 Beth gan nesaf, mwyaf yn ymweld y cwmfaith, lle fel ysbun o'i'r cwmfaith sydd hanfyd 000 o'r bwyllfa'n mynd, mae'n sgwrs ir prynion wedi'i sgwrs sydd ymweld y cwmfaith a'r bweld o'r bwyllfa'n ddiwedd i'r modaf. Ysbun yw'r cwmfaith ymweld yn gondol i'rgirio, os mae hwn yn ganodd. Rwy'n ffordd â'i ffordd arweith o'r cros teimlo, eidem ni'n meddwl yn gyffredinolaeth am hynny neu Llan wywyd, mae'n gweld â'r Lord Ysbryd, ac mae'n gweld â'r Lord Ysbryd, ac mae'n gweld â'r Robert Rogers, ddechrau Gwyluniaeth Cymru ac oedd yn gweithiol oherwydd mae'r ddweud yma. Mae'n mynd i'r ddigon i ddweud oherwydd eich ddweud o'r camerau ac mae'n dweud o'r ddim yn ei ddechrau o'r website parlimentol oherwydd yna, oherwydd eich ddweud oherwydd yna oherwydd i ddweud oherwydd. Felly, rwy'n gweithio bobl hefyd yn diedliadau y cwmrooweidol a siaradwyr Eisteddfodol yn ôl i gymryd i'w pethol hefyd. Viw yw'r cwmrooweidol sydd gyda gweithio i ddefnyddio'r cymrafio. Roeddw'n cael ei sicr y byd o'r lle ffordd o gyfrif draws cyd-gaith. Mae hyn yn gwneud o'r gweithio i gael iddo, mae ydym yn gwneud o'r gweithio i gael gw newsreib yn gwneud. Fy hoffi ychydig byddwn ni fod yn ff bombo a chynghwm i ffrifanol iddo yn gwneud,You can't cut this out into the left. Gentleman out into the right. We will have the lecture part of the event and then as I said... ...to switch off cameras and have a question and answer session. So I hope that you all have brought lots of exciting questions along. I'm very delighted that we have Lord Putn to give a lecture for us today. We were just discussing this and we believe he may be the only member... ...of either house with an Oscar. Do we think that's right? Very star-studied company today. ac mae'r ffordd y dyfodol ar gyfer Fledgesiwll Llywodraeth, ac mae'r ffordd rhaid o dechrau at parlymyniant, ac mae'n ddiddordeb yn ei gael ei gweld yma. Ond yna'r ffordd yn fawr yw. Rwy'n cael ei wneud hynny, rwy'n cael eu cymryd yn ei ddysgu. Mae'r ffordd yn fawr. Parlymyniad yw'r wneud sy'n arddangos i ddiddordeb. Mae'r Llywodraeth yn ei ddiddordeb yn gweithio ymolen, ac yn ymolen i'r ffordd, Thanks for inviting me to speak this afternoon. Thank you for inviting me to speak this afternoon. Яfa worketh hw lay complwär sailed- entries to this type of outreach programme. In 2010 a cross-party panel a peir has produced an excellent report for the hand-sail society on improving scrutiny on primary legislation in the lords. ..y'r cyfan, mae'n gweithio'n gyda인 iawn o'r cyflwytoedd yn anhygotu.. ..' gifts yn ddigards o'r gwrdd a gyweithio'r cyflwytoedd.. .. sy'n gweithio'n gweithio'n mynedd apa wedi'i gweithio cyflwytoedd.. ..y fyw meddwl ym wych o'r cyflwytoedd a'i gweithio. Y gweithio'n llysig ar hun, ac mae'r ddiwedd yn gweithio'n gweithio. Mae'r ystafell yn cynhyrchu gymuniadol ac mae gennym genignon yn adnodd.. ..au'r Rydym Aelod hyn. and the key challenges are sometimes not even described. As a consequence of inadvertent, inadequate, sorry, description of the policy objectives and choices, current scrutiny often concentrates on the detail of the Bill and gives inadequate attention to the policy objectives, and whether the Bill is likely to achieve them. Goes on to... it finishes with saying, when these matters are not addressed scrutiny is effectively conducted in a vacuum and post-legitffff diulective scrutiny is made particularly difficult as there is no objective test against which to judge the efficacy of an act following implementation. The current dearth of postlegislative scrutiny also means that the public, government and parliament do not know what legislation has worked and why and it's therefore the opportunity to learn lessons from the legislative process to better inform the formulation of future bills becomes limited. Now that excellent extract difficulty it was to read is I think a mae'r brifatau sydd, oeddwn ni'n rhaid i'ch ddweud i'n cael ei variantu oherwydd at y nesaf. Mae'r ffrindiau o'r legisfyddiadau eich gwedch chi'n ddweud i gweithio a blwyddyn ni'n cael ei gweithio sgwrs ymddangos gyntaf gydych chi'n ffrindiau yn y manchai. Cysig oedd gweithio yn cael ei gweithio endsurau neu'n gweithio rhai argyfgrodd cyffrindiau. Os ddechrau, mae'n gweithio ymddangosr hon i'r Lordau interweinol i gweithio'r trei bydd y gweithi maen nhw'n rhaglen i'r cyd-fyrr. Fyrdd, ac mae'n ddigonwch nifer o'r cyd-fyrr ysgrifennu, yn gweithio i'r ddweud i'r ddigonwch gan ddechrau'r ddigonwch, yn dod oedd oedd o'r ddigonwch oed, yn oed o'r ddigonwch oed, ac yn oed o'r ddigonwch oed o'r ddigonwch yn ddefnyddio, ond ond ond ond o'r ddigonwch yn oed o'r ddigonwch. Mae'r ddigonwch oed wedi ysgrifennu yn byw ddim yn gwirionedd confused by a system which embedded, both pre-legit little eve and post-legit little eve scrutiny, far more effectively, at the heart of our political system. I say this is one of the very few people who has had the privilege of sharing, not one but 2 pre-legit little eve processes on the communications bill and on the climate change bill. It was from the former, a bill originally brought forward in 2002, that I had my first crash course on the value of pre-legit little eve scrutiny. Felly, rydyn ni'n meddwl i'n cerdd i'r ddiwylo'r gyfanc yng Nghymru yn setio'r cyfeirio ar y gynhyrch gweithio Llywodraeth Yn Arddangosol i'r bynnag ei gweld yn oes yn ymddangosol i'w colliwnol TJ 31. Mae'r Llywodraeth Llywodraeth TJ 31 yn ei gwybod i'n difbyrch o'r ddweud o'r newid i'r gweithiau tesaachol i'r Yn Ymddangosol i'n mynd i'w gweithio'r cyfeirio Llywodraeth, Byddwn i'n meddwl i wneud yn ymweld i'r cwmpwys gael y Cymru. Gwyddych chi'n bwysig, ac mae'n cael eu gwirioneddau awgwrd ar y fyddedig yng nghymru byddaeth i'r cyfrwysau sy'n gweld fyddfa'r cyfrwysiad gwirioneddau'r cyfrwysiad. Felly, mae gweithio'n cael eu cyfrwysiad, ac mae'n gwybod i'r reall i'r cyfrwysiad i'r Cymru, ac mae'n meddwl i'r cyfrwysiad i'r gweithio'r gweithio. Fe wnaeth ydy'r bywydau yn cael ei wneud iawn, mae'r bywau'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweld. Mae'n gweithio'n gweithio i chi'n gweithio'r ffordd sydd o'r wneud o'r cymdeithasau cyfnodig o'r cyfnodig sy'n gweithio'n gweithio'r cyfnodig. Mae'n cael ei wneud i gael oedden nhw'n cael 100 cydweith. Roeddwn i hynny'n gymuned ysgrifennu yn ymddillio'n cyfnodig. Rydyn ni'n gwybod parlymy'n ystod i'r unrhyw o'r forum wedi ei chyfnod ar gyfer dda'r ddweud o'r ddweud ar gyfer dda'r hwyl gyda ffadau gwyrdau ar gael ar gyfer y ddweud. Rydyn ni'n dweud o'r 200 pethau yng nghylch yn cyd-dweithio ar gyfer ddweud o'r ddweud, mae'n sefydlu ar gyfer ddweud yn cyfnodd gyda'r ddweud ar gyfer ddweud. The conclusions we came to were overwhelmingly supportive of the principles of the draft bill. However, the original bill was designed to create a purely economically-focused regulator called OFCOM, tasked to make purely economic decisions. One of the achievements of the Scrutiny Committee was to broaden this remit and say, no, these are not just economic decisions. These are issues that affect people's real lives and real freedoms. At every turn, during our deliberations, we sought to ensure that the powers of OFCOM were defined as rigorously and as clearly as possible. We adhered to the principle that if the government was serious about securing dynamic and competitive markets in the communications and media sectors, then we needed a step change in the effectiveness of regulation. The ability to achieve that step change was always going to depend in large part on the strength of OFCOM's competition powers. The key issue here was what became known as the public interest test. A test, of course, that really came into its own when News Corp attempted to take control of 100% of B SkyB beginning in June 2010. The architect of much of the thinking was in fact one of my colleagues on the committee, Andrew Lansley MP, who realised that at exactly the same time as our bill was being considered in Parliament, the enterprise bill was also making its way through. He conceived this notion of a double lock, whereby you could use the provisions of an enterprise act to look at things from a competition perspective and at the same time enable a communications act to look at those same provisions from the perspective of the wider public interest. By creating these two locks, you're in that much more likely to get a reasonable result. The fact that Andrew was a member of a Manchester's opposition underlined the extent to which the committee worked across party lines and was genuinely committed to reaching consensus which served the public good rather than being an exercise in party political points scoring. Broadly speaking, the public interest test assumes that the public interest would be adversely affected in the event of a diminuation of plurality of voice. This was taken to include the written, audio or televisual voice. Then, in diminishing that plurality of voice, you are in effect damaging the public interest. Some of you may well wish to expand on this and explore what we thought we meant by plurality of voice. It's not the most comfortable phrase in the world but it served at the time. So, while the then Labour government of the day was willing to liberalise in this area in the light of the globalising nature of the media market and to encourage inward investment, the Joint Scrutiny Committee believed a careful balancing act would be best achieved through the incorporation of this public interest test. The test exists to assess the impact of any significant merger or takeover regardless of the nationality of the acquiring company. It's only with the benefit of hindsight that the real challenges around cross-beenure ownership have become truly apparent. For example, it was always my belief that the opportunities to bundle together news corks media assets such as The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun, The News of the World, Sky subscriptions, online movies from Fox, along with mobile access to all of them, that these were far, far greater than anything the government of the day believed possible or maybe actually wished to believe possible. Today, Sky has a billing relationship with well over 10 million customers. That's a fantastic competitive advantage in an online world in which making people pay for content is proving one of the biggest challenges of all. Where once it was his newspapers that subsidised Mr Murdoch's foray into television, it was well on the way to being the other way around, with television underwriting both his newspapers and his somewhat belated attempt to come to terms with the internet. Indeed, it's striking that the Communications Act 2003 does not include the word internet, an omission which now seems quite extraordinary, but at the time appeared to be born of the belief that the internet was a sort of Wild West whose contribution to innovation and growth would only be shackled by even the most timid attempts to bring aspects of it within the scope, for example, of cross-media ownership regulation. In fact, part of my committee's terms of reference were an injunction not to even raise the issue of the internet. Needless to say, in hindsight, this seems pretty fatuous. The development of the digital economy and the impact of the internet raises one of the key challenges in this area of legislation, as, in my opinion, competition authorities do not, nor should they, make or shape public policy. They're simply required to implement what is already on the statute book. Worth mentioning here for anyone who wasn't around in the mid-80s how we got to where we are regarding regulation. Regulation was a direct child of privatisation. Privatisation, as you know, was a theory that was pursued in the 80s. Interest enough, in my perspective, it was the thing that finally politicised me. It was opposition to the privatisation of water that made me cross the barrier from being interested in politics to becoming highly active in politics. But at the time of privatisation, the regulator, or notion of regulation, was a convenience. No one really, really believed or conceived that the regulator would become what today we know as pretty hefty and important people. It was really done to assuage arguments in Parliament about the price being paid for loss of competition. So the idea was, we're going to have privatisation anyway. You wimps over here, don't want it. The way we're going to deal with it is we're going to create this independent body and these independent people who will ensure that these monoliths we're potentially creating, these private sector monoliths will have some kind of breaks put on them in respect of competition. That's where regulation came from. It was not conceived in the way that we currently, I believe, currently see it. It was conceived as a way of getting privatisation through Parliament. Which I think explains why, as legislators, Parliament needs the power and the flexibility to respond to events that may have been entirely under-empt of or even unwanted when the statutes were originally framed. Just one of the reasons I have at every opportunity consistently argued in favour of post-legititive scrutiny, as well as the pre-legititive variety. And certainly it's also why enthusiastically support the idea floated by the government and others that OFCOM should not just have the power to intervene in the cases of mergers and acquisitions, but should also have the power to conduct studies of the organic growth of the marketplace and to recommend any necessary interventions on public interest grounds as they see fit. However, despite the adoption of the public interest test, the joint scrutiny committee did not have things all its own way. It recommended an urgent cross-media impact study, and that has never happened. And yet without such a proper cross-media study, it's almost impossible to make the necessary judgments to be able to construct the kind of evidence-based decision-making which the Hansard Society rightly wants to be seen used much more widely by Parliament. A genuine scrutiny committee is one that looks objectively at what's going on and makes objective decisions on the basis of evidence of what it believes to be best for the citizen and the consumer. When our report was published, we made 144 different recommendations. And to their great credit, the government accepted 136 of them. Most of what they accepted was to do with extending the bill to include issues that covered plurality and the quality in the range of content. Much of which, one way or another, I think we did manage to embrace. So here I stand, a declared enthusiast for both pre- and post-legislative scrutiny. And as if I needed it, I was once again introduced to how valuable the widespread use of these processes could be when Parliament went through the agonies of the digital economy bill. The passage of that bill in 2010 was a perfect example of what can go wrong when time pressures encourage a government to attempt to shortcut things. All of us engaged in that bill were subjected to a deluge of lobbying. Some of it informed and intelligent, but much of it highly prejudiced and some of it even pretty daft. However, with no time to sort the wheat from the chaff, with no ability to properly interrogate the arguments of the lobbyists, with no serious ability to look at which of their arguments stood up and which collapsed under scrutiny, many of our debates simply dissolved into fuss. Needless to say, we ended up with a flawed bill containing a number of significant omissions killed off by ill-informed lobbying in the wash-up that took place between the Commons and Lords ahead of the May 2010 election. One victim of this was a clause which would, and I believe should, have allowed so-called orphan works, works for which the copyright owner cannot be identified even after a diligent search, to allow such orphan works to be made available legally. At present, it could potentially be a criminal offence to make any such work available, and yet there are thousands and thousands and thousands of them locked up in the British Library. These provisions were killed off by heavy lobbying from a group of photographers who raised some challenging but far from insurmountable issues around orphan photographs at a very late stage in the game. Had these clauses been subject to pre-legendary scrutiny, I believe it would have been possible for Parliament to properly consider, debate and address these concerns, rather than being bludgeoned into simply dropping them on the basis of a well-organised but fundamentally flawed lobbying campaign. Instead of which, two years later, the present Government have been obliged to reintroduce a slightly different version of the proposals into the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. It has to be said, their most natural home as they find themselves sitting alongside proposals for a green investment bank and reform of the employment laws. If ever a bill required pre-legendary scrutiny, the Digital Economy Bill was exactly that. Many hours were spent in Parliament, I would say many of them wasted hours, going through things which a good and effective pre-legendary process could very easily have ironed out. A lot of bouncing around between the various sides of the House on relatively minor issues could have been avoided, because many of the arguments were based on an extraordinary amount of misinformation or, in some cases, even disinformation. So, in this case it was the absence of pre-legendary scrutiny that allowed me to fully understand its value. We live in an era of ever more professional politicians, if not politics. As a result, the outside world has to be given a better voice, and it needs to feel it can come into this building to make that voice heard and feel that it's had its say. But for Parliamentarians, the ability to be able to sort out and identify legitimate and factual lobbying has become a major problem in trying to get many pieces of legislation through it. To me, one of the most important benefits of pre-legendary scrutiny is that the members of its committee former are hardcore, if you like, across party expertise when a bill comes before Parliament. Here you have an informed group of people who've been through the arguments and can cut through an enormous amount of waffle and nonsense. And not having that available, even if it makes the minister's task that much more difficult, is, in my judgement, a great mistake. Any serious democracy also has an obligation to look at what's happening elsewhere. That's to say the good and the bad. A couple of years ago, Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winning economist, wrote what I felt to be an excellent article in the New York Times in which he said this. We've always known that America's reign as the world's greatest nation would eventually end. But most of us imagine that our downfall, when it came, would be something grand and tragic. What we're getting instead is lesser tragedy than a deadly farce. Instead of fraying under the strain of imperial overreach, we're paralysed by procedure. Much of the Senate's business relies on unanimous consent. It's difficult to get anything done unless everyone agrees on procedure. And of traditions growing up, under which senators, in return for not dumbing up everything, get the right to block those things that they don't much like. He concluded, the truth is, that the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with the functioning government. America is not yet lost, but the Senate is working on it. Now, I'd be very distressed if at any point anyone was able to say that our parliamentary system and our procedures were effectively making good legislation and good governance impossible. And with that in mind, I'd like to close with some thoughts from one of the outstanding parliamentarians of my generation, Robin Cook. Shortly before Robin died, he wrote this. It's because I love Parliament that I never want to see it sink into irrelevance, a top door on the tourist circuit, but no longer the crucible of our nation's politics. Its authority rests on public confidence. And if it is to restore that confidence, it must change. It is those of us who most love Parliament who therefore want to see it modernised. You went on to say this. The problem is not that the British people have no opinion on the issues of the day, but the more and more of them no longer feel ownership of their parliamentary democracy, the more political culture can solve the problems of their lives. I'm personally indebted to Lord Howe of Aberavon for introducing me to the belief of the former Prime Minister, Ajay Balfa, that democracy is government by explanation. That seems to me both an excellent description of the value that scrutiny committees can deliver by analysing and explaining the rationale for the laws that govern us, but it also sums up a key way in which trust and democratic processes can over time be built. In the end, what that joint scrutiny committee on the communications bill delivered was a report which genuinely attempted, I believe successfully, to weigh the merits of the evidence we received and to offer an informed view as the most appropriate way forward. In doing so, the committee believed that it delivered a robust example of evidence-based advice which served to advance the cause of pre-legislative scrutiny. If the entire point of such a process is to test the value of policy proposals on the basis of expert evidence, then it would be strange indeed and even a little offensive to Parliament where government to proceed as if some or all of its decisions were already set in stone. Pre-legislative scrutiny as a process is still comparatively young, but it supports many of the legitimate and growing expectations for transparent and better informed government. Once this process is embedded to everyone's satisfaction, it can only be a matter of time before we begin to experiment with post-legislative scrutiny, but that's probably a different debate for another day. To really work, parliamentary scrutiny requires that at least two preconditions are in place. Firstly, a media environment in which the breadth and depth of complex issues are treated with the seriousness that they deserve. And secondly, a government with the humility to acknowledge that it isn't always right, the graciousness to listen to alternative arguments, and a consistent and demonstrable understanding of the sovereignty of Parliament. Sadly, so long as government and the media insist each on parodying the neat jerks of the other, we are probably condemned to remain not much more than a semi-formed democracy. But it's my continuing belief that we deserve and that we can secure for ourselves as a citizen something far, far better than that. And to do so, we as parliamentarians will unquestionably need your help, in fact all the help we can get. Thank you very much for listening to me.