Covid-19: Museums, Galleries and Historic Buildings

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for securing this debate and generating a wonderful speakers’ list, which has covered the ground and made the case for urgent government action. As we have heard, it is important to ensure that all aspects of the sector have scope to follow any of the plans that come forward. The Design Museum is as important as the cathedrals; the small museums, galleries and other spaces are as important as the big ones.

It is also important to hear the case for what a vibrant sector can contribute to the economy, to society, to education and to well-being. The call for action is persuasive: the sector needs emergency public funding over an extended period, with a simple application process and no bureaucracy. The hardest hit are institutions that raise the greatest proportion of income and they will also need cash and support, and certainty of this through the next—quite considerable—period.

Also hard hit and in need of special attention are the institutions that rely on tourism or have very sharp seasonal openings. These also need to be given a special place. We also need real concern for local councils, which have had a double whammy. Their direct provision needs supporting, and they are losing income from associated activity in their areas. The department has a lot to do, it needs to work and it must not be outsmarted by the Germans.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 19th May 2020 Lords Chamber

This is not just about the Secretary of State exercising his discretion. It is not just landowners and businesspeople who must be given some extra means of proceeding. There must be some pressure put behind the operators as well if we are to achieve our targets. The example that I described is not alone in the country. We must get on this. I appreciate the need to pay our balance off with interest. If we are to give the Secretary of State wider regulatory powers, I hope that they will be used in a way that will get us nearest and fastest to the goal that we all want.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the benefit of making one or two Second Reading-style comments at the start of the debate on these amendments has been well proven by what has been said. A lot of context has been brought out, as has the theory underpinning some of the lines of argument. That is all to the good.

I want to make a couple of initial points. I take it as read, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm this when she responds, that we are all supportive of the speedy and complete rollout of a gigabit-capable economy. There is no question about our support in terms of previous chances because we have focused on or around this topic for a number of years now. Indeed, we have had a couple of Bills on it. It is on the record that, on our side of the House, we have tried hard to raise the unambitious USO target, as my old friend, my noble friend Lord Adonis, mentioned. We have also brought forward other measures—they were picked up on by other speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—which may have helped us to get a bit further down the line to where we are.

In the Digital Economy Act and subsequent legislation, we asked how to get everyone together on the path and moving toward a gigabit economy. The Government chose to go down the voluntary route. Of course that ended in tears, with very few respondents happy with where they are—so here we are again. I will not go into that in any detail. Having said that, times have changed. Other noble Lords have said it but I am sure that the Minister will agree that the internet’s role has changed as a result of Covid-19. It would have changed anyway but it has certainly been brought into focus because of the crisis. We certainly do not want a situation where individuals or families could be left behind because they have not been given access to gigabit-capable broadband.

Underneath the general points that have been made, there are probably a couple of major positions that we ought to focus on as we go through these amendments. Surely the default position should be that, like water, gas and electricity, gigabit-capable connections should be available to all premises. The acid test for us on this Bill is whether its measures advance that. The noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, said that there were points that we could agree did bring us forward, but I think the general feeling so far is that perhaps there is not a deep enough cut being taken from those issues.

My second point is: where are the other pieces of legislation that will back this up? Where are the points that address bringing forward access to all properties on the same terms as other utilities? Where are the measures that will help with works that have to be done on a village-wide or town-wide basis in order to get access to cables? When will we get some sense of the overarching position and the legislation for that?

We support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the one raised by my noble friend Lord Adonis. There needs to be broader support for legal occupiers to be able to initiate and unblock the process. I particularly liked a comment made in the middle of the debate about the future ownership of Openreach, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Throughout all this we are not in any sense saying that the owner of the property is diminished by any proposals to improve the quality of what is available in the premises. However, we clearly need it to be possible for all properties to be supplied with public utilities, and I think the internet has to be regarded as one. If this is not the case, it is up to the Minister to make very clear today why not. Can she address that point? Will she take back, perhaps for further consideration on Report, the wider concern—it was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in particular, but I think was raised by just about everybody—that the Bill actually has not tackled the essential question of who it is talking about when it deals with property rights?

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for his support and that of his colleagues for the Government’s work in this area; I thank all noble Lords in that regard. I also thank the noble Lords who tabled these amendments, which seek to clarify who is able to make a request for a service, and therefore begin a path for an order process.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friends Lady McIntosh and Lord Holmes raised questions about our 2025 manifesto target and the impact of Covid-19 on achieving that. As many noble Lords noted, the current pandemic has re-emphasised the importance of digital infrastructure in the UK, and we are fully committed and resolved to deliver on this. Obviously, Covid-19 is likely to have an impact on the pace of the rollout in the short term, but we cannot assume that we cannot recover that, make up ground and still meet our target. We are doing everything we can to assure this, including investing £5 billion in the hardest-to-reach areas such as the rural areas to which my noble friends Lord Haselhurst and Lady McIntosh referred.

Questions were also raised by several noble Lords, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Clement-Jones, about investment and competition. I cannot comment on the rumours about the status of Openreach, which is obviously something for the BT Group to announce or comment on, but our understanding from subsequent press reports is that the original Financial Times report was inaccurate. Officals will continue to engage with BT and Openreach, but it is ultimately a private company. [Inaudible.] They also raised a number of other questions, particularly in relation to the status of broadband connections as a utility—if I may, I will comment on those in a later group. Some specific and quite detailed questions were also raised which I will respond to in writing, including the question from my noble friend Lord Holmes as regards learning from previous Openreach rollout.

Turning to the specific amendments, I note that Amendment 6 is similar to an amendment tabled in the other place during the passage of the Bill there. I believe that the noble Lords who have tabled the amendment are seeking to ensure that tenants are covered by the Bill. If noble Lords are indeed seeking clarification on that point, I am able to confirm that as currently drafted, the provisions in this Bill can be used by people who rent their homes. This includes people with assured shorthold tenancy or assured tenancy agreements which, as many noble Lords will be aware, are the most common forms of tenancy agreement. These will include second homes and sub-lets as long as they meet the requirements in the Bill. I will confirm this in writing, but my understanding is that in relation to renewable tenancies—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—if they have the characteristics of a lease, they would not be affected by this Bill. [Inaudible.] They would not be covered by this Bill. I can cover the impact of that in a letter to noble Lords.

Our concern is that the amendments as tabled would have a significant effect on the Bill. They would significantly expand the scope of who is able to make a service request to include anyone who is the legal occupant of a property, tenancy, or a freeholder. For example, the amendment could bring into scope a tenant who rents their property from an individual who is illegally sub-letting the property or a short-term lodger in a single room in someone else’s home. I am sure noble Lords will agree that, while the Government are committed to providing widespread access to fast, reliable and resilient broadband, it is important to ensure that the ability to make fundamental changes regarding the rights over property begins with an individual who has a legitimate interest in the property. Furthermore, Amendment 6 would considerably increase the ambit of the Bill and make it very different from the model which was consulted on. The Bill as drafted already works in respect of tenants, so noble Lords will appreciate the unintended consequences of extending the definition to those who may begin a Part 4A process.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

7: Clause 1, page 2, line 1, after “provide” insert “, or the operator itself believes there is a public interest in providing,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would afford an operator the right to initiate proceedings to gain access to a leasehold property in the event of that operator believing the provision of new infrastructure on that site would be in the public interest.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, in moving this amendment I will also speak to Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which covers much of the same ground.

In the Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review, the Government said:

“We do not think it is acceptable for landlords to be able to deny their tenants a service if an operator is prepared to provide it. We want to bring telecoms operators in line with the gas, energy and water sectors by providing a ‘right to entry’, where a landlord is given notification of an operator’s intention to access a property”.


We are entitled to ask the Minister to explain what happened. Why has the Bill failed to live up to the very sensible remarks made in the review and some of the comments that have been made this afternoon?

Other noble Lords have mentioned the impact of Covid-19 and how it has radically changed the position regarding a gigabit-capable infrastructure. We have just been talking about whether that should become the USO position, which I would support. However, access to home schooling, home working and home shopping are now as important as clean water and energy. Why perpetuate the myth that gigabit-capable access is in some sense discretionary? No individual and no family should be left behind.

Secondly, operators are part of the solution and certainly not the problem, in terms of where we are trying to reach. The discussion about Openreach and the desire of operators to co-operate if the circumstances arise are all part of this issue; to achieve what we want we must support operators in the limited time we have left. If they are in an area installing fibre and have the personnel and equipment there, it must be more cost-effective for them, beneficial for all and in the public interest for all premises in that area to be dealt with.

This amendment would not remove any control from owners of properties, but it would open up the whole process. It seems from the comments we have already heard that there is support for the amendment. We need an operator to be able independently to initiate the process, so that those who want this service can get it. I cannot see that this is, in any sense, against the public interest. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

No other noble Lords wish to intervene on this amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

This is a very interesting argument, which I do not really understand. It has come up on previous amendments and we need to bottom it out before we get to the end of today’s debates. As a precursor to what I am about to say, I do not think we would be having these discussions were it not for two things. First, memories are very short. One reason that we have Openreach is the increasing frustration that we felt over the years—not just us but the Government—at the inability of BT, a slow-moving giant, to respond to the needs of the country in developing gigabit-capable broadband. Indeed, in those days we were talking about simply getting to a USO figure of 10 megabits per second. That was the rationale for forcing BT, which did not wish to do it, to split off Openreach. It may well be that that is a continuing story and we will have more to go on. The idea was that Openreach would be faster and less constrained by the bureaucracy of BT and the problems affecting it, and able to satisfy the need to get our country up to the standards we wanted. That was the moving force.

It has been mentioned but it is important to bear in mind that last year we were at the bottom of the 80 or countries that contributed to an overall survey about how fast broadband was being been brought into countries. The good news is that we are no longer bottom; we are now third from bottom with 2.8% coverage. The top countries—Iceland, Belarus and Sweden—have more than 60% coverage of fibre to the home and the EU 28 average is 17.1%. We are miles away from getting anywhere near completing this in the time allotted. I do not get the idea that somehow we have to be balanced and fair and that there is a public interest in making sure that the rights of all concerned are equally balanced. The public interest is in getting fast broadband to as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

We will do that by making sure that the process is more like utility provision than a discretionary arrangement for getting something as a result of choice. The idea that somehow bringing operators to the point where they see that it makes good economic sense to implement a process in an area they happen to be working in is somehow unbalancing the public interest is just bonkers. It is in the public interest if we increase the quality of connections available to people to connect to the fast internet if they wish to do so, and it is not taking any rights away from owners. The whole point is that this is a process that has started; it is not a decision to go ahead. The process allows people to petition the courts or others to make sure that they can get access when they wish to do so. It is not about giving away any rights. I hope the Minister will take those points away and think about them. I am certain we will want to come back to this on Report. In the interim, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Adonis]

I do not wish to speak on this group.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I will be brief as well—the Committee has heard enough from us already. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, this is a probing amendment to see where the Government’s ambitions point. There does not seem to be any logic in the current drafting and the amendment is a good way to try to extend it, but there are other ways. If the Government, either now or at later stages, accept amendments that mean that all legal occupiers of a property and the operators themselves can also initiate Part 4A orders, we will not need this amendment.

I will use this time to ask a question that was raised in the discussion on an earlier amendment, as I did not get the answer from the Minister at the time it was raised. She may not have that information to hand and, if she does not, I will be happy for her to write. I think that we are all conscious that not everything in this Bill will achieve the promised land of the gigabit-compliant internet that we are all looking for, so other things need to happen, but they will not be addressed in other places. Perhaps the Minister could give us a tour d’horizon of them, if necessary in writing. How and when will we get the legislation for all new homes to have open-access fibre connections? Will there be a harmonised UK-wide regime for permitting street works to lay fibre? How will we ensure that fibre-builders can make use of the utilities infrastructure—for gas, water and electricity—to facilitate access? We need to know that these things are happening if we are to be confident that the Bill will achieve what it aims to do, so can the Minister write to me about them?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

I thank noble Lords for their brevity in outlining the purpose of this probing amendment. I shall try to be similarly brief in response.

I certainly welcome the intention behind this amendment—namely, to clarify which premises other than multiple-dwelling buildings such as blocks of flats might be in scope of the Bill and why. The decision initially to include only multiple-dwelling buildings is deliberate. It was informed by careful consideration of the evidence that was made available to us, not least through the consultation that was held before the Bill was drawn up and introduced. That evidence indicated that specifically this type of premises—multiple-dwelling buildings—most needed the sort of targeted intervention that is proposed in the Bill. We were not, by contrast, presented with compelling evidence for other types of property at this stage and certainly not enough to justify legislating at this point. However, we recognise that such evidence might emerge in time and we are mindful that office blocks or business parks, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement Jones, mentioned, could face similar issues. We continue to engage with providers and others about this.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked how far our ambition stretches: as far as the evidence suggests. This is why we have included a clear power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to make regulations, should they be needed, to widen the scope of the Bill and make it apply to other premises of a specified description. That will allow the Secretary of State to legislate in a flexible and proportionate way, led by the evidence. This approach will allow the Government to continue to engage with interested parties, as well as to consider and balance the evidence that becomes available to us. Crucially, it will also help to guard against any unintended consequences that could arise from widening the scope of the Bill too quickly, before there is sufficient evidence to support doing so.

The noble Lord raised a point about new-build developments. The Government have set out plans to ensure that new-build homes in England are built with gigabit broadband by amending the 2010 building regulations to require developers of new-builds to install the infrastructure necessary to make them gigabit-capable. As we set out in our consultation response published on 17 March this year, the Building Act 1984 contains the necessary primary powers that would mandate the installation of gigabit broadband in new build developments. To include the new-build developments in the Bill in the way proposed by this amendment is therefore unnecessary, and could hamper the simple and proportionate approach we have set out in the consultation response.

I should add that, as housing is a devolved matter, the Government are also working closely with the devolved Administrations on this. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that we have firm proposals in place to address the issues raised, and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

12: Clause 1, page 2, leave out line 31
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the ability of a landlord to exclude themselves from the scope of these provisions by acknowledging an access request in writing without addressing the substantive point.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I move Amendment 12 and will speak to Amendment 13. Taken together, these amendments probe in a little more detail the way in which operators and property owners will be able to come to some sort of deal. While the Bill sets out to provide a mechanism under which, if necessary, the courts can supervise an arrangement so that access can be provided, the truth is that most operators would wish to have a voluntary arrangement through which they can deal face to face with the person responsible, in order to satisfy the potential user of the new equipment about what they are trying to do. In a sense, it is a slightly strange mixture.

The Bill seems incredibly one-sided in the way it approaches the rights of the owner of the property. We had this debate when considering previous amendments, and I am still a little uncertain as to why this should be. Throughout the discussion, the Minister has tried to make it clear that it is a balance between three competing interests: the rights of the owner of the property, those of the user and those of the operator. But I do wonder whether the balance is right in this respect.

The bar set by the Bill for a landlord to be engaging with the network builder—this is the dialogue that we are talking about—seems to be set a bit low. As I read it, the only requirement of the landlord is that they acknowledge the request notice in writing. That does not give any confirmation that the landlord will negotiate the terms of access to the property in good faith. Can the Minister say in more detail what the Government have in mind here? Could the landlord simply say, “Thank you for your letter—I will get back to you”, and the whole process stops at that point because there is no way of unlocking the arrangement?

In responding to the original consultation, the Government said that a substantive response from the landlord would be enough to take them out of the scope of the Bill, but the Bill as drafted does not require a substantive response. I agree that this might be a definitional issue but if so, why is no definition included in the Bill? This issue was discussed during the Commons stages of the Bill. Amendments that could have addressed it were discussed extensively but the Government rejected them, confirming their view that, by definition, in responding, a landlord ceases to be unresponsive. While I absolutely agree that there is an element of truth in that, it does not solve the problem, which is that if landlords want to play this long and get out of it without committing, it looks as though they can do so. It would sensible either to have no recommendation at all, as per the amendment, or some form of time-limited arrangement under which further action could be taken to resolve the issue. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Lord Clement-Jones?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I have received no notification that anyone wishes to speak after the Minister, so I return to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I will read carefully in Hansard what has been said and reflect on it. I am bound to say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, we are back in the land of unintended consequences, which is not really an appropriate argument to use against what is essentially a probing amendment. We do not intend it to go forward into the Bill as it stands. Simply raising the spectre that it might have unintended consequences has not advanced the discussion.

The Minister’s main point was that the Bill’s intention, which I recognise, is to incentivise a situation in which discussions with the operators and others are brought up when people do not reply to requests for information. In a sense, what is in the Bill is an answer to people who have gone AWOL or died and are not able to answer their letters, rather than encouraging dialogue and leading to a conclusion, which is what we are all trying to get to if we are ever to get to the full gigabit-ready internet that we all look for. I do not think that is the answer, but having said that I will reflect on what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst. He is not there. We will move to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. I beg your pardon; I call the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

The case has been so well made by my noble friend Lord Adonis that I have very little to add. I thought, as he did, that the exchanges in the Commons were extraordinary. We need some better explanation of what has been going on there. This is an area where there may be some case for a bit of guidance being issued by the Minister, and not necessarily in regulatory form.

I have recently moved house and have had exactly the same problem of trying to take over an existing line from the previous owner and being told that I could not switch operators and had to stick with the same equipment, even though it is clearly not right for our type of use. I am sure that this a pro-competition and pro-choice amendment which the Minister will want to support—there is a bit of a get-out here which she may want to think about.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Apologies for skipping over you, Lord Stevenson. We will try the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, again. He is not there. Lord Liddle? We go then to the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

17: Clause 1, page 6, line 1, leave out “, of no more than 18 months,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the 18-month time limit for the expiry of a Part 4A code right.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 18. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will come in on Amendment 19, which has a similar bent but a slightly different way of moving forward on the same issue.

These are probing amendments to ask why there is a need for a statutory limit on the expiry of Part 4A code rights. It has reached the stage where Part 4A code rights are clearly necessary, now and in the future, and not limited to 18 months, which might well be interrupted by all sorts of things, not necessarily excluding matters such as those we are currently experiencing. We are saying here that this stems from our having had representations from operators about the imposition of the 18-month time limit. While there may be one, no explanation has been given for why that period has been chosen and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what it was. The proposal has been included in the Bill without any consultation, which causes us concern. That is why we have tabled Amendment 18, which suggests that before any final decision is taken, there should be a wider consultation on this.

What we surely want to see is no roadblocks, uncertainties or hindrances, real or apparent, for those who might, wilfully or otherwise, wish to frustrate progress on getting access to above-ground fibre broadband for the home. If there is to be a sensible time limit, it ought to be practical and should not create costs. If there has not been consultation, there should be, so the amendment suggests that, instead of putting into primary legislation a figure that seems to have been plucked from the air, we should have a proper process that would arrive at something that people would understand and might support better. I beg to move.

[Lord Adonis]

I do not wish to speak on this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran]

I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. Just to clarify, I am sorry if the language sounded pacifying. The noble Lord will remember that in an earlier amendment I talked about the spirit of the Bill being about incentivising communication between landowners and operators. The aim of this is to bring clarity and certainty to all involved, including consumers.

In the consultation we had responses from landowners and local authorities. The noble Lord will not be surprised to know that some who responded thought this was too short a period and some that it was too long, so this feels like a bit of a Goldilocks moment. There is a balance to be struck between the flexibility that the noble Lord rightly points to and clarity and certainty. Based on the consultation responses that we received, we hope that we have achieved that balance.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am very grateful to all those who have contributed, particularly the Minister, whose detailed explanation deserves further consideration and I will read it very carefully in Hansard. I am also delighted to have escaped at least one amendment that did not get criticised for having unexpected consequences, so I must have got something right on that one.

This is very difficult to get right and I appreciate the difficult issues that have been raised. I will reflect on what has been said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

Data Protection: Age-appropriate Design Code

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they intend to lay the regulation giving effect to the age- appropriate design code required under section 123 of the Data Protection Act 2018 before Parliament.

The Question was considered in a Virtual Proceeding via video call.

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

The age-appropriate design code will play an important role in protecting children’s personal data online. The Government notified the final draft of the age-appropriate design code to the European Commission as part of our obligations under the technical standards and regulations directive. The standstill period required under the directive has concluded. The Data Protection Act requires that the code is laid in Parliament as soon as is practicably possible.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I am delighted to hear that, my Lords, although no date has been given. The Government have a bit of ground to make up here, so perhaps it will not be delayed too long. Does the Minister agree that the Covid-19 pandemic is a perfect storm for children and for young people’s digital experience? More children are online for more time and are more reliant on digital technology. In light of that, more action needs to be taken. Can she give us some information about when the Government will publish their final response to the consultation on the online harms White Paper, for example, and a date for when we are likely to see the draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny?

[Baroness Barran]

I spent some time this morning with a group of young people, in part discussing their experience online. The noble Lord is right that the pandemic presents significant challenges, and they were clear that they wanted a safe space online as well as physical safe spaces. The Government share that aspiration. We expect to publish our response to the online harms consultation this autumn and to introduce the legislation this Session.

Covid-19: Holiday and Caravan Parks

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

I agree with my noble friend that we all have a part to play. I also accept that, as human beings, all our lives have been turned upside down in the last few weeks. I am sure that some of the people whom we saw on the TV heading to the countryside perhaps did not appreciate quite how many people were going to be there with them. My noble friend puts her finger on the critical point that we must all be practising social distancing and that must include not undertaking any non-essential travel. However, that is only one part of the strategy. The Government are aiming to have an absolutely comprehensive strategy in this regard.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, those who are temporarily resident fall under the points previously made; the Minister has carefully explained how that is happening. However, is there not also a danger that, for those who have more than just temporary residence in parks—which may not have sufficient local resources—that aspect of their lives may not be taken into account? Can the Minister confirm that detailed information about those residences is collected and shared with health providers in the area, to ensure that there is no gap in provision for those who think themselves covered in one area but turn out not to be?

[Baroness Barran]

The noble Lord will be aware that there is a huge amount of mapping of exactly that sort of data, particularly in relation to the most vulnerable groups. An enormous amount of work on this has been going on for several weeks.

Wuhan Coronavirus: Tourism

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

As I tried to explain in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lee, the Minister for Tourism is working closely with the industry and the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Clark, will be aware, we recently announced a tourism deal to meet a number of the issues that he rightly raised.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the work that VisitBritain is doing to try to understand better what the impact will be of this awful situation. I looked at its website this morning and noticed that it was still suggesting that there will be an increase in overseas visitors this year of some 2.9% and a growth in income from £25 billion to £26.6 billion. Does she have current figures to share with the House? Are there any plans that are not just reliant on hope, such as suggesting staycations and other ways in which we might increase the volume of traffic to those who have to suffer disbenefit, from internal resources?

[Baroness Barran]

Obviously, VisitBritain is responsible for the data on its website. I asked the same questions of officials that the noble Lord put to me. Rightly, the view is that there are many moving parts to this and that trying to come up with a number is probably not helpful. What is helpful is to be in constant communication with the sector, listening and engaging with it, and working across government, which is what we are doing.

TV Licence Fee Enforcement

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes]

It is a pleasure to rejoin the noble Lord in another House of Parliament, although of course we remain on opposite sides. He is absolutely right to say that the mission of the BBC is set under the current charter. I want to say that the BBC is a very important institution to this country that produces some outstanding programming. But, as I say, the changing broadcasting landscape means that the funding model will need to be looked at again. Decriminalisation requires primary legislation; that could be done under the existing royal charter, and, as I say, any changes will require significant consultation, which I am sure will involve many thousands of people having their say, including BBC employees and management.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I think it is fair to say that the issues that have just been raised are not the direct responsibility of the new Secretary of State, whom I welcome to her place, but she certainly has to inherit responsibility for them. The Government putting in their manifesto that they would find the funds for over-75s and then withdrawing that is certainly something that the party opposite will not escape with for very long.

Having said that, I will ask a rather narrow question, although it relates to the same issue. More by luck than good judgment, we have got out of the situation where the licence fee and the royal charter are renewed at the same time as general elections. That is to be welcomed. That having been said, we have a mid-term review, which I think is now scheduled for 2022. We have not yet seen the terms of reference for the review, so I would be grateful to know whether they will be published. I would also be grateful if the noble Baroness could repeat what was said yesterday in an answer during Oral Questions: that the mid-term review will remain, as was agreed during legislative discussions on the royal charter last time round, a light-touch review that will not deal with substantial issues to do with licensing, the licence fee or, indeed, the charter itself.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes]

I thank the noble Lord very much. One recommendation from the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in the House of Commons was that there should be more transparency in the process around the licence fee. We think that that is absolutely right. The Lords Communications Committee recently published a report on these issues, which the Government will respond to shortly. In asking about transparency, the noble Lord is absolutely right to say that there is an iterative process leading up to charter renewal. Also, we will need to start thinking about these issues as a Government, as a Parliament and as a country; we should not leave it all until the end of the process.

Local Authorities: Tourism

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

I fear that I may have to consult my colleague in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government about houses in multiple occupation. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I recognise that Birmingham is rather far from the sea but could we return to those sunny shores? In the discussions referred to by my noble friend on the Birmingham Commonwealth Games, we received from the then Minister, now the Chief Whip, the assurance that Birmingham City Council was undertaking detailed work and taking expert advice on various options for revenue-raising to offset the costs of the Games, including the use of existing powers on the introduction of a new tax such as a hotel tax. He went on to say that:

“Her Majesty’s Treasury await the conclusion of that analysis and stand ready to look at the details of any proposals put forward by the council”.—[Official Report, 24/7/19; cols. 784-85.]


That does not seem to square with what the noble Baroness said. Is that still the Government’s position? Further, when will we hear the results of those discussions?

[Baroness Barran]

The Government’s position is that we are still in discussions. I understand that my honourable friend the Minister for Sport has been in discussions with Birmingham City Council very recently and that those conversations are continuing. As we said originally, we will review its suggestions.

Shared Rural Network

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. Before I start on a detailed response, I should say that I find it hard to work out exactly what has been announced today. The money that the Minister was talking about was already announced. I am not in any sense accusing her of simply repeating a previous announcement, because there is a focus to it that was not there before. However, if the money was already available and there was nothing new in it, the arrangement seems conditional—this sounds a bit like Brexit—on a legal agreement being established in an uncertain timeframe, with uncertain consequences if it is not so done. It is therefore a sort of precursor, or perhaps a preheating, of an announcement yet to be made that an agreement has been so made.

The agreement that is being announced is one that the operators seem to have come to themselves. As was clear from the Statement, it has caused a bit of a problem. Rather unusually, it has caused the Government to suggest to Ofcom that the previously announced spectrum auction, which it has been working on for six to nine months, has to be changed at rather late notice to ensure that there are not unfortunate geographical restrictions placed upon it. If it does not all come together in an appropriate timescale, and if we do not get the solution from the operators that the Government are clearly signalling, then the whole thing goes back to square one. We will be back where we were before, with a patchy and not very satisfactory solution despite the money. I am sounding downbeat about this because, while I want to welcome it, I am a bit confused about the overegging that appears to be happening here of what is a good idea but which certainly has not yet been delivered. It is rather unusual for the Government to take steps this way forward. Perhaps there is an election coming and they wanted to get some news out. Maybe that is what it is, so perhaps I am being silly about this.

To roll back a little, we are starting from a very bad place. As the Statement makes clear, coverage from the four operators in the United Kingdom is about 66% of the UK’s geography. That translates to figures I have seen showing that about 90% of UK parliamentary constituencies are not getting complete coverage: there are, right across the country, places for which no coverage at 4G level is available from any operator, let alone more than one. We are starting from a very bad position.

We went through this in some detail when dealing with the Digital Economy Act. As Members on the Bench opposite will recall, we suggested that the Government were hopelessly unambitious in their targets and that the USO of 10 megabits should be replaced by a target of 1 gigabit for the provision of basic services through wi-fi, linked with mobile operation, to make sure that 100% of the country was covered. Under this plan, which as I understand it is skewed towards a solution which will allow for the more rapid rollout of broadband, we will get to only 95% geographical coverage. That will, of course, be much less in terms of the number of properties covered and may not reach the individuals and SMEs in rural constituencies who need these services. Nevertheless, it is certainly an improvement.

I hope, however, that the noble Baroness will explain the difference between the current ambition for a 4G solution and where the Statement ended up, saying that this is to prepare the way for the country’s 5G. As I understand it, a 5G solution to the problems we face will require probably five or 10 times as much infrastructure involvement. Is that included in this process, or is this yet to come? Are we really talking about a 4G solution?

In welcoming this, we should recognise that industry coming together to come forward with a proposal has done us all a great service. At the heart of this is the rather coy announcement that if you have a contract with an operator—as is the norm; you tend to have only one mobile phone and one operator servicing it—you will receive coverage, wherever you are. My rather naive technological brain suggests that that must include some form of roaming connection. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the Government have finally grasped this nettle and that a solution to the problem faced only by Britain—on the continent, you are linked up immediately to whichever operator has the best service available—will now be embraced? She seems to pose as a solution that, if coverage is everywhere, we will get rid of not only partial not-spots but also total not-spots, and that that can be done only if all the operators work together. If that is true, then I welcome it; it is the answer to the questions we have been posing for some time.

Finally, can the noble Baroness confirm that there will be targeted figures to measure success against? Consumers need to know that the solution proposed today will work. Some sorts of targets are needed, because it is a long time until 2022. If we could have some sense of what those markers will be and how they will be met, that would be helpful.

Whether it is 5G or 4G—and 4G is at least a step forward for most people—it is important to know the benefits available. The ability to access it while travelling on the railways and motorways is key to future development. Can the noble Baroness confirm that that will be part of the proposal? Can she say whether the funding available, which is conditional on a legal contract, will still be available if, at the end of the day, a deal does not go through and we do not have the legal construct to allow us to continue? Can she tell us that that money will not be lost?

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches, we welcome the Statement in so far as it goes, but we also note that it is not yet a done deal. I had the privilege to chair your Lordships’ Rural Economy Committee. We very quickly discovered that, on connectivity, rural areas have been left way behind. The Government told the committee that they have always recognised the need for rural areas to benefit as much as anywhere else from digital infrastructure to transform the economy. Yet, as the Statement acknowledges, it is rural areas that have really lost out. There has perhaps been recognition of a need, but so far there has been no action to cater for it.

This Statement, as some other recent Statements have done, suggests a welcome, if belated, change of heart. But it will take until 2026 to eradicate partial not-spots and reduce the total not-spot land-mass from 7% to 3%—way longer than was originally promised by the Government. Will the Minister continue to look at the option of mobile roaming in rural areas to provide at least an interim solution to help with the partial not-spots?

The shared rural network deal includes dropping the coverage requirement in the forthcoming auction of the spectrum that is to be used for 5G. Given that this deal has not yet been signed, can the Minister explain why Ofcom has today announced the start of a consultation on a new auction arrangement that does not include any coverage obligation? What will happen, for instance, if this deal does not get signed? The Minister says that she is satisfied that this deal improves on the originally proposed coverage requirements. What is the Government’s analysis of future 5G coverage? If we are still going to go by percentages, will she at least acknowledge that, if we eventually get to 55% 5G coverage, rural areas will still be losing out? Surely it would have been better to include a “rural first” requirement, so that rural areas do not get left behind?

The Statement also refers to the rollout of high-speed broadband. Since rural areas also lag behind with this form of connectivity, and so will be most reliant on the broadband universal service obligation, why will the Government not follow the advice of your Lordships’ Rural Economy Committee and increase the paltry upload and download speeds in the USO?

Finally, government efforts to mandate fibre to the premises on most new housing developments are welcome, but developments of fewer than 30 houses seem set to be excluded. Since such small developments are often in rural communities, is this another example of rural areas losing out? Will the Government think again? That said, we welcome the shared rural network deal and hope that it comes to fruition.

Online Pornography: Age Verification

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the House will be aware of my long-standing view that it is wrong in principle for the Government to require private companies, such as the BBFC, to carry out statutory functions. We had considerable reservations about the original approach taken by the Government in the Digital Economy Act, with its reliance on age verification as a surrogate for requiring companies to do much more to protect children and other vulnerable people online, but we support the duty of care approach set out in the recent White Paper.

However, yesterday’s announcement will undoubtedly mean that children will be exposed to unsuitable material for two or three years more than originally planned. This is shocking. A few months ago, we were told that the delays were due to an “administrative oversight”. Is that still the reason that the Government use? When will the report on that incident be made available?

[Baroness Barran]

I am glad that the noble Lord supports the duty of care approach, as set out in the online harms White Paper. I think all sides of the House can agree that a voluntary approach has not worked to date. In terms of the administrative oversight, that is still the reason for the original delay.

Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL]

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I come in as a tail-end Charlie on this. On the subject of disability, no matter the Long Title of the Bill, the positive experience of London 2012 hangs over it; it was a great cultural success and, as a result, the level of expectation has risen. To use flower show standards, it got its gold; everything else is expected to be at least a silver gilt. We have raised the bar and we must make sure that this level is maintained. Part of that is making sure that people know what their duties are and that people outside know what they are expected to do. Amendment 4 is a step towards this and makes my Amendment 9 totally superfluous. However, we need to know what comes with it.

When the Minister speaks again, I encourage him to guide us—and make sure that Hansard has it—to where we can find out what these duties are, so that people can look them up. If you have responsibilities that nobody knows about, and nobody knows where to check, those responsibilities die. This is the experience with lots of legislation on disability generally: if you do not know that you are supposed to do it, you do not do it; if you do not know that someone should have done it, you do not report them or pull them up on it. It is one of those patterns. There is lots of dust-gathering legislation to which this has happened. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to let us know what is going on.

The Minister has listened. He has done something that on the face of it makes things better, but how it relates to the regulation and the stuff behind it is the real question here. I hope I am not encouraging him to speak until this time next week, but we need a guide to what is going on and how this will be implemented. If we get that, many of the problems that we are having will probably occur less frequently, although there is no silver bullet.

I too have the information from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It is probably as good a description of all life’s little irritations writ large as you could possibly want. Nothing stops people taking part; it just takes the edge off it every time. We did not do that in London. We should make sure that we try to meet the standard wherever we can. I hope the Minister will tell us the legal situation on that, the penalties for it and how to make sure that if anyone is not coming up to standard, they know about it and so does the rest of the world.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, this is actually the heart of the debate we have been having on the Games, concentrated in one very small group of amendments. As he says, it may well be that we can take all the tricks that are on the table—if that metaphor actually works—at the same time if we get this right. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, that will largely depend on the Minister’s response because a lot of this is about how we judge the need to ensure that the legislation that goes through this House—and, presumably, very quickly through the other place thereafter—contains the minimum requirements appropriate for Games of this scale and stature. As I have mentioned before, it is important to note that these Games, unlike the others that we have looked at before, are very much in the direct control of the Government because the organising committee will be a non-departmental public body and the accounting officer of the department will therefore have legal and statutory responsibilities, as well as those that we might want to have placed on the organising committee and its staff in the approach to any other Games.

We want to ensure that the requirements are appropriate but not an undue burden on the organising committee in its main role, which is to produce a brilliant Games for the audience and the participants, to make sure that there is an appropriate and long-lasting urban regeneration programme for the people of Birmingham, and that we have a legacy—a point that has been made by others who have spoken—that is not just immediate but long-lasting and affects the culture and health of everyone in this country as a result of seeing, and possibly experiencing, the Games. That is a big ask for legislation that is just a few words on a piece of paper, but the issue can be addressed.

I turn to Amendment 8, which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, but I confess that I had a hand in it. It follows from the point made in Committee that we are not thinking widely enough if we restrict our concern to how the Games are received across the country, and indeed across the world, and do not think about the broadcasting element. This issue came up recently in relation to cricket but it has much wider resonance. The way that this country deals with listed events sometimes runs counter to a common-sense approach to what should be available to people, particularly in this case. I say this without in any sense trying to use it as an excuse. If the Government are taking responsibility for funding a proportion of the Games, they must also take on the responsibility of relating to the people who are paying for them through taxation. One way in which they could discharge that responsibility is by making the Games accessible through free-to-air terrestrial television, but that would require a change to the rules on the listing of events. The amendment therefore seeks to press the Government to look again at the way in which Ofcom deals with that and, if necessary, to amend or impose conditions relating to the broadcasting of the Games on a free-to-air basis. I look forward to the Government’s response.

That is the method that I want to use to test whether government Amendment 4, to which the Minister will speak shortly, meets the issues that have been raised throughout the House, including by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington, my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in a very moving speech. If we are to place all our hopes on the Government’s amendment to ensure that the annual reports are extended or carried on in legacy terms by Birmingham City Council, as my noble friend Lord Hunt said, the annual reporting specified needs to be sufficient to capture the spirit laid out in the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others.

Amendment 4 says that the report must include certain elements about the delivery of the Games and details of how they promote the values of the Commonwealth Games Federation, which, as has already been mentioned, includes a huge amount of additional activity. I accept all that; the Commonwealth Games has done a great deal of work on these issues, which is reflected in the values. However, I hope the Minister will recognise that proposed new subsection (2)(c) simply refers to,

“details of what the Organising Committee has done to ensure that Games events are accessible to disabled people”.

The wording used by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in Amendment 5 is much more appropriate. I am not seeking a change to the wording, but I wonder whether the Minister recognises the very obvious point that by not mentioning that the Games participants will include disabled people, and all that implies, the question remains as to why that wording is not used. The simple reference to “accessible” does not pick up the richness of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. However, the recommendations could be improved if we had more of a sense of what will be in the charter.

On sustainability, the amendment framed by the noble Lord on behalf of the Government refers at subsection (2)(d) to,

“details of what the Organising Committee has done to promote sustainability”.

However, if we read across, the charter refers not just to sustainability but to specific development goals and COP 21. It is therefore much richer and more engaged with what the issues are about.

I will not go through all these points, but I accept, as I think noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, does, that if we got behind Amendment 4 and it became the main focus of what we are trying to achieve in setting standards for the Games that are not burdensome but will reflect the importance of human rights, the elimination of fraud and corruption, the carrying out of sustainable development activities, and most particularly—because it is the most important aspect—the acceptance that these Games reflect the totality of human existence, whether able or disabled in terms of performance, and that they therefore must be accessible to all, not just in terms of physical presence but on broadcasting media, then I think we will be moving in the right direction. But it is important that we hear from the Minister whether he thinks the amendment, as drafted, does that. If not, might he be prepared to reflect on what has been said during this short debate and bring it back at Third Reading in a slightly better form to reflect the issues raised here?

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

My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to discuss these amendments and for noble Lords’ constructive comments. I should say right at the beginning that I have been struck all the way through the passage of the Bill by the fact that there is cross-party consensus that this is a good idea, that the Games will provide a tremendous opportunity for the West Midlands and Birmingham, and that amendments from noble Lords are, as I said at Second Reading, trying to improve the Bill. I am taking this on board seriously. That is why we have made some changes and amendments, and I hope that by the end of my remarks, with some further reassurance, that will be adequate. I am also sorry that I might go on a bit, but it is important to get some things on the record. I will address all the amendments.

We support the intention behind these amendments, as I said, and the paramount importance of delivering Games that are fully accessible to everyone. I turn to the amendments, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on accessibility first. As accessibility is already at the forefront of Games planning, I do not agree that all the amendments are necessary on the face of this Bill, and I will explain why.

First, however, I want to first address the comments that I made in Committee on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, kindly gave me advance notice that I may have suggested that I do not consider accessibility to be of great importance. I want to be clear that that is absolutely not the case. In this vein, I hope now to provide the necessary assurance that accessibility is at the core of these Games. I say to the noble Baroness that, if I gave that misleading impression, it is my fault and that is a lesson learnt that we have to be very careful in our language, even if we are doing it on spec, as it were. I hope that this will reassure the noble Baroness.