Deregulation Bill

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

Indeed they did, and I think they made a very wise decision and that businesses and the public in Newcastle will benefit from the Government’s sensible option of a late-night levy. I hope that other councils up and down the country will follow the example of the hon. Lady’s council and introduce such a levy, which not only helps deal with public disorder, but provides a necessary income stream to recognise the cost of disorder to a particular city.

I appreciate that the hon. Lady’s focus has been on the Deregulation Bill rather than on the subject of alcohol so she will not have had sight of all the issues, but she said that we have blocked the public health licensing objective. That is not true. The matter remains under consideration. The fact is that if she looks at the local alcohol action areas, she will see that they are being used as a pilot for what might be done for public health licensing objectives. I agree that there is a public health issue about alcohol that should be taken into account, but it is not as simple as it is sometimes made out. That matter is being taken forward under the guise of the local alcohol action areas introduced by the Government.

The hon. Lady mentioned fees, and I reiterate that they will be subject to consultation. She wondered whether local councils are out of pocket, and asserted that they are out of pocket as a consequence of handling the present licensing regime. Taking that at face value and assuming she is right for the purpose of this discussion, if that is the case, the introduction of a light-touch regime will divert people from what is—according to her—presumably a loss-making activity for local councils to one that is rather simpler and will therefore reduce the loss for local councils. That is the logic of her position, so I hope that she will welcome the measure on that basis. I confirm that it is subject to the affirmative procedure, so there will be a full opportunity for Members on both sides of the House to contribute to the discussion as the measure is taken forward in a sensible way.

Lastly, I can tell the hon. Member for Luton North that minimum unit pricing remains an option. It is on the radar—it has not been ruled out—and it will be particularly on the radar if the alcohol industry does not respond sensibly to the challenges made by the Government. I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 1

‘Part to be inserted as Part 5A of the Licensing Act 2003

“Part 5A

sale of alcohol at community events etc and ancillary business sale of alcohol

Conditions for permitted sales

110A  General conditions

(1) A sale by retail of alcohol is a permitted sale by virtue of this Part if—

(a) the community event conditions (set out in section 110B or in regulations made under that section) or the ancillary business sales conditions (set out in section 110C or in regulations made under that section) are satisfied in relation to it, and

(b) the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (5) below are satisfied in relation to it.

(2) The sale must take place on premises specified in a notice that complies with section 110D (a “Part 5A notice”).

(3) No counter notice under section 110J must have been given in relation to the Part 5A notice.

(4) The sale must take place during the period of 36 months beginning with the date when the Part 5A notice takes effect.

(5) The sale must take place between 07.00 a.m. and 11.00 p.m.

110B  Community event conditions

(1) The community event conditions, in relation to a sale by retail of alcohol, are the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (6) and any additional conditions set out in regulations under subsection (7).

(2) The sale must be made by or on behalf of a body that is—

(a) of a prescribed description,

(b) does not trade for profit, and

(c) meets any prescribed criteria.

(3) The sale must be ancillary to an event that—

(a) is taking place on the premises,

(b) is organised by the body by or on whose behalf the sale is made,

(c) has been advertised in advance, and

(d) meets any prescribed criteria.

(4) The sale must take place on the premises during the course of the event.

(5) The alcohol must be sold for consumption on the premises during the course of the event.

(6) The number of persons present on the premises at the time of the sale must not exceed 300.

(7) Regulations may provide for additional conditions prescribed in the regulations to be community event conditions.

110C  Ancillary business sales conditions

(1) The ancillary business sales conditions, in relation to a sale by retail of alcohol, are the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (5) and any additional conditions set out in regulations under subsection (6).

(2) The sale must be made by or on behalf of a body that—

(a) is of a prescribed description, and

(b) meets any prescribed criteria.

(3) The sale must take place on premises that—

(a) are managed by the body by or on whose behalf the sale is made,

(b) are of a prescribed description, and

(c) meet any prescribed criteria.

(4) The sale must be ancillary to the provision of goods or services to a person on the premises where the sale takes place.

(5) Except in prescribed circumstances, the alcohol must be sold for consumption on those premises.

(6) Regulations may provide for additional conditions prescribed in the regulations to be ancillary business sales conditions.

Part 5A notices

110D  Conditions for validity of notices

(1) A notice complies with this section if the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (10) are satisfied in relation to the notice.

(2) The notice must specify whether—

(a) the community event conditions (set out in section 110B or in regulations under that section), or

(b) the ancillary business sales conditions (set out in section 110C or in regulations under that section),

will be satisfied in relation to sales of alcohol on the premises in question.

(3) The notice must specify (for the purposes of section 110A(2))—

(a) in the case of a notice that specifies the ancillary business sales conditions, the set of premises to which it relates;

(b) in the case of a notice that specifies the community event conditions, no more than three sets of community premises, each of which must be wholly or partly in the area of the same licensing authority.

(4) The notice must be given, on behalf of the body by or on whose behalf the sale of alcohol on the premises would take place, by a person who is aged 18 or over and is concerned in the management of the body.

(5) The notice must be given to the relevant licensing authority, accompanied by the prescribed fee.

(6) Unless the notice is given to the relevant licensing authority by means of a relevant electronic facility, a copy of the notice must be given to each relevant person.

(7) The notice must be in the prescribed form.

(8) The notice must specify the date when it takes effect.

(9) The specified date must be at least 10 working days, but no more than 3 months, after the day on which the notice is given.

Where subsection (6) applies, the notice is treated as given only when that subsection is complied with.

(10) The notice must contain any other information that regulations require it to contain.

(11) In this Part, “relevant person”, in relation to any premises, means—

(a) the chief officer of police for any police area in which the premises are situated;

(b) the local authority by which statutory functions are exercisable in any area in which the premises are situated in relation to minimising or preventing the risk of pollution of the environment or of harm to human health.

110E  Special restriction on giving of notices

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a Part 5A notice is given on behalf of a body, and

(b) a counter notice under section 110J is given in relation to the Part 5A notice.

(2) No further Part 5A notice may be given in respect of any premises specified in the notice, whether on behalf of that body or on behalf of another body that is an associate of it, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the counter notice is given.

(3) However, the restriction in subsection (2) ceases to apply if the counter notice is revoked under section 110K or quashed by a court.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a body is an associate of another body if it would be an associate of the other body for the purposes of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (see section 32(4) to (6) of that Act).

110F  Date when Part 5A notice takes effect

(1) A Part 5A notice takes effect on the date specified under section 110D(8).

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if a counter notice is given under section 110J in relation to the notice.

(For the case where a counter notice is revoked or quashed by a court, see section 110K(2).)

110G  Acknowledgement of notice etc

(1) This section applies where a relevant licensing authority receives a notice that is, or purports to be, a Part 5A notice.

(2) The authority must give written acknowledgement of the receipt of the notice to the person who gave it.

(3) The acknowledgment must be given—

(a) before the end of the first working day following the day on which it was received, or

(b) if the day on which it was received was not a working day, before the end of the second working day following that day.

(4) If the licensing authority is of the opinion that the notice does not comply with section 110D, the authority must as soon as possible give to the person who gave the notice written notification of the reasons for its opinion.

(5) Subsection (2) does not apply where, before the time by which acknowledgement of the receipt of the notice must be given in accordance with subsection (3), the person who gave the notice has been given a counter notice under section 110J.

110H  Theft, loss etc of Part 5A notice

(1) Where a Part 5A notice is lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed, the person who gave the notice may apply to the relevant licensing authority for a copy of the notice.

(2) The application must be accompanied by the prescribed fee.

(3) Where an application is made in accordance with this section, the licensing authority must issue the applicant with a copy of the notice (certified by the authority to be a true copy) if it is satisfied that the notice has been lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed.

(4) This Act applies in relation to a copy issued under this section as it applies in relation to an original notice.

Objections and counter notices

110I  Objection to Part 5A notice by a relevant person

(1) Where a relevant person who is given a Part 5A notice is satisfied that allowing alcohol to be sold on the premises (or any of the premises) to which the notice relates would undermine a licensing objective, the relevant person must give a notice stating the reasons for being so satisfied (an “objection notice”)—

(a) to the relevant licensing authority,

(b) to the person who gave the Part 5A notice, and

(c) to every other relevant person.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply at any time after the relevant person has received a copy of a counter notice under section 110J in relation to the Part 5A notice.

(3) An objection notice may be given only during the period beginning with the day on which the relevant person is given the Part 5A notice and ending with the third working day following that day (“the three-day period”).

(4) The restriction in subsection (3) does not apply to an objection notice based on—

(a) things occurring after the end of the three-day period, or

(b) information that the relevant person was unaware of, and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered, until after the end of that period.

110J  Counter notices

(1) Where a relevant licensing authority receives a Part 5A notice, the relevant licensing authority may—

(a) give the person who gave the Part 5A notice a counter notice under this section;

(b) give a copy of the counter notice to each relevant person.

(2) Where the relevant licensing authority receives an objection notice given in compliance with the requirement imposed by section 110I(3), the relevant licensing authority must decide whether to give a counter notice (and, if it does so decide, give that notice) no later than whichever of the following is the earlier—

(a) the day before the date when the Part 5A would take effect (see section 110D(8));

(b) the expiry of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the objection notice is received by the relevant licensing authority.

(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) may not be exercised at any time after the Part 5A notice takes effect unless an objection notice under section 110I has been given, by virtue of subsection (4) of that section, in relation to the notice.

(4) The counter notice must—

(a) be in the prescribed form, and

(b) be given in the prescribed manner.

110K  Counter notices: revocation etc

(1) A relevant licensing authority must revoke a counter notice given under section 110J if—

(a) the counter notice was given in consequence of one or more objection notices under section 110I, and

(b) the objection notice or (as the case may be) each of them is withdrawn by the person who gave it or is quashed by a court.

(2) Where a counter notice is revoked or is quashed by a court—

(a) the counter notice is disregarded for the purposes of section 110A(3), except in relation to any time before the day on which it is revoked or quashed,

(b) the Part 5A notice takes effect on that day, and

(c) the relevant licensing authority must as soon as possible notify the person who gave the Part 5A notice of the date on which it takes effect.

Rights of entry, production of notice, etc

110L  Right of entry where Part 5A notice given

(1) A constable or an authorised officer may, at any reasonable time, enter premises to which a Part 5A notice relates to assess the likely effect of the notice on the promotion of the crime prevention objective.

(2) An authorised officer exercising the power conferred by this section must, if so requested, produce evidence of the officer’s authority to exercise the power.

(3) It is an offence intentionally to obstruct an authorised officer exercising a power conferred by this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(5) In this section “authorised officer” means—

(a) an officer of the licensing authority in whose area the premises are situated, or

(b) if the premises are situated in the area of more than one licensing authority, an officer of any of those authorities,

authorised for the purposes of this Act.

110M  Duty to keep and produce Part 5A notice

(1) This section applies whenever premises are being used for sales of alcohol which are, or are purported to be, permitted sales by virtue of this Part.

(2) The person who gave the Part 5A notice must secure that a copy of the notice is either—

(a) prominently displayed at the premises, or

(b) kept at the premises in the custody of that person or of someone who is present and working at the premises and whom that person has nominated for the purposes of this section (a “nominated person”).

(3) Where a copy of the Part 5A notice is kept in the custody of a nominated person (and not prominently displayed at the premises) the person who gave the Part 5A notice must secure that a notice—

(a) stating that the Part 5A notice is in the nominated person’s custody, and

(b) specifying the position held at the premises by the nominated person,

is prominently displayed at the premises.

(4) It is an offence for the person who gave the Part 5A notice to fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with subsection (2) or (where it applies) subsection (3).

(5) Where—

(a) a copy of the Part 5A notice is not prominently displayed at the premises, and

(b) no notice is displayed as mentioned in subsection (3),

a constable or authorised officer may require the person who gave the Part 5A notice to produce a copy of it for examination.

(6) Where a notice is displayed as mentioned in subsection (3), a constable or authorised officer may require the nominated person to produce a copy of the Part 5A notice for examination.

(7) An authorised officer exercising the power conferred by subsection (5) or (6) must, if so requested, produce evidence of the officer’s authority to exercise the power.

(8) It is an offence for a person to fail, without reasonable excuse, to produce a copy of a Part 5A notice in accordance with a requirement under subsection (5) or (6).

(9) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(10) In this section “authorised officer” has the meaning given in section 110L(5).

Supplementary

110N The relevant licensing authority

(1) For the purposes of this Part, the “relevant licensing authority”, in relation to any premises, is determined in accordance with this section.

(2) In the case of a Part 5A notice that specifies the ancillary business sales conditions or in the case of Part 5A notice that specifies the community event conditions in relation to only one set of premises, the relevant licensing authority is, subject to subsection (3), the authority in whose area the premises are situated.

(3) Where the premises are situated in the areas of two or more licensing authorities, the relevant licensing authority is—

(a) the licensing authority in whose area the greater or greatest part of the premises is situated, or

(b) if there is no authority to which paragraph (a) applies, such one of the authorities as the person giving the Part 5A notice may choose.

(4) In the case of a Part 5A notice that specifies the community event conditions in relation to more than one set of premises, the relevant licensing authority is—

(a) if there is only one licensing authority in whose area each set of premises is wholly or partly situated, that licensing authority;

(b) if each set of premises falls partly in the area of one authority and also partly in the area of another, such one of them as the person giving the Part 5A notice may choose.”’.—(Norman Baker.)

This amendment inserts the new Part 5A of the Licensing Act 2003 (see the explanatory statement to amendment NC5).

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.



Schedule 18

Legislation no longer of practical use

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

I beg to move amendment 58, page 157, line 11, at end insert—

‘Mining Industry Act 1920 (c. 50)

3A The Mining Industry Act 1920 is repealed.

3B In consequence of paragraph 3A, in Schedule 4 to the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, omit the entry for the Mining Industry Act 1920.

Mining Industry Act 1926 (c. 28)

3C (1) In the Mining Industry Act 1926, omit section 20 (which confers power on coal-mining companies to establish profit sharing schemes irrespective of the terms of their articles of association).

(2) The repeal made by sub-paragraph (1) is to have no effect in relation to any scheme still in existence that was established, and is being carried on, in reliance on the power conferred by section 20 of the Mining Industry Act 1926.’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 75 and 59.

Amendment 4, page 162, line 22, at end insert—

Part 7A

Civil Law

Defamation Act 1996 (c.31)

34A Omit section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996 (which allows an individual litigant in defamation cases to waive the ban in Article IX of the Bill of Rights on proceedings in Parliament being impeached or questioned in court).’.

The Joint Committees on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999 and 2013 both recommended the repeal of this hardly-used provision.

Government amendment 60.

Amendment 73, page 163, line 12, at end insert—

‘Part 9 Communications

Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988

37 The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is amended as follows.

38 Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (Reception and re-transmission of wireless broadcast by cable) is revoked.’.

Section 73 was introduced in the 1980s to encourage cable roll-out as a competing platform to terrestrial (analogue) television. This has clearly now been achieved and cable is a highly-effective and well-resourced competitor to Sky and Freeview.

[The Solicitor-General]

This group contains amendments to schedule 18, which makes provision for repealing legislation that is no longer of practical use. Before I outline the amendments, may I say how much I welcome re-encountering the hon. Members for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) and for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), whose very helpful and constructive approach in Committee has improved the Bill?

The Mining Industry Act 1920 and section 20 of the Mining Industry Act 1926 will be repealed as they are no longer needed for mining and quarrying. Most of the Mining Industry Act 1920 has already been repealed, and we now seek to repeal the remaining provisions. That will not affect rights to ownership. The remaining sections are outdated administrative arrangements. For example, functions were originally conferred on the Board of Trade, but were long ago transferred to the Secretary of State through a transfer of functions. Sections 18 and 22 concern the powers to make drainage schemes for groups of mines, but they are now dealt with by negotiations between mine owners and other local landowners. Sections 25 and 26 are technical provisions.

Overall, the only matter that needs to be mentioned is section 20 of the 1926 Act, which provides for the establishment of profit-sharing schemes. It of course pre-dates the nationalisation and privatisation of the coal mining industry, as well as modern companies legislation. Such legislation should apply to coal mining companies in the same way as it applies to any others, so there is no need for any special provision. However, the amendment contains a saving provision, because it would clearly not be fair to undermine any existing profit-sharing schemes, and they will be allowed to continue.

Most of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 has already been repealed. Section 37, which relates to the licensing of tidal works by harbour authorities, disapplies the requirements of section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949. That Act has already been repealed, so the saving provision is no longer of any practical effect.

Amendment 59 will extend the repeal of the Milk (Cessation of Production) Act 1985 to Northern Ireland. EU legislation in 1984 set up a system of production—the milk quota system—in which, in essence, each producer was allocated a quota. That will end on 31 March 2015, so the underlying EU legislation will cease to be effective next April. The amendment will allow the Bill to repeal and revoke all relevant UK legislation relating to Northern Ireland, as well as England and Wales.

Amendment 60 will ensure that the saving provision in paragraph 3 of schedule 18 to the Housing Act 1988 will cease to have effect in England, although it will continue to apply in Wales. The saving provision has become redundant in England. Essentially, sections 56 to 58 of the Housing Act 1980, which have been repealed, enabled landlords to grant assured tenancies for newly built or newly repaired dwellings. The vast majority of tenancies were converted in 1989 into new style assured tenancies under the Housing Act 1988. Sections 56 to 58 were repealed subject to a saving provision, which is now being abolished because there are no longer any assured tenancies under the 1980 Act in existence in England, and it is therefore redundant.

To turn to the non-Government amendments, amendment 73 would require the Government to revoke section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for raising that important issue. The effect of section 73 is that public service broadcasters cannot charge cable services for the inclusion of their channels on these services.

Section 73 is part of a much wider framework supporting the availability of television and investment in television programming in the UK. A variety of rules and regulations affect the production, availability and ease of discovery of public service programming and its relationship with the different platforms—cable, satellite, digital TV and terrestrial—that carry it. They include the obligations on public service broadcasters to offer their content to all relevant platforms, the rules governing payments by broadcasters for technical platform services and the powers for regulators to compel these services to carry public service broadcast content.

This is an area with many competing interests. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport produced a policy paper, “Connectivity, Content and Consumers” last year. The Government stated that their policy objective was zero net charges, where fees for access to the main platforms—cable, satellite, digital TV and terrestrial—would be cancelled out by charges made by the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, so creating a zero net charge regime. That is close to the current market position, and it recognises the benefits to platforms, public service broadcasters and consumers.

Section 73 is an integral part of that picture, but the arrangement is under pressure. Online services rely on section 73 to exploit public service broadcaster content, but no benefit flows back to the public service broadcaster.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Hear, hear.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor-General]

There is litigation about that at present and my hon. Friend, who is right to raise the issue, will know that a case about to be heard in the Court of Appeal has a bearing on the issue. Because the case is sub judice, I cannot say much more about it, but it would be wrong to impose timetables for resolving the issues as regards satellite and cable without taking into account the situation—once it is definitive—as regards online services. I will obviously listen to my hon. Friend’s arguments, but he might want to think about whether the Government are right to wait for the decision from the Court of Appeal before taking action that might not be appropriate.

[Philip Davies]

The problem is that the litigation has been going on for four years already. Of course there are competing interests, but does my hon. and learned Friend not accept that section 73 was created in the 1980s, when the Government wanted to encourage the roll-out of the cable network? Given that that policy objective has been achieved, the section should surely be repealed.

[The Solicitor-General]

I agree to a considerable extent with the point that my hon. Friend makes. There is no question that the legislation was introduced to help cable roll-out. However, it is the definition of a cable service that is at issue in the Court of Appeal case. It is correct that it has taken a considerable amount of time to get to this point, where the Court of Appeal will soon be able to list the case and, hopefully, determine it. Having waited for that period for a definite conclusion, it would be wrong to act in haste and perhaps repent at leisure. I will be interested to hear his remarks and I think that there will be time for him to make them—I hope so, anyway.

I am pleased to announce that the Government will support the defamation amendment—amendment 4. It is a sensible amendment. As the House will be aware, the Government have made a commitment to repeal section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996. Their response to the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 2013 stated that

“repealing Section 13 would be the wisest course of action”

and that the Government

“intends to do so when Parliamentary time and a suitable legislative opportunity allows.”

There has long been discussion about the provision. The 1999 and 2013 Joint Committees on Parliamentary Privilege recommended that section 13 be repealed. The Government agree with the conclusion of those Committees that section 13 is at odds with the principle of freedom of speech, which it is the privilege of this House as a whole to enjoy, not just individual Members. Section 13 also creates an imbalance, because one party to a proceeding may choose to use the parliamentary record when the other party does not wish that to happen. The provision has never been used and it creates an anomaly. For those reasons, I urge the House to accept amendment 4.

[Chi Onwurah]

I echo the pleasure that was expressed by the Solicitor-General at the reunion of the team that had so many lively and, at times, constructive debates in Committee.

The Opposition do not oppose Government amendments 58, 75, 59 and 60. However, I would like to make a small point about process. Will the Solicitor-General clarify for the House why time is being spent on removing obsolete legislation in parallel with the Law Commission’s statute law repeal programme? Given the resources available, the Law Commission’s work has been of a very high quality. We finished the Committee stage of the Bill with but seven minutes to spare, as the Solicitor-General will well remember, and we will not have time to discuss all the amendments we would like to discuss on Report.

[The Solicitor-General]

I very much agree with the hon. Lady that the Law Commission does a fantastic job. It is preparing the measures that she mentions. That does not mean that if a Department knows that it has a piece of redundant or useless legislation, it cannot ask the House to get rid of it. There is not an either/or choice; we can do both.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Solicitor-General for that clarification. However, I think that the House should focus on that which will make the most difference to our constituents and the cost of living crisis. We should not seek to work in parallel with the Law Commission. However, I take his point. Although I am sad to see the repeal of the Mining Industry Act 1920 and the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, I agree with him that they do not serve a useful purpose at this time. It seems that this Tory Government are tidying up the last bits of mess that were left by the last one in undermining those great industries. I agree that, at this stage, those Acts perform no purpose.

We have some sympathy with amendment 73 on copyright, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). We only wish that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport showed as much focus on the long-term future of the communications industry as the hon. Gentleman. As the Solicitor-General said, it is an anomaly that the BBC and other public service broadcasters have to pay cable companies for the transmission of their programmes, which so many of us enjoy. I should declare an interest because I served for six years at Ofcom, which regulates all the companies concerned.

It is impossible to explain to anyone outside the industry why it is not the Pay-TV companies that pay the BBC and ITV to carry their great content, but the BBC and ITV who pay the Pay-TV companies to do so. That cannot be right. We are glad that the discussions that the Solicitor-General mentioned have resulted in reductions in transmission fees to net zero. However, we do not feel that net zero is good enough. Public service broadcasters create fantastic, valuable and creative content that is the envy of the world, and they should be paid for it.

The Solicitor-General said that the legislation is complex and we recognise that. However, we question what work the Government are doing in this area. They dropped their communications Green Paper two years ago. Since then, we have had no meaningful communications strategy, even though the industry is critical to our economic and cultural future. There does not appear to be any work going on in the area now. The policy paper that the Solicitor-General mentioned so enthusiastically, “Connectivity, Content and Consumers”, does not look into the future in any meaningful way. I remind the House that Labour’s Communications Act 2003 looked 10 years into the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

It would enable a normal commercial arrangement to be reached, but it would not do anything to stop the terms of the Communications Act 2003, under which broadcasters must offer their public service broadcasting channels to cable and satellite platforms. That would still be the case, but the amendment would enable a commercial negotiation to take place, which would be fair to both parties. Otherwise, the situation works for neither party; it is to everybody’s advantage that an agreement is reached. Terrestrial broadcasters want their content on cable, and cable wants that content out there, so there is reason for reaching an agreement.

[The Solicitor-General]

I am carefully following my hon. Friend’s logic and he is looking at two aspects: pay TV and satellite. The fastest-growing area, however, is online, which is what the court case is about. Does he recognise that it would be a mistake to leave matters on the basis he suggests, without taking account of the online position? That needs to be tackled once we know the court decision.

[Philip Davies]

All these matters need to be tackled, and my amendment seeks to say just that to the Government. The problem is that they are not being tackled and are causing an unfair disadvantage to public service broadcasters. That is my point. Pay-TV companies are charging monthly subscriptions for access to pay TV, when most of the viewing is on public service broadcasting channels, which are an essential part of the offer being made. For example, ITV invests around £1 billion a year on programming, the majority of which is original UK content, driving UK economic growth and provided free to viewers at no cost to the taxpayer. Continuing to do that depends on its being able to make a commercial return on its investment, which at the moment it does not.

Section 73 currently allows platforms and online operators to extract increasing amounts of value from free-to-air content, with no return to investors, rightsholders and talent, or the UK creative economy. Those platforms are perfectly happy to pay for other channels on ITV, such as ITV2, ITV3 and ITV4, through normal commercial negotiations, so it is hard to understand why they would not also be prepared to do that for the main channel. Section 73 of the 1988 Act is completely outdated and does a great disservice to public service broadcasters. It has created unfair terms and conditions for public service broadcasters, and even if the Government do not accept my amendment, I hope that they will consider the issue and come back soon with proposals to deal with this serious anomaly concerning cable TV and online content.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your service on the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege along with me and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), not to mention the litany of others—the hon. Gentleman has already mentioned them, so I do not need to. Amendment 4 is necessary, and I will refer to articles 163 to 170 of the Committee’s report, which include our recommendations for the repeal of section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996, just to get that on the record and make it easier for people to follow what is being said—we do not have much time to go into all the ins and outs.

The hon. Gentleman has explained the background to this issue, but I will add one or two further points. As my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General stated, the proposal was endorsed by the 1999 Joint Committee, and most recently by the 2013 Joint Committee, in your presence, Madam Deputy Speaker. The 1999 Joint Committee stated that,

“the enactment of section 13, seeking to remedy a perceived injustice, had created indefensible anomalies of its own which should not be allowed to continue”.

That is why it recommended that section 13 be repealed. The fundamental flaw identified by the 1999 Joint Committee was that,

“the section undermined the basis of privilege: freedom of speech was the privilege of the House as a whole and not of the individual Member in his or her own right, although an individual Member could assert and rely on it.”

The 1999 Committee noted that,

“the anomaly that section 13 was available only in defamation proceedings and not in any other form of civil action”

or criminal action. The Committee pointed out that,

“since the exercise of section 13 is a matter of individual choice, where two people are involved in the same action, one may choose to waive privilege and another may not.”

The 1999 Committee recommend that,

“the mischief sought to be remedied by section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996 should be cured by a different means: the replacement of section 13 with a short statutory provision empowering each House to waive Article 9 for the purpose of any court proceedings, whether relating to defamation or to any other matter, where the words spoken or the acts done in proceedings in Parliament would not expose the speaker of the words or the doer of the acts to any legal liability.”

That approach was supported by Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and by Dr Adam Tucker and Geoffrey Lock, a former head of the research division in the House of Commons Library.

The Newspaper Society opposed any discretionary power to waive privilege, the use of which would be unpredictable and retrospective. It argued that,

“the power of waiver could create a chilling effect, by the mere threat or possibility of its use, which would be detrimental to openness of debate and press reporting of proceedings in Parliament.”

In its response to the Government consultation, the legislative council of Western Australia argued that,

“it was preferable for privilege not to be waived for any reason, in order to avoid the potential for the waiver being used for purely political purposes.”

Our Clerk of the House of Commons, the distinguished Sir Robert Rogers, who is sadly retiring, told us that his preference would be for the repeal of section 13, “without replacement”. The Media Lawyers Association took the same view.

In evidence, the Government told the 2013 Committee:

“There are clearly problems with Section 13 of the Defamation Act. It is at odds with the principle that freedom of speech is a privilege of the House, not just individual members and it can create an imbalance where one party to proceedings can choose to use the parliamentary record but the other cannot.”

At that time, the Government told us that,

“the Government is not aware of any instances in which anyone has used the power of waiver and as such it would not appear to be a pressing priority to repeal Section 13.”

On reflection, the Government have decided that repealing section 13 is a good idea. We are grateful to them for following our recommendation.

I ought to say that, initially, there was an attempt to include the proposal in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill but, as a result of consultation, members of the Committee agreed that it was better to include it in the Deregulation Bill, which is why we are debating it. The Committee recommends the repeal of section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996. That is all I have to say for the time being.

[The Solicitor-General]

I commend the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). He summarised the position extremely well and I am glad that the proposal is going ahead.

I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that the Government will bring forward proposals for consultation when the court case, which is set down for later this year, has concluded. I ask him not to press his amendment to a Division on the basis that the Government are taking the issue seriously.

In response to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), the coherent strategy set out in the connectivity paper covers all the main issues: electronic programme guides, PSB prominence, bundling, switching off content, zero net fees, investment policy, child protection on the internet, internet access and comprehensive programme issues. It is a proper document, and she unfairly belittled it.

The only other point I wanted to make before commending the amendments is on the Law Commission, which does a marvellous job. I should like to put on the record the Government’s gratitude to Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, who heads it, and all the people who work for it. It is a marvellous institution.

Amendment 58 agreed to.

Schedule 18

Legislation no longer of practical use

Amendments made: 75, page 159, line 32, at end insert—

‘Merchant Shipping Act 1988 (c. 12)

The Merchant Shipping Act 1988 is repealed.’.

This amendment repeals the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 in the United Kingdom. The only operative provision is section 37. Section 37 provides for the disapplication of the requirements of the Coast Protection Act 1949, which has been repealed.

Amendment 59, page 162, line 2, at end insert—

‘The Milk (Cessation of Production) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (S.I. 1985/958 (N.I. 9)) is revoked.’.

This amendment revokes the Milk (Cessation of Production) ( Northern Ireland) Order 1985. All schemes made under this Order were revoked in 2007, and it is not intended to make any further schemes under it. The underlying European milk quota system is intended to cease with effect from 31 March 2015.

Amendment 4, page 162, line 22, at end insert—

Part 7A

Civil Law

Defamation Act 1996 (c.31)

34A Omit section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996 (which allows an individual litigant in defamation cases to waive the ban in Article IX of the Bill of Rights on proceedings in Parliament being impeached or questioned in court).’.

The Joint Committees on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999 and 2013 both recommended the repeal of this hardly used provision.

Amendment 60, page 163, line 12, at end insert—

Part 9

Housing

Housing Act 1988 (c. 50)

36 (1) Paragraph 3 of Schedule 18 to the Housing Act 1988 (saving provision in respect of repeal of sections 56 to 58 of the Housing Act 1980) ceases to have effect in relation to tenancies of dwelling-houses in England.

(2) Accordingly, in that paragraph of that Schedule, after “tenancy” insert “of a dwelling-house in Wales”.’.—(Oliver Heald.)

This amendment provides that the saving provision in paragraph 3 of Schedule 18 to the Housing Act 1988 ceases to have effect in relation to tenancies of dwelling-houses in England (and so will continue only for Wales). This is because no assured tenancies under section 56 of the Housing Act 1980 remain in existence for England.

New Clause 2

Requirements to wear safety helmets: exemption for Sikhs: Northern Ireland

‘(1) Article 13 of the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 (S.I. 1990/246) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (8).

(2) In paragraph (1), for “on a construction site” substitute “at a workplace”.

(3) In paragraph (2), in sub-paragraph (a), for “on a construction site” substitute “at a workplace”.

(4) In paragraph (5), in the opening words, for “on a construction site” substitute “at a workplace”.

(5) After paragraph (6) insert—

“(6A) This Article does not apply to a Sikh who—

(a) works, or is training to work, in an occupation that involves (to any extent) providing an urgent response to fire, riot or other hazardous situations, and

(b) is at the workplace—

(i) to provide such a response in circumstances where the wearing of a safety helmet is necessary to protect the Sikh from a risk of injury, or

(ii) to receive training in how to provide such a response in circumstances of that kind.

(6B) This Article also does not apply to a Sikh who—

(a) is a member of Her Majesty’s forces or a person providing support to Her Majesty’s forces, and

(b) is at the workplace—

(i) to take part in a military operation in circumstances where the wearing of a safety helmet is necessary to protect the Sikh from a risk of injury, or

(ii) to receive training in how to take part in such an operation in circumstances of that kind.”

(6) In paragraph (7)—

(a) omit the definitions of “building operations”, “works of engineering construction” and “construction site”;

(b) before the definition of “injury”, insert—

““Her Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006;”;

(c) at the end insert—

““workplace” means any premises where work is being undertaken, including premises occupied or normally occupied as a private dwelling; and “premises” includes any place and, in particular, includes—

(a) any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft,

(b) any installation (including a floating installation or one resting on the seabed or its subsoil or on other land covered with water or its subsoil), and

(c) any tent or moveable structure.”

(7) In paragraph (8), in sub-paragraph (b), for “on a construction site” substitute “at a workplace”.

(8) In the heading, for “on construction sites” substitute “at workplaces”.

(9) Article 13A of that Order (protection of Sikhs from racial discrimination in connection with requirements as to wearing of safety helmets) is amended as follows.

(10) In paragraph (1)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for “on a construction site” substitute “at a workplace”;

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for “on such a site” substitute “at such a workplace”.

(11) In paragraph (3), for “Paragraphs (7) and (8)” substitute “Paragraphs (6A) to (8)”.’.—(Oliver Heald.)

This new clause extends the scope of the exemption under Article 13 of the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, currently limited to construction sites, so that turban-wearing Sikhs will be exempt from legal requirements to wear a safety helmet in a workplace of any kind (subject to exceptions set out in Article 13(6A) and (6B), as amended).

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Solicitor-General]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 72, page 1, line 1, leave out clause 1.

[The Solicitor-General]

New clause 2 deals with the wearing of safety helmets by the Sikh community in Northern Ireland. Its purpose is to extend the provision in the Bill to Sikhs in Northern Ireland. We discussed the issue in Committee and it was hoped that it would be possible to introduce such a measure. Article 13 of the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from legal requirements to wear a safety helmet while on a construction site. It also protects employers from liability should a Sikh suffer injuries as a consequence of choosing not to wear a helmet. The new clause extends the scope of the exemption to all workplaces, subject to certain very narrow exclusions, and extends the limited liability provisions associated with the exemption for other persons, such as employers.

The exemption in the 1990 order was limited to construction sites because, at the time, only workers in the construction industry were mandated to wear safety helmets. Legislative requirements regarding the wearing of safety helmets have since developed and now extend to a number of other industries in which a risk assessment identifies the need for specialist head protection.

There are certain jobs and industries in which the wearing of a turban may come into conflict with legislative requirements regarding the wearing of safety helmets or other coverings. Employers in non-construction sectors must therefore balance their obligation to protect the health and safety of their employees against their duty not to discriminate against a turban-wearing Sikh employee on the grounds of religion or race.

[Philip Davies]

Surely one of the cornerstones of British law is that everybody is equal in the face of it. Either people should have to wear helmets for safety reasons or they should not. If a Sikh can decide not to wear a safety helmet on religious grounds, why cannot other workers decide not to wear them on grounds that they choose for themselves? Why should we have different laws for different people in this country? Many people find that troubling and offensive.

[The Solicitor-General]

An important history and a religious ethic applicable only to Sikhs are involved in this matter. It is a religious tenet for a Sikh male to wear a turban—that is not true of other religions. It is therefore a special circumstance. While addressing that, I should say what a great contribution the Sikh community makes in our country. Sikhs should be free to practise their religion and that central tenet of it. In certain circumstances, it would be wrong to allow a person not to wear their helmet because of the extreme danger involved—for example, when a fireman goes into a burning building. The circumstances where this provision cannot be followed are very narrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

It is very generous of the Minister to offer the opportunity of a break in the proceedings. It would be churlish of me turn down his offer.

[The Solicitor-General]

Knowing that the House wants to know the answer, I give way. [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the Minister, particularly for his sensitivity to the sensibilities of colleagues.