Public Service Broadcasting: BBC Centenary

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, in common with other noble Lords today, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on securing this debate and giving us something of a tour de force of a speech. There have been many tours de force this afternoon—probably too many to list—and I have enjoyed them all. While we are on the business of congratulations, I join others and reaffirm my earlier congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, on his bouncebackability. It is a good cause for celebration. Whatever the reason for his departure under the Truss regime changes, we all feel reassured by his return.

This has been a wide-ranging debate, all about modernisation and modern media, and quite a lot about nostalgia. We should remind ourselves of some things about public service broadcasting. In recent years, particularly during the Covid pandemic, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, touched on, its value has been brought home because of its trusted nature and its ability not only to provide news and advice at the same time but to do much more than that—to entertain us when we need it most and to act as a key tool for children and young people in the absence of their usual school day.

TV these days is a formative part of a child’s experience, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, reminded us, in a way that is very different from my childhood. Indeed, when I was thinking about this debate today, I was reminded that I did not watch a television until the age of eight—something unthinkable today, when TV screens are everywhere and catch-up enables us to tune in to whatever, whenever.

Indeed, I recall my mother being deeply sceptical about the merits of children watching TV at all. She was oddly rather relieved when we moved to a house served only by gaslight rather than electricity. Later, when I was older, she said that at least she did not have to think about the issue.

My early broadcasting experience as a consumer was with radio, in the days of the Home Service, the Light Programme and the Third Programme—which I was told was only for posh people. Then, of course, there was the Empire Service, later rebadged as the World Service. Now it is a very widely respected output, one that—as many colleagues this afternoon have said—is trusted for its reliability but has, unfortunately, been threatened by the decreases in funding over the years.

I knew nothing of current affairs and politics until TV arrived in our household and the outcome of the 1964 general election became a topic of conversation. Nowadays we can have all this as a wall-to-wall subject, manipulating content to suit our personal preferences. Of course, today the modern Conservative Party has seemingly done its best to keep BBC News and Channel 4 busy with wall-to-wall coverage of its own soap and psychodrama, particularly over the last year—something that I must say I have greatly enjoyed. It is a form of entertainment.

More seriously, the broadcasters have played out the game of politics in front of us in a way that I think has been incredibly balanced, informing while trying to keep us up to date with the latest twists and turns. In a strange way, I think they have proven their value as impartial observers, casting questions in the right direction, by the way in which those stories have panned out.

We had excellent coverage following the sad passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in September. The BBC reports that 32.5 million people tuned into the Queen’s state funeral. That was an enormous number of people paying close attention, far more than watched the Queen when she was crowned back in 1952. Huw Edwards was a calming, reassuring, measured presence during that tumultuous time and, as something of a national treasure, many will share his sentiments on the BBC. As he says, it offers

“very good value for money”

and represents

“100 years of incredible achievement and some of the best programming in the world.”

It is hard to dispute those words.

As well as celebrating the BBC’s centenary, as many noble Lords have said today, we should also congratulate Channel 4 on its 40th anniversary, which was marked yesterday. Contrary to assertions made by the Government in recent years, Channel 4 continues to reinvent itself. It has the biggest free streaming platform in the UK and is constantly evolving its offering, supporting independent production companies and emerging talent across the whole of the UK. As noble Lords have reminded us this afternoon, if we privatise Channel 4 and go down that route, many of those production houses and companies will simply disappear.

If left by Ministers to get on with its work, Channel 4 is well positioned to continue playing an important public service role for many years to come. Yes, the Government have raised questions about its future funding, but privatisation is not the only answer. Channel 4 has a well-advanced alternative business plan that addresses the issues the Government claim exist as a threat to its success. As others have said, we know that the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has been reassessing the business case for its privatisation. Can the Minister confirm where the Government have got to on this? Either they have gone very quiet or a review has found its way into the long grass.

Can the noble Lord please reassure us that we shall have the much-needed media Bill? The noble Lord, Lord Foster, made that point very persuasively and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and others followed. We need to know because there is so much uncertainty out there. Some of the issues that are very much alive, such as prominence and a sense of mission for our media, need to be dealt with in a modern and updated piece of legislation.

I also want the noble Lord to take the opportunity to correct the record concerning Channel 4’s chief executive officer’s remuneration package. On 21 July, he told the House that Channel 4’s boss receives

“more than the chief executive of ITV”,—[Official Report, 21/7/22; col. 2032.]

yet, according to both organisations’ annual reports, that is simply not the case, so perhaps the noble Lord can offer a correction. Channel 4 may be a specialist in commissioning alternative programming, but discussions about its future should not be based on alternative facts.

Of course, neither Channel 4 nor the BBC is without its faults. Just this week, we heard of the BBC’s plans to radically shake up its radio offering. Local BBC radio stations inform and entertain millions across the country. We also saw during Liz Truss’s short spell in office that the BBC local radio presenters are excellent journalists. They were asking the hard questions, putting the Prime Minister on the spot and holding her to account perhaps more effectively than we are used to. It was a service to the nation.

The BBC has not covered itself in glory in recent days with its announcement and we should not shy away from saying that, but one answer is for the Government to provide it with greater clarity about its long-term future. The plans it outlined do in part have a direct relationship to the Government’s decision to cap the licence fee at £159 and effectively take some £250 million of revenue out that would otherwise have been available to the BBC for its programming. That reduction made it inevitable that change to service levels would take place, but whether they are the right ones must be open to debate.

Just as Ministers have threatened Channel 4 with privatisation, the BBC has been threatened with the withdrawal of the licence fee, with no feasible alternative proposal in its place. We know that licence fee payers have been diminishing in number—a challenge that the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and others raised in their plea for us to think big in the future. We need to understand why those licence fee numbers are shrinking and what that means and implies for the future funding of the BBC. It is for the Government to lead the debate there, in a constructive way that recognises the value of this great institution.

The BBC has served our country well for 100 years since its inception. We benefit from its history and legacy and, as others have said, we undermine it at our peril. Not only is it rightly admired worldwide, rather like our National Health Service, but its reputation, despite periodic political attacks, remains high. For a whole variety of reasons, many of which have been given clear and distinct voice during the debate, we should cherish and nurture our public service broadcasters, guaranteeing their future rather than throwing it into doubt. Broadcast media, like all others, live in an era of rapid change. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, our role is surely to create a framework in which we as parliamentarians provide opportunities for change and renewal and encourage it in a way that strengthens, rather than weakens, the broadcasting ecosystem.

We can only hope that the arrival of the third Prime Minister in as many months, who we are told is a grown-up, will see a ratcheting down of the threats to public service broadcasting outlets and a more mature discussion about the issues that currently face all broadcasters. There are decisions to be made about funding, listed events, new markets, prominence, missions, purpose and so on, but they must be taken in the national interest, not in a narrow party-political interest, with the widest possible public debate and engagement in a well-informed way. There is much in that menu for the Minister to respond to.

Football Governance

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect to bring forward legislation to implement the recommendations of the Fan-Led Review of Football Governance, published on 24 November 2021; and in particular, the proposal for an independent regulator.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government published their response to the recommendations made by the independent fan-led review of football governance in April 2022. The Government recognise the need for football to be reformed to ensure the game’s long-term sustainability. We continue to consider the policy and consult interested parties, but the Government remain committed to publishing a White Paper setting out our detailed response to the fan-led review.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the noble Lord back to his place on the Front Bench and commiserate with the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, his predecessor, but this is part of the problem. The Conservative Party made a strong manifesto commitment, as did our party, to hold a fan-led review of football’s governance. I appreciate that we have had a year of on-off, merry-go-round government, but a year has passed since the review was published and nearly six months since the Queen’s Speech announced a White Paper. When can we expect some legislative protection for our football clubs? When can we start to see the interests of the fans who give their support week in, week out to football clubs properly represented? This has been going on for far too long, and I think we are all beginning to run out of patience.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I join the noble Lord in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Kamall, with whom I swapped places on the substitutes’ bench; I hope that his stay there will be as brief as mine. However, for all the changes in ministerial positions, the work to continue examining the recommendations made by Tracey Crouch, in commitment to and fulfilment of our manifesto pledge, as the noble Lord said, has continued at official level. The Secretary of State and my right honourable friend the Sports Minister, who have stayed in place, have been engaging with organisations. The Sports Minister made sure that his first meeting was with the Football Supporters’ Association. They are taking the time to continue that engagement and to look at the policy, and they will bring forward a White Paper with the answers to these complex issues soon.

Arts: Energy Cost Support

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I first declare an interest: I am a trustee of two galleries and my daughter works for V&A Dundee. Museums and galleries have to keep to specific temperatures and light levels to ensure the protection and security of valuable collections, so reducing energy consumption is just not an option. Modern Two, part of the National Galleries of Scotland group, has closed due to rising energy costs, and other galleries and museums are warning of closures. What support is the DCMS going to provide to protect our cultural assets from cuts and closures beyond the end of the six-month energy price cap? Does the Minister think that closed galleries are a reasonable price for the public to pay for the Government’s incompetent mismanagement of our national economy?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My department is in conversations with museums and others and is fully aware. I am sure that many noble Lords will recognise that my department does not just wait until it is contacted by the sector; we are in constant dialogue with different parts of the sector. One of the things we have been discussing is how we protect vulnerable collections and what sort of extra protection might be needed.

National Heritage Act 1983

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, on securing the debate and a dollop of publicity around it as well. It is a rare thing that debates in the Lords generate so much interest, but it is a good thing too. It is very nice to see the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, here after his excellent stint as our Arts Minister.

I ought to declare an interest or two: I am a trustee of the Royal Pavilion and Museums Trust in Brighton and a trustee of the People’s History Museum in Manchester. My eldest daughter is a curator at the V&A Dundee and has to wrestle fairly continuously with issues such as this in her role there.

I visited the Hamburger Kunsthalle in the summer, and in one of the galleries there is a whole explanation of its policy and approach to restitution. After the Second World War it had in its possession thousands of objects looted by the Nazis, and since then it has spent a lot of time trying to return them to the people they were stolen from. Of course, in many cases those people were deceased because they had been put to death in the Holocaust, but the museum had made a very honest attempt to return them. In part, I see this debate in that context.

I raised this issue last month in the context of the Horniman Museum returning the Benin statues to Nigeria, which was an immensely significant decision. Now the Horniman is working with Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments on how together they can secure long-term care for the artefacts and arrange for a formal transfer of ownership, collaborating and working on the possibility of retaining some objects on loan for display, research and education, which I think we would all applaud. But, as has been said, the Horniman trustees were able to take that decision because of their independence and because they are not covered by the 1983 Act.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, makes a very compelling case for a review of the Act. I like his suggestion that there ought to be an independent review body looking at the issue, because that would take some of the heat that has been generated around this topic out of it and perhaps put to bed the whole “woke” arguments, which I think have rather confused the whole discussion and debate unnecessarily. Given that momentum is building for a review of the legislation, I wonder whether the Minister agrees with that point.

Perhaps we could get some discussion going about how that review might take place. I do not particularly favour royal commissions, for the very reason that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, set out. But the reality is that the conversation is being had. Colleagues have given fair voice to that today in their observations on museums across the country and around the world. The question is: do Ministers want to be at the forefront of that discussion or do they simply want to follow it? I think there is a role for them to take a lead, and if we review the 1983 Act, although it covers only three national institutions, it sets a benchmark for the rest of the sector. I think the 40th anniversary is a good point to do that. We can reflect on the emerging new technologies that offer opportunities to the museum world to display and share cultural artefacts in many different ways and across many different locations.

I also ask the Minister to reflect on this point. What more consideration can the DCMS give to the independence of our institutions so that they feel freer to carry out their role as trustees? The sector itself is looking very carefully at these issues—the museums that I am part of certainly are. What conversations are the Minister and his colleagues having, together with the Secretary of State, to engage with leaders of museums and national institutions on this issue? They need to take a leadership role, because we are now in a place where there is an appetite for change.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to his new role. I think DCMS will be at least as busy as his previous engagements, so we look forward to seeing him on his feet at the Dispatch Box quite a lot.

The unifying feature of these three amendments, which in policy terms are different, is that we are seeking some clarity. So, I support my noble friend in Amendments 1 and 13, and I rise to speak to Amendment 3 in my name. Given that online marketplaces represent the single most popular point of sale for connected products, these platforms should have responsibilities for the security of the products they are selling. That is what we are seeking clarity on today. If online marketplaces are not held responsible under the Bill, these insecure products will continue to be sold and, in all likelihood, their sale would become more prolific.

One of the last things the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, did as Minister was to dispatch a letter to me in response to queries such as this raised in Committee about the status of online marketplaces—the fear being that channels such as listings platforms and auction sites such as eBay, Amazon Marketplace and AliExpress might present a loophole. The problem is the lack of clear definition for the various players that are part of the internet value chain and the fact that these players have different degrees of insight or control over what is happening online.

As the Minister will see from his predecessor’s letter, dated 21 September 2022, the department’s stated position for online marketplaces is that,

“businesses need to comply with the security requirements of the product security regime in relation to all new consumer connectable products offered to customers in the UK, including those sold through online marketplaces”.

I would appreciate it if the Minister could confirm this from the Dispatch Box. It is paramount that online marketplaces are given this obligation in the Bill to ensure this security, regardless of whether the seller is a third party. It would help very much if the Minister set out what the Government’s definition of an online marketplace is.

How does the Minister’s department plan to deal with the retailers, which are far away, possibly with their real identity obscured on the online marketplaces? Will the department go to the online marketplace first and how will that process be marshalled? In other words, when a customer has a problem, who do they contact?

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, before I make any comments on this group, I join noble Lords in welcoming the noble Lord to his new position on the Front Bench. I think this Bill is a gentle introduction, and this afternoon will probably give voice to that sentiment. I do welcome him. We have been delighted by the general response we have had from the department on the Bill and the open way in which the noble Lord’s predecessor approached things. I am sure the noble Lord will continue very much in that vein.

This amendment was resisted when we were discussing these matters in Committee, on the basis that minimum requirements will swiftly be set out in regulations. Regulations are not always swift in coming, so perhaps it would be useful for the Minister to remind us how quick that will be. Is he in a position today to commit to a timescale for the full details to be brought forward? This is, after all, an important piece of protective legislation, as noble Lords around the House today have made clear, and, given that it is about protecting customers and consumers, it is important that we have some assurance on that point.

The questions that our noble friends on the Lib Dem Benches have asked are very important ones and they require to be answered. Although the Minister will no doubt resist these amendments, it would help us if we had some further reassurance, perhaps before we get to Third Reading. However, we are grateful for the written assurances that the Minister’s predecessor offered in relation to online marketplaces, and we hope that the current provisions will prove effective. I ask the Minister to outline how the Government would amend those provisions should that need arise in future. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, was always willing to provide us with some written responses, and that would probably suffice for us for today’s debate and deliberations. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 2, 4 to 12 and 14 very much reflect amendments that I tabled in Committee, and in that regard, I am very pleased to see them reappearing with the Minister’s name on them.

The Minister was mercifully spared one of my longer speeches in Committee where the full set of concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was discussed. For that, he may be truly grateful. We are pleased that these amendments have come back, but I am disappointed that the Minister feels that the Government still need the breadth of powers claimed in Clauses 11, 18, 19, 24 and 25. These are justified, as usual, by the need for flexibility. However, if our working during the Covid crisis showed nothing else, it demonstrated that Parliament could move swiftly and that we were not an impediment to flexible action. I am sure that in his former role the Minister saw us demonstrate that across the Floor many times in dealing with statutory instruments quickly and clearly. It seems that departments have grown very accustomed to using primary legislation to create generously for themselves the ability to act in wide-ranging ways without further or significant recourse to Parliament, and we have to spend an awful lot of time reining that back.

Without sounding too churlish given that the Minister has conceded on a number of things, I think this is a generally avoidable process. I feel sure that the people drafting legislation and the Ministers know what the DPRRC will say about this almost continuous stream of legislation that seems to take power from Parliament, yet each time we do the same dance between the department, the draft, the DPRRC and your Lordships. This is an avoidable process. That said, I thank the Minister for retabling the amendments.

The removal of Clause 57 via Amendment 15 is of course very sensible given the judgment of the Supreme Court, and we support that.

I am pleased that the Minister has clarified which body will be dealing with this in terms of empowerment. On the OPSS, the Minister talked about capacity. This is a big new job for that body, and it needs not just the capacity that it has but future resources. Can the Minister assure your Lordships’ House that that body will have the resources to be able to do what is a really big job? If you look at what is going out on the internet-enabled markets, this is a huge job. Can that body be assured that it will get the resources it needs to ensure that consumers’ security is not jeopardised?

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am reflecting on the points that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made about statutory instruments. I guess that I have heard those arguments over much of the 25 years that I have been here, and I have a lot of sympathy with them. I had less sympathy when we were in government, but I have more sympathy now.

I too am pleased to see these amendments, which in part reflect the debate we had in Committee and the amendments that were moved by our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches. They in turn were of course a reflection of the comments made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and for that reason we welcome their tabling. It ill behoves any Government to ignore the wise words of the DPRRC. Not all the amendments are in response to its report—Amendments 15 to 17 are not—but they are a sensible response and reaction. We would expect the Government to do no less.

As our colleagues on the Lib Dem Benches have said, the removal of Clause 57 comes as the result of the recent Supreme Court ruling on the same topic. We are aware that operators have very much welcomed the clarity offered by that ruling. We welcome the DCMS withdrawing the clause. If it had not, we would have been left in a very confused position.

We welcome these amendments. We are pleased to see the Government being responsive. We are grateful that they have reflected on our earlier debates. With that, we offer our support for these amendments.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about the OPSS. When we considered the options, we looked at who had the potential capacity and who could bridge the gap in knowledge as quickly as possible.

The vast majority of products in scope of the Bill, such as mobile smart lightbulbs, wearables, kitchen appliances—the internet of things—are also in scope of the product safety legislation. Given that the OPSS has already introduced the Electric Vehicles (Smart Charge Points) Regulations 2021, which impose some security requirements in relation to these products, based on the same international standard that we felt most appropriate, the OPSS’s published strategy aims to bring these product regulations together to protect people and to enable responsible business to thrive. We feel it is effective and we intend to give it the resources it needs.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, said that he was disappointed. I heard this a number of times when I was Health Minister in your Lordships’ House. I completely understand. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said he was less sympathetic when he was in government. I am sympathetic being in government. I am happy to try to push as much as we can. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asks me to remember that point, so no doubt it will be used against me one day. This is the nature of parliamentary democracy. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has demonstrated a prodigious ability to outsource the responsibility for presenting the government amendments. We welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to this Bill.

As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, pointed out, this is late to the party. It is also the first time we have heard the explanation for this Bill, though others may have been lucky in having it. We had a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. No one from the Home Office was there to give us the information we have just received, so I am absorbing it for the first time—a relatively unsatisfactory process. That said, this is an important area. I am surprised that the code has somehow been allowed to continue for as long as it has without this issue cropping up. Have there been specific issues which have caused this to happen, or is it still a hypothetical matter that the Government are seeking to deal with?

Everybody can appreciate the problems of sticking a 5G tower on top of GCHQ. No one wants to see it, but I can imagine that the reality is a more subtle set of problems. We on these Benches seek a better sense of the real-life cases which the new clause seeks to stop. The Minister singled out technical risks in particular. Those exist beyond the site itself, on the environs. I am interested to hear from the Minister how the clause deals with a 5G site put adjacent to a security site. What thresholds are the Government going to expect its security services to run when it comes to implementing the clause? It will not just be on the site itself.

I understand that quite a lot of this will be enshrined in a digital toolkit. It would help us all if the process of developing that digital toolkit was one with a collaborative approach. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, also highlighted that this problem of overriding access from the operators extends beyond the security environs. This is not just a security issue; it spreads into other places. Like many other Peers, I received a letter from the fire and rescue service. While this is not a security issue, it falls within the purview of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the Government should consider it, because it raises the problems of putting network equipment on fire and rescue service land and the fact that it would impede the training and preparation of that service.

This is even later than the Government’s amendment, and I recognise that it is not even part of this amendment, but it is a specific concern, and the Minister would do well to undertake to your Lordships’ House to talk to the fire and rescue service, to understand their problem and, if necessary, I am sure that we would all tolerate a late insertion at Third Reading. I say this without having spoken to the Opposition, but if it was an issue, I think that we would discuss it.

We understand that national security issues must be taken into consideration. We do not understand how this will work, what the thresholds will be, and what sort of cases it is seeking to avoid. More explanation is required.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to the Dispatch Box on this Bill. We have had to deal with an increasingly large cast of Ministers, but he is a very astute and wise owl and I am sure that he will bring his insights to bear on this. I thank him for the meeting that we were facilitated to have on this issue and thank the officials for their close attention.

We on the Labour Benches entirely understand the need to protect national security and other key sites across the UK. We take the point that we should not allow equipment to be installed in places where it may interfere or enable the interception of sensitive data. However—and it is a big however—it is not desirable to introduce a power such as this at the last substantive stage of a Bill, when the elected House and our own scrutiny committees have already considered the legislation. It is not best practice. I have a bit of sympathy because I too have been a Home Office Minister. In my time I did something like 19 Bills in a two-year period. Home Office officials have a nasty habit of dreaming up late amendments which are absolutely essential for the safety and security of people at the last minute. However, it is not good practice and should not go unremarked on. We hope that the DCMS and the Home Office will acknowledge that and reflect on how this has been brought forward.

We are grateful to Ministers and officials for answering questions over recent days. That has, to a large extent, assured us that this power is not only necessary but is appropriate and will not be widely used. The Minister said “rarely” and “in extremis”, two very important guiding phrases to be used. Under this draft, the power is not subject to any formal checks. We hope that the Minister can make commitments again from the Dispatch Box. There are the possible reporting approaches to Parliament, perhaps to an appropriate Select Committee and maybe to the Intelligence and Security Committee, even if these reports are confidential. We would be grateful if the Minister could repeat, for the record, the various other steps to be exhausted before the Secretary of State would resort to this blunt instrument.

The Lib Dems made an interesting suggestion at the end of their contribution on this. I would be very interested to hear if this power will impact on adjacent sites, and whether those adjacent sites might in themselves be a security risk. It is right to draw attention to the needs of fire and rescue services, and the police service, where their services might be interfered with by adjacent-site issues.

It is not desirable, not good practice, and really not right to introduce something like this in your Lordships’ House, but we understand why and are happy to support this amendment because of its security implications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

The view of these Benches is that throughout the passage of the Bill it has been clear that a strong case has been made for better protection for landowners against the power of telecoms operators. However, the ADR process that the Government are providing under Clause 68 is non-binding. Telecoms companies need to show only that they have considered it to avoid costs. This will not make them engage with the spirit of the process, and we expect telecoms companies to take matters to court as quickly as possible instead, with all the consequences that entails of costs on both sides.

As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, stated, to address this the Government should make ADR compulsory for any dispute and issue guidance about reasonable terms. Properly enforced, we believe it would reduce operators’ reliance on litigation through the courts, which sometimes takes the rather oppressive form of threats, and encourage better behaviour by both parties. Given the potential benefits to both parties and the wider public interest, it is difficult to see the case for this process remaining advisory. In principle, we very much support Amendments 25, 26 and 27, so well advocated by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting short debate. It was an interesting debate in Committee and I congratulate the noble Baroness on retabling her amendments. I do so because I am not completely convinced by the Government’s arguments here. There are real concerns from some that the tribunal system favours operators due to the experience and size of their legal teams. They are very powerful organisations and we should not overlook that. The legal system is there to protect all from overweening power. I understand that the ADR system is intended to prevent cases going to tribunal and court, with all the costs that come with that, and, given the timescales involved, there is clearly a benefit to reaching agreements under an alternative framework. However, if it is voluntary, where is the incentive for its use?

I shall ask one final question; I think this is the most important point. If ADR as a voluntary means of dispute resolution does not work, what will the Government do? Will they step in again and reconsider this issue? Will they give careful consideration to making it mandatory, because then it would have a more powerful effect?

I do not think this issue will go away. I do not find the Government’s arguments entirely compelling and the noble Baroness has made a very good case. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for this amendment and for explaining making ADR—alternative dispute resolution—compulsory so eloquently. Where there is disagreement, it is always good if there can be a mechanism, but we have to remember that ADR is not one sort of ADR. There are many different types, which I shall go into.

I shall reiterate the Government’s position of not supporting the approach and supply more information that I hope will convince your Lordships that these amendments are not only unnecessary but could be actively counterproductive. As my noble friend Lord Parkinson mentioned in Committee, ADR not being mandatory is a deliberate policy choice, made for the following reasons. First, where ADR is appropriate, mandatory ADR would compel some parties to participate in a process in which they do not want to be involved, which would make them less inclined to engage actively. This would increase the risk of failure and the parties would then have to go to court anyway. It would serve only to add an additional layer of time and cost to landowners.

On this point, I return to my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s previous comments highlighting the counter- productive incentives that mandatory ADR risks creating. There are many types of ADR with different formats, timescales and costs. For example, mediation and arbitration are both types of ADR. In a situation where mandatory ADR has forced a party into ADR against its will, the party may seek an inappropriate form of ADR to frustrate the process and force the matter to proceed to court. This would result in the parties incurring additional time and costs for no practical benefit.

Youth Sport Trust Report

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of report by the Youth Sport Trust PE and School Sport in England: the Annual Report 2022, published on 26 May, which showed declining participation rates for young people in sports; and what discussions they are having with Sport England and other sports bodies to address this issue.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Kamall) (Con)]

Sport and physical activity are incredibly important to our physical and mental health. This Government are committed to ensuring that everyone, regardless of background and origin, has access to and benefits from quality sport and physical activity opportunities. There is no doubt that the pandemic has had an impact on participation rates for young people and we will outline the Government’s plans to address this in the coming months. We continue to work across government, Sport England and the Youth Sport Trust to tackle this important issue.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, words are fine and yesterday the Minister spoke in glowing terms of the legacy from both the Olympics in 2012 and the Birmingham Commonwealth Games. But the report paints a very different picture. What exactly does the noble Lord think has gone wrong? It is brilliant that elite sports produce role models but where is the effective follow-through in our schools to enable the simple pleasure of sport for all and the next generation of sporting legends?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

In my early discussions with officials from the department and talking about it not only within DCMS but across government, we have been looking at a number of the blockages, as it were. One of the schemes we are looking at is making sure that schools can open up for longer—the schools opening scheme. We are also making sure that the DfE and schools are in partnership so that they feel comfortable opening up and are able to staff those facilities. We are looking at other partnerships within communities—with private clubs et cetera—to make sure that we make as much use as possible of assets that are already there as well as upgrading existing ones.

London Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012: Legacy

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My noble friend raises a very important point. I am not sure of the exact details, so I will have to take that back to the department and write to him.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Birmingham Commonwealth Games may have ended only a couple of months ago, but has the department undertaken an initial assessment of them? If we are to build a lasting legacy from the Games we need to understand, as we did with the London 2012 Olympics, what worked and what did not. One of the big hopes of the Government was that external partnerships and sponsorships would drive forward regeneration of Birmingham. Perhaps the Minister can offer us an early insight into whether any of this is going to bear fruit.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. When we looked at the legacy of the 2012 Olympic Games and subsequent sports events, we learned something from each sports event. One thing that was learned in time for Birmingham 2022 was that, rather than necessarily building completely new facilities, we could upgrade or use existing facilities. For example, there was no new velodrome built; we used the London velodrome for the Commonwealth Games. There was a new aqua sports centre built, and that will now be used by the community. In addition, the Secretary of State announced earlier this month that around £60 million of underspent money from the Birmingham 2022 budget will be invested in the local region for the cultural and social legacy.

Repatriation of Cultural Objects

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further consideration they have given to the repatriation of cultural objects to their places of origin given the decision of the Horniman Museum to return its collection of Benin Bronzes to Nigeria.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest on the register as a trustee of the People’s History Museum and the Royal Pavilion and Museums Trust.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)]

My Lords, museums and galleries in England operate independently of government. Some national museums are prevented by law from deaccessioning items in their collection, with some narrow exceptions. The Horniman Museum is not subject to such legislation so this was a decision for its trustees, but I know that they went about their decision with appropriate care and consideration. Arts Council England has published a practical guide for museums in England to help them in approaching this issue more generally.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Horniman Museum on being made the Art Fund’s museum of the year back in July. The unanimous decision of the museum’s board to return ownership of 72 artefacts to Nigeria has been hailed as “immensely significant”—a view that I share. Given that the organisation receives DCMS funding, what discussions, if any, did the Horniman have with DCMS prior to making this decision, and should we take this as evidence of a shift in government policy on the future of cultural objects acquired through force? I note that George Osborne, chair of the British Museum, said recently in relation to the Parthenon sculptures that there was a “deal to be done”.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the noble Lord’s congratulations to the Horniman on its accolade as museum of the year and, indeed, to the People’s History Museum, which was shortlisted and narrowly lost out. As I said, the Horniman Museum is not prohibited in law from taking the decision. The trustees let us know that they had been approached with a request for restitution; I am satisfied that they went about it in a thoughtful manner, in accordance with their guidance. Separate guidance has been published by Arts Council England to inform deliberations by other museums but this does not have any implications for wider positions, particularly in relation to the barrier in law to deaccessioning.

Digital Regulation: Communications and Digital Committee Report

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, like other colleagues this afternoon I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, on her excellent presentation of the report, its findings and its recommendations. I am very flattered that she might consider me part of the “A team” responding today to that report—I am certainly not in that league. The noble Baroness was elevated to her role; I think we should look at in that light rather than as “accession”. This report was timely when it was published, and I regret that we have had to wait seven months for the opportunity to debate it because, as we are all aware, the digital world moves on very fast and we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, urgently awaiting the arrival in this House of the Online Safety Bill.

I am ever grateful to the Communications and Digital Committee for its work. Its 2019 report Regulating in a Digital World and now this report with suggestions for addressing the insufficiencies—and the sufficiencies—of the current regulatory system are very welcome. As all sides have acknowledged, digital innovation comes at us rapidly: some developments are anticipated, while others are more surprising. Regulation of some clearly sits with a particular regulator, whereas some other activities may cut across several remits. This report makes a case for better co-ordination and the updating of powers.

Whether we see developments coming or not, and regardless of the regulator involved, it is rare that we have proven models to replicate or to take influence from. That inevitably means that our initial attempts might not be wholly successful.

While we must leave room for innovation and the possible substantial economic and social benefits it can bring, any responsible Government must also deliver a regulatory framework that recognises and mitigates risk, and which has the tools to react if and when things go wrong. We await some of that.

In their response, the Government are right to note that policy responses must be “proportionate and evidence-based”—which leads me to be rather surprised by some of their conclusions on the simple and effective recommendations that the report has brought forward. Although it is important to implement the right system, and although we might not be able to be ahead of the curve, we must try to keep pace with developments rather than allow ourselves to lag behind. That is clearly what has happened with the digital world. For example, we need confidence that the evidence base for potential policy responses is being built right now, rather than having Ministers wait for problems to arise before research is commissioned or consultations take place. I hope that the Minister can provide some assurance on this front.

I also wonder whether the Minister, before he puts his summer flip-flops on, could comment further on the Government’s decision not to put the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum on a statutory footing. I think most Members here in the Committee today are wondering why that is. It seems a very strange decision indeed. The Government’s response talks of the importance of

“sufficient clarity and transparency around the DRCF’s ways of working”,

but surely the best way of delivering such clarity and transparency would be to enable scrutiny of the body’s remit and working practices through consideration of legislation. Similarly, the committee’s report talks of the need for the DRCF to engage with regulators and other relevant bodies, whether those organisations are based domestically or overseas.

The Government used their response to outline several meetings held between the forum and interested parties, but future engagement depends very much on ongoing good will and co-operation rather than having any firmer underpinning. Does the Minister think that that is right?

I also wonder why the Government failed to support the proposal of a Joint Committee across both Houses. It worked very well for the consideration of the Online Safety Bill. I wonder what the harm is. I do not buy the argument that there is duplication. There is value in this, because Parliament needs to have a say in these matters.

There are any number of related issues, including how we regulate artificial intelligence—the favourite subject of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—but, given everyone’s wish to wrap up for the Summer Recess, I look forward very much to the Minister’s response. However, I add my voice to the list of questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, as to what has happened to the Online Safety Bill, what is happening to the review of the BBC’s future funding and where we are at with the media Bill. I know that at this time in the political cycle, when you change political leaders, there is a temptation to park things, but it would be good to have an update on some of those things from the Minister.

Channel 4: Annual Report

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have made representations to Channel 4 regarding the contents of its annual report and, if so, why.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)]

The department laid Channel 4’s annual report before Parliament on 13 July with no changes to its content from Channel 4’s draft. The timeline for the department receiving the draft annual report from Channel 4 and laying it before Parliament follows last year’s timetable. It is usual practice for departments to review annual reports ahead of publication.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, rather than trying to sex up Channel 4’s annual report to suit the privatisation agenda, is now not the time for the Government to do a bit of a Lynton Crosby, “scrape the barnacles off the boat” and finally admit that neither the public—nor, for that matter, the parliamentary Conservative Party—want Channel 4 flogged off?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, given that Channel 4 is currently publicly owned, the Government are fully entitled to comment on the contents of its annual report. As I say, it is usual practice for departments to review annual reports. We cannot direct a public body to change what it says but it is quite proper for us to make representations. The Government are clear that we have the long-term interests of Channel 4 at heart in want to ensure that it continues to access the capital and funding it needs to continue doing the brilliant work that it has done for 40 years.