Architecture and the Built Environment

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 28th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Whitaker on securing this important debate. I want to put on record our thanks to her for her tireless commitment to design in the United Kingdom. I thank all speakers who helped to flesh out the report we are discussing today, and to reflect on some of the points made.

I am not sure what the Minister of State at the DCMS thought he was going to get when he commissioned Sir Terry Farrell for his review. As has been mentioned, it was done very quickly—in just under a year. It had a fantastic advisory group. The names of people who joined it are extensive and important. It had a very public and important engagement process with stakeholders, and with 60 recommendations it has brought together a huge number of issues that we need to seriously consider if we are to make progress in the areas that it touches. The results are very comprehensive and they will need some working through and thought before they are implemented, as I hope they will be. There is no doubt at all that this is an important report.

Another aspect that noble Lords have mentioned, and which is important to record, is that people have read the report and liked what they have read—so much so that there is quite a lot of enthusiasm across the trade press about it, and a lot of anticipation about where it might be taken. As the Minister said, he doubts whether a more thorough and wide-ranging exercise to seek out views and ideas has taken place in the sector for several generations. Having said that, it is a bit of pity that more has not been made of the preceding work done between the last Government, and in particular, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton, the excellent report Towards an Urban Renaissance, written by the urban taskforce, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, which was published in 1999 but still bears reading today.

The report has five cross-cutting themes, which people have mentioned. They are important in the sense that they form a new appreciation of the training information required among the population as a whole, in the profession of architecture and planning and among those who have responsibilities for developing buildings, places and spaces. These recommendations, which take up a large proportion of what is there, are important. However, as others have mentioned, too, so is a commitment to making the ordinary better and improving the everyday built environment—an important theme, which we must not lose sight of—plus the requirement, as we must all have these days, to have a sustainable and low-carbon future.

Having said that those are the five main strands of it, it is important that the 60 recommendations, which are more detailed and specific in the traditional sense, are also looked at. Several noble Lords picked out some of them and I do not want to go through them in any detail but, importantly, the strong accent on heritage and the way in which it can truly be a part of the sustainability of modern development was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. My noble friend Lord Sawyer talked about the need to think creatively about the place discussions—a sense of trying to bring people together in new configurations so that we can look at places and spaces. That was picked up by my noble friend Lady Andrews and it is also very important. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, brought up an interesting point about the way in which experience of architecture and its skills have leached out of our public departments. If what he says about the numbers is true, that is really quite shocking. Design literacy will be important but it will not substitute for the professional skills and training that go into architecture, even though the report says that that training might need to be done in a different way.

I was also struck by what my noble friend Lord Sawyer said about implementation; others also touched on this point. At the time the review was launched, the Minister said:

“Good design builds communities, creates quality of life, and makes places better for people to live, work and play in. I want to make sure we’re doing all we can to recognise the importance of architecture and reap the benefits of good design”.

You cannot throw out phrases such as:

“I want to make sure we’re doing all we can”,

without having a suggestion that you might have to follow through on that. It is the fate of many politicians to will the end but not the means. I hope that is not going to be the problem with this report. When he comes to reply, can the Minister confirm whether those aspirations still remain the Government’s intentions here? I say this because in the note accompanying the report, Mr Vaizey says:

“I hope this report is the beginning of a dialogue within the industry about how we can build on our successes and recognise the critical importance of architecture and design in all aspects of our lives”.

That sounds like damning with faint praise. Simply consigning a report to further industry debate is not going to deliver the promised future. This report deserves better than that and I hope that the Minister can reassure us.

Video Recordings Act 1984 (Exempted Video Works) Regulations 2014

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 28th July 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his introduction to the regulations. Over the past 30 years, the Video Recordings Act 1984 has certainly attracted parliamentary debate on a number of occasions. As noble Lords will recall, the Act had to be revived by a special Act in 2010 because of the then Government failing to notify the European Commission of the classification and labelling requirements of the Act.

I welcome these regulations but want to reflect briefly on the process by which they came about. Many of us present today were assured during the passage of the Digital Economy Bill that the situation of exempted works which contained unsuitable material would be dealt with by amendments to the Act. Indeed, we withdrew amendments on the basis that that would happen. Then the coalition Government came in and I asked an Oral Question about progress in March 2011, but it was made clear that the consultation had still not begun. Lack of an evidence base was cited as the reason.

In June 2013, my noble friend Lord Storey pursued the matter further in an Oral Question. The consultation had, it seemed, been completed and the intention to legislate had been recently announced but my noble friend Lord Gardiner said that definitions were still being formulated for violent sexual behaviour and swearing,

“so as to ensure that they identify all products that are unsuitable for younger children”.—[Official Report, 12/06/13; col. 1596.]

Finally, four and a half years after the passing of the Digital Economy Act, these regulations, which amend the 1984 Act, see the light of day. As I say, I warmly welcome the regulations, and the fact that they will fall within the BBFC classification regime, but how can we account for this snail’s pace of legislation when faced with such an important issue? How can we learn the lessons? Moreover, where are we with the original Digital Economy Act changes to the VRA regarding video games? Is it the case that certain sections still remain to be activated and amendments made? That certainly seems to be the case. If that is so, why?

My noble friend mentioned the online situation but, of course, that is on a voluntary basis. Will my noble friend explain the corresponding regimes that apply to videos and video games on the internet? I asked my noble friend Lord Gardiner a Question on this in March this year. Surely, is it not as important that online content is addressed, as physical product is under the VRA? Under voluntary arrangements, mobile operators are offering better protection and filtering against unsuitable content than wi-fi service providers. Is the DCMS capable of addressing this issue at any speed? How long must we wait before the Government review the situation? Can we not speed up the process and learn the lessons of the past?

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting and important debate, although a relatively brief one. Many important points have been made to which I am sure the Minister will respond.

I broadly welcome the direction of travel represented by these regulations but have some questions and reservations which I am afraid are slightly at variance to those we have heard already. I worry a lot about restrictions being introduced on another creative activity even though I understand the dangers that may be exposed by that, but it is important that we bear that in mind.

First, we are exercising censorship of what may appear in front of people who wish to buy it, albeit it is obviously a restricted class, through a private company—the BBFC. I am not sure that we quite understand what the relationship between the BBFC and the Government is at the moment. It has changed a lot in the last 20 or 30 years since I was last involved in it. If the Minister has the information to hand, will he reflect on such matters as whether there is a formal memorandum between the Government and the BBFC in terms of their operations? Will the Government exercise control over the appointment of its board and other related matters? It is important to have that in context so that we understand the impact that these regulations may have. I have a general concern that the Government should not expropriate functions and responsibilities which should be exercised through Parliament to private corporations without providing serious reasons and explanations.

Of course, noble Lords will recollect that the 1984 Act was passed at a time of particular concern about videos. I think that the term “video nasty” was widely used. The regulations that were brought out were perhaps a reaction and, in some senses, account for why the BBFC is in its present form. However, times have moved on. As I will come to in a few minutes—and as referred to by other speakers—we have to be sure that what is being proposed now has a fitness and longevity that will be appropriate for the fast-changing nature of the technology which it is attempting to arrange.

I was glad to hear that the Government will be reviewing these regulations within three years. As the Minister said, that is a good thing, although a number of the points and questions raised by noble Lords already suggest that some of the issues are more important and might need more attention before then.

My first point, therefore, is about the status of the body that is being entrusted with the regulations that we are considering. My second point concerns the question of format. We are talking about video material in physical form. The impact, perversely, is largely on the purchasing decisions of people who are under 12, given that that, to a large extent, is the focus of the regulations. My personal view is that a very small number of citizens of this country who are 12 or under are going to be purchasing the videos we are talking about. I am interested to know whether the Minister has any figures relating to the likely impact on the market. If it is anything like what happens in my household, these children are much more adept at the virtual world and will be seeking out the information they wish and the material they want to watch in a non-physical form. We have talked about that issue; we still lack any real, credible strategy in relation to it. This particular set of regulations, although long promised and arriving at an interesting time, is in fact missing the boat in relation to where the majority of the viewing public are going to be—certainly those under 12.

My third point concerns the question that has been raised to some extent by the problem of the wording of the regulations, which seek in a curious way to specify the carve-out, not by putting down a simple principle about what would and would not be considered, but by listing in exhaustive detail the sort of things that would create a break across the various guidelines.

In its briefing for this meeting, the BBFC made it very clear that it was concerned that there was no blanket requirement that all video in physical form should be subject to BBFC review. It has a point and I would be interested to know on what basis the Minister has decided—I think I am right, but, again, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm it—that the onus for submitting material to be classified will still lie with the producers of the material. Therefore it is possible that those who are producing material that perhaps is veering towards the boundary of the 12 certificate may take a view that the material does not fall within the new, enlarged carve-out. Would that constitute a defence in any court proceedings that might be brought forward as a result? The guidelines are only guidelines. The discrepancy between what the BBFC is saying and doing in practice and what is now going to be in the regulations in paragraphs (a) to (o) is going be a problem, not least because the BBFC—rightly so, although the timescale is slower than I would have liked—tries to keep in touch with the views of the public it is serving by carrying out triennial surveys and consultation with people about whether the guidelines it is currently using need to change and, if so, to what extent.

The regulations contain a set of statements, some of which, as has been said, seem to be rather loosely drafted. The noble Baroness raised the question of religion, but some of the drafting concerning sex and violence is equally culpable. Yet we will also have, by the time these regulations are in mid-flow, a new set of guidelines from the BBFC about where it thinks the boundaries of the 12 certificate are going to be. Can the Minister explain how we are going to reconcile that change?

It is perhaps not as important an issue in reducing the threshold from 18 and R18 to 12, but it is well known in the world of classification that, in Britain, we have an obsession with language, which is in stark contrast with, for example, the Nordic countries, which have a very different view of these matters. We are relatively relaxed about physical violence and a bit squeamish about explicit sexual activity, including sexual violence. It is almost the reverse situation in the Nordic countries. A lot of this will lie in education. The real remedy to this issue is making sure that parents take responsibility for what their children see and understand, and talk to them about what they do. To take examples from the list (a) to (o), how on earth are people to judge whether something includes,

“words or images intended or likely to convey a sexual message (ignoring words or images depicting any mild sexual behaviour)”—

a point picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe? How are they to judge whether it affects,

“an animal that exists or has existed in real life”?

How far back do we want to go? The same goes for whether a human is being represented in proper description or in matchstick format. These can be very trivial or very difficult matters and should not take us away from the importance of making sure that children are not unreasonably exposed to images that they should not receive. On the other hand, I think that there are ways of doing it. It might have been better if the approach taken had been to try to work with what the BBFC has published as its principal guidelines without attempting to define them in a way that is bound to cause trouble.

Those were my three points, but as I said at the start of my speech, I am not against the direction of travel. I shall look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ comments and questions. Once again, we find an instrument that drifted through the other place with the mildest breeze of comment and scrutiny coming up against the deeply entrenched expertise that your Lordships’ Committee has shown today. I counted some 16 specific questions that noble Lords asked me to address. I shall do my best to do that, but I suspect that I will need to write, because a considered reflection might be useful and a fair response to the legitimate concerns that have been raised here today.

Let me go through as many of the points as I can, so that we might get at least some comments on the record. As I say, I shall write to noble Lords and expand on them. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked whether distributors would understand the definitions well enough in deciding whether to submit a product to the BBFC. The definitions are fairly detailed. Terms such as “mild” are long-standing features of the BBFC’s classification guidelines and are familiar to many video distributors and consumers. To help further understanding, the BBFC is preparing new guidelines specifically for industry, which will include clips from previously classified films to illustrate how definitions might be interpreted.

On the nature of the relationship between the Government and the BBFC, the BBFC is designated by the Secretary of State to classify video works. It is an independent body, but it is required to make an annual report to Parliament. Many noble Lords have welcomed the review after the regulations have operated for three years as being a sensible way forward, so that we might see from day-to-day experience whether fears are borne out in practice. Corrective action can be taken at that point.

Under the regulations, music, sport and education-related themed products will lose their exemption. This was the area that many noble Lords focused on. The latest guidelines issued by the British Board of Film Classification were produced after a major consultation exercise involving over 10,000 people. The listing, categorising and wording reflect what came forward from the consultation process.

Culture: Cinema

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage a cinema culture within the United Kingdom.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have signed up to speak in this debate, and I very much look forward to hearing their comments.

In introducing the topic this afternoon I will draw on my experience as a former head of the British Film Institute, and in particular my worry that in the 20 years since I left the BFI the issues that affect cinema policy have not changed significantly. I am struck, for instance, by the continuing split between those who view film as industry and those who see it as an art form, or culture, and there is the parallel question of whether cinema is truly an art form on a par with other performing arts such as music and theatre. A colleague at the BFI used to say that you could tell how the British ranked cinema as an art form by looking at the buildings on the South Bank. There are the glass palaces for the orchestras of the Southbank Centre, the new brutalism of the National Theatre—and the National Film Theatre, as it used to be called, hidden under Waterloo Bridge.

I will argue that cinema is both art and business. The price you pay for getting to make a piece of popular culture in the form of a feature film is that you have to do it within a huge industrial process with staff, equipment, marketing and the whole damn thing. When you visit American studios it is no surprise to discover that they are largely staffed not by creatives or even accountants—although there are plenty of those—but by lawyers, who mainly specialise in intellectual property. That is what is being created, and why in many ways the case of cinema is paradigmatically also the case of the creative industries more generally.

How do we set out to achieve a vibrant cinema culture in the country? My starting position is that the Government must provide political leadership at the highest level and that they must sponsor and fund properly an effective and trusted arm’s-length body that must have sufficient resources to achieve what it feels are the necessary actions to achieve its cultural, creative and economic remits, either directly or in partnership with others. Therefore the key question for the Government to answer today is whether what we find on the ground is capable of delivering a cinema culture for the UK, and if not, what needs to be done to remedy that situation?

On the question of political leadership, responsibility for cinema comes under the DCMS. But is that the right place for a key sector of the creative industries, and one which, as I have said, is both art and industry? The film industry creates intellectual property, and many of the policy issues it faces relate to IP. For example, we are shortly due to debate a number of copyright statutory instruments, at least one of which, it is argued, materially affects this industry, although they come from BIS, not the DCMS. Higher education, apprenticeships and training report to different Ministers in BIS, the school curriculum is in the DfE, and export and other support services for the creative industries are funded and operate from BIS. The Treasury delivers over £1 billion of funding each year for the film industry through tax breaks, and it could do more if we could persuade it to look at reworking some of its enterprise allowances so as to work better for the risk-based industries, of which film is but one example. It is, therefore, a complex picture.

A good case could be made for responsibilities for film to be located in the Department for Education, in BIS, or even back to the Cabinet Office, where it originally started as the Office of Arts and Libraries. But at the last reshuffle there was no change. In truth, there is no “right place”. However, unless and until the DCMS gets more powers and responsibilities, I fear that these questions will continue to be raised. I ask the Minister to comment on this, although he may well respond that it is not a matter for him and that it is well above his pay grade. However, this is a question that we need some answers on at some point.

Given that we have leadership at the political level, our system of organising the various art forms has until recently been common ground between the parties, and is usually referred to as the arm’s-length principle. Under that, the department does not take the cultural decisions, which are delegated to the various sectoral bodies. My question is: does the arm’s-length body speak for and enjoy the confidence of those interested in the art form it champions, as well as those who work in every part of the industry?

We have some external guidance on this in the form of a report from former DCMS Secretary of State my noble friend Lord Smith—who unfortunately cannot be here today—who recently published a second report. I know that other noble Lords intend to refer to that, so I will not go through all the details. However, the sense that comes through on reading the report is, on the one hand, approval of the progress that has been made since the merger of the BFI with the UK Film Council, albeit on the other hand it is made clear that there is rather a lot more to do. As the report notes, a triennial review of the BFI will take place in 2014. When he comes to respond, can the Minister therefore give us some more detail about what will happen when that report takes place, at what point in the year it will happen, and what the main objectives will be?

As I left the BFI in 1997 I was arguing with the DCMS that there ought to be one lead organisation for film in the UK and that it should have a cultural, creative and economic remit. Like many people I disagreed with the way the present Government shut down the UK Film Council within weeks of taking office. However, I feel that having one body, independent of the Government, is the right way forward. I am therefore delighted that the BFI now occupies that role, with a mission to ensure that film is central to our cultural life, as it says,

“by supporting and nurturing the next generation of filmmakers and audiences”.

Surely, it is axiomatic that a successful film industry depends on a flourishing audience culture, and vice versa. Indeed, in this digital era, with the problems of physical distribution that bedevilled cinema in its first century all but evaporated, the two are more interdependent than ever before. Out of that combination ought to flow a vibrant cinema culture. So will the BFI be able to do what is required to achieve a cinema culture in the UK? I suppose that depends on its plans, the partnerships it can build and the willingness of the Government to support them financially.

In very broad terms, what we want is a chance for everyone to access a wide range of cinemas and types of film from all round the world, including films from different periods of film history. We want to be able to see these films in comfortable surroundings as part of a mix of contemporary popular films, and we want similar access to DVDs and downloads. We want a successful British film industry, making films that appeal to a wide range of tastes and audiences, an education system that prepares our young people for jobs in that industry, and a properly organised and funded archive to retain this material for scholarship and study—dead easy.

The BFI has a five-year strategy for supporting UK film—Film Forever—which includes as core priorities expanding education and learning opportunities and boosting audience choice across the UK, supporting the future success of British film and unlocking our film heritage for everyone in the UK to enjoy. This seems to me to fit the aspirations I have sketched out, so the question is: is the money there to deliver it? There is the rub. Does the BFI have the funding? The strategy will work only if it is supported financially by the Government.

First there is the question of the current budget cuts. At a time when most other arts institutions have been asked to find cuts of 5%, which is in all honesty bad enough, the BFI has been asked to find a cut of 10% in 2015-16. This, of course, comes on top of funding reductions of 18% over the past two years. Although the BFI is a lottery distributor, it cannot spend funds on itself, so the lottery funds the BFI gives to the film industry for making films are not threatened. These budget cuts actually threaten not only the cultural work of the BFI, the very activity from which film-making artistic talents emerge, but also the capacity to preserve the nation’s film culture for the future.

In a recent editorial in the BFI’s excellent magazine, Sight and Sound, the editor, Nick James, explains that,

“it is the cultural side of the BFI—the National Film Archive, the South Bank film and events programme, the London Film Festival, the BFI Reuben Library, film education, film distribution, publishing which has effectively had its funding squeezed year by year for the whole of this century”.

He concludes:

“What these cuts threaten is not only the cultural basis from which filmmaking artistic talents emerge, but also the preservation of the nation’s cultural memory on film … What sticks in our craw at Sight & Sound is the feeling that, for the British media, film never quite makes the grade as an art form and therefore it’s an easy mark for the government to target”.

So, once again, the feeling grows that we do not yet have the governance, the capacity, the funding or the commitment to create a cinema culture for the UK. Is this because film never quite makes the grade as an art form? Is it because we think of film, at heart, as an industrial process? Perhaps it is the combination which makes it too easy for the Government to pick on it as a soft option.

Does the Minister agree with my analysis and, if so, can he suggest ways forward for the Government, the BFI and the country which will remedy that situation? I look forward to the contributions from others more expert than I am in these matters.

Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Committee

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the most moving experiences of my life occurred as a result of being in your Lordships’ House. I was invited to participate in the medal ceremonies for the Paralympic Games. I presented six medals to people who had done extraordinary things in an extraordinary competition. The crowd was amazing in its support of the athletes, but what struck me most was that for those professional athletes or those operating at such a high level, I thought that all the emotion would be in the winning. In fact, the emotion was in receiving the medals—standing up and representing your country and being applauded by everyone, including your peers. The moments spent in the green room before the medal ceremonies were some of the most intense that I have ever experienced. It was an extraordinary and life-affirming occasion for me.

This has been a fantastic debate. I think that all the speakers have performed brilliantly. Speaking or being in this House is not an Olympic sport, nor I suspect will it ever be, but I think we should remember that we are up against a rather amazing football match in which a well known team looks as though it might actually win for a change, but noble Lords are in the Chamber and staying until the end of the debate. I am sure that the noble Baroness sitting opposite has the match on her very attractively styled iPad. Perhaps she will tell us when it is finally over because there are still a few minutes of stoppage time, but it is quite close. Anyway, enough of such boring things.

It must have been a fun Select Committee to serve on, and I must say that I felt a twinge of interest when I learnt about all the various things that happened. To have done all that work in such a compressed time speaks volumes about my noble friend Lord Harris and his ability to command and control. We experience it regularly on our side of the House because he chairs our Wednesday party meetings. You have to be very careful when he is in the chair. Clearly the committee was a model for the work of the House. The only thing I am concerned about is this. Why is it that such brilliant reports and the good debates that take place as a result of them are put down at relatively unpopular times, particularly when the House is relatively light? Perhaps the usual channels, which are represented here this evening, might take this comment away and think about it. This has been a really good debate which deserved a better audience and a greater chance to reach out and take its message to others. It would be nice if that were the case.

The point was made, which I think was a good one, that the committee’s timing might have been a problem, in the sense that, although it was post-euphoria, it probably did not have sufficient distance to look and see what main learning points we took from the Olympic and Paralympic Games. This is something for the House authorities, but maybe the committee should agree voluntarily to reconvene perhaps in four-year Olympic cycles so that it can keep track of this over a much longer period. It is only in that way that the necessary learning and evaluation can take place, from the necessary distance. That may be too difficult to organise within our rather odd procedures, but I recommend the thought as a way of maintaining longevity for what has obviously been a very useful and appropriate use of the resources of the House.

What I have taken from the debate is an overall judgment that the Games were a spectacular success. They came, I think in the words of my noble friend Lord Harris, tantalisingly close to delivering what we would probably all agree was a legacy—not just limited to sporting issues but more generally. However, the term is problematic and we should perhaps not spend too much time worrying about what does and what does not qualify as a legacy. The Games seem to have not been successful as a beacon lighting the way for us who follow behind in terms of what we could learn from that and what we could do as a result of having experienced them. Instead, they rather cast a shadow in which the worry is that many of us, and most people in the country, have slipped back into our older bad ways and have not made a step change in our habits, activities or focus, which was what was hoped for.

It is the British disease to knock our successes, so we should not go over the top in terms of being critical about what happened. We clearly punched our weight in every conceivable way in terms of delivering a fantastic Games. For the first time, as noble Lords have said around the House, we embraced Paralympic sport and allowed it to come up to its rightful level as an equal partner in the arrangements. We increased women’s participation and helped to valorise that activity across the whole country. It re-inspired us in terms of what we call volunteering. All sports that I have ever witnessed or been involved in rely on volunteers, but to see them operating in London on the scale that they did was a dimension that we had not anticipated and was fantastic. We have regenerated east London and proved, in the words I think of the noble Lord, Lord Best, that the public realm can actually deliver fantastic changes to our houses and public spaces, and that we do not have to wait in the hope that some private sector company will, relying on the profit motive, somehow deliver something that would be of value to us. There are different ways of doing this and we should learn from that.

Why did we achieve this and what lessons should we learn from it? A common theme in all the speeches, although not always explicit, was that one of the key factors was that this was an apolitical process. All the parties concerned made this work, despite changes in the mayoralty and in government at the time. It was maybe sometimes difficult to restrain the natural wish to attack that which you see, but it was very important that in all the early stages, over the transitions and towards the end, everybody pulled together. It really made a difference.

It also helped that the budgeting was done in a sensible and mature way. We gave what seemed necessary to deliver the best Games possible—we did not whinge too much, there was a whacking great contingency and therefore, not surprisingly, they came in under budget. You just have to accept that the big-ticket costs are going to be there for this sort of event, and it was a huge occasion. It was well planned, and we have not said enough about the quality of the team that was recruited to deliver the Games and all the activities that went into them. The members of that team were superb and we owe them a great debt.

The scale and ambition of the Olympics and Paralympics has led to them being described in one of the reports that I have read, by the DCMS I think, as “mega” events. They did of course have a number of side products, because they encouraged co-ordination within government and across a range of bodies and organisations. The DCMS rather coyly says that these organisations perhaps would not normally have worked together but had to do so in order to deliver the Olympic Games. Maybe something of that idea of working with people you do not normally even spend time with might stick.

A similar but slightly different issue is how we had to improve our communications. Running so many events in so many different places over such a short period requires excellent communication, and the stakeholders, businesses, organisers and the Government had to improve what they normally did. They did, and that should not be undervalued.

We might never in our lifetimes repeat the Games on the scale that we saw in London but it was clearly a learning experience for everyone who was involved, even tangentially, in this work. As the DCMS report says, it clearly helped many organisations,

“to develop new skills, approaches and strategies”,

and, again rather coyly, to become,

“less frightened of complicated projects”.

So that is the answer: we just have to make things more complicated and they will be delivered. That is all right. We have learnt that and we should tick that box when it comes to be ticked.

That is all very macro and not very detailed, so what should we be doing about some of this stuff? Clearly the report and the committee’s discussions lead us towards suggestions about what we should do. First, as we have heard, it is important that we recognise that there are some negatives and things that did not go right. There are still some things that are not working as well as we would like. We should not have our eyes taken over the horizon and ignore things such as the travel stories related by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which are just ridiculous. Perhaps this is a tribute to the Games and the fact that we have been so exposed to it, but these problems now seem to be from some time in the past and I am really quite shocked that they still exist in modern transport arrangements. But if they are there, there must be some changes and I hope that the Government will pick up all those examples and ensure that we get an improvement in the way the world operates.

A number of noble Lords said that they were disappointed by the Government’s response, and I can see where that comes from. The report received the distinction of getting a very long response from the Government, which deals with all the points, but the tone is not right. It seems very limiting about where it might go and does not leave any real aspiration in terms of the discussions, and I think that is a pity. I hope that the Minister might put a gloss on some of that.

The speeches tonight were really good. I took a great deal from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, some of which I think he has given before. I mean no disrespect to him at all but I think this is the first time I have seen him try to give an all-encompassing view of what we need to do to better arrange our disposition of resources for elite athletes and to encourage the participation of those who will never reach the elite level but who need and want to be part of a more active and more participative society. We must read what he said carefully. Again, I hope that the Minister will respond to it and think carefully about the tone of what was said, because in the report there was a sense of bringing together a number of themes and thoughts that would bear further discussion and debate.

The figures given by my noble friend Lady King about the obesity situation in her area were shocking. I recall that when we won the right to host the Games in Singapore, the then Government made a promise to the IOC and, indeed, to the people of this country that we would inspire a generation of young people through sport. This was not just because of sport but because of the important underlying link to obesity and fitness.

It has been said that inactivity is probably the biggest public health problem of the 21st century and I think there is a lot in that. Physical inactivity, along with poor diet, has led to the epidemic of obesity that we have heard about, with 26% of adults and 30% of children in this country now classified as obese—the fourth highest level in the world. That is simply shocking. Other associations with exercise that we need to think about include the way that it reduces stress, anxiety and depression. We have also heard how high-quality PE and sports programmes, managed by committed and trained teachers and coaches, can boost attendance among certain groups of children at school, challenge anti-social behaviour and, most importantly, boost academic performance. So there is some value in that. Will the Minister explain what is happening in school sport?

We knew when we got the Games that simply having a successful Olympic and Paralympic Games would not necessarily bring about a sustained increase in sports participation, and there is research evidence to support that. That is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, reminded us, the previous Government invested year on year in school and community sport in the years running up to the Olympics. The number of young people doing at least two or more hours of sport per week had risen to 90%, with 55% doing three or more hours a week, which is a very important aspect of what we have been saying. However, since 2010, we have seen some of this sporting infrastructure begin to disappear. There has been a reduction of about 70% in funding to school sport. Can the Minister remind us what is in the plan and how that will change over the next few years?

What is happening to adult participation? There was a target of 2 million more people being physically active as a result of the Games—which was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Billingham—and, overall, 1 million more people being active through sport. Money was given to Sport England to get “whole sports plans” for national sporting bodies to drive up participation. I agree with the report’s view that these plans need to be made transparent and that we should discuss and debate them because they are important, but the money has been cut and the number of those who are active in sport has gone down, which is not a good thing.

What is the government response to that? Is there any hope that they might look again at how the sports bodies deliver those funds and make sure not only that those adults who are interested participate in sport at the appropriate level but that far more people generally get active in sport?

I have suggested that one of the key elements of that must be to try to work together across the parties. It is important that we get across some of the ideas that might put some flesh on that. It was an important part of the success of the Games that we were able to work together across the political parties. It does not often happen in British politics, although the Leveson episode is another that we could pray in aid in this. Is it not about time that we thought about that in relation to the legacy? We have had a success. Team GB has been fantastic. The television coverage brought that out to the widest possible audience that we could get, and they loved it. So could the real legacy be that we should make the future of sport above party politics? Why do the Government not expand the current, rather secretive Cabinet committee and make it cross-party, and invite all the organisations responsible for making sport happen in our country to come together and see whether we can get some real, concrete action?

Let us reverse the downward trend in public funding for sport and physical activity. Working cross-government and cross-party on that, that might be achievable. Any investment that raises participation in sport has to be a good thing and there would be savings. One could perhaps have as a national indicator that the amount of money that goes into sport should be a reflection of the savings that would come later in the life cycle in terms of what the NHS would have to bear if there was disease related to lack of activity.

What about the structures that we have talked about tonight? We should try to come up with something that genuinely serves the elite but also improves participation. It would need a lot of work and effort, and there are lots of ways in which it would be difficult to do because of the way in which sports are organised in the country and strength of the clubs. However, working together and working across party, maybe that is possible.

The most important issue that has come out of the report, and one that I would like to see most attention paid to, is the question of primary schools, which, as many noble Lords have said, is probably where we have to start. Habits for sport and exercise, we know, are set early in life, and all the available evidence indicates that expert coaching at an early age is the best route to installing lifelong sporting habits. But it has to be expert; it has to be properly delivered; and it has to be done in a way that is consistent and does not depend on the individual in the smaller primary schools who might not have the right training or approach. School sports partnerships had a big impact on improving the sporting offer. It is interesting that the model that was adopted by the previous Government has now been picked up by Australia, Brazil and Canada. With imitation being perhaps the sincerest form of flattery, we might want to look at that again.

Those are some ideas that I hope the Minister might respond to. However, the excellent report that we have before us and the wonderful speeches that we have heard tonight merit a better response than we have had so far.

25th Anniversary of the World Wide Web

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all speakers for their contributions to this debate. They have necessarily had to be short and sparky, but they have also been very informative. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for securing this debate in the first place and for her excellent introductory speech, not only for its immediate and relevant content, but for giving us the historic context on the whole question of the web. I also thank her for her other work until recently as the UK’s digital champion.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, mentioned the need for everyone to have an online presence and indeed he gave us a small glimpse of his own. It is obviously useful to have that. I immediately rushed to my iPad to see what his looked like and I was much impressed by that. I also thought that I had better check out the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, so I looked immediately at her website and discovered that she had already put her speech up on the web. It is here, you can read it now. I think it was done afterwards, because it says,

“This is a speech I made in the House of Lords”,

and not “This is a speech I am about to make”. We are in the middle of a revolution both of our thinking and of our operations.

The noble Baroness ended by asking us: what kind of web do we want? That echoes what I was doing in researching for this debate by thinking about what people thought about the web. The best description that I came across was that the world wide web is humanity connected by technology—humanity, not just people. That is something that I will come back to.

There are those who would argue, and there is some merit in this argument, that the web is just another technology, although of course it is very exciting, different and distinctive in the way that it is applied. I suppose, like any other technology, the web can be whatever we make it; we can shape it and mould it. Most importantly, we need to keep in mind that we can use it to do something that I do not think any other technology has ever done, which is to connect every single person on earth—every single person. The web gives people the ability as users and contributors to improve their lives and communities or, in other words, to create humanity.

As we have heard, there are some 2 billion people currently on the web, mostly in the West and the developed nations but, as the internet becomes more connectable and more available through mobile, that will grow to an estimated 5 billion by 2020. That means huge opportunities and challenges, but it also means huge changes in the way in which we approach and think about the world.

Is the web just another technology? It seems to me that the things that it does that other technologies have not done are important, and we need to think about how we approach and engage with that technology. It does something to time. Whereas before we always had some time to reflect on an activity, people now report on and read about events as they occur. You get instant pictures and information. What happened to reflection?

The world wide web also localises. That seems like a contradiction in terms, but the way in which the web is organised so that any community can find a way of sharing information relevant to their interests and to their members and fellow citizens is an important aspect of what it does. At the same time, it is also universal, in that you have access anywhere in the world where you can get a connection—although that is not always possible, even in Britain.

The web also has a different way of focusing things. We have millions of communities, we all have multiple identities and those identities can be reflected on the web though our languages, our hobbies and our different natures. It allows those with shared interests to exchange resources in a way that has not been possible before. That is helped, of course, by search engines. Information has always existed; it has always been in repositories and difficult to access but now it is available. It is of variable quality, as we have heard, but it certainly is there if you can find it.

The web also provides links, both in real time and in a parallel way, across things. Many noble Lords will understand that if they have young children or grandchildren. My children seem to enjoy in a relaxing moment—although they say that they are working—lying on a sofa together, the three of them, interacting through texting and e-mailing while watching television and possibly reading something on their iPads. I cannot do that, but then multitasking has never been one of my strengths.

In that way, we are engaging by voicing opinions and raising issues in a way that has not been possible before. It is inexpensive, it is free—or virtually free—it is immediate and, if well looked after, it is durable. We have engagement and a chance to get involved in things that we would not otherwise have done. We also have the chance to raise opinions and, as people have said, to make a better fist of democracy, or participatory democracy, than has perhaps been possible before.

So there are huge opportunities but, of course, as many people have said, big challenges. There are, within those challenges, very substantial ethical ones. It will be interesting to listen to the Minister respond, if he can, to some of the very difficult questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and her ethical concerns about some of the issues about the web.

The good news is that the UK seems to have embraced the new technology in a terrific way. We have made economic use of the web and we buy and sell more goods online than any other country. I am not quite so sure about the fact that we have the highest number of Twitter users on the planet. I suspect, and have always thought, that this is largely due to my noble friend Lord Knight—he certainly confirmed in his speech that he has played a major part in that growth.

There are of course other important things, such as MOOCs, which we heard about. We heard how the Open University is developing this new technology, about the sort of digital services that we know are possible through the web and about the way in which an open government system can support these things.

Against that, we also hear that only 30% of small businesses are online, that there are alarming difficulties in getting access for the older parts of our population and that skills shortages are significant. We are also very worried about rural coverage. I read one statistic in my research which suggests that fewer than 0.5% of students choose computer science at A-level. That surely needs to go up, particularly for girls, for whom the figure is a fifth of that.

What comes next? The interesting thing is that most of the history of the web is ahead of us: it is a very young technology and very far from reaching its full potential as an agent of empowerment for everyone in the world. Web access for, perhaps, 4 billion or 5 billion people is an incredible opportunity, and new technologies will enable billions of people who are currently excluded to join in.

However, there are some big questions, such as access and skills, which I have mentioned. There is also a need for a change in the whole way in which we do business from physical interaction, although that will still be important, to one-click shopping. That is, of course, related to things such as transport and logistics—the physical movement of goods. How different it is now watching downloaded films compared to going to a cinema, particularly when you think about the change from reels of film to the way they are now broadcast or available on DVD. I have a particular concern about archiving material on the web. I am not sure that we are up to speed on that and wonder whether the noble Lord might respond to that, particularly about e-mails in government.

There are also points about privacy, which were well made initially by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in relation to children and also by the noble Lord, Lord Birt. We need to address some of the concerns that we have about the “dark side” of the web, as it has been called. The Prism and Snowden cases raise big questions. Perhaps most worrying for me, and an issue raised by other noble Lords, is what comes next in this area rather than what has already happened.

Other noble Lords raised questions that we also have to address, including those relating to intellectual property and whether that is up to date for the digital age. I suspect it is not. It needs much deeper and more effective work to get us ready for what is going to happen there. There is also the question about how we relate to the data that are stored about us. We need a mature conversation about that. As one noble Lord said, we are quite happy to give up considerable details about our personal data, including our credit card details, to commercial operators but we quibble about how much data government holds. That is very silly: we need to get this right and get the balance right. It may well be, as has been said, that we need champions—somebody who looks after information—but we cannot go on living in a parallel world on this.

The world wide web is a technology, but what it does and what it can achieve is really up to us, the users. Like all new technologies, the internet is often blamed for many of the problems in society. This is not the first time. One thinks of Shakespeare’s Globe and why it was situated outside the city, the penny dreadfuls in Victorian times and video nasties. These things are always blamed for society’s ills, but they are a feature of human endeavour and not of the technology itself. The Government have to come up with policies, although sometimes—including, I suggest, in this area—not doing something is almost as important as legislating. Particularly in relation to privacy and other issues, it should always be remembered that one person’s filter is another person’s censorship.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made some good points about the things we can do in our own House. My suggestion would be voting electronically: why do we have to troop through the Lobbies every time a vote comes, as we do currently? Surely we can do something differently with that. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, had a good idea, modelled on the Tobin tax, of raising funds for good purposes, which is something we should think about. It is probably too late but it is a good idea. We need to go back to the essential issues about inclusion, openness and transformational thinking about how we operate commercially and personally in a digital world, and how to promote humanity connected by technology—

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton]

We meet each other in the Division Lobby. If we do not and we all start to press buttons, are we saying that that is progress? One of the themes of today is that we have to balance humanity with technology. That seems to be balancing technology with technology.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

That was too complicated for me. I am at the end of my peroration. I will see you later.

My conclusion is that the question for the Government is how to promote humanity connected by technology.

First World War: Personnel from the Indian Subcontinent

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is a time-limited debate and we have to give the Minister time to give a complete response, I am time-limited to one minute. I shall try to observe that limit, but I may slightly exceed it. I do not think it is important for me to say what I would have said if I had had time, because I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, will give us other opportunities to reflect on some of the important issues that have been raised today. So many good speeches have been made that anything I would have said would have been relatively uninformed and lacking in authority.

However, I would like to say two things. It seems to me that the legacy of the Empire and Commonwealth soldiers, like so many aspects of the First World War, will be argued about. The centenary debates must capture the fact that the tale of the Empire and Commonwealth soldiers is a contested, complex story—a human story of valour and tragedy, of victory and futility, of respect and racism, and of forgetting and re-remembering. What cannot be doubted is that these events and encounters provide an important foundation stone for an understanding of the making of modern Britain. If we know the history, we can hope to understand how we became the country we are today. It is important to recognise that the British and Empire Army that fought the First World War a century ago had more in common, demographically, with the Britain of 2014 than that of 1914.

A number of noble Lords have asked the Minister to give us more details about what events are planned. Within that response, will he think hard about what my noble friend Lord Morgan said about the resolve of the Government to make sure that this is an all-inclusive, non-celebratory event?

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

33A: Clause 11, page 11, leave out line 5 and insert “couples, whether they are of a different sex, the same sex, or non-gendered.”

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

I briefly follow the noble Baroness, first in thanking my noble friend the Minister for responding as she did to that very powerful vote on Monday, which was not the first powerful vote on this subject. Most of all, I hope and believe that I speak for everyone in this House in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, on her tenacity, her courage and her articulate presentation of a case that has been both powerful and moving. She has not only proved herself to be an invaluable Member of your Lordships’ House, but she has enabled us to demonstrate how important this House can be on issues that are not necessarily enormous in the general scheme of things but that are terribly important.

The Bill will be all the better for the acceptance of the amendment introduced by the noble Baroness, and for the response given by my noble friend the Minister. This is a happy note on which to end these particular deliberations, and we really are all very much in the debt of the two noble Baronesses, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is a good day for equality. I think we have heard enough from all around the House to explain where this has come from. We are all in considerable debt to the exemplary work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. We think tremendously of her for doing it, particularly when we reflect that in taking on that task she had no greater foe than the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who has somewhat iconic status in your Lordships’ House as the guardian of all things to do with equality. He was against her. She saw no enemy, and saw him off. As a result, we are where we are today. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has said, this is a good day for the House of Lords. Your Lordships’ House has done well to ensure that its will has prevailed, and we are all the better for that.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, for her support and her generous remarks. I echo my noble friend Lord Cormack’s tribute to her, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his support this evening for the Government’s Motion. I am glad we are able to conclude the debate on the Equality and Human Rights Commission united in our aims for a fair and equal society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Avebury]

I shall add a 15-second contribution to what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, has already said about our gratitude to the Minister, who, as he said, has listened carefully to the representations that have been made. I only wish that she could have seen the joy that the announcement caused among the communities, which was displayed in a demonstration in Parliament Square yesterday afternoon. Hundreds of people were there, welcoming the change of attitude by the Government and saying that this was a moment of tremendous excitement and joy among all the Dalit communities.

I am not so sure about Talk for a Change, because I think that it is probably a waste of money. However, this is not the moment to cavil about the detail but only to welcome the principle that this matter will be dealt with by legislation. I am most grateful to my noble friend and to the Government as a whole for their change of mind, declared at this last moment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we are extremely pleased that the Government have now accepted the need to legislate for legal protection against discrimination on the grounds of caste. Everyone agrees that caste has absolutely no place in our society and that, if there is even one case of such discrimination, proper action must be taken and there must be proper access to redress.

I also join the thanks for the exemplary work done by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who have taken the main burden of negotiations and discussions about the right way forward. We have arrived at a very elegant solution by changing the legislation to require the duty on the Government to make progress, therefore bridging the not very large but seemingly unbridgeable points that seemed to divide us on this issue. Eventually, with good sense on all sides, they have been removed, and we are very grateful to the Government for that. This is now again a good day for equality, and we will all celebrate this as we go forward.

I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton, who cannot be here this evening, for the considerable work that she took on when she came into this area. She used me as a bit of a listening board from time to time, and I felt that sometimes I had been at some of the meetings, where some rather inelegant things were said that do not bear repeating in your Lordships’ House, because noble Lords would be shocked. We got through it, we are here today and we should celebrate where we are and wish the Government well in their onward work, which will all be very useful.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for welcoming the Government’s Motion this evening. I share with him his tribute to his noble friend Lady Thornton. As much as I am always pleased to see the noble Lord, I am none the less disappointed that the noble Baroness could not be here this evening. I shall make sure that I convey that to her directly outside the Chamber.

I am very grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for his generous remarks and for those of my noble friend Lord Avebury. I note the noble and right reverent Lord’s request for a meeting with my right honourable friend in the other place. I am sure she would want me to agree to that meeting without hesitation, because it would clearly be welcome to hear further from noble Lords before we start on the consultation process.

I am grateful to all noble Lords for the remarks that they have made this evening. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I am pleased that we have been able to find a way through that addresses all the concerns that have been made and that will ensure that we find a way through that satisfies those who have been suffering and that does not perpetuate something that we do not want to see as part of our society.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I shall say just a few words on the Minister’s very welcome amendments in response to the 10th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It is very interesting. The committee demonstrated the value of a collective memory, as it took us all back to the Digital Economy Act and the comments that it made at the time; it has been entirely consistent. It is good to see that the Government have responded. However, I wonder, especially in light of the fact that the Minister has confirmed that the affirmative process will be used for Clause 68, whether he will also confirm that the affirmative process will be used when the Hargreaves exceptions are introduced under the European Communities Act. The Minister has clearly stated that the Government will not be using Clause 66 when those exceptions are introduced; it will be purely for penalties. We very much welcome the assurance that the Minister gave on Monday. However, will he take the opportunity to confirm that the scrutiny process will be by the affirmative procedure of both Houses when those draft statutory instruments come under the ECA procedure?

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we on this side will also be interested to hear the answer to that question, although I think I gathered from remarks made previously in Committee that that is the case. We will look forward to hearing about that. Other than that, we are very grateful to the Minister for bringing forward these amendments, which, as he says, go a step further than the DPRR Committee recommended, but are none the less welcome for that.

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I add my welcome for these amendments and thank the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we on this side of the Room support the introduction of the measures to do with orphan works and believe that the extended collective licensing system represents a good way forward, albeit, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that it has to be done in conjunction with the copyright hub, which provides the missing ingredient in a lot of what we have been discussing recently.

As was made clear, we have some reservations about how the Government intend to ensure high standards of operation for collecting societies which are, after all, effectively monopolies in many sectors, so we are keen to see, at a very minimum, clarity on the standards to be set for collecting societies and transparency over the way the powers that the Government are taking will operate in practice. We also want to make sure that everything that needs to be done is done to make the copyright hub work well. The new regime and the copyright hub should ideally be brought into existence contemporaneously.

However, we are confident that things are moving in the right direction, and we hope that there will be opportunities for your Lordships’ House to be regularly updated on matters such as this so that we can feed in our continuing thoughts and support. I particularly refer to the point about photography, which I absolutely endorse. There is an issue there that we will need to keep an eye on. Assuming that everything is going well, we cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in opposing Clause 68 standing part of the Bill.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, the very limited extent to which orphan works can be used is not just a cultural issue, but a real economic issue. The clause will allow for commercial and non-commercial use of orphan works in the UK. The Government estimate this could lead to benefits of up to £220 million a year. Nine out of 10 respondents to the Government’s consultation were in favour of commercial use of orphan works. The UK scheme has more safeguards than the EU orphan works directive. It includes a requirement that any diligent search is verified by an independent authorising body. The authorising body will not be able to license itself.

We are also making provision for remuneration of rights holders at an appropriate rate for the type of work and type of use. The directive is less restrictive about this. Remuneration will be paid whenever a work is used. It is yet to be determined how long such money should be kept on escrow for the returning rights holder. However, after a certain period it is envisaged that unclaimed money will be redistributed. Where the money has come from publicly funded institutions, such as archives, it may be possible for that money to be returned to fund archiving, preservation and digitisation costs.

The Government are pleased that the digital copyright hub is developing but have not yet made any decisions about who will run the orphan works scheme. However, regardless of its final decision, these powers are needed to enable the chosen organisation legally to operate the scheme.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and other noble Lords raised concerns about the potential impact of these proposals on photographers. The Government continue to work with the photography sectors. The working group on orphan works and extended collective licensing contains significant representation from the world of photography, including the Association of Photographers, the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies and Stop43.

The Government appreciate that the stripping of metadata is a real problem for photographers. As noble Lords have noted, this is a current problem, and the practice continues despite the existence of legal instruments making it an offence. I am willing to meet noble Lords, who, in the course of this Committee session, have raised concerns, to discuss possible solutions to the problem of metadata stripping. This is an issue that is also being examined by the industry-led digital copyright hub, following Richard Hooper’s July report. However, the Government do not believe that the introduction of the orphan works scheme will negatively affect photographers, because historical photographs held in museums, archives and libraries, will form the bulk of photographs licensed under the scheme. If anything, the orphan works scheme will very likely improve matters, as it will become more obvious if works are being used unlawfully. Officially licensed orphan works, whether sourced from digital or analogue sources, will carry a reference to the authorising body. Courts may also take a dimmer view of infringement, if there is a legitimate and legal means of using orphan works.

The provisions on extended collective licensing are designed as a tool to help streamline rights clearance, but only where the sector wants it. We know that some collecting societies already operate extended collective licensing-type schemes, which are unregulated and unlawful. This means that rights holders are unprotected and could be missing out on money owed to them. A statutory basis for such schemes would help remedy this. The Government know that extended collective licensing might not be appropriate for all types of works or rights, which is why it can be initiated only by a representative collecting society acting with the explicit support of its members. The Government would have no power to impose extended collective licensing on a sector. Collecting societies tend to be monopoly suppliers in their sectors, so members and licensees cannot simply shop elsewhere.

The clause and schedule introduce provision for the statutory regulation of collecting societies, where self-regulation fails. Any collecting society that fails to meet the Government’s minimum standards for self-regulation would be required to adhere to a statutory code of practice. Collecting societies would have to comply with specified criteria, including on compliance and enforcement. The Government welcome the progress that the industry has made on a self-regulatory framework. Self-regulation remains the Government’s preferred approach. The safeguard of enforceable minimum standards will help to ensure that collecting societies operate in a manner that promotes open and efficient markets. If it works effectively, the reserve power will not be used.

Noble Lords have raised a number of questions. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones raised the issue of having to wait for the hub before undertaking extended collective licensing, and pointed out that we need extended collective licensing because we have the hub. Both schemes are designed to facilitate legal and properly remunerative use of works; they are two sides of the same coin. The fact that ECL-type schemes are already in use in the UK demonstrates that there is a need. ECL cannot be imposed on a sector; if rights holders prefer to use direct licensing through digital copyright exchange, the hub or another method entirely, that is their decision. The hub cannot act on orphan works without the legislation in Clause 68 in place.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones raised an issue that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised previously, on photographers suggesting that we delay the implementation of the orphan works directive until the October 2014 deadline, and then implement only to relieve any restrictions that the copyright hub failed to address. I understand the concerns behind this suggestion, but this is not an option because we need to implement the orphan works directive in full, and we cannot go outside the requirements of the directive without this clause. This means that no one, including the copyright hub, would be able to license orphan works without the power of this clause.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, in a further question, raised the issue of foreign rights holders who would not be able to monitor what is going on in the UK. The collecting society must produce evidence with its application to show how it deals with those affected, including foreign rights holders. I hope that that answers his question. He also raised the question of FOCAL and BAPLA, which were unhappy with the ECL. Photographers do not have to have ECL—it is voluntary and can be initiated by the collecting society only with the consent of members, as I mentioned earlier.

I believe that my noble friend Lady Buscombe stated that extended collective licensing in Nordic countries is different and guarantees remuneration for rights holders. However, collecting societies in the UK must also show how they will find non-member rights holders and distribute money that is collected to them. I hope that that goes a little way to answering my noble friend’s question. I commend the clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

Amendment 33 is inspired by the Creators’ Rights Alliance which feels that the contractual scales are very much weighted against it. I do not often make common cause with Consumer Focus but I am delighted that it supports the amendment. Its brief on the amendment puts the position rather well. It states that the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 makes creators the first owners of copyright, and that creators’ ability to assign or license their copyright to others is central to the overriding aim of copyright: that is, ensuring that creators benefit financially from their works. However, in the UK, creators frequently assign all their copyright for a one-off payment to intermediaries, such as publishers or record companies. Individual creators are frequently at a disadvantage when negotiating contracts with intermediaries, and some creators complain that they are unfairly pressured into assigning all their rights for a one-off payment.

The 2012 research of Consumer Focus found that 77% of British consumers expect that a fair share of the money they pay for music, films and e-books goes to the artists who created the work. The ability of the copyright system to ensure that creators receive a fair remuneration is central to public support for the principle of copyright. I agree with Consumer Focus that removing the copyright exclusion from the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 should be central to the Government’s efforts to build a fairer copyright system that supports economic growth and innovation. How about that, my Lords? Many creators work as freelancers or microbusinesses. They are the bedrock of the creative industries and deserve the protection provided by the Unfair Contract Terms Act. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, extended collective licensing requires fair contracts. People who work in the creative industries are already seeing intensified efforts by many publishers and other intermediaries to coerce individuals who are sole traders into signing away all rights to their work. Those who succumb to this blandishment would be deprived of the income that the ECL provisions in the Bill are supposed to offer. Therefore, the failure of the Bill to include measures to level the playing field for negotiation of contracts undermines the purposes of copyright in promoting fresh creativity. These are not just matters of concern to professional creators, vital though it is to the creative economy that the possibility of making a living as a professional creator is defended. Every citizen has an interest in enforceable creators’ rights and fair contracts now that so many people are publishing and broadcasting their own works through social media.

There is a well known example of the problems that this can cause. In late 2012, the Instagram online photo-hosting service attempted to impose a contract of terms of service that would allow the company to sell users’ photographs to advertisers. This was defeated only after alert users boycotted the service. Legislation will be required to ensure that the price of creativity is not an eternal vigilance which distracts from the work of creation.

The issue of unfair contracts typically arises in two circumstances: “take it or leave it” contracts presented by large businesses to sole-trader professional creators, who are informed that no negotiation will be contemplated; and “click-wrap” contracts offered to those, professional or amateur, who use online hosting services to store or share their creations in words, music or images.

Amendment 33 would bring contracts dealing with copyright works within the terms of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. This would remove an inexplicable exemption and allow at least some challenge to the contracts being foisted on many creative members. I support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

58H: After Clause 74, insert the following new Clause—
“Relationship between an insolvent company and its suppliers
(1) Section 233 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (supplies of gas, water, electricity, etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3)(a) at the end insert “or other supplier”.
(3) In subsection (3)(b) at the end insert “or other supplier”.
(4) In subsection (3)(d) at the end insert “or other supplier”.
(5) After subsection (3)(d) insert—
“(e) a supply of computer hardware or software or infrastructure permitting electronic communications.”(6) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) Any provision in a contract between a company and a supplier of goods or services that purports to terminate the agreement, or alter the terms of the contract, on the happening of any of the events specified in subsection (1) is void.””

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, one of the key aims of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill is to encourage long-term growth. Key to this is promoting the rescue of potentially viable companies that are facing short-term financial difficulties.

Suppliers are a company’s lifeblood. Companies cannot continue to operate without them yet, under existing legislation, suppliers can currently take a number of unreasonable actions when they hear a business is in trouble. Struggling companies can often be faced with extortionate payments, being moved onto more expensive tariffs or with certain key suppliers withdrawing their services altogether. This behaviour frequently leads to the unnecessary liquidation of potentially viable businesses, which is bad news not only for creditors but also for jobs and the economy. The company R3 has estimated that a change in the law could result in approximately 2,300 additional business rescues a year and increased returns to creditors.

It is true that Section 233 of the Insolvency Act 1986 currently prohibits utilities suppliers from withdrawing supply but it does not stop any other supplier, no matter how crucial, withdrawing supply or imposing a higher tariff or payment before agreeing to continue to supply. It also fails to prevent any supplier from raising its tariff once a business enters insolvency. These actions can prevent any chance of business rescue, damn the business to closure, and reduce dividends for creditors. We suggest that this legislation should be updated in the following ways to help rescue more businesses and save jobs.

Certain suppliers often use the advent of insolvency to extract “ransom payments” before they continue to supply the company. Furthermore, while utilities suppliers listed under Section 233 cannot withhold supply, there is nothing to prevent them moving an insolvent company onto a much higher tariff. We suggest that Section 233 should include a provision to prevent the exercise of contractual termination provisions on the grounds of insolvency alone, and should prevent suppliers of essential services from using their position to extract so-called ransom payments as a condition for continued supply, provided that the company continued to pay under existing contractual terms.

While original sellers of utilities services are prevented by the Insolvency Act from terminating their contracts on insolvency, on-sellers of telecoms services and equipment are not covered by the legislation, even though they are every bit as important to the business community—increasingly, these days. In addition, other services, such as IT and software suppliers, which are vital to business survival in the 21st century, are freely able to stop supplying a company on the ground of insolvency. Section 233 sets out the suppliers to which these provisions apply—currently, gas, electricity, water and communications. We suggest including in this list certain additional suppliers deemed essential for the continued operation of the business, particularly IT suppliers and on-sellers of utilities that are not covered by the original definition. A precedent for this change was set by Regulation 14 of the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011, which prevents suppliers of essential services such as financial data, computer hardware and data processing from withholding supply in the event of administration.

Finally, it is important to note that these changes expose suppliers to minimal risk, because they are paid as a priority, ahead of all other creditors during the insolvency. This is not about special treatment for insolvent businesses, but about preventing suppliers taking advantage of an insolvency and leapfrogging other creditors, at the expense of the business’s survival.

I turn to Amendment 58HZA in the group. The Finance Act 2009 established a duty on HMRC to produce a report each year on its adherence to its charter, which sets out the rights and obligations of taxpayers. Our amendment asks for HMRC’s annual report to consider a particular issue, consumer debt, and to relate that to the objectives in its annual business plan. One of the recurrent themes raised during the debates we held recently in your Lordships’ House on the Financial Services Bill was the need for the new regulatory structures to have the consumer at the centre of their thinking and practice. We have had not dissimilar debates on earlier sections of this Bill in relation to the new Competition and Markets Authority, to which we will return on Report.

This amendment is in the same vein, although the target is the HMRC, and is relatively uncontroversial and not particularly burdensome because it simply requests the HMRC to report additionally about what it is finding about levels of personal debt in the UK. This will be useful data for all those interested in this area, and might over time help to sensitise HMRC to what impact it is having on those struggling with unmanageable personal debts. I declare my interest as chair of StepChange, the leading debt charity. Its figures show that its median client owes more than £20,000 to five different creditors, with the bulk in credit cards and personal loans, and other consumer credit products. They also include mortgage arrears, rent arrears and, increasingly, fuel and utility debts, income tax and council tax. Nearly half the people who StepChange help report that unemployment or a reduced income was the main reason for their debt problems. However, people also say that life events such as illness and separation can quickly overwhelm family finances and cause or contribute to mounting debts. What StepChange finds, in fact, is that debt is rarely a problem in isolation—there are nearly always other factors that need to be addressed, including a particular concern of ours, which is the link between problem debt and depression. Nearly a half of StepChange’s clients say they had been worrying about their debts for a year or more before seeking help from a debt service provider. Around a third told the charity that their debt problems had weakened their relationships or led to a break-up. Nearly half said that debt had shattered their self-confidence to support themselves and their family.

Things changed in the personal debt world in about 2006-07, but the pre-crash boom in consumer credit also remains a key part of the UK debt narrative. Even after several years of near-zero lending, the total of outstanding secured and unsecured debt is still some 91% higher than it was 10 years ago. It is a pretty bad picture. Recent research by the Financial Inclusion Centre concluded that some 6.2 million households are currently either already in financial difficulties or at risk of getting there. And it is going to get worse. The IFS estimates that real median household incomes will fall by 7.1% between 2009-10 and 2013-14 as a result of low growth and fiscal tightening—the largest decline since the 1974 to 1977 fall of 7.5%. Recent research published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation predicts an increase in both relative and absolute poverty between 2009 and 2020. Unemployment remains at a stubbornly high 8.3%, or 2.65 million people, and more than one in five young workers are without a job. That is particularly worrying as we know that time spent not in employment, education or training as a young adult can have a scarring effect as well as reducing lifetime earnings.

At the same time, we are experiencing an extended period where households are facing rising costs for essential goods and services. Food, fuel and transport costs are rising sharply, and we will sooner or later face a rise in interest rates, which are unnaturally low at present. Figures from the Financial Inclusion Centre show that, if living costs rise by more than £50 per week, it would double the percentage of households, currently 30%, who have no spare cash at the end of the month. That is the rather grim background to our amendment. I apologise for taking the Committee’s time, but it is important to get the context so that we can focus more closely on the amendment.

We need to know more about personal debt—how it arises, and how people cope with it. HMRC is a major player in this area, and it is important that it participates in the research that is needed and contributes to finding solutions to the problems that currently exist. Reporting on the situation that it finds each year would be a great step forward. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

We are continuing to monitor information disclosed under SIP 16 reports and will report on our findings. I very much relate to the anecdote recounted by the noble Lord concerning companies that go insolvent and then re-emerge, days or weeks later, under a different guise. There was an instance of that rather close to home for me concerning a building company where that did, indeed, happen. I reassure the noble Lord that we are looking at those very important issues. With the assurances I have given about considering the important issue raised in Amendment 58H, I hope that the noble Lord and, indeed, the noble Baroness, will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Mitchell, for participating in this debate. We have ranged a little further than the original terms but it was useful to have that exchange on pre-packs. I think that the main focus of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, was more on the interests of shareholders than creditors but it still comes back to the same point in the end. There is a bit of an issue here and I am glad to hear that it is being discussed.

I shall deal with these two amendments in reverse order. As regards the points in the second amendment about the role of the Inland Revenue, I heard what the Minister said. However, I think that the problem is exactly as he stated it but in reverse. If your primary concern—it is not a wrong concern—is that the purpose of the Inland Revenue is to maximise revenue to ensure that government services and so on may be maintained, you may have to regard vulnerable consumers and others who have difficulties as a slightly lower priority. It is true that there are nine rights and three obligations in the wonderful Inland Revenue charter but none of them mentions either of those issues in any great detail.

It is more a question of tone and approach. It is true that we have done less badly in this recession than in many other recessions, largely because the banks and other private institutions have been extraordinarily generous in terms of forbearance. That was achieved in dialogue with the Government of the day and has been continued by the current Government. However, without that there would have been a huge hole in the public fabric and services which it would have been impossible to tolerate. There are ways in which we can reach out to the vulnerable consumers that we are talking about; we have those at the heart of my charity. What I was trying to get across in the amendment was that perhaps we could have a broader discussion involving Treasury Ministers to take account of some of these issues.

This is not the time for this but, as regards much of the insolvency and the other areas with which we are dealing; it seems we are gradually finding 20th-century solutions to 19th and 18th-century problems. The idea, which I think I have mentioned in other places, that somehow there is an unimpeachable line of integrity between the creditor and the debtor is at variance with the reality of what happens when vulnerable consumers get themselves into difficulty. It is time for us to have a mature discussion about people who are facing the possibility of going bankrupt.

Forbearance, for all its huge pleasures, is a wonderful approach, but is totally without a statutory framework. Does that need to be considered? Even when forbearance is operating and we are talking about keeping people in a family home which they would otherwise have to have left, is forbearance right if, as a result, they can neither heat that home nor feed themselves there? These are issues that we do not get quite right; there is a black-and-white approach to them. This amendment tries to say, “Perhaps we can begin by gathering the figures and thinking again about how these things operate”. Using the rights and privileges that the Revenue has above and against all other creditors is obviously important in terms of making sure that we maximise revenue, but that is not necessarily right in terms of societal norms and values. I am sorry to have taken so long but it is important to get that on the record.

Regarding Amendment 58H, I am glad that the Minister feels that there is something there to look at again. I would be happy to participate in any meetings or discussions he might have, wearing both, or one of, my hats. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 58H withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Noble Lords will be aware that the reforms to the debtor-initiated bankruptcy process being introduced by the Bill remove the order-making function from the court and replace it with a new administrative process. These are minor and technical amendments to the “Extent” provisions in Clause 78 relating to those reforms. Individual insolvency law is a devolved matter in Scotland and these reforms will have no substantive effect on legislation in Scotland.

The jurisdiction of the adjudicator is limited to the determination of bankruptcy applications received from debtors who meet the jurisdictional criteria of having resided or traded in England and Wales for the required period. However, certain consequential amendments made by the reforms extend to Scotland. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that we have the legal power to make all those consequential amendments that are necessary to give effect to the reforms being made in England and Wales. The amendments make no substantive changes to bankruptcy law in Scotland, which is a devolved matter. I therefore beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, we have read the amendments and recognised the points. Rather surprisingly, given the volume of correspondence that we received on everything else in the Bill, we received no comments from anyone on this matter and therefore have to rely entirely on our own judgments. In this case, we are happy for the amendments to go forward.

Amendment 58HA agreed.

Leveson Inquiry

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Friday 11th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to what has been a really excellent debate today. In particular, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for his excellent maiden speech. He may have had to wait but his incisive analysis, his interesting parallels with the professions and his witty quotation demonstrate that the wait was worthwhile. Indeed, the whole debate has been extremely good, including the last few speeches, which took us off in strange and interesting directions. I am not sure that Admiral Byng should really be prayed in aid so late in the debate because I think he deserves more attention than we were able to give him.

There seem to have been four strands in our discussions today. The balance between individual privacy and freedom of the press is obviously the underlying thread of all this, and I will come back to it. The need to deal with the technology shift in our news production and dissemination, with the transfer to the internet and the implications of all that for the current business model in the press, is obviously a really big issue. It was not well covered in the Leveson report, as has been said, but it will be of increasing importance as we go forward, although I do not think it is a blocker on some of the issues that we need to focus on today. The important issue of the concentration of ownership has to be addressed. Again, as has been mentioned, it is not well covered in the report, but there are ways in which we can continue to keep a focus on that; there are a number of opportunities in the near future to do so.

The main debate today, and the one I will spend most of my time on, is on what the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, referred to as a false choice. We must be careful of false choices apparently being offered by the press, between a free press on the one hand and government regulation of the press on the other. Of course, it is a much more complicated and complex issue than that.

I was interested in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I think we all applaud his efforts in what he is trying to do. Having said that, one has to bear in mind, as my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland advised, that a lot of what he is about is necessary but it will not be sufficient to get us to where we want to get.

This debate is titled as, and indeed needs to focus on, the report itself. Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations on the issues that we have been touching on are very clear. He recommends a voluntary system of independent regulation. He recommends a process by which an independent regulatory system devised and set up by the publishers themselves can be verified by a “recognition body”, for the very important reason that the public, particularly the victims, can thereby be confident that it works; in return for that, members of the body can get legal benefits. Lord Justice Leveson suggests that, mainly on cost and efficiency grounds, Ofcom could be the body that undertakes the verification but he refers to and prefers a recognition commission or recognition commissioner. As the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Lamont, stressed, the powers being taken are of scrutiny not supervision. Lord Justice Leveson considers the recognition requirements the minimum necessary for an independent and effective self-regulator, but some, including the victims, would go a lot further than that.

Let us be clear: we are talking about taking statutory powers that concern process but not content and cover the independence of the people involved in the regulatory body, its financial security, its powers to correct or to seek apologies, to seek sanctions, to undertake investigations and arbitration, and to have the power to publish enough information to allow the public to judge its effectiveness. As has been said, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, it is a very clever balance and we on this side support it. There is more: we need to be clear that despite some of the rhetoric that we have heard today, this package would also guarantee in statute—I think for the first time—the freedom of the press from government. That seems a very important consideration.

Like many noble Lords, I believe that the game changer this time round and the context for this report is the anguish felt by ordinary citizens who have not sought public exposure of their lives but who, like the Dowlers and McCanns, have been subject to outrageous behaviours from the press. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, is our own expert by experience and put it very well when she spoke earlier with such dignity. At the end of the day, we in Parliament have to be able to say to those victims that we have seen them right. As my noble friend Lord Giddens said, the public will never forgive us if we cock this up this time round.

We should remember that the public are overwhelmingly in support of the establishment of an independent regulator backed by law. That is born out by a series of polls by the Media Standards Trust, Hacked Off, the Carnegie Trust and the IPPR. The poll recently commissioned by the Sunday Times found that by three to one the public think that the press needs much tougher independent regulation, with fines for newspapers that behave badly. Some 58% think that new laws should be passed by MPs to encourage newspapers to join this new system of regulation, with only 26% opposing such legislation.

There are now four separate initiatives that would deliver for us the recommendations of the Leveson report, the most recent being the suggestion of a royal charter. Others have mentioned during the debate why a royal charter approach is inappropriate. I simply add that it seems wrongly focused in its conception. It is an executive act explicitly associated with the monarch. Despite her recent visit to the Cabinet, or perhaps because of it, it is surely inappropriate to deploy the prestige of the monarch in what might be a controversial and constitutionally inappropriate device, whose purpose is at heart to bypass Parliament. A royal charter can of course be revoked or amended by the monarch at will, which in effect means by her Ministers. As has already been said, she is obliged to accept their advice, so a device to avoid legislation places control of the recognising body in the hands of the Executive. Constitutionally, it is not possible to restrict the ability of the monarch to amend or revoke at will. In addition, a royal charter cannot authorise the body created to raise money or authorise government expenditure, so inevitably we are drawn back to statute to make sure it works in any case. Having said all that, it may be possible to recognise or find a way of creating an independent press regulator by royal charter and to support or underpin it with appropriate legislation. On this side, we will keep an open mind on that matter until such time as the discussions are completed.

Having cleared the ground, the heart of today’s debate is, as my noble friend Lord Alli said, the question of whether we have independent self-regulation backed by law or not. We believe that we need that in statute because the current system of self-regulation has failed—year after year for 70 years and despite seven major reports. St Augustine springs to mind once again. In any case, the problem with a purely self-regulatory body is that there is still an irreconcilable conflict of interest when those doing the judging—the press—are those being judged. Again, what is being proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others is necessary but not sufficient. We believe that Lord Justice Leveson’s answer to that decades-long problem is ingenious: it ensures that the press regulates itself, independent of both government and its own interests, but it also ensures that there is statutory backing for the system.

There are arguments against statute and I want to go through them quickly. The first is that any statute affecting the press automatically ends a free press but, as has been mentioned, the press is already subject to legislation. Section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998, their carve-out for VAT and the regulations currently under consideration in this House on defamation are examples—there are many—and the Leveson report specifies them. It is absurd to hold that having any law mentioning the press undermines freedom.

Secondly, it is argued that putting the press complaints system on a statutory basis amounts to regulation of the press but such a statute would guarantee only the system, not the regulation itself. The oversight body—the one prescribed by statute—would have no role in hearing complaints, no role in deciding whether they are justified, no role in laying down penalties and absolutely no role in deciding whether anything does or does not go into a newspaper.

Thirdly, there is the argument that if Parliament legislates on this issue, it might be the thin end of the wedge but in our system Parliament is and must remain sovereign. Basically, we have to trust our elected and appointed representatives to make and change laws. That is our system, for better or worse. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, said, we also have to bear in mind that the press cannot become a law unto themselves.

Fourthly, it has been argued that what is proposed would inevitably mean cumbersome legislation but, as we have already heard from my noble friend Lady Jay, the Irish law contains provisions that are equivalent to proposals in Leveson recognising the Irish press council. It is simply one clause and one schedule. The Bill that we have recently published—I gather that the others are similar—shows that this is all feasible within a very few pages. Indeed, I hope this is the way forward.

Finally, there is the argument that Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals would undermine freedom of speech but, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, the freedom of the press is essential but so, too, is that other freedom: the freedom of a private citizen to go about their business without harassment, intrusion or the gross invasion of their grief and trauma. I was interested in what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said on this point but with the deepest respect I disagree. A free press must be a responsible press. It must expose the abuse of power but it must also not abuse its own power. That is what this debate at heart is about. It is an issue which cannot now be left unresolved and that is why we should take forward Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals with all convenient speed.

In conclusion, I join many noble Lords in paying tribute to the work of Lord Justice Leveson, the rigour with which he conducted the inquiry and the humanity with which he enabled victims of some appalling injustices to have a proper hearing. For many of them, it meant reliving the pain and trauma of their abuse by the press but they did so with enormous courage and determination because they had found a safe haven. The stories they told made many people feel moved, incredulous and appalled—and made us all very angry.

As my noble friend Lady Jones said, it is important to remember that the voices heard in the inquiry were just a small sample of press harassment and misrepresentation which has become commonplace, week in and week out, for those struggling with tragedies in their lives—people who never sought to become the story. As we have heard, that is continuing. The fact is that the Leveson inquiry should never have been necessary. The catalogue of incidents that were described and the many more that they represent should never have been allowed to happen. However, let me end with a wish that was also expressed by many noble Lords: that the spirit of consensus which has been so evident across the parties on this issue continues and that we can, working together, solve this problem, but quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

It would be helpful for the House if, in closing, the Minister could sketch out the timescale for these debates. I appreciate that it is not entirely in his hands and that other factors may be going on. I think that everyone thought that this process would move reasonably fast. There are difficulties. There is a lot to learn, a lot to listen to and a lot to discuss, but frustration will build up if nothing is going to happen. Perhaps a word on the timetable would be helpful.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I cannot give a timetable, because it is not in my gift, of course. There are a number of different bodies involved. But I think it would be helpful, after such a productive debate today, for the usual channels to take notice of it—and we will have time to debate this issue as it progresses. I suspect that this is not going to be a Moses-like event, with tablets of stone coming down. I think that we will work our way towards the truth. I hope that it is the sentiment of Members of this House that we all feel that we have played some part towards getting a solution. I am sure that the usual channels would be quite happy to enable us to talk further about it. I am sorry that I cannot give a timetable.