Copyright (Regulation of Relevant Licensing Bodies) Regulations 2014

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Razzall

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Razzall (LD)]

My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in welcoming these regulations. I wish to raise with the Minister four concerns which have been raised by PRS for Music. I am not sure whether he has had the benefit of its representations on these four points.

First, paragraph (2) of regulation 9 provides for information to be given within two weeks of receipt of the request. I understand that that time limit was not included in the consultation process. Does the Minister envisage that the ombudsman or the co-reviewer can extend that time limit if that is relevant to the particular inquiry for information that is made?

Secondly, paragraph (1) of regulation 9 can impose an obligation for information to be supplied “for any purpose”. That is an extremely wide provision and there is concern that this is hardly light-touch regulation. Does the Minister have any idea what constraints would be imposed on the requirement to supply information for any purpose?

My third issue is a fundamental one. Regulation 10 provides that penalties may be imposed on a licensing body itself. However, some of these licensing bodies will be voluntary, non-profit-making organisations owned by the members themselves. Therefore, the members would ultimately be liable for any penalties that may be imposed. However, the regulations are being introduced for the benefit of the members. What factors does the Secretary of State envisage taking into account in imposing any such penalties?

I think that my fourth concern is easily answered. There is a provision for fees to be charged to whichever relevant collective management organisation they are imposed on. There is a concern that it should be made clear that the fees should be charged only to a collective management organisation which is being targeted, rather than being spread more widely.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. I declare an interest as I have received sums of money from ALCS in the past and therefore am part of a collecting society. Like other noble Lords, I support this approach which is a sensible expression of backstop powers and will be a light-touch operation. It will probably not be as rigorously regulated as was suggested by Hargreaves in the original report, but I do not think that that is necessarily a bad thing. The consultation and the accompanying debates reflect the fact that there is a good system out there which works well. Therefore, it is not necessary to introduce draconian powers and the measure being introduced is an appropriate balance between two things.

Having said that, there are two impacts and it would be helpful if the Minister would respond to them as I did not hear him mention them in his opening remarks. The first, as is set out in the papers, is the proposal that deals with an issue raised through Professor Ian Hargreaves’s review on digital opportunity. It anticipates work that is going on in Europe on similar issues, so the collective rights management directive, of which I understand a final text is now available, casts a shadow over this operation. I wonder whether the Minister could sketch out where he thinks there are differences in the current approach.

Postal Services Bill

Debate between Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Razzall

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, the amendments make the case for employee shares being held as a trust and for employees to have a voice on the board in the light of the employee share scheme being established. We agree that that should be in the Bill because we have heard a lot of Ministers’ warm words for employees, but we need more assurances.

The benefits of employee share schemes, which were rehearsed to some extent in Committee, are widely recognised. They can include motivating employees to become more productive, helping to align employees’ interests with those of shareholders, remunerating employees in a tax-efficient way, increasing loyalty and reducing staff turnover. Of course, employee share schemes cannot do that on their own. They have to be part of a wider approach to good industrial relations. Employee shares will not be welcomed if they are felt to be a sop, to be at the expense of pay or a substitute for the usual channels of interaction between management, unions and staff.

However, given the more generalised benefits of such schemes and the very significant efforts made by current employees to implement the modernisation programme within Royal Mail, it seems appropriate to reward that effort by making available an increased proportion of the company for an employee share scheme. Carole Leslie of the Employee Ownership Association spoke of the benefits of such a scheme in evidence to the Public Bill Committee in another place. She said:

“The benefits for the Royal Mail in considering employee ownership would be giving employees who work in that organisation a real stake in the company, a real interest in delivering an excellent service to the customers and service users, finding … the right way to solve problems. They look at it not as something that is done to them, but as something they own and have a bit of control and influence over. They also have the information to use that influence wisely. A huge benefit is what I see”.—[Official Report, Commons, Postal Services Bill Committee, 9/11/10; col. 76.]

If we accept the principle of employee shares, we are still short of detail. The Government have said that there will be a scheme but they have not said exactly what it will be. Having said that, we welcome two important concessions that the Government have made. First, we have pressed for greater detail about the scheme and are therefore pleased that the Government have brought forward an amendment so that, before the disposal of Royal Mail takes place, there will be a report to Parliament setting out the detail of the proposals for an employee share scheme.

Secondly, in Committee we pointed out that the Bill as it stands requires employee shares to be offered only when the last Crown share in Royal Mail has been sold. We argued the case for a trigger that kicks in when the first shares are sold. I think I heard the Minister suggest that that might indeed be acceptable to the Government, in which case we welcome that as well. However, whenever it is, we think that the Government should make some employee shares available when the first disposal is made.

The amendment proposes that shares should be held in trust for the benefit of employees, as we think that that is the right way to settle this matter. We now understand that this would be difficult for some employees to accept, as they would expect to be able to cash in the shares if they were taking them up, but we do not think that that is the right way forward to build in long-term value in the company. We believe that, for example, on leaving employment, shares held by employees should be disposed of only by way of transfer for consideration through the trust. It is obviously fair that employees who leave employment and leave a scheme should be able to capitalise on their shareholding, particularly if there has been capital growth. That is a scheme incentive. However, to maintain the integrity of the scheme as a whole, the disposals should go back into the scheme.

The amendment also calls for representation on the board for the employee share scheme once it is established. I have already made the arguments in favour of generalised employee representation but I think that they acquire additional merit when it is seen that some 15 per cent, we hope—but certainly 10 per cent under the Government’s proposals—of the shares will be available to be held by the employees of Royal Mail. This means that they should as of right have a chance to have a collective voice at the highest level, and we think that that should be stated in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Razzall]

My Lords, having sat through what I would describe as “Lord Mandelson’s Bill” under the previous Government, I am absolutely delighted at the Labour Party’s conversion on the road to Damascus regarding their commitment to employee participation here. The noble Baroness would not be surprised if I indicated that, were the Government minded to go from 10 to 15 per cent, I could not be more delighted. However, whether she can persuade the Treasury of that, I have my doubts.