Selection of the President of Welsh Tribunals Regulations 2017

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Selection of the President of Welsh Tribunals Regulations 2017.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

By way of background, there are seven devolved tribunals that are the responsibility of the Welsh Government: the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales, the Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales, the Agricultural Land Tribunal for Wales, the Adjudication Panel for Wales, the Residential Property Tribunal Wales, the Welsh Language Tribunal, and a tribunal covering the registered school inspectors appeals panels and the registered nursery education inspectors appeals panels.

There are 41 judges currently appointed to those tribunals. Each tribunal has its own judicial lead but these judges have limited access to senior judicial leadership within Wales, which is inconsistent with other judicial officeholders in England and Wales. Sir Wyn Williams, a retired High Court judge, has been undertaking an informal leadership role, but he does not have any statutory powers.

To address this, Part 3 of the Wales Act 2017 created a new post: the President of Welsh Tribunals. The president has responsibility for making arrangements about the training, guidance and welfare of Welsh tribunal members, as well as for representing their views to Welsh Ministers and other Members of the National Assembly for Wales. The president will also be able to give practice directions and will be responsible for deploying tribunal members between the different Welsh tribunals, as well as between the UK-wide tribunals and the Welsh tribunals.

The president will also be responsible for establishing and communicating the judicial strategic direction for the Welsh tribunals. He or she will provide leadership and build effective relationships with the judicial leads of the Welsh tribunals, as well as with the Welsh Government’s Welsh Tribunals Unit, the Lord Chief Justice, the Judicial College, and Ministers and officials in the Welsh Government, relating to policy issues affecting the Welsh tribunals.

Paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to the Wales Act 2017 provides two routes for the appointment of the President of Welsh Tribunals. The first is by agreement between the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor and the Welsh Ministers with regard to a person who is, or has been, a judge of the Court of Appeal or the High Court. The second route, in default, is following selection by the Judicial Appointments Commission.

If agreement cannot be reached between the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor and the Welsh Ministers on the appointment, paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to the Wales Act 2017 requires the Lord Chief Justice to make a request to the Judicial Appointments Commission for a person to be selected for appointment to the office of President of Welsh Tribunals.

Elements of the procedure for appointment by the Judicial Appointments Commission are set out in the Act itself. These include that the Judicial Appointments Commission must appoint a selection panel which must include at least two members who are non-legally qualified, at least two judicial members and at least two members of the Judicial Appointments Commission.

The Lord Chancellor is also required to make additional provision about the process to be applied. That is what these regulations do. In particular, they specify that the selection panel should consist of five members and make further provision about the appointment of people to that panel, including that the chairperson of the panel is to be a person designated by the Lord Chief Justice who holds, or has held, office as a judge of the Supreme Court, a Lord Justice of Appeal or a puisne judge of the High Court.

The regulations also make further provision relating to consultation during the process and to the reporting of the panel’s selection to the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chief Justice’s options when deciding on that selection. In order to be consistent with the relevant primary legislation and the nature of the new office, the appointment process closely reflects that which applies to the selection of the Senior President of Tribunals.

The Wales Act 2017 established the role of the President of Welsh Tribunals and the requirements for the appointment of a judicial officeholder to that office. These regulations allow that appointment to be made. I therefore commend the regulations to your Lordships and beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I very much welcome these regulations, although I hope that the machinery that they set up will not be used, because of course the alternative way is by agreement between the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and Welsh Ministers.

At a time when the independence of the judiciary has been under attack, when we have heard expressions in the press such as, “Enemies of the people”, and when the press has questioned the impartiality of judges in many ways and the degree to which they are in touch, it is very important that the independence of the judiciary in Wales should be emphasised. In most of these tribunals, one of the parties concerned will almost certainly be the Welsh Government or local government, and it is very necessary that the administrative tribunal should be seen to be impartial.

I am very pleased that my old friend Sir Wyn Williams has been acting in an informal capacity as President of Welsh Tribunals—we used to meet on many a rugby field in our youth. Hopefully, he will continue in that role, and maybe he will be a candidate for president. I could not imagine the independence of the judiciary being in better hands to give leadership and direction. So many of the 41 judges who are sitting on these tribunals are lay persons without necessarily any lengthy experience in the law, so it is important that they should be properly trained and properly led. I am sure that that has been done under Sir Wyn Williams and that it will continue under these regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I of course defer to the experience of the two noble Lords from Wales, who clearly have a greater insight into the position than either the Minister—with due respect—or I could have. Of course, I join them in welcoming the instrument. However, according to the Explanatory Note, the consultation process was very limited, as it was apparently confined to officials of the Welsh Government and the Lord Chief Justice. Was there any consideration with the professions in Wales about this? Presumably many members of the legal profession would have an interest in the matter.

On the concern about diversity, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is in a position to say—if not, perhaps he could subsequently advise me—what is the present composition of tribunal membership and chairs of the tribunals in terms of gender and ethnicity. Clearly there is an implicit aspiration at paragraph 12.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum to promote diversity. I would be interested to know what the starting point is. Although the question of developing a baseline against which progress can be measured is apparently still incorrect, it would be helpful to see where we are starting from, if not today by a note to those Members present.

This is clearly a welcome step forward. One hopes that it will work well and in particular that the diversity issue will be addressed properly and in a timely way. I join other noble Lords in welcoming the regulations and trust that their impact will be beneficial.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to noble Lords and to the noble Baroness for their contributions. I begin with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I entirely agree with his observations about the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary and, equally, of defending the judiciary from inappropriate attack. There is an important distinction to be made between what can be regarded as justified criticism and what is tantamount to abuse. We have to underline that distinction if we are properly to defend the judiciary. Of that there can be no doubt.

On the question of whether these powers should be used, I again entirely agree with the noble Lord. This is the alternative mechanism to be employed, but it is contemplated that it will be employed only in circumstances where there is a breakdown in agreement between various parties. It is not something that is contemplated, but because the Act makes provision for this alternative mechanism it is only appropriate that we should have regulations in place so that, if necessary, it can be employed.

On the matter of who will be the president of the Welsh tribunals and his role so far as defence of tribunal members is concerned, remembering that some of those tribunal members are lay members, it is doubly important there is somebody there who can advise and defend their interests. One of the responsibilities of the President of Welsh Tribunals will be not only the training and guidance of members of the tribunals, but consideration of their welfare. That again is important.

On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on the Welsh language, of course we recognise the importance of the Welsh language in the context of proceedings in Wales, but we have to remember that we are making an appointment to the judiciary of England and Wales. While the proceedings of those tribunals may take place in Welsh as distinct from English, it is not considered appropriate that we should extend the criteria for the appointment of this post to include the Welsh language itself.

[Lord Wigley]

I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. There are numerous bodies that have responsibilities that go beyond the borders of Wales where the status of the Welsh language is recognised. I would not have been surprised if there had been no provision at all for equality here on the basis that other legislation covers it, but if we are writing the equality of men and women and racial equality into this, surely it is not unreasonable to write the language in because some of the work will be undertaken in Wales, if not all of it.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect to the noble Lord’s observations, language is not an equality issue in that context in the same way as the other criteria he alluded to. It is a matter of context. Of course it is important we recognise that the use of English and Welsh have equal demands on any tribunal process in Wales, but that is quite distinct from how you go about the appointment criteria.

[Lord Wigley]

I am sorry; I do not want to labour this unduly. The language question has, to a large extent, been put to rest in Wales over recent decades after there was a lot of strong feeling about it on the basis that there was recognition of language being an equality criterion. I do not know whether it is technically so in the legal framework here but, surely in terms of the spirit of what is being done here, it should be accommodated.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect, there is no issue about whether an individual applicant would be prejudiced whether he spoke only Welsh or only English or both. That is why I say, in this context, it does not arise for the purposes of this schedule. If an applicant came forward who did not speak English but spoke only Welsh, there would be no issue about that applying to the suitability of his appointment.

[Lord Wigley]

May I help the Minister? I do not want to see issues like this boiling up to become another bullet in a language war, as it were. It is the sort of thing that we need a harmonious approach towards. Equality is regarded as being relevant in a language context, as in other contexts, and therefore, if it is necessary to write it into the terms as they are here, I cannot see why they are not broad enough to encapsulate language, but I have made my point.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

If I can make one short addition, it is that these regulations are concerned with the technical operation of judicial appointments and therefore, again, our view is that the question does not arise in this context.

I turn to territorial application. My understanding is that technically, in the context of tribunal appointments, we are looking across the UK and not just at England and Wales, which is why the regulation extends as it does. There are circumstances in which tribunal membership can move between the various jurisdictions.

On the consultation process and diversity in particular, diversity is of course taken extremely seriously. I believe that we have some figures with regard to tribunal membership. I am not sure that I have figures with regard to the chairmanship of tribunals. As regards male and female membership, about 40% of tribunal members are female. In the senior courts, the figures are of course different but, for tribunals, the figure is as high as it is anywhere. As far as BAME in tribunals is concerned, the number is about 10%. Interestingly, perhaps, we even have a figure for those who are of a non-barrister background. I am not quite sure what a non-barrister background amounts to, but 66% of tribunal judges come from a non-barrister background. On whether that is regarded as a good thing or a bad thing, I will not comment. If the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, wishes to have figures about the chairmanship of tribunals, and their gender mix, I can undertake to write to him, if those figures are available. I do not know if they are; I know that the overall figures are there, as I have just mentioned. That, I hope, addresses the points that noble Lords have raised.

Motion agreed.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 6th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Skidelsky]

With great respect, we are concerned with the permanence of arrangements set up and put into primary legislation. The chairman of IPSO is not there for ever, and the code can be rewritten whenever the committee decides to do so.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, of course, we appreciate the contributions from all sides of the Committee on this issue, but let us be clear: this Bill is about data protection—it is not about press regulation. It is not about distinguishing between journalists, nor between the regulators they may or may not belong to.

The Government are committed to defending not only hard-won liberties but the operation of a free press. That is a fundamental principle of any liberal democracy. This Bill seeks to preserve the balance found in the 1998 Act, where journalists can process personal and special categories of personal data, but only when their processing is in the public interest and the substantial public interest respectively. The Bill also seeks to ensure that journalists are exempt from compliance with certain data protection requirements where to do so would undermine the operation of a free press, a key part of a strong and effective democracy where Governments are held to account and corruption and criminal behaviour can be challenged. No one seeks to condone the past misbehaviour of individual media organisations, nor to legitimise it.

Amendment 42 is moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. As we discussed last week in reference to Part 2 of Schedule 1, there is an exhaustive list of the types of processing which could be in the substantial public interest. When the Government consider that processing of a particular type will not always be in the substantial public interest, the Bill makes it a requirement that the data controller satisfies himself that any particular instance of processing is in the substantial public interest. Amendment 42 concerns the condition allowing journalists to process data in connection with unlawful acts and dishonesty, as dealt with in paragraph 10. The Bill, however, needs to balance freedom of expression with privacy and it may be that in some cases an act of dishonesty is not important enough and does not engage the substantial public interest to the extent that it justifies the processing of sensitive data by journalists. That is why the distinction is made.

To pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about continuity of arrangements in the 1998 Act, this processing condition is the same as that which currently appears under the existing Data Protection Act. It would appear that journalists have been dealing with that effectively and making the appropriate judgments for the last 20 years. I hope that that goes some way to explaining why we resist Amendment 42.

On Amendment 87B, I reassure the noble Lord that the specific inclusion of “photographic material” in paragraph 24(2)(a) of the schedule is unnecessary. This is because photographic material is likely to fall within one or more of the categories listed in that paragraph—for example, journalistic material or artistic material. We suggest that there is no requirement for express reference to photographic material. As for the point that was raised with the noble Lord by the NUJ, I think, about the use, the test is,

“with a view to publication”.

As long as that test is met, it does not necessarily follow that there must have been publication in order to legitimise the material in question. The position would, of course, be radically different if one had regard to one of the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins.

Amendment 87E would remove the list of codes and guidelines in paragraph 24 of Schedule 2 that help controllers assess whether a publication would be in the public interest for data protection purposes and would replace it, as I understand it, with the term “appropriate codes”. I confess that I am a lawyer, to respond to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, or at least it is alleged that I am. That would certainly make it more difficult, as a matter for interpretation, for both publishers and the Information Commissioner to evaluate whether the publication of an individual’s personal data was in the public interest. Indeed, rather than the clarity of a list, one could instead be faced with years of potential litigation before an adequate body of case law was in place to establish what was appropriate. That is why we suggest it is appropriate that there should be a specific list, as reflected in the current legislation, the 1998 Act.

Amendments 88 and 89A concern the specific industry codes listed in the Bill. I start by saying that the codes currently listed in the Bill reflect those that are listed in the existing legislation. The editors’ code listed in the Bill—now enforced by IPSO rather than the Press Complaints Commission, I acknowledge —is one of these, and the Information Commissioner has already reflected this change in her current guidance on Section 32 of the existing Act. That follows from the Data Protection (Designated Codes of Practice) (No. 2) Order 2000, which set out the various codes of practice and included the editors’ code of practice. While there is a suggestion that the editors’ code of practice might change, in the light of any such change the Information Commissioner’s view and guidance as to the applicability of that code may also change. So it is not as if it is entirely without control.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

The Minister said that it could change, but the word IPSO is actually in the Bill, so I do not quite understand the point that the Minister has just made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Let me elaborate on the point for a moment to make it clear. IPSO did not exist in 1998; the editors’ code did and therefore the editors’ code was incorporated as such by reference to the 1998 Act and the 2000 order. The relevant editors’ code is now known as the IPSO code. It is essentially the same code, as I understand it. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is shaking his head on this point, but it is essentially the editors’ code that is now incorporated within the IPSO code.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I could not resist jumping up. I think the nub of the argument is the four letters IPSO. It is an editors’ code. IPSO is a separate body. I think there would be less concern if it were just simply the editors’ code because we understand what that is. That would be the right reference, but I think we will return to this later.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The terms of the editors’ code are now referred to as the IPSO code, but I take the noble Lord’s point and I will take away and consider whether there is any material issue about using the designation of that code in the schedule. However, it is, with respect, essentially the editors’ code as it was originally recognised. As I understand it, that is reflected in the Information Commissioner’s current guidance under reference to Section 32, which is why it appears in the schedule in the form that it does.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I shall be corrected in due course if I am wrong, but I think the position is that the editors’ code was the code that was formulated under the PCC, and then when Sir Alan Moses became chair of IPSO the code was then amended to strengthen it—but I shall be corrected if that turns out to be mistaken.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The noble Lord is quite right that it had its origin as the editors’ code before the PCC, but I am reflecting the fact that the Information Commissioner, being aware of the genesis of that code and its approval, has, as I understand it, under current guidance under reference to Section 32 of the existing Act acknowledged it as a relevant code. It seems to me that we may be arguing around designation rather than content, and I will give further consideration to the question of designation.

Removing that code—I will call it “that code” for present purposes—as proposed in the amendments would be a quite extraordinary step. Whatever one might think of IPSO, we should recognise that it has more than 2,500 members, including most of the major tabloids and broadsheets. Removing the code from the Bill would therefore remove protections for the vast majority of our press industry and cause significant detriment to what is a free press.

No codes adopted by a Press Recognition Panel-approved regulator are listed—and of course there is only Impress in that context. Under current legislation the Information Commissioner’s guidance on Section 32 does not include that code. That does not mean that such a code cannot be included in the future. However, before amending the list of codes, the current and proposed legislation makes it clear that the Secretary of State must consult the Information Commissioner. The self-regulator Impress has applied for its standards code to be included in the schedule, and the Secretary of State is currently considering that application—but in due course, once she has considered the application, she will have to refer to the Information Commissioner and consult her about that application.

I should also emphasise that the current list of codes, allowing for the point about designation, does not represent an endorsement of any one press regulator over another. This is about ensuring that the codes listed are appropriate, having regard to the need for data protection.

It is also worth noting that the exemption the Bill provides to those processing data for special purposes will be available to all journalists where the criteria set out in paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 2 are met. Where a publication is subject to one of the listed codes of conduct, it must take that code into account when determining whether publication is in the public interest. However, although the commissioner’s current guidance emphasises that compliance with industry codes will help demonstrate compliance, those publications that are not subject to a code are not somehow excluded from qualifying under the relevant exemptions, if they meet the three-part test in paragraph 24.

I appreciate that the intention of Amendment 91 is to ensure that we interpret the notions relating to journalism broadly and, in doing so, protect the right to freedom of expression. However, there is no requirement for this amendment if one has regard to Clause 184, the relevant interpretation clause, which makes it clear and underlines that material need be available only to a section of the public, and that would include those who subscribe by way of a fee for particular access to material. So these exemptions will extend to the sort of body that was referred to by the noble Lord in relation to Amendment 91. If anything, there is duplication, because we have not only paragraph 24(9), which refers to the public and a “section of the public”, but Clause 184, which defines the public by reference to, and includes, a section of the public. I believe that there was an earlier proposal to take paragraph 24(9) out in order to avoid that duplication.

I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and supported by my noble friend Lord Attlee. Article 85 of the GDPR requires member states to reconcile the right of protection of personal data with the right to freedom of expression and information, which is of course embraced by the European Convention on Human Rights. Although like, clearly, other Members of the Committee, I have great sympathy for the noble Baroness’s own experience, I firmly believe that the Bill strikes the right balance in reconciling these interests and aligns with the requirements of the regulation.

By contrast, the proposed amendments seek to reset that balance, so that the right to personal information privacy trumps that of the right to freedom of expression and information. This would be inconsistent with Article 85, which recognises the special importance of freedom of expression and provides a wide power to derogate from the regulation for processing for the special purposes. That point was elaborated by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, when he underlined the importance of the freedom of the press in this context.

Amendment 87A seeks to amend the journalistic data protection exemption to make it available only where the processing of data is necessary for publication, rather than simply being undertaken with a view to publication. I fear that this does not reflect the realities of how journalists work and how stories, including the most sensitive and important pieces of investigative journalism, are put together and published. A journalist will not know what is necessary until the data has been gathered, reviewed and assessed.

Amendments 87C and 87D relate to what factors the controller must take into account when considering whether publication of data would be in the public interest. The amendments would remove the requirement on the controller to take account of the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression and information, and make the exemption available only where, objectively, the likely interference with privacy resulting from the processing of the data is outweighed by the public interest.

Controllers already have to consider issues of privacy when considering the public interest. But this amendment goes too far in saying that public interest can be trumped by privacy, weighting the test away from freedom of expression. This is again contrary to Article 85, which requires a reconciliation of these rights. I understand the noble Baroness’s intent here, and the harm that she seeks to prevent, but the rebalancing that she suggests goes too far.

Finally, Amendments 89B and 91A aim to narrow the exemptions for journalists who are not members of an approved regulator as defined by the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Fundamentally, these provisions are about protections that journalists should be able to legitimately rely on in going about their important work. We should view these clauses through that lens—as vital protections that give journalists the ability to inform us about the world in which we live and to effectively hold those in power to account.

The Government do not condone the past behaviour of individual media organisations, nor, as I noted earlier, do we seek to legitimise it. Equally, though, we do not think the problems that Sir Brian Leveson and others have identified can, or indeed should, be fixed through the medium of data protection law. Indeed, the Government feel strongly that these important protections for journalists should be maintained.

We must strike the right balance in reconciling the right to privacy with the right to freedom of expression and information. I hope I have gone some way towards explaining how the Bill seeks to do that. I hope I have addressed the concerns that have been expressed through the amendments, and I urge noble Lords to withdraw them.

Probation Contracts

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the review of probation contracts, due for completion in April this year, will be published.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, we undertook an internal review of the probation system and, as a result, made changes to community rehabilitation company contracts in the summer. Details of these changes were contained in a Written Ministerial Statement from Minister Gyimah on 19 July. We are continuing to explore further improvements that could be made to the delivery of probation services and will set out at a later stage any changes that are made as a result of this work.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Clearly, all is not well with probation. Following a whole series of disappointingly and devastatingly bad reports by the chief inspector, the Justice Select Committee launched an inquiry. Following the bad contracting, during the summer the Ministry of Justice had to bail out community rehabilitation companies to the tune of £277 million, which it can ill afford. Many of the warnings in the official impact assessment that the rushed Transforming Rehabilitation agenda had a higher than average risk of failure have been proved correct. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government are going to do about probation? Will they make time for a debate on the subject before the end of the year?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

On that last point, I cannot say that the Government will be able to make time for a debate on the subject before the end of the year. On the suggestion of bad contracting, I would point out that contracts were entered into with 21 CRCs, and that those contracts encountered some financial difficulty for one particular reason—namely, it was originally anticipated that some 80% of those undertaking probation would be referred to the 21 community rehabilitation companies. In the event, only about 60% of those subject to probation supervision were referred to the companies, and that impacted directly upon their financial model as determined under the original contracts. For that reason, interim arrangements were made with the CRCs in the year 2016-17, and in the current year. However, the figure of £277 million referred to by the noble Lord is not a fixed figure: it may have to be met, depending on the performance of the CRCs.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, morale in Northumbria’s probation service and CRC is at a low level because of understaffing, with 50% of officers leaving the service, excessive workloads, less supervision and the need to concentrate on high-risk cases at the expense of other cases. This is exemplified by case loads of 40, including four to five high-risk cases, now being replaced by much higher case loads, with a greater proportion of high-risk cases and problems with escalating cases from the CRCs to the National Probation Service. What do the Government regard as a satisfactory case load for officers to manage in terms of overall numbers and the balance between high-risk and other cases?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

There is no fixed proportion as between officers and the number of persons being supervised. That will depend upon the particular CRC and the circumstances in which it is engaged with the individual. The National Probation Service is in the course of recruiting 1,400 additional staff. In addition, the CRC contracts require providers to ensure that they have sufficient adequately trained staff in place. Indeed, results tend to bear that out. Nearly two-thirds of CRCs have reduced the number of people reoffending in the past year, according to statistics up to June 2017.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, is it not the case that the probation arrangements relating to those prisoners serving indeterminate sentences need to be brought up to date as a matter of urgency, since many of those prisoners should have been released long ago?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Clearly, there is an issue over the supervision of those subject to IPP sentences. The circumstances in which they come before the Parole Board are determined under existing rules. Those are always under consideration.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, just last month, the Chief Inspector of Probation laid out two conditions that she thought ought to be in the review: first, the community rehabilitation companies should have their finances put on a stable basis; secondly, these companies should be incentivised for success. Will the Minister heed the advice of his chief inspector, and will the Government meet this requirement as urgently as possible so that these companies can get on with the job of reducing reoffending, getting people into work and making sure that our prisons are not so overcrowded?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

We are of course conscious of the recommendations made by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation, which is why we undertook the task in the summer of ensuring that the CRCs were properly financed. As a consequence of that, during the year 2016-17 an additional £37 million was made available, and in contract year four—that is, the first three months of this year—a further £22 million has been made available for the CRCs so that they can meet their commitments. Over and above that, I can confirm that the CRCs are incentivised under the terms of their present contracts to achieve results, and that will remain the position.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, the prison population has never been as great as it is today. Is it not therefore a serious matter that the Government should ensure that courts have available to them a robust, rigorous and serious range of non-custodial penalties? The probation service is central to that.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I agree with the noble Lord’s observations. In that connection, I would observe that, since February 2015, statutory supervision has been extended to a further 40,000 offenders who are otherwise sentenced to a period of imprisonment of less than 12 months—so that has increased the numbers subject to supervision. But clearly, we have regard to the extent to which community sentences and suspended sentence orders operate effectively. It is noted in the statistics published—

[A noble Lord]

Too long.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord.

It is noted in the statistics published on 26 October 2017 that the extent of further offending is lower in the case of community sentences.

Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2017

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, my response to the noble and learned Lord is that these rules remove the certainty that potential claimants previously enjoyed. That is the vice as I see it. It is essential in these cases that a person considering starting proceedings knows at the outset the maximum liability they will incur. It is no answer to them, when they are thinking of bringing proceedings, that the cap may be reduced as well as increased. They want to know. If they do not know at the outset when considering bringing these proceedings what the maximum is, the likelihood is that many of them will be deterred from bringing these proceedings. That is the damage to access to justice.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

Noble Lords will have to wait a little longer for what I suspect will be the most enlightening speech of the evening.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on tabling his Motion, which we on these Benches, and perhaps those who are not, will shortly support through the Lobbies. There are only two things wrong with the Government’s policy in relation to the specific part of the Civil Procedure (Amendment Rules) we are debating: the process from which it emerged and the substantive effect of the policy it embodies.

On process, yet again the Secondary Legislation Committee, composed of highly experienced Members from all parts of the House, finds cause to be highly critical of the lack of information on or a clear understanding of the policy objective and intended implementation of the radical changes embodied in the rules. As we have heard, these are likely to deter challenges to decisions in the planning arena under the Aarhus convention by raising the cap on costs to be paid by unsuccessful applicants—very often, voluntary organisations or other groups of a non-commercial nature—to the benefit of the defendants, who are likely to be better endowed financially and, in this environmental area, may include the Government or public bodies. I concur with the rebuttal—if I may use as strong a term—made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, of the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay.

On process, the committee found that the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the rules apparently forgot to report that fewer than 10 of the 289 responses—some of them admittedly merely replicating answers provided by Friends of the Earth—supported the proposals. The vast majority of the respondents averred that the proposals failed to meet the principles emerging from the Edwards case, to which reference has already been made. The committee stated that the Government should have better explained their interpretation in the memorandum and identified any changes made following the consultation—they did not do so. It went on to point out that, whereas the consultation document pledged a review within two years, no such undertaking is mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum supporting the statutory instrument we are debating. It called for clarification of the Government’s intentions—no doubt the noble and learned Lord the Minister will provide such clarification.

The committee’s conclusion was damning. It proclaimed:

“The Ministry of Justice has not addressed any of these concerns in its paperwork and we therefore draw the matter to the special attention of the House on the ground that the explanatory material … provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the … policy objective and intended implementation”.


That is a very severe critique by the committee.

Time and again, we have similar critical reports from the committee and still the Government proceed to adopt a cavalier approach to the process, which, at a time when Brexit is in train, is even more worrying than in the past. What undertakings will the Government make to improve their lamentable performance in the use of secondary legislation not merely in this area but across the whole range of secondary legislation?

It would appear that there is already evidence of the chilling effect of the new regime, to which some references have already been made. As we have heard, Friends of the Earth estimates that the number of cases has reduced by around 25% since the introduction of the new regime. Can the Minister, if not today then subsequently, publish the relevant data so that a proper assessment of the position can be made?

It is instructive to compare the different scenarios before and after the change. Friends of the Earth cites two cases under the old regime which exemplify the workings of the previous system. In one case, the Campaign to Protect Rural England Kent sought judicial review of a planning decision affecting an area of outstanding natural beauty. It succeeded in having the planning permission quashed by the Court of Appeal. Commenting on the case, CPRE Kent said that,

“the certainty of costs protection allowed Trustees and staff to assess the likely expenditure over the duration of such a challenge”.

In another case, this time in Norfolk, residents of Norwich were much exercised over proposals to build a major road which they contended would irreversibly damage the environment, destroy areas of countryside, farmland and wildlife habitats, and increase noise and pollution. A local parish councillor sought judicial review on behalf of the Wensum Valley Alliance and the council, to its credit, accepted that the scheme was unlawful. It was quashed in the High Court. However, the salient point is that the councillor—Councillor Boswell, who was also involved in the case—stated that the local community group, the Wensum Valley Alliance, would have,

“found it impossible … to contemplate legal action without knowing the extent of their financial liability in advance”.

We heard earlier the experience of the Liverpool Green Party, which again illustrates the chilling effect of the new regime. The net result of the changes seems likely to reduce significantly access to justice in this area of the law, in which applicants under the old system were 12 times more likely to succeed than fail. Given that under Brexit, there would be no recourse to the European Court of Justice, the recent developments are even more worrying.

As we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, we await the outcome of a case brought by Friends of the Earth, the RSPB and ClientEarth contending that the changes already made are incompatible with the UK’s obligations to provide access to justice as set out in European law. Can the Minister offer any assurances that, with or without Brexit, UK citizens will not be deterred from challenging authority by the potential exposure to large claims for costs?

I understand that we currently await a report from the compliance committee of the Economic and Social Council on the UK’s compliance with its obligations under the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. I trust the Government will abide by the recommendations of the committee and thereby distinguish this country from some countries in, for example, eastern Europe which seem, alas, to be reverting to a more authoritarian mode of government whereby access to justice and the independence of the courts appear in danger of being undermined.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for tabling this evening’s Motion on this topic. I welcome the valuable contributions from noble Lords across the House.

The United Nations Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, generally known as the Aarhus convention, requires countries which have signed the convention to guarantee rights for their citizens of access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. In particular, it requires those countries to make sure that the public have access to legal procedures to challenge relevant decisions taken by the countries’ public authorities and specifies that those legal procedures should, among other things, not be “prohibitively expensive”. Both the UK and the European Union are signatories to the Aarhus convention, and the convention has been incorporated—albeit in part—in EU law, including the requirement that the legal costs of relevant environmental claims must not be prohibitively expensive.

The costs regimes and the amendments made to them to fulfil this requirement in respect of claims within the scope of the Aarhus convention are similar between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, there are important differences. In the present context, I address the position in only England and Wales. In seeking to comply with the “not prohibitively expensive” requirement, successive Governments have taken steps to control the costs that a losing claimant may be ordered to pay a winning defendant. I will set out key recent events, although most of them have been touched on at various points during the course of this debate.

In April 2013, an environmental costs protection regime was introduced by amendment to the Civil Procedure Rules, which capped the amount of costs that a court could order an unsuccessful claimant to pay to other parties. Under this regime, the claimant’s costs liability to a successful defendant was capped at either £5,000 for claimants who were individuals or £10,000 for other claimants, as alluded to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The defendant’s costs liability to a successful claimant was similarly capped, but at the rather higher level of £35,000.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords—

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am mid-sentence but the noble Lord may come in in a moment.

It is important to appreciate that while the court has the power to review the cap on a claimant’s potential cost liability, it will be able to do so only on very limited grounds. Indeed, the only two grounds I am aware of are, first, that the claimant misled the court as to its financial position when the cap was originally fixed, which is hardly a sympathetic position, or secondly, that there has been such a material change in the claimant’s financial position that the cap should be reviewed, whether downwards or upwards. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, wanted to make an observation.

[Lord Pannick]

I do not want to overstate my case; I just want to be clear that I have understood the rules correctly. When considering bringing proceedings, the person concerned cannot know what the cap is and at any stage during the proceedings the cap can be increased, as the noble and learned Lord says, if the judge takes the view that circumstances have changed. That is my understanding.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Let us be absolutely clear about what the position is. When a claimant begins the proceedings, there is a default cap, but on seeing the schedule of means, the court may vary that cap, downwards or upwards—downwards to the benefit of the claimant, upwards to the benefit of the defendant, potentially. Therefore, that is appropriate.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

The regulations as drafted suggest that there can be alteration depending upon the court’s view of the merits or demerits of the case as it goes along. Am I wrong in that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I do not accept that. Quite apart from anything else, I again make the point that some of these matters have already been submitted in argument to the High Court. It has heard those arguments and will deliver judgment upon these points. I am quite clear in my own mind that the cap has a default position; it may be varied in light of the schedule of means, but once it is fixed there have to be identifiable and fixed circumstances, such that the claimant misled the court in the first place, before it will be reviewed on an application by the defendant. It is very clear, and the grounds upon which that can be done are patently very narrow.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

Perhaps the Minister will explain where those grounds are rigidly defined because they are nowhere in the rules, as I read them. The statement of financial resources has to be provided with the original application. It is not a question of there being a default cap which may then be varied on the basis of the statement of means. Rule 42 is absolutely clear that at the outset the statement of financial resources has to be provided.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

On the second point, I do not demur. The point is that there is a default position but, in the light of the schedule of means that is produced at the outset, that may be varied down or up. I have no difficulty with that whatever. As to the first point that the noble Lord alluded to, I commend to him a little patience because the High Court is about to opine on these matters, having heard argument. He will be familiar with the pleading that the NGOs submitted in their judicial review and with the notes of argument that were submitted on behalf of the claimants and on behalf of the defendants in that matter. They focus on the very issue of the limited circumstances in which any variation can take place at a later date. I have referred to two possibilities. They are the only two possibilities of which I am aware, and I put that into Hansard. If there were a third or fourth, I would have mentioned it.

The Government understand that, following the most recent changes in February, environmental claims continue to be brought. That said, the Government agree that it is too early to make a fully effective assessment of the impact of the changes to the environmental costs protection regime to date. We will keep the impact of the new environmental costs protection regime under review and will review it formally when we have sufficient data, so I seek to reassure the noble Baroness on that point.

The Government need to strike a balance between enabling appropriate claims to proceed and making sure that unmeritorious claims are not encouraged. Those who can pay towards the costs of unsuccessful claims should do so, subject always to the requirement that Aarhus convention claims should not be prohibitively expensive. Overall, the Government believe that the reforms that have been introduced are fair and reasonable and certainly comply with our international obligations. That is the subject of a current challenge on which the High Court is about to opine. I respectfully suggest that it would be premature for this House to anticipate the opinion of the High Court on these points and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Motion.

Update on Proposed Fox-Sky Merger Process

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, I am here to give an update on the proposed merger between 21st Century Fox and Sky plc, and my decision whether or not to refer the transaction for a full six-month investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority.

I should first remind the House that in my quasi-judicial role, I must come to a decision on the basis of relevant evidence, act independently in a process that is fair and impartial, and take my decision as promptly as is reasonably practicable. I am committed to transparency and openness in this process and have been clear that my decisions can only be influenced by fact, not opinions, and by the evidence, not who shouts the loudest.

Turning first to the question of media plurality, I can confirm that none of the representations received has persuaded me to change my position. Accordingly, I can confirm my intention to make a referral on the media plurality ground to the CMA.

Turning now to commitment to broadcasting standards, over the summer my officials reviewed the almost 43,000 representations received. A significant majority were campaign-inspired, arguing against the merger going ahead, but generally without providing new or further evidence or commenting on Ofcom’s approach.

Overall, around 30 of the 43,000 representations were substantive, raising potentially new evidence or commenting on Ofcom’s approach. Almost all were related to the question of commitment to broadcasting standards. In light of these representations I asked Ofcom to provide further advice, and I put on record my gratitude for Ofcom’s efforts in responding to the questions raised.

I am today publishing the exchanges between my department and Ofcom. In these I sought clarification on the threshold Ofcom applied to its consideration of the commitment to broadcasting standards ground; the consideration made of broadcasting compliance; and the consideration made of corporate governance issues. I also asked Ofcom to consider whether any of the new, substantive representations I received affected its assessment.

I have taken careful account of all relevant representations and Ofcom’s advice and, as required by the legislation, have today written to the parties to inform them that I am now minded to refer the merger to the CMA on the grounds of genuine commitment to broadcasting standards.

I will now set out the technical reasons for this decision. Questions were raised about the threshold for referral. The legal threshold for a reference to the CMA is low. I have the power to make a reference if I believe there is a risk—which is not purely fanciful—that the merger might operate against the specified public interests.

In its original report, Ofcom stated that,

“we consider that there are no broadcasting standards concerns that may justify a reference”.

At the time Ofcom appeared to be unequivocal. Following the additional representations, Ofcom has further clarified that,

“while we consider there are non-fanciful concerns, we do not consider that these are such as may justify a reference in relation to the broadcast standards public interest consideration”.

The existence of non-fanciful concerns means that, as a matter of law, the threshold for a reference on the broadcasting standards ground is met. In light of all representations and Ofcom’s additional advice, I believe these are sufficient to warrant the exercise of my discretion to refer.

The first concern was raised in Ofcom’s public interest report: that Fox did not have adequate compliance procedures in place for the broadcast of Fox News in the UK and only took action to improve its approach to compliance after Ofcom expressed concerns. Ofcom has now confirmed it considers this to raise non-fanciful concerns but which are not sufficiently serious to warrant referral. I consider that these non-fanciful concerns do warrant further consideration. The fact that Fox belatedly established such procedures does not ease my concerns, nor does Fox’s compliance history.

Ofcom was reassured by the existence of the compliance regime which provides licensees with an incentive to comply. However, it is clear to me that Parliament intended the scrutiny of whether an acquiring party has a “genuine commitment” to attaining broadcasting standards objectives to happen before a merger takes place.

Third parties also raised concerns about what they termed the “Foxification” of Fox-owned news outlets internationally. On the evidence before me I am not able to conclude that this raises non-fanciful concerns. However, I consider it important that entities which adopt controversial or partisan approaches to news and current affairs in other jurisdictions should, at the same time, have a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards here. These are matters the CMA may wish to consider in the event of a referral.

Turning to the question of corporate governance failures, Ofcom states in its latest correspondence that these raise non-fanciful concerns in respect of the broadcasting standards ground. However, it again concludes that these concerns do not warrant a reference. I agree that corporate governance issues at Fox raise non-fanciful concerns, but in my view it would be appropriate for these concerns to be considered further by the CMA.

I agree with the view that, in this context, my proper concern is whether Fox will have a genuine commitment to attaining broadcasting standards objectives. However, I am not confident that weaknesses in Fox’s corporate governance arrangements are incapable of affecting compliance in the broadcasting standards context. I have outstanding non-fanciful concerns about these matters and I am of the view that they should be further considered by the CMA.

Before I come to a final decision I am required, under the Enterprise Act 2002, to allow the parties to make representations on my proposed decision, and this is the reason my decision at this stage remains a “minded to” one. I have given the parties 10 working days to respond. Following receipt of any representations from the parties, I will aim to come to my final decision in relation to both grounds as promptly as I can.

I would remind the House that should I decide to refer, on one or both grounds, the merger will be subject to a full and detailed investigation by the CMA over a six-month period. Such a referral does not signal the outcome of that investigation. Given the quasi-judicial nature of this matter, my decision cannot be guided by the parliamentary timetable. If I come to my decision during recess I will write, as I have previously, and return to this House at the earliest possible opportunity to provide an update. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Collins, I welcome this Statement and I am grateful to the Minister and the Secretary of State for the thorough way that she has kept those of us interested briefed as she has come to these decisions. I also welcome the revised advice from Ofcom. I was part of the committee that created Ofcom and have always been proud of the way it has developed as a regulator. I have to say that its first advice on these matters came close to being equivalent to what the Premiership seems to think of as fit and proper to run a football club. The revised advice gives some credibility back to Ofcom in these matters, and it should be grateful to the Secretary of State.

I am a little worried about the sudden appearance of the term, “non-fanciful”. I am not sure that the Minister, with his long and distinguished legal career, would be able to tell me how “non-fanciful” is weighed in matters of judgment. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked, would worries about data mining and abuse of data be dismissed as “fanciful”? When we bandy terms such as non-fanciful about, we should remember that most of the accusations made about News International in the past 10 years were initially dismissed as fanciful—as being made up by enemies of the Murdochs—but then turned out to be true. I am not so sure that “fanciful” and “non-fanciful” should be used in the work ahead.

In taking its decisions, the review should look at the threat to the UK media industry. Our media in all their aspects are among the least protected of national media from predatory attack. As the value of the pound falls, there is good reason for being careful about the message that we send out about our determination to defend the integrity of our media.

I associate myself also with the call made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for the second part of Leveson to go ahead.

As a Fox subscriber, I was interested to learn that Sky thought that Fox News was so little to the taste of the British viewer that it has taken it off its platform, whereas it has left on it the Iranian and Russian news channels.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I begin by responding to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on what is “fanciful” or not, because it goes to the heart of the decision-making process addressed by the Secretary of State. It is a term with a legal basis that is linked to the statutory test for a phase 2 referral in public interest cases. I mention in passing the Court of Appeal decision in the case of the Office of Fair Trading v IBA Health. I shall not elaborate on the dicta in that decision, save to mention that there is a legal basis.

The Secretary of State must believe that the merger operates, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest. In her coming to her view that the evidence meets the test of “non-fanciful”, it should be noticed that that is a relatively low threshold. It is not necessary that the Secretary of State should be satisfied on the balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt; the belief must be reasonably and objectively justified by the facts. In other words, there must be an evidential basis for the Secretary of State’s concern, but the concern itself does not need to be proven. That is essentially the approach that underpins the Secretary of State’s decision-making process here.

On broadcasting standards, I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that we are dealing at this stage with the Secretary of State’s “minded to” decision. It is not a final decision. There is now a 10-day process, pursuant to Section 104 of the Act, whereby the parties can respond and make submissions before any final decision is arrived at.

As regards evidence and data in the context of media plurality, it is premature for me to elaborate on what has already been said on these matters because a final decision has not been made on the second ground of broadcasting standards. If and when such a decision is made, there will in any event be a reference to the CMA, and it will be for the CMA to discharge its statutory functions. It would not be appropriate for me at this stage to anticipate how the CMA should go about its own statutory task. That would be to intrude into its territory. With all due respect, I hope the noble Lord accepts that it would not be appropriate for us to tread on that lawn, as it were.

On the question of Leveson 2, we have clearly progressed a long way since the first part of the Leveson inquiry was set up over six years ago. We have witnessed the completion of three detailed police investigations, extensive reforms to practices involving the police and some significant changes to press regulation. We have put this matter out for consultation and are considering the responses to it. We will publish a response in due course.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

Leveson 2 is very important to many of us, but I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, to be clear about public interest broadcasting. Fanciful journalism has troubled me for many years; good journalism checks its sources and stories, and at a time when the press is in decline and the popular culture of Facebook and so on is rising, it becomes more important for us to have a reliable source of news. We get that in public service broadcasting. That must be our first priority, and I ask the noble and learned Lord to do everything in his power to protect and enhance that.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

We are determined to deal with the difficult issue of fake news, as it is sometimes termed, and to maintain broadcasting standards, particularly in news. I would not suggest that those standards are maintained only in public broadcasting; those standards are generally maintained. I accept we must be vigilant because of the dangers that have emanated from the development of false news, not only in immediate broadcasting, but online as well.

[Lord Puttnam (Lab)]

I welcome this Statement. I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, to convey the thanks of many people in this House for what I consider to be one of the most principled Statements I have ever heard in the 20 years I have been here. This is a very difficult issue. It could not have been easy for the Secretary of State and, irrespective of the outcome of the CMA inquiry, I think she has done herself and the prospect of a proper democracy in this country a great favour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for his observations. That message will be conveyed to the Secretary of State. I would add only this: no final decision has yet been made by the Secretary of State on broadcasting standards. We must bear that in mind.

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble and learned friend confirm that, with the facts as they are in front of this Secretary of State, it is not open to her—and would not be open to anybody else who might be Secretary of State—to have come to any different conclusion from the one that has been reached?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The Secretary of State is exercising her independent judgment on the basis of the evidence placed before her.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)]

There is a very important sentence in the Statement, which says:

“I consider it important that entities which adopt controversial or partisan approaches to news and current affairs in other jurisdictions should, at the same time, have a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards here”.


While recognising that this is a “minded to” Statement, and following the questions of my noble friend Lord Soley, what kind of standards test would the Government expect the CMA to ask for with respect to that undertaking?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. Again, it would not be appropriate for me at this time to intrude on the CMA’s territory and the manner in which it will approach its determination of broadcasting standards, in the event that that matter is referred to the CMA, following the Secretary of State’s “minded to” decision. As the statement made clear, a broadcaster’s conduct without the United Kingdom may raise questions as to the standards it is apparently willing to adhere to if and when it comes to broadcast within the United Kingdom.

Prisoners: Imprisonment for Public Protection Sentences

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they propose to exercise the power under section 128 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to alter the test to be applied by the Parole Board to the release of those Imprisonment for Public Protection prisoners who have served years beyond their tariff terms.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, the test used by the Parole Board in assessing the suitability for release of prisoners serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection is working. These prisoners are being released in increasing numbers. In 2016 there were 576 first-time releases of IPP prisoners—the highest number since the sentence became available. This trend is expected to continue. We have no present intention to alter the test applied by the Parole Board.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

That is all very well, but there are more than 3,000 such prisoners left. After the shocking recent press reports about the sex offender treatment programmes tending to increase rather than reduce the likelihood of sexual reoffending, does the Minister really continue to think it fair and appropriate for IPP prisoners long past their tariff date for release having to prove a negative? They have to prove that they will not reoffend on release, which the chairman of the Parole Board describes as “incredibly difficult”.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his observations with regard to this matter, but I remind the House that we are talking about prisoners who are at a high risk of committing further violent or sexual offences if released. The independent Parole Board, when not directing release, is concluding that the risk to the public is too great for these people to be safely managed in the community. Our duty of care is not only to the IPP prisoners but to the members of the public who may become the next victims of their violent behaviour. I acknowledge that recent reports on the sex offender treatment programmes have indicated that between 2000 and 2012 reconviction rates were higher for sexual offending in respect of those who had undertaken the programmes. By the time that those results were published, Her Majesty’s prison and probation services had already taken the decision to cease delivery of those core programmes and have accelerated the transition to what are called the Horizon and Kaizen programmes.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already acknowledged in this House and elsewhere the role I played in the introduction of the original programme and sentence and how we got part of it wrong. I wonder whether the Minister accepts, as the head of the Parole Board does, that the new 10-year licensing period is leading to recall of prisoners on a very large scale, to the point where it is clogging up the role of the Parole Board in releasing prisoners and ensuring that they are returned to incarceration in circumstances which in normal sentencing programmes would never happen.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect to the observations made, I first make this point: the licence period is actually for life, but the licensee can apply to have it limited to 10 years. That is the present position. More pertinently, let me draw this to the attention of the House: over 30% of those released under licence as IPP prisoners are in breach of their licence conditions within 12 months of release. They do not wait 10 years; they do not wait five years. Where there is a problem with regard to release under licence, it emerges very swiftly after release.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that in the case of IPP prisoners who are way beyond their tariff and for whom training courses for rehabilitation may not be available, it is little surprise that many of them have their attitude to society aggravated by that experience? Can he give an assurance that every IPP prisoner now has access to the courses necessary for those purposes?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

IPP prisoners have access to the appropriate programmes and matters have improved considerably over the past few years so far as that is concerned, but it is not always necessary that an IPP prisoner should undergo a specific programme to satisfy the Parole Board as to their suitability for release. There are other means by which this can be achieved.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, acknowledged, both the Ministers who brought in this legislation and the coalition Government who abolished IPPs saw them as a mistake. Section 128 was put into the Bill particularly to deal with the present situation that the Minister faces. It is not true that he is dealing with this problem in a way that will get rid of it quickly. It will be with us well into the next decade. It is also not true, as he implies frequently, that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, I and others are doing is throwing open the gates for dangerous prisoners. There would still be a very hard, close process before these men were released but it would get rid of an obvious and glaring injustice. The Government should make use of Section 128 for the reason it was put there.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

We are of course conscious of the ability to move under Section 128. That remains under review. However, under the present regime we have seen an acceleration in the number of releases. Be that as it may, let us keep in mind the simple fact that where people achieve the present test, we have a breach of licence conditions rate of about 30%. We are dealing with very difficult and in each case dangerous individuals who must be managed in the community for its safety as a whole.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, how many IPP prisoners have been refused release by the Parole Board because they have been unable to discharge the burden of proof upon them?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I understand that at present the rate of release on first oral hearings of IPP prisoners is about 38%. That is a material increase in the release rate of three or four years ago, when it was about 28%.

Fox-Sky Merger

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, with leave I will repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend Karen Bradley.

“Three weeks ago, I came to this House to set out my initial decisions in relation to the proposed merger between 21st Century Fox and Sky plc. Having referred the bid for a phase 1 investigation by Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority in March, the decision before me was whether to refer the merger to a fuller phase 2 investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority.

I told the House then that, following Ofcom’s advice, I was minded to refer the merger to the Competition and Markets Authority on the grounds of media plurality, and minded not to refer on the grounds of commitment to broadcasting standards. At the same time, I confirmed that I had received a set of undertakings in lieu of referral from the parties and was minded not to accept them.

I also set out the steps that I would follow for the next phase of the decision. I said that, as required by legislation, I would allow the parties to the proposed merger the opportunity to make representations on my position on media plurality. In the interests of transparency and ensuring that all the evidence had been considered, I would allow all interested parties, including the public and parliamentarians, to have their say, particularly on the question of commitment to broadcasting standards. I set last Friday as the deadline.

As I know is now very well known by the House, decisions by the Secretary of State on media mergers under the Enterprise Act 2002 are made on a quasi-judicial basis. This means that I must take my decision only on the basis of evidence that is relevant to the specified public interests. I must act independently and follow a process that is scrupulously fair and impartial. I have sought throughout this process to be as transparent and open as possible, and have kept the House informed at every available opportunity. In keeping with that spirit I have come to the House today to give as full an update as I possibly can before it rises.

I can confirm that I have received detailed representations from 21st Century Fox and a letter from Sky, which I will aim to publish, subject to statutory and confidentiality requirements, once I have taken my final decision. I also received a letter from Lachlan and James Murdoch on Friday last week, and a further letter from 21st Century Fox this Monday, which it has since published.

The detailed representations from 21st Century Fox raise a number of points on Ofcom’s public interest test report and the analysis underpinning Ofcom’s recommendations, contesting its view that the transaction raises public interest concerns that justify a referral to a phase 2 investigation by the CMA. Neither of the parties has offered any further or amended undertakings in lieu of referral. I also have received a substantial number of responses in relation to my referral decision.

In coming to my decision in this case, I must take account of all relevant representations made to me. As a result, my final decision on referral can be made only after I have fully considered all relevant evidence on both the plurality and commitment to broadcasting standards grounds. Given that the consultation closed only on Friday, there has not been time to consider all the representations, and I am not in a position today to make my final decision on referral. What I can do, however, is confirm to the House that, having carefully reviewed the parties’ representations, and in the absence of further proposed undertakings, I am currently still minded to refer on the media plurality ground and still minded not to accept the undertakings in lieu of a reference.

To be clear, as I have said, I must fully consider all relevant representations before reaching a final decision, and I will take the time I need to look at the many that I have received, balancing the need for careful consideration of relevant evidence with the merger parties’ legitimate need for a prompt decision. However, I have prioritised considering the parties’ representations and the detailed points that they have made to me. While some of the points they have raised may benefit from closer examination by the CMA at phase 2 in the event that the merger is referred, there was nothing in their representations that has led me at this stage to change my mind about the appropriateness of referral. Unless new evidence from other representations changes my mind in the coming weeks, the bid will therefore be referred to a phase 2 review on at least one ground—media plurality. I thought it would be helpful to set out my current view to the House, given the public interest in this case, as well as to the parties so that they can be as clear as possible about my intentions and the likely next steps for the bid.

Bearing in mind the obligation to act promptly as part of this quasi-judicial process, I expect I will be in a position to come to a final decision on referral, including in respect of the broadcasting standards ground, in the coming weeks, potentially during the Summer Recess. Should that prove to be the case, and as I have done previously when stages of this merger have taken place outside of the House sitting, I will write to the parties informing them of my decision as well as the Leaders and Speakers of both Houses, to the honourable Member for West Bromwich East and to the chair of the CMS Committee, whom I was pleased to see reappointed last week.

As I have said previously, I trust that making this Statement to the House gives another welcome opportunity to discuss this important issue, and further cements my undertaking to openness and transparency. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, I welcome the Statement and the courtesy and openness with which the Secretary of State has approached her responsibilities. That is why I find it extraordinary that, having emphasised and carried out her duties to Parliament so assiduously, it could even be suggested that she should make a decision during an eight-week gap between Parliament rising now and returning on an issue that has been before her, regulators and Parliament for years. That would be an absurd assault on parliamentary dignity and responsibility, and I strongly urge her not to follow that road.

Part of the problem is the siloed nature of the decision, when what is needed, as the noble Lord said, is a holistic judgment about the fitness of this takeover. But that is how it has been played. The problem is also the siloed nature of modern business structures. Various parts of the structures can clear part of the siloed questions when we all know, as I have said, what the web is and that the spider is at the centre of that web.

I also press the Minister on whether this could lead to the second stage of Leveson and on the point made right at the end. I remember a few years ago somebody buying a canal and everybody thought what an absurd price he had paid for a canal—the age of canals was over. Then it suddenly dawned on everybody that he had not bought a canal; he had bought miles and miles of land on either side of the canal and made a fortune as a property developer. The same is true now, as the noble Lord has said. I have often pondered what on earth niggles Murdoch that he has tried, year after year, to get 100% control of Sky. What act of vanity is this? He may be vain but he also knows where a quick buck is to be made. It occurs to me that there is ample evidence that what Sky has is a database of some 13 million people, which could become increasingly valuable in the data battles ahead. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has asked the Information Commissioner’s advice on this aspect of the takeover and on how it fits into other legislation that we are considering. This is a foreign bid for a British database, which should give concern about how it is being handled. I go back to the friendliest of warnings: the Secretary of State would be very wrong to consider making this decision while Parliament is in recess.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord McNally, for their observations on this matter and I appreciate their acknowledgement that the Secretary of State is endeavouring to treat this matter in as open a way as possible. Given the quasi-judicial nature of the task that has been laid on her by statute—one that she cannot alter by her own whim, as it were—and bearing in mind the quasi-judicial process that we are in, it is implicit that the Secretary of State must act promptly, for the benefit of both the public and the parties interested in the proposed merger. It is in those circumstances that she has to consider the matter of timing. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about the dignity of this House, the other House and Parliament in general, but the Secretary of State is in a position where, because of the timing issues, the announcement is liable to be made during recess. As she has said, however, she is intent on assuring the House by way of intimation to the Speakers of both Houses when the decision is made and the nature of that decision.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to her decision. I reiterate that the Secretary of State has made no final decision on any matter. She has reached a preliminary view on the basis of the information before her at present.

So far as standards are concerned, further work will be done before a final decision is made. In particular, the Secretary of State will look at all the representations that have been submitted to her until Friday, which cover both media plurality and broadcasting standards. She will look at both issues before coming to a final decision. It is possible to reach an informed decision and verdict without a body. The circumstantial evidence may be compelling in itself, and all the circumstantial evidence will be taken into account.

As for the reference to the CMA, it would not be for the Secretary of State to constrain the scope of the CMA’s phase 2 investigation, and I would not suggest that any constraint should be placed on that investigation by the Secretary of State.

I hear what is said about data protection but we have to remember that personal data held by Sky, or indeed by Fox, are protected by the Data Protection Act. That applies not only to personal data but to more extensive caches of data held by Sky, so there is already a degree of protection in place.

Part 2 of Leveson was raised. No final decision has yet been made on that. Indeed, no final decision can be made until the chair of that inquiry has been consulted on the point. A statutory provision under the Inquiries Act dictates that the chair of an inquiry will be consulted before any final decision is made about the second phase of an inquiry programme, so that remains outstanding.

In these circumstances, I again commend the Secretary of State’s Statement to this House and reinforce the point that she has arrived at no final determination but will do so only after she has considered all the representations submitted to her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I say to the noble and learned Lord that Ofcom is there to discharge its statutory functions. The Secretary of State is here to discharge her statutory functions in a quasi-judicial manner, and she will do so having regard to all the evidence. She will have to evaluate that evidence, and she will do so in arriving at her final decision. As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, it is not usual to disclose either the making of legal advice or its content. That is reflected in the Law Officers’ Convention and, indeed, in the Ministerial Code, so I make no further comment on that point.

As regards the noble and learned Lord’s observations about the behaviour of Fox and the position of Sky going forward, clearly all these considerations will be in mind when the Secretary of State arrives at her final decision—one she has not yet made in respect of either plurality or broadcasting standards. In due course, those matters referred to a phase 2 inquiry will be the subject of the most intense investigation by the CMA. So, at the end of the day, the points of concern raised by the noble and learned Lord are bound to be addressed in the context of this decision. As regards the timing of the decision, it is regretted that it may fall during a period of recess; indeed, I acknowledge that. That is one reason why this Statement is being made to the House today—to try to ameliorate the consequences of that.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I share the concerns expressed about the delay in this matter, although I do not have quite the same emotional approach to the issues. My noble and learned friend outlined the constraints. Assuming that there is a reference to the CMA, which seems likely, what can be done to ensure that there is proper analysis of the situation that broadcasting faces, with its being heavily regulated in a world where the internet is driving everything and Sky and its competitors are becoming more and more dependent on the digital world, as the noble Lord opposite explained? Is there a way in which that can be looked at in the context of this deal, to shine some light on this important matter? If not, is there another way that it can be addressed?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I acknowledge the importance of the point made by my noble friend. Clearly, in the context of broadcasting, one is looking not only at terrestrial broadcasting but at the wider sphere of news and broadcasting across the internet, in the modern age. Those are matters that the Competition and Markets Authority will have in mind when it comes to make its decision following its in-depth review under phase 2, if a decision is made that there should be a phase 2 referral.

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords, my noble and learned friend in repeating the Statement of the Secretary of State appears to have omitted that the letter being circulated would come to the Communications Committee of your Lordships’ House. Could he confirm that I heard it right? Secondly, if I did—and I declare an interest as an ex-chairman of that committee—I suggest that the chairman ought to be added to that list. Finally, as an aside, in respect of what my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, when I was chairman of the Communications Committee we did a report on precisely how you might deal with the very issue she raised.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect to the query raised by my noble friend Lord Inglewood, I referred to the chair of the committee as being included among those to whom the decision will be intimated, together with the Leaders and Speakers of both Houses.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I seek reassurance from the noble and learned Lord in respect of the issue of data. When the original Statement was repeated in this House, I raised the issue of data protection, and the noble and learned Lord referred to the Data Protection Act—but that is not what the issue is really about. It is about how data are mined, used and abused in terms of media plurality. Can I have a reassurance, if the Minister refers this to the CMA, that the CMA will have the ability to look at this key issue? It is about how things can be manipulated—it is not simply about data protection.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, regulators do not have a role in scrutinising what data are held by companies involved in mergers, but if representations are made about the issue of data, such as data-scraping or data accumulation, those are matters that the Competition and Markets Authority will take into account in arriving at any decision that it makes in the context of a phase 2 inquiry.

[Lord McNally]

Has the Information Commissioner been consulted? I did ask that question, and the noble and learned Lord did not answer.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am not in a position to answer that question at this time, but I shall endeavour to make inquiries and write to the noble Lord to advise him on the positon on that point. I shall place a copy of any letter in the Library.

Prisons and Youth Custody Centres: Safety

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question asked in another place on safety in prisons and youth custody centres. The Statement is as follows.

“Independent scrutiny is an essential part of our prison system and I thank the Chief Inspector of Prisons and his team for the work that they do in delivering this, including through his annual report. His report raises some important issues in relation to safety and security in prisons and youth custody.

We have been clear that a calm and ordered environment needs to be created to ensure effective rehabilitation, and that achieving this is our priority. The current levels of violence, self-harm and self-inflicted deaths in the adult estate are unacceptable. The issues in our prisons have deep roots. While they will not be addressed overnight, we are combining immediate action to stabilise the estate with significant additional investment. For example, we are investing £100 million a year to bring in an additional 2,500 prison officers by the end of 2018. We are already making significant progress, with a net increase of 515 prison officers in post at the end of March compared to the previous quarter.

The annual report highlights particular issues regarding the youth estate. I reassure the honourable Member that the safety and welfare of every young person in custody is of paramount importance to me and that we are clear that more needs to be done to achieve this. In response to Charlie Taylor’s review of the youth justice system last December, the Government acknowledged the serious issues that the youth justice system faces, which is why we are reforming the system. Let me give three examples of the progress that we are making. We have created a new youth custody service, with an executive director, for the first time in the department’s history. The development of a new youth justice specialist officer role ensures that more staff can be specifically trained to work with young people, boosting the numbers on operational frontlines in YOIs by 20% and recruiting workers specifically trained to work within the youth sector. The introduction of a more individualised approach for young people is focused on education and health, enhancing the workforce, improving governance and developing the secure estate.

Finally, in his report, the chief inspector expressed disappointment about the implementation rate of his recommendations. I recognise this concern, and to address this, we have created a new unit within Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to help ensure recommendations are taken forward in a timely manner, and to track how they are being implemented by prisons.

The issues within our prisons will not be resolved overnight, but we are determined to make progress as quickly as possible and I hope that honourable Members on both sides of the House will support our plans for reform”.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, the Chief Inspector of Prisons describes a “staggering decline” in safety in young offender institutions and secure training centres, not one of which is,

“safe to hold children and young people”.

He asserts that the current state of affairs is,

“dangerous, counterproductive and will inevitably end in tragedy unless urgent corrective action is taken”.

Adult prisons have seen,

“a dramatic and rapid decline”

in standards, with a rising incidence of violence and drug abuse, but also shocking sanitary conditions. What urgent action will the Government now take to address the scandalous state of our prisons, and in what timeframe? Is it not time to acknowledge that having the fourth highest incarceration rate in Europe contributes to the shameful state of the service?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his observations. First, on the safety of the youth estate, since his report was published the inspector has acknowledged that at the institution at Werrington, the standard of safety for both inmates and staff is at a scale of three out of four: that is, at 75%. Of course, the fact that one of these institutions has achieved such a level of safety takes us only so far. We will seek to emulate those standards across the entire estate going forward, but it is not the case that all these institutions have failed. I accept, however, that the failure reported upon by the inspector is unacceptable and has to be addressed.

As the noble Lord may recollect, we have already committed to spending £1.3 billion on the prison estate. In addition, I note that Her Majesty’s Prison Berwyn, which has been completed, now has 430 places in use, and, once fully operational, will have a further new 2,100 prison places. That is but a step but it is a step in the right direction. As for periods of incarceration, I note that the level of sentences imposed for violent and sexual crimes over the past decade has increased. That, of course, has an impact upon the prison estate. That is a feature that we have to take into consideration in looking at the overall operation of the system. But we cannot lose sight in this context of the issue of public safety.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, the chief inspector reports that he is,

“appalled by the conditions in which we hold many prisoners”,

and that far too often he had seen,

“men sharing a cell in which they are locked up for as much as 23 hours a day, in which they are required to eat all their meals, and in which there is an unscreened lavatory”,

while,

“staff shortages make it impossible to provide a decent, rehabilitative environment”.

Do the Government recognise this as a crisis which disgraces Britain? The Minister’s Answer suggests complacency. We are not making significant progress. The chief inspector says that we are having,

“a dramatic and rapid decline”.

We now have a custody system that is redolent of “Midnight Express”. Never mind the nasty party, on prisons we are becoming the nasty country. Will the Government act now to reduce prisoner numbers, renew the prison estate, reduce overcrowding, radically raise staffing and tackle violence of all forms?

Is the MoJ powerless to persuade the Treasury to spend more on reducing reoffending to save offenders’ futures, at the same time saving much of the £13.5 billion annual cost to the public purse of reoffending?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged again to the noble Lord, Lord Marks. Complacency is not a badge that can properly be applied to the Government with regard to the issue of prisons and the prison estate.

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

Or to the coalition Government.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

This matter has not arrived overnight or over the past two years—in a sense, this has been a long time coming. We have seen an increase in the prison estate from 40,000 or so about 15 years ago to about 85,000 today. Again, that did not happen overnight. It reflects a number of different changes in policy, including changes in sentencing policy. But looking to what we are doing today, we are already committed to and involved in an expenditure of £1.3 billion on the prison estate. We have already opened and are developing the prison at Berwyn to provide a total of 2,100 new places. We are addressing the issue of staff shortages. We have already committed to bringing forward 2,500 further staff by 2018 and, as I noted earlier, in the last quarter, the net increase in prison officers has exceeded 500. Complacency is not a badge. Reaction and response to these difficulties are the mark of what the Government have been doing.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)]

My Lords, what suggestions does the Minister have to eradicate gang warfare and bullying in young offenders institutions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The issue of violence within young offenders institutions is troublesome. One of the features of the young offenders regime is that over the past decade, the numbers within our youth custody regime have reduced from about 3,000 to about 900. That is in itself a success, but in doing that, we have concentrated a greater mix of very troubled young people within the remaining estate, who often have learning difficulties and mental health difficulties. Therefore, the issues of violence which go alongside that have to be addressed in a more positive and effective way. We are addressing how we can bring forward a further and improved regime of training, education and, of course, purposeful activity beyond just education, including sport. It is hoped also that we will be able to develop our plans for two new secure schools to put education at the heart of youth custody in the course of the present Parliament.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I have said on a number of occasions in this House that I wished that Ministers would stop talking about an additional 2,500 staff. In fact, that is 2,500 inexperienced replacements for the 7,500 experienced staff who the Government wilfully removed. When I introduced the “healthy prison concept” in 2000, the first aspect of this was safety, but that concept was introduced for the inspection of prisons. It is quite clear from the chief inspector’s report that the whole prison system fails the healthy prison concept for safety. During the Queen’s Speech, a number of us regretted that the “prisons” part of the Prisons and Courts Bill had been dropped, and I appealed to the Prime Minister to think again. Surely this report is the biggest indictment of the prison system that we have had recently. I ask the Minister again whether the Government are prepared to think again about dropping the prisons part from the legislation.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, we are not bringing forward 2,500 inexperienced prison officers; we are bringing forward properly trained prison officers to fill 2,500 places. We did not wilfully remove 7,500 prison officers; we closed 18 prisons and, in conjunction with that, there was a material decrease in the number of prison officers. Of course, we are committed to the idea of healthy prisons that can have a positive effect on the rehabilitation of inmates. With regard to the prisons Bill, I just make this observation: we are still committed to the provisions of the White Paper set out by the Government, many of which can be implemented without the need for primary legislation.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

My Lords, when will the Government admit that the state has effectively lost control of many of our penal institutions, with violence against staff and prisoners at a totally unacceptable level and getting worse? Is not the only solution in the short term to call in military support to restore proper control, as I have urged before?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

We do not agree that it is appropriate or indeed necessary to have regard to military intervention in the civilian prison system. That would be a wholly unprecedented step that would not be welcomed, I suspect, in any quarter. In September last year, we rolled out a new test for psychoactive substances across the entire prison estate. I mention that because the presence of psychoactive substances within the prison estate is a major cause of violent behaviour, bullying, intimidation and further difficulties with staff. We have now invested £2 million to equip every prison across the estate with hand-held mobile phone detectors because, again, the presence of mobile phones is connected to the presence within the prison estate of drugs and other psychoactive substances. In addition to reducing the number of mobile phones within prisons, we have taken steps to reduce the quantities of drugs there. In 2016, prison staff recovered about 225 kilograms of illicit drugs across the prison estate. By taking these steps, we can effectively seek to reduce the level of violence between prisoners and towards staff.

Damages (Personal Injury) Order 2017

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, in declaring my interests, as set out in the register, I join my noble friend Lord Faulks in very much supporting the points made by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and congratulate him on giving us this opportunity to reflect on the present situation and to look to Ministers expeditiously to resolve this problem. Noble Lords will know that I wear a number of hats in debates in this House, but I speak today as a common lawyer—that is to say, a lawyer who works within the common law. I have had the privilege to practise as a common lawyer since 1968. The assessment of damages for personal injuries has always been a function of the common law. To lapse momentarily into Latin, the founding concept that I was always taught of the law of damages is restitutio in integrum—restoring the claimant as nearly as possible to the financial position in which he or she would have been had the damage or injury not occurred.

For a seriously injured individual, it may be thought next to impossible to put a price on how that is to be delivered, so the law of damages has developed a series of principles designed to deliver a fair outcome—fair, of course, to the injured claimant, but fair also to the person paying those damages. The civil law of damages in this context is never punitive, only compensatory, and we must remember that. The principle is that of full compensation, which is to say neither undercompensation nor overcompensation. It is also known as the 100% compensation principle, which exists to ensure that the claimant, the injured party, is compensated fairly by the person paying the damages.

If there is undercompensation, then the claimant is not fairly compensated. Equally, it is not fair to the defendant if the claimant is overcompensated. As has been said in this evening’s debate, the payment may be made by the Government on behalf of the National Health Service or by an insurer, but it is ultimately funded by insurance premiums or taxes paid by everyone. If the claimant is overcompensated, then he or she is placed in a better financial position than if the injury had not occurred, and the defendant is paying something over and above the amount that is proper and fair compensation.

The discount rate is a vital part of the process of assessing how much compensation is fair. In this respect, it is just like any other component of the sophisticated methods by which lawyers and the courts assess as accurately as possible what a claimant’s losses are and will be for the future. The discount rate is simply a device by which a claimant receiving a lump sum for damages has that sum adjusted to reflect the fact that losses for a period of future years are being paid fully in advance. If that rate, which is set by the Lord Chancellor, is too low, then the claimant will be overcompensated. If it is too high, they will be undercompensated. It is vital that the discount rate should be set at a rate which allows the vital principle of 100% compensation to be achieved: no less, no more. That is not a controversial principle. Indeed, the principle is central to the proper function of the common law.

I was heartened to learn that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Stephen Barclay, speaking at a conference on 27 June, stated that the Government intend to keep true to the 100% compensation principle and will put the statutory process for setting the rate,

“on the firmest possible footing in future, so we have a better and fairer system for claimants and defendants”.

In essence this is a question of fairness for everyone involved. When does the Minister expect to publish the Government’s official response to the consultation earlier this year, which I am confident will fully embody the words of his colleague, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury?

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson for tabling the Motion on this important topic. I welcome the valuable contributions that he and other noble Lords have made.

As has been observed, the discount rate to be taken into account by the court in determining the rate of return to be expected from the investment of a lump sum award of damages for future pecuniary loss caused by a personal injury is set for England and Wales by the Lord Chancellor under Section 1 of the Damages Act 1996. This is colloquially referred to sometimes as the Ogden rate as in practice it is applied through the actuarial tables published by the working group originally set up by the late Sir Michael Ogden.

As noble Lords have observed, the rate plays a key role in underpinning one of the core principles governing the law of damages. Claimants who have suffered injury as a result of another person’s negligence must be compensated fully for their loss, and should be placed—as far as is possible in financial terms—in the position that they would have been in but for the injury. This is known as the principle of full compensation or the 100% rule. Under this principle, the aim of an award of damages is therefore to compensate claimants fully, but not to overcompensate them or undercompensate them.

To fulfil that aim, where damages are awarded for future pecuniary loss—such as future loss of earnings or the care costs that are going to be incurred—in the form of a lump sum, the award is, and must be, adjusted to take account of the benefit to the claimant of being able to invest the money before the loss or expense in respect of which it is awarded has actually occurred. The discount rate is the factor applied to the award to make this adjustment so that it represents the expected rate of return. The court, of course, has a power to apply a different rate but, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson noted, it has almost always applied the prescribed rate in these circumstances.

The Damages Act 1996 does not specify when the rate should be reviewed. However, the Lord Chancellor is under a continuing duty to ensure that it is not set at an inappropriate level. The rate was set in 2001 on a certain basis. Thereafter, there was consultation on the legal framework for setting the rate. Indeed, in 2013, a consultation was carried through but reached no consensus as to any changes or proposed changes to the legal framework for setting the discount rate. So, as at 2013, the coalition Government, of whom the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, was a member, took no steps to deal with what she referred to as a preposterous state of affairs. Indeed, it was not at that time a preposterous state of affairs.

In 2015, an expert panel advised with regard to the matter of the rate. But in all these circumstances, when it came to 2016 and the beginning of 2017, the then Lord Chancellor had an existing duty to address the adequacy or otherwise of the discount rate. That was her legal obligation. In the light of that duty, she announced on 27 February this year that the rate should be changed from 2.5% to minus 0.75% with effect from 20 March 2017. I note that the Scottish Government made the same change to the discount rate about a week later on 28 March 2017. The then Lord Chancellor also undertook to review the framework under which the rate is set to ensure that it should remain fit for purpose in the future. The consultation paper she promised was published on 30 March. It sought views on a range of issues, including what principles should guide how the rate is set; whether the existing methodology is appropriate for the future; whether the power to set the rate should remain with the Lord Chancellor or move elsewhere, possibly to an expert panel; whether more frequent reviews would improve predictability and certainty for all parties—a point raised by a number of noble Lords—and whether further steps should be taken to encourage the use of periodical payments orders instead of lump sums, a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.

Underlying the consultation was the wish of the Government to make sure that the way the rate is set is put on the firmest possible footing in future, so that we have a better and fairer system for claimants and defendants, and, in so doing, keeping true to the 100% principle—namely, that claimants are paid no more but no less than they should be. The consultation closed on 11 May and the Ministry of Justice is currently analysing the 135 responses received, which, as might be anticipated, reflect a broad range of opinion as much as they reflect a broad range of interests. This requires considerable care and thoroughness, as many of the responses are highly complex and contain detailed technical information on investment returns and investor behaviour, something the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, pointed out could be quite diverse and divergent in particular circumstances.

It is not for me to anticipate the outcome of the consideration of the consultation, but I seek to assure my noble friend and other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate that an announcement of the Government’s conclusions will be made at the earliest possible opportunity. Of course, the interests of all parties concerned will be considered, and there will be an impact assessment.

My noble friend’s Motion is, however, directed at the change of rate rather than the outcome of the consultation. His argument is that the then Lord Chancellor should not have set the rate at a time when she had decided that a further consultation exercise was to take place on how the rate should be set in the future. I venture that this argument is not well founded. As I have explained, the Lord Chancellor is under a continuing duty to ensure that the rate is set at an appropriate level. This means that once the then Lord Chancellor reached her decision on what the appropriate rate should be, she was legally obliged to put that decision into effect. The option of delaying setting the rate until the outcome of the planned consultation was known was simply not available to her.

My noble friend’s regret that the then Lord Chancellor carried out her duty is therefore, I respectfully suggest, misplaced. The then Lord Chancellor acted correctly both in changing the rate and in initiating a consultation on whether there is a better or fairer way for it to be set in future. Had the Lord Chancellor adopted the approach proposed by my noble friend and delayed a change in the rate until a consultation—and no doubt any consequent change in the law—had been complete, she would have knowingly maintained an inappropriate rate for what might have been a considerable period of time. That would have been in breach of her legal obligation with respect to the setting of the rate.

Consequently, the approach taken by the Lord Chancellor was correct in law. In these circumstances therefore, the Government cannot support my noble friend’s Motion, and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw it in light of the explanation I have sought to give on behalf of the Government.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, the hour is late so I will be brief. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of this regret Motion: the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her forthright support; I think I got half or maybe two-thirds of a loaf—I am not quite sure but I will settle for half—out of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham; and I thank my noble friends Lord Faulks and Lord Hunt for their support. They speak from a position of a great deal more expertise than I will ever have.

Of course awards need to be fair, and I do not argue at all with the first arm of the Wells v Wells judgment, that it must not undercompensate or overcompensate; it must be fair. As my noble friend Lord Faulks mentioned, there was this sensation around that this is an attempt by insurance companies to boost their profits. If we leave that aside, over the next five years there will be £6 billion less in the National Health Service, which would have been used for looking after patients and carrying out the essential work that the NHS does, as a result of this decision and as provided for in the recent budget development.

I appreciated my noble and learned friend’s teaching on recent developments as regards the setting of the discount rate. His defence of the then Lord Chancellor was stout in the extreme. It is extraordinary that in 2017 the then Lord Chancellor suddenly felt that she had a duty when her predecessors in all the years since 2001 apparently thought that they did not. However, he made a good fist of quite a tricky brief—although I know that, as an expert barrister, he will be long used to and practised in that.

I am pleased to hear that there have been 135 responses to the consultation and that the Government are analysing them. I thought I got a slight Nelsonian wink that we might expect some developments in this area. I hope very much that that assumption is correct, as we have to deal with this running sore. However, we can take it no further this evening, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Sky and 21st Century Fox: Proposed Merger

Lord Keen of Elie Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement delivered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. The Statement is as follows:

“I came to this House on 16 March to confirm that I had issued a European intervention notice in relation to the proposed merger between 21st Century Fox and Sky Plc on the grounds of media plurality and commitment to broadcasting standards. The EIN triggered a requirement for Ofcom to report, initially by 16 May but extended to 20 June, on the media public interest considerations and the Competition and Markets Authority on jurisdiction. I issued a statement last week to confirm that I had received those reports and undertook both to publish them, today, and to come to the House to set out my minded-to decision on the next step in this process: whether to refer the merger to a fuller phase 2 investigation. In line with my commitments, I am today publishing both documents, copies of which will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. I will also be publishing later today the letter to both parties with my decision, which I sent them this morning. Separately, Ofcom is today publishing its fit and proper assessment of the merged company. This reflects its ongoing responsibility as the independent regulator under the Broadcasting Acts to monitor who is fit and proper to hold a broadcast licence.

Decisions made by the Secretary of State on media mergers under the Enterprise Act 2002 are made on a quasi-judicial basis. I want to be very clear about what that means. When taking a quasi-judicial decision, I am tightly bound. I must take my decision only on the basis of the evidence that is relevant to the specified public interests. My decision cannot be based on opinion, speculation or conjecture. Any decision I take must be objectively justified by the facts before me. I must set aside wider political considerations going beyond the scope of the legislation. I must act independently and follow a process that is scrupulously fair and impartial. This is what I am doing.

On the question of whether the merger gives rise to public interest concerns in relation to media plurality, Ofcom’s report is unambiguous. It concludes:

‘The transaction raises public interest concerns as a result of the risk of increased influence by members of the Murdoch Family Trust over the UK news agenda and the political process, with its unique presence on radio, television, in print and online. We consider that these concerns may justify a reference by the Secretary of State to the Competition and Markets Authority’.


On the basis of Ofcom’s assessment, I confirm that I am minded to refer to a phase 2 investigation on the grounds of media plurality. The reasoning and evidence on which Ofcom’s recommendation is based are persuasive. The proposed entity would have the third-largest total reach of any news provider—lower only than the BBC and ITN—and would, uniquely, span news coverage on television, radio, in newspapers and online. Ofcom’s report states that the proposed transaction would give the Murdoch Family Trust material influence over news providers with a significant presence across all key platforms. This potentially raises public interest concerns because, in Ofcom’s view, the transaction may increase members of the Murdoch Family Trust’s ability to influence the overall news agenda and their ability to influence the political process and it may also result in the perception of increased influence. These are clear grounds whereby a referral to a phase 2 investigation is warranted, so that is what I am minded to do. There, is, however, a statutory process that I must follow. I am required by legislation to allow the parties the opportunity to make representations to me on this position before I reach a final decision. I will now do that and have given them until Friday 14 July to respond.

The second question concerns whether, after the merger, the relevant media enterprises would have a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards. Ofcom is unequivocal. It concludes:

‘In light of Fox’s and Sky’s broadcast compliance records and taking account of our separate assessment of whether Sky remains fit and proper to hold broadcast licences following the transaction, we do not consider that the merged entity would lack a genuine commitment to the attainment of broadcasting standards. Therefore, we consider that there are no broadcasting standards concerns that may justify a reference by the Secretary of State to the Competition and Markets Authority’.


Ofcom’s approach sought to measure commitment to broadcasting standards by reference to breaches of regulatory codes. It found that Fox’s compliance with the UK’s Broadcasting Code is in line with comparable broadcasters. Nor did Fox’s compliance record in relation to overseas broadcast jurisdictions—where Ofcom’s analysis focused largely on the European Union—give cause for concern.

I also asked Ofcom to consider the effect of any failure of corporate governance on this public interest consideration. Ofcom did this in the context of its separate assessment of whether Fox and Sky would remain fit and proper to hold broadcast licences following the transaction. It concluded that,

‘the behaviours alleged at Fox News’—

in the United States—

‘amount to significant corporate failure’.

However, these did not, in its view, demonstrate that the merged company would lack a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards.

In reaching a view, I have to be guided only by the evidence before me. As such, based on the Ofcom report, I am currently minded not to refer to a phase 2 investigation in relation to a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards. As required by legislation, I am giving the parties an opportunity to make representations in relation to media plurality grounds, where I am minded to refer for a phase 2 investigation by the CMA. In the interests of transparency and ensuring all the evidence has been considered, I will also invite wider representations on the question of commitment to broadcasting standards, where I am currently minded not to refer for a phase 2 investigation.

Parties responding to the consultation should not simply duplicate any representations previously made to Ofcom. Instead, responses should be limited to setting out any new and substantial evidence and any comment on the appropriateness of Ofcom’s overall approach.

While there are strong feelings among both supporters and opponents of this merger, in this quasi-judicial process my decisions can be influenced only by facts, not opinions, and by the quality of evidence, not who shouts the loudest. The invitation to make representations will open today and close on Friday 14 July and can be found on the DCMS website.

Under the process set out in the Enterprise Act, it is open to the parties to propose undertakings in lieu of a reference to the CMA for a more detailed investigation. In other words, the parties may seek to avoid a phase 2 reference by proposing remedies to address the public interest concerns that have provisionally been identified.

The decision as to whether or not to accept undertakings in lieu is for the Secretary of State alone. However, and somewhat unusually, the parties proposed a set of undertakings to Ofcom, and Ofcom commented on them in its report. The proposed undertakings centred around Fox maintaining the editorial independence of Sky News by establishing a separate editorial board, with a majority of independent members, to oversee the appointment of the head of Sky News and any changes to Sky News editorial guidelines. They also include a commitment to maintain Sky branded news for five years with spending at least at similar levels to now. Ofcom’s view was that these remedies would mitigate the serious media plurality public interest concerns. It also suggested that the remedies could be further strengthened.

The parties last week, without prejudice to my decision today, of which they only learned this morning, formally submitted undertakings in largely the same terms to me. In accordance with the legislation, if I still intend to refer the merger after having considered representations from the parties, I am required to consider whether or not these remedies are appropriate. Given the parties have offered these undertakings and Ofcom has commented on them, I have taken an initial view. I can confirm that I have today written to the parties indicating that I am minded not to accept the undertakings that have been offered. While Ofcom suggests that they mitigate its concerns, it is for the Secretary of State to decide whether they sufficiently mitigate, or ideally fully remedy, what are serious public interest considerations.

I note that Ofcom’s report says,

‘we recognise that behavioural undertakings can be difficult to monitor and enforce and that there are areas in which the proposed undertakings could be strengthened’.

It cites questions regarding,

‘the ongoing arrangements for the appointment of the independent members of the Sky News Editorial Board and the period of Fox’s commitment to maintaining its investment in Sky News’.

I also note the guidance of the Competition and Markets Authority which, in the context of competition cases, says that UILs are appropriate where the remedies are,

‘clear cut … effective and capable of ready implementation’,

and that, in ordinary cases, it is,

‘highly unlikely to accept behavioural remedies at phase 1’.

I have given the parties 10 working days, until Friday 14 July, to make representations on the minded-to decisions I have reached. If I receive further offers of undertakings as part of those representations, I will keep the House informed on how I intend to structure the statutory process I must follow when considering them.

As I have set out, I will now be taking representations on my minded-to positions. The call will remain open for 10 working days and I will then consider the evidence received before coming to a final decision on both grounds. To be clear, the minded-to decisions I have outlined today are not my final decisions.

A word before I close on Ofcom’s fit and proper assessment. As the independent regulator, this is a matter for Ofcom, and my understanding is it will publish its report today. I have seen the report and know many Members in this House will want to comment on it. Given my current quasi-judicial role in the merger, I will not be commenting on the findings.

It is rightly not for the Government to determine who should, and should not, hold TV broadcasting licences. Ofcom has an ongoing duty to ensure all UK broadcasters are fit and proper to hold TV broadcasting licences. I am clear that if any evidence comes to light, it is for Ofcom to take account of that evidence.

I trust, as before, that this update is helpful to honourable and right honourable Members and that this Statement gives an opportunity to debate this important issue while at the same time respecting the limits of what I can say given my ongoing quasi-judicial role in relation to this merger”.

I commend this Statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to my noble friend for his patience. I start with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. So far as the undertakings in lieu are concerned, at present the Secretary of State’s intention is not to accept those undertakings that have been submitted and to give full consideration to whether ultimately such undertakings in lieu will be sufficient. However, at present, as I indicated, she is not minded to accept the undertakings that have already been submitted. Of course, it is always open to a party to put forward further undertakings in lieu, and such undertakings will be considered on their merits in accordance with the Secretary of State’s duty in this context.

The fit and proper party test for the purposes of broadcasting is a matter for Ofcom and not for the Secretary of State. Clearly, it is not appropriate for the question of fitness or propriety to be decided by a Minister in this context, and therefore I would not seek to comment further on that. At the end of the day, it must be a matter for Ofcom. That is why we have an independent regulator in this context.

As the noble Lord is aware, we have indicated that, given the changed landscape over the past six years, we do not consider that we should proceed with Leveson 2, but a final decision on that, pursuant to the Inquiries Act 2005, will be taken following consultation with the chair of the inquiry.

On the misuse of data, I respectfully suggest that the answer lies in the question. We have data protection legislation and, in the event that there is any breach of that, there are remedies within that legislation. Therefore, we consider that the present legislation is sufficient to protect the relevant data of the persons referred to.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, also touched on Leveson but he referred more particularly to the deadline of 14 July for representations. I make it clear that the Secretary of State has been thoroughly transparent throughout this process and—I hope noble Lords will accept this—has kept both Houses fully informed of how she is carrying out this process in a quasi-judicial capacity. She will take any decision that she can promptly, and she will of course continue to keep the House advised of that decision-making process at the earliest opportunity. However, in response to the noble Lord’s question, I can say that any decisions will be taken only when Parliament is in session.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend Lord Grade. I heartily endorse his observation that it is so important to keep the politicians out of these issues—that they should not become politicised. I endorse his observations about the independence of Ofcom in the context of this process. At the end of the day, fitness is for an independent regulator to determine. It would be a poor turn of events if we found that that was simply a political or ministerial decision.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I fully accept the Minister’s point about the independence of Ofcom and, indeed, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grade, about not politicising this process. But returning to the point made by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about Leveson 2, how can a credible “fit and proper” report be drawn up by Ofcom when Leveson 2 has not taken place and two of the absolutely key terms of reference relate to improper conduct within News International and the corporate governance and management failures at News International?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect to my learned friend—the noble Lord; I apologise—

[Lord Clement-Jones]

I am flattered.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I have sometimes inadvertently made that observation with regard to a solicitor. At the end of the day Ofcom is satisfied that it has been able to reach a decision on that point and it has done so in a number of different contexts and for a number of years without the requirement for Leveson 2. But ultimately that is a matter for Ofcom. If it felt it was not able to arrive at a conclusion without Leveson 2, I have no doubt it would have said so.

[Lord Dykes (CB)]

My Lords, I endorse and repeat the request that Leveson 2 be regarded correctly, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, despite the Minister’s answer just then. I understand the difficulties and respect the problem that he faces.

There is another extraneous point which is not germane and material to this but is none the less a realistic factor in the outside world. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, referred at the end of his remarks to the non-UK taxpaying element of these owners of British media. I declare an interest because I also live in France, mostly, and my friends in Paris politics often say it is extraordinary that the owners of the right-wing media in this country almost without exception do not pay UK personal taxes. Of course, one of the biggest examples is Rupert Murdoch and his family members because of the spread and size of their media empire. I know this is not central to what the Minister has been saying today—I do not wish to be unfair—but I would be grateful if he felt able to make an extramural comment on something that is very disturbing to many members of the British public.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect to the noble Lord, I do not consider that in the present context and for present purposes it is appropriate to go into the corporate structure or the trust structure of the various bodies that ultimately own the organs of media and broadcasting in the United Kingdom. Certainly, I do not feel that at this stage it would be appropriate to address the question of their tax liabilities, whether they arise within the UK or elsewhere.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I took an initial interest in Ofcom when, as shadow Minister, I scrutinised the original Bill setting up Ofcom, and I commend its decision and its role in this regard. In its report, Ofcom states that it has identified,

“the risk of increased influence by members of the Murdoch family trust over the UK news agenda and the political process, with its unique presence on radio, television, in print and online”.

I commend the Statement that my noble and learned friend the Minister has repeated to the House. I understand that this is a preliminary decision and does not reflect the Secretary of State’s final decision, but could he elaborate a little on Sky’s increased concentration of power in its online presence were this sale to go ahead? In this digital age, the BBC has a very strong online presence, Sky News has a very strong online presence and newspapers accept that their online presence is going to increase rather than decrease in relation to the printed media. We have already seen one newspaper go online completely. Would my noble and learned friend care to comment on what the Secretary of State’s thinking will be with regard to a potential diminution of competition and an increased concentration of power in the hands of one family, were this sale to go ahead, and the impact that that would have on the online media?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to my noble friend. Clearly, at this stage, the Secretary of State has made only a “minded to” decision and it would not be appropriate for me to anticipate how she will then proceed in light of further representations between now and 14 July. Ofcom recognised the materiality of Sky and Fox’s presence online. Indeed, that is an increasing issue in the context of news media. Of course, an online presence can take a number of forms. It can be aggregation or it can be the establishment of an independent online body of news. Very often, when one is talking about online, one is talking about Facebook or other forms of media that are simply passing on news that is available offline as well. At this stage I cannot elaborate much further, except to notice that Ofcom took account of Sky’s presence online as well as its presence in terrestrial television broadcasting and newsprint.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, to an extent I think we have to welcome the fact that Ofcom has behaved independently and that the Secretary of State has taken guidance on plurality. But it underlines the fact that if you want a genuinely free press, you have to have a variety of opinion, and to have that, you must have a wide variety of ownership. If this merger goes ahead, it will restrict that variety of ownership. I hope that when the Minister and his colleagues reflect on this decision as the various stages go forward, they will look again at whether the plurality process and the plurality provisions of the various pieces of broadcasting and competition legislation are adequate to provide a range of opinion, not only in broadcasting in its traditional sense but, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has just said, particularly in the online presence, where the corporate behaviour of Fox in America has been deeply suspect. I hope the Minister’s department will look at these longer-term issues in the light of the issues that have been thrown up today.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord. As regards the process, let us see how it works its way through in the context of the present proposed merger. As regards plurality in general, clearly that may properly be judged once we see the outcome of the present process.