Lord Rooker
Main Page: Lord Rooker (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Rooker's debates with the Attorney General
(9 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, almost before opening my mouth I must declare an interest, having been for many years—more than I care to think of—a broadcaster for the BBC, both on the staff and as a freelancer.
The points being made are important. When we talked about the arts in your Lordships’ House recently, the Government, it seemed to me, were very open to the concept that people need to know their budgets before they forward-plan. At a time when the charter review is coming up and the BBC accepts that there are many problems with the licence fee and current funding and is trying to deal with that, to cut the ground from under it before the charter is properly considered would be very dangerous.
From my own experience, the cuts within the BBC—particularly the cuts to Radio 3—have been draconian. Many people have been laid off; programme budgets have been cut. One of the things I find strange about this is that I subscribe to Sky—I enjoy it; I sometimes watch the BBC on Sky—but for my Sky package, which includes sport, I pay about £46 a month. For the BBC I pay £12 a month. That is a quite extraordinary disparity and it is worth thinking about it. For what the BBC provides—the Proms, the culture, the natural history, sport, Wimbledon: all things for which they are in competition with Sky—the figures hardly stack up. To add this additional burden would be rather irresponsible. I therefore beg the Government to consider delaying. It is not asking an awful lot—not to cancel, just to delay.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I did not come to speak on this—I am a complete outsider as far as the media are concerned—but having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Grade, before the Division, I will.
This is unfortunate. I know that it is fair enough to make the point that we did not have these discussions on the draft Bill; I will not make a serious complaint about that, because things in the Bill have been added since the pre-legislative scrutiny. However, on what I know about the media, I certainly take the point of what the noble Lord, Lord Grade, said, that in the end this is basically all about the attempt to force the BBC to go down to a subscription channel basis, and I fundamentally disagree with that. The BBC has not helped itself in the last couple of years; as an outsider I have watched in the other place some absolutely inept performances in front of that Select Committee by very highly paid people, who on some occasions are inarticulate beyond belief. You can imagine where the groundswell against it comes from.
I fully accept that there has been an attempt to do something about the banker-style salaries. I fully accept that you need the best people, and it is a competitive market. I have nothing to declare, by the way. While Murdoch’s alive, I do not do Sky. I sacrifice Formula 1 and everything for that. There will come a day when I can have Sky, but it is not there at the moment. The fact is that there is a disparity when one sees the cost of what is advertised—but then you do not see the full cost of the BBC, for example. When you turn the radio on in the morning, you expect it to be on, but you do not see the separate figures for that. It is a bit like other services, whether schools or hospitals. When you walk through the door you do not see a price on the top—although now you do with universities, where the cost of walking through the door is nine grand a year. It is not quite like that; it is not put across that way. Therefore you do not have the marketing. The BBC has no interest in having the marketing to compete with the marketing that Sky does to make it seductive.
That is the only point I want to make. There is a conspiracy—no question about it. I freely admit that I was very tempted after it went to the Commons; I was not sure whether it would be put in the Commons or the Lords. When the arguments were first put they were very seductive on decriminalisation. I have friends who are magistrates, and they say, “Jeff, it’s nonsense. We parcel them all up—we do them all together”. On the time argument, the noble Lord, Lord Grade, said that it takes 3 minutes and 13 seconds. That is exactly believable—talk to magistrates. That is the way it is done. There is no time factor in the courts; there is no question about that. If anyone wants to go to jail in this country, it is very easy to do it—just do not pay the fines. Lots of people make a business out of that. Therefore the BBC is an excuse. However, I fully accept that there is an underlying issue. The BBC staff have to up their game when they appear before Select Committees, but we have to bear in mind that at the end of the day there is a seductive and well funded attempt here to force the BBC to go to a subscription service. We ought to oppose that at every step of the way.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I, too, support the proposition that Clause 59 should not stand part of the Bill. The arguments have been very eloquently made, in many cases by people who are broadcasting professionals of many years’ experience. Of course I have nothing to offer in that sense. However, I fear that this is largely an ideologically driven suggestion. Whether it is intended to end up with subscription fees or not, I do not know, but I believe that it was suggested to fundamentally weaken the BBC by those who, for whatever reason, are not supporters of the organisation. I firmly declare myself a very firm supporter of the BBC in its various forms—radio, television, and not least the World Service, which is a tremendous organisation; what it achieves with the money it has is superb.
I would like to know, if the Minister can say, how decriminalising non-payment would be likely to reduce the number of those who, for whatever reason, refuse to pay the licence fee. I understand that the figure is around 5% on an annual basis. How would decriminalisation be likely to increase the payment of the fee? I cannot see any way in which that would be likely; in fact, the very opposite is almost certain to happen.
The other aspect is that the clause mentions monetary penalties for those who do not pay the fee. I am sorry, perhaps I am missing something, but if someone does not pay the licence fee, how will a monetary penalty imposed for not paying it make it more likely that the fee itself will be paid? I do not see the point of that.
It worries me that the BBC has often been undermined, and not just by the present Government; I have to say that on many occasions my party, when in government, did not exactly hold back from undermining the BBC or attacking its integrity or that of some of its reporters, which I thought was at best unfortunate if not misguided. So I do not make this a particularly party-political issue, although we have the Government that we have for the moment. I very much hope that this time next year there will be another party in government, my party, and that we will be prepared to say that we will not go ahead with decriminalising this offence.
My final point is a word of warning to the BBC’s many supporters in this Room. I suspect that even those who are in favour of decriminalisation are supporters of the BBC. We have heard from a producer today, and that was very valuable. However, anyone who read Olenka Frenkiel’s comments in the Guardian last Friday must accept that there are still problems that the BBC needs to address if it wants to broaden and deepen its support. It needs to treat its female staff—I am talking not so much about presenters as about reporters—in a far better way. I was really taken aback by what Olenka Frenkiel had to say. I thought that recent cases had meant that the BBC had turned round, but it appears that in that respect it has not.
If decriminalisation does go ahead at the end of the review, it will not help the BBC. Those of us who treasure the BBC and what it does, and who want to allow it to continue as far as possible into the future in the face of some pretty fierce competition, need to support the licence fee, what it stands for and what it is used for. If that is what we are going to do, we have to ensure that as many people pay it as possible, and I do not believe that the suggestion in this part of the Bill would achieve that purpose. That is why I oppose it.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I think that there is only one other person in the Room who sat through three months of the draft Deregulation Bill. I want to make a suggestion to the Minister that he can answer when he comes to reply to that very powerful speech. Given the amount of legislation that we have just had recited to us that is up to date and modern, why has this issue not yet been referred to the Law Commission? We know that there has been a bit of a problem between Ministers and the Law Commission; that was self-evident when we took evidence from both parties about the reform and updating of legislation. Part of that is to do with deregulation, part of it is modernisation and part of it is legislation that is allegedly of no further practical use—there will be a debate on that next week. In this case, though, bearing in mind that we do not make substantive decisions in Grand Committee, what is the reason why the issue cannot be referred to the Law Commission?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his amendment. The Government are clear that busking can enrich a community’s quality of life and generate a positive atmosphere enjoyed by many people. Regrettably, though, street entertainment can sometimes be a source of conflict between buskers, businesses and residents. Complaints of noise, nuisance and anti-social behaviour can arise, and police and local councils have to respond and try to find solutions.
The Government do not start from the position that busking requires regulation and control. Busking should be about freedom of the individual, and only if necessary should local action be taken to curb certain excesses. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, although I am still waiting for some advice, there is actually no general legislation on the subject of busking but local authorities can have policies on it, including codes of conduct or permit regimes, and occasionally by-laws and local authority legislation, such as the London Local Authorities Act 2000. That Act enables London councils to license busking. Indeed, it is a matter for London councils to determine whether or not they utilise these powers.
The amendment proposes that a government Bill should seek to overturn private legislation promoted by London local authorities and passed by Parliament. If we were to accept the amendment, the Government would indeed be saying that London councils should not have the option to decide whether or not to license busking based on local circumstances. Indeed, we feel that this is not a subject for top-down government solutions; it is for local authorities to determine fair, reasonable and transparent policies in relation to managing our streets.
As far as the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 is concerned, while Section 54(14) is rarely used, the Metropolitan Police need to retain the provision to give their officers the tactical option of dealing with what they have called “busking-related offences”. We are seeking to strike a balance between freedom to busk and having to control nuisance caused by persons with no musical intent.
Lord Rooker
This is the issue that was before the Committee: there are different functions. The commission can look at legislation that might be of no practical use. There is some of that in Schedule 20—none of which was looked at by the Law Commission, I might add; it was dreamed up by civil servants. However, it will also look at modernising legislation. On the basis of the speech given by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, the legislation needs modernising, because all the offences are covered by more modern legislation than the 1839 legislation to meet the modern day. So the commission is quite capable of looking at modernising legislation as well as considering legislation that is no longer in use. That is a separate function of the Law Commission.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I hope it might help the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, if I say that I will specifically make known to my colleagues the observation that the noble Lord has made. However, on that basis, I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for outlining the background to this amendment and the reason for it with such admirable clarity, born of the great experience that he has in this field. As a former chair and now vice-president of RNIB—which interests I declare—I put my name to the noble Lord’s amendment because I have had first-hand experience of the restrictive effect of the current regulatory regime for society lotteries on the charity’s fundraising potential, which I thought it relevant to place before the Committee in its consideration of this amendment.
Society lotteries are minnows by the side of the National Lottery but are nevertheless a useful tool in the fundraiser’s tool-box. They could be an even more useful tool if they were freed from the restrictions and red tape which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, talked about and which significantly hobble fundraisers who seek to use society lotteries to maximise their income.
RNIB currently runs two society lotteries: one for RNIB itself and one for Action for Blind People, which is part of the RNIB group. It raises £8 million a year through its society lotteries, which provide valuable funding for vital services such as the RNIB helpline, sight-loss advisers in hospitals—who are there to pick people up at the point when they are told that they are going blind—and talking books, which many people describe as a lifeline.
Society lotteries are a successful fundraising vehicle for RNIB but, as I say, this success could be increased were there to be a relaxation of the limits imposed on prizes, draws and turnover. In particular, the charity is restricted in how much it can generate in charitable income through its society lottery due to the £10 million annual cap on turnover or sales. This is difficult to understand, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, because this is the only form of fundraising that is capped in this way. RNIB thus well illustrates how charities can have their ability to raise funds restricted by unnecessary and burdensome regulation.
RNIB also has concerns with the regulatory regime which governs licensing. Society lotteries have achieved strong growth in recent years, reflecting their popularity with the public as means of raising money for good causes. However, if RNIB wants to sell more tickets, and thereby raise more money, it would be limited by the income and ticket sales caps. It would therefore have to register a new society lottery, which would mean that much needed charitable funds would be spent on duplicating auditing, legal, licensing and other bureaucratic costs.
As provided for by this amendment, an increase in the permissible amount of ticket sales for a single draw would enable RNIB to raise more money while at the same time limiting costs. An increase in the annual income cap would enable it to maximise its fundraising. Furthermore, if prize value limits were increased, more people could be attracted to play RNIB’s lotteries, thereby boosting the overall amount raised through tickets sales. In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has explained, the 80:20 rule, whereby 20% of proceeds have to be returned as profit to the good cause, restricts new product launches and can stifle innovation. For smaller lotteries, such as Action for Blind People’s, the requirement that 20% must always be returned can stifle growth, as it makes it difficult to invest heavily in new acquisitions. This could be alleviated by allowing lotteries to apply the 20% rule to the financial year as a whole rather than to each individual lottery.
Society lotteries are a valuable form of fundraising, not just for the RNIB but for charities across the country. They provide much needed funding for highly valued services, and evidence shows that were modest deregulation to take place, it could allow good causes across the UK to increase the amount that they receive through this popular form of fundraising.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I would like to ask a question. I know nothing about the detail of this, but I take it that these four elements that the noble Lord has described do not hang as a package. In other words, I am saying to the Minister: just for once, pick one. Okay? The case seems overwhelming. I have spent more time in this Grand Committee than I have done at any time since I was in the Minister’s position, so I know what it is like; because there is no vote, you can stonewall and accept nothing, hoping that, by the time you get to Report, you can wing it through.
Given the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, gave, I would also say to the Minister that this is not a threat to the National Lottery. I understand that when the lottery was first formed, a lot of constraints were built in to protect it. For example, someone tried to start a lottery betting on the six numbers, and I think that it was banned because it would drain off other funds. The National Lottery is now so well established that there cannot possibly be any threat to it.
There is another factor here, if I have got it right, and I do not declare an interest but I do the odd lottery myself: this would mean more choice for the player. In the National Lottery you do not get any choice. We know what the overall picture is—it is a public good, we know that massive benefits to sport, culture and our heritage have come from it, and long may that continue—but we do not get any choice. However, with the society lotteries you get a choice. You can make that your key.
I will also say, although I know that these words are not used often these days by the Government, that this is classic “big society”. Does the Minister remember that? All the elements of society lotteries—individual choice, very small beer compared to the National Lottery but substantial benefits to the societies involved—make them the big society. They fit in exactly with what the Prime Minister used to talk about. It was a good idea; he just could not sell it. The fact is that these schemes seem to fit with that.
I say to the Minister: go on, just pick one of them. I am sure that he will still be there when we get to Report—it is too late for reshuffles now—so pick one that is really good and go back to the boss, as I used to do occasionally. I used to go back and say, “Look, we’re going to be defeated on this”, and we did not really want all the mess connected with that. I know that we cannot have a vote on this, but the fact is that on Report this could be a bit tricky at the wrong time of day. It would be a lot better if the Minister showed a bit of willingness, and I think he should be prepared to accept one of them.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that we are not going to disappoint my noble friend or even the noble Lord in terms of the position of the Opposition. As someone who has spent a lifetime trying to raise money—for causes that were perhaps difficult, like the Labour Party campaign—I understand the importance of lotteries, and the importance of a range of options when it comes to raising money. However, we have to understand that this proposal would considerably change the lottery regulations, and such a change—again, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Dubs is not here—would need detailed study regarding its consequences. Not just the National Lottery but also smaller lotteries may be squeezed by the larger society lotteries that can expand and push the smaller ones aside. The Opposition would want to discuss that in detail before we could consider any changes.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I will come to that point, because in this market the proposals could result in an expansion with unforeseen circumstances and I want to address that. I have raised that with the Minister before, with regard to who may enter that market if we deregulate it. That is one of our major concerns. The principle of the National Lottery is that it was designated as a monopoly to ensure that it generates sufficient income for all the causes that Sir John Major originally envisaged for it. We need to be very careful about weakening the protection of that principle. That is the point that I am making at this stage. My noble friend Lord Rooker quite rightly pointed out that there was a range of proposals within these amendments; I will come to one of them, which could be well worth considering.
We need to protect the principle of the model that has worked successfully over the past 20 years. Measures that could have the potential to undermine that settled principle of one national lottery alongside many small small-scale society lotteries need to be avoided. I shall mention as an example the increase in prize caps for society lotteries. The level of prizes on offer to players is a fundamental differentiator between the National Lottery and society lotteries. When we introduced the National Lottery, we had that in mind. Any substantial increase in prize caps for society lotteries risks fragmenting the money spent by players across all the different lotteries available, which would lead to smaller jackpots, fewer tickets sold and, ultimately, less money for the good causes that were highlighted in the Chamber yesterday.
Lord Rooker
My noble friend is rewriting history. The Labour Party was opposed to a national lottery—I remember the years I spent in the other place when it was being promoted—because it would damage the football pools. That was the argument given. My noble friend is arguing from a monopolistic position. Where is the threat to the National Lottery? It may be a good model for a national lottery, which is fine—the past 20 years have shown that it works—but this is not the National Lottery; these are society lotteries, which are minnows compared to it. We were not always in favour of the National Lottery, just as we were not always in favour of the minimum wage, so I cannot sit here and have history rewritten.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I was not attempting to rewrite history—far from it. That is why I mentioned the debate yesterday where noble Lords referred to Sir John Major’s proposals and their legacy. In the context of the Olympic Games and their legacy, the National Lottery has played a critical role. I think that the Labour Party has learnt many lessons over the years and adopted policies that perhaps it had been concerned about. My noble friend referred to the national minimum wage. I worked for a trade union that opposed that every step of the way, but it has learnt the lesson of reconsidering positions. We are talking here about the outcome of the National Lottery and the huge amount that it has achieved for a whole range of good causes, not just the national legacy causes but local causes and, in particular, the cultural impact. Any change to that principle therefore needs to be considered extremely carefully.
The proposal that the 20% contribution should be spread over a period of time may be one that the Minister will take on board. However, another point that I want to make about any changes, and I have raised this in the Chamber, relates to the loophole that we have seen exploited by the Health Lottery. It is supposedly made up of 51 separate companies yet has the same three directors, the same office and the same branding, in effect enabling it to operate as an alternative to the National Lottery. That is something that the Minister needs to look carefully at, despite the actions of the Gambling Commission in this regard. The amount that goes to worthy causes there is 20% but it is not absolutely clear how it is spent, and its promoters are certainly operating on a commercial basis.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I will briefly add to what the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has said. In the original draft Bill that the Joint Committee scrutinised, the Ministry of Justice was the only government department that brought forward proposals of which none had been formally consulted on—not one. Although we are debating Clause 61, Clauses 62, 63, 64 and 65 are all MoJ clauses and none of them has ever been consulted on formally. This is a Christmas tree Bill with 100 different subjects—we could not look at everything, and looked at stuff on the basis of evidence. It was unique in the sense that we had one department that brought forward a range of proposals that it had not consulted on. In a way, this is given away in Clause 61 itself. Line 5 refers to,
“an annual report on standards of decision-making”.
That is the giveaway really. I have to say that the Government’s response was a bit unsatisfactory.
We need to have this short debate, however few minutes it lasts, because, to the best of my knowledge, this is where the defects arise because there is so much going on and this Bill is now much more massive than it was. I have no complaint about that; I am just stating a fact. As parliamentarians, we need further and better particulars. We did not get many to start with, which is why we did not deal with a lot of the Bill. We also had little time to do our job because we were constrained by having to report back to Parliament by 16 December.
The Ministry of Justice appears to be a bit flaky on the administration of justice in a way. That is how I would sum it up, not just on this issue but on others as well, although I am not going to go down the route of listing things. Cost was used as an argument on this, but we never had any costs or alternatives, even though, given the number of changes in the benefit system, that would have seemed a good idea.
As far as I am aware, in the representations we had from the authors of these reports they did not say that it would be a good idea if they did not have to do them. I have not checked all the evidence on the issue I raised last week, but the fact is that the Ministers have been more up-to-date than us. I thought it was worth raising that issue in this Committee, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, if only for flagging this up for Report.
There is an issue here. There were one or two issues on which the Joint Committee did not spend a lot of time, but expressed a bit of concern. Last week the debate on marine accidents showed that as well. It was not a massive issue in the committee, but as time has gone on, it seems as though the importance of the legislation is crucial; obviously I agree with deregulation. The Bill is therefore an opportunity that we should not miss. However, in this case the Government will have to come forward on Report with a much better argument for keeping Clause 61 than they have given so far.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I promise that I will be very brief. I was thinking of Lord Newton of Braintree when the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, moved this amendment—I am sorry that there is only one Conservative in the Room. As Members will know, Lord Newton was chair of the Council on Tribunals, and later chair of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council. He argued very strongly against the government proposal to abolish the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council. I only wish he was alive today, and I hope he is looking down at us. I am sure that he would have been delighted by the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, moved this amendment. I am sure that I am not alone in this House in missing him. When I was chair of ACAS I worked very closely with the then senior chairman—as they were called in those days—of the Employment Tribunals Service, my noble friend Lord Noon. He was part of the administrative tribunals system, and I also met Lord Newton on a number of occasions when he was performing the duties of the senior president.
This is part of the chipping away of tribunals. It may not seem very much on its own, but it is part of squeezing the tribunals together—which had totally different functions and history—cutting them back and now not even allowing transparency of decision-making. Also, as a former member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, I believe that this fails the test of transparency and openness. It is extremely worrying that we have these kinds of developments. It may seem a very small part of a very large Bill, but I hope very much that the Government will reconsider this in the name of transparency and good decision-making.