Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 27th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I very much hope that the Minister will take the threat from my noble friend Lord Lester extremely seriously and will rise to the challenges that he put to the Minister on the questions of funding, independence and carrying out the activities of the BBC.

I agree in particular with the noble Lord, Lord Best, in his disappointment with the Minister’s Motion today. As the noble Lord mentioned, my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter added her name to what we saw as a very important amendment in this House. That was the product of the report of the Communications Select Committee, Reith Not Revolution, which urged a much greater level of transparency and independent oversight in the setting of the licence fee. Of course, the Minister pushed back in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading by talking about the licence fee being a tax. However, it is a rather exceptional one: a hypothecated tax paid by the public to fund the BBC. So it is entirely correct that there should be a different mechanism for the setting of that licence fee. This arises because of the midnight raids—the hijacking—by the Treasury of the licence fee process on at least two occasions recently. One of the worrying phrases that the Minister used was that the Government want a free hand following negotiations with the BBC. That is exactly what the original amendment was designed to prevent.

The nub of the concern is about assurances. The Minister gave assurances and used new language on this. However, we have seen what assurances given by the Government are worth when it comes to snap elections. Assurances can be given by government one minute and broken the next. However carefully we scrutinise the Minister’s wording today, if his Government are in a position in future to negotiate the licence fee, we have no absolute assurance that those words will be followed. I share the deep disappointment that I am sure is felt all around the House.

In many ways, Motion E is even more disappointing. It was perfectly valid for the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, to express some support for the Ofcom review, but given that the Government could say that whether or not to have a BBC licence fee commission is a political decision, this is much more a question of the facts and perception. On at least two occasions we have had Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport—Jeremy Hunt and Maria Miller—saying that the position of the public service broadcasters is very important and EPG position is a very important way of safeguarding it. The Minister has said that a review will be undertaken by Ofcom, but Ofcom already knows that there is a problem. It recommended in its 2015 PSB review that policymakers should reform the rules for on-demand. Why are we asking Ofcom to do the work all over again? That does not seem a particularly constructive way forward, despite appearances.

A number of questions arise from Motion E. Can the Minister confirm that statutory change will be necessary to bring on-demand PSB content and the connected EPGs, where they are found, into the scope of Ofcom’s EPG code? In conversations, the Minister has claimed that it is not possible to have a Henry VIII power that would implement Ofcom’s recommendations for on-demand, so I assume that there is no current statutory power and that therefore we would be talking about primary legislation in that respect, but it would be helpful to have that confirmation.

Will the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will act on those Ofcom recommendations? We would not have tabled amendments on EPGs unless we thought that this was a real and present issue that needed to be tackled. This was not a frivolous amendment, but the Government seem to have a completely different view. The earnest of their intentions on this provision is rather important. The amendment sets a 1 December 2020 statutory deadline for the review and the revision of the EPG code, but does the Minister not agree that actually it would be desirable to commence work rather earlier, given the need for statutory changes beforehand, probably, to bring on-demand content into scope?

Finally, it appears that there is a statutory power to ensure the prominence of PSB children’s channels on EPGs. Does the Minister agree with that? Does he agree that if Ofcom so recommends, that could be brought in at a much earlier date than the on-demand provision? I very much hope that the Minister can answer those questions.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, taken together, these two amendments were traps for the Government and, with predictable certainty, they have fallen into both of them.

The amendment that has just been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the need for Ofcom to have powers to make sure there is a proper rule about prominence that applies not only to the linear but to the offline world of iPlayer and others, was a test of whether or not the Government believed in public sector broadcasting, in that if they believed in public sector broadcasting they needed to come forward with proposals that allowed the channels that were funded by the public or in a not-for-profit way to have access on a fair and equal basis to commercial channels. By tabling an amendment that is for just a report, without the requirement that there should be legislation in three primary legislative areas, which I think we agree needs to happen, I think they have failed this test.

However, we welcome where they have got to. I support the idea of a further review. I hope it will bring out the complexity of this issue—the changing technology and the difficulties of assessing this—in a way that will make it easier for the Government to honour their commitment given in the other place and repeated here today that if the report does make it clear that there is a problem in this area and it can be fixed only by legislation, the Government will bring that legislation forward as soon as possible. I give the commitment from this side of the House that, if elected, we will do the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in welcoming the government amendment. I want to make only a very brief intervention to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and Sharon Hodgson on their persistence in achieving what we have achieved so far, which is considerable. A great deal of progress has been made in restricting the activities of secondary ticketing sites. We all look forward to the Competition and Market Authority’s report, which may well suggest further changes to legislation and will certainly give us a very good idea of whether the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act are being properly enforced. That will be extremely illuminating. I hope the Minister will be able to answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about whether it is really duplication or whether we have thrown something out with the Commons amendment.

Let me end by saying that in the Digital Economy Bill we have not, in the words of my noble friend, taken up the floorboards today, but we have certainly given it a decent lick of paint in the process. It is not a very ambitious Bill, and many of us could argue at length about what other aspects it should have covered, but I thank the Minister for his unfailing helpfulness throughout the course of the Bill and I thank the Bill team. I very much welcome not only the movement today, which is perceptible—that is not always the case with wash-up or ping-pong—but some of the movement that was made in the course of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, talked about the outlawing of mass online purchasing with bots, which is a very significant change, as are the site-blocking appeals, the new Ofcom powers in respect of children’s programmes, which are particularly welcome to my noble friend Lady Benjamin, remote e-book lending and the amendment on listed events. There has been movement in this House as a result of amendments in this House and the discussions we have had. I am grateful, and I look forward to a new digital economy Bill before too long.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this marks another stage in the campaign led by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. It was led until her death by Lady Heyhoe Flint whom we all want to recognise because she played a huge part in this and her memory is still fresh today. Wherever she is playing cricket, I am sure she is scoring a hundred as we speak.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the Minister mentioned bots. We should not ignore the fact that that will make a huge change to the secondary ticketing market. The solution the Bill team came up with is very creative, and I hope it works as well as they intend it to. A first step has been taken, and this will crack down on the worst excesses of secondary ticketing.

I hope the Minister will answer directly the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about whether the conditions apply because they are not drafted quite like that in the original legislation.

In its original formulation, Amendment 246 simply inserted the words,

“and any unique ticket number”.

The final version before us states,

“any unique ticket number that may help the buyer to identify the seat or standing area or its location”.

That raises the question of what “may” means. Does it in some sense imply a voluntary obligation? If it does, it would be very unfortunate. Could somebody argue that they did not include the unique ticket number specified because in their view it did not help the buyer identify a seat or a standing area or its location? Or is it a variation on the word “must” so that it is a requirement that a ticket number that could help a buyer identify seats or standing areas or their location must be included? I will be grateful if when the Minister responds he will mention that.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 5th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I am sure that they would have been mentioned fulsomely by other Benches as well. I have not laboured in the vineyard quite as much as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I have not had multiple Bills simultaneously to deal with—and one can only admire that kind of stamina—but, still, the passing of this Bill carries a sense of relief given the variety of subject matter that we have had to deal with during the past few months. The Minister said that it was from Christmas to Easter; these Bills are seasonal in their nature.

We certainly have not achieved everything that we wanted, but I believe that the Bill is leaving this House in much better shape than that in which it arrived. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, implied, it is certainly a very meaty Bill. It is also a disparate Bill, covering a huge range of issues most of which are unified only by the word “digital”. That was quite a challenge for all those who were trying to cover the whole subject matter of the Bill.

I want to thank my own colleagues, particularly my noble friends Lord Paddick, Lord Fox, Lord Foster, Lord Lester, Lord Storey, Lord Addington, Lady Bonham-Carter, Lady Hamwee, Lady Janke, Lady Benjamin and Lady Grender. I thank our adviser team, particularly Elizabeth Plummer, Rosie Shimell and Vinous Ali. I want also to thank the Opposition Front Bench—the indefatigable noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Wood and Lord Grantchester—for their collaborative approach. Of course, I thank many others on the Cross Benches, including the noble Lord, Lord Best, with his successful amendment, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe—indefatigable is too small a word for her.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Indestructible.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

“Indestructible” is suggested to me by the Opposition Front Bench.

Finally and very sincerely, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the Bill team. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, had to say about the Bill team for their willingness to engage constructively, explain, amend and give what assurances they could throughout the passage of the Bill. We welcomed considerable movement during that time: changes in definition of “extreme pornographic material”, appeals on site blocking, the incorporation of many of the DPRRC amendments and new Ofcom powers—my noble friend Lady Benjamin is not in her place; she is probably celebrating somewhere the fact that Ofcom has new powers in respect of children’s programmes. There were amendments on remote e-book lending and listed events—the list goes on, which demonstrates that the Government were listening.

Of course, we anticipate ping-pong with great delight. I think that some six amendments to the Bill were passed. I hope that the Government will give consideration to them and not just bat them back to this House. They were all carefully thought through. I hope that we will see some changes as a result of those amendments in this House.

Of course, we did not get everything on our shopping list as the Bill went through. On Ofcom appeals, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, stood fast on Clause 85. I hope that in the future we might find some change on compulsory anonymisation for age verification, and I think that IPTV is something that may come back to haunt us. I hope that the consultation will demonstrate the absolute need for amendments in the future. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Lester will also be returning by popular demand to the question of the statutory underpinning of the BBC charter. In the meantime, I thank the Minister and look forward to the passing of the Bill.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 29th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I would not expect the Minister to make commitments at this stage, just to listen to the arguments that we have already made and will no doubt make again in the meeting. I am very grateful to the Minister. We have Third Reading where we can—

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I am abusing the system. I apologise for interrupting. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My question is directed at the Minister through the noble Lord, to maintain some semblance of protocol. I think the question my noble friend was trying to ask was, given that the Minister has committed to bringing back an amendment which covers much of the ground that has been discussed today, because there are issues he wishes to solidify, the assumption is that the points that have been raised may be raised again at Third Reading. He is not asking him to concede any additional work. I make it absolutely clear, because of the need for the clerks to be sure about this, that there will be a discussion at Third Reading on the substantive points that have been made so far.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

What the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked me to do was to meet to discuss these issues before Third Reading. I agreed to meet him and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, if he wants to do that. I said that we were going to bring forward two amendments and we will continue to do that. I think it is the other one, where we have agreed not to do that, that he wants to talk about, but I am happy to talk about all of them. We will bring forward the two amendments at Third Reading. Obviously, I can make no commitment about any extra amendments but I am happy to talk about it.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Thursday 2nd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this moves us into Part 4 and intellectual property. We start with rather a narrow but quite important point about the way technology is moving forward in this area and the need to make sure that the statutory basis under which we look at issues relating to broadcasting and television is kept up to speed. I am joined in Amendment 71B by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Foster, for which I am very grateful. I am sure they will give more examples of and more detail on the topic that we are discussing in this group, about devices and services that infringe copyright.

These amendments look at digital TV piracy, which is a relatively new phenomenon but has come about because of the growing amount of close-to-live retransmission of broadcasts—and indeed of live broadcasts themselves—and the services that provide on-demand access to films, television series and other audio-visual content, including music. The categories are slightly different, but they are both very damaging to rights holders. Devices normally feature a mixture of both categories of services, and you can buy them readily on the open market and install them yourself, so it is a growing problem for those who control content and wish to make sure that rights holders earn from it.

These amendments suggest changing two sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. Amendment 79A relates to Section 297A and transmissions, while Amendment 71B relates to Section 107 and on-demand services. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has said, we strongly support this amendment and I am grateful to him for having tabled it. I shall go into a little more detail than he was able to do in order to illustrate some aspects that very much concern the creative industries. A substantial and growing threat is posed to the creative industries by a combination of faster broadband speeds and the widespread availability of cheap plug-and-play devices offering access to infringing software. These devices can be simply plugged into TV sets, offering viewers increasingly easy access to pirated digital content. The Government’s IP enforcement strategy recognises this threat.

The creative industries are deeply concerned about the growing scale of digital TV piracy and have noted a significant increase in the levels of illegal streaming, which inevitably undermines business models within these industries and threatens investment in new content creation. Clearly, the challenge needs to be met on multiple levels, including education campaigns, use of technology, increased enforcement activity and, crucially, clearer laws which are simpler to enforce.

There are a variety of ways that users access infringing content. Typically, this involves a device such as a USB stick or small android box which is plugged into a TV set using a standard connection. The device can be “fully loaded”, meaning it has software and add-ons preconfigured, giving access to thousands of streams, or users can purchase boxes with software such as Kodi installed—an open-source software platform—and then source and configure their own illegal add-ons. The Government’s own statistics highlight the significant growth in the use of this technology, and research by the Industry Trust for IP Awareness shows worrying signs that such behaviour is becoming normalised and socially acceptable.

The scale of the problem is very significant. Listings on Amazon give the boxes a legitimacy—the Industry Trust study revealed that 44% of people assume that if they buy a box or stick from a retailer such as Amazon, it must be legal. An Amazon search for “Kodi” just yesterday auto-completed with “Kodi box fully loaded” and “Kodi fully loaded TV box with Sky Sports and Movies”. That “Kodi” search produces 4,554 results. The first listing is highlighted as an Amazon best-seller and is on offer through Amazon Prime, despite the Q&A under it saying rather different things. IPTV boxes, as they are called, are widely available, with more than 14,000 listings across 511 online marketplaces, equating to more than 4 million items in stock globally. There are more than 200,000 videos on YouTube providing a step-by-step guide on how to install and use Kodi add-ons in order to stream free TV.

Given the rapid growth of such devices, it is not unreasonable to suggest that illegal IPTV boxes could become the second largest pay-TV operator in the UK within 18 months. Despite the IP enforcement strategy identifying the problem, there appears to be a reluctance to make the law simpler and more effective. At present, law enforcement has to rely on general provisions, such as aiding and abetting offences under the Fraud Act, or encouraging offences under the Serious Crime Act. This is because the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act does not address today’s or future issues, and the various offences in it do not include what is by far the most prevalent offence today: the supply of devices intended to commit digital piracy. A specific offence is much needed and was proposed in the other place as an amendment to the Bill.

There are examples of law enforcement agencies such as trading standards and PIPCU being unable to pursue strong cases due to the lack of an appropriate offence. As a result, despite the industry dedicating considerable resources over a long period to protecting its intellectual property through existing enforcement mechanisms, there has been insufficient success and what limited progress has been made has taken far too long. Now, a fit-for-purpose enforcement regime is needed which is kept up to date with technological advancements and new risks posed. This requires the creation in the CDPA of a specific offence relating to devices used for IP infringement.

We have been told that over the past year, the Sky security team has identified more than 100 cases involving digital TV piracy, but they have been extremely difficult to pursue through trading standards or, indeed, through PIPCU. The industry has gone to the extent of seeking counsel’s advice on whether anything in existing law adequately covers the offences involved. It is clear that, while there has been a recent successful five-week private prosecution of a complex case involving pan-European organised crime, this is not the most efficient way to deal with a new challenge. The CDPA, originally written in 1988, needs to be updated to reflect new technology and the subsequent risks posed. New legislation would help trading standards to prosecute those preloading and distributing IP devices.

I very much hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to support this important amendment.

Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I should like briefly to echo the words of the Minister. This Bill has been a good experience and a novel and, for me, different way of doing Bills—something we might learn from, in fact, as we go forward. The Minister said that there were families of amendments, which was certainly true; and we became a little family as we tried to deal with the rather odd way in which the Bill is organised. That was because, every time we looked at one area, we discovered that we would have to amend the Bill in every other clause as well. We were in some danger of extending the small coterie of your Lordships who actually like IP matters, but that is a danger which I think not many would survive.

Like the Minister, I thank all those who gave evidence both in writing and in person. It was a rich and interesting experience. The Special Public Bill Committee worked very hard, and I would particularly like to thank, in addition to our chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, the representatives from the Labour side, my noble friends Lord Plant of Highfield and Lord Hanworth, who served a noble part on the Committee. I also echo the Minister’s thanks to the Intellectual Property Office and the Law Commission. Lastly, I thank the Minister. She has been rather modest in saying that we had improved the Bill; actually, it was she who took on the burden of heavy lifting not only by daring to go back to her own department and other departments to get clearance for various things, but also by taking on, in full measure, the Law Commission itself—and winning.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to intervene only briefly in the absence of my noble friend Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. From the updates she has given me regularly and from reading Hansard, she certainly proved more than a match for the Law Commission in many respects, and indeed she helped to inform the Government as the Bill went through. I know she feels that the Bill is now in a much more satisfactory form than it was when it arrived, and I thank the Minister for the amendments that were made in the course of its passage.

Contracting Out (Functions relating to the Royal Parks) Order 2016

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Monday 24th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the rather slim rationale for the proposal to contract out the management of the Royal Parks, replacing the Royal Parks Agency, by setting up a company limited by the guarantee of the Secretary of State. The 8th Report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is the proximate reason for this evening’s debate, although I think we would have had some questions to ask had this gone through the normal process.

I have four main areas of concern. The first of these is the company. The DCMS proposes to contract with a new organisation which will be a company limited by guarantee of the Secretary of State, and which will apply for charitable status. All the parks are in London. Was consideration not given to whether it would be more appropriate to transfer responsibility to the Mayor of London on this occasion? If not, why not? There is very little information in the statutory instrument or the Explanatory Memorandum about the company itself, although we gathered a little bit more when the Minister was speaking. What type of company is it? Was consideration given to setting it up as a community interest company, because this would have been one area which would have avoided some of the problems it is likely to have with the Charity Commission?·

There was mention of the board, but we do not have any details of its size, whether there will be a good gender balance, or diversity issues. There was talk of statutory appointments being made from local authorities and the mayor’s office. This is good, but it would be interesting to know who the chair is to be and whether any other appointments have been announced. I note that it is a company limited by guarantee. In this case, there must be formal documentation and I would be grateful if the Minister could make that available, perhaps through the Library.

The Minister said that it is hoped to start the arrangements on 1 March, although the statutory instrument states that the order comes into force on the day after the day on which it is made. I note, in passing, that that is not one of the common commencement dates, which is to be regretted. More seriously, what happens if there is a delay in the establishment of the charity? After all, the company is not just applying for charitable status, albeit that can take time; it is merging with an existing charity as well, which is often rather a tricky operation, as I am sure the Minister is aware. If there is a delay, will the transfer happen on 1 March? If not, what are the standby arrangements? What are the tax implications of the change? No mention was made of this. In particular, what is the VAT position after the transfer? As a government agency, the Royal Parks Agency is not liable for VAT, but surely as an independent company it will be? Who is going to compensate the new organisation for that considerable loss?

The Minister tried to give a very full account of what has happened on consultation, but there has not been a formal consultation exercise and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was quite scathing about that. It is true that DCMS has responded that,

“engagement with key stakeholders and the wider public has shown broad support for the proposal”.

This apparently involved the proposal being discussed “over many months” at a series of meetings attended by friends’ groups of the Royal Parks and other visitor representatives, concessionaires, elected representatives and the police. The DCMS also says that local authorities bordering the estate that are represented on the Royal Parks advisory board, and the Greater London Authority, “are fully supportive”. I think I heard the Minister say that local MPs had been invited to attend these meetings. Given that large numbers of London residents and visitors from elsewhere use the Royal Parks, does the Minster not agree that failure to consult properly on this rather radical proposal does not match the high standards we should expect on such matters from all government departments? The lack of a proper public consultation process also means that an opportunity to spread the word about this change has been missed, with the result that there can be no certainty that these major changes will be welcomed by many current and future users of the parks.

I turn to commercial pressures. In the Explanatory Memorandum, the DCMS says that it is not the intention to permit the Royal Parks to become “overly commercialised”. Can the Minister explain what those words mean? For instance, will Parliament see the contract, so that we can properly assess whether the new organisation will have the obligation to maintain and enhance the quality of the parks? Can he assure us that the new organisation will continue to be subject to all the existing statutory designations relating to environmental protection and management?· Will the by-laws and charging regime continue to be approved through secondary legislation? If that is the case, has he considered that, given that we are losing direct control through the Secretary of State of the Royal Parks, it might be appropriate to change this from negative approval to affirmative approval in future.

In the Explanatory Memorandum, the DCMS states that the Royal Parks Agency currently generates almost 70% of its own income—most of which is from Winter Wonderland, which the Minister talked about—with the balance covered by grant-in-aid from HM Treasury. It says that, under the proposed contracting-out arrangements, the Government will provide resource funding and capital investment to the new organisation—that will be welcome—but it will also be able to raise funds, perhaps through sponsorship and commercial activities. It expects that, in the longer term, this will reduce the burden on the public purse—no surprises there. So what capital and revenue commitments have been made and over what period? What are the targets that have been set? Are we expecting these bodies to move to 100% self-funding within a reasonable time? If so, will Parliament be consulted about that?

Finally, I turn to staff. It is very good that there have been no compulsory redundancies in the transfer. I gather that all but a few staff will be transferred under the TUPE regulations and will retain their pension arrangements and pay scales. What will happen to new joiners after the transfer? It is not always the case that the existing arrangements are offered to them and that would be unfortunate. The staff work in a very high-security area. We are all aware of the incidents that have taken place in the Royal Parks. In some cases, such as the garden of Downing Street, which is serviced by the current arrangements, there will need to be high-security clearance. How will this be arranged in future when the company is independent? Will we be given some details on that?

In introducing the order, the Minister asked what I am sure was a rhetorical question—namely, if all was going so well, why change it? In my view, he comprehensively failed to answer that question. I beg to move.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for introducing the new proposals. I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate them. We on these Benches are not opposed in principle to contracting out to a new charity formed for the purpose, rather in the way that the creation of English Heritage seems to have become a success. I think we are all pleased that Loyd Grossman, with his profile and experience, has been appointed as its first chair. That is considerable cause for pleasure. Moreover, I understand that, broadly, friends’ groups across the Royal Parks support the change and see it as bringing the following benefits—greater financial freedom and escape from government restriction, for example, on the carrying over of end-of-year surpluses, and on procurement rules, both of which can lead to higher costs. It also gives them rather more flexibility on pay rates—upwards, as it happens—in order to attract staff. The change means that it is easier to raise money, especially through local philanthropy, and the new objectives provide—they say—more focus on protection and conservation and less on government objectives for higher visitor numbers.

I understand that the new draft objectives submitted to the Charity Commission are principally to promote the use and enjoyment of the Royal Parks, to protect, conserve, maintain and care for them, to maintain and develop the biodiversity of the Royal Parks and to support the advancement of education and promote the national heritage. All those objectives have considerable importance and benefit. However, it would be good to see the entire draft constitution of the new charity. There is remarkably little information available about the new structure, especially given that it is to be merged with the Royal Parks Foundation. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, talked about how the board will be appointed. I understand that there will be 14 board members, half of whom will be appointed by government. It is not clear whom the other half will be appointed by. We need a much more plural form of appointment and there needs to be considerable local input into those appointments. An ability for the Government to appoint 50% of the trustees of the new charity seems well over the top. In the way that the Government retreated over the BBC, I hope that they will likewise retreat over the appointment of trustees to this charity.

I hope that these new arrangements will also mean that detailed plans are drawn up for each of the individual Royal Parks. I think we all know which Royal Parks we are referring to but it is not so well known that other open spaces such as Brompton Cemetery, Victoria Tower Gardens, just along the way, and the gardens at Nos. 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street are all currently managed by the Royal Parks Agency. I assume that they will continue to be managed by the new charity.

I was only partially reassured by the Minister’s statements about consultations that have taken place. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, pointed out, they were very local consultations. The Royal Parks are an asset to not only the whole of London but also the nation. Therefore, it sounds to me as if the consultations have been extremely limited. On what basis were the consultations held? Was a draft constitution of the new charity available? Is there a new draft corporate plan? That kind of detail is very important when one is consulting on a dramatically new way of managing the Royal Parks.

Where is the draft contract? As a lawyer, I always like to see a draft contract, lots of red ink and so on, but we have not seen anything to do with the future management of the Royal Parks. That was referred to by the Minister. What are the key performance indicators in terms of the management of the parks? What specific targets are to be set for the management? On future strategy, will there be a new corporate plan? The Royal Parks Agency has carried on a very detailed way of planning for some considerable time, which includes separate management and operating plans for each Royal Park and, in addition, a sustainability strategy. In the light of the new objectives of the charity, that is extremely important.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, rightly referred to finances. The parks are now expected to make nearly 70% of their own income, but more than 30% still comes from government grant. All the statements coming out of government in this regard seem rather ominous. The stated aim in the Explanatory Notes is to reduce the burden on the public purse in the longer-term. Will that level of finance continue? After all, the latest annual report of the Royal Parks Agency states:

“The new charity will be increasingly self-sustaining”.

The advertisement for the new chairman states that the new body will apparently seek to,

“generate substantial annual revenue from more events, concessions and licences”.

I heard what the Minister said about events, and that seems to contradict it. What does all this mean for government support and over what period? In the way that the finances for English Heritage have tapered, do the Government plan a tapering of the finance for the new charitable body? Or will they essentially oblige the new body—as the Royal Parks tried to do previously—to impose fees for use of its football pitches? I have another very large question: who will pay for the £56 million maintenance backlog detailed in the most recent annual accounts?

The Minister gave several assurances about events. I suppose we should be pleased that there is no Summertime Wonderland but it seems that even the existing events—Winter Wonderland and the British Summer Time Concerts alone, including the time for setting up and reinstating the grass—put 13% of Hyde Park out of bounds for much of the year. Therefore, frankly, I do not think there is much leeway for more events. Will there be more open-air cinema screenings? I know that that causes problems for local wildlife in Richmond Park. What will the financial pressures be if the Government taper their support?

There are many questions and not enough transparency about these proposals. I hope that the Minister has all the answers.

Legislative Reform (Exempt Lotteries) Order 2016

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Monday 18th January 2016 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Courtown]

It is probably best if I write to the noble Lord and give him the exact details of what is planned. Obviously, as I said from this position, there are some points that we will take back to the Gambling Commission. Once I have checked with the department, I will write to the noble Lord with exact details of any review. I will ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is also included in that.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I think we are slightly mixing up two issues here. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was about this order and the effect it will have on those small lotteries and events run for residents. The question was whether there would be a review of that and I think the Minister will write to him about it. My point was about society lotteries and I did not refer to the House of Commons Select Committee. I could have done but chose not to because I wished to let the Minister know that the outcome of the debate we had in the House just before Christmas was a number of letters, including ones from those responsible for operating society lotteries. I wondered whether there was any progress there. I think the Minister was in the process of explaining that that is also being progressed.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, that is precisely why I asked the question: there seems to have been a conflation of the two points.