Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Earl of Clancarty

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on introducing this amendment, for which authors will be very grateful indeed. Credit should go to the groups and associations that have campaigned for this change, including the Society of Authors and the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society, which have both campaigned on this issue for some time.

I have just one issue with the wording of the Government’s amendment. The Society of Authors briefing argues that it would be clearer if the words, “for the purpose of library lending” were added to “lawfully acquired” in line 32. This clarification is in the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The phrase “lawfully acquired” hangs there by itself and although it might be argued that it is implied that the acquisition is for library lending, that is not absolutely clear. It should be stressed that all interested parties were in agreement about this and would be happier if this clarification were made. Will the Minister promise to look at this before Third Reading and see if it can be tweaked?

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I add my voice to the thanks offered to the Minister by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for having now included this amendment, albeit there are some questions to be asked. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us why the wording is rather different from that in the amendment we put down in Committee. Those differences need to be accounted for but this is a good way of delivering on a commitment that the Government made. It is really the final fruits of the Sieghart report and will be strongly welcomed by authors and writers across the country. We all value the public lending right, which makes a small but very significant addition to the income of authors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, in Committee I explained the importance to authors and other creators of transparency, and the significance of the proposed new EU directive. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, got the point entirely, as ever, and said the amendment would require those organisations exploiting copyright works via licences to provide the relevant creators with regular information on the use and the revenue they generate, and stated that this obligation could be met by complying with a code of practice determined at sector level, which is entirely correct.

I should add for clarity that, if there is a concern by licensees in those circumstances about the leakage of their commercially sensitive information, the way information is channelled can of course be dictated by a code of conduct through appropriate mechanisms, such as the advisers of creators and so forth. That is could be well catered for if there were concerns among those licensees or assignees.

The Minister confirmed that the Government were already engaged in discussions to address this issue. She said that,

“the UK will actively engage in these debates … before considering the case for domestic intervention”.

She also said,

“it is worth giving careful consideration to the part that these industry-led initiatives can play”,—[Official Report, 6/2/17; col. 1481.]

in terms of a code of conduct and so on. As I said at the time, though, she never actually agreed that the principle of transparency should be incorporated into law, whether directly or by transposition. Clearly, if the EU directive is passed within the two-year period after notice of Brexit is given, it may well be incorporated into UK law. The Minister gave encouragement to the principle but did not say that the Government fully supported that element of the directive. Article 14 of the draft directive is very clear in giving creators those kinds of transparency rights.

So I return to the fray on this occasion, and I hope the Minister can warm her words further in the face of this amendment being retabled. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. He talked about the principle of transparency, and that is the nub of it. I shall just give an example: the history of pop music has, in many ways, been the history of exploitation of artists in a bad way. Much of that exploitation was based, in the past, on keeping artists in the dark. I am sure that today many licensees and transferees—some of which are huge companies—behave very well, but there is a systemic imbalance here, which means that there is potential for abuse. Artists have a fundamental right to information about exploitation of their work, which is, in any case, useful for knowing quite simply what has happened to their work when it is pushed out into the world.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Earl of Clancarty

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath has referred to the draft directive on copyrights on the digital single market. Many authors, writers and artists welcome the provisions to balance the playing field for creators announced in that draft directive and would like to see them incorporated in our domestic law through the Digital Economy Bill. Some of my concerns about the timing of the adoption of the directive mirror exactly those mentioned by my noble Friend, Lord Foster.

The directive proposes in article 14 one particularly important safeguard—namely, transparency: a right to regular, timely, adequate and sufficient information on the exploitation of their works and performances from those to whom they have licensed or transferred their rights, including details of modes of exploitation, revenues generated and remuneration due. This right will apply even if copyright has been assigned and will allow authors and performers to assess how their work has been used.

Some assignees and licensees are exemplary, but by no means all. Authors and performers under these provisions will have a right to detailed and full statements on the uses of and revenues from their work, unless such reporting is disproportionate. That in itself would be an enormous improvement on the present situation, whereby authors and artists often do not know how widely their work is used and have no way to check whether payments made to them are correct. This problem can become more acute in the digital age, when work can be disseminated in many ways and there is no physical stock which can be counted to ensure that accounting is correct.

As for music, subscription streaming is set to become the most significant revenue stream for the recorded music market in the near future. Streaming requires a fundamentally new licensing model from those who control the recording and song—lyrical and musical—copyrights, which the digital service providers wish to exploit. A complex model was developed, and is now utilised by most subscription services. The evolution of this licensing process for streaming music has resulted in a number of transparency issues for artists and songwriters which have not yet been fully addressed—not least, the presence of non-disclosure agreements between the digital service providers and the record labels, distributors, publishers and collective management organisations, which mean that artists and songwriters are not always allowed to know the revenue share and minimum guarantee arrangements that each digital service provider uses to calculate what the copyrights from which they benefit are due each month. There is also a lack of clarity over how labels and publishers apply contract terms that impact on how creator payments are calculated.

The amendment would work in a similar fashion to the proposals in the draft directive, ensure that creators can audit the royalties they receive from streaming and other services, and assess the relative merits of different services and business partners. Licensees and assignees already have systems in place for recording usage and revenues and reporting to creators. These systems are increasingly detailed in the digital age, and could easily be adapted to take account of any increased requirements. According to a medium-sized book publisher, reporting on 600 titles on the basis of spreadsheets takes 80 man hours per year, and the average time required for compiling and sending a report on a title is eight minutes. Simpler cases can be dealt with in two to three minutes, while the more difficult ones can take 10 to 15. The advantages far outweigh any cost and would help to make creative careers more attractive. Greater transparency would give a powerful message to consumers as they are generally more willing to pay for copyright-protected works if they know that fair remuneration would reach the original creators.

The directive itself is now subject to further consideration and review and may take 12 to 18 months, at best, to adopt, and perhaps even longer, as my noble friend indicated. As the Minister, or the Minister’s noble friend, reminded me recently, the Government have published a call for evidence on the copyright proposals. When will they take a definite view on the proposals, including these transparency provisions? The UK has an unparalleled opportunity to create a fairer playing field for creators by incorporating these provisions into the Digital Economy Bill, irrespective of whether we want to or can sign up to the directive. The question is whether it will. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I fully support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I do not have much to add to his thorough analysis of the issue other than to say that the right of artists, authors and performers to know what is being done with their work, and to obtain fair remuneration for the exploitation of it, is incontestable. This amendment would, in an effective manner, enshrine that right.

In one sense, information is money. This amendment will doubtless have hidden benefits in that anything that can be of further help to artists, particularly those who are less well off, to survive and thrive, and, perhaps, to become the high earners of the future, is a worthwhile long-term investment and can only be good for the individuals, the creative industries and the UK economy as a whole.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Earl of Clancarty

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Thursday 2nd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I am very conscious of the time and I will try to be as brief as I can. The amendment is designed to amend the Bill to extend the public lending right to remote e-book lending.

The way we access books is increasingly changing as technology offers new ways to access the written word. Libraries are now lending many e-books: 2.3 million e-book loans were made in 2015 alone and the figure in 2016 was more than 3 million. But authors are not being remunerated for those loans, despite the Government having committed in principle as long ago as March 2013 to extending PLR payments to e-books when a suitable opportunity arose.

The public lending right allows authors to be fairly paid for each loan when their work is lent through public libraries. It is designed to balance the social need for free public access to books against an author’s right to be remunerated for the use of their work. The scheme provides authors with a modest payment of around 7p each time one of their books—written or audio—is borrowed from a public library. More than 22,000 writers, illustrators, photographers, translators and editors receive PLR payments each year under the Public Lending Right Act 1979 and subsequent amendments. There is a minimum payment threshold of £1 and a maximum of £6,600. Although this does not replace the royalties authors would receive if their book had been purchased by each borrower, PLR provides a significant and much-valued part of many authors’ incomes, particularly for authors whose books are sold mainly to libraries and for those whose books are no longer in print but are still being read.

While the Digital Economy Act 2010’s extension of PLR to audiobooks was a useful and overdue reform—I remember well when we passed it—the extension to on-site loans of e-books was nugatory, as no such loans are made. By contrast, remote e-book lending has increased significantly and is increasing much faster than physical lending, particularly since reduced opening hours and the regrettable extensive library closures that the Government have taken no action to prevent mean that it is more and more difficult for readers physically to visit a local library.

Writers are keen to see the Government develop the public lending right to reflect modern media. I should stress that even though the precise wording of the amendment is not agreed across the board, its spirit is strongly supported by a range of bodies, including the ALCS, CILIP, the Booksellers Association, the Society of Authors, the Association of Authors’ Agents, the SCL Leading & Managing Public Libraries and the Publishers Association. So it has extensive support in principle.

The amendment would amend the Digital Economy Act to ensure that remuneration is received by writers for remote e-lending at the same rate per loan as for physical books. It is vital that authors receive remuneration for loans of their works, irrespective of format. The principle of remuneration that enables authors to work should not be unfairly obstructed by technical and technological change. I know that Europe is not fashionable in some quarters, but a recent opinion of the Advocate-General relating to a case on rental and lending in respect of copyright works currently before the Court of Justice of the European Union supports this view. He said:

“The lending of electronic books is the modern equivalent of the lending of printed books”.


This removes the Government’s previously expressed concern that such a change may not be compatible with the copyright directive—it clearly is.

The ability to access e-books facilitated by public libraries is a service valued by the public, and remuneration for public lending is a requirement of European law under the rental and lending directive. The current situation where millions of e-book loans receive zero remuneration is unlawful and creates significant prejudice to writers. It also places libraries in a position where works lent regularly may infringe authors’ rights.

The changes needed are achieved simply by taking measures to amend the Digital Economy Act 2010 by removing Section 43(2)(b), which sets remote loans outside the definition of lending under PLR. It would also be necessary to add a sentence to make sure that the commercial market was protected and that e-lending was put on a par with physical lending. The jargon in the trade, used by the Sieghart report which recommended that PLR be extended to remote e-lending, is “frictions”—which basically are the conditions under which digital books can be loaned to one reader at a time, just as with a physical book.

Other conditions are that a digital copy of a book can be loaned only for a limited period and that digital copies of books should be deemed to deteriorate, ensuring their repurchase after a certain number of loans. Those conditions are broadly accepted by the industry, but there was no desire to incorporate them in primary legislation so that they might be taken on board in the commercial arrangements made between publishers, authors and libraries.

The cost of this measure would be negligible, but the principle is extremely important—as was recognised by the Government in 2013. I hope that they will take this on board, because it is long overdue. It would do proper justice to our authors and writers. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading. I want, however, to speak to Amendment 74, to which I have put my name, and to Amendment 79B.

I very much support Amendment 74, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, although I am delighted that there is now a firm agreement between the interested parties—including CILIP, ALCS and the Society of Authors, among others—for an amendment which is almost but not quite the same as Amendment 74. I hope that this tweaked amendment, which clarifies the nature of what is being loaned, or an amendment equally acceptable to all parties, can be brought forward by the Government and accepted on Report.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Earl of Clancarty

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 7th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 172 would create a fifth licensing objective that licensing authorities must promote when discharging their functions. It would secure the provision of social or cultural activities as a general duty. It follows the similar Amendment 214A from Committee.

There is a very strong case to be made that activities such as live music should be completely deregulated from the Licensing Act. Other legislation, such as the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 contain a great many of the protections in law that form the basis for conditions relating to live music that may be imposed by the Licensing Act on a premises licence. The Licensing Act therefore presents a tier of legislative duplication that is in many respects unnecessary, given that live events can be controlled by other means.

Despite this compelling argument, the Government have not been minded to deregulate further than audience sizes of 500—a level that builds on the Live Music Act I took through Parliament. In the meantime, there has been a continuing decline in live music venues. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, rightly said in Committee:

“There has in recent years been a perfect storm of circumstance for our night-time economy. Rising rents and business rates, property developments, noise complaints, complaints about anti-social behaviour and more have conspired to devastate our night-time cultural landscape”.—[Official Report, 9/11/16; col. 1212.]

In these circumstances we need to amend licensing objectives in particular to help these venues survive. Current objectives relate to crime and disorder, public safety, public nuisance and protection of children. Mark Davyd of the Music Venue Trust said:

“Licensing is just one of many areas of the legal framework around grassroots music venues that is contributing to their rapid decline”.

As the chief operating officer of Live Nation said:

“Unfortunately not all local authorities are like-minded and their interpretations of the Licensing Act are not always helpful, or consistent, which is frustrating and creates obstacles for venue operators at all levels”.

The amendment is designed to introduce a new objective in the local authority decision-making process that would take account of the positive cultural impact of staging an event. At present, authorities are not obliged to consider the wider benefits of music and entertainment in the community, and instead focus on the negative impact of applications. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said in Committee, that,

“music and other activities should be helped and supported where possible through the licensing system, rather than just regulated”.—[Official Report, 9/11/16; col. 1214.]

A proportionate approach from licensing authorities would be welcome when they handle applications or complaints relating to entertainment. That the four existing licensing objectives are completely predicated on preventive measures does nothing to help struggling venues that are already being hit by high business rates and new planning developments. Amendment 172 is therefore required to support the social or cultural impacts of an activity regulated by the Licensing Act.

I have of course read the Minister’s response of 9 November and taken account of what she said. Her argument was that it would be difficult to replicate the evidence of harm in the same way as for licence conditions that seek to protect against and reduce harm—a rather circular argument. She went on to say that a licensing objective of promoting cultural activity and inclusion is,

“quite a subjective matter and may be interpreted in different ways … Making this a licensing objective could place licensing authorities in a censorious position, whereby licensees organising events might be obliged to explain what additional cultural value their entertainment might generate, and the licensing authorities would be required to evaluate that information”.—[Official Report, 9/11/16; col. 1216.]

This amendment is substantially different from the Committee stage amendment in two crucial respects. First, it is no longer limited to cultural matters and makes a much broader point about other activities that have social benefits that may need to be supported by a positive objective in the Licensing Act, too. This would deal with a legitimate criticism of the original amendment —that it would result in all premises having to provide cultural activities. That was not the intention of the original draft, but I accept that it could have led to it.

Secondly, the amendment relates to provision rather than the original amendment’s attempt at “promotion”. The specific call for promotion was regarded by the Minister as putting licensing authorities in a potentially censorious and subjective position, as I just mentioned. I should point out, however, that the current objectives, particularly the prevention of nuisance, are already interpreted subjectively and censoriously.

As is stands, the cultural activities of, say, a grass-roots music venue are not considered at all. Once gone, these venues will not come back into our towns and cities. There is a delicate balance that should be achieved by local authorities. Having this fifth objective might just be critical to a decision that will lead to their remaining open. The Minister’s response in Committee was fairly cursory, and I look forward to a more detailed and substantive response to the amendment at this stage. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 172, which has been excellently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. There needs to be a shift from authorities viewing our nightlife economy as something to be restricted to viewing it as something to be encouraged. Indeed, provision should be made. If London, to take just one example of cities across the UK, has lost 40% of its music venues in the past five years—not, it cannot be overemphasised, through lack of demand—there is something seriously awry with how our local communities are developing.

The licensing authorities need a better understanding of this landscape and to act constructively to counter this. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, in her reply in Committee the Minister said that cultural activity is “quite a subjective matter”. However, there is nothing in the amendment submitted in Committee or in this amendment about which cultural events should take place. The amendment is not in any way prescriptive; nor is there any sense of a limit to be placed on cultural events or of their particular value socially or culturally. The Minister talked of “a censorious position”, but the fact is that there is already, to a significant degree, an implicit censoriousness—one might say a tunnel vision—in the treatment of our clubs and music venues by licensing authorities, and the amendment would address that.

In evidence given yesterday to the Select Committee on the Licensing Act 2003, Mark Davyd, chief executive of the Music Venue Trust, said, “We want to see grass-roots music venues acknowledged and respected alongside theatres and art centres as spaces that are vital to the health, wealth and happiness of the UK”. That is a laudable aim. It also means that comparable criteria for operation should be applied to all those venues, but that kind of parity can be achieved only if all these cultural activities are perceived in a positive sense and as being connected through the wider landscape. There needs to be a mechanism that achieves that. The licensing authority is, or should be, the meeting place of all the different stakeholders; it is the logical place for that to happen. I hope the Minister will look favourably on the amendment.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Earl of Clancarty

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, this is a fascinating group of amendments, full of variety and suggestions of all kinds to the Minister. My amendment is no different: it adds yet another suggestion to her, which I am sure she will consider carefully.

I speak to Amendment 214A. The primary measurable success of reforms such as the Live Music Act 2012 and entertainment deregulation is that they have reduced costs and complexity for small-scale events, as well as tidying up primary legislation and how it interacts with guidance. I hope it is common ground that that is welcome.

However, despite these positive changes, the 2% dip in the music industry’s overall GVA performance in 2015, as reported in UK Music’s annual Measuring Music report, is attributable to a decline in concert revenue from grass-roots music venues. They provide an important mechanism for talent development and a means for artists to cultivate skills and access audiences. There are myriad examples of major stars who have had their beginnings in such grass-roots venues.

In 2015, there were 5.6 million visits to UK small venues, generating £231 million in spend in the process. More widely, the number of operating grass-roots music venues has declined by 35% in the past decade in London. However, the problem is not unique to the capital, with venues in Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Bristol, Plymouth, Newport and Swindon—to mention just a few—having either closed or had considerable threats of closure placed on their businesses in recent years.

Although not the sole cause of venue closures, restrictive licensing laws are often cited as a contributing factor. The existing licensing objectives under Section 4(2) of the Licensing Act 2003 reinforce perceptions that entertainment regulated under the Act is something to be controlled rather than enabled. The Act does nothing specifically to encourage cultural participation and enjoyment, for instance. This is a missed opportunity, given the importance of the Act in making events and activities happen. The lack of a positive licensing objective to support provision for entertainment can maintain prejudices between licensing authorities and licensees about their respective motivations. This is unhelpful in creating a licensing environment that works for live music. It is time for a change of approach.

As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and my noble friend Lady Grender reminded us, the House of Lords is currently conducting a post-legislative scrutiny inquiry into the operation of the Licensing Act 2003. UK Music, the umbrella body for the commercial music industry, argued during the inquiry that consideration should be given to the introduction of a new licensing objective,

“the promotion of cultural activity and inclusion”.

This would sit alongside the other licensing objectives and assist local authorities when discharging their functions.

The amendment would introduce a fifth licensing objective to address,

“the promotion of cultural activity and inclusion”.

It would sit alongside existing objectives and assist licensing authorities when discharging functions. Simple licensing conditions can lead to additional cost to the venue and result in less profit per event. Less profit means that a venue’s ability to attract quality acts will be reduced, and therefore fewer events will take place.

Research conducted by the Music Venue Trust, reported by the Mayor of London’s music venues task force, demonstrated that one London venue had more than 70 separate conditions on its licence. Another had its capacity set at the same level as before the smoking ban, despite the risk of fire now being reduced. We have been made aware that conditions related to music are still featuring on some small venue licences, despite the fact that they should be benefiting from the recent entertainment exemptions. There is clearly an argument to be had about the extent to which the spirit of the law and the decisions made by Parliament to deregulate are filtering down to licensing authorities.

Fundamentally,

“the promotion of cultural activity and inclusion”,

is necessary, as licensing authorities rely on the existing objectives, which are also supported by other pieces of legislation, when assessing complaints and applications. Despite music’s social, cultural and economic benefits, the Licensing Act’s existing objectives specifically make regulation of live music for larger venues a public order issue associated with nuisance, crime and disorder, public safety and protection from harm. That failure to have a licence for music could lead to criminal sanctions and penalties, such as large fines or terms of imprisonment, can reinforce negative perceptions in licensing authorities.

It is of course right that current licensing objectives relating to public safety, protecting children from harm, and the prevention of crime and disorder and public nuisance are given full consideration, but without a positive objective when responding to applications or complaints relating to entertainment, licensing authorities are not encouraged to acknowledge the economic, cultural and social benefits of these activities to local communities.

The recent revocation of iconic London nightclub Fabric’s premises licence has been well documented, with more than 150,000 people signing a petition seeking the intervention of the Mayor of London. I would not want to speculate that a fifth licensing objective along the lines for which I am arguing would have resulted in a different outcome in this instance, but I am certain that if it was in place, Islington Council would have had to be more mindful of the strength of feeling about Fabric and justify its decision in terms of the venue’s impact on public enjoyment as well.

Other countries and cities across the world are also looking at what they can do to preserve their venues by positive action. Put simply, a new licensing objective for,

“the promotion of cultural activity and inclusion”,

would not open the floodgates but provide a suitable test for licensing authorities to judge an application or appeal by assessing the wider public benefit that an event or venue may create, and help to prevent further unnecessary closure of our culturally important music venues.

At the very least, if the Minister cannot accept the amendment, I hope she will follow her previous practice in being prepared to speak to proponents of it and listen to the evidence that they put forward about the impact of licensing laws on grass-roots music venues. Her ministerial colleagues have been very helpful in amending planning guidance in this respect, which has helped somewhat in change of use for premises near live music venues. I hope that Ministers, having shown themselves sympathetic to grass-roots music venues, will continue in that vein and meet UK Music and the Music Venues Trust to discuss the issues further.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, in particular, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, Amendment 214A. He does not define cultural activity, but it would clearly include, at least in part, the night-time economy. There has in recent years been a perfect storm of circumstance for our night-time economy. Rising rents and business rates, property developments, noise complaints, complaints about anti-social behaviour and more have conspired to devastate our night-time cultural landscape. London alone has, in the past five years, lost 50% of its clubs and more than 40% of its music venues, but the same problems are afflicting towns and cities everywhere in the UK, and some cities abroad.

Having said that, closures often hinge on a single concern, which might have been avoided given a wider, more constructive approach. This problem has implications at many levels. As an economy, we will suffer in the long term, as the night-time economy is hugely important to the country. In 2014, it was worth up to £26.3 billion. It is part of what makes London, in particular, an international cultural city. Under the amendment, licensing authorities would see it as part of their remit to address head-on the problems facing their local communities in this provision. We risk parts of our towns and cities becoming night-time dead areas, which is not good for their safety or social fabric. We risk taking the heart out of many of our cities.

The closure of live music venues does not reflect decreasing demand from the public. Witness the protest against the closure of Passing Clouds, a live music and community venue in Dalston, earlier in the year. Events manager Gudrun Getz said that,

“property developers are seeking to cash in on the huge popularity of Dalston which we ourselves were instrumental in helping to establish”.

She also says that there is,

“a huge … fear in the community at the moment that we are going to lose all of our space and there will be nowhere for musicians to play”.

This would of course be a terrible loss for London and elsewhere in the country.

Contracting Out (Functions relating to the Royal Parks) Order 2016

Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Earl of Clancarty

Monday 24th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for introducing the new proposals. I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate them. We on these Benches are not opposed in principle to contracting out to a new charity formed for the purpose, rather in the way that the creation of English Heritage seems to have become a success. I think we are all pleased that Loyd Grossman, with his profile and experience, has been appointed as its first chair. That is considerable cause for pleasure. Moreover, I understand that, broadly, friends’ groups across the Royal Parks support the change and see it as bringing the following benefits—greater financial freedom and escape from government restriction, for example, on the carrying over of end-of-year surpluses, and on procurement rules, both of which can lead to higher costs. It also gives them rather more flexibility on pay rates—upwards, as it happens—in order to attract staff. The change means that it is easier to raise money, especially through local philanthropy, and the new objectives provide—they say—more focus on protection and conservation and less on government objectives for higher visitor numbers.

I understand that the new draft objectives submitted to the Charity Commission are principally to promote the use and enjoyment of the Royal Parks, to protect, conserve, maintain and care for them, to maintain and develop the biodiversity of the Royal Parks and to support the advancement of education and promote the national heritage. All those objectives have considerable importance and benefit. However, it would be good to see the entire draft constitution of the new charity. There is remarkably little information available about the new structure, especially given that it is to be merged with the Royal Parks Foundation. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, talked about how the board will be appointed. I understand that there will be 14 board members, half of whom will be appointed by government. It is not clear whom the other half will be appointed by. We need a much more plural form of appointment and there needs to be considerable local input into those appointments. An ability for the Government to appoint 50% of the trustees of the new charity seems well over the top. In the way that the Government retreated over the BBC, I hope that they will likewise retreat over the appointment of trustees to this charity.

I hope that these new arrangements will also mean that detailed plans are drawn up for each of the individual Royal Parks. I think we all know which Royal Parks we are referring to but it is not so well known that other open spaces such as Brompton Cemetery, Victoria Tower Gardens, just along the way, and the gardens at Nos. 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street are all currently managed by the Royal Parks Agency. I assume that they will continue to be managed by the new charity.

I was only partially reassured by the Minister’s statements about consultations that have taken place. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, pointed out, they were very local consultations. The Royal Parks are an asset to not only the whole of London but also the nation. Therefore, it sounds to me as if the consultations have been extremely limited. On what basis were the consultations held? Was a draft constitution of the new charity available? Is there a new draft corporate plan? That kind of detail is very important when one is consulting on a dramatically new way of managing the Royal Parks.

Where is the draft contract? As a lawyer, I always like to see a draft contract, lots of red ink and so on, but we have not seen anything to do with the future management of the Royal Parks. That was referred to by the Minister. What are the key performance indicators in terms of the management of the parks? What specific targets are to be set for the management? On future strategy, will there be a new corporate plan? The Royal Parks Agency has carried on a very detailed way of planning for some considerable time, which includes separate management and operating plans for each Royal Park and, in addition, a sustainability strategy. In the light of the new objectives of the charity, that is extremely important.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, rightly referred to finances. The parks are now expected to make nearly 70% of their own income, but more than 30% still comes from government grant. All the statements coming out of government in this regard seem rather ominous. The stated aim in the Explanatory Notes is to reduce the burden on the public purse in the longer-term. Will that level of finance continue? After all, the latest annual report of the Royal Parks Agency states:

“The new charity will be increasingly self-sustaining”.

The advertisement for the new chairman states that the new body will apparently seek to,

“generate substantial annual revenue from more events, concessions and licences”.

I heard what the Minister said about events, and that seems to contradict it. What does all this mean for government support and over what period? In the way that the finances for English Heritage have tapered, do the Government plan a tapering of the finance for the new charitable body? Or will they essentially oblige the new body—as the Royal Parks tried to do previously—to impose fees for use of its football pitches? I have another very large question: who will pay for the £56 million maintenance backlog detailed in the most recent annual accounts?

The Minister gave several assurances about events. I suppose we should be pleased that there is no Summertime Wonderland but it seems that even the existing events—Winter Wonderland and the British Summer Time Concerts alone, including the time for setting up and reinstating the grass—put 13% of Hyde Park out of bounds for much of the year. Therefore, frankly, I do not think there is much leeway for more events. Will there be more open-air cinema screenings? I know that that causes problems for local wildlife in Richmond Park. What will the financial pressures be if the Government taper their support?

There are many questions and not enough transparency about these proposals. I hope that the Minister has all the answers.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for tabling his amendment. This has been quite a technical debate so far but I want to raise how this measure will affect the public, and take a longer-term view.

In March it was reported in the Guardian that the Royal Parks Agency said that the move to a new body followed decreased government funding that had made,

“maintaining high standards increasingly challenging”.

The Friends of Richmond Park note that public funding as a proportion of all income has fallen from 95% in 1961 to under 50% today. Therefore, the fundamental question I want to ask the Government—I think the Minister has already answered it—is: how is a separate body going to supply that much-needed funding, with diminishing support from the Government, other than through commercialising the parks themselves? Why is the move necessary other than to further cut ties to state funding? I therefore echo the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones, who asked whether we are heading for a 100% funding cut from the Government. It certainly looks that way. This is surely what “broadening opportunities” means.