Communications Act 2003 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2014
Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, this order provides for the disclosure of information between the telecommunications regulator Ofcom and four other public bodies allowing those bodies to carry out their regulatory duties more effectively, providing greater protection for consumers. The four bodies in question are the Information Commissioner, the Insolvency Service, the Financial Conduct Authority and the subsidiary of the FCA, the new Payment Systems Regulator.
At present, Ofcom is prohibited from disclosing information to these bodies without the consent of the regulated businesses concerned. Ofcom may disclose information to nominated bodies, including the former Office of Fair Trading, whose work is now covered by the Competition and Markets Authority, and government Ministers in respect of certain functions which those bodies perform.
As the Committee will be aware, nuisance calls are a source of great inconvenience for many. Direct marketing certainly has a useful role to play and can, for example, enable us to take advantage of cheaper energy tariffs and lower mobile phone bills and to make donations to charities. It is also right that should we choose not to receive unsolicited calls or text messages, our choice should be respected by the industry. There are regulations in place that enable consumers to make such choices and provide for enforcement action to be taken against those organisations that break the rules. However, it is clear that the laws are not working as effectively as they could be and further action is needed.
Over the past 18 months the problem of nuisance calls has emerged and become a high-profile issue with complaint numbers about unsolicited marketing calls being made to the Information Commissioner—who has enforcement responsibility for unsolicited calls and text messages—rising rapidly in recent years. That is unsurprising as Ofcom research in May last year indicated that 82% of consumers received a nuisance call on their landline telephone number. I should stress that although nuisance calls are a source of inconvenience and annoyance for many, this is a particular concern for the elderly and for those who are housebound, for whom such calls cause great anxiety and distress. Such consumers are also more vulnerable to the potential fraud and scams which are an unfortunate by-product of the world of low-cost mass communication in which we now live.
It is therefore no surprise that the issue of nuisance calls has been the subject of Private Member’s Bills in the other place by Mike Crockart and Alun Cairns, and in this House by my noble friend Lord Selsdon. It has also been the subject of an inquiry by the All-Party Group on Nuisance Calls and by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, as well as the topic of several debates and numerous Parliamentary Questions. It has also been taken up as a campaign by the consumer group Which? calling for government and industry to do more to protect consumers. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all who have raised this issue, particularly my noble friend Lord Selsdon.
In relation to the Information Commissioner, this order permits Ofcom to disclose information that it obtains during its regulatory activity. It will enable information to be disclosed that can be used to take more robust enforcement action against those organisations that are deliberately disregarding the existing regulations by making calls and sending texts to consumers. The fact that the conduct of organisations is being noted by Ofcom and details disclosed to the Information Commissioner will, we believe, act as a stronger deterrent.
Addressing the problem of nuisance calls is a priority issue for the Government. Indeed, we committed to introducing this measure in our strategy paper Connectivity, Content and Consumers: Britain’s Digital Platform for Growth, which was published on 30 July last year. We subsequently confirmed that we would be introducing this measure in our Nuisance Calls Action Plan, which we published on 30 March. We have received widespread support for this reform.
The order also enables Ofcom to disclose information to the Insolvency Service to help to tackle directors behind what are called “phoenix” companies, which provide communications services but do not always supply services as promised. This often results in financial loss to consumers who have paid for a service that is not delivered. Ofcom can issue a penalty of up to 10% of turnover but often the company will enter into insolvency to avoid paying, only to reappear under a different name. The company will also usually transfer its customer base before winding up the original company and then continue to harm the same customers. This measure helps to enable the Insolvency Service to consider taking action against company directors for misconduct as directors. That action may result in a ban from acting as a director of a company for a period of time. Also, action by the Insolvency Service on the basis of information provided by Ofcom may provide a better deterrent for other directors planning to commit similar misconduct.
I also referred to disclosure to the Financial Conduct Authority. The Government are taking action to ensure that UK payment systems and services meet the current and future needs of consumers, businesses, other users and the wider economy. Payment systems enable funds to be directly transferred between individuals and institutions. A prime example is LINK, which underpins the ATM network in the United Kingdom.
In December 2013, the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act gained Royal Assent. The Act provided for the establishment of a new competition-focused, utility-style regulator for payment systems in the UK. In March this year, the Chancellor announced in his Budget Statement that the concurrent competition powers of the new Payment Systems Regulator would be brought forward to 1 April this year.
The Government recognise that the new regulator faces a significant challenge to build up its capacity and expertise in relation to the market place that it will regulate—in particular, with regard to communications companies that are increasingly becoming important in the electronic payments market. More people than ever are able to link their bank accounts to an application and to make payments via their telephone or tablet device. Online platforms such as Google and Apple offer payment mechanisms via their app stores and are developing new ways to access more traditional payment systems. The UK Payments Council has built a central database, enabling customers from eight large UK financial institutions to make payments to and from an account simply by using their mobile telephone number.
Many of these communication companies are regulated by Ofcom and therefore, as communications networks and their relationship with payment systems evolve, Ofcom’s ability to provide knowledge and expertise of this to the Financial Conduct Authority and Payment Systems Regulator will support effective collaboration with these organisations and help ensure that consumers are not put at risk by any improper activity carried out.
It is important to note that Her Majesty’s Treasury brought into force separate legislation in April that enables the information that the Financial Conduct Authority and the Payment Systems Regulator capture to be disclosed to Ofcom. The Treasury will also be consulting in the second half of this year on which payment systems will be designated for regulation going forward.
This is an important measure for the bodies concerned as it will enable them to undertake their regulatory duties more effectively in the future and further interests of consumers. I assure noble Lords that we will continue to work closely with regulators, industry, parliamentarians and the consumer group Which? to promote effective regulation and, most importantly, to secure consumer protection, particularly, as I said earlier, for the elderly and the vulnerable, who need the most protection. We believe that this legislation is necessary and proportionate, and there will be no cost to business. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the intent behind the order. I make it clear from the outset that we support these changes. Although the authors of the 2003 Act were quite rightly cautious about encouraging the exchange of too much personal information between government agencies, I am sure we nevertheless accept that in the field of communications the world has moved on significantly and that the current restrictions are preventing our regulators from carrying out their functions effectively. It therefore makes sense to extend the definition of the Information Commissioner, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Payment Systems Regulator as relevant persons and relevant functions under the Act. It also makes sense that Ofcom can disclose information to the Insolvency Service in pursuit of the directors of phoenix companies who are deliberately manipulating the system to avoid being brought to book when enforcement action is taken against them.
These changes provide small but helpful ammunition in the fight against the much bigger problem of nuisance and fraudulent calls. However, I doubt that many of the millions of people plagued by these calls would take too much comfort from the proposals before us today, particularly since—as the Minister has acknowledged—it is the elderly and vulnerable who are most at risk of distress and exploitation from them. Will the Minister take this opportunity to update your Lordships on what further steps the Government are planning to take to tackle this menace? For example, I have had sight of the Government’s Nuisance Calls Action Plan, which was published earlier this year and acknowledges that there were more than 120,000 complaints about these calls in a six-month period alone. However, the action plan seems to lay great emphasis on reducing the legal threshold and increasing fines for those companies, rather than providing mechanisms for preventing the calls in the first place. It seems that consumers are being left to fight their own battles with these nuisance callers, rather than having a right to be protected from the unwanted calls.
There are several devices on the market to help consumers filter or block these calls. Having looked into these devices on behalf of my elderly mother who suffers from these calls—which I am sure a number of noble Lords will also have experienced—I know that they are very expensive. One of the market leaders, trueCall, costs upwards of £160 to install. Does the Minister accept that these devices would not be necessary if the Telephone Preference Service, which already exists, were working effectively? It should filter out these calls but is not carrying out that function as it should. Does he agree that one way of empowering consumers would be to provide caller identification free on all telephones so that people knew who was calling them before they picked up the phone? Finally, does he accept that the regulation of this sector is still too complex and that what is needed is a one-stop shop—a single phone line and website—for citizens to report nuisance calls?
I am very aware that I have extended the scope of this debate slightly beyond the specifics of the order before us. However, I hope the Minister will acknowledge that these are real concerns and provide some further assurance that the Government are taking these matters seriously and have deliverable plans to ensure that these unwanted calls will stop. I look forward to his response.
Press Regulation
Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch(10 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Your Lordships may be able to crystal-ball gaze but I certainly cannot. As I say, I very much hope that the self-regulatory body will apply for recognition. There is nothing to stop another self-regulator being formed, as the royal charter caters for a further self-regulatory body coming forward for recognition.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, thank you. Has the Minister seen the Media Standards Trust report, published late last year, which assessed how the IPSO proposals measured up to the Leveson recommendations? It found that IPSO failed to meet 26 of the 38 recommendations. Has the Secretary of State pointed out to the IPSO representatives that their model is a very long way from complying with Leveson? At what stage is the Secretary of State going to intervene to put the Leveson proposals and the royal charter back centre stage going forward, which is where they ought to be?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I have, of course, studied the Media Standards Trust report. The whole basis of the design of Lord Justice Leveson’s report is precisely for the independent Recognition Panel to opine on whether the criteria in Schedule 3 of the royal charter have been adhered to. That is the key point of the independence: it is for the Recognition Panel to decide. The idea that the Secretary of State should intervene misses the point about the independent arrangements that we have put in place to ensure that we get a decision that is independent of Parliament and government.
Broadband and Mobile Coverage
Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I very much hope that if my noble friend were posing this question in 18 months’ time, we would have a different result. Particularly the rural broadband scheme which is reaching out to remote areas, but also the super-connection for the 22 cities, is all about providing to schools and businesses the opportunity to take advantage of the internet.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will know that there has recently been a damning NAO report which identified that, far from promoting market competition, BT is now expected to win all of the 44 contracts on broadband. What are the Government doing to intervene on this issue, given that the NAO report also says that it does not have a strong assurance that the costs, the take-up assumptions and the extent of contingency contained in the BT bids are reasonable? What is being done to get value for money for the taxpayer on this issue?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I should first declare that I own a few BT shares—I emphasise, a very few.
BT is in that situation because Openreach has so much of the infrastructure. There are arrangements and regulatory environment requirements through Ofcom on price and also on other operators using BT property. There are very important safeguards for the consumer through Ofcom, and that is why we are in the right position.
Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill
Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch(10 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment reflecting dormant accounts. While in the Government’s view there is no need for further primary legislation to enable the Government to undertake a consultation, we have already said that we will consider the recommendations of the Foster report after this Bill has been enacted. The Bill will make significant changes to the regulation of a large number of betting accounts, so it is right that we consider the report’s recommendations after the implementation of our remote gambling proposals.
The Government already have the power to impose a specific licence condition to gather information if we choose to do so following appropriate consultation. I am happy to confirm that if in due course we consider it necessary to progress the report’s recommendations, we would act to gather this information. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I very much thank the Minister for that contribution. On the basis of the further work that is taking place, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, we have already touched on the lack of research, particularly into problem gambling. I want to make a couple of quick points in support of our amendment. We have said that there is not enough research, which I think we all have acknowledged. It also seems that the industry is spending relatively small sums of money on research. At the moment, the amount of money paid by the sector is disturbingly small. It is estimated that the industry as a whole is worth some £6 billion a year, yet the amount available to the Responsible Gambling Trust through the voluntary levy is just over £5 million a year, with only 10% of that being spent on research.
When this was debated in the Commons, my colleague the Shadow Minister, Clive Efford, pointed out that when he looked on the Responsible Gambling Trust’s website, a lot of its activity seemed to be involved in fundraising. That is all very worthy but you would think that there was enough money around in the sector that it did not have to spend its time fundraising to pay for its activities. There should be a firmer way to fund this through a more consolidated levy. More work needs to be done. We need that research and we need to ensure that the funding is available. I beg to move.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her amendment. I entirely agree that the gambling industry should play its part in contributing to the research, education and treatment of problem gambling. The Government believe that the best solution is for the industry to recognise its responsibilities voluntarily. The industry must continue to help to tackle problem gambling. The current voluntary arrangements were revised only in 2012 and the Government are satisfied that the system is working as was intended in the Budd report of 2001, which recommended the arrangements.
As the noble Baroness said, at present the voluntary industry funding scheme provides around £5 million a year, 80% of which goes to bodies like GamCare, the Gordon Moody Association and the Soho clinic to provide advice and treatment. This funding has supported the introduction of a free-to-use national telephone helpline and the development of GambleAware, a general gambling information website. Useful work has been done in this area by the Responsible Gambling Trust and its predecessor body with local clinics or advice centres, to see how those developing problems can be identified and helped. In addition, the Soho clinic has piloted ways in which the NHS can help those with severe problems. The Responsible Gambling Strategy Board and the Responsible Gambling Trust are also considering how best to capture evidence of the actual harm from gambling to strengthen the case for greater support from local government, from NHS resources and, importantly, from the industry.
I hope that the Committee will be reassured that problem gambling and research into its prevention and treatment continue to be high on the agenda for the Government and the Gambling Commission. The Government will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the voluntary arrangements, and will of course take appropriate action if necessary. On that basis, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. We have identified that there is not enough money available for research and for helping those who have an addiction and problems with gambling. I understand what the noble Lord is saying about the voluntary levy. We think that our suggestion for a compulsory levy is still worthy of merit and would like to lay that on the table for further consideration. However, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Ofcom: Public Service Broadcasting
Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Certain Members of your Lordships’ House attended the QSD on 22 May when we discussed plurality. The Government are seeking views on this matter, which is complex. I think Lord Justice Leveson agreed with that. We are building on Ofcom’s advice and the recommendations of Lord Justice Leveson. The process will begin in September. I know that your Lordships’ Communications Committee is also working on these matters.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, following my question on a possible communications Bill in the Queen’s Speech debate, I was surprised to receive a letter from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, which I am sure he cleared with the noble Lord’s department. In that letter, the noble Earl states that, for the most part, our regulatory framework is working well and that there simply is not a great clamour for wholesale reform. Given the growing demands for greater child protection, which we have talked about this afternoon, and for internet controls, decent broadband and media ownership controls, does this not represent a lack of courage on the part of the Government? They really should be legislating on a broader scale to firm up outside regulation and increase controls in these areas.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I would say to the noble Baroness that the work we are doing on Ofcom is designed to ensure that we do not do things that are unnecessary and inefficient. We should be enabling Ofcom to undertake its really important responsibilities. I refer to refinements because, having looked at the recommendations in the consultation, I think they give a more refreshing and up-to-date twist on what we wanted Ofcom to do when the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, was so involved in its creation.
Leveson Inquiry: Report
Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, my understanding is that all outstanding matters were dealt with in discussions not only of the royal charter but of the Crime and Courts Bill before the House rose for prorogation. So my understanding is that all outstanding matters vis-à-vis the matters that the noble Lord has raised have already been handled.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, perhaps I may return to the Minister’s answer to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on the issue of the chronology of what has occurred. It seems very strange that, although the all-party supported royal charter was agreed before the one put together subsequently by the press group, the only one being put forward to the Privy Council is the press version, which was agreed after the one that was originally put forward on an all-party basis. I really do not understand why that has been allowed to happen. Why is not the Privy Council also considering the one put forward on an all-party basis?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I can understand the point that the noble Baroness has made. I asked the question myself. I understand that you cannot have two royal charters relating to the same sort of subject dealt with in parallel. It will have to be, because of the due process, that there is one royal charter from Pressbof, which is a professional, body-based version, and then the state-sponsored royal charter, which this and the other House agreed on 18 March. Therefore, the first process is that there will have to be a consideration of the Pressbof royal charter. Once that has been achieved and the Privy Council has dealt with it, my understanding is that you cannot have two applications at the same time.
Leveson Inquiry
Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I well understand the point that my noble friend raises about the Defamation Bill and its progress, and I am sure that these matters will be clarified.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, first, I place on record our welcome for the cross-party agreement that was announced today. In the light of that and following the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, may I push the Minister a little further? Does he agree that it is important that this House debates the contents of the royal charter, which was published only today so many noble Lords will not have seen it? Will he give us an indication of the scheduling of whether and when we might be able to debate the whole of the royal charter, and not just parts of it in other Bills that have already been scheduled for debate?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am afraid to say that, again, this is rather above my pay grade. It is obviously a matter for the usual channels in the first place. I am not in a position to suggest business for your Lordships’ House and that is where the position will have to remain for today.
Legal Deposit Libraries (Non-Print Works) Regulations 2013
Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch(11 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, legal deposit is the statutory requirement for individuals or organisations to deliver copies of their publications to designated institutions, known as legal deposit libraries. They are the British Library, the National Library of Scotland, the National Library of Wales, Cambridge University Library, the Bodleian Library, Oxford and Trinity College, Dublin. The legal deposit regime is crucial in enabling these institutions to preserve and maintain a comprehensive record of our published heritage for future generations.
Legal deposit was first introduced in this country in the 17th century and requirements changed little during the monopoly of the printed word. However, publishing has evolved considerably over the past 20 years, with the rapid rise of digital publishing and the phenomenon of the internet revolutionising how information is made available. Legal deposit arrangements now need to address the UK’s digitally published output in order to maintain a comprehensive record and to avoid the scenario described by deposit libraries and the wider research community whereby such output is lost to a “digital black hole”.
The Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003 was one of the first pieces of legislation worldwide to regulate for the deposit of non-print material. The regulations considered by the Committee today allow the full framework of legal deposit envisaged by the 2003 Act to be put into practice, and specifically for works published in a medium other than print to be preserved on a systematic basis for the first time. Following extensive consultation with the publishing and research sectors, the Government are now in a position to introduce the landmark extension of the legal deposit regime to cover non-print works. These regulations will enable the full range of this nation’s published intellectual and cultural output to be preserved and secured for posterity.
The regulations have been designed to allow a light-touch means of archiving non-print works which balances the needs of both publishers and deposit libraries. This has involved designing, on the one hand, a manageable and efficient system for the deposit libraries to build a comprehensive archive of digital content, and on the other, a clearly governed, practical system which does not impose any disproportionate burdens on publishers, offers potential to realise savings and protects the commercial interests of publishers and rights holders.
The regulations apply to both work published online, such as content from the internet and e-books, and work published offline, such as CD-ROMs and microfilm. The requirement for depositing offline works mirrors the existing requirements for printed works, namely that publishers must deliver a copy to the British Library within one month of publication and that the other deposit libraries can also request a copy of any offline work.
Generally, works from the internet will be collected by a process of web harvesting. Web harvesting uses computer software to search the internet automatically and copy content from targeted websites. Importantly, this process imposes no burden on publishers. In addition, where a book, for example, is published as an e-book and a print edition, the regulations allow the publisher to do away with depositing the print edition, with obvious cost savings to both the publisher and deposit library. Although the collection of work from the internet will generally be cost-free for publishers, the delivery of offline material such as CD-ROMs will have a small cost.
In line with government policy to avoid any disproportionate burden on the smallest businesses, new businesses and micro-businesses in the publishing sector will be exempt until April 2014 from the parts of the regulations that have the potential to impose a cost burden. This phased implementation is important as over 80% of publishers are micro-businesses, and their inclusion within scope is therefore essential to meet the objectives of the regulations in full.
Storing digital content will cost the deposit libraries money, but they will have the benefit of a shared archive and potential savings from no longer needing to archive a proportion of printed works. Reader access to non-print works will be limited to computer terminals on premises controlled by the deposit libraries. In order to mirror the level of access to printed publications, at each deposit library only one terminal will show the same material at any one time. Where it is reasonable, in the commercial interests of publishers, to prevent reader access to material, the regulations allow deposit libraries to embargo material for a specified period.
The draft regulations were welcomed by the majority of stakeholders in last year’s public consultation. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport will provide guidance on the regulations, and the British Library and other deposit libraries are preparing a joint implementation policy explaining in more detail how the regulations will operate in practice. The Government have made a commitment to carry out a post-implementation review within five years of the regulations coming into force. The review will consider the extent to which the preservation of the UK’s non-print published output has been achieved by the implementation of the regulations.
Legal deposit arrangements remain vitally important in preserving and making available the published record of previous generations for the researchers of today and of the future. We must now ensure that the long-standing legal deposit arrangements are brought up to date for the 21st century. I commend the regulations to the Committee and I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the background to these regulations. We welcome the proposals before the Committee and echo the thanks made to all those who have helped to craft a set of significant but workable rules to capture the output of the digital age. This is indeed a landmark development.
It is all too easy to regard material on the web as somehow inferior to printed works, but I suspect that history will increasingly demonstrate that works of enormous substance and creativity have found an audience solely through the digital medium. There is clearly a balance to be struck between the interests of our nation in preserving texts for future generations and the burden on business to make such information available. Given the significant thought that has gone into these draft regulations over the past 10 years and the positive response to the Government’s consultation, I do not intend to challenge the judgment; it feels about right.
I also welcome the commitment to keep the implementation under review in the way outlined by the noble Lord so that practical issues can be addressed as they arise. However, I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the operation of the embargo provisions will be kept under review to ensure that publishers are providing substantial justification for such requests. It would also be helpful if an assurance could be given that the copyright provisions will be kept under review to ensure that access is treated on par with that to printed material.
I have some specific questions with regard to audio-visual works. First, as the Minister will know, the British Film Institute already has a substantial national archive. These regulations include the concept of preserving “incidental” audio-visual works. Does the Minister agree that the logical recipient of such works should be the BFI National Archive and, as such, the regulations could be extended to list it as a beneficiary? Secondly, does the Minister accept that the preservation of web pages that include audio-visual works is outside the current specialisms of the six legal deposit libraries, and that therefore the BFI should have a more clearly defined preservation role in the regulations? Thirdly, now that we have a detailed plan for all other non-print works, does the Minister agree that there should be an urgent plan to extend the scope of the regulations to include audio-visual works which are, after all, a major aspect of our cultural heritage and will, no doubt, continue to be so? I look forward to the Minister’s response.