BBC: Royal Charter

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Ofcom has a role under the current royal charter to see how the BBC is meeting its obligations. It does this independently but will have heard the point made by the noble Viscount. More broadly, the Government are working on growing our creative industries so that there are many other avenues for brilliant documentary makers to add to the public understanding of current issues that are of interest to us all as globally engaged people, and many ways in which people can get their news and current affairs programming.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

In his consultations, will my noble friend urgently take up the position on free-to-air, particularly regarding the test match series in India between England and India, which starts in about two weeks’ time? Does he realise, and does the BBC understand, how literally millions of people are sitting at home in this cold weather dying to see that cricket?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The listed events programme is a particular piece of work, but I will take my noble friend’s point back to Ministers, who, I am sure, hope for this to bring some joy and warmth into the lives of listeners and viewers.

Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th July 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Northover (LD) [V]]

My Lords, we move into the scrutiny of the Bill, which seeks to balance the need for the United Kingdom to be at the forefront in technological development and connectivity—requiring the fastest and most efficient broadband, for example—with the need to ensure that we do not inadvertently open ourselves to malicious actors or states as we do so. It is therefore appropriate that the first group of amendments seek to strengthen the security side, recognising the complexity of modern threats. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has as ever laid out the case extremely clearly and in detail, and I look forward to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, replying as comprehensively. He has long made sure that in the Lords we delve deeply into these issues as we challenge the Government and hold Ministers to account.

These are sensible amendments intended to set the Bill in the context of what our allies are doing, drawing from their knowledge and experience and, as the noble Lord said, most importantly, working together. They propose actions that should be happening anyway but which we know can be easily set aside or overlooked as Governments address many pressing issues. Amendment 1 includes a duty to review telecoms vendors

“which are prohibited in other jurisdictions on security grounds”.

It is important that we both learn from other jurisdictions and act together. We have seen how China, for example, seeks to pick off states, as in its recent threat to ban Australian beef on the basis of what it had judged to be interference in its internal affairs. We also saw the Foreign Minister of New Zealand at first indicate that her country should go its own way in relation to China, clearly worried about China’s possible actions, before stepping back from that position in recognition of the fact that we really are stronger together.

There are clear risks. We see Canadian citizens used as pawns in a wider concern about Huawei. As China becomes ever more dominant economically, and under its current leadership, resistance to its positions will become ever more difficult. We have been unable even slightly to hold it back in relation to Hong Kong, and it is therefore vital that like-minded countries work together. Therefore, there are two reasons for seeing what other like-minded countries are doing: first, to see what risks they identify and, secondly, to decide whether we should act together, as we would hope they would act when we saw risks. We are of course in a weaker position globally as we are out of the EU, which has strength in numbers and economic power.

Amendment 20 would expand the powers to include ownership or investment, and this clarifies further where risks might be; for example, through the investment clout of certain players. This is clearly vital.

Amendment 27 would require the Secretary of State to review the UK’s security arrangements with countries banned by a Five Eyes partner and decide whether to issue a designated vendor direction or take similar action with regard to the UK’s arrangements with that company. This updates previous legislation where this risk was not so apparent as it is now, with the hugely increased economic and other associated power, for example, of China. Of course, the Five Eyes of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK are very much aligned on this. Certainly, the risks identified by the Five Eyes should be front and centre in our thinking. I would say that we should add in the EU. Had we still been in it, we would have had that major sphere of influence to strengthen our position further. That makes these amendments even more important.

As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, laid out, we have become very dependent on China in many areas. That is true not only in the area of the Bill but in the new green industries, for example. We need to be much more strategic than we have been in this regard up to now. As he also set out, we cannot build our business on human rights abuses even up to genocide.

I am sure the Minister will say that these amendments are not needed as all these actions will be taken, but they are tabled to make sure that they are. We know that this has not happened adequately up to now; we need to strengthen the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has stated. I therefore look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to my colleagues that I was not able to speak at Second Reading. I am quite clear, as I suspect we all are, that the security of the UK’s telecoms infrastructure is vital. Sadly, we come pretty late to the scene. The expansion of 5G and full-fibre broadband should have happened years ago, so this is not before time.

I read economics at Cambridge and looked at a number of aspects of economic expansion there, particularly in relation to business sectors. It is all very well saying that we will try to prevent the supply chain to the UK network being dependent on a limited number of suppliers. That may be a good idea in theory, but I just reflect that we have a national grid which is every bit as important as 5G; we have one or two aircraft manufacturers, and we have a couple of shipyards, so I just wonder whether there are a whole lot of suppliers out there for the telecoms world—there will be others who are better qualified than me to judge that. However, it is clear that we need to identify areas of risk, and Huawei is clearly one of them.

I would just ask a couple of simple questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, mentioned Five Eyes. Is there a co-ordinating structure for Five Eyes in relation to this particular structure? If so, where is it based, what is our contribution to it and who exactly is doing it?

Some of our colleagues may have read the recent trading standards report that has just come out—I read it only last evening. A massive number of scams is happening at this point in time and we are dealing with the trouble they cause.

Amendment 20 refers to

“a specified country or … sources connected with a specified country, including by ownership or investment”.

I have worked overseas, including in a fair number of countries in south Asia such as Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka, so I ask: who on the ground will actually be doing the work? Quite frankly, I know of nobody in any of our high commissions capable of doing that sort of analysis. Do we have a floating investigatory system? How are we going to judge the evidence properly?

On Amendment 27, we need to take care, clearly, but we must recognise that there may be a valid opportunity in a company that has upset the host Government. You and I would not know the situation, but we should be aware of that fact.

I am a bit sceptical about the security check. I made a freedom of information inquiry—it was nothing to do with telecoms—and, at the end of the day, the reason given for not producing all the evidence following my FoI request was the security of the country. It was never explained in words of one syllable—or indeed in any syllables at all—what aspect of my inquiry would affect the security of the UK. I would like to know this from the Minister: are we relying on Five Eyes or are we relying on Ofcom? Who is it specifically that will be doing this analysis?

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I want to say a few words on this. It is highly relevant that we keep a close eye, but on all vendors, including the ones that may seem okay at any given moment—the world keeps changing. I am not an apologist for, and nor do I wish to promote, China in any way whatever, but it happens to be there and it happens to have ripped off a lot of Cisco stuff a few years back and improved it. The Japanese did this to our cars, many years ago—nothing changes.

The real problem is that we do not manufacture this sort of stuff here; some of it is manufactured in Europe, and of course we are no longer part of that, but does that matter anyway? We are reliant for the supply of all this electronic equipment, and the components—such as chips, which I mention specifically —on China and many other places. The Americans also rely on China to manufacture components which they then put in their equipment. We had a security compromise a few years ago, when compromised components were put into some Cisco equipment. It is more complex than trying to ban one company or one country. But there are not many alternatives for us here, and that is the real problem. We need to get some home-grown stuff going and we need to get it done very quickly if we want to be really secure.

What are we going to do about it? The thing that worries me is that you cannot assume that your allies are always your friends in everything. We have to be particularly careful of being dragged into a trade war under the cover of security or defence—and this does happen. The cost of this whole thing is not so much that Huawei will try to cause us problems in some way unknown if we remove it from our system completely; there is the other side of it. If its technology is working and is better, and we can make sure in various ways that we are secure against what Huawei might do, its technology might get us to where we need to be in an internet world a lot quicker. I notice that we have already delayed quite substantially the rollout of broadband everywhere and 5G—everything seems to be stalling because of these rows, which to me are trade rows.

I fully understand the points of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about supporting regimes that are doing appalling things around the world. The trouble is that there are an awful lot of them. Take the situation he mentioned, to do with cameras. It is actually the software that does the facial recognition, not the camera; it is purely a bit of hardware that takes a very good, high-quality photograph, and there are many alternatives to it. Who is supplying that facial recognition software? That is where I would really target, and I would bet it is China. If there are bits that are useful to us, we need to use them. We need to stay in the world and we need to get ahead. We are not ahead and we are going to drop behind more and more.

The other difficult thing about picking a fight with China is that, if we are really going to go net zero and start going all electric in the next few years, lithium supplies and processing are from China. There is already a shortage of chips and other things in the automotive industry; I am sorry, but we are reliant on an intertwined global supply chain which stretches all over the place. We must be very careful about singling out one country, but we are—and that is why the amendment is useful. We must have something that says that we are keeping a proper eye on the whole lot of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I hope the Committee will forgive me if I move on to drier but—I hope the Committee will agree—important ground. In moving Amendment 2, I will also speak to Amendments 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Amendment 2, along with similar amendments to Clause 1 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fox and myself, seeks to narrow the scope of the definitions of “security compromise” and “connected security compromise”. As well as having concerns about oversight of the new powers of the Secretary of State, which we will debate later, there is also concern, reflected by the Constitution Committee, about the width of these crucial definitions and the consequences that flow, particularly as regards planned outages and the need to make a clear distinction between reporting on security compromises and on resilience.

I say this in the context of the impact assessment of 9 June, which stresses the large degree of uncertainty surrounding the costs to be incurred by business, amplified by the report of the Regulatory Policy Committee under its new chair. The Constitution Committee says:

“Clauses 1 and 2 impose duties on providers of a public electronic communications network or service … These include taking such measures as are appropriate and proportionate for the purposes of identifying and reducing the risk of security compromises occurring. The Bill defines security compromises, but the Explanatory Notes acknowledge this definition is broad and do not explain their intended scope. The consequences of a security compromise for providers are potentially significant, including substantial and costly duties of due diligence”—


this echoes the impact assessment. It goes on:

“The House may wish to consider whether narrowing the definition of security compromises would be appropriate.”


BT gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the Commons. Of course, BT is a provider which will need to comply with the provisions of the Bill, so I take the liberty of reading out much of its evidence:

“As currently defined, a ‘security compromise’ … would cover any planned network outage that may be required for maintenance or upgrading of the network, or any unplanned outages due to faults or wear and tear. These types of outages are relatively regular occurrences given the scale of our network and we always seek to minimise customer impact and restore service as quickly as possible. The duties on operators in the Bill that flow from this definition are significant—including network issues that cannot reasonably be considered as security compromises (rather resilience or availability issues) would create undue burdens on operators and potentially on OFCOM.


These outages are not the result of any unauthorised access or malicious intent, nor do they have consequences for the confidentiality of data or signals carried over the network. We do not believe it is the intention of the Bill to apply the same requirements (e.g. with respect to reporting or notification to stakeholders), or to make the same powers available to OFCOM, in relation to these types of incidents, as are intended to apply to ‘security compromises’.”


It goes on:

“The definition also seeks, we understand, to capture any compromise to the integrity of signals conveyed over a network. However, the way that this is expressed—by reference solely to compromises of the ‘confidentiality of signals’—is unclear and confusing. It could be significantly improved by making a simple amendment to refer to ‘confidentiality and integrity’.


The definition of ‘connected security compromise’ … is a simple definition referring to something that ‘occurs in relation to another public electronic communications network or a public electronic communications service’. Given the potential breadth of this definition, building some specifics on how the ‘connected’ element will be assessed in the overall Government/OFCOM guidance on ‘security compromise’ will be important.”


So a provider that will be considerably impacted by the Bill and the Constitution Committee have raised important issues about the width of these definitions. These amendments perhaps do not go as far as some providers would like, but they attempt to give greater certainty by specifying that compromises which involve security issues are covered, but not wider outages which do not have security implications. I very much hope the Government will heed both the providers and the Constitution Committee by narrowing the width of these definitions. I beg to move.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I had the privilege of being an RAF pilot. The instructions we received as pilots in methods of security included the word “anything”. In other words, if you are flying a jet on a mission and you suspect something, “anything” is reported back, or you take remedial action. You do not try to refine that security by, in this case, reducing it or leaving any element of doubt. Thinking about it a little further, the “anything” could be technical. In this context, it could be competitive; it could be a company being taken over; it could be lack of finance; it could be fraud. Above all, it could provide a loophole. Therefore, Her Majesty’s Government are absolutely right in putting in the word “anything” and not trying to restrict it further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, does not like my analogy of flying. I just remind him of a recent series of Boeing airliners that crashed with a huge loss of life when the security of flying was overridden by a piece of machinery. I stick by my analogy but I will not progress that any further in relation to these amendments.

The Bill says clearly:

“publish the code; and … lay a copy of the code before Parliament.”

However, it does not allow Parliament by right to debate that code and any amendments that come. This is a fast-moving market, as we all know. New opportunities have come up that will have a security dimension to them. There will be new developments, I hope, from our own technical universities so there must be some provision for the expertise that both the House of Commons and the House of Lords have within them to debate. Those of us who have been in Parliament for a few decades know that quite often there are unusual people who have a particular niche that they know something about. That is the benefit of the experience of Parliament.

I agree with the noble Lord that it ought to be done on the affirmative procedure. I sat in the chair for five years during the passage of all the Maastricht and other Bills and there are certain areas where it is absolutely crucial that it should be done by affirmative resolution. Therefore I certainly support that dimension.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I can see that it might be useful to avoid scrutiny sometimes when we have to finesse difficult issues—say, balancing effectiveness and public perception of certain other issues, or whatever. We can also end up with an awful lot of SIs in front of both Houses and everyone feeling rather swamped and bored by them and no one really doing anything about them. The trouble is that we get more and more wide-ranging powers in Bills, and this is a particular example of it. The more we do that, the more careful we have to be about the secondary legislation, because that is where the devil resides and that is where the real control is. We have just passed something that enables a takeover by the Executive. In some cases that may be a good thing; in others it could be very dangerous. To be honest, because of the huge, general issues in these Bills, I now come down in favour of the affirmative procedure. We are going to have to scrutinise it.

Charities Bill [HL]

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to my colleague and noble friend Lord Hodgson for a tremendous amount of work done in probably one of the key areas of our national life. I declare an interest: currently I am a trustee of the Northamptonshire Victoria County History Trust. I am also involved in a whole host of charities in Bedfordshire, where I live, including the Bedford School Foundation—which I founded—and I help a number of trusts in Northamptonshire, where I represented Northampton South for 23 years.

This Bill is really welcome, and I congratulate Her Majesty’s Government. It has been a long time coming. Two Governments did nothing about it, and thankfully the present Government have got a grip of it and decided to move forward. I congratulate my noble friend on the Front Bench on having the privilege of steering it through and the Prime Minister on making sure that the Bill is on the statute book in due course.

Although one welcomes the vast majority of the work that has been done and the proposals, inevitably one looks at the elements that were not accepted by the Government. There is one element that sort of straddles, and that is land. I am a loyal user of my local Church of England church, where my wife was the secretary until very recently. I absolutely agree that Her Majesty’s Government are right to remove the proposal that there should be a requirement for charities not to advertise disposals of designated land. However, I am still marginally confused. I apologise for that, but when one is active in a parish one is very conscious that there are bits of church land that are a bit of a holding, and it is not necessarily easy to remove just a section, particularly on burial grounds. You will quite often find that there is an old burial ground and different bits of land belonging to other owners, which are already agreed in principle to be an extension of a burial ground. I just raise that issue, because I think it is important.

On Clause 12 on borrowing from the permanent endowment, I understand why charities have to borrow. It is not a good thing on the whole but, if they have to borrow, I understand why. I was chairman of a friendly society, and from memory it had a very strict rule on the percentage of borrowing. It was not left the least bit vague, and I suggest to Her Majesty’s Government that it should be quite clear, in black and white, what the percentage is and not as a general rule.

On the charity tribunal rejection, we can perhaps look at this again in Committee, but Recommendation 40 of the Law Commission review argued that it should be possible for authorisation for charity proceedings under Section 115 of the Charities Act 2011 to be sought from the court or the Charity Commission where the commission had an apparent or actual conflict of interest.

As far as I understand it, the whole of the charitable movement is supportive of the Law Commission’s suggestion because it would provide reassurance for those seeking authorisation and ensure that the Charity Commission is not suspected of using authorisation for reasons not to do with the merits of the proceedings. We only have to look at what is happening in society at the moment with statues being thrown into the Bristol docks, and others being pushed over and destroyed, to see that life in our world is changing and that somebody—it may well be the Charity Commission—needs to get a grip of those elements.

I raise one specific issue; it is much more relevant for Committee than here. I have been approached by the Spilsby Grammar School Foundation on its attempt to update its constitution. It is not appropriate to go into it in detail now but I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will accept some representations from the trustees and their lawyers, Sills & Betteridge, rather than me going into detail now.

I conclude by reflecting for a second—as this is a Second Reading—that gift aid, which is the foundation of much of the money that comes in to our charities, was introduced by John Major on 1 October 1990. Today, it is the world’s greatest charitable tax relief scheme. That is a major achievement for any society. It is worth well over £1 billion in tax relief and represents around 6% to 7% of voluntary income. I also pay tribute to Gordon Brown. He extended gift aid so that smaller donations would be eligible. That in itself is a great tribute.

I have just a final thought. I received in my email this morning a briefing on the social care Bill. I declare an interest as I am married to a doctor and we talked today over breakfast about whether there is a possible opportunity in that area in life to produce the equivalent of the gift aid scheme for social care. I am a marketing man and discussed this only briefly over breakfast so I have done no real deep thinking on it, but I am putting down a marker: I think there is an opportunity there.

Covid-19: Performing Arts Freelance Workers

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I feel as though I should have birthday cake on the Dispatch Box. Of course our understanding and our approach needs to evolve as our understanding of the pandemic and its impact evolves. We have aimed to tackle this from all directions by supporting our institutions with a major funding package, having a very broad job support and self-employed support scheme, and giving targeted support to individuals—particularly from the Arts Council, which has distributed £47 million in England alone.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

Diversity of the performing arts is important. What is the linkage with self-employed freelancers, so that both Government and these individuals can keep abreast of what exactly is happening and raise matters of concern?

Audiovisual Media Services (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Friday 27th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, by way of background, I was a director of one of the major advertising and marketing agencies in the UK. There has been an explosion of VSPs, which need control.

I notice in paragraph 2.10 of the draft Explanatory Memorandum that a second statutory instrument is due to be laid; can the Minister indicate when that may be? Paragraph 6.2 says that there will be another instrument to deal with “deficiencies”; is the Minister in a position to tell us what the deficiencies are?

Paragraph 7.2 says that Ofcom may or may not have power in the future. It is not much of an incentive to Ofcom to invest properly with senior people if it does not know whether it will carry on with this in future. I suggest to Her Majesty’s Government that there should be a clear statement that Ofcom will be the body dealing with this.

There are also the points on protection, rightly raised by my noble friend. Terrorist content is a real problem in this country from a security point of view, as we know—quite often from what appear to be genuine, sympathetic human rights bodies, some of them operating legally, some not quite so legally and some illegally. We really need to focus on that because, as the document says,

“VSP providers are merely responsible for the organisation of content”.

If that is the situation, who on earth will control it, particularly for VSPs that are produced outside either the European Union or here in the UK? In relation to this Bill, certain countries are well known for producing highly controversial and illegal VSPs. There is a big problem there.

I also have some questions about paragraph 7.13, which says that, where Ofcom

“become aware of serious instances of … harm”,

et cetera, it should take strong “enforcement action”; it has never taken much strong enforcement action in the past, so there is a problem there. It also says that Ofcom will give guidance. Where is the guidance? Is it coming soon or not? People are now planning for the spring, and have probably decided what will happen, so we need clarification on that.

In paragraph 14.1, under “Monitoring & review”, the Government should clarify what they really mean. It says that

“legislation relating to VSPs will be repealed and encompassed within the Online Harms regulatory framework.”

When is that likely to happen?

Television Licences

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

The noble Baroness is right to say that over the past few months, the BBC has certainly provided high-quality information, education and entertainment, and has shown great agility in its response. However, I do not accept the second part of her question. The framework for negotiating the next stage in terms of the licence fee with the BBC will be settled by the end of next year, and I am sure that a number of these issues will be taken into consideration.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

Bearing in mind that pensioners have suffered more than most in the lockdown, and sadly with the extent of deaths among them from Covid-19, and that TV remains their number one contact with outside life, is it really sensible or fair that the vast majority of them are going to face an annual tax of £154.50, or £40 a quarter? Surely the BBC should find a way to pay for this long-held free TV licence. First, why not look again at the Peacock report, published in May 1986, which recommended selling off Radio 1 and Radio 2 to fund it? Secondly, if it was acceptable for the BBC World Service to take advertising, why not consider it for a part of the BBC now?

[Baroness Barran]

My noble friend raised a number of different options but, at the risk of repeating myself, we are very clear that it is the responsibility of the BBC to work out how it spends its budget. Most recently, in giving evidence recently to a Select Committee, the BBC’s director of policy was clear that everybody would be given time to transition to a new system when it is announced.

Covid-19: Women’s Sport

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

This is a highly relevant topic. The noble Lord is right about the opportunity to broadcast some of the inspiring women’s games that have taken place. Obviously, the editorial independence of broadcasters is key, but we are also clear that the visibility of women’s sport is critical.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as president of Northamptonshire County Cricket Club. Will the Minister recognise the enormous progress that has been made in cricket, particularly women’s and girls’ cricket, in recent years? Will she also listen sympathetically to any proposals that come from the ECB, in light of the financial constraints this summer, and look urgently at getting club cricket, in particular for girls and boys, on the pitches, because at the moment they cannot even start to play the game?

[Baroness Barran]

I am sure that my noble friend also was pleased to see the appointment of Clare Connor as the first female president of the MCC. There is a great commitment to getting cricket started again. The county cricket season starts at the beginning of August; the ECB is committed to staging women’s cricket during 2020. Thanks to Sky’s coverage of the women’s game, we will see free-to-air coverage of women’s cricket return on the BBC later this season.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 29th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I was once chairman of a housing committee in the London borough of Islington. I remember that in those days I thought that tenancies were quite complicated, but they were are absolutely nothing to what we have today. The degree of complication that has been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, makes me wonder a bit. Not only are tenancies incredibly complicated now but the code that we are looking at, which is being amended in the Bill, is pretty old and the nature of the business that we are talking about is changing incredibly. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh has just said, who would have envisaged even six months ago the sheer volume of people who are now working from home, many of whom have very different requirements?

Gambling Advertising

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

The noble Lord raises a very important point, which I am happy to take back to my colleagues in the department and the Minister responsible.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

Is my noble friend aware of the recent review of 23 April that claimed there is too much gambling advertising on TV? While I recognise that the gambling group has halted TV and radio ads during lockdown, is not the area where action needs to be taken the really worrying aspect of special offers for casino gambling, which we all know is addictive? Will my noble friend look very seriously at this problem?

[Baroness Barran]

On gambling advertising on television, again, this feels counterintuitive, but the data from the ASA shows that in 2013 children saw 4.4 gambling ads each week and that had fallen to 2.5 in 2019. Obviously, we introduced the whistle-to-whistle ban on advertising on matches on television. In relation to online casinos, the Gambling Commission recently recommended curbs on VIP schemes across various forms of gambling, which will be implemented in the coming months. It is committed to addressing any additional gaps that are identified.

Free Television Licences

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Naseby]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they had with the BBC on possible sources of funding before the BBC announced their plans to cease providing free television licences for those age 75 or older.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am over 75. Why have Her Majesty’s Government allowed—

[Noble Lords]

No!

[Lord Naseby]

Sorry—old age. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government discussed funding with the BBC in 2015. We agreed with the BBC that responsibility for the concession would transfer to it in June 2020. To help with financial planning, we agreed to provide phased transitional funding over two years so as gradually to introduce the cost to the BBC. The Government and the BBC agreed that this was a fair deal for the BBC. The future of the concession is therefore the responsibility of the BBC. The Government are clear that they are disappointed with its decision.

[Lord Naseby]

Does my noble friend the Minister recognise that, in effect, the BBC is victimising 5.5 million pensioners whose sole real leisure pursuit, unless they are really active, is to watch television and listen to radio? It is no source of help to them to be told that the poorest will be means-tested. Does my noble friend recollect in 1986 the Peacock report recommending that the BBC accept some advertising and sponsorship? Have the Government brought to the BBC’s attention the fact that £140 million of BBC income worldwide now comes from advertising and sponsorship? If that is good enough worldwide, why is it not good enough to be implemented at least to some extent in the United Kingdom?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, under the 2015 funding settlement it was agreed that responsibility would go to the BBC in return for an increase in its licence fee that was guaranteed and index-linked for five years. The director-general promoted that agreement and that is why we are disappointed with the BBC’s decision. As for the Peacock report, which as my noble friend said was 33 years ago, the funding model was considered then, but it was also considered again as part of the charter review. I am afraid to say to my noble friend that only 1.5% of those consulted agreed that having advertising on the BBC was a good idea.