BBC and Public Service Broadcasting

Viscount Younger of Leckie Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young, on introducing this debate. I must declare an interest: throughout his working life, my father worked for the BBC in a humble administrative capacity, so I was brought up with a filial affection for the corporation—unfortunately, one not reciprocated by it.

My affection persists but does not blind me to the BBC’s faults. Nor do those faults, which I shall discuss, make me want to end the licence fee, either to punish it or to try to remedy those faults, which I do not think it would not do—although I fear that the licence fee may be eroded by technology. The aims of the BBC, as has been said, are to inform, educate and entertain. At its best, it does all those superbly. In the current coronavirus situation, the information role of the BBC has been invaluable. On education, “In Our Time”, presented by the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, is always superb; we heard this morning about Paul Dirac. To me, as a physicist, that was wonderful to hear. On entertainment, it produces some unmatched comedies and dramas.

Sadly, however, we should admit—although I think I will be the only person in this debate to do so—that people in the BBC have a certain groupthink on some key issues, notably immigration, climate change and Europe. Instead of informing on those issues, it censors; instead of educating, it seeks to indoctrinate; and instead of entertaining, it seeks to preach. I will give concrete examples from my own experience, not because that experience is important but because I can be sure that the examples are factual rather than vague allegations.

People in the BBC, typical of the metropolitan elites, see migration as a key issue for virtue signalling, as well as it being in their own economic interest to oppose any controls on migration. Invariably, they cite the need for nurses, because insufficient people in this country want to train as nurses, so we have to import them from abroad. That has been sustained by the BBC, but it is untrue. When I appeared on the BBC three years ago and pointed out that 40,000 applicants that year had been turned away from nursing courses in this country, the BBC expressed scorn and subsequently phoned me up to demand that I prove it—clearly intending to challenge me. I was able to prove it in 10 minutes with figures from the Royal College of Nursing and UCAS, but the BBC has never used that information since. As a result, I doubt whether there is a Member in this House who knows that last year, 24,000 applicants for nursing courses in this country were turned away because those courses are still rationed.

The second issue is climate change. I was asked by Quentin Letts to appear on a witty programme, “What’s the Point Of…?”, about the Met Office. They invited the only two members of the Climate Change Committee in the other place who had been scientifically trained, of whom I was one. I explained that, while obviously I believe in the science of global warming—I studied physics at Cambridge—the sensitivity of the climate to a given amount of CO₂ is likely to be at the lower end of the spectrum spelled out by the IPCC, rather than the higher end which the Met Office always assumed. To illustrate my point, I pointed out that the Met Office produced a glossy pamphlet in 2004 saying that with its new computer, it could forecast accurately the future warming of the planet and that over the next decade—by 2014—it would have increased by 0.3 degrees. But 2014 had passed and we knew that it had in fact increased by between nothing and a tiny proportion of that amount.

Following this, there was an eruption from all the eco-fascists and within the BBC. The BBC referred itself to the BBC Trust for, in its words, “Giving voice to people like Peter Lilley”. This is the organisation that was proud to give voice to the IRA—but it was anxious not to give voice to me. It then removed the whole programme from the website and published an apology for ever having allowed me to utter this simple truth: the Met Office had got its long-term forecast wrong.

I am sorry if I am overrunning, but I am the only spokesman for the opposition in this debate and it is normal to give the opposition a little more space. The third issue I want to raise is the EU. The debate over the last three years has focused on attempts by remainers to keep the UK in the customs union, rather than just a free-trade association.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but the time limit is four minutes and I am afraid that applies to him.

[Lord Lilley]

Censorship persists, even in this House—but of course I give way to my noble friend. I shall put my views online. Those who are interested in fact rather than its suppression may read them there.

Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL]

Viscount Younger of Leckie Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, at this point it might be convenient if I speak to Amendment 10, which could probably have been grouped with Amendment 9, since it deals with very similar issues. It concerns what happens afterwards and requires a report on the success of the Games.

We have enough information in this country now to be able to produce very definitive documents, because in fewer than 20 years we have had three Commonwealth Games and the Olympics, as well as numerous other championships and activities. We have a great pool of knowledge that could be used. Amendment 9 talks about another type of report: this will be something that goes on to look at future strategy and it will be able to be referred to. I know we will have most of this information in other places, and the Minister may be going to say that, but if you bring it into one central point it is much more likely to be used and used easily—assumptions and discussions become easier. That is all this is about, and I am interested to hear the Government’s thinking about this idea.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, if I may be excused the pun, the baton in this relay has been passed to me, although I note that we are not half way around the track yet. I was happy that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, addressed Amendment 10, although I hope he will forgive me if I wait to see who else might speak to that amendment and reply accordingly. I shall keep my remarks on Amendment 9 relatively brief, picking up on the spirit of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.

Amendment 9 seeks to introduce a number of requirements for the organising committee to report on its activities. I would argue that it is not necessary to list such requirements in the Bill—a point I picked up from the mood of the Committee this afternoon anyway. Unlike the London 2012 or Glasgow 2014 Organising Committees, the Birmingham 2022 Organising Committee is a non-departmental public body and is already subject to a number of controls and transparency requirements. In an earlier debate my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned the importance of transparency and of course he is absolutely right. To illustrate the point, the organising committee has entered into a management agreement with the department. This sets out the organising committee’s governance structure and, in section 4, the reporting schedule and information which must be sent to DCMS on a regular basis. By regular, I mean monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly and biannual reports or face-to-face meetings between senior figures. A copy of the management agreement is available on GOV.UK. The organising committee must publish an annual report of its activities, together with its audited resource accounts, after the end of each financial year. These must be laid in Parliament and made available online, in accordance with public body guidance. The first report will be published this September, and annually thereafter.

To ensure delivery against these requirements, the organising committee has a dedicated compliance manager and chief legal officer. In addition, DCMS has an official responsible for sponsorship of the OC, to ensure that it meets its assurance and accountability obligations. The Games is also part of the Government’s major projects portfolio and is subject to scrutiny by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which publishes annually on all such projects. The Commonwealth Games will be included in the next annual report, due this month, and a copy will be placed in the Library of both Houses. I remind noble Lords, as was said earlier, that come 27 July 2022 the Games will have been delivered within a four-and-a-half-year window, rather than the typical seven years.

As was mentioned earlier, there is a balance to be struck: we must ensure both that we have transparency and scrutiny of public money and that the organising committee can move at the pace required to deliver a project of this scale to this immovable deadline. I hope I have reassured noble Lords that we already have the right governance, reporting and scrutiny in place to oversee and assure the successful delivery of the Games and to deal effectively with any issues that arise, without further requirements being added to the Bill.

On the question of public engagement, the OC and Birmingham City Council are committed to regular resident and business engagement. Public consultation drop-ins were hosted last month for the Alexander Stadium redevelopment, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, alluded to—it may have been one of those events that he attended—and there is a programme of ongoing monthly Perry Barr resident meetings. The OC has hosted eight regional business briefings, with more than 1,000 representatives attending. Games partners, by which I mean all stakeholders with responsibility for delivering the Games, have also met environmental groups to inform the development of the OC’s Games-wide sustainability plans.

Games partners are already engaging with relevant local authorities on Games plans and the leader of Birmingham City Council and the Mayor of the West Midlands both sit on the strategic board, the most senior decision-making body for the Games. A lead officer group has also been established, bringing together officials from local authorities across the West Midlands. The group will support co-ordination, communication and decision-making in relation to the Games. Further to this, I reassure noble Lords that the Government will carefully consider who will be best placed and how to report on the impact of the Games following the 11 days of sport. It is the Government’s ambition that the positive effects of the Games will be lasting ones for Birmingham and the West Midlands region. I hope that, with that rather detailed response, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rooker]

A perfect response: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, I just made my main speech on Amendment 10. To reiterate what I said, it is about having a report based on our knowledge from the number of events that we have run. I have a nagging suspicion that nobody has been inspired to join in after this, but I will be happy if I am wrong. I beg to move.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, this is becoming a bit of a pattern, but I would like very briefly to set out our stall, as it were. I listened carefully to the remarks made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Addington.

Amendment 10 would require the Government to lay a report before Parliament on lessons learned from the Games in 2022 and on how lessons from other Games were used. I assure noble Lords that the Government will carefully consider how we report on the impact of the Games following the 11 days of sport. It is the Government’s ambition that the positive effects of the Games will be lasting for both Birmingham and the West Midlands region, and that we tell this story, for a story it is. Inevitably, with more than three years to go, work on how best to report on the Games is at an early stage.

Regarding lessons from previous Games, knowledge transfer is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Games Federation. It facilitates a formal debrief between the host city and the future Games host to understand successes and lessons learned. This was the case for Gold Coast 2018 and will be for Birmingham 2022. I confirm that the Government and the OC continue to work closely with the Commonwealth Games Federation as part of an ongoing knowledge transfer from previous Games. Furthermore, this is the first Games that will use the new Commonwealth Games Federation partnerships model, which ensures transfer of knowledge by deploying expert CGF partnerships staff to the organising committee.

Further than this, we also have a proud history in the UK of successfully hosting global multisport events. As a result, many of the staff working on Birmingham 2022 have direct experience of previous Games or major sporting events in recent memory, such as the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games and the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games. In addition to the large number of staff working in the OC and DCMS with previous Games experience, the OC’s CEO was the chief finance officer for Glasgow 2014. My noble friend Lord Ashton and I spoke to him only yesterday for an update.

I reassure noble Lords that the Government will carefully consider how best to report on the Games and are committed to taking forward any lessons learned into planning for future major sporting events. As there is already an effective process in place for taking into account lessons learned, we do not see any need to require this in the Bill. Again, I hope that is the mood I picked up in the House today. However, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right to raise this important issue and I am grateful for the chance to set out our stall once again on this matter. With that, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, we should have grouped this with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, because that is a very similar—if equally reassuring—answer. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the speeches of both noble Lords. This matter has taken us many hours of parliamentary debate, the Government’s argument being that we should not criminalise ticket touting on the secondary market. Yet we criminalise it for the Olympics and now we are criminalising touting for the Commonwealth Games. An equally popular event in the music world, or the sporting world outside those two, is not criminalised. My noble friend will no doubt demonstrate the logic of that.

While we may not make significant progress on this subject in this Bill, it is still wholly unacceptable that modern-day ticket touts can use bots to store 100, 200 or 300 sets of credit card details, pop them into their computer and sweep the market while you and I are putting in our names and addresses to take our families to some event that we really want to go to. They sweep that market and 20 seconds later there are no tickets left, but three hours later those tickets you wanted are available at massively inflated prices on the secondary market, to no benefit to the organisers of the sporting event, the sports men and women, the organisers of the musical or theatrical event or the people who enjoy the arts. That absolutely has to be addressed.

I am not arguing, nor have I ever argued, against a secondary market. It is good to see secondary markets established where you can sell at face value plus the costs of undertaking the transaction, so that if you cannot go because you are unwell or your family have not been able to make it, at least there is a market where you can sell to a true fan to ensure that the ticket is put to good use. I think I am right in reflecting that that was put in place in football principally because of the segregation problems that were much greater 20 years ago than today but nevertheless were seen to be important from the Home Office perspective in the context of the secondary market.

Outside the criminalisation proposal here today, I am pleased to see that we are making some progress on the secondary market, the availability of tickets and stopping the likes of Viagogo ripping off true fans. It continues to do so, and the reference to the CMA moving forward with contempt of court legal proceedings is to be really welcomed. Viagogo has simply failed to provide accurate information to potential theatregoers, concertgoers and sports fans—for example, displaying inaccurate claims about the number of tickets left on the site and a whole range of additional points. This is a subject I need to come back to.

I support the proposal that has come through, but I really find it difficult to understand why we need primary legislation to criminalise the modern-day touts for the Commonwealth Games, but for equally large, major sporting events and great arts events in this country we do not believe it is appropriate to criminalise the very same touts. As I said, no doubt my noble friend the Minister will be able to enlighten me.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, before I turn to the specific amendments tabled—and particularly the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—I say that the touting provision in this Bill sits within the Government’s broader strategy on the secondary ticketing market. We are determined to crack down on unacceptable behaviour in the ticketing market and have put in place a range of legislative measures in this area—including the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and last year’s anti-bots regulations, following the enabling provisions in the Digital Economy Act 2017—backed up by robust enforcement. Judging from recent announcements by the CMA, which was mentioned earlier, and others, this is clearly bearing fruit. I pick up from what Peers have mentioned that this message is getting through.

With regard to Amendments 18 to 22, I share noble Lords’ desire to ensure that a robust and comprehensive ticketing strategy is in place for the Games. Over 1 million tickets will be available for Games events across 11 days of elite sport. We want to make sure that as many people as possible of all ages, including from local communities in Birmingham and the West Midlands, can experience the Games at an affordable price. I hope I can reassure the Committee that the organising committee shares our ambition for an affordable and accessible ticketing strategy.

Fairness for the public is an imperative in ticket pricing, distribution plans and availability. Within this, the organising committee will consider the way in which those in communities in Birmingham and the West Midlands can be part of the Games. I remind noble Lords that there will also be a number of non-ticketed, free events at the Games, such as the marathon and the cycling road race and time trial. We should recognise that the organising committee is at an early stage in developing its ticketing strategy, but it is building on the lessons learned from London 2012 and Glasgow 2014. The ticketing strategy will be finalised in 2020, with tickets to be ready for sale in 2021.

Before I continue, I will pick up on a number of points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in particular. For example, how will the OC ensure that tickets for the general public are allocated fairly, and will communities get special access to tickets? I say again: fairness for the public is an imperative in ticket pricing, distribution plans and availability. The detailed plans will be developed and finalised in 2020. Pricing research and benchmarking will inform plans to ensure that tickets are attractive to local communities.

How can the Government ensure that tickets bought through an authorised resale facility will not be at inflated prices? This is an important question. It is up to the organising committee to develop and implement a ticket return and exchange process, including authorising ticket vendors for the resale of tickets for Games events. It is committed to ensuring that tickets are affordable and accessible. I can give a further reassurance that, under the Bill, people who want to pass on their tickets to family and friends for face value or less can do so without falling foul of the law, provided that this is not done in a public place.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Can I just query that last statement? Was the Minister saying that those who are unable to use tickets and wish to exchange them would be able to do so, but that it would not be done through some formal system? In other words, is he licensing touting in a place other than a public place?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Yes, I said it should not be done in a public place. I assure the noble Lord that the OC will be responsible for organising the system for ensuring that.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am so sorry to interrupt again. The idea that somehow it is okay, provided it is not in a public place, seems extraordinarily unlikely. I am sure the Minister is reading accurately the notes he has been provided or the inspiration given from the Box, but perhaps he could write to me with a bit more detail about this in due course.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Yes, indeed. That is correct, but I will certainly write to the noble Lord. Put it this way: if tickets were handed over in a public place and were seen by a particular person, in theory I guess one could be picked up for that. As the noble Lord says, it is pretty unlikely to happen, but the fact is that it is there and that is an accurate account.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

The implication of what is now being said is that somehow the handing over is a criminal act of some kind and could be subject to sanction. That is the point I am trying to get at. Obviously, it is amusing to think of it being done cloak-and-dagger style, particularly in Birmingham, but I would be grateful if the Minister could write with the full detail of what an individual might have to do to exchange a ticket previously purchased. That was the point of the amendment: to try to get more information about how that was to happen.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Absolutely. I do not have that information, but I will certainly write a letter. It is true to say that this aspect comes under the auspices of the OC. Clearly, there is more information to come out, and I will certainly furnish the noble Lord with some more information.

As I was saying, I am also happy to share noble Lords’ sentiments and views that have come from this debate with the OC. The OC itself will be happy to engage with Peers and parliamentarians on its approach to the ticketing strategy overall as this is developed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend in sports. I declare an interest that, until I was recently rotated off, I was a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which considered this Bill.

I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has said because the transport plan and its operations for the London 2012 Games was critically important. The purpose of this plan allows whoever is appointed to draw it up to make traffic regulation orders that can affect the lives of local people for a considerable amount of time, not only during the Games but before and after. It allows the restriction and prohibition of the uses of certain roads.

It is necessary—I am supportive of it—but significant powers go along with the plan that can infringe individual rights and the rights of those who go about their normal lives without any accountability to Parliament. Historically, with the London Olympic Games, the Olympic Delivery Authority was on the face of the Bill—Sir John Armitt was responsible for that—and there was transparency and accountability. He received a great number of representations. Some noble Lords may recall that there was concern about closing off a number of lanes so that members of the International Olympic Committee and their families could travel in style to the Games rather than take the Jubilee line, which was a much wiser decision than for those of us on the British Olympic Association. There was a great deal of interest and concern and it needed accountability.

Similarly, in the legislation for the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, the Organising Committee of the 2008 Commonwealth Games was on the face of the Bill. Here, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has said, that has not been specified. No reason is given in the Explanatory Memorandum as to why it has not been possible to specify in the legislation the body which has to exercise the functions of the “directed person”, nor why such a broad discretion is conferred on the Secretary of State to decide who is to exercise those functions. Clause 24 simply refers to the Secretary of State directing a person “to prepare a Games transport plan” without any limits on who that person may be.

There has been a red thread in much of what I have said today—accountability and transparency—and in this Bill the delegation of the power of the Secretary of State is inappropriate unless there is a clear explanation as to why it is needed.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I have taken note of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan in respect of their amendment and on Clause 24, which cover the Games transport plan. I hope to provide reassurance that the amendment is not required but that Clause 24 is.

Effective transport provision for an event of this scale and profile requires detailed planning and co-ordination. A well understood and supported transport plan is therefore essential—a point made by both noble Lords and I hope I can provide a detailed explanation to reassure them—and that is why Clause 24 provides for the Secretary of State to direct “a person”. By this it is meant a body corporate to prepare a Games transport plan. It is an integral measure. The plan will set out a strategic approach to the planning and co-ordination of transport to support the Games. It will cover the transportation of spectators, athletes and the Games family, while at the same time ensuring that any disruption to local residents and regular transport users is kept to a minimum.

We have put this in the Bill as statutory footing to give the transport plan appropriate authority and weight. Indeed, without a statutory plan, transport partners would be reliant on voluntary arrangements which could impact on the effectiveness of Games transport planning. Such a direction from the Secretary of State must be in writing. To ensure adequate consultation with key stakeholders before preparing or revising this plan, the person directed will be required to consult the bodies listed in the Bill. Further, the plan will be published for consultation to ensure that residents and businesses are given the opportunity to share their views. We will write to interested Peers when this is published.

We believe it is important to give local traffic authorities a clear indication of the expectations in relation to the Games transport plan. That is why this clause also places a requirement on local traffic authorities for roads affected by the plan to exercise their functions with a view to securing the implementation of the plan. The Bill also enables the Secretary of State to revoke a direction to prepare a transport plan. This is a safeguard that, while unlikely to be called on, will enable the Government, in our role of providing Games assurance, to react quickly and flexibly to any unforeseen circumstances.

We recognise the difference in approach from previous Games in London and Glasgow. This reflects the transport infrastructure and expertise that already exists across Birmingham and the region and, importantly, the unique circumstances under which the Games were awarded. We expect that the person best placed to take on the responsibility of producing the transport plan would be a local authority or combined authority. The views of local partners will strongly factor into the Secretary of State’s decision. I have, none the less, listened carefully to the issues raised by both noble Lords in this debate and in the report of the DPRRC, and I reassure the Committee that I will give this matter further consideration ahead of Report.

I would like to highlight that it is the strong view of Games partners that a statutory plan, alongside a requirement on local traffic authorities to implement it, will provide a clear framework for the delivery of Games transport.

[Lord Moynihan]

I do not want the Minister to think I am not completely in favour of the transport plan or not completely in favour of everything he set out about functions. I simply do not understand, however, why nobody appears to know who will produce the transport plan and why, if it is a group of local authorities, we cannot be more specific about that and put it in the legislation so that there is transparency and accountability.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

All the points my noble friend has raised are fine, but we have not quite got to the point where every decision has been made. I have been trying to make the point that getting the transport right is very important. Lessons have been learned from other Games. I hope I have made the point that we have got to a particular point in planning and it is important that we follow through on it, but we are not at the stage of being able to give every single detail.

I highlight that it is the strong view of Games partners that the statutory plan, alongside the requirement on local traffic authorities to implement it, will provide a clear framework for the delivery of Games transport operations, facilitate co-operation and minimise the risk of disruption and disagreement around activities required for the Games.

I shall use this opportunity to provide greater detail on Games-time transport preparations. As noble Lords may know, hosting the Games is accelerating the development of public transport infrastructure improvements that will benefit the city and wider region. They include the development of the new Sprint rapid bus routes mentioned earlier, and improvements to University and Perry Barr railway stations, subject to the necessary approvals. Games partners are also developing a communications plan to promote the use of public transport and to ensure that Birmingham 2022 will be a public transport Games. All venues and live events will be accessible by public transport and additional temporary services will be available to alleviate pressure on the transport network.

Turning to Amendment 24, I am confident that the measures in the Bill and the wider upgrades and developments to the public transport network will deliver on the intention of the Games transport plan. I reassure the Committee that the Government will carefully consider how best to report on the Games’ outcomes, including the transport provisions, following their successful conclusion. With the extra information that I have given, as far as I can, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will not press Amendment 24 and that the Committee will agree that this clause stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. The fact remains that we would like to know who is going to deliver this. There is a plan and we agree that without a plan, we would not be able to do this. However, we would like to know who is delivering the plan because that is part of the openness and consultation that have been a running theme throughout this Committee stage. If you do not know, you cannot report, you cannot put any effort in and you cannot be reassured. The Minister said that this is part of the planning process that has not been quite reached. I am already constructing the appropriate amendment or commitment that we would like in the Bill about what information should be given as opposed to a person. That is surely where we should be going on this. Today is about probing amendments, and clarification on that point would be incredibly helpful.

Older Persons: Provision of Public Services

Viscount Younger of Leckie Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Glasman (Lab)]

My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Foulkes not just for initiating this debate but for his lifetime commitment to this issue. I honour and respect it. Looking at the programming, it is not really a surprise to see—if I may dissent—that the BBC is now part of the Department for Work and Pensions. There is a decline in autonomous civic institutions that run independently of government. It is sad to see how few Conservatives are here, but this used to be a pillar of conservatism—there was a body politic with autonomous institutions that made their own decisions. This is therefore part of the general problem with our politics.

I really appreciated the speech by my noble friend Lord Howarth. There is a general malaise in a society based on individualism and an economy in which, if you really want to get on in life, you have to come to London. I cannot count the number of people I have spoken to who are distressed to be separated from their elderly parents and cannot care for them. We have to look at that issue in the context of regional policy and the economy. These are really huge issues. Obviously, I agree with my noble friend Lord Foulkes and others who have spoken. The noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, spoke extremely eloquently, saying that television and radio are a crucial part of people’s lives. As I say to my children all the time, “The friends you’ve got on Facebook aren’t your friends”. Nothing can beat relationships and real contact.

We sometimes ignore the beauty of this House. What amazed me in the first year I was here was that it is an institution where older people have power and responsibility, and they do work. If you go anywhere else in our kingdom, it is so rare to see vital, alive and engaged older people. To rephrase a somewhat tarnished ex-Prime Minister, I believe that we are at our best when we are at our oldest.

I will put forward three things we can think about, because I hope the Chamber takes responsibility for the debate and thinks about the role of older people in a sustained way. First, it is very typical that there is an initiative called Teach First. I do not know whether noble Lords have heard of it. Young, bright people go into schools—as if they know anything. What about “teach last”? What about getting older people into schools? What about getting them in front of classrooms? What about genuinely showing honour and respect, and giving some power to older people?

I am the Lord of Stoke Newington and Stamford Hill. In the Orthodox community in Stamford Hill, at Yesodey Hatorah School, every single student is paired with an older person who has been widowed or widowered. They visit them every day. They are a part of their lives. When I took that to Hackney Council it said, “Can’t do it—health and safety”, and so on. We have to think of relational ways to integrate older people into the joys of life, such as birthdays. That is what they are excluded from. They are not part of that.

Thirdly, it is now clear that we have to rethink vocational training and skills. How about getting retired workers in as teachers in vocational colleges? There are so many ways in which we can honour older people. I do not think that we should be greedy and keep the privilege of participating in public life strictly for the House of Lords. We should make the argument for it and extend it, because the key aspects of health and life are loving, stable relationships, a sense of dignity, empowerment and participation. That is the key to our treatment of older people.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid timings have become very tight for this debate. When the Clock reaches four minutes, speakers are advised to conclude their remarks, otherwise we cut further into the Minister’s time.

Children and Young People: Digital Technology

Viscount Younger of Leckie Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for securing this important debate, and for her excellent speech.

Last month we debated the Online Pornography (Commercial Basis) Regulations 2018, which will see commercial pornographic websites placed behind age verification. I very much welcome that decision and ask the Minister to give the House an update on its “go live” day.

I fear, however, that significant problems remain in relation to child access to adult content, as a number of concerns have been raised about the exclusion of social media from the scope of the regulations. Indeed, in November the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, noted that the Digital Economy Act 2017, while seeking,

“to restrict children’s access to pornography based on scale … failed to bring platforms such as Twitter within scope, despite 500,000 pornographic images being posted daily”.—[Official Report, 12/11/18; col 1766.]

Clearly this is a subject that needs to be kept under review, and I hope that the Government will address it in the online harms White Paper.

I have been a consistent supporter of parental filters for online services. We discussed this subject in detail during the passage of the Digital Economy Bill in 2017, but I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on what both large and, crucially, small ISPs are doing about online filtering. The most recent Ofcom report on children’s and parents’ media use and attitudes, published in 2017, says that 39% of three and four year-olds use home network-level filters, as do 37% of five to 15 year-olds. Although this is an increase on previous years, it is still surprising to me that more parents do not use that option. Does the Minister have any new data on the use of filters?

As I said last month, I remain concerned about online gambling. We know that, notwithstanding the Gambling Act, young people gamble online. I very much welcome the Gambling Commission’s efforts to ensure stricter age-verification checks for those seeking to gamble online or who play free-to-play online gambling games. I very much hope that the new licensing conditions proposed in the recent consultation on proposals to strengthen age and identity verification for online gambling will come into effect soon.

I am very concerned to note that in last year’s report on young people’s gambling, 13% of 11 to 16 year-olds had played gambling-like games online, for free and without prizes. Some 40% of those who played online gambling-style games played these before gambling for money. I also note with great concern that information about gambling is easily accessed by young people: 59% have seen gambling advertisements on social media, more than one in 10 follow gambling companies on social media, and they are three times more likely to spend money on gambling. Of those who have ever played online gambling-style games, 24% follow gambling companies online. We are surrounding our young people with messages about gambling from a young age. If we are serious about living up to the licensing conditions in Section 1 of the Gambling Act, I do not believe it appropriate to passively accept this situation.

Lastly, I am concerned that 31% of 11 to 16 year-olds have bought so-called loot boxes, which, as has already been mentioned, allow for in-game purchases. In the 2017 Ofcom report, 30% of parents of five to 15 year-olds were concerned about the pressure on their child to make in-game purchases, and they were right to be so. There is a particular concern about loot boxes, also known as mystery boxes because the purchaser does not know what is in the box—it is an act of chance. A recent academic paper states that,

“loot-box systems share important structural and psychological similarities with gambling”.

The Gambling Commission itself has acknowledged that there is a blurring around the edges of gaming and gambling.

In this context, and again mindful of our obligations under Section 1 of the Gambling Act, I believe that the time has come for the Government to take robust steps to protect children and young people from loot boxes. The DCMS Select Committee in the other place is looking into this issue. I shall read its report with interest, and I sincerely hope we are going to hear more from the Gambling Commission about how many young people are betting on e-sports—that is, competitive video gaming—and whether they are betting with cash or with items won or purchased while playing video games. Above all, we need to ensure that young people do not get drawn into gambling unwittingly.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, we are halfway through this important debate and we are very tight for time. I ask Peers to adhere to the four-minute time limit.

Gaming Machines and Social Responsibility

Viscount Younger of Leckie Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Falkland (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on finally taking action on the casino gaming machines in betting shops. One must not be too harsh about the bookmakers, because the history here is of course that betting on horses and greyhounds—the traditional betting in betting shops—has declined enormously, as people tend now to bet more and more online. This will be a sad day for bookmakers, with the reduction of the amount to be bet on these machines. I do not know whether that is the right amount; I would not criticise it, but it will make the bookmakers’ position quite difficult. There will be job losses, and so on. When I was on the pre-legislative scrutiny committee on the draft gambling Bill I tried to persuade the Government and the DCMS officials of the problems with gambling, particularly on machines in betting shops. But since then four machines have been allowed. I argued the toss with Baroness Jowell, one of the nicest women you could possibly argue with, and it was a great pleasure to work against her. Along with a number of my colleagues, I did not like the Bill that came forward, because it did not deal with the realities. I say to my ex-noble friend Lord Foster that it is not right to criticise the owners—

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

Could the noble Viscount pose his question? It would be helpful if Peers could keep their questions succinct to allow more Back-Bench Peers to get in with questions.

[Viscount Falkland]

Does the Minister agree that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on the question of whether horses are valued more than people and the dangers of addiction and racing are somewhat misplaced? Racing has the greatest difficulty in funding national competitions. Could the Minister comment on that?

Social Media: News

Viscount Younger of Leckie Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to open a debate with such a broad range of informed speakers to follow. The question in front of us produces a number of interrelated and extremely important issues. I shall not attempt to cover them all but, instead, simply to set the scene for the detailed contributions that are to follow.

The interface between humans and information, be it visual, graphic, moving images, sound or text, is as long as our history. Our understanding of what to expect from those interactions is seen through the prism of technological innovations, cultural understanding and legal frameworks. It is encapsulated by the concepts of broadcast and publishing.

In this long history, the online service providers are an anomaly. The military and academic labs where the web originated were home to groups of skilled and active participants in an open web who saw the potential of decentralised networked computers as liberating and democratising. This was a physical network; these were academics and computer scientists bound by cables, not commerce. They did not consider themselves publishers, nor responsible for the content of others.

This view was almost immediately contested and overturned by early court judgments, but founders of the nascent platform successfully fought back. Citing the First Amendment, they insisted that their network of small networks had no controlling force and that the occasional misuse or obscenity was a small price to pay for a world with no gatekeepers.

The US “safe harbor” provisions in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 1996 allowed online service providers to host, hold and transfer information with no liability for content. This principle was mirrored around the world, including in the e-commerce directive of 2000 that codified online service providers as “mere conduits”. This was Web 1.0.

Much of the internet’s utopian promise came true. But what nobody anticipated, including its founders, was how rapidly it would become highly commercialised. Ironically, the “safe harbor” provisions of Section 230, established to protect the common good from a few dissonant voices, now work against that common good. Those who publish online are incentivised to categorise themselves as online service providers in order to benefit from having no liability for content. It is a commercial advantage that has seen the exponential rise of a vanishingly small number of companies with unparalleled power, no collective oversight and unlimited piles of cash. This is Web 2.0, and it is in that context that we are having our debate.

Amazon has set up a movie studio. Facebook has earmarked $1 billion to commission original content this year. YouTube has fully equipped studios in eight countries. The Twitter Moments strand exists to,

“organize and present compelling content”.

Apple reviews every app submitted to its store,

“based on a set of technical, content, and design criteria”.

By any other frame of reference, this commissioning, editing and curating is for broadcasting or publishing.

In giving evidence to the Communications Committee on 19 December, representatives of Facebook and Google agreed that the vast proportion of their income comes from advertising—87% and 98% respectively. This advertising is embedded in, pops up in between and floats across the content that their users engage with. Sir Martin Sorrell, chief executive of WPP, was clear what that means when he said that,

“Google, Facebook and others are media companies … They cannot masquerade as technology companies, particularly when they place advertisements”.

In common with publishers and broadcasters, these companies use editorial content as bait for advertising. They aggregate and spread the news, and provide data points and key words: behaviours that determine what is most important, how widely it should be viewed and by whom. In common with news publishers, they offer a curated view of what is going on in the world.

The Silicon Valley companies are content creators, aggregators, editors, information cataloguers, broadcasters and publishers. Indeed, severally and together they publish far more media than any other publisher in any other context—but, in claiming to be “mere conduits”, they are ducking the responsibilities that the rest of the media ecosystem is charged with.

The media is understood to be a matter of huge public and social interest because it affects common values, certain freedoms and individual rights. For the same set of reasons, it is subject to a complex matrix of regulatory and legal frameworks. But publishing and, by extension, broadcasting are not only legal and commercial constructs but cultural constructs with operating norms that reflect a long history of societal values and expectations, one of which is that those involved are responsible for content. They are responsible because, traditionally, they make large sums of money; they are responsible because they juggle those commercial interests with editorial interests; they are responsible because, within those editorial interests, they are expected to balance freedom of expression against the vulnerabilities, sensitivities and rights of the individual; and they are responsible because they are a controlling force over the veracity, availability and quality of information that is central to the outcome of our collective civic life.

In November, there was an outcry after a journalist reported that algorithms were auto-suggesting horrific videos to young users of YouTube Kids. Google’s response was not proactively to look at the content on its kids’ channel but to ask users to flag content, thereby leaving it to pre-schoolers to police the platform. Google did not dispute that the videos were disturbing or that the channel would be better off without them, but in its determination to uphold the fallacy of being a “mere conduit”, it was prepared to outsource its responsibilities to children as young as four and five.

Whatever the protestations, this is not a question of free speech; it is a question of money. The Google representative giving evidence to the Communications Committee said that to moderate all content on YouTube would take a workforce 180,000 people. Irrespective of the veracity of that statement, for a publisher or broadcaster, checking that your content is safe for children is not an optional extra; it is a price of doing business, a cost before profit. In October last year, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, was worth $700 billion.

I am not suggesting a return to a pre-tech era; nor am I advocating censorship. The media environment has never been, and hopefully will never be, home to a homogenous worldview. Nor should one romanticise its ability to “do the right thing”. It is a changing and fraught public space in which standards and taste are hotly contested and often crushingly low. But editorial standards and oversight, retraction, industry codes, statutory regulation, legal liability, and parliamentary oversight are no hazard to free speech. On the contrary—as information technologies have become ever more powerful, in democracies we demand that they uphold minimum standards precisely to protect free speech from powerful corporate and political interests.

The advances and possibilities of the networked world will always excite and will hopefully, in time, answer some of society’s greatest needs—but these companies occupy a legal space on a false premise, giving them a commercial advantage based on their ability to publish with impunity. That in turn undermines other media, threatens plurality and increasingly contributes to an insupportable cultural environment fuelled by a business model that trades attention for advertising revenue.

Sean Parker, co-founder of Facebook, said that when setting up Facebook the question on the table was:

“'How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?”.


The answer was that,

“we … give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while, because someone liked or commented on a photo … to get you to contribute more content … It’s a social-validation feedback loop … exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology”.

The hermetic spiral of content ends in ever more polarised views as users become blind to other perspectives, denuding us of a common space. The result is the abuse of public figures and the spread of bullying, hate and misogynist content at unparalleled levels. The ad revenue model fails to compensate content creators adequately and we have seen the wholesale collapse of other creative industries, the long-term cultural costs of which we have yet to calculate.

In the battle for our attention we have seen the weaponisation of information to political ends. While nothing new in itself, the commoditisation of political narratives and the lack of accountability has promoted a surge of fake news, locally and internationally funded, and with it comes a democratic deficit. This was frighteningly illustrated by the outcome of a Channel 4 survey last year in which fewer than 4% of people were able to correctly identify false news stories from true. The cost goes beyond the cultural and political. Our attention is secured by an eye-watering regime of data collection and with it a disturbing invasion of privacy and free will. The insights and potential for social and political control enabled by unfettered data profiling without redress or oversight undermine our human rights, our rights as citizens and the need for privacy in which to determine who we are as people.

The appropriation of our personal data is predicated on the use of intellectual property law. The very same companies that rigorously avoid editorial standards and regulatory responsibilities for content are happy to employ the protection of terms and conditions running to hundreds of pages that protect their commercial interests. The cherry picking of regulatory structures is at best hypocritical. Lionel Barber, editor of the FT, suggests that we “drop the pretence”. In a soon to be published paper from a group of industry insiders comes the suggestion of a new status of “online content provider”, with an accompanying online responsibility Bill and a new regulator. But perhaps, just as the arrival of networked computers led to a new legal status of “safe harbor”, the arrival of networked tech conglomerates requires an entirely new definition, based on the interrelation of society and technology.

Because, while big tech has yet to wake up to the societal responsibilities of its current businesses, the rest of us are hurtling towards Web 3.0: a fully networked world of smart homes and smart cities that will see the big five companies—seven if we include China—monopolise whole sectors and particular technologies, controlling both demand and supply, mediating all our behaviours and yet remaining beyond the jurisdiction of Governments.

We must never forget the extraordinary potential and social good in the technologies already invented and in use and in those still emerging, including publishing at a grand scale. However, while the internet is young, it is no longer young enough to be exempt from its adult responsibilities. This is no longer an industry in need of protection while it incubates. These are the most powerful companies in the world.

In finishing, I ask the Minister to tell the House whether the scope of the Government’s digital charter will include a review of the legal status of online service providers and an ethical framework for content. Perhaps he will also say whether he agrees with me that the same standards and responsibilities should apply to the media activities of online service providers in parity with other media players. Finally, what steps are the Government taking to create an international consensus for a global governance strategy for online service providers? I beg to move.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I may sound like a long-playing record, but in this debate we have just a few minutes to spare on timings. I ask that every Back-Bench speech concludes as the clock reaches four minutes, as otherwise the wind-up speeches may have to be shortened.