Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 51 and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for tabling it. I agree with what he and all other noble Lords have said. The noble Lord reminded us that the performing arts are about education and stimulation, and are a balm for our souls—I guess we need that now—as well as for the economy. There is clearly a strong case to help the entertainment industry where that can be done safely. There are good links between this amendment and other matters in the Bill, such as the role of local authorities in giving permissions for new venues, and the fact that many pubs and hotels also support and are venues for live entertainment, especially for freelancers.

Various open spaces are regularly used for entertainment. Like all other noble Lords, it appears, I have strong connections with the Minack, having spent many teenage summers literally just up the road. However, there are many other spaces where it might be necessary to obtain permission from the local authority. I would like to know whether such permissions could be achieved more rapidly. I know that the usual ones are already in my local area, because we regularly have summer outdoor Shakespeare plays, but I imagine that more venues will be needed, not least because you cannot fit quite so many people when audience seating has to be socially distanced.

There must be many other entertainments that are not so threatening in terms of the aerosol effects that cause concern. I am sure that a string ensemble is not quite so threatening, or musical soloists. They could fit into smaller spaces, including pub gardens. We also have some excellent mime performances locally. Nothing compensates for the loss of theatres and concert halls, but surely that is all the more reason to be as permissive and inventive as possible to help the performing arts survive with open-air performance until indoor performances can recommence.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, which would add a new clause after Clause 15 on the specific issue of outdoor entertainment. As we have heard, like the hospitality industry, the entertainment industry is struggling more than most. I agree that our cultural offering is the envy of the world and that it needs our support to come back to life as soon as possible, and in a way that is safe. Theatres and similar venues have been warned that they might be the last to reopen and, as we have heard and seen in the news many times, staff have been laid off.

The noble Lord’s amendment focuses on outdoor entertainment. I will be interested to hear the Government’s response from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. Every summer for many years, my noble friend Lady Kennedy and I have enjoyed going to the Regent’s Park outdoor theatre, which is a wonderful venue not far from here. We were last there last summer to see “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”. It was a wonderful production. However, it has cancelled its entire 2020 programme; it has completely gone. It hopes to be back in 2021 with a production of “Romeo and Juliet”. I have also enjoyed going to the Luna Cinema, which shows films in locations all over the country. That is also a wonderful thing to do.

Criminal Finances Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 3rd April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 164, proposed by myself and my noble friend Lord Rosser, seeks to add a new clause to Part 3 of the Bill requiring the Secretary of State to publish a report on the number of companies that have been excluded from tendering for public sector contracts, or had an existing contract terminated as a result of being charged with the offence of failing to prevent the facilitation of UK or foreign tax evasion offences. The more light that is shone into the whole area of corporate failure in respect of tax evasion, the better, as this in itself would force companies that are sloppy or that do not follow procedures to take more notice of the provisions, take greater care and be clear that the Government and the tax authorities do not take such matters lightly.

Amendment 165, again in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser, would be, in effect, a supervision order imposed by a court on a company convicted of a serious offence in these matters. The court could appoint a third party, such as an expert or body, to supervise the probation period of companies that co-operate with law enforcement bodies to the extent that they are offered a deferred prosecution agreement. Companies convicted under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 may have an order imposed on them to remedy the management system that allowed the manslaughter to occur. However, there are currently no powers available to a court to impose such an order on companies convicted of non-manslaughter offences which have not co-operated sufficiently with law enforcement agencies for a DPA. The perverse result is that companies that co-operate with law enforcement bodies have greater external scrutiny of their corporate governance programmes than companies that do not co-operate with enforcement agencies. This lack of scrutiny represents a missed opportunity to improve corporate governance among convicted companies, but also a powerful disincentive for companies to co-operate with enforcement authorities.

Corporate probation orders are used in other jurisdictions. The US Sentencing Commission, for instance, has given the courts the power to introduce any probationary condition relating to the nature and circumstances of the entire case when sentencing companies convicted of criminal offences. Introduction of such a power in the UK would add another significant tool to the armoury of courts and prosecutors in dealing with financial crime and ensure that the discrepancy of treatment for companies that co-operate with law enforcement authorities and those that do not is evened out, creating a more level playing field for business.

Amendment 170, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lady Kramer, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, addresses the very real issue that senior executives rarely face any consequences when companies they run engage in criminal activity—a point made numerous times from all sides in Committee. The lack of senior executives being held to account properly is a serious matter of public concern. I look forward to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, who will shortly be speaking to her amendment, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

My Lords, I shall indeed speak to Amendment 170 and I thank the noble Lord for his comments on it. This concerns the procedure for disqualification of directors where there has been a criminal conviction of a company, or a deferred prosecution agreement. The amendment seeks to make it possible, following a criminal conviction of a company, for the court to consider whether any directors should be disqualified. This is not seeking to make a criminal conviction against directors—disqualification is a civil procedure—but to put company criminality procedures on a par with that which exists when there is a breach of competition law.