| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister on this, but that is the very point; we are not technical experts, so it is very hard to get this across. When we debated deep packet inspection, which in effect is picking out data from the system by technological means, the Minister said that the question whether that constituted access under RIPA would have to be tested in court. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, says that this is not about access, but I do not think that it is clear to the
24 Mar 2009 : Column 635
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the noble Baroness is conflating two things. She referred to what had been discussed in the other place, to which I gave my first answer. She has now moved on to targeted online advertising. That is a different issue from the one that was mentioned in the other place. I did not say that targeted online advertising was mentioned in the other place, but I am very happy to speak about it.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am sorry, my Lords: different issue, same technology.
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, they are very different issues. The debate on targeted online advertising is ongoing, as I said before. It has been the subject of investigations by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and we are looking into it. As I said, I am very unhappy about it. This is the sort of snooping—the sort of area—that worries me more. People seem to think, “Goodness me, the Government are a dreadful bunch”, but I can tell noble Lords that what all sorts of other people can gain by looking at people’s e-mails is horrifying. I am quite able myself to get amazing amounts of data on people in a normal, open way, which is pretty frightening. People do not understand that, when they go into their e-mails and on to their little screens, they are telling more people in the world what they are writing than if they wrote a postcard and stuck it in the mail. That is the reality, but that is a side issue.
We are satisfied that the regulations, which implement an EU instrument on data retention, are expressly stated to comply with Article 8 of the ECHR and are therefore compatible with it. These regulations rightly include protections for privacy and security, and for industry. The Information Commissioner is the supervisory authority for data retained under these regulations, and companies taking forward data retention projects under these regulations will be required to undergo security audits to increase confidence that due regard is paid to the security of data.
We have spent much of this debate discussing points of access to communications data, which is important. But it is separate from the purpose of these regulations, which are to do with retention of data. While we might not all agree on who needs to access this communications data—indeed, we will have opportunities to debate that aspect of it—surely noble Lords agree as to the need for the retention of this data, so that those who we think should have access can have access to it in the future. If that is the case, and we are in agreement as to the need to keep this data—our European friends seem to think that that is the case—I see no need to pursue the amendment. The amendment calls for new primary legislation on the retention of communications data, on which there is a broad consensus.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned that we are being observed more day by day and hour by hour, and that we are no longer a free society. I do not
24 Mar 2009 : Column 636
Information is fundamental to the delivery of modern public services and to public protection. It helps to ensure that citizens receive the services to which they are entitled. Front-line staff have the information they need to do their jobs effectively. Joining up services is very important. A number of independent reports—for example, Bichard’s report on the Soham murders and that of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, into child protection—often say that there is a failure in shared information. We are abused then of that failure. We cannot turn the clocks back 30 years. We are in a society where data has to be used.
Turning to the amendment in more detail, the first part relates to expressions of regret. Clearly, all of us would rather be in a world where there was no necessity to think of collecting communications data—a world with no Soham murders, no murders of prostitutes in Ipswich or terrorist threats. I do not think that we need an amendment to reflect the regret we all feel. The second part of the amendment refers to access to communications data. I say again that that is not what this is about. Let us focus on what it deals with; that is, making it mandatory that the appropriate communications data are kept in the most efficient and usable manner by the communications service providers.
All Europe thinks that that makes sense—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister says that access will be discussed at a later date. Who will discuss it and who will decide it? Will it be discussed by this Parliament or will it be decided by the Council of Ministers in Europe?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, as a result of the consultation, it will be discussed in the other place and in this place in terms of amendments to RIPA. It will also be discussed in the context of IMP. Exactly what discussion will go on in Europe, I am not sure. But there might well be discussion.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, where will the decision be taken? We can discuss European matters here for as long as we like, but will the decision be taken here in this Parliament or in Brussels?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the decision on access will be taken in this Parliament, but that decision is totally irrelevant if we do not keep the data. If we do not agree to keep this data, any discussion about access is irrelevant because they are not being kept. We have had a lot of debate about access and there have been some very interesting points. But this is about making sure that the data are kept. I think we all agree that we should have that data. We all know how valuable they are: 95 per cent of all serious cases rely on that data. Are we really suggesting that these data should not be kept? If we do not keep them, as I say, access to them becomes irrelevant, and that is the key
24 Mar 2009 : Column 637
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I was loath to intervene on the Minister during his winding-up remarks because he has had quite enough interventions. However, can he answer one straightforward question that I actually put to him in my speech: do these regulations either implicitly or explicitly authorise the use of DPI technology to retain communications data? It is a very straightforward question.
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I am always wary of straightforward questions and I am afraid that I will have to take advice on DPI technology. I think that I am fairly good on these things, but I am not aware of what it is. Perhaps I may respond to the noble Earl in writing.
8.45 pm
Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, we have had an interesting discussion. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said in the course of our debate that it is important to have access to this kind of data information for the purposes of national security and the pursuit of crime. I repeat what I said at the beginning of my earlier remarks: there is no difference between us; that is not the issue. The issue is the terms of this statutory instrument and its relationship with other legislation.
Thereafter we had the beguiling argument that this piece of legislation is not about access, it is only about retention. But it is linked to access legislation, and the access legislation as it stands is highly unsatisfactory. We are being asked to agree to this SI in the absence of having access legislation that is satisfactory. We do not know when we are going to have the opportunity to see that legislation amended. No timetable has been offered and we do not know the relationship between RIPA, and possibly a modified RIPA, and the SI. As things stand, we are being asked to agree to an SI linked to the present RIPA, and that is highly unsatisfactory.
Furthermore, I fear that the Minister has failed adequately to explain to your Lordships’ House how this statutory instrument will work in practice. He briskly dismissed a large number of important points raised in the debate, including deep packet inspection, which is relevant. I fear that it is necessary to know the answer to that question in order to be convincing to this House; it is not just a matter of mere technicality. The great difficulty with all this legislation is that there are matters of great political importance to the liberties of this nation which are disguised as ostensibly technical matters. It will not do that we are not the master of what the technology is giving us, and therefore unable to understand its political import. We must be able to have the debate on terms that enable us to tackle both. Although he was asked specifically, the Minister did not give an answer to the question about the relationship
24 Mar 2009 : Column 638
For five and a half years I worked in the European Commission and I know something about its habits. As my noble friend Lord Northesk commented, this particular bit of legislation in its German version is now up for scrutiny for its compatibility with the ECHR. Against that background, I think it is unlikely that the Government will receive a letter of mise en demeure from the European Commission, which is the first stage of legal proceedings in infringement. I am not impressed by the notion that we have to pass this piece of legislation now in order to avoid infringement proceedings. Given the importance of the matters we are scrutinising, I repeat that I beg the Government to withdraw these regulations and produce at the earliest opportunity proper, primary legislation on communications data. For these reasons, I want to test the opinion of the House.
8.50 pm
Division on Baroness Neville-Jones's amendment.
Baroness Neville-Jones's amendment disagreed.
Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller]
Astor, V.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Barker, B.
Bates, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Cameron of Dillington, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Cathcart, E.
Chester, Bp.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Cotter, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
Craigavon, V.
De Mauley, L.
D'Souza, B.
Elton, L.
Ferrers, E.
Fookes, B.
Garel-Jones, L.
Hamilton of Epsom, L.
Hamwee, B.
Henley, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Hooper, B.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Jay of Ewelme, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Jopling, L.
Kingsland, L.
Kirkham, L.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Laird, L.
Lee of Trafford, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
Maddock, B.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Mancroft, L.
Marland, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Montrose, D.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Neville-Jones, B.
Noakes, B.
Northbrook, L.
Northesk, E.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Reay, L.
Rennard, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rowe-Beddoe, L.
Seccombe, B.
Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Sharples, B.
Shephard of Northwold, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]
Skelmersdale, L.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Steinberg, L.
24 Mar 2009 : Column 639
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Taylor of Holbeach, L.
Thomas of Winchester, B.
Tope, L.
Trefgarne, L.
Tyler, L.
Ullswater, V.
Verma, B.
Waddington, L.
Wade of Chorlton, L.
Wakeham, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Wallace of Tankerness, L.
Walpole, L.
Wilcox, B.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Willoughby de Broke, L.
Anderson of Swansea, L.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Bach, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. [Teller]
Bew, L.
Bhattacharyya, L.
Bilston, L.
Blackstone, B.
Borrie, L.
Bradley, L.
Brennan, L.
Brett, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Corston, B.
Crawley, B.
Davidson of Glen Clova, L.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Desai, L.
Dixon, L.
Drayson, L.
Dubs, L.
Elystan-Morgan, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Gale, B.
Golding, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Griffiths of Burry Port, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haskel, L.
Haworth, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Hoyle, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Jones, L.
Judd, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Layard, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Leitch, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
McDonagh, B.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Meacher, B.
Morgan, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morgan of Huyton, B.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
O'Neill of Clackmannan, L.
Patel of Bradford, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Quin, B.
Rea, L.
Richard, L.
Rooker, L.
Rosser, L.
Rowlands, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Simon, V.
Smith of Leigh, L.
Snape, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Thornton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Vadera, B.
West of Spithead, L.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Young of Norwood Green, L.
Postal Services Bill [HL]
Committee (1st Day) (Continued)
9.01 pm
Clause 5: Power to direct issue of certain securities
24 Mar 2009 : Column 640
Lord Hunt of Wirral: This is a very simple probing amendment on the impact of the privatisation on the subsidiary companies that will remain under Royal Mail Group Ltd. Clauses 5 and 6 deal with the transfer of securities from the various companies to and from the Government and presumably, therefore, to and from each other as well. The diagram I referred to earlier which was so helpfully sent out by the department shows no sign of any change in those subsidiary companies. What transfer of securities does the Minister imagine might be necessary? That is really my main question.
One of the concerns that many have about the government method of privatisation is that they will happily sell off control of the most profitable part of Royal Mail’s business—possibly parcels—leaving the rest of its business to continue in its current unsatisfactory way. These clauses appear to make that concern a very real possibility. Therefore, I look forward to hearing what the Government intend to do with the powers in these clauses.
There is also a concern that requiring these securities to be deemed fully paid up in cash may cause some problems from an accounting perspective. Can the Minister provide any reassurances on that front as well? I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe: Amendments 15 and 16 relate to the Secretary of State’s powers to direct the issue of, and to acquire, securities under Clauses 5 and 6. Clauses 5 and 6 mirror powers under Sections 63 and 64 of the Postal Services Act 2000. Due to other changes in the Bill, it was considered clearest to introduce these new clauses rather than to amend the existing powers. That is the essence and substance of my argument: they are in the Act. To amend them because of the changed terminology in the Bill would be messy. We therefore felt that it would be clearer to put in two new clauses.
The amendment would prevent the Secretary of State directing a company in the same group as a Post Office company or Royal Mail company to issue securities to the Secretary of State, the Treasury or their nominee, or to acquire securities in a company which was in the same group as a Post Office company or a Royal Mail company. Examples of such companies are Royal Mail Holdings plc, which is the ultimate holding company of the group, Royal Mail Estates Ltd, which is the group’s property company, and General Logistics Systems Ltd, which is the European logistics business.
The powers of direction in Clause 5(1)(c) relate to the potential reorganisation of the Royal Mail group of companies. We do not envisage the need to use them in relation to the reorganisation of the group now being contemplated, but we do not see any reason to curtail the powers, given that Section 63 of the Postal Services Act 2000 currently provides them.
The power to acquire securities in a company covered by Clause 6(4)(c) could be helpful to those companies. For example, under the working capital facility currently provided by the Secretary of State to the Post Office, loans are provided via the issue by the Post Office of debt securities, which are acquired by the Secretary of
24 Mar 2009 : Column 641
It is perfectly possible that, at some point in the future, the Secretary of State might want to come to a similar arrangement with, for example, the holding company of the entire group, Royal Mail Holdings plc. The amendment to Clause 6 would prevent that. We see no reason to restrict that ability.
The clauses are designed simply to put back the existing powers. We do not envisage any transfer of securities which has not been laid out already in our policy statement. We do not envisage a particular handling of the parcels businesses by virtue of these clauses. We make no commitment to parcels in any sense other than that already stated in our policy documents. We certainly do not foresee any movement on that until we have completed our discussions with our potential partner and we have an agreement.
It would be foolish of me to suggest that I understand the accounting point raised by the noble Lord. I shall write to him on it and I hope that I shall be able to give him the assurances that he seeks.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: Could I hear that again, as it might help to avoid some of the rumours currently going around in Royal Mail and among the employees who have worked so hard to make GLS a profitable part of the business? Did I hear the Minister say that there are no plans to sell off GLS and the parcels business?
Lord Tunnicliffe: Can I ask my noble friend to repeat his question?
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: With the greatest of pleasure. Am I to understand from the Minister’s reply that there is no suggestion that GLS or a parcel business is being prepared for sale to another company offshore; namely, TNT? That is the rumour that I am asking him to dispel so that people can go about their business without worrying about the Dutch coming along—they have their own problems as has been mentioned. If the Dutch post office is going to be encouraged to take that profitable part of the Post Office’s business, it would be a big psychological blow to people in the industry.
Lord Tunnicliffe: The amendment that we are discussing makes no difference one way or other to that position. GLS will be part of the Royal Mail Group, as it is now, and that will be owned by the ultimate holding company. The powers with respect to GLS’s shares are unaffected by these provisions as far as I understand them. However, I shall write to the noble Lord to be more precise about the extent of their effect. Our position is unchanged from that which we set out in our policy statement with regard to GLS.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |