Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [HL]
Debate between Earl of Courtown and Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Perhaps I can have a word with the noble Lord after the proceedings in the Chamber have finished and make sure that I have met his concerns.
I know that the impact on the art market is of concern to some in the House. The Government believe that the legislation does not impose any obligations on dealers in cultural property that go beyond the normal due diligence they should undertake for any piece of cultural property they wish to buy or sell in accordance with the industry standards, such as the British Code of Practice for the Control of International Trading in Works of Art. During the implementation of the Bill my department will work closely with all stakeholders with an interest in the Bill, including the art market. I will ensure that the British Antique Dealers’ Association is included in those discussions, and I thank my noble friend Lord Borwick for his suggestion. I know that there have been concerns about the role that the illicit trade in antiquities may play in money laundering in the UK, although noble Lords did not focus on that strongly today. The Government will take decisive action to strengthen the UK’s anti-money laundering regime in the criminal finances Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, all asked about the identification of sites in the UK which would be protected. Our provisional plan is to enshrine the protection of our most valuable cultural sites and property in international law through general protection listing status. This general protection is likely to extend to buildings, historic gardens and parks of grade 1 or category A status, cultural world heritage sites, nationally important collections in museums, galleries and universities, as well as the National Archives and our five legal deposit libraries. We will also consider the submission of our world heritage sites as candidates for enhanced protection. We plan to decide this list by means of a panel of cultural experts and key stakeholders. The interesting points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will inform our implementation and I will consider carefully her idea of a round table. As noble Lords know, I find such meetings extremely useful, as does the Culture Minister my honourable friend Ed Vaizey, a veritable knight of the round tables.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, also asked what cultural property is, so I hope that he finds this explanation helpful. He went on to ask about the impacts and changes felt in Germany following the 1999 measures, as well as the UNESCO climate change report and the UK’s response to it. I will have to write to him once I have had a look at Hansard. I have a personal interest in this as I come from a village close to Stonehenge, and indeed we have often debated the need for the proposed investment in the A303 to protect that extraordinary five-star site.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew asked what we could do to ensure that the destruction of cultural property is viewed as a war crime. The International Criminal Court Act 2001 already makes it an offence to direct attacks at certain buildings and monuments, and under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 extensive destruction of property and attacks on certain monuments are grave breaches of the convention, which of course is punishable by up to 30 years’ imprisonment.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, suggested the formation of a digital archive. I note that interesting proposal, and I thank my noble friend Lady Berridge for the keen interest that she has taken in police resourcing. The responsibility for decisions on operational matters of course lies with chief constables, but the National Police Chiefs Council has recently established a national network of heritage and cultural property crime liaison officers and is working to raise awareness of cultural property crime right across all police forces. She and other noble Lords asked about police funding, a point which also came up in our useful debate in January. Since then, police funding has been ring-fenced in line with inflation with an increase of £900 million by 2019-20 and the Chancellor has made a generous settlement for important cultural property protection where illegal sales can fund the most appalling regimes and crimes, a point that was extremely well made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, talked about enforcement in prosecutions. There has recently been a case leading to prosecution. An individual was sentenced to three years and eight months in jail for committing an offence under the 2003 Act, as well as other related offences.
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, asked about “breach” instead of “violation”. Breach is used instead of violation because it is a more familiar UK legal term, but I am advised that the meaning is the same. The scope of ancillary offences in the devolved Administrations is not different, but the drafting takes account of the different laws in different places across the UK. My noble friend Lady Berridge asked who would pay the costs of storage and transport. The matter of who will pay associated costs will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The DCMS will work closely with any museum if that need arises.
Finally, to come back to the cultural protection fund, the British Council will be responsible for managing the grants process and will draw in additional expertise for project selections. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about the British Museum’s £3 million and funding for future years. As I am sure he knows, it has not yet been allocated. Of course, the British Museum will be able to apply when applications are invited. The cultural protection fund will be open for bids later this month, and the Blue Shield organisation will be able to apply to this.
I have sought to answer the main questions. We will write where I have missed important points. This in reality is a good time to consider UK ratification of the convention, even if the reason—the great increase in devastating and mindless destruction of priceless, important artefacts—can only be a matter of great sadness. We in the UK must do our bit to counter the appalling destructive forces at large and to protect the world’s heritage. I commend this Bill to the House.
BBC
Debate between Earl of Courtown and Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree that the BBC is the best broadcaster in the world and I am grateful for the guarded welcome that has been given this morning. I should perhaps add that the noble Lord, Lord Hall, who is a Member of this House, has said today that:
“This White Paper delivers a mandate for the strong, creative BBC the public believe in. A BBC that will be good for the creative industries—and most importantly of all, for Britain”.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, made a point that we often agree on, which is that the devil is in the detail. I am sure we will come to discuss detail on this White Paper in the weeks and months ahead, but I will seek to respond briefly to the points that he and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, made.
We have tried to put independence at the heart of the proposals we have set out today. In relation to the executive board itself, I refer the House to page 50 of the White Paper, because it sets out very clearly exactly how the appointments to the unitary board will be made. A majority of members will of course be appointed by the BBC, and there will be a non-executive chair. As I explained in the Statement, that chair has already been appointed for a transitional term up to 2018, providing valuable continuity. The non-executive deputy chair will also be a public appointment. There will then be public appointments involving the nations—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England—but all other non-executive members will be BBC board appointments.
It is good to know how the contestable fund will work at last after so much speculation. I set out that we will establish a contestable fund because we want to enhance plurality and provision, for which £20 million a year has been found for three years. It will enable the BBC to look at things such as children’s TV more imaginatively and is intended to fund underserved genres. I hope it will reassure noble Lords to know that we will be consulting on the scale of the fund and how it will operate. I do not see it at all as an attack on the fundamentals of the BBC; I see it as a great way of encouraging more creativity in this country.
There were questions about distinctiveness, which is rightly a key focus. We want the BBC to be different. It has other priorities to commercial broadcasters, and can take more risks and can innovate. That has been embraced by the BBC director-general, who has seen it as a driving force. He, of course, will be the editor-in-chief under the new system enshrined in the charter, which I think will help to offer reassurance going forward.
I wanted to say two or three things about a vote. First, we recognise how important the scrutiny of both Houses, including this House, is, and we have demonstrated that. We have had debates here which we have listened to, we have had excellent reports by the committees involved in both Houses and we have made it clear that the White Paper needs careful consideration. We have informed the House that there will be a debate in the coming Session.
I take the point that was made about the draft charter. I am not sure I can give an answer on that today, but I will bear it in mind. We will consider whether there should be a vote in Parliament, but I remind the House that there would be disadvantages in a vote as well as advantages. My noble friend Lord Grade said yesterday that:
“One of the underpinnings of the independence of the BBC is the fact that there is never a vote on the BBC in either House”—
poetic licence—
“and that is what has contributed”—
this is the important point—
“the most to its independence”.—[Official Report, 11/5/16; col. 1741.]
I tend to concur with that view, and would say that the BBC has been enshrined in royal charter for 90 years—a system which has served us well and preserved its independence.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, before we have the questions from Back-Bench Peers, I remind your Lordships that 20 minutes are available, so I would be grateful, as I am sure the House would, if they could be as quick as possible.
Trade Union Bill
Debate between Earl of Courtown and Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 15, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 16 and 17, Schedule 3, Clauses 18 and 19, Schedule 4, Clauses 20 to 23, Title.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, I beg to move the Motion in her name on the Order Paper.
Trade Union Bill
Debate between Earl of Courtown and Baroness Neville-Rolfe(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I do not wish to be discourteous to the Committee in any way, but there have been five or six interruptions so far and the Minister has been on her feet for four minutes. If she is allowed to make just a little bit of progress, perhaps during the course of that progress she will be able to respond to some of the questions being put.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am grateful to my noble friend. We are debating check-off in relation to Clause 4. The Public and Commercial Services Union on its website quotes a member who said of direct debit:
“It’s the easiest way of paying my union subs. You know then that it’s going to get paid because you’re not dependent on your employer taking it from your wages. I think it’s better”.
I agree with that.
Public sector employers, where they are funded by the taxpayer, have no place in shouldering the administrative burden of collecting trade union subscriptions. Even where the union pays the employer for the service, it remains the employer’s responsibility to manage the payments, and if the employer gets it wrong, it could be taken to an employment tribunal.
Unite, UNISON, GMB and PCS already accept direct debits, and some unions have already modernised their arrangements and accept only direct debit payments. Direct debits are easy to set up, and they offer excellent consumer protection. The majority of adults in the UK use them, and many organisations consider it their preferred method of receiving payments, such as utility providers who offer customers a discount if they pay in this way.
I thank my noble friend Lord Balfe for setting up a meeting with officials from some small trade unions. What struck me was that they felt that direct debit was the way forward and that some of them had already modernised their arrangements and no longer use check-off. The unions I met included the FDA, Accord, Prospect, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the National Association of Head Teachers, the British Dental Association and others.
Modern employment practices are seeing more fluidity in the workplace. As Prospect says:
“Many Prospect members change jobs frequently, or have periods of unemployment between contracts. If you’re moving on, you don’t have to resign your Prospect membership. We can stay with you during those times”.
At Second Reading, I said that I was in listening mode, and we have listened to some of the concerns raised about implementing this change and allowing a sufficient transition period. So to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, we announced in the other place that the regulations on check-off would not come into effect until 12 months after the Bill received Royal Assent. This will give unions double the time we originally proposed—a full year—to encourage their membership to move over to paying their subscriptions by direct debit. That is on top of the time unions have already had since the proposal was first announced last August. It is one of the many reasons why we do not accept the assertion that the proposal offends human rights or hinders union activity. It is about a change of subscription method over a full year and, as we see it, does not engage the European Convention on Human Rights. It is right that unions should adopt modern subscription practices to reflect the changing needs of all their members. No new entrant to the job market would expect only ever to have one employer these days. Check-off is not well suited to meeting the needs of a diverse and fluid workforce.
We heard at Second Reading that check-off benefited employees as it made sure that they ceased being a union member when they left employment, but all the large trade unions offer specific memberships for retired members, and trade union membership is not restricted to those who are still working.
Noble Lords have claimed several times that the prohibition on check-off will affect those without bank accounts. I have not seen a great deal of evidence that such public sector workers exist outside the hypotheticals—and we are talking about the public sector—but even if a few members still do not have bank accounts, I am sure that a union would be prepared to accept cash or alternative payment arrangements, although this would be very much a matter for the union. Even basic bank accounts now allow direct debits, and of course if you are online you can cancel a direct debit when you need to, which has represented progress in banking. More householders than ever now have bank accounts, and the check-off impact assessment referred to the wider Bill impact assessment that was published at the same time. The impact on union members will be minimal as they will have, as I have just said, 12 months to switch to direct debit.