Digital Economy Bill Third Reading 5.39 pm Lord Taylor of
Holbeach (Con) My Lords, I have it in command from Her
Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to
acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport
of the Digital Economy Bill, have consented to place their
interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal
of...Request free trial
Digital Economy Bill
Third Reading
5.39 pm
-
(Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen
and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the
House that they, having been informed of the purport of the
Digital Economy Bill, have consented to place their
interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the
disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 3: Bill limits for mobile phone contracts
Amendment 1
Moved by
1: Clause 3, page 3, line 26, leave out “switch” and insert
“roam”
-
(Lab)
My Lords, this is a technical amendment in the sense that
it seeks to correct an error which seems to have been made
inadvertently in the run-up to Report. As a result— for no
particular purpose, these things just happen— Clause
3(1)(b) states,
“allow the end-user to switch (at no extra charge) to
another provider”,
whereas it should state,
“allow the end-user to roam (at no extra charge) to another
provider”.
Those noble Lords who are not conversant with the Bill may
find these words rather strange and may feel that we are
making a mountain out of a molehill. However, I assure the
House that this is a significant change. The issue that we
are trying to address—and the reason that I am spending a
little time on this, although it is a technical amendment,
and I know that the Minister would like to make a few
remarks in response—is that there are in this country,
despite the considerable investment, care and concern of
those responsible for the infrastructure, a large number of
what are called not-spots. These are places within which
one’s mobile phone dies and one is unable to access
anything, let alone the emergency services. The reasons for
this are probably more complex than I need to go into at
this stage, but in essence our amendment seeks to suggest
that in areas of not-spots—not across the whole country—it
might be feasible for those who have mobile phones with one
provider to hook on to the signal provided by another,
which would provide the roaming commonly found when one
goes abroad but not in the UK. The counter-argument I am
sure we will hear from the Minister is that this would
interfere with the current arrangements for good
competition which will drive forward much better and
quicker coverage of the whole country, and that therefore
our proposal is the wrong way to go. However, we beg to
differ.
The wording of our previous amendment may have been
deficient but, given the brilliant arguments put forward by
my noble friend and our
colleague on the Liberal Benches, the noble Lord, , we won a vote on this
issue. We therefore seek to change “switch” to “roam”, as I
said. I hope this will be accepted as a technical change
and that the Government will accept the amendment. However,
I have just been alerted to the possibility that the
current wording may still be deficient and may require
further action following Third Reading. Having had a quick
word with the clerks, I am pretty confident that a simple
cross-referencing issue is involved, and that that can be
picked up as we go forward. However, we may have to return
to that if we have ping-pong on the Bill. I beg to move.
-
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, I have just been informed by my noble and learned
friend that all amendments lead to Rome. We accept that a
genuine mistake was made in tabling the original amendment.
Therefore, we will accept this amendment today. However,
the Government have set out the arguments against requiring
network operators to offer domestic roaming before, and I
will try to be clearer this time as we did not have the
opportunity to address those on Report. I will try to be
brief.
First, domestic roaming is not mandated but it is not
prohibited. Mobile networks could voluntarily enter into
agreements with each other but they do not because it is
costly and prevents them differentiating from competitors
on the basis of coverage. As the noble Lord, Lord
Stevenson, reminded us, the noble Lord, , told us on
Report about the benefits he receives from his chosen
provider, which permits roaming. This is, of course, a
provider based outside the UK and the EU. However, he did
not highlight the cost of that. The advertised price is
£100 for one gigabyte of data and voice calls are £100 for
1,000 minutes, which is 10 times more expensive than the
going rate for a standard domestic contract. That premium
arises because operators have to pay other operators
network access charges. Networks should be entitled to
recover the cost of their investment. If one relies on
another to provide coverage, it is only reasonable that
fees should be paid, and those fees are of course passed on
to the consumer.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, anticipated,
there is the question of the impact on investment. Our
strategy has been to grow investment in infrastructure, and
that has worked. It has locked in £5 billion of investment
since 2014. Some 89% of UK premises are now covered by all
four operators, and that percentage is growing. More
importantly, this investment is closing not-spots. Ofcom
forecasts that by the end of this year the number of
not-spots will have more than halved since 2014. Roaming
might make it easier for some people where only a single
operator exists, subject to cost, but it does not do
anything for those in not-spots. Extending coverage remains
our priority and that needs investment.
5.45 pm
Thirdly, if roaming were the silver bullet, why has it not been
done in comparable markets? This approach has not been adopted
elsewhere in Europe. The only exception is France, where there
was an attempt to kick-start a new market entrant, but now, even
there, the regulator is phasing out roaming. The few countries
with domestic roaming—New Zealand, Canada and India, for example—have mobile markets and
geographical challenges that do not make them comparable to the
UK.
Fourthly, we agree that there is no need for every corner of the
country to be covered by four masts. Sharing apparatus can be
achieved without roaming. The new electronic communications code,
in this Bill, is an enabler of more sharing, and noble Lords will
have seen the support we have received from the wholesale
infrastructure providers, which lead the way in this kind of
sharing. However, other sharing is also being pursued, including
the open access to Openreach’s ducts and poles, and Ofcom will
soon be consulting on that.
Finally, the amendment is focused on allowing the opportunity to
roam where services fall below standard. We are not clear what
standards the amendment tries to refer to but consumers have
other protections and remedies available to them: they may be
subject to statutory cooling-off periods on new contracts; they
may have other contractual rights; and, thanks to this Bill, they
may be able to switch or to qualify for automatic compensation.
The Government will now consider further Clause 3, as amended by
this amendment, when it returns to the other place. In the
meantime, as I said, we accept Amendment 1 in the names of the
noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and .
-
I am very grateful to the Minister for that response. I
sense that we may be seeing this issue again, so I will not
delay the House further. I just want to put on the record
that, if there has been a reduction in the number of
not-spots, it must have taken place in every conceivable
part of the United Kingdom apart from the ones I travel to,
because I have not noticed anything.
Amendment 1 agreed.
Clause 10: Statement of strategic priorities
Amendment 2
Moved by
2: Clause 10, leave out Clause 10
-
My Lords, this is a group of technical amendments to ensure
that the legislation is as clear and consistent as
possible.
Amendment 2 removes Clause 10, which creates a new power
for the Secretary of State to set a statement of strategic
priorities relating to the management of radio spectrum. On
Report, Clause 104 was introduced, expanding this power to
cover telecommunications and postal services, in addition
to the management of radio spectrum. The introduction of
this new provision means that Clause 10 is no longer
necessary. I promised on Report to introduce this amendment
at Third Reading.
Amendments 3 to 8 relate to the measures for age
verification for online pornography. Amendments 3 and 6
remove clarificatory wording on,
“a means of accessing the internet”,
from Clause 16 and put it in Clause 23. Due to an earlier
amendment, that phrase is no longer used in Clause 16 but
it is still used in Clause 23, so the definition is moved
to Clause 23.
Amendment 4 is one for aficionados of parliamentary
drafting. It ensures that the Bill is consistent by
aligning the wording of Clause 19(7)(a), which refers to,
“the House of Commons and the House of Lords”,
with the wording of Clause 27(13)(a), which refers to “each
House of Parliament”. I think we will all sleep easier at
night if that is consistent.
Amendment 5 clarifies that the regulator’s power to require
information can be from internet service providers and any
other person that the age-verification regulator believes
to be involved, or to have been involved, in making
pornographic material available on the internet on a
commercial basis to persons in the United Kingdom.
Amendments 7 and 8 amend the definition of “video works
authority” for the purposes of Clause 24, so that this
includes the authority designated in respect of video
games. This follows the approach to the extreme
pornographic material provisions of the Criminal Justice
and Immigration Act 2008.
Amendment 9 removes the provision for transitional,
transitory and saving provisions in relation to the repeal
of Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988. This is a technical drafting amendment to ensure
consistency between this clause and Clause 122 on
commencement. I can confirm again to the House that Section
73 will be repealed without a transition period and that
the Government will commence repeal without delay.
Turning to Amendment 12, I am very grateful to the noble
Baroness, Lady Drake, for drawing my attention at Report to
the need for complete clarity as to whom the Government are
referring in the undertaking to be transferred from BT plc
to a future Openreach Ltd. I accepted that a clear
definition of the term “undertaking” was necessary and
offered to come back with a government amendment at Third
Reading to address this issue. Government Amendment 12 does
this, making it clear that we define the term “undertaking”
to include anything that may be the subject of a transfer
or service provision change, whether or not the Transfer of
Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations
—TUPE—apply. The intention is that all employees currently
benefiting from the Crown guarantee will continue to do so
if they transfer to Openreach Ltd. The Government consulted
on the wording in advance of laying this technical
amendment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for
assisting us, and to both BT plc and the trustee for
confirming that this definition was satisfactory.
Amendments 13 to 17 relate to the Electronic Communications
Code. Under the new code, an owner or occupier whose access
to their land is obstructed by electronic communications
apparatus without their agreement has the right to require
the removal of that apparatus. Amendments 13 and 14 make it
clear that this right arises only where the apparatus
itself interferes with access, as opposed, for example, to
a temporary obstruction by a vehicle.
Amendments 15, 16 and 17 merely correct minor omissions and
referencing errors. I beg to move.
-
(CB)
My Lords, I welcome these tidying-up amendments. I want to
take the opportunity provided by this Third Reading debate
to congratulate the Government once again on taking action
to protect children from pornography on the internet
through age verification. I shall be watching the
implementation of Part 3 of the Bill closely. I would like
also to put on record my thanks to the Minister for meeting
with me to discuss adult content filters. I am very
grateful also to noble Lords who supported my amendment at
an earlier stage, highlighting the need to get a better
understanding of the adult-content filtering approaches
adopted by smaller ISPs that service homes with children:
the noble Lords, and
, and the
noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin.
Turning to the future, I am very much looking forward to
the discussions on the Government’s Green Paper on internet
safety and to their response to the Communications
Committee’s report, Growing up with the Internet. Part 3 of
this Bill is not the end of the story on children and
internet safety.
Despite many positives, in comparing and contrasting the
Bill that entered your Lordships’ House with the Bill as it
now leaves, my response is one of sadness. The underlying
principle of parity of content has been removed and the
Bill is, in this respect, unquestionably weaker as a
result.
In the first instance, the Bill entered your Lordships’
House properly applying the same adult content standard
online as applied offline. It leaves your Lordships’ House
saying that most material that the law does not accommodate
for adults offline will be accommodated online behind age
verification. Only the most violent pornography—that which
is life-threatening or likely to result in severe injury to
breast, anus and genitals—will be caught. Injury or severe
injury to other parts of the body appear to be fine as long
as they are not life-threatening. As the Bill leaves us,
the message goes out loud and clear that violence against
women—unless it is “grotesque”, to quote what the Minister
said on Report—is, in some senses, acceptable.
In the second instance, the Bill entered your Lordships’
House properly applying the standard of zero tolerance to
child sex abuse images, including non-photographic and
animated child sex abuse images. Today it leaves your
Lordship’s House with the relevant powers of the regulator
deleted so that it can no longer take enforcement action
against animated child sex abuse images that fall under the
Coroners and Justice Act 2009. As such, the Bill goes out
from us today proclaiming that non-photographic images of
child sex abuse, including animated images, are worthy of
accommodation as long as they are behind age verification.
As agreed, Third Reading is a time for tidying up. However,
Part 3 of the Bill clearly requires further amendment so
that the message can go out once again—as it did in the
other place—that there is no place for normalising violence
against women and no place for accommodating any form of
child sex abuse. I hope that the other place will now rise
to that challenge.
-
(LD)
My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House unduly on these
amendments. I welcome, in particular, Amendment 9 as it is
the fulfilment of a pledge made by the Minister on Report.
I am delighted that Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act will be no more as soon as the Bill comes
into effect. I am delighted that the Minister has fulfilled
his undertaking.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, for
tabling Amendment 12, which gives greater clarity to the BT
and Openreach employees covered by the provisions of Clause
119. The Government have also made clear their intention to
engage fully with the BT pension scheme trustee and for
that I am also grateful. I hope their discussions go well.
-
My Lords, I am grateful for those comments. I take the
point of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that there is still
work to do. As she mentioned, the internet safety strategy
Green Paper will be with us in June.
Amendment 2 agreed.
Clause 16: Internet pornography: requirement to prevent access by
persons under the age of 18
Amendment 3
Moved by
3: Clause 16, page 20, line 1, leave out paragraph (b)
Amendment 3 agreed.
Clause 19: Parliamentary procedure for designation of
age-verification regulator
Amendment 4
Moved by
4: Clause 19, page 23, line 10, leave out “the House of Commons
and the House of Lords” and insert “each House of Parliament”
Amendment 4 agreed.
Clause 20: Age-verification regulator's power to require
information
Amendment 5
Moved by
5: Clause 20, page 23, line 26, leave out “a” and insert “any
other”
Amendment 5 agreed.
Clause 23: Age-verification regulator's power to give notice of
contravention to payment-services providers and ancillary service
providers
Amendment 6
Moved by
6: Clause 23, page 26, line 42, at end insert—
“(6) For the purposes of subsection (5)(b), a means of accessing
the internet does not include a device or other equipment for
doing so.”
Amendment 6 agreed.
Clause 24: Meaning of "extreme pornographic material"
Amendments 7 and 8
Moved by
7: Clause 24, page 27, line 17, leave out “the” and insert “a”
8: Clause 24, page 27, leave out line 21 and insert—
““video works authority” means a person designated under section
4(1) of the Video Recordings Act 1984;”
Amendments 7 and 8 agreed.
Clause 37: Copyright etc where broadcast retransmitted by cable
Amendment 9
Moved by
9: Clause 37, page 36, line 8, leave out subsections (3) to (5)
Amendment 9 agreed.
Clause 113: Functions relating to regulations under section 112
Amendment 10
Moved by
10: Clause 113, page 124, line 3, at end insert—
“( ) such representatives of persons likely to be affected by the
regulations as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate, and( )
such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”
-
My Lords, the Government’s Amendments 10 and 11 acknowledge
the DPRRC’s recommendations in relation to improved
safeguards for the proposed charging regulations for the
Information Commissioner. I committed to making these
amendments on Report.
Amendment 10 will make it a requirement for the Secretary
of State to consult,
“such representatives of persons likely to be affected by
the regulations as the Secretary of State thinks
appropriate, and … such other persons as the Secretary of
State thinks appropriate”.
Amendment 11 will make it a requirement for the Secretary
of State to use the affirmative procedure when making
regulations under the new charging power, except for in
cases of inflation increases, when the negative procedure
will apply.
6.00 pm
On Report, the noble Lords, Lord Collins and , sought assurances
that the proposed ICO charging power clauses could not be used by
the Secretary of State to set charges that allow for the
over-recovery of costs to fund functions that are not currently
in the ICO’s remit. ICO charges are set on a cost recovery basis
and will continue to be set on that basis. I want to make it
clear that the Government have no intention of setting charges
that exceed the costs needed by the ICO to carry out its data
protection responsibilities. As noble Lords will know, the £35
annual fee charged to 90% of data controllers by the ICO has not
risen since 2001 and the £500 fee charged to large data
controllers has not risen since 2009. Throughout the negotiations
on the EU general data protection regulation, the Government
fought hard to minimise the burdens on business while protecting
the privacy rights of individuals. The Government will continue
to seek to minimise the burden on business by setting fees that
recover only the costs which are necessary for the ICO to run an
effective data protection regulatory regime fit for the
challenges of the 21st century digital economy.
On the issue of function creep, I would like to reassure noble
Lords that Clause 113 (2)(a) clearly sets out the functions for
which the Secretary of State can make regulations to raise
charges for the ICO. If in the future the Government wish to
raise charges to fund additional functions not listed in Clause
113, should that be appropriate, the Government would need to
amend subsection (2)(a) by primary legislation.
Finally, I hope that it will reassure noble Lords to learn that
the clauses will now contain a number of additional safeguards
against excessive charging. These include a requirement to
consult the ICO and representatives of data controllers before
bringing forward regulations to set or amend fees; a requirement
for the Secretary of State to review the fees every five years to
ensure that they are still relevant and proportionate, and a
requirement for the Secretary of State to use the affirmative
procedure when making regulations under the new power except in
the case of inflation increases, when the negative procedure will
apply. I beg to move.
-
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to
Amendment 10. This amendment may not be the full loaf, but
it certainly is three-quarters of a loaf in terms of an
assurance on the two matters which gave us concern, the
first of which was the extent to which the charges might
exceed the costs incurred by the ICO. The Minister’s
assurance is very helpful in terms of the operation of
Clause 113, as is his assurance on mission creep, which is
something that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, was
particularly concerned about. Again, I am grateful to the
Minister for his two assurances.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, I too am grateful for the assurances that the
Minister has given us and I thank the Delegated Powers
Committee for its excellent report which drew specific
attention to this issue. The committee’s concern was not
without evidence and it gave an example in relation to
probate—I notice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord
Keen, is in his place—so it is an issue that was very much
in people’s minds when considering this part of the Bill.
However, the assurances given by the Minister are clear and
concise. We have protections in terms of parliamentary
scrutiny, in particular in relation to the element of
function creep where there is a requirement for primary
legislation. I welcome and support the amendment.
Amendment 10 agreed.
Clause 114: Supplementary provision relating to section 112
Amendment 11
Moved by
11: Clause 114, page 125, line 6, leave out subsection (2) and
insert—
“(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section
112(1) or (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument
has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House
of Parliament. (2A) Subsection (2) does not apply to a statutory
instrument containing regulations which—(a) only make provision
increasing a charge for which provision is made by previous
regulations under section 112(1), and(b) do so to take account of
an increase in the retail prices index since the previous
regulations were made.(2B) Such a statutory instrument is subject
to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of
Parliament.(2C) In subsection (2A) “the retail prices index”
means—(a) the general index of retail prices (for all items)
published by the Statistics Board, or(b) where that index is not
published for a month, any substituted index or figures published
by the Board.”
Amendment 11 agreed.
Clause 119: Guarantee of pension liabilities under
Telecommunications Act 1984
Amendment 12
Moved by
12: Clause 119, page 128, line 42, at end insert—
““undertaking” includes anything that may be the subject of a
transfer or service provision change, whether or not the Transfer
of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I.
2006/246) apply.”
Amendment 12 agreed.
Schedule 1: The electronic communications code
Amendments 13 to 15
Moved by
13: Schedule 1, page 153, line 42, leave out “on, under or over
other land” and insert “kept on, under or over other land in
exercise of a right mentioned in paragraph 13(1),”
14: Schedule 1, page 153, line 44, leave out from second “the” to
“interferes” in line 45 and insert “apparatus”
15: Schedule 1, page 180, line 22, leave out “of the land on
which the tree is growing”
Amendments 13 to 15 agreed.
Schedule 2: The electronic communications code: transitional
provision
Amendments 16 and 17
Moved by
16: Schedule 2, page 194, line 24, leave out “12” and insert “14”
17: Schedule 2, page 195, line 22, leave out from “any” to end of
line 27 and insert “application or order made under paragraph 6
of the existing code.”
Amendments 16 and 17 agreed.
6.04 pm
Motion
Moved by
-
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I express grateful thanks
to all noble Lords who have contributed to the Bill’s
passage and shared their knowledge on the wide variety of
subjects covered by it. It seems a long time since
December, when we referred to Christmas tree Bills. As we
now approach Easter, I express my gratitude to both
opposition Front Benches for their openness and
co-operation, especially to the two ringmasters, if I may
call them that, the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and
, but also to
the other noble Lords: the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones,
Lady Bonham-Carter and Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords,
, Lord Collins,
, Lord Wood,
Lord Foster, and , all of whom have led on
various parts of the Bill. I am very grateful to them.
Most importantly, I pay tribute to and thank Andrew Elliot,
Patrick Whitehead and all the other members of the Bill
team, and to my private office, Matt Hiorns and Martha
London, who have shown tremendous resilience, patience and
humour over the last four months while the Bill was in this
House. I am very grateful to all of them. I beg to move.
-
My Lords, a few years ago I used to complain to my
colleagues that I had drawn a short straw in the sense that
many of my other colleagues were in departments that were
constantly dealing with meaty legislation, while we
shadowing the DCMS had to make do with the occasional
debate and even sometimes a rather thin Question, usually
organised by the indefatigable noble Earl, , from the Cross
Benches. Is it a coincidence, I asked myself, that since
the Minister took over the brief we have had not only the
BBC royal charter to deal with, but three and a half bills?
The half was the Law Commission’s Intellectual Property
(Unjustified Threats) Bill, which was a bit of a mixed bag
between the DCMS and BEIS. It was really introduced under
the last regime, but we have had to keep a close watching
eye on it and on the other place, even though it was a Law
Commission Bill. It is of course exhilarating to be at the
very heart of public policy-making and it has been great
fun, but it is also absolutely exhausting.
At pride of place in this canon of interesting Bills is the
Digital Economy Bill. As the Minister said, it has
generated a considerable amount of interest across the
House. With its many disparate parts, it allowed the House
to play a very full and important role as it scrutinised
every clause and virtually every line, as it should. It is
what we do and we do it well.
I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe,
and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for their very
full participation in the Bill. They were engaged on all
the issues. We were able to get hearings and discussions
with them when we wanted them. I am only sorry that they
had to stand down the Deputy Leader of the House on one
amendment that was not moved. I am sure that he would have
added considerably to the debate and given us a full hand
of stars. The tone throughout has been one of unfailing
courtesy. While the willingness to write to us on matters
of detail was not up to the high standards set by the noble
Viscount, Lord Younger, who is in his place—how could it
be?—it is much appreciated. We also appreciated the direct
involvement of the Minister in the other place,
particularly on Part 3.
I believe the House should be willing to put on record
exemplary service when it comes across it. I award this
year’s prize for Bill support, if there is any justice in
this world, to the Digital Economy Bill team, whose opening
gambit of a neatly bound and very substantial pack of all
the documents you could possibly want set the gold standard
for work of this type. They were very helpful in letting us
know what was going on, even when I suspect they would have
rather remained silent. We appreciate that they were always
willing to organise meetings, even on occasion tracking
down Ministers who had gone AWOL.
My Front Bench team has been superb. I am very grateful to
my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who led on the
difficult and ongoing work to do with age verification. My
noble friend relished the
chance to lead on an issue—horseracing—unrelated to his
usual stomping grounds, and coined the phrase “function
creep”, which I am sure will be adorning your Lordships’
debates in years to come. My noble friend led on the
rather dull, but it turns out rather rewarding, area of the
electronic communications accord, which paid dividends in a
number of amendments that we were able to secure. My noble
friend , who I am sorry
is not with us today, dealt very capably with the USO and
related issues. My noble friend Lord Wood helped us with
the amendments consequent on the BBC charter renewal.
Our legislative assistant, Nicola Jayawickreme, has been a
class act and has kept us going with the background
material so necessary for effective observation as well as
dealing with the Public Bill Office and drafting so many
amendments, even one on the day her flat was flooded and
she had to move out all her belongings.
As I approach the end of my active Front-Bench
responsibilities in your Lordships’ House, working on this
Bill will be one of the memories I most cherish.
-
My Lords, I should feel awful, but I neglected to mention
my noble friend Lady Buscombe and my noble and learned
friend Lord Keen, who helped enormously. I had written it
down on my notes, but, as usual, I did not pay any
attention to them. I want to pay tribute to them and thank
them very much.
-
My Lords, I am sure that they would have been mentioned
fulsomely by other Benches as well. I have not laboured in
the vineyard quite as much as the noble Lord, Lord
Stevenson. I have not had multiple Bills simultaneously to
deal with—and one can only admire that kind of stamina—but,
still, the passing of this Bill carries a sense of relief
given the variety of subject matter that we have had to
deal with during the past few months. The Minister said
that it was from Christmas to Easter; these Bills are
seasonal in their nature.
We certainly have not achieved everything that we wanted,
but I believe that the Bill is leaving this House in much
better shape than that in which it arrived. As the noble
Lord, Lord Stevenson, implied, it is certainly a very meaty
Bill. It is also a disparate Bill, covering a huge range of
issues most of which are unified only by the word
“digital”. That was quite a challenge for all those who
were trying to cover the whole subject matter of the Bill.
I want to thank my own colleagues, particularly my noble
friends , , Lord Foster, Lord
Lester, , , Lady
Bonham-Carter, Lady Hamwee, Lady Janke, Lady Benjamin and
Lady Grender. I thank our adviser team, particularly
, and Vinous Ali. I want
also to thank the Opposition Front Bench—the indefatigable
noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones,
and the noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Wood and —for their
collaborative approach. Of course, I thank many others on
the Cross Benches, including the noble Lord, , with his successful
amendment, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble
Baroness, Lady Howe—indefatigable is too small a word for
her.
-
Indestructible.
-
“Indestructible” is suggested to me by the Opposition Front
Bench.
Finally and very sincerely, I thank the noble Lord, Lord
Ashton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, the noble
Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the Bill team. I echo what the
noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, had to say about the Bill team
for their willingness to engage constructively, explain,
amend and give what assurances they could throughout the
passage of the Bill. We welcomed considerable movement
during that time: changes in definition of “extreme
pornographic material”, appeals on site blocking, the
incorporation of many of the DPRRC amendments and new Ofcom
powers—my noble friend Lady Benjamin is not in her place;
she is probably celebrating somewhere the fact that Ofcom
has new powers in respect of children’s programmes. There
were amendments on remote e-book lending and listed
events—the list goes on, which demonstrates that the
Government were listening.
Of course, we anticipate ping-pong with great delight. I
think that some six amendments to the Bill were passed. I
hope that the Government will give consideration to them
and not just bat them back to this House. They were all
carefully thought through. I hope that we will see some
changes as a result of those amendments in this House.
Of course, we did not get everything on our shopping list
as the Bill went through. On Ofcom appeals, the noble and
learned Lord, Lord Keen, stood fast on Clause 85. I hope
that in the future we might find some change on compulsory
anonymisation for age verification, and I think that IPTV
is something that may come back to haunt us. I hope that
the consultation will demonstrate the absolute need for
amendments in the future. I am sure that my noble friend
Lord Lester will also be returning by popular demand to the
question of the statutory underpinning of the BBC charter.
In the meantime, I thank the Minister and look forward to
the passing of the Bill.
-
The (CB)
My Lords, I add my great thanks to the Minister, on behalf
of all the people I was talking to, for his intelligent and
sensitive handling of the rather difficult, tortuous,
twisting turns which were confusing what we saw as the
perceived prime purpose of Part 3. I think we got there and
have something that is going to be workable. I just hope
that the regulator, when it gets operational, will find
that what is coming out of the British Standards
Institution powers 1 to 96 will be helpful in trying to
make sure that age verification works in protecting
children from accessing all the adult content online, which
was the only bit that I was dealing with. Thank you very
much indeed.
-
(LD)
My Lords, I suspect that this is au revoir and not adieu to
the Bill, if one is still allowed to use French in this
House. I thank the Minister for putting up with endless
conversations with me about statutory underpinning or
something instead. I thank him for arranging for me to see
the Culture Secretary, which I look forward to doing if she
is free to do so before the Bill comes back. I make it
clear that I am agnostic about how to achieve the
protection of the BBC’s independence and viability—whether
in the charter, in statutory underpinning or in
undertakings given by Ministers. My difficulty at the
moment is that we have still not had those undertakings,
but I look forward to future debates.
Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.
|
