Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

209: Clause 113, page 139, line 37, leave out “, political or other” and insert “or”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the introduction of soft opt-in for political parties and campaigners, whose activity is governed by other regulation.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 209, I will also speak to Amendment 210, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for adding his support.

These amendments return to the major debate that we had on day 2 in Committee regarding direct marketing for the use of democratic engagement. It is fair to say that no-one was convinced by the Minister’s arguments about why that relaxation of the rules for political parties was necessary. We will no doubt return to that issue on Report, so I shall not repeat the arguments here. Meanwhile, Clause 113 leads into the democratic engagement provisions in the Bill and provides a soft opt-in for the use of electronic mail for direct marketing for charitable, political or other non-commercial activities when the data has been collected for other purposes.

As we made clear in the previous debate, we have not asked for these more relaxed rules about political electronic marketing. We believe that these provisions take us fundamentally in the wrong direction, acting against the interests of the electorate and risking damaging the already fragile level of trust between politicians and voters. However, we support extending the soft opt-in for charities and other non-commercial organisations. This is a measure that many charities have supported.

Of course, we want to encourage campaigning by charitable organisations to raise awareness of the critical issues of the day and encourage healthy debate, so extending their opportunities to use electronic marketing for this purpose could produce a healthy boost for civic engagement. This is what our amendments are hoping to achieve.

Therefore, our Amendments 209 and 210 would amend the wording of Clause 113 to remove the relaxation of the rules specifically for political parties and close the loophole by which some political parties may try to negate the provisions by describing themselves as non-commercial entities. We believe that this is the right way forward. Ideally, these amendments would be combined with the removal of the democratic engagement provisions in Clause 114 that we have already debated.

I hope noble Lords will see the sense of these proposals and that the Minister will agree to take these amendments away and rethink the whole proposition of Clauses 113 and 114. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, tracking the provenance of Clause 113 has been a very interesting exercise. If we think that Clause 114 is pretty politically motivated, Clause 113 is likewise. These rules relating to the fact that political parties cannot avail themselves of the soft opt-in provision have been there since 2005. The Information Commissioner issued guidance on political campaigning, and it was brought within the rules. Subsequently, there has been a ruling in a tribunal case which confirmed that: the SNP was issued with an enforcement notice and the information tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The Conservative Party was fined in 2021 for sending emails to people who did not ask for them. Then, lo and behold, there was a Conservative Party submission to the House of Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee in 2020, and that submission has been repeated on a number of occasions. I have been trying to track how many times the submission has been made by the Conservative Party. The submission makes it quite clear that there is frustration in the Conservative Party. I have the written evidence here. It says:

“We have a number of concerns about the Information Commissioner’s draft code”—


as it then was: it is now a full code—

“on the use of data for political campaigning. In the interests of transparency, I enclose a copy of the response that the Conservative Party sent to the consultation. I … particularly flag the potential chilling effect on long-standing practices of MPs and councillors from engaging with their local constituents”.

Now, exactly as the noble Baroness has said, I do not think there is any call from other political parties to change the rules. I have not seen any submissions from any other political party, so I would very much like to know why the Government have decided to favour the Conservative Party in these circumstances by changing the rules. It seems rather peculiar.

The guidance for personal data in political campaigning, which I read while preparing for this debate, seems to be admirably clear. It is quite long, but it is admirably clear, and I congratulate the ICO on tiptoeing through the tulips rather successfully. However, the fact is that we have very clear guidance and a very clear situation, and I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that we are wholly in favour of charities being able to avail themselves of the new provisions, but allowing political parties to do so is a bridge too far and, on that basis, I very much support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

Indeed. Many such petitions are of course initiated by charitable organisations or other not-for-profits and they would equally benefit from the soft opt-in rule, but anyone under any of those circumstances who wished not to receive those communications could opt out either at the time or on receipt of the first communication on becoming aware that they were due to receive these. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments in relation to these provisions.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for digging and delving into the background of all this. That is helpful because, all the way through our previous debate, we kept saying, “We don’t understand why these provisions are here”. When the Minister in the Commons was challenged, he said, “We have no intention of using this; it’s just a general power that might be there for anyone to use”, but the noble Lord has put the lie to all that. It is clear that only one party wants to pursue this issue: the Conservative Party.

The Minister said that there is no partisan objective or reason for this but, to be honest, I do not know how he can say that. If only one party wants it and no one else does, then only one party is going to implement it. Without going over the whole of the previous debate, I think a lot of people felt that we as political parties have a lot to do to improve our relationships with the electorate and be seen to represent them on an honest and authentic basis.

This goes in the opposite direction. It is almost collecting data for one purpose and using it for a different one. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the Minister discussed the example of collecting information on a street stall; we have all done that a bit, in that you can put very generalised questions on a questionnaire which could then be used for all sorts of purposes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. I may be able to give her further reassurances in a letter because, on the one hand, we do want the power to be able to cover the ground. On the other hand, there are necessary protections that we must put in place. So further reassurances probably need to be given. There is that balance to be struck, but I hope I can continue to do that.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

If I may pursue this, I am not sure I heard the Minister’s answer to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron—or maybe I did. If it was a charitable bank account, a business account or anything else, I think the Minister said that it would be subject to that scrutiny as well. Once someone acts for a carer, all of their bank accounts could be scrutinised—surely that is ridiculously unfair.

Department for Work and Pensions: AI

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

There are couple of questions there. We continue to explore the potential of AI in combating fraud. This includes the integrated risk and intelligence service, using AI to assist in identifying possible fraud in processing universal credit advances. To answer my noble friend’s question, importantly, DWP does not use AI to replace human judgment when considering the potential for incorrectness to either determine or deny payment to a claimant. The NAO and the ICO looked at this issue recently and found no areas of immediate concern.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the issue that my noble friend raised about access to millions of people’s bank accounts came up at a very late stage—Report—of Commons dealings with the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. Can the Minister outline why such contentious measures were introduced only after the line-by-line consideration of the Bill in the elected House? Why did the Government refuse the Opposition’s request that the legislation go back to Committee, as did the Online Safety Bill in the last Session? Can the Minister justify why this very contentious piece of legislation is being rushed through?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I will not be drawn into answering questions on that, but I can say that it is important that the scrutiny of the Bill is done in an effective way and, of course, this House is very good at doing that. As I have mentioned before, it is very important that there is trust in AI solutions; this must be a prevalent issue among all users of AI.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Lords Chamber

I end by once again thanking the Minister and her officials for all they have done to improve the Bill substantially. I look forward to hearing her response on the issues I have raised.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am speaking to Amendments 73 and 79, to which I have added my name. I will also speak to the government amendments in this group.

We have come a long way since we first raised at Second Reading the issue of pension scheme obligations to address the risks associated with climate change. I say at the outset that, along with other noble Lords, we have been heartened by the response of the Minister, who, from the very start, has taken our concerns seriously and sought to address them.

Our aim all along has been to protect savers from the risks associated with climate change by requiring UK pension schemes to align their investment activities with the objectives of the Paris agreement, to which the UK Government are a signatory. This requires the Government to hold the rise in temperature to well below 2 degrees centigrade. Our amendments would require regulations to ensure that trustees take account of our international treaty obligations on climate change and publish information about how this is to be achieved.

There is an increasing realisation among financial regulation that such action is necessary, and a number of leading pension schemes are already taking action on this issue. They have already begun to follow the advice of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. This Bill enables us to raise the bar, so that the best practice becomes the standard practice and all funds play their part equally in delivering on their obligations.

Since we started the dialogue with the Minister and her advisers, we have made considerable progress. We very much welcome the government amendments that have now been tabled. They spell out in more detail how the funds should address their exposure to the risk of climate change and assess the impact of their assets on climate change. The most obvious example of this is investment in fossil fuels, but this would require a more comprehensive appraisal of which assets were adding to the problem of global warming and which were contributing to a low-carbon economy.

The government amendments also require schemes to undertake scenario planning on the impacts and risks of different outcomes as we move towards the Paris deadline. We see this as sending a clear signal to the regulators and the pension funds that the Government are not only paying lip service to this issue, but expecting clear change in governance and in investment strategies. Finally, on a similar theme to our amendment, the Government require clear transparency and accountability through reporting to scheme members and the public the actions taken. Again, we welcome this amendment.

Of course, all these requirements will need robust enforcement to ensure effective implementation. I hope that the Minister can clarify the plans of the Pensions Regulator to undertake these functions and can update the House on the progress made across the different types of pension schemes to create a level playing field in their obligations under these provisions.

These are the first steps in driving a UK investment strategy towards delivering on the Paris promise, but this is an important group of investors. I hope that this will send a wider signal throughout the financial markets that business as usual is not an option. There are huge calls for a green economic recovery plan as we grapple with the legacy of coronavirus. Let us hope that all these policies can come together to help deliver that green recovery. In the meantime, I am pleased to support our amendments and the government amendments to this clause.

[Lord Balfe]

In my last speech I omitted to declare my interests, not only those recorded in the register, but also as chair of the European Parliament’s Members’ pension fund—which has a number of beneficiaries in this House—and as manager of the House of Commons fund for former Members of the European Parliament. That is certainly not as big a fund as that of my noble friend Lord Naseby, but none the less is part of the pensions scenario in Westminster. I also advise a number of pension schemes, all fairly small. My amendment, Amendment 80, concerns how small schemes will deal with the duties that will be laid on them by this legislation, and asks the Minister to have their situation firmly in mind when making the regulations.

We often think of pension schemes as huge things, like the British Airways or Lloyds Bank schemes, but the great majority of schemes in this country are quite small. My amendment sets the quite arbitrary figure of £500 million in assets under management, a figure below which the onerous requirements of the amendments put forward in the Bill would not apply. That does not mean that I think small schemes should be exempted from any social concerns. Most of my advice is based on advising small schemes to go into asset tracking, because the evidence, of which there is now a lot, is that active management costs a lot and does not work. The sensible thing, particularly for a small scheme, is therefore to invest in index trackers.

However, being an index tracker does not mean that you cannot have social responsibility. There are index trackers that follow the UN principles of responsible investment, and there are others. We are concerned in this Bill particularly with the environment; I personally am concerned with schemes that follow the principles of the ILO. It is fine to have a scheme which invests in a company that has many trees in its garden that workers paid low wages for long hours can shelter under, but there are many things in this world to concentrate on other than just the environment—I do not want to detract from that, but we need a broader set of principles.

Norway, which has the biggest public scheme in the world, has an ethics committee that looks right across the investment market and advises the Norwegian Government and the scheme on what sort of investment should be avoided. Within the past few days, it has identified as not fit for investment companies that make what are called “autonomous weapons”—in other words, killer robots. So, there are many areas where we need to look carefully at what sort of investments we make.

In the case of small schemes, this is difficult. I advised one such scheme recently. I went to see them and asked, “How many pensioners have you got?” They said, “Oh, 22.” I said, “How do you look after them?” They said, “Oh, X”—naming the person—“in the wages section pays their pension each month when she does the monthly salary run.” I said, “What about the rest?” They said, “Oh, well, the general secretary looks after that. We have a man who comes in twice a year and we pay him, and he keeps us on the right side of the regulator.” This was a scheme with barely three figures’ worth of members in it, and many schemes are like it. We need to look for a way in which such small schemes can transfer their assets without there being any residual liabilities.

One problem is that you can get someone to run your scheme, but if the overall master trust gets into trouble, it can come back to those who have put their schemes in it and make quite unreasonable demands of them. If the number of small schemes is to be slimmed down, there has to be a way of transferring them so that the benefits are guaranteed but there is no comeback for more money. The amount of money required would be actuarily calculated, but it should not be possible to say, “Oh, well, the whole scheme has run into trouble. We know you transferred X years ago, but we now need more money from you”, because it is a direct disincentive.

I shall give another example, of a quite rich London club which, again, has a small scheme. It could quite easily transfer it in—it has huge assets: it could sell one or two of its pictures and cover its pension fund deficit—but it is reluctant to do so in case it received subsequent bills which detracted from the members’ assets. Again, this is something that the Minister and the department could look at in the future. It is outwith this Bill, but it is part of how we need to sort out the pensions legislation and administration for small funds.

My plea to the Government is that when they make the regulations, they remember the small schemes, which probably will not be able to afford the type of administration and advice that big schemes can. They should be encouraged into index trackers, because they are cheap and easy to run and, frankly, return the market, whereas active management charges a lot and does no better. I ask the Minister to look kindly on this amendment. I have never thought of pushing it to a vote; I tabled it to make these points, because I know that she is a sympathetic Minister who would be happy to ask her department in due course to look at the points raised.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 89 relates to the occupational pension schemes regulations in the statement of investment principles. Again, it is about compliance with the Paris Agreement, particularly to hold the global average temperature increase to well below 2 degrees centigrade. Other amendments in the group seek compliance in this area.

It is clearly very important to protect the interests of savers and the economy. I am grateful to the Minister for her amendments on climate change risk, her speedy response and her awareness of issues arising in this area. I have also supported Amendments 75 and 92. I certainly support Amendment 28 from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on the register and publication of the SIPPs from all pension schemes, and understand the administrative problems of smaller ones.

As we have heard from others, the size of the pension fund is hugely influential, particularly in transforming the economy into a green economy. I believe that pension schemes have had enormous effects in other areas. My own recollection is of South Africa, where schemes exerted very strong influence. In my city of Bristol, when creating a smoke-free city, we sought to get the pension schemes and their investors to support it. This can be a very powerful instrument in changing behaviour and thinking; I hope that it will be.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, mentioned that her amendments extend to all pension schemes. Again, I am not clear what the differences are. I note that the briefing from the ABI suggests that the PRA and the FCA are better placed to deal with the smaller pension schemes, but I would like to hear the views of the Minister on this. I very much support the spirit and content of most of the amendments in this group.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 52, 74, 75, 76 and 92 to which I have added my name. As the noble Baronesses have said, these amendments refer to the need to strengthen the obligations on pension funds to play their part in meeting the challenge of the climate emergency. We accept that the issue goes wider than this Bill, but we will succeed only if every part of government, including the DWP, industry and the economy play their part, so this pensions Bill does have a part to play.

In relation to pensions, it is vital that a consistent approach is taken across the pension scheme market with the DWP, the Pensions Regulator and the Financial Conduct Authority all requiring contract-based pension schemes and trust-based occupational schemes to demonstrate the same levels of compliance with our climate change objectives; otherwise, there could be adverse competition between the different funds, which we do not support.

I add my thanks to the Minister for acknowledging the importance of these issues when we raised them at Second Reading, arranging to meet us to discuss them further and tabling the Government’s amendment today. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, it happened very quickly, and we were very impressed by that. It is fair to say that it is a start, but we do not think that it goes far enough. However, I am sure that we will have a good dialogue on this issue. In the meantime, we have tabled amendments.

I shall be brief as I do not want to echo what other noble Lords have said. Amendments 74 and 76 take out the specific reference to occupational pension schemes so that the requirement would apply to all pension schemes. This is important because, although occupational defined benefit and defined contribution schemes comprise a large part of the pensions market, there is a gradual shift taking place towards contract-based personal schemes. As one model is regulated by the Pensions Regulator and the other by the Financial Conduct Authority, it is vital that we take this opportunity to provide alignment and consistency on the climate change action that they require across that sector.

In the Minister’s helpful letter to Peers explaining the purpose of the government amendments, it did not seem to me that she addressed this lack of consistency. Perhaps she can do that now. Does she accept the need for a joint approach across the regulators to ensure that investment decisions have parity, so that one cannot take advantage of the other or lead to the detriment of members by requiring higher standards of one than another?

Secondly, our Amendment 75 explicitly spells out that the Government’s reference to climate change means the need to align with the objectives of the Paris agreement to hold temperature rises well below 2 degrees centigrade. It is important to have that wording in there because we bandy around the expression “climate change” but it means different things to different people, and we are concerned that it could otherwise be loosely interpreted. That is why we set out a more explicit requirement. We set out the reasons for that requirement at Second Reading. As other noble Lords have said, we are currently on track for 2 to 4 degrees centigrade of global warming by the end of the 21st century, and we know that that will have a profoundly negative impact on the global economy and therefore upon the investments and the financial returns of pension schemes. So it is important that we have a requirement to deliver our Paris agreement commitments. It is not just about us being fluffy and caring about the planet; it is a more hard-nosed issue about the direct interests of savers and our economy. That is why pension funds have such critical role to play. I hope that the Minister will accept the intent and the importance of that amendment.

Thirdly, I was pleased to add my name to Amendment 92, which provides a timescale for the consultation on implementing the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. It requires that the consultation will commence within one month and be completed within one year. Obviously we welcome the Government’s intention to consult widely on this issue, and we understand some of the complexities that lie behind all that, but meanwhile the clock is ticking on our Paris commitments and we are failing to step up to the mark on that, so this is one of the many areas where we need to take urgent action but also where we could deliver the biggest impact. I hope that the Minister understands and accepts the need for that consultation and follow-up to take place within a specific timeframe.

Finally, our Amendment 52 returns to the issue that we raised at Second Reading about the need to inform pension savers via the dashboard of the actions being taken by their trustees to deliver on climate change as set out in the UK Stewardship Code 2020 and to align with the Paris agreement. This amendment would add these factors as information that may be required to be provided by regulation. I know that at Second Reading there was some argument—maybe there will be again today—about the information on the dashboard needing to be kept simple in the first instance. We understand that issue, but we also have to acknowledge, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman said, that pension savers are concerned about their pension funds propping up fossil fuel extraction, and they are keen to have information so that they can be empowered to take action on these issues. Our amendment has been tabled to explore how best we can achieve that by providing information in a simple and meaningful way to pension savers.

I hope that the Minister will agree that savers need to have access to this information and that the dashboard could be a meaningful way of achieving that objective. I look forward to her response.

[Lord Balfe]

I would like to say one sentence about this. First, could the Minister comment on this situation? I do not have a big role in pensions but in so far as I have, I have been pushing people towards index trackers. An index tracker that conforms to the UN principles for responsible investment is generally accepted. However, at the moment the UN principles do not contain climate change, so to what extent are we putting forward something which would be difficult to implement? Secondly, I wonder whether we are suggesting something which, far from being implemented by the trustees, will be implemented by means of companies, such as one or two I have come across in my life, which will go to trustees and say, “Here you are; for just £500 we can give you a statement of principles which will get you past the regulator”. There is a sense in which we might not be curing a problem at all but creating it, certainly for small pension funds that are largely invested in index trackers and bonds. Even bonds have their problems. In a pension fund where I was once a trustee when I said, “We will probably buy some UK Government bonds”, a member said, “Oh yes, Mr Blair needs the money to bomb Iraq, doesn’t he?”

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Hansard)
Tuesday 28th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I intend to speak relatively briefly. I welcome the Bill and echo the excellent points made by my noble friend Lord McKenzie in his opening statement. I agree with many of the points made by noble Lords around the Chamber this afternoon. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I do not claim to have any expertise in this matter and, also like the noble Baroness, I will concentrate my remarks on the environmental impact of pension investments and the lack of controls in the Bill. The noble Baroness mentioned Peers for the Planet, so perhaps I should say that I have had some involvement with it. I do not know whether we have to formally declare that, because in an ideal world all noble Lords would be members of Peers for the Planet and it would be a badge of honour. Perhaps we should aspire to that.

I believe that this is a lost opportunity to use the pensions dashboard, and the powers of the Pensions Regulator, to address how pension schemes are meeting the challenge of the climate change emergency. As things stand, we are currently on track for an increase of 2 to 4 degrees centigrade of global warming by the end of the 21st century. This will have profound consequences for the global economy, and therefore for the investments and financial returns of occupational pension schemes.

The Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney, has stated that pension fund investments held by millions of people could become “worthless” unless the financial sector reacts quickly to the climate change crisis. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, the Environmental Audit Committee produced an excellent green finance report last year, which recognised that, due to their size and influence, pension investment portfolios have a vital role to play in delivering our climate commitments. At the same time, recent polling by the charity ClientEarth has shown that the majority of savers want to move their money away from fossil fuels and would consider moving their pension to another provider if they found out that their fund had significant fossil fuel investments.

This is a rare opportunity to align pension funds with the Government’s stated commitments in the Paris Agreement, which will be reviewed and updated at COP 26 in Glasgow later this year. We can do this through the Bill by requiring pension funds to disclose information about their investments to individual savers via the pensions dashboard. We can also require trustees to align their investment and stewardship activities with the objectives of the Paris Agreement.

The new pensions dashboard will quickly become the primary means through which savers will obtain information about their pension fund. Obviously, it is an important step forward to empower savers with details of fees and charges, the benefits of their scheme and other issues we have debated this afternoon. But full transparency requires more than this. Very few savers have a good understanding of the steps their pension fund is taking to manage climate change risks. Obtaining this information is time-consuming, slow and difficult. Given the potential high impact and the systematic nature of climate change risks, reporting through the dashboard would enable savers to judge whether the risks are being properly mitigated. It could also help build trust and stronger engagement between savers and pension fund providers. Does the Minister accept the principle that savers should have easy access via their dashboard to information about how their fund is mitigating the damaging effect that climate change could have on their savings?

There is also a wider challenge for pension funds to play their part in meeting our obligations under the Paris Agreement. Increasingly, evidence shows that the long-term best interests of savers are most likely to be met where global warming is held as close as possible to 1.5 degrees centigrade. As stewards of a significant portion of the UK’s capital, pension funds clearly have a critical role to play in shaping corporate business plans so that they de-risk their capital investment by switching to green alternatives. Some are already playing their part and rising to the challenge, but we clearly need a level playing field for consistency across the sector. This can be achieved only if it is done not on a voluntary basis but under an obligation to comply with our Paris Agreement promises.

Given the acute nature of the climate change emergency, does the Minister accept that this Bill could be used to require pension funds to align their investments with Paris-compliant business models? Does she agree that the regulator’s role could be enhanced to ensure compliance with these objectives? I very much hope that, when she replies, she accepts that the Bill would indeed be an excellent vehicle for achieving these objectives. I look forward to hearing that she agrees with those views.

BBC: EU Coverage

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for tabling this debate today. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I am grateful to him for drawing our attention to the report by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, which was published before I joined your Lordships’ House. I was not aware of it before this debate, but I have now read it and found it very persuasive and perceptive. It raised a number of challenging issues about not just the BBC’s but the media’s coverage of European issues. Many of the issues are commonplace but, as the report quite rightly acknowledges, as the public service broadcaster, the BBC bears a particularly heavy responsibility for raising public awareness and maintaining a scrupulous standard of impartiality on this issue.

However, it is also clear that it was a report very much of its time—it is, after all, nearly 10 years old—and having read the BBC’s response and the commitments contained within it, it seems that a genuine and robust attempt was made to address the structural and presentational weaknesses covered by the report’s recommendations. For example, the BBC now has a specialist Europe editor and the BBC News website has its own dedicated European section. The “Daily Politics” and “Sunday Politics” shows have featured MEPs on 172 occasions, with 51 of 73 UK MEPs being interviewed over the past 18 months. On Fridays, “Today in Parliament” on Radio 4 includes reports from Strasbourg, and BBC News broadcasts a half-hour programme, “Politics Europe”, at the end of each Strasbourg session. More recently, the debate between Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage was broadcast on BBC2 and BBC News with an audience of more than 3 million viewers, so there is some evidence that the mechanisms for better coverage are in place.

Similarly, the BBC has visited and revisited the concerns regularly raised about impartiality, most recently in an independent report by Stuart Prebble which was commissioned in 2012 and to which the noble Lord referred. He drew on research from Cardiff University. The noble Lord said that he found its research untrustworthy, but that scepticism has been challenged and challenged again, and all the authoritative people who have looked at the research think that it stands up and confirms that a wide range of viewpoints and opinions on Europe can be found on the BBC.

While I do not think it is helpful to dwell overmuch on the Wilson report of 2005, I agree with some of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and others about the lack of breadth and depth of coverage, which is a real challenge for us. This is a more fundamental challenge than simply requiring a review of the BBC’s output or, indeed, its charter because it stretches across from the media to our other democratic institutions. For example, there is a fundamental knowledge gap that needs to be addressed. We cannot lay that purely in the lap of the BBC. It starts at a much earlier level, in schools, where, as we know, political education is sparse and centred on UK institutions. Survey after survey of young people have shown that they have a real thirst for more information about what goes on in Europe. A European Parliament report shows that young people across the EU have the most positive feelings about Europe but also that two-thirds of them want to know more about its institutions and opportunities. This mood is reflected in a recent Anglia Ruskin University report which shows that 81% of British young people feel disengaged because they do not know enough about the EU, how it works and, above all, how it affects their daily lives. This is the point made by my noble friend Lord Giddens. There is a thirst for facts and information, not just for rhetoric.

This lack of information was reflected in the canvassing I was doing at the weekend. There was widespread apathy about the forthcoming European elections, a lack of understanding of the role of the European Parliament and a failure to grasp the range of social, environmental and economic benefits of the EU which impact on our lives. The challenge of filling this knowledge gap requires a greater commitment from all those involved in democratic and civic groups—we cannot lay responsibility for this solely at the door of the BBC.

Secondly, we need to recognise that one of the great strengths of the European legislative process is its focus on collaboration and negotiation. However, that very strength is also a weakness when it comes to media coverage as there are no gunfights at the OK Corral or headline-grabbing issues. A lot is done through deliberation, which is hard for the media to report effectively.

Ironically, although I very much share my party’s commitment to reform of the EU, including greater democracy in its institutions, I also accept that an EU style of politics provides a great alternative model to an electorate who are sick of British adversarial Punch and Judy encounters, which are driving so many people away from our own political institutions and politicians in the UK. If the British media were only better able to capture the essence of European political systems, we could have a more meaningful debate about the nature of political reform both here and in the EU.

Finally, I will pick up on the noble Lord’s question—the fundamental one we are debating today—about whether these issues should be raised in the context of the renewal of the BBC’s charter. I hope the Minister will agree with me that it would be completely inappropriate to start raising issues of content when the charter discussions take place. This is a highly sensitive issue but it is important that we reaffirm the BBC’s editorial independence, free from political interference, when the charter is renewed. The BBC has its own processes in place for monitoring and evaluating quality and impartiality, which need to be respected.

I hope we are able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that we all bear some responsibility for extending knowledge and news about the EU. The debate should continue, but the BBC charter is not the right vehicle for dong this. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, that it is not in our interests to attempt to weaken what continues to be a respected and admired institution through this type of criticism at this point in time. Quite frankly, I do not think we would be thanked by the electorate or by BBC viewers for doing that—it remains a much loved institution, something which I think all the polling would confirm. We have had a good debate but the charter is not the way to take this issue forward. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Categories of Gaming Machine (Amendment) Regulations 2014

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Bates (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations are intended to increase existing stake and prize limits for some, but not all, categories of gaming machine. Gaming machines are an important source of revenue for many sectors of the gambling and leisure industries, and these measures will provide support for businesses which continue to experience difficult trading conditions.

The challenges faced by individual sectors, including family entertainment centres, bingo clubs and pubs, have had a marked effect on gaming machine manufacturing and supply businesses. According to the Gambling Commission, the total number of machines in the regulated industry fell by around 10% between 2010 and 2012. The Government consulted earlier this year on proposals to increase stake and prize limits for some categories of gaming machine. The Government received many representations in support of their proposals and remain confident that increases will not risk the licensing objectives in the Gambling Act, which rightly include the protection of children and vulnerable adults from being harmed or exploited by gambling. In fact, the Government have secured commitments from the gambling industry to develop, trial and implement strengthened player protection measures to help to build and maintain the public confidence necessary to accommodate the increased stake and prize limits. Such measures are particularly relevant to the casino industry, where gaming machines offer significantly higher prizes than other sectors of the industry.

Increases to stake and prize limits vary depending on the category of machine and the premises in which they are located. The level of increase is highest in casinos, which represent an appropriate venue for high stake and prize gambling given the stringent regulatory controls they are required to uphold. The new limits provide greater consistency with the level of gambling that is expected to take place in a casino and will stimulate capital investment in the industry, allowing it to compete more effectively internationally.

For machines found in clubs and pubs, the level of increase is lower. The Government are persuaded that these increases will provide support to businesses while remaining consistent with the licensing objectives. The Government propose to maintain stake and prize limits for all types of machine found in seaside arcades and travelling fairs, with the exception of penny-fall machines, where a small increase is proposed. This will minimise any potential risk to public protection from gaming machines accessible to children.

These regulations have been considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and I am grateful for its contribution. The committee quite rightly identified the importance of minimising problem gambling, particularly in the context of young people, and requested the Government to keep this issue under close review alongside their efforts to help the gambling industry.

I assure noble Lords that the Government closely monitor the problem of gambling and welcome the contribution of the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board and the Responsible Gambling Trust, working with the industry to strengthen existing mechanisms to monitor the impact of gaming machines, stake and prize limits both economically and socially.

Overall, although it is an important growth measure for many struggling businesses, I believe that this package of measures strikes the necessary balance between creating the conditions for industry growth and maintaining the licensing objectives which underpin the Gambling Act 2005, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the changes. I am also extremely grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has taken such an interest in these proposals and raised many of the questions that I might otherwise have asked.

First, I make clear that I welcome the decision to have a triennial review. It is obviously useful to keep stakes and prizes under review in a structured and timely manner, so that is a useful development.

Secondly, however, I share the concern of many who responded to the consultation, as well as the Scrutiny Committee, that the research evidence on the effects of those forms of gambling on poverty and addiction is so sparse. Given that we are dealing with important aspects of social policy, it is not good enough to argue that because something is unproven, we should carry on as before. Surely, the onus should be on the industry to prove that there is no causal link between the use of gambling machines and addiction before asking us to increase the stakes, and therefore their profits. Is the Minister happy that sufficient research is taking place? If not, what further steps do the Government have in mind to deliver substantive and compelling evidence on these issues? Thirdly, I believe that it is important to have a wider cost-benefit analysis on the impact of those changes than simply measuring the economic advantages of jobs in the sector.

In answer to a question by the Scrutiny Committee on the potential public sector impact on young and vulnerable people who are harmed by gambling, the Government replied that public protection will be secured if the industry delivers on its social responsibility and player protection commitments. However, it is not clear what mechanisms the Government have in place to secure those commitments from the sector. Surely, the evidence so far is of an industry reluctant to act against its own interests in maximising player participation and therefore potential profits. What levers do the Government intend to use to hold the industry to account on social responsibility and player protection?

Turning to the specific proposals in the regulations, I first ask the Minister about the increased stakes proposed for category D coin-pusher or penny-fall machines. I accept that the increase is small and that the impact may be minimal, but what justification is there for encouraging children and young people to gamble at an early age, given the acknowledged link between early gambling and problem gambling later? In reply to the Scrutiny Committee, the Government say that coin-pushers are generally played for amusement and are provided in a family environment. Although that may be true, is it not also true that those machines are usually sited next to other gambling machines that children might then also be tempted to play? A renewed attraction to those relatively small-scale machines cannot be seen in isolation if it is encouraging a more general gambling habit. Why is it necessary to take an added risk when there is a known connection between early gambling and problem gambling?

Finally, I would like to discuss the major concerns over B2 fixed-odds betting terminals. The Minister will know that there is increasing evidence of the harm that those machines are having on individuals and local communities through the proliferation of high-street betting shops, which are increasingly reliant on the profit from those machines. These machines are the source of some of the worst examples of gambling addiction. It is possible to lose up to £100 every 20 seconds, which is £18,000 an hour. The speed of play is faster than a roulette table, and it can happen without any staff contact or intervention. Meanwhile bookmakers containing these machines are being clustered in some of the poorest high streets in Britain, and local authorities have limited control over their expansion as in planning law they are classified in the same class as banks and building societies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken, who have in many ways captured the extent of the debate—the economic problems being faced by many sports clubs and other commercial enterprises around the country and, at the same time, a natural and right concern, which the Government share, about protecting vulnerable adults from exploitation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked a number of specific questions, and I want to give them an appropriate response as best as I am able. But to respond quickly to my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who talked about the importance of gaming machines as a revenue stream for sports clubs and other private members’ clubs, that is correct. In the category of machines that will be found there are the B4 machines to which he referred, as well as the B3A and C machines. The clubs observe the Gambling Commission’s guidance and codes of practice to ensure effective social responsibility arrangements are in place.

The noble Baroness asked about research into the effects of gambling. I reassure her that work is already under way to advance our understanding about gaming machines and their impact. The Responsible Gambling Strategy Board, an independent expert advisory body, is working to develop a strategy which will review the impact of regulatory change and any associated changes in gambling behaviour, while the Responsible Gambling Trust is carrying out research which aims to better understand how people behave when playing gaming machines and what will help people to play responsibly. Again, in the context of this, it is important to realise that one reason for the decline is the growth of online gambling, which has no regulation or supervision at all. So drawing people to enjoying this form of leisure in a reasonable way in regulated areas would seem to help towards that. The work being carried out will further our understanding of the social impact of regulatory change and allow for the wider cost-benefit analysis on the impact of these changes to which the noble Baroness refers.

The noble Baroness asked about the justification for intervention and said that there should be an onus on the industry to justify proposals for stake and prize increases. The Government agree with that approach and are satisfied that sufficient evidence has been put forward by the industry to justify the stake and prize limits that the regulation proposes.

On strengthening player protections, the Government have consulted extensively and invited representations about research as part of the review. I should say to my noble friend Lord Moynihan that there were many representations and responses to the consultation received from sports clubs to this, and they were broadly in favour of the measures being put forward for the reasons that he has outlined. The Government have received advice from the Gambling Commission and the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board, and there is scope to increase the stake and prize limits for some categories of gaming machine, provided that the industry makes progress in strengthening player protection. It has twin sides; as the industry gets better at providing protection, it may be possible to consider further changes to the limits. That is the right way in which to proceed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to the risks to children, particularly from the increases in stake and prize limits to penny falls and coin pushers. The Government share the view that a cautious approach should be taken to products accessible by children. It is for these reasons that the Government have rejected the proposals from the industry to increase the stake and prize limits for reel-based gaming machines accessible to children and all other category D machines, with the exception of coin pushers.

The noble Baroness also referred to fixed-odds betting terminals, the so-called category B2 gaming machines. As part of the review, the Government sought quantifiable evidence on the impact of a reduction in stake and prize limits for these machines. However, the evidence received was inconclusive and the Government have been advised by the Gambling Commission and the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board that a precautionary reduction in stake and prize limits is currently unsupported by the available evidence. Despite this, the Government remain concerned about these machines and their potential association with an elevated risk of gambling-related harm. The Government have therefore made it clear that they will consider the future of the B2 machine to be unresolved. As the noble Baroness noted, the Prime Minister confirmed the Government’s commitment to monitor these machines to ensure a fair and decent approach that prevents problem gambling, and that is exactly the course of action that the Government are taking here.

As to the £18,000 per hour loss rate sometimes cited for B2 machines, this is astronomically improbable, one might say. It is an extreme calculation. However, the Government have acknowledged that it is quite possible to lose or win several thousand pounds within an hour within a normal range of behaviour on a machine. It is for these reasons that the measures I have outlined are so important and why the Government consider the future of these machines to be unresolved.

On betting-shop clustering on high streets, to which the noble Baroness referred, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is in regular discussion with DCLG Ministers about the issue. I can certainly reassure noble Lords that these discussions will continue and that evidence will be monitored.

The Government are satisfied that the measures that we are debating today will bring benefits to businesses and sports clubs through much needed revenue and will allow consumers to enjoy a broader range of products in a responsible way. On the basis that the industry has committed to enhance its social responsibility measures and that work is under way to allow for proper assessment of the impact of these regulations, I am confident that the risk to problem gamblers and vulnerable people is minimal.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

Perhaps I may briefly prompt the Minister on the B2 issue, an area in which there is an agreed level of concern. He said that the Government’s view was unresolved and that the issue would continue to be under review. It would be helpful if the Minister could give a little more detail of how a resolution will be reached. What timetable and mechanism do the Government have in mind for digging into this issue, analysing it and bringing forward a new resolution?

The only other point I wish to make is that if you rely on the industry to come forward with evidence to show that there is not any harm, you will wait a long time. Somehow such evidence has to be found from other sources.

[Lord Bates]

That is correct. The noble Baroness has put her finger on a key point. However, it is an incentive for the industry. If it wants to see prize and stake limits increased in the future, it will have to collate such evidence and come forward with it. On her specific point, work is under way to rapidly improve our understanding of these machines. The Responsible Gambling Strategy Board is due to produce a report in autumn 2014, which will be before the next triennial review. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness.

Children: Sport

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank very much my noble friend Lady Massey for introducing what has been an authoritative and very well informed debate. I also pay tribute to the House for establishing the Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Select Committee, which has enabled a powerful body of knowledge and analysis to be assembled. I very much look forward to debating its report in due course.

My main advantage among such an august list of contributors is that I cover both education and DCMS from the Front Bench. I therefore know quite a bit about what has been happening in schools since this Government came to power. As I am sure we would all acknowledge, quality schools sport is essential in addressing the participation of inner-city children, so in the short time that I have I would like to make a few points about this.

Let us face it: it has not been a very happy story. It seems that the Secretary of State took the view that any initiative introduced by the previous Government must, by its very origins, be flawed and should therefore be scrapped. This was not the only initiative to have suffered that fate but, as a number of noble Lords have said, one of the starkest examples of this approach was what happened to school sport. Funding for the well established and well respected school sports partnerships was withdrawn, only to be partially reinstated following massive protests but with nothing like the original coverage and co-ordination, while the target of every child doing at least two hours of PE a week was withdrawn. The latest research now shows that half of children failed to do at least two hours of PE a week and that one in seven teenagers did no sport at all in their last year of school. Meanwhile, as we have heard, Michael Gove is continuing to allow the sell-off of school sports fields, with 50 sold so far, despite pledging to protect them in the coalition agreement.

A recent report by the Commons Education Select Committee—chaired, incidentally, by a Conservative MP—reported that PE lessons are still not good enough in almost one-third of primary schools. It also identified that the Government’s new obsession with children taking part in competitive team sports, such as football, rugby or netball, was deterring many young people, particularly girls, taking part in sport at all. That committee concluded that the Government should reintroduce the target, scrapped by Michael Gove, requiring all pupils to complete two hours of PE a week. It also called for targeted measures for girls. As I say, it has not been a happy story in schools and it feels very much as if there have been three wasted years of dithering in school sport policy over the crucial Olympic period. Obviously, in this respect I welcome the announcement made earlier this year of new primary sport funding for coaches, but that is short-term money and is in place for only two years, and therefore risks failing to embed the training culture in the school.

It feels as if we have had a realistic but rather depressing debate this afternoon. I think we are all united in wanting sport to be a more central part of young people’s lives so I hope that the Minister is able to convince us that, belatedly, if nothing else, a credible school sports strategy is being developed that will encourage all young people to enjoy and maintain an active sporting life while going into adulthood.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the impressive number of speakers in today’s debate, and the quality and range of the topics covered. I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester on their wise and inspirational maiden speeches. I know that we all look forward to their future contributions with considerable interest.

There is a new enthusiasm in social media for the concept of crowdsourcing. We could do worse than apply this principle to the contributions today, because if we amalgamated all the proposals made by your Lordships we would have a much more substantial Queen’s Speech than the rather timid mouse of a legislative programme that we have been debating today. It seems that the Government cannot raise much enthusiasm for their own programme. We have already heard that the coalition is split on the legislation to increase staff/child ratios in nurseries, and now the Prime Minister himself is saying that he is relaxed about Back-Benchers amending his own legislative programme. What kind of leadership is this for the country at this time?

The country is crying out for leadership and action to tackle the 1 million young people out of work, the fall in family living standards, the lowest number of new home completions since the 1920s, inflated energy bills while energy companies’ profits rise, and the health service creaking at the seams. A Government on top of their game would be laying substantial proposals in front of us to tackle these issues head on.

What conclusions can we draw about the rather insubstantial policy offerings that we are debating here today? First, a number of the proposals make extra demands on local services that are not matched by additional local support. Local government is already struggling with a 33% cut in central government funding, and the projections are worse. For example, my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lady Wheeler, and others, have made challenging analyses of the Care Bill and raised some vital questions. Underpinning these issues, the Local Government Association estimates that there has already been a cut of £1.89 billion in social care funding, and more cuts in services are planned. It is a cruel deceit to suggest that social care provision can be modernised and integrated when the funding is not in place to make this a reality.

We support the principle set out in the Bill of capping care costs and giving family carers more support, although we share Andrew Dilnot’s concern that the cap is being set too high. There is concern that the Bill does not address the daily struggle of those seeking support right now. What reassurance can the Minister give to those people about the current and future funding necessary to deliver a modern, integrated care system?

On the issue of public health, rightly raised by a number of noble Lords today, I hope the Minister can reassure us that measures on plain tobacco packaging and minimum alcohol pricing will form part of the “other measures” to be laid before us in due course.

Secondly, on welfare reform, the Government appear determined to push on with the scapegoating of vulnerable people, including the disabled and unemployed, as well as of low-paid working families who are seeing their incomes cut. We have heard today how this is distorting public attitudes towards these groups. Meanwhile, the Government are doing nothing to raise families out of poverty. The Work Programme is failing to get the long-term unemployed into work, and the implementation of the universal credit system is beset by delays and problems.

We believe that, as a start, every young person who is out of work for more than a year should be offered a job guarantee to avoid a deskilled and demotivated generation losing faith in the prospects of fulfilling work. We would also introduce a compulsory paid job, linked to benefit entitlement, for every adult who was out of work for more than two years. Can the Minister explain what new proposals the Government have for creating meaningful work opportunities for young people and the long-term unemployed that might match this policy?

The one area of welfare reform that gives us some optimism is the Pensions Bill. I would be interested to know whether the Minister shares the views expressed in the insightful contributions of my noble friends Lady Hollis and Lady Drake in this regard, and whether he accepts their concerns about its potential implementation.

Thirdly, the Government are neglecting the country’s children by failing to invest in their economic, social and physical well-being. The recent report of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has concluded that, by 2015, the number of children living in absolute poverty will rise by 900,000 to 3 million and that, by the end of the decade, 3.4 million children—about one in four—will find themselves in relative poverty. This reverses all the progress made by the previous Government in tackling child poverty and is a real indictment of the callousness of this Government. Instead of reaching the target for rates of child poverty that are no higher than 5%, they will oversee an increase to levels of 27%. Is tackling child poverty still a priority for this Government and do they still intend to take the original targets seriously?

A further example of the Government’s disregard for the welfare of young children is the ill conceived plan to increase child/staff ratios for nurseries, an issue that has been raised by several noble Lords. We said at the outset that such an increase would threaten the quality of childcare while being unlikely to reduce childcare costs, and this view is now echoed among professionals in the sector.

We are grateful that, rather belatedly, the Deputy Prime Minister is beginning to raise the same concerns. What is the status of this flagship policy now? Are the Government going to press ahead despite the overwhelming concerns expressed? When are we likely to see the carry-over Children and Families Bill in this House? I am sure that a large number of my colleagues would like to contribute to that debate. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us as to the proposed timetable.

The Government’s disregard for the physical health and well-being of children is all too well illustrated by their policy on school sports. Under the previous Government’s school sport partnerships, the proportion of children taking part in weekly sport increased from one in four to more than 90%. As we have heard today from my noble friend Lady Billingham, the Government’s decision to unravel this provision, followed by a partial U-turn, has left a fragmented and underfunded service with no funding guarantees. That this should happen in the aftermath of our stunning Olympic success is a real tragedy. School and community sport need long-term funding commitments and an integrated programme if we are ever to repeat our global sporting success. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us as to what plans the Government now have for how that might be achieved.

Another way in which Michael Gove has let down this country’s young people is his failure to grasp the importance of the arts and creativity in education. His tenure has been marked by grand announcements and policy shifts followed by rethinks and retreat. Not surprisingly, as described by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, Mr Gove has had a demoralising effect on the whole teaching profession. The example of the proposed EBacc was a case in point, with no status given to art, music and drama in the original proposals. The new curriculum proposals represent only a partial reprieve and the whole redesign of the curriculum has been marked by secrecy and intrigue when it should have been an open and transparent national debate about appropriate learning for the next generation of young people. Incidentally, confidence in the Government’s proposals is not helped by Michael Gove’s admission that research he recently quoted about children’s knowledge came from Premier Inn and UKTV Gold studies. Could the Minister explain how the new curriculum proposals will be debated in this House and what opportunity will exist for a real input into the final design?

The cultural legacy of the next generation is being squandered in so many ways, not just through the failings of education. The Secretary of State at DCMS has belatedly and ineffectively caught up with the economic contribution of the arts but fails to address the wider contribution, which is about our identity, ability to express ourselves, and health and well-being as a nation. This point was eloquently made by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, whose impressive maiden speech we have all applauded and whose godfather’s centenary I celebrated only last week. The Arts Council has been struggling with the burden of 30% cuts, with more to come, and local authority arts funding is being cut, sometimes to the bone. Nothing in the Queen’s Speech gives any comfort or optimism to those who see the potential of a strong local, regional and national arts presence in the UK.

A number of noble Lords raised concerns about the delay in implementing Leveson and the process of resolving the two competing royal charters. I share these concerns. Similarly, there has been a gaping silence where the communications Bill might be. We have been promised and promised again a White or Green Paper, but deadlines come and go and nothing has materialised. We need urgent action to protect children and tackle the highly concentrated and monopolistic nature of the industry. Can the Minister tell us when the communications Bill might be expected?

Finally, what kind of legacy do the Government offer young people on the environment? Whatever happened to the heady days of claiming to be the “greenest Government ever”? Who can remember the last time the Prime Minister even mentioned the green agenda positively? Not surprisingly, the Government’s proposals hold out little hope for those of us who care about these issues. Meanwhile, as CO₂ emissions reach record levels, Tory MEPs have just sabotaged attempts to reform the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and the Chancellor is continuing to veto the introduction of a decarbonisation target in the Energy Bill. Can the Minister explain why, against this backdrop, consumers are faced with soaring energy bills while the profits of the energy companies continue to rise? How will the Government address the powerful critiques from several noble Lords of their failure to implement effective market reform in this area?

In conclusion, there have been many more thoughtful contributions today and I am sorry that I have not been able to reference them all. I am sure that the Minister will prove more skilled than I am at that. As I said at the outset, we have the makings in this debate of an alternative Queen’s Speech that could prove to be radical and exciting. I have certainly learnt a great deal and taken copious notes. I hope that, in the aftermath of the next election, we on this side of the House will be able to produce a Queen’s Speech that rather more successfully addresses the challenges of the nation that we have debated today.

Leveson Inquiry

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Friday 11th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, we welcome the opportunity to debate this important issue today, and thank the Minister for the clarity with which he has set out the Government’s position. As he has made clear, the implementation of Leveson is still the subject of detailed cross-party talks. We believe that this is the right way to proceed, provided that it is carried out in a spirit of transparency and participation. We also believe that it will provide some solace for the victims of press intrusion over the years if all parties can unite in responding comprehensively and speedily to the public desire for a settlement of this issue.

In recent years in this Chamber we have achieved a remarkable degree of consensus when debating the role of the media and the need for a free and fair press. I hope that we are able to achieve a similar degree of consensus in this timely debate today. If anyone can find a way through the challenges which Leveson has set us, your Lordships are well placed to do so.

Before I refer to the detail, I pay tribute to the work of Lord Justice Leveson, the rigour with which he conducted the inquiry, and the humanity with which he enabled victims of some appalling injustices to have a proper hearing for the first time. For many of the victims, it meant reliving the pain and the trauma of their abuse by the press, but they did so with enormous courage and determination. The stories that they told made many people feel moved, incredulous, appalled and very angry: people such as the McCanns, who were falsely accused of murdering their missing child; the parents of Milly Dowler, given the false hope that their daughter might still be alive; John Tulloch, a 7/7 bomb survivor, tricked into giving a misrepresented interview; Christopher Jeffries, falsely accused of the murder of Joanna Yeates; and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, whose daughter Abigail has been pursued for stories following her tragic stabbing while out walking with her son.

The pictures that unfolded were not just about illegal acts such as phone hacking, but more underhand acts of deception, breaches of privacy and a “reckless disregard for accuracy” in pursuit of copy at any cost. As Leveson acknowledged, it was not just one rogue report. It was not even one rogue newspaper. The so-called “dark arts” appeared to be endemic across the sector. As a result, the report represents a chilling indictment of the routine practices of the press.

We should not forget that victims come in many different forms. While we heard some truly horrific stories from families such as the Dowlers and the McCanns, some in the press have also found it convenient to differentiate between private individuals, whose personal tragedy forced them into the limelight, and celebrities who were somehow all considered to be fair game. Are we really saying that for a newspaper to announce that it is Charlotte Church’s 16th birthday so her virginity is now available is acceptable? Or for Sienna Millar to be hounded by gangs of press photographers like a hunted animal? How low does journalism have to sink before someone intervenes?

The fact is that the Leveson inquiry should never have been necessary. The catalogue of incidents that were described and the many more that they represent, should never have been allowed to happen. It should not require a regulator to point out what minimum levels of decency and honesty should apply in press reporting. To most outside observers it is common sense. This is why there was widespread public anger at the revelations during the inquiry, and while they may not have read all 2,000 pages of the findings, most decent people know what is right and wrong and they now expect us to act. Unsurprisingly, 78% of the public, in the wake of the report, favours an independent press regulator backed by statute.

That brings me to the press response to the report. We welcome the fact that the press are now working on a Leveson-compliant regulator, but a new voluntary model will not be sufficient. The fact is that Leveson concluded that there have been far too many occasions when the press has acted as if its own voluntary code of practice simply did not exist, and he went on to describe the press behaviour at times as being “outrageous”. So we cannot go on as we have in the past, and the challenge now is to find a new model of independent self-regulation, guaranteed by law, in which the public and the victims can have confidence.

In the cross-party talks we have tabled our own proposals, the press freedom and trust Bill, which meets the fundamental criteria established by Leveson and reassures the victims that came forward that their courage was not in vain. Our Bill is being debated alongside the alternative proposals tabled by the Government and others including Hacked Off, which has provided a very effective voice for victims of press injustice. We are not wedded to our wording but offer it as a serious contribution to the debate.

Our Bill enshrines the right of a free press and ensures that politicians cannot meddle in content. On the contrary, it ensures that Parliament’s role is two steps removed from the independent regulator. It would ensure the free, irreverent, investigative press that is central to our democracy. It was, after all, the outstanding journalism of Nick Davies of the Guardian that brought the scandal of phone hacking to our attention in the first place.

Crucially, our proposals would ensure that there is a legal guarantee that the regulator will be effective and independent. This would be achieved by a recognition panel, composed of the Lord Chief Justice and other senior judges, tasked with verifying that an independent press standards trust—to which, substantially, the national press must subscribe—is undertaking the tasks to which it is committed. It also builds in major incentives for the press to join the standards trust through offering less liability to exemplary damages and court costs for trust members.

Our draft Bill meets the essential requirements of Leveson without being invasive or cumbersome. However, we are also continuing to consider the other proposals which have been tabled. However, we have some concerns about the Government’s proposal that the independent regulator be underpinned by a royal charter. We welcome the fact that this represents an acceptance of the need for a legal framework to underpin the role of the regulator, but have some doubts as to whether this is the best mechanism. For example, we are not convinced that it is right to bypass Parliament on an issue where fundamental individual rights are at stake. Also, it seems inappropriate to deploy the prestige of the monarch in a controversial role where intervention might be necessary. In addition, the monarch would be obliged to act under the advice of Ministers, placing too great a concentration of power in the hands of the Executive rather than Parliament.

Can the Minister explain the rationale for a royal charter? What precedents exist for a body with a regulatory function to have one? What are the views of the victims of press intrusion on this solution?

We also await the latest proposals for a voluntary code from the press with interest, but we take the view that without statutory underpinning, the press could drift away from agreed standards over time, as they have in the past. Unfortunately, the press have form on this, with promises made and broken: seven inquiries in less than 70 years, all resolved by a commitment to voluntary reform which latterly ended with the Press Complaints Commission being so embarrassingly ineffective that it announced its own abolition. So the time is right to put press standards on a firmer, long-term footing, underpinned by statute so that the public can have respect for the press again; a regime where potential victims can have access to meaningful and proportionate redress; where the press embrace a systematic approach to correcting errors; where the funding of content is transparent; and where the truth can be relied upon to underpin each story. We will measure any alternative proposals against these criteria.

It is crucial that we harness the current energy around the discussions to reach agreement within this month. We will continue, for example, to look in detail at the issues around the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but this should not delay an agreement on the essential principles of a new regime. If the talks falter, we retain the political will to put the issue to a vote in the Commons. It is essential to proceed with the involvement and agreement of the victims who have made these issues come alive at Leveson. It is important that they have a seat at the table and a significant voice in determining the outcome. The Prime Minister also made it clear that their approval should be the ultimate test of any new mechanism, so could the Minister confirm that this continues to be the Government’s position? Can he explain to the House how the representatives of the victims will be consulted before any decision is made?

I said at the outset that I hoped that we could reach a consensus today. I hope that the consensus confirms our view that a new system of independent self-regulation, underpinned by statute, fulfils the prescription of Leveson and protects the potential victims of the future. On this basis, I look forward to the debate today.