Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I too congratulate my noble friend the Minister on introducing the first of his four Bills in this Session. My noble friend is going to be busy. I also thank the range of organisations which have provided briefing for this Second Reading, whether in written briefing that they have sent us by email or in the various meetings that have been scheduled.

I should start by declaring an interest as chairman of the Communications and Digital Select Committee but also acknowledge the expertise of other speakers in today’s debate. I pay particular tribute to my noble friends Lady Harding of Winscombe and Lord Vaizey of Didcot, both of whom are members of the Select Committee and whose expertise and professional knowledge I rely on a lot.

Like everyone else today, I welcome the Bill. I recognise the importance of full-fibre broadband rollout, both in its benefits to the economy and its importance to levelling up. I want to address just three main points. I support the greater clarification in the Bill so that all providers have the right to access telegraph poles to upgrade the fibre wires run on overhead poles, as so ably described by my noble friend Lady Harding. I recognise the importance of that being clarified in the Bill, because it will be of benefit to all the providers participating in making sure that we have full broadband rollout in the UK.

What I do not support, however, is extending the exclusive rights of Openreach to upgrade its existing network in blocks of flats, or multi-dwelling units. The reason I would not support an amendment brought forward to that end would be because of it embedding an unfair competition. As my noble friend Lady Harding so expertly already explained, it is the arrival of competition that has done most to accelerate the rollout in this country, so we need to keep Openreach on its toes. That would be to the benefit of flat owners and residents, of whom I am one.

The issue which troubles me most is that of resolving the dispute between site providers and mobile network operators over significant falls in rental income and land value. Other noble Lords have already described these falls, which range from 60% at best—I think that is the Government’s estimate—to, at worst, 90%. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, has just described this in some detail.

I am grateful to Speed Up Britain for its briefing and have some sympathy with its argument comparing the value of what we are discussing to that for other utilities, which is the position that the Government have taken in this legislation. However, I also know that the land-value regime for other utilities was established at a time of state ownership and monopolies and that some argue that the regime for utilities is out of date, although I am not suggesting that we revisit that.

I also understand and share the view that the most important gain—and the prize we must all keep our eye on—is faster rollout, especially for these remote communities and those who are currently not served well. However, according to the other lobby group that has already been mentioned today, Protect and Connect, many site owners remain concerned and feel a sense of injustice and unfairness in the way in which they are treated. It seems to me that site owners are being asked to make sacrifices for the benefit of their local communities, but they fear that what is in fact happening is that they are being asked to give up income for the benefit of commercial providers gaining profit. I recognise that both sides are represented by vested interests—my noble friends Lord Vaizey and Lord Hunt referred to land aggregators buying up leases from landowners to gain their own profit. That is why transparency is so important.

As I understand it, the site providers were told that a reduction in their rental income would be reinvested by the mobile network operators in the rollout. Without the economic impact assessment that the Government promised in 2017 and said would happen by June 2022—ie, this month—those site providers who have been most affected are being asked to take on trust that their loss is not another commercial provider’s gain. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already outlined the impact of this on bill payers, whose bills are not going down as a result of this, so there are quite a lot of people who want a better understanding of what is going on. I see that the Government rejected a request for such an economic impact assessment during the passage of the Bill in the Commons, and I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would explain why. Also, if that is not something that the Government are willing to carry out, what else will they do to provide the confidence that some of these site providers are looking for so that there is not any unnecessary delay to rollout, as has been described is happening because of their sense of events?

As I say, I think that everyone recognises the urgency and importance of rollout, but if this is for the greater good—I believe it is—the Government cannot afford to ignore those who feel that it is happening at unfair expense to them. As I have said on many occasions in your Lordships’ House, levelling up is not just about infrastructure that brings economic equality; it is also about fairness. It seems wrong that a Bill designed to level up is making some of those affected feel that they are losing out. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can do what is necessary to address their legitimate concerns.

Freedom of Speech

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Friday 10th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to take part in the most reverend Primate’s annual debate. I think it is the first time I have done so since becoming a Member of your Lordships’ House. In responding to his Motion, I will take a perhaps more practical approach than many others speaking today.

I should start by being absolutely clear that freedom of speech is critical to a healthy society and democracy. Institutions across all sectors must allow all of us to exercise that fundamental right. However, I would be concerned if we felt it necessary to make this a primary purpose for organisations which exist to serve everyone—especially in an age which feels increasingly intolerant and hostile when people disagree. Let me try to explain why.

I start by stating the obvious. Our institutions play a vital role in society. Many are the glue which unites us, so we need them to keep pace with and stay relevant in a modern world. If they have been established for the benefit of everyone more broadly, they need to retain the tacit support of everyone. Those responsible for running these institutions must be respectful of other people’s points of view. To be clear, I mean views which may be different to their personal opinions. That sounds obvious, but too often in practice institutional leaders are not doing it as well or as consistently as they need to. That is often why too many of our very important institutions get embroiled in controversies and why some of them are in jeopardy. Indeed, it is why some people feel that they are contributing to society’s divisions instead of helping us bridge our divides.

For me, our starting point should be demanding that our institutions, which exist to serve everyone, deliver their central purpose in a way that shows they understand and respect the expectations of everyone. In simple terms, that means being open and accountable, taking every legitimate complaint seriously and taking every complainant seriously. These are reasonable expectations in exchange for the support they rely on from taxpayers, customers or consumers, many of whom will have different views or a different perspective on a whole range of things to those who run these institutions. Their difference does not delegitimise them. Indeed, many people whose support institutions rely on will not even have definitive opinions, ready for instant expression, about the root causes of inequality, how best to tell the story of Britain, or even on the exercise and limits of free speech. They just want what they are paying for to meet the standards that they expect and for some of our most important institutions to be an antidote to politics and division, not another front on which to wage a war against political enemies.

I know that those same institutions will say that their dilemma is how to serve everyone in this increasingly complex and fractured world without taking sides, and how to stay relevant and meet the demands of a forever-changing, modern world. The short answer is that there is no easy or quick answer, which is why, understandably, they often find it hard to resist when a new movement or campaign comes along with what seems like a short cut to modernity or easy access to an underserved section of the population that they have a duty to serve. However, any cause that promotes a position as if it is accepted wisdom and what all right-minded people think, when it is a contested matter, needs to be treated with huge caution. When you exist for everyone’s benefit, you cannot jeopardise the support of your old friends in favour of some new ones. You need to think carefully and move slowly.

Our independent institutions, which are so important, need to understand that politics is not just partisan. In fact, they do not get to decide what constitutes “political” in the eyes of the public. Those who object to what they see as the politicisation of institutions are not, as is often alleged, themselves committing a political act. Their concerns need to be taken seriously by the people responsible for those institutions, not just those at the extreme of either side of a political divide or a contentious debate.

It is possible to modernise and bring everyone with you. I am proud to say that the House of Lords demonstrated that when we debated and passed the equal marriage legislation eight years ago. The critical thing we did, which was different to the way in which MPs operated in the House of Commons, was remove the politics and show respect for people who were uncertain about what was proposed. In return for that respect, we were given a hearing to make the case for something new, big and bold. That led to bigger majorities here than in the other place, so we have shown that it is possible to do these things and bring people with us.

I am grateful to the most reverend Primate for securing today’s debate; as I said, it is a real privilege to take part in it. In my view, the best way for our institutions to uphold the principle of free speech is to respect and keep pace with modern public expectations in fulfilling their fundamental purpose and to stay out of all politics.

Charities Bill [HL]

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Other Business

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, in the course of deliberations on the Bill, we have focused, rather predictably, on the Law Commission recommendations rejected by the Government. This is the most important of those. We spent a great deal of time on this in the Committee listening to the Minister and the Attorney-General, talking to the Law Commission in great detail about why it came to the conclusions and put forward the proposals that it did and talking to the witnesses.

A compelling witness was Dr Mary Synge, a specialist academic researcher in charity law. She put forward to us the argument that the reasons for keeping the Attorney-General’s veto on the Charity Commission making a reference to the tribunal were quite weak. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, referred to some of them, but one that was particularly weak was that the Attorney-General is part of the legal system; that does not seem a good enough reason to indicate how they add to regulation by the Charity Commission.

The Government’s second reason was the need for consistency in the Attorney-General fulfilling her duty to protect charitable interests. Back in 2006, a case was made during the passage of that Charities Bill that we must at all costs avoid duplication by the Attorney-General and the Charity Commission. The amendments put forward today deal quite effectively with that. There are strong reasons to do that. There are strong reasons to allow the Charity Commission not to have to go through the Attorney-General. The Charity Commission is the effective regulator of charities. It has to be clear on the nature of the charity law that it is to apply. If, as in the cases outlined, the effect of the Attorney-General’s refusal is that the Charity Commission is left in doubt about what charity law is, that cannot be right.

Given that the Charity Commission has the overall duty to make sure that the administration of charities is effective and legal, we should not put this block in its way. It is important that we make sure that the Charity Commission has permission to make a reference without reference to government—therefore, completely away from political interference of any kind. These amendments avoid duplication. They do not prevent the Attorney-General fulfilling her duty in any way. They simply allow the Charity Commission to get on with part of its job, which is to clarify charity law in a timely and effective way. I see no reason to object to either of these amendments which seek to do that.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

This is the first time I have spoken on the Charities Bill since it was first introduced to your Lordships’ House. I must declare a recent, albeit ceased, interest, to which my noble friend Lord Hodgson has already referred: I was chair of the Charity Commission until the end of February this year. I became chair of the Charity Commission at the end of February 2018. One of the first things I did—it was certainly the first letter I wrote —was write to the then Civil Society Minister asking the Government to adopt the Law Commission’s recommendations and to bring forward a Bill. The fact that the Government decided to bring it forward a few weeks after I had left perhaps illustrates just how influential I was when I was chair of the Charity Commission—I hope not, anyway.

I am very pleased to add my name to the amendment that my noble friend Lord Hodgson has tabled. I want to add some comments to those he has made. After I had written the then Civil Society Minister about the importance of the Law Commission’s recommendations, I regularly raised the matter with DCMS. During 2020, I lobbied DCMS Ministers particularly on the merits of the Bill because of its modest deregulatory measures.

The pressures that charities were under last year, and many are still under a lot of pressures now, made the reason to bring this Bill forward even more compelling. Like my noble friend Lord Hodgson, I want to make it clear that I am delighted that the Government have done so, and they have my wholehearted support for the Bill.

However, I do not understand why, in a Bill that is about deregulation and removing unnecessary burdens on charities, the Government have not adopted the Law Commission’s recommendation to relieve an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on the Charity Commission itself. We have heard this morning that the Members of this Special Public Bill Committee have received evidence from a lot of witnesses over the past few months, but none the less I still feel it necessary to say that I sometimes think that, in general, people see the commission as almost a charity itself, run by well-meaning volunteers. The Charity Commission is the regulator of a sector with an annual turnover of £84 billion. The combined property, assets and investments that it regulates add up £250 billion.

To put that turnover in context, it is five times the size of the UK’s television revenues, which are regulated by Ofcom. I know that Ofcom regulates far more than just television, but even if we look at the banking industry, regulated by the FCA, we see that £84 billion of turnover does not pale into insignificance, because the annual income of the UK banking industry is £124 billion, or so it was a couple of years ago. So the charity sector is not a minnow. Whereas the FCA regulates 50,000 financial entities, which are varied, the Charity Commission regulates 170,000 charities—that is only those that are on the register; tens of thousands more are exempt—and they range from, as we have heard, cultural institutions, university colleges, professional bodies and public schools through to small local community groups.

The commission is run and staffed by professionals who understand charity law and ensure that it is applied, but they do more than that. They represent the interests of the public to charities, and not the interest of charities to the public. I am proud to say that the Charity Commission is probably the least technocratic public body that exists. It does not regulate for the sake of it; it is motivated only by ensuring that charity can maximise its benefit to society. That means that it also has to ensure that people can be confident and have trust in charities to operate in the way they say they do.

The Charity Commission’s most recent annual report shows its success in the courts when anyone has sought to appeal against its findings. Operationally, the Charity Commission has been transformed in the past few years. Clearly, it is still on a programme of improvement which will never stop; it is an organisation that is continually seeking to improve. However, if it is to meet public expectations—and people have a right to have expectations of a regulator which exists to represent their interests—many of the improvements that still need to be made rely on it having more powers to take action against wrongdoing more swiftly and in a way that leads to less bureaucracy.

That the Government consider it necessary to retain the arrangement whereby the commission needs the permission of a Minister, albeit the Attorney-General, to refer a matter to the tribunal to get clarity on a point of law beggars belief. I really hope that the Committee will support the amendment that I have put my name to.

I note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has tabled an alternative amendment. When the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, comes to respond, can he advise what protection there would be in the approach suggested by the noble and learned Lord—that is, in the 60-day period that is suggested—to avoid a situation where the Attorney-General might say, “You need to think about it a bit more”? Basically, would the clock keep getting reset? As noble Lords have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in the context of the Royal Albert Hall, the Charity Commission has experienced, certainly for the past few years, a never-ending prevarication in terms of any decision being made by the Attorney-General.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I will respond to the question asked of me by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. From reading the Member’s explanatory statement, it seems that the objective of the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, is to avoid the clock being reset every 60 days. Nevertheless, I will draw the noble Baroness’s question to the noble and learned Lord’s attention so that he can respond to her.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Sorry, my point was this: what would happen if the Attorney-General responded during the 60-day period with an acknowledgement that the clock would not start again at that point? This is not about getting to the end of the 60 days but about continuing to restart the clock during those 60 days.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that clarification. I understand her point: she does not want a “never-ending prevarication”, to use her words. I will draw her question to the attention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, so that he can respond to her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, in supplemental written evidence, Professor Nicholas Hopkins, the lead Law Commissioner on the Law Commission’s project on technical issues in charity law, pointed to the list of regulated alterations for unincorporated charities under the proposed new Section 280A(7) to the Charities Act 2011, which adds to the list of regulated alterations for companies in Section 198(2) and for CIOs in Section 226(2). CIOs are charitable incorporated organisations. The commission’s decisions under Sections 198 and 226 to give or withhold consent are appealable. The provision of a right of appeal, in respect of the giving or refusal of consent to a decision under new Section 280A(7), would therefore be entirely consistent with the policy of treating unincorporated charities in the same way as companies and charitable incorporated organisations.

Professor Hopkins went on to say, regarding new Section 67A, that a decision of the Charity Commission under the provision is essentially a specific type of new Section 280A resolution. Therefore, if there is provision for an appeal under new Section 280A, it would also be logical to provide an appeal to a decision under new Section 67A. I beg to move.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on this amendment. I am assuming I have understood it correctly—do not look at me like that, Lord Ponsonby! If I have, the amendment seeks to introduce a right of appeal to trustees, after they have arrived at a resolution on a decision. Under the proposals from the Law Commission, it requires that they go to the Charity Commission for formal approval or refusal. If I understand it, this amendment perpetuates the appeals process. That is in contrast to the Law Commission’s proposal, which is that, at the point that the approval is sought from the Charity Commission on a decision reached by the trustees, it is final. This introduces an extra level of appeal.

I offer a few thoughts on this because, quite often with smaller charities—we are talking about small amounts of money here—the underlying problem is a dispute between trustees. A lot of the commission’s time can be eaten up by disputes between trustees over quite small matters. The Law Commission was trying to remove that or force trustees, on these modest matters, to arrive at a decision on their own and take responsibility in the way they are required to and not, therefore, to allow an ongoing battle.

My fear is that if this appeal process is brought in, it would lend itself to those trustees who will never ever give up. That is why I caution against the amendment. I understand the intention behind it and it is of course well-intentioned, but it brings with it a burden that it might not have meant to. I counsel against it.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for tabling Amendment 7, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for moving it, and those who raised this issue in the written and oral evidence that the Committee heard. By way of background, new Section 280A will create a new power for unincorporated charities to amend any provision in their governing documents. This brings the amendment powers available for unincorporated charities more in line with those for incorporated charities, supporting the Bill’s policy to create greater consistency for different legal forms of charities. In a similar vein, charitable incorporated organisations and charitable companies both have the right to appeal a decision by the Charity Commission to give or withhold consent to a request to make a regulated alteration to their governing documents.

Covid-19: Charities

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

The noble Lord made important points about local charities, simplification of funding and older volunteers. I am pleased that we announced this morning, through the Department of Health and Social Care, the launch of the GoodSAM app, which I commend to Members of the House. It allows volunteering both from home, by telephone support for others, and in the community if necessary. On simplifying funding, every funder that I have spoken to is looking at ways to simplify and become more agile and responsive. That is happening across the piece. The noble Lord made an important point about scammers; colleagues across Government are working on that.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)]

I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register. I commend the Government for the steps they have already taken in support of charities. I particularly support the charities on the front line and the dedicated volunteers who are doing such important work at this time. The Charity Commission is taking a flexible and pragmatic approach to regulation where relevant and appropriate, and will continue to do so. Will the Minister assure me that, as the commission continues to explore regulatory opportunities to make life easier for those charities doing such important work on the front line, we will be able to seek government support for that aim should we need it?

[Baroness Barran]

I am delighted to give the noble Baroness that reassurance.

BBC: Unfair Pay

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am very grateful for that instruction. I have listened to everything that the noble Baroness has said, particularly with reference to her experience of being paid by the BBC. Of course, the BBC has not totally disregarded the situation—it knows that we take it seriously. I remember that we spent a long time discussing pay transparency during the charter renewal process. The compromise position that was reached—that we should make the BBC publish all salaries above £150,000—was not straightforward, and I cannot say that the BBC particularly wanted to do it. However, we made it do that and, as a result, we are talking about these issues today, whereas it is unlikely that we would be doing so had we not done that. As a result, the BBC committed to publish its gender pay gap data earlier than was required under the law, it carried out an independent audit of pay for the majority of its staff, and it is undertaking a separate review of on-air presenters, editors and correspondents, which will come out soon.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I very much support the stance that the women at the BBC are taking in demanding equal pay. I support also the fact that they have made it clear that they are not seeking pay increases, and are raising awareness of and concerns about high pay for some of the top presenters. Has my noble friend had the opportunity to reflect on the allegation in Carrie Gracie’s public letter at the weekend that the BBC often settles cases out of court—these are disputes about pay—and demands non-disclosure agreements? What is the Government’s view of the BBC, a public organisation, using NDAs?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

That is a genuine issue to consider. These things have to be taken on a case-by-case basis, and there are times when non-disclosure agreements are right. However, the BBC has to remember that it is a mainly publicly funded organisation and has to set an example of how to treat male and female employees and all questions of diversity. We expect the BBC to do that and to be an example, and we will continue to make sure that it is.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I rise in support of Amendment 172C, which refers to Clause 164(3)(c). I have no interest to declare but it might be helpful if I remind your Lordships that, prior to joining this House, I worked at the BBC for the best part of 10 years. For the majority of my time there, I worked in the area of governance and regulation, advising three successive chairmen.

I just want to make a couple of simple points. I have not been involved in this Bill so far but, when it was highlighted to me that it would introduce a clause that would, for the first time, bring into statutory regulation a facility for the pre-transmission involvement of regulators in broadcasting in this country, I was surprised—indeed, I was very worried. This is a very big change to our current set-up. Broadcasting is a very heavily regulated sector but it is regulated post hoc, not ex ante—I know that your Lordships like a bit of Latin.

When I worked at the BBC under the old governance regime, before Ofcom was set up and before the BBC became subject to Ofcom regulation, there was only one editor-in-chief at the BBC and he had the final say editorially. We have a former editor-in-chief sitting in his place here today. The governors, led by the chairman, were very clear that their responsibilities prevented them ever interfering in any programming pre-transmission, so even the governors did not involve themselves in programmes pre-transmission. When they had done so in the past, the result had been absolutely calamitous.

We should remember that we demand impartiality from broadcasters in this country. We set very clear and rigorous codes for them to follow and they take them very seriously. However, in order to ensure that there is impartial broadcasting in this country and to give our audiences confidence, in exchange we give broadcasters their independence. I worry that a very simple clause in the Bill, which may look quite innocuous, could put at risk something that is very important to us. I understand that the media can sometimes be arrogant and that they sometimes get things wrong, but we should make sure that we tackle them when they get things wrong rather than try to interfere and put at risk something which, as I said, is very precious to us in this country.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I simply want to speak about my noble friend’s Amendments 185E and 185F, which relate to custodial sentences. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Black. I missed the opening part of his speech as I was looking up the reference to which I now want to refer—the ninth report of Session 2010-12 produced by the House of Commons Justice Committee, of which I was then chairman. As noble Lords know, we took evidence from the Information Commissioner on a number of occasions. We said in the report that we shared,

“the Information Commissioner’s concern and dissatisfaction that no order has been brought before Parliament to implement section 77 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which would have the effect of providing custodial sentences for breaches of section 55 of the Data Protection Act. Currently the only available penalty is a fine, which we feel is inadequate in cases where people have been endangered by the data disclosed, or where the intrusion or disclosure was particularly traumatic for the victim, or where there is no deterrent because the financial gain resulting from the crime far exceeds the possible penalty”.

The point was made earlier that in some quarters—this is not particularly a media matter; it refers to many kinds of illicit information-gathering—meeting fines, should they be imposed, can be seen as a “trade expense”. So we said:

“We accept the Information Commissioner’s argument that the issue of custodial sentences for section 55 offences is not exclusively, or even primarily, an issue relating to the media and that the issue should be dealt with by Parliament without waiting for the outcome of Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry”.


That illustrates just how long the matter has been going on and how unsatisfactory it is, to the point of disgraceful, that what Parliament has previously enacted remains not in force because of the lack of commencement.