Arts

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, if everybody agrees with everybody else, I wonder where that leaves the Minister.

I will work on one thing for a couple of minutes: rural life. Governments—of all parties, to be honest—ignore rural life in the UK. The word “rural” has not crossed anybody’s lips, although we came close with the right reverend Prelate’s speech. This goes for the big arts funders as well.

I live in Ludlow. It is the case that citizens there cannot even get home from events in Shrewsbury and Hereford, 30 miles away, using public transport. We are on our own. I declare an interest, in that Helen Hughes, aka Lady Rooker, was the pro bono chief executive of the Ludlow Assembly Rooms for eight years, after it was disowned by Arts Council England. It contains a 300-seat auditorium, recently rebuilt to modern standards, and it is mainly run by over 100 volunteers. Events can be streamed from London and New York. A mixture of film, live shows and international streaming for thousands of people, including those with dementia and other impairments not catered for by the big battalions of the arts, are offered. But the base funding is crucial to help provide the infrastructure for such small organisations. In turn, they are crucial for artists to develop their craft—people often come to a 300-seat rural enterprise to test events for a bigger auditorium later on. Funders want innovation, while small organisations need core funding to stay ongoing.

We are 10 miles from the Welsh border. Annual performances by Mid Wales Opera fill the auditorium. Recently, “Beatrice and Benedick” packed the place out. Mid Wales Opera ensures that nobody in Wales and the Marches is more than 30 miles from professional opera through its touring programme, together with the outstanding work it undertakes in schools, providing an education programme that gives massive benefits to so many young people. But now, Arts Council of Wales, in its wisdom, has cut support to this innovating company to zero. It just does not care—that is the problem. Rural arts need more support and attention.

Online Safety Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

I beg to move.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I am very surprised that the Minister’s speech did not accede to the recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, published last week, in the report we made after we were forced to meet during the Recess because of the Government’s failure with this Bill. From his private office, we want answers to what is set out in paragraphs 6 and 7:

“We urge the Minister to take the opportunity during the remaining stages of the Bill”—


which is today—

“to explain to the House”—

I will not read out the rest because it is quite clear. There are two issues—Henry VIII powers and skeleton legislation—and we require the Minister to accede to this report from a committee of the House.

I think that every member of the committee was present at the meeting on 29 August, the day after the bank holiday. We were forced to do that because the Government published amendments to Clauses 216 and 217 on 5 July, but they did not provide a delegated powers memorandum until 17 July, the date they were debated in this House. That prevented a committee of the House being able to report to the House on the issue of delegated powers. We are not interested in policy; all we are looking at is the delegated powers. We agreed that one of us would be here—as it is not a policy issue—to seek that the Minister responds to the recommendations of this committee of the House. I am very surprised that he has not done that.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I am very concerned to hear the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I certainly look forward to hearing what the Minister says in reply. I confess that I was not aware of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Powers Committee’s report to which he referred, and I wish to make myself familiar with it. I hope that he gets a suitable response from the Minister when he comes to wind up.

I am very grateful to the Minister for the amendments he tabled to Clause 44—Amendments 1 and 2. As he said, they ensure that there is transparency in the way that the Secretary of State exercises her power to issue a direction to Ofcom over its codes of practice. I remind the House—I will not detain your Lordships for very long—that the Communications and Digital Select Committee, which I have the privilege to chair, was concerned with the original Clause 39 for three main reasons: first, as it stood, the Bill handed the Secretary of State unprecedented powers to direct the regulator on pretty much anything; secondly, those directions could be made without Parliament knowing; and, thirdly, the process of direction could involve a form of ping-pong between government and regulator that could go on indefinitely.

However, over the course of the Bill’s passage, and as a result of our debates, I am pleased to say that, taken as a package, the various amendments tabled by the Government—not just today but at earlier stages, including on Report—mean that our concerns have been met. The areas where the Secretary of State can issue a direction now follow the precedent set by the Communications Act 2003, and the test for issuing them is much higher. As of today, via these amendments, the directions must be published and laid before Parliament. That is critical and is what we asked for on Report. Also, via these amendments, if the Secretary of State has good reason not to publish—namely, if it could present a risk to national security—she will still be required to inform Parliament that the direction has been made and of the reasons for not publishing. Once the code is finalised and laid before Parliament for approval, Ofcom must publish what has changed as a result of the directions. I would have liked to have seen a further amendment limiting the number of exchanges, so that there is no danger of infinite ping-pong between government and regulator, but I am satisfied that, taken together, these amendments make the likelihood of that much lower, and the transparency we have achieved means that Parliament can intervene.

Finally, at the moment, the platforms and social media companies have a huge amount of unaccountable power. As I have said many times, for me, the Bill is about ensuring greater accountability to the public, but that cannot be achieved by simply shifting power from the platforms to a regulator. Proper accountability to the public means ensuring a proper balance of power between the corporations, the regulator, government and Parliament. The changes we have made to the Bill ensure the balance is now much better between government and the regulator. Where I still think we have work to do is on parliamentary oversight of the regulator, in which so much power is being invested. Parliamentary oversight is not a matter for legislation, but it is something we will need to return to. In the meantime, I once again thank the Minister and his officials for their engagement and for the amendments that have been made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, let me first address the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I am afraid that, like my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, I was not aware of the report of your Lordships’ committee. Unlike her, I should have been. I have checked with my private office and we have not received a letter from the committee, but I will ask them to contact the clerk to the committee immediately and will respond to this today. I am very sorry that this was not brought to my attention, particularly since the members of the committee met during the Recess to look at this issue. I have corresponded with my noble friend Lord McLoughlin, who chairs the committee, on each of its previous reports. Where we have disagreed, we have done so explicitly and set out our reasons. We have agreed with most of its previous recommendations. I am very sorry that I was not aware of this report and have not had the opportunity to provide answers for your Lordships’ House ahead of the debate.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

The report was published on 31 August. It so happens that the committee has been forced to meet in an emergency session tomorrow morning because of government amendments that have been tabled to the levelling-up Bill, which will be debated next Wednesday, that require a report on the delegated powers, so we will have the opportunity to see what the Minister has said. I am very grateful for his approach.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The committee will have a reply from me before it meets tomorrow. Again, I apologise. It should not be up to the committee to let the Minister know; I ought to have known about it.

I am very grateful to noble Lords for their support of the amendments that we have tabled in this group, which reflect the collaborative nature of the work that we have done and the thought which has been put into this by my ministerial colleagues and me, and by the Bill team, over the summer. I will have a bit more to say on that when I move that the Bill do now pass in a moment, but I am very grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken at this stage for highlighting the model of collaborative working that the Bill has shown.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, asked for an update on timetables. Some of the implementation timetables which Ofcom has assessed depend a little on issues which may still change when the Bill moves to another place. If she will permit it, once they have been resolved I will write with the latest assessments from Ofcom, and, if appropriate, from us, on the implementation timelines. They are being recalculated in the light of amendments that have been made to the Bill and which may yet further change. However, everybody shares the desire to implement the Bill as swiftly as possible, and I am grateful that your Lordships’ work has helped us do our scrutiny with that in mind.

The noble Lord, Lord Allan, asked some questions about the remote viewing power. On proportionality, Ofcom will have a legal duty to exercise its power to view information remotely in a way that is proportionate, ensuring, as I said, that undue burdens are not placed on businesses. In assessing proportionality in line with this requirement, Ofcom would need to consider the size and resource capacity of a service when choosing the most appropriate way of gathering information. To comply with this requirement, Ofcom would also need to consider whether there was a less onerous method of obtaining the necessary information.

On the points regarding that and intrusion, Ofcom expects to engage with providers as appropriate about how to obtain the information it needs to carry out its functions. Because of the requirement on Ofcom to exercise its information-gathering powers proportionately, it would need to consider less onerous methods. As I said, that might include an audit or a skilled persons report, but we anticipate that, for smaller services in particular, those options could be more burdensome than Ofcom remotely viewing information.

Charities Bill [HL]

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 14th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I have played no part in the Bill, but, when I saw the amendment and the background to it, I thought that it was worth supporting at whatever time, as it were. I am not bothered about what time it is; if we worried about the time, we would never get any legislation done.

I am not a lawyer, and it is almost 50 years since I was a PPS in the law officers’ department. I remember that, when I went there, it was explained to me what law officers did and did not do and how they were different from other Ministers. In this case, it seems to me—again, as a non-lawyer—that the Attorney-General is operating as a supervising Minister, not a law officer. That is a completely different function.

I have not checked, but, if I remember rightly, the Charity Commission is nominally still a department. It is not some quango that is too big or a body that is of no significance; it is one of, I think, 21 non-ministerial departments. I do not know how many other regulators that we think are doing their job on behalf of the public and Parliament are actually hemmed in by this kind of power. Twice I have put forward proposals for a Select Committee on regulators, because no one looks at regulators systematically in Parliament to check that what they do is what is says on the tin and to see what the difficulties are. We wait for the odd scandal to come, and then there is a Select Committee—that is not good enough.

With this one, the fact of the matter is that the Attorney-General is not, and cannot operate as, a law officer. It is the role of a supervisor. I have been in six government departments: I know the difference between a Minister supervising an external body, developing its own policy, and coming up against the law officers. There is a difference, and in this case it is absolutely clear that the Attorney-General is not operating in the formal structure as a law officer.

If it is the Law Commission, we are used to hearing the other place say, “Oh, don’t bother about that. It’ll get nodded through. We can trust it. It’ll have done all the homework”. You do not do the time, simply because that is what the Law Commission is there to do. I cannot see any damage to it from this. This is a Law Commission Bill, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, he has used its report to construct the amendment. There has got to be a better reason. It is no good the Attorney-General hiding behind the law officer role when she is not performing that role. That bears some scrutiny, but of course we cannot do that in this place; it will require someone in the other place.

My final point is on the regulators, which we have to trust. There are a lot of regulatory bodies. The top 20 or 30 regulators look after billions of pounds of other bodies’ expenditure. Parliament delegates that role to those regulators.

The Charity Commission is a regulator; it is an awkward one, in the sense that the uniformity of charities is crazy. There are some 180,000 charities and the top 2% or so are probably dealing with half the money—there are loads of tiny charities which do not get a look in. When you get something such as the example of the Royal Albert Hall, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and which I am aware of from previous debates, you cannot ignore it. It is not right for Parliament or the regulator to ignore that—it is a failure of public duty. Therefore, the Minister will need to have better reasons than those given in the past for opposing this.

It is actually quite easy as a Minister at the Dispatch Box when you have an open and shut case such as this. I fully admit that I did it only twice in eight years when I was on that Bench in this House, but you can report back to the boss in the department: “Well, they were all against me; we were going to lose; it uses Government time; it was easier to accept the amendment because it was overwhelmingly agreed to”. You can do that, and if they are cheesed off with it, they can alter it down in the other place, because it is an open and shut case. So I invite the Minister to try it out; it can work. You can accept an amendment at the Dispatch Box on the strength of the debate and survive as a Minister, and the amendment can strengthen the Bill. That is what we are here to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

That consent function, my Lords, is something the Government consider important; it is part of the assessment of whether it is in the public interest for the reference to the tribunal to begin, with all the costs and time that it would involve. That is part of the reason why the Government cannot accept my noble friend’s amendment.

While supporting the Attorney-General’s role, we are also aware of concerns raised by noble Lords regarding the time taken for the Attorney-General to make a decision on whether to grant consent in the particular case to which my noble friend referred. His amendment is grouped with Amendment 4 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, which provides that the Attorney-General must make her decision on an application for a reference to the tribunal within 60 days, otherwise consent would be deemed to be given. His amendment also requires that the Attorney-General publish a comprehensive statement explaining the reasons for any refusal of consent.

Regrettably, however, the noble and learned Lord’s amendment does not acknowledge that there may be good reasons beyond the Attorney-General’s control that require additional time in her decision-making. There may be times, for instance, when a case requires further information to be submitted, either by an individual charity or the Charity Commission, to enable the Attorney-General to make a fully informed decision. There may be mediation under way between parties involved which needs to conclude before a decision can be made, or a case could be particularly complex and require further investigation and deliberation. Given how complex these rare cases normally are, a strict 60-day time limit following which consent is automatically given would amount to the effective removal of the Attorney-General’s consent function by the back door. I have outlined the reasons why we do not agree that the consent function should be removed. Doing it in that way would also be inappropriate.

It is regrettable that a decision on whether to grant consent to a reference in the case involving the Royal Albert Hall took so long, but one complex case does not justify a change in the law. I thank once again my noble friend Lord Hodgson and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for his Amendment 4.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I just want to be clear about this. I fully take on board the point that it is one case, but the Attorney-General is in a different position to other Ministers. With other Ministers, we can get access to their diaries, what meetings they have had, so we can see who has lobbied them. How do we know who, if anybody, lobbied the Attorney-General during that period of nearly four years? How do we know that, with the Attorney-General being unlike other Ministers?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the Attorney-General is a Member of Parliament. Previously, they have been Members of your Lordships’ House; the current Attorney-General is a Member of another place. She is therefore subject to the same parliamentary scrutiny and the methods available to Members in another place to ask her those questions. This is a reflection of her particular role, but she is not a remote person; she is a Member of Parliament who can be asked questions. She makes her view known, as she has in this case, but we do not think that this case alone should warrant a change in the law.

Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL]

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have an opportunity to follow the noble Lord, Lord Snape, who made an interesting contribution. This is my first opportunity to contribute to the Bill. I ought to declare my interests at the outset: I chair the board of PASSCo, the proof of age scheme.

I echo the comments of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Snape, has read closely the terms of Amendment 2, moved by his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It puts enormous obligations on local authorities to raise this levy and,

“provide financial assistance equivalent to the proceeds of the levy, after costs of administration, to the Organising Committee for the purpose of delivering the Games”.

The real reason I counsel my noble friend the Minister against accepting this first-ever imposition of a hotel tax in England is that it would be the thin of the wedge. It would put down a marker for others, as we have seen in Edinburgh, who may wish to go down the same path.

At Question Time, the Liberal Democrat Benches in particular—I think it is the noble Lord, Lord Lee—often raise the spectre of the concerns that the tourism sector currently faces. One of these—I imagine that both hotel rooms and dinner tables face it; this has been one of the tourism sector’s persistent, as-yet-unsuccessful campaigns—is that we impose a 20% VAT rate, which already makes us uncompetitive in the face of our nearest competitors in the European Union and beyond. The States would not dream of putting such a high tax on their own business, particularly as they want to put America first, as we keep hearing.

We know that hotels and restaurants will face particular challenges as we leave the European Union at the end of October, in the sense that these businesses and the tourism sector generally—are heavily dependent on non-British EU citizens. We do not yet know what the supply of labour from EU countries will be, as we do not know whether there will be a transition phase or whether there will be the complete frictionless trade and free movement that we currently enjoy.

I do not wish to rehearse all the arguments that others have made, other than to say that I am convinced that a tourism tax—even on the level of a pilot scheme, as proposed here—could have a huge negative impact on businesses that rely on the tourism economy by potentially reducing visitor spending right across the industry. We are talking about hotel rooms today, but it could be restaurants and other businesses tomorrow. I urge my noble friend to look carefully at Amendment 2 and Amendment 7, particularly subsection (2), and advise him against accepting these measures.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, without repeating anything I have said previously, I support my noble friend. We are in a pretty unique situation at the moment, at 5.30 pm today: the country does not have a Chancellor of the Exchequer, so we can actually crack along. I realise that that is impractical, but the thought did occur to me.

[Lord Snape]

I point out to my noble friend that not only is there no Chancellor but we have an old Etonian Prime Minister taking office shortly—I think he has taken office. We also have—on his own account; he is frank enough to say it—an old Etonian Minister present, replying. Surely some deal could be done early on to demonstrate how effective this new order is.

[Lord Rooker]

Notwithstanding my support for the principle, which I have promoted, I fully accept the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I see the force of the argument. It looks late in the day and, it is true, I see it as the thin end of the wedge—as I said to the noble Baroness. I made the point that the broader the tax base, the less you have to raise the particular taxes. It has to be a good thing in principle to broaden the tax base. It is not something we have total control over, because it is a devolved issue; it may happen in Edinburgh. It is not as though it does not happen and work elsewhere—that is the point.

My noble friend used the example of that incredible debate last week on the report by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. It was packed out; there were twice as many people in the Moses Room as there are here. I got the message that the Lib Dems were far more iffy about the report and recommendations from the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, than the general thrust in the meeting. I am not picking out any particular points, and I do not single out this one, but a lot of caveats came from Lib Dems. Nevertheless, there is the genesis there of something to take forward for our cities. I fully accept that the timing is probably wrong; there is always an excuse for doing nothing, but I do not accept that. There is an argument here for a pilot scheme. It might fail. We do not use pilots enough and this is a classic example where we could use one. If it fails, we will see the defects in it.

Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL]

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Rooker]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after “Games” insert “and their legacy”

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 1 is the lead amendment to Amendment 5. Let me make it clear at the outset that the amendments I shall be moving today are the ideas and gifts of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who, because of his duties on the General Medical Council, is unable to be here today. Furthermore, I took last week off on holiday and therefore I was not party to any of the discussions that took place on these amendments. However, I agree with them and that is why I am moving them.

It is important that there is a proper legacy from this massively exciting enterprise. I shall not go through the proposed new clause which Amendment 5 seeks to introduce in detail, but there are three essential parts to it. It seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State, on the Government, that there should be a legacy plan, which is important. It contains a list of non-prescriptive issues which may be in such a legacy plan. However, it also contains a requirement that, if there is a legacy plan, it must include a budget and a funding plan. This is absolutely crucial, as I shall explain in more detail. Under subsection (6) of the proposed new clause, there is a firm commitment in the legacy plan in relation to housing.

Without a budget and a funding plan, the legacy plan would not be worth the paper it was written. Therefore, if the Secretary of State directs the Organising Committee to prepare such a legacy plan, it must include a budget and a funding plan. It is crucial for two reasons. First, it is accepted that the amount of time Birmingham and the Government have had for organising these Games is much shorter than normal, simply because we are taking over the Games that were planned for Durban. We must take account of that. Secondly, there is the question of Birmingham City Council’s finances. I am unfamiliar with the detail—I do not pay council tax in Birmingham and have not done so since 2002—but I am aware that there have been issues relating to the budget in recent years, which led to an improvement panel being imposed on the city by the Secretary of State for Communities.

The point that I am about to make is the only one that can be considered partisan. When the current administration in Birmingham took over the city council, it followed eight years of a Tory/Liberal coalition, which had built a fantastic library—a brilliant facility—with mega millions of capital expenditure. However, what did it leave in the revenue budget for running that library? Zero. It had a catastrophic effect on the finances of the city. I am not saying all the effects are down to the library, but it is an example of where a capital project had an effect on Birmingham’s finances. It was instituted and organised by the noble Lord, Lord Whitby, who is not in his place—I have not given him any warning about this because I have only just thought of raising it. As a result of the short time available before the Games and the fragility, if I can put that way, of Birmingham’s finances, it is important that there is a budget and a funding plan. These two reasons make it vital.

I have had no discussions with anybody in Birmingham about this because I have not had time. As I said at Second Reading, I went to the meeting at Alexander Stadium to discuss the plans for the stadium. That was about three weeks ago. I have no role in the city. I have been on a few things since I have been in your Lordships’ House—the governing body of Aston University, Castle Vale Neighbourhood Partnership Board and James Brindley hospital school—but none of them is current. However, I love the city and I visit it regularly as I have family there.

There is an issue linked to the paragraph about housing. I touched on this briefly at Second Reading. The games village will be homes for more than 6,000 athletes and officials. It is an exciting prospect for the location. I understand it will yield 1,400 new homes and kick off a wider regeneration plan to deliver up to 5,000 homes in that location. It is a very good location. Some things are going to change in the road network, but the location is sitting on top of a suburban railway station—and there are not that many in Birmingham—and it is very close to the M6/M5 junction at Great Barr, so it is an excellent location. It is a prime site.

The planning for that housing must create a community, not a commuter village. If there are no restrictions or plans, the temptation is that it will be a commuter village for the city or for access outside it simply because of its location. I will not go into detail about where it is, but anybody who looks at the plans can see that there will be 1,400 to 5,000 dwellings in this location. We have got to create a community; otherwise, the temptation, if it is left to the private sector, is that it will be a commuter village. A community needs well-designed, sustainable homes of mixed sizes and mixed tenure and the infrastructure that goes with up to 5,000 dwellings, which includes at least one or two primary schools. We must be realistic about this. This needs a plan and, therefore, the housing aspect is important for the legacy plan.

The legacy is for the West Midlands. There are major capital projects, and success afterwards will be in the working of the five pillars of the Games’ mission: to bring people together; to improve health and well-being; to help regional growth to succeed—my view and that of others from the region is that it has always punched below its weight; to be a catalyst for change—this is a golden opportunity because it is a massive budget; and to put the West Midlands on the map. It is quite clear from the evidence that previous Commonwealth Games have delivered significant benefits. Not all of them did, but the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow in 2014 made a significant contribution of almost £1 billion to the Scottish economy, and the Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast in 2018 gave an almost £1.5 billion boost to Queensland. However, that does not happen unless it is managed, and you cannot manage it unless you have a plan. This is why the Government ought to be seriously thinking about embracing the fact that the Games need a legacy plan in the way set out in the amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I have a small amendment in this group which is an amendment to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and others. When we started this process and everybody looked at the Bill, they all said the same thing: that there is stuff here we do not know and there is information that we would expect to have but have not got. We then discovered that this is not the normal process. We came in quickly at the end to make sure that the Games continue, which is a good thing. Basically, we are trying to find out information in order to assist the city of Birmingham and the Government to do a good thing—that is, to keep the Commonwealth Games going. If we are to build a legacy, we need more information, and most of the amendments in this group are about trying to get that information into the public arena as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I shall address the technicalities of the provision in Clause 1. I do not agree that an explicit reference to legacy should be added to the financial assistance provision in Clause 1. In my opinion it is unnecessary, because Clause 1 already provides that the Government can fund the organising committee in relation to legacy activities under the spending power. The language of the provision—“arising from”—is intended to capture just this: the activity that continues after the last medal has been won. The Bill is not explicit about every activity or work stream the organising committee will undertake, but it does not follow that those activities will not be taken forward, so I beg to move that noble Lords withdraw their amendments to Clause 1.

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive reply; I agree with most of it. Indeed, the only point I make before I withdraw is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Coe, made: the central, key issue is the Games. Nothing must interfere with the planning and organising. I have no doubt that, when he is among us again, we will take further particulars from my noble friend Lord Hunt. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Rooker]

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—
“( ) The Secretary of State may provide by regulations for Birmingham City Council to raise a hotel occupancy levy and to provide financial assistance equivalent to the proceeds of the levy, after costs of administration, to the Organising Committee as part of the local contribution for the purpose of delivering the Games.”

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, I beg to move the revised Amendment 4, which, as the Chairman has said, is on a separate sheet. There is a modest change from the original draft, plus my name is now against this amendment because of my noble friend Lord Hunt’s absence.

The amendment raises the issue of a levy or bedroom tax. I am not sure that I would call it a probing amendment; I do not understand why we have never done this before. The fact is that, the broader the tax base right across the piece, the less high taxes have to be. It seems a common-sense arrangement. With this Bill and the Commonwealth Games, there is an opportunity for the Government to do something that Governments—including the one I was a member of—do not do enough, and that is to pilot schemes. From the briefing I have been given, I understand that most members of Core Cities in England and Wales are lobbying the Government for a hotel occupancy tax. This is a devolved matter in Scotland and there is an expectation that Edinburgh will soon introduce such a tax. In some ways, this puts pressure on what I might call the English Government to do the same.

In a way, it is a golden opportunity. We could use this Bill to ring-fence a tax for Birmingham and Solihull, as the local authorities that will be most affected, although there are hotels in Sandwell as well. If the Government used this Bill to pilot a hotel occupancy tax for ring-fenced money for the Commonwealth Games and put a time limit on it, after the Games we could look at how it worked and review the impact and effectiveness of the tax. I know people will argue that we do not want more new taxes, but the broader our tax base is, the less high taxes have to be—that does not mean we have to tax everything.

We are not reinventing the wheel here: this is done around the world. We all travel and we do not think twice about it. The tax might be lost in the hotel bill—it is always incredibly modest—but it usually goes locally and helps local authorities with all the extra costs and issues they have as a result of being a tourist attraction. I would have thought that this was a golden opportunity for someone in the Government to make a name for themselves by piloting this scheme, which will be a good idea, and see how it goes just for the Games.

[The Lord Bishop of Birmingham]

My Lords, I support the spirit of partnership between local and national fundraising for this specific, ring-fenced purpose, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.

The numbers are quite interesting: it is estimated that £1 a night for the three-year period from 2020 to 2022 might bring in £4.5 million to £5 million per year, which could possibly amount to £15 million of local contributions being raised—the gap is probably £40 million. At least 8% of what is required locally by these boroughs could be raised in this way.

I know that the proposal is unpopular in certain spheres, particularly among those who count tourism and visitor numbers as vital to their economy—as we do in Birmingham and Solihull, which are popular conference and holiday venues, and we want to develop that. However, in deciding where to stay, a hotel price can vary from £20 to £25, depending on the day of the week, so £1 a night does not seem too burdensome. A small charge could also help motivate people to supporting a national and an international Games, which could make them feel good and even make them want to come back and attend the Games themselves.

I ask the Government to give this serious consideration as a partnership between local commitment and national taxation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I understand now. The 25% comes from Birmingham City Council and its partners; it also involves revenue raising in various ways so none of it is certain. However, my point remains that the city council is looking at different ways to do that and I will come on to that in a moment.

This is not a completely uncontroversial proposal. I do not want to go into the detailed arguments about the hotel levy today, but it is not quite as straightforward as some people may think. Tourism in this country pays a much higher rate of VAT than our competitors in Europe. In May, a report on tourism tariffs by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Hospitality expressed reservations about the likelihood of tourism levies having a long-term, positive benefit on tourism infrastructure. The report concluded that:

“Further studies need to be commissioned on the economic impact and viability of a tourist tax”.


The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, suggested that this should be a pilot, which goes some way to answering that although it would be limited in scope. The noble Lord also mentioned the Scottish Government, who will consult this year on the principles of a locally determined tourist tax, prior to introducing legislation which would allow local authorities to apply such a tax. We will certainly be looking at the benefits of that.

I have to say that matters of taxation are for the Treasury to consider. Treasury Ministers have been in correspondence with Birmingham City Council regarding its options for meeting its required contribution to the Games. That is the right place for those discussions, not this Bill, which provides the framework for the successful operational delivery of the Games. The Government are aware that the city council is actively considering a number of options for local revenue raising, including within existing powers, and stand ready to look at the details of any proposals that the city council wishes to put forward.

I hope that is not cold water, though it may be lukewarm. I hope that noble Lords are reassured that the Government remain committed to working with the city council on its plans for delivering its required financial contribution to the Games. I would therefore be grateful if the noble Lord felt able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rooker]

When my noble friend on the Front Bench invited the Minister to make a name for himself, I was reminded of an occasion in early 2002, when I was young in this House and the Home Office Minister. At the Dispatch Box in a debate, I was challenged by someone on the opposition side. My answer was that, in my short, five-year experience as a Minister the Treasury had wrecked every good idea I had come across. An exchange took place between my boss—now my noble friend Lord Blunkett—and the Chancellor. I survived another six years as a Minister, but I was never invited to join the Treasury team. When these things get discussed we are always told, “It’s the Treasury; you cannot touch it”. Then, on Budget Day, the Chancellor stands up and says something that the department had no idea was coming. It is a good idea, so it is for the Chancellor to own. In this case, we are out of scope for the Budget, but this gives an opportunity. If it is a bad idea, you do not do it: that is the idea of a pilot and the opportunity for a pilot in taxation does not come along very often.

I do not want to set hares running, but I have a feeling that this would not go amiss in a couple of the national parks. There are sometimes complaints that there is no gateway or passport for visitors to them; hotels are the means of extra revenue. As I say, the broader the tax base, the less high taxes have to be. This is an opportunity for a pilot. We will obviously seek further and better particulars and come back on Report, when this might be worth looking at further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Rooker]

9: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Organising Committee reports
(1) The Organising Committee must publish a report on its activities within a year of this section coming into force and annually thereafter.(2) The Organising Committee or, if the Committee is wound up, its successor body or another appropriate body nominated by the Secretary of State, must publish a post-Games report 2 years after the end of the Games.(3) The Organising Committee must publish within 3 months of this section coming into force its policy for communicating with relevant third parties, including—(a) businesses;(b) residents;(c) environmental groups; and(d) local authorities.”

[Lord Rooker]

On the basis of the Minister’s reply to our first group of amendments, this is purely a probing amendment. All I want him to do—because I do not propose to delay the Committee unnecessarily—is to address the idea that the organising committee should publish reports. It is self-evident that it is well chaired and managed, from what I have heard others who have had direct contact with it say, and therefore it would want to report on what it is doing. It cannot do much about the end of the Games, which is another issue, in subsection (2), but it,

“must publish within 3 months of this section coming into force its policy for communicating with relevant third parties”.

As far as I can tell from the Minister’s answer to the first debate, by and large it is doing it, or has done it or has it planned. Therefore, I do not propose to say anything else but will await the Minister’s response and hope that he confirms the sorts of things he said on the first group. I beg to move.

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, at this point it might be convenient if I speak to Amendment 10, which could probably have been grouped with Amendment 9, since it deals with very similar issues. It concerns what happens afterwards and requires a report on the success of the Games.

We have enough information in this country now to be able to produce very definitive documents, because in fewer than 20 years we have had three Commonwealth Games and the Olympics, as well as numerous other championships and activities. We have a great pool of knowledge that could be used. Amendment 9 talks about another type of report: this will be something that goes on to look at future strategy and it will be able to be referred to. I know we will have most of this information in other places, and the Minister may be going to say that, but if you bring it into one central point it is much more likely to be used and used easily—assumptions and discussions become easier. That is all this is about, and I am interested to hear the Government’s thinking about this idea.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, if I may be excused the pun, the baton in this relay has been passed to me, although I note that we are not half way around the track yet. I was happy that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, addressed Amendment 10, although I hope he will forgive me if I wait to see who else might speak to that amendment and reply accordingly. I shall keep my remarks on Amendment 9 relatively brief, picking up on the spirit of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.

Amendment 9 seeks to introduce a number of requirements for the organising committee to report on its activities. I would argue that it is not necessary to list such requirements in the Bill—a point I picked up from the mood of the Committee this afternoon anyway. Unlike the London 2012 or Glasgow 2014 Organising Committees, the Birmingham 2022 Organising Committee is a non-departmental public body and is already subject to a number of controls and transparency requirements. In an earlier debate my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned the importance of transparency and of course he is absolutely right. To illustrate the point, the organising committee has entered into a management agreement with the department. This sets out the organising committee’s governance structure and, in section 4, the reporting schedule and information which must be sent to DCMS on a regular basis. By regular, I mean monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly and biannual reports or face-to-face meetings between senior figures. A copy of the management agreement is available on GOV.UK. The organising committee must publish an annual report of its activities, together with its audited resource accounts, after the end of each financial year. These must be laid in Parliament and made available online, in accordance with public body guidance. The first report will be published this September, and annually thereafter.

To ensure delivery against these requirements, the organising committee has a dedicated compliance manager and chief legal officer. In addition, DCMS has an official responsible for sponsorship of the OC, to ensure that it meets its assurance and accountability obligations. The Games is also part of the Government’s major projects portfolio and is subject to scrutiny by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which publishes annually on all such projects. The Commonwealth Games will be included in the next annual report, due this month, and a copy will be placed in the Library of both Houses. I remind noble Lords, as was said earlier, that come 27 July 2022 the Games will have been delivered within a four-and-a-half-year window, rather than the typical seven years.

As was mentioned earlier, there is a balance to be struck: we must ensure both that we have transparency and scrutiny of public money and that the organising committee can move at the pace required to deliver a project of this scale to this immovable deadline. I hope I have reassured noble Lords that we already have the right governance, reporting and scrutiny in place to oversee and assure the successful delivery of the Games and to deal effectively with any issues that arise, without further requirements being added to the Bill.

On the question of public engagement, the OC and Birmingham City Council are committed to regular resident and business engagement. Public consultation drop-ins were hosted last month for the Alexander Stadium redevelopment, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, alluded to—it may have been one of those events that he attended—and there is a programme of ongoing monthly Perry Barr resident meetings. The OC has hosted eight regional business briefings, with more than 1,000 representatives attending. Games partners, by which I mean all stakeholders with responsibility for delivering the Games, have also met environmental groups to inform the development of the OC’s Games-wide sustainability plans.

Games partners are already engaging with relevant local authorities on Games plans and the leader of Birmingham City Council and the Mayor of the West Midlands both sit on the strategic board, the most senior decision-making body for the Games. A lead officer group has also been established, bringing together officials from local authorities across the West Midlands. The group will support co-ordination, communication and decision-making in relation to the Games. Further to this, I reassure noble Lords that the Government will carefully consider who will be best placed and how to report on the impact of the Games following the 11 days of sport. It is the Government’s ambition that the positive effects of the Games will be lasting ones for Birmingham and the West Midlands region. I hope that, with that rather detailed response, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rooker]

A perfect response: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL]

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree—and no doubt I will with future speakers—with every contribution that we have heard so far. I will not repeat them, but the sage advice we have just listened to from someone who has been at the coalface should be taken on board really seriously.

This will be a big event in the West Midlands—one of the biggest we have ever had—but 2022 will be a busy year: it is a general election year; there is a nine-month festival of Britain proposed for 2022, which the Government plan will transform the whole year; and so this is not just a one-off. Therefore, it is really important that we keep our eye on the ball so that we do not get deviation on to other issues.

The Games will be a good showcase of the West Midlands for millions. Although the Games will be centred on the city of Birmingham, it is a West Midlands enterprise—the great region of the country that has never really pulled its weight in the way that other regions have. In this case, more than one local authority is involved, and there has been a coming together, which is good news. However, time is short, as has been said, simply because of Durban pulling out.

The city council’s finances are not good. For several years now, there has been an oversight committee on the governance of Birmingham City Council, put in by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I understand from reading the press that it has just finished but that it has recommended that there be another oversight committee, simply because of the issues that have arisen in the past. As such, the delivery of this exercise needs watching very carefully indeed from the centre, because it is the Government who will get it in the neck.

Without going into detail, I reinforce the points my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath made. Trying to get some information has proven to be incredibly difficult. My bits have come from a couple of items in the Birmingham Post a few weeks ago. I do not live in Birmingham any more, but I have close connections there, including family. There is complete ignorance in the city council about your Lordships’ House. At least 20 Members of your Lordships’ House have detailed connections with Birmingham; the cream of them are here today, but not all are present. But the fact is that there has been no connection—no phone calls or emails over the last few days. Even the speakers list, which is publicly available—you can check who is putting their name down—seemed to be unknown. We want to help, as we told the Minister, but we need a good flow of information. That is my only negative point. It is meant to be positive, because things have to improve from now on if we are going to help. Members of the Commons would not put up with this, because they represent people, but we represent ourselves. Some of them will have much more detailed questions than we would put.

I agree with what is in the Bill; the commercial rights have to be protected. There will be enough spivs and crooks in the West Midlands trying to exploit this, and therefore it is important that there are legal barriers to protect the sponsors. Sponsors, big and small, need protecting. The transport improvements, some of which might be controversial, are nevertheless much needed. The Bill also brings government funding. Like my noble friend Lord Hunt, I was not clear about what the legacy is, simply because we have not been told. What is the supreme legacy of this exercise that the city council and its partners want for their 25% share? That is not a small amount of money, and we are talking about a legacy that is to last for decades.

It has not been mentioned so far, but there will have to be a large and tightly run security envelope for this exercise. I trust that the resources will be made available to the brilliant West Midlands Police—I declare an interest as I have a close family member who is a serving officer there. That is important; it was a key element in the Olympic Games in London. I know that things were different then, but the fact is that there are nutcases galore out there, and therefore the security needs to be considered and tightly run.

The stadium—this is my local bit—is located in Perry Park, in my former constituency. In fact, it was my local park when I was growing up as a kid. Last Friday, I attended a meeting at the stadium, where the changes to the stadium, both permanent and temporary, were to be outlined. I went there purely to listen. The proposals for the stadium are awesome—there is no question about that; it will leave a fantastic sporting legacy, and the stadium can be used for things other than sport. That is the point about it—the upgrading of the stadium makes it really flexible. However, as I listened, I was a little disappointed to discover that the Friends of Perry Park had been utterly ignored over the past few months as they were trying to be helpful by finding out what was happening. From my point of view, it was no good to sit there, listening to the dozen bosses from Arup say, “Oh well, the consultation starts today”. To be honest, if you are on the ball, trying to bring local people and opinion-formers along with you, you do not wait until the last minute to bring them on board, even in an informal fashion. I hope that that has been taken on board after the meeting. It makes good sense to do that, as the noble Lord, Lord Coe, said.

It is an urban environment, but it is very outer city. It is about a mile and a half from the city boundary, most of it built in the 1920s and 1930s. Until then, it was farmland. It has mainly semi-detached houses and a very few tower blocks. A lot of industries disappeared from the area, but there is a community.

I was very pleased when the home of Birchfield Harriers moved from its previous stadium into the park, but not everybody was pleased. When I went for a tree-digging ceremony, I was lobbied by constituents—I will not name the road they were from, because that is not fair, but it is on the other side of the canal— complaining against it. People who live around a park think it is their back garden. Well, it is not. That was a difficulty. I was really upset.

In the old stadium, I remember in the 1950s seeing E McDonald Bailey, the famous sprinter. I am that old that I can remember that. It was an important part of growing up in that northern part of Birmingham.

As I said, the city will get a maximum flexi-venue of very high grade, and I think it should be exploited. I know that people who live around stadiums, such as the football grounds in the city, get pressure on parking and noise, but this is a high-grade, futuristic enterprise which I think we should benefit from. My noble friend Lord Snape will probably talk about Sandwell, which should benefit similarly from the aquatic provision and diving centre.

The Bill is important. I support it. My noble friend Lord Hunt made the point about the legacy in housing. When I grew up, the site to be used was a small school, Birchfield school. In recent years, it was part of the University of Central England—a Birmingham Polytechnic site—which has been virtually flattened. It is a good location. It is right next to a suburban railway station as well as a main feeder road into the city and a motorway, so it will be premium-priced housing, but it should be a mixed community. You cannot enable that unless you ensure that there is enough social and affordable housing as part of the exercise. I wish the exercise and the Bill all the best.

Festival of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 2022

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

No, my Lords, I do not agree. Sometimes museums have to do what the Mendoza review suggested—that is, to have a dynamic collections policy, which in some cases means getting rid of some pieces which are in storage and are not being preserved well because they are not in ideal conditions, and using the money raised to preserve the best items in their collection and to buy new items which might interest a younger audience.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Will the festival take place before or after the general election that is due in 2022?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The plans have not been made but I believe that the festival will take place across the whole year, so it will happen either side of the general election, if it takes place in 2022. Many other interesting events will be taking place, not least Her Majesty’s Platinum Jubilee, the 100th anniversary of the BBC and the 75th anniversary of the Edinburgh Festival Fringe.

Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Monday 18th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis]

I was not suggesting that they were his personal expensive lawyers, just expensive lawyers who have chosen to brief him; I know that he could not possibly afford expensive lawyers. When he said that it depends on what happens as time goes on, he put his finger on a very important point. The whole point of no deal, with a separate regime under our ICO, is that we could quite quickly find ourselves diverging, and as we diverge, that will quickly impose burdens over and above those that would apply even if we left the EU with a deal.

I am also not sure it is true to say that there would be no burdens as a result of the regulations even at the outset. I am a lay man in this business, and trying to understand what is going on is very difficult, particularly because there has been no consultation and we do not have the opportunity to assess what people who are expert and directly affected have said. The reason I intervened on the Minister in his opening remarks is that, having been a company director who has had to deal with the implementation of the GDPR, I know that having a representative dealing with data matters inside the EEA is very important. Many companies have offshored a lot of their data-control activities, and the requirement of the GDPR that they must have a representative inside the EEA—which I think is the correct thing to do—is a definite burden. It means that companies not only have to employ additional individuals but have to set up additional offices, in essence, to cope with those flows in many cases, particularly if they are dealing with significant data-handling exercises which are outside the EEA at the moment. This happens all the time with call centres in India; many companies are in this territory.

My understanding of what the Minister said in our earlier exchange is that if we leave with no deal and therefore must set up our own UK data-monitoring regime immediately, there will be a requirement for every company operating outside the EEA—which must, under the GDPR, have a representative inside the EEA—to have a representative in the United Kingdom. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that because if it is true, that is an immediate and potentially significant burden.

The other important point is that people need to understand that these arrangements are reciprocal. One reason why we as a country have such a good services industry is that a lot of companies based in the UK do substantial business in the EEA and beyond. That is great. My assumption, although it is not spelled out in the Explanatory Memorandum, is that in a no-deal scenario, data controllers who are based in the UK but do substantial business in the EEA will be required by the European Union to have representatives in the European Union over and above their data controllers in the UK; these are not currently needed. I would be grateful if the Minister could address that point. This flows logically from the new regime being set up. I would be astonished if that is not the case because I do not think that the European Union would regard having a data controller in the United Kingdom as meeting its standards of data adequacy. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that.

On that point, it is apparent that this immediately imposes a burden, potentially a significant one, on every company that handles data in the European Union or the EEA, as opposed to just in the UK. That represents a substantial proportion of our companies. If we had had an impact assessment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, suggested, this issue would have been brought out and we would know its effect. If there had been public consultation, we would know, but there has been none—and we have had no impact assessment. To my surprise, the Select Committees of this House that oversee instruments and put them to us have not raised these issues, which seem substantial and should have been raised before these instruments came to this House.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I think my noble friend has not quite got it. I assure him that, as the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, said earlier, Sub-Committee B is in the process of sending a letter to the Treasury complaining about the national policy it laid down on not having impact assessments for these instruments. Every week, we are seeing dozens of instruments with references to both informal consultation and none, but now it has been picked up that there is a national policy not to have impact assessments.

[Lord Adonis]

Is my noble friend saying that the Select Committee did raise these concerns?

[Lord Rooker]

Yes. As I speak, a letter is winging its way from Sub-Committee B to the Treasury. It was agreed at our meeting last week, the committee having discussed it in previous weeks.

[Lord Adonis]

That raises the issue of why that is not in any of the information before your Lordships. I was not aware of that at all. It is not flagged up in any of the documentation. Like other noble Lords, I appreciate hugely the work done by our Select Committees but the committee’s view is not always completely clear to the House when these instruments come before it, unless the committee has issued a formal report. We do not get full value from our Select Committees in the way that their work is presented. For instance, I am surprised that the chairs of these Select Committees do not comment on these instruments based on the committees’ work. I see that one of the chairs is sitting opposite; perhaps he would like to intervene.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

All I can say at the moment is that the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred has not gone quite yet.

[Lord Rooker]

That is because of a dispute between the two chairs. Sub-Committee B agreed in discussions last week about the terms of that letter and will meet tomorrow. I do not know what has happened today in Sub-Committee A, but Sub-Committee B made a decision, based on the statutory instruments it saw, to object to the Treasury’s objectionable policy. If Sub-Committee A does not agree, I hope that Sub-Committee B—which is dealing with half of these instruments—will send the letter on its own. Another member of Sub-Committee B is currently sitting in the Chamber.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I appear to be flushing out an important dispute that is taking place between the chairs of Sub-Committee A and Sub-Committee B.

[Lord Rooker]

You are.

[Lord Adonis]

I have to say that this for me is a black box. Because of my other duties I have not been able to spend time analysing what is going on in Sub-Committees A and B, but this is very important because hundreds of these instruments are coming to us.

I turn to the issue of there being no consultation, which my noble friend Lord Rooker referred to. I have been going on about it for weeks. This has been true of every single no-deal instrument that has come to your Lordships. It is deeply and profoundly unsatisfactory. In my view this ought to have been flagged up for each of these instruments from the beginning and ought to have been a reason for them not to come before the House. How can we possibly conduct the proper business of the nation in terms of changing the law when we do not have any public consultation with any of the sectors that are affected by these instruments? We are dependent on the expensive lawyers of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, even to spell out the most basic features of these regulations—which, first, will not be apparent to those of us who are lay people and, secondly, which those people who are affected have had no opportunity to present except through the agency of expensive lawyers who seek to make a living. Of course, the expensive lawyers referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will now advertise their wares to companies, telling them what the impact of these things is going to be because they did not have a chance to engage with them earlier and make their views known, particularly if they start being adversely affected.

Mobile Roaming Charges

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I agree with my noble friend, and that is why we are retaining in UK law the requirement for them to notify their customers about the amount they spend on roaming per month at the same limit expressed in pounds sterling as is currently available, putting into law that they have to notify their customers when they reach 80% and 100% of their data usage and requiring them to take reasonable steps to prevent inadvertent roaming. We understand that they have responsibilities and that it is a consumer benefit, but that is why we are doing that. We have had constructive discussions with the telecoms industry. Partly because of the competition environment in this country, unlike in some others, consumers have a choice. At the moment, as I said, those that cover 85% have said that, despite the changes that would happen in a no-deal Brexit, they have no plans to increase. They will accept the increased costs while they can.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said, this is exactly analogous to what is in a statutory instrument waiting somewhere in this House on credit card use outside the UK. When that issue came before sifting committee B a few weeks ago, we noticed that the restrictions on charges were only for UK use. Our advisers had already been back to the Government to check why this was the case. We were told it was a conscious decision by the Treasury to allow extra charges on UK citizens using their credit cards in Europe. In other words, it could be stopped. This is exactly the same situation, and it is not good enough for the Minister to say, “Oh well, we will see competition”. The fact of the matter is that the idea was to transfer EU law for our citizens to be exactly the same on 30 March as on 29 March. In this case, it is not. We are deliberately allowing people to be ripped off, and it is a conscious decision by the Government. We were informed of that, and in due course we will get the chance to debate the credit card issue.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

First of all, I point out that this did not appear at the sifting committee, because we made the conscious choice to allow this to be an affirmative SI when it could have been a negative one, so we are not trying to evade—

Gambling: Fixed-odds Betting Terminals

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My noble friend asked me that question when we made the Statement. I said then that we had not done an impact assessment on market towns because in large measure the impact on employment will not be in such towns: rather, it will be in areas where there are vulnerable people and where in the main these betting shops are situated. We understand that there are issues with employment and we are producing a plan to mitigate this. However, I am not saying that that is more important than the harm that FOBTs are doing. That is why we made the decision to change the stake on these machines. We are endeavouring to move as fast as we can, but we have said all along that the move should be revenue neutral. Once we have that in place, we will be able to reduce the stakes.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

In order to relieve the Minister’s obvious discomfort in answering this Question, will he agree to a good suggestion? As this is not about national security, all the minutes and diary information related to all the meetings that have taken place since the original decision was announced should be made available to the public.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am not sure that such a decision is within my brief. More to the point is the question put by the noble Lord about what meetings had taken place. I can tell him that, with suitable notice. There is nothing to hide in this and we are endeavouring to engage with stakeholders. However, it is not normal practice for the internal meetings of government to be circulated—that is my answer to the noble Lord.