Policing and Crime Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 7th December 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

172: After Clause 126, insert the following new Clause—
“General duties of licensing authorities
(1) Section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003 (general duties of licensing authorities) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (2)(d) insert—“(e) the provision of social or cultural activities.””

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 172 would create a fifth licensing objective that licensing authorities must promote when discharging their functions. It would secure the provision of social or cultural activities as a general duty. It follows the similar Amendment 214A from Committee.

There is a very strong case to be made that activities such as live music should be completely deregulated from the Licensing Act. Other legislation, such as the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 contain a great many of the protections in law that form the basis for conditions relating to live music that may be imposed by the Licensing Act on a premises licence. The Licensing Act therefore presents a tier of legislative duplication that is in many respects unnecessary, given that live events can be controlled by other means.

Despite this compelling argument, the Government have not been minded to deregulate further than audience sizes of 500—a level that builds on the Live Music Act I took through Parliament. In the meantime, there has been a continuing decline in live music venues. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, rightly said in Committee:

“There has in recent years been a perfect storm of circumstance for our night-time economy. Rising rents and business rates, property developments, noise complaints, complaints about anti-social behaviour and more have conspired to devastate our night-time cultural landscape”.—[Official Report, 9/11/16; col. 1212.]

In these circumstances we need to amend licensing objectives in particular to help these venues survive. Current objectives relate to crime and disorder, public safety, public nuisance and protection of children. Mark Davyd of the Music Venue Trust said:

“Licensing is just one of many areas of the legal framework around grassroots music venues that is contributing to their rapid decline”.

As the chief operating officer of Live Nation said:

“Unfortunately not all local authorities are like-minded and their interpretations of the Licensing Act are not always helpful, or consistent, which is frustrating and creates obstacles for venue operators at all levels”.

The amendment is designed to introduce a new objective in the local authority decision-making process that would take account of the positive cultural impact of staging an event. At present, authorities are not obliged to consider the wider benefits of music and entertainment in the community, and instead focus on the negative impact of applications. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said in Committee, that,

“music and other activities should be helped and supported where possible through the licensing system, rather than just regulated”.—[Official Report, 9/11/16; col. 1214.]

A proportionate approach from licensing authorities would be welcome when they handle applications or complaints relating to entertainment. That the four existing licensing objectives are completely predicated on preventive measures does nothing to help struggling venues that are already being hit by high business rates and new planning developments. Amendment 172 is therefore required to support the social or cultural impacts of an activity regulated by the Licensing Act.

I have of course read the Minister’s response of 9 November and taken account of what she said. Her argument was that it would be difficult to replicate the evidence of harm in the same way as for licence conditions that seek to protect against and reduce harm—a rather circular argument. She went on to say that a licensing objective of promoting cultural activity and inclusion is,

“quite a subjective matter and may be interpreted in different ways … Making this a licensing objective could place licensing authorities in a censorious position, whereby licensees organising events might be obliged to explain what additional cultural value their entertainment might generate, and the licensing authorities would be required to evaluate that information”.—[Official Report, 9/11/16; col. 1216.]

This amendment is substantially different from the Committee stage amendment in two crucial respects. First, it is no longer limited to cultural matters and makes a much broader point about other activities that have social benefits that may need to be supported by a positive objective in the Licensing Act, too. This would deal with a legitimate criticism of the original amendment —that it would result in all premises having to provide cultural activities. That was not the intention of the original draft, but I accept that it could have led to it.

Secondly, the amendment relates to provision rather than the original amendment’s attempt at “promotion”. The specific call for promotion was regarded by the Minister as putting licensing authorities in a potentially censorious and subjective position, as I just mentioned. I should point out, however, that the current objectives, particularly the prevention of nuisance, are already interpreted subjectively and censoriously.

As is stands, the cultural activities of, say, a grass-roots music venue are not considered at all. Once gone, these venues will not come back into our towns and cities. There is a delicate balance that should be achieved by local authorities. Having this fifth objective might just be critical to a decision that will lead to their remaining open. The Minister’s response in Committee was fairly cursory, and I look forward to a more detailed and substantive response to the amendment at this stage. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 172, which has been excellently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. There needs to be a shift from authorities viewing our nightlife economy as something to be restricted to viewing it as something to be encouraged. Indeed, provision should be made. If London, to take just one example of cities across the UK, has lost 40% of its music venues in the past five years—not, it cannot be overemphasised, through lack of demand—there is something seriously awry with how our local communities are developing.

The licensing authorities need a better understanding of this landscape and to act constructively to counter this. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, in her reply in Committee the Minister said that cultural activity is “quite a subjective matter”. However, there is nothing in the amendment submitted in Committee or in this amendment about which cultural events should take place. The amendment is not in any way prescriptive; nor is there any sense of a limit to be placed on cultural events or of their particular value socially or culturally. The Minister talked of “a censorious position”, but the fact is that there is already, to a significant degree, an implicit censoriousness—one might say a tunnel vision—in the treatment of our clubs and music venues by licensing authorities, and the amendment would address that.

In evidence given yesterday to the Select Committee on the Licensing Act 2003, Mark Davyd, chief executive of the Music Venue Trust, said, “We want to see grass-roots music venues acknowledged and respected alongside theatres and art centres as spaces that are vital to the health, wealth and happiness of the UK”. That is a laudable aim. It also means that comparable criteria for operation should be applied to all those venues, but that kind of parity can be achieved only if all these cultural activities are perceived in a positive sense and as being connected through the wider landscape. There needs to be a mechanism that achieves that. The licensing authority is, or should be, the meeting place of all the different stakeholders; it is the logical place for that to happen. I hope the Minister will look favourably on the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

My Lords, Amendment 172 seeks to add,

“the provision of social or cultural activities”

to the list of licensing objectives. This would require licensing authorities to make licensing decisions based on this objective, such as placing conditions on licences with regard to the provision of social or cultural activities.

As I explained in Committee, the existing licensing objectives, as provided for in Section 4 of the Licensing Act 2003, seek to reduce harm, which can be evidenced. Licence conditions intended to reduce the level of harm can be easily understood—for example, a requirement to restrict noise levels. Requiring licensing authorities to consider the provision of social or cultural activities would run in contradiction to the other licensing objectives, all of which are aimed at harm reduction.

Importantly, the 2003 Act provides that when a licensing authority receives a compliant application for a premises licence or club premises certificate, it must grant the authorisation unless it receives “relevant representations”. In effect, this means there is a presumption that licensing authorities will grant a licence in respect to an application, with appropriate conditions, unless there are strong concerns in terms of the licensing objectives.

I respect the noble Lord’s intentions with regard to grass-roots music venues and cultural participation, and share his desire to see a vibrant music industry, but I do not feel it is appropriate to use the 2003 Act to pursue that goal. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will be content to withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

I thank the Minister for her response and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for his contribution. One of the key points that he made, and which we are making with this amendment, is that of course local authorities have to make judgments currently. That runs, to use phraseology used by the Minister herself, directly counter to the arguments that are being made by the Government. She talks about evidence of harm, as if somehow under the current objectives it is all cut and dried and the evidence is absolutely clear-cut, but the fact is that judgments are made by local authorities. I am sure that when the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was a councillor in Southwark, he had a very enlightened approach to these matters, but these things are a matter of interpretation, and how you treat the evidence of harm is a subjective matter. In many cases, strong concerns might be disregarded because there are other, supervening objectives that a local authority thinks are important, or it may give more time for remedy.

There are all sorts of aspects, so to regard the current set of objectives as somehow pristine and able to be interpreted with huge clarity by local authorities, in contrast to this confused, woolly cultural objective, is only to confuse the issue. It is really a way of saying that the status quo is fine. But the status quo is not fine, and local authorities need some further guidance on these matters. I am not going to push this amendment further at this stage, but I hope there is a way in which further guidance or some other nudge towards a better solution for our night-time and grass-roots music venues is achievable. I am sure from the nods that I am receiving from the Government Front Bench that there is some sympathy for that approach. Now I am getting completely the reverse—clearly I had lulled myself into a false sense of security, which is always a big mistake in this House.

I hope the drip-drip of the fairly incessant rhythm—perhaps that is the right phraseology to use in connection with live music venues—of the campaign to ensure that we keep our live music venues has some effect. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that the night-time tsar in London is a fantastic new development, and I hope that other combined authorities will follow what London is doing in that respect.

I believe the Home Office also has responsibility in this area to help to preserve our venues, rather than simply stonewalling and saying, “We’ve got a very fine Licensing Act as it is and we don’t need any further objectives”. When we come to our next debate, I am sure the Government will make the same argument but they may find a rather different response when it comes to a vote. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 172 withdrawn.

Policing and Crime Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 214A, which I believe is in the same group. I had rather assumed that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was going to speak to his amendment, and I am quite happy to wait and let him do so now, as he is in the Chamber.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, that is very kind of the noble Lord; I apologise for not being in my place. I shall speak to my Amendment 211. In doing so, I declare my interest as a patron of the British Liver Trust and several other charities related to health issues that arise from alcohol abuse. In particular, as I said earlier, I declare my membership of the House’s Select Committee on the Licensing Act 2003. One of the questions that we have posed in our call for evidence is:

“Are the existing four licensing objectives the right ones for licensing authorities to promote? Should the protection of health and wellbeing be an additional objective?”.

We have received a lot of evidence on this and continue to do so in the oral hearings that we are currently running, and I do not want to trespass much on the committee’s continuing review.

I know it could be argued in light of what happened in the debate relating to the previous amendments that maybe this should be left until the committee’s deliberations come out. Alternatively, the Government might argue that as Scotland already has a fifth objective relating to health and well-being, we might wait and see what develops with the Scottish position. However, given that I have seen the Government decide that they can put an amendment through and then stay their hand until such time as they receive the report from us, I think I am perfectly in order to move this amendment today and, I hope, persuade them that there is a case for it to be adopted. Maybe then we could wait until spring to see what comes out of the Select Committee’s review; and if the recommendation in its report is in accord with what I am putting before the House we could then implement it.

There are more pressing reasons why this needs addressing, even more than the earlier amendment about the conduct of affairs relating to alcohol at night. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, enumerated this morning a range of the problems that we continue to have with alcohol. However, the second and more pressing issue is that the topic on which this amendment has been brought forward is not a new one; I brought forward a Private Member’s Bill on it about two years ago, supported by the Local Government Association. We can go back quite some time to 2010, when the then Government were looking at the difficulties that had arisen then. They had recognised a problem with the 2003 Act. They then consulted on the addition of a specific prevention of health harm objective in the 2010 Rebalancing the Licensing Act consultation. Some 38% of the respondents were supportive, 37%—primarily the drinks industry—were against, and 25% were neutral. The Government decided not to legislate at the time but did not really explain why. They simply stated that they saw,

“merit in the proposal to make the prevention of health harm a material consideration in the Licensing Act 2003. We … will consider the best way to do so in the future”.

So we have been at this now since around 2010.

The reason why this is now becoming more imperative is that as time has gone by, while I concede that in many respects we are getting evidence that the 2003 Act has worked quite well in certain areas—we have seen less alcohol being drunk than was the case in 2003, though whether that is related directly to the Act is questionable, and there are fewer violent incidents and less crime associated with alcohol than perhaps was the case originally—on the other side of the coin we have seen a dramatic increase in the deleterious effects of alcohol on the health of the nation. We saw about 400,000 people being admitted to hospital in 2003 with health difficulties related to alcohol but the figure is now in the order of 1.2 million and is getting worse. The charity I am associated with, the British Liver Trust, is seeing an increasing number of people dying from liver disease, mostly associated with alcohol consumption and abuse, with increasingly a number of younger people being affected in that way. We now have 9 million adults drinking at levels that increase the risk of harm to their health, while 1.6 million adults show signs of full alcohol dependency. Alcohol is now the third biggest risk factor for illness and death.

I am speaking entirely personally here, not representing anything of the Select Committee’s view, but I believe that in many respects the 2003 Act is now out of date. It was designed in 2003 primarily to deal with the on trade, relating to pubs, clubs and fixed premises, where people in the 1990s and at the turn of the century drank. However, we have seen a complete shift over the last 10 or 12 years in the growth of the number of licences being granted—almost like confetti, in my view—to supermarkets, mini markets, small shops and even petrol stations. Almost everywhere you go now, you will find alcohol on sale. In a sense, alcohol has become an ordinary commodity. In supermarkets it is being sold no differently from soap powder or a tin of beans. It has become normalised in our community and has changed the culture. This needs to be examined to see whether it is moving in the right direction, in the same way as I argued earlier when noble Lords proceeded to pass the legislation regarding “will do” on introducing powdered alcohol into the community. Anything goes, we move towards liberalisation, and it gets worse in health terms.

In my opinion, the 2003 Act does not adequately deal with what is happening on the off side of the licensing trade. We now see big developments taking place online that were never envisaged when this legislation was laid before us. Amazon has a most amazing array of products. Noble Lords who like drinking a lot and cheaply should go on Amazon and see just what is on offer to them. It can be delivered in hours on any day of the week, any week of the year. It is available very cheaply right through the year. Before long, no doubt, we will have Uber doing similar deliveries as quickly as possible. In no way is that touched by the Licensing Act; it is a different world entirely.

People will argue that you cannot do anything with the existing Licensing Act because it relates solely to premises—“What does that have to do with health?”, “How do you prove it is damaging health?”, and so on. In my view, there are changes ahead. Most of the major supermarkets, apart I think from Morrisons, have plans to increase the number of convenience or metro mini markets around the country, moving away from big premises to smaller ones. They have plans to extend these around the country and I am certain, sure as night follows day, that they will all have a licence to sell alcohol. If we go in there and queue to pay at the till, we will find that alcohol is piled up to the ceiling all around us, not just in our full view but in the view of children. This is changing an attitude generally so that the commodity of alcohol is normalised and just becomes part of our way of life, but it is damaging health and we are doing nothing about it.

There is an opportunity, I believe, if we are prepared to consider what I am putting before us, to explore ways in which we could at least start to pull it back a little bit. That does not mean to say that we stop issuing licences, but we should attach conditions to those licences that would stop alcohol being sold at the front of the supermarket in everybody’s face. Asda managers have tried to do it voluntarily, but when they saw that their competitors were not doing it, they said, “Well, why the hell should we bother?”, and they went back to putting it at the front. The voluntary approach is not working.

We now have demands from the police, from the police commissioners, from the health authorities, from the BMA and from almost anybody you can mention who has an interest in the health side that a change is needed. It should not be attached solely to the way in which we have run the Act up to now based on the premise that we should look to do something on a cumulative basis. If there are far too many people selling alcohol in a particular area, there should not be further licences; or if further licences are given, there should be more stringent conditions that would be related to the changes in the health of the area affected. They are doing it in Scotland and they are making progress; it is high time that the UK should do the same.

Sarah Wollaston, the chair of the Health Select Committee in the Commons, is in full agreement on this, and wanted to table amendments herself for this change, so there is some good support in the Commons for it. If the wording is wrong, I offer the Minister my willingness to talk about a change in the wording to a form that would be more acceptable. If the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is responding, I make a further suggestion, particularly because she comes from Manchester. That city will be the first test-bed area, where it will not only be responsible for health and care and well-being but have total control over its funding. I suggest we consider whether, in conjunction with Manchester, we might run an experiment in the north-west to see what we can do. Manchester would be up for it, and all the responsible bodies would welcome it. Accordingly, I would be happy to consider drafting an amendment to the Bill. We could then review the provision after, perhaps, two years.

I am open to a conversation on this, but we must do something. We cannot just leave it as it is, making all the excuses under the sun, saying that it is too difficult, and listening to the drinks industry—which, understandably, says, “We can’t do it; we shouldn’t do it; we don’t want to go near it”. For the sake of the health of the nation, and for the sake of the harmed, cash-strapped National Health Service, which has great problems ahead of it, alcohol is one of the major problems that we have to tackle. We should do it forthwith, without delay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, this is a fascinating group of amendments, full of variety and suggestions of all kinds to the Minister. My amendment is no different: it adds yet another suggestion to her, which I am sure she will consider carefully.

I speak to Amendment 214A. The primary measurable success of reforms such as the Live Music Act 2012 and entertainment deregulation is that they have reduced costs and complexity for small-scale events, as well as tidying up primary legislation and how it interacts with guidance. I hope it is common ground that that is welcome.

However, despite these positive changes, the 2% dip in the music industry’s overall GVA performance in 2015, as reported in UK Music’s annual Measuring Music report, is attributable to a decline in concert revenue from grass-roots music venues. They provide an important mechanism for talent development and a means for artists to cultivate skills and access audiences. There are myriad examples of major stars who have had their beginnings in such grass-roots venues.

In 2015, there were 5.6 million visits to UK small venues, generating £231 million in spend in the process. More widely, the number of operating grass-roots music venues has declined by 35% in the past decade in London. However, the problem is not unique to the capital, with venues in Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Bristol, Plymouth, Newport and Swindon—to mention just a few—having either closed or had considerable threats of closure placed on their businesses in recent years.

Although not the sole cause of venue closures, restrictive licensing laws are often cited as a contributing factor. The existing licensing objectives under Section 4(2) of the Licensing Act 2003 reinforce perceptions that entertainment regulated under the Act is something to be controlled rather than enabled. The Act does nothing specifically to encourage cultural participation and enjoyment, for instance. This is a missed opportunity, given the importance of the Act in making events and activities happen. The lack of a positive licensing objective to support provision for entertainment can maintain prejudices between licensing authorities and licensees about their respective motivations. This is unhelpful in creating a licensing environment that works for live music. It is time for a change of approach.

As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and my noble friend Lady Grender reminded us, the House of Lords is currently conducting a post-legislative scrutiny inquiry into the operation of the Licensing Act 2003. UK Music, the umbrella body for the commercial music industry, argued during the inquiry that consideration should be given to the introduction of a new licensing objective,

“the promotion of cultural activity and inclusion”.

This would sit alongside the other licensing objectives and assist local authorities when discharging their functions.

The amendment would introduce a fifth licensing objective to address,

“the promotion of cultural activity and inclusion”.

It would sit alongside existing objectives and assist licensing authorities when discharging functions. Simple licensing conditions can lead to additional cost to the venue and result in less profit per event. Less profit means that a venue’s ability to attract quality acts will be reduced, and therefore fewer events will take place.

Research conducted by the Music Venue Trust, reported by the Mayor of London’s music venues task force, demonstrated that one London venue had more than 70 separate conditions on its licence. Another had its capacity set at the same level as before the smoking ban, despite the risk of fire now being reduced. We have been made aware that conditions related to music are still featuring on some small venue licences, despite the fact that they should be benefiting from the recent entertainment exemptions. There is clearly an argument to be had about the extent to which the spirit of the law and the decisions made by Parliament to deregulate are filtering down to licensing authorities.

Fundamentally,

“the promotion of cultural activity and inclusion”,

is necessary, as licensing authorities rely on the existing objectives, which are also supported by other pieces of legislation, when assessing complaints and applications. Despite music’s social, cultural and economic benefits, the Licensing Act’s existing objectives specifically make regulation of live music for larger venues a public order issue associated with nuisance, crime and disorder, public safety and protection from harm. That failure to have a licence for music could lead to criminal sanctions and penalties, such as large fines or terms of imprisonment, can reinforce negative perceptions in licensing authorities.

It is of course right that current licensing objectives relating to public safety, protecting children from harm, and the prevention of crime and disorder and public nuisance are given full consideration, but without a positive objective when responding to applications or complaints relating to entertainment, licensing authorities are not encouraged to acknowledge the economic, cultural and social benefits of these activities to local communities.

The recent revocation of iconic London nightclub Fabric’s premises licence has been well documented, with more than 150,000 people signing a petition seeking the intervention of the Mayor of London. I would not want to speculate that a fifth licensing objective along the lines for which I am arguing would have resulted in a different outcome in this instance, but I am certain that if it was in place, Islington Council would have had to be more mindful of the strength of feeling about Fabric and justify its decision in terms of the venue’s impact on public enjoyment as well.

Other countries and cities across the world are also looking at what they can do to preserve their venues by positive action. Put simply, a new licensing objective for,

“the promotion of cultural activity and inclusion”,

would not open the floodgates but provide a suitable test for licensing authorities to judge an application or appeal by assessing the wider public benefit that an event or venue may create, and help to prevent further unnecessary closure of our culturally important music venues.

At the very least, if the Minister cannot accept the amendment, I hope she will follow her previous practice in being prepared to speak to proponents of it and listen to the evidence that they put forward about the impact of licensing laws on grass-roots music venues. Her ministerial colleagues have been very helpful in amending planning guidance in this respect, which has helped somewhat in change of use for premises near live music venues. I hope that Ministers, having shown themselves sympathetic to grass-roots music venues, will continue in that vein and meet UK Music and the Music Venues Trust to discuss the issues further.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, in particular, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, Amendment 214A. He does not define cultural activity, but it would clearly include, at least in part, the night-time economy. There has in recent years been a perfect storm of circumstance for our night-time economy. Rising rents and business rates, property developments, noise complaints, complaints about anti-social behaviour and more have conspired to devastate our night-time cultural landscape. London alone has, in the past five years, lost 50% of its clubs and more than 40% of its music venues, but the same problems are afflicting towns and cities everywhere in the UK, and some cities abroad.

Having said that, closures often hinge on a single concern, which might have been avoided given a wider, more constructive approach. This problem has implications at many levels. As an economy, we will suffer in the long term, as the night-time economy is hugely important to the country. In 2014, it was worth up to £26.3 billion. It is part of what makes London, in particular, an international cultural city. Under the amendment, licensing authorities would see it as part of their remit to address head-on the problems facing their local communities in this provision. We risk parts of our towns and cities becoming night-time dead areas, which is not good for their safety or social fabric. We risk taking the heart out of many of our cities.

The closure of live music venues does not reflect decreasing demand from the public. Witness the protest against the closure of Passing Clouds, a live music and community venue in Dalston, earlier in the year. Events manager Gudrun Getz said that,

“property developers are seeking to cash in on the huge popularity of Dalston which we ourselves were instrumental in helping to establish”.

She also says that there is,

“a huge … fear in the community at the moment that we are going to lose all of our space and there will be nowhere for musicians to play”.

This would of course be a terrible loss for London and elsewhere in the country.

--- Later in debate ---

We have already had the benefit of the report from the Equality Act committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. The Government have considered the recommendation from the committee in relation to the 2003 Act. I know that the noble Baroness will be disappointed by the Government’s response, but I hope that she and the co-signatories of this amendment will understand the reasons for it and that she will be content to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I am not quite sure that the Minister has answered anything to do with Amendment 214A.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I did. It may be that it was so dull a response that the noble Lord did not catch it. Shall I put it in writing and send it to him?

[Lord Clement-Jones]

I shall read her response, but it was very short.

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who supported our Amendment 210, but clearly I am disappointed with the Government’s answer, which has not moved from the response issued several months ago, before the change of Administration. I thought that we were convinced: given that this Government have a target of halving the unemployment rate of disabled people and that the Prime Minister said in her first statement on taking office that this Government should work for everyone and allow everyone to reach their potential, surely they must move on this.

I have not heard a single argument to undermine the thrust of Amendment 210. The background is that disabled people gave evidence that the Disability Discrimination Act was a much better tool than the Equality Act, because the latter puts all the protective characteristics together and thus, although well-meaning, does not give sufficient weight to the needs of disabled people, who need a bit more than just equality.

Moreover, I take issue with the Minister’s saying that the amendment would simply duplicate the Equality Act. It does no such thing. First, it shifts the burden of enforcement away from the individual who is discriminated against to the local authority. That is the main aim. A pledge, I am sorry to say, is insufficient. If the entertainment industry gives a pledge, or if we all pledge to pay tax or obey immigration law, I do not think any Government would say, “A pledge, that’s just fine”. As has been proven, there are areas where one needs the teeth of the law. I appeal to the Minister: this Government should not appear hard-hearted. The Select Committee is offering them a way to respond to the United Nations’ inquiry which has so severely criticised this country’s approach to the needs of disabled people.

I have heard no reason why Amendment 210 should not pass. I cannot believe that the Licensing Act 2003 Committee, thorough though it is, will unearth any more than the Select Committee on equality and disability did. Once more, I appeal to the Government to accept the amendment and if they do not, I will emulate the advice given by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and pursue this star all the way to the other end of the rainbow.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, when I was speaking, the Minister was nodding so much that I thought she was agreeing with everything. I now realise she was trying to fend off her cold, but I was pleased to hear that the Government are not unsympathetic to the health objective in Amendment 211, and I am aware of the difficulties of putting this in place; it is not easy. I am also aware of the work being done by Public Health England and others in association with the Home Office. I look forward to that materialising and hope it will be presented to the Select Committee.

I did not get an answer to my point about Manchester, to which I thought she was nodding. May I speak to her separately about that away from the Chamber, when we might try to explore using that new initiative for something quite different? I will look carefully at what she had to say on the children’s amendment and decide what further action, if any, I can take.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I may have blinked and missed the extended response I am sure the Minister gave. However, as I recall, it was simply that we do not need another licensing objective. Will she consider more carefully the question of whether other things could be done to encourage licensing authorities to take cultural matters into consideration in licensing, and in particular offer to meet those with an interest in this area, such as UK Music and the Music Venue Trust?

[Baroness Deech]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Salisbury]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for moving the amendment. I stand in place of my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who is unable to be here today, in support of Amendment 214, which would grant new powers to local licensing authorities in regulating gaming machines on gambling premises. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has already made clear, there is a strong case for measures that will help local authorities tackle gambling-related crime to be included in the Policing and Crime Bill.

The figures on the rise of gambling-related crime are startling. From 2014 to 2015 there was a 50% increase in the number of incidents on gambling premises that required police assistance. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans recently submitted a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Police which found that there had been a 68% increase in the number of violent criminal offences at London betting shops between 2011-12 and 2015-16. It has recently been reported that around 40% of commercial robberies in London target betting shops.

There is likely to be a range of factors driving this increase in violence. Opportunism arising from the single staffing of betting shops is surely one of them. Another is the increasing reliance of high-street betting shops on fixed-odds betting terminals, or FOBTs. As a report from Landman Economics put it:

“It seems clear that violent behaviour in betting shops is on the increase and an increased proliferation of FOBTs—with increased numbers of players incurring losses from gambling on B2 machines—is a likely reason for this trend”.

There are countless recorded examples of so-called “FOBT rage”, in which customers destroy machines or assault staff after losing large sums of money. What is more, we know that a great number of these incidents go unreported by betting shops.

It is not just violent crime that is increasingly associated with FOBTs. In 2015, 633 instances of suspected money laundering were reported to the Gambling Commission by betting shop staff, and there is no way of knowing the full extent of the problem. Several local councils, including Hounslow, have also raised concerns that the anonymous nature of FOBTs lends itself to underage gambling. These concerns have led several local authorities to call on Her Majesty’s Government to grant them greater powers when it comes to imposing conditions on a gambling premises licence. This amendment therefore comes with the support of the Local Government Association, as well as with endorsements from the councils of Westminster, Brighton and Hove, Brent and Leeds.

The current licensing arrangements allow licensing authorities to impose a range of conditions on betting premises in order to ensure that the licensing objectives of preventing crime and protecting the vulnerable are upheld. However, licensing authorities are prevented from imposing conditions that affect the number or operational method of the gaming machines permitted under the licence.

Given that FOBTs now contribute well over 50% of the profits of high-street betting shops, that restriction seems like an outdated anomaly. Amendment 214 would either allow licensing authorities to limit the number of FOBTs permitted on a premises or allow them to impose conditions on the method of operation for gaming machines more generally—for example, by requiring account-based play or by requiring customers to confirm their identification with staff prior to play. By removing the possibility of anonymous play, not only would conditions such as these prevent money laundering and underage gambling but they would be likely to reduce the number of violent and aggressive incidents towards staff, while facilitating more effective implementation of self-exclusion.

Amendment 214 would also make it clear that licensing authorities do not have to assess licensing applications in isolation but can take into account the cumulative impact of a range of local factors in making a decision, whether they be social deprivation, local crime rates, the proximity of local schools or addiction treatment centres, or the presence of a betting shop cluster. Currently the legislation is not clear on this point, so the amendment would also provide licensing authorities with clarity and confidence about the options open to them. If Her Majesty’s Government are not willing to accept an amendment in primary legislation on this matter, I hope that they will issue clear guidance, particularly on the potential for licensing authorities to use cumulative impact assessments, through the Gambling Commission.

I should emphasise to the Committee that the amendment is not an attack on the gambling industry; it seeks only to give licensing authorities the tools they require to better enforce the existing licensing objectives. Licensing authorities would not be able to impose these conditions on a whim. They would have to show that conditions were proportionate and reasonable in protecting the licensing objectives. These new powers would make a real difference, not just in reducing crime but in protecting the vulnerable, and I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will consider them carefully.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, having put my name to this amendment, I support Amendments 214—and 214CA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham—and endorse the argument so eloquently put forward both by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury and by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.

We on these Benches have long advocated a reduction in the stakes of fixed-odds betting terminals—FOBTs—and the Government’s review is a welcome step, but it should not delay other forms of action to address the social harm caused by these machines. For years, local authorities of all political persuasions have implored the Government to allow them to tackle the blight on communities caused by FOBTs.

As we know, FOBTs can swallow £100 every 20 seconds, and bookmakers open multiple shops in deprived areas to facilitate as many machines as possible. There are double the number of betting shops in the 55 most deprived boroughs in England as in the 115 most affluent. This clustering of outlets significantly contributes to crime and anti-social behaviour, as both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned.

That is why I and my colleagues back Newham and its 92 local authority supporters, representing 23 million people across the country, who have been calling for the dangerously high FOBT stakes to be reduced to £2, in line with other high street gaming machines. We hope that this will be the outcome of the belatedly announced triennial review.

FOBTs are highly addictive gaming machines, as we have heard, found in bookmakers across the country. The machines allow users to place bets of up to £100 every 20 seconds on electronic casino games. In 2015 gamblers lost £1.7 billion on FOBTs, and, as we heard from the right reverend Prelate, FOBTs now account for more than half of betting shop profits.

As we know from evidence from, for example, charities seeking to help people with gambling addiction, these machines are directly harming the young and vulnerable in our society, whom we have a duty to protect. Those who can least afford it are often losing vast sums of money. This is driving them towards mental health problems. We have even seen young men taking their own lives because of their addiction to these machines.

The impact of such losses—again, as we have heard—is leading to increased crime on Britain’s high streets. In a recent evidence session of the FOBT all-party group, Sir Robin Wales, the Mayor of Newham, noted that in Newham Borough there is one police call-out to a bookmaker per day, most commonly associated with a FOBT-related incident. In 2013 one of Newham’s 84 betting shops reported 112 incidents of anti-social behaviour to enforcement teams.

To date, the measures introduced to regulate these machines have been ineffective at best. Last year the Government introduced the Gaming Machine (Circumstances of Use) (Amendment) Regulations, which were implemented on 6 April. They require FOBT customers to authorise stakes of £50 or more via account-based play or over-the-counter staff authorisation. However, a study by Landman Economics in April 2016 demonstrated that the DCMS, in its evaluation of the impact of the regulations, was unable to determine whether the regulations on the £50 stake had in fact led to an increase in player control, let alone a reduction in the number of problem gamblers. Further, the bookmakers’ own industry code of conduct was found, in a report by the Responsible Gambling Trust, to be ineffective.

Calls for the regulation of these machines have been widespread, from parliamentarians, faith groups and mental health campaigners. Apart from the questions of lowering the stakes and reducing the spin rate, do the Government accept that local authorities have inadequate planning and licensing powers to address high-stake machine gambling on their high streets, to protect the most vulnerable, to tackle crime and to address the damage to local economies?

The Prime Minister, Theresa May, raised the issue back in 2005 of the harm caused by FOBTs. More than a decade later, she finally, as Prime Minister, has the power to take action. She has the opportunity now to protect the most vulnerable from exploitation by controlling high-stakes gambling on our high streets. These amendments would be extremely valuable additions to available regulation of FOBTs. I urge the Government to accept them.

Cyberattack: UK Defences

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I will write to the noble Lord about his specific point. However, we are not complacent on this issue. As the noble Lord, and other noble Lords, will know, virtually every telecommunications network in the world incorporates foreign technology. Most manufacturers have some of their equipment built in China and use technical components from a global supply chain, regardless of the location of their headquarters.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I should declare an interest as a former adviser to Huawei. Given that 90% of larger companies suffered a security breach last year, I welcome what the Chancellor and the Minister have said about setting up a national cyber centre. To date, the Cabinet Office has been responsible for the national cybersecurity programme. Can the Minister confirm that it will continue to be so, and to be responsible for the national cyber centre, rather than handing it over to the tender mercies of the Home Office, which is not known for its business-friendliness?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I can confirm that and draw the noble Lord’s attention to paragraph 7.7 on page 82 of the National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review, which sets out a very nice organogram for who is responsible for what.

Government Digital Service

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely good point and the Government are very focused on this, as is the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office today has announced the appointment of a new chief people officer who will lead HR, and I am sure he will put this at the top of his agenda.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the GDS and GOV.UK have made a huge contribution to better government. We heard the Minister’s assurances about strategy, but can he give the House an absolute assurance that we are not going to return to a free-for-all where each government department sets up its own website again?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely good point. During the previous Government a number of websites were shut down—scores indeed—some of which were competing against each other. I hope this is not a party-political point, but I think we have all learnt the lessons from the early days of digital. We need to make sure we continue on the approach we have set.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Lords Chamber

I hope very much—although in reality I am not very hopeful—that the Government will reconsider and accept these amendments. It is notable, of course, that since our last discussions on this subject, the Government have rushed to put at least some of their thoughts on the face of the Bill, where it was all a bit cryptic before. What is there needs amending. It also needs a bit of substance behind it. I therefore support all of these amendments.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I would like briefly but very strongly to support the amendments which have been so well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and my noble friend Lady Hanham. I may have been a somewhat sporadic attendee for this particular part of the Deregulation Bill, but it certainly has been visible to the naked eye that the goalposts seem to have been shifted somewhat in this area as we have moved from Second Reading in July to Committee in October, with an enormous gap between Committee and Report. The initial assumption was made, as far as I could see, on Second Reading and right up to Committee that the Government were going to completely deregulate in this area. We then discovered that new regulations will be introduced. Some consultation took place, and the policy paper was published. Then, on Report it was clearly understood that we were going to have a set of regulations, which were continuing to be consulted on, which would make changes to Section 25 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 at a later date. And yet we now find ourselves at Third Reading with a very comprehensive new clause setting out the Government’s view. It has been like a slow-slow-quick process and completely the reverse of the usual march that one would expect in these circumstances. I think the provisions contain great dangers, and that is why I very strongly support these amendments.

My noble friend the Minister made great play of the benefits to the tourism industry and I want to speak from the perspective of tourism hospitality. However, I believe that the boot is very much on the other foot. Of course, as we all know, tourism and hospitality businesses are a very important part of local communities in London and of the London economy. It is not that the tourism and hospitality industries are against new models; indeed, they believe that they are an important way of introducing new ways of delivering to tourists. The most recent newcomer—the Minister used this phraseology—is the sharing economy: the sharing model which offers guests the ability to pay to stay in someone’s residence on a night-by-night basis.

We have seen that many of those who let their properties this way are essentially running businesses, but they do not act as responsible hospitality providers and undertake the necessary precautions to ensure health and safety in the same way as more traditional tourism businesses. They have been described as “pseudo-hotels”. If they are allowed to spring up, they pose a real danger not only for their guests but in respect of noise and nuisance for nearby residents. We need to have safeguards to monitor and limit the use of these residences, ensure the rules are followed and quickly deal with any problems that arise. We have seen problems arise in many other cities around the world, and safeguards have been and are being put in to protect communities from the impact of these short-term lets in places such as Paris, New York and Singapore. We need to manage these genuine risks and ensure that safeguards are in place and are enforceable.

These government amendments effectively make it impossible in practical terms to enforce the limits on short-term lets in London. This has been made clear to the Government not only by noble Lords today but by London councils, including Westminster City Council, and by all those bodies that will, in the future, have the responsibility of enforcement. They must surely have a pretty good idea of whether these provisions are going to be enforceable by their own officers. Without local registration, there will be no ability to enforce any safeguards around short-term lets. At a minimum, local councils and the Metropolitan Police should have the transparency they need in the use of these London residences to identify them when they are being used for short-term lets and to ensure that safety and security measures are in place to protect communities.

All the other proposals in the cross-party amendments advocated by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, my noble friend Lord Tope and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, are extremely important from that perspective as well. The scale of fraud and lawbreaking around these short-term lets will otherwise increase and so will the nuisance and noise for residents. Both the tourism industry and local councils have made a very strong case, and we should adopt each one of those points. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, say that if this is put to a vote, it will be put as a package. The package of amendments is extremely important.

Whatever happened to localism? I thought that we had been debating it for the past few years. What could be more attuned to localism than the amendments that are on the Marshalled List today?

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, I will address the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, in his speech. He mentioned that there were 4 million overseas visitors to London last year. I should also start by reminding the House that my interests are on the register and that I am the owner of leasehold flats.

First, the noble Lord talked about the potential breach and the £20,000 fine. Is he aware that no one— but no one—has been asked to pay a £20,000 fine for an illegal letting? Boroughs have not implemented that at all. Then he talked about the 90 days in the calendar year. However, 90 days is three months, and if you choose to let in, say, October, November and December, it is a new calendar year for January, February and March—so you can have six months instead of 90 days, which is why 60 days seems to be a more reasonable amount.

The noble Lord said that disproportionate bureaucracy is involved in applying for planning permission. I agree with that, but local councils are willing to have a 24-hour online notification period. What could be more in tune with modern living and with the idea that, as the travel people say to you, we need to be able to supply someone with accommodation within 24 to 48 hours? If councils are prepared to accept that as a notification, surely that is keeping right up to date with modern practice. Your person could fly in tomorrow, in 24 hours, provided you have notified the council who it is, how long they are going to be there for and who will be responsible for the property. It is not disproportionate bureaucracy; it is a great reduction in bureaucracy.

My fear is that if you give the Secretary of State these powers, you will be loaded with bureaucracy and delay. Nothing is going to happen quickly. What if the threat is a terrorist one? By the time you have gone through the Secretary of State and everything, it will be too late. When I saw what happened in Sydney recently, I found it such a shock and realised that one of these terrorist attacks could happen anywhere in the world. Why should London think it can escape? We have even read in the papers about threats that are coming to us. London is different from other parts of the country: it has a special attraction and is quite a drawcard. Of course a lot of people come. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, believes that his amendments will give real freedom and flexibility. I do not agree with that at all. The amendments that we are proposing to his amendment will give much more real freedom and flexibility.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, mentioned the question of a “principal residence”. I know from personal experience that, if a property is empty, the owner is liable for council tax. The day when you could have it empty and unfurnished and no council tax was payable has long gone. Everyone is liable for council tax on a property, and therefore using that as the judgment of whether or not you are suitable to let something is no answer at all. A principal residence has to be a place that you have to be living in some of the time. As we mention, it has to be the “principal residence in London”, as opposed to just a general principal residence. Notification within 24 hours is very reasonable and could be done by all authorities, although we are not insisting that all authorities do it. We believe there should be a flexibility for local authorities, because what is someone’s problem today will be someone else’s tomorrow. These problems move around rather than just staying in one place—conditions change. On Report, I mentioned that Camden was very upset about the huge number of council properties there that were being let on these short lets.

The noble Lord mentioned that he thought the provision relating to previous offenders was unreasonable. I do not think it is at all unreasonable. The fact that you cannot get away with it on a repeated basis is a very good justification for us saying that, if it has happened to you before, then things are slightly different.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, mentioned back-to-back letting. I have mentioned how it can turn your three months into six months. Several speakers have also mentioned localism, and I absolutely agree with every word that they have said. However, unless the local authority has some awareness of who is in a property and for how long, it has no idea of what it is dealing with, and anything could happen.

The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, mentioned the consultation document. I have mentioned before that I have asked who gave what answers to the consultation and have been denied an answer—not once but three times—when I have tabled that Question to be put before the House. Why are they so frightened to publish the consultation answers? Why has he not said tonight what they are? I find it unbelievable that you can table a Question and it can just be ignored by the Government of the day. That is very strange.

I have seen this short-letting business in practice and in reality—not personally, but it has been reported to the management of the block that I own flats in. Ten people come every fortnight, brought from the airport in a bus, and all of them live in a one-bedroom flat. I believe there should be a limit on how many people can live in a one-bedroom flat. There are three of these flats in a block where there is a communal hot water system—30 extra people in a 15-flat block is a huge drain on the central heating, the hot water and everything else. It is not fair to people. Elderly people living in the block have found it quite terrifying to have strangers coming in who abuse them and push them out of the lift so that they can take over. It is really unbelievable.

Many of them now have keys to the street door, but they do not even need them: they go down, open all the fire doors and leave them open, so there is no protection from anyone coming in from the street at all. Younger women have been threatened in these blocks. I cannot claim to have been personally affected, because my flats are higher up in the block and fortunately are not involved, but the lower floors suffer so badly. It is incredible that this goes on. Moving this into the hands of the Secretary of State would be wrong. It is right that we should have regulations and strange that we have not been given answers to Questions we have asked. I strongly support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

28: After Clause 64, insert the following new Clause—
“Copyright in broadcast
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument repeal, in whole or in part, section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (reception and re-transmission of wireless broadcast by cable).
(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment would give the Secretary of State power by regulation to repeal Section 72 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in part or in full. My noble friend the Minister will be only too well aware from the debate in Committee on 11 November that there are very strong views in the House on this subject. Although I was not able to be present for that debate because I was abroad, a great many noble Lords presented compelling and persuasive reasons why an outdated provision set up in the 1980s is now putting at risk the ability of commercial public service broadcasters to invest in original UK content and should be repealed.

The fact is that when Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act was put in place in 1988, the world was a very different place. Britain was an analogue nation. The overriding policy priority was, quite rightly, to encourage competition to analogue PSBs. In effect, those broadcasters were forced through measures like Section 73 to subsidise new entries to the TV platform market. The policy has been a great success. We have one of the most competitive media markets in the world at all levels: channels, production and TV distribution. But the provision has done its job. In a globalising internet age, subsidising nascent competition is not the issue. What matters now is maximising investment in original UK TV content to the benefit of viewers and the UK creative economy.

The PSBs invest around £3 billion a year in original UK content. ITV itself invests around £1 billion a year in programming, the vast majority of which is made up of original UK content. Ofcom has pointed out that the PSBs still account for the vast majority of investment in new programming. But to keep on making world-class content available universally and for free depends on the ability to make a commercial return on successful investment, hence the need to repeal Section 73. Successor legislation in the form of the “must offer” provisions in the Communications Act 2003, which is already in the PSB licences, already exists.

I am pleased that the Government recognise the importance of the issue and have promised a review to address it. Indeed, on 15 January the Secretary of State promised in the Commons that we could expect a consultation within weeks, but we have not yet seen much evidence of that. For many in this House, this is a hugely important issue and we are concerned about the lack of information available. I therefore ask the Minister if he can today provide me and other noble Lords who care deeply about this important matter with more detail on the review. Can he tell us when we might expect the review to start and to conclude? When time is of the essence, I cannot be the only one wondering if the consultation will be launched before the election. Can he outline what we can expect the review to cover and the range of issues it will include? I would also welcome more detail on what questions are likely to be asked and what the terms of reference might be. Just as important is that he should indicate what he expects will happen to the findings of the review.

The noble Lord, Lord Grade, who sadly is not in his place, said that from what he had read in the newspapers, he had perceived a slight rumour about an election coming down the tracks, and clearly it is approaching fast. Can my noble friend outline the mechanism by which the Government plan to implement the recommendations of the review? I know that I am not the only one in the Chamber who is concerned that we should not lose momentum. I have therefore tabled this amendment, which is supported by many noble Lords. It does not pre-empt the findings of the review, but it would provide the Secretary of State with a mechanism to deal with the key issue before us: the repeal of Section 73. It would remove the need for primary legislation to repeal the section. Moreover, let us not forget that the European Union has started infringement proceedings against the Government on Section 73 as it believes that it is incompatible with EU law. The amendment would provide whoever is in power after May this year with a safety net by putting in place a mechanism to repeal the section.

I wonder whether my noble friend can go on to explain in his response why the consultation and the review also plan to look at whether other regulation around the PSB system on issues such as prominence is necessary. Electronic programme guide prominence not only ensures that people can actually find the public service content we require our PSBs to produce; it also enables those PSBs funded by commercial means to maximise viewing figures and thus maximise the value of the advertising they sell. It seems very odd to me that the Government would consider a key pillar of the PSB system to be something which can somehow be traded away. Prominence is part of a compact we make with the PSBs. Our commercial PSBs have all agreed fairly recently to new 10-year licences with Ofcom on the basis that they would continue to receive this prominence. It is in exchange for prominence that they agree to the public service obligations we place on them. If we are seeking to deregulate and remove this prominence, are we also seeking to get rid of public service content?

My noble friend Lord Grade outlined in Committee that the pay-TV platforms are arguing that if retransmission fees are introduced, the appropriate prominence regime for the PSBs on electronic programme guides should be abolished and they should be free to charge the full market rate to PSBs. In the light of what I have said, this is clearly a diversionary tactic and an attempt to deconstruct the whole of the public service broadcast regime. I hope that the Government have not been gulled by that approach.

I urge the Government to accept the amendment and, depending on the outcome of the review and/or the EU infringement proceedings, help to protect the television industry and the investment by PSBs in content. They should continue to invest in making the programmes that viewers love and of which of course this country is rightly proud. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, first, I thank noble Lords all around the House for their very strong support for this amendment. We heard a great deal of experience and understanding of the industry and the issues involved, and some very cogent arguments as to why this review is extremely important and indeed urgent, and why a mechanism is needed by which the review recommendations when they come out can be implemented quickly.

It is not quite a Damascene conversion from the Opposition Front Bench, but certainly there was an indication of some wavering there. Whatever it was, it was appreciated. Also, I thought that “banking the primary legislation” was a good phrase, because that is entirely the intention of this amendment. The only area of suspicion was exactly as my noble friend the Minister indicated: when both Front Benches agree that a matter is complex, we are in very dangerous territory indeed.

The absolute essence of this, agreed upon by virtually every speaker, was the need to pursue this matter with vigour. It is not party political. The noble Baroness, Lady Ford, had it absolutely right. This is a matter for forensic inquiry into the best way of stimulating investment in the industry. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, the reason for wanting a mechanism in place before the review comes to a conclusion is because speed is of the essence.

It is not often that Ministers pray in aid parliamentary counsel’s views in opposition to an amendment. I am deeply admiring of the fact that parliamentary counsel had time to cast his eye over my humble amendment. Clearly, there is further work is to be done on it.

I do not think that the Minister really answered a number of issues in his reply. I understand that he does not have a great deal of detail about the review or its terms of reference. We heard about the timescale and I am grateful for that, but really, considering that the review was announced some months ago, we should have had a great deal more progress made on this. We should have an answer as to why the whole EPG prominence issue has been included in this. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon, had it absolutely right in terms of the interdependence of the content providers and platforms. It is extremely important in this day and age as convergence takes place that we set the rules very clearly. There is a problem of declining investment in programme content by PSBs, as my noble friend Lord Storey mentioned; it is a real worry.

The Minister said that my amendment would not give the necessary powers, and I must accept that. The weight of parliamentary counsel coming down against it is like Ministers saying there are technical flaws in one’s amendment. I would dearly love to have an all-powerful amendment to put before the Minister. Perhaps—who knows?—that might be forthcoming at some stage.

The Minister promised a broad consultation, which is probably a matter of concern rather than reassurance. I hope that he is aware that the intent behind this amendment was either to get him to agree to it—which of course he has not—or to get satisfactory assurances from him about the progress of the review. Sadly, I appear to have failed on both counts. The phrases most commonly used throughout this debate by all noble Lords were “long grass” and “back burner”, while “red herring” was also mentioned. Although I will withdraw the amendment, I do so without feeling too assured of the current state of play. I was very pleased to hear that the Minister will keep us in touch with the start date of this great review, and that it will take eight to 12 weeks, and I hope that we will make rather better progress than we have done to date. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

29: After Clause 64, insert the following new Clause—
“Busking deregulation
(1) Omit paragraph 14 of section 54 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 (penalty on persons committing in thoroughfares the offences herein mentioned).
(2) Omit sections 32 to 44 of the London Local Authorities Act 2000.”

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, it is just the stroke of fate that means the House must hear another amendment from me straight after the previous one, but I am sure noble Lords never get bored of hearing about busking and the issues surrounding it. I very much hope that we have some aficionados around the House who will support my amendment.

I am sorry that I was not able to be present in Committee for the equivalent amendment moved at that time. However, my noble friend Lord Stoneham very ably put the case there and I am extremely grateful to him for doing so. He emphasised that busking is an essential part of London’s street culture. My noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble, too, in response said:

“The Government are clear that busking can enrich a community’s quality of life and generate a positive atmosphere enjoyed by many people”.

He also said:

“The Government do not start from the position that busking requires regulation and control. Busking should be about freedom of the individual, and only if necessary should local action be taken to curb certain excesses”.—[Official Report, 11/11/14; cols. GC 46-7.]

My starting point today is precisely from those words. My aim is to show not only that across the UK are many voluntary schemes coming into effect to promote and ensure that there is a thriving and popular busking scene but that, particularly in London, there are myriad ways of tackling noise and other nuisance if necessary other than by introducing repressive local authority licensing schemes under the 2000 Act, or using outdated legislation in London under a 170 year- old Metropolitan Police Act.

In Liverpool, York and many other cities, voluntary codes have been or are being agreed which obviate the need for licensing. Following work by the mayor’s busking task force and drawing inspiration in particular from Liverpool’s experience, Busk in London has been created. It is organising National Busking Day in July and a young buskers’ competition. With the MU and others, it is co-ordinating agreement across the London boroughs on a new busking code and voluntary online registration as the way forward in London. That will be launched on 18 March and celebrated on National Busking Day.

I hope my noble friend will agree that the aim must be to minimise the amount of regulation surrounding the performance of live music and continue the work begun with the Live Music Act 2012. I am sure that this voluntary action will demonstrate, as it has in Liverpool, that we can encourage appropriate busking without a cumbersome licensing system and only relying on statutory powers inter alia against noise, nuisance, obstruction and vagrancy as a backstop against those who do not stick within acceptable boundaries.

However, as my noble friend said in Committee:

“Regrettably, though, street entertainment can sometimes be a source of conflict between buskers, businesses and residents. Complaints of noise, nuisance and anti-social behaviour can arise, and police and local councils have to respond and try to find solutions”.—[Official Report, 11/11/14; col. GC 46.]

In response, some councils and the police have actively used inappropriate or archaic legislation to discourage busking in a disproportionate way. My noble friend Lord Stoneham gave the example of the London Borough of Camden using Part 5 of the London Local Authorities Act to ban street music at any time, amplified or unamplified, except through a special busking licence. Breach carries a fine of up to £1,000. Again, in Committee, my noble friend Lord Gardiner said:

“If we were to accept the amendment, the Government would indeed be saying that London councils should not have the option to decide whether or not to license busking based on local circumstances. Indeed, we feel that this is not a subject for top-down government solutions; it is for local authorities to determine fair, reasonable and transparent policies in relation to managing our streets”.—[Official Report, 11/11/14; col. GC 47.]

Why not? The Licensing Acts regulate the parameters of action for local authorities. Those powers are not held by any other locality. Why should London be the exception?

The amendment would also remove Section 54(14) of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839. My noble friend Lord Stoneham reminded us of the experience of the King’s Parade, the winners of the mayor’s busking competition, Gigs, who were busking in Leicester Square and were bundled into a van by eight officers and held at Paddington police station for more than six hours. The Minister said that although Section 54(14) is rarely used, the Metropolitan Police need to retain the provision to give their officers the tactical option of dealing with what they call busking-related offences. What are they? Are we talking of three-card trick artists on Westminster Bridge or pickpockets in Covent Garden—that is, activities totally irrelevant to legitimate busking? Does that not show a completely false understanding by the Metropolitan Police of what busking is?

I was struck by and grateful for what my noble friend Lord Paddick, who has great experience of London policing, said. He said:

“My Lords, as a former Metropolitan Police officer of 30 years’ experience, I cannot think of any offence that a busker might commit that is not covered by other legislation or requires the use of the Metropolitan Police Act”.—[Official Report, 11/11/14; col. GC 47.]

There are effective solutions and adequate powers that are proportional to deal with noise nuisance and other problems to which busking occasionally gives rise. Busk in London plans to work with the local authority noise and licensing teams in London to ensure that we bust any myths about current legislation not being usable against problem buskers. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 enables councils to issue noise abatement notices against buskers who cause noise nuisance. A breach of a Section 80 notice carries heavy fines and allows a local authority to seize and confiscate instruments and equipment. Section 80 notices can also be issued pre-emptively if it is likely that a busker will cause a noise nuisance. There are many examples—in Cardiff, Boston, Oxford and Newcastle—of the EPA and noise abatement notices being successfully used against problem buskers. The EPA is flexible enough to impose conditions on buskers who have caused issues, and able to deal successfully with complaints about a busker while allowing him to play for agreed intervals.

Likewise, I could take the House through the extensive powers available to deal with obstruction, illegal street trading, begging and other problems. In passing, I should say that, sadly, there are new powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which came into force last year, which could be used in a heavy-handed way. The new community protection notices and public space protection orders create new powers that could be used disproportionately and pre-emptively by local authorities. I have an Oral Question about the use of those powers against busking to be debated soon, so I will not pursue the matter today, except to say that it appears that Canterbury is already invoking them and Bath may be about to.

I hope that the Minister will applaud the initiatives that are taking place in London and elsewhere in our major cities to promote busking and encourage it as an art form, but I also hope that he will accept that there is quite enough general legislation to deal with noisy busking without specific legislation for London. There are quite enough powers in existence to ensure that nuisance busking can be prevented without having to keep Part 5 of the 2000 Act or Section 54(14) of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That is extremely helpful of my noble friend as it allows me to reinforce the efforts of the excellent Mayor of London as the honest broker in trying to get a London-wide code of practice. I think that there have been very constructive discussions with local authorities. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will have more detail on that than I do. However, I think that that is precisely the way forward that my noble friend Lord Deben would find most agreeable.

Busking is undoubtedly a legitimate activity which often contributes to the vibrancy of a local area, and, per se, we do not believe that it does need control. However, it is important that backstop powers are available for specific circumstances. I know that this will not suit many of my noble friends but I hope that I have explained our reasons. Picking up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, we have looked at this with the Law Commission. I hope that, on that basis, and for the other reasons I have given, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, we have had quite an interesting jam session on busking deregulation. I thank all speakers in the debate, starting with the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I am glad that he referred to Jonny Walker of the Keep Streets Live! campaign, who has been so instrumental in trying to get some sense into busking regulation and to get a code of conduct agreed in so many parts of the UK. He made some important points about the need for national guidelines, if possible, to create some coherence across the UK, and pointed out that local councils should not simply go in, in a knee-jerk way, with all guns blazing.

I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who made a wonderful speech that was passionate, persuasive and, indeed, life enhancing. He was spot on about the London boroughs; they do vary in their attitudes. I was at a meeting yesterday morning with almost all the London boroughs, including Camden. Progress is being made on the creation of a Busk In London code. We hope that it will be launched with the consent of all the London boroughs on 18 March. The mayor has been absolutely instrumental in this; the use of his bully pulpit has been so helpful.

After hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I thought that he had set my noble friend some pretty impossible tests—and indeed that was the case: I do not feel that my noble friend met those tests in his response. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made one very provocative remark—thought it is not provocative on these Benches—when he described London as the capital of the European Union. I am sure that he will be challenged on that aspect of his speech.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for starting to make the constructive suggestion about the Law Commission; that is extremely important. The point is that we should be making the policy. I see the noble Lord, Lord Condon, in the Chamber. I am sure he was ruminating over the 1839 Act because I am sure he used it every day when he was a young constable. I doubt whether more than one in 20 police constables has a clue about the 1839 Act. It is produced for absolutely no purpose, in extremis, because a particular group of residents wants to see a result. It has been used totally inappropriately. I am afraid that, whenever it is used again, it will be used totally inappropriately, because there are many other powers.

I thank the Minister for some aspects of his response, in particular his positive approach. He says that busking plays an important role in our lives; that it generates a positive atmosphere; that we do not, per se, start on the basis that we must somehow control it; and that we need backstops. I want to see the end of these powers because they are not backstops, they are front-stops: in many cases, they absolutely stop busking unless it is licensed. That does not seem very satisfactory.

We have had a good debate. I hope the Law Commission will take this on. You can certainly count on the busking community, and the many who support them, to carry on and to try to get the culture of enforcement right. Enforcement should be undertaken only against inappropriate busking. We should allow busking that is musical and positive and that brings joy to our streets, particularly in London, so that they can flourish. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 29 withdrawn.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

22: Schedule 16, page 185, line 11, at end insert—
“( ) After subsection (4) insert—
“(5) Governing bodies of schools seeking to make changes to dates of term and holiday times will so far as practicable consult local tourism organisations prior to determination.””

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I will not recap at length the points I made in Committee. Suffice it to say that tourism contributes 9% of all UK GDP and 9% of all jobs: 3 million people rely on it for work. Domestic tourism spending is a significant portion of this—79% of tourism spending across the UK. I made the point in Committee that domestic changes in school term times have a potentially massive knock-on effect for the UK tourism industry as a whole. In the US, there are numerous examples of states changing term times and the huge effect that has had, costing state economies hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

DCMS has admitted that there has been no evaluation of the policy’s effect on tourism. Tourism is heavily reliant on the weather, and it is not uncommon for summer trading to be ruined, for example, by two weeks of bad weather. Decreasing the length of the summer holiday to, say, four weeks would be far more devastating than a simple one-third reduction of the peak period. Diversifying the dates of holidays does not lengthen the peak period but simply spreads out the same trade while increasing operating costs.

Assurances have been given to the British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions—BALPPA—by the Department for Education, and indeed by my noble friend in Committee on 6 November, that the needs of businesses will be considered. However, does this actually amount to an assurance that consultation will take place before changes are made? Surely, at the very least, the duty to do so should be contained in guidance or, much better, enshrined in the Bill.

By their nature, tourism attractions bring people in from beyond the immediate locality. Often, they attract people into towns from the region and beyond. Changing school times throughout the whole of Manchester would, for example, affect attractions across the north-west, including those in Blackpool and Liverpool. There is concern that when schools want to use these powers, they will not have the concerns of local businesses in mind. We need to give the tourism industry more confidence in this legislation, which is viewed with a great deal of concern at the moment. The effect of changes to school terms and holidays is potentially huge for the industry. We should therefore make sure that school governing bodies consult when they propose to make any such changes. I urge my noble friend to accept the principle of this amendment and I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for what the noble Lord has just said. Indeed, we discussed this at some length in Committee. I have only one point and when the Minister responds I would be grateful if he could expand on the comments that he made in Committee. He said:

“I am happy to assure the noble Lord that the Government have agreed that their advice to schools will make clear that: schools should be considerate of the needs of parents and impacts on others by working with each other and the local authority to co-ordinate term dates as far as possible; and that all schools must act reasonably when setting term dates, including considering the impact of changes to term dates on small businesses that rely on tourism from families with school-age children”.—[Official Report, 6/11/2014; col. GC771.]

That is a very targeted comment and seems in many ways to answer everything that the noble Lord was saying, but I wonder what force this advice will have? Will it be in the form of a circular of some type? Can he expand on that? Will there be any sanctions for those who do not behave to the letter of the law, as so well expressed by the noble Lord the last time round? Particularly, would Ofsted be inspecting such offers made by schools?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

No, I was perhaps making an after-dinner remark that was a little outside my brief.

Those of us who live in the north of England are well aware that different local authorities have had different holiday periods for a long time. Blackpool would not have had the prosperity that it had if wakes weeks had not been staggered across Lancashire and Yorkshire in the 19th century. There was a degree of adaptability among different local authorities that worked extremely well. It is no longer necessary.

In arguing that the proposed amendment to Part 3 of Schedule 15 is unnecessary, I should therefore say that schools and local authorities have had a considerable degree of autonomy to change their holiday times in recent years. Very few have wished to do so, because there are powerful arguments for the existing system. School leaders are best placed to decide the structure of the school year in the interests of their pupils’ education and local circumstances. Schedule 16 therefore gives all schools responsibility to set their own term dates from this September.

Thousands of schools, educating more than half of all registered pupils, are already responsible for their term dates. Three-quarters of secondary schools and more than a third of primary schools are already responsible for their school year. There is a school in every local authority in England with this freedom, but without the proposed specific requirement, suggested by the noble Lord, to consult tourism businesses in place. This has not resulted in significant problems for the tourist industry. In practice, the majority of schools continue to follow their existing term dates, with a small number making changes where there is a compelling reason to do so. Where they make changes, schools take into account the needs of the local community. As noble Lords will be well aware, the needs of the local community in cities such as Bradford or Manchester often include the different patterns of different religious and ethnic communities.

Turning to the concern at the heart of the amendment, all schools must already act reasonably, fairly and transparently when determining term dates. This will include considering the impact on those likely to be affected by their decisions, including pupils, parents, staff, the local authority and businesses.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but these are very important details. Can he give me chapter and verse as to where these obligations to act reasonably, fairly, et cetera, arise?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, it may be somewhere deep in my brief. I am sure it is somewhere deep in the Box. If I go on for a short period, I am sure that the answer will magically appear for me. I am fairly sure it is in briefing and guidance. It is not something that is enforced upon schools because that does not seem necessary. When my children were in primary school in the early years of a Labour Government, I recall the head teacher of the primary school commenting that he received volumes and volumes of instructions each year on how to behave. We rather think we should try to avoid quite such a deliberate effort if we can.

The Government understand the noble Lord’s concern that it may not be immediately obvious to a school that its decision to change term dates could affect local tourism businesses. The Government have discussed this point with BALPA and agreed to assurances in the form of advice to schools. It is a general principle of law, I am assured, that is provided in guidance to schools, but we will write to the noble Lord with the exact chapter, verse and places where this guidance is set out.

I am pleased to reiterate that the Government have agreed that their advice to schools will be clear. Schools should be considerate of the needs of parents and the impacts on others by working with each other and the local authority to co-ordinate term dates as far as possible, and all schools must act reasonably when setting term dates; “reasonably” includes the impact of term dates on small businesses that rely on tourism. I will write to the noble Lord with the exact details of where the guidance is provided and the experience so far. I reiterate that the freedom that schools have had so far to alter term dates has not led to a huge revolution because the pattern of terms and holidays suits most parents, staff, businesses and others much better than any alternatives. With that assurance and my repetition that we are conscious of the way in which the short British summer and the needs of British tourist institutions interact with schools and school holidays, I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, as I am sure my noble friend is very well aware, Groundhog Day was celebrated yesterday in the United States. I felt that perhaps we were beginning to celebrate Groundhog Day here in the House today. Until the very last point of my noble friend’s response, I felt that the response he gave me was pretty undercooked, quite honestly, as if the Department for Education had disinterred something from two months ago which was more or less in the same form. It did not have the detail that one might require on Report to an amendment that is much more specific than the one that was put forward in Committee. I really feel that it has not been given the seriousness that it should have been, and that the Department for Education, for which in this context my noble friend is speaking, is not really taking the concerns of the tourism industry seriously.

I fully understand the case that my noble friend is making, that to date we have not seen a great impact on local attractions and so on, but that is not the issue. The issue is the potential impact, and it is only by addressing the concerns of local tourism interest, by consulting with them and so on, that one is really going to be able to understand that.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we have not so far seen any problem, and if the noble Lord’s criticism may be that the DfE is not paying enough attention to this problem, that is partly because it is not a problem.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, as I said, my noble friend has made the case that there is no existing problem, but the industry is extremely concerned that it could be a problem in future, because this will mean that the full range of schools—as opposed to a number of schools—will be able to change their term times by the decision of governing bodies. What the industry is quite reasonably asking is that the duty on school governing bodies to consult should be enshrined in law. My noble friend says, “It’ll be all right on the night, because they have a duty to act reasonably and fairly”, under something or other—whether it is guidance, advice or some other sort of way, no doubt, of communicating between the Department for Education and schools, I know not what. I look forward to my noble friend’s specific reply, which will be extremely helpful.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, just to add, in a Deregulation Bill, the Government are a little hesitant about imposing a new national regulation unless there is a good rationale for it. We have not yet seen the rationale.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, my noble friend was talking about an existing set of guidance advice, not something happening in future. Therefore, it would be extremely useful to know whether this is an umbrella set of guidance, which means that the concerns of BALPA and others should be entirely satisfied by a duty to act fairly and reasonably—then I shall be extremely happy. But no specifics have been given. I look forward to hearing about them.

I am rather disappointed by my noble friend’s reply, I think that something more specific could have been given, but in the mean time I look forward to the letter and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 22 withdrawn.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

70: Schedule 15, page 165, line 3, leave out paragraph 3

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, tourism is a vital component of the UK economy, and is predicted to be a key part of our economic recovery and of future job creation. The tourism industry is predicted to grow at an annual rate of 3.8% until 2025, which is significantly faster than the overall UK economy. The sector supports more than 3 million jobs, which is 9.6% of all UK jobs. The benefits are spread around the UK. They are driven by domestic tourism spending at places including attractions and the seaside.

The British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions represents this sector, and it helped me put together this amendment. Most of the tourism spend comes from domestic tourists on day trips, which is the demographic that visits BALPPA’s attractions. In 2012, the expenditure on overnight domestic tourism trips in Britain was valued at £24 billion, and a further £57 billion was spent by domestic tourists on day trips. Summer holidays are crucial to this, but other holidays in the warmer months with longer days are also very important. This is because takings at attractions are much better when days are longer and, of course, when the weather is more pleasant.

These times are also crucial because they are the only ones when families, who are the core part of these attractions’ business, can go away together. This period is vital, because attractions and seaside areas then have to survive the winter, when tourism falls away. Many attractions close during that time, and so their takings in the winter are nil. If the weather is bad over just one or two weeks in the summer, that can be the difference between making a profit or a loss.

In April last year, Michael Gove made a speech at a conference at which he said that he wanted to reduce summer holidays from six to four weeks. A few weeks later, on 1 July last year, the Deregulation Bill was published and included a clause enabling this. Clearly, the Department for Education would not be advocating this clause if it did not expect some schools to use it. It would cause chaos for families with children at different schools that have different holidays. Even a single group of schools changing term times in a single area would have an impact on the tourist industry. Clause 51 and Schedule 15 are of deep concern to the tourism industry.

Where similar schemes have been introduced in the US, the evidence clearly shows that moving school holidays reduces tourism spending, which is not made up elsewhere. In Pennsylvania, moving the school year to start before Labor Day—which is the first Monday in September—had a dramatic negative impact on economic development and employment, costing the Pennsylvanian economy more than $378 million annually. In South Carolina, the move was estimated to have a $180 million impact on the state, and more than $8 million was lost in tax revenues. In Texas, returning to later school start dates resulted in higher direct tourism expenditure, estimated at $251.9 million per year, and 6,635 more permanent jobs. This is despite the actual number of instructional days staying similar. Eleven US states have now seen fit to introduce laws which mandate school years because they appreciate that there are economic benefits.

Surely all the above merit some consideration in detail about what the impact of these changes would be, yet no assessment has been made. The Department for Education, in advocating Clause 51 and Schedule 15, has singularly failed to engage with the tourism industry which feels strongly about this. The DCMS has admitted that there has been no evaluation of the policy’s impact on tourism. On 30 October, Kate Green MP asked,

“the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment his Department has made of the potential effect of deregulating school holidays on (a) tourism jobs in seaside areas and (b) seaside economies”.

Mrs Helen Grant replied:

“There has been no specific assessment of the impact the Government’s proposals in the Deregulation Bill will have on tourism jobs. However, impact assessments have been completed on the overall impact of proposals within the Bill. Government is confident that tourism jobs and seaside economies will not be adversely affected overall. Whilst the measures will extend an existing flexibility to a greater number of schools, this does not mean that all schools will change their term dates. This Government believes that decisions about term dates are best made locally. The Department for Education is working with the British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions and others to ensure the Department’s advice to schools on their new freedoms is clear that term dates should be set in the interests of pupils’ education and should also consider parents and local businesses”.

That is quite a miraculous statement. We all know that the Government are confident that they will not be adversely affected overall. That is an answer that does not exactly fill me or the tourism industry with confidence. Throughout the Bill’s progress, tourism representatives have been raising strong objections that their concerns have not been addressed. The unintended consequences associated with passing these provisions are enormous. They should not be included in the Bill until their impact has been properly evaluated. I beg to move.

[Baroness Perry of Southwark]

My Lords, I shall defend paragraph 3(3) for many reasons. First, it is only right that maintained schools should have the same freedom as academies and free schools. A vast number of secondary schools and an increasing number of primary schools already have the freedom to determine their own term dates. It seems quite invidious that we are not allowing maintained schools to have the same freedom.

Secondly, my noble friend made an impassioned plea on behalf of the tourist industry, and we have all seen the lobbying material it has sent. I should like to make an impassioned plea on behalf of parents. As we all know, there is plenty of evidence that if parents can take holidays only in the one prescribed period when all schools are closed, they end up paying two, three or, in some cases, four times what it would cost them to have the same holiday at a slightly different time. I am just as interested in the finances of parents and their wish to be able to take their children out at different times because schools would not all be taking their holidays at exactly the same time.

My noble friend mentioned that it would be chaos for parents if they had children in different schools. For those of us who live in London, that is already the case. Different boroughs in London have slightly different term dates and many parents have children in one borough for primary school and in another for secondary school and they cope with that. It is not chaos; it is a perfectly simple thing that parents deal with in the small amount of time for which the schools coincide.

Over the years, various learned think tanks have come up with all sorts of suggestions about changing school terms. Some have suggested that we should go to four terms or that we should split the year into two semesters, each with a break, rather like American universities. They have adduced all sorts of psychological learning reasons for why this would be better for children than the very long gap that we currently have in the summer. I should like to think that this freedom given to schools would enable some of them to experiment in that way, based on very good pedagogical evidence.

I am for freedom. I think the tourist industry would not only cope very well—as it does; I have great confidence in the tourist industry—but would find that its period of busy activity would be extended if there were slight overlaps with some schools closing early in July and others going on to early August and so on. The freedom would enable parents—who, heaven knows, are strapped enough at present in the very grim times we have been going through—to take their family holidays over a slightly more extended period when the prices would not be double and treble what they are in the very compressed period when all schools take their holidays at the same. I think the tourism industry would adapt, and perhaps prosper, in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

This measure gives governing bodies of community and voluntary controlled schools the flexibility they need to make changes to term dates to help pupils and parents. As I have argued, there are some instances in which pupils benefit from a different pattern of terms and holidays. As is now the case with academies and voluntary-aided schools, they will set term dates within practical constraints and co-ordinate through the local authority. In the vast majority of schools it is likely that no changes to term dates will be proposed, but where changes can help pupils’ education governing bodies will be able to do so following sensible local conversations with businesses, parents and others, taking into account religious and cultural exceptional cases, and the needs of pupils in particular areas, thereby taking a number of local exceptions into account. I hope that that provides the reassurance that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is looking for, and assure him that we are very much conscious of the needs of the tourism industry, as we are of the needs of education, and that we have got the balance right.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. What happened to evidence-based policy-making? In my all noble friend’s points, I could see assertions; indeed, I could see assertions in what the vastly respected noble Baroness, Lady Perry, had to say. Nothing that my noble friend said was rooted in evidence. He read out a string of educational consultees and the Federation of Small Businesses. Later in his reply he mentioned BALPPA, but BALPPA is extremely unhappy about this. It is one thing to consult; it is another thing to actually listen to what the consultee is saying.

Both the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and my noble friend talked about parents’ interests and so on. The fact is that many parents already find the system where some schools can set their own dates pretty much of a nightmare as well. There is already some advantage in uniformity. In a sense, the case that I am making is, “Why read the writing on the wall when you can read the book of the US experience?”. If we go to a set of very different dates, which this could potentially lead to, that will have a severely detrimental effect on the tourism industry.

My noble friend is relying on the idea that, in practice, it will not happen. What evidence do we have that it will not happen over a period of time, especially if the pressure is to have shorter summer holidays? That seems to be what the department would like to see, even though I accept the point that it is not up to the department to fix those dates. However, there is a way of establishing a culture, of which it is perfectly capable. The department judging that there will be no impact does not, I am afraid, have a great deal of force behind it. “No change likely” is not particularly plausible.

I very much hope that those local educational establishments—the schools and so on—will consult when they decide what dates they fix if we keep this in the Bill or delete it from Section 32. However, when did local schools ever go to the local attractions and piers and consult with them and local businesses about this kind of thing? It is highly implausible to imagine that the headmaster of a local school is going to consult local businesses when considering what dates they are going to fix, unless it is made clear in some sort of guidance or instruction that that is what they ought to do. Otherwise, I am afraid that it will be a difficult situation for local tourism attractions in these circumstances.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

There is no plot to reduce the length of the summer holiday. I fear that the noble Lord is suggesting that there is some Govian conspiracy afoot; there is not.

We have clear evidence from academies and pre-schools—the half of schools which already have the freedom. Only 8% have made any changes, and we see no evidence that it is likely that more will do so. There are strong arguments for at least one long break between terms every year. They include basic things such as school maintenance: repairing the roof and other such things. The same sort of argument exists for having a long break for the Houses of Parliament at one point during the year. In most instances we have no evidence whatever that there is a surge of demand to change the existing patterns.

I can reassure the noble Lord that the Department for Education is very much working with and has listened to BALPPA. We have agreed a new position. The advice that I have read out is an assurance: we are giving advice that schools should consider the needs of business. Having visited a number of costal towns on the east coast of England with my wife this last summer, I appreciate that costal towns in some instances are in real difficulty. However, that is not necessarily primarily connected with the position of schools and school holidays. There are a range of other problems that they are facing for other reasons.

I hope that I have said enough to reassure the noble Lord that this is not intended to produce radical revolution, but to produce a reasoned local compromise, a little more flexibility in the system and a little less interference from the top.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

I thank my noble friend for that peroration. It was very helpful. I think I have kicked the tyres on this particular clause enough. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 70 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

On my reading of the amendment that is not its intention. If the noble Lord wants to carry out a review of all licensing, I am very happy with that, but it is not the intention of the amendment. I am talking specifically about alcohol licences and the problems that are caused by the way in which they are operated. As I said, the application forms councils have to use are set out in regulations. This means that local authorities cannot combine forms so that a business can provide basic information once or even twice. Instead, businesses must complete this for each and every form required, overlapping and duplicating the information they provide. Councils tell us that they would like to have the freedom to remove this burden by combining and simplifying forms to cover just the information they need, thereby not placing undue burdens on businesses. Ending prescribed forms by regulation would enable that to happen without taking up parliamentary time. It is an easy thing for the Government to do by regulation. I always like to make things easy for the Government.

Individually, licensing regimes make sense and most of them continue to provide valuable safeguards. Typically, they have been brought in to tackle specific problems as they occur, which makes sense, as we have seen with the Scrap Metal Dealers Act. However, collectively, licensing regimes are a complex set of conflicting rules. The Licensing Act 2003 made an initial attempt to bring together multiple licences covering alcohol, entertainment and late-night refreshment under one Act. We want to take that further by rationalising and updating the legislation which is currently across at least five government departments. To give the Minister an example, I just referred to the Home Office and to the order I spoke to earlier this year, the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Conditions) Order 2014. We have before us today a document on licensing from the Cabinet Office, and I was today given an impact assessment from the DCMS for yet another proposal to exempt regulating the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003.

That is very difficult for small and large businesses to manage and to cope with, but it can be simplified. That is a really easy thing to do, and does not cost any money. If we establish broad and consistent criteria for licensing schemes, we have to include transparency. There is also an issue around appeals and cost recovery processes. We need to enshrine the principle of joined-up related applications. That would simplify processes for businesses and councils and would also offer scope for improved safeguards for communities. Our proposal, which I believe is helpful to the Government—I thought I saw the Minister nodding at one point—is for a government-led review of local government licensing legislation, which would give the basis for a comprehensive licensing framework. We believe that that would help economic growth, and it would certainly help those businesses which have told us that they see a problem.

I turn to Amendment 75A, which is about making the licensing authority a relevant person. Clause 52 and Schedule 16 insert a new Part 5A into the Licensing Act 2003, to introduce a new procedure for authorising the sale of alcohol where the sale is ancillary to a community event or the provision of other goods or services. The clause and the schedule as a whole are sensible, and I am not going to oppose them. Currently, the requirement for obtaining a licence to sell alcohol is that it is sold on a commercial basis for profit. It is not to be given away freely or cheaply. However, we have some concerns around the unintended consequences of the new notices, including the potential costs to local authorities.

The new legislation outlines the prescribed fee, and we seek assurances that the fee will cover the cost to local authorities. Amendment 75A would make the licensing authority a relevant person. As the Bill is drafted, the licensing authority is responsible only for processing the applications. Objections to ancillary notices can be made only by the police or by council environmental health teams, not by the licensing authority. The licensing authority is the district council, the metropolitan London borough or unitary authority. That is the authority responsible for considering applications to sell alcohol and issuing a licence.

I am indebted to the Local Government Association, which supports Amendment 75A. I should declare that I am also one of its vice-presidents, as are many noble Lords. This mirrors a change made to the Licensing Act in 2012. When that change was introduced the Government said that licensing authorities were better able to respond quickly to the concerns of local residents and businesses by taking actions they considered appropriate to tackle irresponsible premises without having to wait for representations from other responsible authorities. We agreed at the time and we still agree with those reasons but we believe that they apply to all aspects of licensing. The Explanatory Notes on ancillary sales notices state that licensing authorities have the right to raise objections, but there is no wording to allow this. Expert legal advice confirmed that this power will not be available without an explicit reference in the legislation. Licensing authorities should be included on the list of relevant persons to ensure that they can raise local concerns about a notice if it is appropriate for them to do so.

My final amendments in this group, Amendments 75B, 75C, 75D and 75E, introduce a right of appeal to the licensing committee. This is really a streamlining process, because they introduce a right of appeal to the local licensing committee for applicants to use if their notice is refused because of an objection. That mirrors the Licensing Act regarding licensing committees whose judgment and applications are the subject of objections. Each licensing authority is required to establish a licensing committee that is formed of elected councillors, which will hold hearings and make decisions relating to licenses.

Local government prides itself on being the most open and transparent part of government and on being directly accountable to residents and businesses. It is worth noting that it also has the strictest rules regarding conflict of interests. I do not understand the reasons why, under the Government’s proposals, the only right of appeal against the decision not to grant a notice because of an objection is by judicial review. That seems a lengthy and expensive process, particularly when you take into account that applicants are prevented from reapplying for a licence for a period of 12 months. There is supposed to be a light-touch approach. Is that not hugely disproportionate and expensive for those businesses concerned?

I feel—and I am sure other noble Lords will probably accept this—that licensing processes within local government are pretty robust, but within any system objections can be raised with which applicants do not agree. Businesses should be able to appeal against objections they feel are unfair or do not take full account of their business proposal in a way that is straightforward and affordable. If we are insisting appeal has to be by judicial review, while that has to be part of any wider appeals process, it does not meet the criteria of being proportionate, straightforward and reasonable in cost.

We are not talking about a great deal of money here. Fewer than 5% of regular licences are refused. It is anticipated that it will be even lower for the new licences, so the financial impact on most applications would be negligible. It seems a bit OTT to have a judicial review process before any other appeal process is brought into play. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, perhaps I should not use the expression “happy hour” in this context, but we have spent many happy hours over the past few years debating licensing provisions. I have a bit of a horror of this clause, I must confess. The idea of this gargantuan review of what is effectively the amended Licensing Act 2003 seems to be vastly overengineering what is needed in this context. The reason I say that is that I remember pressing the Government nonstop between 2005 and 2010 on entertainment licensing, asking them to take a view about the way in which the Act worked for live music. Finally, rather than wait for a review, I had to put a Private Member’s Bill in and get that through before we got any further sense—luckily from this Government—on the wider scope of deregulation of entertainment more generally.

The idea that we are going to start digging up the plant by the roots at this stage, whether entertainment licensing, alcohol licensing or whatever, fills me full of horror. We have had debate after debate. We had a very long debate on the late night levy. We have got to let that bed in. I was not a great fan of some of that legislation, and I would very much like to see whether it is working. I suggest a rather more piecemeal approach to review. I am not against reviewing bits of the legislation, but this kind of vast superstructure of review over the whole of licensing in this area seems undesirable.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Smith on Amendment 70A. I will not comment on Amendment 75A and the subsequent amendments as I will speak on those topics separately later. I am full of horror on hearing the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, express that view. What has been happening with licensing is an absolute shambles, an absolute mess, at local authority level. If the Minister responds that he would like to see a review of all of them, which is what was advocated in Rewiring Public Services: Rewiring Licensing, I would be very happy to support him. There are so many areas in which local government needs to come into the present century and to review the way it looks at issues, particularly using old-fashioned approaches when in fact it should be moving in a digital way in so many ways, that it is high time that there should be an overall review right across the board on what is happening there and to see how we can effect some greater efficiencies than we have at the moment. When this report came out earlier in the year, it was looked at in the context of the debates that took place on the Deregulation Bill. I recommend that those who are opposed to it go back and read the Hansard report and they will see that a fair wind was given by Ministers at the other end to this being a possibility in the future. The simple fact is that if work had been done on the LGA’s report, with more time spent on that and legislation produced on it, much of it would be a damn sight better than some of the stuff that we have in the Deregulation Bill.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, having seen successive deregulation units created and then relabelled within government over the past 25 years, I can see that it is clear that, more than previous Governments, the coalition has got to grips with the deregulation agenda. I therefore welcome many aspects of the Bill and in particular the further cuts in red tape in the Licensing Act regulation, particularly those relating to community events.

There are, however, differing views as to what is sensible deregulation to ease a regulatory burden and what should be retained to protect the consumer, keep a market open or protect an individual right. I hope, therefore, that the Government will prove as flexible as they were in response to pre-legislative scrutiny.

There are a number of issues about the content of the Bill. As we have heard from many noble Lords, if the BBC is to continue to be financed by the licence fee, it is important that we retain a system that is successful in maintaining the current low levels of evasion and of collection costs. At the very least, the Government should review, under Clauses 59 and 60, the appropriate penalties for non-payment of the licence fee, which should be considered as part of the total review of the BBC charter and licence fee funding.

As we have also heard, Clause 34 involves amendments to Section 25 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Acts 1973 and 1983, which require that London residential property owners and tenants seek planning approval prior to using residential property to sell accommodation on a night-by-night basis. We have heard also that many of us have seen the brief from Westminster City Council. This makes a devastating case against the proposal. We are in the middle of a major shortage of housing accommodation in London at a time of strongly rising population. This would lead to an unsustainable loss of permanent residential accommodation.

Existing provisions ensure that whole blocks of flats are not blighted by hotel-type use year round. I hope that the Government listen to the very council that would be most affected. We must keep London as a place to live, not just to visit. As the British Hospitality Association says, and as we also heard today, cities such as Paris, New York and Singapore have enacted measures recently to control the surge in commercial use of residential properties. Have the Government carried out an impact assessment on these proposals?

Another area where there seems to have been no economic impact assessment is the provisions of Clause 51 and Schedule 15. These provisions potentially mean not only that the summer holidays could be a great deal shorter but also that each of 25,000 schools in England could have its own holiday arrangements, causing confusion for parents, teachers, pupils and industry. This could, not least, have a major impact on the UK hospitality and tourism industry, which employs 3 million people, many of them in seaside areas. We have heard the reference to BALPPA, which represents British leisure parks and attractions. It says, in its brief:

“Shifting term times would be devastating for those that rely on seasonal trade which cannot be recouped elsewhere”.

It points out that, where similar schemes have been introduced in the US, the evidence clearly shows that moving school holidays reduces tourism spending, and that this is not made up elsewhere.

Coming to the omissions rather than commissions, and with all due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who is not in his place, I have some ideas for additions to the Bill. We have the issue of busking. The Mayor of London has rightly been fulsome about the place of busking in London life. In the Bill we should explicitly remove Part 5 of the London Local Authorities Act 2000, which provides for busking licensing schemes at individual London councils’ discretion. We should also remove Section 54(14) of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, which was recently used against buskers in Leicester Square.

As I explained to the House, the King’s Parade, the winners of the mayor’s busking competition, were interrupted by the police mid-song as they performed in Leicester Square and informed that they were in breach of Section 54 of the archaic 1839 Metropolitan Police Act. They were bundled into a van by eight officers and held at Paddington police station for more than six hours. This 174-year-old piece of legislation, which also—I think the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would be pleased by this—prohibits kite flying, sleigh riding and doorbell ringing, was used to justify the arrest.

There are more than adequate powers under separate legislation to deal with noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour. For example, there is the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the Control of Pollution Act 1974. There are also powers to make by-laws available to local authorities with respect to street nuisance. Camden, under the London Local Authorities Act, has banned street music at any time, amplified or unamplified, except through a special busking licence. Camden’s approach runs completely counter to the arguments heard and accepted by government and Parliament during the Live Music Act debates.

We have also heard that another potential missed opportunity is the inclusion of provisions to repeal Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. We have heard eloquent speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Dubs, Lord Grade and Lord Macdonald on this subject. It is quite clear that Section 73 of the CDPA is an outdated copyright exception that allows cable operators to retransmit PSB channels without permission or payment to broadcasters or to the people who created the content. We have heard why it was introduced. Cable is now a highly effective and well resourced competitor to Sky and Freeview. Pay TV platforms are able to make money from PSB content while benefiting from a regulatory regime under which no payment goes back to the public service broadcaster or to any content creator.

As we have head, reform is even more urgent as a result of personal video recorders—PVRs. These enable consumers to record programmes and avoid watching advertisements. PVRs are revenue-earning and customer-retention devices, yet none of the value that the pay TV platforms derive from them reaches those who help to create the content on which they depend. Section 73 now simply represents a subsidy from the PSBs to cable operators. Section 73 is also being relied on by online service providers, such as TVCatchup, to make money from the PSB channels by retransmitting them while selling their own advertising around PSB content.

The Government have said that they must wait for the end of current litigation with TVCatchup, but there are no legal reasons that would prevent them supporting any amendment to the Deregulation Bill. Indeed, ongoing litigation is not affected by a change of law, as set out in the Interpretation Act 1978. The UK is not alone in reviewing this issue. In the US, News Corporation—yes, News Corporation—has led the charge in favour of fees. I urge the Government to consider using the Bill to promote growth in the creative industries by including a clause to repeal Section 73.

Finally, we need an urgent review of noise abatement legislation to cater for the situation where a venue with a very good record and no complaints is subject to a complaint or potential complaint from a new occupier or developer. Venues are closing with great rapidity as a result of this inappropriate use of noise legislation. We need to act fast. I look forward to my noble friend’s reply.

Digital Strategy

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, as regards the Government’s digital strategy, the NAO has recently pointed out that there are slipping projections for superfast broadband to rural areas, a lack of competition and the need to change the procurement model. Are not these serious criticisms, and is not the plan not to implement the Digital Economy Act until 2015 another disappointment?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am something of an expert when it comes to which parts of the Yorkshire Dales National Park one cannot get mobile access. I am conscious that there are all sorts of contradictions in wanting to develop rural broadband, with national parks resisting having mobile phone masts put up all over them.

Some weeks ago, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced, as part of the Investing in Britain’s Future package, that there will be an additional £250 million match-funded to extend superfast broadband to such hard-to-reach areas.