Fishery Protection Squadron

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Gardiner of Kimble

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I cannot speak of Appledore, although I have heard of it, but under the terms of the Fisheries Bill there will be opportunities for varying grants, including for port infrastructure. We will clearly need to think about this area because we want to have vibrant coastal communities, not only through vessel repairs and construction but by having vibrant fishing fleets in sustainable waters.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords—

Ivory Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Gardiner of Kimble

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 10th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister will deal with that issue as far as this amendment is concerned, but to introduce further differentiation into the Bill is extremely unhelpful, particularly in the light of its intentions and the fact that the CITES convention will take place later next month. I do not think that that would be a particularly good symbol.

I am the proud owner of a set of fish knives—I do not believe that John Betjeman would have approved of them. I am firmly in the category that the noble Lord, Lord, Cormack, has identified as being caught by this provision. I am very relaxed about it. I do not believe one should be able to trade, deal or sell that kind of commodity. It is the sort of thing you pass on to your descendants. I very much hope this provision will remain part of the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, I join all noble Lords in saying that I very much look forward to the early return of my noble friend Lord Carrington of Fulham and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for later stages.

My noble friend’s amendments intend to allow pre-1918 ivory objects to be bought, sold and hired within the United Kingdom, regardless of whether they meet one of the exemptions. Indeed, my noble friend—and this has been raised already—used words such as “confiscation” and “loss of ownership”. These measures precisely do not affect the right to own, gift, inherit or bequeath ivory. They are precisely not for that purpose.

As this is the beginning of Committee stage, I reiterate the overriding purpose of this Bill. Its intention—and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also made this clear—is to introduce one of the strongest ivory bans in the world, with narrow and limited exemptions, to curtail the demand for ivory that currently threatens the elephant with extinction. As your Lordships know—a number of noble Lords have referred in different ways to the public consultation—there is overwhelming public support for this ban. I say to my noble friend in particular that we have worked extensively with conservation NGOs, the arts and antiques sector, and musician and museum sectors to help shape this Bill, and we believe it is a proportionate response.

The exemptions outlined in the Bill have been included to allow limited dealings in ivory to continue where they are unlikely to contribute to the poaching of elephants. To allow all pre-1918 ivory items to be bought, sold and hired, regardless of whether they meet one of the exemptions, would significantly undermine the aim of the Bill and the carefully balanced package of exemptions. My noble friend is, of course, conversant with Clause 2, which we will address in more detail later. We have specifically created an exemption so that pre-1918 ivory items that are of outstandingly high artistic, cultural or historical value, and which are the rarest and most important examples of their type, can continue to be traded.

I suggest to my noble friend that his other amendment concerns the offences of buying or hiring ivory as the owner within the UK only. Subsection (4)(b) concerns selling and hiring ivory as the lender both in and outside of the United Kingdom. My noble friend and my noble friend Lord De Mauley have raised a number of issues about the antiques sector. A 2016 report by TRAFFIC, the wildlife monitoring network, on the UK’s domestic ivory trade, showed that consumers of UK antique ivory are increasingly from Asia, particularly China, Japan and Hong Kong. This constitutes a change since the last UK ivory market report in 2004, which found that most buyers were from Europe and the United States. This worrying shift demonstrates that the UK antique ivory market is increasingly connected to the Far East, where the demand for ivory is highest, further fuelling the demand for ivory, and its social acceptability.

I also want to refer to a point in the discussion between the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lord Cormack. As I mentioned at Second Reading, the 2010 report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime concluded:

“The trade in illicit ivory is only lucrative because there is a parallel licit supply”.


This is precisely why we are having to introduce a ban, with only tightly drawn exemptions that are unlikely to continue to fuel the illegal trade and poaching of elephants. To allow all pre-1918 ivory items to be traded would further perpetuate the demand for ivory and undermine the effectiveness of the ban. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said: we have got to bear down on the situation in which 20,000 elephants a year are being slaughtered. We saw only last week reports from Botswana of this slaughter continuing, and the status quo at the moment is simply not acceptable. This country has to lead. We have a responsibility to lead. We are one of the world’s largest exporters of ivory and we must act. So, for the reasons I have given, I am not able to support my noble friend’s amendment and I respectfully ask him to withdraw it.

Gambling: Fixed-odds Betting Terminals

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Gardiner of Kimble

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have been a strong supporter of localism, so will they listen to the views of some 93 local councils, who have asked the Government to be able to cut the FOBT stake to £2 because they are worried about anti-social behaviour, crime and problem gambling in their areas?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I know that DCLG is looking at that submission, and I very much hope that it will report on that shortly. However, of course we are also giving further powers to local communities by requiring planning applications to be submitted to local authorities for new betting shops.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Gardiner of Kimble

Thursday 5th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[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.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Gardiner of Kimble

Thursday 5th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, all I am saying is that I am not going to prejudge the review which was established to deal with the matter of revenue to the BBC. Let us see what the review says. But if there are improvements to be made, they should be made within the context of the charter review.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, just to knock things on the head before the Minister sits down, can he confirm that, despite all the discussion that has taken place between Committee and Report, essentially—I quoted the Minister when I spoke—the Government’s position has remained completely the same?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

The Government are utterly consistent in their approach.

Broadcasting (Independent Productions) (Amendment) Order 2014

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Gardiner of Kimble

Monday 17th November 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, the order aims to ensure that the definition of independent producer for the purposes of commissioning television programmes excludes only those production companies that are UK-broadcaster owned from being considered “independent”. The order does not extend the definition of qualified independent producers to producers owned by UK broadcasters that do not qualify at present. The order merely seeks to reaffirm what has been the agreed policy over the last 10 years, which is that a producer which is owned by a non-UK broadcaster, or is part of the same group of companies as a non-UK broadcaster, should not be prevented from being classified as an independent producer if they meet the qualifying criteria.

The Communications Act 2003 requires the public service broadcasters—the BBC, the Channel 3 companies, Channel 4, Channel 5 and S4C—to ensure that in each year not less than 25% of the total amount of time they allocate to the broadcasting of qualifying programmes is allocated to the broadcasting of a range and diversity of independent productions. The Communications Act 2003 also applies a similar “10% independent productions” requirement to all digital service broadcasters that are not public service broadcasters. The aim of the independent productions quota is threefold: to promote cultural diversity and to open up the production system to new energies and voices; to stimulate the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises, promoting creativity and fostering new talent; and to tackle vertical integration within the UK programme supply market. It is widely considered that the independent productions quota has been working well over a number of years, providing competition and a stimulus to originality that has benefited programme supply in the UK.

However, a few issues with the legislation as currently drafted have been identified and the amendments made through this order are designed to deal with them. Perhaps I may explain a little more. The Communications Act requires that the terms “independent productions” and “qualifying programmes” are defined by order. Article 3(4) of the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991 defines an independent producer as a producer who is not employed by a broadcaster, who does not have a shareholding greater than 25% in a broadcaster, and in which any one UK broadcaster has a shareholding greater than 25% or any two or more UK broadcasters have an aggregate shareholding greater than 50%. This definition must also be read in accordance with Article 3(5) of the order, which stipulates that “any person connected” to a producer—that is, in the same ownership chain—must also not be employed by a broadcaster, own more than 25% of a broadcaster, or be more than 25%-owned by one UK broadcaster for the producer to be considered as independent. The meaning of the terms was first specified in the 1991 order, which was subsequently amended in 1995 and in 2003. It is the last of those amendments, to the 2003 order, which failed to reflect fully the policy in relation to ownership of a UK production company that Parliament agreed to. That policy was, in essence, to allow a producer to be treated as an independent producer even if it was owned by a foreign broadcaster so long as the foreign broadcaster’s services did not target the UK.

So, while the 2003 amendment amended certain elements of the definition of independent producers, including introducing the qualification that ownership of the producer by a UK broadcaster was a disqualification, it did not amend Article 3(5) in relation to “any person connected” to that broadcaster or producer. This means that if a person connected to the producer fails any of the tests in Article 3(4) which define “independent producers”, the producer cannot be considered “independent”. That connected person could be, for example, part of a group of companies which include not only a UK broadcaster but any broadcaster anywhere in the world. The net result is that the current definition still excludes some producers that the Government and, crucially, the industry itself believed were within the definition. Ofcom has told us that these production companies include such high-profile ones as Zodiak Media, the maker of programmes such as “Wallander” and “Being Human” for the BBC, and FremantleMedia, which produces the likes of “Take Me Out” and “Through the Keyhole” for ITV. Both companies are owned by broadcasters that predominately operate in other parts of the world. So although a public service broadcaster could commission programmes from these producers according to the strict letter of the legislation as it currently stands, that public service broadcaster could not count those programmes towards its 25% independent productions quota.

It is essential that we clarify this anomaly for broadcasters and producers, as well as for Ofcom, whose regulatory role is to ensure that broadcasters comply with the independent production quota set out in their licences. This order rectifies the situation by redefining the term “broadcaster” to ensure that it refers only to UK broadcasters or broadcasters whose transmissions are primarily aimed at the UK consistently in Article 3. The amendments preserve independent status for producers who are connected to a person who owns or is owned by a broadcaster that does not aim its services primarily at the UK. The order does this by removing the references to “producer” in Article 3(5) so that only the producer has to meet the tests—not the producer and any person connected with the producer. Any producer owned by a UK broadcaster will still be excluded from the definition of an independent producer, continuing to prevent vertical integration in the UK supply market. Whoever holds the licence for a public service broadcaster, whether it is a British or foreign company, has to comply with the public service obligation set out in the broadcasting licence. These obligations are enshrined in legislation and include quotas for UK-originated content and content made in the regions and nations of the UK.

These changes are being made with the support of the industry. The DCMS wrote to all broadcasters last summer to notify them of our intention to correct the legislation. We received no comments opposing the move and, just prior to laying the order before your Lordships’ House, we gave broadcasters the opportunity to comment on the draft. I can confirm that all were supportive of the changes being made. We also worked with Ofcom and PACT, the member body for the UK independent production sector, on this order to ensure that it is fit for purpose. To date, the industry has been applying the definition set out in the policy rather than what is contained in the legislation. These amendments will ensure the policy intent and the legislation are fully aligned.

This is an important clarification for the industry—the public service broadcasters and all other commercial digital channel operators in the UK that rely on the definition to identify whom they commission from to fulfil their quotas for independent production—and will enable Ofcom to undertake its regulatory duties more effectively. This legislation is therefore needed and proportionate, and I commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very clear exposition. I very much agree that the connected person issue needed to be addressed, and has been very adequately addressed in the order.

However, this is an opportunity to make a slight diversion in terms of independent production. I noticed that the Minister went back to the original 1990 Broadcasting Act and talked about the three limbs and the reasons for the independent production quotas that were set out in that Act: promoting cultural diversity; stimulating the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises; and tackling vertical integration. It is worth while reminding ourselves of those. I noticed that when the committee met in the Commons, everybody vied to talk about their favourite programme and which independent production companies made “The Great British Bake Off”, “Sherlock”, “Rev.” and the like.

However, the fact is that independent does not necessarily mean small—some of these independent companies are very large and it is a very contestable market out there between some of the independent production companies. In that context, it is very interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Hall, in a speech in July, talked about opening up the BBC further to independent production. That then leads on to the BBC charter review and the review by Ofcom of PSB, which I think will be complete next year. PACT has some very interesting ideas about how the BBC might, in its words, become much more of a “publisher broadcaster” over time. All these are very interesting ideas that do not flow directly from this order but certainly form part of a general thinking—a rethinking, if you like—about the role of independent producers.

Since 1990, we have had a particular regime. Is it time, now we have such a robust independent production sector, to move further? Should we be encouraging the BBC—not only with the actions of the noble Lord, Lord Hall, but through the charter review—to engage more in independent commissioning? I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Hall, has plans effectively to make the BBC’s in-house production part of a market in which it will be competing, in a sense, against the independent producers. Again, that is a very interesting idea, and it is very forward-thinking of him. I assume it is to make sure that that production is seen as being as efficient as it can be and is not characterised as bloated or whatever, as it has been in the past by certain commentators. That sounds a very defensible action. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s comments on whether DCMS was thinking in that direction and on what thoughts it had on the subject generally. I support the order.

Children: Online Safety

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Gardiner of Kimble

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made to ensure that the standards and systems adopted by public wi-fi providers will protect children from potentially harmful content.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, as announced by the Prime Minister last year, the six major providers of public wi-fi, covering more than 90% of the market, are now delivering filtered public wi-fi wherever children are likely to be. Through the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, we are working with the providers, businesses and industry bodies to develop a logo to help children and parents understand the safest public places to be online.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome what my noble friend has said, but I am sure he is aware that the mobile network operators filter content which would be, or is, rated 18 by the BBFC and place it behind access controls so that they restrict content to those aged under 18. Can the Government not ensure that public wi-fi service providers adopt the same comprehensive approach to protecting children online and adopt the same standards and protections as the mobile operators?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, as I said, the six major providers have agreed to filter, as a minimum, illegal child abuse imagery and content and legal pornographic adult content. That is not to say that this will remain the basic standard of filtering—indeed, some leading providers are filtering more widely. We continue to review this. I am very mindful of what my noble friend said about the mobile network, but that is where the position is with regard to public wi-fi.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

As I think the Prime Minister has said, we will look at all situations as necessary. The primary objective of all this is to ensure that children and vulnerable people are safe. We have gone down the self-regulatory route because we think that it is the most adaptable. It is the way in which we can act most speedily to protect the very people whom we want to protect.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, put his finger on the problem in terms of the difference between mobile standards and those for public wi-fi. Can the Minister assure us that further extension of the base standards for public wi-fi is under active discussion?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I can. The UK Council for Child Internet Safety, chaired by three Ministers from different departments, has a working group on public wi-fi. This matter is under review and is something on which we are working with the providers. As I said, some are already going beyond the minimum base.

Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Gardiner of Kimble

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for his amendment. The argument has been made that if remote gambling can be played on portable devices in bedrooms and on trains, why can it not in the well regulated environment of casinos? Such devices can already be played in casinos and can indeed be, and already are, offered by casinos to customers, but within the limits of machine stakes and prize regulations. The debate is therefore about the ability of casinos to promote and encourage the use of their own devices outside of those controls.

Where casinos are promoting and encouraging gambling services to be undertaken on their own premises, the Government remain of the opinion that it is right to consider potential flexibility within the structure of existing machine stakes and prize regulations. The amendment would remove those controls, leaving those devices outside the existing stake and prize framework. That would be a potentially considerable relaxation of machine gaming policy if it were not addressed most carefully.

Parliament only last month approved an increase to the existing stake and prize limits for casino gaming machines. Parliament has approved regulations which will more than double the maximum stake for category B1 gaming machines, which are only available in casinos, from £2 to £5, and the maximum prize from £4,000 to £10,000 on a single machine. Casinos will also be able to offer a linked progressive jackpot of up to £20,000. These changes were predicated on commitments the casino industry has made in relation to player protections. The Government would like to assess the effectiveness of these player protection measures, and consider the issues of gaming machines and remote gambling provisions in casinos more generally, before considering any further changes. I can confirm that any legislative changes could be via secondary legislation.

In addition, if the principle is accepted through the amendment that remote devices should be outside of gaming machine regulations when offered in a licensed premises, it could—and, we predict, would—be argued by each and every sector, including betting shops, bingo halls and arcades, that they should offer similar unlimited stake and prize facilities in their own locations.

The second part of the amendment provides controls on the number of such devices, but there are no proposed controls on how they might develop. There is nothing to prevent casinos developing devices that are defined in law as remote, but could begin to look and feel like more regular gaming machines.

That said, the department is currently undergoing a programme of engagement with the casino industry and considering the sector’s flexibility and modernisation proposals. Such discussions will include an examination of the remote gambling flexibility measures that the industry is requesting. The department is part-way through these discussions, having held three meetings already, and intends to conclude these initial discussions by the end of March. The Government are therefore not rejecting the industry’s remote gambling proposals, but we want to complete these initial discussions with the industry. The issue of gaming machines and remote gambling provision in casinos should be reviewed, but must be progressed in a considered and balanced way, and it is for those reasons—that work is already in hand—that I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response, and the noble Lord, Lord Flight, for his valuable support. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his comments, although I think he has a slightly romantic view of casinos—perhaps we should go off together and I will introduce him to a casino or two.

The Minister took away with one hand and started giving back with the other, which I found interesting; his response seemed more negative at the beginning than at the end. The discussions which I hope are taking place are demonstrating that it is not sensible simply to address these issues within the framework of the current machines, stakes and prices structure. Therefore I take some comfort from what he said about the current discussions. The big issue is that they will not conclude until the end of March, and I suspect that this Bill will be well gone from this House by the end of March. Therefore, I urge the Minister to take reserve powers in this Bill to do what he expects to agree to, probably by the end of March—that would be a very satisfactory conclusion—otherwise I will be extremely worried that the opportunity for primary legislation will not return to this House for some years. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, a strong case has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. It is rather nice to see the rebirth of Section 17 of the Digital Economy Act, which I had the honour of being instrumental in inserting into that Act during its passage through this House. As a result, I was nominated as the “internet villain of the year”.

As it happens, I need to correct the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey: it is not that particular section that is used in order to block ISPs where copyright infringement is being demonstrated; it is actually Section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, which has proved extremely effective. In a way, it demonstrates that you do not need such a complicated clause. That is neither here nor there, but it does show that site-blocking is perfectly effective. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, demonstrated, the BPI has been very successful in defending copyright owners in that respect, contrary to the views of Ofcom, which were expressed in 2010 and are the reason why Section 17 of the Digital Economy Act has not been brought into effect.

When I read the evidence of the Gambling Commission to the DCMS Select Committee, I really do not know what kind of universe it is living in. Its conclusions seem rather extraordinary. It is worth reading out the paragraph that deals with its rationale for why it did not recommend to the Government the introduction of site-blocking or financial measures of the kind the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, deal with. It says:

“We have also followed carefully the experience of gambling regulators in other parts of the world with site and payment blocking, which suggests in the gambling market such measures have achieved only limited disruption and deterrent effects”.

Actually, a lot of jurisdictions have adopted those, as we have heard today. The commission goes on to say:

“However this may be because they were tried primarily in markets where the legal offering was severely constrained and the tax rates high”.

I am not sure about that. It continues:

“In the case of UK gambling there is no equivalent to the copyright owners to seek injunctions nor any statutory power for the Commission at the moment to seek such injunctions. We came to the conclusion that, given all the other measures at our disposal and the very open and attractive legal opportunities for those licensed by the Commission, seeking additional powers in the Bill to enable the Commission to seek injunctions blocking illegal operators’ sites or use of payment processors would not be proportionate to the likely risks and would, if obtained, risk consuming disproportionate Commission resources to achieve limited disruption and deterrent effect”.

That argument seems to me to be saying, “The carrots are absolutely fantastic and that will mean that there will not be too much of an illegal market”. There are going to be illegal markets; there are going to be unlicensed operators; and the commission is more or less saying that the only stick of some kind at its disposal, and we have heard about the flaws in that, are on the advertising front.

The commission did say, however, that,

“we did not rule out the option of seeking such powers at a later date if our assessment of the small size of the illegal market proved wrong and of course there are continuing discussions on the wider government front and in the European Commission in relation to combating misuse of the internet and illegal remote gambling provision”.

It is very odd for a regulator of this kind not to be looking at the precautionary aspects of all this. At the very least, taking reserve powers for site blocking in these circumstances would make great sense. I hope that, even if the Government cannot bring themselves to say that they will introduce and implement this kind of measure, they will at least take a reasonably pessimistic view that a number of unlicensed operators will still be knocking around who need a considerable amount of stick to make them comply with the new regime after the passing of this Act.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for raising through her amendments the subject of enforcement and for initiating this interesting debate. Enforcement is central to the achievement of the consumer protection purposes of the Bill.

The Bill will mean that overseas operators which are required, but fail, to obtain a required Gambling Commission licence will be committing an offence. The full set of regulatory powers available to the Gambling Commission under the 2005 Act will be at its disposal to take appropriate action against illegal overseas operators. The commission also has powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

The amendments assume that the existing powers will be insufficient to enforce the Bill. This is not a view shared by the Government: we and the Gambling Commission are confident that the Bill can credibly be enforced. We are therefore not convinced that there is evidence of a problem which requires a legislative solution.

Amendment 5 would make an offence of accepting payments to or from unlicensed operators. If adopted, the amendment would have far-reaching and uncertain implications for banks and across the financial sector. Therefore, very careful consideration and consultation should occur.

Amendments 6, 7, 13 and 15 relate to financial transaction and ISP blocking. The evidence of the effectiveness and proportionality in respect of both ISP blocking and financial transaction blocking is mixed—I of course take the point made on this by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. A European Commission report in 2012 stated:

“The implementation of payment blocking systems entails substantial costs for the payment service provider and other financial institutions”.

The Norwegian Gaming Authority’s evaluation report found that,

“the prohibition against processing payments to foreign gaming companies was less effective than intended”.

On ISP blocking, a comprehensive 2010 Ofcom report found that:

“All techniques can be circumvented to some degree”.

I raise these comments to mark the card that there are a number of issues that we need to consider and resolve. Further, however, there are wider factors which would need proper consideration and assessment, such as the impact on financial institutions and internet service providers.

I assure your Lordships that we are not, and will not be, complacent about the issue of enforcement. We will keep this under continuing review. The Gambling Commission is working with a range of organisations that have a shared interest in not knowingly facilitating illegal activity.

Amendment 14 would require a consultation on the existing use of IP and financial transaction blocking. Should Ministers consider a consultation necessary, they already have the powers to undertake that. The Gambling Commission continues to build links and share information with regulatory bodies across the world. The Gambling Commission and the FCA are working together to tackle the issue of British financial transactions with illegal operators.

The Government do not want to rule out the use of blocking tools in future; should they become appropriate, necessary and demonstrably effective, that may well be a route. Until such a time, we do not consider that it would be appropriate to seek those powers. I can assure your Lordships that we are keeping these important matters under review. However, the Government remain rightly cautious when it comes to taking reserved powers. Should we consider such powers to be appropriate, necessary and demonstrably effective, it is right, as I said, that Parliament has time to scrutinise those fully as part of the primary legislation process. However, for the reasons I have outlined, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I am glad we are having this short debate today. It is quite interesting that this has become a topic of current debate. I followed closely the debate that took place last week in the Commons on the subject.

I notice, and indeed I regret, that the noble Baroness herself does not express any regret for the legislation that was passed in 2005. After all, it was the Labour Government who introduced these FOBTs, and now we have had the proliferation of what appear to be highly damaging and addictive gambling machines in our high streets. Prefacing remarks along those lines would have been quite useful, because they were clearly introduced by that legislation.

However, I share her concerns about these machines. Indeed, it is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, to say what he said, but we have been warning of the dangers of these machines ever since the passing of the 2005 Act because we thought that it would lead to the proliferation of these high-stakes machines. I will come on to the level of stakes in a minute because that is one of the key issues surrounding them.

Even though there is, in a sense, a cross-party view about the impact and danger of FOBTs, there is a level of disagreement because some of us feel that the evidence is already there that they are addictive, and that something should be done in the very short term. I am not going to adumbrate all the research that is out there but it includes that from GamCare, the Salvation Army, the National Problem Gambling Clinic, the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, Professor Gerda Reith at the University of Glasgow and even the European Journal of Public Health—a series of different reports can be prayed in aid to show that these machines really are a source of problem gambling, and that the problem is rising over time.

Clearly, the evidence is disputed by the Association of British Bookmakers; I am sure that we have all had its briefing, which heavily disputes some of the points that are being made about FOBTs. The association questions the validity of the evidence put forward by the British Gambling Prevalence Survey, for instance, and so on. The Government did not have much of a choice other than to say, “Right, let’s remit this to the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board and see what comes out of that”. I very much hope that that will be conclusive on the matter and lead to further action, although probably not through this Bill because I do not believe that any of this needs primary legislation. I do not believe that it is the planning system that is essentially at fault here. We heard during the Commons debate last week that Southwark Council is employing perfectly proper legal means to restrict the further spread of FOBTs and betting shops in its borough, and that sort of remedy is open to other councils to adopt.

I do not think that it is about that side of things; a lot of this problem boils down to stakes and prizes—something that can be remedied very straightforwardly by political will through secondary legislation, through regulations and through altering the stakes. At the moment you can put in £100, which is a huge amount of money for these machines in the high street. Some of the campaigns are saying that this should be reduced to £2—I think that that is somewhat drastic—but I certainly hope that when the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board reports it will make a recommendation about the appropriate level of stake that should be the limit for these machines. That will go a long way towards making sure that they are no longer as addictive as they currently are, and will also mean that bookmakers have to think very carefully about the profitability of their premises and we do not have the kind of proliferation that we appear to be having as a result of the ability to install these FOBTs. I appreciate the subject having been raised and I share the noble Baroness’s concerns but, ultimately, I hope that quite soon we can adopt a remedy by secondary legislation that could be relatively straightforward.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment, which gives us a timely opportunity to set out what the Government are doing. The Government acknowledge the harm that gaming machines cause for some people and have set out clearly what we are doing to address this. As part of our review of gaming machines last year, the Government looked very closely at the available evidence about category B2 gaming machines—FOBTs. The review found that there are real concerns about these machines and that some players have experienced considerable harm from using them. However, it is currently not clear that a reduction in stake or prize would be effective in reducing gambling-related harm.

The Government therefore concluded that the future of these machines was unresolved. We are undertaking urgent work to establish how these machines can be made safer, especially to those individuals who may be at the greatest risk of harm. Enhanced player protection measures will be introduced from 1 March, and research is under way by the Responsible Gambling Trust to identify where there is robust evidence that consumers may be experiencing harm. The Prime Minister confirmed last week that the Government will report on this issue in the spring. The Government will take whatever action is necessary to make these machines safer, and have very clearly set out our evidence-based approach to determining their future.

Amendment 8 raises a number of important points about the controls on gaming machines. I assure the Committee that the existing legislation already provides licensing controls on the provision of gaming machines as well as technical requirements about their operation. The amendment calls for new powers under which the Secretary of State may make regulations about the speed of play on a gaming machine, the messages that must be displayed and breaks in play.

Technical matters in relation to gaming machine operations are rightly a matter for the Gambling Commission and are controlled by the commission’s technical standards. These standards specify the minimum speed of play, which is twenty seconds for a FOBT, and also make clear what information must be displayed on the machine itself, or on screen, to enable players to keep track of their gambling.

Ticket Reselling

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Gardiner of Kimble

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, as the previous Government made clear, ticketing regulations for the London 2012 Games were exceptional and indeed a mandated requirement of winning the bid. It is a matter for the police to address cases of fraud and criminal activity while it is for event organisers, promoters and their ticket agents to find ticketing solutions; indeed, I think that Glastonbury is a very successful example of that. Of course I would be happy to arrange a meeting with the noble Lord to discuss these matters further.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, abuses by secondary ticketing sellers were made plain by the “Dispatches” programme earlier this year, which my noble friend may have seen. Campaigners for secondary ticketing reform go all the way from rock band Iron Maiden to the Rugby Football Union, which is worried about the World Cup, and the Society of London Theatre. If we could do it for London 2012, why can we not do it for other events? Are there no heavy metal fans or rugby fans at DCMS, let alone theatre-goers? Is DCMS completely immune to representations from all these bodies?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I am sure the DCMS has aficionados of all those disciplines. Only today, officials were talking to the Rugby World Cup organisers about arrangements for the event. Those will include using bar coding, named tickets, staggered ticket release and reward to fans with a history of support. The Government are engaged in this matter, but all successive Governments, and indeed Select Committees that have looked into this in the past, have concluded that regulation is not the best way of achieving what we all want to do.

Ofcom: Public Service Broadcasting

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Gardiner of Kimble

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to reach conclusions on changes to Ofcom’s statutory duties and functions with respect to public service broadcasting.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the Government published a consultation on 23 April proposing reforms to Ofcom’s statutory duties and functions, including measures relevant to public service broadcasting. Following this consultation, which closes on 25 June, the Government intend to bring forward a public bodies order before the Summer Recess. That order will be debated in both Houses in the autumn and we expect it to be in force at the end of this year.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, quality and diversity in our public service broadcasting are hugely important for our society. Rapid changes in technology and convergence between the internet and television could affect both considerably over time. The Government acknowledged this in their response to the recent Communications Committee report on convergence, yet now they propose to get rid of Ofcom’s obligations to review public service broadcasters on a regular five-year basis to save just £180,000. Is that not perverse?

Licensing Act 2003 (Descriptions of Entertainment) (Amendment) Order 2013

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Gardiner of Kimble

Monday 3rd June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, in 2011 the Government launched a consultation that examined the regulatory regime for entertainment licensing under the Licensing Act 2003. The consultation looked at removing any regulation that unnecessarily restricted creativity, community expression, sporting participation and economic growth. The Government listened carefully to the views received through the consultation and we announced our new policy in the other place on 7 January this year and in this House on 8 January, taking information received through the consultation into careful account.

The order before us today provides the first element of the reform package, which has been widely welcomed by the creative, community and charitable sectors. It addresses reforms to the areas of performance of plays, exhibitions of dance and indoor sport.

In the Government’s response to the consultation, we explained that there was a general consensus that these three areas could be deregulated as there was nothing intrinsic to these activities that required regulation that is not already adequately dealt with through other legislation. The Government listened carefully to the views in the consultation that asked for an end point to performance and that large events were not deregulated. These two key points have been addressed in the new policy and were set out in the Written Statement of 7 and 8 January.

The order before us is therefore relatively straightforward. It removes the need between 8 am and 11 pm for licences for public performances of plays, exhibitions of dance and indoor sport up to a reasonable audience cap of 500 people for plays and dance and 1,000 people for indoor sport. Where any of these activities involve the supply of alcohol, licensing requirements for such sales will continue to apply.

We see no reason why plays, dance and indoor sport, which are so often run by local community groups or charities, should need a licence. The Government have received many representations about harmless public performances that have been needlessly disrupted under the 2003 Act. For instance, Punch and Judy shows have been regarded as a performance of a play and therefore subjected to unnecessary bureaucracy, school plays have been cancelled and community dance performances have been hindered. This order will help to bring common sense to the licensing framework for local events and should remove some of the costs and bureaucracy that sap the will of volunteers and soak up often scarce financial resources.

It is interesting that the Voluntary Arts Network said of the proposed measures:

“The … burden of entertainment licensing … has in recent years been a major obstacle to voluntary arts groups putting on small local events and performances. The complexity and cost of regulation intended for much larger-scale events has had a detrimental effect on the tens of thousands of volunteers who give up their own free time for the benefit of their communities”.

Arts Council England said:

“As a result of de-regulation, small companies and artists will be better placed to develop and present their work ... Small venues will also be more disposed to support plays”.

The Government chose the limit of 500 people for plays and dance performances as the existing limit for temporary event notices is 499 under the 2003 Act. This limit has for many years had no mechanism for additional controls on events and, indeed, very few problems have occurred. For indoor sports a higher audience cap of 1,000 people was chosen, as most venues that host public sports activities are held in purpose-built arenas and the events are usually developed in partnership with the local authorities.

Many licensing authorities told us that their only action on indoor sport was to regulate swimming galas held in local council swimming pools, which are already clearly regulated by, and subject to, ongoing risk assessment under health and safety law. This is clearly a case of regulating the same subject twice.

This order also clarifies that where a contest or exhibition combines boxing or wrestling, which will remain licensable, with one or more martial arts to create a combined fighting sport, this activity is licensable as a boxing or wrestling activity. The Government wanted absolute clarity on this point in the context of removing regulation on indoor sporting events. It is right that boxing and wrestling activities should stay regulated, and responses to the Government’s consultation were fully in support of this policy.

This is a sensible deregulation of activities that should not have been caught by the Licensing Act. The Government’s view is that safeguards put in place under alcohol controls, planning law, fire, health and safety and other legislation such as the Theatres Act means that it makes sense to remove these activities from regulation. The removal of this cost and bureaucracy from community life will play a part in helping to sustain cultural and sporting activities in England and Wales.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that introduction to the SI. As he will be aware, I am in general a strong supporter of arts and entertainment deregulation. A little over a year ago we were celebrating the success of a five-year campaign to deregulate the performance of live music in small venues under the Licensing Act, dating back to the recommendations of the Live Music Forum of 2007 with the passing of the Live Music Act. That success was a tribute to a great many individuals, and not least to the strong co-operation between the DCMS itself and Ministers and officials.

UK Music, which with help from the Musicians’ Union and others helped to push through the Live Music Act, believes that the new legislation has the potential to create a major economic impact, with thousands of musicians who can add to the £1.5 billion currently earned by the live music sector. I was delighted that the MU published a live music kit when the Act came into force that is a comprehensive guide to hosting and promoting live music.

The key now is to ensure that there is an accurate way to measure the economic and creative impact of the new Act. Research commissioned by UK Music will help to provide some of these answers. The creative and artistic benefits of the new Act will take time to work through the system, but I hope that in a year or so no one who loves music, and live music in particular, will be able to argue that deregulating the performance of live music has been anything but good for the grass-roots scene, and indeed for the community as a whole. I very much hope, therefore, that the same will be true in other areas of deregulation of entertainment.

While the Live Music Bill was going through, as the Minister has explained the Government themselves published their own deregulation proposals in September 2011. The proposal was to deregulate all regulated entertainment of a similar description to live music, recorded music or dance and entertainment before audiences of over 5,000, except boxing, wrestling and adult entertainment. That meant that between 8 am and 11 pm most performances of a play, exhibitions of a film, indoor sporting events and so on would be exempt from Licensing Act regulation. The aim of the proposals, in the words of the consultation, was to,

“improve the quality of life for all through cultural and sporting activities, support the pursuit of excellence, and champion the tourism, creative and leisure industries”.

Those are all extremely important aims.

In seeking to reduce the overall burden of regulation faced by smaller organisations, the Government also wished to encourage the performance of music, dance and sport and to encourage community creativity and expression—all much to be desired. In most cases, as the Minister said today, the consultation rightly asserted that adequate protections against potential problems were already provided by existing legislation, such as the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and the Noise Act 1996. As the Minister also stated, licence conditions would still apply and be used for premises licensed to sell alcohol. The threat and use of review powers under the Licensing Act 2003 will provide sufficient protection to communities.

The consultation sought views on the proposed regulation of capacity under 500, but mentioned that the police preferred a 499 limit. We all recognised that these were, to say the least, very radical deregulatory proposals. If implemented they would have had a significant effect and in some cases unintended consequences. Although I am in favour generally of deregulation, I am glad to say that rather less radical views prevailed. Following the end of the consultation, as my noble friend said, the Government, in January 2013, published their response and proposals. They proposed deregulating these events between 8 am and 11 pm for those hosted by local authorities and educational establishments, and for others, in the case of an audience of up to 500, except for indoor sporting events, where the audience is limited to 1,000, and films, where partial regulation will continue to ensure age classification.

As the Minister described, I am delighted that we now have before us the draft SI, which implements that proposal, which I wholly support. However, clearly the DCMS is still not a boxing, martial arts or wrestling fan—they remain regulated. Greco-Roman wrestling at first was going to be exempt but now seems caught up in continuing regulation. Is that correct? Can the Minister give the Committee some explanatory background to this distinction?

The consultation response in January also said that the audience limit for exemptions under the Live Music Act will be raised to 500, which was great news. I hope my noble friend can tell us when we can expect that change to be introduced and what mechanism will be used to effect the change in the provisions of the Live Music Act. What other consequential changes arising from the policy announcement in January will need to be made and by what mechanism will they be made? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Publishing: Public Lending Right

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Gardiner of Kimble

Wednesday 22nd May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

The noble Earl is absolutely right that remote lending is distinct from on-site lending, as I noted when I went to Diss library only last Saturday, and there are arrangements for that. The noble Earl made the point that there will need to be primary legislation. The Government are aware of that. They need to consider also the complexity with the copyright directive, but this matter is being considered.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, with the Intellectual Property Bill now before the House, will my noble friend confirm that that will be an ideal opportunity to introduce public lending rights for remote e-lending?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, that is an interesting point. It is fair to repeat my words about further work. Some important research work, undertaken and funded by the British Library Trust, is under way this year. That is going to help us furnish better details because this whole area is undoubtedly evolving.