Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Main Page: Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Labour - Life peer)Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts
Lord Howie of Troon
My Lords, I want to make a very brief observation with regard to orphan works. The existing definition of an orphan work is not terribly satisfactory. The matter came before the previous Government in their last weeks—I see my noble friend Lord Young nodding over there—when I was successful in persuading them to accept a new definition of what an orphan work actually was, so that people would be in no confusion as to what they were dealing with. Unfortunately, this was the declining days of that Government and that part of the legislation disappeared in the wash-up. I wonder whether the Minister might look back to the Hansard of that period for the redefinition of orphan works and, perhaps at a later stage of this Bill, bring it back in.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, this has been a very powerful debate. In contradistinction to what have been discussing in the immediate run of amendments, this seems to be a situation where the Government are trying to be a little too definitive in primary legislation. My point would be, to support the comments made on this side, to suggest that the Minister might wish to review that.
We have heard that we are talking about hundreds of millions of works, which are—in the words that my noble friend used—underused, understudied and undercelebrated. There is no contention that the repositories in which these works lie are happy to pay for the cost of the administration of the scheme that is to be used to provide access to them. The concern is that by providing a very inflexible approach to this, these institutions will effectively have been taxed to provide funds which will go to the Crown under the bona vacantia rules. This seems extraordinarily unfair and I urge the Government to think again about this issue. I am aware that it has already been the subject of some discussion and debate but, given that we have at least another 10 days until the final stages of this Bill, perhaps there is still time for the meeting or discussion that I might encourage the Minister to have. We would certainly be very willing to meet his timetable in order to progress this.
The point must surely be that there ought to be a way round this that would accept the overall architecture of the structure of the orphan fees arrangement but would not penalise or tax those who have to operate it for the benefit of the public good. We have already had some suggestions that would perhaps include something to do with digital photography, which will always be a difficulty in this area. That might be a step too far. However, there are other ideas around, such as that the escrow account might be not returned to the Crown but made available for cultural work or, more particularly, returned to the original institution if the money is not claimed by a bone fide rights holder.
There might be a case for trying a pilot scheme, which would allow us to test out a number of options. Whatever there is, there is certainly a willingness on our side to see if we can get this right. This scheme is a good scheme. It is one that we on this side want to support, but we find it very difficult to see the right way forward if the Government insist on the present wording of the Bill.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for his amendment. I do not underestimate the strength of his views on this particular issue and the remuneration for orphan works. I have listened very carefully today to his argument. As he well knows, I listened carefully in Grand Committee and, indeed, outside the Chamber to his views, which are well known.
It is one of the core principles of the Government’s proposals that remuneration is payable for the use of an orphan work. Making payment discretionary would risk undercutting the market. It would also risk rights holders not receiving the remuneration that they would otherwise be due. Therefore, to avoid unfair competition, it should not be cheaper to use an orphan work than a non-orphan work. Where cultural institutions are acting commercially, it seems only fair that they do not receive preferential treatment to other parties licensing in the market.
I can assure the noble Lord that in setting the tariff of remuneration the Government will ensure that, as far as possible, it reflects the appropriate tariff for the same type of use of a similar non-orphan work. Where an orphan work is not being used commercially the licence fee will reflect that. In such cases, the fee could be minimal. My officials are consulting the competition authorities about how tariffs are determined.
I will address a number of questions raised by noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. First, he suggested that excluding digital photographs from the orphan works scheme might be a possibility. A stakeholder working group will be considering the possibility, at least initially, of excluding from the scheme photographs without an analogue context—so photographs merely taken from the internet would not qualify for an orphan works licence.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, suggested removing the principle of upfront payment and his views were very clear on that basis. We cannot, however, expect cultural institutions to ride over the rights of creators even in the interests of the public good. Of course we hope that there will not be returning rights holders. We hope that diligent search will identify any such people. However, the principle of upfront payment is an important one. Abandoning the principle of upfront payment is a guarantee to creators that even if their works are missed in the search, they will not be deprived of an income. The fact that rights holders may be content to allow their works to be used is not a reason for trying to reduce their legal rights. In many cases, the payments may be minimal, indeed nominal.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, also raised unclaimed licence fees—an issue alluded to by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. The authorising body will hold unclaimed licence fees in an escrow account. Unclaimed fees could be used to subsidise the cost of running the orphan works scheme, or to pay for preservation costs in public institutions or industry training. There will be further consideration of these options with the input of stakeholders.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, raised the issue of a renewable term and the fact that he was not in favour of it. To allow for business certainty, there will need to be some limit on how long an orphan work can be used before a new authorisation would be required. Any returning rights holder would receive remuneration for this period of time and would be able to stop further use at the end of the period if they so wished. The metrics for determining the durations of licences have yet to be decided. In some cases, it might be a period of time; in others, it might be something else such as a print run. Therefore, there will be further consideration of how charges are determined but licence fees will be appropriate to the type of work and use proposed. I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
“( ) Regulations under subsection (1)—
(a) must make provision requiring all regulated persons to be members of an approved redress scheme for dealing with complaints in connection with the supply of customer data under this section, and(b) may also require a person authorised to receive data under subsection (1)(b) to be a member of such a scheme.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
In moving this amendment, I apologise that my noble friend Lady Hayter is unable to be present and has asked me to speak on her behalf. I will also speak to Amendments 84AHNB, 84AHNC and 84AHND. I start by making it clear that we on this side support the broad thrust and intent of Midata, which is to give consumers increased access to their personal data in a portable, electronic format so that they can use this data to gain insights into their own behaviour, and make more informed choices about products and services. However, to make Midata work and to build consumer confidence in it, there are concerns which we raised in Committee and which our amendments seek to address.
Confidence is key, here as in many other places, and a smart way to ensure that users can trust the use and care of their data is through a redress scheme. Not only does this give comfort in itself—people know where to go if they have a complaint about the provision, cost or use of their data—but it serves two other functions. One is that any regulated person using the logo of a particular redress scheme also signifies some assurance of quality and regulation to the user. The second, more significant function, is that a body of evidence accrues via such a complaints scheme of the sorts of problems or the particular regulated persons which are causing concerns. Given that the Information Commissioner uses a risk-and-evidence-based approach to his work, he is highly reliant on evidence—both of the extent and detriment of any problems—and these are best captured by an accessible and effective complaint or ombudsman scheme.
I start with Amendment 84AHNA, which would require regulated and possibly authorised persons to join a redress scheme. This would not entail setting up a whole new redress body, as there are plenty of other high-quality ombudsmen covering a range of sectors who could be approved under this Bill. Without our amendment, the Bill covers high-level enforcement, but with customers able to bring an action for breach of regulations only before a court or tribunal or, under Section 13 of the Data Protection Act, to claim compensation through the courts. That is a pretty unrealistic hurdle for individual consumers. Hence our call for a redress scheme for individual complaints. Knowing a redress scheme is available if things go wrong would give consumers the confidence to harness the empowering potential of Midata.
Amendment 84AHNB deals with the costs of complying with requests. At present, the charges reflect costs to the data supplier. Our amendment is about costs to consumers: after all it is their personal data that they want released. Charges must not dissuade consumers from engaging in the Midata programme. The EU data protection directive uses the phrase “without excessive ... expense”, but given that not everyone is familiar with that directive, it should be added to the Bill.
Amendment 84AHNC deals with strengthened consumer protections. There are risks from Midata, especially as combining datasets into a whole-person view poses risks to privacy and identity. Secondly, because Midata will see multiple parties including the consumer assume responsibility for data at different points, liability becomes complex, with the risk that consumers will be left exposed. Thirdly, legitimate businesses offering third-party services could incentivise consumers to provide data which might otherwise not be accessible.
Fourthly, there is the risk of misuse of data. Businesses and third parties might, for example, sell on and share data with their affiliates or engage in uninvited cross-selling and marketing. Finally and pervasively, there is security. ID fraud is a real risk as it would be easy to build a picture of an individual, drawing on different information sources. Given that data protection is already of huge concern for consumers, an assurance of security is essential for Midata to succeed and benefit consumers, who will need to be confident they are sharing their data only with trustworthy service providers. We ask the Secretary of State to consult widely to develop protections to ensure that the consumer interest is represented alongside those of regulated and authorised persons. We know that the Information Commissioner would welcome being included on this list.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, as I explained in Grand Committee, the idea behind the powers and Midata is simple: to give consumers the right to request their existing consumption and transaction data back from their suppliers in a portable, electronic format. I remind the House that are data already exist. We are not talking about collecting new data here.
In addressing Amendment 84AHNA, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who is speaking to this amendment, that I agree with them both that customers need to be protected from data misuse. Service providers under Midata must comply with all existing data security and protection rules. There are well-established complaint and redress schemes through the Information Commissioner’s Office in the core sectors where ombudsmen already operate. Data controllers must notify the Information Commissioner of data processing under Section 17 of that Act. Failure to do so is an offence.
However, there may be a need for further measures. This is why a consumer protection and trust work stream has been established under the Midata programme. A number of working groups made up of privacy experts, business, regulators and consumer groups are looking at a wide range of consumer issues. They have been tasked with identifying and recommending existing best practices and, where appropriate, new approaches that may be needed to ensure the security of individuals’ data. The groups are due to report in summer and any recommendations that they propose may need to be reflected in enforcement provisions made under these powers.
The role of third parties is important. Where citizens choose to provide data to a third party, or provide authorisation for a third party to request data on their behalf, the Data Protection Act applies. Under that Act, data controllers do not need to comply with a request for data unless they are satisfied that the requesting party has authority to access it. The consumer protection and trust working groups are looking at a wide range of issues that could emerge in a new Midata world and the Government will want to take their advice before acting. Their recommendations might include kitemarks, accreditation processes and complaint handling and redress schemes, as well as other proposals. The Government do not want to pre-empt any recommendations by setting out detailed protection measures in the Bill.
Turning to Amendment 84AHNB, I reassure noble Lords that the aim of our provision is to make data more accessible. We believe that Clause 75(5)(b)(ii) will have much the same effect as the limitation put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The Government expect data to be provided back to consumers cheaply, and ideally for free, but businesses may initially incur additional costs in making data available electronically and the power allows businesses to charge to recoup their only cost. Noble Lords may be reassured to know that data that have been so far released under the Midata voluntary programme have been provided to customers free of charge.
On Amendment 84AHNC, I would like to deal with proposed new subsection (6A)(a) first. As I have said, businesses do not need to comply with a request for data unless they are satisfied that there is a valid claim of access under the DPA. Mechanisms that might enable this are being considered in the working groups, so this is still a matter under consideration. However, it is clear from our discussions with data controllers that they will not be willing to release data to third parties unless fully satisfied that it represents a legitimate request from an authorised party. The methodology may vary by sector but the additional measures proposed in this amendment do not appear necessary at this time.
In her proposed new subsection (6A)(b), the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has raised an interesting point but the Data Protection Act already affords protections in this area. I recognise the concerns in this respect, particularly around the possible actions of nefarious or rogue operators. However, access to Midata would not alter the current data protection law and any criminal activity could be dealt with appropriately, as it is now. In relation to proposed new subsection (6B), we are working with privacy experts, businesses, regulators and consumer groups in the working groups that I have mentioned. Legislation would be introduced only after a period of public consultation. Scope will exist in any regulations to place conditions on accessing data by authorised persons. Therefore, I believe the specific provisions set out in the amendment to be unnecessary.
Finally, Amendment 84AHND would extend the Information Commissioner’s powers of compulsory entry and audit to the private sector for the first time. This is primarily a matter for the Ministry of Justice and I am not convinced that such a major departure from current policy can be justified here. Its most likely effect would be to stifle innovation. As a result, services that help people to analyse their data will not be developed or may be withdrawn. The ICO already has investigation powers to require information from the private sector; we believe that these are sufficient in this case.
I would like to come back to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on his assertion about claiming compensation through the courts. I think he deemed that to be unrealistic, but the power does provide for a non-court redress route. This could include empowering the ICO to address Midata complaints, if that helps the noble Lord. In the light of my responses, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to withdraw the amendment that she tabled.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the Minister very much for that full response. I am glad that he recognises the issues we raised. We are probably pulling in the same direction on this. In particular, the work streams to which he referred are obviously very helpful and seem to be widely inclusive. I am glad to hear that they will report in the summer, at the point where they can inform any regulatory steps that are to be taken in consequence of this Bill. I think we were very glad to see a couple of other points but I will read them in Hansard and come back if there are any further points we need to make.
My concern is that there were a couple of times in the Minister’s response where he made great play of the fact that he felt that the companies to which requests for access to data are being made would have sufficient ability to determine whether the request was bona fide and therefore to be relied on, without having to have any other cross-regulatory approvals. I hear what he says on that but would like to read it in Hansard to be sure that I am right on it. At this stage, I would say only that that sounds a slightly unlikely premise on which to run what will be a very large amount of personal data, if this works, and be very widely spread across a number of possible providers and users. In that sense, it will therefore raise all the sort of concerns that the public have about how their data are being kept and looked after. At this stage, I would not like to push the amendment any further and I would like to withdraw it.
“( ) omit subsection (2)(a), and”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I start by warmly welcoming the amendments tabled by the Minister, which respond in a very positive fashion to the amendment that I moved in Committee. I had no idea I was being so persuasive. That was a trick I should learn in other places. I clearly have something that I did not know I had. The points that the noble Viscount went on to make are also well taken. Even so, there are a couple of things that we would like to suggest are also taken into account.
For the reasons outlined, the necessity of IT equipment to the continuity of a business in difficulty cannot be overstated. Frankly, without this, there is no chance of any continuation, or of selling on, and thus of maintaining economic activity and jobs. IT is today as central as supplies of water and utilities. Therefore we also welcome the Government’s amendments to add on-sellers of utilities to the list of supplies that must continue. Given our desire to enhance business rescue, especially in these difficult times when banks are less than helpful, this change to prevent certain suppliers withdrawing services to struggling businesses is a significant step forward. We are delighted that the Government heard this plea.
The one area that we wish to raise, covered in the amendments that have been tabled, is the new mandatory requirement for a personal guarantee from the office holder—the insolvency practitioner—to cover essential supplies. Subsection (3) of government Amendment 84C permits the supplier to terminate the supply unless an insolvency office holder personally guarantees any charges arising from the continuation of the supply. This is a move away from the current legislation, which provides for an optional personal guarantee.
Although Section 233 of the 1986 Insolvency Act contains an optional guarantee in subsection (2)(a), when the Bank of England, FSA and HMT introduced equivalent provisions to protect financial institutions, this optional guarantee provision was removed, and there are now no provisions for such personal guarantees. This position for financial institutions is right, as we see no case for a personal guarantee from an office holder, since an insolvency practitioner should not be subject to personal liability when acting as the agent for the company.
Contrast the situation affecting directors, who are not mandatorily subject to such personal liability even though they have a similar relationship to their company. Such a requirement for a personal guarantee appears particularly inappropriate in respect of certain types of insolvency, such as for a supervisor in a voluntary arrangement who has no control over the business. The mandatory guarantee requirement in the government amendment is therefore a backwards step, and our amendments are to align the provisions with the recent regime for financial institutions, by removing the requirements for mandatory personal guarantees from office holders.
Our first two amendments also take this opportunity to amend the 1986 Insolvency Act to remove the optional guarantee from Section 233(2)(a) so that the provisions for essential services in the 1986 Act are brought into line with the protection regime for financial institutions. It is hard to understand the requirement for a personal guarantee, as there is no reason why insolvency practitioners should be subjected to personal liability when acting as the agent of the company. There is a real danger that such a requirement would reduce use of this tool with a real threat, therefore, to business rescue.
The existence of a mandatory personal guarantee would be particularly detrimental in CVAs where the management retains control of the business with the insolvency practitioner acting as supervisor. Given the limited control insolvency practitioners have over the business, with no control over the assets, they would be exposing themselves to significant risk by providing a personal guarantee. It is very unlikely that any insolvency practitioner would, in fact, go down this route. I should add that the proposed 28-day maximum credit period in subsections (2)(c) and (3)(c) of the new clauses is a reasonable compromise. Thus the demand for an additional personal guarantee seems excessive. We know the Government share our desire to maximise company rescues—often with the role of an insolvency practitioner as key. We trust they will not undermine their otherwise welcome amendments by the introduction of this counterproductive measure. I beg to move.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, these amendments seek to amend the powers being introduced by the government amendments, to remove an important protection for suppliers. That protection is provided in the Government’s amendment by allowing suppliers to require a personal guarantee from an insolvency practitioner where they are prevented from exercising a contractual right to terminate supply. Not only does the amendment put forward by the noble Lord remove the protection provided by the government amendment, it also seeks to take away the right of a supplier to a personal guarantee in situations where it already exists in legislation.
I should make clear that essential suppliers who may be required to supply the insolvent business are very likely to be owed money within the insolvency. They are most unlikely to be repaid any more than a small proportion of that claim through realisations within the insolvency. Therefore the Government think it is only right that where such suppliers are obliged to continue supplying the insolvent business, they do so knowing that they will be paid.
The new powers do include other safeguards for the supplier, but none of these guarantees payment of the post-insolvency charges. We do not expect that a supplier will always require a personal guarantee, but we do think that, as is the case as the legislation currently stands, they should be entitled to one where they feel it necessary. It should be noted that the right to request a personal guarantee from the insolvency practitioner is a protection that utility providers have had since 1986, where they are requested to continue supplying the insolvent business.
Removing this right at a time when we are extending the requirement to provide supplies may send the wrong message. However, noble Lords will be aware that the powers do contain the ability to provide for exceptions to the right to request a personal guarantee. While it is anticipated that this would only be exercised in certain limited circumstances, it does provide for some flexibility in the matter.
There is a balance to be struck here. The powers provided by the government amendments will prevent essential IT and utility providers making ransom demands upon insolvency professionals. This can only help the chances of insolvency practitioners being able to rescue struggling businesses. However, they do interrupt normal contractual rights and, as such, we believe it is right to provide safeguards, of which the right to a personal guarantee is one of the most important.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his contribution. I am grateful for his comments and reassure the House that the Government take these issues very seriously. The government amendments demonstrate that the Government are committed to seeking improvements to the insolvency regime where there are clear reasons for doing so. However, the Government consider that the amendments suggested by the noble Lord would unfairly remove necessary protections for suppliers. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I agree that the Government are making good steps in this area. I do not want to in any sense take away from them the change that they are introducing through their substantive amendment. I agree that the insolvency processes in the UK generally are very good. They may be slightly better in Scotland, which is moving ahead with another Bill, and I hope that the lessons that Scotland is going to teach us are learnt in the processes in England and Wales.
It is really a question of whether it is appropriate to expose those who are trying to help companies get back on their feet and continue to operate to having to give a personal guarantee. On a very superficial level, it seems to be completely at variance with the overall process that we are trying to introduce. The fact that it may exist in legislation at present does not make it right. Given that the Government have legislated to make sure that these personal guarantees no longer exist in financial companies, it seems slightly odd that we are requiring them for SMEs and smaller companies, which often go into voluntary administration or some other form and then come out again. To hamper that by curtailing the willingness of an IP to get involved does not seem to be right.
However, there is a balance to be struck. I ask the Government to think very carefully about this and to look at it again. I am very happy to have further discussions if that would be helpful. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.