European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 5th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to my own amendment in this group, as well as supporting the other amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady McIntosh.

On animal sentience, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, rehearsed the background to the amendment and other noble Lords have done so too. Animal sentience is an important underlying principle. It comes from Article 13 of Title II of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which states clearly that animals are sentient beings. It is therefore very important that this principle is transposed into UK law. However, as we have heard, when the Greens, Labour and others fought for amendments in the Commons to enshrine this principle in the Bill, it was voted down by the Conservatives. I hear the voices of some Members opposite who still do not quite understand why that happened; we, too, do not understand why they took that decision.

There was then an immediate backlash, not only from animal charities but from animal lovers around the UK. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, gave us a flavour of how passionate people are—quite rightly—not only about the countryside but about their personal interconnection with animals and about how important animals are to them. All those arguments have been made very well.

Effectively, the Secretary of State realised that his reputation was about to be trashed and he decided that there would be a process of damage limitation. His solution was to announce that the original amendment was not well drafted and that a separate Bill on animal sentience would be produced. A draft Bill has now been produced and it bears all the hallmarks of a rushed job. Apart from anything else, it combines two distinct issues: increasing sentences for animal cruelty—something that has been in the pipeline for some time—and attempting to define animal sentience. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out, it is therefore not surprising that the Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee produced a scathing pre-legislative scrutiny report on it. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, queried whether he could quote the noble Baroness as having rubbished it. It is fair to say that the committee did rubbish it. It said that the Secretary of State should go back to the drawing board and that animals,

“deserve better than to be treated in a cavalier fashion”.

It also recommended that the separate bit of the Bill on animal cruelty should go ahead as planned and that much more thought should go into the Government’s vague and ambiguous reforms around animal sentience.

We agree with that analysis. We would be happy to work on the animal sentience Bill to make sure that we get it right, but then of course it has to take its place in the queue of Defra Bills that have already been promised within the next year—a point echoed by other noble Lords. Bills on agriculture, fisheries and the environment have already been promised. Most are in draft form, although some are not even at that stage, and they all have to be delivered within the next 12 months or so. This one would have to take its place in that line of legislation, not to mention all the other EU withdrawal Bills also currently in the pipeline.

It is a bit of a stretch to think we will ever get to a separate animal sentience Bill, so we come back to the amendments on animal sentience before us today. Our belief is that amendments of this nature are necessary to provide a guarantee of the transposition of EU rights for animals, which the Government have promised. Again, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, made that case very forcefully. Ultimately, this is a simple process, which can be accomplished by a simple amendment. If we can find better wording than that which we have put forward, that is absolutely fine; that is the purpose of Committee stage and we would be happy to hear the Minister’s suggestions on that. We would then welcome the chance to work on a more thorough animal sentience Bill, which would take into account the concerns of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and reflect the latest scientific evidence on how animals experience pain and suffering—a lot of new research is coming forward on that issue, of which we need to take account. Today, the task before us is to ensure that all existing EU law is transposed appropriately. We believe a simple amendment of the kind we have put forward would achieve that purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Does my noble friend agree that the excuse that the Government cannot accept this amendment because another Bill may be coming along on the same subject cannot be accepted as genuine? If the Government do bring forward another Bill on this subject, there is absolutely nothing to stop them, if they so wished and if Parliament agreed, modifying the amendment as it is incorporated in the Act.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That is our position: we should have this amendment now but work on it in the longer term. I am sure we could all find ways of improving it. The easiest and most honourable thing is to transpose what was in the treaty and move that wording over, then move on to something better for the longer term. I agree with my noble friend.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to it. I start by directly addressing the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Davies, my noble friend Lord Bowness and others. There is no question but that this Government regard animals as sentient beings. As we said on this issue in the other place, we certainly agree with the sentiment of the amendments, such as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. However, as I will set out, we cannot support them.

Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to which many noble Lords have referred, places an obligation on the European Union and EU member states when formulating and implementing certain EU policies to have regard to the welfare requirements of animals because animals are sentient beings. However, the weakness of that article—this relates directly to my noble friend Lord Deben’s point—is that it applies only to a limited number of EU policy areas and, even then, allows for certain religious and cultural traditions which many would consider to be cruel. Two examples, of course, are bull-fighting and the production of foie gras. Article 13’s effect on domestic law is minimal. As the Secretary of State for the Environment has made clear, as we leave the EU, we believe that we can do much better.

We have made it clear that we intend to retain our existing standards of animal welfare once we have left the EU, and, indeed, to enhance them. This Bill will convert the existing body of EU animal welfare law into UK law. It will make sure that the same protections are in place in the UK and that laws still function effectively after we leave the EU. However, the purpose of this Bill is to provide continuity by addressing any deficiencies in law as we leave the EU. It is not about improving EU laws that the Government think could be better. That is why, at the end of last year, the Government published draft legislation, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Bill, to which a number of noble Lords have referred. The draft Bill sets out how we can better enshrine in domestic law the recognition of animals as sentient beings.

Let me reply to the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Bowness and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. The Secretary of State for the Environment has been clear that we will legislate and that there will be no gap left in our law on sentience after we leave the EU. We believe that the draft Bill is a significant improvement on Article 13, imposing a clear duty on the state to have regard for animal welfare when considering all policies, rather than just the six areas outlined in Article 13.

Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2017

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate but I have an interest in it for a variety of reasons. First, I should declare an interest as a member of the RSPB, the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the Scottish Ornithologists’ Club, and as the owner of a cottage, which happens to be called “Craighead”, in an area of east Perthshire which is at risk of being surrounded by wind farms.

I am very conscious of the importance of the right of the public to challenge planning applications without undue cost where the proceedings would be unduly expensive. Therefore, in a sense I am very sympathetic to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has raised. On the other hand, as my noble and learned friend Lord Brown pointed out, I presided in the case of Edwards. That case raised a particular problem for us because we were sitting in the Supreme Court, where the environmental point was being taken not on the first appeal but the second. One reason that we were particularly anxious to refer the matter to the CJEU was to find out what the position is when cases reach the appellate stage and one has already had two hearings of the issue and is facing the cost of a third. Therefore, at the moment I am undecided as to which way to go.

There is a feature that is worth bearing in mind. It is very easy to take a blanket view about all the people who wish to challenge planning applications or other matters that affect the environment, and assume that they are all taking the proceedings in the most economical and responsible way possible. Judges are aware that human nature varies and applications vary, and that there may be circumstances in which the element of control which comes with the ability to vary the cap up or down, as has been pointed out, may be a useful method of controlling proceedings before they get out of control.

I will be interested to hear from the Minister about the background to this measure, and to understand and know whether it applies to appeals as well as to proceedings of first instance, before I decide whether I can support the Motion to Regret. I am in sympathy with it but not sure that I can carry it the entire way.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in support of the Motion and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for giving us the opportunity. I refer your Lordships to my entry in the register of interests.

I wish to make a wider point about the consequences of this legislation. I speak as a passionate environmentalist and as someone who has maintained a sceptical eye on the environmental claims of the party opposite because, sadly, time and again the practical realities of its actions have not lived up to its lofty claims about defending the environment.

I was intrigued when I heard Michael Gove’s keynote speech setting out his own agenda to the WWF in July. He went further than the usual ministerial platitudes on these issues. He specifically praised organisations such as the WWF, the RSPB, the Wildlife Trust, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and so on. He said:

“Their campaigning energy and idealism, while occasionally uncomfortable for those of us in power, who have to live in a world of compromise and deal-making, is vital to ensuring we continue to make progress in protecting and enhancing our environment”.


He went on to say:

“On everything from alerting us all to the danger posed by plastics in our oceans and nitrogen oxide in our air, to the threats posed to elephants by poaching and cod by over-fishing, it’s been environmental organisations which have driven Governments to make progress”.


It is therefore ironic that the organisations holding the Government to account—which Michael Gove was keen to praise—are the same organisations which have now written to noble Lords urging us to support this Motion to Regret.

I have a specific question for the Minister, which is: has Michael Gove, the new Secretary of State for Defra, been fully consulted about these changes and is the Minister confident that he supports them? If so, we on these Benches will have to revert to our cynicism about his true intentions about working with those organisations to protect the environment.

It is clear that the proposed changes to the court costs will discourage environmental charities, local groups and individuals from holding the Government to account when they fail to live up to their promises about protecting the environment. I refer noble Lords, for example, to the heroic and dogged legal case of Client Earth on holding the Government to account on the question of clean air, which has wide and enormous public consequences. The case has true public benefits and there are many other cases like it.

Like others, I have read the Explanatory Memorandum, and I share the disbelief of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that it does not make it clear why these changes are needed. There is no evidence of a flood of unmeritorious claims in court. The figure quoted of 153 cases in a year seems remarkably reasonable. It is also clear that a healthy number of those cases were successful, which rather underscores their validity.

I do not wish to prolong this discussion but the continuity and the streamlined thinking of the Government have been tested by this. I am not sure whether Defra and the justice department are thinking with like minds and I therefore urge the Minister to withdraw the proposals. In doing so, I make it clear that I will support the Motion if it is pressed to a vote.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for bringing forward this regret Motion and exemplifying what this House does so well—standing up for the democratic rights of citizens to challenge authority and, as in this case, do so in the face of what is clearly an attempt by the Government to price people out of the opportunity to get environmental justice.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, we are at a time when there is mounting pressure on our precious environment and, frankly, when better lives in a better future for all of us can be achieved only by respecting the value and constraints of the natural environment. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, as a former chief executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, I saw how local groups saw going to judicial review as a last resort. Unlike companies, local groups do not have the right of appeal when a local authority approves a controversial application. Costs protection provided groups with a certainty: they could assess the likely expenditure over the duration of a challenge and they could agree to take it forward.

I worry that there is not a clear rationale for the case the Government are making, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said. It is not as if the cases where the claimants sought to apply environmental costs protection rules were clogging up the courts—there were only 166 such cases in 2014-15 out of a total of over 20,000 judicial reviews launched. Equally, those cases had a markedly higher success rate than other types of cases going to judicial review, so they were not unreasonable.

There is evidence that, since the changes were introduced, there has been a chilling effect on the number of cases coming forward: environmental groups using Ministry of Justice data estimate a reduction of about a quarter since the introduction of the new regime. I ask the Minister for the ministry to clearly publish the data on the number of cases, so that the effects of the new regime can be fully evaluated.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I find it very interesting to hear the fine words from last month of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Michael Gove, who said that,

“we have an opportunity, outside the EU, to design potentially more effective, more rigorous and more responsive institutions, new means of holding individuals and organisations to account for environmental outcomes”.

Frankly, in the light of this, those words ring pretty hollow.

Digital Economy Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Benjamin]

My Lords, this amendment is of crucial importance because, unlike the age verification provisions that we have considered in Part 3, which provide protection for children only from 18-rated pornographic material, the filtering provisions engaged by this amendment help to protect adult content in the round, including gambling, violence, self-harm and so on.

We should be in no doubt about the importance of adult content filters. However, I have a question for the Minister. This amendment effectively says to an ISP that if it wants to provide adult content filters it can do so legally in the UK. This is helpful for the 88% of the market that is covered by the agreement between the big four ISPs to provide unavoidable choice or default-on adult content options. So what is the Government's policy in relation to the remaining 12%? If it is really important that the big four provide unavoidable choice or default-on adult content options during the set-up, why is it not equally important that the smaller ISPs do the same?

I am not interested in whether or not it is strictly necessary under EU law. I am simply concerned that we should have the best protections in place for all children—those whose parents use one of the four largest ISPs and those whose parents do not.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I support these two amendments. As the noble Lord knows, they have been the subject of considerable discussion and debate in the past. We all share the objective of allowing family-friendly filters to remain on internet services and mobile networks in the UK. As the noble Lord set out, the arrangements we currently have in the UK were brought into question by the EU net neutrality rules introduced last year, which appeared to ban individual countries from restricting access in this way. Since then, there have been a number of different interpretations of how the EU rules would affect the UK—perhaps complicated by the fact the Ministers themselves were not able to clarify the situation with their usual adeptness. Indeed, it still appears that the EU open access regulations and our commitment to family friendly filters are in some ways in contradiction.

The Minister will know that many of the internet companies have taken the view that the less said about this issue the better. Their argument is that if attention is not drawn to the contradiction, they can carry on with the previous practice—under the wire, so to speak. Of course, for a lot of reasons this is not a very attractive proposition, and we accept that it would make the status of family-friendly filters more vulnerable as time went on.

So, instead we have the amendments tabled by the Minister today. When I asked at a previous meeting with the Minister whether the amendments had been checked out legally, I was assured that this was the case. We have not seen that legal advice and therefore have to take it on trust that what is before us today is legally watertight and does not contravene EU rules.

To some extent we are taking all of this on trust. While it would be easy to demand more evidence, I accept that it would not help the case of those committed to family-friendly filters—I suspect that the more we probe, the more the robustness of the proposals before us could unravel. We support the intent behind these amendments and it is certainly not our intention to bring them into question in any way. I hope that they achieve the outcome to which we are all committed. I hope therefore that noble Lords will support the amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, both my noble friend Lady Benjamin and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, are far more authoritative on this subject than I could possibly be. I just want to add our support from the Front Bench for these two amendments. The noble Baroness made an important point, which is that we very much hope that the amendments are effective in clarifying the situation. There is no absolute guarantee of that but they have a fair wind because of the nature of the voluntary system of family-friendly filters that they underpin. I very much hope we do not do too much “probing”—I think that is the word that the noble Baroness used—as we are just happy that we can continue with the same system as we had before. I also think my noble friend Lady Benjamin asked an important question regarding where the gaps are in terms of the smaller players.

Digital Economy Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to speak in support of Amendment 229, to which I have added my name, which aims to secure the future and sustainability of original TV children’s programmes. I pay tribute to the campaign Save Kids’ Content for its diligence in championing this issue over a long period. I am sure it will continue to do so. I also pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who has been a great figurehead for this campaign. As the noble Baroness and others have said, it is incredibly frustrating that the quantity and quality of children’s programmes have suffered such a rapid decline over the last 15 years. It feels as though it is the result of policy neglect rather than a deliberate plan to let the provision deteriorate, but whatever the reason, the outcome is still the same. As we have heard, there has been a reduction in spending of more than 50% on children’s programmes, and a drop of 93% by commercial public service broadcasters. As the noble Baroness said, the heroic exception is the BBC, whose investment in CBBC and CBeebies has provided a crucial creative flow for children’s entertainment. But it cannot be right that the responsibility in the longer term remains on the BBC’s shoulders. Ofcom itself recognised in its 2015 review of public service broadcasting that there is an issue:

“In children’s content, there is very limited provision of non-animation programming beyond the BBC”,


and went on to say that this represented a substantial risk to Parliament’s objective of strengthening public service broadcasting to this group. I would argue that we have a responsibility as Parliament to address this shortcoming.

We should all care about what programmes are available for children to watch. They have just as much right as adults to expect high-quality entertainment and the knowledge that will enrich and inspire their lives. In a sense, what people watch as children develops the habits and interests they will have as they move on to programmes and entertainment for teenagers and adults. Our great expectation that public service broadcasters will provide very good quality programming for adults is wasted if we do not provide for the next generation as well, so that it can recognise it and create that demand for it. Children also have as much right to see UK-made content.

We all squirm when we see reality TV programmes in which children have been somehow dumped in front of an endless diet of American cartoons, but we are complicit in making that a reality. It does not need to be like this and our amendment is a practical and balanced approach to reversing the decline. It would introduce powers for Ofcom to set quotas for broadcasting original children’s programmes as a condition of a PSB licence, and it would require PSBs to report to Ofcom annually on how they are meeting those targets.

As has been said, inherent in the proposals is flexibility for Ofcom and the PSBs to agree how the targets can best be met. This would allow each PSB to take a separate approach to delivering the expanded children’s programme output, including access to the contestable fund. I agree with my noble friend Lord Gordon that the money from local TV could be put to much better use by making quality children’s programmes, so perhaps that is one of the factors that could be put in the mix.

Only an initiative on this scale will reverse the decline. We have in the UK the programme makers with the skills and the creativity to produce programmes and build an expanded children’s TV offer. Moreover, the demand is there because each new generation brings with it its own demands, so I do not agree with my noble friend that people pass through and that is the end of the story. New generations come forward and we want them to be able to recognise what quality programming really is, and we will do that only if we reach out to them when they are children.

It was never the intention of Parliament to let children’s TV fall into such disrepair, and this is our chance to do something about it. I hope the Minister will listen to the strong case that has been put forward and that he will see the proportionality of our proposals. I hope also that he will feel able to support the amendment and to work with us to make the changes we are proposing a reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve]

My Lords, it is late, and I do not want to repeat myself. I am sure that the noble Baroness, the noble Lord and the whole of that long Front Bench—almost as numerous as the rest of the House at this hour—know this issue not going to go away. This retrospective consultation does not do the Government honour. I hope that they will take some action.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, again, given the lateness of the hour, I simply say that our views are well known, that we have supported the implementation of Section 40 in a number of previous debates in this Chamber, and on that basis we support the amendment.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I will address Amendments 233F and 234A together. The amendments, of course, mirror Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 but would apply to digitally published news-related material only, as we know. The House has debated the issue of Section 40 on various recent occasions, including during passage of the Investigatory Powers Act and the Policing and Crime Act. There was also a stand-alone debate just before the Christmas Recess.

There is obviously a great strength of feeling about this matter. I realise that some Members of this House are frustrated by what they see as a lack of progress by government on Section 40. However, the Committee should also recall the strength of feeling on the other side of the debate. Many noble Lords have argued passionately in this House against Section 40 and are concerned about its commencement and its impact upon freedom of the press. That is why the Government ran a consultation to consider the matter further.

The press self-regulatory landscape has changed significantly in the past four years since the Leveson inquiry reported. It is right that the Government take stock, look at the changes which have already taken place and seek the views of all interested parties on the most effective way to ensure that the inexcusable practices which led to the Leveson inquiry being established can never happen again.

A consultation was the most appropriate way to ensure that the Government were listening to all views when considering options for the next step in respect of Section 40. Indeed, the consultation closed on 10 January, and it is estimated that we have received more than 140,000 responses. I know that many Members of this House responded to the consultation, and of course we are grateful that they took the time to do that, but many others have responded as well. It will be necessary to consider the many and diverse views that have been expressed with regard to this matter.

As many Members of the Committee will know, and as the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, mentioned, the consultation is now subject to a legal challenge. While I cannot comment on the ongoing legal proceedings, the Government have committed not to take any final decisions on the matters to which the consultation relates until the judicial review application has been determined. As such, it is not possible for me to set out a timetable for when the Government will respond to the consultation. But of course we hope that that judicial review application will be determined much sooner than later.

That brings me on to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. The issues that she has raised are of critical importance. I appreciate that she and her family were themselves the subject of press abuse, as were other Members of this House. I also recognise the strength of feeling that parties have on the commencement of Section 40. However, with respect, now is not the right time for this House to consider the present amendment.

News consumption is becoming increasingly global and more and more people are reading their news online from a multitude of sources from around the world. Bringing in a law that effectively mirrors Section 40 but for relevant digital publications only would create an incoherent regime applying different rules depending on the mechanism by which an article has been published.

Noble Lords who have supported these amendments have raised the profile of this issue and given a clear signal of their intent—and of their continuing intent. This has not gone unnoticed in government. But we must ensure that we consider this matter properly. As I said before, a free press is an essential component of a fully functioning democracy and we must ensure that we protect that. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, said about the position in Ireland. I am not in a position to express a view as to the manner in which that operates but I am perfectly content to indicate that we will look at that going forward as well. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord. At this stage, however, I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to withdraw her amendment.

Digital Economy Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 6th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I expected more people to be inspired by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and to join in the debate. I am rising to give my support to Amendments 105 and 106 and to thank the noble Lords, Lord Arbuthnot and Lord Carlile, for highlighting this simple failure in company policy, which can lead to much bigger dangers and threats. As the noble Lord said, it can have commercial implications, personal privacy implications and, ultimately, national security implications. While we all have a part to play setting the highest standards of data protection, it is true that all too often we put the focus on national Governments without recognising the equal responsibilities of the private sector and private companies to play their part. This is particularly vital, given the number of private sector organisations which access data for government contract work. However, it also extends into other realms of commercial activity, such as commercial personal profiling, in which companies build vast data banks of our shopping habits, our friends, our movements—literally, where we are moving around in cities and towns—and our vulnerabilities, all of which have huge value both in their own hands and in the hands of cyber-thieves. These are issues which we have also flagged up in other amendments tabled today, and we have tried to build in more safeguards. My noble friend Lord Collins has said that we believe that individuals should have the right to know what information is being held about them, for example. They should have the right to be able to withdraw permission for the data to be held, and they should have the right to know immediately if a data breach has taken place.

We welcome the amendments, which would begin to address some of our concerns, by putting a straightforward obligation on companies to prepare a cybersecurity report each year, detailing the measures being taken to ensure that data are being kept safely. It is a simple ask, and it should not really be necessary, but the all too frequent security breaches taking place underline why a legal requirement has to be imposed. An Institute of Directors report last year showed that companies tend to keep quiet when there has been a security breach. As a result, there are no accurate figures on the extent of this crime, or the extent to which companies are being held to ransom. A survey of business leaders found that only half had a formal strategy in place to protect themselves and just 20% held insurance against an attack. Yet we also know that companies are also losing confidence in their encryption systems, their staff capabilities and awareness and the ability of their software to withstand a deliberate assault.

This is a huge issue. Of course, we have a vested interest in sorting this out, as often it is our personal data which are being stolen. But on a wider sphere it impacts on everything from company finances to sensitive market data and research and development. So we very much welcome the initiative set out in these amendments, and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, that they are helpful. In itself, they will not completely solve the problem, but they represent another small step in getting companies to act responsibly in managing the data that they hold.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, Part 5 of the Bill requires public authorities and specified persons to specify and meet specific legislative conditions and controls on the handling of personal information. As I have said on a number of occasions this evening, these provisions will be underpinned by codes of practice setting out data security requirements, including cybersecurity. A body that fails to meet these could be prevented from using the data-sharing powers. That is the context in which I turn to Amendments 105 and 106.

Amendment 105 would require all but the smallest of companies to conduct audits on their cybersecurity and to report annually on it and their data protection measures. Clearly, the Government recognise that effective cybersecurity risk management is important to the success of the economy and, indeed, to ensuring the safety and integrity of private citizens’ data. The Government conducted the Cyber Security Regulation and Incentives Review in 2016 to consider whether we need additional regulation or incentives to boost cyber risk management in the wider economy and it showed strong justification for regulation to secure personal data.

The Government will seek to improve cyber risk management through our implementation of the EU general data protection regulation in May 2018. Its requirement to report breaches to the Information Commissioner and individuals affected, and the fines that can be issued under it, will represent a significant improvement. These will be supplemented by a number of measures to more clearly link data protection with cybersecurity, including through closer working of the Information Commissioner and the National Cyber Security Centre. However, we will not seek to pursue further general cybersecurity legislation for the wider economy as would be required by Amendment 105.

We believe that mandating the inclusion of cyber risk information in annual reports, or the introduction of legal provisions for cyber audit, is unlikely to be an effective way of encouraging large-scale change in cyber risk management. Instead, the National Cyber Security Centre plans to work with stakeholders to develop guidance for investors. The long-term aim of the organisation is to include cybersecurity in the guidance it provides to businesses on the kind of information it wants to see in an annual report, and in the reports it provides to investors each year on every listed company.

Amendment 106 is very broad in its aims and, as such, could have unintended consequences for the diverse range of grants that the Government fund each year. The supporting audit and insurance regime would be costly and challenging to enforce given the diversity of grant recipients, including those from voluntary and research communities. Furthermore, this amendment is unnecessary as many of these checks are in place as a matter of routine. The level of cybersecurity risk in grants will continue to be monitored and consideration given to how recently launched grant standards could be used to strengthen guidance in this area. This provides a far more flexible and proportionate solution than legislation.

With respect to subsection (2) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 106, the Government are already taking tangible steps to reduce the level of cybersecurity risk in their supply chain. As of October 2014, suppliers of central government contracts that involve the handling of personal data or the supply of IT products and services must demonstrate they have met the technical requirements set out as part of either the government-owned Cyber Essentials scheme or a suitable equivalent. The scheme was developed jointly with GCHQ and industry to support organisations of all sizes and across all sectors in getting a good, basic level of online security in place. In response to my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot I would observe that, as of the end of December 2016, nearly 5,500 certificates had been issued under the scheme, and we have a strategy in place to significantly increase the adoption of the scheme over the coming year. With that explanation, I hope my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

Press Regulation (Communications Committee Report)

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo the comments of others about being very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for introducing his report this evening so eloquently, and indeed to all noble Lords for the hard work that went into producing the report in the first place. I feel that the delay in timetabling this debate was unacceptable. It makes a mockery of our brilliant Select Committee system and the valuable work that they do. Nevertheless, the report still has relevance today. Although it did not go into detail—that was not its role—it reminded us of the widespread phone hacking and police connivance that created a national outcry about the impact that the press were having on their victims and led to demands for reform. In March 2015, the report posed the question: where are we now? Although, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Best, there have been developments, sadly we remain blinkered by confusion and uncertainty.

It is worth revisiting the crucial cross-party agreement that led to the concept of a royal charter, which was there to safeguard the press from any fears of political interference and to establish the validation mechanism for a new, independent, self-regulated press complaints system. We should not lose sight of the importance of that all-party agreement if we are to make further progress in future. I stress that point because some noble Lords this evening have called for a new settlement or compromise. However, we should not lose sight of how difficult it was to reach that agreement around the royal charter all that time ago.

Under the terms of the royal charter, the Press Recognition Panel was established to determine which, if any, regulators met the criteria to be assigned the status of an independent self-regulator for the press. This was a core recommendation from the Leveson report. It was intended to replace the failed Press Complaints Commission and many previous versions of that discredited body. At the time of the Lords report, IPSO had been established as a successor to the PCC but had made it clear that it had no intention of seeking recognition under the royal charter. It continues with that position today and blatantly fails to meet many of the crucial elements that Leveson regarded as essential.

At the time of the Lords report, Impress had just been established with the intention of meeting the royal charter criteria. As we have heard, since that time Impress has applied to the Press Recognition Panel and has been approved as Leveson compliant. The Impress model of regulation includes crucial protections for readers, such as equal prominence for corrections and apologies and low-cost access to arbitration. These are not unimportant points. So I would like to ask the Minister this: how long are the Government intending to tolerate the majority of the press refusing to participate in an approved press regulation scheme, when there is now a scheme available that meets the criteria that were widely endorsed at the time of the Leveson inquiry?

Secondly, I will address the issue of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, which implements a key section of the Leveson report. I have to say that Leveson himself is a very senior judge and was assisted by senior lawyers in the drawing up of that recommendation. At the time that the Lords report was published there was no reason to think that Section 40 would not be implemented in line with the original timetable. It is, after all, an integral part of the agreed Leveson model. It underpins the structure set up by the royal charter and it forms a key part of the rights and responsibilities that go with it. As we have heard, under the terms of Section 40 citizens who bring cases against newspapers that have not joined an approved regulator are protected from paying court costs. Equally, newspapers that have opted into the approved regulator offering low-cost arbitration are protected from paying the other side’s costs if taken to court. Those are the sticks and carrots that we have been talking about today.

It was inexplicable that John Whittingdale, then the Culture Secretary, announced in October 2015 that he was postponing the implementation of Section 40 —although, as we heard today, he had coincidentally met Paul Dacre two weeks earlier. This has now been followed by the announcement by the new Culture Secretary, Karen Bradley, that a consultation would be held on the future of Section 40. What possible reason could there be for a delay, apart from the unseemly lobbying from the powerful press barons who are determined to thwart the delivery of the Leveson agreement?

One reason for the current consultation that has now been announced is that local papers have raised concerns about the impact of Section 40 on their viability. Of course we want the local press to survive and thrive, but we need to bear in mind that the vast majority of local papers are owned by huge media corporations, which have a shared antagonism towards Leveson. What is more, if they signed up with an approved regulator, their concerns would be answered.

There are further concerns, not least that the thrust of the questions in the current consultation invites responses which are critical of the proposals. I ask the Minister whether the Government still stand by the cross-party agreement that led to the establishment of the royal charter. Does he accept that any failure to implement Section 40 would fundamentally undermine that agreement?

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, could the noble Baroness, on behalf of the Official Opposition, deal with the point that I have made—and that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has made in the past—that we, as independent lawyers, take the view that Section 40 is contrary to the European Human Rights Convention and the Human Rights Act because it is arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair and contrary to press freedom?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I thought I had addressed that point. I know that this is an area where there has been some legal disagreement and my point was that Lord Justice Leveson was himself a senior lawyer. This is about implementing his recommendations. Clearly there are different legal views on this matter but it is certainly not a one-sided issue.

As to the outstanding second part of the Leveson inquiry, at the time of the first report in 2012 Lord Leveson reported that he was unable to investigate some aspects of the role of the press and the police as legal cases were ongoing. However, the last case was settled last month so there is now no reason why Leveson part 2, under a new chairman, should not go ahead, as was originally promised by the Prime Minister and others. A range of serious concerns about the role of the police remains. Indeed, over this period a number of police officers have gone to jail for taking bribes, while others plainly failed in their duty to investigate the illegal activities of the press and dismissed the known corruption as the actions of one rogue reporter when it turned out to be an endemic problem.

There are other outstanding concerns about the failure of corporate governance of these huge media corporations during the hacking scandals. These remain relevant given that Sky and 21st Century Fox have agreed the terms of a deal that once again raises questions about whether James and Rupert Murdoch are fit and proper persons to run a media company that owns a regulated TV service. There are also justifiable concerns about the concentration of ownership and whether the merger will threaten our commitment to media plurality.

Does the Minister accept that crucial inquiry work, which Leveson recognised as an essential next step, remains outstanding? Can he be sure that there is no case to answer from the police and others when no inquiry has taken place? Does he also agree that the proposed Murdoch takeover should be postponed until such an inquiry has been completed?

It would be a mistake to believe that the press have somehow cleaned up their act, as some noble Lords who have spoken in the debate would have us believe. As we have heard, they are continuing to make false allegations against individuals, breach victim confidentiality and print false and misleading stories without redress. Over the past year they have fuelled new levels of racism and Islamophobia and have created a wave of hate crimes against innocent civilians. Sadly, the truth is that without the full implementation of Leveson there will be nothing to stop the press from behaving badly in the future, potentially making victims of ordinary people and ruining their lives.

If this was not bad enough, the latest trends on the industrial-scale distribution of fake news and the throwaway assumption that we now live in a post-truth age—although I agree absolutely with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that we should say that it is indeed an age of lies—only goes to underline the importance of having media in the UK that we can trust to tell the truth. If the phone tapping saga teaches us one thing, it is that the failure to tackle the criminal behaviour practised by our press is a mistake. Failure to investigate the wrongdoing of the past is simply storing up trouble for the future, and allowing the press to cock a snook at Parliament is going to risk our democracy being undermined. So I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that not only does he understand the continuing clamour for reform that is made so evident in this excellent report but that he accepts that his Government have a duty to complete the work recommended in Leveson part 1 and a further duty to implement Leveson part 2 now that the way is clear. The British people will not forget the way the victims of the press have been treated and they deserve better.