Essential Services: Large-scale Technology

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the training challenge and broader apprenticeship challenge is ongoing, immense and growing, and I agree with the importance which the noble Baroness attaches to it. The Government are helping to promote cyber skills among young people to fill the shortages in that capacity.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]]

My Lords, controversial algorithms are increasingly being used by central and local government to make decisions. Does the Minister agree that to build and retain public trust we need strong oversight and governance of public sector use of algorithms? What response are the Government giving to the recommendations in the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation’s recent review of bias in algorithmic decision-making, and what plans for regulation do they have?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, again, that is a very broad question, but the issues that the noble Lord addresses are extremely important and I take the sense in which he has offered it. Human judgment is, in the end, irreplaceable—your Lordships’ House could never be replaced by an algorithm.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

3rd reading & 2nd reading & Committee negatived & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee negatived (Hansard) & Committee negatived (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Prime Minister and his colleagues have a nasty habit of telling us to sing “Land of Hope and Glory” while selling key sectors and interests down the river. Last year it was Northern Ireland, now it is Gibraltar and the fishing industry, and it has become clear that our creative industries too are being sacrificed on the altar of so-called sovereignty.

We have been assured by Ministers countless times of the value they place on the arts, but they have now abandoned one of our most successful sectors, already heavily battered by Covid lockdowns, to its own devices. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bull and Lady Bakewell, are absolutely right. In the trade and co-operation agreement, our hugely successful audio-visual sector is specifically excluded. They represent 30% of all channels in the EU, but if they are not to be subject to the regulators of every single country, they will need to establish a new hub in a member state.

We can look in vain for anything that helps our touring artists, particularly musicians, actors and sports professionals, with the ending of freedom of movement for UK citizens. From January, when freedom of movement ends, anyone from the UK seeking to perform in an EU country will need to apply for a costly visa for that country, carnets for their musical instruments and necessary CITES permits, and even, perhaps, provide proof of savings and a certificate of sponsorship from an event organiser. No wonder a petition seeking the UK Government to negotiate an EU-wide touring work permit and a carnet exception has gained over 200,000 signatures in record time, and no wonder UK Music and the ISM have expressed their dismay.

On top of this, quite apart from its dramatic impact on the creative industries, there are huge gaps in the agreement. Services are barely covered, despite making up 42% of our trade with the EU. There is no deal on recognition of professional qualifications, no deal on data adequacy, no membership of the Erasmus scheme for our students, as we have heard, and very limited recognition of the needs of the tourism, travel and hospitality industry, especially given the catastrophic impact on jobs that Covid is forecast to have on the sector. This is a failure of negotiation on a grand scale.

Our architects and engineers, who have made a huge impact on the built environment on the continent over the past 40 years, will have no right to work in the EU. Service industries, global business and tech companies who depend on data exchange with the EU will have no assurance that data flows can continue after six months. Our UK students, 15,000 of whom have taken advantage of the Erasmus scheme each year for exchanges and work placements, will no longer take part.

To describe this as a thin deal does not quite cut it; the Bill implementing it hugely erodes parliamentary sovereignty. “Negligent” and “ignorant” are words that describe it most aptly.

Verify: Digital Identity System

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of their plans for Verify, the Government Digital Service's digital identity system.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, over 3 million people have used GOV.UK Verify to perform over 8 million secure transactions. My honourable friend the Minister for Implementation made a Written Ministerial Statement on GOV.UK Verify on 9 October. The Government have an immediate and growing need for a secure digital identity service.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this is a very sorry tale. The Government Digital Service started with high hopes for its flagship Verify digital identity system, aiming for 25 million users by 2020. Now, with constant changes in leadership, the imminent cutting of the entire project budget and the refusal by departments such as HMRC to adopt it, the Government are now, after £130 million of investment, simply handing it over to the private sector. Is it not extraordinary, when the need for a trusted universal UK-wide secure identity system has never been higher, that the Government are abdicating all responsibility in that way? Where does that leave Verify’s 2020 target? Is this not an admission of total failure?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I would not describe the service in quite the terms that the noble Lord has just used. Progress is being made towards the target of 25 million users by 2020. It is not the case that HMRC is not using Verify. Noble Lords who want to can upload their self-assessment tax return using Verify, and if they so wish they can check their income tax account using Verify. More and more government services are now subscribing to Verify; the MoD recently added an additional service, and some 18 services are now available. It is not the case that we are abdicating the whole thing to the private sector. Verify, which is a government service, will continue to provide a digital identity service to the public sector, and it is talking to the NHS and to local government in order to continue to broaden the base.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

His name is Oliver Dowden and he is a Minister in the Cabinet Office. Noble Lords will find his responsibilities set out in the list of ministerial responsibilities.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, can the Minister explain why he has the misfortune to be answering this Question today, given that responsibility for digital identity policy has transferred to DCMS?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Well, it is a question that I may have asked myself a few days ago as I find myself answering questions on a whole range of responsibilities that I never knew were mine. The answer is that although overall responsibility has been transferred to DCMS, the Government Digital Service remains within the Cabinet Office, for which I have responsibility as a spokesman.

European Union Referendum: Alleged Russian Interference

Lord Clement-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord makes a very good point in that, obviously, it makes sense for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, not the Electoral Commission, to have overall responsibility for our relationship with Russia. It makes sense for the DCMS to have overall responsibility for “fake news” and for the Information Commissioner. It makes sense for the Cabinet Office to have overall responsibility for electoral law and a dialogue with the Electoral Commission. Where all these things come together, which I think is the noble Lord’s point, clearly, we need a collective view. It makes sense to await the outcome of the ISC inquiry that I mentioned a few moments ago, the DCMS inquiry into fake news that is currently under way, and the Electoral Commission inquiries into the referendum campaigns. When we have all that, we can stand back and see whether we have the right resources and the right information in the right place and come up with a collective view on the serious issue raised in the original Question.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords—

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, Cambridge Analytica was using so-called online political microtargeting, which involves collecting, often illicitly, huge amounts of personal data, creating personal profiles for voters and delivering specifically tailored, often false messages. Irrespective of the question of expenses—and I have no doubt that this could form part of the many inquiries that the Minister has mentioned—is this not exactly the kind of secret online targeting which is a threat to our democracy? Should it not be made transparent and be highly regulated under our electoral law?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The specific case that the noble Lord mentions—the alleged misuse of data provided by Facebook to Cambridge Analytica—is currently being investigated by the Information Commissioner. So far as the impact of social media is concerned, research shows that social media consistently ranks as one of the least trustworthy sources of information—along with politicians. By contrast, the public continue to see national and regional television, news websites and broadsheets as the most reliable sources of news. This may help put in context the concern just expressed by the noble Lord.

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.