Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Earl Attlee

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 21st May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, although it is perfectly correct to debate the Government’s Motion to agree with the Commons, I am not convinced that it is a good idea even to debate a further Lords amendment in lieu at this point. As my noble friend Lord Cormack pointed out, we are out of time. I agree with my noble and learned friend the Minister that the Bill is good enough and, if there is a vote, I will support the Minister.

I share the worries about the new role of the Secretary of State but unfortunately I do not think that it is an appropriate role for the Press Recognition Panel. The PRP has a very specific role, which is to test whether the approved regulator meets the standards laid out in the royal charter.

The House will be pleased to hear that I have cut out seven minutes of my speech. Nevertheless, I will be engaging with my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood to explore how we can achieve what we all want: a free, vibrant, sustainable, competent press that adheres to the rules and acts decently, but which cannot be chilled by a very rich complainant.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the test has been given to us: we have to assess whether or not this Bill is good enough to pass. It is not the test I think we were expecting. It is quite refreshing in some ways because it means we do not have to look at every jot and every tittle, every “i” and every “t”, to make sure they are correct—we can just say that it is good enough so go with it. I am not sure it is the test that will sustain in your Lordships’ House for time to come, and perhaps we can draw a veil over it once we have got through this short period.

Is the Bill good enough to pass? Yes it is, and I have no doubt that it will pass today. However, it leaves behind two or three unanswered questions and some substantial issues that we will have to come back to. I think we have heard enough in the speeches today to know that these issues are not finally vanquished: they are present and they will be back, and we should think about that. If we wanted any assurance that this goes across all parties, all disciplines and all times, the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, put us absolutely on the spot. There is a sense that a great injustice has happened and a sense of fairness among UK citizens to want to see it organised better and done again. There was an all-party consensus—the evidence is that there still is an all-party consensus—that we should do it.

This was not the right Bill—I always said that it was not—but we have made huge changes to the way in which the Government were proposing to legislate in this area, changes which I welcome. Victim of the timing as we are, if there had been more time available, we perhaps could have sorted out many more of them. But we are not going to be able to do that because we must get the Bill through before midnight on 25 May. I absolutely subscribe to that.

What is left to do? There is no doubt that we have to know more about who did what to whom in the period running up to the Leveson inquiry being announced in November 2011. My Amendment A2 would have given the Information Commissioner powers to look at that and to provide what would effectively be a benchmarking report to allow subsequent work “looking forward”—in the words of the Secretary of State—to have a proper sense of what it was they were testing. I still think that that would be the right solution, but the noble and learned Lord made some welcome remarks from the Dispatch Box at the beginning of the debate and I accept those as being sufficient to make sure that I can withdraw the amendment at the appropriate time.

There is the narrow question of whether we should look at the particular points raised in the two other amendments. I think they are victim to the problems that we have had with this Bill, in that we have not been able to give detailed scrutiny in Committee or on Report to issues that we perhaps should have done had they been around. It is good that they are there and that the Government have listened. It is fantastic that they are prepared to work with us on these issues; much of the wording here has come out of discussions and debates with Ministers outside the House, and we have seen the benefit of that.

However, Amendment 62BC as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, worries us, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer made the point very well. It states:

“The Secretary of State must, before the end of each review period, lay before Parliament a report produced by the Secretary of State or an appropriate person on … the use of relevant alternative dispute resolution procedures … and … the effectiveness of those procedures in such cases”.


That goes a bit too close to whether it is politicians—the Secretary of State in this case—directing how independent assessments should go forward. I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could comment on that. It may well mean that the Secretary of State has the power but the actual work is done by others and, as was always going to be the case, that it is just a report and not a review. The confusion comes, I think, from having “review period” specified in the Bill, which is something that we would have picked up earlier.

On my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer’s amendments, there are issues around whether we are, in some senses, giving a responsibility to the Information Commissioner but not the powers to do the job that we want done. Again, some words from the Dispatch Box might help. I have covered my Amendment A2, in the sense that I think that responses have come back.

Is there a future for work in this area? Yes, there is. IPSO has made a significant change to its working practices since it was established and is now doing good and effective work. I do not disagree that the right thing is to let it continue on its path, watch how it goes and look at the reports that will be made on its effectiveness under Amendment 62BC.

We should not be tempted to change the structure of the PRP and its approval of independent press regulators. It may seem otiose but, as there are now 100 titles signed up to it, at least it is doing something right. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, that system may well have something to offer Facebook, Google and others who might be interested in making sure that they are properly regulated.

Given that we are looking forward and the worry that we have in a liberal democracy of being able to see the kind of quality press and comment that we have in our present print journalism, which I support entirely, the review being carried out by Frances Cairncross will result in a number of recommendations and it is possible that we will need to legislate for that. These issues could come back relatively soon and I hope they do. There is enough all-party support in this House and the other place to get some movement on that and we will be happy to do so. For the moment, we wish the Bill well. It is good enough and we hope it will come into force and do the job it is meant to do.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Earl Attlee

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

To regain some favour with my noble friend the Minister, may I just say a little word about affirmative orders? It is tempting to say that we should have affirmative procedure but, at the end of the day, we will have at some point to debate those affirmative orders, and they keep mounting up. In respect of negative instruments, there is a praying period and we can flag them up for debate and have them debated in the Chamber in exactly the same way as we can an affirmative order.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

But I think that the noble Earl would accept that the last time a negative instrument was prayed against successfully was something like 1940—certainly a long time ago—and it was about the use of petroleum with open flames.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Earl Attlee

Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

The noble Lord is giving the Government a “get out of jail free” card, unless he has something else to say. There are areas in all these amendments that have massive implications for data and data protection. If they do not fit into the scope of a Data Protection Bill, where on earth will they fit?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I would also like to have a little pop at the noble Lord. I understand his point that this is a Data Protection Bill and not something to amend the Crime and Courts Act. Of course, I experienced significant difficulties with the clerks trying to table an amendment to try to amend that Act. But if we had a suitable legislative opportunity—another criminal justice Bill—would the noble Lord’s party support an amendment to make Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act commence forthwith?

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

To answer that last point first, we have supported that in the past and on the right occasion we would probably support it again. But my point is not about the quality of the case made or the correctness of the approach. It is just not the right time to do that. The same answer applies to the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I did not say that we would not support him if he brought this back at Report. I am simply saying that, at this particular point, I want to use this debate to focus on something else and that is why I am trying to approach the issue in this way. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me before my voice gives up finally. I hope that I can allow that to ring out so that noble Lords can be inspired by it. That is a faint hope.

Underneath the debate that we have had today are some really important questions. I will pose them quickly in the hope that we will get a response from the Minister. It is really important that the noble and learned Lord uses this opportunity to set out very clearly what the Government’s position is on a number of these key points. Is the regime that currently applies to the press, as set out in the Data Protection Act 1998, still the case in the Bill? In other words, has the regime that has worked well since 1998 been changed in any way by its transposition into this Bill? If it has not, he has to be very clear that that is the case. The case that has been made suggests that, in the rewriting and repositioning of Clause 164, something has happened that has alerted everyone to the point, which was made very well by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Black. I do not think that that was what we understand to be the case, and certainly I and my noble friend Lord Griffiths have asked for chapter and verse on this so that we can be sure that what we are seeing is exactly what the current law is. That is a straightforward question.

Secondly, we need to be persuaded, if we have not been already, that either the technology or the working practices in print journalism in particular, but also in relation to how print journalism is now often paired up with moving image technologies, has produced such a step-change in the way they operate that the additional defences proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Black, or the additional protections that might be needed by victims, which are so important and relevant, do not need to be brought into the Bill. The case has been made, the charge is there, and the Government must come back and tell us what arrangements have been made.

Thirdly, does the fact that many, but not all, direct investigations of a journalistic type are now done jointly with an audio-visual component, so that we have combinations between major newspapers and television broadcasters or even film, mean that we now have in perpetuity dual regulation, in which case the approach taken by Ofcom has to sit with the regulations under the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Data Protection Bill when it becomes law? If that is the case, we have a problem that needs to be confronted. We have one post hoc regulatory structure and one that is mainly post hoc but has an element, albeit restricted and on a narrow basis, in print journalism. If the way the world is moving suggests that everyone doing this work will have to be involved with two regulators, the Government’s Bill does not take that trick and we will need to come back to the point.

Fourthly, what is it about print journalism which is so different that it requires there to be a predetermination capacity for the ICO compared with the situation when the same work, and possibly the same output, is done under Ofcom? My noble friend Lord Puttnam and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, made the point that the difference is that the media in this country are very strongly regulated. There are codes, statutory frameworks and editors who are clearly responsible for them and work to them well. However, a different situation pertains here. That does not mean to say that it should be applied across all the outputs involving investigative journalism, but it must be said that if there was in existence a robust, independent and effective press complaints system which enjoyed the confidence of victims, perhaps we would make better progress on the particular issues which have been raised today. That is the point on which we must focus as regards where we might go with this. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord comes to respond, he can bring some light to this issue.

Railways: High Speed 2

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Earl Attlee

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Grand Committee

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I assure the Committee that I will be supporting and pursuing the HS2 project with great vigour.

I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Astor for securing this debate and I thank other noble Lords for their contributions. A project as significant as HS2 deserves plenty of time for debate, and I am happy to address your Lordships’ questions this evening and, I hope, on future occasions.

There have been some developments. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport introduced the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill, to which my noble friend referred, in the House of Commons on 13 May. It is colloquially known as the paving Bill. We also published the Draft Environmental Statement for phase 1 on 16 May, along with a consultation on the proposed route refinements.

Noble Lords will also be aware of the NAO’s review of HS2. The report is a snapshot from the past and the project has moved on. Economic modelling is just part of the story. If we relied only on modelling, we would not have built the M1, parts of the M25 or the Jubilee line extension to Canary Wharf. We are not building HS2 simply because “the computer says yes”; it is the right thing to do to make Britain a stronger and more prosperous place.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made much of the NAO report. Perhaps I may remind him that the Government are running with a project that his party started, and we are very happy to do so. This is a transformational project that will serve eight out of 10 of the UK’s largest cities, bringing our major cities closer together and two-thirds of people in the north to within two hours of London.

The Government support a direct high-speed connection to Heathrow but it is sensible that further work on a link to Heathrow should await the consideration of the Airports Commission’s recommendations, due in 2015. If it fitted with the commission’s recommendations, we could consult separately later and include the spur in the legislation for phase 2. It could be constructed as part of phase 2 without any impact on the operational railway.

We welcome the outcome of the judicial review, with nine of the 10 challenges being rejected. The one challenge on which the judge found against the Government concerned the 2011 consultation on property compensation rights. The judgment makes clear that it was the process, not the compensation scheme itself, that was flawed. We are giving detailed consideration to the judge’s comments and are planning to reconsult later this year on property compensation schemes.

My noble friend has claimed that properties more than 60 metres from the line would not be eligible for compensation. This is not correct. The exceptional hardship scheme for phase 1 has no defined geographical limit for qualification. However, the EHS is only the start; we will consult later this year on long-term proposals for property schemes that will apply to those outside the 120-metre swathe that my noble friend has described. I have more to say on property compensation.

It is regrettable that the recent judicial review has delayed the introduction of further compensation. However, the Government have been clear that we want to get compensation to those who need it as quickly as possible. While it is inappropriate to speculate on the final package of schemes, I can confirm that the scheme, or rather the consultation, will include a property bond.

The Government are determined to make this an environmentally responsible scheme. We have listened to concerns and worked closely with Natural England and the Environment Agency. However, you cannot build a railway without causing some disruption. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, raised the issue of the Chilterns. Following the 2011 consultation, of the 13 miles of route through the Chilterns AONB, less than two miles will be at or above the surface. This is more than a 50% increase in tunnel or green tunnel compared with the original route. It is clearly harder to avoid an AONB near the Home Counties than further north, where there are more possibilities of changing the route.

Mitigation can have its own impacts. A full-bored tunnel through the Chilterns was considered, but would require 10 ventilation shafts as well as an emergency access station. This would be a box constructed within the AONB, around half a mile long, with good road access for emergency services. Only one feasible location for this access station was identified, close to Little Missenden on the A413, requiring the box to be between 40 metres and 50 metres deep, making this a costly and significant engineering challenge, with its own environmental impacts.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I think I detected a somewhat aggressive stance in what he was saying. I am sorry that he says that. Does he not accept that there is in fact an alternative scheme, which I mentioned in my speech, that proposes a relief tunnel, exactly as specified and required under European legislation, at Wendover Dean? That has the support of local residents, which is one of the major reasons why it has been put forward. To say that there is no alternative except in Mantle’s Wood, the very ancient woodland that we are most concerned about, which happens to be near Little Missenden and indeed Great Missenden, is wrong, and we are against that. There is an alternative. It is not the best alternative, but it is disingenuous of the Minister to say that there are no possible alternatives.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am extremely sorry to the Committee if I appeared to be aggressive. I have no intention of doing that at all. However, the noble Lord is raising detailed questions about the route, and my duty is to defend the whole scheme. It will be the duty of Parliament to finally approve the route. At the moment, we are consulting about the route, and we need to do that properly. I will of course read Hansard carefully to look at the precise points that the noble Lord has made.

I turn to the issue of train speed, which my noble friend Lord Astor raised. The route has been engineered to allow for train speeds of up to 400 kilometres per hour in future, should there be a commercial justification for doing so. Operation at up to 400 kilometres per hour would require the consideration of whether improved train design enabled services to operate at that higher speed without additional significant adverse environmental effects. Going fast does not disproportionately increase the cost of the infrastructure, but it means that the alignment has to be more or less straight.

I will try to answer as many questions as I can in the time remaining. My noble friend Lord Astor proposed a station at Bicester, but then he went on to point out the difficulties of accelerating and decelerating from stations. My noble friend made further comments on train speeds. While it is true that some European operators are looking at operating at slightly lower speeds, largely due to maintenance issues, we are not aware of any that are planning to go as low as 225 kilometres per hour. The infrastructure is still built for higher speeds so that, when technology allows, they will be able to return to those higher operating speeds.

My noble friend also talked about the spur to Heathrow. It is important to understand that the spur has not been cancelled but has been paused, and it is too early to predict the outcome of the Airports Commission’s work or any of the decisions taken following that. There are no plans to slow down the progress of phase 1. We need to press on quickly with phase 1 so that we can deliver the economic and wider benefits that higher rail speeds can bring. Does pausing the spur mean no third runway at Heathrow? The Government’s position on a third runway at Heathrow remains unchanged, as set out in the coalition agreement. However, the Airports Commission has been tasked with identifying and recommending to the Government options for maintaining the UK’s status as an international hub for aviation.

My noble friend Lord Astor and others have suggested that, where possible, the route should follow noisy transport corridors such as existing motorways. During the course of the scheme development work in 2009, six main corridors, including the M40 and the M1, were considered. The routes were rejected, primarily because of their adverse implications for journey times and economic benefits, which were compounded by their higher costs. Any environmental advantages that these options offered over the proposed scheme were marginal at best, and therefore not decisive in discounting these routes.

I turn to the issue of compensation. We are clear that we need to have a very good compensation scheme. Most infrastructure projects compensate property owners only at a much later stage of development, when statutory measures apply. For the HS2 project, however, an exceptional hardship scheme has already been introduced while the route is being considered. Subject to consultation later this year, the Government have already stated that we hope to introduce subsequent schemes that go even further than the law requires in order to ensure fair compensation for those directly affected by HS2.

Perhaps it would be helpful if I gave a case study for what we are doing with the EHS, remembering that it is inappropriate for me to comment on specific individual cases. Take a lady living 350 metres from the proposed HS2 route who suffered from an illness that meant she was unable to safely climb the stairs in her home. The lady therefore needed to sell her home to purchase a bungalow but, because of the proximity of HS2, she was unable to achieve a sale at the required price. The lady and her husband applied to the EHS, providing documentary evidence that they met the criteria for the scheme, including that the lady was suffering exceptional hardship. A majority independent panel considered the evidence and recommended that the lady’s home should be purchased from her. This recommendation was reviewed and agreed by a senior civil servant at the DfT. Some 12 weeks later, we exchanged contracts on the lady’s home for the full, unblighted value. So far we have brought 81 properties on to the scheme, spending just under £50 million, and have offered to buy a further 32.

Railways: High-speed Rail

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Earl Attlee

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am sure that Her Majesty’s Government look at all possible sources of finance.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a resident of the Chilterns, and indeed of the village of Little Missenden, which the Minister kindly mentioned a few minutes ago. I am afraid that I cannot join the general celebration of the announcement today. That is not because I feel that the Chilterns are being badly treated—although I think that they are—but because I share some of the points made earlier about the way in which the business case has been made. I shall return to that at some other time. A key concern of many of the residents in this area, and of many others looking at this matter, is the environmental case. Can the Minister explain why that has been delayed and why we have so far not seen anything on it? Can he say when it will be published?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I have to declare a slight interest—not only am I the Earl Attlee; I am also Viscount Prestwood, because my grandfather lived in the village of Prestwood. The noble Lord asked about the environmental impact assessment. As he points out, that will be produced later on. However, it is a very detailed document. There has been some sustainability assessment of the proposed route, but the environmental impact assessment will be very detailed and look at how we will deal with every adverse impact. That will come along with the hybrid Bill.

Postal Services Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Earl Attlee

Wednesday 6th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Eccles]

I intended no criticism of the individuals in Postcomm. We need to remember that regulators have only a limited amount of independence. We are inclined to talk as though they had a rather larger amount of independence than they actually have. When I look at the 2000 Act and think about the policy intentions behind it and the interpretation of them, I am not entirely surprised that Postcomm got itself into what it admits is a very difficult position. In any evaluation of how the present situation comes about, we have to remember—and that is exactly why I intervened on Schedule 9—that the Government of the day are in the final analysis the accountable body and Parliament with it, and the regulator is trying to carry out their wishes as it interprets them, with a certain amount of independence, but only a certain amount.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I must confess to never having read The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, but I do have my own personal copy of the law of unintended consequences, which was passed many aeons go. I am happy to have further discussions with the noble Lord offline and we take on board his comments about Postcomm.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.