| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
US Customs: Airline Passenger Information
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether, as reported in the Guardian newspaper on 20 February, the European Commission has made an agreement with the United States Government, binding on all British airlines with effect from 5 March, whereby personal information about all passengers flying to the United States will be disclosed to the United States customs, immigration and other agencies; if so, whether (a) the terms of the agreement contain safeguards matching European data protection laws; and (b) the agreement has been approved by Her Majesty's Government or by the Council of Ministers.[HL1822]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): On 17 and 18 February senior officials of the European Commission and the United States administration met to discuss the problems for airlines operating flights to or from the US arising from the requirements imposed by US legislation for airlines to disclose detailed information about passengers to US Customs.
Following the discussions the two sides issued a joint statement explaining the outcome. They agreed to work towards a bilateral arrangement which will permit the Commission to make a formal decision under Article 25.6 of the EC Data Protection Directive that there is adequate protection for the passenger information that US Customs receives from airlines which are bound by EC law. Such a decision will be based on information and undertakings provided by US Customs.
The joint statement sets out the undertakings that US Customs has already made to protect the passenger information that it receives from airlines in the interim. They include an undertaking to respect the principles of the Data Protection Directive. The requirement for airlines to provide passenger information to US Customs is effective from 5 March.
The joint statement is not binding on airlines. It is for airlines to decide whether they disclose passenger information as required by US law. Airlines not providing the information will be liable to heavy fines
and other sanctions from the US side. The content of the joint statement is a matter for the two parties in whose name it was made. It requires no formal endorsement by either Her Majesty's Government or the Council of Ministers. The Government are considering the implications of the joint statement for UK law.I am placing the joint statement in the Library.
Ram Doctrine
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 25 February (WA 12-13), whether the courts have recognised the legitimacy of the principles stated in the second paragraph of the Answer; and, if so, whether they will identify the reported cases in respect of each principle; and[HL1890]
Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 25 February (WA 12-13), whether the reference to "human rights law" includes the obligations imposed upon the United Kingdom by international treaties other than the European Convention on Human Rights, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and the International Labour Organisation Conventions; and, if not, why not; and[HL1891]
Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 25 February (WA 12-13), what criteria are used, in cases not involving the need to comply with human rights law, to decide whether there is legal need for legislation to authorise an extension of Ministers' powers; and[HL1892]
Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 25 February (WA 12-13), whether they consider that the common law principles of legality and legal certainty extend beyond circumstances where proposed action might substantially interfere with human rights; and if so, what are those circumstances; and[HL1893]
Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 25 February (WA 12-13), what were the instances during the past five years in which they decided that legislation was undesirable to authorise an extension of Ministers' powers; and[HL1894]
Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 25 February (WA 12-13), which powers of Ministers have been extended without legislative authority during the past five years.[HL1895]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Ministers can act only within the law. It follows that an extension of ministerial power will always require legislation (or, conceivably, a change in the common law). Legislation will also be necessary where what is proposed requires
not only the exercise of powers but also, for example, the imposition of legal obligations, the creation of offences, or the raising of taxes.If, however, it is proposed that Ministers exercise powers that are already available at common law to private individuals, or to the Crown by virtue of the prerogative, there is no legal requirement for legislation.
The case for putting existing powers onto a statutory footing will therefore depend not on strict law but on the matters of convention, good governance and practicality discussed in the previous Answer. These include the considerations of propriety addressed by the Public Accounts Committee Concordat mentioned in that Answer. They include also the principles of legal certainty, accessibility and clarity, which the Government regard as important in their own right, quite apart from human rights considerations.
In considering the possibility of legislation, the Governnment indeed have in mind all their international treaty obligations. As well as the European Convention on Human Rights, these include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and the International Labour Organisation Conventions.
The use of non-statutory powers was discusssed by the House of Lords in the Fire Brigade Union case [1995] 2 AC 513. The Ram doctrine is being considered by the Court of Appeal in a current case, R (Hooper) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
Army Manpower Requirement
Lord Vivian asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is their response to the report, published by the Defence Analytical Services Agency in June 2002, on the Army's future manpower requirement.[HL2162]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): The Defence Analytical Services Agency monthly statistical Tri-Service Publication 3 includes Armed Forces full-time strength and requirement figures. Copies are placed in the Library of the House. The June 2002 edition included a revised Army manpower requirement figure. This figure is reviewed annually in the light of evolving doctrine, new technology and equipment and possible changes to the operating environment.
Iraq: War Correspondents
Lord Vivian asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What plans they have to accommodate press teams and television networks in any forthcoming conflict in the Gulf.[HL2163]
Lord Bach: The Ministry of Defence has compiled a media pool of accredited United Kingdom war
correspondents to accompany our forces. Some 130 such correspondents are presently embedded with all three services, aboard ships, with frontline fighting regiments and at RAF bases in the region. In addition, there is an intention to take parties of journalists from all disciplines, but with a more international mix, on short escorted visits periodically to our Armed Forces in the Gulf.Brazil: Poultry Meat Imports to UK
Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How much poultry meat has been imported from Brazil in each of the last four years (a) in tonnage; and (b) in value.[HL2209]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): 2002 is the latest year for which figures are available on the imports of poultry meat from Brazil. The figures are as follows: UK imports of poultry meat from Brazil 1999–2002
| Product | Year | (tonnes) | £'000 |
| Poultry meat | 1999 | 22,272 | 36,017 |
| 2000 | 27,460 | 44,094 | |
| 2001 | 31,381 | 55,814 | |
| 2002 | 31,660 | 43,638 | |
| Poultry meat total | 112,773 | 179,563 |
Crown Copyright.
Source: HM Customs and Excise
Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities & Food) Accounts and Trade, ESD, Defra.
2002 data is provisional and subject to amendment.
Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): According to information published by HM Customs and Excise, the value of UK exports of goods to Brazil in each of the past four years were as follows:
It is not possible to separately identify luxury goods.
Lord Acton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the value of exports to Brazil in each of the last four years of (a) luxury goods; and (b) all others.[HL2210]
1999 £745 million
2000 £775 million
2001 £814 million
2002 £888 million.
What the outcome was of the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council held on 6 March in Brussels.[HL2261]
24 Mar 2003 : Column WA62
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks) represented the UK at the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs (ESPHCA) Council in Brussels on 6 March 2003, together with the Minister for Employment Relations and the Regions, my honourable friend the Member for Hull West and Hessle, Alan Johnson.
The main business of this Council was a discussion on the proposed directive on working conditions for temporary workers and the preparation of the spring European Council, to take place on 21 March.
On the former, following lunchtime discussion, the Presidency concluded that the dossier was not ready for agreement at this point. The UK declared its readiness to reach agreement on a directive, but one with considerably more flexibility than the current draft, and joined the consensus for aiming for political agreement in June.
On the latter, the Council adopted without amendment the Joint Employment Report 2002 and its contribution to the spring Council, Key messages on the future of the Employment Strategy. In a public debate member states were in broad agreement on the priorities for the revised employment guidelines outlined in the paper: the guidelines should be fewer in number, focused on outputs rather than inputs and linked closely to the Lisbon employment rate targets.
The debate also revealed broad support for the idea of an employment task force, as proposed by the UK, France and Germany. The Council agreed that the task force should be a one-off, independent analysis of the measures required to improve Europe's employment performance in the short term. The task force should complement the revised employment strategy, without creating any new processes.
Council approved joint reports from the Commission and the Council on adequate and sustainable pensions and on the future of healthcare and care for the elderly. It noted the opinion of the Social Protection Committee on the Commission's synthesis report and agreed a key issues paper on social protection to be sent to the spring Council.
The Commission reassured the Council that its forthcoming communication on streamlining of social protection would acknowledge that different methods and time-scales were appropriate for different areas of work. It would also respect subsidiarity.
The Council noted the work programmes for 2003 of the Employment Committee and the Social Protection Committee.
The Council adopted a decision establishing a tripartite social summit for growth and employment, noting the declaration from Denmark and the UK that the agreement was on the understanding that it did not set a precedent for the use of Article 202 as a treaty base for such decisions.
The Council heard without comment presentations by the Commission on initiatives following the Commission action plan for skills and mobility: European health insurance card, legal basis of the European Employment Services (EURES) and free movement of workers.
Following an orientation debate, the Council agreed on a joint Presidency and Commission proposal for the Council to send an annual report on gender mainstreaming to the spring Council. The Commission agreed with the UK that this would not involve the establishment of a new process.
The Commission reported on progress under the European Year of People with Disabilities and outlined its forthcoming report on the social situation in Europe focusing on health.
No consumer affairs items were on the agenda.
No votes were taken at this Council.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page