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.

Broadcasting Sector White Paper

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate points to an important issue in talking of skills. The British Film Institute has looked at this very carefully and published its film and high-end TV skills review at the end of last month, which we strongly welcome and look forward to discussing with the industry to see how it engages with the findings. The Government are doing their bit by, for instance, the new pilots of flexible apprenticeships and through our regular support of more than £2 million a year to the National Film and Television School.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, given that the current cost of living crisis is problematic across all sectors and can have a particularly adverse impact on the creative industries, which are sensitive to changes in economic conditions even without the continued fallout from the pandemic, what assessment has the department made of the impact of inflation and energy price increases across the whole sector, whether on huge production companies, small venues or the dedicated workforce that keeps the show on the road?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

We talk about inflation and energy bills with all the sectors and industries that the DCMS has the privilege of representing. I spoke about them this morning at the Imperial War Museum when I visited it. Our settlement for the BBC will, as I say, ensure that it continues to receive around £3.7 billion in annual public funding, which will allow it to deliver its mission and public purposes.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Wednesday 29th June 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

43: After Clause 72, insert the following new Clause—
“Local authority nominated persons
Within three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement outlining the steps Her Majesty's Government intends to take to ensure local authorities—(a) publish the contact details of an officer designated with responsibility for matters pertaining to the exercising of code rights, and(b) publish relevant updates to the information provided under paragraph (a) in a timely manner.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe whether the Government is taking any steps to ensure local authorities make the contact details of relevant officers publicly available, in order to assist telecommunications operators and other interested parties.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Merron, I am moving Amendment 43. This amendment is designed to probe the Government and work out whether they are taking any steps to ensure that local authorities make the contact details of relevant officers publicly available so that telecommunications operators and other interested parties can make relevant inquiries. What stimulated this is the simple fact that telecoms operators have said to us that they regularly encounter difficulties identifying the responsible officer in local authorities. That experience is not universal—some local authorities are very good at making contact details available—but where problems are faced, infrastructure rollout is slowed down considerably. DCMS has acknowledged that different authorities deal with digital infrastructure matters in different ways. This amendment is our way of asking the Minister what steps the Government might consider to ensure greater consistency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, this was a brief debate. I turn first to Amendment 43. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for raising this important subject.

The Government are committed to delivering policy which helps rollout for everyone, and support the entire telecommunications sector in delivering connectivity. Ensuring that local authorities are ready to facilitate rollout as quickly as possible is a key part of this. It will benefit people across the UK in receiving the best possible service and ensure that all operators are able to compete to provide that service.

Local authorities should have autonomy to serve their communities in the way that they see fit. The difficulties faced by urban communities are likely to be very different from those faced in the highlands, for example. The Government believe that local authorities are best placed to decide how to lead and foster digital rollout in their local area.

Mandating local authorities to designate a particular officer responsible for digital connectivity would be too prescriptive. However, we recognise the considerable benefits of having a dedicated lead on digital infrastructure in local and regional authorities, which is why we strongly recommend this approach in our digital connectivity portal, DCMS’s official guidance for local authorities concerning connectivity. The portal provides a huge amount of practical information for local authorities—for instance, on debunking myths around 5G, making assets available for hosting equipment, and the application of the Electronic Communications Code and planning regulations. The digital connectivity portal is a vital enabler for local authorities to facilitate digital infrastructure deployment.

In May last year, the then Minister for Digital Infrastructure also wrote to all chief executives of local authorities to encourage them to appoint a digital champion and to engage with DCMS. I understand that as many as 80 authorities have responded and officials have been able to offer support to them. We have also provided £4 million of funding for the Digital Connectivity Infrastructure Accelerator programme, designed to foster increased collaboration between local authorities and the telecommunications industry. Local authorities can take advantage of these tools and funds to take the steps most appropriate in their area to encourage and facilitate rollout. I hope that gives reassurance on how seriously the Government take local authority engagement, and that the amendments will not be pressed.

If I might anticipate a possible comeback, it sounds like we very much agree with the noble Lord, so to be consistent about my inconsistency, we are not going further and mandating this because the Government seek to balance the national objective of accelerating digital infrastructure rollout with the need to allow local authorities to make the best choices for their communities. Each local authority will have a different approach to its specific local challenges. We feel that further imposition of rules from central government in these spaces risks disrupting environments that are already encouraging investment in infrastructure rollout.

Amendment 46 asks whether the Government intend to introduce a streamlined subsidy scheme for telecommunications infrastructure to reduce administrative burdens on public authorities. To provide some context, the new Subsidy Control Act, which has not yet fully come into force, gives the Government the ability to create streamlined subsidy schemes for all public authorities to use. The streamlined schemes are intended to provide a way of granting subsidies quickly, with little administrative burden, while also providing legal certainty to both the public authority awarding the subsidy and the beneficiary of the subsidy. The Government intend that these should facilitate the award of low-risk and uncontentious subsidies in areas of policy that are strategically important to the United Kingdom. Streamlined subsidy schemes will be considered for categories of subsidy where they will add clarity for public authorities and make the assessment of compliance simpler.

Although the Government currently have no plans to create a streamlined subsidy scheme for the installation of telecommunications infrastructure, we remain committed to delivering and supporting the rollout of such infrastructure as soon as possible. BDUK’s Project Gigabit is delivering gigabit-capable broadband across the UK, working closely with public authorities, including the devolved Administrations and local authorities, to help refine procurement boundaries, validate the market’s local investment plans and stimulate demand for gigabit vouchers.

The work we have undertaken so far has shown that the model is effective at responding to changing market conditions by refining or combining procurement boundaries to reach efficient scale and secure value for money for public subsidy. DCMS will continue to engage and consider how to support public authorities as best as possible to reduce administrative burdens, including on any considerations on subsidy control or future streamlined subsidy schemes.

I hope that explains why the Government consider that a streamlined subsidy scheme for telecoms infrastructure is not needed at this time. However, this will be kept under review. I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, local government is always a question of discretion and flexibility versus providing a more rigorous approach to getting local authorities to deliver and perform. I accept the parameters of the argument. There is some merit in central government doing more to encourage local authorities to appoint a specific officer to help manage the rollout of digital. I think we are fairly in agreement on that point; 80 authorities out of 360-odd is not a lot but it is progress. Perhaps the Government could, or should, reinvigorate their drive to get authorities to come up with an identified official, particularly for the planning authorities.

I was very interested in what the Minister had to say about the second amendment. It seems that there is the emergence of a plan. I will read very carefully what the noble Lord had to say in Hansard and we will reflect further, but for now, I am more than happy to withdraw our probing amendment.

Amendment 43 withdrawn.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Wednesday 29th June 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

19: After Clause 60, insert the following new Clause—
“Requirement for operators to notify emergency service sites prior to upgrading or sharing apparatus
(1) The electronic communications code is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 17, in sub-paragraph (1), for the words “sub-paragraphs (2) and (3)” substitute “sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4A)”.(3) After sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) The third condition is that, where a site is provided by an emergency service, before the beginning of the period of 21 days, ending with the day on which the main operator begins to upgrade the electronic communications apparatus or (as the case may be) share its use, the main operator provides written notice to the site provider.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require operators with agreements under the code that are not subsisting agreements to provide written notice to site providers that are an emergency service in advance of apparatus being upgraded or shared. This would allow relevant emergency services to plan around service outages or other forms of disruption.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Merron, who has tabled this amendment. The proposed new clause in Amendment 19 would

“require operators with agreements under the code that are not subsisting agreements to provide written notice to site providers that are an emergency service in advance of apparatus being upgraded or shared”.

This would obviously allow “relevant emergency services” to plan better around things such as

“service outages or other forms of disruption.”

We have tabled this amendment because some hospitals have reported instances where telecoms engineers have arrived to inspect or upgrade equipment, having provided little or no notice of their visit or the need to turn broadband and other data connections off for its duration. As I am sure the Minister will be aware, this amendment was tabled in the Commons and, at that point, the Government insisted that the clarification was unnecessary. The Minister, Julia Lopez, said that paragraph 17 rights authorise a visit only where there is no adverse impact, which probably brings us back to earlier debates.

For visits that go beyond paragraph 17 rights, the Government insist that operators need to obtain permission in advance or potentially face legal repercussions. However, hospitals and other emergency services have far more important things to do than pursue complaints and court orders while they are running important services. The Minister also claimed that introducing this clarification

“would undermine the policy intention of the rights”.—[Official Report, Commons, Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill Committee, 22/3/22; col. 121.]

Perhaps the Minister can outline exactly how.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

If my noble friend will permit, I will come to the points she raises on consultation shortly.

Clause 72 will allow the Secretary of State to amend the Communications (Access to Infrastructure) Regulations 2016. Sharing infrastructure in the concentration of gigabit-capable networks can greatly reduce the cost and increase the pace of deploying networks, and can reduce the need to dig up streets, preventing unnecessary disruption to the local population and reducing carbon emissions. The 2016 regulations enable sharing of information about access to physical infrastructure across the utility, transport and communications sectors. They also include the right to access that infrastructure on fair and reasonable commercial terms and conditions. The Government published our response to the call for evidence on a review of these regulations last year. We set out that there may be some areas where they could be made easier to use and to understand.

In addition, we said we would legislate to allow future changes to the regulations via secondary legislation rather than relying on primary legislation. That legislation would be subject to further consultation with Ofcom and other appropriate parties. To expand on that a little, Clause 72 makes clear that

“the Secretary of State must consult … OFCOM; … such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”

before making such regulations. I cannot conceive of a set of circumstances where the landowner would not be one of the other persons that the Secretary of State considers appropriate—obviously, if I have that wrong I will write to noble Lords. In addition, any regulations made using this power will still be scrutinised as part of the affirmative resolution procedure. Clause 72 therefore grants to the Secretary of State a narrow power to make provision, through regulations, conferring rights on network providers in relation to infrastructure for the purpose of developing communications networks. These provisions include the power to amend, revoke or replace the 2016 regulations.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Vaizey raised some useful points about operator behaviour, which I think we may discuss in more detail in later amendments in group 6 on the Ofcom code of practice. I will leave it till then to address those, if that is acceptable.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am somewhat reluctant to let this go, I must confess. The emergency services in this country have a very difficult job to do, and I think they require better treatment than this.

I am not satisfied with the noble Lord’s explanation. I can envisage a time when an engineer turns up on the basic premise that the task they have to complete is smallish, but it turns out to be a rather larger problem—a bit like when you get a plumber in and they suddenly discover that there is something more fundamentally wrong with your boiler than the dial not working properly, and that it needs repressurising and a part needs to be brought up. This is a practical consideration, as it could cause considerable disruption to a service.

I was thinking of something that recently happened quite close to where I live. The road immediately in front of the local fire station was dug up; I cannot believe that the highways authority was not in contact with the fire station concerned, but I am not entirely sure that it was. I know that the people working in the fire station were put out for the period of time in which their ability freely to come and go in an emergency situation was seriously impacted.

For the purposes of Committee, I will withdraw this amendment, but the Government need to give this further thought. These behaviours can be highly disruptive. They can impact quite adversely on people’s personal security and safety; obviously, we want to make sure that there is a reasonably sensible way for providers to exercise their rights to repair, renew and so on, but we need to get the balance right and the Government need to think about this again. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 19.

Amendment 19 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly support the clause stand part amendment and the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. They appear entirely sensible, especially the restricting of rent reductions to the date on which a court order is made, rather than being retrospective. Like the noble Earl, Lord Devon, I am not a lackey of APWireless and have done my own negotiations with my solicitors on my contract, which were far from amicable.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. In general, I support the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The arguments on retrospectivity, which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, addressed, are sound; it surely cannot be right that we have a change that will penalise landlords in the way this does. A reform could lead to a sudden and significant sum of money being owed to telecoms operators by site providers. Some of those who provide sites could even end up in a form of bankruptcy, particularly if courts make a decision that goes back to a point at which the notice was served. Large sums of money will be involved.

Amendment 34, which we have signed, would ensure that interim rent payments could not be backdated to that point, prior to a court order being obtained. That would mitigate the risks of backdated payments causing site providers severe or significant financial difficulties. That is a reasonable and fair principle which should find its way into this legislation. We support the other amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in generality as well.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, even more briefly, the Minister said in responding to the last group that the Government are clear that the cost of rent is too high and the purpose is to drive it down. In different comments, he stated that he felt these costs will eventually find their way to the consumer—I doubt that, but time will tell. What is the purpose of the retrospectivity and who will benefit? When will I receive my refund on my mobile phone bill for the retrospective repayment of this money? The answer is that I will not, so who will benefit from this and why are the Government causing it to happen?