Online Safety Bill

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

If I may, I will prevail upon the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to wait just another few seconds before beginning his winding-up speech. I have found this an extremely interesting and worthwhile debate, and there seems to be an enormous amount of consensus that the amendment is a good thing to try to achieve. It is also true that this is a very complex Bill. My only point in rising is to say to the Minister—who is himself about to speak, telling us why the Government are not going to accept Amendment 1—that, as a result of the very long series of debates we are going to have on this Bill over a number of days, perhaps the Government might still be able, at the end of this very long process, to rethink the benefits of an having amendment of this kind at the beginning of the Bill. I hope that, just because he is going to ask us that the amendment be withdrawn today, he will not lose sight of the benefits of such an amendment.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, just before the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones gets to wind up, I wanted to ask a question and make a point of clarification. I am grateful for the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti; that was a helpful point to make.

My question, which I was going to direct to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—although it may be one that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wants to respond to if the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is not coming back—is about the use of the word “purpose” versus “objective”. The point I was trying to make in referring to the Joint Committee’s report was that, when it set out the limbs of this amendment, it was referring to them as objectives for Ofcom. What we have here is an amendment that is talking about purposes of the Bill, and in the course of this debate we have been talking about the need for clarity of purpose. The point I was trying to make was not that I object to the contents of this amendment, but that if we are looking for clarity of purpose to inform the way we want people to behave as a result of this legislation, I would make it much shorter and simpler, which is why I pointed to subsection (g) of the proposed clause.

It may be that the content of this amendment—and this is where I pick up the point the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, was making—is not objectionable, although I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, is right: at the moment, let us worry less about the specifics. Then, we can be clearer about what bits of the amendment are meant to be doing what, rather than trying to get all of them to offer clarity of purpose. That is my problem with it: there are purposes, which, as I say, are helpful structurally in terms of how an organisation might go about its work, and there is then the clarity of purpose that should be driving everything. The shorter, simpler and more to the point we can make that, the better.

Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations 2023

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, that was a suitable start to my own small intervention. I will not trouble the Minister for too long but I want to strike a note of genuine regret, rather along the lines of what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said.

It is a very small crumb of comfort to be faced with this order when previously, right across the EU, there were no roaming charges for consumers. As we saw, last July the EU extended the exemption from roaming charges for another 10 years—an extensive period. I suspect we are all now much more aware of what we have lost as a result of leaving the EU, exactly as the noble Lord mentioned.

There is a small consolation offered in this free trade agreement. I do not know whether any negotiations will ever be underfoot again with the EU about taking advantage of its single market and the resulting lack of roaming charges. Maybe the Minister could say whether any kind of initiative was available.

I have only a couple of questions about these new regulations. The Minister talked about the technicalities of wholesale, retail and so on. Obviously, the retail charges—if any—follow from any wholesale charges. How are these charges to be set? What is the basis for them? Norway and Iceland are limited exemptions. Even Liechtenstein did not feel moved enough to join up to this great roaming exemption. Why has Liechtenstein excluded itself from this splendid initiative?

Of course, we support these regulations. I welcome particularly that there is a review. I am greatly in favour of government reviewing its own regulations, and the mechanism in Regulation 13 is very useful, but what does the Minister envisage? Do we do this after a couple of years, after five years, this time next year or never? What is the plan? It is useful at least to have in the department’s diary something that says, “Review these Norway and Iceland regulations”, when somebody has the spare time to do it. I hope that consumers will take great benefit from these regulations.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I intervene briefly to ask two questions, one of which, about the review, has just been asked. Regulation 13 says that the review has to be within five years but can be in as little as a year. Can the Minister say anything about when the department might intend to consider a review? The subject of roaming charges is of pretty wide interest generally.

Secondly, in respect of the scope—which, let us face it, is modest—am I right in assuming that, under the reconsideration of the trade and co-operation agreement that has been signed and comes up for review in a year or two, this whole area might be an appropriate part of any reconsideration and renegotiation that the UK conducts with the EU?

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to the Minister for introducing the SI, and to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for commenting on it in its 25th report. The scope of the SI is very narrow, as colleagues have said. But if we are looking for something to welcome, we should certainly welcome the fact that the Government have decided to work a bit more collaboratively with international partners, are bringing forward legislation that enacts rather than attempts to rip up international agreements and are seeking to negotiate somewhat with our partners in Europe.

The agreement with Norway and Iceland will give certainty to mobile operators about their costs when customers use roaming charges across the relevant jurisdictions, but this is a very limited agreement. I soon realised when I came back from Norway last year just how much more expensive it is to use a mobile device there than it used to be in the rest of Europe, so this is a small but welcome move forward.

The SI deals only with a wholesale price cap rather than with any retail-focused provisions. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was right to query whether there is likely to be a knock-on effect. In a sense, that must be at the heart of this and a question. The Government’s response in paragraph 84 of the committee’s report is not entirely convincing. The DCMS says:

“If operators do not react appropriately, the Government will have to consider what further measures may be necessary”.


That seems to be something of an empty threat. The Government previously said they saw no reason why our departure from the EU would lead to the reintroduction of roaming charges, and we know where that led. Yet the DCMS has not introduced any further measures to address the decision of three of the four main mobile operators to reinstate charges. Why not? As well as setting the wholesale costs, the SI introduces powers for Ofcom to enforce them. Yet you would not really get that if you read the Explanatory Memorandum, which gives no explanation of how these powers will be exercised or operate in practice.

We obviously do not oppose this SI but, as is often the case with the DCMS, we are somewhat underwhelmed by the general approach to an issue that will affect millions of British travellers each year. A small crumb of comfort is the best description we can give of this SI, welcome though it is.

Arts and Creative Industries Strategy

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to take part today and make a brief contribution. I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Chandos for securing the debate and for the way in which he introduced it; I acknowledge all the expertise that he brings to bear. Of course, the same is true for so many other speakers in this debate. Before I begin, I ought to declare my interests; I have decided on two. First, I am the president of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. Secondly, tonight, I hope to be able to go and see a live Royal Ballet production that will be streamed to a cinema—one of the ways in which ballet and opera are being made more accessible throughout the country, which is a very good thing.

I rise today to make two points. First, as has been said by everybody so far and doubtless will be said throughout the rest of the debate, the importance of the arts and the creative industries to the UK simply cannot be overestimated. Whichever way you look at it, economically or in terms of soft power, the UK is an astonishingly creative country and intellectual property lies at the heart of it. Of course, thanks to the helpful Library briefing, the House will be aware of the DCMS statistics showing that the creative industries sector has contributed around £109 billion to the UK economy; that is a large sum by any standard. The largest subsector in the creative industries, listed as IT, software and computer services, accounted for 2.3% of the UK economy in 2021. Since then, overall employment in the country has fallen but, in that subsector, it has in fact increased by around 5.1%.

However, far too often in this country an artificial dividing line is drawn between the arts and the sciences. In reality, so many of today’s creative industries straddle that divide and render it meaningless in any real sense. The arts and creative industries encompass, and in some cases rely hugely on, the creative sciences in which the UK excels in many areas.

I will take the example of video games, which the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has already mentioned. The video games industry alone depends on people having mathematical and coding skills to a very high degree. Now let us consider the other aspects involved, such as architecture, design and imaginative storytelling—not to mention the music. Those who listen to Classic FM will know that, in recent years, music generated for video games has increasingly played a part in its “Top 300 of the Year”.

Noble Lords will know that, in 1959, the novelist CP Snow gave a lecture entitled “The Two Cultures”, later published in book form as The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. My noble friend Lord Chandos quoted Churchill; other people have referred to him. I am going to quote a brief extract from a lecture that CP Snow gave only 21 years later. His thesis was that science and the humanities, which represented

“the intellectual life of the whole of western society”,

had become split into “two cultures”, and that this division was a major handicap to both in solving the world’s problems. People know this phrase but often do not know the actual argument that he used. He said:

“A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is about the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s? I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question—such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read?—not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language.”


One of the reasons why that phrase, “two cultures”, has persisted down the decades is because it has struck a nerve. I know that your Lordships’ Communications and Digital Committee is conducting an inquiry into the UK’s creative industries, and I look forward to its result, but I hope it will also recognise the role, contribution and creativity of the science sector.

Secondly, we should never forget that one of the attractions of the UK as a place to do science is that it also offers unrivalled artistic and cultural experiences and heritage. Do noble Lords imagine that scientists are somehow different from everybody else—that the enormous artistic and cultural attractions of the UK do not play a part in encouraging them to come here to do their research? Of course, funding and the huge international links on offer are very important factors, but when eminent scientists decide where to live and work, the arts and culture of a country are a key factor in their decisions, and the UK has traditionally had that pull in spades. We benefit enormously from their presence here, and it is for this reason too, in part, that the present paralysis over the UK’s future participation in Horizon Europe is such a tragedy.

I will add just one thing in view of the briefings we have had about music. The Government should seek to reach an agreement with the EU to allow young musicians and youth orchestras to tour Europe and vice versa, because the collapse of such opportunities is another tragedy of Brexit.

In conclusion, we need to think of this whole area in a slightly different way. We should regard the strategy needed, as outlined in the Motion before us today, as being as important to our science base as to the arts and creative industries as traditionally defined. This is an opportunity to bring these two cultures together—the arts and sciences—as two sides of the same coin, feeding and stimulating each other for all our benefit. On this occasion, I rather wish that we had two Ministers winding up: the Minister we have in front of us, and perhaps the Minister for Science. However, I recognise that we have just the one, so I look forward very much to what he has to say.

Music Education

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, what a pleasure to take part in such a debate today. I begin by paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, for having secured—I might almost say orchestrated—the debate, and for the way in which she introduced the subject. I pay tribute to her for having chaired the expert advisory group that helped draw up the plan. Of course, she also chairs the London Music Fund as well as being a council member of the Royal College of Music. The noble Baroness welcomed the Minister back to the Front Bench, as will, I dare say, other noble Lords who follow me. I have already had that pleasure—I did it a week ago—but it is good to see him there.

It is quite right that this House should discuss and debate the subject and the government document published in July; we ought to debate music more often. Music enriches our lives—the noble Baroness said it, and I would hope that the whole House would agree. It does more than that: it actively and positively shapes our brains and minds, and there is growing evidence that it adds to cognitive skills and benefits us enormously, particularly at a young age. The noble Baroness said that it makes young people happy; I hope it makes us all happy. There is not a single child alive who cannot or should not benefit from music. I want us to be a country where every child has the opportunities to learn and experience music, whatever their position in what you might call the education framework.

Before I go any further, I declare an interest that is not in your Lordships’ official register of interests. Whatever else my own children do in life, they are and will remain musicians. They both grew up with music absolutely central to their lives and I hope this will remain so for ever. My daughter Emily is the first violinist with the Parliamentary String Quartet, which by the way is known as the “Statutory Instruments”. They may play at some stage, by agreement with the Lord Speaker, at this end of the building; they have certainly played at the other. My son is a cellist who has been a soloist with many orchestras and is now a teacher.

They both did music at primary and secondary school, they began learning their instruments from the age of four and they were members of their local authority music orchestras and choirs. With the Croydon Youth Orchestra and the independent Stoneleigh Youth Orchestra, they toured Europe each summer. I do not want to be provocative, but it is a tragedy of Brexit that the ability of young orchestras to tour has gone. This is not a subject for today, but I feel very strongly about it; heaven knows I have driven miles all over Europe in the last 15 years supporting my children. The enrichment they experienced should be available for every child.

There is much to support in the national plan for music education. It is positive that national funding is being committed until March 2025, and that there is a national plan through to 2030. The plan’s vision speaks of all children and young people having

“the opportunity to progress their musical interests and talents, including professionally.”

However, I think it is fair to say that, while many welcome such a document in principle, the experience of many professionals leads them to be pessimistic about the reality. In the course of preparing for this debate, I got in touch with and have drawn on the views of some highly experienced instrumental teachers who have worked extensively in local authorities; two former heads of music for Birmingham and Croydon local authorities; and Adrian Brown, who has been at the forefront of youth music for many decades through his distinguished role as a conductor, not just of the Stoneleigh Youth Orchestra, which I mentioned, but of many others. I am very grateful for their contribution. So some of the views I am about to convey to the House come, if you like, from the front line that they represent.

First, it is undeniable that music education in schools is under threat from the narrowing of the curriculum in secondary schools, substantial cuts in funding for instrumental tuition by cash-strapped local authorities, and a decline in the number of school-based and peripatetic music teachers. The national plan states:

“Schools should deliver high-quality curriculum music for at least one hour a week in key stages 1 to 3, supported by co-curricular learning, and musical experiences.”


So why do the Government not support making music a mandatory part of the national curriculum?

Another question has been raised with me: is it the case that the adoption of the English baccalaureate has led to a dramatic fall in GCSE and A-level entries in music? Perhaps the Minister can answer that in his reply. Creating new structures for local education music-making will not solve these fundamental issues of what we might call the status of music in schools.

Then, of course, there is the key issue of funding, which the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, touched on. Energy costs and teacher pay rises are putting pressure on school budgets. Only yesterday it was reported:

“Many schools in England are considering cutting teachers or teaching hours to save money”,


according to the National Association of Head Teachers. In its survey, no less than two-thirds of respondents said that they will have to make teaching assistants redundant or cut their hours, and half said that they may have to do the same for teachers. There is a real risk that in those schools where music is seen as an optional, nice thing to have, music education and optional spending on individual tuition, the purchase of instruments and their provision to school orchestras will suffer if such cuts are made, hubs or no hubs. Some schools have already told the BBC that they might have to axe school trips and music lessons to avoid cutting staff as they struggle to pay teachers.

The underlying reality is that there is a gap between music provision in state schools and the private sector. In my view, this is a real problem which needs a lot more attention than we are able to give it even today. There is a danger than a huge amount of latent musical talent in the state sector will simply be lost through lack of opportunity, and this will have catastrophic consequences for our country’s well-being, our economy and—if you want to put it this way—our cultural soft power.

Secondly, many senior music professionals believe that local authority music services are being virtually ignored and viewed as history, not the future, despite having been the drivers of almost all the best initiatives in music education for decades. When music hubs were first set up after open bidding, all of them were led by music services—which is not surprising as that is where music education expertise is centred. Now, all music hubs will be opened up to competition by inviting applications for the role of lead organisation in each hub, which will receive and administer the government funding for that hub. The Government themselves say that, as a result, they expect to see

“a reduced number of Hub lead organisations establishing partnerships across wider geographical areas.”

I worry that that is a recipe for dismantling local authority expertise and might move music services further away from the local education authority routes. I hope that it is not because of any ideological aversion to local authority provision. The mechanics of the new processes are untried, untested and could see years of experience in music-making dismantled.

Then there is the method of disbursing the £15 million allocated for musical instruments in the announcement of the plan, which has not yet been determined. There is a feeling that it might go to schools directly—I wonder whether the Minister could comment on that—but, generally, schools do not know how to maintain, log, track and quality-assure instruments. Surely this responsibility should go to hubs.

I turn briefly to the views of the distinguished orchestra conductor to whom I referred, Mr Adrian Brown, who has decades of experience with young musicians. First, on the question of instrumental teaching in schools, he says:

“It is all well and good funding the early stages. However, as pupils progress to the Sixth Form, any thought of free lessons evaporates. So, if advanced players need help to be of National Youth Standard, funds are needed for their ongoing teaching. Only the wealthier families can afford this.”


This is a major issue and again illustrates the gap between the public and private sectors, which worries me a great deal. To keep our rich pipeline of professional talent, funding advanced lessons for all pupils who would benefit must be addressed. One idea is to get voluntary help from retired players, and it could be pooled. Perhaps a register of properly checked musicians willing to help youngsters could be established.

Secondly, music hubs could be like music schools and provide ensemble and orchestral opportunities. However, they would need to be staffed with specialist teachers for a specific instrument; no pupil can progress without lessons. We need to find a way of handling an instrument on a personal basis and seeing that the child’s talent progresses. Instrumental lessons at all stages, if done in small groups or individually, need to be properly timetabled as part of a curriculum day. It is not satisfactory for pupils to come out of academic lessons, even on a rota basis. It is sometimes resented by staff and causes anxiety for the pupil.

Thirdly, school music horizons have thankfully broadened to include pop, jazz and world music. That is a good thing. Then there is the increasing role of computer technology in both composition and performance. However, even with computer technology, we shall always need good teaching of theory and music reading. Those great, moving, life-changing works—we all have our ideas about what they are; they might be something by Shostakovich, Elgar or Stravinsky—will never in future engage and stimulate youngsters, as they can, if the instrumentalists concerned are unable to read the history of the works they are performing, however proficient they are on the instrument.

In view of the time, I will leave it there. As I say, I welcome the debate. I look forward to all the other contributions that will follow, and to the Minister’s response. Again, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, for having introduced this debate and for all the work that she has done so far.

Public Service Broadcasting: BBC Centenary

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a good moment to discuss the future of public service broadcasting. I congratulate the noble Lord on securing and introducing this debate and join all noble Lords in welcoming the Minister back to the Front Bench. In the great carousel of recent government changes, I am glad that the wheel has stopped at exactly the right place for him to get off and resume his role as DCMS Minister. This gives me the chance, like everyone else in the debate, to congratulate the BBC on its centenary.

Of course, this is not the first time that Parliament has debated the future of the BBC or public service broadcasting. There was quite an interesting debate in July 1951 on the same subject. At that time, the distinguished historian Asa Briggs described Selwyn Lloyd’s report as “the real dynamite” which eventually led the BBC to lose its monopoly. Why is it useful to recall such a debate many decades later? It is because we are now facing threats to public service broadcasting again.

For example, the Government previously indicated that they wanted to sell off Channel 4, but it is not yet clear what the current Government will do. Indeed, it is not entirely clear what the current Government will do in a number of areas. However, we do know that the Government continue to put pressure on the BBC via the licence fee. There are people who want to see the BBC further constrained and reduced, both financially and by cutting its coverage, despite the BBC being the jewel in the crown of the United Kingdom’s soft power.

Sadly, only this week we heard of potential cutbacks in services provided by local radio. I presume that all noble Lords have had the very useful briefing from the BBC and its key statistics, so I will not repeat them except to say that the BBC remains an incredibly trusted voice in Britain and around the world.

My main purpose in speaking in today’s debate is to highlight one issue in particular: the BBC’s superb record over the years, whether on radio, on TV or, now, online, of informing, educating and entertaining the nation about science. I shall give the House some examples. “The Sky at Night” began in 1957. It was a monthly programme, one of the longest-running by the time it ended, and it was one of the very earliest of the regular science programmes. I grew up on it. Who could possibly forget the sheer enthusiasm of the presenter Patrick Moore? Yes, I agree that the more we learned about his personal political opinions, the less I liked them; nevertheless, over the decades he shared with people the sense of sheer excitement at space and what humankind could achieve. That culminated in the moon landing of 1969, which the BBC covered in an exemplary way as a national broadcaster. Another long-running show was “Tomorrow’s World” with presenters such as Raymond Baxter, Judith Hann, Maggie Philbin and James Burke guiding us through the then latest developments in technology.

More recently, there are programmes such as “Click”, which, since the start of the millennium has been the BBC’s flagship technology show on BBC World News, where presenters such as Spencer Kelly, Kate Russell and Lara Lewington have educated, informed and entertained us on all the latest news in the world of tech.

There are other programmes such as “Stargazing Live” with Dara Ó’Briain on BBC1, but it is not just on TV that the BBC has fulfilled the vital function of bringing science and technology to the nation. On radio, the BBC has had such programmes as “The Life Scientific” with Jim Al-Khalili and “The Infinite Monkey Cage” with Professor Brian Cox and Robin Ince. There are now also podcasts such as “13 Minutes to the Moon”.

Some of the BBC’s science output over this period has been on a grander scale, with such blockbuster series as “Life on Earth”, which opened up the world of natural history and set the standard for documentaries in that genre. That has been followed by “Frozen Planet” and “Frozen Planet II”, presented by our foremost scientific national treasure, David Attenborough. I think the first episode of the new series attracted 9 million viewers.

Then there are the series “Wonders of the Universe”, “Wonders of the Solar System” and “Wonders of Life”, all presented by Brian Cox. Heaven knows there are quite enough wonders in the world and I dare say the BBC will keep on bringing them to our attention in the years ahead—for example, by broadcasting the fantastic photographs provided by the James Webb telescope.

More recently, there was the BBC’s coverage of Covid-19, when the country and the world were crying out for trusted factual information to help us navigate our way through a terrifying period in our recent history. The BBC once again pioneered things such as “Covid: Your Questions Answered” on the BBC News Channel and on “BBC Breakfast”, where people around the country could put their questions on all aspects of Covid.

And, of course, for much of the past half-century the BBC has brought us “Doctor Who”, mentioned in the opening speech, with its iconic music. That programme has helped inspire generations of children—and, I dare say, a few adults too—with an interest in and fascination with science and the future. It has been as integral a part of the BBC’s output on science as any other.

My point is very simple. No one else—no other independent channel anywhere—has provided remotely the same level of public service broadcasting in science and science-related programmes. Contrast its output with that of broadcasters around globe. It is a record to be proud of and it is true public service broadcasting. Moreover, these BBC programmes are so prestigious that they are sold around the world.

I am not denigrating other providers—some also make valuable contributions to our understanding of science—but, when we look ahead to the future that lies before us, which is unimaginably different from that faced by Parliament when it debated these matters in 1951, it is my view that the BBC remains the only entity in today’s multidimensional broadcasting world that we can rely on to provide science-related programmes.

That is why our current system of public service broadcasting remains an essential part of who we are as a country. There are times when public service broadcasting needs to be defended, and this is one of them.

Musicians and Creative Professionals: Working in the European Union

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl and congratulate him on securing the debate. It is very timely, for a reason that I will come on to. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—I am almost tempted to say that it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, because it has occurred once or twice so far. When I heard the reference to Handel, I thought, “Well, Handel did not need a visa to come here.”

I also ought to say what a pleasure it is to see a Minister still at the Dispatch Box. In fact, there are two Ministers here today. The subject of today’s debate is music and it is the second time in two hours—I will be honest about this—that the consequential damage of the vote in 2016 is being brought to your Lordships’ attention. Less than two hours ago, a Question was raised in the House about Horizon Europe, the co-operation between scientists here and around Europe, and the damage being done. Here we are talking about the damage to musicians of not being able to tour in Europe as easily as was the case. Whatever else noble Lords may feel, I do not think that anybody voted on 23 June 2016 to inflict the type of damage that is being inflicted on British science or music, which are being sacrificed on the altar of the Northern Ireland protocol. Of course, music in particular is truly international.

I am indebted to the ISM and the Library for their briefings, which all noble Lords will have received. I always find the Library briefings helpful. As the noble Earl said, we are talking about an industry that is worth nearly £6 billion in economic terms.

I should declare an interest, which is what propelled me to take part in today’s debate. I am grateful to the government side for increasing the length of the debate, because I saw that I would have only two minutes—well, my two minutes are already up. I am grateful for a little more time. The point I want to bring to your Lordships’ attention in this debate—I hope the Minister will feel able to say something about it in reply—is the hugely damaging effect on young musicians. The interest I have to declare is that I have two children. As they grew up, from the age of five they learned to play musical instruments—my daughter Emily the violin and my son Daniel the cello. I do not think they can remember life without playing musical instruments. In the course of growing up, they were members of colleges of music but also a youth orchestra, which I hope I am allowed to name: the Stoneleigh Youth Orchestra, conducted by Adrian Brown with such distinction for so many years. Growing up, they went on tours to Poland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Slovenia and Belgium. A lot of work goes into organising such tours. These are not professional orchestras, and people have to do it voluntarily. Money and time are spent going out to reconnoitre the best place to go. You can imagine all the work involved in enabling a youth orchestra to go on tour, including a huge great bus and space for the instruments.

I understand from one of our briefings that on one occasion two musicians were fined because there was no proof, said the French, that their instruments belonged to them, and they said that they might be importing their instruments into another country, possibly for resale. It is absurd. As I said, the plight of youth orchestras should be taken very seriously.

I hope I am allowed to say this, but the other day I saw the noble Baroness the Minister at the entrance. If I am right, she had her own child with her. I thought here is someone who, as he grows up—if it is he—

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

She.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

As she grows up, I hope she will learn to play music and get the benefit of that. There are incalculable benefits from going on tour in Europe.

My time is up now. Many of the other things I planned to say have already been covered, and no doubt will be by others, but this is about the future. I think the noble Earl referred to the pipeline of the future, and that is the point I want to bring to your Lordships’ attention today. It matters just as much for the future of music and musicians touring as for established orchestras today.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Wednesday 29th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the noble Earl that Amendment 44 deals explicitly with the safety issues. He might want to reconfigure those points when we get there.

Taking the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, that we are focusing on Amendment 18, I will not seek to embellish the comprehensive and excellent speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, but we should remind ourselves that the Bill allows for the sharing of historic wayleaves to share BT infrastructure under private land. It does not currently explicitly allow operators to use telegraph pole infrastructure on private land above ground. For places such as Herefordshire, where I come from, pole access is absolutely central to the rollout of fibre and a huge proportion of those poles sit on private land, so this matters quite a lot. I think 50% of premises in Scotland are connected by poles on private land.

As we have heard, the Bill as drafted would allow operators to use existing ducts to reach the base of such a pole, while existing provisions in the code allow for the flying of lines between poles, but no explicit right exists to access the pole itself or place apparatus such as small boxes—in practice, smaller than what is already there—on it. This amendment seeks to remove any ambiguity and make sure that what we believe to be the Government’s objective is fully written into the Bill, and that is why I am a co-signatory.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I will take advantage of the flexibility of debate outlined by the former Leader of the House to say that, although we are debating the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, I for one would be interested to know whether the amendments that were to be debated, but for this very unfortunate cup of tea, will be moved on Report. It would help my fuller understanding of how debate on the Bill might progress.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I can respond to that, since that question is being put to me. There is nothing procedurally to prevent my noble friend tabling an amendment on Report that would cover the same issues.

British Museum: Ethiopian Sacred Altar Tablets

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, we have time. It is the turn of the Liberal Democrats and then the Labour Benches—if they could work out which one of them is going to stand up.

Creative Professionals: EU Tours

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Monday 21st February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, have the Government considered what they can do to help youth orchestras? For many years, they have toured Europe during the summer, to the enrichment of those who have played in them and the audiences to whom they have played. I declare an interest: both my children were members of the Stoneleigh Youth Orchestra, which travelled all over Europe under its conductor Adrian Brown. I just hope that, when the Government consider the wider questions triggered by the Question from the noble Earl, they will also take into account the important need to continue the cultural and musical links between younger people and Europe.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I strongly agree with the noble Viscount. It is important that people of all ages—professionals and amateurs alike—have the opportunities for cultural exchange. That is why the UK has a generous offer and is welcoming to musicians from around the world. Through our discussions with member states, we have clarified that arrangements are much more workable than at times has been reported—for example, splitter vans are not subject to the TCA market access rules. We continue to work with sector organisations, including youth orchestras.

BBC: Government Support

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, the whole House owes a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Bragg for securing today’s debate, whatever one’s views of the BBC are. Having listened to my noble friend on the radio and seen him on television for so many years, I find it a bit hard to believe that I am listening to him in person. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech, which was very thoughtful and caring. As someone who made a maiden speech only six weeks ago today, I know how relieved he feels— I trust—at the moment.

My purpose in briefly intervening today is to draw attention to the BBC’s role during the pandemic, which I regard as exemplary, in many ways—it is something that we should not forget. When we look back, a year and a half or more, to when the pandemic was unfolding, we remember that an awful lot of us—all of us, I would imagine—did not know what was to follow. It was a time of great uncertainty, and there is a slight hint of that today, with the new variant. But the fact is that there was a great need for trusted information.

I pay tribute to the BBC for, first, the production of factual information: the graphs showing the numbers of infections, hospitalisations and deaths, which became a daily or weekly feature of life. Having worked with many scientific organisations, I can tell the House that all of them relied on the accuracy of the statistics produced by the BBC.

Secondly, the BBC held and invented or created a whole lot of new Q&A programmes because millions of members of the public heard the news but also wanted the opportunity to phone in and ask questions about the situation and how it might affect them. The BBC was not the only broadcaster to do this, but it did this very well. Of course, it also carried the press conferences, which brought people together, in a way—they were must-see viewing to keep us in touch with what was happening.

I bring to the attention of the House some of the statistics available. For example, at the beginning of the pandemic, audiences for “News at Six” were the highest that they had been for nearly 20 years. There was a great surge of desire to tune into the BBC to find out what was happening. On the days that the lockdowns were introduced—23 March and 31 October 2020—it is estimated that 84% of adults in the UK came to the BBC in a single day. This statistic has perhaps already been mentioned by my noble friend Lady Jay: 45% of people name the BBC as their number one source of information and news on Covid-19.

The right reverend Prelate talked about a fragmented public square, if I remember the phrase correctly. It is true: the noble Lords opposite have both spoken about the range of providers that exist in the modern world. But there are times when people want to come together. Of course, like other noble Lords, I remember the days, years and years ago, when the viewing figures for Morecambe and Wise at Christmas were astronomic—because there was no alternative, really, and they were very popular. But, at a time of crisis, as in the pandemic, the BBC’s role has been very great indeed.

Internationally, I understand that some of the figures here are just as important to reflect upon. The international channels brought the news about the pandemic in 40 languages around the world. Digital audiences for the BBC World Service surged to over 208 million people a week at the beginning of the pandemic.

Noble Lords perhaps know these figures, but they bear on one of the themes of this debate, especially in relation to the pandemic: trust. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey referred to this, and it is very important. We live in a time when there is an anti-science movement in this country, which you see in different ways—I ask those who may have been in the Chamber six weeks ago today, when I referred to this, to forgive me—and the BBC has played a very commendable part in countering that, to the benefit of us all.