Sky and 21st Century Fox: Proposed Merger

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement made in the other place. On this side of the House we welcome the decision that has been reached, that having been minded to go ahead with a full referral, the Secretary of State today confirmed that that is what she is doing. That is entirely right and appropriate. It is perhaps worth mentioning in the process, as alluded to in the Statement, that 21st Century Fox also welcomed the referral. That needs no further comment from me.

The two grounds on which the referral is made are broadcasting standards and the question of being a fit and proper person. I will deal with them both and ask a couple of questions around them. The broadcasting standards ground is a relatively new departure in this area because previous referrals have been done on much narrower grounds. Broadcasting standards is a very broad term but I welcome this. It is right that the consideration of this merger, since it involves a global media company, needs to engage with all areas that might affect the plurality of sources of information but also the entertainment and other features of the broadcasting world today. Will Ofcom have the power to investigate all corporate governance issues affecting 21st Century Fox, including anything that may arise from the phone-hacking scandal, any cover-up of illegality at News International, the rehiring of people responsible for corporate governance failures and ongoing sexual harassment claims currently being heard by a grand jury in the United States which, if proved to be the case, might lead to withdrawal of that company’s licence to broadcast there?

Secondly, plurality is a term that probably needs to be reinterpreted as technology has moved on considerably since the first time this issue was raised in the events of 2010-11. The work done at that time by Ofcom, which involved a 40-day period of investigating similar but not necessarily the same issues, resulted in a report provided to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has the power to publish that report but, as far as I can understand, that has not yet been published. Can the report now be made available, since it clearly bears on the issues before us? Whether or not it is published, can and will the issues raised in that report by Ofcom with the then Secretary of State be considered in the work going forward at this point?

I welcome Ofcom’s announcement that it will conduct the assessment under the fit and proper regulations at the same time as the other work it has been commissioned to do, so that we have a timetable of 40 days. That may prove a bit challenging given the amount of material that must be covered but it is important that we do so. The question of the “fit and proper” assessment is undefined in the legislation and it may be that there are, as we discussed in the Digital Economy Bill before your Lordships’ House, questions raised about exactly what tests are required for this. In some ways, it may be appropriate to reconsider those, and we may be able to find time in the remaining stages of that Bill to do so. Today, could the noble and learned Lord confirm that while the report issued after the fit and proper assessment at the time of the last merger investigation was largely couched in terms of directorial duties, this report will deal with not only individuals but the corporate structures within which they operate and that the level at which “fit and proper” persons are concerned will be adjusted to make sure that it covers the responsibilities inherent in a corporate as opposed to an individual structure?

Many of the questions I raise today and which are raised more generally by the approach that the Government are taking—which, as I said, we welcome—would have been considerably aided had they been informed by the work that could have been done under part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. That has been delayed and, for reasons that the Secretary of State gave at a recent meeting in this House, cannot be reopened until such time as judicial processes going forward are complete. I understand that and do not seek to raise any questions about it. But I put it to the noble and learned Lord that the issues that are likely to be part of that review will be germane to what we are discussing today, and I wonder if he has any comments on that.

Finally, on the question of powers, the founding document for the investigations being announced today is the Enterprise Act 2002. The current thinking is that sufficient powers to carry these out are available to Ofcom and the CMA under the different regulations that affect them. But will the Minister confirm that the Ofcom investigation has the power to obtain documents and compel witnesses to appear before it? That power is available to the CMA but may not be explicit in the regulations that are operating this investigation.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the Statement and the way that the Secretary of State is approaching her responsibilities in this regard. The big problem is that we have been here before. In many ways, we are dealing with an issue that we have faced many times—since the end of the war there have been five royal commissions on the press, and Leveson—and yet we still have these concerns about power and influence.

I am still haunted by the word that Mr Murdoch used at the height of the hacking scandal when he appeared before the Select Committee and said it was the humblest day of his life. I always thought that that was an odd word to use. It is not humbling, it is not regretting, it is not “I am going to mend my ways”. In fact, everything that has happened since has warned us that there has been no change in the approach.

Can the Minister tell us what were the points that Fox contested? It would be interesting to know how it contested what we thought a week ago was a very good Statement. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, where does this sit in the timetable of other decisions to be made about Leveson 2 and about setting up one of the great prizes of Leveson—a genuine, low-cost arbitration system under Section 40? It is important that we look at this in a holistic way, not a siloed way. I also worry about the 40-day time limit. We should not put false timetables on these decisions because we will be stuck with them for a very long time.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s emphasis on her assurances about respecting her quasi-judicial authority. Will the Government also guarantee that any meeting or communication between Mr Murdoch and the Prime Minister, or their emissaries, is made immediately public, as well as the record of any meetings that do take place? There is a long record of Mr Murdoch having access outside the direct ministerial responsibilities, in all the jurisdictions in which he operates.

The wording of the Statement gives us confidence but will the Minister assure us that we are in a process which is going to satisfy somebody he will be well aware of—the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus? When we get to the end of this process, will it feel right? Will it smell right? Will it look right? If it does not, we will have created another problem that we will have to face further down the road.

Sky and 21st Century Fox: Proposed Merger

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Secretary of State’s Statement in another place. I am also very grateful to the Secretary of State for coming at what I think must be the earliest possible moment, because she said that she received notification of this only on Friday 3 March. It is very good that she was able to come so quickly. I also put on record our thanks to her for attending a meeting convened by the noble and learned Lord last week where a number of Peers from all sides of the House were able to ask her questions and examine a bit more closely some of the issues that relate primarily to the Digital Economy Bill but also to this subject.

My first question is about who is caught by the quasi-judicial mode, which was mentioned several times by the noble and learned Lord. The Statement refers to the Secretary of State and the Government. Will the noble and learned Lord confirm or deny whether that is departmental Ministers in DCMS or whether there are any other Ministers involved? I will be interested to know to what extent we are able to ask questions and gain answers over this period, which may last a number of weeks.

An important point is that the Statement does not cover the corporate structure which we are now facing with this proposed merger. We know that 21st Century Fox indicated on 9 December that it was making a takeover approach for Sky. It already owns just over 39% of Sky shares, so it is the balance of the shareholding. We know that, after a period of pre-discussion and debate, the European Commission was formally notified of the bid on Friday 3 March. It is important to get it right because there have been changes since we were in this process six years ago. 21st Century Fox is one of two successor companies of News Corporation, which was split up in 2013. It is important that we recognise that Fox is the legal successor of News Corporation and deals primarily with the film and television industries and another company, new News Corp, is a new company focused on newspapers and publishing that was spun out of News Corporation. In the UK, new News Corp owns the Sun, the Times and the Sunday Times. The point is that, although the corporate vehicle under which the acquisition is being made is 21st Century Fox, it is common understanding that the same principles are involved on both sides of that split and therefore the inquiry needs to take account of that. From what the Secretary of State has said, I think there is a willingness to go a little bit further than the straightforward 21st Century Fox approaching Sky. I will be grateful if the noble and learned Lord can respond to that at this stage.

The Secretary of State made the point that there are two dimensions to the inquiry that she is minded to look at. One is plurality. The point was made that, if this bid is successful, it will put an even greater amount of media power in the hands of the Murdoch family in particular and the people involved. Ofcom therefore needs to look at the whole of the group of Murdoch companies in assessing whether the Sky takeover would threaten media plurality. That is a very important aspect in relation to what I have just said about the ownership and control of the family companies that are involved.

The world has changed since 2010-11 when we last looked at this, and Ofcom will need to range much more widely across the media and look at not just newspapers and traditional news delivery through broadcasting but at social media, news aggregators and others from which news is taken. This is quite a substantial change in operation, and I will be grateful if the noble and learned Lord has any observations on whether the resources that are available to Ofcom will be sufficient to cope with that new approach and challenge.

The second ground on which the Secretary of State says she is minded to intervene is on commitment to broadcasting standards. I notice that this section of the Statement is quite carefully phrased. The convention is to refer to the fit and proper test required under the Broadcasting Acts for those who hold a broadcasting licence. Sky holds a broadcasting licence and therefore the controllers of Sky have to be fit and proper persons. The narrow point here is the extent to which that is focused as a process on individuals who may or may not be the named licence holders or on the corporate structure within which they operate. I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord can confirm that the intention, even though it is not explicit in the Statement, is to look at not only at the individuals but at the corporate structure within which they operate because clearly there are issues on both sides of that.

This is a very important issue, which we will return to in a few days when we understand more about the European intervention notice and whether or not that has been called, and also the extent to which Ofcom will report and whether or not that Ofcom report will lead to further work by the CMA. It is important we get some of the facts on the table now, and I look forward to hearing further from the noble and learned Lord.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I welcome both the speed and tone of the Statement from the Secretary of State. She has been careful to keep to the legal niceties, although any reading of this would welcome what she considers the merits of the case, particularly, as has been said, her emphasis on media plurality and the commitment to broadcasting standards. These were at the heart of the debate we had over a decade ago—putting into legislation the right to intervene on public interest grounds—led by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.

It is important to remember that, if anything, the arguments we had then which finally persuaded the then Government to accept the public interest test have got stronger over the last decade, in no small measure because of the behaviour of companies and organisations in which Rupert Murdoch has had an influence. We now face that problem again. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that this is still a major issue with the Murdoch empire in particular, and given the need to take on board how these companies change their structures without really ever changing the spider at the heart of the web?

The other, equally important point, as has been said, is the changes in broadcasting and media over the last decade. Mr Murdoch may play a big part in many ways, but he will soon be a small player compared to some of the giants wandering the media jungle. Does the Minister agree that the danger is that, if we get this wrong, we will set precedents which, when those big boys come along, will leave us in a very weak position in defending the very principles the Secretary of State so eloquently expressed in the Statement?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord McNally, for their observations, and will seek to respond to some of the points they have raised. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked “whose court”, as he put it, deals with this quasi-judicial decision-making process. It will be for the Secretary of State to carry out that process, with the appropriate officials advising her. It will not involve other government departments or Ministers; it will be her decision and her decision alone that instructs this matter. I hope that reassures the noble Lord as to how the process will be carried on.

As for the corporate structures and the past involvement of News Corporation, as the Secretary of State indicated in the Statement, when we address the question of commitment to broadcasting standards, account will be taken of past breaches of those and of behaviour and corporate governance failures, including those relating to News Corporation.

Ofcom, of course, has a fit and proper person test, but that applies in respect of broadcasting licences rather than this issue. It is a different test to the one that will be considered with regard to the merger, but it is important to bear in mind that the same evidence may of course be relevant to both tests. As the Secretary of State set out in her letter, she considered that a number of relevant matters warranted further investigation, including facts that led to the Leveson inquiry, for example, and the question of corporate governance at the News of the World. It will be open to Ofcom to look at all relevant areas—none are being ruled out in this context. The ultimate question will be whether the bidder shows a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards, which will raise very real and relevant questions with regard to past behaviour.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked whether we might be in danger of setting an unhealthy precedent, given the other tests that may be put before us in due course by other media outlets. With respect, I do not consider that this decision-making process involves the setting of precedents. Each of these proposals will be considered on its individual, stand-alone merits. I hope that provides some reassurance to noble Lords.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can I just quote back to him what he said only a few moments ago at the Dispatch Box?

“However, given this remains a quasi-judicial process in which I retain a decision-making role for the next 10 days, and potentially beyond, it would be inappropriate for me, or any other member of this government, to comment on the substantive merits of the case”.


Is there a slight variance with what he said there?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

There is no variance. It would not be appropriate for any member of the Government to comment on it, but the decision-making process will be by the Secretary of State.

Digital Economy Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. I remember well—and the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam has reminded us of it—that, in 2003, we had quite dramatic discussions in your Lordships’ House about the dual duties of Ofcom to the citizen and to the consumer. There was a bit of a wobble after Ofcom was set up, but since then it has properly seen itself as defending these two separate interests and not, as was initially suggested, merging them into the interests of a fictitious character called the citizen-consumer. That was an unfortunate, but brief, episode.

I believe the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, hit the nail on the head when he said that this pair of amendments is highly congruent with the Government’s policy. Not merely has the Prime Minister spoken about acting in the interests of “you rather than the few”, she has also started to refer to “issues of corporate governance”. This is basically what this is about—the standards that we think are relevant in corporate governance.

This has been a very unhappy decade in which there have been failures of corporate governance in many sectors. I am a member of the Banking Standards Board, looking at the culture of the banks. I read every day about this culture and realise how vital is the requirement that only those who have passed fit and proper person tests come into positions of leadership and influence in the banking sector. I realise how important this also is for the media sector—indeed, it is perhaps more important.

As we have seen clearly in the last few weeks, with the presidential campaign in the United States, the media have changed hugely in this decade. We can get spiralling misinformation that is extremely difficult to stem once it gets a hold in social media; once it spreads with the rapidity which the greediest of proprietors could never have imagined. In this world, more than ever, serious corporate governance has to take account of the ethics, as well as the law, of the fitness and propriety of leadership, as well as the adequacy of regulation. I support the proposal that Ofcom get a clear grip on the fitness and propriety of those who lead the broadcasting industries.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very important debate on a very big issue. Its sharpness has been reinforced by the fact that we are currently in a process involving all the issues that have been referred to. Obviously, this will be reflected in the fact that the response will not be made by a Minister in the department which might have to deal with some of the results of the current proposals for a merger, and we respect that and understand the reasons for that.

The wonderful speech by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, which took us back to the origins of the Ofcom regime that we now have and reflected on points along the way, including the dark shadows cast by the events of 2011, gave a texture to this that makes it much more important. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, spoke about the need to think about how all this interfaces into descriptions of the sort of country we want to live in and the sort of society that we can enjoy. The necessary handles on both policy and the implementation of that policy are very important.

At heart, the amendments are simple. They draw out in more detail and focus on issues which have been live ever since they were first introduced. Indeed, I recall discussions in your Lordships’ House on two Bills which dealt with issues that bore on this and for which we had debates of this type. That does not mean to say that this is ground that no longer needs to be tilled. It does, because in thinking about this we have to recognise some of the issues that have already surfaced in Committee today and throughout the Bill—that when we are talking about the media, particularly but not restricted to the digital media, we have to think very carefully about the pace of change and the adjustments that have to be made to the policy framework in order to achieve what will be proportionate and appropriate regulatory functions later on down the line.

The good thing about the amendments is that they make us think about the words that were used, which seemed appropriate at the time, in relation to the twin requirements: that we look at plurality in relation to media but also at control. If this were a simple case of looking at how a monopoly might influence outcomes and how consumers are treated, it would not be necessary, perhaps, to delve so deeply. The issues that are currently addressed by the CMA, for instance, are largely economic. They deal with prices. They deal with the way in which consumers are treated, but they are basically around whether or not the price has been artificially moved in order to favour the producer against the citizen. In that sense, we do not need to think too hard about some of the issues, although we can regret them, as we did in the debate in the dinner hour, which I was able to participate in, which focused almost exclusively on why consumers have disappeared from government, consumer interests are rarely referred to and there are not even consumer panels on the CMA. But that debate can be read in Hansard, and I am sure it will be of much interest to those who are interested in this point.

The amendments would go back over the grounds on which a PIIN is issued and make it clearer than it is currently that simple questions of plurality, which are readily gamed in terms of corporate structures these days—this issue was perhaps not so resonant at the time that the legislation was drafted—need to have a little bit more bite if they are to look at some of the detail that we want in this area. We have to look not just at the question of ownership and control in relation to a market-facing issue but at the way in which such an agglomeration can distort and change that market, which is not in the public interest. It is very important that we do that. There may well be a way of dealing with this under the existing legislation, but it would be so much easier if the amendment was accepted because it would take us down a line that was more focused on the particularity of the media arrangements.

Then there is the question of the fit and proper person test for those who have broadcast licences. The basic structure is there. Again, on reflection, it could be argued—and I think it has been demonstrated today—that without more concern about the issues which arise out of the merger, without more concern about how the operation will work in terms of who activates it, what exactly the issues are that will be looked at, what the proprieties are that we are concerned about, and where the ethical concerns are and all that, then it will not be as effective. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate. It is good to have this debate.

This group of amendments seeks to make extensive changes to the broadcast media public interest considerations that may be relied upon to intervene in certain media merger situations and the fit and proper test that Ofcom has a duty to apply to all those who hold a broadcasting licence in the UK.

Before I get into the detail, the debate has included views from across the House about the parties to the Fox/Sky merger. There is a proposed merger currently in train, which it is very likely the Secretary of State will need to consider under her existing powers. As the Secretary of State noted in her written statement of 10 January, any decision will be a quasi-judicial one. It is important that she is able to act independently and that the process is scrupulously fair and impartial. As a result, neither I nor any Minister can comment on the merits of this specific case. I will have to restrict my comments to the substance of the amendments themselves.

I have noted carefully the views of noble Lords, and of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in particular. I have a transcript here of some of the debate of the then Communications Bill, in 2003. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, remembered the key issue about citizen and consumer. Indeed, Lord Puttnam and I met outside this Chamber to try to come to terms with our approach to this issue—I was part of Her Majesty’s Opposition in those days. A lot was achieved. Of course, it was a government amendment on Third Reading which created the plurality and public interest test. It was my noble friend Lord Lansley, who is unfortunately unable to be in his place tonight, who sat on the draft legislative committee on that Bill, and who retains that interest.

Drawing all the contributions together brings us to a single question: do the Government believe they have the necessary powers to allow them to deal with complex media mergers and a concentration of ownership that would be damaging to media plurality?

In our view, the tests introduced in 2003 are wide-ranging and provide the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who is responsible for media mergers, with a wide discretion to intervene. For example, in cases where there are concerns about media plurality, or where a bidder does not have a genuine commitment to the UK’s well-established rules on content standards and cross-promotion, which are overseen by Ofcom, the Secretary of State can consider those concerns as part of her deliberations as to whether to intervene in the proposed merger.

Turning to the amendments themselves, given the discretion to intervene based on the existing media public interest considerations, we do not believe it is necessary to add the additional requirements set out in Amendment 229ZA and would argue that these are matters that can already be considered under the existing tests. In addition, the matters set out are considered by Ofcom on an ongoing basis in its regulatory role.

There are three existing broadcast media public interest considerations that the Secretary of State can take into account in deciding whether or not to intervene in a merger. The first is the need for a sufficient plurality of persons with control of media enterprises—I stress, plurality of persons. The second is the need for a wide range of broadcasting which is both high quality and appeals to a wide variety of interests. In other words, the focus must be on content and plurality of content. The third is the need for persons carrying on media enterprises to have a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards. Together, these powers give the Secretary of State discretion to consider a wide range of matters in deciding whether the specified public interests may be relevant, and whether or not to intervene in a particular merger.

Amendment 229ZA, which inserts new Section 58(2D) into the Enterprise Act, would allow the Secretary of State to intervene in a media merger based on the need for those holding broadcasting licences to be a fit and proper person, as noble Lords have said today. The issue of who is a fit and proper person to hold a broadcasting licence is a regulatory matter for Ofcom. Ofcom is under an ongoing duty to remain satisfied that those holding broadcasting licences are fit and proper to do so, under Section 3 of the Broadcast Act 1990 and Section 3 of the Broadcast Act 1996. Ofcom’s assessment of these matters will consider the conduct of those who have material influence or control over broadcast licensees and will consider a wide range of factors in assessing who is fit and proper, including the matters set out in the amendment.

The amendment also proposes a new Section 58(2E), which is aimed at allowing intervention on the basis that the governance of broadcast media enterprises providing news needs to include sufficient safeguards for editorial freedom in the provision of full and accurate news services. I entirely accept—and the Government entirely agree with noble Lords on this—that the issue of governance is crucial, although we discussed in earlier debates today that the issue of accurate news is becoming a very difficult one and will exercise all our minds in the coming months. It is a long-established condition of broadcast licences in the UK that news is reported with due accuracy and impartiality, as set out in Ofcom’s broadcasting code. Ofcom, as the regulator, governs compliance with this requirement of the code.

The matters set out in the amendment at proposed new subsection 58(2F) would be dealt with by licence conditions and Ofcom’s broadcasting code, including provisions on fair and effective competition and the cross-promotion code, as well as matters that would be considered as part of the fit and proper person test.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for going through this in so much detail. The issue raised in the first part of the amendment on the fit and proper person test was not whether the powers exist but how they would be triggered. The worry is that they would be triggered post hoc rather than anticipatorily with regard to a merger. Do the Government accept that there is a difficulty here?

[Baroness Buscombe]

The Government do not accept that there is a difficulty in this. The important issue is that the powers remain broad in their application. To the best of my understanding, though, there is no difficulty regarding when they are triggered.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

229ZC: After Clause 84, insert the following new Clause—
“OFCOM: regulation of digital publications
Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must report to each House of Parliament on the arrangements that would need to be made by OFCOM if it were to assume the responsibilities of an independent regulator for digital publications.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this amendment deals with the preparations that will need to be made should we be in the unfortunate situation that was animadverted by Sir Brian Leveson when he finished his part 1 report, if the press self-regulation proposals made in it are not fulfilled.

The current situation is complex, and it may be slightly premature to assume that everything is going to fail, but I think that, of the two types of problem that he identified, the first—that no recognised regulator was appointed within a year of the recognition panel’s being established—has not come through. We have a recognised regulator, and it was approved very recently, within a year of the recognition panel’s being established. That is a good thing, and we should bank on that.

The second problem, however, remains. His feeling was that there would be no value in the self-regulatory proposals he was advocating if significant news publishers remained outside the recognised regulator. That has happened in spades. There is a body established by the industry and largely for the industry, IPSO, which is not seeking recognition under the existing procedures. Therefore, that would, I think, represent a failure in terms of Leveson’s original proposal. We also have a situation in which the recognised regulator is not attracting significant support from the press which might be regulated by it, although it does have some support, and that is good, and we support that. It is not, however, operating at the scale or encompassing sufficient of the broad press, which was the focus of the original report, to be considered a success.

We are facing a problem. The problem was anticipated, and the solution proposed by Lord Justice Leveson at that stage was a backstop regulator. Therefore this amendment—which is limited in terms of the exact wording to the digital media, although it could, I think, be read as more appropriate for the wider situation—is almost certainly going to be required because of the situation I have outlined. Obviously, we regret that. We wish, as we always have, that a properly self-regulatory system could be established. However, it is extraordinary that the press, as Lord Justice Leveson says, benefits from considerable support in statute for the activities that it wants, including a provision in an amendment to this Bill to protect journalists who wish to break stories that were in the public interest and who might otherwise be caught by concerns about data leakage. That is an example of the sorts of ways we have often legislated for and supported the press because everybody believes in a free press and believes that the press should be able to operate within the law and without any constraint. However, we also believe—this is particularly true of those who have been victims of press intrusion into their private lives—that the public will not settle for a situation in which the press escapes standards regulation altogether.

We will therefore face a situation within a few months where it is likely that it will not be possible that the Leveson proposals have been brought in and there is a need for a standards regulator. The standards regulator proposed by Leveson in his report is Ofcom, and there is much in the report which shows and explains why that would be a good thing. My amendment, which I hope the Government will accept, says that it is time to start to think about how this will impact on Ofcom’s work and to bring forward proposals under which that should operate. I beg to move.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, it is four years after the Leveson inquiry, and I certainly believe that Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 should be implemented, and should be implemented now. I voted for it in your Lordships’ House last October and I certainly support the amendments today, which have much the same effect. I also support the fail-safe amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, although I hope that it is not necessary and that Section 40 will be brought in.

Some incredibly misleading statements have been made about the impact of Section 40. Most of the newspapers, as we know, do not support its implementation and have featured some quite amazing one-sided editorials. To the best of my knowledge, none of them has permitted a right of reply. I am the former Member of Parliament for the wonderful city of Bath, which is included in my title, so I am sure that noble Lords will not be surprised that I take a particular interest and am an avid online reader of the Bath Chronicle. Three weeks ago it published one of these anti-Section 40 diatribes. I wrote a rebuttal and asked the Bath Chronicle to publish it. I have not even had an acknowledgement so far—so much for a free press.

Perhaps to explain why I support these amendments, and to ensure it is published—albeit in Hansard rather than in the Bath Chronicle—I will read what I wrote, because it sums up exactly where I stand:

“I am a strong supporter of local newspapers and the Bath Chronicle in particular. But I was surprised by your recent editorial suggesting that measures being considered by parliament will mean that ‘Any investigation in the public interest could be silenced by anyone with a vested interest’. This is a complete misreading of the proposals made by Lord Justice Leveson after the Public Inquiry which followed the appalling phone hacking scandal.


Few could deny that in the past the press had a shocking track record of setting up its own toothless regulators which failed to protect the public. Leveson has proposed that the press should now establish a truly independent regulator whose independence is checked and then ‘recognised’ by a body which is itself impartial and independent from government or the press.


This is what the public want as shown by a YouGov poll just last week. When asked ‘Do you think it is important that any newspaper self-regulator undergoes an audit to ensure it is effective and that it is genuinely independent of both politicians and the press?’ nearly three-quarters (72%) said yes and just 6% said no.


The ‘regulator’ under which the Bath Chronicle operates—called IPSO—doesn’t meet this test. It is not only funded but controlled by the newspapers it regulates.


Were the Chronicle to join a ‘recognised’ regulator, or were IPSO to demonstrate through getting recognised that it met proper standards of independence and effectiveness, the funding issues you describe would not happen. Moreover, the public would be protected and you”—


that is, the Chronicle—

“would receive protection from wealthy and powerful local figures if they tried to bully you into withholding stories about them by threatening you with unaffordable court costs”.

My article ended:

“I hope Parliament will agree to support the public and back Leveson’s proposals”.


I certainly hope the Government will accept the amendments before us today.

--- Later in debate ---

That may not meet all the concerns that have been expressed on the matter, and I appreciate in particular the concern that centres on the implementation of Section 40. However, as I said at the outset, it respectfully appears to us that it would be premature to go down this road at this stage. I respectfully invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for his full response. I am sorry that he guessed the plot rather early on in the game: I am guilty as charged. It was very hard to get anything on this into the scope of the Bill. There seems to have been a change of management upstairs in the Public Bill Office and they are much tougher than they used to be, and we will have to have a think about that.

Anyway, the reason for including the amendment was to have the debate that we have just had to find out a little more about the Government’s thinking, and to flag up that it is worth thinking about how we can recapture some of the cross-party spirit that informed the process leading up to the original Leveson proposal and, out of that, the statutory position we are now in. However, as the noble and learned Lord says, we may be a bit premature on that. You can never plan too far ahead, but it is cautious optimism to think that the department has begun thinking about these things. That is as far as we want to get on this. Following this good exchange, which can be read in Hansard, and the sense that we are at least on the same page, if not the same sentence, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 229ZC withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

230: After Clause 87, insert the following new Clause—
“Offence of using digital ticket purchasing software to purchase excessive number of tickets
(1) A person commits an offence if he or she utilises digital ticket purchasing software to purchase tickets over and above the number permitted in the condition of sale.(2) A person commits an offence if he or she knowingly resells or offers to resell, or allows to be resold or offered for resale on a secondary ticketing facility, a ticket that the person knows, or could reasonably suspect, was obtained using digital ticket purchasing software and was acting in the course of a business.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) a person shall be treated as acting in the course of a business if he or she does anything as a result of which he or she makes a profit or aims to make a profit.(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to—(a) imprisonment for a period not exceeding 51 weeks,(b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or(c) both.(5) In this section—“digital ticket purchasing software” means any machine, device, computer programme or computer software that, on its own or with human assistance, bypasses security measures or access control systems on a retail ticket purchasing platform that assist in implementing a limit on the number of tickets that can be purchased, to purchase tickets;“retail ticket purchasing platform” shall mean a retail ticket purchasing website, application, phone system, or other technology platform used to sell tickets.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, before I introduce the amendment, I wonder whether we could reflect on the fact that we are missing rather an important person from the debate. The noble Baroness Heyhoe Flint was a keen and active Member of your Lordships’ House. She had several special interests apart from cricket and a wonderful raconteur’s skill of telling stories of her exploits at the crease. She was rather good at it. Whatever it was, it was always a delight to hear. She had a special interest in secondary ticketing, and in many of the debates held in your Lordships’ House on this issue, she was present and often contributed. She was responsible, along with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, whom I see in his place, for getting changes made to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which brought in the first of what we hope will be a series of measures to improve and clear up this issue.

The amendment to the Consumer Rights Bill that we inserted in 2015 raised from a secondary legislation provision to a primary legislation provision a series of measures to improve and clear up the secondary ticketing market. It was done primarily to ensure that those who buy tickets for sports, arts and music events can do so in the sure and certain knowledge that their tickets are valid, that they will be able to gain access to what they want to see and that they are not being ripped off in the process.

It is fair to say that we got this only after a considerable struggle—and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, might wish to share with us some of the difficulties that he experienced—but one of the things that was necessary in order to achieve that victory was to agree to a report on secondary ticketing to be carried out by a distinguished person. That person was Professor Waterson. He has now done that and the report has come out. Those involved are entitled to take a moment to reflect on the fact that what we were saying in Committee on the Bill and what we did in moving amendments and getting them inserted into what became the Act was brought out by the professor’s report, which was a comprehensive piece of work that showed that the scale of the issue was as we described it and that there was a need for further action.

The Bill before us is an opportunity to do more work, and the group of amendments that I am introducing—and for which I am hoping to get support from the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Foster of Bath, and others as we go through it—is a mixed bag because there are still things that need to be sorted out. An issue that arose in the other place and which was very nearly accepted by the Government was the question of an offence caused by using digital ticket-purchasing software—so-called bots. They are a scourge of many people who organise and run events—particularly in the music industry, but they apply right across the piece. Automated software operated by a number of individuals creates a situation where virtually no tickets are available on the first release of an event, but they then appear very quickly at very much higher prices through secondary ticket outlets. This amendment would, we hope, stamp this out. It has been tried in a number of territories, including New York very recently, and it does seem to work, so we recommend that.

The other amendments deal with changes that we would like to see to improve the broader approach taken in the Consumer Rights Act which, in practice, needs to be taken to another stage. They are basically to do with greater transparency and accountability in how the secondary ticket market works. It is really important, however, that we get clear at the start that nothing in these amendments would stop the resale of tickets once purchased by an individual who wished to sell them because they could not attend the event or that they wanted to sell them on to other people in a closed circle. This is not about private purchases or operations. It is about those who go into the ticket market on a commercial basis, very often making huge amounts of money by exploiting people who do not understand and cannot get to the heart of the issue and therefore pay ridiculous prices. It also would help stamp out what is clearly a fraudulent activity that has been partially stopped by the changes made in 2015 but has not stopped completely. People buy what look on the surface to be valid tickets, but when they turn up at the venue they discover that they are not valid and are refused entry. This is fraud on an industrial scale, and probably the source of much money laundering and illegal activity, which was referred to by the police in their Podium report prior to the 2012 Olympics.

These amendments should be taken as a batch; they build on work in which this House has already been involved and they are the right changes to make this stage. I beg to move.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I support the seven amendments in this group spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I echo that it is particularly appropriate in many ways, albeit very sad, that we debate the often malicious and pernicious use of bots on the sad day of the funeral of my very close friend Lady Rachael Heyhoe Flint. One afternoon, she was purposefully striding down the Corridor outside the Peers’ Guest Room, and said, “I need you”. I jumped to attention and we headed off to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I was totally unaware of why I was accompanying her on that occasion, or indeed the matter proposed for discussion. Rachael launched into a thinly veiled, front-foot attack on those in and around the secondary market, who fleece consumers to no benefit to cricketers, musicians, sportsmen and sportswomen, who are the ones who entertain them. Through her hard work and persuasive skills, I was galvanised into action. I thank the Government for the progress that we made in the Consumer Rights Bill at the time, as well as the Opposition and noble Lords from all sides of the House.

That was just a first yet important step. Today is the second opportunity to make further progress. I was very sad not to be at Rachael’s funeral today to pay my close personal, political and sporting respects, but she would have been the first to admonish me. She would have said, “Why on earth are you not down in Westminster putting on your pads, your gloves and picking up your bat, and going into the centre of the parliamentary wicket to hit those bots for six?”. I will do my best, captain. I will do my best. In paying tribute to her, because she was absolutely instrumental in the work that we undertook during the passage of that Bill, I must also pay tribute to Nigel Adams, Member of Parliament in another place, who has taken this to his heart and has done so much good work.

The whole issue of bots goes right to the heart of the disappointment of thousands of music and sporting fans who have on occasion faced the reality of having their credit card ready in their hand with minutes to go before the sale of tickets for a particular gig or match but no sooner do they go on sale than they sell out. Minutes later, tickets can be spotted on reselling websites. The new, hidden threat that is snatching tickets from under the noses of genuine fans is ticketing bots.

Music and sports fans have always battled against touts buying up tickets to make a quick buck by selling them on again at inflated prices. But now touts have a new cyberweapon that allows them to step up their game. These ticketing bots are software; they buy up huge numbers of tickets for events as soon as they go on sale. Buyers then use the secondary websites to sell them on. Reg Walker, who has done an enormous amount of good work on this at the O2, stated:

“They then harvest tickets at high speed and that effectively blocks out genuine fans from being able to purchase tickets at face value. These tickets are then immediately resold on secondary ticketing platforms”.


What then happens is that those who are sitting in their garages using bots programmed with all this information press the button immediately and get their 200 tickets, and sell them on to one of the four secondary platforms where nearly 80% to 90% of resale now takes place. In so doing, they do not necessarily always get all the tickets they want. Their preferred status and good relationship with the platform is critical to their next sale. So, if necessary, they will have the income on a very high-price ticket with a high margin to go out and counterfeit tickets to make up the gap between those they have committed to supply and the actual number that they have. That is why the wholesale harvesting of tickets by touts not only incentivises these individuals to create relationships with the main providers of the secondary market tickets, the providers even develop power-seller programmes to encourage the delivery of mass tickets.

This is all at the same time that you are trying to type in your name in order to get a couple of tickets, as the true fan of a music show at the O2 or a sporting event. The reality is that you have no chance. We have all tried it; I have tried it on many occasions and cannot believe that they have sold out before I have got down my name, address, credit card number and so on. It is no surprise, though, when bots are available purely for the benefit of the profit of the individual. No artists, no sportsmen and no fans benefit. That mark- up goes straight into the pocket of the individual who has got the ticket and the secondary sales platforms that provide those tickets at inflated prices to consumers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I too would, of course, like to pay tribute, on behalf of the Government, to Baroness Heyhoe Flint today. I agree that it is particularly appropriate that we should be discussing this subject today.

In 2015 this House acknowledged the complexity of online ticketing by including the requirement for a review of consumer protection measures relating to online secondary ticketing in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Professor Michael Waterson conducted that review, and his independent report makes a number of points relevant to these amendments. I will come to the specific question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in a minute.

First, Professor Waterson does not recommend a ban on the secondary ticketing market, recognising instead its benefit to consumers. Amendment 231, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the unauthorised resale of tickets, could in effect ban the secondary ticketing market. There would be no obligation for organisers to approve a resale platform, or to accept returns. As a result there would be no outlet to recoup money for those who found they could not attend an event. Consumers could be left unable to sell any tickets they cannot use, other than through the black market. That would expose buyers and sellers to much greater risk of fraud than using the online secondary ticketing market, which has safeguards and guarantees built in.

Significant market intervention should be carefully considered and consistently applied. Professor Waterson calls for the existing provisions of the Consumer Rights Act to be enforced and tested. We should therefore welcome and await the outcome of the recently announced enforcement investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am glad the Minister has mentioned the work of the CMA, but is he aware, as I hope he is, that the CMA enforcement activity was on the previous Act, not the current one? In other words, the undertakings it obtained related to previous legislation; it specifically did not and could not look at the situation post the Consumer Rights Act 2015 since it was not in force at the time they got those undertakings.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I agree with the noble Lord on that. The fact is that the enforcement activity is under way. We think it would be the wrong time, but I hope later to be not entirely discouraging.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am afraid I do not know what the timescale is. Obviously there will be a conclusion, but I do not know at the moment. I will find out and let the noble Lord know if it is possible to know that.

To add to the Act now while the investigation is under way would serve only to undermine it. We must allow the CMA to carry out its investigation without interfering with the law it seeks to enforce. To do so will simply provide further grounds for those being challenged to resist.

I also have some specific grounds on each of the individual amendments, but in view of the hour, if the noble Lord agrees, and in view of what I hope I will say to help him, if I omit those details on the individual ones we can move on. I understand the aim of these amendments—to ensure compliance with the Consumer Rights Act—but this is already under way and we must await the outcome.

On Amendment 230, concerning the use of ticketing bots, the offences set out in the Computer Misuse Act have broad application. Unauthorised use of a computerised ticketing system may give rise to breaches of that Act. We are of the view that it may also constitute an offence under the Fraud Act. Professor Waterson believed that such breaches need to be reported and investigated. He puts the onus on ticket vendors to guard against the harvesting of tickets by persons with no intention of attending the event. He called on the ticketing industry to do more to protect itself and, with government support, the new National Cyber Security Centre is in touch with ticketing organisations on cybersecurity.

Professor Waterson also stressed the importance of having an effective strategy that deters bot usage. For example, paperless options such as mobile phone ticketing, or a bank card doubling up as a ticket, can make it harder to carry out mass ticket purchasing. Notably, this strategy was employed for the sale of tickets to the musical “Hamilton” in London.

The Government understand the spirit in which these amendments are made and the Secretary of State recently held two round tables specifically on the issue of bots. While noting there are a number of industry-led solutions available, we recognise it is hugely frustrating for fans who miss out on tickets sold on the primary market only to see them disappear on the secondary ticketing market at sometimes hugely increased prices. That is why we will continue to reflect on what has been said by all noble Lords regarding the Government’s response to Professor Waterson’s report, which will be published very soon. Furthermore, we will continue to consider the specific issue of bots and whether there is scope for further government intervention in this area. I hope to be able to update your Lordships on this shortly. With that commitment, I hope noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Glass half full or glass half empty? I am not quite sure what to make of that. Sometimes the Minister’s choice of words is helpful and informative, light is suddenly shone across the Table and we understand where he is going. I was a bit lost on that, but I think he was saying, “Hold on for a bit, and more will be revealed”. That is the first point. Waterson is clearly the key to it and the response will presumably set out some of the agenda we might want to pursue, either with the Government or separately, if we have to come back on Report.

It would be in everyone’s best interest if those key players who have been involved up to now could meet with the Minister, perhaps soon after the Recess, to try to hammer out what is and is not possible. Bills such as this do not come past very often. There is an opportunity to do something that will fit within the strictures of the Public Bill Office and therefore will be allowable. It would be an awful shame not to get the incremental changes that we think are necessary to fulfil the ambition behind the original Consumer Rights Act, the amendments and changes and the report of Professor Waterson. It would be to the benefit of fans who have called for it.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

Of course, as I said right at the beginning on day one, I am always open to meeting the noble Lord and other noble Lords. I am happy to do so. I think Report will be some weeks after the Recess, so we have some time.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am heartened by that and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 230 withdrawn.

Digital Economy Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve (CB)]

My Lords, I share the view that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has expressed, that the amendment probably is not the way to go about this. Algorithms are too ubiquitous, useful and powerful in this case. I do not know what we could do instead, but I note that one of the things we are looking at, together with the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has identified, is that the internet service providers and the big media companies are supposedly platforms, not publishers, and they do not have the responsibilities of publishers for that reason. Facebook will say that it merely hosts the material that individuals post. When individuals post material, they ought to think that it reaches an indefinite number of people because the algorithm spreads it through the echo chambers. It is the cyber silos that we are going to have to think about. With the greatest regret, I do not think the amendment would do that, but I very much support the principle of looking into this matter.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. We, particularly those of us of a certain age, often get to a point where we are scared of the technology that we are expected to use. We are in the hands of our children, who shout things like, “It’s intuitive! Just do it!”, but we do not have the faintest idea what we are trying to do. However, we should not be scared of technologies. History should tell us that the reason why Shakespeare’s Globe is outside the city walls of London is that people like us in those days felt that they were dangerous plays that should not be seen by too many people. Video nasties and indeed concerns about some of the issues that are in the Bill are examples of the same thing. We have to be careful that this is not just another “penny dreadful” story but a serious issue.

I was not that concerned about this matter in my own consciousness until I came across it personally and in relation to something that has already been mentioned in the debate. I work with a small charity that relies entirely on a website presence in order to try to help people who suffer from the condition that it serves. For the first seven or eight years of the charity’s life, we were ranked number one on a search engine—let us call it Google—so when you searched for the condition, we came up top. In the last six months, we have gone from top to, I think, 44th in the rankings for this condition, which means that no one now uses our services, rings up or communicates with us. We are now on page four of the search results and that turns out to have been achieved by a change in the algorithm, which prunes out the people who apply. The ISP put in a particular search term that managed to knock down the efficacy of the inquiries that were coming to us at our charity. So the charity, which was doing good work and reaching 2,000 or 3,000 people a year, is now reaching no one, and we cannot change that because the algorithm is behind a commercial confidential situation. So I pick up the points that are being made all round the Chamber about the need for us to get more clued up about this without being scared of it, and I support the amendment for that reason.

The second point that has been picked up, which slightly goes against the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, is that, where an algorithm is helping to achieve a relatively straightforward systems approach, it is probably not as much of an issue as where it is substituting its judgment for yours. It is not knowing what that judgment is that is the problem, and that is where the points that have been made need to be picked up. That is something that we would all benefit from. Whether or not this is the right amendment, there is an issue here that will need to be pursued, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting debate. Clearly there is a principle upon which everyone is agreed, and that is that this is a serious and growing issue. It is certainly an issue that the Government take very seriously.

As my noble friend Lord Lucas has set out, the basis of the amendment aims to understand the impact of algorithms on users of digital services. As we have already heard, algorithms play an important role in modern life, from making recommendations for books you might like to read, to more important matters such as credit ratings and detecting fraud. Indeed, there is a real debate here on the extent to which the public are willing to compromise on what is termed privacy for a better service. Transparency itself is incredibly important in terms of knowing how information about oneself is used, for what and with whom it is being shared, and having some control over that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I support these amendments, which seem a very good compromise. They ensure fairness and balance and avoid the very narrow approach of judicial review regardless of merit in any circumstances, without going into the substance of matters in a way that would turn the review into a whole general appeal. For those reasons, I am glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is taking part in this debate. He will know a great deal about the subject from his private practice as well as his public practice. This is a good compromise. It may be that the Government can come up with something better, but this is certainly better than Clause 75 as it stands.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am not a lawyer—I feel a bit uncomfortable joining this debate; I am sure there are issues it is much beyond my abilities to deal with. But I say to the Minister before he responds, the point made about the degree of concern in the industry is important. This is a big and complicated Bill with many different aspects. It reaches far into aspects of our digital world. This clause, however, is the one that has generated the largest number of responses and—to judge from the meetings I have had with people—the most anger.

In a sense, so what? If it is the right decision, it should go ahead. However, it is clear that there is a lot of support for the current situation, even though there are arguments against it. The point was made time and again that the existing arrangements seem to work well, so why are we changing them? The industry, as I said, is pretty well united against it. One or two are speaking up for it but they do not represent the majority of voices we have heard.

There is also a real danger that—particularly at a time of uncertainty over technological change and regulatory positioning—having a period when we deliberately create confusion and delay until the new guidelines, or baselines, are established, is probably not the best way of making progress. Uncertainty over a long period will affect investment, which is not what we want. So there are reasons for asking the Government to be very clear that this is the right way forward.

We all share the same wish: we want an efficient and trusted regulator that can deal with this complicated, fast-moving and complex area. But it would be quite improper to have a situation in which there was a very limited right of appeal on any case determined not to have been carried out correctly—not so much about the judicial aspects, but on the merits of the case; in other words, where the evidence does not support the decision that has been taken.

I do not understand quite what the difficulties are. I have looked back over comments made by the noble and learned Lord when he was Advocate-General for Scotland. He is on the record in a number of places and a quick search with an algorithm of some complexity, which I could not possibly describe, reveals him to have said several things about judicial oversight. As it has developed, he says, it has,

“provided us with a flexible standard of oversight, which in many senses is wide-ranging”.

However, judicial oversight is the issue and that is what we have to emphasise. He might like to reflect on that in relation to what has been said. There are other things—I will not quote them as I am sure he is embarrassed enough already, or perhaps not. But the issue needs bottoming out—there is a serious point at its heart. There are issues that will affect the whole nature of the business we are regulating in this manner which need to be resolved.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for raising this matter because it has generated a great deal of heat and debate in the context of the Bill. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, with respect to the number of responses there have been. I just emphasise that judicial review is a form of judicial oversight, and a very effective one, but I will elaborate on that in a moment.

We are aware that the major telecoms operators in particular, and their agents, have lobbied vigorously and in detail on this point. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, brought out many of the points that have been made by their agents in the course of that vigorous and detailed lobbying. I shall not go into the detail of Ofcom’s position on this. It has expressed its position very clearly and we understand it. What I would say is that there is no single position for all utility sectors, and both judicial review and appeals on the merits may be used in the same sector for different kinds of appeals. It is not a black and white situation.

The Government’s case is not that this change is needed to ensure consistency with other utility sectors but that the public interest will be best served in the communications sector by an appeals regime that focuses on errors which Ofcom is alleged to have made, rather than asking the court to reach a different conclusion. Let us remember that Ofcom is a qualified regulator and its decisions are entitled to respect. They are informed decisions and they are not irrational. They are not determined on the toss of a coin. That is why judicial review is an appropriate approach.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also talked about consumers. I find that interesting. Perhaps I may refer briefly to the Which? response to Clause 75. It sees this measure as one of the most important currently contained in the Digital Economy Bill, saying that it will give the regulator the power and confidence to take the necessary actions to protect consumer interests without fear of costly and lengthy litigation procedures. Introducing a judicial review standard for appeals in telecoms will mean that decisions made by Ofcom in the interest of consumers should be easier to implement and quicker to take effect. That is a reflection of Ofcom’s own view of the matter. This is not necessarily about coming to the aid of Ofcom but about recognising these matters from the perspective of the consumer. That is extremely important.

Currently, appeals brought under Sections 192 to 196 of the Communications Act against Ofcom’s regulatory decisions are decided “on the merits” by the Competition Appeal Tribunal. That exceeds and, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, acknowledged, effectively gold-plates Article 4 of the EU framework directive, which requires that the merits of the case are duly taken into account in any appeal. That is not quite the wording of the proposed amendment.

The result of this over-implementation is an unnecessarily intensive and burdensome standard of review that can result in very lengthy and costly appeals litigation, which in turn can hinder timely and effective regulation. Some of the appeals that have taken place have done so over extraordinarily lengthy periods. Of course, the very large communications operators are in a position to fund that sort of appeal process. Clause 75 will change the standard of review so that the Competition Appeal Tribunal will decide appeals against Ofcom’s decisions by applying the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review and, in particular, judicial review of other administrative actions. This will focus appeals on the key questions of the legality and reasonableness of Ofcom’s decision-making.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, suggested that there might be cases in which there was simply no merit in a decision. If that was so, and if Ofcom proceeded without reliance on the facts of a particular case, that would be amenable to review under a judicial review standard.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

222E: After Clause 76, insert the following new Clause—
“Impact of Royal Charter and Agreement on radio production
The Secretary of State must report, within a year of the passing of this Act, on the impact of the BBC Royal Charter and Agreement, on—(a) the balance of in-house and independent production of programmes for BBC radio broadcast;(b) the extent to which training and development of production staff may have been affected;(c) the numbers of staff active in radio production compared to 2016, including details of gender and other indicators of diversity; and(d) the impact the changes have had on the salaries and conditions of radio production staff.’’

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I was slightly surprised at the way the Minister rebuffed concerns about the way in which Parliament engaged with the royal charter process last time. It might be because he joined us halfway through, to a little bit of shock but quite a lot of pleasure. Looking back on it, I do not think it can be said that Parliament was as engaged as it wished to be in the process. The ability to speak on two occasions when Statements were graciously made by Ministers, and to speak in one debate focusing, at that stage, on the draft charter, with the agreement as yet not finalised, can hardly be described as participating actively in the process. I think we can agree to differ on that point. I am sure that noble Lords who spoke in the earlier debate had a very different version of how that might have gone, including involvement by Select Committees and involvement in the detail, which would have resulted in proper and effective scrutiny of the Government’s proposals and the eventual outcome.

This amendment, by serendipity, actually deals with some of the fall-out of the rather deficient process we are going through. When charters are drafted, considered and debated, they are never alone: there are lots of other things going on. Many people present will be able to give witness to that effect. One of the things that sometimes gets missed out is the detail in the agreement. The agreement, of course, is really the mechanics of how the arrangement between the Government and the BBC works in practice. One was brought in in such a way and at such a time that it was never discussed in your Lordships’ House or in the other place. It only really became an issue once the charter was about to be sealed. The issue was the changes to the way national radio output was to be operated in future, which were being imposed on—although not necessarily resisted by—BBC management. That is the subject of this amendment.

Amendment 222E is a probing amendment, asking the Government to conduct a review of an important sector of the creative economy. It does not specifically relate to the BBC—although it is cued into something that is happening there—but it would provide useful information and detail that would be of interest to the Committee. If the review were carried out in the way I suggest, with a report covering a range of topics related to radio production, I hope it could be brought to your Lordships’ House and generate a good discussion.

In short, about 60% of BBC national radio output is going to be put out to competitive tender over the next few years, to 2020. Over the past 20 years, BBC radio has actually increased its external commissioning from zero to around 20% of output. That is quite a slow rate of progress, but that is not unconnected with the fact that we are talking about a very fragile sector of the creative industries. Radio production does not involve a very large group of people. The independents are usually quite small and not in the habit of operating on a scale that would enable them to take over the huge increase in the proportion of radio that we are talking about.

The proposal would mean an extra 3,000 hours of national radio output being put out to tender every year. That, of course, does not come free of charge, but with the cost of a commissioning process in-house at the BBC. Therefore, it is not all a one-way process: there will be additional costs. Those costs will not be funded by any additional funding from the licence fee or any other process, so there is bound to be a squeezing of radio budgets, and neither external nor in-house producers will be able to rely on getting any increase. It is going to be a rather difficult situation, affecting the people involved. Current in-house BBC radio producers will find that their jobs are largely going to disappear, because, although a significant number of programmes will be retained in-house, the 60% figure means that the majority will be produced externally.

The question of how the BBC will continue to operate as a major trainer in this area must be raised, because without the numbers, that training might well be at risk. Who else is going to do the training to ensure that radio has a flow of qualified people coming forward? Smaller independent production companies might not be able to scale up either quickly enough or with sufficient range to compete against those that will, perhaps, sweep the pool.

This is a really big change in an important part of our national life—a real adjustment—and it has not been given sufficient scrutiny. Given that it was not discussed in Parliament as far as I am aware and was hardly raised externally, the Government have a duty to think harder about the issues arising. The allegation was made that this proposal did not emerge from any consideration of the needs and purposes of BBC radio production, or indeed the independent radio production sector. In meetings I had with those involved, I was told that the ask for the independent sector was to get from the current 20% of output to 25% by 2020—in other words, a marginal increase on the existing arrangements. To go from 20% to 60% reflects what I think must have been external pressures. That rather makes the point that we need to know more about what is going on, and transparency would help.

The main purpose of the amendment is to focus on the situation that will emerge after 60% of national radio output is put out to competitive tender, and the benefits that will flow from that. I beg to move.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I have much sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, although I have some disagreements with it as well, which I will come to. As the noble Lord said, the new charter obligation commits the BBC to extending competition for radio production. It was my understanding that that proposal came directly from the BBC—that it was not, as the noble Lord suggested, imposed on but not necessarily resisted by BBC management. As he said, it may or may not have been rather more than the independent radio producers were expecting or had requested. The Committee would benefit from hearing from the Minister a little about the background to this part of the charter and agreement.

What is clear is that it has been agreed that from April 2017, over a six-year period, the BBC will open up 60% of relevant hours—that is non-news, news-related current affairs or repeats—to competition both from in-house and indie producers. That represents about 27,000 hours of programming per year being open to competition. Although it will not go as far as what is happening in television, it is a further development of the process that began right back in 1992, when the BBC voluntarily made 10% available to independent production. That has developed over a number of years. The 10% voluntary figure was made compulsory, we then saw further developments and eventually the “compete and compare” framework was introduced, designed to drive up standards, reduce costs and ensure continuous improvement in all areas of operation.

Of course, the 60% available for competition does not guarantee the independent sector extra commissions. Independent companies will obviously have to have sufficiently good ideas and be able to demonstrate a track record of producing sufficiently high-quality content. The independent sector, of about 150 relatively small companies spread right across the country, has a growing track record of producing high-quality content and helping to increase the range and diversity of content available to BBC radio services. They produce some great programmes that win awards, and since the guide price for radio production is the same for both in-house and external producers, there is no increase in the production cost to the BBC.

It is good to hear that the independent sector is increasingly involved in training the next generation of producers through training programmes and mentoring schemes, helping to improve diversity: around 60% of learners are women, 15% are from BAME backgrounds, and 5% are people with a disability. But we have to be alert, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, suggested, to the impact these changes may have on the BBC and its own staff. They will certainly need increased levels of training and skills to negotiate, so that they can compete on a level playing field with the independents.

The review that is called for in the amendment is of course sensible, but we question whether it should take place quite as early in the process as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The 60% target for competition does not come into full effect until the end of 2022, which should provide the independent sector with plenty of time to develop the scale and expertise to pitch to make more programmes. It also allows time for the BBC to retrain and restructure. But the BBC acknowledges that while greater competition should deliver greater efficiency in programme costs, increasing the number of commissions open to competition threefold will require a larger in-house commissioning team, and there is already a potential impact on other in-house staff. I understand that the BBC is already in discussions with staff and trade unions about that.

It would make sense to have a review, but it should perhaps take place at the midway point between Royal Assent and 31 December 2020. If we are to have such a review, we need to look at some other issues that may form part of it, not least the BBC’s commissioning process, to ensure that the developing competition between in-house and independents is truly fair. However, we support the broad principle of the proposed review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his not unqualified support. It was useful to have another voice in the debate and he raised good points, which I broadly support. He is right that, on reflection, one would perhaps want to look at the issue of timing in more detail.

I would like to depart from the Minister’s comments on one issue: the focus of the amendment. The amendment is not really about what is happening in the BBC; it is an attempt to focus on what might happen in the broader ecology of radio production. In that sense, I was not straying into encouraging him to interfere in what must be an operational matter for the BBC—I absolutely agree with that. I do think, though, that there will be consequential waves of impact across the whole of radio production, which ought to be of interest to the Minister and to the department.

I still think that there will be strong changes here in matters such as conditions of service for staff. It is nice to hear that the RIG group is encouraged to match BBC conditions, but the likelihood of it doing so is very slim. That in itself may not be the biggest issue, but it is still going to have an impact and we should know about that. For all the reasons previously given, I still think that this would be a good idea.

However, the underlying point that will cause us the greatest concern as we go forward is that this seems to signal a change of approach. I think the Minister said that he strongly supported what was being proposed by the BBC in these measures—I will check in Hansard. Whether or not it was something that originated in the BBC or something it picked up in the negotiations and felt that perhaps it ought to do is a matter we can talk about later. The point is that, as a result of these and other changes, the BBC is moving inexorably from being a producer and broadcaster to a broadcaster that largely commissions work. That in itself has to be of concern. It may or may not be the right thing to do in the circumstances; it may be inevitable, given the way that technology is moving; but it is a change. Unless we mark and measure that in order to assess what is happening, we will all be the losers. That is perhaps for another day; in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 222E withdrawn.

Digital Economy Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very well-read response to the questions we all had about these technical amendments, although some of them were not quite technical of course. In terms of the four categories, I listened to three very carefully, and I will read what she said in Hansard, but we have no further comments to make on them at this stage.

She touched on the issue in relation to which we have two amendments down. I am grateful to the Government for responding so quickly to the discussion in another place on this issue, because as originally drafted, the Bill would have criminalised disclosures by whistleblowers and investigative journalists revealing matters of legitimate public interest. The point was picked up and discussed at some length, and had attracted interest from a wide range of people such as Sir Peter Bottomley and Helen Goodman, who raised it. The Minister in another place undertook to take it back, and we have now had the amendments put forward.

Those of your Lordships who have bothered to read the amendments in Clauses 50 and 51 will recognise that the wording is very similar in both cases. The difference, narrowly put, is that the amendment that we were advised would take the trick in this area included not just print journalism but also broadcast journalism. I am not certain whether that is necessary or not, but the Government have come forward with a slightly narrower point of view. I think we agree the aim, and it may just be a question of the correct wording, so unless there is any particular issue, we can do this either by correspondence or perhaps in a quick meeting, and I do not think there is anything on this point that need detain the Committee further. We are agreed and are delighted that the Government are making the move. It is just a question of trying to use what time we have to make sure that we have absolutely nailed it down completely.

Having said that, what has proved difficult in other pieces of legislation is how one defines whistleblowers. There is no attempt to do that here; the test is simply whether or not what has been disclosed was in the public interest. Again, there might just be something around that where we might look at other discussions and come back on it. But for the moment, I will leave it.

[Baroness Buscombe]

I thank the noble Lord for that. The opposition amendment makes specific reference to broadcast transmission when the government amendment on this topic does not. However, the word “publication” in our view can be construed sufficiently broadly to cover broadcast media. Section 32(6) of the Data Protection Act 1998 provides that:

“For the purposes of this Act ‘publish’, in relation to journalistic … material, means make available to the public or any section of the public”.


The ICO guidance on this indicates that publication for these purposes would therefore cover broadcast. As a result these additional changes are not necessary.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

It is quite an interesting point. The world has moved on since those original drafts, and we have to think a bit more carefully about what happens on YouTube and whether disclosure on social media will be covered by this. I do not dissent from what is being said but would just like to be certain that we have used this opportunity, which may not come again, to make sure we have this nailed.

[Baroness Buscombe]

I thank the noble Lord for what he has said and absolutely understand where he is coming from.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

117A: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Data sharing for the purpose of supporting better debt management
In addition to the purposes set out in section 41(3), information about debt may be shared by specified persons under this Chapter for the purpose of helping individuals to manage their debts, including by provision of a breathing space.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, in an idle moment, a moment of complete frivolity, I looked up GOV.UK to check facts—I thought that would be a useful contribution to the debate. The date we have all been searching for is 1837: the General Register Office is part of Her Majesty’s Passport Office and contains records dating back to 1837. I thought that would be useful.

I beg to move Amendment 117A in my name. This stems from my period of service as chairman of a wonderful charity called StepChange, which deals with individual debt owed by ordinary people. In the time I was there—I resigned about two years ago—we had about 600,000 people a year contacting the telephone helpline or going online to try to seek solutions to their debt problems, so it is a very significant problem in British society and something we must take a great deal of care about. Most people who came to us were struggling with multiple debts; in other words, they owed money to a variety of different sources, ranging from local authorities, mobile phone companies, debt collection agencies, Revenue & Customs, payday lenders, utility companies and catalogue lenders—there is a very large number of them.

A median client would be aged about 45, female and owing about £20,000 to eight different creditors, so it is a significant problem that people get into. Within that, with a tremendous requirement now for debt advice, with lots of people struggling with debt, one worrying trend has been how bad central and local government have been in dealing with people, particularly those with multiple debts. A recent survey of about 1,000 StepChange clients found widespread aggressive enforcement from local authorities even when people were asking their authority for help. Clients were more than twice as likely to be threatened with court action or bailiffs than to be offered an affordable payment option. This is despite guidance being issued by central government about how debts should be treated.

Of course, what happens when people face strong demands, very often from central or local government, is that they tend to go to people who can lend them money quickly, probably from an existing credit line, almost certainly, until recently—but even today it is still happening—taking out a payday loan. They try to borrow more to try to pay back original debts and get themselves into a worse situation than they were before. The same survey asked clients to rate what their creditors had done to them and whether they treated them fairly or unfairly. I am afraid to say that public sector creditors came out very badly, occupying three of the top six places in the unfair treatment table. It is interesting to note that HMRC, for instance, scored no better than payday lenders, which the Government, through the FCA, have spent a lot of time trying to sort out over recent years.

That is the background of our concern. We welcome the provisions in the Bill to think again about how debts owed to the public sector are collected. In that light, these amendments are put forward for suggestion, they are probing amendments at this stage, and I hope that they will elicit a response, because it is not just StepChange, the debt charity, that has been concerned about this. Citizens Advice has also raised concern about public sector debt collection practices, finding that public sector creditors are,

“mostly out of step with financial services and utilities companies when it comes to setting affordable repayment rates, and that our clients can suffer detriment when public bodies have uncoordinated and inconsistent approaches to debt collections ... central government debt collection lags behind the higher standards expected of other creditors”.

This is focused on individuals who have problems with their debts, but of course there is a wider cost to society as a whole which, through relationship breakdown, homelessness and difficulties with maintaining concentration at work, et cetera, has been estimated at about £8 billion a year. The Bill contains clauses that relate to this and they seem to suggest that central government as a whole—but in this case HMRC—are thinking about how the data-sharing powers that are coming should be used to allow them to collect several debts at once, but also to do it in a slightly different way. I hope that is the case. We are back with our old friend, the code of practice, because what is said in the code of practice will determine whether this will work.

I have, then, four things I invite Ministers to respond to. First, Clause 45 is limited to departments that seek data-sharing powers and says only that they should “have regard to” the code of practice. This has, I think, been picked up in other amendments that we have considered today. It would be good if the code of practice were also embedded in a much stronger statutory provision, to give it real bite. We have seen examples of guidance—I mentioned one involving central government issuing guidance on council tax collection methods—but such guidance does not work, because it is non-binding and only advisory. If there is a code, it should be embedded in the statute and people affected by it should be able to refer back to it to make sure that it works properly.

Secondly, the public body itself must believe that this is the way in which it needs to operate. Within the amendments are a range of issues that central government bodies might pick up that would match the best practice in utilities, banks, credit cards and store cards—all of which have been through the cycle of trying to get money out of individuals who owe them and other people money, and have recognised that you have to deal with people with multiple debts in a completely different way from those who just owe money directly. That is gradually changing the way people operate. There is further to go, but it is a lesson that should be learned. I hope that the codes can be adapted to reflect that.

Thirdly—this may be too much of an ask, but it should be recognised—this Bill applies only to public bodies, and their creditors, when they are seeking to use the data-sharing powers. The problem is, of course, wider than the data-sharing powers. Problems with central and local government debt collections are widespread: practices need to be reformed and this is not likely to relate only to places where data sharing is used. The Government should think ahead about this and try to set out an understanding for all their agencies that poor debt-collection practices can harm the rate at which they get their money back and the time it takes, and it will also harm the financially vulnerable people. Taking account of that across all their practices would be a very good thing.

These amendments, therefore, try to raise those points, but there is one other thing that the Government should try to do, which is in the first amendment. It is to take a lesson from Scotland—I am sure that the noble and learned Lord from Scotland will wish to pick this up and think harder about it—where, when you have a private or a public debt and seek guidance from the state agency that operates that scheme, you are given statutory protection from excess charges and your interest rates are frozen, providing you stick to your debt repayment plan. That means that people get a breathing space, time to organise their finances, think about their budgets and work out what they are going to do, without the terrible pressure from those who are owed money to start repaying it. It is only when all those issues have been brought together, and an agreement reached between the creditors and the agency, that repayment begins. That has a very much higher rate of success than any other scheme. England lags way behind on this, and it would be no skin off the Treasury’s nose if it took a leaf out of the Scottish Government’s book and brought in their procedures—with a statutory breathing space that gave some hope to people who want to repay their debts but cannot do so because the practices are not as good.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that this is a significant issue, and I understand that this is a probing amendment to allow us to consider some of the wider issues that he has touched on in the debate.

Amendment 117A seeks to include in the Bill an additional purpose: to enable debt information to be shared under the powers provided by Clause 41. It seeks to state explicitly that debt data can be disclosed,

“for the purpose of helping individuals to manage their debts”.

There is also a reference to the breathing space, and I will come back to that point in a moment in response to the questions posed by the noble Lord.

In the first instance, we would venture that the amendment is not necessary. The provisions as drafted enable information to be shared,

“for the purposes of the taking of action in connection with debt owed to”,

a public authority or the Crown. This includes but is not limited to, for example, identifying or collecting debt. The provision is sufficiently broad to enable sharing for the purpose set out in this amendment. That is the position of the Government. The Government are considering the recommendations that have been made following work to look into the merits of introducing a breathing space for customers, which we are aware is available in other jurisdictions. While the Government are considering these recommendations, it would be premature to incorporate a reference to this initiative in the Bill at this time. I hope the noble Lord will accept that the matter is being looked at.

--- Later in debate ---

I understand the desire to ensure that the codes are effective; it is the desire of the Government as well. As the noble Lord observed, you can press so hard in the matter of debt recovery but, as banks and others have discovered in the past, if you press too hard something breaks and nothing is returned. We suggest that the codes provide a strong safeguard for the use of the powers, backed up by real consequences if they are not adhered to. There is a power there to ensure that although the Bill says “have regard to”, it is a legal obligation and suitably flexible in the context of these powers. While we continue to consider the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee, which also touched upon this, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister very much for his considered response. I am grateful to him for that. The breathing space proposal has been around for some time, so I was hoping to get a bit of an edge on it but we will clearly have to wait and see. It would provide a very big step forward for how public debts are organised. As I said, how the code of practice is framed is the main issue and I am grateful for the Minister’s thoughts that there might still be opportunities to influence it. What was said today might do that trick but we will certainly look at it carefully. With that, I would like to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 117A withdrawn.

Digital Economy Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

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

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, it is extremely kind of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath to introduce my amendment for me, saying that he was not going to speak to it and then covering all the points I was going to make. That means we will move a little faster than we would otherwise have done. I think I can limit my speech to three points, in the sure and certain knowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will cover any points that I do not cover in great detail.

We understand that there is a voluntary code in circulation that has been offered to all parties, and it is thought that it might be signed some time this week—at least, that is the deadline that the Government have given. If that is the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, says, then that is obviously good news and takes us a step down the road, but my amendment would be necessary if not everyone who has been offered this signs up to it, which I think is quite likely. There may be new entrants and other companies that participate in this area for which the activities that facilitate copyright infringement by users will remain a problem, and of course there may be changes in technology that we cannot even anticipate at this stage that may make it necessary, as adumbrated by the amendment, for the Secretary of State to return to this issue in future. For all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, this is a helpful amendment, intended to ensure that this long-running problem gets solved. I hope very much that the Government feel able to accept it.

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, on Amendment 77, over recent years the UK has made great strides in the enforcement of intellectual property, and we are now judged to have one of the best IP enforcement regimes in the world. This is definitely a position that we are keen to maintain, and the Bill sends a clear signal that the Government believe copyright infringement is a serious matter, irrespective of whether it is online or offline. This includes measures to increase the penalty for online copyright infringement from two years to 10 years. We understand that there are concerns in the music industry particularly that online intermediaries need to do more to share revenues fairly with creators, which the amendment seeks to tackle. However, we need to find balanced solutions that provide clarity without undermining basic freedoms or inhibiting the development of innovative digital models.

As the e-commerce directive is EU single-market legislation in origin, we will in effect have to wait until after we exit the EU and then possibly initiate a debate as to whether this regime, or indeed the e-commerce regulations as a whole, is still fit for purpose. We are also wary of making piecemeal changes to this important regime that has helped to foster the development of online services and has been helpful to the development of the UK’s burgeoning tech sector without a proper debate involving all parties.

That said, the current law, including the exemptions from liability, has fostered an open and innovative internet, giving online services the legal certainty required to start up and flourish. This has been good for creators, rights holders, internet businesses and consumers alike. Platforms, like all businesses, have a role to play in helping to remove copyright-infringing material, and there is no place for a system that encourages copyright infringement online. However, the UK Government are fully committed to ensuring that our creative industries receive fair remuneration for their work. We want to see creators remunerated fairly, while encouraging investment in new content and innovative services. We will carry forward these principles when engaging at policy level with the EU while considering our own UK-based solutions.

The Government are clear that we must maintain our rights and obligations as members of the EU until we leave. That means that we carry on making arguments within the EU concerning our preferences for EU law. Once we leave the EU, we may choose to reconsider a range of issues, including the limited liability regime, but for now, government policy remains unchanged. The European Commission has recently published a series of copyright proposals in that area, and we are in the process of carefully considering those proposals. While we remain a member of the EU, we will continue to engage with policy development in this space, alongside considering the development of our own copyright framework.

Amendment 79 would mean that the Government take a power to impose a code of practice on search engines, to dictate how they should work to prevent copyright infringement. The return of that suggestion, which was also discussed in another place, gives me an opportunity to update noble Lords on progress in this important area. Since the idea was last discussed in the other place, IPO officials have chaired a further round-table meeting between search engines and representatives of the creative industries. While there are still elements of detail to be settled, the group is now agreed on the key content of the code and I expect an agreement to be reached very soon. All parties have also agreed that the code should take effect, and the targets in it be reached, by 1 June this year. The search engines involved in this work have been very co-operative, making changes to their algorithms and processes, but also working bilaterally with creative industry representatives to explore the options for new interventions, and how existing processes might be streamlined. I understand that all parties are keen to finalise and sign up to the voluntary agreement, and so we believe there is no need to take a legislative power at this time.

Surely it is better to act on a co-operative basis now, and start tackling this serious issue right away. If, however, a voluntary deal cannot be achieved, we will re-evaluate our options. I hope therefore that the noble Lord is reassured, and feels able to withdraw the amendment.

21st Century Fox Takeover Bid for Sky: Timetable

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Answer to the UQ granted earlier in the other place. As I said last week—goodness, was it only last week?—the concerns of 2011 were not just about the serious wrongdoing uncovered by the phone-hacking scandal. They were also about the concentration of media power in fewer and fewer hands. I have no doubt that if this is referred, it will be referred successfully to the Secretary of State to act on the issues that have been raised.

More than 135,000 people have already signed an online petition calling for this bid to be referred, and the reasons for their concerns are the same as those which caused the previous bid to be abandoned in 2011. This all makes the kicking into touch of Leveson 2 and the suspension of authorisation of Section 40 look more than just a coincidence. I have two questions about process for the noble and learned Lord, which I hope will be sufficiently broad for him to be able to respond to despite his concerns about due process.

First, I note from his previous response that the Secretary of State will aim to take an initial decision on whether to intervene on public interest grounds within 10 working days of formal notification of a merger to the relevant authorities. Such formal notification has yet to be received, but it could happen—some would say it is highly likely to happen—over the holiday period. As there are a number of public holidays coming up, may I ask the noble and learned Lord to tell me precisely how many working days there are in the period of the Christmas Recess? To get him started with his calculation, I point out that the other place is not sitting tomorrow. If he needs more time to work this out, I am sure a letter would be sufficient, and I would be grateful if he could place it in the Library as well.

Secondly, there is the question of whether James and Rupert Murdoch—if they do acquire the balance of Sky—are fit and proper persons to be licence-holders of a regulated television service. The noble and learned Lord told the House last time that the Prime Minister had not discussed the bid at her recent New York meeting with Rupert Murdoch. He said—I think I paraphrase—that Mr Murdoch had apparently rolled up unannounced, something I am sure he is wont to do. Can we be assured that all such meetings with the parties are logged and published? Given that, last time round, it transpired that the then Secretary of State had set up a parallel, secret communications structure involving his special adviser and a similar person in News International, could the noble and learned Lord confirm for us who in the DCMS and elsewhere in Government have the authority to communicate with the parties? Will he publish a list of those so authorised, including civil servants and advisers, and put a copy in the Library?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I do not have a calculation of working days over the Christmas vacation to hand, but I assure him that the 10-day period is a guidance period. It was originally formulated by the then DTI and will, if possible, be adhered to. If the noble Lord is seeking a precise calculation of working days over the Christmas period to the point when this House resumes, I will arrange for that calculation to be made and endeavour to ensure that it is set out in writing, with an appropriate copy being placed in the Library.

Regarding the fitness of persons who are to be involved in this matter, as I indicated on a previous occasion, the question of who is a fit and proper person is determined by Ofcom, pursuant to the Broadcasting Act 1990, albeit that one consideration that will arise under the 2002 Act is the Ofcom code of conduct in respect of broadcasting standards, as set out in the Communications Act 2003, and the need for a genuine commitment to adhere to those standards. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will have regard to all relevant considerations when she comes to address the issue that she has to determine on a quasi-judicial basis.

There will be no question of special advisers being engaged in the process, and certainly not in the process of communication with any parties involved in this commercial transaction—of that—I can assure the noble Lord. That is not going to occur.

I am not aware of any further meetings scheduled between the Secretary of State and any of the parties to this transaction. If there were to be such a meeting, I have no doubt that notice of it would be given and a record kept.

21st Century Fox Takeover Bid for Sky

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement made in response to an Urgent Question in another place. I think a lot of people were concerned to hear last Friday that 21st Century Fox had struck a deal for the total takeover of Sky. Five years ago, a similar bid was abandoned after the Murdoch family and their friends and News Corporation were engulfed in the eye of the phone-hacking storm.

The concerns of 2011 were not just about the serious wrongdoing that was being uncovered by the phone-hacking scandal. They were also about the concentration of media power in fewer and fewer hands. I note that the noble and learned Lord has confirmed that the Secretary of State has power to intervene in certain media mergers on public interest grounds, as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002, and we look forward to having further details about that. I further note that the guidance makes clear, as the noble and learned Lord said, that the Secretary of State will aim to take an initial decision on whether to intervene on public interest grounds within 10 working days of formal notification of a merger to the relevant authorities and such formal notification has yet to be received. We will see how this matter transpires.

There is also the question of whether James and Rupert Murdoch—if they are to acquire the balance of Sky—are fit and proper persons to be licence holders of a regulated television service such as Sky. This is a matter for Ofcom. Last time round, had the bid not been withdrawn, I am sure the noble and learned Lord would agree that it is highly unlikely James or Rupert Murdoch would have passed this test. A lot of water has passed under the proverbial bridge since then, including confirmation of illegal activity, illegal payments and phone hacking in organisations controlled by them. Will the Minster confirm that this fit and proper person test is urgent and that Ofcom needs to attend to it forthwith?

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, we too want to see public interest and fit and proper investigations before any merger is given the go-ahead. We certainly do not want to see an American-style Fox News in the UK. We also need to know what the Government are up to to ensure that they are—as the Minister said they intend to be—scrupulously fair. I have one simple question. Given the numerous meetings that have taken place between government Ministers and Murdoch executives and the recent meeting between the Prime Minister and Rupert Murdoch, do the Government now agree that they should implement Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations 83 and 84 immediately so that minutes are kept of such meetings and the content of the matters discussed made public?

Press Matters

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement by the Secretary of State in another place and welcome him to the Dispatch Box. I hope it will not be a single guest appearance on this occasion.

We can judge from its opaque title and surprising appearance that the Statement, “Press Matters”, has very little to do with the substance of either the commencement of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 or announcing a date for Leveson 2 to commence. Its purpose seems to be to muddy the waters around the remaining stages of the Investigatory Powers Bill, which is about to be debated in the other place.

Surely the right thing to do is to honour the Government’s commitment to the victims of press intrusion and harassment. Let us remind ourselves what the test is for this process. The former Prime Minister summed it up on 14 June 2012 when he said, having met the Dowler family in Downing Street:

“It’s not: do the politicians or the press feel happy with what we get? It’s: are we really protecting people who have been caught up and absolutely thrown to the wolves by this process? … that’s the real test”.

Labour supports a free press as essential to democracy. We do not support any state control of the press. It is 1,324 days since all parties agreed to implement the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry in full. The Leveson inquiry looked into press behaviour following the public outcry over illegal phone hacking and after it emerged that there had been many victims of press intrusion.

A key recommendation of the report was the creation of a,

“genuinely independent and effective system of self-regulation”.

The new system was debated in Parliament and received unanimous cross-party agreement. It involved creating the Press Recognition Panel by royal charter in October 2013 as an independent body to oversee press regulators. Has the Minister read the recent annual report of the PRP? If so, he will be aware of what it says about the need for Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 to be implemented. Does he agree with the chair of the PRP, David Wolfe QC, who says:

“There has been a significant delay in doing this, despite the Act being enacted nearly four years ago. Commencing section 40 will strengthen the public’s access to justice. Everyone agrees that politicians should not interfere with the running of the press, but paradoxically, the failure to commence section 40 has kept a political presence in place. The new system intended by Parliament is not in place, and the public interest has not been safeguarded in the way that was expected”?

On Leveson 2, is the Minister aware that one of the original terms of reference given to Lord Justice Leveson was:

“To inquire into the extent of the corporate governance and management failures at News International and other newspaper organisations and the role, if any, of politicians, public servants and others in relation to any failure to investigate wrongdoing at News International”?

This part of Leveson was delayed—as the Minister knows because he has been answering my questions on this matter—until all outstanding court cases are dealt with. Can he confirm that that is imminent?

As my right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said in the other place, Leveson 2 is the investigation into how the cover-up of phone hacking was conducted, but what the Government are in effect announcing today is a consultation on whether the original cover-up should be covered up. This is shameful. We need the immediate implementation of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and we want an early date for the second part of the Leveson inquiry. We do not need a faux consultation on these matters. If the Government are to proceed on this route, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain in some detail what elements of the recent police investigations referred to in the Statement—the Hillsborough inquiry and its findings on misleading police statements to government officials and subsequently newspapers; the case of Mazher Mahmood, who perverted the course of justice to secure his scoops and left scores of previous convictions unsafe; senior police resignations; the new revelations on the Daniel Morgan case; and what we have just heard about Orgreave—persuade him that further consultations are not now required.

We must not miss this historic opportunity. We must ensure that what the press did to the Dowlers, the McCanns, the family of Abigail Witchalls and others who suffered so terribly, can never happen again.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement. I must declare an interest, in addition to being a victim of phone hacking by the press. In 2002, I was the subject of a kiss-and-tell story on the front page and eight inside pages of a Sunday tabloid newspaper. Many of the allegations were untrue and the rest were a massive intrusion into my private life by a former partner whom I had lived with for four years. He was paid £100,000 for the story. In the absence of an effective and independent press complaints system, my only course of action was to sue the newspaper and although I was able to secure a conditional fee agreement, many ordinary people are not. Lawyers acting for the newspaper tried every trick in the book to get me to concede, in which case I would have been liable for both my own and the newspaper’s costs and I would have been made bankrupt. If the paper had not admitted libel and agreed a settlement a week before the case was due to go to trial, and had I lost the action, I would have lost my home.

If newspapers do not sign up to an independent, royal charter-compliant, press complaints system that the public can have real confidence in, the press must be prepared to cover the costs if their refusal to sign up results in complainants having to take action through the courts. This was a cross-party agreement, reached at considerable effort and cost, resulting in a royal charter that the Government are preparing to consign to the dustbin. Not only that, they are preparing to ditch detailed scrutiny not only of the matters detailed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, but of the relationship between the police and the press—issues that were to be covered in Leveson 2—despite such recent cases as that involving South Yorkshire Police, the BBC and Sir Cliff Richard.

If the Statement is designed to head off amendments to the Investigatory Powers Bill currently being considered, does the Minister not agree that it adds fuel to the fire, rather than dampening things down?