally and in reputational terms”.

And so on and so forth. There is another one on football hooligans, where the Government say that,

“non-participation may result in some increased costs”.

Again they recognise that there are costs, not benefits, in opting out. I could provide many other measures if I had time.

What all this amounts to is simply that, yes, the main national interest in these measures is secured by opting back into the 35 but by opting out of the remaining 100 we do not add to the national interest, we reduce it. In other words, the Government have taken a completely irrational decision. They incur the costs and risks of this complicated process of opting out and opting back in not to protect this country from some problems or costs but to deny it some additional benefits—if not enormous ones. We all know why they have done so: to buy off the Eurosceptics, and the cost of that is quite easily calculated. First, there are the costs and risks associated with the opting back in procedure; secondly, there are the not insubstantial or non-existent benefits—as I have explained—of those measures that we are now definitively opting out of. That is how this Government take their decisions. National interest has been sacrificed for a purely party political agenda. That is a fact and the Government cannot get away from it.

Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011

Viscount Eccles Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, I should declare a couple of interests before I say anything. First, I was the architect of a Private Member's Bill on equality that went through this House and became a kind of model for what came later. Secondly, I am counsel to the National Secular Society in the intervention in the pending Strasbourg proceedings and, therefore, will not say anything about the cases that have been placed before the European Court of Human Rights. Thirdly, I am so old that I can remember listening for the past 40 years to the arguments I heard just now basically attacking equality legislation root and branch and suggesting it should be consigned to the dustbin.

The most useful way in which I can assist the House is to begin by explaining a bit more about the framework within which this debate takes place as that might throw some light on what we are talking about. The previous Government, with all-party support—I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, in particular for having led the Government at the time on this issue in this House—were responsible for introducing Section 149 of the Equality Act, which is the public sector equality duty. That duty was already in our law in relation to gender, ethnicity and disability, but it was strengthened in important respects by the previous Government with support from all three main parties right across the House. The duty requires every public authority in the exercise of its functions to have due regard to three things: first, to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct which is prohibited; secondly, to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not; and, thirdly, to foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and others.

The duty covers various grounds, including religion or belief. I assume that even the staunchest opponents of the legislation are pleased that discrimination on grounds of religion and belief is covered. I say with all respect that it has nothing to do with positive discrimination, which is dealt with in a limited form by a completely different provision. It imposes a general public sector duty. There are particular problems about the way in which the duty treats religion and belief in the same way as the other protected characteristics. Some would argue, and I would be one of them, that religion is too strongly protected in the legislation, but we really need not go into that today.

The Explanatory Notes on the Equality Act make it clear that a whole range of religions, including Catholicism, Protestantism, Liberal Judaism, Orthodox Judaism and various forms of Islam, are to be looked at individually and separately if there is an allegation of discrimination. That is the framework. The power being exercised under the regulations is to give better governance in complying with that general duty. Complaints about the Act itself were settled by the previous Parliament when it enacted the legislation.

Where I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Low, with whom I hate ever to disagree, is in believing that his amendment—I have already had the advantage of speaking to him about it—is a real example of overregulation of the worst kind. The best way in which I can illustrate that is by giving just one example, that of religion. Under the general duty, every public authority has to have due regard to the three things that I mentioned. The first thing that an authority has to do under the law is to identify within its area various religious, irreligious, non-religious and atheistic groups. Then it has to decide whether something needs to be done in order to tackle inequality, discrimination and so on with regard to those groups. The regulations strip down the core needs to ensure compliance with the general duty in a well targeted and sensible way. They state that each public authority must publish information to demonstrate its compliance with the Section 149 duty, which is quite right and entirely sensible. They further state that the information has to include information relating to persons who share a relevant protected characteristic, which they define—perfectly sensible. The third thing that the authority must do is prepare and publish one or more objectives that it thinks will achieve the things that I have already mentioned. Again, that is perfectly sensible. Then they say that the objective must be “specific and measurable” —again entirely sensible.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Low, would add that each public authority in the country must,

“publish information on equality analyses they have undertaken … set objectives designed to facilitate compliance with the General Equality Duty … publish information about the engagement they have had with affected groups when developing these objectives and … report annually on progress towards meeting these objectives”.

I do not wish to be unmannerly in saying that it reads a bit Soviet—

[Viscount Eccles]

I should be most grateful if my noble friend would tell the House exactly what the general duty is and how it differs from the duty in Section 149.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Viscount Eccles Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Brookeborough]

My Lords, I support the amendments, which take us in the right direction. I do not mind whether the commissioner, or the head of a commission or a panel, is elected or otherwise: coming from Northern Ireland, I have no right to that view. However, from my experience with the police there, it is clear that an individual cannot do the job without the backing of a committee, panel or commission, which must supply him with the means of interrogating the police and different departments in order to get the story out. One individual cannot do this: we have committees with numbers of people on them because one gets a variation of views and questions. Otherwise, there would be no point in having this Chamber; we might as well have just one person. Therefore, he must be attached to a panel, a commission or a committee of some kind.

Taking that into account, as far as I can see, the panel, as it stands at the moment, only makes recommendations or questions the commissioner, who is not policeman, and is expected to get satisfaction from that. This is Chinese whispers by the time you get to the end of the road. The panel has an obligation to have public meetings so that the public can put their views forward. We have already been into that. It may be that a single panel for a single police area is not local enough or accessible enough, which is a different matter, but I question whether the public are going to continue to turn up to a panel where the police are not present to ask a panel to ask a commissioner, a chairman or however you put it to ask the police a way down the road.

If we are talking about democracy or, indeed, connectivity, which is what it is all about, the Government’s current system does not suffice. Unless they are able to amend their plans to ensure that the lowest denominator —the man in the street—feels that he has some method of influencing his destiny as far as crime and policing in his area goes, they are not going to work. This idea of having different people at different levels without the panel actually having the police there to talk to will not work. If you look at public meetings held by hospitals and other organisations, if people do not think they are getting anywhere, they will not turn up, and you will have lost the vital part of policing in this country.

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I have not spoken on this Bill before and I rise now with some diffidence because I feel somewhat estranged from the debate. What people really care about is what happens to them, not just perceptions. I will be slightly frivolous about internal combustion engines. I live very near the A1 in the north-east of England and I have had several internal combustion engines taken out of my garden. The security measures that I now take are much more comprehensive than they were in my youth. For example, we used to leave the keys in our cars, if I remember rightly.

At certain times of night in the north-east—the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, knows more about this than me—there are parts of Newcastle where the anti-social behaviour is pretty compelling. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, knows, my son-in-law tries to assist the police in dealing with some of this behaviour. I think there are places in south-west Durham where the police do not go. I shall not quote the names of the ex-mining areas into which they do not go at certain times of the day and possibly hardly ever.

In the context of what is happening in the country, we need to think very seriously about the purpose of this Bill. It is to try to establish arrangements, which I think would meet with total agreement on all sides of this House, for the reduction of crime and anti-social behaviour. I hope that in all this discussion, conversation and exchange about form, we do not lose our sense of purpose.

[Lord Bradshaw]

The noble Viscount referred to the disorder in Newcastle. In 2003, a Licensing Bill was forced through the House by another Government without proper trial. From that, we derived much greater use of alcohol, much greater disorder in city centres, much greater burdens on the health service and terrible problems for town centre management. Does the noble Viscount agree that trials of any changes are probably worth while?

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I am not the person for solutions; I presented the problem. I am coming into this debate entirely new and without any experience as a policeman or of being on a police committee. I have met policemen from time to time. Sometimes the exchanges have been friendly and at other times they have been not so friendly. Indeed, on one occasion, I thought I was being treated in rather a highhanded manner, but these things happen to people. My concern is about what is happening to people and about the purpose of the Bill.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I speak as a devotee of democratic election but as an equally firm opponent of the concentration of power in one pair of hands. I wrote down the term “collaborative” when the noble Lord, Lord Condon, used it in our previous debate because it is absolutely right. Whatever model we end up with—I share the views of those who are perhaps realists in this political process—the panel should be part of a collaborative process and have an active collaborative role. I see scrutiny and the imposition of checks and balances as part of that activity and collaboration. We have a lot of detailed amendments later about the powers, functions and relationships of the panel and about with whom and when it has conversations. They will apply whatever the model. They may, no doubt, involve the role of the media. It is a reality today that the media have an important role. The scrutineer needs to know how to work with the media and not get caught out by them. The checks and balances are immensely important. In a recent e-mail to one of my honourable friends in the Commons, I referred to them as Cs and Bs, and he thought I was referring to the Cross Benches and the Bishops. Maybe he was not wrong.

At the risk of being a bit of a nerd, I shall ask some questions about a couple of specific points in the amendment. I am sorry to come from a different point of view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, but I worry about the references to the Human Rights Act, the Children Act and the Equality Act and about the dangers of singling out particular references. We may discuss all this in the context of the strategic policing requirement and the protocol and I in no way suggest that those Acts are not important. However, is it not the case that the chief constable, who is the object of these parts of the amendment, is held to account under the law and that it does not need a specific reference in this legislation to deal with that?

My other question is perhaps even more nerdish, but I do not want to suggest that it is not important. There must, of course, be an endeavour to secure the reduction of crime, but Amendment 31D states:

“The Police Commission … must … secure the reduction of crime”.

But what if it cannot? I agree that it should try to, but what are the consequences if it fails? Frankly, one does not want to allow difficult ratepayers looking for audit-based complaints to have a go at a commission by saying that it has not secured the reduction of crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Eccles]

Where does the Bill say that the commissioner has to be full time? I could not find it.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the Minister may help me on the salary intended to be paid to the commissioner, but my understanding is that we are talking about a six-figure salary.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I cannot anticipate what the board will decide, but I would have thought it inconceivable that anyone would be elected who said that they would treat this post as a part-time post. I think we have all been working on the assumption that this will be a full-time responsibility. I would much prefer it to be a non-executive appointment around a strong corporate governance structure. That would be most satisfactory. In the construct that the Government had in the original Bill, before noble Lords sought to improve it last week, it would inevitably have been a full-time job. My great fear is that to justify re-election, if the commissioner is to be elected, or reappointment, if the commissioner is to be appointed, the commissioner will spend day after day interfering in the work of the chief constable.

[Viscount Eccles]

The noble Lord may be right—I do not know—but I suggest, certainly in the light of how this Bill has gone so far, that we do not jump to too many conclusions. After all, I know that my noble friend on the Front Bench has said that she was willing to discuss anything and everything. We seem to be getting to the end altogether too quickly.