Shared Rural Network

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. Before I start on a detailed response, I should say that I find it hard to work out exactly what has been announced today. The money that the Minister was talking about was already announced. I am not in any sense accusing her of simply repeating a previous announcement, because there is a focus to it that was not there before. However, if the money was already available and there was nothing new in it, the arrangement seems conditional—this sounds a bit like Brexit—on a legal agreement being established in an uncertain timeframe, with uncertain consequences if it is not so done. It is therefore a sort of precursor, or perhaps a preheating, of an announcement yet to be made that an agreement has been so made.

The agreement that is being announced is one that the operators seem to have come to themselves. As was clear from the Statement, it has caused a bit of a problem. Rather unusually, it has caused the Government to suggest to Ofcom that the previously announced spectrum auction, which it has been working on for six to nine months, has to be changed at rather late notice to ensure that there are not unfortunate geographical restrictions placed upon it. If it does not all come together in an appropriate timescale, and if we do not get the solution from the operators that the Government are clearly signalling, then the whole thing goes back to square one. We will be back where we were before, with a patchy and not very satisfactory solution despite the money. I am sounding downbeat about this because, while I want to welcome it, I am a bit confused about the overegging that appears to be happening here of what is a good idea but which certainly has not yet been delivered. It is rather unusual for the Government to take steps this way forward. Perhaps there is an election coming and they wanted to get some news out. Maybe that is what it is, so perhaps I am being silly about this.

To roll back a little, we are starting from a very bad place. As the Statement makes clear, coverage from the four operators in the United Kingdom is about 66% of the UK’s geography. That translates to figures I have seen showing that about 90% of UK parliamentary constituencies are not getting complete coverage: there are, right across the country, places for which no coverage at 4G level is available from any operator, let alone more than one. We are starting from a very bad position.

We went through this in some detail when dealing with the Digital Economy Act. As Members on the Bench opposite will recall, we suggested that the Government were hopelessly unambitious in their targets and that the USO of 10 megabits should be replaced by a target of 1 gigabit for the provision of basic services through wi-fi, linked with mobile operation, to make sure that 100% of the country was covered. Under this plan, which as I understand it is skewed towards a solution which will allow for the more rapid rollout of broadband, we will get to only 95% geographical coverage. That will, of course, be much less in terms of the number of properties covered and may not reach the individuals and SMEs in rural constituencies who need these services. Nevertheless, it is certainly an improvement.

I hope, however, that the noble Baroness will explain the difference between the current ambition for a 4G solution and where the Statement ended up, saying that this is to prepare the way for the country’s 5G. As I understand it, a 5G solution to the problems we face will require probably five or 10 times as much infrastructure involvement. Is that included in this process, or is this yet to come? Are we really talking about a 4G solution?

In welcoming this, we should recognise that industry coming together to come forward with a proposal has done us all a great service. At the heart of this is the rather coy announcement that if you have a contract with an operator—as is the norm; you tend to have only one mobile phone and one operator servicing it—you will receive coverage, wherever you are. My rather naive technological brain suggests that that must include some form of roaming connection. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the Government have finally grasped this nettle and that a solution to the problem faced only by Britain—on the continent, you are linked up immediately to whichever operator has the best service available—will now be embraced? She seems to pose as a solution that, if coverage is everywhere, we will get rid of not only partial not-spots but also total not-spots, and that that can be done only if all the operators work together. If that is true, then I welcome it; it is the answer to the questions we have been posing for some time.

Finally, can the noble Baroness confirm that there will be targeted figures to measure success against? Consumers need to know that the solution proposed today will work. Some sorts of targets are needed, because it is a long time until 2022. If we could have some sense of what those markers will be and how they will be met, that would be helpful.

Whether it is 5G or 4G—and 4G is at least a step forward for most people—it is important to know the benefits available. The ability to access it while travelling on the railways and motorways is key to future development. Can the noble Baroness confirm that that will be part of the proposal? Can she say whether the funding available, which is conditional on a legal contract, will still be available if, at the end of the day, a deal does not go through and we do not have the legal construct to allow us to continue? Can she tell us that that money will not be lost?

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches, we welcome the Statement in so far as it goes, but we also note that it is not yet a done deal. I had the privilege to chair your Lordships’ Rural Economy Committee. We very quickly discovered that, on connectivity, rural areas have been left way behind. The Government told the committee that they have always recognised the need for rural areas to benefit as much as anywhere else from digital infrastructure to transform the economy. Yet, as the Statement acknowledges, it is rural areas that have really lost out. There has perhaps been recognition of a need, but so far there has been no action to cater for it.

This Statement, as some other recent Statements have done, suggests a welcome, if belated, change of heart. But it will take until 2026 to eradicate partial not-spots and reduce the total not-spot land-mass from 7% to 3%—way longer than was originally promised by the Government. Will the Minister continue to look at the option of mobile roaming in rural areas to provide at least an interim solution to help with the partial not-spots?

The shared rural network deal includes dropping the coverage requirement in the forthcoming auction of the spectrum that is to be used for 5G. Given that this deal has not yet been signed, can the Minister explain why Ofcom has today announced the start of a consultation on a new auction arrangement that does not include any coverage obligation? What will happen, for instance, if this deal does not get signed? The Minister says that she is satisfied that this deal improves on the originally proposed coverage requirements. What is the Government’s analysis of future 5G coverage? If we are still going to go by percentages, will she at least acknowledge that, if we eventually get to 55% 5G coverage, rural areas will still be losing out? Surely it would have been better to include a “rural first” requirement, so that rural areas do not get left behind?

The Statement also refers to the rollout of high-speed broadband. Since rural areas also lag behind with this form of connectivity, and so will be most reliant on the broadband universal service obligation, why will the Government not follow the advice of your Lordships’ Rural Economy Committee and increase the paltry upload and download speeds in the USO?

Finally, government efforts to mandate fibre to the premises on most new housing developments are welcome, but developments of fewer than 30 houses seem set to be excluded. Since such small developments are often in rural communities, is this another example of rural areas losing out? Will the Government think again? That said, we welcome the shared rural network deal and hope that it comes to fruition.

Local Authorities: Tourism

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

I fear that I may have to consult my colleague in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government about houses in multiple occupation. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I recognise that Birmingham is rather far from the sea but could we return to those sunny shores? In the discussions referred to by my noble friend on the Birmingham Commonwealth Games, we received from the then Minister, now the Chief Whip, the assurance that Birmingham City Council was undertaking detailed work and taking expert advice on various options for revenue-raising to offset the costs of the Games, including the use of existing powers on the introduction of a new tax such as a hotel tax. He went on to say that:

“Her Majesty’s Treasury await the conclusion of that analysis and stand ready to look at the details of any proposals put forward by the council”.—[Official Report, 24/7/19; cols. 784-85.]


That does not seem to square with what the noble Baroness said. Is that still the Government’s position? Further, when will we hear the results of those discussions?

[Baroness Barran]

The Government’s position is that we are still in discussions. I understand that my honourable friend the Minister for Sport has been in discussions with Birmingham City Council very recently and that those conversations are continuing. As we said originally, we will review its suggestions.

Online Pornography: Age Verification

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the House will be aware of my long-standing view that it is wrong in principle for the Government to require private companies, such as the BBFC, to carry out statutory functions. We had considerable reservations about the original approach taken by the Government in the Digital Economy Act, with its reliance on age verification as a surrogate for requiring companies to do much more to protect children and other vulnerable people online, but we support the duty of care approach set out in the recent White Paper.

However, yesterday’s announcement will undoubtedly mean that children will be exposed to unsuitable material for two or three years more than originally planned. This is shocking. A few months ago, we were told that the delays were due to an “administrative oversight”. Is that still the reason that the Government use? When will the report on that incident be made available?

[Baroness Barran]

I am glad that the noble Lord supports the duty of care approach, as set out in the online harms White Paper. I think all sides of the House can agree that a voluntary approach has not worked to date. In terms of the administrative oversight, that is still the reason for the original delay.

Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL]

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I come in as a tail-end Charlie on this. On the subject of disability, no matter the Long Title of the Bill, the positive experience of London 2012 hangs over it; it was a great cultural success and, as a result, the level of expectation has risen. To use flower show standards, it got its gold; everything else is expected to be at least a silver gilt. We have raised the bar and we must make sure that this level is maintained. Part of that is making sure that people know what their duties are and that people outside know what they are expected to do. Amendment 4 is a step towards this and makes my Amendment 9 totally superfluous. However, we need to know what comes with it.

When the Minister speaks again, I encourage him to guide us—and make sure that Hansard has it—to where we can find out what these duties are, so that people can look them up. If you have responsibilities that nobody knows about, and nobody knows where to check, those responsibilities die. This is the experience with lots of legislation on disability generally: if you do not know that you are supposed to do it, you do not do it; if you do not know that someone should have done it, you do not report them or pull them up on it. It is one of those patterns. There is lots of dust-gathering legislation to which this has happened. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to let us know what is going on.

The Minister has listened. He has done something that on the face of it makes things better, but how it relates to the regulation and the stuff behind it is the real question here. I hope I am not encouraging him to speak until this time next week, but we need a guide to what is going on and how this will be implemented. If we get that, many of the problems that we are having will probably occur less frequently, although there is no silver bullet.

I too have the information from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It is probably as good a description of all life’s little irritations writ large as you could possibly want. Nothing stops people taking part; it just takes the edge off it every time. We did not do that in London. We should make sure that we try to meet the standard wherever we can. I hope the Minister will tell us the legal situation on that, the penalties for it and how to make sure that if anyone is not coming up to standard, they know about it and so does the rest of the world.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, this is actually the heart of the debate we have been having on the Games, concentrated in one very small group of amendments. As he says, it may well be that we can take all the tricks that are on the table—if that metaphor actually works—at the same time if we get this right. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, that will largely depend on the Minister’s response because a lot of this is about how we judge the need to ensure that the legislation that goes through this House—and, presumably, very quickly through the other place thereafter—contains the minimum requirements appropriate for Games of this scale and stature. As I have mentioned before, it is important to note that these Games, unlike the others that we have looked at before, are very much in the direct control of the Government because the organising committee will be a non-departmental public body and the accounting officer of the department will therefore have legal and statutory responsibilities, as well as those that we might want to have placed on the organising committee and its staff in the approach to any other Games.

We want to ensure that the requirements are appropriate but not an undue burden on the organising committee in its main role, which is to produce a brilliant Games for the audience and the participants, to make sure that there is an appropriate and long-lasting urban regeneration programme for the people of Birmingham, and that we have a legacy—a point that has been made by others who have spoken—that is not just immediate but long-lasting and affects the culture and health of everyone in this country as a result of seeing, and possibly experiencing, the Games. That is a big ask for legislation that is just a few words on a piece of paper, but the issue can be addressed.

I turn to Amendment 8, which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, but I confess that I had a hand in it. It follows from the point made in Committee that we are not thinking widely enough if we restrict our concern to how the Games are received across the country, and indeed across the world, and do not think about the broadcasting element. This issue came up recently in relation to cricket but it has much wider resonance. The way that this country deals with listed events sometimes runs counter to a common-sense approach to what should be available to people, particularly in this case. I say this without in any sense trying to use it as an excuse. If the Government are taking responsibility for funding a proportion of the Games, they must also take on the responsibility of relating to the people who are paying for them through taxation. One way in which they could discharge that responsibility is by making the Games accessible through free-to-air terrestrial television, but that would require a change to the rules on the listing of events. The amendment therefore seeks to press the Government to look again at the way in which Ofcom deals with that and, if necessary, to amend or impose conditions relating to the broadcasting of the Games on a free-to-air basis. I look forward to the Government’s response.

That is the method that I want to use to test whether government Amendment 4, to which the Minister will speak shortly, meets the issues that have been raised throughout the House, including by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington, my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in a very moving speech. If we are to place all our hopes on the Government’s amendment to ensure that the annual reports are extended or carried on in legacy terms by Birmingham City Council, as my noble friend Lord Hunt said, the annual reporting specified needs to be sufficient to capture the spirit laid out in the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others.

Amendment 4 says that the report must include certain elements about the delivery of the Games and details of how they promote the values of the Commonwealth Games Federation, which, as has already been mentioned, includes a huge amount of additional activity. I accept all that; the Commonwealth Games has done a great deal of work on these issues, which is reflected in the values. However, I hope the Minister will recognise that proposed new subsection (2)(c) simply refers to,

“details of what the Organising Committee has done to ensure that Games events are accessible to disabled people”.

The wording used by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in Amendment 5 is much more appropriate. I am not seeking a change to the wording, but I wonder whether the Minister recognises the very obvious point that by not mentioning that the Games participants will include disabled people, and all that implies, the question remains as to why that wording is not used. The simple reference to “accessible” does not pick up the richness of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. However, the recommendations could be improved if we had more of a sense of what will be in the charter.

On sustainability, the amendment framed by the noble Lord on behalf of the Government refers at subsection (2)(d) to,

“details of what the Organising Committee has done to promote sustainability”.

However, if we read across, the charter refers not just to sustainability but to specific development goals and COP 21. It is therefore much richer and more engaged with what the issues are about.

I will not go through all these points, but I accept, as I think noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, does, that if we got behind Amendment 4 and it became the main focus of what we are trying to achieve in setting standards for the Games that are not burdensome but will reflect the importance of human rights, the elimination of fraud and corruption, the carrying out of sustainable development activities, and most particularly—because it is the most important aspect—the acceptance that these Games reflect the totality of human existence, whether able or disabled in terms of performance, and that they therefore must be accessible to all, not just in terms of physical presence but on broadcasting media, then I think we will be moving in the right direction. But it is important that we hear from the Minister whether he thinks the amendment, as drafted, does that. If not, might he be prepared to reflect on what has been said during this short debate and bring it back at Third Reading in a slightly better form to reflect the issues raised here?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to discuss these amendments and for noble Lords’ constructive comments. I should say right at the beginning that I have been struck all the way through the passage of the Bill by the fact that there is cross-party consensus that this is a good idea, that the Games will provide a tremendous opportunity for the West Midlands and Birmingham, and that amendments from noble Lords are, as I said at Second Reading, trying to improve the Bill. I am taking this on board seriously. That is why we have made some changes and amendments, and I hope that by the end of my remarks, with some further reassurance, that will be adequate. I am also sorry that I might go on a bit, but it is important to get some things on the record. I will address all the amendments.

We support the intention behind these amendments, as I said, and the paramount importance of delivering Games that are fully accessible to everyone. I turn to the amendments, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on accessibility first. As accessibility is already at the forefront of Games planning, I do not agree that all the amendments are necessary on the face of this Bill, and I will explain why.

First, however, I want to first address the comments that I made in Committee on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, kindly gave me advance notice that I may have suggested that I do not consider accessibility to be of great importance. I want to be clear that that is absolutely not the case. In this vein, I hope now to provide the necessary assurance that accessibility is at the core of these Games. I say to the noble Baroness that, if I gave that misleading impression, it is my fault and that is a lesson learnt that we have to be very careful in our language, even if we are doing it on spec, as it were. I hope that this will reassure the noble Baroness.

Small-scale Radio Multiplex and Community Digital Radio Order 2019

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome this SI, but the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, gets to the nub of the matter, and perhaps some of our concerns. The Minister will recall that I asked an Oral Question about local independent radio. As we have heard, some of the national companies—Global, for example—have been buying up local commercial radio stations and syndicating the programmes made in London, with an opportunity to break out for local news and weather. This means that the opportunities for people to be engaged at a local level in the radio industry are lost because the programmes are made in London, for example. Community radio gives us that opportunity to allow the local voice to be heard and for local people to be involved in making those programmes, not just speaking into the microphone but in the production of programmes, which is equally important.

We want reassurance on the issue of the 30% in six different companies. There could be a benefit—I shall speak against myself for a moment—where those commercial operators would provide resources for the community radio stations to give them the opportunity to develop. We could also see an opportunity if a big news story broke in a very localised community and the local community radio was there; it could be picked up and used on the larger independent commercial radio station in the area, or nationally for that matter. I can see advantages. I suppose we have to watch this very carefully.

The Minister might have answered this, but could he clarify again whether the order states that a local commercial radio station broadcasting on small-scale DAB will receive an automatic renewal of its analogue licence? Otherwise, we welcome this legislation.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, we too welcome the broad approach of the legislation. In so doing, I echo the points already made. Some very difficult questions have been raised by some of the issues the Minister referred to in his opening speech and picked up by the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Storey, but the central one, which I think we all got a fair amount of correspondence about, is how we provide for and support the community activity we are looking for from the digital radio service or services, and ensure the commercial pressures from those larger-scale operators do not squeeze out that initiative. I do not think we will be able to bottom this out in the debate today, but the SI goes some way to do so. Indeed, about four pages’ worth of restrictions and limits are being placed on ownership and various types of constructions that can be made for companies operating in this area, which will try to achieve that balance. We will have to see how that works in practice, but the issue has been well raised.

I will make two points about the broader context. I remember asking the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, when the Private Member’s Bill she supported went through the House what its implication might be for the broader context of digital radio in this country. We have been waiting for some time for some news about the digital switchover date. I am sure the Minister will have a note about that. Could we see whether this brings us a bit closer? Of the two criteria, I think that more than 50% of new cars being bought that had digital radios fitted as standard was reached three or four years ago, but we were also waiting for more than 50% of the listening public to be listening on digital services. I think the Minister said in his opening remarks that that is now well over 50%. The barriers to that appear to be disappearing, and if, as we are hearing, local radio is moving in swarms—even in Harrogate—to digital, why are we not hearing about the switchover date from the Government? Is this not the sort of “get up and go” we have been promised by the soon to become new Prime Minister, taking advantage of the new technology and driving it through for the greater benefit of Britain? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Of the comments received, there are three small issues I want to leave with the Minister as questions. The question of coverage is to some extent included in the SI, but the broader question of whether all communities will benefit is not. Is there any intention behind the SI? If not, will the Government think about looking at this within a year or two’s time to make sure that all communities, certainly the ones beyond urban areas, are not left behind? True local radio provision has to be local for everybody. This is a step in the process of trying to get greater community radio coverage. I wondered whether there was anything in the thinking that would encourage the point made by Local Radio Group that some areas are still not covered.

The comments from the Community Media Association about making sure that we have a sufficient number of not-for-profit companies organised have already been mentioned. That raises the question of the Community Radio Fund, which is referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum. It has not been uplifted from its current level of £400,000, despite the fact that there are more community radio stations operating and possibly more to come. Does the Minister have any thoughts on how that fund might be moved forward and whether there are any prospects of that happening? It will certainly be an important floor for those wanting to operate these systems to have at least some public money available to get them started.

The third question concerns the impact this order will have on the local commercial radio services that are currently broadcasting, and the question of analogue licence renewal. He said that the extension was going to be made for a 20-year period, to ensure that those currently in it do not feel that they have to go through the process of resubmitting their bids for new licences. The point has been made, and I think we accept, that a balance has to be struck between those who are proposing these services and ensuring that they continue to exist, and not placing undue burdens. However, 20 years seems a long time. Given that this has already been extended once, what will the impact be on trying to drive competition in this area? Surely, if a number of people were interested in bidding for these licences, the opportunity to do so would be when they are advertised. If I am repeating correctly what the Minister said, we are again going to lose out again for another five years on that. Perhaps he will comment on that.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I am very grateful for all noble Lords’ comments. I detected a general approval of the order. It provides a benefit to the country, allowing stations specific to local areas and local communities to be set up, which may, to an extent, counter the effects mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Storey.

Starting with my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, I completely agree that even in this age of Netflix and video-on-demand services, radio is still indispensable. I can provide reassurance to him and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that the whole point of these requirements is to avoid a concentration of ownership, and that there will be a local interest. In every single small-scale radio multiplex, there will be a firm reservation for community radio. Even though we think that it is beneficial to have a mixed policy of commercial and community, there must always be a reservation for community, which will be a minimum of three. Ofcom has the power to vary that to an unlimited higher amount, depending on its assessment of demand. There are also specific concentration rules stating that no organisation can hold more than 20% of the multiplex licences. This will prevent a concentration.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, also mentioned national operators. They will be able to hold only a 30% stake in any company, and they are limited to being involved in a maximum of six licences. There are 700 expressions of interest already; I think that is a meaningful limit. There is a strict overlapping rule, which will avoid a local monopoly, and there is also an adjacent area rule. This prevents small-scale radio multiplex licensees holding adjacent licences where the overlap is significant, and avoids operators trying to replicate local regional coverage by holding a collection of small-scale multiplexes.

Lastly in answer to my noble friend, when Ofcom considers a new small-scale multiplex licence, it will look favourably on an application which contains community radio within it. There will be a presumption in favour of community radio if it is combined with commercial radio to set up a multiplex. We set up the rules deliberately to prevent some of the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, mentioned. In many cases, the community and local radio element will benefit from commercial radio as well, because it will be able to contribute to the investment required. Admittedly, the investment required is much less: one of the benefits of the new technology, and the reason there are so many expressions of interest, is that it makes the price of one transmitter, I think, £9,000, and £17,000 for two. It is much more affordable than it was. We have tried to promote competition and diversity of ownership and to address some of the concerns about concentration of ownership; that is why we have taken those steps.

Lotteries: Good Causes

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The noble Lord is right: we stressed in the reforms that we would preserve the unique status of the National Lottery. That is why we did not raise the annual sales limit by as much as was suggested in the consultation, and by as much as some of the larger society lotteries wanted. We said that the Gambling Commission would take specific evidence and look at the evidence for raising the annual sales limit to £50 million to make sure that it did not impact on the National Lottery. As far as sport is concerned, the Gambling Commission has found no evidence that society lotteries have impacted on the National Lottery in any way. Indeed, they are complementary; in both sectors, lotteries have increased in recent years. I know that sport is of interest to the noble Lord, but there is no reason to think that funding for sport will reduce. Indeed, for next year’s Olympics the amount of money has been underwritten by the Treasury.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

The outside world will have noticed the very generous welcome given by the whole House, but particularly by the other side, to my noble friend Lady Hayter when she entered this morning.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

It is perhaps a bit forward of me, but I am sure she would never do it herself, and I should like to thank the House for its generosity on this occasion. With changes around on both sides of House and imminent adjustments to the order of things, I risk congratulating my opposition spokesman, who has today celebrated three years in his position in that department. I hope it will last.

May I take it from the recent Statement referred to by the Minister that the Government accept that there is space within lottery activity in this country for both the National Lottery dealing with national causes and society lotteries? The figures he quoted for the percentage going to good causes are good but concerns remain—alluded to, I think, in the Statement—about the transparency of the payments of some society lotteries and the payments they make to individuals.

Gambling: Children in Africa

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I completely understand the worries behind the noble Baroness’s Question. It is important that companies obey the law, but I do not understand why she thinks the Government are aiding and abetting that. We expect companies to obey the law in jurisdictions, and if they do not, they are required to report to the Gambling Commission. It is up to the Gambling Commission to take regulatory action if it deems it correct. Ultimately it can take a gambling licence away from an operator if it is not regarded as suitable to hold one.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, is not the most egregious issue here that the sort of activity witnessed in the reports, and referred to already, is being used in this country, where high-visibility celebrities endorse the active participation of those watching the sport to gamble in it? This may well account for—and the Minister is aware of this—the quadrupling of the number of 11-16 year-olds who have now been classified as problem gamblers. All we have at the moment is a voluntary code. Is it not time for this to become a statutory code?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The code has made significant progress, and this is in response to evidence, when it appears. If there is evidence that there is a problem, the Gambling Commission will look at it. It is the adviser to the Government, and the Government have said many times that if there is a problem that needs addressing, we will do so. There has been substantial change, both on advertising and gambling activities, to restrict the amount of gambling advertised and its availability to young people. The issue is that there is a difference in this country because those regulations are enforced, and there is also substantial progress on a voluntary basis.

Free Television Licences

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, under the 2015 funding settlement it was agreed that responsibility would go to the BBC in return for an increase in its licence fee that was guaranteed and index-linked for five years. The director-general promoted that agreement and that is why we are disappointed with the BBC’s decision. As for the Peacock report, which as my noble friend said was 33 years ago, the funding model was considered then, but it was also considered again as part of the charter review. I am afraid to say to my noble friend that only 1.5% of those consulted agreed that having advertising on the BBC was a good idea.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, is not the real issue here whether we can believe the party opposite when it made a manifesto commitment to provide free television licences for those over 75 for the whole of the Parliament? The Minister has previously responded on this issue at great length and shared with the House his concern at being beaten up by this, but we are talking about the integrity and truthfulness of his party. What will he do about it? It is not a question of the figures; it is about what action can be taken. Last time, the excuse was that there was no legislation and it would take too long. We have a DCMS Bill in the House at the moment. What is wrong with tabling an amendment to that?

Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL]

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, I touched on the issue of disability in the previous group of amendments and this is an opportunity to file it down. After his speech the noble Lord can be forgiven for not zoning in on that one small amendment.

The Commonwealth Games make it even more important that the disability aspect is done well because the para events are taking place at the same time as the main Games and are integrated into them to a far greater extent. It is worth remembering that. It means that spectators will not have to come back for a para event but will see a wheelchair race after watching something else. It sends the message that it is a normal and accessible part of the Games—that, no matter how wonderful it is by itself, it is a part of the norm of sport.

As both categories of events are taking place at the same time, the challenge of providing more facilities, camps and so on will add more pressure. Some indication that the community have taken this on board and is doing something about it would be reassuring to anyone who will need to use the facilities. For para athletes the idea that they are not excluded and that they can get around with good planning and organisation is well worth taking away and is a genuine legacy unto itself.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee that I was not able to be present for Second Reading but I am pleased to participate now in Committee on this important Bill. It brings back memories of previous debates in this House in relation to other Games and many of the issues we were able to agree around the House in a positive way. It allowed the Olympic Games to go forward in the way that they did and, in passing, allowed the Glasgow Games similarly to progress.

With the passing of time we gain more knowledge and understanding about the context in which these decisions are taken. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington said, it was possible a few years ago to take for granted that issues such as the ones that are currently at the forefront of our thinking would be dealt with and there was no problem. However, when the Minister comes to respond, will he reflect on whether we need to be careful about not passing up by default—a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—an opportunity to pick up on the particularities of the approach that we want to see in the organising committee for areas where our range of concerns has not yet been taken into account?

There is a question about whether or not we should put in the Bill measures to cover something that would probably happen anyway, is not contentious and to not do it would be illegal. It is still worth adding such measures to the Bill and seeing them in print to be absolutely sure that there is no doubt that people could comment that we were not fulfilling all these mandates.

It is a question of equity, empathy and making sure that any future Games, looking to gain substance for what they might do from this debate and discussion also recognise that we took the extra step necessary to make sure that these points were important. If it is important for us as a society, it may be worth including certain superfluous wording to make sure that there is no mistake for those who might have cause to cause difficulty in doing it. I support the amendment and look forward to the response from the Minister.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this amendment and to the noble Lords who subsequently spoke to it. On the previous group, I said that the management agreement is between three parties—the Secretary of State, the organising committee and the Commonwealth Games Federation—but actually, it is between just the organising committee and the Secretary of State. To save me writing to everyone, I put that on the record. I knew there were three people; the accounting officer also signs it. Moving swiftly on, I accept the point the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, made about signing things by putting them in the Bill. There is another way of making clear things that happen and which we commit to, and that is by me saying things from the Dispatch Box.

The amendment seeks to ensure that sports venues and events for the Games are accessible to athletes and spectators and are funded accordingly. As I explained on the previous amendment, I do not agree that an explicit reference to accessibility is needed in the financial assistance provision in Clause 1. I do not agree that it is necessary to provide for regulations to ensure that accessibility issues are considered as part of the planning and delivery of the Games. However, I welcome the opportunity provided by my noble friend Lord Moynihan to speak on accessibility, which is such an important issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, highlighted.

The Bill is not explicit about every activity or workstream that the organising committee will undertake, but it does not follow that those particular activities will not be taken forward. The Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games provide a unique combined sports and parasport competition programme—unlike the Olympics—which demonstrates a truly integrated approach to accessibility. At present the parasport programme includes seven parasports. One further discipline, para table tennis, has been recommended for inclusion and is now subject to the Commonwealth Games Federation membership vote on additional sports. With the inclusion of para table tennis, the parasport programme for Birmingham 2022 would be the most extensive ever for a Commonwealth Games.

The organising committee will follow the same principle of a truly integrated approach in developing its accessibility strategy to include spectators, athletes, media, broadcasters, the Games workforce and volunteers. The organising committee has confirmed that it will appoint a dedicated accessibility manager who will develop the accessibility strategy. When developing this strategy, the Games will draw upon a full range of accessibility good practice, including lessons learned since the production of the International Paralympic Committee’s 2013 guidance, such as lessons from the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow in 2014 and in Gold Coast in 2018. The organising committee will work collaboratively with partners, local authorities, accessibility consultants and local organisations to ensure that venues and services are designed, operated and delivered to ensure that everyone, regardless of ability or any impairments, has a fully accessible and positive Games experience. This is essential for an integrated Games. The organising committee will also, of course, meet the applicable accessibility legislation and guidance when designing and delivering both competition and non-competition venues.

The organising committee will also consider issues such as financial capability, better use of technology, affordable ticketing and access to public transport, alongside understanding what local communities need. This will ensure that all people who live in the local communities have the very best access to the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games. With accessibility at the core of the Games, the existing language of the financial assistance clause—Clause 1—already enables funding to be provided for this purpose. It includes the words,

“any other purpose connected to, or arising from, the Games”.

I hope that I have been able to reassure my noble friend about the central importance that accessibility will play in a truly integrated Games, and I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Perhaps I might put to the Minister a further point that occurred to me while he was speaking. That was a very impressive list of contextual regulatory and other activity that will ensure the delivery of a Games of the type that he talks about. However, it struck me that he will have heard some of the words offered by other bodies in the sporting world—I think particularly of Premier League football clubs. For many years they have said that they will upgrade their stadia and ensure that they are made more fit for disabled access but they have failed to do so. Does that not give him cause for some concern?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The partners organising the Commonwealth Games have a very different motivation. Apart from us, they include the Commonwealth Games Federation and local authorities—I think that those are most of the partners. They have a very clear motivation to make sure that these integrated Games—I repeat that, deliberately, they have the biggest para representation ever—work well. I suggest that the motivation of a Premiership football club is somewhat different.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, I received a briefing on this subject from the Sports and Recreation Alliance. The future of sports betting is an interesting topic. I will be interested to hear what the Government have to say at this time. This Bill may not be the best vehicle, but a quick report on the Government’s thinking would be very helpful.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with what has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is right to have raised this point in relation to these Games, but it has much wider resonance in how sport interfaces with the betting community and vice versa. We need a bit of guidance from the Minister on this. The issue is wider than whether those who wish to gamble can do so in a fair and effective way in the narrow sense of their returns, prices, how odds are obtained and so on. It is about whether broader law allows the intellectual property that goes into the make-up of a game—which is then reused widely for entertainment value and therefore draws wider attention, payments and fees—to be taxed in a way that would allow it to make a fair return to grass-roots sports and access to training; the entertainment aspects are not the only areas we need to be concerned about. This is a much wider question that we will need to come back to.

The Minister will recall, because he was in the department at the time, that we had hopes for a horserace betting right that at one point was going to take over from the convoluted ways in which the horserace betting levy is exercised and paid, issues that I think still lie on the table. The Minister might want to remind us where we are on that because I think it is still unfinished business. The important issue that was raised was whether those who owned, reared, trained and exercised horses and were part of that industry were able to gain the benefits that came straight from the betting side of the game that, through the complicated mechanisms of the Horserace Betting Levy Board, had fallen into desuetude, not least because of the way in which those who operated the betting had moved offshore.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, on Amendment 14, I am afraid that steroid abuse is growing in this country, not just among professional athletes but generally among the population and the lower tiers of athletics—rugby union suffered in Wales from too much of it, and there has been a little bit of a hotspot down there. There is also the matter of body image. Okay, it may be the drug of choice for only a period of time, but we have had to take action. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats and the Minister have had a wonderful exchange about “Love Island” on various points about this, because it was quite clear that people on that were very pumped up from using unregulated drugs. There is a problem with steroid abuse and body mass-building drugs in this country at the moment. It would be interesting to hear, through the vehicle of the noble Lord’s amendment, about the Government’s current thinking on this. There will be considerable disagreement over whether criminalisation is the right way forward. However, some form of strategy is clearly required, as is some form of intervention, even if it is just better education around this. But surely the fact that athletes are getting away with this at an elite level is not helping.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this House owes a great amount of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his campaigning over the years on this and related issues. He sees every opportunity to bring forward yet another version of his thinking on these matters. Once again, he has shown that we have a problem here that at some point will crystallise in a way that will require us to act fast. We should be thinking hard about some of the issues he spoke about when he moved this amendment. I think we will now hear from the Minister that everything is perfect and nothing needs to change. There is a certain amount of self-satisfaction around this, because we have heard that before on other occasions. I am in no sense being critical of him; he has a good record to defend, and I am not saying that he should not do so. However, time is moving ahead of us, and we will have to start to move on.

We have no specific legislation in this country to prevent one of our most important common social activities being affected by match fixing or doping. No criminal offence is created by people deciding to cause a goal not to be scored or to be scored, runs to be taken or people to be bowled out on particular balls. The only way that can be addressed at the moment is through the Fraud Act, which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned. It is long overdue for us to begin thinking seriously about the need for specific rules, regulations and laws with regard to sport.

So much depends on it, not just for those who bet on it, although it is bad enough when that happens. Indeed, the case behind some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was the fixing of a cricket match, which was treated under the Fraud Act. The very faith of supporters and audiences going to watch matches will be checked if they do not think that they are seeing a fair game or fight, or if there is any sense that people are being paid on the sides to influence the outcome.

Match fixing and the particularities related to it are a real and present danger. Do we need to act on that in relation to Birmingham? Should we think seriously about implementing one or more of the points made in Amendment 13? We have to think long and hard about this. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, it relates to the question of doping or the using of drugs and artificial stimulants in sport.

As we have discussed, there are questions about what constitutes match fixing, and what type of drugs could be considered performance enhancing or, in some cases, performance disenhancing, if that is the right word. The principle here is still important. It is an attempt to obtain a result by defrauding those who do not participate in taking drugs. It reduces people’s enjoyment in the games they watch. It is not about fair play but about those who have the ability to cheat best. Those who are caught are the ones who are stupid about this. There is now so much effective doping in sport that, as we learned in the Winter Olympic Games from the state-aided support for the Russian teams, this has gone beyond the individual and whether they achieve a better result as a result of taking drugs. When it got to that stage, it seemed obvious that the world bodies would take action. However, they have not effectively resolved this, even though there is some hope that they may still get around to doing so. In the interim, the only agencies that can operate on this are our own Governments. Action needs to happen on this in this country, because other countries are moving ahead. It is time the Government fessed up to this and began taking steps in the right direction. This may well be their opportunity.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions. I also agree that we owe a great deal to my noble friend Lord Moynihan, even if, on occasion, I have suffered from that. I am not complacent about this, because it is a serious issue that we need to think hard about. I hope I will be able to explain what is happening in Birmingham. I will not be able to agree with everything my noble friend said, and I will explain why. However, we certainly take this seriously, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that it is an abuse of spectators and of other athletes. Although some of these issues are covered in existing legislation, I wonder—I have said this in the past—whether it is not covered under fraud, particularly when we have professional athletes. But that is by the by. We take this seriously and I will explain what we are doing about it.

These amendments require the organising committee to publish plans for addressing match fixing and its rules for anti-doping in Birmingham. They would require the organising committee to prepare and publish a plan for preventing match fixing in Birmingham, and it would be required to publish anti-doping rules for Birmingham to comply with UK anti-doping rules and the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code. It would also criminalise anyone found guilty of committing a doping offence at the Games, and they would be liable to fines and imprisonment.

There is no doubt that the Government and the Games partners are fully committed to ensuring the integrity and fairness of the Games. That is why the organising committee will be working with the Commonwealth Games Federation and partners around the Commonwealth to ensure that we deliver a Games free from corruption.

The United Kingdom already has robust internal processes in place to combat match fixing threats through bodies such as the Gambling Commission and the Sports Betting Integrity Forum. Of course, match fixing is a cross-border issue and one that we take very seriously. That is why we demonstrated our commitment to international collaboration in this area by signing the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions—more commonly known as the Macolin convention—in December last year. The convention encourages sports organisations and competition organisers to put appropriate measures in place, such as adopting principles of good governance and educating athletes.

The Government are fully committed to rooting out corruption in sport and have played a leading role since the 2016 London anti-corruption summit. We have been instrumental in developing the new International Partnership Against Corruption in Sport—IPACS—working with a range of other Governments and sports bodies such as the International Olympic Committee. Indeed, the Commonwealth Games Federation is also a member of IPACS. In addition, the Commonwealth Games Federation has a very strict code of ethics which refers to match fixing. An updated version of this code will be approved in November 2019 and will come into force in January 2021, in time for the Games. It is our view that these existing measures will deliver a Games free from corruption.

Further, in respect of anti-doping, I reassure noble Lords that the Government and Games partners recognise this as one of the most important fights in the battle for sport’s integrity. The organising committee, in developing its anti-doping approach for the Games, will ensure that this not only covers Games-time athlete sample collection and testing but engagement with anti-doping organisations across the Commonwealth and an athlete education programme. These measures will aim to ensure that we deliver a clean and fair sports programme and that the highest possible standards are upheld.

The organising committee has already committed to anti-doping obligations as part of the hosting requirements agreed with the Commonwealth Games Federation. This ensures that anti-doping measures at the Games will comply with the World Anti-Doping Code and the Commonwealth Games Federation’s Anti-Doping Standard, and therefore will satisfy the requirements my noble friend has set out in the amendment. However, the amendment also mentions a provision to criminalise doping, which my noble friend has been assiduous in pushing at every legislative opportunity—at least recently. Noble Lords may be aware that Government commissioned a review into the criminalisation of doping, the results of which were published in October 2017. This followed a period of consultation. The review found that there was no compelling case to criminalise the act of doping in the UK. That reflected the strong consensus of those interviewed, including UK Anti-Doping and the World Anti-Doping Agency. None of those interviewed was in favour of criminalising doping in sport.

I hope I have provided assurance of the Government’s and the Games partners’ full commitment to addressing issues of integrity for the 2022 Games and, above all, to delivering Games which are fair and clean. The Games are already committed to upholding the anti-doping standards set out in my noble friend’s amendment. With that reassurance, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

18: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Organising Committee reports: ticket applications
(1) Within six months of the date on which this section enters into force, the Secretary of State must direct the Organising Committee to prepare a report outlining its progress in determining the process by which members of the public may apply for Games tickets.(2) The Organising Committee must—(a) comply with the direction within a period of twelve months beginning on the day on which the direction is issued, and(b) upon completion of the report, send it to the Secretary of State and publish it in such a way as it deems appropriate.(3) Upon receiving the report from the Organising Committee, the Secretary of State must lay it before both Houses of Parliament.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am sorry for this slight misunderstanding. I was moving house when the amendments were being drawn up, so I was unable to be physically present. I therefore launched into the ether a series of thoughts; they have crystallised into five perfectly formed amendments, which are based entirely on a rather hazy discussion with my noble friend Lord Griffiths about the things that I felt we had not got quite right in 2011 in scrutinising what was then the Olympic Games amendment Bill. To some extent, therefore, the issues raised by the amendments in this group—there is an additional amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington—have already been touched on. However, it is worth doing so again because we experienced problems in the process of trying to get the 2011 Bill ready for the Olympic Games; we were not quite sure how everything would work and, on reflection, there were one or two issues.

On Amendment 18, there was some confusion in 2011 when the then Olympic Games amendment Bill was being created—there certainly was when it was passed and became an Act in the run-up to the Games—about how exactly the organising committee would arrange for tickets to be dispersed to the public. In a sense, that was borne out because many of us who went to the Games and enjoyed them were frustrated by the difficulty we had in accessing tickets in the real world—partly because it was a virtual world; you had to spend time with your finger hovering over your computer screen, hoping that you would get a ticket when the next batch was released. I am sure that the people responsible for the Birmingham Games are aware of those difficulties and will not be overcome by the technological issues that affected the Olympic Games because time has moved on, but it is worth reflecting on whether we should be more open with the public about what will happen and on the fact that the Games will be very popular so tickets will be hard to get. The process through which tickets are dispersed should be displayed in an open, transparent way for the public so that they understand better how to use it. People getting frustrated because they cannot understand the system is a sure way of giving the Games a bad smell from the beginning, so it should be thought about.

Amendment 19 follows the same thought in relation to pricing structures. The Games, certainly the Olympic Games, are complicated in terms of who can access what. Looking back at the 2012 Games, one of the biggest frustrations was the number of empty seats in the stadia. People were told that tickets had sold out almost a year beforehand and that none were available, yet when they turned up to watch something because their friends with tickets told them about it, it was clear that a lot of seats were available. All organisers of big events need to think about the pricing structures; I include availability, in the real sense, in that. I wonder whether anything might be said about the process that will be adopted for Birmingham.

Amendment 20 deals with a matter that we have already talked about: anti-touting. There are two issues here. In this country, the rules on what can and cannot be touted—in other words, sold to anybody who wants to go to an event—are still in formation. For instance, it is illegal to tout tickets for football matches in the vicinity of the ground; I think that that applies to just Premier League matches but it may apply to all football matches. The police will arrest you if you try to do so. It does not apply to cricket and rugby matches or other mass sporting events, so you often see this when you go as a casual visitor. It is possible to have local regulations; indeed, this issue goes back to a broader discussion and a campaign run by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on how to reform the secondary ticketing market. There has been a great deal of success in this area but there may still be difficulties; Amendment 21, which I will come on to in a moment, addresses that. Amendment 20 is mainly about being sure in advance of what method we are talking about: will it be like football; will it be like the Olympic Games, where no touting was allowed in the vicinity; or will there be a more open platforming system—in which case, we should know about it in advance?

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

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

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

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

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

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

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

With that explanation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his full response. I apologise for the slightly interrogative nature of my interventions. I am looking forward to his letter. I am sure that, as always, it will be well expressed and answer the point. We have covered all the important points and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

Age Verification

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier. I have come, as is probably obvious from my dress, from a memorial service for the late Jeremy Heywood, former head of the British Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary. The theme of that wonderful event was the quality of the British Civil Service. Its skills and expertise are unparalleled in the modern world, and it is a true legacy of his work in that period. It is therefore rather sad to come from that to this, which appears to be an apologia for the work of civil servants. I assume that it is civil servants we are talking about here and not Ministers, although the Minister did not say that in the Statement. Honest mistakes happen, and I do not suggest that anything other than that is at stake here.

Having said that, it would be helpful to know more about what has been happening and how it will be progressed to make sure we learn from the mistakes. When was this error discovered? I note that the issue is about the Technical Standards and Regulations Directive; it does not say this in the Statement, but that was brought in in 2015, so we have had some four years of experience of it. I cannot believe that the Minister will say in response that the department has had no experience of that regulations directive, because it has passed a large number of regulations over the last few years, which we have enjoyed going through together. But it certainly means that the department is aware of the structure under which this regulations directive operates. It is therefore surprising that it was unable to meet the standard for the age verification for online pornography SI that we are talking about.

Secondly, as it does not say this in the Statement, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm when the Secretary of State learned of this error. Could he give us some more details about how it came to pass?

The Statement says there is going to be a review. That is obviously right. There are two things I want to ask about that. First, it says, rather interestingly, that there will be “external elements”. I assume that does not mean they are going to meet outside in the park and do it in the sun, but could the Minister flesh that out a little? Are we talking here about a mixed group, including external independent persons, who will be able to bring objectivity to the arrangements? It would help if he could make that clear. Secondly, will the review be published when it is completed? With an error of this magnitude, which is going to cause so much difficultly, there is a case for that, so I would be grateful if the Minister could respond.

Behind all this, is there not a bigger question? The Statement hinted that there are those who feel that the way the Government are progressing in this matter is not right. It is based on an assumption that technology will operate in a way that it probably will not, and is based on an old-fashioned view about how technology will help us get to the point that we all want across this House and wider society, which is where children should not be exposed to pornography. The truth is that, although the Statement says that this set of regulations was due to come into force on 15 July, in fact that is a later date than was originally proposed, which was much earlier in the year. This is probably because the issue of the technology itself has not yet been clarified.

There is a wider question about that. The Statement falls into the mistake of equating age verification with action to prevent pornography coming before children. As the latter part of the Statement makes clear, a lot more needs to be done here. This particular regulation—although in no sense do I want to dilute our support for it—may prove not to be the most important element of what we are talking about. The draft code of practice on online child safety, engagement with companies and the new guidance that has been published are all very well, but the online harms White Paper, with its requirement for a duty of care to be placed on companies providing material for the internet, will be the one major step forward that surely will break the dam on this issue. We must focus on that.

Therefore, we should perhaps take time to reflect on whether we are pressing too hard for something that may not turn out to be the long-term solution, without giving the body—even though I think the BBFC is the wrong body—the powers to carry out the work of closing down sites and stopping money flowing to them. Nevertheless, we support the general aim and objective set out in the White Paper and wish to see it brought forward. Age verification is a surrogate for what we are trying to do. It will not solve the problem by itself. It has already been proved that it is easy to get round. Can the Minister confirm that he takes the broader point that there is more here than this particular issue?