28 Nov 2006 : Column 643
House of Lords
Tuesday, 28 November 2006.
The House met at half-past two: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.
Closed-circuit Television
Lord Selsdon asked Her Majesty’s Government:
How many closed-circuit television systems have been registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the Data Protection Act 1998 requires data controllers to notify the Information Commissioner where they process personal data, subject to some limited exemptions. The notification focuses upon the purpose for which personal data are processed rather than the particular equipment by which the information is processed. There is no requirement to notify the commissioner that personal data are processed using CCTV equipment in particular.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, but I appear a little confused, because a few seconds ago I received a letter from a Minister advising me that the idea that information should be passed to the Information Commissioner was incorrect. Could I therefore ask her how many peeping Toms or peeping paparazzi, legal or illegal, are there in the United Kingdom and who owns the intellectual property that they assemble and store?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the letter to which the noble Lord refers is from my noble friend Lady Scotland, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, making a statement about something that she said to him regarding CCTV. The information that I have now given him is correct. Inevitably, I do not have figures for those who are doing things illegally, but I can tell him that 47,000 data controllers are registered for the purposes of crime prevention and the prosecution of offenders. In the experience of the Information Commissioner’s Office, those are usually the purposes for which most CCTV systems are notified. The data are processed under the principles of Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, will the Government face the danger that promotion of massive surveillance without proper impact assessments, such as the £224 million scheme in respect of 12 million children that the Government are promoting and about which the Information Commissioner’s Office warned, is extremely risky, undermines parental authority and, through a plethora of information, risks blinding the onlooker to the real risks that individual children may run?
28 Nov 2006 : Column 644
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the purpose of Every Child Matters was to move away from trying to deal with children in crisis to trying to identify children and support them more effectively. The noble Lord may remember that I took the Children Act through the House and it was the famous Clause 9 that dealt with data sharing. Proposals are before your Lordships’ House, as a consequence of that legislation, to enable professionals to work more effectively together. It is a kind of address book, because we know that the time it takes for one professional working with a family to identify another is, on average, two days. Our purpose will be to enable professionals to work more collaboratively and not, as the noble Lord fears, to identify children wrongly.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, will my noble friend catch up with the figures for the dramatic reduction in crime in the Castle Vale area of my former constituency in Birmingham, where those cameras are welcomed by residents, because they have not only made it the safest place to live in the West Midlands but enhanced the police’s ability to prevent and catch people carrying out crime? Will she similarly ask Birmingham City Council to provide her with figures to show how much this is mirrored in the city centre, so that a big international city such as Birmingham now has one of the safest city centres in the country?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I would be delighted to ask Birmingham City Council for that information. My noble friend knows that the Home Office spent £170 million between 1999 and 2003 looking at how we could best use CCTV in crime reduction and he is right that there have been good results. It is also true that neighbourhoods that suffer from severe forms of anti-social behaviour find the use of CCTV an important deterrent, as well as a way of finding the perpetrators.
Lord De Mauley: My Lords, does the Minister agree in a wider context with her Government’s Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, when he suggests that the United Kingdom is in danger of,
What measures is she taking to prevent that and to safeguard the liberties and privacy of honest law-abiding citizens?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I was pleased to open the Information Commissioner’s conference on this subject. I am keen that we identify data sharing appropriately. There are three issues. The first is the choice of a consumer—a citizen—to enable the data to be shared because our time is not free and there are lots of examples where we fill in the same information time and again. We should choose if we wish to share that. The second is transparency, so that people know how their information is used, and that when government departments share it appropriately citizens are informed and know what is happening. The third issue is to make sure that the role of government as a protector of the vulnerable is well understood and
28 Nov 2006 : Column 645
Middle East: Foreign Policy
2.42 pm
Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether they are making any changes in their policy towards the Middle East in light of the present foreign policy of the United States.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister clearly stated, we need a whole Middle East strategy with Israel-Palestine at its core. Part of that is about giving Iran and Syria a strategic choice on how to engage with us to create a stable and prosperous Middle East. We share many common goals with the US and will continue to work with it towards peace in the region.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, since the committee set up by President Bush under James Baker to consider policy for the future for the Middle East is likely to report soon and will no doubt be followed by further consideration by the American Government of any changes that may be necessary; since the Prime Minister has agreed with David Frost that the Iraq war so far has been a disaster; and since we are the closest ally of the United States and can claim a good knowledge of Middle East problems, when the Prime Minister next meets President Bush on these matters will he put our point of view to the President more vigorously, confidently and persuasively than he seems to have done in the past?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Prime Minister has regular contact with the President of the United States and he makes our views clear to him on every occasion that they speak. We await with interest the Baker-Hamilton proposals.
Lord Soley: My Lords, although I would have liked the US President to have listened a little more carefully to the Prime Minister, particularly on disbanding the police and army, will the Minister give me her view on this point? This is the first time that a US Administration have recognised the right of a Palestinian state. That is in no small part due to the Prime Minister’s pressure on that matter, and the continuing engagement that is at last showing some signs of movement may also be due to his continuing involvement. Let us not lose sight of the good things that are happening as well as recognising that mistakes were made, which we should face up to.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those comments, with which I totally agree.
28 Nov 2006 : Column 646
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I understand that the President of the United States and our Prime Minister speak regularly by videophone. Is a record kept of those conversations and will they be available in good time to historians?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am sure that a record is kept, but I shall check on that for the noble Lord. I am sure that historians will find them of great interest.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, present United States policy is to support Israel economically, to send unlimited firearms to Israel and to use the veto in the United Nations Security Council in support of Israel at every opportunity. Does the Minister accept that there can be no political settlement in the Middle East while that policy continues?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, as my noble friend pointed out just now, this United States Administration were the first to recognise that there must be a two-state solution in the Middle East. That was an enormous step forward and we should continue to recognise that.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, obviously a major rethink is going on in Washington, and the United States Congress has set up a survey, to which our Prime Minister gave evidence the other day by video-link. If, in due course, we set up a survey group of a similar kind—not at all to get in the way of our brave military forces, who operate under appalling conditions, but to examine the processes by which foreign policy has evolved to the point where it may, indeed, be a bit of a disaster—does the Minister think that the Prime Minister would give evidence to it?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, that is a very speculative question, but I am sure that, were the occasion to arise, the Government would give it due consideration.
UN: High-level Panel
2.46 pm
Lord Harries of Pentregarth: asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether they accept the recommendations of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change of December 2004 addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Government strongly welcomed the report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. In the FCO Command Paper on the report, the Prime Minister described it as,
The report provided important momentum to the ongoing UN reform process, which included the world summit outcome agreed by world leaders in September 2005. As a strong supporter of UN reform, we are pleased that the summit formally agreed many of the
28 Nov 2006 : Column 647
Lord Harries of Pentregarth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I entirely agree that it is an outstanding report and provides a very sound political and moral framework for military intervention in the 21st century. However, I want to probe the Minister on Recommendation 60, which says:
“States with advanced military capacities should establish standby high readiness, self-efficient battalions at up to brigade level that can reinforce United Nations missions, and should place them at the disposal of the United Nations”.
I understand that at the millennium review last September that was accepted in theory, but what practical steps are being taken to implement it?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the UK Government would consider each request on a case-by-case basis. However, the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations is currently considering three options to provide timely additional support to UN missions at times of crisis: the provision of a rapid deployment capability to regional organisations; the provision of a short-term capability by one or more individual countries; and providing co-operation arrangements between UN missions in the same region. We fully support its efforts in this arena.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: My Lords, the establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission is a very welcome innovation, but does the Minister agree that it presents us with both a danger and an opportunity? The danger is that the Peacebuilding Commission gets involved in direct executive action and duplicates the capability of other multinational and, indeed, individual nation activity in the area of peacemaking and post-conflict reconstruction; the opportunity is that it acts as a co-ordinator to create more cohesive action. Do the Government agree that the latter is a more appropriate role for the Peacebuilding Commission than the former?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, we agree wholeheartedly.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, what is the Government’s attitude to the high-level panel's recommendation that where the UN supports a peace operation being undertaken by a regional organisation the UN membership as a whole should be prepared to finance it? Does she agree that if the 2005 summit had endorsed, rather than ignored, that recommendation, many of the problems that have arisen over the African Union’s mission in Darfur could have been avoided? What are Her Majesty's Government now doing to pursue that recommendation?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, it is with regret that that part of the proposal was not adopted. The Government continue to press ahead within the UN with the many reforms that they favour and we continue to discuss these issues with our UN partners.
28 Nov 2006 : Column 648
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is a study being made of the Canadian proposal for a duty to protect, which would set up machinery whereby, in situations like Darfur where the Government concerned are unhelpful or unco-operative, it might be possible to bypass the procedure by getting General Assembly support for intervention to prevent genocide and other crimes against humanity of the kind that we now see unfolding tragically in southern Sudan?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I shall have to look into that for the noble Baroness. I shall write to her with an informed response.
Lord Soley: My Lords, is not the problem here that the General Assembly tends to will the end but not the means? Does it not go back to the Peacebuilding Commission and the need for regional structures which, as the noble Lord said a few moments ago, are necessary to underpin a co-ordinating role for the Peacebuilding Commission?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: Yes, my Lords, there are many problems associated with that. We fully support the Peacebuilding Commission which we see as a new type of body for the UN; it reports both to the Security Council and to the General Assembly. In that very fact we see that it has great strengths. We must ensure that it really works as it has been set up to work: to encourage both longer-term international attention to countries emerging from violent conflict and more effective and coherent international efforts in post-conflict countries. Sadly, those efforts are needed more and more.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if, in the years ahead, the United Nations is to have credibility, the Security Council has to reflect the realities of the world as it is now and not the world as it was in 1945? What progress is being made in that respect?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, as noble Lords are aware, we are supportive of the candidature of the G4—Germany, Japan, India and Brazil—for permanent seats on an enlarged council and for permanent African representation. We continue to press those discussions with our partners within the UN. As noble Lords may be aware, the Prime Minister has suggested that it might be necessary for us to agree some form of interim change that can be a bridge to future settlements. We believe it is urgent that the Security Council should reform itself and reflect properly the nations of the world and their preoccupations.
Lord Dykes: My Lords, that matter was left aside by the high-level panel. On the other reform areas, are the Government really happy with the pace of reform in the UN, which seems to be very slow?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, it is fair to say that the Government are frustrated by the pace of reform, but with a body of 192 members, it is entirely understandable why it takes so long to reach consensus.
28 Nov 2006 : Column 649
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, this is a good report and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, played a leading part in producing it. One of the key elements of the report is how on Earth we, or the United Nations, should deal with nuclear proliferation in a world in which obviously there is going to be a large expansion of civil nuclear power of one sort or another. The other day, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, raised the issue of an independent international nuclear fuel bank of a kind that is now being studied by the UN and by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, which I visited the other day. What contribution is the UK making to the thinking on that new idea, which might be a way through the maze of the terrifying proliferation which seems about to explode onto the world?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, as noble Lords will recall, that point was raised with my noble friend Lord Triesman the other day. He indicated that we support the idea of an independent nuclear fuel bank. We are doing everything we can to progress that idea because we see it as a solution to many of the problems being discussed.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, further to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, about ready forces, does the Minister accept that one of the great achievements of the progress in closer defence co-operation among European Union member states is that the provision of ready forces is one of the main aims of the SDP? Indeed, was not Operation Concordia in summer 2004, in which European Governments managed to put 1,500 troops into eastern Congo within 14 days of a request from the UN Secretary-General, a useful step in that direction?
Does the Minister also accept that, as the demand for peacekeeping forces rises, we need to bring more countries into their provision? In that respect, is not the arrival of 1,000 Chinese troops as part of the extended UN force in Lebanon a quite healthy development?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the situation as outlined by the noble Lord was a useful step forward. We welcome the Chinese contribution to the forces in Lebanon. In the area of regional rapid reaction, it is important that the EU and UN continue to discuss how the EU battle groups could be used in appropriate circumstances in support of UN missions. We look forward to building on that.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the Minister said that Her Majesty’s Government support an increase in the number of permanent members of the Security Council. Do Her Majesty’s Government support any change in the number of veto members?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, as I understand it, the Government do not support any change in the number of veto members. I will seek to clarify that, however, and write to the noble Lord.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |