Digital Economy Bill (Fifth sitting)
Thursday 20th October 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Digital Economy Act 2017 View all Digital Economy Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 October 2016 - (20 Oct 2016)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
The Minister has asked for and been granted the Chair’s permission to take his jacket off. If other right hon. or hon. Members also wish to take their jackets off, they have permission to do so.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
I beg to move,
That the Order of the Committee of 11 October be amended as follows—
(1) In paragraph (1), after sub-paragraph (f) insert—
“(g) at 9.25 am on Tuesday 1 November;”.
(2) In paragraph (4), for “5.00 pm on Thursday 27 October” substitute “11.25 am on Tuesday 1 November”.
On Tuesday night, the House approved a motion to extend the Committee. This amendment will provide the additional time required thoroughly to scrutinise the Bill.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I thank the Government for replacing the sitting that we lost on Tuesday because of the debate that they scheduled on the BBC motion. We do not oppose this amendment, but the Government have tabled more than 130 amendments to the Bill since we agreed the programme motion, in good faith, on the basis that the Bill has 84 clauses. It is now clear that the Bill was not ready to come to Committee.
Not only have the Government tabled more than 130 amendments but they have made significant announcements about who the regulator will be. We welcome the significant publication of the codes of practice that will accompany part 5, but we should have had them earlier in the process. It is the job of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition to scrutinise the Bill and table amendments, and we will not accept any criticism if the Committee does not get through the whole Bill. The Government should be prepared to add time if we do not make that progress.
Matt Hancock
We have been very accommodating on the timings. Not only did we remove the Tuesday afternoon sitting at the request of the Labour party, but we added another sitting at the end. We cancelled the sitting last Thursday afternoon at the request of the Labour party, despite the fact that we wanted it to happen. In fact, the amount of scrutiny in Committee will be less than we originally proposed, at the request of the Labour party. We will not have any truck with that one.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
How many amendments has the Minister tabled?
Matt Hancock
Amendments have been tabled by Members on both sides of the Committee. The argument that we should not table amendments in Committee is an argument for having Bills come out of the parliamentary process in exactly the same form as they go in. Even the Government would not make that case. The central point here is that we offered plenty of time, which was agreed on a cross-party basis, and the Labour party has asked to reduce that time. In considering whether there has been enough time in Committee, those who read the transcript in the weeks and months to come ought to recognise that the Government have been as accommodating as possible, but that we had to give way to the Labour party’s request for less time and scrutiny in Committee.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
We have a Minister who is engaging with the nuts and bolts of a Bill that was prepared long before he came to office. I, for one, am delighted that we have an active Minister who is determined to make this exceptionally important Bill as good as it can be. I do not accept this criticism. It is excellent that the Government are tabling these amendments and allowing time to consider them.
Kevin Brennan
I note that the Minister has not answered my question, and I am not sure that he even knows how many amendments he has tabled. Of course it is appropriate to table amendments, but it is not appropriate to introduce a Bill that is so unready that the Government have already tabled more than 130 amendments. That is not good practice, and he knows very well that it is not; I do not know why he is contesting that fact. We want to proceed with the business, but we put our point on the record. I hope that he and his officials take note.
Matt Hancock
People reading the transcript will notice that we have eaten up another five minutes discussing the process.
Matt Hancock
No. I want to get on to the scrutiny of the Bill, but I will take on board the Labour party’s point that it does not think amendments are a good idea. I think the whole point of the parliamentary process is to make amendments. With that, I hope that we can get on with the Bill.
Kevin Brennan
On a point of order, Mr Stringer. If the Minister thinks that that is the attitude he should adopt in Committee to the Opposition when they are making a legitimate point about how ready the Bill can be for scrutiny if he has to introduce more than 130 amendments, he has got a lot to learn about how this place works. I put it clearly on the record that we think it is vital that amendments to a Bill are discussed, but the purpose of Committee is mainly is to ensure that the Opposition have that opportunity.
The Chair
I have given the hon. Gentleman some latitude, but that was not a point of order or a matter for the Chair. May I remind right hon. and hon. Members that interventions should be brief and to the point?
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3
Automatic compensation for failure to meet performance standards
Amendment proposed (18 October): 60, in clause 3, page 2, line 35, at end insert—
“(db) require a communications provider to allow an end-user to terminate a contract on repeatedly failing to meet a specific standard or obligation;”—(Calum Kerr.)
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 84, in clause 3, page 2, line 35, after “obligation”, add “within reasonable timescales” insert”.
New clause 2—Ability of end-user to cancel telephone contract in event of lack of signal at residence—
‘A telecommunications service provider must allow an end-user to cancel a contract relating to a hand-held mobile telephone if, at any point during the contract term, the mobile telephones is consistently unable to obtain a signal when located at the end-user’s main residence.’
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I will not repeat the comments I made previously, but I want to focus again on new clause 2. I was explaining that consumers often face an impossible position. I gave an example from my constituency of something that happens around the UK. Indeed, uSwitch produced a report this morning that shows that across the UK nearly a third of consumers have either patchy or no signal inside their home, which is a real deficit in the product that they thought they were buying. Some of that will be down to there being no reasonable coverage in the area, and some of it will be down to other factors, but it is often down to a failure of the telecoms company that provides the service.
I will repeat the example that I gave from my constituency, because I think it is important. In Fort Augustus, my constituents had to do without their mobile telephones between January and May 2015, even though they had contracts, because the operator could not fix a problem. They were told that the only way to deal with that was to pay £200 to cancel the contract. That is flatly unacceptable. I have listened carefully to what has been said this morning; the Government stated clearly that they want to make the Bill as good as it can be, so let us make sure that we put in the new clause.
I first raised this issue with the UK Government in July 2015, and I was told at that time that there was merit in what I was saying. Ofcom accepted that, and said that it, too, felt that something should be done. The Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), said in November 2015:
“We have a number of principles when we look at this market. One is that consumers should not be trapped in contracts in which they are not getting the coverage they expected to get. Ofcom is discussing with mobile providers the possibility of their offering redress, which would include allowing customers to leave a contract when service was unacceptable.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1335.]
Let us please ensure that we do something about that, and put the new clause into the Bill.
Matt Hancock
The clause is all about making it easier for customers to claim compensation for service failures. This is all part of the fact that broadband is now a utility rather than a “nice to have”. Amendment 60 seeks to make it explicit that Ofcom can set general conditions to require communication providers to allow an end user to terminate a contract when a service repeatedly fails. New clause 2, which we have just been talking about, would specify that consumers can terminate a contract if mobile coverage is substandard at the main residence. There are already a number of options available to consumers who wish to cancel a contract due to poor coverage or connection, and we do not think that those additional options are necessary.
Before purchasing a contract, consumers can use Ofcom’s coverage checker, and if a contract is purchased online or over the phone, and the consumer finds that the coverage is a problem, they can cancel during the statutory cooling-off period—the first 14 days. Some companies offer extended periods, such as a 30-day network guarantee, during which customers can test the coverage and, should they be dissatisfied, cancel without penalty. Customers are entitled to leave a contract if they are mis-sold a service—if they are advised that they would get coverage in a certain location, but subsequently discover that they cannot.
Drew Hendry
I am listening carefully to the Minister. Those protections are important, and if somebody is mis-sold a product at the point of sale, a cooling-off period is valuable. However, the Minister is not addressing situations such as that in the Fort Augustus example that I gave. The people who got that contract were not able to get the service after the cooling-off period. That is happening across the UK.
Matt Hancock
It is reasonable that the period in which people can cancel be limited, because companies have to know, once they have entered into a contract, that it is valid. I think that the way that is done currently, through cooling-off periods, is appropriate. There is also a broadband speed code of practice, which is about the speed that people get. As of the end of September, seven providers have implemented the business broadband speeds code of practice, which allows business customers to exit a contract without penalty if download speeds are not at the guaranteed minimum.
Drew Hendry
I hear very clearly what the Minister says, but this is about people who have bought into mobile contracts and are not able to get coverage. Does the Minister think it is acceptable that somebody who is without a service for four months has to pay £200 to cancel their contract?
Matt Hancock
No, I do not, but I do think it is useful for the period in which contracts can be cancelled to be limited. The law currently provides for that.
Amendment 84 seeks to define the parameters of any general condition that Ofcom sets regarding compensation to customers. It is our intention that providers should offer prompt and proportionate compensation when their services do not meet agreed standards. It is right that any decision by Ofcom to set general conditions needs to be based on evidence drawn from its consultation process and applied proportionately. In June, Ofcom issued a call for input on the aim and scope of the automatic compensation scheme, and it will consult on the introduction of the regime in early 2017. We support Ofcom in that approach. I think that the way the clause is drafted is the right way to drive the policy, but until we have the benefit of Ofcom’s consultation, it would be wrong to constrain the parameters of a general compensation condition.
With that explanation, and given my point that there is already a time-limited period in which contracts can be cancelled, I hope that hon. Members will withdraw their amendments.
Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)
I am disappointed but not surprised that the Minister will not consider the change. There seems to be an unwillingness to amend the Bill other than by adopting one of the hundreds of Government amendments. I hoped that we might enter into a more constructive spirit.
We agree that the clause itself is a good move. As I said in my opening remarks, there is an opportunity to go to a high level of granularity—I contrasted the black-and-white, binary nature of telephony to the complex world of broadband—and I would like the Minister to assure us that the devolved Administrations will play a key role in that. Scotland is a disproportionately rural environment, and we must ensure that the rural voice is heard, although these issues are not unique to Scotland, or to my constituency, or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. This must go to a granular level and incentivise good performance, rather than provide compensation, as is currently set out in the Bill. All that our constituents want is a good level of service, rather than some money back for poor service.
Matt Hancock
I hope I can give assurances that might prevent the hon. Gentleman from pressing his amendment to a vote.
Ofcom’s consultations will of course include the Scottish Government, as well as rural areas of the rest of the United Kingdom. My explanation for not wanting to legislate through the Bill for redresses already provided for in law is that it is generally good practice for a particular redress to be covered in law just once. We might otherwise end up with a problem of overlap, which can make it harder to claim redress. That is why I have set out where I think redress is already available. Although of course we want to ensure that people who cannot get coverage or do not get good enough broadband speeds through the contract that they have signed up to have the opportunity to come out of that contract, we should not double legislate.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matt Hancock
Clause 3 will make it easier for customers to claim compensation for service failures and, we hope, help improve customer satisfaction and drive the sector to deliver on its service commitments. The clause is about providing not only compensation but incentives that we hope will make such compensation unnecessary. The clause makes explicit Ofcom’s power to set general conditions on communications providers, requiring them to adhere to automatic compensation regimes as defined by Ofcom. It is part of Ofcom’s remit to protect the interests of end-users.
Telecommunications customers increasingly view their digital connectivity as essential, just as power and water are essential. The clause helps to deliver on those higher expectations. According to research by Ofcom, customers suffering from a loss of broadband service incur on average a direct financial cost of £18, spend an average of four hours trying to resolve the issue, and have to contact their provider an average of three times. Automatic compensation will mean that customers will receive standardised compensation for specific service failures, either without having to complain directly or through a streamlined process.
Ofcom has made a call for inputs and will be consulting with customers, customer groups, industry and all parties that want to enter the consultation, including devolved Governments. It will define which services and service quality issues will be eligible, how much the compensation will be, and the fault-identification and payment processes. The consultation process will ensure that the compensation scheme is fair and proportionate, mitigating the risk of additional costs being passed on to customers.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
The electronic communications code
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Louise Haigh
Clause 4 contains changes to the highly complex electronic communications code, as we heard earlier in the debate. We recognise and support the amendments tabled in the Minister’s name, which seek to clarify the web of legal technicalities and ensure that it interconnects with the existing legal landscape; that the new code does not infringe on access to land where the person does not agree to that access being obstructed; and that subsisting agreements continue in place.
Our primary concern is to ensure that the significant savings that the clause will clearly create for the mobile industry are invested in their entirety into infrastructure and roll-out for the public benefit.
We would also like to explore what consideration has been given to how we can ensure that independently-owned infrastructure can have a significant role in the sector and, if possible, make up a larger proportion of our infrastructure in line with the global market. The much-discussed difficulties of the broadband roll-out highlight the issues when infrastructure is owned by a private monopoly. We should seek to break up this market as much as possible. For that to happen, investment incentives for independent infrastructure need to be maintained as they are under the current ECC.
The assets of these small infrastructure providers, which are a valuable part of the market, are dependent on land. We would like a commitment from the Minister that further inevitable redrafts continue to carve out electrical communications apparatus from the definition of land. The benefit of independent infrastructure is the much higher capacity available for all networks to use on an open and non-discriminatory basis. Operators in this space filled more substantial towers, which send signals much further than an average mobile operator-owned mast. That is particularly important in rural areas, where more than half their investments have been made. More networks operating from better infrastructure enable transformational improvements in capacity.
The sector also unlocks significant new inward investment with a low cost of capital from the same funds that invest in UK energy, transport and utility assets. Clearly, significant investment is needed in the UK’s wireless infrastructure. Improving mobile connectivity needs substantial and sustained investment. New communication masts are needed in rural and suburban areas to improve coverage. In urban areas, to support the exponential growth in mobile data usage and provide ubiquitous high-speed connectivity, 5G networks will need hundreds of thousands of small cells connected with a dense network of fibre.
Analysis from Ernst & Young highlights that independently operated towers across Europe and North America host, on average, twice as many networks as vertically-owned towers. The UK is now lagging behind competitive telecoms markets around the world in respect of adopting the more efficient independent model; more than 60% of global and 80% of US masts are now operated independently of the networks that use them. Independent infrastructure can deliver investment in a way that maximises its productivity and enables the greatest level of connectivity.
Furthermore, we are aware that the industry has concerns about the clause given what is known as “stopping up”. That is the procedure that highway authorities use to decommission stretches of public highway. Under the new code, when streets are stopped up, the occupier of the land can give notice to quit and mobile operators would not then be able to cover the cost of relocation.
As I understand it, unlike the other reforms, this reform is intended to apply retrospectively, so we would be interested to hear the Minister’s thinking. More broadly on the clause, clearly the Minister and officials are attempting to make revisions to this enormously complex code, which obstructs or interferes with the means of access to this land.
There is a broader point. Despite the additional powers that the Bill provides to telcos over the landowners, in practice there absolutely must remain a solid working relationship between the two. As we heard in evidence last week, if good relationships are not continued, the industry might as well just go home for the next four to five years and forget about further expanding the network, such is the importance of good relationships and access to allow for upgrading and installing new infrastructure.
Industry evidence suggests that, on average, infrastructure facilities will need to be accessed every 12 days, so we must ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance between increasing access, which will help to upgrade the network, and maintaining a good relationship with the landowners who will help that roll-out.
The clause is intended to improve mobile coverage, so I will go back to something that the Minister said on Tuesday in Committee:
“That is why delivery on this commitment by the MNOs”—
that is, by the mobile network operators—
“is so important. The deal as agreed, which is a legally binding commitment, will result in nearly 100% of UK premises receiving 3G/4G data coverage, and 98% coverage to the UK landmass by the end of 2017.”—[Official Report, Digital Economy Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 124.]
Those figures were not immediately familiar to me at the time. As I understand it, they were not in the legal agreement between the Government and the mobile network operators, which only requires guaranteed voice and text to each operator by 2017 to 90% and full coverage to 85% by 2017.
I believe that the Minister may have been referring to the new emergency service contract, which is being delivered by EE. That is exactly the point I was making: that is only one operator. Furthermore, is it not the case that currently only 46% of premises have access to 4G from all mobile network operators and that there remains a substantial 7%, or 1.5 million homes nationwide, that do not have basic voice or text coverage across the three networks?
The roll-out of this vital infrastructure by EE for the benefit of emergency services is obviously welcome and the coverage figures for the UK landmass are impressive. However, that does not constitute universal coverage, as it will be only for the benefit of EE customers, unless some kind of agreement that we are not aware of has been reached. Clearly, although that means that data coverage is reaching all corners of the UK, there is no parity of provision across the mobile network operators and that near-universal coverage, which is so needed, is still far from a reality.
New clause 20, to which we will return later, seeks to do something about that. It would empower the Secretary of State to commission a strategic review of mobile network coverage and to consider measures to enable universal coverage for residences across all telecommunications providers. That would enable the Government to take a second look at ways, including national roaming, genuinely to extend coverage across 3G and 4G to all network providers, because, as the Minister said in Committee on Tuesday, it is no good having full coverage with one provider if the others are not covered.
Calum Kerr
That was an excellent introduction from the Opposition spokesperson, highlighting a lot of the issues. I will try not to repeat them.
What I will do, however, is start by welcoming these overdue changes to the electronic communications code. We absolutely need to make it much easier for infrastructure to be rolled out—not just for masts; this also applies to the likes of Virgin, which is very concerned about wayleaves and access and how it can roll out wire networks. We very much welcome anything that will help increase coverage across the whole of the UK, and in particular across Scotland.
Matt Hancock
Clause 4 amends the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the Communications Act 2003 to give force to the new electronic communications code, which is in schedule 1 to the Bill. That includes repealing the existing code, which is currently set out in schedule 2 to the 1984 Act and schedule 3A to the 2003 Act. So in a sense the clause is short because it gives effect to a lot of detail set out elsewhere.
I will answer some of the questions. Of course we consult the Scottish Government on many of these matters, just as we consult local authorities all around England and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments. Communications are a reserved matter, but obviously how they are delivered in each jurisdiction is important.
Let me address the point about 5G and the importance of fibre. Fibre is the future. A very strong fibre backbone is very important for the roll-out of 5G; hon. Members on both sides of the Committee agree on that. However, that does mean that getting down the cost of sites is important. I agree with the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk that this is not about single mobile phone providers having sites. Wireless infrastructure providers make up one third of the market. That is lower than in other countries, but it is important.
This comes down to the question of cost. It is wrong to argue that because some of these sites are hosted by the Forestry Commission and other parts of the public sector, we should not reduce the cost and make it easier to roll out infrastructure; you can’t have your cake and eat it. We want to make it easier to roll out infrastructure. That is why we think it is good that the costs come down. However, most of these deals will remain commercial deals. What we are putting in place is a lower backstop, which I think is the right approach.
On the points made about the MNO deal for coverage, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley is precisely right in her analysis of what I said. The figures that I gave on Tuesday are for the expected national result of the individual contractual requirements. I agree with her, of course, that it is better to have all MNOs available in one place, but having one rather than none is the first and most important step.
Dealing with notspots is the most important stage; the next is dealing with partial notspots: areas of the country covered by some but not all providers. That is why there is a difference between particular contracts and the figures that I gave, although EE’s contract—partly because it has the emergency service contract, which will come into force at the end of next year—has the widest expected future coverage of all the MNOs. The hon. Lady is exactly right. I would just say that we must not let the best be the enemy of the good; let us keep the roll-out going.
On the point that the hon. Lady made about stocking up, we are engaging with stakeholders to consider the concerns, and we will ensure that there is no retrospective effect. On the distinction between land and apparatus, we think that there is one, and we want to ensure that the revised code delivers access to viable sites. That is fundamental to the legal framework underpinning the deployment of electronic communication apparatus, and it must be the case regardless of whether it is on land owned by the operator or any other market player.
There is clearly a delicate balance to be achieved when considering what must be left purely to commercial agreement and what should be regulated in the code. Restricting the scope of legislation too far is likely to be counterproductive to ensuring that viable land remains on the market. We believe that the revised code achieves that balance effectively. I hope that I have made the case effectively for the revised code, and I hope that it helps ensure that we can roll out wireless infrastructure more widely across Britain. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
The electronic communications code
Matt Hancock
I beg to move amendment 12, in schedule 1, page 82, line 29, leave out “and keep”.
The code will deal with cases where apparatus has already been installed on land. Amendments 12, 13 and 14 therefore provide for installing apparatus and keeping apparatus on land to be treated separately, and for rights described in sub-paragraphs (c), (ca) and (d) to be described consistently with this.
Matt Hancock
This is a series of Government amendments to improve the new code. Amendments 12 to 14 are minor drafting amendments to clarify that the new electronics communications code will allow already installed apparatus to be kept on land, and to ensure consistency of terminology in paragraph 3 of the code. The remaining amendments are to part 6 of the new code, which deals with the right to remove electronic communications apparatus from land and related rights.
Amendment 24 inserts a new paragraph 36(a) into the code to provide that an owner or occupier of neighbouring land has a right to remove apparatus from other land where it obstructs access. If apparatus is installed on land A, the owner or occupier of land B can require removal where it obstructs or interferes with access to their own land. Amendment 25 inserts another new paragraph into the code to provide that an owner or occupier of neighbouring land also benefits from the right to require an operator to disclose whether it owns the apparatus, as it is important for neighbours to know that.
Amendments 15, 18, 26 to 30 and 32 to 35 are consequential on amendment 24 and 25. Amendment 37 inserts new paragraphs 38(a) and (b) to provide that the right to require removal of apparatus applies not only to those with an interest in land but also to a person whose right to require removal of apparatus arises from statute or other legal basis. It is necessary to establish the procedures by which such parties can require the removal of the electronic communications apparatus.
Amendments 16, 23, 40, 41, 43 and 45 are consequential on amendment 37. Amendment 38 clarifies how a person with an interest in the land can, when there is no longer apparatus on that land, ask the court to restore the land to its original condition, and amendments 19, 20, 39, 40 and 44 are consequential on that.
Amendment 31 clarifies that a landowner or occupier can require the removal of apparatus only in accordance with the procedure set out in the code. Amendment 36 ensures that proceedings before a court to enforce removal cannot finally be determined until any application for new rights made by the operator has been concluded, and amendment 17 is consequential on that.
Paragraph 36 of the new code provides for conditions that must be met before a landowner has the right to require the removal of apparatus from their land, and amendment 21 clarifies paragraph 36(2). Amendment 22 clarifies that a person whose code agreement was not subject to part 5 can apply to remove electronic communications apparatus when the code rights have ceased to apply to them.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendments made: 13, in schedule 1, page 82, line 30, at end insert—
(aa) to keep installed electronic communications apparatus which is on, under or over the land,”.
The code will deal with cases where apparatus has already been installed on land. Amendments 12, 13 and 14 therefore provide for installing apparatus and keeping apparatus on land to be treated separately, and for rights described in sub-paragraphs (c), (ca) and (d) to be described consistently with this.
Amendment 14, in schedule 1, page 83, line 2, leave out from “installation” to end of line 4 and insert
“of electronic communications apparatus on, under or over the land or elsewhere;
(ca) to carry out any works on the land for or in connection with the maintenance, adjustment, alteration, repair, upgrading or operation of electronic communications apparatus which is on, under or over the land or elsewhere,”.
The code will deal with cases where apparatus has already been installed on land. Amendments 12, 13 and 14 therefore provide for installing apparatus and keeping apparatus on land to be treated separately, and for rights described in sub-paragraphs (c), (ca) and (d) to be described consistently with this.
Amendment 15, in schedule 1, page 86, line 26, leave out
“The reference in sub-paragraph (2)”
and insert
“A reference in this code”.
This applies the extended meaning of “means of access to or from land” across the code. It is consequential on amendment 24.
Amendment 16, in schedule 1, page 95, line 2, after “36” insert
“or as mentioned in paragraph 38A(1)”.
This is consequential on amendment 37.
Amendment 17, in schedule 1, page 95, line 10, leave out “or” and insert “and”.
This is consequential on amendment 36.
Amendment 18, in schedule 1, page 102, line 1, leave out
“with an interest in land”.
This is consequential on amendment 37.
Amendment 19, in schedule 1, page 102, line 3, at end insert
“or the restoration of land,”.
This is consequential on amendment 38.
Amendment 20, in schedule 1, page 102, line 6, after “removal” insert
“of apparatus or restoration of land”.
This is consequential on amendment 38.
Amendment 21, in schedule 1, page 102, line 14, after “never” insert
“since the coming into force of this code”.
This provides for a condition for having a right to require removal of apparatus to be met if the only right there has been to keep the apparatus on the land was a right that came to an end under the code that Schedule 1 to the Bill replaces, or that ceased under that code to be binding on the landowner.
Amendment 22, in schedule 1, page 102, line 24, at end insert “, or
( ) where the right was granted by a lease to which Part of this code does not apply.”.
Part 5 of the code (termination of agreements creating code rights) does not apply to certain leases governed by landlord and tenant law. The amendment provides for the ending of code rights under such a lease and under Part 5 to be treated in the same way for the purposes of rights to require removal of apparatus.
Amendment 23, in schedule 1, page 103, line 17, at end insert—
‘( ) This paragraph does not affect rights to require the removal of apparatus under another enactment (see paragraph 38A).”.
This is consequential on amendment 37.
Amendment 24, in schedule 1, page 103, line 17, at end insert—
“When does a landowner or occupier of neighbouring land have the right to require removal of electronic communications apparatus?
36A (1) A landowner or occupier of any land (“neighbouring land”) has the right to require the removal of electronic communications apparatus on, under or over other land if both of the following conditions are met.
(2) The first condition is that the exercise by an operator in relation to the apparatus of a right mentioned in paragraph 13(1) interferes with or obstructs a means of access to or from the neighbouring land.
(3) The second condition is that the landowner or occupier of the neighbouring land is not bound by a code right within paragraph 3(f) entitling an operator to cause the interference or obstruction.
(4) A landowner of neighbouring land who is not the occupier of the land does not meet the second condition if—
(a) the land is occupied by a person who—
(i) conferred a code right (which is in force) entitling an operator to cause the interference or obstruction, or
(ii) is otherwise bound by such a right, and
(b) that code right was not conferred in breach of a covenant enforceable by the landowner.
(5) In the application of sub-paragraph (4)(b) to Scotland the reference to a covenant enforceable by the landowner is to be read as a reference to a contractual term which is so enforceable.”.
New paragraph 36A makes provision for a landowner or occupier of neighbouring land to have a right to require removal of apparatus that obstructs or interferes with a means of access to that land.
Amendment 25, in schedule 1, page 103, line 27, at end insert—
‘(1A) A landowner or occupier of neighbouring land may by notice require an operator to disclose whether—
(a) the operator owns electronic communications apparatus on, under or over land that forms (or, but for the apparatus, would form) a means of access to the neighbouring land, or uses such apparatus for the purposes of the operator’s network, or
(b) the operator has the benefit of a code right entitling the operator to keep electronic communications apparatus on, under or over land that forms (or, but for the apparatus, would form) a means of access to the neighbouring land.”.
This is consequential on amendment 24. Paragraph 37(1A) provides for a landowner or occupier of neighbouring land to have the rights in paragraph 37 to require an operator to disclose whether it owns apparatus or has code rights relevant to the neighbouring land.
Amendment 26, in schedule 1, page 103, line 33, after “(1)” insert “or (1A)”.
This is consequential on amendment 25.
Amendment 27, in schedule 1, page 103, line 34, after “landowner” insert “or occupier”.
This is consequential on amendment 25.
Amendment 28, in schedule 1, page 103, line 37, after “landowner” insert “or occupier”.
This is consequential on amendment 25.
Amendment 29, in schedule 1, page 103, line 38, after “landowner” insert “or occupier”.
This is consequential on amendment 25.
Amendment 30, in schedule 1, page 103, line 47, after “landowner” insert “or occupier”.
This is consequential on amendment 25.
Amendment 31, in schedule 1, page 104, line 2, leave out from beginning to “requiring” in line 9 and insert—
(1) The right of a landowner or occupier to require the removal of electronic communications apparatus on, under or over land, under paragraph 36 or 36A, is exercisable only in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) The landowner or occupier may give a notice to the operator whose apparatus it is”.
The amendment clarifies that a landowner or occupier can require removal of electronic communications apparatus only in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraph 38.
Amendment 32, in schedule 1, page 104, line 23, after “landowner” insert “or occupier”.
This is consequential on amendment 24.
Amendment 33, in schedule 1, page 104, line 33, after “landowner” insert “or occupier”.
This is consequential on amendment 24.
Amendment 34, in schedule 1, page 104, line 40, after “landowner” insert “or occupier”.
This is consequential on amendment 24.
Amendment 35, in schedule 1, page 104, line 41, after “landowner” insert “or occupier”.
This is consequential on amendment 24.
Amendment 36, in schedule 1, page 104, line 42, at end insert—
‘( ) On an application under sub-paragraph (6) or (7) the court may not make an order in relation to apparatus if an application under paragraph 19(3) has been made in relation to the apparatus and has not been determined.”.
This provides that the court cannot order removal of apparatus under Part 6 of the code if there is an outstanding application under paragraph 19 (to keep the apparatus installed) that has not been determined.
Amendment 37, in schedule 1, page 104, line 42, at end insert—
“How are other rights to require removal of apparatus enforced?
38A (1) The right of a person (a “third party”) under an enactment other than this code, or otherwise than under an enactment, to require the removal of electronic communications apparatus on, under or over land is exercisable only in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) The third party may give a notice to the operator whose apparatus it is, requiring the operator—
(a) to remove the apparatus, and
(b) to restore the land to its condition before the apparatus was placed on, under or over the land.
(3) The notice must—
(a) comply with paragraph 85 (notices given by persons other than operators), and
(b) specify the period within which the operator must complete the works.
(4) The period specified under sub-paragraph (3) must be a reasonable one.
(5) Within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice under sub-paragraph (2) is given, the operator may give the third party notice (“counter-notice”)—
(a) stating that the third party is not entitled to require the removal of the apparatus, or
(b) specifying the steps which the operator proposes to take for the purpose of securing a right as against the third party to keep the apparatus on the land.
(6) If the operator does not give counter-notice within that period, the third party is entitled to enforce the removal of the apparatus.
(7) If the operator gives the third party counter-notice within that period, the third party may enforce the removal of the apparatus only in pursuance of an order of the court that the third party is entitled to enforce the removal of the apparatus.
(8) If the counter-notice specifies steps under paragraph (5)(b), the court may make an order under sub-paragraph (7) only if it is satisfied—
(a) that the operator is not intending to take those steps or is being unreasonably dilatory in taking them; or
(b) that taking those steps has not secured, or will not secure, for the operator as against the third party any right to keep the apparatus installed on, under or over the land or to re-install it if it is removed.
(9) Where the third party is entitled to enforce the removal of the apparatus, under sub-paragraph (6) or under an order under sub-paragraph (7), the third party may make an application to the court for—
(a) an order under paragraph 39(1) (order requiring operator to remove apparatus etc), or
(b) an order under paragraph 39(2) (order enabling third party to sell apparatus etc).
(10) If the court makes an order under paragraph 39(1), but the operator does not comply with the agreement imposed on the operator and the third party by virtue of paragraph 39(5), the third party may make an application to the court for an order under paragraph 39(2).
(11) An order made on an application under this paragraph need not include provision within paragraph 39(1)(b) or (2)(d) unless the court thinks it appropriate.
(12) Sub-paragraph (9) is without prejudice to any other method available to the third party for enforcing the removal of the apparatus.
How does paragraph 38A apply if a person is entitled to require apparatus to be altered in consequence of street works?
38B (1) This paragraph applies where the third party’s right in relation to which paragraph 38A applies is a right to require the alteration of the apparatus in consequence of the stopping up, closure, change or diversion of a street or road or the extinguishment or alteration of a public right of way.
(2) The removal of the apparatus in pursuance of paragraph 38A constitutes compliance with a requirement to make any other alteration.
(3) A counter-notice under paragraph 38A(5) may state (in addition to, or instead of, any of the matters mentioned in paragraph 38A(5)(b)) that the operator requires the third party to reimburse the operator in respect of any expenses incurred by the operator in or in connection with the making of any alteration in compliance with the requirements of the third party.
(4) An order made under paragraph 38A on an application by the third party in respect of a counter-notice containing a statement under sub-paragraph (3) must, unless the court otherwise thinks fit, require the third party to reimburse the operator in respect of the expenses referred to in the statement.
(5) Paragraph 39(2)(b) to (e) do not apply.
(6) In this paragraph—
“road” means a road in Scotland;
“street” means a street in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.”.
New paragraphs 38A and 38B provide for a right to require removal of electronic communications apparatus to be available to not only to a person with an interest in land (see paragraph 36(1)) but also to a “third party” whose right to require removal of apparatus arises pursuant to an enactment, or on some other legal basis.
Amendment 38, in schedule 1, page 104, line 42, at end insert—
“When can a separate application for restoration of land be made?
38C (1) This paragraph applies if—
(a) the condition of the land has been affected by the exercise of a code right, and
(b) restoration of the land to its condition before the code right was exercised does not involve the removal of electronic communications apparatus from any land.
(2) The occupier of the land, the owner of the freehold estate in the land or the lessee of the land (“the relevant person”) has the right to require the operator to restore the land if the relevant person is not for the time being bound by the code right.
This is subject to sub-paragraph (3).
(3) The relevant person does not have that right if—
(a) the land is occupied by a person who—
(i) conferred a code right (which is in force) entitling the operator to affect the condition of the land in the same way as the right mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), or
(ii) is otherwise bound by such a right, and
(b) that code right was not conferred in breach of a covenant enforceable by the relevant person.
(4) In the application of sub-paragraph (3)(b) to Scotland the reference to a covenant enforceable by the relevant person is to be read as a reference to a contractual term which is so enforceable.
(5) A person who has the right conferred by this paragraph may give a notice to the operator requiring the operator to restore the land to its condition before the code right was exercised.
(6) The notice must—
(a) comply with paragraph 85 (notices given by persons other than operators), and
(b) specify the period within which the operator must complete the works.
(7) The period specified under sub-paragraph (6) must be a reasonable one.
(8) Sub-paragraph (9) applies if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice was given, the landowner and the operator do not reach agreement on any of the following matters—
(a) that the operator will restore the land to its condition before the code right was exercised;
(b) the time at which or period within which the land will be restored.
(9) The landowner may make an application to the court for—
(a) an order under paragraph 39(1A) (order requiring operator to restore land), or
(b) an order under paragraph 39(2A) (order enabling landowner to recover cost of restoring land).
(10) If the court makes an order under paragraph 39(1A), but the operator does not comply with the agreement imposed on the operator and the landowner by virtue of paragraph 39(5), the landowner may make an application to the court for an order under paragraph 39(2A).
(11) In the application of sub-paragraph (2) to Scotland the reference to a person who is the owner of the freehold estate in the land is to be read as a reference to a person who is the owner of the land.”.
New paragraph 38C makes provision about restoration of land where restoration does not involve the removal of apparatus.
Amendment 39, in schedule 1, page 105, line 2, at end insert—
‘(1A) An order under this sub-paragraph is an order that the operator must, within the period specified in the order, restore the land to its condition before the code right was exercised.”.
This is consequential on amendment 38.
Amendment 40, in schedule 1, page 105, line 3, after “landowner” insert
“, occupier or third party”.
This is consequential on amendments 24 and 37.
Amendment 41, in schedule 1, page 105, line 15, after “landowner” insert
“, occupier or third party”,
This is consequential on amendments 24 and 37.
Amendment 42, in schedule 1, page 105, line 15, at end insert—
‘(1A) An order under this sub-paragraph is an order that the landowner may recover from the operator the costs of restoring the land to its condition before the code right was exercised.”.
This is consequential on amendment 38.
Amendment 43, in schedule 1, page 105, line 16, after “paragraph” insert
“on an application under paragraph 38”.
This is consequential on amendments 24 and 37.
Amendment 44, in schedule 1, page 105, line 24, after “(1)” insert “or (1A)”.
This is consequential on amendment 38.
Amendment 45, in schedule 1, page 105, line 25, after “landowner” insert
“, occupier or third party”.—(Matt Hancock.)
This is consequential on amendments 24 and 37.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.
Matt Hancock
This schedule is the reformed electronic communications code, which is to be inserted into the Communications Act 2003. The debate we have just had on clause 4, which repeals the previous code, explains precisely why the new code is important. This is all about making sure that the law is up to date. The code was established by the 1984 Act and has not been substantively amended since then. The legal framework just has not kept pace with rapid changes. Our debate on clause 4 demonstrates why it is important to get this right.
The revised code forms part of a series of measures to improve this country’s communications infrastructure. We have worked closely with the devolved Administrations to make sure that the code will work effectively in all jurisdictions. The code has 17 parts, each dealing with the rights and responsibilities of site providers and operators, and I will quickly go through each part.
Part 1 is about the concepts in the code, including some of the definitions. Part 2 sets out how code rights are conferred and on whom they are binding. Part 3 sets out the automatic rights to assign code rights and addresses the upgrading and sharing of apparatus. Part 4 sets out the circumstances in which a court can impose an agreement where one cannot be reached between the parties—that is a crucial element of the code—including the procedures to be followed in such circumstances.
Parts 5 and 6 address how parties can bring an agreement to an end and how landowners can have apparatus removed. Parts 7 to 10 address the regime in place for land that requires distinct treatment due to its particular characteristics, such as transport land. Parts 11 and 12 provide rights for third parties to object to apparatus. Part 13 addresses the right to lop trees. Parts 14 and 15 make provision for compensation notices under the code. Part 16 provides for enforcement and dispute resolution, and it introduces the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to transfer jurisdiction on code cases to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Lastly, part 17 contains supplementary provisions, including on general interpretation, and addresses the definition of “land”.
The crucial reason for the changes is that part 2 is structured to underpin consensual agreements for code rights. As we discussed, consensual agreements are important, but, where agreement cannot be reached, part 4 means that a court has the power to impose code rights against a site provider in favour of an operator. The court can calculate the price an operator should pay a site provider for code rights.
Matt Hancock
I beg to move amendment 46, in schedule 2, page 138, line 17, leave out “under paragraph 2(1)” and insert—
“for the purposes of paragraph 2 or 3”.
This provides that the subsisting agreements covered by the transitional provisions in Schedule 2 include agreements under paragraph 3(1) of the existing code (agreement to confer a right to obstruct access) as well as paragraph 2(1).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 47 to 54 and Government amendment 1.
Matt Hancock
This is a group of technical amendments. Amendments 46 to 54 are to schedule 2, which contains transitional arrangements for moving from the existing code to the new code introduced by the Bill. The amendments will clarify and simplify the transitional provisions in the schedule. Amendment 1 is a drafting change to make clear that the power in clause 5 to make transitional provision in connection with the new electronic communications code includes the power to make saving provision.
Amendment 46 agreed to.
The Chair
With the leave of the Committee, I propose that we combine the questions on Government amendments 47 to 54 as a single question.
Amendments made: 47, in schedule 2, page 138, line 28, at end insert—
‘(2) A person who is bound by a right by virtue of paragraph 2(4) of the existing code in consequence of a subsisting agreement is, after the new code comes into force, treated as bound pursuant to Part 2 of the new code.’
This provides that a person who was bound by a right pursuant to a subsisting agreement (see paragraph 2(4) of the existing code) continues to be treated as bound by that agreement, under the provisions of Part 2 of the new code (see paragraph 10 of the new code).
Amendment 48, in schedule 2, page 138, line 31, after “are” insert “— (a)”
Amendments 48, 49 and 50 are consequential on amendment 46 and provide for references in the new code to a “code right” in relation to a subsisting agreement to have the corresponding meaning depending on whether the agreement was for the purposes of paragraphs 2(1) or (3(1) of the existing code.
Amendment 49, in schedule 2, page 138, line 31, leave out “the agreement” and insert—
“an agreement for the purposes of paragraph 2 of the existing code”
Amendments 48, 49 and 50 are consequential on amendment 46 and provide for references in the new code to a “code right” in relation to a subsisting agreement to have the corresponding meaning depending on whether the agreement was for the purposes of paragraphs 2(1) or (3(1) of the existing code.
Amendment 50, in schedule 2, page 138, line 33, at end insert—
‘(b) in relation to land to which an agreement for the purposes of paragraph 3 of the existing code relates, a right to do the things mentioned in that paragraph.’
Amendments 48, 49 and 50 are consequential on amendment 46 and provide for references in the new code to a “code right” in relation to a subsisting agreement to have the corresponding meaning depending on whether the agreement was for the purposes of paragraphs 2(1) or (3(1) of the existing code.
Amendment 51, in schedule 2, page 139, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
‘5A (1) This paragraph applies in relation to a subsisting agreement, in place of paragraph 28(2) to (4) of the new code.
(2) Part 5 of the new code (termination and modification of agreements) does not apply to a subsisting agreement that is a lease of land in England and Wales, if—
(a) it is a lease to which Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies, and
(b) there is no agreement under section 38A of that Act (agreements to exclude provisions of Part 2) in relation the tenancy.
(3) Part 5 of the new code does not apply to a subsisting agreement that is a lease of land in England and Wales, if—
(a) the primary purpose of the lease is not to grant code rights (the rights referred to in paragraph 3 of this Schedule), and
(b) there is an agreement under section 38A of the 1954 Act in relation the tenancy.
(4) Part 5 of the new code does not apply to a subsisting agreement that is a lease of land in Northern Ireland, if it is a lease to which the Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (SI 1996/725 (NI 5)) applies.
6 (1) Subject to paragraph 5A, Part 5 of the new code applies to a subsisting agreement with the following modifications.’
The amendment provides for the interaction of landlord and tenant law and Part 5 of the new code (termination and modification of agreements) in the case of subsisting agreements (see paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 2).
Amendment 52, in schedule 2, page 140, line 17, leave out
“the following provisions of this paragraph” and insert “sub-paragraph (3)”
This is consequential on amendment 53.
Amendment 53, in schedule 2, page 140, line 21, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) to (10)
This relates to applications under paragraph 5(1) of the existing code (power of court to dispense with need for required agreement). The effect of the amendment is that, if an application has been made to the court before the new code comes into force, the procedures under the existing code apply, but any resultant order takes effect as an order made under the new code.
Amendment 54, in schedule 2, page 142, line 7, leave out paragraphs 19 to 22 and insert—
‘19A (1) This paragraph applies where before the repeal of the existing code comes into force a person has given notice under paragraph 21(2) of that code requiring the removal of apparatus.
(2) The repeal does not affect the operation of paragraph 21 in relation to anything done or that may be done under that paragraph following the giving of the notice.
(3) For the purposes of applying that paragraph after the repeal comes into force, steps specified in a counter-notice under sub-paragraph (4)(b) of that paragraph as steps which the operator proposes to take under the existing code are to be read as including any corresponding steps that the operator could take under the new code or by virtue of this Schedule.’—(Matt Hancock.)
The amendment replaces transitional provisions for requiring the removal of apparatus. It provides for paragraph 21 of the existing code to continue to apply if a notice under that paragraph has been given, but treats an operator seeking rights to keep the apparatus installed as seeking rights also under the new code or transitional provisions.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3
The electronic communications code: consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new schedule 1—Electronic communications code: consequential amendments.
Matt Hancock
Schedule 3 contains consequential amendments that accompany the electronic communications code found in schedule 1. They amend existing legislation to ensure that implementation aligns and is consistent with other existing legislation. Since the introduction of the Bill, a number of additional necessary consequential amendments have been identified. New schedule 1 substitutes a new, revised and more comprehensive schedule, which contains an expanded list of necessary consequential amendments. I will therefore move new schedule 1 at the appropriate point in our proceedings.
Schedule 3 disagreed to.
Clause 5
Power to make transitional provision in connection with the code
Amendment made: 1, in clause 5, page 3, line 23, leave out “or transitory” and insert “, transitory or saving”—(Matt Hancock.)
The amendment adds power to make saving provision in connection with the coming into force of the new electronic communications code.
Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Regulation of dynamic spectrum access services
Matt Hancock
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 8, page 8, line 16, leave out “imposed” and insert “specified”.
This amendment reflects the fact that a notification under new section 53E of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 will specify a penalty rather than imposing it.
Matt Hancock
Amendments 2 to 6 are all technical amendments, to enable Ofcom to register dynamic spectrum access service providers and to set out what Ofcom can do where there is a contravention of the restrictions or conditions of registration.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Amendments made: 3, in clause 8, page 8, line 19, at end insert—
‘( ) The amount of any other penalty specified under this section is to be such amount, not exceeding 10% of the relevant amount of gross revenue, as OFCOM think—
(a) appropriate, and
(b) proportionate to the contravention in respect of which it is imposed.”
This amendment ensures that the penalty based on the relevant amount of gross revenue applies only where the daily default penalty specified under new section 53F(4) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 does not apply.
Amendment 4, in clause 8, page 9, line 21, leave out subsection (1).
This amendment is consequential on amendment 3.
Amendment 5, in clause 8, page 9, line 25, leave out “this section” and insert “section 53F”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 3 and 4.
Amendment 6, in clause 8, page 12, line 21, after “penalty” insert “specified”.—(Matt Hancock.)
This amendment brings new section 53L(5) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 into line with new section 53F(5) of that Act.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Louise Haigh
As the Committee is aware, spectrum which covers the electromagnetic frequency range from 3 kHz to 3,000 GHz is a central ingredient of all forms of wireless technology. The Opposition agree that making better use of spectrum is obviously essential to facilitate the development of the UK’s digital communications infrastructure. This is a national asset and it is important that the Government are constantly reviewing the way in which we can make better use of spectrum, particularly white space, which are used parts of the allocated spectrum.
It is also clearly important for Ofcom to have the power to police—for want of a better word—spectrum and it is important that, for instance, mobile network operators are achieving the coverage set out in their licence. We therefore support the specification of financial penalties if coverage requirements are not satisfied.
However, we would like reassurance on two issues: first, that amendment 2 does not water down the penalties that Ofcom can impose. The explanatory notes are not entirely clear and at present it seems as if, rather than allowing Ofcom to impose a penalty if coverage requirements are not satisfied, it simply must have regard to a potential penalty. We would welcome clarity from the Minister on that point.
My second, wider point is that, in the aftermath of Britain’s exit from the European Union, it is important that we continue to maintain influence in the allocations and regulation of spectrum. As the Minister will know, at present the EU member states harmonise spectrum access conditions EU-wide to ensure an efficient use of radio spectrum. In cases where there are conflicts between different usages of spectrum, they establish policy priorities. This is especially important with new and emerging technology, where the EU will ensure that fair allocation and reallocation of frequencies is harmonised across the European Union. In the aftermath of our exit from the EU, we must continue to communicate effectively with our European partners, as a pan-European strategy will still be in our interest. Will the Minister ensure that he continues to work closely with those partners, particularly as our loss of influence is unlikely to be compensated by our involvement in international forums?
Matt Hancock
I am very grateful for the Opposition’s support of the reforms to the way that spectrum is allocated. Spectrum is a finite asset and it is incredibly important that our digital communications, and especially wireless communications, increase so that we make best use of it. It is very good to see cross-party recognition of the importance of that management and that Ofcom play an excellent role in adjudicating on this.
I shall take the hon. Lady’s second specific question on the EU first. Of course we will continue discussions with neighbours about allocations. Ultimately, there are many spectrum frequencies that are dealt with on a global basis—for instance, those that are used in aviation. It is therefore important that we have international discussions, both in the EU and around the rest of the world. I can assure the hon. Lady that those discussions and that collaboration will continue. Indeed, some of it is going on as we speak.
On the hon. Lady’s first point about watering down the penalties, the way in which this is structured does not require a penalty, in case there are reasons not to have one, but allows for penalties. I think that gives Ofcom the necessary wiggle room, should it need it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Statement of strategic priorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Louise Haigh
We are grateful for the Minister’s reassurances in response to our concerns about clause 8. However, given those concerns, we think it is important that the statement of strategic priorities is updated in the aftermath of Britain’s exit from the EU and that consultation should begin right away. The statement of strategic priorities becomes much less clear after Brexit, when the Government will be required to take on significantly more of the burden and have much greater regard for the international element of spectrum access, as we will not be able to rely on European policy.
Clearly, Brexit will significantly alter the policy priorities of the Government in the operation of spectrum. We know that Ofcom is an international thought leader in this area, which may aid the Government. However, we believe that the statement must be amended to avoid any confusion and that that should be done in full consultation with industry.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady is dead right that we have to ensure that the strategic priorities take into account our exit from the European Union. Of course, some parts of spectrum that have very short distances can be set domestically, not least because there is a physical boundary of a minimum 26 miles between the UK and any other country. There are longer frequencies that have a bigger range, where minimising interference is important. Some are used on a global basis, in which case global agreement is required.
The issue has to be taken into account, and we will take on board the hon. Lady’s suggestion about ensuring that we have a statement of Government priorities post-Brexit that is appropriate to the UK outside the EU needing to engage with the EU, as well as with the rest of the world, and that domestic priorities are set where possible.
Calum Kerr
Spectrum licensing is our most effective tool for ensuring we get the coverage model we want. The form of the code will help, but it is through licensing that we will drive the level of coverage we want. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will leave nothing off the table in that? One option might be taking back spectrum where appropriate—for example, in rural areas that cannot be covered, as has happened in the US.
Matt Hancock
Of course, the management of spectrum needs to be as efficient as possible. The new dynamic spectrum management in clause 8, which we just agreed to, will help to deal with white space—spectrum that is not used but could be. New technology allows that to be used far more efficiently. I am delighted that we got unanimous support for clause 8. On clause 9 and setting out a set of strategic priorities, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s comments will be taken on board.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Penalties for contravention of wireless telegraphy licences
Matt Hancock
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 10, page 16, line 7, at end insert—
‘( ) In Schedule 8 to that Act (decisions not subject to appeal), at the end of paragraph 44 insert “for a relevant multiplex contravention”.
This allows an appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal against a penalty imposed by OFCOM under section 42 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 for a breach of a wireless telegraphy licence, except where the breach relates only to broadcast content (in which case, as at present, an appeal to the Tribunal will not be possible).
Matt Hancock
Amendment 7 provides Ofcom with powers to impose a financial penalty for contravention of a wireless telegraphy licence condition. It will allow an appeal to be made to the Competition Appeal Tribunal against a decision by Ofcom to impose a penalty under section 42 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 except, as is currently the case, where the penalty is imposed for contravention of a condition relating to broadcast content.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 11 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Time limits for prosecutions under Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006
Matt Hancock
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 14, page 17, line 10, leave out “and (8)”.
This is consequential on amendment 11.
Matt Hancock
The amendments will amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 to extend the time limit for bringing prosecutions for some summary offences—for example, those relating to unauthorised use of wireless telegraphy equipment. Amendment 10 makes provision about when proceedings in Scotland are deemed to have commenced for the purposes of the extended time limits. Amendments 8, 9 and 11 make minor changes to clarify the drafting.
Calum Kerr
Some of the amendments specifically relate to the law in a way that goes back to my earlier point. Will the Minister confirm whether the Scottish Administration have been consulted on this issue, given that it is clearly a devolved matter?
Matt Hancock
Yes—although I have had no discussions with them at a ministerial level about the amendments, I understand that discussions have taken place between officials. The effect of the amendments will be to make the law work better, so I hope they will have cross-party support.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendments made: Government amendment 9, in clause 14, page 17, line 18, leave out “Subsections (3A) and (3B)” and insert
“Section 41(7) and subsection (3B) above”.
Subsection (3C), inserted in section 107 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 by the clause, lists enactments displaced by the time limits mentioned in subsections (3A) and (3B). Subsection (3A) merely refers to section 41(7), and the amendment substitutes a direct reference to that provision for the reference to subsection (3A).
Government amendment 10, in clause 14, page 17, line 26, at end insert—
“(3D) In relation to proceedings in Scotland, subsection (3) of section 136 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (date when proceedings deemed to be commenced for the purposes of that section) applies also for the purposes of section 41(7) and subsection (3B) above.”.
The amendment adds provision about when proceedings in Scotland are deemed to be commenced for the purposes of the time limits in section 41(7) and new subsection (3B) of section 107 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006.
Government amendment 11, in clause 14, page 17, line 31, at end insert—
“() for subsection (8) substitute—
“(8) For further provision about prosecutions see section 107.””.—(Matt Hancock.)
Existing section 41(8) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 applies to section 41(7) and is superseded by section 107(3C) inserted by the clause (see amendment 9). Amendment 10 also inserts provision applying to section 41(7) into section 107. Amendment 11 therefore substitutes a subsection referring the reader to section 107.
Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Internet pornography: requirement to prevent access by persons under the age of 18
Claire Perry
I beg to move amendment 65, in clause 15, page 18, line 15, at end insert—
“(d) how persons can make a report to the age-verification regulator about pornographic material available on the internet on a commercial basis that is not complying with subsection (1).”.
This amendment places a requirement on the age-verification regulator to provide guidance as to how persons can report non-compliant pornography websites to the age-verification regulator.
I am extremely glad to have tabled a series of amendments to the vital provisions in part 3 of the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, we have come such a long way, and the enormous cross-party consensus to make the internet safer for young people has been crucial to that. We have seen some very effective sponsorship and responses from the previous Minister and his Department under the leadership of the last Prime Minister. Without his championship of this issue, we would not be where we are today.
My intention in tabling the amendments was to make provisions that are already good somewhat better, in the spirit of trying to encourage the Government to think hard about the line-by-line drafting. It has been made clear to me in meetings with organisations such as the British Board of Film Classification that there are ways to enhance the role of a regulator. I am delighted that the BBFC has been given the role, because it is truly a trusted brand; it is innovative and it does brilliant work to define age-rating boundaries. I have listened carefully to it.
What I am looking for is a clearer understanding of how the Government envisage the process of regulating websites and apps that provide access to material defined as pornographic in the UK. In his evidence session last week, David Austin referred to
“stages 1 to 3 of the regulation.”––[Official Report, Digital Economy Public Bill Committee, 11 October 2016; c. 39, Q84.]
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s explanation of how those different stages might work and to understand better how the enforcement element will work in practice—perhaps we will touch on that today but return to it in a later sitting.
I was struck by evidence given by those who do not support the changes; they feel that the issue is important but they argue that we should not be bringing in the new rules because we will not be able to make them stick. I must also mention my gratitude to the many organisations that have provided information and support on part 3 of the Bill. In particular, I note the contributions of Christian Action Research and Education, the Digital Policy Alliance, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Centre for Gender Equal Media.
My first amendment is to clause 15, which sets out the extremely welcome requirement that age verification should be introduced by websites and apps that are making commercial pornography available in the UK. Amendment 65 would add a new paragraph to clause 15(3) to strengthen enforcement by allowing the public and industry to provide intelligence to the regulator about the sites that do not have age verification.
I have always been struck by what we do not know about the internet. We all know that there is a massive proliferation of sites. I do accept what is said about much of the pornographic traffic concentrating around particular sites, but it grows like a Hydra every day. One of the BBFC’s most effective acts has been to allow effectively self-regulation and allow people to report and comment on a particular posting, which is, if you like, a sort of self-rating scheme. That would be extremely valuable. Clearly, the regulator cannot be expected to scrutinise the entire world of sites. Allowing members of the public and industry to notify the regulator that information is there that should be regulated would be helpful.
I note that the Digital Policy Alliance recommended in one of its parliamentary briefings back in April that this power should be available. It would be an excellent way to ensure that the public can feel involved in protecting their children. One of the messages I have heard over the past few years is how much families feel disempowered in the process of keeping their children safe. Of course, people accept the notion of parental responsibility and of course schools have become involved in this process, but we have made it uniquely difficult for families effectively to keep their children safe on a digital platform.
We have other rules and regulations around broadcast and written media that make it much easier for families wanting to be involved in that process. The amendment, allowing the BBFC to provide notice that these referrals can be made, would be very helpful. I note that David Austin of the BBFC said last week that he does intend to take referrals from the public.
Will the Minister please confirm that it is also the Government’s intention to promote the involvement of the whole community in championing online targeted child protection, and how this referral mechanism can be guaranteed? I hope he will consider this small change to the Bill.
Matt Hancock
Our intention is to establish a new regulatory framework and new regulatory powers tackling the viewing of adult content by minors. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend over many years in getting us to this point. It has already ensured that there is voluntary activity, and that there are now legislative proposals is in many ways largely thanks to her campaigning. I am delighted that we have reached this point.
I am also delighted that, as we heard last week, the British Board of Film Classification will be designated as the age verification regulator. That is undoubtedly the best body in the land to do that job. It has the capability, as we heard at the evidence session. It will be responsible for identifying and notifying infringing sites. That will enable payment providers and other ancillary services to withdraw services from those providers that do not comply as soon as possible. Proceeding in that way will allow us to work quickly and effectively with all parts of the industry to ensure that they are fully engaged—indeed, that engagement has already started. We need to ensure the system is robust but fair and the providers of pornographic material are encouraged to be compliant by the processes in place.
I have every confidence, as I think we all should, in the BBFC’s ability to deliver on this. We heard from David Austin, the chief executive, in evidence that he is already working on this. He said that the BBFC would create something, and that it has done so with mobile operators. I think that its commitment to enable members of the public and organisations such as the NSPCC to report a particular website is the best way forward. That is a sensible approach for the regulator to take.
We should take a proportionate approach to the regulator’s role and allow the BBFC to do the job at which it is expert. We have required the regulator to issue guidance in circumstances where it allows the subjects of regulation to understand how the regime applies to them, but I think that going further and requiring this level of specification is not necessary, given the BBFC’s commitment and the uncontroversial nature of the need. That will give us flexibility as well as a clear commitment to make this happen. I hope that given that explanation, my hon. Friend will withdraw her amendment.
Claire Perry
I am pleased to hear that the Minister shares the view that the BBFC should be given a permissive regime to do some of the things it does well, rather than the Government specifying too much. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Louise Haigh
I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 15, page 18, line 20, leave out subsection (5)(a).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 87, in clause 15, page 18, line 25, leave out subsection 6.
New clause 7—On-demand programme services: requirement to prevent persons under the age of 18 accessing pornographic material with an 18 classification certificate—
“On-demand programme services: requirement to prevent persons under the age of 18 accessing pornographic material with an 18 classification certificate
Section 368E of the Communication Act 2003 (harmful material) is amended as follows—
(a) in subsection (5)—
(i) after subsection (a) insert—
“(aa) a video work in respect of which the video works authority has issued an 18 classification certificate, and that it is reasonable to assume from its nature was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal,”;
(ii) after subsection (b) insert—
“(ba) material that was included in a video work to which paragraph (aa) applies, if it is reasonable to assume from the nature of the material—
(i) that it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal, and
(ii) that its inclusion was among the reasons why the certificate was an 18 certificate,
“(bb) any other material if it is reasonable to assume from its nature—
(i) that it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal, and
(ii) that any classification certificate issued for a video work including it would be an 18 certificate.”
(b) in subsection (7) after “section” insert—
““18 certificate” means a classification certificate which—
(a) contains, pursuant to section 7(2)(b) of the Video Recordings Act 1984, a statement that the video work is suitable for viewing only by persons who have attained the age of 18 and that no video recording containing that work is to be supplied to any person who has not attained that age, and
(b) does not contain the statement mentioned in section 7(2)(c) of that Act that no video recording containing the video work is to be supplied other than in a licensed sex shop;””
This new clause requires the extension of measures for UK-based video on-demand programming to protect children from 18 material as well as R18 material.
Louise Haigh
The amendments all explicitly include on-demand programme services in the age verification measures proposed by the Government. Given the rise in the use of mobile devices and tablets in the past decade, the case for appropriate online pornography enforcement has increased. We commend the Government’s intention in the proposals. I also put on the record our thanks and congratulations to the hon. Member for Devizes, who has campaigned on this issue for many years along with many other hon. Members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West.
The ultimate goal is to seek parity of protection for children between the online and offline worlds, but how that is done in practice is fraught with issues. I hope that we can improve the proposals before us. Teens have an emerging right to independent communication with friends and family, and we recognise and respect that. We must not fall back on outdated means of protection such as blanket parental permissions. We need to empower and protect young people in ways that make sense to them and that they can and will use.
As the Committee knows, the effects of online pornography on unhealthy attitudes to sex and relationships are only just starting to be explored, but the research indicates a troubling trend. The NSPCC study of more than 1,000 young people aged 11 to 18 found that over half the sample had been exposed to online pornography, and nearly all of that group—94%—had seen it by age 14. Just over half the boys believed that the pornography that they had seen was realistic, and a number of girls said that they worried about how it would make boys see girls and the possible impact on attitudes to sex and relationships. One respondent said:
“Because you don’t get taught how to go on the internet and keep yourself safe, there are loads of tricks to get you to give away or to go on a bad website.”
Crucially, in research by Barnardo’s, four fifths of teenagers agreed that it was too easy for young people to see pornography online by accident.
Adult products and spaces, including gambling shops, sex shops and nightclubs, are restricted in the offline sphere. Contents such as film and television, advertising and pornography are all also limited, with penalties ranging from fines to custodial sentences available to discharged proprietors who do not comply. It is a transparent, accountable process overseen by regulators and licence operators such as Ofcom, the BBFC and the Gambling Commission to ensure that children are protected from age-inappropriate content and experiences.
Labour is happy to support the Government’s efforts to introduce age verification, but we must ensure that enforcement is strong enough. Our amendment speaks to that broad aim of the Opposition, which I know is supported by Government Back Benchers, given the other amendments tabled today. However, the measure cannot be seen as a silver bullet, which is why tacking this manifesto commitment on to a Digital Economy Bill is inadequate. First, slotting it into a Bill on the digital economy gives the impression, however unintentional, that the measure is designed to deal only with commercial providers of pornography, those who exploit data or benefit from advertising or subscription services—those who are, in short, part of the digital economy, rather than all providers of pornography online.
Although we are aware that most pornography providers operate on a commercial basis, many do not. Peer-to-peer networks and Usenet groups, however difficult to police, would presumably not be in the scope of the Bill. That is on top of pornography available through apps that are commercial enterprises, such as Twitter and Tumblr, or free webpages, such as WordPress, where the provision of pornography is incidental or provides no income to the overall business, or is not used for commercial purposes at all. Under clause 15 as it stands, it is by no means clear that all pornography available on the internet will be subject to age verification requirements.
Allow me to remind the Minister what the Conservative party manifesto said on the matter in 2015. It stated that
“we will stop children’s exposure to harmful sexualised content online, by requiring age verification for access to all sites containing pornographic material”.
There is no prevarication or equivocation there, and I commend the wording in the manifesto. Unfortunately, between that time and the legislation being drawing up, a rogue adjective has been added to the commitment, which seemed perfectly clear in the manifesto. One could easily argue that if a site such as Tumblr does not make pornography available on a commercial basis, then it is exempt, which would leave that manifesto commitment in some difficulty. Can we therefore have a commitment from the Minister that the regulator will be able to go after all sites containing pornographic material and not just those operating on a commercial basis, however broadly we may want to define “commercial”? The word seems at best unnecessary, and at worst a breach of the manifesto commitment.
Slotting age verification into the Bill gives Members nothing like the scope needed to tackle the effect of under-age viewing of pornography, which is surely the intention behind its implementation, because the measure is not enough to protect children. For a start, the regulator should also be responsible for ensuring that services undertake self-audits and collect mandatory reports in relation to child abuse images, online grooming and malicious communication involving children. To ensure that services are working to consistent principles and to best support the collection and utilisation of data, the regulator should also be responsible for developing a definition of child abuse.
We need to improve reporting online. Children and young people are ill served by the currently inadequate and unreliable reporting systems when they experience online abuse. Reporting groups need to be standardised, visible, responsive and act rapidly to address issues. Every reporting group must be designed in ways children say they can and will use. The NSPCC found that 26% of children and young people who used the report button saw no action whatever taken in response to their complaint; and of those who did get a response, 16% were dissatisfied with it. The Government should include independent mediation and monitoring of responses to complaints.
Clearly, we need compulsory sex education in our schools. Compulsory age-appropriate lessons about healthy relationships and sex are vital to keeping children safe on and offline. We know that children are exposed to pornography, sometimes in an extreme or violent form. Alongside regulation to limit access to these materials, building resilience and instilling an early understanding of healthy relationships can help to mitigate the impact of that exposure.
On that point, we are incredibly keen to ensure that legislation is as clear as possible and that any potential loopholes are closed. One such loophole is clause 15(5)(a), which for reasons that are unclear excludes on-demand programme services. Explicitly excluding any on-demand programme service available on the internet in the Bill—although we are aware that they are regulated by Ofcom—risks on-demand programme services being subject to a much looser age verification requirement than the Bill would enforce on other pornography providers. We do not believe that the legislation intends to create two standards of age verification requirements for online content, regardless of whether it is separately regulated. The amendment is intended to close that loophole.
Claire Perry
I will speak to amendments 85 and 87. I raised a question with David Austin last week about the regulation of video on demand. He confirmed that the intention of the Bill as it stands is to maintain the regulation of UK video on demand with Ofcom under the Communications Act 2003. That seems totally reasonable to me because Ofcom has done a good job. I think the issue is that the framework only requires age verification for R18 material.
I am not trying to give everyone a lesson—by the way, this is why we are so grateful to the BBFC; it gives very clear definitions of the material—but R18 is effectively hardcore porn. It contains restricted scenes that we would all consider to be pornography. Since 2010, the 18-certificate guidelines permit the depiction of explicit sex in exceptional justifying circumstances, so it is perfectly feasible for children to view 18-rated content that we would all consider to be pornographic. I fully agree with the sentiment behind amendments 85 and 87 to provide a level playing field for all online media, but we must ensure that all R18 and 18 content accessed through video-on-demand services is included in the provisions. However, removing clauses 15(5)(a) and 16(6) would cause a fair amount of confusion, as video-on-demand services would be regulated by Ofcom for the majority of the time but for age verification matters would be regulated by the BBFC and Ofcom, which raises the question of who has precedence and how enforcement would work.
I have therefore tabled new clause 7, which would meet the same objective in a slightly different way by amending the current regulatory framework for video on demand to ensure that children are protected from 18-rated as well as R18-rated on-demand material. The relevant section of the Communications Act 2003, section 368E, was amended by the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014 to specify that R18 material should be subject to age verification to protect children. It is not a big step to require 18-rated pornographic material, which is the subject of much of this part of the Bill, to be included within the scope of that section. That would effectively create a legal level playing field. It would remove the issue of parity and precedence and would give us parity on the fundamental issue of the protection of children.
I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley said. Ofcom’s latest figures on children and the media show that 51% of 12 to 15-year-olds watched on-demand services in 2015. The viewing of paid for on-demand content has gone up and accounts for 20% of viewing time for young people aged 16 to 24. They can view content rated 18 or R18 that would be prohibited for some of them if they were to purchase it in the offline world. With new clause 7, I recommend that the Government should try to ensure parity between the online and offline worlds. This Bill is a brilliant way to ensure that there is parity in the way that pornographic content is accessed.
Kevin Brennan
On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley made about the wording of the clause and how it talks about material that is made available “on a commercial basis”, does the hon. Member for Devizes have any concerns that that might be a definitional problem that could create a loophole?
Claire Perry
The hon. Gentleman raises a challenge. The explanatory notes make it clear that the Government intend to capture both commercial and freely provided material, which gets to the root of his concern. If someone is benefiting from the viewing of such material, the Government intend to capture that within the definition. I commend both the Minister and his Department for asking the BBFC to take on the role of regulator, because I have a high level of faith in its ability to do just that.
Kevin Brennan
I take the hon. Lady’s point that the Government have said that they would like to capture such material, but my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley said that they might not capture everything. We tabled a probing amendment to take out the words “on a commercial basis” to test that, but it was ruled out of scope because the Bill is about the digital economy. So it has to be material that is made available on a commercial basis only, otherwise it is out of the scope of the Bill.
Claire Perry
The hon. Gentleman is splitting hairs. The Government have issued clear guidance that the definition of “commercial” includes free content. There are very few altruistic providers of this material. Free content tends to be provided as a taster for commercial sites.
Claire Perry
Well, I accept that is true of streaming and on-demand, which is why this provision is important. It would capture material that is rated 18, not just restricted-18, and put it on a level playing field with restricted-18 material. The on-demand video content that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley mentioned would be covered by the changes. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to my proposed new clause 7, which would support parity of both content and regulator.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Graham Stuart.)
Digital Economy Bill (Sixth sitting)
Thursday 20th October 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Digital Economy Act 2017 View all Digital Economy Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 October 2016 - (20 Oct 2016)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 87, in clause 15, page 18, line 25, leave out subsection 6.
New clause 7—On-demand programme services: requirement to prevent persons under the age of 18 accessing pornographic material with an 18 classification certificate—
“Section 368E of the Communication Act 2003 (harmful material) is amended as follows—
(a) in subsection (5)—
(i) after subsection (a) insert—
“(aa) a video work in respect of which the video works authority has issued an 18 classification certificate, and that it is reasonable to assume from its nature was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal,”;
(ii) after subsection (b) insert—
“(ba) material that was included in a video work to which paragraph (aa) applies, if it is reasonable to assume from the nature of the material—
(i) that it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal, and
(ii) that its inclusion was among the reasons why the certificate was an 18 certificate,
“(bb) any other material if it is reasonable to assume from its nature—
(i) that it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal, and
(ii) that any classification certificate issued for a video work including it would be an 18 certificate.”
(b) in subsection (7) after “section” insert—
““18 certificate” means a classification certificate which—
(a) contains, pursuant to section 7(2)(b) of the Video Recordings Act 1984, a statement that the video work is suitable for viewing only by persons who have attained the age of 18 and that no video recording containing that work is to be supplied to any person who has not attained that age, and
(b) does not contain the statement mentioned in section 7(2)(c) of that Act that no video recording containing the video work is to be supplied other than in a licensed sex shop;””
This new clause requires the extension of measures for UK-based video on-demand programming to protect children from 18 material as well as R18 material.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley for making such a clear and cogent argument for why the Bill needs further amendment. As I think she said—I am sure that she will correct me if I am wrong—we want to ensure that the Government stick to their manifesto commitment to protect children from all forms of online pornography. That will take consistency and a depth of modesty about the extent of our various levels of knowledge about how the internet works.
The hon. Member for Devizes made a good speech, and I am grateful to her for making the argument about on-demand films, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley also did, but the hon. Lady said—please correct me if I am wrong—that there were not many providers of free online pornography. I must respectfully disagree. Given the existence of peer-to-peer sharing and other forms of availability—my hon. Friend mentioned Tumblr and other social media websites—I am afraid that it is incredibly easy, as my nephews and nieces have confirmed, sadly, for a young person to access free online pornographic content in ways that most of us here might not even understand.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
I am happy to clarify. My focus was on the Government’s intention to capture free and commercial pornography. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is a plethora of free stuff out there, and she is right to focus on the harm that it causes.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. I understand from an intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West that the reason why we were not allowed to remove the words “on a commercial basis” was that they were deemed out of scope. As I understand it, the word “economy”, if we stick to the letter of it, includes transactions for which there is no financial payment. There are transactions involved, and the word “digital” is in the title of the Bill, so I think it unfortunate that the amendment was not agreed to. Taking out the words “on a commercial basis” would have done a great deal to make consistent across all platforms and all forms of pornographic content available online the restrictions that we are placing on commercial ones.
I support the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend to the wording of clause 15(5)(a) and (6), for reasons that have already been given, and I want to add to the arguments. Hon. Friends and Members may have read the evidence from Girlguiding. As a former Guide, I pay tribute to the movement for the excellent work that it has done. It has contributed a profound and well-evidenced understanding of what young women are saying about online pornography. I will pick out a couple of statistics, because they make arguments to which I will refer in interventions on later clauses. That will make my speeches less long.
In the 2016 girls’ attitudes survey, half of the girls said that sexism is worse online than offline. In the 2014 survey, 66%, or two thirds, of young women said that they often or sometimes see or experience sexism online. It is a place where young women routinely experience sexism, and part of that sexism is the ubiquity of pornography. In 2015, the survey found that 60% of girls aged 11 to 21 see boys their age—admittedly, some of those are over the age of 18, but they are still the girls’ peers—viewing pornography on mobile devices or tablets. In contrast, only 27% of girls say that they see girls their age viewing pornography. The majority of those young women say from their experience that children can access too much content online and that it should be for adults only. In the survey, we see a certain degree of concord among young women in the Girlguiding movement, Opposition Members and the Government manifesto, which pledged, as my hon. Friend said, to exclude children from all forms of online pornography.
The 2015 Girlguiding survey also found that those young women felt that pornography was encouraging sexist stereotyping and harmful views, and that the proliferation of pornography is having a negative effect on women in society more generally. Those young women are the next generation of adults.
I have worked with young men who have already abused their partners. In my former job working with domestic violence perpetrators, I worked with young men of all ages; for the men my age, their pornography had come from the top shelf of a newsagent, but the younger men knew about forms of pornography that those of us of a certain age had no understanding of whatever. They were using pornography in ways that directly contribute to the abuse of women and girls, including pornography that is filmed abuse. I shall come back to that point later, but we need to recognise that young men are getting their messages about what sex and intimacy are from online pornography. If we do not protect them from online pornography under the age of 18, we are basically saying that there are no holds barred.
The hon. Member for Devizes and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley mentioned loopholes. When we leave loopholes, it creates a colander or sieve for regulation. Yes, the internet is evolving and, yes, we in this Committee Room probably do not know every single way in which it already provides pornography, and certainly not how it will in future, but that is a good reason to provide a strong regulatory framework when we have the chance. We have that chance now, and we should take it. If it remains the case that removing the words “on a commercial basis” is deemed outside our scope, which I find very sad—I think it is a missed opportunity, and I hope the House can return to it at some point and regulate the free content—we must definitely ensure that we are putting everything else that we possibly can on a level playing field. That means that the regulation of video on demand has to be consistent and that we have to close any other loophole we can spot over the next few days.
I hope Opposition amendments will make the Government think about the manifesto commitment they rightly made—I am happy to put on the record that I support it—and take the opportunity to stick to it. Young women want that; young men need it, because my experience of working with young men who have abused their partners and ex-partners is that they felt that they were getting those messages from pornography; and we as a society cannot afford to ignore this problem any longer. We have a chance to do something about it, so let us take that opportunity.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
It is great to hear that outbreak of support for the Conservative party manifesto.
Thangam Debbonaire
I must have it clearly on the record that I supported that commitment only: not the whole Conservative manifesto, just the bit that says “We want to protect all children from all online pornography.”
Matt Hancock
I am sure our powers of persuasion will extend that support in the future. The outbreak of support for our manifesto is welcome; this is an incredibly important area, and I am proud to lead the Front-Bench effort to deal with underage people’s access to adult material by introducing age verification. I want to respond in detail to the points made, because it is important we get this right.
Before I come to the specific amendments, I will deal with commercial providers. The measures in the Bill will apply equally to all commercial providers, whether their material is paid for directly or appears on free sites that operate on a different business model. “Commercial” has quite a broad meaning, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes said. If a provider makes money from a site in any way, whether or not it makes a profit, it can be caught by the legislation. That is the right distinction, because it targets those who make money and are indifferent to the harm their activities may cause to children.
Matt Hancock
If the hon. Lady will hold on, I want to explain this in full, rather than in part, before I give way. The age verification regulator must publish guidance on the circumstances in which it will regard a site or app as commercial. It will be for the regulator to judge whether a site is commercial, and there is no definition that states which website platforms are covered. Crucially, the regulator will also be able to take a view if specific social media and other types of sites are ancillary service providers—a person who appears to be facilitating or enabling the making available of pornographic material by non-compliant persons. I think that the capturing of others as ancillary service providers is an important part of making sure that we fully deliver our manifesto commitment, as I believe this Bill does.
Louise Haigh
We are aware that “commercial” is not limited to sites that require payment. It includes online advertising and other business models, as the Minister has said. However, it is unclear how the regulator will be able to enforce these measures given that the only enforcement available to them is notifying other payment service providers and ancillary services.
Matt Hancock
No doubt we will come on to enforcement. A number of clauses and amendments are on enforcement. The point is that other social media sites can be classified by the regulator as ancillary service providers for facilitating or enabling the making of available pornographic material. Our view is that enforcement through disrupting business models is more powerful because you are undermining the business model of the provider. However, I do not want to get too distracted, in an out of order way, into enforcement which is rightly dealt with in later clauses.
Louise Haigh
If the Bill is clearly designed to enable the regulator to focus on social media sites and other ancillary service providers, why was that term “on a commercial basis” included in these sections?
Matt Hancock
The principle is that there is a distinction between those who are making money by targeting and are indifferent to potential harm and those whose services facilitate the provision of porn to those who are under age. I think it is a reasonable distinction. We are trying to deal with the mass of the problem. By its nature, it is very difficult to get to 100%. I think that leaving the Bill in this way, with flexibility for the regulator to act, has a big advantage over being overly prescriptive in primary legislation and too specific about the way in which the regulator acts, not least because disrupting the business model is the goal of trying to provide enforcement.
Claire Perry
I support the Minister’s point about over-prescription, but perhaps he could help me by talking about a particular case. Let us take Tumblr hosting a stream of content which is 18. Who would the regulator target if it issued an enforcement notice? Would it be the content provider, or would it be the social media platform that is hosting that content?
Matt Hancock
In that case, the platform—I do not want to get into individual platforms, but I am happy to take my hon. Friend’s example—would likely be an ancillary service provider and therefore captured. This is a very important distinction. There is a difference between somebody who is actively putting up adult material and choosing not to have age verification, and a platform where others put up adult material, where it is not necessarily impossible but much harder to have a control over the material. There is an important distinction here. If we try to pretend that everybody putting material onto a platform, for example, the one that my hon. Friend mentions, should be treated the same way as a porn-providing website, we will be led into very dangerous territory and it makes it harder to police this rather than easier. That is my argument.
On the specific amendments, I understand entirely where the argument on demand is coming from. I want to give an assurance which I hope will mean that these clauses will not be pushed to the vote. On-demand audio-visual media services under UK jurisdiction are excluded from part 3 of the Bill because they are regulated by Ofcom under part 4A of the Communications Act 2003. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes said, other on-demand services that are not currently regulated in the UK will be caught by the Bill regime.
Thangam Debbonaire
Forgive me, but the Minister just gave a lot of information, and I want to clarify something. Whichever regulator is doing it, will the effect of the legislation as he would like to see it put R18 films and 18-rated films on on-demand services at the same level of age verification? I am not clear on that point.
Matt Hancock
The aim is that even though the regulator may be different in those two cases, the result would be the same. I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. The Bill will do that without having double regulation. As we discussed earlier with regard to a different part of the Bill, having double regulation in the same area can lead to confusion and worse outcomes, rather than clarity and better outcomes.
A service that falls within part 4A of the Communications Act 2003—that is to say, one that is outwith the proposals —must not contain any specially restricted material, unless that material is made available in a manner that secures that persons under the age of 18 will not normally see or hear it. Specially restricted material includes R18 material and other material that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of persons under the age of 18. Our intention is that such other material should include material that the BBFC would describe as 18 sex works. I think that answers precisely the point that the hon. Lady was making.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
This is a genuine inquiry: did the Minister consider not having double regulation but awarding regulatory oversight of all this to a single regime, possibly the BBFC, thereby taking it away from Ofcom? If he considered that idea, why did he reject it?
Matt Hancock
Partly because the regulation of areas currently covered by Ofcom is considered to be working well, so I did not want to throw that regime up in the air. I did want to deal with the additions and make provisions additional to the existing regime.
Kevin Brennan
The Minister’s response prompts the question: if that is the case, why did he not give the responsibility to Ofcom?
Matt Hancock
Because I think the BBFC is best at making the very nuanced distinctions between different types of material and their regulation that are required. The way it has landed, with the two regulators sitting side by side, but with the aim that the result of the regulation is the same, is the better way of doing it.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
May I seek clarification from the Minister? Is there scope for a mechanism whereby the two regulatory authorities can pass items between each other if one is better suited to judge an item that has been referred to the other?
Matt Hancock
There is clarity in the Bill about what is under the jurisdiction of one regulator and what is under the jurisdiction of the other. I will, though, take that away and seek to give an assurance that the two regulators will work together to ensure that that boundary is dealt with adequately. There is flexibility in the Bill to ensure that that can happen. I cannot speak for Ofcom or the BBFC, but it would seem to me to be perfectly reasonable and obvious that the boundary has to work properly. I would not like to over-specify that in the Bill because of the nature of changes in technology. The distinction between broadcast and on-demand services is changing as technology develops, and it is better to leave it structured as it is. I am sure that both regulators will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s important point that the boundary between the two needs to be dealt with appropriately and that they need to talk to each other.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Is the Minister reassured, as I am, by the fact that in the evidence sessions there was enthusiastic support from the BBFC for embracing the role, as well as very clear guidance that it had the competence to do so? We have not necessarily heard that from anybody else. The support and enthusiasm for taking on that role is very telling.
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend has just given the final paragraph of my speech. With those assurances and the broad support from the BBFC and its enthusiasm to tackle the need for age verification in that way, I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley will withdraw the amendment.
Louise Haigh
Quite a lot of clarification is needed, and I hope it will come during the Bill’s passage. I do not think that the distinction between Ofcom and the BBFC is clear in this part of the Bill or in later clauses on enforcement. However, given that it states elsewhere in the Bill that the proposal is subject to further parliamentary scrutiny, and as the BBFC has not yet officially been given the regulator role—as far as I am aware—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Claire Perry
I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 15, page 18, line 24, at end insert
“or an internet service provider.”.
This amendment and amendment 67 ensure that the requirement to implement age verification does not fall on ISPs but commercial sites or applications offering pornographic material; and defines internet service providers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 90, in clause 22, page 23, line 29, leave out
“or ancillary service provider”
and insert
“, ancillary service provider, or internet service provider.”.
Amendment 77, in clause 22, page 24, line 23, at end insert “or
(c) an internet service provider.”.
This amendment and amendment 78 ensure that the definition of an ancillary service provider would include ISPs; and defines internet service providers.
Amendment 91, in clause 22, page 24, line 23, at end insert—
“(6A) In this section an “ancillary service provider” includes, but is not limited to, domain name registrars, social media platforms, internet service providers, and search engines.”.
Amendment 67, in clause 25, page 26, line 2, at end insert—
““internet service provider” has the same meaning as in section 124N of the Communications Act 2003 (interpretation);”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 66.
New clause 8—Duty to provide a service that excludes adult-only content—
“(1) This section applies to internet service providers who supply an internet access service to subscribers.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “subscribers” includes—
(a) domestic subscribers;
(b) schools; and
(c) organisations that allow a person to use an internet access service in a public place.
For the purposes of the conditions in subsections (3) and (4), if the subscriber is a school or organisation a responsible person within the school or organisation shall be regarded as the subscriber.
(3) A provider to whom subsection (1) applies must provide to subscribers an internet access service which excludes adult-only content unless all of the conditions listed in subsection (4) have been fulfilled.
(4) The conditions are—
(a) the subscriber “opts in” to subscribe to a service that includes online adult-only content;
(b) the subscriber is aged 18 or over; and
(c) the provider of the service has an age verification scheme which meets the standards set out by OFCOM in subsection (4) and which has been used to confirm that the subscriber is aged 18 or over before a user is able to access adult-only content.
(5) It shall be the duty of OFCOM, to set, and from time to time to review and revise, standards for the—
(a) filtering of adult content in line with the standards set out in Section 319 of the Communications Act 2003;
(b) age verification policies to be used under subsection (4) before an user is able to access adult content; and
(c) filtering of content by age or subject category by providers of internet access services.
(6) The standards set out by OFCOM under subsection (5) must be contained in one of more codes.
(7) Before setting standards under subsection (5), OFCOM must publish, in such a manner as they think fit, a draft of the proposed code containing those standards.
(8) After publishing the draft code and before setting the standards, OFCOM must consult relevant persons and organisations.
(9) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to establish procedures for the handling and resolution of complaints in a timely manner about the observance of standards set under subsection (5), including complaints about incorrect filtering of content.
(10) OFCOM may designate any body corporate to carry out its duties under this section in whole or in part.
(11) OFCOM may not designate a body under subsection (10) unless, as respects that designation, they are satisfied that the body—
(a) is a fit and proper body to be designated;
(b) has consented to being designated;
(c) has access to financial resources that are adequate to ensure the effective performance of its functions under this section; and
(d) is sufficiently independent of providers of internet access services.
(12) It shall be a defence to any claims, whether civil or criminal, for a provider to whom subsection (1) applies to prove that at the relevant time they were—
(a) following the standards and code set out in subsection (5),; and
(b) acting in good faith.
(13) Nothing in this section prevents any providers to whom subsection (1) applies from providing additional levels of filtering of content.
(14) In this section—
“adult-only content” means material that contains offensive and harmful material from which persons under the age of 18 are protected;
“age verification scheme” is a scheme to establish the age of the subscriber;
“internet access service” and “internet service provider” have the same meaning as in section 124N of the Communications Act 2003 (interpretation);
“material from which persons under the age of 18 are protected” means material specified in the OFCOM standards under section 2;
“OFCOM” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Communications Act 2003;
“offensive and harmful material” has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Communications Act 2003 (general duties of OFCOM); and
“subscriber” means a person who receives the service under an agreement between the person and the provider of the service.”.
This new clause places a statutory requirement on internet service providers to limit access to adult content by persons under 18. It would give Ofcom a role in determining the age verification scheme and how material should be filtered. It would ensure that ISPs were able to continue providing family friendly filtering once the net neutrality rules come into force in December 2016.
New clause 11—Power to make regulations about blocking injunctions preventing access to locations on the internet—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the granting by a court of a blocking injunction in respect of a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that is contravening, or has contravened, section 15(1) of this Act.
(2) “Blocking injunction” means an injunction that requires an internet service provider to prevent its service being used to gain access to a location on the internet.
(3) Regulations introduced under subsection (1) above may, in particular—
(a) make provision about the type of locations against which a blocking injunction should be granted;
(b) make provision about the circumstances in which an application can be made for a blocking injunction;
(c) outline the type of circumstances in which the court will grant a blocking injunction;
(d) specify the type of evidence, and other factors, which the court must take into account in determining whether or not to grant a blocking injunction;
(e) make provision about the notice, and type of notice, including the form and means, by which a person must receive notice of an application for a blocking injunction made against them; and
(f) make provision about any other such matters as the Secretary of State considers are necessary in relation to the granting of a blocking injunction by the court.
(4) Regulations under this subsection must be made by statutory instrument.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(6) In this Part— “Internet service provider” has the same meaning as in section 16 of the Digital Economy Act 2010. In the application of this Part to Scotland “injunction” means interdict.”.
This new Clause empowers the Secretary of State to introduce regulations in relation to the granting of a backstop blocking injunction by a court. The injunction would require an internet service provider to prevent access to a site or sites which do not comply with the age-verification requirements. This would only be used where the other enforcement powers (principally fines) had not been effective in ensuring that sites put in place effective age-verification.
Claire Perry
I welcome the Minister’s previous comments, which gave me some real assurances on the parity of content and regulator. I also reassure him of how popular he will be when the Bill finally passes—the Centre for Gender Equal Media said that, in its most recent survey, 86% of people support a legal requirement on companies to prevent children’s access to pornography. We are moving in the right direction.
Amendment 66 seeks to pick through slightly more carefully who is responsible and is captured by the Bill’s language. There are four internet service providers in the UK through which the majority of broadband internet traffic travels, and they have come a long way. Five years ago, they accepted none of our proposals, be it single click protection for all devices in the home or the implementation of a filtering system that required selection—we could not select whether or not the filters were on. They have gone from that to the position now whereby, in some cases, we have ISPs that provide their services with the filters already on as default—something that we were told was absolutely unimaginable. With that regime, the level of complaints is very low and the level of satisfaction is very high.
Amendment 67 is consequential on amendment 66 and both seek to clarify the scope of who exactly would be covered under the wording of clause 15(1), which states:
“A person must not make pornographic material available on the internet on a commercial basis to persons in the United Kingdom except in a way that secures that, at any given time, the material is not normally accessible by persons under the age of 18.”
The Government have made it quite clear in the consultation, and the Minister clarified in his previous remarks, that the proposals apply to companies running websites aimed specifically at providing pornographic content for commercial gain, and that they want those who profit from such material being made available online to act in a legal, socially responsible way. It could be argued that ISPs both profit from the material being made available online and also make pornographic material available online, even though they are not the original source of the material. We also heard from the Minister that he is minded to consider social media platforms in that same category. In my view, the regulator must also publish guidance under clause 15(3) about
“circumstances in which the regulator will treat an internet site or other means of accessing the internet as operated or provided on a commercial basis”.
It is my concern that that could also be read as applying to ISPs. The amendments are intended to clarify that. In fact, I can quote from an article from July, which said:
“Internet access providers are likely to feel left in an uncertain position at the moment as, while the Bill does not reference them in this context, the definition of ‘makes pornographic material available’ could be argued as incorporating companies which provide connectivity to servers used for the making available of pornographic material”,
and piping that material into the home.
Paragraph 22 of the explanatory notes makes reference to “commercial providers of pornography”, and that obviously appears to place the onus of this suite of measures firmly on the content providers, but an optimal approach would be to improve the drafting to make the legislative attempt clear. I know we will have further discussions about the role of ISPs, but ISPs have done what we have asked them to do in introducing family friendly filters.
Kevin Brennan
I am trying to understand why the hon. Lady believes that ISPs should not have this responsibility.
Claire Perry
Because various other aspects of the Bill capture ISPs. My concern is that the Bill focuses on the commercial content providers where they are. The amendment is intended to probe the Government about how they are thinking about ISPs vis-à-vis commercial content providers in the drafting of the clause.
Louise Haigh
Our amendments are designed to enable the regulator to ask the internet service provider to block offending sites. This goes back to the point we made earlier on the differences between sites operated “on a commercial basis” and social media sites and ancillary sites. The proposals as they stand do not give the regulator sufficient powers to enforce the mechanisms proposed in the Bill.
Broadening the definition of “ancillary service provider” specifically to include internet service providers would require the regulator to notify them of non-compliant sites. That will put ISPs in the same bracket as payment service providers, which will be required to withdraw their services if other measures have been exhausted. In the case of ISPs, they would be required to block offending sites.
The amendments would create a simple backstop power where enforcement through the Government’s proposals had not achieved its intended objective and commercial providers had not withdrawn their services, either because the fine does not act as a deterrent or because, due to their international status, they do not need to comply. If pornography providers continued to provide content without age verification restrictions, the regulator would then have the power to require ISPs to take down the content.
We believe that, without amendment, the proposals will not achieve the Bill’s aim, as non-compliant pornographers would not be absolutely assured of payment services being blocked. First, the proposals do not send anywhere near a strong enough signal to the porn industry that the Government are serious about the proposals and their enforcement. Giving the regulator the power but not the stick suggests that we are not all that bothered about whether sites comply. Secondly, we can have no reassurance that sites will be shut down within any kind of timeframe if there is non-compliance. As drafted in the explanatory notes, “on an ongoing basis” could mean yearly, biannually or monthly, but it makes a mockery of the proposals if sites could be non-compliant for two years or more before payment services may or may not act. That does not provide much of an incentive to the industry to act.
Throughout the evidence sessions we heard that there are significant difficulties with the workability of this entire part of the Bill. For instance, many sites will hide their contact details, and a substantial number will simply not respond to financial penalties. Indeed, an ability already exists in law for ISPs to be compelled to block images that portray, for example, child sex abuse. There is also an ability to block in the case of copyright infringement. It therefore seems eminently reasonable that in the event of non-compliance, the regulator has a clear backstop power. We believe that even just legislating for such a power will help speed up enforcement. If providers know that they cannot simply circumvent the law by refusing to comply with notices, they will comply more efficiently. That will surely help the age verifier to pass the real-world test, which is integral to the Bill’s objectives.
Thangam Debbonaire
I am a little puzzled as to what the hon. Member for Devizes has against requiring ISPs to block porn sites. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley said, they are already required to block other sites. If we require ISPs to block sites that offend copyright laws, I really do not understand the problem with requiring them to block sites that provide pornography to children.
Claire Perry
On a point of order, Mr Stringer. Perhaps this shows my ignorance of doing Committees from the Back Benches, but I intended to go on in my speech to discuss new clause 8, which I have tabled and which defines more clearly what I expect internet service providers to do. Would it be in order for me to deliver those remarks, or have I lost my opportunity?
The Chair
Let me be clear: we are considering amendment 66 to clause 15, amendments 90, 77, 91 and 67, and new clauses 8 and 11. Members can speak more than once in Committee if they wish to. The hon. Lady has the right to discuss her new clause.
Claire Perry
May I please rise again, then? Apologies to the Committee—[Interruption.] I am so sorry; the hon. Member for Bristol West was speaking.
Thangam Debbonaire
I defer to the hon. Lady. She mentioned something she is going to say in due course; I look forward to hearing it. Nevertheless, I stand by my comments. We need to be clear about whether we are going to fail to require ISPs to do something that we already require them to do for copyright infringement and other forms of pornography involving children. I fail to see what the problem is. Having a blocking injunction available to the regulator would give them another tool to achieve the aim that we have all agreed we subscribe to, which is being able to block pornography from being seen by children and young people.
Claire Perry
Mr Stringer, I assume that, like me, you sometimes have the feeling that you have sat down before you have finished what you are saying. I apologise to the Committee. I am rarely short of words, but in this case I was.
I want to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol West and clarify exactly what we have asked and should be asking internet service providers to do. In doing so, I shall refer to the new EU net neutrality regulations, which, despite the Brexit vote, are due to come into force in December. They cause many of us concerns about the regime that our British internet service providers have put in place, which I believe leads the world—or, at least, the democratic free world; other countries are more draconian—in helping families to make these choices. We do not want all that good work to be unravelled.
Our current regime falls foul of the regime that the European Union is promoting, and unless the Government make a decision or at least give us some indication relatively quickly that they will not listen to that, we may have an issue in that all the progress that we have made may run out by December 2016. I would be grateful if the Minister told us what the Government are doing to get the new legislation on the statute book in line with the schedule set out by his colleague Baroness Shields last December.
We have an effective voluntarily filtering arrangement. I believe—I think that this point is in the scope of ancillary service providers—that we intend to capture internet service providers as part of the general suite of those responsible for implementing over-18 verification, but I want the Government to make crystal clear that they are aware of the responsibilities of internet service providers and intend for the regulator to include them in the basket of those that they will investigate and regulate.
The big missing link in all this has been getting content providers that provide material deemed to be pornographic to do anything with that material. The difference is that content providers of, say, gambling sites have always been required to have age-verification machinery sitting on their sites.
The hon. Member for Bristol West is quite right that we want ISPs to be captured under this regulatory regime, but I am keen to hear from the Minister that all the work that we have done with ISPs that have voluntarily done the socially and morally responsible thing and brought forward family-friendly filters will not be undone by December 2016, when the EU net neutrality regulations are intended to come into place.
Matt Hancock
Quite a lot of points have been raised, and I seek to address them all. Clause 22 is an important provision containing the powers at the heart of the new regime to enable the age-verification regulator to notify payment service providers and ancillary service providers that a person using their services is providing pornographic material in contravention of clause 15 or making prohibited material available on the internet to persons in the UK.
Amendments 66, 67, 77, 78, 90 and 91 would provide that the requirement to implement age verification does not fall on ISPs and further clarify that ISPs are to be considered ancillary service providers. Amendment 91 would clarify that as well as ISPs, domain name registrars, social media platforms and search engines are all to be considered ancillary service providers for the purposes of clause 22, which makes provision for the meaning of “ancillary service provider”.
This is a fast-moving area, and the BBFC, in its role as regulator, will be able to publish guidelines for the circumstances in which it will treat services provided in the course of business as either enabling or facilitating, as we discussed earlier. Although it will be for the regulator to consider on a case-by-case basis who is an ancillary service provider, it would be surprising if ISPs were not designated as ancillary service providers.
New clause 8 would impose a duty on internet service providers to provide a service that excludes adult-only content unless certain conditions are met. As I understand it, that measure is intended to protect the position of parental filters under net neutrality. However, it is our clear position that parental filters, where they can be turned off by the end user—that is, where they are a matter of user choice—are allowed under the EU regulation. We believe that the current arrangements are working well. They are based on a self-regulatory partnership and they are allowed under the forthcoming EU open internet access regulations.
Claire Perry
I think I understand the Minister to be saying that in cases where companies have introduced filters that are on by default, the fact that the users can choose to turn those filters off in the home means that they would not be captured by the net neutrality rules. Is that correct?
Matt Hancock
That is exactly what I am saying. On that basis, with the Government’s position having been put clearly on the record, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press new clause 8 to a vote.
New clause 11 would empower the Secretary of State to introduce regulations in relation to backstop blocking injunctions. We have looked carefully at the option of blocking by ISPs and have talked to a lot of stakeholders about it. We take the problem seriously, and we think our measures will make a real difference. We are yet to be persuaded that blocking infringing sites would be proportionate, because it would not be consistent with how other harmful or illegal content is dealt with. There is also a question of practicality: porn companies would be able to circumvent blocking relatively quickly by changing URLs, and there is an additional risk that a significant number of sites that contain legal content would be blocked. We would need to be convinced that the benefits of ISP blocking would not be outweighed by the risks.
Louise Haigh
I am a little confused about how the Minister envisages the provisions being enforced against the free sites we discussed in the previous group of amendments without that additional power, which indeed has been requested by the regulator that the Government have designated.
Matt Hancock
As the regulator said, the proposals here mark a huge step forward in tackling the problem. We have to make a balanced judgment: there is a balance to be struck between the extra powers to block and the need to ensure that they are proportionate. The powers are not a silver bullet; sites that were actively trying to avoid the Bill’s other enforcement measures would also be able to actively avoid these measures. It is questionable how much additional enforcement power they would bring, given those downsides.
Thangam Debbonaire
I must press the Minister to consider that children’s charities have told us that this is one of the most important amendments to the Bill. The Minister says that porn sites could simply move their URLs, but that is not a reason not to take a stand by giving the regulator the power that it has asked for and that children’s charities have particularly asked for.
Matt Hancock
Children’s charities and the regulator have asked for action to solve the problem of needing age verification. That is what the Bill delivers. The question of how to enforce that is incredibly important; there are different considerations to be made, and I think the Bill has ended up with the correct balance.
Louise Haigh
The BBFC witness explicitly said last week that
“we suggested, in our submission of evidence to the consultation back in the spring, that ISP blocking ought to be part of the regulator’s arsenal.”––[Official Report, Digital Economy Public Bill Committee, 11 October 2016; c. 41, Q91.]
The BBFC says that notification of payment providers or ancillary services providers and fines may not be sufficient. I appreciate that porn sites might well use different URLs to evade it, but why has the Minister explicitly removed ISP blocking as a further backstop power? We are not talking about blocking too many sites; we have been very clear that it is intended as a backstop power when other measures fail.
Matt Hancock
David Austin of the BBFC said:
“We see this Bill as a significant step forward in terms of child protection.”––[Official Report, Digital Economy Public Bill Committee, 11 October 2016; c. 42, Q94.]
We think, on balance, that the regulator will have enough powers—for example, through the provisions on ancillary service providers—to take effective action against non-compliant sites. For that reason, I think this is the appropriate balance and I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes to withdraw her amendment.
Claire Perry
I think that we are running through two definitions of ISPs: one relating to ancillary service providers and the other to enforcement and blocking. If we include ISPs in the definition of ancillary service providers, we want to make sure that they are captured, either explicitly or as a service provider. Is the Minister saying that he is comfortable with the enforcement regime without blocking? Would it require further legislation for blocking to be carried out if the regulator felt it was an appropriate measure? Are we ruling that out in this legislation?
The Chair
Order. The hon. Lady is making a speech. If the Minister wants to intervene, he may.
Claire Perry
I apologise. I would like to conclude my speech by inviting the Minister to respond.
Matt Hancock
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I would like to provide a point of clarity on the speech she has made. Treatment of an ASP will not lead to blocking. I think that is the answer to her question.
Claire Perry
I thank the Minister for that intervention. We will return to this subject in a series of amendments around clause 20. I want to thank the Minister for clarifying some of the murkiness around definitions in the Bill. I want to ask him and his team, though, to consider what his colleague had said, which goes back to the net neutrality point.
I accept what the Minister says about the spirit being absolutely clear, that our current filtering regime will not be captured, but Baroness Shields did say that we needed to legislate to make our filters regime legal. I did not hear from the Minister that that legislation is something that the Department is preparing or planning to introduce.
Louise Haigh
We very much share the hon. Lady’s concerns that the legislation has explicitly excluded the ability of internet service providers to block. We simply cannot understand why the Government have ruled out that final backstop power. We appreciate it is not perfect but it would give the regulator that final power. We will return to new clause 11 at the end of the Bill and be pushing it to a vote when we come to it.
Claire Perry
I thank the hon. Lady for making her intentions clear. I am prepared to withdraw or not push my new clause to a vote on the basis of what the Minister said, but I would love to get his assurances—perhaps he will write to me—to be crystal clear on the fact that he believes the Government do not have to legislate in order to push back on the net neutrality regime.
Kevin Brennan
Before the hon. Lady sits down, she did mention the view of Baroness Shields that there should be new legislation. Notwithstanding our remarks about the number of Government amendments, does the hon. Lady believe this Bill could be a useful vehicle to achieve that?
Claire Perry
Given the Brexit vote, I would be inclined to accept a letter from the Minister suggesting that we will absolutely resist any attempt to make EU net neutrality apply to what is a very fine, though not perfect, voluntary regime. On that basis, I accept the Minister’s assurances that that is what he intends to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
The age-verification regulator: designation and funding
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Louise Haigh
In this and related clauses, we seek to strengthen the proposals that the Government have put forward. We have said that the regulation needs to be beefed up to require internet service providers to be notified about non-compliance. We would like to see an injunction power to take down any content which a court is satisfied is in breach of the age-verification legislation, as soon as possible, at the start of the four-tier regulation process the Government have identified in their amendments and letters published to the Committee last week.
That would require a regulator with sufficient enforcement expertise and the ability to apply that injunction and push enforcement at an early stage. As we are aware, however, the BBFC heads of agreement with the Government do not cover enforcement. Indeed, they made perfectly clear that they would not be prepared to enforce the legislation in clauses 20 and 21 as they stand, which is part 4 of that enforcement process, giving the power to issue fines. The BBFC is going to conduct phases 1, 2 and 3 of the notification requirements, presumably before handing over to a regulator with sufficient enforcement expertise, but that has not been made clear so far.
While we welcome the role of the BBFC and the expertise it clearly brings on classification, we question whether it is unnecessarily convoluted to require a separate regulator to take any enforcement action, which will effectively have been begun by the BBFC and which so far has not been mentioned in the legislation. This goes back to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West made earlier about the two separate regimes for on-demand programme services.
As I understand it, although it is not clear, the BBFC will be taking on stage 3 of the regulation, meaning it will be involved in the first stage of enforcement—in notification. That is fine, but it will then have to hand over the second stage of enforcement to another regulator—presumably Ofcom. The enforcement process is already incredibly weak and this two-tiered approach involving two separate regulators risks further delays in enforcement against non-compliant providers who are to protect or take down material that is in breach of the law. In evidence to the Committee, the BBFC said:
“Our role is focused much more on notification. We think we can use the notification process and get some quite significant results.”—[Official Report, Digital Economy Public Bill Committee, 11 October 2016; c. 41, Q83.]
We do not doubt it, but confusion will arise when the BFFC identifies a clearly non-compliant site that is brazenly flouting the law, and it does not have power to enforce quickly but will have to hand it over.
We would also like to hear when the Government are planning to announce the regulator for the second stage and how they intend to work with the BBFC. As far as I can see, this will require further amendments to the Bill. If it is Ofcom, it would have been helpful to have heard its views on what further enforcement powers it would like to see in the Bill, rather than being asked to fill in after the Bill has passed through Parliament. There is a clear danger that the enforcement regulator could be asked to take over enforcement of age verification, which it thinks requires more teeth to be effective.
We therefore have very serious concerns about the process by which clause 17 will be have effect. Although we will not vote against the clause, we want to make it very clear that we would have preferred to have seen an official announcement about who will carry out the enforcement provisions in the Bill before being asked to vote on it.
Matt Hancock
The debate on clause stand part is about the set-up of the regulatory structure and making sure that we get designation and funding right. It is our intention that the new regulatory powers and the new regulator or co-regulators will deliver on this. As the hon. Lady says, the BBFC has signed up to be designated as the age verification regulator responding for identifying and notifying. This will enable the payment providers and other ancillary services to start to withdraw services to sites that do not comply as soon as possible.
Louise Haigh
In what kind of timeframe does the Minister envisage the payment service providers acting from notification from the BBFC?
Matt Hancock
We intend formally to designate the BBFC as regulator in autumn 2017 and expect to be in a position to commence the provisions requiring age verification within 12 months of Royal Assent.
Louise Haigh
That was not quite my question. How long does the Minister anticipate that ancillary service providers or payment service providers will take to act on receiving notification from the BBFC that a site is non-compliant?
Matt Hancock
I would expect that to happen immediately. The question of the designation of the backstop enforcement regulator does not stop or preclude the BBFC from getting going on this. As we have heard, it is already working to put in place its own internal systems. As I have just said to the Committee, we have a new commitment that we expect to commence the provisions in terms of getting the system up and running within 12 months of Royal Assent; after that, if the BBFC has designated that there is a problem, I would expect action to be immediate, because I expect the BBFC to ensure through good relations that systems are in place.
I see enforcement very much as a back-up to good behaviour. As we have seen with the taking down of child pornography and material related to terrorism, many providers and platforms respond rapidly when such material is identified. It will be far better if the system works without having to resort to enforcement. We will set out in due course who is best placed to be the regulator for enforcement, but the system is new, and the approach provides the level of flexibility that we need to get it right. I have every confidence in the BBFC’s ability and enthusiasm to deliver on these aims, so I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 18 and 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Enforcement of sections 15 and 19
Claire Perry
I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 20, page 21, line 5, at beginning insert
“If the person in contravention of section 15(1) is resident in the United Kingdom,”.
This amendment and amendments 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 and 74 place a requirement on the age-verification regulator to impose fines where a UK person has contravened clause 15(1) unless the contravention has ceased; or to issue an enforcement notice to person outside of the UK who has contravened clause 15(1).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 69, in clause 20, page 21, line 5, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 68.
Amendment 70, in clause 20, page 21, line 7, after “15(1)”, insert “, unless subsection (5) applies”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 68.
Amendment 71, in clause 20, page 21, line 10, at beginning insert
“If the person in contravention of section 15(1) is not resident in the United Kingdom,”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 68.
Amendment 72, in clause 20, page 21, line 10, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 68.
Amendment 73, in clause 20, page 21, line 16, leave out subsection (4).
See the explanatory statement for amendment 68.
Amendment 74, in clause 20, page 21, line 42, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 68.
Claire Perry
This is a series of consequential and investigatory amendments intended to probe the Minister’s thinking about what the regulator can actually do. At the moment, enforcement operates through a series of financial penalties, which we can discuss further when we debate clause 21, or of enforcement notices. We heard clearly last week from David Austin that the challenge is that almost none of the content-producing sites that we are discussing are based in the UK; in fact, I think he said that all the top 50 sites that the regulator will rightly target are based overseas.
The challenge is how the Government intend to carry out enforcement. I know that the BBFC’s current enforcement role is not carried out through its own designated powers; it is carried out through various other agencies, and the Bill makes further provision for financial penalties. I tabled the amendments to press the Minister on the point that it would be clearer to specify that where a site, or the company that owns a site, is based in the UK, a financial penalty can and will be applied.
For overseas sites, enforcing a financial penalty, if one can even get to grips with what the financial accounts look like, may be difficult, hence the enforcement notice and then a series of other potential backstop actions; I know that the Minister is aware that I do not feel that we have exhausted the debate on blocking. I am trying to probe the Government on whether there is a way to use the Bill to reflect the reality that content providers are unlikely to be based primarily in the UK, and that perhaps a different approach is needed for those based offshore.
Louise Haigh
We completely support the hon. Lady’s amendments, which propose a sensible toughening up of the requirements of the age verification regulator. We particularly welcome the measures to require the regulator to issue enforcement notices to people outside the UK if they do not comply. That is an attempt to close a large hole in the current proposals. How will the BBFC tackle providers outside the UK?
At the evidence session last week, David Austin said that
“you are quite right that there will still be gaps in the regime, I imagine, after we have been through the notification process, no matter how much we can achieve that way, so the power to fine is essentially the only real power the regulator will have, whoever the regulator is for stage 4”;
we are not yet certain.
He continued:
“For UK-based websites and apps, that is fine, but it would be extremely challenging for”
the BBFC, Ofcom or whoever the regulator is for stage 4
“to pursue foreign-based websites or apps through a foreign jurisdiction to uphold a UK law. So we suggested, in our submission of evidence to the consultation back in the spring, that ISP blocking ought to be part of the regulator’s arsenal.”––[Official Report, Digital Economy Public Bill Committee, 11 October 2016; c. 41, Q91.]
That is precisely why we will return to the amendment on ISP blocking, because if we are to pursue foreign-based providers, the ability to block will be integral to that strategy.
Thangam Debbonaire
My hon. Friend is making a series of excellent points which I hope the Minister can answer. We keep discovering that there are gaps, inconsistencies and potential confusion in the Bill. She has referred to the witnesses who gave evidence last week. Does she agree that it is really important that we focus carefully on the gaps that children’s charities such as the NSPCC have identified?
Louise Haigh
Obviously, I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We appreciate that the Government have consulted extensively with partners and representatives of all the relevant stakeholders, but it is not clear to us why they have not allowed ISPs that ultimate backstop power to block. For that reason, and to meet the objective of tackling providers outside the UK, we support amendments tabled by the hon. Lady the Member for Devizes.
Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)
I rise to support the amendments. It will not surprise the Committee to learn that I seek clarity about the impact on Scots law. It comes back to the same point: a lot of the issues that are being wrestled with in this place apply in a different legal jurisdiction. Perhaps the Minister could address that.
Christian Matheson
I should like to add to the comments made by hon. Friends. My concern is that if there are too many gaps and loopholes in the legislation, that may, perversely, put greater pressures on the enforcement authorities, because they will have to seek out so many different mouse-holes down which some of the content providers may run and disappear. I am slightly concerned and ask the Minister to consider the danger of an unintended consequence, because if it is not possible to stamp out content immediately, vital resources and focus will be diverted.
Louise Haigh
Does my hon. Friend also agree that with too many loopholes in the legislation, the more responsible providers of content will include age verification measures but users who want to avoid those tools will be pushed on to perhaps more extreme or violent pornography and perhaps even in to the deep web?
Christian Matheson
Yes. I raised this with the gentleman from the British Board of Film Classification, I believe, and I questioned his assertion about the top 50 websites. He said that the process would not stop there but proceed to the next 50, but if those 50 content providers are constantly moving all over the place, it will be rather like a game of whack-a-mole. Unless we have a sufficiently large mallet to give the mole a whack early on—[Interruption.] This is a serious business, and if I am sounding a bit jocular, that is not meant to take away from the serious issue. If we do not have the tools to address those who are deliberately not complying, and those who do not wish to comply with the regulations that we are putting in place to protect our children, I fear that we will be chasing after them too much.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley is right that there will also be the danger that investigative authorities use too many of their resources to go after this, when there are other things they need to go after as well. We need to put the tools at the disposal of the investigative and enforcement authorities, to give them the opportunity to make as clean an attack as possible on the providers that are not complying with the desire of this House.
Thangam Debbonaire
I will return to the evidence on this point to make clear why I support what the hon. Member for Devizes is trying to do. In his evidence last week, the NSPCC’s Alan Wardle—I think I have got that right—said quite clearly:
“I think that is why the enforcement part is so important…so that people know that if they do not put these mechanisms in place there will be fines and enforcement notices, the flow of money will be stopped and, crucially, there is that backstop power to block if they do not operate as we think they should in this country. The enforcement mechanisms are really important to ensure that the BBFC can do their job properly and people are not just slipping from one place to the next.”––[Official Report, Digital Economy Public Bill Committee, 11 October 2016; c. 47, Q108.]
So what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley has just said is summed up very well by the NSPCC in its official evidence, and I hope that the Minister will have an answer for the NSPCC as well as for this Committee.
Matt Hancock
I am thankful for the opportunity to respond. I will actually respond to the points made about these amendments, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, rather than the reiteration of the blocking debate, which we have had and will no doubt have again on further clauses.
First, clause 17 clearly makes provision for the Secretary of State to designate more than one person as a regulator. Secondly—a crucial point—the complexity in regulation is deciding who is satisfying the rules and who is not, and that is for the BBFC to determine, whereas issuing fines is essentially a matter of execution and could be fulfilled by a variety of bodies. We will come forward with more detail on that in due course.
I think the whack-a-mole analogy inadvertently made the point, which is that when we are trying to deal with a problem on the internet, where people can move about, we can deal with the mainstream of the problem, which comes from reliable providers of adult material, who are already engaged and want to ensure they comply with the law. In future, once this measure becomes law, refusing to put age verification on adult material will be illegal, so we will be dealing with illegal activity. That will mean that the vast majority of people will comply with the law, and we heard that very clearly in the evidence session. The question then is how to deal with non-compliance and on the internet we know that that is very difficult. The proposals are to deal with non-compliance by disrupting business models and by imposing financial penalties.
I understand what my hon. Friend is trying to do. She is trying to strengthen the imposition of financial controls. Inadvertently, however, her amendments would reduce the regulator’s discretion by obliging the it to apply sanctions when they are available, and they would remove the power to apply financial penalties to non-UK residents.
We want to be able to fine non-UK residents—difficult as that is—and there are international mechanisms for doing so. They do not necessarily reach every country in the world, but they reach a large number of countries. For instance, Visa and other payment providers are already engaged in making sure that we will be able to follow this illegal activity across borders.
Therefore, while I entirely understand where my hon. Friend is coming from, the amendments would inadvertently have the effect of removing the ability to apply an enforcement notice to a UK resident, although I am certain that that is not what she intended. So I resist the amendment but I give her the commitment that we have drafted the clause in such a way as to make it as easy as possible for the enforcement regulator to be able to take the financial route to enforcement.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, the provisions do extend to Scotland, with necessary modifications to Scottish law. I am sure that he, like me, will have seen clause 17(5) and clause 20(11)(b), which refer to modifications needed to be consistent with Scottish law. On the basis of that information, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.
Claire Perry
I thank the Minister for that clarification and for the mention of support. The intention was to help to provide a practical solution rather than cut off aims. He has persuaded me that I do not need to press the amendment to a vote. Although I take the point about shared regulation, I would ask him to consider in setting up the BBFC as the primary regulator that it is working reasonably well in the video-on-demand world, but this may be having them stray into a new sphere of expertise in terms of finding, identifying and sending out enforcement notices or penalties, particularly for foreign-based companies. I think the whack-a-mole analogy is entirely consistent—they will shut their doors and reopen in another jurisdiction almost overnight. Given the anonymity principles, it is sometimes almost impossible to know where they actually are. If the Minister is assuring us that everyone is aware of the problem, he believes the powers allow the regulator to be flexible, and it is something that his Department will consider, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Louise Haigh
I beg to move amendment 86, in clause 20, page 21, line 40, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) “during the initial determination period fix the date for ending the contravention of section 15(1) as the initial enforcement date.”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 88, in clause 20, page 21, line 40, at end insert—
“(c) after the initial determination period fix a period of one week for ending the contravention of section 15(1)”.
Amendment 89, in clause 20, page 22, line 13, at end insert—
‘(14) In this section, “initial determination period” means a period of 12 months from the date of the passing of this Act to the initial enforcement date.”.
Louise Haigh
This group of amendments goes even further—they have the straightforward intention of continuing the process of strengthening the powers and, crucially, of speeding up the enforcement period, to help the Government achieve their manifesto commitment. The Bill would give the regulator the power to set a lengthy, if not indefinite, period for ending the contravention of section 15. The amendment would speed up the enforcement, requiring the regulator to issue an enforcement period of one week. Given that we do not anticipate that the BBFC will be the official regulator or have these powers for another 12 months on Royal Assent, we do not anticipate that a one-week enforcement period would be too onerous on content providers.
The group should be seen in tandem with our other amendments providing a backstop power requiring ISPs to block a site, and would send a clear message to content providers that the Government would treat any contravention of section 15 with the utmost seriousness and that continuing to provide content without age verification for a prolonged period of time would not be tolerated. We believe that, if the enforcement powers under clauses 20 and 21 are toughened up, the message will spread throughout the industry and it will make it clear that age verification is not an optional extra, but a central requirement in the effort to tackle what under-18s can see.
Matt Hancock
I am sympathetic to the purpose of this group of amendments. We think that decisions on when and how to enforce should be left to the regulator, but I see the point of trying to put a week into the Bill. However, it is overly prescriptive to do so in primary legislation. Our aim is for a proportionate regime, where the regulator can prioritise and deal with problems in a way that is aligned with its goals of protection, rather than having to fulfil legal requirements that might lead to unintended consequences.
Louise Haigh
Can the Minister give us any example where a one-week enforcement period would not be doable?
Matt Hancock
No, but I cannot—and she cannot—foresee all the circumstances that the regulator will have to deal with. It is far better to have a regulator with flexibility to respond and clear aims and intentions, rather than it having to fulfil an arbitrary timescale because that is in primary legislation.
Louise Haigh
Can the Minister confirm whether the legislation enables the regulator to set a time limit for enforcement?
Matt Hancock
Yes, it will allow the regulator that flexibility. I would rather have that flexibility at the level of the regulator than in primary legislation. I think that is a reasonable approach. The regulator will then be able to act in the way that it is clear from this debate is intended. I hope that on that basis, the amendment may be withdrawn.
Louise Haigh
It is useful to have on the record the Minister’s agreement that one week is a suitable enforcement period. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Calum Kerr
I beg to move amendment 62, in clause 20, page 22, line 13, at end insert—
“(14) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission a review of the effectiveness of the enforcement of sections 15 and 19 and shall lay the report of the review before each House of Parliament.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 81, in clause 82, page 80, line 18, at end insert—
“(4A) Part 3 will come into force at the end of the period of one year beginning on the day on which the Act is passed.”
This amendment ensures that Part 3 will be implemented by ensuring the Part comes into effect a year to the day the Act is passed, rather than on the day the Secretary of State determines through regulations.
Calum Kerr
It took me a while to get out of my seat: I was astonished that we actually got some agreement there. Perhaps we have a new spirit of progress as we near the end of the day.
Calum Kerr
I doubt it too, but never mind. It is better to be an optimist, especially on the Opposition Benches.
Calum Kerr
No comment. Had we made more progress, amendment 62 might not have been necessary, but as I feared, we have not. I am confident that we all agree on the merit of the intent of this part of the Bill. We all want to protect young children from accessing inappropriate pornographic material. I do not want any of my children doing so, and I know how much they use electronic devices. My youngest, Robert, is only seven, and he is phenomenally tech savvy. It would not be that difficult in this world to stray, even with some of the blocking systems that are in place.
A lot of the problems that we have here are to do with international sites. I am dismayed at the Government’s unwillingness to move and not even so much as listen to Opposition Members, the regulator or charities, who all insist that ISP blocking is the kind of extra measure that we should put in place. Given that broader context and the Minister’s conviction, which I believe is sincere, that he has a package of measures that will work, in light of our concerns and those of many others, a review should be put in place. I know that in the past the answer to anything involving a review has been, “That’s what the Select Committee process is for; they will have a review,” but we should not leave something as important as protecting young children to a Select Committee. The Government should take responsibility rather than abdicate it to a Select Committee. The Government should put ISP blocking in the Bill, show that they treat the issue seriously and have a review to ensure that we get the outcome that we all want: a safer environment for our children on the internet.
Louise Haigh
Given that the Government have been so intransigent on the sensible suggestions for how their proposals could be strengthened, certainly on the issue of internet service provider blocking, I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Minister keeps saying that he does not want to be too prescriptive, but we argue that the phrase “on a commercial basis” is too prescriptive and limits the powers of the age-verification regulator. Given the broad support for additional powers, we want the age-verification regulator and any other regulator involved in enforcement to come back to the House and tell us what additional powers they need to make this work. There are significant loopholes in the Bill and it could have serious unintended consequences for our young people. We completely support the SNP amendment.
Matt Hancock
I entirely understand the enthusiasm for commencement, and I have given the commitment that we would expect it within 12 months of Royal Assent. I hope that that deals with the demand for a timing of commencement to be put on the face of the Bill. Unfortunately, that renders the SNP amendment slightly impractical, because it would require a review within 12 months of Royal Assent, but if the Act commences only 12 months after Royal Assent, a review at that point might not show as much progress as we would hope.
Calum Kerr
I like the way the Minister is engaging. Is he telling me that he likes the idea, but it is just that we have worded it slightly wrongly? If that is the case, I would happily move the review 12 months on, if that is what he is suggesting.
Matt Hancock
Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has lost his opportunity for that because the deadline for tabling amendments has passed. We should have an enduring assessment of the effectiveness of the Bill and an ongoing review of how effective the policy is. Select Committees have an important role to play in doing that. I resist the amendment on the grounds that it is impractical, because of the timings I have discussed, and because it is far better that such matters are reviewed constantly, rather than just on a one-off.
Thangam Debbonaire
In my experience, ongoing reviews tend to mean never. If you do not have a deadline or target, that gives you the scope just to say, “We are doing it and will carry on doing it for some time,” without there ever being a point at which you say, “Here’s a review.” An annual review is such an easy thing to which to commit; why not do it?
The Chair
Order. I remind the hon. Lady that I am not going to do anything with regard to the Bill. She should return to using normal parliamentary speech.
Matt Hancock
We thought you might be the regulator for part 4, Mr Stringer.
I suppose this is the difference between the two sides of the House: for the Opposition, an ongoing review means never; for the Government, an ongoing review means always.
Calum Kerr
My background is in telecoms, latterly as a global consultant coaching front-line leaders. People always said to me, “Oh yeah, we always have reviews,” but unless there is a cadence on it and it is put down in black and white, it is not done properly. They would not do it in the business world, and Opposition Members would not do it; perhaps Government Members are a bit more blasé than we are.
Matt Hancock
That tells us all we need to know about consultants. There we are. I commit that we will keep the effectiveness of the legislation under review. I know that that will happen anyway because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes is not going to let this one go.
Christian Matheson
How might the Minister review the ongoing review to ensure that progress is being made?
Matt Hancock
We will have a continuous review of the ongoing review. With that, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Louise Haigh
I will not test the Committee’s patience further by going over arguments that we have already had, but there is one further area of clause 20 that we wish to touch on—the lack of an appeals process in the legislation. The Minister may expect the regulator to build that appeals process in: it would be helpful to have some clarity from him on that.
As I understand it, the BBFC will use analytics to identify sites that should have age verification. Analytics are not foolproof, so obviously an appeals mechanism will be needed for websites incorrectly prevented from operating. Previous such systems have wrongly filtered out websites such as breast cancer charities or forums for gay and transgender people. That is incredibly important: let us put ourselves in the shoes of a young gay man or woman, growing up in a religious household perhaps, who does not know where to turn to ask the questions that would plague any teenager coming to terms with their sexuality and who seeks refuge and solace in internet forums with other people going through the same issues. As risky as the internet can be, it can also be an incredibly empowering, transformative space that can literally save lives in such situations. Such lifelines must absolutely not be filtered out by ASPs or made subject to age verification; the Bill should include a mechanism that allows for correction when they have been mistakenly identified.
We also need clarification on who will develop the analytics, the data they will be based on and whether it will be done in consultation with the tech industry. We can only assume that this is an oversight that will be corrected when working out how the regulator is to proceed.
Claire Perry
The hon. Lady raises an important point about access to information about sex education, sexuality, abortion and all sorts of things that are incredibly valuable. She is right to draw attention to safe forums. I reassure her that many of the same issues came up with respect to the question of voluntary filtering and, despite what some of those giving evidence said, the incidence of false blocking of such valuable sites is incredibly low. The BBFC as regulator is really good: it is not in the business of defining based on imagery, and it has fairly detailed algorithms. I share her concern, but I want to offer some comfort.
Louise Haigh
I am grateful. I heard the BBFC or the Open Rights Group say that the incidence was very low, but it would do no harm to build an appeals process into the legislation to ensure that where sites that should not be blocked or require age verification have fallen through the cracks, that can be resolved at the behest of the regulator.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady is absolutely correct that there needs to be an appeals process. That process is provided for in clause 17(4):
“The Secretary of State must not make a designation under this section unless satisfied that arrangements will be maintained by the age-verification regulator for appeals”.
I agree with everything else she said. It is worth remarking on the recent announcement that gay and bisexual men will now be pardoned over abolished sexual offences—that is not in the Bill, so that remark was completely out of order, but I still think it was worth making. Appeals are important; I hope she is satisfied that they are provided for.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Age-verification regulator’s power to give notice of contravention to payment service providers and ancillary service providers
Claire Perry
I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 22, page 23, line 28, at end insert; “and
(c) the person has been the subject of a enforcement notice under section 20(2) and the contravention has not ceased.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 76, in clause 22, page 23, line 29, leave out “may” and insert “must”
This amendment places a requirement on the age-verification regulator to give notice to payment or ancillary service providers that a person has contravened clause 15(1) or is making prohibited material available on the internet to persons in the United Kingdom.
Amendment 79, in clause 22, page 24, line 24, leave out “may” and insert “must”
This amendment places a requirement on the age-verification regulator to issue guidance about the services that it determines are enabling or facilitating the making available of pornographic or prohibited content.
New clause 6—
“Requirement to cease services to non-complying persons
‘(1) Where the age-verification regulator has given notice to a payment-services provider or ancillary service provider under section 22(1), the payment-services provider or ancillary service provider must cease the service provided to the person making pornographic material available in the United Kingdom.
(2) A payment-services provider or ancillary service provider who fails to comply with a requirement imposed by subsection (1) commits an offence, subject to subsection (3).
(3) No offence is committed under subsection (2) if the payment-services provider or ancillary service provider took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to ensure that the requirement would be complied with.
(4) A payment-services provider or ancillary service provider guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine.
(5) In this section “payment-services provider” and “ancillary service provider” have the same meaning as in section 22.”
This new clause requires payment and ancillary services to block payments or cease services made to pornography websites that do not offer age-verification if they have received a notice of non-compliance under section 22(1). This provision would only apply to websites outside of the UK. This would enhance the enforcement mechanisms that are available under the Bill.
New clause 18—Approval of Age-verification providers—
‘(1) Age-verification providers must be approved by the age-verification regulator.
(2) In this section an “age-verification provider” means a person who appears to the age-verification regulator to provide, in the course of a business, a service used by a person to ensure that pornographic material is not normally accessible by persons under the age of 18.
(3) The age-verification regulator must publish a code of practice to be approved by the Secretary of State and laid before Parliament.
(4) The code will include provisions to ensure that age-verification providers—
(a) perform a Data Protection Impact Assessment and make this publicly available,
(b) take full and appropriate measures to ensure the accuracy, security and confidentiality of the data of their users,
(c) minimise the processing of personal information to that which is necessary for the purposes of age-verification,
(d) do not disclose the identity of individuals verifying their age to persons making pornography available on the internet,
(e) take full and appropriate measures to ensure that their services do not enable persons making pornography available on the internet to identify users of their sites or services across differing sites or services,
(f) do not create security risks for third parties or adversely impact security systems or cyber security,
(g) comply with a set standard of accuracy in verifying the age of users.
(5) Age-verification Providers must comply with the code of practice.
(6) To the extent that a term of a contract purports to prevent or restrict the doing of any act required to comply with the Code, that term is unenforceable.”
Claire Perry
We promised to return to the topic of enforcement and blocking, and we have reached it today. That is very good; it suggests that our progress on the Bill is excellent.
The purpose of these amendments and new clause 6 is to clarify and strengthen the enforcement process. We have already discussed fruitfully how clause 20 will be used, particularly for sites based overseas, and I was reassured by what the Minister said, but I want to turn to the “what ifs”. What happens if the regulator acts, has clarity about whether they are imposing a fine or an enforcement notice, and nothing actually happens—none of the sanctions in the current regime leads to a website imposing age verifications? I welcome what the Bill says about involving a direct relationship between not just the regulator and the platform or the website, but the payment providers. As the Minister said, cutting off the business model—the cash flow—is a very effective way of making enforcement happen.
I have a series of questions relating to the process. First, it is not clear when the regulator will inform providers that such a contravention is happening. Some questions were asked about how long it will be and what the time period will be, but when does the regulator actually issue a notice? Amendment 75 states that the regulator has a power to issue a notice under clause 22 when an enforcement notice has been issued and the contravention has not yet ceased. I think websites ought to be given the opportunity to respond to the regulator’s intervention before the payment providers and ancillary services are involved. That process should be very clear. It is the same if we have an issue with service provision at home: we know what our rights are, what period of time we have to complain and what happens when that period expires.
Secondly, as I read the Bill—I am in no way setting myself up as somebody who understands every aspect of the legal jargon—there appears to be no requirement for the regulator to inform the payment providers and ancillary services of a contravention. It may just be implicit, but amendment 66 would make it mandatory for the regulator to inform the payment providers and ancillary services if there were a contravention. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that.
Thangam Debbonaire
I am pleased that we have returned to enforcement and compliance, and I hope we are going to spend more time on blocking. The hon. Lady’s amendment uses the term “ancillary service provider”, to which she referred earlier. I would be very grateful if she spent some time spelling out in a bit more detail what an ancillary service provider is. Does it include ISPs? I think she alluded to that earlier, but I am not sure. Can she help clear up the confusion with some detail, please?
Claire Perry
I apologise if I have caused any confusion. I will let the Minister specify exactly what he thinks. In tabling these amendments, I wanted to ensure that as wide a group of people and companies as possible is involved in doing something we all think is very valuable—implementing these age verification mechanisms. As I read the Bill as drafted, it does not contain a clear distinction between ISPs and ancillary service providers; they are included in the same bucket. I want to clarify that I think that both ISPs and ancillary service providers—in my mind, ancillary service providers are the platforms that we discussed by name earlier—have a duty and a legal responsibility to ensure that the age-verification mechanisms are in place.
Thangam Debbonaire
The hon. Lady will have to forgive me. We are going to hear from the Minister shortly, but I would like to know if, in her amendment, ancillary service providers definitely include internet service providers. I know it is a difference of just one word, but I would be grateful for her clarification.
Christian Matheson
I share some of the hon. Lady’s uncertainty—I was going to say confusion, but it is not—about the terminology. Would the definition include, for example, telecoms providers over whose networks the services are provided?
Claire Perry
I am perhaps going to let the Minister spell that out exactly. The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point: we all know now that access to internet services is often done entirely over a mobile network. I can again give some comfort on this issue. The BBFC, which is an excellent choice, has worked for many years with the mobile service providers—a witness gave evidence to this effect—so they already offer a blocking service based on the BBFC’s definition of 18-plus and 18-minus material. It is essentially an opt-in service. Someone has to say that they are under 18 and checks are carried out. The providers already offer the service, and it seems to work reasonably effectively.
I apologise for inadvertently misleading the Committee —perhaps it reflects some of the confusion in the wording—and I want to be very clear about who we are trying to capture with the amendments. We would all support the idea of spreading the net as widely as possible in ensuring the right behaviour, but it is important to make clear that ISPs are to be expected and legally mandated to carry out the same checks.
Another point I wanted to make with amendment 79 was to ask the regulator to issue guidance on the sort of businesses that will be considered to be ancillary services. The reason for putting that in the Bill is that, as we debated extensively in earlier sittings, the world changes. We had very good debates about why 10 megabits per second might not be appropriate in a couple of years’ time and why the USO as originally construed was laughably small. We all try to do the right thing, but of course the world changes. The reference by the hon. Member for City of Chester to Whac-A-Mole was interesting. What will the consequences be of implementing the Bill? We are a very substantial revenue stream for many websites, and new service models might arise. Someone might be scrutinising the letter of the law and thinking, “We are not captured by this, so we are not captured by these regulations.” Asking for the regulator to issue guidance on the types of businesses that will be considered to be ancillary services could future-proof some of the Bill.
Thangam Debbonaire
I am grateful for the hon. Lady again allowing me to intervene. I apologise for interrupting her sentence; that was not my intention. I am pleased to see her amendments. This discussion is helping me and perhaps all of us to come to some form of understanding. I have a little metaphor in mind. If a cinema was allowing children to see pornography, we would hold the ticket seller responsible, as well as the organisation running the cinema, but not the bus driver who drove the bus the child took to get to the cinema. Does that metaphor help?
Claire Perry
It depends whether the bus driver was paid for by the cinema. That is the point. Businesses pop up. There might be a bespoke Odeon cinema. My point is that we need to ensure that the regulator has as much flexibility as possible to respond to changing definitions. The current definition of an ancillary service provider is quite clear, although I would like the Minister to clarify it, but my amendment would try to future-proof the definition.
Thangam Debbonaire
In raising the issue of whether the bus driver was paid for by the cinema, the hon. Lady has helped me to hit on something else. Are we not considering the role of search engines in this matter and whether they are driving things or complicit? I do not know the answer to that question. She has raised a helpful analogy in response to my analogy.
Claire Perry
How long has the Committee got to hear about search engines? The hon. Lady raises a fascinating point. It was through a very strong cross-party effort and with the leadership of the former Prime Minister that we got the search engines to do some compelling things. Let me give her an example. It was clear that search engines in Europe were happy to allow terms to be typed in that could only lead to sexual images of child abuse being returned. I had the important but unenviable job, as the Prime Minister’s special adviser on the issue, of sitting down with the parents of April Jones, the little girl murdered in Wales, and trying to explain to them why, when their daughter’s killer typed in “naked little girls in glasses”, they received an image. It took many levels of conversation, including a personal conversation between me and the head of Google Europe, saying, “How do you as a parent feel about this? I don’t care about you saying ‘We serve up everything at all times’; I don’t care that the search terms themselves are not illegal. What I care about is your duty. You have a duty to do no evil, and in my view, you are breaching that.”
This is why I am so proud of what the Government have done. With all that effort and by recruiting Baroness Shields, who has been a worthy addition, we got the internet service providers not only to not return illegal imagery but, with the help of experts, not to return anything at all to a whole series of search terms that were found to be used by paedophiles in particular. I am sure that the hon. Lady will have seen that the Government then went further. It all comes down to what is legal. Your porn is my Saturday night viewing. [Laughter.] Theoretically.
Thangam Debbonaire
I urge the hon. Lady to consider re-wording what she just said, for my sake and for hers.
Claire Perry
I may have come up with a Daily Mirror headline. My point is that the whole debate about pornographic material has always ended in the cul-de-sac of freedom of speech. That is why we worked with internet service providers, saying, “Let parents choose. Let’s use the BBFC guidelines. They have years of experience defining this stuff based on algorithms.” It is not for the hon. Lady or me to decide what people should not be viewing; we quite properly have an independent agency that says, “This is appropriate; this is not.”
However, the hon. Lady has eloquently raised the point that for too long, we have treated the internet as a separate form of media. We accept in cinemas, whether or not the bus driver is working for them, that if a film is R18, we are pretty negligent if we take our kids to see it, but we are helped to see that. We do not let our kids wander into the cinema and watch the R18 stuff with nobody stopping them along the way, but for too long, that has been the situation with the internet. The hon. Lady has raised a good point about search engines. I can assure her that the world has changed significantly, certainly in the UK, although other jurisdictions may not have been so influenced.
Nigel Huddleston
I should probably declare that prior to becoming an MP, I worked at Google. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is where it becomes complex? A search engine, to use another analogy, is a bit like a library. The books are still on the shelves, but the search engine is like the library index: it can be removed and changed, but the content is still there. That is why we need to do much more than just removing things from the search engine: the content is still there, and people can find alternative ways to get to it. We must do much more.
Claire Perry
I defer to my hon. Friend’s knowledge. Of course we all agree that certain instances of countries taking things down are utterly abhorrent; I am thinking of information about human rights in China, or about female driving movements in Saudi Arabia. We do not want to be in the business of over-specifying what search engines can deliver. We have not even touched on Tor, the dark web or the US State Department-sponsored attempts to circumvent the public internet and set up some rather difficult places to access, which have increasingly been used for trafficking illegal material.
Thangam Debbonaire
We need to keep hold of the search engine issue for a moment, because search engines are part of the process. To restate the bus driver analogy, a search engine is also like a sign saying to adults, and children, “You can go here to see pornography”.
Claire Perry
I think we will let the Minister talk about that. Again, think about the practical series of keystrokes. Let us take gambling for a moment. It is quite a good analogy, because we mandated in the Gambling Act 2005 that there should be age verification. The search engine host provides access to a site, and users must go through an age verification mechanism. Age verification is incumbent on the site, and the service provider is legally responsible. I shall let the Minister discuss search engines in his speech.
Louise Haigh
I rise to speak to new clause 18, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West. I also support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Devizes. The Government’s proposals really do rely on an awful amount of good will among all the stakeholders involved in the legislation. It makes sense to create a backstop power for the regulator to require payment services to act should they not do so in the first instance.
New clause 18 comes from a slightly different perspective. It would oblige the age-verification regulator to ensure that all age verification providers—the companies that put the tools on websites to ensure compliance—are approved by the regulator; to perform a data protection impact assessment that they make publicly available; and to perform an array of other duties as well.
The new clause is designed to address some of the concerns about the practicality of age-verification checks, ensuring that only minimal data are required, and kept secure; that individuals’ privacies and liberties are protected; and that there is absolutely no possibility of data being commercialised by pornographer. We raise the latter as a potential risk because the proposals were drafted with the input of the pornography industry. That is understandable, but the industry would have a significant amount to gain from obtaining personal data from customers that might not currently be collected.
As we said earlier, we have full confidence in the BBFC as regulator, but, as with the proposals in part 5 of the Bill, it is vital that some basic principles—although certainly not the minutiae—are put on the face of the Bill. We are certainly not asking anything that is unreasonable of the regulator or the age-verification providers. The principles of privacy, anonymity and proportionality should all underpin the age-verification tool, but as far as I am aware they have not featured in any draft guidance, codes of practice, or documents accompanying the Bill.
The Information Commissioner agrees. The Information Commissioner’s Office’s response to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s consultation on age verification for pornography raised the concern
“that any solution implemented must be compliant with the requirements of the DPA and PECR”—
the Data Protection Act 1998, and the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 that sit alongside it. It continues:
“The concept of ‘privacy by design’ would seem particularly relevant in the context of age verification—that is, designing a system that appropriately respects individuals’ privacy whilst achieving the stated aim… In practical terms, this would mean only collecting and recording the minimum data required in the circumstances, having assessed what that minimum was. It would also mean ensuring that the purposes for which any data is used are carefully and restrictively defined, and that any activities keep to those restricted purposes…In the context of preventing children from accessing online commercial pornography, there is a clear attribute which needs to be proven in each case—that is, whether an individual’s age is above the required threshold. Any solution considered needs to be focussed on proving the existence or absence of that attribute, to the exclusion of other more detailed information (such as actual date of birth).”
The Commissioner made it clear that she would have
“significant concerns about any method of age verification that requires the collection and retention of documents such as a copy of passports, driving licences or other documents (of those above the age threshold) which are vulnerable to misuse and/or attractive to disreputable third parties. The collection and retention of such information multiplies the information risk for those individuals, whether the data is stored in one central database or in a number of smaller databases operated by different organisations in the sector.”
I understand that the Adult Provider Network exhibited some of the potential tools that could be used to fulfil that requirement. From the summary I read of that event, none of them seem particularly satisfactory. My favourite was put forward by a provider called Yoti, and the summary I read describes the process for using it as follows:
“install the Yoti App…use the app to take a selfie to determine that you are a human being…use the app to take a picture of Government ID documents”—
passport or driving licence, I imagine—
“the app sends both documents to Yoti…Yoti (the third party) now send both pictures to a fourth party; it was unclear whether personal data (e.g. passport details) is stripped before sending to the fourth party…Fourth party tells Yoti if the images (selfie, govt ID) match…Yoti caches various personal data about user”
to confirm that they are over 18. The user can then visit the porn site—whatever porn site they would like to visit at that time—and then the
“porn site posts a QR-like code on screen…user loads Yoti app…user has to take selfie (again) to prove that it is (still) them…not a kid using the phone…user scans the on-screen QR-code, is told: ‘this site wants to know if you are >18yo, do you approve?’…User accepts…Yoti app backchannel informs porn site…that user >18yo”
and then the user can see the pornography.
I do not know whether any Committee members watch online pornography; I gather that the figure is more than 50% of the general population, and I am not convinced that hon. Members are more abstinent than that. I ask Members to consider whether they would like to go through a process as absurd as the one suggested.
Louise Haigh
The hon. Lady has got ahead of the potential Daily Mail headline when the freedom of information request comes in for her Google search history.
I am not convinced that anybody would want to go through a process as the one I have just described, or even one significantly less convoluted. I suggest that instead they would seek entertainment on a site that did not impose such hurdles. The BBFC in its evidence made the telling point that the majority of the viewing population get their content from the top 50 sites, so it is very easy to target those—we see that entrenched in clause 23. The problem with that, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester pointed out, is that targeting those sites may push viewers to the next 50 sites, and so on. We therefore need to ensure that the process is as straightforward and as minimal as possible.
Christian Matheson
My concern about users being pushed to the next 50 sites is that those sites are much less regulated, and I hazard a guess that they are much more likely to be at the extreme end of the spectrum.
Louise Haigh
That is exactly my concern. I imagine that the top 50 providers are not as hardcore, are less extreme and may not include such violent images; as we move on to the next 50 or the 50, there is a danger of images becoming more extreme.
The solution must not result in the wholesale tracking or monitoring of individuals’ lawful online activities or the collection of data with a view to unlawful profiling of individuals. I am not convinced that the BBFC is properly resourced to undertake the significant additional workload, nor am I convinced that the practicalities of the software that have so far been exhibited, or their implications, have been properly worked out.
Christian Matheson
My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. She is absolutely right about resourcing. I am no technical expert, but does she agree that such a database may be a prime target for hackers unless it is properly resourced and defended?
Louise Haigh
That is absolutely right, and I will come to that point. We heard evidence from the BFFC that it intended potentially to use age-verified mobile telephony to ensure that sites are properly age verified, but I am afraid that that approach is also flawed. First, there is the obvious issue that there is nothing to stop an underage child using the information attached to that phone—be it the phone number or the owner’s name—to log on and falsely verify. Equally, there are enormous privacy issues with the use of mobile-verified software to log on.
The BBFC said clearly that it was interested not in identity but merely in the age of the individual attempting to access online pornography, but as we all know, our smartphones contain a wealth of information that can essentially be used to create a virtual clone. They are loaded with our internet conversations, financial data, health records, and in many cases the location of our children. There is a record of calls made and received, text messages, photos, contact lists, calendar entries and internet browsing history—the hon. Member for Devizes may want to take note of that—and they allow access to email accounts, banking institutions and websites such as Amazon, Facebook, Twitter and Netflix. Many people instruct their phones to remember passwords for those apps so they can quickly be opened, which means that they are available to anyone who gets into the phone.
All that information is incredibly valuable—it has been said that data are the new oil—and I imagine that most people would not want it to be obtained, stored, sold or commercialised by online pornography sites. The risks of creating databases that potentially contain people’s names, locations, credit card details—you name it—alongside their pornographic preferences should be quite clear to anyone in the room and at the forefront of people’s minds given the recent Ashley Madison hack. I am not condoning anyone using that website to look for extramarital affairs, nor am I privileging the preferences or privacy of people who wish to view online pornography over the clearly vastly more important issue of child protection. However, one consequence of that hack was the suicide of at least three individuals, and we should proceed with extreme caution before creating any process that would result in the storing of data that could be leaked, hacked or commercialised and would otherwise be completely private and legitimate.
That is the reasoning behind our reasonable and straightforward amendment, which would place a series of duties on the age-verification regulator to ensure that adequate privacy safeguards were provided, any data obtained or stored were not for commercial use, and security was given due consideration. The unintended consequences of the Government’s proposals will not end merely at the blocking of preferences, privacy or security issues, but will include pushing users on to illegal or at the very least non-compliant sites. We are walking a thin tightrope between making age verification so light-touch as to be too easily bypassed by increasingly tech-savvy under-18s and making it far too complicated and intrusive and therefore pushing viewers on to either sites that do not use age verification but still offer legitimate content or completely illegal sites that stray into much more damaging realms. These provisions clearly require a lot more consultation with the industry, and I am confident that the BBFC will do just that, but the Opposition would feel a lot more confident and assured if the regulator was required to adhere to these basic principles, which we should all hold dear: privacy, proportionality and safety.
Claire Perry
The hon. Lady rightly gets to the great concern that somehow, in doing something good, an awful lot of concern can be created, and I am sympathetic to her points. I remind her that it is not as if these sites do not know who is visiting them anyway. One of the great conundrums on the internet is that every single keystroke we take is tracked and registered. Indeed, that is why shopping follows us around the internet after we have clicked on a particular site. Unless people are very clever with their private browsing history, the same is the case for commercial providers.
Louise Haigh
I absolutely support the Government’s intention here. We just want to ensure it is done in the right way and balances both sides of the argument. I think it is absolutely right that internet service providers are offering this filter, but does the hon. Lady share my concern that very few families take it up and very many families turn it off?
Claire Perry
There are Ofcom data. One of the requirements we asked for was for Ofcom to monitor. Take-up improved, and, as I said, some internet service providers now have an automatic “on” system, whereby a person has to intervene to take the filters off. I am told that only about 30% of families choose to do so. Here is the savvy thing: we all know that people live in households with multiple ages and multiple requirements on the internet, so many ISPs now offer a service that enables people to disable the filters for a period and automatically reinstate them the following day. They do not have to do anything if they want the filters to be in place, but they might want to access over-18 content as an adult.
I want to discuss some of the other issues that have come up in this conversation, in the process of finally speaking about these amendments. Is it in order to do so, Mr Stringer?
The Chair
It is if it is covered by the amendments and new clauses 6 and 18, but I cannot tell until you start speaking.
Claire Perry
Then I will carry on, because it definitely is. I think I misspoke at the beginning when I talked about new clause 7. I was actually referring to new clause 6; it was just my note-taking.
I was trying ensure that we put in place series of protections, including enforcement notices that are acted upon, financial penalties that make a difference and the ability to stop income streams moving from the payment providers to the various content providers. I want to press the Minister on the question of blocking, because it comes back to the issue of why anyone would care. If somebody does not respond to an enforcement notice—if, for example, the fine is not sufficient to make them stop —how can it be that we are not considering blocking? Of course, we do that for other sites. I know it is not applicable to every form of illegal content, but I am very struck by copyright infringement, which generates take-down notices very swiftly, and upon which the entire provision of internet service providers and ancillary services act. I would be really interested to hear from the Minister why blocking has been rejected so far. Could it be put in place as a backstop power? I worry that, without it, all of this amazing progress will not have teeth.
Matt Hancock
It is sometimes said that Parliament skates over matters and does not get under the skin of things, but in the discussion we have just had Committee members displayed a great deal of analysis, experience and wisdom, and our debate on the Bill has been enriched by it. I am very grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who made very good contributions to help us get this right.
Exactly as the hon. Lady the Member for Sheffield, Heeley said, getting this right involves walking a tightrope between making sure that there is adequate enforcement and appropriate access for those for whom it is legally perfectly reasonable to access adult content. We must get that balance right. With that mind, we have drafted the clauses, particularly clause 22, to allow the regulator to operate with some freedom, because we also need to make sure that, over time, this remains a good system and is not overly prescriptive. It was ironic that in a speech about privacy, the hon. Lady started to speculate about which MPs enjoyed watching porn. I am definitely not going to do that.
The truth is that age verification technology is developing all the time. Online personal identity techniques are developing all the time, and indeed, the British Government are one of the leading lights in developing identity-verification software that also minimises the data needs for that verification and does not rely on especially large state databases to do that, and therefore does it in a relatively libertarian way, if I can put it that way. Providing for verification of identity or of age, because age without named identity is what is really being sought here, but is difficult to achieve, is an incredibly important issue. A huge amount of resource is going into that globally to get it right, and it ties closely to cyber security and the data protection requirements of any data.
The UK Data Protection Act has a broad consensus behind it and follows the simple principle that within an institution data can be shared, but data must not be shared between institutions. The institution that holds the data is responsible for their safekeeping and significant fines may be imposed for their inadvertent loss. The forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation increases those fines. Rather than reinventing data protection law for the purposes of age verification in this one case, it is better to rest on the long-established case law of data protection on which the Information Commissioner is the lead.
We had a very informed debate on the role of search engines. The regulator will be able to consider whether a search engine is an ancillary service provider. Although we do not specify it, I would expect ISPs to be regarded as ancillary service providers, but that will be for the regulator.
On the name of payment providers who are already engaged, rather than enforced engagement, we already have engagement from Visa, MasterCard, UK Cards Association and the Electronic Money Association, and clearly there a lot more organisations that can and should be engaged.
Kevin Brennan
It is interesting that the Minister feels able to say that he would expect ISPs to be regarded as an ancillary service provider, but he did not use the same terminology when talking about search engines. To press him on that, would he expect search engines in some cases, or may be in all cases, to be considered as ancillary service providers?
Matt Hancock
I do not draw any distinction between the two, but the decision is for the regulator. The legislation provides that they could be, and it depends on the circumstances whether they would be. Of course, obviously, they play different roles.
Kevin Brennan
Just to clarify, I think the right hon. Gentleman is saying that in making no distinction, he would be able to apply the word “expect” to search engines as well as to ISPs. That is what I was probing him to find out.
Matt Hancock
I am choosing not to use that word because I want to leave it to the regulator, rather than leaving an implication that it should move one way or the other. The regulator should define what is an ASP according to the legislation.
Kevin Brennan
The Minister is therefore making a distinction between the two. In one case he clearly has an expectation that it will happen, and in the other case he does not. The Committee will be interested to know why he is making that distinction, which he denies he is making, because it is important to our understanding the reluctance in the Bill to involve search engines in some of these regulations.
Matt Hancock
They should be treated the same in that the same provisions in the Bill should be applied to each, but each performs a different role and ISPs are inevitably more closely connected to the provision of content because the content goes through an ISP, whereas a search engine may or may not be the route through which content is found. For implementation, it is clear that that is for the regulator to decide within the provisions set out in the Bill.
Thangam Debbonaire
I refer the Minister to the point made by the hon. Member for Devizes, who mentioned the murder of April Jones and the fact that her killer was able to type certain words into a search engine that I cannot bear to repeat. Search engines have the power to change their algorithm—we know they do.
Matt Hancock
The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes was making is that, owing to her work, the search engines made precisely those sorts of changes on a voluntary basis. At the request of the Government and others, they now undertake millions of changes to their algorithms and millions of take-downs for both child porn and terrorist-related purposes. That system is working well, and it does not need to be underpinned by regulation.
There is then a wider question. I am straying to the limits of order to discuss this, but my hon. Friend very effectively argued that the principle that the internet should provide the freedom that it provides within the framework of a regulated structure. We agree with that, and we are providing for some of that regulated structure in this Bill. There is a first amendment-type argument, if we are thinking about it in an American way, that the internet is free and laissez-faire and that we should not regulate it. There are people who say, for instance, that we should not recreate national jurisdictional boundaries on the internet and that we should not regulate it, that it should be completely free. We reject that argument, which is why we are prepared to introduce legal requirements on age verification for the provision of information over the internet in the UK jurisdiction. We reject the argument because, at a principled level, the freedoms that we enjoy are freedoms that do not harm others, which applies offline just as much as it applies online. Because the internet is relatively new, we are still in the early days of applying such a principle to the internet. That is a much bigger debate than in clause 22, and therefore I should not go into further detail.
Thangam Debbonaire
I believe that the Minister has just answered the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West on whether a search engine is an ancillary service provider. The Minister acknowledges that search engines, as well as ISPs, should be considered as such.
Matt Hancock
All I did was set out the principles behind the Government’s response to the amendments to clause 22. The Committee must know those principles in order to understand the direction that we are taking on regulation.
I will move on to some of the other points that were made. I will respond to new clause 18 and amendment 79.
Claire Perry
I thank the Minister for that response. I would have liked to hear him say a little bit more about how the payment service providers are involved in the game and whether we are relying on them to do the right thing because they are large corporate companies, or whether, as new clause 6 proposed, there was an opportunity to strengthen the wording of the Bill.
Matt Hancock
I apologise; there were so many interesting points made that I did not get to that one.
The provision of pornography without an age verification in the UK will become illegal under this Bill. There is a vast panoply of financial regulation requiring that financial organisations do not engage with organisations that commit illegal activities, and it is through that well-embedded, international set of regulations that we intend to ensure that payment service providers do not engage with those who do not follow what is set out in the Bill. Rather than inventing a whole new system, we are essentially piggybacking on a very well-established financial control system.
Claire Perry
That is a very reassuring reply and I thank the Minister for it. We have had a very good debate. I know that his officials will be listening and thinking hard about what has been said, and I do not think it would serve the Committee any purpose to press my amendments or my new clause to a vote.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Louise Haigh
It was interesting to hear the Minister refer to financial regulations. I was not present on Second Reading because I was not then in the position that I occupy now, but having read that debate I do not believe that there was any such reference. So we would like some clarity on who will be the regulator of the payment service providers and what work has already been done with the Financial Conduct Authority—I assume it will be with the FCA in this circumstance—to ensure that it will be regulating those providers, to make sure that they act with speed and due diligence on receiving notification from the age verification regulator under clause 15.
It is disappointing that the Government do not consider new clause 18 necessary to amend the Bill. I appreciate that the BBFC has been given powers to establish a code of practice, but given the very serious consequences that could result from that not being done correctly, some basic principles need to be embedded into the process, based on the issues that I raised earlier in our discussion.
I will just add that we will return to this issue on Report.
Matt Hancock
We have been engaging directly with payment service providers, although—no doubt as and when necessary—engagement with financial authorities will be made. Payment service providers can withdraw services from illegal activity under their existing terms and conditions, so the provision is already there for the measures to take effect.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Exercise of functions by the age-verification regulator
Claire Perry
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 23, page 25, line 1, at end insert—
‘(3) The age-verification regulator must consult with any persons it considers appropriate, about the option to restrict the use of its powers to large pornography websites only.’
This amendment requires the age-verification regulator to consult on whether, in the exercising of its function, it should restrict its powers to large pornography websites only.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 12—Code of practice by age verification regulator—
‘(1) The age verification regulator must issue a code of practice giving practical guidance as to the requirements of any provision under this Part of the Act.
(2) The following persons must, in exercising their functions under this Part and in the design and delivery of their products and services, adhere to the code of practice, and ensure that the safety and wellbeing of children is paramount—
(a) relevant persons;
(b) internet service providers;
(c) ancillary service providers;
(d) payment-service providers; and
(e) any such other persons to whom the code of practice applies.
(3) Any code of practice issued by the age verification regulator under subsection (1) above must include standards in relation to the following—
(a) how content is managed on a service, including the control of access to online content that is inappropriate for children, and the support provided by the service for child safety protection tools and solutions;
(b) the assistance available for parents to limit their child’s exposure to potentially inappropriate content and contact;
(c) how the persons specified in subsection (2) above shall deal with abuse and misuse, including the provision of clear and simple processes for the reporting and moderation of content or conduct which may be illegal, harmful, offensive or inappropriate, and for the review of such reports;
(d) the action which must be taken in response to child sexual abuse content or illegal contact, including but not limited to, the co-operation with the appropriate law enforcement authorities;
(e) the action to be taken by the persons specified in subsection (2) above to comply with existing data protection and advertising rules and privacy rights that address the specific needs and requirements of children; and
(f) the provision of appropriate information, and the undertaking of relevant activities, to raise awareness of the safer use of connected devices and online services in order to safeguard children, and to promote their health and wellbeing.
(4) The age verification regulator may from time to time revise and re-issue the code of practice.
(5) Before issuing or reissuing the code of practice the age verification regulator must consult—
(a) the Relevant Minister;
(b) the Information Commissioner;
(c) the Scottish Ministers;
(d) the Welsh Ministers;
(e) the Northern Ireland Executive Committee;
(f) the persons specified in subsection (2) above;
(g) children;
(h) organisations and agencies working for and on behalf of children; and
(i) such other persons as the age verification regulator considers appropriate.
(6) As soon as is reasonably practicable after issuing or reissuing the code of practice the age verification regulator must lay a copy of it before—
(a) Parliament,
(b) the Scottish Parliament,
(c) the National Assembly for Wales, and
(d) the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(7) The age verification regulator must—
(a) publish any code of practice issued under subsection (1) above; and
(b) when it revises such a code, publish—
(i) a notice to that effect, and
(ii) a copy of the revised code; and
(c) when it withdraws such a code, publish a notice to that effect.
(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations make consequential provision in connection with the effective enforcement of the minimum standards in subsection (3).
(9) Regulations under subsection (8)—
(a) must be made by statutory instrument;
(b) may amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify the application of this Act;
(c) may make different provision for different purposes;
(d) may include incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(10) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (8) (whether alone or with other provisions) which amend, repeal or modify the application of primary legislation may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(11) In this Part—
“ancillary service provider” has the meaning given by section 22(6);
“child” means an individual who is less than 18 years old.
“Information Commissioner” has the meaning given by section 18 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
“Internet service provider” has the same meaning as in section 16 of the Digital Economy Act 2010.
“Northern Ireland Executive Committee” has the meaning given by section 20 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998
“payment-service providers” has the meaning given by section 22(5) “relevant Minister” has the meaning given by section 47(1)
“relevant persons” has the meaning given by section 19(3)
“Scottish Ministers” has the meaning given by section 44(2) of the Scotland Act 1998
“Welsh Ministers” has the meaning given by section 45 of the Government of Wales Act 2006.’
This new Clause gives the power to the age verification regulator to introduce a code of practice for internet content providers. The code of practice would be based on existing industry and regulatory minimum standards (such as the BBFC classification system) and require providers to ensure that the safety and wellbeing of children is paramount in the design and delivery of their products and services.
Claire Perry
I promise this will be the last time I speak today. I am afraid I have had a slight change of heart. I tabled this amendment around many points that have been raised today on the difficulty of focusing the BBFC’s efforts on the fact that much of this traffic is not simply going to the larger websites. As we have heard, many other free sites are providing information. However, in reading my amendment, I have decided that it is almost a vote of no confidence in the BBFC’s ability to be flexible and I would therefore like to withdraw it.
Louise Haigh
New clause 12 would give the power to the age verification regulator to introduce another code of practice—the Opposition are very fond of them—for internet content providers. [Interruption.] And reviews, we are very fond of reviews.
We have made it clear throughout that we want enforcement to be as tough as possible and for all loopholes to be closed, but we also want to ensure that children are as safe in the online world as they are offline. There absolutely needs to be that parity of protection. That is one reason why we are disappointed, as I mentioned, that these measures came forward in a Digital Economy Bill, where it was incredibly difficult to look at the issues of child protection online in a thoroughly comprehensive way.
The new clause proposes that the regulator should work with industry to create a statutory code of practice, based on BBFC guidelines for rating films and the principles of the ICT Coalition for Children Online. The code would establish a set of minimum standards that would apply consistently to social networks, internet service providers, mobile telecommunication companies and other communication providers that provide the space and content where children interact online.
This is not intended to be an aggressive, regulatory process. We envisage that it will be the beginning of a much broader debate and conversation between regulators and content providers about just how we keep our children safe on the web. This debate will encompass not only ideas such as panic buttons, but education about the online world, which must run in parallel for any process to be effective.
A statutory code would work with providers to lay out how content is managed on a service and ensure that clear and transparent processes are in place to make it easy both for children and parents to report problematic content. It would also set out what providers should do to develop effective safeguarding policies—a process that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has supported.
As I said, this will clearly be a staged process. We envisage that in order to be effective, the development of a code of practice must involve industry, child protection organisations such as the NSPCC and, crucially, the children and families who use online services. But this code of practice would be based on existing industry and regulatory minimum standards and would require providers to ensure that the safety and wellbeing of children is paramount in the design and delivery of their products and services. The new clause would also empower the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure effective enforcement of the minimum standards in the code of practice.
The online world can be an enormously positive force for good for our children and young people. It makes available a scale of information unimaginable before the internet existed and there is compelling evidence that that constant processing of information will lead to the most informed generation of children the world has known, but it needs to be made safe to realise that potential. The new clause would give assurance to Opposition Members that we will enable that to happen.
Matt Hancock
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes for saying that she will not press her amendment and for what she said about the BBFC. Anybody reading the transcript of this debate will see the universal support for the BBFC and its work.
On the point about statutory guidance, through the UK Council for Child Internet Safety we have made guidance available to providers of social media and interactive services to encourage businesses to think about safety by design and help make platforms safer for children and young people under the age of 18. The amendment would make something similar into statutory guidance. I see where the hon. Lady is coming from, but the scale and scope of the internet makes this an unprecedented challenge. Some of the biggest sites have over 2 billion visits per year and UK audiences make up a very large proportion of those. It would be very difficult to have statutory guidance that would be policeable in any complete way. Rather than statutory guidance that could not be dealt with properly, it is better to have non-statutory guidance that we encourage people to follow.
Louise Haigh
On that point, does the Minister share my concern about the levels of discontent among those children who are trying to report online through social media? Some 26% received absolutely no response at all and of those that did receive a response, only 16% were satisfied. What more can we do to strengthen that?
Matt Hancock
I do recognise that. My point is that making non-statutory guidance statutory will not help in that space, but there is clearly much more to do. I hope that, with that assurance, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes will withdraw the amendment.
Claire Perry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Louise Haigh
This is a very curious clause, which renders much of the well-informed—as the Minister said—and useful discussion that we have had today about enforcement, targeting smaller providers and restricting access across the web, completely and utterly redundant. If the clause as I read it goes forward unamended, it will provide the regulator with the ability to target only the largest providers of online pornography, perhaps even limiting its ability to target only them.
As we have discussed at length, this is an incredibly difficult area to police, which I appreciate. It is obviously going to be far easier to tackle the 50 largest providers, not least because I assume many of them are already providing some level of age verification and are probably more at the responsible end of online pornography content providers. I would remind the Committee of the Conservative party’s manifesto, which said:
“we will stop children’s exposure to harmful sexualised content online, by requiring age verification for access to all sites containing pornographic material”.
That does not make any reference to commercial providers or whether the provider has a large or small turnover, is on WordPress, Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook or Snapchat. Today’s debate has very much suggested that the role of the regulator will be to focus on those sites that are operated on a commercial basis. Given the Minister’s reluctance to implement internet service provider blocking, I do not believe that the manifesto commitment will be achieved.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is making a very interesting point. The clause refers to
“a large number of persons”
and
“a large amount of turnover”.
“A large number of persons” might be 1,000; it might be 1 million. Has there been any indication from the Government of what they mean by that?
Louise Haigh
As far as I am aware, we have had no indication from the Government at all. It would be very interesting to hear the Minister’s comments on that and on why the clause exists at all.
The Minister has been saying at length that he does not want to be too prescriptive to the regulator, but he is putting into primary legislation that the BBFC will be able to target, first and foremost, the larger providers and those that are more easy to target. I would imagine that a regulator in any regulatory system would go after the bigger and less problematic providers before those that are more difficult to tackle—no reasonable person would expect anything different. I find this confusing: why should the provision be in primary legislation, given the Minister’s overtures about not being too prescriptive and giving sufficient flexibility?
Matt Hancock
I hope I can provide some assurances to the perfectly reasonable questions from the hon. Lady. The clause is not an attempt to wriggle out of our manifesto commitment. We will deliver our manifesto commitment in full, and the Bill does that.
The clause provides discretion for the regulator to exercise its functions in a targeted way. It is needed so that the regulator does not break its statutory duties if it goes after the big providers first. As it set out in evidence, the regulator wants to go for the big providers first, and then move on to the smaller and then move on to the next. I want to allow for that to happen, so we need a clause such as this.
Thangam Debbonaire
If I am not mistaken, the Minister just said “in a targeted way”. I fail to understand how phrases such as “a large number” or “a large amount” are in any way targeted.
Matt Hancock
The clause gives discretion to the regulator. If the regulator went after the big porn sites first, it would not have the vires to distinguish and go after those who do the most harm earliest. It is important that it has the ability to make the legislation work in practice.
Kevin Brennan
That sounds pretty thin. It is almost like saying that the police would be acting in an ultra vires manner if they did not go after murderers ahead of shoplifters in terms of devoting their resources to their duties. Is that really the reason why this provision is in the Bill? If it is, it is a novel innovation by the Minister that is not often seen in legislation setting up a service.
Matt Hancock
As I have just mentioned in the discussion on the previous clause, some of the biggest sites on the internet have more than 2 billion visits a year. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley said, many sites are involved. Allowing discretion for a targeted approach is important. The clause also allows the regulator to
“carry out, commission or support…research…for the purposes of exercising, or considering whether to exercise”
the powers. That is important, too, because we want the regulator to have the power to conduct research to inform its views. Both those things are important parts of the execution of age verification.
Louise Haigh
The Minister said just now that the clause will stop the BBFC—we are to assume that it will become the age verification regulator—from being in breach of its statutory duties if it goes after the largest pornography providers first. Putting aside the analogy that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West made, which was absolutely right, is it not the case that the age verification regulator does not have many statutory duties? That was the whole purpose behind the amendments of the hon. Member for Devizes. The regulator is required only to—well, it is not required to; it may—give notice to any payment services or ancillary service provider. I fail to see how targeting any content provider first, last or in any other way would put the regulator in breach of any requirement under the Bill.
Matt Hancock
I want to make it clear that it can target in order to work as effectively and as soon as it can. I am slightly surprised to find Opposition Members against that principle.
Claire Perry
Part of my reason for withdrawing my amendment was that I was encouraged by the word “principally” on line 35 of this page. It is not a restriction; the regulator certainly has the power under the clause to go after it. My issue is that there is a worry, although not with this regulator, that success will be defined by the number of websites or the number of enforcement notices issued. It is not about the number of websites; it is about the number of eyeballs going to them, so it is absolutely right that the regulator focuses on larger sites first. The wording of the Bill allows the regulator discretion to go after any site.
Matt Hancock
On the basis that I agree with that explanation also, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matt Hancock
I will speak to the clause, just in case we have an unexpected hiccup. Clause 24 sets out requirements to apply where the regulator wishes to seek information or send a notice of infringement to an infringing website, payment services provider or ancillary service provider. The designation is to do so by post or email. We will work with the BBFC in its new role to ensure that the system is effective. Due to the nature of the sector, of course there will be times when notices are not seen or purposefully ignored. In the case of unco-operative non-compliant sites, the clause will allow us to disrupt their business regardless through the withdrawal of supporting services by payment and ancillary providers. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Graham Stuart.)
Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 20th October 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 View all Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 October 2016 - (20 Oct 2016)
The Chair
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. The Member who has put his or her name to the leading amendment in a group is called to speak first; other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.
I will work on the assumption that the Minister wishes the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. In other words, debate occurs according to the selection of groupings list, but decisions are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects. I hope that is helpful.
I will use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following the debates on the relevant amendments.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr McCabe. I hope you will bear with me when I ask some beginner’s questions, but this is the first Committee in which I have been on the Front Bench. The technical consultation on the Bill finished yesterday, but the public consultation does not finish until 2 November. We are having our debates on the Bill in the absence of that feedback from the public, or from the professionals who took part in the technical consultation. Is that usual? If so, how do we ensure that the comments in the consultation are fed back into the process?
The Chair
The Minister will have easily heard your comments. It is normal for the usual channels to have agreed the scheduling of the Committee, but we note the point that has been made, and the Minister has heard it and will do what he can to assist.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr McCabe. if there are any additional documents relevant to the deliberations of the Committee, will the Minister ensure that Committee members are aware of them, so that we do not have to go looking for them on the website of the Department for Communities and Local Government?
The Chair
The Minister will have heard those remarks, and he is nodding to indicate that he will do his best to assist.
Clause 1
Duty to have regard to post-examination neighbourhood development plan
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—
“and insofar as it is consistent with the relevant local plan.”
This amendment ensures that neighbourhood plans are not considered if they are inconsistent with local plans.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—
“and insofar as it is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance.”
This amendment ensures that neighbourhood plans are not considered if they are incompatible with the National Planning Policy Framework or the National Planning Practice Guidance.
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 22, at end insert—
“(c) if it has been examined by an independent examiner who is registered with the Royal Town Planning Institute.”
This amendment ensures that the examination of a neighbourhood plan is conducted by an RTPI registered examiner.
New clause 1—Approval of draft-neighbourhood development plans by referendum—
(1) Schedule 4B of the Town and Country Planning Act is amended as follows—
(2) After paragraph (2) insert—
“(3) The outcome of such a referendum shall only be valid if the turnout is equal to or greater than 40%.”
Dr Blackman-Woods
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.
As the Minister knows from our discussions on Tuesday, we do not see neighbourhood planning and the provisions relating to it as the most controversial aspect of the Bill. Nevertheless, we have a couple of questions embodied in the amendments on which we would like some clarification from the Minister.
Amendment 4 seeks to amend the clause to ensure that the local authority will only have to have regard to neighbourhood plans when they are found to be consistent with the local plan. I am sure that in his response the Minister will say that it is already enshrined in legislation that they have to pay attention to the local plan, but we are seeking clarity on at what stage that needs to happen.
Let me start by saying that we are very supportive of neighbourhood plans and the measures in the Bill to make them more efficient in delivering housing, delivering it where local people want it and having it underpinned by the relevant infrastructure. We feel that planning is always more successful when people feel a part of it, rather than planning being something that is done to them and imposed from above. This point was made powerfully on Tuesday by the National Association of Local Councils, which also reminded the Committee that during the passage of the Bill we probably need to push for greater clarity on the exact role of neighbourhood plans and get some statements about the importance and significance attached to them and, in particular, their relationship to local plans.
The amendment would ensure that neighbourhood plans are only considered if they are in line with the overall strategic aims and visions within a local plan. As we are all no doubt aware, local plans set out a framework for the future development of an area, addressing needs and opportunities relating not only to housing, but to the local economy, community facilities and infrastructure. We are specifically asking the Minister to what extent neighbourhood plans are then being written to address not only the broader strategic aims of the local plan, but what it says about community facilities and infrastructure—that is, if it does. It might not, and if not, is the Minister clear that there is then a key role for the neighbourhood plan to ensure that those less strategic issues are addressed for the locality?
An underlying purpose of the amendment is to try and tease out from the Minister whether he thinks neighbourhood plans could, in fact, be a building block for local plans. There are distinct advantages for planning at a community level for housing supply, if that incorporates real local knowledge and that local knowledge is then put into a wider picture that is able to address local authority-wide needs. Hugh Ellis from the Town and Country Planning Association spoke on Tuesday about the real advantages that could have, saying:
“Neighbourhood plans are great at articulating community aspiration inside the local plan framework. When both work together very powerfully, that can be a very strong framework for a community.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 32, Q50.]
Ruth Reed from RIBA said it would be better for local and neighbourhood plans to be “in sync” to
“ensure coherence and strategy across a local authority to provide housing where it is needed.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 43, Q71.]
Local plans are also only adopted after public consultation and, in my experience, usually very lengthy—in fact, often more than one—public inquiries. As the Minister and all on this Committee will know, they do have considerable weight. It would be very helpful for communities to be able to feed in their vision for development at an early stage in that local plan-making project and process. We also do not want to find ourselves in a situation where strengthened neighbourhood plans are undermining local plans, leading to lots of competing visions of what an area could look like or deliver. Again, we feel that being very clear about the degree to which they have to follow a local plan might help to iron out some of those possible conflicts. As the Local Government Association has pointed out,
“It is important that any proposals do not have the unintended consequence of undermining the ability of a local planning authority to meet the wider strategic objectives set out in an emerging or adopted Local Plan”.
According to the Department’s own figures, about 200 neighbourhood plans that have progressed to the referendum stage have been approved by voters; I suspect the figure is a lot higher now. That shows a really positive reception for neighbourhood planning. I pay tribute to the Minister and his Department for bringing the whole concept forward. However, given the number of neighbourhood plans now being considered—I think it is a few thousand—and the way the Government rightly want to extend them, it seems likely they could end up competing with one another. We are trying to ensure, through the amendment, that that does not happen.
The guidance tells us that it is very important for a neighbourhood plan or order to follow a local plan, but they are not often tested against policies in an emerging plan. I will give an example from my constituency, where we are in precisely this situation, which is partly what prompted my question. A local plan went through a public inquiry and was thrown out by the inspector. The authority was directed to go back to first base in terms of drawing up the local plan, so it is out to consultation at the moment on some of the underpinning objectives, but a number of neighbourhood plans are about to go to referendums. Will those plans simply rely on saved local policies? Will they have to look at the local plan that was thrown out, or will they be tested against the underpinning objectives, which are quite wide-ranging at this stage? It would be interesting to hear from the Minister on that point. There is a need for further clarity, particularly with regard to the stage that the local plan is at.
These are very much probing amendments, as I am sure Committee members have determined. Amendment 5 would mean the local authority need not have regard to the local plan, unless it is consistent with the national planning policy framework and national planning policy guidance. This is a straightforward amendment. We should seek to put best practice at the forefront of neighbourhood planning by requiring that the plans are compatible with the NPPF and any relevant guidance.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady aware that paragraph 16 of the NPPF states that neighbourhoods should
“develop plans that support the strategic development needs set out in Local Plans”?
Is that not quite clear?
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am trying to tease out the extent to which the Minister thinks it is important right at the outset for neighbourhood plans to tell us how they are addressing the basic thrust of the NPPF and any relevant policies in it and taking on board guidance that underpins some of those policies. I do not think the issue of guidance is quite so clear. Perhaps it is generally assumed that the NPPF would be followed but not to the degree that planning guidance would have to be taken on board.
Jim McMahon
This is a very important point because the provision must not be seen as a way of paying lip service to local opinion. People spend a lot of time trying to work up neighbourhood plans, which go through a massive amount of consultation, and they go round the area with clipboards, but when it comes down to it they are not treated with seriousness in the process. Having this quality assurance would help that.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Public confidence in the system is important.
Just to show that I looked, we found that national planning policy guidance includes guidance on the independent examiner’s role, how a neighbourhood plan or order is examined, how the public can make their views known to the independent examiner, who can speak if a public hearing is held and whether the examiner considers the referendum area to be part of their report. However, there is nothing at all—not in that section anyway—about who the independent examiner should be or what qualifications they might be expected to have.
The reason the amendment specifies the RTPI is that it has a mark of quality attached to it, and has been clear about the principles to which examiners should work. There are five core principles. I think this might be helpful, and if the Minister does not want to include it on the face of the Bill, it might be put into regulations.
It is hard to disagree with any of the five core principles, or to suggest a reason why they should not apply to examiners. Those subject to them must act with competence, honesty and integrity; and they must use independent professional judgement. That is particularly important, because we want the examination to be seen as professional. After all, the plans are very important. They should probably have more importance in the planning system. We want to make sure that they will be professionally examined. Examiners must apply due care and diligence; they must act within principles of equality and respect; and obviously, they must exhibit professional behaviour at all times.
That set of core principles seems to me to be very helpful. The RTPI deals with professional planners all the time, and it has provided more detail about what the principles mean with respect to the role of an inspector. I shall not go through them all, because there are too many, but I thought it might be worth looking at a few that seem particularly important.
“Members must take all reasonable steps to maintain their professional competence”.
That seems fairly obvious; we want people who are to examine neighbourhood plans to deal with the planning system as it currently is—not as it was when they trained, which could have been some time ago.
They must also
“take all reasonable steps to ensure that their private, personal, political and financial interests do not conflict with their professional duties.”
Again, that is important. I wonder whether the current system pays attention to any financial, personal, political or other conflict of interest, particularly in relation to examiners. It may, and I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that point, but I think my constituents would want to know that people with a conflict of interest were screened out before the point at which they would get to examine a neighbourhood plan. It is not clear to me at what stage in the current process that happens, or what questions are asked during the appointment process, to ascertain whether there is a conflict of interest.
“Members must not offer or accept inducements, financial or otherwise, to influence a decision or professional point of view”.
That is an issue that councillors are used to having to deal with; but again, it has not been made clear. I do not suggest for a minute that any examiner would have been subject to the taking of financial inducements, or anything of the kind. I just do not know, at this stage, what process there is in place to ensure that that does not happen, or what oversight there is of the examination process. Also, examiners should not disclose to employers or clients what is happening in the neighbourhood plan where it would be to their advantage.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am not trying to suggest there has been a problem in the past, but we have neighbourhood planning provisions before us in a Bill that seeks to strengthen and streamline the process of neighbourhood planning. It is the Opposition’s job to seek ways of improving the Bill and one way might be to give greater clarity and confidence to the public and all our constituents that neighbourhood plans are being effectively and efficiently examined. That provides more confidence in the process, which we are incredibly supportive of.
Jim McMahon
I actually think—I am sure my hon. Friend will agree—this is a gift for the Minister. Imagine a situation in which there is no quality assurance in place and no mechanism built into the membership organisation to deal with complaints. Where else would the complaints come but across our desks?
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It drives home the point we are making. We have tried to be incredibly helpful in tabling the amendment. The point has not been raised only by Opposition Members. As I pointed out earlier, it was raised by people who gave evidence to the Committee. It is important as a matter of public record that we are clear about how the plans will be examined and about the qualifications of the examiners. As my hon. Friend said, the RTPI has given a gift to the Minister by saying there is already a code of conduct and already professional guidance in place, so why does not the Minister simply adopt it and then we will all have better reassurances about the qualifications—[Interruption.] I am sure the hon. Member for North West Hampshire can intervene on me if he wishes to do so, and I will seek to answer his question.
If I may, I will move on to new clause 1. Although we have tabled it as a new clause, it is really just a further probing amendment to find out whether the Minister thinks there should be a threshold for the number of electors who will turn up to vote for a neighbourhood plan. Again, I am not trying to make the process of having a neighbourhood plan more difficult, because we are terribly supportive of neighbourhood plans and want as many of them in place as possible.
In fact, because the Minister is extremely good at reading the Lyons report, he will know that we had a whole section in that report about local plan-making and how we might marry up neighbourhood plans with the local plan-making system. That was not to take powers away from local neighbourhoods, but to have these as an initial building block for local plans so that local plans are not something that is seen to be imposed on a local community, but are something that develops organically from looking at a whole range of neighbourhood plans. He knows that the Lyons report also talked about how we could fund that, because if we are going to adopt a system where neighbourhood plans are the building blocks of local plans, resource will clearly need to be put into neighbourhood plans.
If I may again use the example of my constituency, we are now back at the beginning, more or less, of our local plan-making process. I think I am right in saying that process started in 2007; if I was being really generous to the local authority I might say 2008, but really we had preliminary discussions in 2007. Here we are in 2016, I think 11 rounds of consultation later, and we still have no local plan in place. In fact, we would be lucky to get a local plan in place in the next couple of years.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree with my research that shows that 95% of local plans had to be stopped and recreated after the absurdity of the coalition Government’s decision of March 2013, when they required them all to have to consult adjoining authorities? Ninety-five per cent. have had to be recreated, creating a huge delay and uncertainty in house building and the provision of other amenities.
Dr Blackman-Woods
As always, my hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. We did have a brief exchange with the Minister on Tuesday about the fact that the duty to co-operate has not worked in practice, and the real need for a different set of provisions. I know the Minister is seeking to address that at a later stage in the Bill’s passage, so we look forward to seeing the provisions that will address that aspect of local plan-making and how the duty to co-operate can be made to work more effectively in practice. My hon. Friend has raised a very valid point.
I think we are on our 11th round of consultation, and there will be further rounds before we actually get a local plan in place. Huge resource is then put into the consultation, which has gone on for many years. The huge amount of documentation that goes with each of those public consultations has a resource attached to it. I should have thought that it was possible to have a system of local plan-making that was very streamlined and did not require the huge amount of documentation that it currently does; that would free up resources. One of the things we argued in Lyons was that those resources could then be used to effectively support neighbourhoods and local authorities to use neighbourhood plans as the building block for their local plans.
I am coming to my argument about new clause 1. If these plans are to have considerable weight attached to them, and if they are going to be, as they currently are, part of the local plan once they go through a referendum and a material consideration, should there be a minimum level of buy-in from the local community, in terms of turning out to vote? I am sure the Minister will say that the votes for these neighbourhood plans are extraordinary, that 89% or 90% of the people who turn out regularly vote for the neighbourhood plan, that they understand why it is important to their community and that a lot of them will have turned up to consultation events.
It is heartening that so many of the plans get that percentage of people supporting them. It is actually quite rare for them to be turned down or to have fairly low percentages. At the moment we are at about a 32.4% turnout from the local community. I am sure all of us here think that is actually not bad when compared with the turnout for some local council elections, but if we are talking about a plan that will have a very strong influence on what happens in the neighbourhood area for perhaps 10 or 15 years or even longer, I suggest there might need to be a 40% threshold, but that could be lower or higher.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
I am interested in the argument the hon. Lady is making. My local authority is going through the process of agreeing its local plan at the moment, so I share her pain. Do the Opposition think the same arguments should apply to local plans? Should the people of Croydon have the chance to vote in a referendum on the local plan that Croydon Council is proposing?
Dr Blackman-Woods
The Minister makes an interesting point. It is something I will mull over and think about. Does the Minister think it is important to have a particular threshold? Again, that point is not being put forward only by the Opposition. It was also put forward by the BPF, which said:
“As neighbourhood plans affect large sectors of the community, a minimum turnout would ensure that what is to become a development plan document as part of the Local Development Framework is agreed and accepted by a sufficient majority—and would also help ensure the implementation of neighbourhood plans.”
That is an important point.
John Mann
I am glad this is a probing new clause. The British Property Federation would say they, wouldn’t they? Is there not a danger that a threshold will shift power to middle-class communities and away from working-class communities, where people work shifts and where there is a more transient population because of private rented accommodation? Turnouts have traditionally and historically been low in all elections in those communities through no fault of the local people. They have a desire to vote, as we saw in the EU referendum, but people are having to work ridiculously long hours to make a living. Indeed, turnover in property is hugely large. Are those not the dangers of having a threshold? Any system must not discriminate against working-class communities.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am sure my hon. Friend will be delighted to note that an amendment has been tabled for a later discussion in the Committee on how we ensure that disadvantaged communities are not discriminated against.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Dr Blackman-Woods
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in just a moment, after I have dealt with the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw.
We should not abandon the idea of a threshold just because it might be more difficult for some people to attend a polling station or another building to register a vote. We all want to ensure that as many people as possible are engaged in the neighbourhood planning process and, indeed, in voting more generally—but I will stick to neighbourhood plans, to avoid getting a direction from the Chair. Polling over a given period of time, and good use of postal votes or electronic voting are among the many different mechanisms that could be applied locally to ensure that the threshold is reached, and that people really are engaged in the neighbourhood planning process.
Jim McMahon
That is the crux of the issue. The gift of a neighbourhood plan is that it binds a local community together to agree collectively what is best for that community. The benefit of a threshold is that a bar is put in place to say, “You have to be able to demonstrate that the plan has the community support in place.” If one of the arguments is that disadvantaged communities are disfranchised from such processes in a way that middle-class communities are not, a threshold would place a greater onus on ensuring that people are included in the process and in more active ways.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and one that I was going to come to: a minimum threshold could ensure that additional work had to be put in to get a wider, more representative group coming forward and voting for a plan. I was going to draw the Minister’s attention to the activities of Planning Aid England, which works a great deal with disadvantaged communities, trying to get them engaged in the planning process. If the Minister was keen to put a minimum threshold in place, he might want to think about how Planning Aid could be supported, in particular to work with disadvantaged communities to ensure not only that people turn up to vote for the neighbourhood plan, but that they are fully engaged in the plan-making process itself.
When we discuss the later amendment, we will see that analysis of the plans so far indicates that—this is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw was making earlier—they have a bias towards more middle-class communities.
Oliver Colvile
Thank you, Mr McCabe, for allowing me to serve under your chairmanship. The point that I would make is that if we are going to be doing public consultation—which is incredibly important, and I have made that quite clear—we need to use Planning for Real weekends, so that members of the local community may have the opportunity to come in, physically, and say what they are expecting from the whole thing, although postal and proxy votes can be used, too, and a lot of people do so.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. As well as Planning Aid, I should have mentioned Planning for Real, which also does amazing work in communities getting people to engage with the neighbourhood planning process. Such work could be continued to encourage people to turn up and vote in the decision whether to adopt the neighbourhood plan.
As I said at the outset of our debate on this group of amendments, they are probing ones, intended to get greater clarity from the Minister about the whole range of issues that we have raised. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
Kit Malthouse
I realise that the hon. Member for City of Durham is benignly motivated, but I had a horrible feeling that she might have been seized by Stockholm syndrome with regard to the planning industry. She referred quite a lot to what the planning industry had to say, but I think she misunderstands the great advantage of neighbourhood plans. They are organic community creations outside the accepted rules, shibboleths, morals and principles of the planning system. She seems in her amendments to be trying to put barriers and bureaucracy into neighbourhood plans, which they are specifically designed to overcome.
There are already safeguards in the neighbourhood planning process. When a neighbourhood plan is approved by referendum, it must go to the local council where there is democratic oversight; it must be adopted as part of the local plan before it is accepted completely; and it must be examined. By the way, I am not surprised the RTPI was willing selflessly to put itself forward as the monopoly examiners of plans for a fee, adding yet more cost to the process.
It strikes me that the hon. Lady is creating bureaucracy in the system—
Dr Blackman-Woods
May I say at the outset that I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of what I was seeking to do? I was seeking to get further clarity in the Minister’s legislation, not to put prescription in place. As far as I can recall, I did not mention fees for the RTPI.
Kit Malthouse
No, I accept what the hon. Lady says and I apologise. She said these are probing amendments and I was being slightly flippant, but I doubt very much whether a member of the RTPI would do the examination free. The point is that if you restrict it to just them, I imagine the fees might rise slightly. Basic economics is that the smaller the pool of people, the more fees will rise.
I acknowledged that the amendments were probing, but I am not sure what problem the hon. Lady is trying to solve. Thousands of neighbourhood plans have come forward and there are two major issues, which the Bill solves. The first is more assistance from local authorities, because obviously the plans have to conform with the local plan and they are often developed in parallel. Certainly mine were developed in parallel with the local plan. There is quite a lot of iterative process between the two and the Bill allows that. Secondly, if they are going to do this work, there should be protection in the planning system, which is also in the Bill.
Beyond that, I fear the hon. Lady is trying to create with the amendments—I accept they are probing—a sort of recreation of the whole planning system on a local scale, instead of realising that the process is organic and should be exactly that without as much restriction as the formal planning and plan development process has, notwithstanding the fact that there will be supervision by the local council.
Jim McMahon
I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman would want to water down the integrity of this process. If it is to have any credibility in the system, it must be tested in the system. We do not want a neighbourhood plan that does not stand that test and is treated in a second-rate way.
I also cannot understand the point about levying a fee. People do not generally work for free in their profession. Someone will want to be paid as part of that process. All that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham is trying to do in the amendment, which is open to debate, is to make sure that a standard is applied and it provides that standard. If this is not accepted, what is the alternative to provide that surety?
Kit Malthouse
This may be a philosophical difference between us. I am naturally inclined to deregulation, whereas this is obviously an attempt to impose regulation on the neighbourhood planning process. In my experience, regulation generally gets in the way of speed and efficiency, and frankly of people even bothering to get involved.
In my neighbourhood there has been huge enthusiasm, wide acceptance and a recognition that there are two issues—first, more assistance from the local authority and secondly, more regard from the planning system as it is. It would be a mistake for us to try in the Bill to reproduce the same level of planning regulation that exists at local authority level for what is, frankly, often a group of volunteers who are trying to put together an imaginative plan for their neighbourhood. They should be left with as little restriction as possible to do that as far as they can, and when they realise their plan needs to be in conformity with the local plan and it has to go to democratic approval, to modify it accordingly. If we are to have acceptance, we must do it that way. Once we start putting rules and regulations and hurdles in their way, I am afraid the enthusiasm will drop away.
I would not support a 40% threshold. As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said, there lots of reasons why not, but we do not apply that for any other election in this country, including referendums and elections for police and crime commissioners. There is no other election or exercise of the democratic process in this country where we do that and I do not think we should start now.
John Mann
It is always a pleasure—actually it is the first time, but it always will be a pleasure—to be given the opportunity by the Whips to serve under your chairing, Mr McCabe. I thank the Whips, although I am not sure that those on the Labour Front Bench will necessarily thank them, for putting me on this Bill Committee.
I will first deal with the question of thresholds. It is a good idea but I would suggest that the wrong threshold has been suggested, so I am glad that the new clause is a probing one. When I was first elected as a councillor, I got 86% of the vote on a 40% turnout. That means that I got a higher share of the electorate than the majority of MPs elected in the last general election. Given that, who would be the more statistically valid representative?
The interesting question is whether a threshold should be based on the vote. Should someone on a low turnout get through on 50% to 49%? That would suggest that there is quite a split in the community. There would be a coherent case for suggesting that the neighbourhood development plan needs to have a threshold of a majority for it to be seen to be coherent across a community. I am not aware of anywhere, certainly not in my area, where there is that sort of division, but such situations could exist.
The Secretary of State said that too many people
“object to houses being built next to us”
and that we are going to have to change that attitude. He was, rightly, very outspoken in Bentley in Redditch in 2015 against the proposals for 2,800 houses there, as he was in Hagley in 2012. He, like me, has supported the local people against the planning system and the way it works, but that does not coincide with his commentary at his party’s conference.
In Croydon, one local Member of Parliament talked of the overwhelming opposition to housing in Shirley, with the Save Shirley campaign. He said that the proposals to build there were “a pile of nonsense.” Clearly, there were divisions in Croydon between people who wanted to build in one place and those who wanted to build in another. Some people did not want the development in one place; others did not want it in another.
The Opposition have proposed a threshold but, in the Croydon example, a threshold of how many people vote for a neighbourhood development plan or, indeed, for a local plan would be a good idea. Otherwise, those supporting the residents of Shirley might lose out. They might be very angry at losing out and vent their anger against their local MP.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
If the hon. Gentleman is casting aspersions on my constituency neighbour for his Save Shirley campaign, may I point out his outstanding record of supporting building in the town centre?
What the hon. Member for Bassetlaw proposes by way of a threshold effectively gives weight to the opinions of people who do not bother to vote. Does he not agree that giving weight to the opinions of those who cannot even be bothered to vote in any election, including the one we are discussing, would not be appropriate?
John Mann
I am merely throwing into the mix for consideration the suggestion that the Government may wish to come back with an amendment, in the spirit proposed by Her Majesty’s Opposition, involving a threshold determined not by the percentage of the electorate, but by a percentage threshold of the majority in the vote. That would help to avoid a conflict situation and lead to more local negotiation in places such as Shirley.
There are lots of places like Shirley. Ministers do intervene. They are intervening in Bradford, for example. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) was delighted, when the Minister was intervening there, to object to house building. There will always be people who object to house building next to them, and there is nothing wrong with that. If there is a bad planning application, I can fill a public hall at any time. I get hundreds and hundreds of people there very regularly. Indeed, I have a meeting tomorrow.
The Chair
Mr Mann, may I gently suggest that you come a bit closer to the subject under discussion?
John Mann
I am suitably admonished, Mr McCabe, but this is a way of getting directly into the amendments. Having spoken to new clause 1 very precisely, I am now speaking to amendments 4 and 5 very precisely, because these amendments explicitly probe the issue of conflict between the local plan and the neighbourhood plan. In other words, one set of people want to do one thing, but another set may want to do something else.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case in support of neighbourhood planning. Does he agree that the success of neighbourhood planning, which Labour Members welcome and applaud, is precisely what makes it such a good building block for local plans?
John Mann
It is absolutely a building block. We will come at a later stage to how we deal with less affluent communities, which is important, but when it comes to all neighbourhood plans, there is a great opportunity here for the Minister. He will need to come back with a bit more, otherwise the certainty is not there. One likes certainty in life. We know where we stand with a local plan. We would know where we stand with a neighbourhood plan. So a neighbourhood plan voted through where there is house building built in ought to be the certainty for the foreseeable future, which, in planning terms, seems to be 15 years. Such certainty seems reasonable enough to me. If the Minister could deliver on that, when I go back to my local communities he will find that there is even more enthusiasm. I will be able to get the urban communities saying, “This is a great idea, and by the way we will have more housing. We will change this and we will change that. We will create more open spaces. We will want space for our community facilities.”
Large numbers will participate in the planning debate and decision making, given the chance. The Minister has the proof already. Let us unleash more of this local empowerment. He will then be a very popular Minister.
Jim McMahon
This has been a fascinating debate. We are all localists. We all come from our communities—that is why we are here in the first place—and the spirit of the Bill embraces that. We are fine-tuning the Bill to ensure it works in practice. We do not want to set people up to be disappointed. We do not want them to be given this power, to be told that after years of having things done to them they are suddenly empowered, and then to go through the process of having an application submitted only for it to be completely against what they want. That is really important. In the local context of Greater Manchester, we have got the spatial framework. Within that process there is a call for sites, so developers and landowners put sites forward as part of the mix.
A member of the public has the local plan that has been agreed, but now they also have in consultation a strategic plan with sites that have been put forward by developers and landowners, and not necessarily with the agreement of the local authority. However, that causes a lot of tension because some of the sites are controversial. Landowners do not always take into account local opinion before they submit sites to get the development value that could be achieved afterwards. In an odd way, that could be the thing that inspires the local community to come together. Instead of having something done to us, let us get together and design what we want our community to be. We could think further about design quality, open space provision and how a community works more generally.
I will certainly be a champion for this type of planning in my local community. Let us be honest: in deprived, working-class communities, people have for decades and generations been told, “This is what you are getting, whether you like it or not.” I see this legislation as a route for empowering people to have far more control over their lives and communities, so it is welcome. However, let us not lose an opportunity to make sure that this is a really decent piece of legislation and a really decent process that people can feel empowered by. When a planning application goes through the system and is tested—when it is submitted and goes for approval—it is important that it has enough weight to ensure that the professional planners, and those sitting on the planning committee if it goes for determination, treat it with the respect it deserves. That is in the spirit of today’s amendment and the amendments we will discuss at a later date.
I want to return to the point I made earlier about the consultation process. If we say that we want to put the community at the heart of the process and have a community voice to make people feel more empowered, it seems odd that the public consultation on this issue does not close until 2 November, because here we are determining the legislation that will by and large have been debated before that date. Can the Minister tell us why that has not been sequenced in the right way? How can we ensure that the responses to the consultation are fed in? If significant issues come up in that process, what mechanism does Parliament have to make sure that those are picked up at the appropriate time?
Gavin Barwell
It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. With your permission, I will start by responding briefly to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton so that I can provide some reassurance. I have worked very hard to try to ensure that Parliament has as much of the material relating to the Bill as possible, and as early as possible in the process. There was an earlier consultation on neighbourhood planning this year, our response to which was published at the same time as the Bill. This is a technical consultation about how we are going to implement some of these provisions.
The assurance we have given the House, and the business managers more widely, is that when the Bill gets to the Lords stages we intend to have the draft regulations or policy statements published. I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton that in an ideal world all this would be ready when a Bill first comes to Parliament, but if we look historically we see that is the case for virtually no Bills. I am keen to learn the lessons of the Housing and Planning Act, which received Royal Assent earlier this year, and get the material out as early as possible and give people as much opportunity as possible to scrutinise the measures.
Jim McMahon
Just to clarify, there are two separate consultations. There is a technical consultation that closed on 19 October, and there is a wider public consultation on the pre-condition element that closes in November. I would not necessarily consider the second one to be just a technical consultation. I would not want it to be lost in the mix and not treated with importance, because residents and community organisations will respond to it expecting it to be treated appropriately.
Gavin Barwell
The intention behind that consultation paper was to be helpful to Parliament and wider stakeholders interested in these issues. When we announced the Bill in the Queen’s Speech and set out the broad measures that were going to be in it, there was concern about what the impact of these reforms to planning conditions might have. Our feeling was that publishing a consultation paper setting out exactly how the Secretary of State might use these powers, if the Bill receives Royal Assent, would be helpful. The intention was to try to assist.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, which has raised important areas about neighbourhood plans, their relationship with local plans and national planning policy, the examination process and the extent of the democratic mandate they receive through a referendum. Before addressing each amendment, I would like to make a few general comments.
As the Committee will know, the role that communities play in planning has been revolutionised, at least in certain parts of the country, by the neighbourhood planning process. More than 200 communities have recognised the opportunity to shape the development of their area. The numbers speak for themselves. Nearly 2,000 communities have started the process, as the hon. Member for City of Durham said, in areas that cover nearly 10 million people in England, and 240 referendums have been held, all of which have been successful. The Government are hugely proud of neighbourhood planning and of the communities that have taken up the opportunities we have provided for them. We have been clear that we want an effective system that will inspire communities, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said, and give them confidence that their views matter, while delivering the growth and additional housing we need.
Clause 1 helps to achieve that. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw that it is not a solution on its own and that more action will be needed. The White Paper will set out some accompanying policy changes that will try to address the issue. The clause inserts a new paragraph and new subsections (3B) and (3C) into section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It will require decision makers to have regard to post-examination neighbourhood plans where the decision has been made by the local planning authority, or in certain cases the Secretary of the State, that the plan should go to a referendum. We might call that the Malthouse clause, because it originates from an issue with the neighbourhood plan in Oakley and Deane, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire. Essentially, an appeal was granted just before the referendum was going to be held.
Gavin Barwell
The plan had therefore been through the examination. My hon. Friend’s lobbying for his community led the Government to reflect and then bring forward this clause.
The key point is the one made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw: in communities that produce neighbourhood plans, people give a lot of time and effort to produce them, and therefore we need to ensure that work is recognised in the system at the earliest possible opportunity. We are making it clear in legislation—not just through planning guidance—that regard should be given to advanced neighbourhood plans, so communities can have confidence that their plans will get proper consideration in planning decisions, where the plan is material to the application.
Turning to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for City of Durham, I hope that I can reassure all hon. Members that the Bill—this includes the Government amendments on local plans, which I have written to Committee members about this morning—does not alter the local plan-led system, which I am sure we all support. We have been clear from the start that the neighbourhood’s ambition should be aligned with the strategic needs and priorities of the wider local area, but that outside those strategic elements neighbourhood plans are able to shape and direct sustainable development in their area.
One of the tests that an advanced plan will have met, once it has gone through its examination, is whether its policies are in general conformity with the strategic policies of the relevant local plan. That will have been tested both by the independent person appointed to examine the plan and by the local planning authority. That is set out in schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The clarity that the Minister provided is helpful. Can he tell us where the provisions for examiners have been applied in legislation to those examining a neighbourhood plan, as opposed to a local plan?
Gavin Barwell
I am sorry; I did not make myself clear enough. Those provisions are in relation to people examining a neighbourhood plan.
The hon. Lady raised a couple of points that are worthy of clarification, including the important point on equalities, which she was quite right to mention. The public sector equality duty does not sit on the examiner. It sits on the council appointing the examiner to ensure that it is confident that it appoints someone who will fulfil that duty.
I recognise that the amendment is purely a probing one, but I want to deal with the point picked up on by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire about the particular group of people that the hon. Member for City of Durham suggested should do the work. The Government’s understanding is that many local planning authorities have used the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ neighbourhood planning independent examiner referral service to source an examiner. That seems to be standard practice. That service offers examiners that it has assessed as suitably qualified to carry out examinations. The RICS maintains that members of the panel are continually monitored to ensure that they maintain performance and standards.
Although I am a huge fan of the RTPI, the amendment is neither necessary nor sufficient. In other words, there are some experienced planners who would do a perfectly good job and are not registered with the RTPI. There might also be a newly qualified planner who is registered but may not have particular experience in neighbourhood planning and, therefore, might not be the ideal person. I completely understand the thrust of what she seeks reassurance on, and I share her view, but the relevant safeguards are in schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
To a degree, we should trust councils. They have a clear interest in ensuring that the neighbourhood plan is properly examined, because they share the hon. Lady’s concern that it should be in conformity with the strategic policies of their local plan. Therefore, I do not think that we, sitting here, need overly to pre-judge that councils are not capable of ensuring that we get the right people to do what I accept is important work.
I turn to new clause 1. As I said earlier in the week, neighbourhood planning referendums have an average turnout of 33%, which is not too dissimilar to the average turnout in local elections. At the moment, support needs to be gained purely from 50% of those who vote in the referendum. That is a fairly consistent principle that we apply across our democratic system. Although new clause 1 was tabled to probe, it may be useful for the Committee to know what its effect would be. Of the approximately 240 referendums that have taken place to date, about 170 would not have passed the test proposed by the hon. Member for City of Durham. I want to make three more quick points.
Gavin Barwell
I am slightly conscious of the time. It might be helpful to the Committee if we finished consideration of these amendments before 1 o’clock.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw made an important point about the effect of a threshold on more deprived communities, where turnout tends to be lower. I think there was a consensus in the oral evidence sessions that neighbourhood planning has been too concentrated in certain parts of the country. We must be wary of that because we want to ensure that everyone is benefiting.
It is also important to note that for local plans, which arguably have a much bigger impact on communities, there is no requirement to hold a referendum. I think the people of Croydon would be delighted if they had a chance to have a referendum on the Croydon local plan. In questioning the exact wording of the new clause, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said that we should look at having a threshold for how many people vote in favour—the proportion of the electorate that had voted yes. I am wary of that for the reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, but it might reassure the hon. Gentleman a little to hear that the average yes vote in the 240-odd referendums that have taken place so far is 89%. That shows what is happening where people are proposing referendums. Nevertheless, he is quite right to say that there could be, theoretically, a situation in which that is not the case.
John Mann
This is an important point. So far, the referendums have been for clearly defined communities. In urban areas, where communities are less defined, there is more opportunity for the creation of communities that might not totally work and that might not be fully accepted. The issues we are discussing could become more significant in an urban area where, by definition, the community is not defined. One could see how that might work out, particularly for those trying to protect areas against development. I am sure that there are already lots of examples in London.
Gavin Barwell
The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly legitimate point. In relation to the first three amendments, I hope I have given clear reassurances that the necessary protection is there. In relation to new clause 1, the arguments about thresholds for elections will go on for all kinds of different elections. On balance, I do not see any reason to apply a test that is different from elsewhere in relation to the particular referendums we are discussing. In practice, thus far, the issue has not arisen, but we can certainly keep matters under review.
Chris Philp
Given what the Minister just said about referendums for local plans, will he consider amending the Bill to make provision for such referendums? That would certainly have my support.
Gavin Barwell
Given my personal circumstances, I wonder whether I have too much of a personal interest in such matters. There is an issue, in that we would probably argue that in relation to most local council policies, councils have a democratic mandate from their elections. The same could be argued of parish councils with regard to neighbourhood plans, but neighbourhood plans can also be proposed by neighbourhood forums, which do not have that democratic mandate. That is probably why referendums are needed. I was trying to tease out the shadow Minister on why the Opposition were making such a suggestion here but not for local plans.
I hope I have provided reassurance on the first three amendments. On new clause 1, I do not see the need to treat the referendums we are discussing differently from others. With that, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have listened carefully to what the Minister had to say. Our probing amendments 4 and 5 were helpful in getting clarity about the degree to which local plans and their provisions should be taken on board and what scope there is for neighbourhood plans to put their mark on the plan-making process. We also got additional information from the Minister about the degree to which the plans have to follow the national planning policy framework, but perhaps not about the attached guidance. I shall leave the Minister to ponder that; we may return to it later in proceedings.
The point of amendment 3 was that, in addition to what is in schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, it might be helpful to think about applying a code of conduct for examiners. That could be a Royal Town Planning Institute code or a Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors code. If the Minister does not like that amendment, I am quite happy for him to come back with another of his own. I shall go away and look again at schedule 4B to see whether it does what we think is absolutely necessary in maintaining public confidence, but I shall leave it for the time being.
Finally, the Opposition are seeking to raise the Government’s ambitions for the percentage of people who will get actively involved in neighbourhood plans. If the Minister wants to come back with other measures that demonstrate that he does in fact have high ambitions for the number of people involved, that would be a good thing. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jackie Doyle-Price.)
Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 20th October 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 View all Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 October 2016 - (20 Oct 2016)
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 16, at the end insert—
“(3A) To support Neighbourhood Plans, the Secretary of State should set out the weight that should be given to approved development plans at key stages in the planning process.”
This amendment gives weight to Neighbourhood Plans at key stages along the process and not just at the post-referendum stage.
I stress at the outset that this is very much a probing amendment to try to determine whether we need greater clarity, either in the Bill or somewhere else, about what weight, if any, should be given to a neighbourhood plan before a referendum has been held, and before the plan is adopted by the local authority and becomes part of its local plan documents. Given the number of witnesses who mentioned the lack of clarity, it is important that we get additional clarity from the Minister.
The Minister will know that various stakeholders said on Tuesday that this is a key concern. The Local Government Association has previously said:
“It is important that any proposals do not have the unintended consequence of undermining the ability of a local planning authority to meet the wider strategic objectives”.
I suppose the LGA was trying to clarify at what stage attention needs to be paid to the neighbourhood plan. If the neighbourhood plan does something outwith the local plan objectives, when does the local planning authority need to intervene to point that out to the neighbourhood planning forum or parish council?
Similarly, the British Property Federation said:
“Clarity must be provided about the level of weight attributed to neighbourhood plans at every stage of their preparation (for example, whether a draft plan’s general ‘direction of travel’ would be considered in the determination of a planning application)… The relationship between the statutory development plan-making framework and such material considerations must be clear for all stakeholders, in order to allow greater certainty in the development decision-taking process”.
Matt Thomson from the Campaign to Protect Rural England put it well when he said:
“The question reflects one of the key problems that we have been facing with the operation of the planning system for decades. That is…where you have tiers of nested planning policy documents, there is always a question of which has precedence over the other. It should not necessarily be just a question of the one that is produced most recently holding the most weight in a planning application environment.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 51, Q92.]
A number of our witnesses were dealing with a situation—I am sure that it will be well known to a number of members of the Committee—in which there is a controversial planning application that would not be allowed by a neighbourhood plan. When other sites for development have been designated but the plan has not yet been adopted, what weight should the local planning authority give to the general direction of travel in that neighbourhood plan?
I have met many parish councils and neighbourhood planning forums over the years who find that to be a frustrating aspect of the neighbourhood planning system. They might have been through extensive work locally. They might have done all the preliminary stages, including looking at the economy and the wider social environment, and doing character and neighbourhood assessments. I have seen many forums identify bits of land that nobody else knows about but that they believe are important to bring forward for development. They put a huge amount of work into the plan. Just before they have a draft plan but after they have identified sites, they find that their whole direction of travel is knocked aside because a significant site that they do not want to be developed, or that they do not want to be developed in the way described in a particular application, is not only considered but approved. That causes major headaches.
In some cases, the forums or parish councils almost have to start again with land use allocation or in the identification of sites. Furthermore, that situation undermines faith in the process. People say, “We did all this work, identified all the sites and did what the Government wanted us to do. We have put the plan in, but it has not been voted on. Nobody, particularly the local authority, seems to be paying any attention to it.”
It is about certainty not only for the people who put the plan together, but for developers. If a developer knows that a plan that is about to be submitted for a referendum has a lot of weight attached to it, they might not seek planning permission for a site that is not in the neighbourhood plan, or for an inappropriate use of the site. It is about the Government giving certainty not only to communities, but to developers, so that everybody is clearer at an earlier stage in the process what weight should be attached to the neighbourhood plan.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
Clause 2 builds on clause 1 to ensure that neighbourhood plans come into force sooner as part of the development plan for their area. It inserts a new subsection 3A into section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to provide for a neighbourhood plan to become part of the development plan for that area when it is approved in the relevant referendum.
Without that change, there is a risk that neighbourhood plans might not be given sufficient consideration by decision makers in the period between the community expressing its support for the relevant plan at a referendum and the formal decision by the local planning authority to make the plan. When the neighbourhood plan provision was originally introduced, there was no fixed time period between those events. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 established an eight-week limit. The clause essentially says that the relevant neighbourhood plan will be part of the development plan for the area immediately after a successful referendum.
The hon. Lady made two or three points and it is important to disentangle them. For some of the time she spoke about precedence, which was raised repeatedly in the evidence we received. I hope I satisfied the Committee on that point earlier when I quoted paragraph 185 of the national planning policy framework, which states:
“Once a neighbourhood plan has demonstrated its general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan and is brought into force, the policies it contains take precedence over existing non-strategic policies in the Local Plan”.
I do not think I can make it any clearer than that. Neighbourhood plans must be consistent with the relevant local plans, in terms of the strategic framework, but once they come into force they take precedence over the relevant local plan on detailed non-strategic issues.
The hon. Lady raised, and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw expressed powerfully, the wider concern that people can put a lot of work into producing a neighbourhood plan and then find that decisions about applications in their area that are contrary to their neighbourhood plan are being approved, either by their council or by the Planning Inspectorate on appeal. Clearly that is enormously frustrating. I am not sure whether I can guarantee that it will never happen, but we should certainly seek to minimise it. I argued in response to the hon. Gentleman that clause 1 will help—I think he accepted that—but I accepted that it is not a complete answer. I promised that in the White Paper coming later this year there will be further policy measures that will go a long way towards satisfying him.
The amendment would introduce a third term—this is where my problem comes—that is about weight. I will try to clarify the position, because this is a complex area. First, let me say to the hon. Lady by way of reassurance that the Government’s policy is clear that decision takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans. The national planning policy framework sets out with some clarity the matters they should consider. I will read an excerpt from it, because it will help the Committee:
“From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”
In relation to a neighbourhood plan, that would imply that the greater the consistency with the strategic policies of the relevant local plan, the greater the weight that could be given.
We need to remember that the essence of our planning system, particularly when considering individual applications for development, requires choices to be made. We should not seek to alter the long-established principle that it is for the decision maker in each case to determine precisely what weight should be attributed to different material considerations. Let us take the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw and imagine a hypothetical situation in which a local planning authority does not have a local plan with a five-year land supply and is well below that. There is a neighbourhood plan in place that sets out where the community thinks appropriate development should go. A decision maker would then have to look at this.
The presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply because the five-year land supply is not there, so that would be one material consideration. The neighbourhood plan would be a material consideration pointing in the opposite direction, presuming the application was for a site that was not identified in the neighbourhood plan. There may be other material considerations—the views of local people will clearly be one. The site in question may be green belt or prime agricultural land, and there may be policies in the NPPF that would be material considerations. We have to accept that, in the way our planning system works, it is for the decision maker—whether that is a council planning officer, the planning committee of the relevant council, a planning inspector or, in some of the largest applications, a Minister—to look at the different weights to be applied to those material considerations.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have listened to what the Minister has to say, and I am not sure that his comments really addressed the very real concerns expressed both by those putting together neighbourhood plans and by those who might have to abide by them, in terms of the planning applications they wish to make. We can have a discussion about the degree of exactitude we might put into guidance about the weight at different stages of the neighbourhood planning process, but I would have thought that it is perfectly possible for some rough idea to be put into guidance or subsequent regulations so people sitting on a planning committee understand the sort of weight they should attach in certain conditions and how the neighbourhood plan should be weighed against other considerations.
It is clear—there are lots of examples of this from across the country—that many planning committees are unsure how to give weight to a neighbourhood plan if it has not gone through a referendum and been adopted. In fact—I am sure the Minister has heard of many groups that have had this experience—neighbourhood plans are often completely ignored by planning committees, which might not even be aware that a plan has been undertaken in a particular area.
If the Minister does not want to put guidance in place, I urge him to think about how local planning authorities can be a bit clearer about what they can and cannot do with a neighbourhood plan at different stages in the process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Modification of neighbourhood development order or plan
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 25, at end insert
“after consultation with the local area involved.”
This amendment ensures that any changes to a neighbourhood development order or plan are first subject to consultation with the local area involved.
The amendment seeks to amend proposed new subsection 4A, which states:
“A local planning authority may at any time by order modify a neighbourhood development order they have made if they consider that the modification does not materially affect any planning permission granted by the order.”
The Minister might say that a modification to a neighbourhood development order or plan would not in any circumstances be made without the local community that put the plan or order in place being aware of it. Again, I seek clarity from the Minister. It would help our understanding of what the clause is trying to achieve if he would explain the circumstances in which he thinks a modification would be undertaken by a local planning authority. Does he see any circumstances in which it would wish to make such a modification without having a period of consultation with the local community or at least checking whether they were not unhappy with the proposed modification?
That is an important test of the Government’s commitment to localism, of which there will be a number this afternoon. As we have already mentioned, a lot of people put a great deal of effort and work into producing neighbourhood plans and, indeed, applying for and getting neighbourhood development orders. They would be really concerned if, at some whim of the local authority, their plan or development order could be modified, and indeed they might not know anything about that modification. I have sat in meetings in which people spend an afternoon on a neighbourhood planning forum arguing over the content of one paragraph in the neighbourhood plan to ensure that they get it absolutely right and that it reflects what they think is the consensus of opinion. People could spend a great deal of time putting together an evidence base and then, for some reason that the clause is not entirely clear about, seemingly the plan could be modified without them knowing anything at all about the modification or the reasons underpinning it.
It could be that we are quite wrong about that and that somewhere else it is clear that the local authority must consult and ensure that the local community is on board. While I am talking about the amount of effort that local communities put into getting the plans and orders together, they are also often done at considerable cost in time and resources. Locality makes it clear in its “Neighbourhood Plans Roadmap Guide” that
“There will be costs associated with preparing a neighbourhood plan. Estimates vary widely; from less than ten thousand pounds to several times this amount”.
I certainly know that some have cost in excess of £50,000.
The point is that that is a considerable resource for local communities. Clearly, they will get some of that from the Government’s support for neighbourhood planning forums and neighbourhood plans, but in a number of circumstances they will have had to raise additional sums of money. They would not want to go through the whole process of raising the money and getting their plan in place only to find that, five modifications down the line, some central tenets of the plan no longer hold.
We also know that putting a neighbourhood plan together can take a long time. The average time communities appear to spend is somewhere between 18 and 24 months. I know that the Government are seeking to reduce that time with a process that is much easier and quicker and that this legislation is part of that. Nevertheless, even after the Bill is enacted it is still likely to take communities a considerable amount of time—easily a year—to get all the documentation together and go through the various stages of the process. It will also take a lot of person hours because, as I said earlier, the groups get together and have to do substantial amounts of work in order to get their various assessments and policies together.
We are all committed to neighbourhood planning and to making neighbourhood plans work, and we would not want the clause to worry neighbourhood planning forums or parish councils that, having done all of that work on their plans, carrying out the referendum and getting the plan adopted, it could simply be modified out of existence by the local planning authority. That could perhaps happen because the direction of the local plan changes, or because the authority is thinking about changing it and it does not like what is in the neighbourhood plan.
I am not entirely certain about the circumstances in which the clause would be used, so it would be helpful to hear about that from the Minister. Will he outline the circumstances in which he thinks the provisions in clause 3 will be used, and how extensive he thinks the use of those provisions will be? What assurances can he give to neighbourhood planning forums and parish councils that their neighbourhood plans will not be modified out of existence without them knowing anything about it?
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I declare an interest: I am a shareholder in a small communications company that I set up, coincidentally, with a partner who was a Labour councillor in the London Borough of Enfield. We worked very closely together on a number of planning applications and gave advice to developers on how they could get planning permission, which I have always felt very strongly is about good community consultation. That is listed in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I have spent about 15 or 20 years working on these kinds of issues. I am going to give some examples of where I think, with good community consultation and by involving the local community, we achieved an awful lot. The first is Sainsbury’s in Nine Elms, which is now being developed. We did an enormous amount of public consultation. We were advised by the leader of the Labour-controlled council to talk to the local community, which we did. We had public exhibitions, Planning for Real weekends and everything like that. I am delighted to say that we would have got the application through within six weeks of when it was needed. The only problem was that my client failed to talk to the retailers about their planning application, so it was a story of the property department at Sainsbury’s not talking to the retailers; that was an issue.
The second example, which I was very much involved in, is what is currently known as “Tesco tower”, which is down on Cromwell Road near the M4 out of London. We looked with our client at developing a block of flats on top of it. It got very close at one stage. We even got to the stage of being minded to approve, but the leadership of the local authority decided that they were not happy with it because they had received a lot of concerns from local communities, which ended up stopping it. What then happened was that the director of planning in the Royal Borough, who is now working in my hon. Friend the Minister’s Department, decided that he was going to do a masterplan, in which the local community was going to be very much involved.
In all those issues, the really big story was the massing and the height of developments that were taking place. On the Hoe, which is a conservation area in my constituency of Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, an application was recently agreed for Pearson House. It did not have the support of the local community at all. It was thought to be too high, the massing was not right and it did not have any land around the outside either. Unfortunately, the council approved it. I argue that it might have ended up setting a precedent for other activities within the conservation area, so this is very important.
My concern about the amendment, if I am honest, is that it might cut across the strategic interest in the rest of the local authority, and I think that needs to be looked at.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The amendment would not prevent the local planning authority from making a modification; it merely suggests that it should consult the community before doing so.
Oliver Colvile
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. The point I am making is that it is vital that a neighbourhood plan, with all the hard work that people do, reflects what the height and the massing should be.
Gavin Barwell
As the neighbourhood planning system matures, we need to ensure that it will be suitably flexible to respond to changes in community aspirations. It is now almost five years since the first neighbourhood plans were prepared. As we have heard, well over 200 are now in force and more than 240 have been approved in referendums. We are aware that some of the early pioneers of the system want to update their plans.
Currently, the process for updating a neighbourhood plan is the same as the process for preparing a brand new one, regardless of the scale or significance of the changes proposed. The clause on changing the area that a plan covers, and the clauses that we shall come on to, are designed to address that fundamental problem. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw is nodding. He has lots of plans in his area, so clearly he has some experience of this.
The Government therefore believe that it is important to introduce a more proportionate way of revising plans to ensure that they remain up to date. Clause 3 will achieve that by introducing two new modification processes. I think that the confusion may have arisen—it is possible, at any rate; I cannot read the mind of the hon. Member for City of Durham—because there are two different processes. I will explain them, in the hope that that will provide some reassurance.
First, a process is being introduced to allow a local authority to make minor modifications to a neighbourhood plan or an order at any time, in the same way as an authority can currently correct errors. Clause 3 does that by amending section 61M of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. On the key point that the hon. Member for City of Durham raised, I can absolutely reassure her that a local planning authority will need the consent of the relevant neighbourhood planning group to make the modification. That is clearly an important point. Her concern was that people would put a lot of work into producing their neighbourhood plans and then councils could modify them in some way without proper consultation. I can reassure her that that would require the consent of the relevant neighbourhood planning group, whether a parish council or a neighbourhood forum.
Secondly, any proposed modification that uses that minor change procedure cannot materially affect any of the policies in the neighbourhood plan or, if we are talking about a neighbourhood development order, the planning permission granted. Although there is no consultation requirement, the local planning authority must publicise what it has done, so people will be aware that the decision has been taken.
That is an important change, because currently even the most minor modifications, such as amending the wording of supporting text to clarify what a policy means, cannot be made without going through the same process to produce a new plan, including holding a referendum, which clearly involves a significant cost at a time when I think we are all aware of the pressures on local authorities. We strongly believe that that is overly burdensome.
However, the clause also provides a means by which more significant modifications may be made to a neighbourhood plan, through a streamlined procedure. It does that by inserting new subsections into sections 38A and 38C of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, along with a new schedule A2. The new schedule sets out in more detail the process to be followed in bringing forward draft proposals to modify a plan.
The streamlined procedure has a stronger expectation that the independent examination of the revised proposals, which we have been discussing, will be paper-based, with hearings only in exceptional circumstances. Additionally, there is no referendum. So the examiners’ recommendations will in most cases be binding. We have the minor modification procedure, the completely new plan procedure and an intermediate one, which may be used where the proposed modifications are not so significant or substantial as to change the fundamental nature of the plan but none the less are more than simple, minor modifications.
Crucially, with regard to safeguards, the local planning authority and the independent examiner will need to agree that that is the case in order for a draft plan to proceed through the streamlined procedure. In this case, we are taking powers to regulate the process. We are consulting on that, but I can say to the hon. Member for City of Durham that in the intermediate procedure our intention is that the local authority must publicise what it is doing and consult in the same way that it would for a new neighbourhood plan.
To sum up, in the case of the most minor modifications, it is the Government’s contention that a full consultation of the kind we would have for the streamlined or new plan procedure is not necessary, but there is the safeguard that the relevant body that drew up the plan must give its consent to what is being done. However, if we are looking for more significant changes, although not those that would trigger a new referendum, it is important that there is some consultation.
I hope that I have provided the reassurance that the hon. Lady’s probing amendment was looking for, and that my explanation has been useful in helping Members understand the two procedures and when they would be used.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Having listened to the Minister, I think that the probing amendment did its job effectively. There is now much greater clarity on exactly what the provisions of the clause mean. On the minor modification process, I take the Minister’s point about a simple drafting error that can be corrected easily and perhaps without going out to full consultation, but I would still expect a process for notifying the neighbourhood planning forum or the parish council that the modification has been made or is about to be made.
Gavin Barwell
It goes further than that. The relevant neighbourhood planning body has to give its consent even for the most minor modifications, and then the wider public are notified.
Dr Blackman-Woods
That is a helpful clarification. In the second set of circumstances, I take the Minister’s point that this is perhaps an intermediate measure in order to allow modifications that are a bit larger to take place and that the community would clearly be involved in that. Given the Minister’s helpful clarifications, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
New Schedule A2 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Question proposed, That the schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.
Gavin Barwell
I will not detain the Committee on the schedule, which sets out in detail the process to be followed when proposing to modify a plan. In order to respond to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for City of Durham, I have described that process already, so I commend the schedule to the Committee.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I fully accept what the Minister says.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 1 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 4
Changes to neighbourhood areas etc
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 4, page 4, line 3, at end insert
“providing the subsequent area is not smaller than a parish or town council area or local authority ward.”
This amendment ensures that the size of a neighbourhood area is not smaller than a parish or town council area or local authority ward.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 8, in clause 4, page 4, line 11, at end insert—
“(6E) Modifications made to a neighbourhood area must be subject to consultation with local people.”
This amendment ensures that neighbourhood areas are only changed after the consultation with local community and that changes are driven by what the community wants.
Dr Blackman-Woods
This is a probing amendment, to test the Government’s thinking, if indeed there is any, on the appropriate size of a neighbourhood area—[Laughter.] Sorry, I did not quite mean that. The clause allows a change to be made to a neighbourhood area and outlines the process for doing that.
Some developers who are concerned about this clause have brought to our attention the question of whether there is a minimum size for a neighbourhood area. The concern raised is about a situation where three streets in a particular area have their own neighbourhood plan, while another three streets next to them have a different neighbourhood plan. Those two plans might not speak to each other or be travelling in the same direction with regard to some of the detail, yet they will both be given sufficient weight.
This is an attempt to tease out from the Minister whether he thinks there is any value in setting a limit, such as a given number of electors. The amendment says that a neighbourhood area should not be smaller than a parish or town council area or local authority ward. I am not particularly tied to the exact wording of the amendment, but we want to find out: if it is not a local authority ward or a parish area, what is it?
Gavin Barwell
I understand that this is a probing amendment, but are there any examples of existing neighbourhood plans that the Opposition feel cover too small an area?
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am not aware of any. We are trying to ensure that the provisions in this legislation will not lead to neighbourhood areas that are very, very small indeed. Of course the Minister will say, “Well, it’s up to the local authority to decide whether it is an appropriate area,” but the authority might come under particular pressure to agree a specific area or think it is in its interest to promote a very small area, because it will not have so many people to deal with in terms of neighbourhood planning.
We know that the whole of neighbourhood planning legislation leaves it very much up to the community to set the boundaries and to say what brings that neighbourhood together, why they think it is important that the boundaries are set where they are and what the spatial dimension is to the plan. Usually it is very obvious, because they are using village boundaries or some sort of settlement boundary, or there is something that binds that particular community together. They also have to talk, and are usually very good at looking at the community networks and informal networks that might underpin those. The physical characteristics of the neighbourhood will also come into play.
The community will decide whether it is a business area. They will talk about the natural features. There is a huge list of things that the community will look at when putting the initial application together, in terms of determining why the boundaries are really important and what binds the neighbourhood together. That is a very good thing, and I know it has led to some really interesting discussions in communities—I am sure the Minister has seen this—about what is important to them in their neighbourhood and what binds them together. That can facilitate the next stage of development: what they want their community to look like in 15 years and what they need to put into the neighbourhood plan to achieve that.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Mr McCabe, I trust it is in order to make comments appropriate to clause stand part, as well as to the amendment.
John Mann
Thank you, Mr McCabe. That is helpful, because the amendment probes the critical issue—this is not a criticism of the Government—of the real potential for inventiveness for neighbourhood planning in urban areas and occasionally in rural areas. I will give some illustrations. So far, the model has been community orientated and based on existing structures. In my area, we have 22 plans under way. Only two parishes do not have one and I am going to those parishes to encourage them to move down this path quickly.
Parish councils and villages have been beneficiaries from successive Governments. They get more lottery money for village halls and village sports facilities because they are defined areas and it is much easier to make an argument. There is a danger that neighbourhood planning and neighbourhood development plans will reinforce that further. One could argue that the inventive parish councils will, for example, build in areas for future recreational development that might not already exist. That would be a smart move. In other words, the parish council might say, “This piece of land will be for a future playground for children we don’t yet have.”
Without doubt, having got that through, bids for money would be more successful, as one would be part-way through the planning process, even for larger structures that might require detailed planning consent—of course, it could also apply to change of use of land—such as village halls and that kind of facility. We have precisely that situation in Ranskill, a parish in my area, where the community is expanding. It is quite a big village—I am meeting people from there in the next 48 hours—but it does not have a village hall. The people of Ranskill are more than happy to have more housing, if it is in the right place, and to use planning gain to fund what they have long wanted and not managed to achieve. They would see this as rather assisting them, if it goes the right way. Other issues, which we dealt with previously, are clouding that, with developers jumping the gun.
John Mann
I will, but it might be more helpful if I make a little progress first—the hon. Gentleman could make an even more succinct point later. I will come back to him, but I will first expand on what I am saying about opportunities with two examples.
I will start with a rural example—not an abstract example, but the example of a mountain: Blencathra in the lake district. Plenty of effort is being made to save Blencathra mountain for the nation. There are many byways, roads and properties around Blencathra. In my view, it would make perfect sense, should local people wish it, to designate the mountain and its surrounds as the neighbourhood.
Given the size and nature of mountains, that neighbourhood would probably cross constituency, council and parish boundaries—parishes do not go around mountains, but take segments of them. However, for housing, the amenity, facilities, walking routes and highways, the key determining factor is their relationship to the mountain. That would be the case for many other examples in the lake district. Neighbourhood planning on Blencathra would do something fairly revolutionary, because it would take the whole of the amenity under the democratic control of the people living there, because they are the ones defining things. That would be very powerful indeed.
Secondly, at the priory church in Worksop, working with the Prince’s Foundation for Building Community, I have proposed that the area defined historically by the priory church as its immediate parish—not the current parish boundaries, which are all over the place, because churches like to increase their congregations, but the original boundary—should be the boundary of the neighbourhood plan. That is how we are proceeding. Even better, part of that boundary has been created in more modern times—300 years ago—by the canal, so it is a natural boundary. We have a grand, huge church, once the largest in the world, which defined the buildings around the community, and we now have the ability to reset the church building for the community, the surrounding housing and future housing development. We are also taking the worst bit of the Chesterfield canal and reopening it.
What should be done is fairly obvious. The Prince’s Foundation has done the masterplan, which has been created, and the community is engaged—what the community is interested in are things such as antisocial behaviour, but from a planning point of view that means where pubs are, their opening hours, or where people walk, drive and park. They are very happy for housing to go on brownfield sites—blighted spaces—of which there are two. They would be very happy to have a car park on one of those, which is a former gasworks site, where housing probably could not go. These are all great opportunities.
There is no controversy about that with the population; they are after other things. That is a community of 200 or 300 houses. It is tiny, but its impact on the centre of Worksop and the amenity for tens of thousands of people is huge, because the other part of the community is bounded by what one would describe as the park, although that is not the term we use in Worksop. I would like to turn it into a park and give it more space; indeed, one of the conclusions of the neighbourhood planning might be that we define a proper park boundary.
This is hugely exciting stuff for the residents, who are both tenants and home occupiers. If they are occupiers, their property values will go up, so they will be quite happy. Antisocial behaviour undoubtedly will go down because their quality of life will go up. New housing will be at a premium, because it will be near a canal and a park in a beautiful, well-designed area. Everybody is a winner. It is a classic case of where neighbourhood planning would open up an area in which the local authority has never once proposed housing, because of land ownership and because there has been no minor master planning.
Oliver Colvile
I am a rather unique Conservative Member, in that I represent a totally inner-city seat outside London, as the hon. Gentleman may know. I only have the Ponderosa pony sanctuary—a rather muddy meadow—in my constituency. Does he not think there is an argument for urban conurbations such as mine to also have their own parish councils? It should not just be left to rural communities.
John Mann
There is such an argument, but in a small community with 200 or 300 houses, a parish council may be too grandiose. In that example, I would like to see the church managing and leading the development and consultation process, because that is the fixed community entity. I could give other examples in my area where the church building can be redefined as the church at the core of the community, precisely because the building was built as a community venue. Of the great cathedrals, Lincoln would be a great example, but the best of all is St Paul’s. If this was available 30 or 40 years ago, one could imagine that the buildings around the great St Paul’s cathedral would be more in tune with it, as opposed to what has been built haphazardly and chaotically around it. That is where smaller areas could be very empowered. I will give another example [Interruption.] The Whips are always keen to put Members on Committees and then try to restrict important debate.
This is fundamental to the Minister’s thinking and to his civil servants’ thinking. Planning is being seen in terms of housing and structures, with an additional side of highways, which have a major and fundamental role. The Prince’s Foundation work was done by Ben Bolgar, the top person there, and Fred Taggart, who are two brilliant planners—real planners, not just planners for real. They looked at where people historically moved and walked, which is what defines a community.
The walkways and jitties that are a problem could be closed off. That could be specified in a very localised plan: “We don’t want a walkway here. Close that off and get rid of it, because there’s antisocial behaviour. We want people to walk this way, drive that way and park here rather than there.” One gets into real localism, which never in a local plan would be possible. One could not in a local plan specify, “This little jitty will be closed down and we’ll create a walkway here. This bit should be grassed to allow more access to the canal.” That is far too much minutiae.
Gavin Barwell
Let me start by saying the hon. Gentleman knows how to push his agenda effectively with officials and with the Minister. I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham for tabling these probing amendments to clause 4. Before I address the amendments I will make some general remarks about clause 4, which aims to ensure that neighbourhood planning is suitably flexible to respond to changes in community aspirations.
Currently, there is complete agreement that it is not possible to modify a neighbourhood area if that would result in a neighbourhood plan or an order covering more than one neighbourhood area or more than one plan in one area. The practical effect of that is that, once a neighbourhood plan is in place, it may not be possible to make a new neighbourhood plan for an amended area without first entirely revoking the existing plan. That would leave that community without the plan it had worked so hard to produce until the new one came into force. Clause 4 amends sections 61F, 61G and 61J of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and sections 38A, 38B and 38C of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to change the procedure for modifying the boundary of a neighbourhood area.
Clause 4 will, for example, allow parish councils that had previously worked together to produce a multi-parish neighbourhood plan to apply for the neighbourhood area to be amended so that they can prepare a plan just for their individual parishes in the future. Equally, it would allow neighbouring forums that had previously prepared their own plans to apply for the area to be amended, so that they could come together to write a plan for both of those areas.
I reassure the hon. Member for City of Durham that I fully understand her concern in relation to both amendments. The Government have considered whether a designated neighbourhood area should follow ward boundaries. We sought views and consulted on that question as part of a technical consultation on our planning reforms in July 2014. The answer to that consultation was, almost unanimously, no, they should not. We, and nearly everybody who responded, believe that it is necessary, first that there is flexibility for communities to ensure that the area plan reflects the aspirations of that community, and secondly that the local planning authority has a positive and constructive dialogue, in order to arrive at a final decision for the area.
I represent a constituency within a London borough. Mr McCabe, you are probably the best example of this: you represent a constituency in the City of Birmingham. I think I am right in saying that your authority has the largest wards of any local authority in England, and some of those wards will cover more than one community. I can certainly think of examples from my own constituency. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw earlier mentioned the Shirley ward. Most of that ward includes an area in which most people would think of themselves as living in Spring Park, but there is also a separate development that used to be a large children’s home run by Lambeth Council—where, sadly, some shocking abuse took place—called Shirley Oaks. That is a separate and distinct community. If the people of Shirley Oaks wanted to produce a neighbourhood plan for their area, we should not be legislating to say that they cannot do that.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw made his case powerfully from his own experience. So far in this Committee, I find myself agreeing with him on a number of points. If his objective was to stop being appointed to future Bill Committees, he is probably doing very well, but we can tell from the passion with which he speaks that he really believes in what he says. It is great to hear about the number of neighbourhood plans in his area. He has put it on the record that he is on his way to the two remaining parishes that do not have one, and nothing could do more to drive progress than the prospect of his imminent arrival to push the case. He raises a powerful point.
Gavin Barwell
I was gently teasing the hon. Gentleman. I wish more Members of this House had done what he has. He has clearly put in a huge amount of work in his constituency to encourage people to take up the reform from the Localism Act 2011. It is fantastic that he has done so and it is great to have him on the Committee as such a powerful champion of the process.
There is a really gritty issue here, which is that when asked, “Where do you live? What community are you part of?” people do not necessarily say what the local council might expect them to. In some cases—for example, if people are part of a village with a distinct identity—the village will be the right unit of identity. However, in urban areas—the hon. Member for Bassetlaw has given some interesting examples of rural areas—there may be other creative ways of thinking and bringing people together.
I very much share the hon. Gentleman’s view, which is that we should not prescribe in legislation the maximum or minimum size of the unit. We should let a thousand flowers bloom and see what people think of the appropriate units. Earlier, I asked the hon. Member for City of Durham for examples of neighbourhood areas that cover too small an area, and I do not think there is any evidence that things are happening at such a micro level as to cause a problem. She is quite rightly probing and asking the questions, but it is clear that the view of the Committee is that we should allow for the current flexibility.
On amendment 8, which is on the consultation arrangements required when a neighbourhood area is changed, I am sure we can all agree that consultation with the wider community is crucial. I assure hon. Members that there is already provision for that to happen where a designated neighbourhood area is amended and a neighbourhood plan is already in force. It is currently the case that where all or part of a neighbourhood area has already been designated, the local planning authority must publish and consult on any modifications to that area for at least six weeks. If the hon. Member for City of Durham would like to add to her reading list, that is in regulation 6(c) of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012. That should keep her busy this evening. Exactly the same regulations will apply to the new provisions.
The clause will ensure that, as neighbourhood planning continues to mature, the system is suitably flexible to respond to changes in people’s aspirations when it comes to the nature of the geographic area covered by the plan. It will also ensure—the hon. Member for City of Durham was quite right to raise the point—that any proposed changes are properly consulted on, and that the public have the chance to feed into the process. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment, and I hope that clause 4 stands part of the Bill.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have listened carefully to the Minister, and he has given us the reassurances we sought. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Assistance in connection with neighbourhood planning
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 5, page 4, line 40, leave out “as follows” and insert
“in accordance with subsections (2) to (4)”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 9, in clause 5, page 5, line 9, at end insert—
“(c) reasonable payments made by local authorities for the purpose set out in paragraph (a) and (b) shall be recovered from the Secretary of State’s department.”
This amendment allows for the full recovery of costs of assisting with the development of a neighbourhood plan to be recovered to the local authority.
Amendment 2, in clause 5, page 5, line 19, after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) Section 120 of the Localism Act 2011 (Financial assistance in relation to neighbourhood planning) is amended as follows—
(a) at the end of subsection (2)(a) leave out ‘, and’ and insert ‘subject to the condition that such assistance is prioritised for bodies or persons in deprived communities, and’,
(b) after subsection (3)(b), insert—
‘(ba) a deprived community is defined as being any area which is among the 20 per cent most deprived Lower Layer Super Output Areas according to the most recently published English Indices of Deprivation,
(bb) prioritised financial assistance is defined to mean that no less than 50 per cent of the total value of the financial assistance provided under this section is provided to deprived communities.’”
Amendment 10, in clause 5, page 5, line 19, at the end insert—
“(4) To support Neighbourhood Plans, all councils should have a Local Development Plan in place by December 2017.”
This amendment ensures that Local Plans are in place so Neighbourhood Plans can be made in line with the strategic aims of Local Plans.
New clause 2—Incentives to create neighbourhood development plans—
(1) Areas with an adopted neighbourhood development plan in place should benefit from a locally agreed share in the New Homes Bonus.
(2) Areas with an adopted neighbourhood development plan should have access to enhanced Community Infrastructure Levy payments, and all councils shall have a Community Infrastructure Levy scheme in place by 2017.
This new clause would create incentives to encourage communities to produce neighbourhood development plans.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I want to speak to amendments 1 and 2 and the other amendments in the group. I will start with amendment 9, which seeks to ensure that there is full recovery of costs for assisting with the development of the neighbourhood plan, with the costs recovered by the local authority. One thing came through clearly from the evidence the Committee received on Tuesday: many voices were all saying—indeed the Minister acknowledged this—that planning departments are massively under-resourced.
I was keen to table the amendment because we are anxious that neighbourhood planning is properly resourced. That is really important. However, we are mindful of the huge demands placed on our local authorities at the moment, especially at a time of cuts. I hope the Minister feels able to adopt the amendment, or at least that he will make it clear to the Committee how the additional cost of supporting neighbourhood planning forums and parish councils in drawing up their neighbourhood plans will be met.
The Minister will have heard the Royal Town Planning Institute, Local Government Association, Town and Country Planning Association and British Property Federation all point to the fact that, because of the success of neighbourhood plans, there are now greater expectations in our local communities that they will not only be able to draw up neighbourhood plans but have the resources to do so in a meaningful way that allows them to include much of the community and produce a quality document that really reflects what the community wants to achieve. They therefore want it to reflect the high aspirations of the community.
We do not want to see any area being held back because it does not get the resources it needs. The local authority is only able to give a small amount of money to support the exercise, so we want to hear from the Minister a reiteration of what he said in Committee on Tuesday—recognition that resourcing of planning departments is an issue. What can he do to assist local authorities in meeting their obligations under the clause to support neighbourhood plans?
The Minister will know that the situation for planning departments has got so much worse since 2010. More than half think that under-resourcing will present a significant challenge to their ability to undertake their functions in the next year. On Tuesday, Richard Blyth from RTPI told the Committee:
“We have completed a survey of local planning authorities in north-west England that shows that between 2010 and 2015 there was a fall of 37% in planning policy staff. These are the staff who tend to get asked not only to provide the support for neighbourhood plans, but are under a deadline of completing a local plan by the end of March 2017.”
He went on to say:
“I am a bit concerned that legislation is being used in a way that may not be possible to support in terms of the resources available to local planning authorities.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 66, Q118.]
We know the reason for that: it is because many of our councils are facing huge cuts. We heard from Locality, again on Tuesday, that,
“local planning authorities have been stripped of funding and they have reduced huge amounts”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 51, Q92.]
of their very highly skilled staff—often losing them to the private sector, which is able to provide them with not only higher salaries but, in the current environment, more secure jobs.
John Mann
It is not just middle-class areas that have created such plans. The biggest one in my area is for Harworth, which until fairly recently was one of the last working collieries in the country. It has a huge working-class community. Its neighbourhood plan has been adopted by referendum and agreed by the district council, and it involves 1,500 new allocated housing spaces and vast amounts of new land allocated for employment. The community, knowing and demanding what it wants, has got on with it. So it is feasible to do that, and to do it quickly and in all communities.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, the reason why Harworth has been able to create a plan is that it has a part-time town clerk, so it had a bureaucratic system in place. In other areas in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies, lots of places do not need to be creating bureaucratic structures. The last thing that most of my communities want is more paid public servants who do not live in the area , but would be going in and telling them what to do. All they want is power, so how will we stop bureaucracies building up on the back of neighbourhood planning?
Secondly, and complementary to the first question, instead of simply doling out money, which would suggest employment and other contracts, requiring institutions to deal with that, what are the prospects for the secondment of expertise? I have suggested that the Canal and River Trust could second a planner to assist the process in my area. The ability to second people in with the technical expertise to assist communities, with no pretence that those people are living or staying in the community, would empower neighbourhoods and have a dramatic positive impact, allowing other former mining communities in my area to repeat what Harworth has done.
Oliver Colvile
May I make one small point to the hon. Gentleman? I have a university in my constituency that has a planning school. Perhaps something to encourage is co-opting some of those students to help people seeking to develop neighbourhood plans.
John Mann
We would be more than happy to have students and professors from Plymouth, although I suspect Sheffield might be a more realistic scenario, but on exactly the same logic—the hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
I put it to the Minister that secondment rather than cash could rapidly lead to positive results. Those communities are far more likely to say, “We want employment land. We want more housing. We want the petrol stations and supermarkets we do not have.” In my experience, working-class communities are far less nimby than middle-class communities. They want what middle-class communities have taken for granted—albeit they prefer to drive a little distance to get to them—and they will demand them on their doorstep. This is great untapped potential for the country and empowerment is the issue. Does the Minister agree, and how will he help?
Gavin Barwell
I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendments, which provide an opportunity to discuss the important matters of the advice, assistance and resources available to communities and local planning authorities in supporting their take-up of neighbourhood planning. Before I respond to individual amendments and if you agree, Mr McCabe, I will say a few words about why we are introducing the measures in clause 5.
We believe that the clause will ensure that when communities consider whether to prepare a neighbourhood plan or order, they can make the decision with a full range of advice and assistance available to them. We believe that will assist in building the positive and constructive relationship between a local planning authority and the relevant local authority that is necessary to make neighbourhood planning work.
Amendment 1 simply facilitates amendment 2, which I will consider shortly. I will start with amendment 9, as the hon. Member for City of Durham did. I appreciate the desire to ensure that adequate resources are available to the relevant local council. We believe the amendment is unnecessary because local planning authorities can already claim funding for their duties in relation to neighbourhood planning. We will obviously continue to review the costs incurred by councils in delivering neighbourhood plans and these will change as the take-up of neighbourhood planning increases and local authorities, local communities and others become more familiar with the process.
It is probably worth putting on the record what the current arrangements are. Local authorities receive £5,000 for each of the first five neighbourhood areas they designate and £5,000 for each of the first five neighbourhood forums they designate. They then receive £20,000 for every single neighbourhood plan when a referendum date has been set. The idea is that there is some initial pump-priming for the first five to 10 times they deal with the process, but also a set amount of money because of the costs involved in examination and then in holding a referendum.
The hon. Lady made a wider point about resourcing planning departments and was keen that I reiterate what I said in the evidence session. I am happy to do that. I recognise absolutely that there is an issue. Reflecting back on the evidence that was given to us, I respectfully suggest to her that I did not hear a lot of evidence that the Government were not properly funding the specific burden of organising neighbourhood planning. I heard a lot of evidence that in more general terms planning departments are underfunded and the Government need to look at the level of planning fees being charged.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The Minister is absolutely right, but people made the point about resourcing because of the specific obligation in the Bill for local authorities to support neighbourhood plans.
Gavin Barwell
I respectfully argue that the sums of money that local councils are having to spend on neighbourhood planning constitute a very small share of their overall planning departments. The fundamental issue, which I absolutely take on board, is the level of fees that planning departments are able to charge to cover their costs. I said during the evidence session—I am happy to repeat it now—that it has struck me during the three months I have been doing this job that whereas on many issues conflicting opinions are expressed to me by different people in the housing and planning world, on this issue there is unanimity. Developers and council planning departments alike say that there is an issue.
John Mann
There is not unanimity everywhere because land prices and build prices are dramatically different in different parts of the country. We see that even more starkly with prefabricated housing. The proportionate cost for someone who sells a house for £600,000 in London, which would be a tiny one, or £600,000 in an area like mine, which would be rather a large house, is very different. There is a danger that if the planning fees for cheap, affordable housing are too high, that will discourage self-build and small developers.
Gavin Barwell
We can always rely on the hon. Gentleman to shatter unanimity when it is in danger of breaking out. He makes a fair point. The cost of building, say, five new homes in his constituency will be lower than the cost of building five new homes in the City of Westminster. He is quite right to sound the alarm that we should not allow fees to go too high, but I suspect that if I spoke even to developers and the planning department in his own patch, they would say there is still an issue in terms of financing.
The hon. Gentleman did not say this, but the point is relevant. We tend to hear from developers, and we have to bear in mind that these fees are also paid by householders when they make applications to extend their properties or something like that. The voices we tend to hear are those of the large developers, but these fees are paid by others. None the less, the hon. Lady asked me to reiterate that I accept there is a problem, and I absolutely do. The Government have consulted on this issue, and the White Paper will contain our response. I think I have given a pretty good steer as to where I want to go.
I want to make a slightly partisan but important point. While I entirely accept the pressures that planning departments and, indeed, councils in general are under, it is important to note that despite the difficult period they have been through, they have had huge successes in driving up performance. I will give the Committee some figures. When the coalition Government came to power, 17% of councils had a local plan. As of this September, the figure was 72%. In the second quarter of this year, in the most recent figures available, 83% of major planning applications were decided within the time limit, which is the highest ever performance on record. In the year up to 30 June, our planning system gave planning permission for 277,000 homes. That is the highest ever figure on record.
I pay tribute to local authority planning departments. Despite the financial restrictions they have been under, they have raised their game significantly. I gently tease the Labour leader of my local council about this, because he flip-flops between press releases saying that the Government have financially crippled him and ones that boast about how well the council is performing. While I do not in any way underestimate the difficulties local councils have had, when this period is looked back on, it will be seen as one where public services have raised their game, despite the restrictions on resources.
Gavin Barwell
I have goaded the hon. Gentleman, so I have to allow him to intervene.
John Mann
The Minister cannot get away with that, because we all know that technology and the Planning Portal have totally transformed the speed of planning, very effectively. It is technology and the portal that have done this, not the Government. We do not care, but they should not take credit for things that they have not done.
Gavin Barwell
It is a range of things. Technology certainly plays a part. I also observe that the designation regime introduced by the coalition Government has played a part. I do not want to go on too long, because this is not directly relevant to the point we are considering. However, I genuinely believe that when we look back on this period—this is not all down to the Government, if that makes it easier for the hon. Gentleman to accept—we will say that despite the financial restrictions public services were under, public servants have done an amazing job of improving the services they provide. That is the point I wanted to make.
I welcome the intent of amendment 2, but I cannot agree that it is necessary. I hope I can reassure Committee members that even in these times of tight public finances, we are supporting neighbourhood planning groups. We have made £22.5 million available to do that. More than 1,500 payments have been made to date. Since 1 April this year, all groups can apply for a grant of up to £9,000. We are providing additional support to priority areas, which include more deprived areas and those with the highest housing growth. Communities that fall within those priority groups can apply for up to £15,000 and can also access technical planning support.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw—this is becoming a worrying trend for both of us—that this is not just about money. It is also about having good advice and assistance. We have a national network at the moment of 132 neighbourhood planning champions, who are there to provide exactly that kind of advice and assistance. While I understand what the amendment is trying to do, which is quite rightly to say that thus far neighbourhood planning has been adopted mainly in more rural parts of the country and that we need to ensure that it is also well used in urban and more deprived and more transient communities—there is no argument there—I am not sure whether saying 50% of the money has to go to such areas is right, because by definition it is a demand-led budget.
I want to encourage people from all around the country to set up groups and ensure that funding is there to support them. If it helps the hon. Member for City of Durham, I assure her that if we ever get to a point where the budget is running out because there are so many applications, I will be the first person knocking on the Treasury’s door to ensure that there is extra support. However, I think if we passed a law to say that 50% must go to these places and 50% to those, we could run the risk that some people would run out of money when the other pot had not been used. That does not seem to be a logical way to deal with the issue.
I completely understand the aspiration behind amendment 10. We agree that in order to provide clarity to neighbourhood planning groups about the context within which they prepare their plans all areas should have a local plan. In the evidence session and on numerous other occasions I have spoken strongly about the importance I attach to having local plans in place. If the Committee will permit me for a minute, let me reiterate the main point. The planning applications that tend to come across my desk are nearly all speculative applications where essentially the local planning authority has not had a local plan in place with a five-year land supply. Developers have then come in and picked the sites that they want to build on—those are not the aspirations of the local community but where the developers want to see development go—and things escalate and end up on my desk. I want to remove all that unnecessary conflict from our planning system and the way to do that is to ensure that we have complete coverage in place.
I appreciate that again this is a probing amendment so I will not be too critical, but, rather than accepting an amendment that asserts that something should happen by this timescale, we have tabled a series of amendments that seek to advance that agenda. I also want to make plan making much quicker and make it much easier for planning authorities to update their plans.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw has previously spoken about—he mentioned it today—his frustration at the delay when the coalition Government changed the national planning framework. Actually, I think we were quite right to do that because we needed to ensure that when one council does not meet its housing need, those houses do not disappear from the system but are spread out in surrounding authorities. He is, however, quite right to say that because the process is so slow at the moment, that imposes a big delay when that happens. Therefore it is important both to make sure that we have plans in place and try to make the process quicker so that when they need updating—because either Government policy changes or the facts on the ground change—that can be done much more quickly.
I do not want to labour the point, because I know the amendment is a probing one, but its wording mentions just having a plan in place. We would all probably agree that we actually need an up-to-date plan that takes account of the latest household projections and an accurate assessment of housing needs. A lot of authorities currently have a plan, but not a plan that is based in any way on the latest information about what the area requires. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for City of Durham on the underlying issue, even if we disagree on the amendment.
Finally, I turn to the interesting issue in new clause 2, which I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising. We are looking at the matter in general terms at the moment. We have always been clear that we would like to see the new homes bonus benefiting communities that support development, such as those that produce neighbourhood plans, and we strongly encourage local authorities to allocate funding from the new homes bonus in that way. Indeed, it is already possible for councils and areas where a neighbourhood plan is in place to reach agreement in exactly the way she suggests in her new clause.
With regard to the second part of the new clause and the community infrastructure levy, communities where a neighbourhood plan or order is in force receive 25% of the CIL arising from development in their area, whereas the figure for communities without a neighbourhood plan is only 15%, so there is already a key incentive. Three questions are posed by the new clause. First, should we actually legislate to require something similar in relation to the new homes bonus? Secondly, should we raise those percentages in relation to CIL? Thirdly, should we force everybody to have a CIL? I will take those in turn.
On the first question, that is an interesting idea. I hope that the hon. Lady will allow me to reflect on that some more in the White Paper. The Prime Minister is very interested in ensuring that communities that go for growth are properly rewarded, so that people feel that if their community accepts more housing, their quality of life improves, rather than them finding it harder to get a GP appointment or to get a child into the local school, or finding their train more overcrowded. I am not sure that we should legislate in the way she suggests, but I am very interested in the underlying grain of the idea.
On CIL percentages, there is a balance that we need to be wary of. We can take Bassetlaw as an example of a particular area with a local plan and think about what we want to do with the money that the state captures out of land uplift. We certainly want to do things in that local community, but we might also need to make sure that major bits of infrastructure across the district happen. If we put too much into one local area, we will lose the money that might pay for the new junction on the dual carriageway, or a spur off the main roundabout, or whatever the right project is. There is a tension that we need to recognise.
We probably also need to recognise that it is not necessarily in the interests of every single local authority to have a community infrastructure levy. One could at least think of circumstances in which land values were sufficiently low and development therefore marginal in terms of viability. Introducing a CIL might then push crucial regeneration projects, which would otherwise have been viable, and make them non-viable. I am not sure that forcing every local council to introduce a CIL, if they judge that to do so would not be in the best interests of their area, is the right thing to do.
In summary, the hon. Lady is quite right to raise all those questions. They are at the heart of the debate about what we need to do to ensure that communities are incentivised to go for growth, but I hope that I have pointed out some of the points of detail as to why we do not want to accept the amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have heard what the Minister has said, and we obviously look forward to seeing what he has to say in the White Paper about resourcing planning departments. We will closely monitor the budget for neighbourhood planning to ensure that it goes to all areas that need it. I look forward to seeing what he comes back with regarding the new homes bonus and CIL. It is important that he keeps what is happening with deprived areas on his agenda, so that everything is done to support their bringing forward a neighbourhood plan. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 5, page 5, line 6, at end insert—
“(2BA) Such statements of community involvement must include a right for members of the community to be heard.”
This amendment would give local people and communities a statutory right to be heard.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 14, in clause 5, page 5, line 6, at end insert—
“(2BA) Such statements of community involvement shall include measures to enable local parish councils to be set up in a streamlined and speedy manner.”
This amendment would make it easier for new parish and town councils to be formed.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The amendment is straightforward. We all know that the National Association of Local Councils has been calling for this for some time. It said in evidence:
“We are calling for a right to be heard, or a right of appeal, so that where decisions are taken contrary to a neighbourhood plan and a local plan, people may have some reference to the Secretary of State or Minister to take a final view”.––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 44, Q73.]
That, in essence, is what the amendment asks for. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Amendment 14 seeks to make it easier for a community to set up a local parish council. We know that areas that have a parish council are much more likely to bring forward a neighbourhood plan. One way of facilitating neighbourhood plans is to ensure that it is easier to bring forward parish councils. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Gavin Barwell
Amendment 13 raises some interesting questions. Communities already have a right to be heard in the planning system in lots of ways. I can run through some of them. Local people have the chance to have their say as local plans and neighbourhood plans are developed, when individual planning applications come forward and if a planning application is turned down and there is an appeal, and they can call for applications to be called in by Ministers. I think that the amendment is probing, because its wording is generic and does not define what the right to be heard is, although I guess that is essentially what the hon. Lady was referring to.
The Government’s view is that there is no need to change the law in this regard. Most of the concerns of the NALC and others—the hon. Member for Bassetlaw has expressed them powerfully—are partially addressed by clause 1, and the policy changes in the White Paper that we want to make will also help significantly in that regard. The other powers talked about here—for example, the power to ask me to call applications in—already exist. I am reluctant to use those powers too frequently, because my starting point is that the planning system should be locally driven. However, if there are planning applications that I think raise issues of national importance about the way national policy is playing out on the ground, I am happy to call them in. In the three months that I have been doing this job, I have called in a couple of applications where I felt a decision had been taken that was contrary to a neighbourhood plan and I wanted to look at the issues myself. I think that the fundamental issues that the amendment probes are already in the system or will be addressed by the policy changes in the White Paper.
Amendment 14 was the amendment that most interested me. I do not agree with putting it into law, but I agree with the fundamental idea behind it. I think that the hon. Member for City of Durham is saying that we may want to tell people in a statement of community involvement how to go about setting up a parish council, because that is clearly one of the ways in which they could drive a neighbourhood plan. If I was writing a statement of community involvement, I would absolutely think it appropriate to put that in it, but I am not sure that we want to get into the business of writing into statute what the content of statements of community involvement should be. Indeed, when we come to clause 6, I will address why the Government do not want to get into the business of saying what is a good or bad statement of community involvement. We have to trust local councils to set that information out. If the hon. Lady is reassured by me saying that that is the kind of information that I would expect to see in such statements, I am happy to put that on the record.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Yes, I did find that reassuring. With amendment 14, we were seeking to ensure that communities knew how to set up a parish council and that that process was made as easy as possible. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jackie Doyle-Price.)