| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Motions to Approve
3.17 pm
Relevant Documents: 8th, 11th and 12th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 25 March.
National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Housing) (Fire Safety) Order 2010
National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Culture and Other Fields) Order 2010
6 Apr 2010 : Column 1367
National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Education) Order 2010
Commons Councils (Standard Constitution) (England) Regulations 2010
Motions to Approve
Moved By Lord Davies of Oldham
That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 28 January, 24 February and 9 March be approved.
Relevant Documents: 9th and 10th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 23 and 25 March.
Charities (Disclosure of Revenue and Customs Information to the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland) Regulations 2010
Motion to Approve
Relevant Documents: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 23 March.
Powers of Entry etc. Bill [HL]
Main Bill Page
Copy of the Bill
Third Reading
3.18 pm
Lord Bassam of Brighton: 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 Powers of Entry etc. 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.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
6 Apr 2010 : Column 1368
Arrangement of Business
Announcement
3.19 pm
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it might be helpful if I make a brief Statement in relation to certain events that have unfolded today and the impact on our business this week.
This morning my right honourable friend the Prime Minister asked Her Majesty the Queen to proclaim the Dissolution of Parliament, and I am pleased to be able to report that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify that she will comply with this request. In other words, my Lords, there is a general election.
Your Lordships may wish to note the following key dates, which are now available in the Printed Paper Office. Parliament will be prorogued at the end of business on Thursday 8 April, and the general election will take place on Thursday 6 May. The new Parliament will meet on Tuesday 18 May, when the other place will elect a Speaker and, in both Houses, Members will be sworn in. The State Opening of Parliament will take place the following week.
Today's events will have implications for the business for the rest of this week. However, I should stress that business today will proceed as it is set out on today's Order Paper. Following discussions in the usual channels, which is quite normal on these occasions, I can announce the following provisional programme of business for the next few days. The House will sit as usual at 3 pm tomorrow and at 11 am on Thursday. On both days, Prayers will be followed by Oral Questions.
I now turn to business tomorrow. Immediately after Oral Questions, the Leader of the House will move a customary Business of the House Motion which, if agreed, will allow more than one stage of a Bill to be taken on the same day. We will then take proceedings on Bills as follows: Committee on the Financial Services Bill; Committee and remaining stages of the Crime and Security Bill; Committee and remaining stages of the Energy Bill; Committee and remaining stages of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill; and finally, Committee and remaining stages of the Children, Schools and Families Bill. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that House dinner will be available tomorrow evening, as previously advertised.
Before turning to business on Thursday, it might be helpful if I say a few words about the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, which I know many Members have taken a great deal of interest in. As a result of usual channels discussions, the Government intend not to proceed with the provisions on alternative voting reform and the provisions on hereditary by-elections.
On Thursday, the House will meet at 11 am for Prayers. After Oral Questions, we will take Report and Third Reading of the Financial Services Bill, then Report and Third Reading of the Flood and Water Management Bill. We will then proceed to take the following Bills: consideration of Commons Reasons on the Personal Care at Home Bill; and Committee and remaining stages of two Private Members' Bills: the Mortgage Repossessions (Protection of Tenants Etc.)
6 Apr 2010 : Column 1369
Finally, the intention is to prorogue by Royal Commission at the end of business this Thursday. Dissolution will then follow on Monday 12 April. This information is now available in a special edition of Forthcoming Business in the Printed Paper Office and the Government Whips Office. The Public Bill Office has agreed to extend the deadline for tabling amendments tonight to 7 pm and the Refreshment Department has made plans to provide what is required, for which I am sure we will all be very grateful.
I know that many Members of your Lordships' House have shown a great and keen interest in the wash-up process in recent weeks, and I trust that the House will ensure that the process works as smoothly this week as it has in the past.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms for setting out the programme of business for the remainder of this Parliament. The wash-up procedure is indeed a well trodden path followed by both Houses over decades. Naturally, I support the objective of ensuring that where Her Majesty's loyal Opposition and the Government are in agreement that Bills or specific provisions within Bills are necessary for the good of this country and its future, they should be given the opportunity to pass on to the statute book by the end of this Parliament. The Government will have our support during the remainder of this week in achieving that objective.
Today, the Government are setting out the business for the dying days of this Parliament. We on these Benches have cleared our diaries and are ready to campaign for the future and for what we hope is a change in Government. I cannot let this moment pass without expressing my surprise and some disappointment that the Government have decided to delay the start of the next Parliament beyond the normal time.
I notice that the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms referred to the swearing-in date of 18 May and to the State Opening in the following week. Will he at some stage confirm that the date of the State Opening is anticipated to be 25 May? We would have wished to see Parliament return a week earlier than that, so that we could get on with the business of scrutinising policy and legislation, which this House does so well. I know that Members of this House would be ready, willing and certainly able to rise to that challenge.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I, too, thank the Government Chief Whip for making this announcement. I hear that there has been a lot of discussion about this thing called the wash-up, but it seems to me that the wash-up is a wash-out. I am far from clear as to who is involved-certainly, the first I
6 Apr 2010 : Column 1370
I am amazed that the Opposition Chief Whip is surprised at the announcement of the signing-in days, because I would have thought, as with everything else, that that is part of the duopoly of this place. However, one is surprised from time to time. We may learn more later, but my colleagues will think very carefully about the Bills that come before us, and things might take that little bit longer than some noble Lords think before they get their Bills: if, indeed, they get their Bills.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, will my noble friend say who is blocking the referendum? Is it Downing Street? Is it the Official Opposition? Does not the elected House, the House of Commons, which carried the referendum with a two-thirds majority, have any say in these matters?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this Statement has been sprung on us somewhat, and some of us cannot absorb it completely in the time that has been given. One Bill was mentioned-the constitutional reform Bill-large parts of which affect this House and the future of this House. However, only two matters were referred to, only one of which affects this House: the position of the hereditary Peers. What about all the other matters that affect this House? They need a lot of discussion and simply cannot be dealt with in a few hours. We need a few days, perhaps even weeks, to deal with some of them. Parliament and this House are being sidelined in this process, and very important matters are being imposed on the country without proper discussion in this House and, perhaps, in the other House.
Lord Tyler: My Lords, will the Government Chief Whip confirm that no one party has a veto over what should or should not be agreed during the wash-up? Will he also confirm that in March 1997 the then Conservative Leader of the House pushed through, against opposition, a Motion to take complete charge of all business, including business that was not acceptable to some parties in the House? Will the Government Chief Whip therefore confirm that this is not just a matter of all parties taking the same decision on the same issues, and that it has simply been a deal between the Government and those on the Conservative Front Bench?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think I described the wash-up as something that is based on tradition. It is exactly that, and I am sure that noble Lords will understand exactly what I mean.
I hope that the House will discuss the remaining stages of Bills in an orderly and appropriate fashion. Noble Lords will be aware that there are discussions outside this Chamber to agree an orderly process, which is exactly what we have attempted to achieve here. I am sure that most noble Lords will dwell on the fact that it is to be praised and admired that we can arrive at consensus and agreement on the majority of
6 Apr 2010 : Column 1371
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was very kind and polite in her words, and asked one question to which I am afraid I am not able to provide an answer. I think that the date of the Queen's Speech is yet finally to be determined; but of course all Members of your Lordship's House will focus a keen interest on that date.
Lord Elton: The Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms did not answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. Surely the situation is that, when time is so limited, only that to which this House in the great majority agrees can go through this House. If there is no agreement, surely it cannot be put on the statute book.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, in this context, will the Chief Whip say whether the tradition to which he referred goes back before 1916?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is a tradition that goes back a very long while. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, was right to remind me that I had not fully answered the noble Lord's question, but I think that, in all of these matters, there has been a high degree of scrutiny. To take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, about the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, that Bill has not only been scrutinised in the other place but has been through pre-legislative scrutiny. We are now seeking to secure the maximum agreement to most of the measures in that Bill, and I think we can do that. I hope noble Lords will all play their part in securing that agreement over the next couple of days.
British Film and Television Industries (Communications Committee Report)
The British film and television industries-decline or opportunity?
Motion to Take Note
3.31 pm
That this House takes note of the Report of the Communications Committee, The British Film and Television Industries-Decline or Opportunity? (First Report, HL Paper 37-I).
Lord Fowler: My Lords, this debate could hardly have come at a better moment. With the election declared only this morning, it gives all the parties their first opportunity to set out their policies for the film and television industries. We shall listen to my noble friend on the Front Bench, we shall listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, from the Liberal
6 Apr 2010 : Column 1372
Let me try to set the scene. In this inquiry, our purpose was to examine the current state of the British film and television industries and to see what we could propose to help their further development. Together, these two industries already make a major contribution to the British economy. They employ well over 100,000 people, with British films generating overseas earnings of over £1 billion a year. Last year, British studios brought in another £750 million in inward investment. In television, BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm of the BBC, has sales of over £1 billion a year and the potential for substantially more.
In terms of quality of production, there have also been some quite outstanding successes. British films such as "Slumdog Millionaire" and "Four Weddings and a Funeral" have been major international successes. Equally, we have had very successful television programmes, including "Planet Earth", "Prime Suspect" and, of course, the current cult favourite "Ashes to Ashes", which is now starring on posters all around the country.
All this looks like a story of undoubted success, but it is an account that needs to be qualified. Inward investment in films may have increased by over 50 per cent in the last year, but part of that was due to the fall of sterling rather than any permanent improvement. In television, the total value of expenditure on UK-originated output by the five main public service broadcasters has been reduced by 15 per cent in real terms over the last five years. Spending on British-made children's television has been sharply reduced, while in regional news we face the prospect of ITV withdrawing altogether. Just as serious is the fact that, in film and television, training budgets are being cut, which is a fundamental problem for industries that depend so crucially on skilled staff. There are serious challenges for whichever Government are in power after this election. Although this may not be a matter of great debate on the hustings, there should be no doubt that these creative industries deserve serious policy attention.
Although film and television share some strong characteristics, they are also very distinct. The first point to be made about the film industry is that it is dominated by the big American studios. Britain simply does not have companies such as Warner Bros, which makes the Harry Potter films at Pinewood, where we visited. It both finances and distributes the films internationally. Even a quintessentially British film such as "Chariots of Fire", produced by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, had only a minute £17,000 of UK financial investment in it. A film may be evidently British but much of the profit flows back to the Hollywood companies that provide the money and, of course, take the risk.
Inevitably, much of the effort of the British film industry is to attract the Hollywood companies to make their films here, but we are up against formidable international competition. Many countries in Europe compete to put together attractive incentive packages. Germany, for example, spends more than €300 million
6 Apr 2010 : Column 1373
It is not just a matter of financial help. A skilled workforce is also crucial in attracting investment. There is no question but that training has been cut back. The commercial public service broadcasters have cut back and so, too, has the UK Film Council in its contribution to the skills set. However, there is another point as well. Many witnesses from both film and television said that the universities do not offer the specialist training needed to equip graduates to work in these industries. In other words, we need to better match the training to the demand, particularly when these industries can provide good, well paid careers.
On a further point on films, we all tend to think about box-office receipts as the crucial financial measure of a film's success. Obviously, it is good to know that cinema admissions in the United Kingdom rose significantly last year. However, few, if any, films make a profit from cinema revenue alone. It is the other sales, the tail revenue, that make the difference between a profit and a loss-that is, sales to television, merchandising and, most important, sales of DVDs. That is why we supported the anti-piracy measures in the Digital Economy Bill, which in this House-contrary to one suggestion on the radio this morning-received as detailed a consideration as any Bill that I can remember. Whether it is seen through in the wash-up-perhaps the Minister will guide us on that-or as a new Bill, it is important that that law is strengthened.
In one respect, we felt that the Government could have gone further. I am talking about camcorder crime where camcorders are used illegally to record new films and the recording is sold as DVDs. There is no question here of genuine error. It is organised crime, which is why most European countries have specific laws against it. However, the UK does not. For many months the Government said that they were waiting for a test case under the Fraud Act. Was this test case before the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal? Well, not exactly: it was before the Isle of Wight magistrates' court in Newport, where a man was convicted of recording a film on a mobile phone. He was fined £150, but his phone was returned to him. As you can make between £20,000 and £30,000 for a good recording, it is not immediately obvious how this is going to provide a deterrent to illegality. Indeed, it is not obvious that many people other than residents of the Isle of Wight such as me and loyal readers of the admirable County Press even know about the case. I gloss over the fact that the Secretary of State himself caught up with this vital test case only two weeks after it was decided. This is an area that we should return to in the new Parliament.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |