Grand Committee
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]
Wednesday 27th November 2024
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 18-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (26 Nov 2024)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bell rings and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 2: Product requirements
Amendment 23
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure regulated marketplaces co-operate with emergency services (where appropriate) to protect consumers from unsafe products.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, much of this Bill, as we know, is underpinned by secondary legislation, which has yet to be set out. That, of course, includes online marketplaces. To support the development of effective regulation, the Government, I hope, will set out their timetable for developing such secondary legislation as soon as possible. They should also provide clarification on who those referred to in the Bill as the “relevant authorities” are, particularly in relation to online marketplaces, which have to co-operate with others in Clause 2.
The UK’s fire and rescue services provide front-line response when dangerous products are sold in an online marketplace and catch fire or set fire to other properties and cause terrible burns to anyone who happens to be nearby. The London Fire Brigade, to which I am most grateful for the information it has given me, has seen a stark rise in e-bike and e-scooter fires in recent years. It responds to an incident about every 48 hours now. In this year alone, there were 131 fires from January to September. Given the role of the fire and rescue services, it would be helpful to set it out and recognise it in regulations. That is the reason for my Amendment 23, which is the lead amendment in this group, and Amendment 105, which goes with it.
Amendment 23 would ensure that regulated marketplaces co-operate with emergency services where appropriate to protect consumers from unsafe products and allow fire and rescue services to respond to fire safety concerns about known products. Some online marketplaces already co-operate with fire and rescue services. One of those—which I will not name because I do not think it appropriate to provide advertising—is a major online supplier that does include safety advice from the London Fire Brigade, but unfortunately, not all sites do.
The Bill is a welcome step to protect consumers from harmful products. It has very wide scope, but it needs to cover the online marketplaces that facilitate the sale or giving away of products through private individuals from one to another, as well as those sold as new. That includes the likes of some of the trading websites—again, I will not name them because I do not want to advertise them. From investigations by the London Fire Brigade, we know that products sought from second-hand online marketplaces include e-bikes, chargers and batteries, which have the potential to cause great harm. It has seen examples of incidents such as the Sutton railway station fire in March, when fire crews were called to the station during rush hour as commuters were on their way home. A bike owner had bought an e-bike from an online marketplace four months beforehand and had had no issues with the purchase. The station commander has confirmed that the fire was ferocious, happened extremely quickly and would have been devastating if things had worked out differently. He said that he hates to think of the tragic consequences that could have occurred. It was, in a way, just fortunate that it happened where it did and that no one was injured, but it serves to highlight the dangers when products are purchased or given away for free from one individual to another.
I know that Amendment 32 has already been debated, and I apologise to the Committee that I was unable to be here; I was on an aeroplane, because the railway lines were flooded. But I read Hansard, and the comments there are all relevant to the stark rise in e-bike fires in the capital.
Turning to Amendment 105 and Clause 7, the proposals would give the regulator the power to require companies subject to the regulation to provide information on the products being sold. As drafted, this clause would give the regulator only the power to require the provision of information and does not give them a responsibility to share this with bodies that have a statutory duty or responsibility for public safety, including fire and rescue services. The role of the data from the London Fire Brigade has been really important and has shown us the scale of the problem. Ensuring that emergency services have access to all the data will be welcome going forward in monitoring safety and spotting things—perhaps products that we currently cannot even imagine, which may come on to the marketplace and subsequently prove to be unsafe.
The change to Clause 7 in my Amendment 105 would ensure that regulations make provision for sharing information about unsafe products with the emergency services, including fire and rescue services, and that they have the information they need to respond to these emerging risks. They also run prevention campaigns and can provide accurate safety messaging, which can all be supportive of public safety, so that the Bill can meet its overall and much-needed aims. I beg to move.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I rise briefly to support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness. I also draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that when I moved Amendments 2 and 27 in an earlier group, on the issue of installation, I pointed out that in respect of the potentially very dangerous lithium-ion batteries used in EV charging-point systems, for example, and solar panel array storage batteries, there is currently no requirement on the competent person scheme individual who is installing those systems to notify relevant authorities of the installing of those batteries.
I pointed out at the time that lithium-ion batteries, about which we will no doubt speak a great deal when we come to group 5, can create huge fires at high temperatures and very toxic gases; I also pointed out that, crucially, they cannot be put out by the use of water. That is why it is so important that the relevant authorities, particularly the emergency services, are aware of the current location of such devices. The current arrangements require the individual house owner to make such a notification. My amendment argued that it should be the responsibility of the installer not only to check on the safety of the entire system but to make that notification. For that reason, I am particularly supportive of the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, had I been a little shrewder on the grouping, I would have included in this group Amendment 106, which we will debate in the antepenultimate group of the Bill, as it also addresses Clause 7 and goes after the same objective of information sharing. Whether it is lithium-ion batteries or some other danger, it is important that we learn from the problems that are established and that the right people can get that information, so that learning process can start.
I suggest that, whether it is the process set down by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which we support, or something like my Amendment 106, or something that the drafters sitting behind the Minister can do much better than we can, there needs to be a point in this Bill about a process of information sharing, whether it is set out in detail, as in my amendment, which talks about who or what those bodies are, or whether it is a more general duty, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has set out. We support these proposals, and I hope that we can have a debate next time. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the need to understand dangers, learn from them and move to be able to prevent them.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her important amendments. I, too, am looking forward to exploring the meaning of “relevant authorities” in the next group. If this is really about product safety, of course we have to have regard to unsafe products, and of course that information ought to be shared with the emergency services, so I have absolutely no problem in supporting all those amendments.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting debate. Obviously, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, speaks with great experience in this area, on the higher risk of the online second-hand marketplace and the relationship between that, the information and the emergency services, as she so rightly says. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, which we will debate later on. I have also noted Amendment 106 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which seeks to ensure that the information-sharing provisions apply to more bodies, including medical examiners and coroners. In fact, he has put an extensive list in that amendment.
On the issue of secondary legislation, I cannot as yet commit to a detailed timetable. Clearly, this Bill is starting in your Lordships’ House, so we do not know when it is going to get through and, I hope, receive Royal Assent. Then work will obviously take place in relation to secondary legislation, but my understanding is that, in the meantime, we are continuing to work with stakeholders to make sure that we can do this as quickly as possible.
We are coming on to the issue of relevant authorities but, as we see it, it is restricted under Clauses 3(2) and 6(2) to those authorities fulfilling a public function, such as local authorities and sectoral regulators. We think that any further specification would limit our ability to ensure that enforcement authorities can be equipped with necessary powers to enforce their areas of responsibility. Relevant authority and inspector functions are outlined in Clauses 3(3), 6(3), 3(4) and 6(4) respectively, but I suspect that we will come back to this in relation to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, later on.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, mentioned lithium batteries. We know that he is making a very important point—we very much acknowledge that. We think that the powers in the Bill will allow us to determine what changes and updates to our regulations may be needed to ensure the best protections for consumers and support for reputable retailers, including those related to installation.
On data sharing, which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has raised, I have worked with the noble Baroness in the past on CO2 safety issues, where again the issue of data being shared is very important. That also relates to death certification, in getting accurate information. I well understand that. The draft provisions already allow regulations to make provision for information sharing and co-operation with emergency services. Existing legislation that seeks to facilitate information exchange does not always cover the type of data needed to help protect consumers from unsafe products. We believe that the Bill aims to improve data exchange on product safety among public authorities, emergency services and consumers. Powers in the Bill will allow for regulations to enable extending data-sharing agreements to include public agencies such as emergency services. Sharing information is clearly an important feature in the work of relevant authorities; their ability to obtain and share information enables them to undertake their activities effectively and efficiently. As Clause 7(5) makes clear, any information-sharing regulations must not contravene existing data protection legislation, which covers personal data.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am most grateful to the Minister for having such an open door in discussing these issues. I may be wrong, but I understood from the London Fire Brigade that, although its collection of data is comprehensive, other fire brigades around the country do not feed in in the same way. We also have the issue of devolved responsibilities in the devolved nations. Therefore, there is a need to clarify data sharing. I wonder whether we might need to go over this in order to be clear in regulation that some incidents are notifiable.
In responding, the Minister referred to carbon monoxide, which is a colourless gas that does not smell but that can, at high levels, kill you in three minutes. Carbon monoxide deaths are still occurring in this country because of faulty boilers, gas cookers and so on; they are also caused by faulty vehicles when exhaust fumes leak. I understand that we cannot have regulation that includes notifying absolutely everything, but we need further debate on where to draw the line in terms of what becomes notifiable and what is not. It is about an assessment of risk of harm, perhaps.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
On carbon monoxide, one of the issues concerns medical certificates and cause of death; there is a big problem because, often, carbon monoxide poisoning is not mentioned. The argument is that there is nothing in this legislation that precludes taking action in the way the noble Baroness wants us to take action. The question is whether the noble Baroness’s amendment is proportionate; we can have a further discussion about that.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I completely accept that it is about what is and is not included. I recall having learned, on many occasions, the danger of having lists in legislation, because there is always something that has not been included, which becomes a tension. I look forward to further discussion. I am most grateful to others for supporting these amendments and recognising their importance. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 23.
Lord Lucas
“(l) the withdrawal from sale of products of a type concerning which Trading Standards have raised concerns, until such time as the seller has satisfied Trading Standards that those concerns are unfounded.”
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, the market we have at the moment is such that, if there is, say, an orange teddy bear on the market, it may appear in a hundred or more different guises from ostensibly different sellers. Perhaps it has a different label or name attached, but it is, in essence, the same product. If we insist on trading standards proving that each of these instances is dangerous, we will find ourselves unable to enforce this legislation properly.
Amendment 29 suggests reversing the process so that, when trading standards become aware that, say, an orange teddy bear of a particular description appears to be dangerous, they can stop them being sold and put the onus on the sellers to prove that they are safe. In that way, we can achieve the protection of the public quickly and simply, without overwhelming trading standards. I beg to move.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 31, 85, 97, 98 and 109, all on enforcement issues. Amendment 31 in my name and Amendment 98 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, deal with the subject of fulfilment houses. Yes, it sounds like a slightly dodgy building, does it not? Anyway, I have been educated.
Amendment 31 addresses Clause 2. At the end of line 14 of page 3, it would insert
“a person who controls fulfilment houses in the United Kingdom”.
This amendment adds to the list of persons in Clause 2 on whom product regulations may impose product requirements. I thank the Chartered Trading Standards Institute for its advice on this issue.
Fulfilment houses or centres store, pack and ship products for other companies, which are third-party sellers, often from overseas. Without clear rules, these products easily skip safety checks, creating risk for consumers. It is important to aim for compliant products only to enter the market, and these fulfilment houses should play a critical role in ensuring that.
There is presently a lack of clarity regarding the specific obligations of fulfilment houses, as their operations may not fall directly under the role of traditional retailers or manufacturers. This amendment makes it clear that fulfilment houses must meet safety standards, just as regular shops must, and are accountable if they are storing and passing on products for delivery that are unsafe or dangerous.
Amendment 98 aims to close a critical gap in the supply chain and protect consumers from non-compliant goods from third-party sellers. The amendment seeks to define “fulfilment houses” because at present the Bill does not. This is needed as these houses are, as I said, a key loophole for unsafe products entering the UK market. The amendment also outlines how fulfilment houses will have to keep records showing that the products they store meet all necessary product safety requirements. These houses are also to work with enforcement officers if that is needed. Although fulfilment houses already register for tax due diligence, this extension to product safety is a necessary logical next step towards ensuring safe consumer products across the board.
Amendment 85 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, is on enforcement of metrology regulations. This amendment, advised by trading standards officers, makes it the duty of weights and measures authorities in Great Britain and a similar body in Northern Ireland to ensure that products are accurately measured and to add to the list in Clause 6 on page 6, line 30.
Although the Bill currently includes rules about measurement units and product quantities, it does not, according to weights and measurements officers on the ground, fully cover the checking of equipment used to make these measurements. Accurate measuring equipment is essential for ensuring fair trade, so expanding the regulations to include equipment testing, as our amendment suggests, would help authorities to enforce those rules more effectively. There are also concerns that the Bill may allow people other than trading standards officers to carry out enforcement, even though trading standards officers are already trained and authorised to do this work.
This amendment clarifies who is responsible for enforcement, helping build consumer trust in fair measurements, which affects consumers UK-wide. It will also ensure that local authorities will be responsible for regularly checking products to ensure accurate measurements, investigating complaints and taking action if they find issues. This will mean that all sellers follow the same standards so that consumers can trust the quantities they are buying—whether groceries, petrol or other goods—and that they are measured fairly.
I shall now speak to Amendment 97 in my name and those of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. The explanatory statement says:
“This amendment inserts safeguards to ensure non-regression from existing legal protections, as well as providing for the due consideration of the precautionary principle when scientific evidence about a possible risk may not yet be fully available but there is a need to be cautious given the potentially serious consequences for the safety of individuals”.
In current legislation, Regulation 10(5) of the General Product Safety Regulations 2005, for example, includes the duty that
“An enforcement authority … take due account of the precautionary principle”.
That point was relied on by the organisation Which? in its campaign to persuade the Government in 2019 to take action and require Whirlpool to recall dangerous tumble dryers that were responsible for starting hundreds of fires. When the scientific evidence was not fully available, the precautionary principle kicked in. At that point, scientific evidence is not completely collated but, when there are hundreds of fires, something needs to be done.
The Bill provides the Government with the opportunity to introduce new regulations that will upgrade consumer rights, but we believe there needs to be a more encompassing principle to keep consumers safe and underpin all future regulation with key consumer protections. With this amendment, we are seeking to ensure that the primacy of a high level of consumer protection is built into the Bill.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, these amendments deal with a range of issues concerning enforcement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, said, I have signed and fully support the numerous amendments she has tabled, and I do not intend, other than very briefly, to touch on those at all.
I said at Second Reading that improved safety will come about through this legislation only if there is effective enforcement of the various regulations that are going to be laid. As I understand it, the thrust of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, which he will describe in more detail later on, is that they seek clarification on who is going to be responsible for enforcement and what their responsibilities will be.
My noble friend Lady Brinton, who is unable to be with us today, has an amendment that in part suggests that trading standards officers should be the ones responsible since, frankly, they have the expertise and skills and are best placed to take on the role. Indeed, I am pretty sure—although obviously, we will have to wait until we hear the Minister’s response—that trading standards officers are going to play a crucial role in enforcing the Bill and, much more significantly, the as yet unknown contents of regulations arising from it.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which I fully support, assumes that trading standards will be the ones who will have the key responsibility, but my noble friend’s amendments and my own Amendment 64 seek to ensure that whoever does the enforcement also has the necessary resources, including financial, to carry out the work.
When I raised this issue at Second Reading, the Minister talked about improved enforcement capability, which he said would come through the more efficient use of time, better notices, better data-sharing opportunities and the support that will be offered, such as support on technical queries from the OPSS—but not a whiff of a promise of additional funding.
At the very helpful meeting then organised by the Minister, I asked how the new burdens principle fitted into all this, whereby the Government will be expected to fund costs arising from new burdens placed on other bodies. The Minister promised to write to us, and indeed he did. He stated:
“No new burdens are being imposed”
by the Bill. He went on:
“The principal enforcement activities currently undertaken by local authorities and delivered by trading standards are not changing”.
Clearly, that is not the case, if we take into account all the regulations that will flow from this skeleton Bill. In fairness, to some extent the Minister acknowledged that. He said that there is a “potential”—an odd choice of word since we know it will happen—for the regulations to bring new burdens. He promised to continue dialogue with a new burdens team, and he pointed to the cost- recovery powers in Clause 8, clarification of which has rightly been sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, in her Amendment 109.
However, we should surely be acutely aware of the current position faced by trading standards officers around the country. Frankly, they do an excellent job. Over the last year, 2023-24, trading standards prevented more than £905 million of consumer detriment in England and Wales, equating to £8.39 saved for every £1 spent. But despite that really good value for money, over the last decade, spending on trading standards has been cut by more than 50%. Over the same period, staffing levels in local authorities have fallen by between 30% and 50%. Frankly, many local authorities no longer have sufficient resources to enforce all the consumer protection legislation for which they are responsible. Therefore, without additional resources, they certainly will not have the capability to cope with more, which might—or rather, will—come as a result of this Bill.
Whoever takes on the enforcement responsibility will need additional resources to do the job, and that will not be achieved by things such as better data sharing and support on technical queries by the OPSS. I hope the Minister can give us far more assurances than he has so far that the Government are alert to this issue. I hope that he will provide us with assurances that extra resources will be made available, as proposed by my noble friend’s amendments and my own.
I have a couple of other amendments to touch on briefly. In a sense, my Amendment 70 builds on Amendment 98, which I have signed, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. When buying a product online, the buyer is often aware who the seller is. Amendment 98 would place a duty on the fulfilment houses that store all this stuff before it goes out to the consumer to ensure that appropriate safety legislation has been taken into account. Other amendments suggest that there should be a responsibility on online market- places to ensure that appropriate safety regulations have been met by all the products available on their platform. My Amendment 70 goes a little further and suggests that we should therefore give the consumer the right to bring a claim against the online marketplace, regardless of who the original provider of the product was, if this has not happened and they suffer as a result of the product not having met the appropriate standards.
Finally, Amendments 63 and 87 seek to expand enforcement powers by giving the relevant authority or an inspector the power to require a person to attend an interview to answer questions, a power usually known as an interview notice. In similar legislation, authorities including regulators have that power. In the Data (Use and Access) Bill that is currently before your Lordships’ House, the Government seek to give the Information Commissioner that power to give interview notices. The Government are also seeking to give the Security Industry Authority that power in the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, and the new independent football regulator, in the Football Governance Bill currently before your Lordships’ House, will be given the same power. Yet it is omitted, bizarrely, from this Bill. That means that, on the one hand, the relevant authority would have the power to enter and search premises and seize items but, on the other hand, it would not have the power to question persons about the related entry, search and seizure of those products. I find that particularly bizarre. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge this point and either accept the amendment or offer his own way forward.
I began by saying that the Bill and the regulations that flow from it will, frankly, be pretty meaningless without proper enforcement, so we need clarity about who will be responsible for that enforcement, we need to be assured of what those responsibilities will be and we need assurances that they will be properly resourced to carry out those responsibilities. On all counts, we are at present unaware of any answers to those questions, so we hope that the Minister will shed some light on this when he winds up.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I found the introduction to these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the clarification from the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, very revealing. It is a reminder that you can have a product made somewhere that comes into this country and then gets badged by lots of different people, but it is the same basic product with the same problems. The two examples that come to mind are the tumble dryers, when there was a fault in how they were constructed, and magnetic toys, which eventually got withdrawn. Several children ended up inhaling or swallowing small magnets that were in those toys, which were marketed under lots of different guises—but the basic product that came in included these little magnetic particles.
It has been a really interesting debate, because you can see that there is a point at which the trading standards people have the powers to intervene. I hope that, in responding, the Minister will able to describe to us how the powers are strong enough at the point of entry, rather than the trading standards people having to go after one label, then another and then another. That will be very heavy on workload and will not deal with the problem of an unsafe product being produced elsewhere and brought into the country.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I support most of the amendments in this group, but I particularly want to support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley—namely, Amendments 31, 85, 97, 98 and 109. Some of those are also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. I declare an interest as president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. My predecessor in that role, of course, was the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, hence our common approach to the issues raised.
In relation to Amendments 31 and 98, dealing with fulfilment houses, those houses play a critical role in the distribution chain, especially for products from overseas retailers. These amendments would ensure that they were accountable for product safety, thereby reducing the risk of non-compliant goods reaching consumers. Amendment 98 also addresses gaps in the supply chain. The fulfilment houses play a critical role in the distribution chain for overseas sellers and the amendment would ensure that they were accountable for product safety, reducing the risk of non-compliant goods reaching consumers, but would also require fulfilment houses to maintain compliance records and facilitate inspections. The amendment would increase traceability and accountability for the products that they handle. Furthermore, Amendment 98 aligns fulfilment houses with current due diligence obligations. While they already register for tax due diligence, this extension to product safety is a logical step towards ensuring safe consumer products across the board.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I wish to address the Committee on Amendments 60 to 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe; I thank him for his amendments on enforcement regulations in this Bill.
As has already been pointed out, the Bill fails to provide clarity about who will be the relevant authority, how that authority will be appointed and what criteria will be used to determine this. In setting out these points, I merely echo concerns already raised by your Lordships’ Committee. The concern is that a dangerous precedent is created, particularly where such broad powers are granted for enforcing product regulations—including sanctions—and for carrying out investigations.
To illustrate the risks of these broad and as yet undefined powers, we need look only to the Horizon scandal. In that case, as the Committee and indeed the whole House is aware, sub-postmasters were wrongly prosecuted based on flawed evidence and poor decision-making by the responsible authorities—a private prosecutor in England and Wales. The lack of proper scrutiny and oversight in that situation resulted in innocent people facing wrongful charges. Lives were ruined; indeed, lives were lost. The situation was greeted with mounting horror across our House, as it was across the country at large, as details began to emerge.
The Horizon case highlighted the dangers of unchecked power or power in the hands of those lacking the professional cultures to exercise such power responsibly. Our concern is that this could easily be replicated under the Bill if we do not ensure that the powers of the relevant authority are defined carefully and according to strict standards of accountability. We submit that the Government must provide clear criteria for the appointment of a relevant authority and establish rigorous oversight in order to ensure that the powers given under the Bill are used fairly and transparently. The Bill should ensure that those granted authority are highly qualified, possess relevant experience and are subject to ongoing monitoring in order to prevent misuse of power.
These clauses are considered skeleton legislation by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The House has collectively expressed its concern as to the dangers of skeleton legislation in other contexts, where vague provisions allow the Executive to bypass parliamentary scrutiny; indeed, the dangers and undesirability of such skeleton legislation were touched on yesterday in a take-note debate on the rule of law. Bypassing Parliament on such a critical matter—especially with the ability to bring solemn criminal charges on indictment, not just at summary level—creates risk and sets a dangerous precedent. We are by no means claiming that the Government are consciously seeking to set up a situation and a system of abuse of power, and we recognise the importance of effective regulation for consumer protection; our concern is that a lack of clarity in the Bill threatens to create an environment ripe for the misuse of power, at a time when our consciousness, and of the country at large, of those risks has never been sharper.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 60, 61, 62, 66, 67, 83, 84, 86, 88 and 89 standing in my name.
Before I get on to that, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I have not heard very much that I have disagreed with, and in particular I welcome the specialised and clearly considerable expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay in this area. I also thank my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton, who brought a valuable legal perspective to my Amendments 60, 61 and 62. If I may say so, the Committee should also thank him, because that has relieved me of the duty of mentioning the delegated powers in the Bill.
To probe, starting with my Amendment 60, what is a relevant authority? My amendments as a group seek clarity. There is far too little of it, and I will explain why. There may be a case for a degree of generalisation on product safety laws, which we have discussed in previous Committee days, but when it comes to the enforcement of the law, as my noble and learned friend has just outlined, the Government should not be this vague. The clause that this amendment seeks to remove grants wide discretion in designating one or more persons as the relevant authority, without defining criteria or scope. Businesses need to know who they are engaging with when it comes to compliance and enforcement. The uncertainty in the Bill creates a challenging situation for businesses, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, which may lack the resources to navigate unclear or fragmented enforcement mechanisms.
Without clearly defined enforcement roles, companies face potential delays and additional costs due to duplicative enforcement efforts, all of which could hamper innovation, productivity and growth. This clause effectively hands unchecked power to Ministers, allowing them to designate any person or organisation as a relevant authority without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. But it fails to address critical questions, such as what qualifications or expertise the designated authority will require. How will conflicts of interest be avoided? Will there be oversight mechanisms to ensure that these authorities are held accountable for their enforcement activities?
The Government have repeatedly claimed that one of the goals of the Bill is innovation, and that they wish to be a leader on trade, yet unclear enforcement mechanisms may send the wrong message to trading partners and investors. Inconsistent enforcement practices could harm the perceived reliability of the UK’s regulatory regime, potentially complicating cross-border trade agreements and deterring foreign investment.
The Government’s Explanatory Notes suggest that the relevant authority could include the Secretary of State or
“other bodies exercising public functions”.
But nowhere in the Bill or the Explanatory Notes is there any mention of specialised bodies—including those represented by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay—which have clear expertise in product enforcement, safety and standards. We think this omission is striking. Will product safety specialists such as trading standards and accredited safety bodies be considered? Will enforcement fall to entities with deep technical knowledge and understanding of the complexities of product regulation?
The Bill uses the phrase
“other bodies exercising public functions”,
a catch-all term that could encompass almost anyone who engages in some form of public work. In practice, this could mean highly skilled and knowledgeable experts, but it could also mean organisations or individuals with no background in product safety. Could a local administrative body or other government-adjacent organisation whose primary function is entirely unrelated end up being designated as a relevant authority? Despite the Government’s claims of promoting clarity and higher standards, the wording here does the exact opposite.
This is not a trivial matter. The enforcement authority will determine how the rules are applied and the standards by which businesses are judged. Without explicit safeguards, this clause risks allowing enforcement to be carried out by ill-equipped individuals or bodies, potentially damaging the entire framework of product safety. I appreciate that I have ranged far and wide here, but unfortunately, the way the Bill is drafted invites all these questions, so I look forward to the Minister’s responses.
Turning to Amendment 61, also in my name, we of course recognise the importance of ensuring compliance with product regulations, but the manner in which these powers are drafted raises serious concerns about vagueness, overreach and potential misuse. This subsection includes functions such as monitoring compliance, investigating suspected non-compliance and even mitigating the effects of non-compliance. While monitoring compliance and addressing breaches are legitimate, the concept of suspected non-compliance is especially problematic. What constitutes suspicion? Will it be based on clearly defined criteria, or could it arise from arbitrary interpretations by an as yet to be defined relevant authority?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, and complying with time constraints, I warned your Lordships and the Government when speaking to another group that the skeletal nature of the Bill allows everybody to superimpose all their worst suppositions on it. We have just heard a thorough example of that from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe.
I am of course here to help. In considering previous Bills, it helped when the Government published their draft code of practice between Committee and Report, so that we could get an inkling of their thinking. Doing so will not change our need to address the skeletal nature of the Bill, but it might allay some of our worst fears about the intention, and guide us in wording the amendments we could table on Report to help tie things down a little more, along the lines of the fears outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. Can the Minister say whether a code of practice is planned, and undertake to show us a draft of it between now and Report?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their detailed consideration of the Bill, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his thorough exposition of his amendments, based on his experience at the Home Office and previously as an enforcement officer. He obviously knows a lot about the various amendments he has tabled.
I hope to clarify the Government’s position and explain the reasons behind the approach we have taken. First, I will address the use of delegated powers in the Bill, noting the concerns of the Committee.
Product regulation must legislate for innumerable kinds of products, ranging from heavy machinery to children’s toys. This is best done through regulation, due to the amount of very technical and scientific detail required. In some cases, sectors can be covered by general requirements. However, often they require specific tailored regulations that recognise their individual requirements. For example, a penalty for failure to properly mark a product “harm suffered” is likely be different when comparing a highly sensitive product in a nuclear energy installation versus a lower-risk product.
To proportionately reflect the dangers of a sector, requirements, enforcement powers, offences and penalties must be tailored. This is how the regulators operate at the moment, with over 2,500 pages of technical product safety regulation on the statute book. Alongside reviewing this existing legislation, we will need to consider on an ongoing basis whether there are emerging products or hazards that would benefit from specific rules.
Product regulation is a regulatory area that we have seen go through significant disruptive change with the growth of e-commerce, and this looks set to continue with AI and 3D printing. The activities conducted by different kinds of businesses have changed as well. The spine of the existing system was codified in primary legislation based on bricks-and-mortar businesses, and that led to uncertainties and gaps in duties, penalties and enforcement powers.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but Amendment 60 asks who the relevant authorities are. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 tell us in statute, as things stand, who the domestic enforcement authorities are. That is not in subordinate legislation—it is in primary legislation. The Minister appears to be taking a list that is in primary legislation, which is amendable by regulation, and turning it into something that is a power to specify by subordinate legislation. What was wrong with retaining the enforcement authority list in Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act and adding to or subtracting from it as necessary?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that point. As I said earlier, as it stands the relevant authorities are exercising public functions—that is, the Secretary of State or the Health and Safety Executive, in the examples that I gave earlier. However, because of the evolving and changing nature of the new products on the market, we may need more people with specific technical knowledge. We do not want this Bill to straitjacket us so that, every time we need to appoint somebody, we have to come back with new primary legislation.
Lord Lansley (Con)
But can the Minister tell us why the list in primary legislation under Schedule 5 of that Act, which has been amended from time to time since 2015 by regulation, is not a suitable basis for proceeding in future? What is wrong with using that list?
Lord Leong (Lab)
Personally, I do not see why there is anything wrong with it—but in this Bill itself, I am trying to say that we need the flexibility. I just have to continue.
Further clarification of powers and functions would restrict the ability for enforcement regulations to provide powers needed to enforce new product and metrology regulations. We must enable flexibility so that we do not create gaps in enforcement powers now or in the future. We intend to plug the gap in enforcement by making regulation applicable at the border, so that enforcement can take place before unsafe or non-compliant products are sold.
I understand the good intentions behind these amendments but, equally, I hope that I have resolved the concerns that led to them. The Bill provides simple, flexible powers that will help enforcement authorities to fulfil their roles. I submit that we have balanced parliamentary scrutiny with the necessary flexibility in a way that best serves the rule of law. It is for these reasons that I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Fox (LD)
I asked a specific question about publishing the code of practice in advance. Can I have an answer, please?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that. We would expect regulators and authorities to carry out enforcement in line with the regulators’ code, which I am happy to share with noble Lords.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, the debate ranged a long way beyond my amendment, and I shall not attempt to summarise it. I suspect that I shall be listening to many of the arguments again at Report, specifically those from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, too. In his reply to my amendment, I felt that the Minister rather missed the point, which is that, no, they do not have the powers at the moment. That is why this amendment has been tabled, because they are saying that they do not have the powers. Yes, you can name a product and have it taken off, but if it appears in 100-plus different guises, which all claim to be different but are actually the same, you are stuffed. That is what I am trying to get at. I shall come back to this at Report, after taking further advice.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord for reminding us of how overregulated our nuclear industry has become and that allowing it to continue to be the subject of such a ridiculous free for all—resulting in us paying five times more than it costs the Koreans to build a nuclear power plant—is not something that should be waved away in the breadth of the powers that we have in this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(d) the licensing of voluntarily committed standard essential patents which protect technology essential for implementing technical standards;(e) limiting the remedies available when a patent mentioned in paragraph (d) is enforced.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that essential software for regulated products which relies on standard-essential patents (SEPs) is shielded from unfair legal abuse.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 35 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. As opposed to the last group, which focused on a large number of slightly different issues, these two amendments focus on one area and, given that they are only in the names of the noble Lord and myself, you can be sure that they will be technical in content.
I am sure the Minister has often wondered why his mobile phone can operate on Bluetooth in any country of the world, and why the automated vacuum cleaner that my noble friend Lord Foster so ably described in the last session can pick up wireless instructions no matter where it is working. The answer is that sitting underneath all of those are things called standard essential patents, or SEPs. They are patents that are necessary to the implementation of a collectively-agreed technical standard—5G, wifi, Bluetooth and so on. Standardisation across communications technologies makes it possible for devices to work with one another wherever they are.
Connectivity is increasingly a part of the products that the Bill seeks to regulate, as we have heard. UK industry is at the forefront of developing connected products that aim to address some of the biggest issues that we face, including healthcare and climate change. The Bill is about ensuring product compliance with technical standards. Compliance or conformance with the technical standard can often be premised on the implementation of a particular technology; as I have said, wifi is an example. For a product to use the wifi logo and technology, its technical performance with the chip set has to be tested and certified. Bluetooth and other wireless technologies used for power management in the context of electric vehicle chargers and smart metering are all examples of where the technical standards of operation are underpinned by these SEPs.
I realise that the Bill is not about intellectual property, but it is about regulating the properties of things. Unless the situation of SEPs is fixed, those properties can be in a state of flux. SEPs should be treated differently from other patents, which is why we are introducing them into this debate.
Of necessity, as a result of a dominant market position, the SEP holders have to voluntarily commit to license their technologies on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. The licensing of SEPs is important in ensuring that UK businesses are able to use the most modern and effective versions of these technical standards. In practice, SEP holders often evade their voluntary commitments to license their patents fairly because of a lack of clarity over what constitutes fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory, caused by weaknesses in the UK’s legal framework. SEP holders can abuse their position as gatekeepers of these technical standards by using the threat of costly court action and injunctions to force potential licensees to accept excessive royalty demands or quit the market. That can effectively prevent smaller companies from entering into, and being able to operate in, a market. In the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked whether the Bill was pro-innovation or anti-innovation. Unless we round up this issue on SEPs, I have to say that it is absolutely stifling innovation.
In most cases, SEP holders are well resourced and aggressive, while many licensees, especially SMEs, lack the knowledge and resources to defend their rightful position in court or push back against the mere threat of litigation. Increasingly, there is a third sector of people who buy up the rights to these patents and treat them as a revenue stream, whereby they go after and literally squeeze the people who have to use these SEPs. In essence, it becomes a secondary market for these things, without the necessary protections.
There are two issues. First, the availability of injunctions to the UK’s current SEP framework means that both small and large technical innovators who operate downstream of the primarily foreign SEP holders can be forced to accept excessive SEP licensing fees because they want to use this technology. The second problem is the lack of transparency: they quite simply do not know who holds these patents until they get an injunction through the mail. That is the problem. With the threat of injunctions and lack of transparency, UK manufacturers are frequently faced with a no-win situation. They have to either pay these fees or get out of the market, because they cannot afford to defend them at an injunction. This is in spite of the SEP holders making a voluntary commitment to license the SEPs on fair terms as part of the standard-setting process. So there is a problem.
The situation creates significant cost and uncertainty for some of the most innovative UK firms, it stifles innovation and, importantly, in the context of this Bill, it challenges the efficiency and effectiveness of products that rely on SEPs and are regulated by this legislation. That is why it is appropriate to have this discussion here today. The UK IPO is aware of issues concerning the licensing of such technology but to date has done nothing, or has insufficiently acted, to protect UK businesses that must use these technologies. This amendment is an opportunity for the Minister to commit to legislative action on SEPs to address the critical issues of products being threatened with exclusion from the people who need them, the imposition of unfair royalties and SEP licences being refused to companies that need them. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for explaining so expertly what standard essential patents—SEPs—are and how important they are to the use of legislation in specifying product requirements, which of course are directly linked to the standards that we will go on to talk about. We have previously talked about the importance of standard-setting, but there is no point in setting standards if they cannot be fulfilled, turned into product requirements and brought to the market—that is what we are talking about. In particular, the noble Lord was absolutely right to stress that we should be thinking in this legislation about how we can promote innovation. Addressing this issue is one of the central ways in which we can do that.
Our two amendments serve the same purpose. The only distinction is that I was trying to suggest, in this particular instance, the importance of taking a power and not attempting in the primary legislation at this point to specify precisely how that power should be structured, because it is necessary for there to be a full consultation about the changes that would need to be made—not least, probably, to the Patents Act itself. When we come back on Report, if we go down this path there may be a need to have a power to amend the Patents Act as well.
The point here is that, as the Intellectual Property Office itself said, SEPs will be
“of growing importance to the UK economy”.
This is not a small matter, and it is becoming more important because of connectivity, the internet of things and the multiple range of SEPs associated with many of these standards. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is absolutely right about the problems that can emerge for companies, particularly SMEs, in understanding the visibility of SEPs and who holds them—and, for that matter, in being absolutely clear about which ones are essential and which are asserted to be so, but which are not in fact essential to the standard.
I shall not delay the Committee now, but I want to focus on the question of why we need a power. First, the Intellectual Property Office is trying to do its best within the powers available to it. In July, Ministers announced the establishment of the resource hub, which gives guidance in relation to SEPs and enables companies to understand the SEP ecosystem. However, that does not change some of the fundamental issues to which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred. There are licence holders who are delaying access to their patents, and who are using that as a mechanism to get terms that are not fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. SMEs are finding it very difficult to know what FRAND terms look like in relation to many of these products.
There is another issue: not only the individual royalties that must be paid in relation to these licences, but the global royalties that need to be available. Although there is case law that can be looked at, it is very difficult for SMEs in particular to understand how that may be applied to them. Of course, there are global royalties being established through large cases, which delay access to this intellectual property for some of those who need to use it; they are therefore unable to know how viable their product may be.
These issues have been addressed in the European Union. At present, there is a regulation agreed between the European Commission’s proposal and the European Parliament, and it is awaiting the conclusions of the Council of Ministers. Let us just focus on that for two seconds. What does it do? It sets out that there needs to be transparency, a mandatory register, and the ability for an official body to undertake a reality check asking, in essence, whether something is actually essential to a standard. It facilitates fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. It also delays for nine months the point at which any licence holder could go to court to secure an injunction for these purposes while there is a requirement for a negotiated process; indeed, it entertains the possibility that, under the regulation, this may relate not only to individual royalties for licences but to the aggregate of those royalties for licences. So there is a legal structure in the European Union for these purposes, in order to overcome what is otherwise, for SMEs in particular, an extremely difficult set of circumstances arising from case law for them to understand and interpret.
This is not a small problem for some SMEs. For example, I have been talking to Tunstall Healthcare, which I know well from its role in providing connectivity, particularly for people who require care at home; it looks after more than 100,000 of them. In order to access licences for 4G and wifi connectivity, it needs to negotiate many licences and to identify where they exist. A company called Bullet was trying to develop and market highly resilient smartphones, but it ceased trading, owing millions of pounds to SEP holders, which contributed to its inability to continue trading. So I think we need to act.
The IPO has said that it will respond to the consultation at the end of 2024—so any minute now. I am told, however, that that will not now happen in 2024. What I really want to hear from the Minister is, first, that this is a suitable Bill and a suitable opportunity to take a power—without specifying all the details of that power—to make provision in relation to SEPs. Secondly, I want to hear that the IPO and Ministers will undertake to respond to the consultation in the early part of next year, putting forward proposals for how the new power is to be used and inviting responses.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief indeed. I have learned a lot from this brief debate and thank both noble Lords for their expert explanations. As a novice in this subject, I cannot think of a single possible objection, frankly, to either of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Lansley. I hope the Government will welcome these as an example of well-informed common sense and give due consideration to some sort of amendment along these lines. I believe the Government to be sincere in their intention to promote growth and innovation, and it seems to me that both these amendments would, in some form or another, help to deliver that. If the Government do that, we will be supportive.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Lansley, for their Amendments 34 and 35. When I saw the first amendment, I had to go and check what SEPs means. Now, after speaking to officials, I think I know a little bit and I welcome the opportunity to address the issues raised regarding software products that rely on standard essential patents, or SEPs.
These amendments go far beyond the intended focus of this legislation by expanding the scope of regulatory powers. Due to their complexity, the regulation of SEPs should not be reduced to a short provision in a Bill that was not drafted with the intention of regulating in this sphere. Any policy measures need to achieve a balance between rights holders being able to appropriately protect and enforce their rights, and users’ ability to access such technologies and innovations through fair and appropriate licensing forms.
However, I agree with the noble Lords that this is an important issue. The Intellectual Property Office has already engaged extensively with industry and business to determine whether any change to the framework for SEPs is necessary in order to ensure that businesses can license SEPs effectively and fairly. This engagement has included a call for evidence and views, and a questionnaire has been sent out to small and medium-sized enterprises. In response, the IPO has already launched a SEPs resource hub—an information resource that helps to address the very problem the noble Lords have identified. The IPO is also considering whether to consult formally next year on measures, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and further to improve transparency in the SEPs ecosystem and enable more efficient dispute resolution. Any such consultation would be subject to ministerial decision, and we are currently working on that. In the meantime, I assure noble Lords that the IPO is continuing informal engagement with industry on both this matter and the SEPs ecosystem more generally. I hope that is reassuring to the Committee.
While I agree that this is an important issue, this Bill is not the right avenue to address the problems that the noble Lords raise. I therefore ask that they withdraw or do not press their amendments.
Lord Fox (LD)
I sort of thank the Minister for his response, but not much, because I think he could have acknowledged that this is a problem, rather than that SEPs exist, because it is a problem. Whether or not the Bill is the solution to it, the Department for Business and Trade should have an interest in solving that problem, but it did not seem that there was much appetite for that. Perhaps the Minister could disabuse me of that by acceding to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to have a meaningful round table with the right people for us to further this discussion. If this is not the avenue to deal with it, we need something else, because it is a real and present problem that needs a meaningful solution.
While the efforts of the IPO are clear, the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—I should call him my noble friend in this case—is that the IPO needs more power and something needs to be done. If it is not this, it needs to be something else.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I want to be very clear that the Department for Business and Trade wants to support businesses of all types and sizes, but we have to be fair as well, so as not to burden too many SMEs with regulations and financial costs. This area is being led by the IPO but, at the same time, there is a way that the Department for Business and Trade can engage with the IPO. I am than happy to arrange a meeting between the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Lansley, and officials from the IPO and the Department for Business and Trade.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for that offer, which I am sure we will take him up on. If the Government wish to unburden small and medium-sized businesses, solving this problem would be a slam dunk. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 34.
Lord Lansley
“(7A) Provision made in reliance on subsection (1) may (among other things) identify product requirements by reference to international agreements or standards relating to the marketing or use of products, including agreements or standards as they have effect from time to time.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would enable product requirements to by met by reference to international standards.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, there was a substantial debate on a previous day and earlier group on whether product requirements should, from time to time, be set by reference to the European Union standards to which they should be aligned dynamically or, as my noble friends Lord Frost, Lady Lawlor and Lord Jackson of Peterborough argued, set by reference to standards in other jurisdictions. “Relevant foreign law” was the term that they used.
I think that we should lift our eyes beyond that debate and say that we want not simply to arrive at a point where we set our standards by reference to those determined in other jurisdictions, but that we should maximise the opportunity for international standards to be the basis on which standards and product requirements are set in all these jurisdictions. I say this not least because in June, before the election, when regulations were going through for the temporary effect to which this Bill gives a permanent basis, there was some legitimate concern about whether the competencies inside our standards-making organisations would be retained in this country if the UK conformity assessment is little used relative to other conformity assessment processes.
I have two amendments in this group by which I want to do two things. First, I want to be clear in the Bill that product requirements may refer directly to international standards. Secondly, I want to promote through a new clause a strategy, which I am asking the Office for Product Safety and Standards to lead, for the United Kingdom to lead in the further establishment of international standards.
I mentioned in some detail at Second Reading how I do not think we are doing this in any way contrary to the thrust of thinking in other jurisdictions. The European Union strategy for standardisation in 2022 pointed directly towards the importance of the greater use of international standards:
“Traditionally, the EU has been a strong leader in international standardisation activities but needs to take account of a changed geopolitical situation, as other countries start to approach international standardisation more strategically”.
So, the European Union is working in that direction. Mario Draghi’s report to the European Commission emphasised the importance of international standards as a means of promoting regulatory harmonisation and reducing trade friction and said that the European Union should lead in framing international standards. We are not alone in this process.
On Monday, my noble friend Lady Lawlor referred to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Article 8.5 states:
“The Parties recognise the important role that international standards, guides, and recommendations can play in supporting greater regulatory alignment, good regulatory practice, and reducing unnecessary barriers to trade”.
I hope that with the Ministers and the Government I am pushing at an open door and that international standards are at the heart of how we want to proceed. I have been given an estimate that something like 80% of standards in some form or to some extent derive from international standards. That would be the case, not least if one includes many that are part of a process in which they are incorporated into existing European Union standards. It is not that this is something we do not presently do; it is something we do at present, but we want to do more and to make it a clear priority.
Why do we need it in this legislation? One expert to whom I talked said that the Secretary of State has the power to designate standards and that it is frequently used in relation to international standards. That is fine, but let us remember what this Bill does. Later on, the Bill contains the power to repeal Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act. Unless I am missing something, it is Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that gives the Secretary of State the power to designate standards in that way, so we do not know how the Government intend to use the powers that the Minister has explained are going to be taken and used flexibly in relation to Section 11. How is that power going to be used in future? If it is to be effectively recreated under this legislation, it is important for this legislation to state that the power should reference international standards wherever appropriate and effective.
I am supported in that view in that, in 2021, Ministers—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, was a participant in those Committee and Report debates—took medical devices out of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act and put them into the Medicines and Medical Devices Act and created a power to regulate medical devices in the same way as this Bill creates a power to regulate many other products. In the Medicines and Medical Devices Act particular language was used, which is the language that is reproduced for the purposes of this Bill in Amendment 38:
“Provision … may (among other things) identify product requirements by reference to international agreements or standards relating to the marketing or use of products, including agreements or standards as they have effect from time to time”.
I have not invented that language. It is the same as is in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. If we do not include that language in the Bill, people will wonder why, when making similar new legislation, we did not use the language in relation to other products and standards setting that was used in 2021 in relation to medical devices. I think it is best that we use the same language.
Secondly, for the reasons I have just explained, I do not know whether the power to designate standards by reference to international standards might be diminished in some way by the future repeal of the Consumer Protection Act. I want to make sure that, in so far as new powers are used, they are used to deliver a strategy of using international standards wherever appropriate and effective. I beg to move.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has made a fairly persuasive case for this. I would hope that to a large extent what he is looking for is already happening fairly systematically as part of good practice in any regulatory authority. Given that it is likely that a large amount of our regulation will probably continue to be broadly in alignment with the EU, it would make a lot of sense for our respective regulatory authorities to be in pretty close contact to make sure that they have, to the extent that it is sensible, the same view and understanding and the same breadth in scanning the different international regulations so that, essentially, they are talking the same language. That would be extremely helpful.
In principle, this is a very good idea. However, it is fine for us, as legislators, to talk theoretically or in detail about statutes and subsections, but the proof is the view business takes of what we are discussing. If business regards this as entirely sensible and something that should be done anyway as a matter of doing regulation well, that is well and good. If it has concerns that this will complicate things further, slow things down and lead to slightly arcane arguments about relative international standards from goodness knows where in the world, I suspect it will not be quite so keen.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for introducing his amendments so incredibly clearly and expertly. It is obvious that international standards are vital for facilitating global trade. Products that adhere to international standards are more easily accepted across borders. They reduce trade barriers, open new markets for UK business and so on. They ensure that UK products can continue to compete internationally and maintain their high reputation for quality and reliability.
Aligning product requirements with international standards ensures that UK consumers also benefit from high levels of safety. This alignment builds consumer trust, as consumers know that the products they are buying meet rigorous global benchmarks. Amendment 43 specifies that this requires consultation. It is vital that consultation takes place with experts. In principle, we absolutely support the spirit and intent of these amendments.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for tabling Amendments 38 and 43. I know from when I was on the Opposition Benches that he brings great expertise to this House, debating legislation as varied as the Trade Act 2021, the Procurement Act 2023 and the Bill before us today. His amendments raise important points about the role that international standards can play in domestic product regulation and in ensuring a strategic approach to their delivery and implementation.
Regarding Amendment 38, I reassure the noble Lord that Clause 2(6) enables product regulations to continue to reference international standards to support regulatory compliance, as is the case for medical devices. Provision is already made in current product regulations for the ability to designate a standard adopted by an international standardising body.
We work closely with all departments, including the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and will continue to work with them to ensure the supply of safe and compliant products. However, each responsible department must individually consider the best approach for its own area.
Before the Secretary of State designates the standard for products regulated under the Bill it is assessed by government. The standard may be designated fully, with restrictions or not at all, depending on how far the standard ensures the relevant product requirements. Therefore Clause 2(6) sufficiently addresses the noble Lord’s concern. There is also no need to specifically reference the ability to designate international standards because that provision is already covered in product safety sector-specific legislation already on the statute book.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Which legislation is the Minister referring to? Is it not Part 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, which is able to be repealed by this legislation?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I have been told by officials that it is a specific product regulation.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Where is the power? Is it in the Consumer Protection Act?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I will write to the noble Lord on that.
On Amendment 43, the Government published a memorandum of understanding with the British Standards Institution on 16 September, of which there are copies here available to noble Lords. This sets out in respect of its activities as the UK’s national standards body its role in supporting government policy and acting in the UK’s national interest in the international standards-setting arena. This includes supporting UK policy to strengthen the global approach to standardisation and maximise UK influence.
Within the international standards system the UK already occupies a strong leadership position through the BSI’s membership of international and non-EU private sector European regional standards organisations. The BSI also manages a significant number of important committees in those organisations. In its role, the BSI systematically adopts international and European standards that representatives of UK stakeholders have influenced and withdraws standards that are no longer relevant. This includes internationally agreed standards designed to support regulatory compliance to UK product legislation.
In Articles 2 and 3 of the memorandum of understanding, the Government and BSI agree on the primacy of international consensus and that the two parties will co-operate with each other on international standards policy, while Article 4 ensures that the BSI provides the necessary standards the Government require for UK regulations. The Government are in the process of finalising a document entitled “The UK Government’s Public Policy Interest in Standardisation”, which is referenced in the MoU with the BSI, that explains why standards are a key factor in support of a number of government policies. It also reinforces the policy of influencing international standards and the importance of maintaining a constructive relationship with the BSI.
Given the close collaboration and the mechanisms in place, I believe that the objectives of Amendment 43 are already being met on the points I have just outlined. I hope that I have been able to provide sufficient reassurance to the noble Lord that what he seeks to achieve is not only already possible through the Bill, but also common practice across a range of sectors. If helpful, I will ask my officials, following Committee, to provide further information on the important role that international standards play in the UK system. With that in mind, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment .
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He has obviously taken some trouble to think about it quite carefully.
First, I do not dispute that current powers enable international standards to occupy a central role in our standards-setting process, and I share the Minister’s admiration of the British Standards Institution as our national standards body in doing that, although I note that many of its experts are now in Amsterdam. Let us leave that on one side as noble Lords know which side I was on in that argument and that it was not the same side as my noble friend Lord Frost.
However, not least with the way the European Union is moving and the commitments we are entering into with the new ratification of the CPTPP, would it not be useful to take language such as where Article 8.9 of the CPTPP says the parties should seek
“greater alignment of national standards with relevant international standards, except where inappropriate or ineffective”?
There is language of that kind to which we are party, which in my view it is suitable to incorporate into legislation where we are setting out new legislation that is intended to say how powers should be used in future. That is the point I make. I am not arguing in any sense in a way that is at odds with the intentions of the Government, but I think they have to look and say, “Well, legislation sometimes must be very clear about how people should think and act in the future”. I hope Ministers might think more about this before Report. However, on the basis of the discussion we have had, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath
“Regulations relating to lithium-ion batteries(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statutory instrument containing regulations relating to lithium-ion batteries within six months of the passing of this Act.(2) Before laying the statutory instrument referred to in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with the relevant statutory consultees including the fire services, and with relevant consumer, industry, manufacturing and trade bodies.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to clarify the issues relating to the regulation of lithium-ion batteries, including the increasing numbers of fires, deaths and injuries as a result of lithium-ion batteries.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Amendment 41 was tabled by my noble friend Lady Brinton but, as I have explained, she is unable to be with us today. Her amendment and others in this group, including my own and those of my noble friend Lord Redesdale, seek to address an issue that I have frequently raised in your Lordships’ House: safety issues in connection with lithium-ion batteries. Indeed, I have already done so on a number of occasions in earlier groups, particularly in the previous group, where I used lithium-ion batteries as an example of why we need specific regulations regarding high-risk products.
Whenever I have discussed these issues, I have always recognised the vital importance of lithium-ion batteries. They currently provide a crucial role in our drive towards low carbon or zero carbon. After all, they can store more energy than any other commercially available battery at present. However, they have their dangers.
If incorrectly constructed—an issue that is picked up by Amendment 46 from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, which I support—or if they are damaged or misused, not least through incorrect charging, there can be a thermal runaway, reaching enormously high temperatures of many hundreds of degrees. These fires give off toxic and dangerous gases and, as I pointed out in an earlier discussion, they cannot be put out by using water.
Amendment 44 recognises that this is a framework Bill and new regulations are going to come at a later stage, but it argues that the particular urgency relating to the dangers, especially of fire and explosion, of unregulated lithium batteries, which are often purchased from abroad, requires urgent action from the Government. It therefore proposes that the Secretary of State must lay regulations relating to lithium-ion batteries within six months of the passing of this Act, and that in the period prior to doing so the Secretary of State will have consulted all the statutory consultees, including the fire service and relevant consumer industry bodies and manufacturing and trade bodies. My Amendment 49 seeks to place a duty on online marketplaces to take all reasonable steps to ensure that products containing lithium-ion batteries sold on their platforms comply with the UK safety standards that will be developed.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 55 and 56 in my name. I start by commending my noble friend on the work he has done, over many years, in dealing with fire safety and issues around lithium-ion batteries; indeed, he had a Private Member’s Bill on lithium-ion batteries, but I beat him to it and got one in myself. From discussions with the Minister, I know that the Government are taking this issue forward, so I will not speak specifically on the dangers of chargers of lithium-ion batteries. However, I will mention my Amendment 56, which is the Minister’s own fault: in his bringing forth of this Bill, I raised this issue, and it has now taken on a life of its own.
I will speak first to my Amendment 55, which is about bikes and stopping their theft. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will be open to my debate here because we often park our bikes outside the front of this building. I am happy to say that I do not have to lock that bike—not because I believe that people passing through the building are inherently honest; it is more that, if somebody can get past two guys with machine guns, they can have my bike. But I am lucky; not everybody in the capital has that joy, obviously.
To go back to the serious point, an estimated 200,000 bikes are stolen each year in London—and that is just the tip of the iceberg because many bikes are stolen but not reported to the police. It is possible that only stolen bikes that can be claimed on insurance are reported to the police, as I have myself experienced in the past. This is a real issue going forward because the cost is not only to the individual but to the insurance companies, the environment and the way in which we structure a transport strategy. If people have their bikes stolen on a regular basis, they will move away from cycling as an option.
So I have come up with a simple solution. The Minister will ask, “Why should I introduce it in this Bill?” The answer is simple: as I say to people, lobbying is 90% hard work and 10% luck. If you do not have the 10% luck, where you can squeeze something in, you might as well give up. This Bill talks about online regulation; it is difficult to get Bills that deal with online regulation through because of some of the inherent difficulties associated with it.
My concept is that there a simple solution to bike theft, which has been proven in the work of Merseyside Police: making sure that bikes have a security marking. If a bike has a security marking, which can be done cost-effectively and cheaply, and it is put on a register, which does not involve any new bureaucracy, you end up with a situation where it is very difficult for those stealing bikes to sell them on online platforms; this is proven to be the case. I have been talking to the Metropolitan Police lead on bike theft. His view is that thieves will not sell bikes in this way—this is the major way in which people sell bikes—because they would be sitting on stolen goods and could be clearly identified with the stolen object.
The Minister is going to say that, obviously, this should be outside the Bill because it does not talk about safety. However, I would argue that, for those who are buying a stolen bike, the theft of the bike will have probably damaged the bike and that it is not in the interest of whoever stole it to look after its maintenance and repair. Bikes on roads can be extremely dangerous. There are two types of dangerous bikes—those that are poorly maintained and those Lime bikes that people drive around—but that is a separate argument.
This would be a very simple measure to take forward. If the Minister is minded not to put it in this part of the Bill, I very much hope that he will agree to a discussion with the lead police authorities, because this would cut crime. In fact, it would not only cut crime but increase confidence in the police because 90% of bikes stolen in London are never recovered, with their thefts never solved. I hope that the Minister will agree to a meeting to look at whether this measure could be included in the Bill; I would argue that the Bill is so wide in its parameters that this could be added, which would be a way forward. Can he also discuss which other legislation we could add this to?
Amendment 56 came out of the arguments that we were having about lithium-ion batteries. I came up with an interesting solution: I plan to bribe the Government by saying that, if they agree to measures to take this forward or discuss it, I will remove my lithium-ion Private Member’s Bill and so free up a Friday morning. Actually, I am not sure that is bribery; it may be coercion.
This is a very simple look at how to remove lithium-ion batteries from the waste stream. My noble friend has talked about how lithium-ion charging and bikes are a danger but, with the advent of throwaway vapes, even if the batteries are removable, you still have the problem with small lithium-ion batteries ending up in the waste stream because people just throw them away. A large number of fires are taking place, at massive cost to local authorities and insurers, because batteries being thrown away in the waste streams are crushed or get water in them and then cause fire. The best thing would be to remove them from the waste stream in the first place.
I am developing this argument—I will come back to it at a later stage with a more refined amendment—but this amendment would allow online retailers to provide buckets so that people could put batteries in them and take them away. I have talked with all elements of the industry. There is no reason why this should not happen. There is no hazardous waste; it falls under the hazardous waste directive, so Defra could not complain about it. It would be a quick and easy way of recycling batteries, which I know are not meant to be thrown into the waste stream; they have a sign on them saying “Do not bin” but, of course, loads of people do. How many people have a bag of used batteries, lithium-ion or otherwise, in a drawer? My argument is that, if they are dangerous in the waste stream, they are dangerous in people’s homes, so removing them from people’s homes is important.
People might say that you can take them to supermarkets or recycling centres. My argument is that, yes, they must be recycled from supermarkets because there is a duty on the supermarket to provide that facility. The problem is that online retailers often get around this by saying, “We don’t have a premise”. My argument is that that really does not fly any more. Amazon provides its own batteries so it should take them back. I do not think that it can rely on saying, “Take it to someone else’s supermarket”; it has a responsibility to take them back. Of course, the point at which it should take it back is from the delivery: if you cannot go to a shop, because Amazon does not have shops, the only point you have is the delivery driver. Amazon may make the point that it does not own the vehicle but it still has the obligation. In talking to the industry, I have shown it—I could not bring it in here, obviously—a small plastic bucket to be taken along. Not every delivery would end up with people providing batteries; it would be a small amount because, once you got rid of the batteries once a year, you would probably then collect.
I have been talking to people from Duracell about this. They believe that, over a year, you could probably recycle about 1 billion batteries through that method; that is an enormous amount. This would take the lithium-ion or other batteries out of the waste stream and make sure that they could be recycled. It would also allow us to build up the waste streams in this country in order to make the development of recycling facilities here profitable. I do not think that the buyback scheme everyone suggests would work because one Duracell AAA battery is worth 0.0002p in recycling, if I have got the noughts right, so that is not worth while; however, once it is recycled, it has a value in the recycling scheme.
Could I meet the Minister and his officials to discuss whether this regulation could be put forward? Could we get direction from the Government, in our debate on the next amendment, saying that this is something that could be taken forward? Online retailers already have an obligation but it has not been pushed at the moment because people have gone back to the default position of, “We do this in shops”. If that is the case then, after the discussion at the next stage, the Minister could just stand up and say, “This is an obligation”, at which point we could make sure that the buckets went out and that this process started. The whole battery industry is keen on making sure that this happens.
I have put forward these amendments. I very much hope that the Minister can give me some assurance that we can meet.
Lord Fox (LD)
Briefly, I of course support these four amendments from my noble friends, but I will say a few words on Amendment 56. In a previous group, amendments tabled by me and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the circular economy and disposal, also touched on these issues and it would be worth while looking at those in conjunction with the amendments from my noble friend Lord Redesdale.
To give a bit of advice to my noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made some interesting points about it being fulfilment centres rather than the actual online marketplace. In some cases, the supplier is foreign but the fulfilment centre is local. Perhaps there is some advice to take from the thoughts of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on that, as they seemed a way of bridging the issue of the supplier being a long way away in a different country, whereas the people dispatching the item are most definitely here. With those provisos, I reiterate my support for all four amendments.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I found that a most interesting explanation of lithium-ion batteries and their various aspects. I confess to not being an expert at all, so it is very clear that I—and, I imagine, the general public—need to be better informed on this. I imagine that regulations will form an essential component of becoming better informed.
It was interesting how the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that he was worried about the scope of the Bill. This Bill will take pretty much anything you like—it is enormous—so I would not have too many concerns about that. I ended up, funnily enough, with a couple of questions, which we can perhaps discuss later. I am curious to know how much of the safety of these batteries is contingent on the way that they are stored, used and maintained. That would be an interesting subject to explore further.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, it is worth mentioning because we have raised the issue and it is picked up whenever we discuss the danger. The actual danger of good batteries is extremely low. The problem is in the waste stream when they are hit by water or crushed. That is the issue that local authorities have.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Again, I think that my ignorance probably suggests that the public ought to be slightly better informed about that. Maybe they are; maybe it is solely me being ignorant. I do not know.
The other thing that struck me, while I again say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that I like his Amendment 56, is that surely we need to be a little bit careful about exploding Amazon trucks if they are this unstable. I will leave that thought with him.
There is, finally, a third subset of safety issues that I thought about when the noble Lord was talking about bikes. It is about those, Lime bikes in particular, that are left lying in the middle of the road unexpectedly as you go round a corner—he said, speaking from personal experience.
All these amendments have considerable merit. I am very interested to follow them and will consider supporting them.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The issue of lithium-ion battery safety is rightly getting a lot of attention and I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss it. I also mention the work of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who has tabled a Private Member’s Bill on this same topic and with whom I have had valuable discussions during the passage of this legislation.
The Government have already taken significant steps to protect people from the dangers posed by products containing lithium-ion batteries. The Office for Product Safety and Standards has been working with colleagues across government and industry to identify the root causes of safety issues associated with lithium-ion batteries and to ensure that steps are taken to protect consumers and remove dangerous products from the market. We are also working with UK businesses to ensure that they comply with regulations. In addition, we have collaborated with fire and rescue services to identify products involved in incidents and have taken the appropriate action when unsafe products are identified.
Since 2022, efforts have resulted in 20 separate product recalls and 22 other enforcement actions for unsafe or non-compliant e-bikes or e-scooters. The OPSS has issued 26 withdrawal notices to eight online marketplaces, two manufacturers and 16 separate sellers to halt the sale of two dangerous e-bike battery models manufactured overseas by Unit Pack Power—UPP—that were discovered during fire and rescue investigations.
In terms of regulatory change, we need to ensure that any regulation is effective at stopping harmful products reaching the market. We also need to make sure that good businesses, which are in the majority, are not undercut by these unscrupulous traders.
The Bill is designed to provide powers across a broad range of products, including lithium-ion batteries. It does not highlight particular sectors that are in need of regulation. Noble Lords will appreciate that a very large range of products are covered by the Bill; therefore I would be hesitant to draw out lithium-ion batteries or specific measures in it. That would also limit our flexibility to work with all interested groups to identify the most effective way to tackle this issue. Today it may be lithium-ion batteries, while tomorrow it may be magnesium batteries, sodium batteries, salt or seawater—all of which may pose some safety features. So we need the flexibility to identify those new products on the marketplace.
Indeed, during Second Reading of the Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, a number of Peers highlighted that battery technology is changing. That is part of the reason why the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill works in this flexible way, as I stated earlier. It is to ensure that future regulations are able to take account of developing technologies.
We are, none the less, considering what change will make a meaningful difference to lithium-ion battery safety. My department has commissioned extensive research from the Warwick Manufacturing Group to better understand battery safety, including compatibility issues. This research is being finalised and we expect to publish it in due course. This will help us identify the root causes of battery risks and options to better protect consumers.
We want to take action about these unsafe products. We cannot commit to a timescale as we want to take the right action—but we do want to take action. One area where we have been very clear about the need for action is products sold via online marketplaces. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his Amendment 49—and his well-informed advocacy in this area—that would require online marketplaces to take reasonable steps to ensure that products containing lithium-ion batteries sold on their platform are compliant.
In addition to the action I just mentioned, the OPSS wrote to major online marketplaces earlier this year, expressing concerns about the availability of unsafe products online. The OPSS has issued online marketplaces with legal notices that prohibit the supply of unsafe products. However, while much has already been done to keep people safe, our product safety regulations could go further.
As mentioned at Second Reading, we will use the Bill to clarify and modernise the responsibilities of online marketplaces in secondary legislation. These requirements will build on best practice to create a proportionate regulatory framework where online marketplaces take steps to prevent unsafe products from being made available to consumers. This will help prevent unsafe goods, including unsafe lithium-ion batteries, from reaching UK consumers.
The enforcement provisions in Clause 3 enable the introduction of enforcement powers for the purposes of monitoring and investigating, and securing compliance with product regulations. A requirement for the production of safety certificates that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, seeks as part of Amendment 49 could be implemented using the Bill’s powers as drafted. As I said, we are keen to continue working with noble Lords and others to identify the regulatory work that would be most effective.
Specifically on Amendments 55 and 56 on bikes, e-bikes and lithium-ion battery products sold on online marketplaces, we agree that online marketplaces should take steps to provide relevant information to consumers so that they can make well-informed purchasing decisions. This is also important to bridge the gap between the information consumers see before a purchase online, compared to the high street, where they can see the product and packaging.
In general terms, the Bill would enable us to introduce requirements on online marketplaces, including the provision of specific information, for the purpose of reducing or mitigating risks presented by products or ensuring that products operate effectively.
I thank the noble Lord for raising another important issue where consumer information can be beneficial to provide product traceability. As he discussed with me previously, this might help to deter the sale and assist the recovery of stolen bikes. The Home Office works closely with policing and academic leads to examine what more can be done to tackle the disposal market for stolen goods. We will therefore engage with the Home Office on this topic to explore whether product regulations could contribute to crime prevention. I will ask my officials to organise a meeting with the noble Lord and officials from the Home Office and other relevant authorities.
I also thank the noble Lord for his Amendment 56, which seeks to require online marketplaces to put in place a return policy for products containing lithium-ion batteries for the purpose of appropriate battery disposal. The Environment Act 2021 provides powers for the Government to introduce new requirements on online marketplaces with respect to the take-back of lithium-ion batteries and products containing lithium-ion batteries. Under the existing producer responsibility legislation, producers of industrial batteries, which include e-bike and e-scooter batteries, must take back waste products free of charge on request. Ministers are currently reviewing proposals to consult on reforms to UK batteries regulation before setting out next steps on battery disposal.
At this point, I wish to mention that I have spoken to my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at Defra. It is clear to me that noble Lords will discuss the issue of disposal of lithium-ion batteries.
I hope this assures noble Lords that the Government take the issue of lithium-ion battery safety extremely seriously. We have already taken enforcement action and are keen to work with all interested groups to ensure that further regulatory change is effective. Consequently, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Foster, to withdraw his amendment.
Before I sit down, I wish to say that my private office has sent an invitation to noble Lords who have expressed an interest in visiting the OPSS. I very much hope they will take up that offer.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Redesdale, I thank the Minister for his kind offer to him. I am sure the Minister will understand that I will want to go and put a wet towel over my head and read very carefully what he has just said in response to this group of amendments. However, I say to him that reading a list of successful examples of unsafe products coming into the UK by the OPSS is something I did myself in a previous debate. It does not indicate that we have got it right. The figures on the number of fires from lithium-ion batteries, for instance, are going up dramatically, so something is not quite right.
The problem, which the Minister touched on both in this answer and the answer he gave to a previous group when I raised the issue of high-risk products, is that the current arrangements are somewhat discretionary, and not at all clear so that we know what they are. For animal products, there is a very clear procedure: everything has to be checked for whether it is low risk, medium risk or high risk. Earlier, I proposed that we do exactly the same for all products. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet me and other people about that.
In the light of that and the discussions we will have, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. However, I assure the Minister that we will come back to these issues at a future stage.
The Earl of Lytton
“Construction product safety: regulations and requirements(1) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations under section 1, make provision to reduce risks as defined in section 1(4) presented by construction products.(2) For the purposes of this section, construction products include, but are not limited to, any components used in the construction of buildings, such as external cladding.(3) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must also make provision about construction product requirements by regulations under section 2.(4) Regulations under subsection (3) must set out requirements for the production, use, marking, marketing, testing, approval and provision of information (including information about risk) of construction products.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment intends to probe whether the Secretary of State will use powers under sections 1 and 2 to regulate products used in construction.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, members of the Committee will be aware that there are concerns relating to the suitability and safety of construction products, especially in the light of the Grenfell phase 2 report, and will know my professional interest in this area.
First, I pay tribute to the clerks in the Public Bill Office for their help in drafting this amendment, although its objectives and the rationale behind it are entirely my responsibility. I consider that the amendment speaks for itself in probing the Government’s intentions and resolve in bringing construction products specifically within the Bill’s scope, although they are not excluded, either by the Long Title or by the matters listed in the Schedule. My underlying purpose is to clarify this Bill’s specific focus in the objective regulation of a construction-related product’s inherent characteristics rather the nature of its use, particularly in combination with other products. To put it another way, it is concerned with the regulation, testing, certification and marketing of products for their specific stated use and application—namely, the aims of the Bill.
The British Board of Agrément—the BBA—is one of the main industry certifying bodies for construction products. In virtually all the BBA certificates I have looked at, it is made clear that the approval is for the specific use and application as presented. This is logical because behind every approval is an assessment or test of some kind that will be specific as to the proposed use. However, we know from the Grenfell phase 2 report how things can be misrepresented. Of course, none of this prevents misuse of some sort, or abuse, but it starts to clarify responsibility as applying to those who have true agency in the specification and use of products, especially where fire safety is concerned. I hope this gives the Minister an opportunity to confirm that, so far, I have got this right.
At the meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Leong, and officials, for which I thank him, it was suggested that while the provisions of the Bill cover construction products, in all probability any regulations would be made under a different legislative provision, such as the Building Safety Act 2022—so I looked in that Act for the word “regulation”. I got 650 hits, which sounds a bit like Henry VIII on steroids, I am bound to observe. I alighted on paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 11 to that Act which states:
“For the purposes of this Schedule, “safety-critical products” means construction products which are included in a list contained in construction products regulations”.
It is getting a bit circular, I suspect. Sub-paragraph (2) states:
“A construction product may only be included in a list under sub-paragraph (1) if … in the view of the Secretary of State any failure of the product would risk causing death or serious injury to any person”.
I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that I am right in believing that this is the relevant regulation-making measure that might be used in the Building Safety Act to implement some of the provisions of this Bill, if they are not implemented directly. If so, it has to be noted that the Building Safety Act relates to critical life-safety risks to persons, first and foremost. The Bill does not use that metric, so I consider that the relationship between this Bill and the BSA, for example, needs further clarification.
It has long been my professional assessment that if a building is robust, occupant safety is likely to be assured as well, but focusing on critical fire risk which interests itself only with occupants’ risks consigning them to significant risks of an emotional and financial nature if the building lacks durability and is effectively considered expendable. In terms of human life, that is absolutely the right approach, and I get that, but in terms of mercantile practice and peace of mind, it is a philosophy with gaps, especially if the general Building Safety Act approach is one of proportionality or tolerable risk—although I question by whose objective standards those might be measured, but that is another question.
So if I am correct, even allowing for the point that a building is not “product” as a term of art, why regulate such an important matter as construction products to be used in a residential block via different standards as compared with, say, those for a fridge-freezer or a washing machine? As set out in Clause 1(4)(c), we are concerned with a product that could “reasonably be foreseen” to cause damage to property. How is that, in the case of buildings under the BSA, a proportionate or tolerable risk to life? In the Government’s view, does the latter include the former? If so, I would be delighted to get confirmation of that; it is something that I tried to get hold of right the way through the then Building Safety Bill’s time before us. If not, how does the BSA afford the implementation of product safety in construction products?
Note if you will that the assemblage of products and processes used as someone’s home represents their place of safety. It is often their largest investment; it is also often incomparably more valuable an entity than most consumer products, both to them and in market terms. So standards and regulation matter very much. I invite the Minister to enlighten the Committee on this apparent legislative inconsistency.
Had this amendment been debated earlier in the evening, I might have been tempted at this point to have a little rant about British Standards being set behind a paywall—as well as the invidious nature of that when they are also embedded in regulation; the regulation is open source but the BS is not—but I will leave that matter in part to one side for the moment. I appreciate that some of the points I have mentioned go beyond what I discussed in the meeting with the Minister so, if he is unable to answer them right now, perhaps he could write to me before the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
I will briefly respond to the noble Earl. He is right to raise this issue, which is clearly important; we look forward to seeing how the Government respond to it. There are serious issues that need to be addressed somewhere. As has been observed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and others, the open nature of this Bill offers an opportunity for things like this to be properly discussed and to be, if not solved in this way, perhaps solved in another way.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is very good to respond to this debate. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, sees that there is some advantage in the way that we have drafted the Bill.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for raising what is a really important matter. We all recognise that there are failings in the system by which construction products are tested, assured and made available for sale. The noble Earl described his amendment as probing whether the Government are prepared to use the powers in Clauses 1 and 2 to regulate products used in construction. The noble Earl has huge professional expertise. He referred to the BBA and the specific approval given but warned of the risk of misuse; I very much take that point.
The straightforward answer is that we think this issue is very important. We intend to bring forward robust regulatory reforms in order to provide confidence in the construction products regime and to ensure that only safe products are used in buildings and infrastructure. To that end, we also intend to ensure that the testing and assessment of products’ conformity must be undertaken by those who are competent, impartial and effectively held to account. We have committed to working with the sector on system-wide reform, including examining the institutions that play a key role in the construction products regime, so that businesses and, in particular, consumers can have confidence in the products and services they purchase. The proposed new clause to be inserted after Clause 2, through the noble Earl’s Amendment 46, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to use the powers and to make provision for construction products regulations within a year of Royal Assent of the Bill.
I turn now to the Building Safety Act 2022, about which the noble Earl made some interesting points. That Act already includes powers to introduce construction product requirements and regulations. We are exploring how best to use those available powers, including their sufficiency—I take his point on that—as part of considering system-wide reform. He will know that since the Grenfell tragedy in 2017 some action has been taken on construction products, but we know that more needs to be done.
In December 2018, regulations came into force that banned the use of combustible materials in and on the external walls of buildings over 18 metres. The national regulator for construction products was established in 2021 and leads on market surveillance and enforcement of construction product regulation across the UK.
The Government extended the period of recognition of CE marking for construction products in September this year to give the industry sufficient certainty to support supply chains and to allow time to address the inadequacies across the wider construction products regime, but we recognise that this action is piecemeal and does not go far enough. We have confirmed that we will respond to the Grenfell inquiry within six months. We are also committed to bringing forward proposals for system-wide reform of the construction products regulatory regime.
I have listened very carefully to the noble Earl’s analysis of the Building Safety Act and his suggestion that it is not sufficient for our purposes. We are considering this and I will write to him in some detail about the points he has raised. But to be fair to him, I have to say that this Bill does not specifically exclude construction products and that there could be an opportunity to use the Bill powers in the future should we discover that the Building Safety Act 2022 may be insufficient.
I hope that he will accept this as a positive response to the issues he has raised.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply and I am certainly prepared to accept what he says in relation to the Government’s intentions. I will need to consider very carefully what he has said, particularly if he is writing to me—I am grateful for that offer. I will consider things in the light of that.
Without further ado and given the hour, I simply beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
“Product regulations: devolved administrations(1) Product regulations may not be made until the Secretary of State has consulted the devolved administrations as to their impact and effect on the marketing and use of products in the areas within the United Kingdom over which they have legislative competence.(2) The Secretary of State may by Regulations exclude the application of this Act to products to be marketed or used in areas within the United Kingdom over which the devolved administrations have legislative competence to enable effect to be given to an agreement that forms part of a common framework agreement.(3) A “common framework agreement” is a consensus between a Minister of the Crown and one or more devolved administrations as to how devolved or transferred matters previously governed by EU law are to be regulated.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that devolved administrations are consulted before regulations are made under this Part of the Bill, and that common framework agreements receive the same protection to enable them to receive effect as they have under section 10 of the UK Internal Market Act 2020.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for adding their names to this amendment in my name.
The amendment seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill with two objectives. The first is to ensure that the devolved Administrations are consulted before any regulations are made under this part of the Bill
“as to their impact and effect on the marketing and use of products in the areas … over which they have legislative competence”.
The second is to preserve agreements made under the common frameworks from being nullified by these regulations.
The first part requires very little introduction. The Bill extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and consumer safety standards, which is what the Bill is all about, are devolved matters in relation to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That has been acknowledged by the Government as is noted in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Notes. Legislative consent is being sought, as one would expect, and indeed is still being sought, for the provisions that engage the legislative consent process.
That may be difficult to achieve because, while the Bill makes provision about what is to happen in each of the jurisdictions within the United Kingdom, it does not contain any provisions that require the consent of, or at least consultation with, the devolved Administrations before the wide-ranging powers to make regulations under Clauses 1 and 4 are exercised.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have been informed that we are not going to take the last group, and the Minister is confirming that. If anyone is waiting just for the last group, they should not, and they can go.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to have been in a position to add my name to these two amendments and to have listened to the elegant description of the way in which they are meant to work, as explained by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead.
I come to them from a slightly different perspective. The new Government have brought into being a desire to make the union work as a union by co-operation between the Governments in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. Looking particularly to Cardiff, one would have hoped that this is an ambition capable of easy realisation. These clauses give one an opportunity to mark that stated aim in very clear terms. It seems to me that if one looks at what the two clauses have brought about, which my noble and learned friend has so elegantly explained, one sees that they touch on areas of devolved competence, without any doubt at all, and there are legislative consent Motions before the respective devolved legislatures.
There are two areas, as my noble and learned friend has explained. One is consultation. I have never understood why across the board in areas such as this consultation is not mandatory. The previous Government were not very good at that; they did not uphold it properly, I regret to say. I hope they will now see a changed way through, and I very much hope this Government will accept the first amendment on consultation. I can see no argument whatever for not accepting that change.
The second area, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hope, explained, is common frameworks. He has explained how it is necessary to make the amendment, but I hope there is also something to the amendment that will breathe life back to common frameworks. It is fairly useful to go back to what was said in the communique issued after the heads of Government meeting in 2017:
“As the UK leaves the European Union, the Government of the United Kingdom and the devolved administrations agree to work together to establish common approaches in some areas that are currently governed by EU law, but that are otherwise within areas of competence of the devolved administrations or legislatures. A framework will set out a common UK, or GB, approach and how it will be operated and governed. This may consist of common goals, minimum or maximum standards, harmonisation, limits on action, or mutual recognition, depending on the policy area and the objectives being pursued. Frameworks may be implemented by legislation, by executive action, by memorandums of understanding, or by other means depending on the context in which the framework is intended to operate”.
Those were lofty ambitions. Regrettably, and it is not the occasion to go into it now, those ambitions were not properly realised. I pay especial tribute to what my noble and learned friend Lord Hope did when the United Kingdom Internal Market Act was promulgated in obtaining the clauses to which he has referred. It was only by his skill, diligence and considerable persistence—I say with respect—that we got these amendments through. Unfortunately, if there is not the spirit of co-operation—I regret that such spirit was not there for a lot of the past two or three years, although it came back towards the end, particularly under Mr Sunak’s Government—we cannot begin to hope for the lofty ambitions of a union where the Governments work together being realised again.
I hope that, because we have referred to common frameworks in this legislation, we will see them coming back. Much has been said about the need for co-operation and working together, but I think these two amendments are important because it is often said that men are judged not merely by words but by deeds—one could put it in a more colloquial phrase. It seems that these two amendments, drafted in the Government’s words, are and ought to be the deeds by which the Government show that they really mean to go ahead and operate on the basis of a union where, in these areas of devolved competence, there is co-operation but within a framework that permits divergence. Therefore, I very much hope that the principle of these amendments will be accepted, because it is so important to the future of the union.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Foster will speak to his Amendment 102 in a few minutes, but it makes sense to follow the noble and learned Lords with my comments on Amendment 47 and the two amendments in my name, Amendments 93 and 96.
It is an enormous pleasure and something of a responsibility to follow two absolutely fantastic speeches on this subject, and I am afraid that my mind did go back to the long nights of the internal market Bill and the tenacity—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, set out—of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in bringing his amendments forward, because a really important thing was eventually done there.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred to the danger of impinging on the devolved authorities. I will give just one practical example and this is not theoretical, because it is already something that the Welsh Government have raised. In their response, the Welsh Government concluded that
“there are relevant provisions in the Bill which, for the purposes of Standing Order 29, are within the legislative competence of the Senedd and therefore a Legislative Consent Memorandum (LCM) is required”.
I do not think that is disputed by the Government.
For example, the power within Clause 1(1)(a) could be used to reduce or mitigate risks presented by products that endanger the health of a person, distinct and separate from any risks to a person’s safety. The use of “health” in Clause 1(4) broadens the scope of how power could be exercised beyond simple product safety, which is a reserved matter, and enables provision to be made for public health purposes, which is an area within the Senedd’s legislative competence. This is just one example.
In their response document, the Welsh Government raise issues covering product regulations, product requirements, emergencies, information sharing, cost recovery, consequential amendment of certain Acts, interpretation, and the Schedule. Happily, the Welsh Government seem okay with Clauses 5 and 6, but the rest of the Bill forms a grey area around competence and responsibility.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, it is an enormous pleasure to follow my noble friend and the two noble and learned Lords, and I am certain that I will not be anywhere near as eloquent in speaking to Amendment 102 as any of them were. Their amendments all deal with the operation of the Bill in the context of the different Administrations that make up the United Kingdom. My probing amendment—it is just that—aims to seek to understand how the Bill will operate in terms of its applicability and its jurisdiction beyond the borders of the United Kingdom. I thought that it might be helpful to noble Lords if I gave an example not of a product but of the issue that particularly drew me to consider this problem, as I see it.
I am the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform and I have done a lot of work on the issue of gambling. Some time ago, my attention was drawn to an online image which was very clearly identified as coming from Paddy Power. When I looked at this image, I came to the conclusion that it was in breach of our code of conduct in relation to advertising, set by the so-called CAP. I therefore drew it to the attention of the Advertising Standards Authority and asked it to investigate whether this particular image was in breach of the CAP code. It took very many months and several follow-up letters from me before it eventually came back to me and told me that it was somewhat uncertain as to whether it had the jurisdiction to act in respect of that particular image. In the end, it came to the conclusion that it did not have the ability to act—it was something beyond the territorial powers that it had.
When it comes to this Bill, I have to ask myself the question: if somebody acts outside the United Kingdom, what powers do we have for the appropriate body to be able to investigate the activities of that individual or organisation? Will we be able to call for documents or evidence or require it to come for interviews so that an investigation can take place? I appreciate that in many cases we have a situation where we have an internet provider providing this service, and internet service is at the basis of all this. When I look at the Online Safety Act, I notice that that Act defines the internet service in such a way that it has extraterritorial application. Given that an online marketplace is making use of an internet service, one has to ask whether this Bill has extraterritorial powers. In the case of the Paddy Power image, a solution was found because it turns out that we have reciprocal arrangements with the equivalent ASA body in Ireland and it is now going to look into that case—even though the image used pound signs rather than euros, so it was quite clearly intended for a UK audience.
I have suggested an amendment to ensure that there are extraterritorial powers for the various measures in the Bill. I have no idea whether that is the Government’s intention, but I hope it is because so many of the products come from abroad and so many of the services that enable us to purchase those products are based abroad, even though the firms concerned may well have offices within the United Kingdom. It is a probing amendment and I hope that when the Minister replies to the important issues that have been raised by the three preceding speakers, he will also help me understand more clearly what the Bill has in respect of these issues outside our borders.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all four noble Lords for their remarks, which I found absolutely fascinating. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, deals with parliamentary matters with considerable skill, diligence and persistence. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord. I am very grateful for the reference to the Constitution Committee, a subject I have laboured on at some length. It is important that we continue to return to the fact that the Government need to heed the comments of both the committees that opined on this Bill.
Before I go on, I say that I perhaps take a slightly different view of the previous Government’s interactions with the devolved Administrations than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and gently remind him, colloquially, that it takes two to tango. When there is a hard-left Government in Wales and a nationalist Government in Scotland they are perhaps not warmly disposed to being enthusiastic interlocutors with a Conservative and Unionist Government.
The first three amendments in this group have a similar theme, so I shall speak mostly to Amendment 96 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which would require the Secretary of State to have regard to Part 1 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. We are very proud of our record in helping businesses by reducing barriers for them through that Act, and I pay due tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his work on it. The Internal Market Act guarantees that goods, services and qualifications recognised in one part of the UK are automatically recognised across all parts. For businesses, this means certainty, simplicity and reduced administrative burdens, themes that we have explored all evening, and enables them to sell goods and provide services without encountering unnecessary barriers or conflicting regulations. It also allows qualifying Northern Ireland goods to be sold in Great Britain in reliance on the market access principles.
This amendment does not seek to rewrite the principles of the Bill. Rather, it seeks to ensure that its implementation is compatible with the vital provisions of the UK Internal Market Act. The market access principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination are central to the UK Internal Market Act, as it stops protectionist measures that might favour goods or services originating from one part of the UK over another and safeguards fair competition, fostering a level playing field across all regions.
Our views on prioritising growth and investment and adhering to the provisions of the UK Internal Market Act 2020 are well known; we believe that this measure is necessary to achieve that. I am relatively agnostic as to which of the amendments the Government would wish to look at but some amalgam would clearly be a welcome step forward, so I support the amendments.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a really interesting group of amendments on which to finish our deliberations tonight. I thank the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Thomas, for their Amendment 47; the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his Amendments 93 and 96; and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his Amendment 102. As noble Lords have suggested, the amendments relate to the application of the Bill’s powers in the United Kingdom, particularly in terms of consultation with the devolved Governments; the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020; and the issue of the frameworks, including how they would relate to this legislation.
I can give reassurance about the general approach of the Government to their relationships with the devolved Governments and the way in which we will conduct this. However, I want to reflect on some of the points raised by both noble and learned Lords; I will perhaps come back to them between Committee and Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned the constitution. I am very cognisant: I know that both noble and learned Lords, in our discussions on a number of Bills in the past few years, have wanted to ensure that, in the words of the Constitution Committee, if we are to make the union work, the key words are “respect” and “co-operation”. I fully accept that. We believe that we have, in our first five months, begun to reset the relationship between ourselves and the devolved Governments. We want to work constructively with them. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned the input from the Welsh Assembly Government. We are considering it very carefully at the moment; my noble friend has also had some fruitful discussions with Scottish Ministers. That is the way we see ourselves going forward in future.
Many of the regulations made under this Bill will concern technical areas in relation to product regulation and metrology. These matters are largely reserved but some touch on devolved areas. I can confirm, and absolutely make clear, that the UK Government will continue to discuss product regulation and metrology matters with the devolved Governments. I am confident that, through this positive engagement, we will be able to reach a position where legislative consent can be gained. We will keep noble Lords updated on progress, obviously, but they will know that these matters sometimes take time. Equally, this is a Lords starter, so we have time over the next few months to ensure that we work in conjunction with the devolved Governments; we want to do that.
On the Sewel convention and secondary legislation, I was a Whip on the Scotland Bill and I remember the discussions involving Lord Sewel. I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, but it would certainly not be our intention that, because of the convention, we could simply put through secondary legislation without seeking the input of the devolved Governments, certainly Scotland. We would not take forward regulations without engagement with the devolved Governments.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Does it not therefore draw attention to the vital importance of very effective enforcement taking place at our borders? That requires us to look very carefully at the funding and resources of whatever body, or bodies, will be responsible for that enforcement. Does it not also mean that we need to have much clearer arrangements for the specification of the level of risk of different products that come in, so that that enforcement can be done relatively smoothly and openly to our total satisfaction?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord always poses his questions wishing me to say “yes”. I am sympathetic to the points he raised but I cannot commit, and I cannot go further than what I said this afternoon except to say that this is a very important area and clearly something that we as a Government need to strongly reflect upon.
Having said that, I hope that I have indicated to noble Lords that I understand the important issues raised. I have given an absolute assurance from the Dispatch Box that we want to make our relationships with the devolved Governments as effective as possible. It is true that four can play but we hope that we will be able to deliver this and that we will get consent. Again, I would like to reflect some more on some of the tricky legal issues that both the noble and learned Lords raised.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my amendments and for his assurances on the way forward that he sees on these matters.
I would like to make two points. First, I appreciate entirely that consulting on every single regulation would be a very time-consuming process, and I have seen the extent of to-and-fro engagement that goes on behind the scenes with good will between civil servants on both sides of the border. It is obviously a matter that deserves reflection and I absolutely understand why the Minister would like to take more time to look closely at it.
Secondly, as far as common frameworks are concerned, it always struck me in dealing with this subject that it is a great misfortune that the language chosen to identify them was not as readily identifiable as “internal market”. When you talk about the internal market everybody knows at once what it means but when you talk about common frameworks nobody knows what it means.
The Minister has obviously done some homework and has reassured me he understands the point, but the particular point about common frameworks is that it is a living process. It is perfectly true that there is a list of the frameworks—some 32 of them—but the prospect of having new ones is there all the time. One of the examples is that, in Wales, they are considering diverging from elsewhere on single-use plastics. I may be wrong but our products are developing all the time and each part of the UK might have an idea that it suits them to have a particular regime that they would like to discuss and introduce.
I ask the Minister to bear in mind that it is a living process and we have to make provision for the future. That is what my amendment seeks to do. I chose the words that were indeed the Government’s words in the internal market Act, so it is a system that they were prepared to accept. I am quite prepared to discuss this with the Minister further if he would like to and welcome his promise of future engagement before Report.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, of course, I very much welcome that. It is worth just referring to Section 10 of the 2020 Act, which defines a “common framework agreement” as
“a consensus between a Minister of the Crown and one or more devolved administrations”.
I take the noble and learned Lord’s point that “common framework agreement” does not readily come off the tongue but the wording very much sets the tone of the relationship that we want to see developed.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
The Minister is right. Consensus lies at the heart of the common framework system. There will not be agreement across the various Administrations without consensus but, where consensus exists, it is a signal that they should be protected against any misfortune on legislation that is across the entire United Kingdom.
Having said all that and with gratitude to the Minister for what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Northern Ireland
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Caine
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to strengthen Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, before I answer the Question, I will take a moment to share my sympathies with all those who have been affected by flooding as a result of Storm Bert over the weekend. The storm and resulting flooding are, of course, very concerning and distressing for those affected, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for his work on the flooding experienced in Northern Ireland last year.
The Government are committed to delivering for all communities in Northern Ireland by resetting the relationship with the NI Executive and working collaboratively to transform public services and champion investment opportunities. This Government will work tirelessly to fully realise one of our greatest achievements, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and its vision for reconciliation, equality, respect for rights and parity of esteem, making Northern Ireland more prosperous, more inclusive and safer for everybody.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind words and I associate myself with what she said about the flooding. A key commitment in Annexe B of the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper in January is for the Government unashamedly to make the positive case for Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. This was to be supported by papers setting out the considerable mutual benefits—political, economic, social, cultural and security—gained by Northern Ireland being an integral part of the union. Can the noble Baroness confirm that these remain firm government commitments? Can she update the House on the schedule for publication of these papers and the steps being taken to ensure their widespread circulation in order to counter the arguments of those seeking constitutional change?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, this Government believe that Northern Ireland is a core part of the United Kingdom. As regards our commitments and those made in Safeguarding the Union, we are not reneging on any of the Command Paper commitments but remain committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and taking forward commitments in a way that best delivers for the people of Northern Ireland. I will come back to the noble Lord on the timetable for publication; we are still working.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the constitutional future of Northern Ireland will be decided by the people of the region, as laid out in the 1998 Good Friday agreement negotiated by the British and Irish Governments and the majority of parties? That agreement enshrined reconciliation, parity of esteem and respect for political difference.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend: in accordance with the Good Friday agreement and the principles of consent, Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK for as long as its people wish it to be. At present there is no clear basis to suggest that a majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to separate from the United Kingdom. For our part, the United Kingdom Government are committed to upholding the Good Friday agreement, in letter and in spirit, and in that vein to respecting all constitutional ambitions for Northern Ireland as long as they are pursued by legitimate means.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how the east-west council set up under the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper and the new Council of the Nations and Regions can be used, together and separately, to promote the benefits of the union between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom? How is that work going to be evidenced in Northern Ireland itself, and how will it be used to dismantle the current trade and other barriers within the United Kingdom that have been imposed on the people of the area?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the east-west council is one of the important structures of intergovernmental relations and institutions we will use to improve relations and collaboration on policy. The first meeting was in March 2024 and we will announce the date of the second meeting shortly. On the Council of the Nations and Regions, noble Lords will forgive me for the laugh but the Question following this one is on that council. It is a manifesto commitment and core to us resetting and normalising relations across the United Kingdom to deliver for the people of every corner of our country.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that Brexit has had a profound impact on politics in Northern Ireland, including on its relations with the rest of the United Kingdom? Young people often feel that they have been particularly negatively impacted. Does the Minister therefore not agree that reconsidering the Government’s policy on the EU youth mobility scheme would be very positively regarded by young people in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I live in a place where 73% voted to leave. This Government have been very clear on our approach to Brexit and its clear impact on Northern Ireland. We need to make Brexit work for everybody, including young people, and find the benefits of Brexit. I look forward to further discussions in due course.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, in the interests of strengthening Northern Ireland’s position in the United Kingdom and restoring trust in the rule of law, can the Minister tell us when His Majesty’s Government intend to table legislation to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles Act and to restore the rights to inquests, civil actions and the possibility of the prosecution of alleged murderers, which were removed under the Act but are enjoyed by everyone else in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for the work she has done in this area and for meeting me to discuss next steps. The Northern Ireland Office is working every day on this issue to make sure that there is genuine consultation for what will happen next. I look forward to updating the House and working with noble Lords across the House as we move forward to repeal and replace previous legislation and to make sure that, as we explore the legacy of the Troubles, we deliver for the people who were affected.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that no one in Northern Ireland had the opportunity to vote for the Labour Party—the governing party—because the Labour Party has decided that you cannot vote Labour. You can join the party, because the GMB took legal action. Can she tell me why the governing party has a sister party, the SDLP, which wants a united Ireland? How does that strengthen the union?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I am not sure that is a matter for the Government; rather, it is one for the Labour Party. I am more than happy to have a discussion with the noble Baroness outside the House.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register and, in particular, my chairmanship of InterTrade UK. The Acts of Union in 1801 were mostly predicated on trade, which is so important for Northern Ireland and, indeed, the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Does the noble Baroness therefore share my concern that some small businesses in GB are already saying that they are not going to trade with Northern Ireland because of the EU product safety regulations?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I look forward to working in the coming months and years with the noble Baroness in her role as chair of InterTrade UK. The updated general product safety regulation largely formalises the reality of how businesses are already operating in the UK. The Department for Business and Trade has been working closely with businesses to help them get ready, and will shortly publish more guidance to support them further. This Government—and I—will keep a close eye on this going forward and continue to help businesses trade freely across the whole United Kingdom.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Minister referred to Brexit benefits; can she spell out for the House what those are?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
For the record, I believe I said that we will make Brexit work for everyone and find the benefits of Brexit.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Will the Government publish a checklist of the measures in the Command Paper that have now been implemented, together with an indication of when the other measures will be implemented? In view of the slight confusion that has arisen, will the Government confirm that they have completely scrapped the legal duties that had been placed on Ministers to promote an all-Ireland economy, as the Command Paper pledged?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I have the full list of where we have delivered, where we are in progress and where we are tied to EU reset and business readiness; I will speak to colleagues about making that publicly available. With regard to the all-Ireland economy, the Government are committed to protecting the UK-Ireland internal market and the Windsor Framework, including all aspects of the Northern Ireland economy. Section 10(1)(b) refers to the joint report between the UK and EU negotiators of October 2017, which refers—among other things—to the all-Ireland economy. The all-Ireland economy is a fact and is greatly to the benefit of the businesses and people of Northern Ireland, as is Northern Ireland’s trade with the UK internal market.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, we have had the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor Framework, and now we have the Safeguarding the Union document. All of those are supposed to assist with trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but we still have border checks, a border in the Irish Sea and no resolution to the veterinary medicines issue. When will the Government resolve these difficult issues for Northern Ireland?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
This is a priority for this Government and we will work at pace, especially on the veterinary medicines issue. We have established a working group, which continues to advise the Government and which met again earlier this month.
Council of the Nations and Regions
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they intend to report to Parliament on the work of the Council of the Nations and Regions.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The inaugural Council of the Nations and Regions met on 11 October in Edinburgh to discuss growth and investment. On 17 October, the UK Government published the terms of reference for the council and a communiqué summarising the discussion. A communiqué will be published following each meeting of the council.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I thank the Minister for that excellent Answer. However, does she agree that while the council has got off to an excellent start bringing the nations and regions of the United Kingdom together, it is a pity that large areas of England were not represented. What are the Government going to do to make sure that they are represented at future meetings of the council?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister chaired the first leaders’ council on 24 October, where she vowed to forge a new relationship based on honesty and respect between central and local government, helping drive economic growth and improving lives. The leaders’ council brought together Ministers and local leaders to tackle shared problems. The Deputy Prime Minister has also written to all areas with a devolution deal to invite them to come forward with a proposal. New mayors established through this deal will be eligible to attend the Council of the Nations and Regions.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, this council appears to have rendered obsolete the Prime Minister and Heads of Devolved Governments Council. Does the Minister really feel that is an appropriate sign of respect to send to the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that that is not the case. Before the first full meeting on 11 October of the Council of the Nations and Regions—which, to remind the House, was a manifesto commitment—the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and the First Ministers of all devolved Governments had a multilateral meeting with the Prime Minister, which would fulfil tier 1 of the IGR requirements. With the greatest respect to noble Lords opposite, that was the first time such a meeting had happened since 2022.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, as a former Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber and a strong supporter of regional development agencies, which the previous Government made a big mistake in abolishing, I welcome the establishment of the Council of the Nations and Regions. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that she will encourage mayors and combined authorities to draw up strategies for the whole of each region, such as Yorkshire and the Humber, to complement their individual strategies?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her support. The Deputy Prime Minister is fully committed to empowering mayors and combined authorities, and we are working with local leaders from across England to deliver the most ambitious programme of devolution that this country has ever seen. We want to see all partners collaborating regionally, which obviously includes Yorkshire and the Humber. Our upcoming English devolution White Paper will be published in due course and will set out details.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, one of the objectives of the council is to identify
“barriers that can be unblocked”.
Does the Minister accept the belief of the Welsh Government—which was raised by the First Minister of Wales, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely—that the Barnett formula in its present form is a barrier to effective provision of public services in Wales? Will she confirm that the council has triggered an investigation into this matter? If not, why not?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the Council of the Nations and Regions is one vehicle where the Heads of Government meet, but we have regular conversations with all First Ministers, especially the First Minister of Wales. That is why we announced the largest-ever Budget settlement for Wales under devolution, including a £1.4 billion increase because of the Barnett formula. How it is spent is now a matter for the Welsh Government.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the formation of the Council of the Nations and Regions and, particularly, the forum it provides for the Prime Minister to meet the First Ministers of the devolved nations and the mayors of combined authorities. I was pleased to read the brief minutes of the first meeting on the government website. The Labour manifesto committed to set out a new memorandum of understanding outlining how the nations would work together to strengthen the Sewel convention. Has that been done? If not, what progress has been made on it?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Work is under way. This is about how devolution works, and therefore there will not be one person who announces that. We are working with each devolved authority to make sure that any changes and updates to the MoU on the Sewel convention work for all devolved Governments and will report in due course.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the council’s activities do not duplicate existing structures or initiatives, particularly in relation to devolution agreements and inter- governmental relations? Is clear value for money therefore provided by the council for taxpayers across the United Kingdom?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I think it is fair to suggest that, for the last 14 years, there have been challenges in conversations between devolved Governments and mayors and the Government. That has not benefited economic growth in any corner of our country. This is to fix that and is therefore value for money. On the substantive question of where the Council of the Nations and Regions fits into intergovernmental relations and bodies that already exist, all those bodies exist because of conversations that have happened with the devolved Governments, so we are working with them to make sure that this structure, and future structures, will work for them to deliver for the people of every corner of our country.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
My Lords, given that the UK Government have recognised the distinctive identity of the Cornish through the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, can the Minister say whether there are any plans to recognise that identity within the Council of the Nations and Regions, irrespective of whether they vote for a mayor? I note that the Cornish do not take kindly to being called English.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
That threw me, my Lords. I am assured that they will be recognised through their combined authority and will be able to attend future meetings. I will come back to the right reverend Prelate on the other points.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, for the last decade, the relationship between the UK Government and Edinburgh has not been—how can I put it?—the healthiest. In what way can the Council of the Nations and Regions ensure that those relationships are healthier and more productive in the next decade, not least for the people of Scotland, who have lost out because of that fractiousness between the two Governments?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
That is at the nub of the creation of the Council of the Nations and Regions. It is about making sure that we deliver for every corner of the country, that we do not just reset but normalise relationships between the UK Government and the devolved assemblies. What we saw on 11 October at the first meeting of the Council of the Nations and Regions was a meeting bringing everyone to Edinburgh to have those conversations and to talk about what priorities should be before the investment summit that occurred in the following days. That delivers real investment. We heard a great deal from the previous Government about levelling up. This is about levelling up in action and making sure that we are prioritising every corner and not just those that shout loudest.
Lord Deben (Con)
Notwithstanding that the Government gave more money to Wales in the Budget, is not the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, right that the Barnett formula, which is deeply unfair to Wales, needs to be looked at finally for the future, rather than brushed off and pushed behind a carpet?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, we have no current plans to review the Barnett formula.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that this Government are committed to a comprehensive plan for devolution in England, and that this plan will, for the first time, allow proper powers and proper money from the Treasury to be devolved to the authorities that are closest to the people and able to solve the problems?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, there will be an English devolution Bill, and I thank my noble friend for the work that he has done for decades on devolution. The White Paper is soon to be published. We are expanding devolution, devolving further powers to local leaders to drive economic growth and empower communities. It is a responsibility of this Government to make sure that we deliver for every corner of the country.
Landlords: Long-term Rentals
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill
To ask His Majesty’s Government what incentives they propose to introduce to encourage landlords back into the private rented sector for long-term rentals.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as a vice president of the Local Government Association.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her Question. The Government value the contribution made by responsible landlords who provide quality homes for tenants. They form a vital part of our housing market. Our Renters’ Rights Bill ensures that landlords have the confidence and support they need to continue to invest in the sector and we do not expect it to have a destabilising effect on the market. We have included provisions in the Bill to make sure that landlords cannot evict tenants simply to turn the property into a short-term let. Landlords and tenants are equally important. Landlords want good tenants. Tenants want good landlords. We hope that the Bill will make things better.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and sincerely hope that the Government’s aspirations are met, but note that most of the actions are going to be in the future. However, I know that the Minister is only too well aware of the crisis in temporary accommodation that is actually caused by over 110,000 households unable to find any affordable accommodation in the private rented sector, where demand is demonstrably not keeping up with supply. What can be done when those landlords that are leaving the private rented sector precisely because there is a shortage can then relet the same property to their own council at a higher rent? Incredulously, this practice is fuelled by councils and the Home Office bidding against each other for the same property, at considerable cost to the taxpayer.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I did ask what the noble Baroness felt could be done about it. I asked my Question first, but my question is: surely this is bonkers and can we not work out some protocol so that councils and government offices are not outbidding each other?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, of course the noble Baroness is quite right to flag up the issue of the terrible shortage of housing. The answer in the medium to longer term is just to get more housing built, and we are straining every sinew to do just that. In terms of the way that short-term lets work, we know that they can benefit economies through visitor spend and creating employment opportunities for local people. However, we appreciate that excessive concentrations of that in some parts of the country impact availability and affordability. I know that this competition between local authorities and government departments for housing is causing a real problem. We are introducing a registration scheme for short-term lets to protect our communities, abolishing things such as the furnished holiday let tax regime, to remove the tax incentive that short-term let owners have over long-term landlords. We recognise that more needs to be done to level the playing field between short and long-term tenures. Long-term tenures are important, and they need to be affordable long-term tenures.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a landlord and a former private renter, and I apologise for jumping up a bit early previously. Does the Minister accept that removing tax incentives and reliefs on mortgages for private renters has led to a diminution, in some cases, of the number of properties supplied to the sector, and certainly acted as a disincentive? As a result of that, together with other factors, more landlords are leaving the sector rather than coming in. The question of short lets has been mentioned. Increasing numbers of landlords are moving to platforms such as Airbnb, which are four times more profitable than long lets. Surely, in order to meet the Government’s housing targets, we need more long-term lets in the sector, not fewer.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that we need more long-term lets— I think I made that very clear—but there is no evidence of an exodus from the market. A study from the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence looked at whether regulation and tax changes over the past 25 years in the UK and internationally had affected private rented sector supply. The report concludes that there is no evidence that that has had an impact. In fact, the PRS has doubled in size since 2002 and is now the second largest housing tenure, with over 11 million people living in the private rented sector.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, rather than incentives for reluctant landlords, could the Minister say whether the Government are considering incentives to landlords who want to exit the market to sell to the social housing landlords who can modernise the properties and let them long term on a secure basis at affordable rents to people who will not be able to afford the private rented sector?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I could not agree more with the noble Lord that for some people in the housing market, the only affordable housing is social rented. The Chancellor set out in the Budget that we will make an immediate one-year cash injection of £500 million into the current affordable homes programme. I can confirm that that can be used to purchase property on the private market. That will support the delivery of up to 5,000 new social and affordable homes. In addition, at the multiyear spending review next year, we will set out details of new investment to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. That will deliver a mix of homes for sub-market rent and home ownership, with a particular focus on delivering homes for social rent. I hope our Deputy Prime Minister’s promise to deliver a revolution in the delivery of social homes will come to fruition.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, there will always be a market for rental accommodation and, under the Conservative Governments, the number of households in the private rented sector rose from 3.1 million to 4.4 million between 2009 and 2021. How does the Minister intend to ensure that the Government’s legislative agenda does not reduce the number of properties available for private renters and risk rent increases?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
First of all, I would say that the number of people who were able to own their own properties actually fell under the last Government. I am surprised, with the record that we have heard many times in this House of the number of people who are currently on housing waiting lists and 150,000 people in temporary and emergency accommodation, that the previous Government want to stand up and question this issue in the House. The PRS has doubled in size since 2002. We will continue to do what we can to support both landlords and tenants in that sector. We are about to introduce the Renters’ Rights Bill to this House. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have already engaged on that. If there is anybody who has not yet, do get in touch with me, but I look forward to working with the House to deliver a very effective piece of renters’ rights legislation.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that two of the most profound underlying causes of children, the most reluctant tenants of all, being in temporary accommodation—150,000 of them in England alone—are forced evictions and affordability? Does she therefore, like many in this sector who care about this issue, have some cause for concern that the housing allowance has been frozen until 2026 and was not used as an opportunity in the Budget? I ask because there is very welcome legislation coming down the track—but right here, right now, tonight, for 150,000 children, what is the quick solution?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that important issue. We have looked at local housing allowance, but increasing that even slightly puts a huge pressure on the overall fiscal picture in the country. So it has not been possible to do that this time, because we had to fill the £22 billion black hole that was left to us as a legacy from the other side. We have put £500 million into delivering more affordable housing, taking us to £3.1 billion in total for affordable housing. We have also increased discretionary housing payments and have put back in the household support grant, which would have run out at the end of September because there were no government plans to meet those costs until the end of the year. That will provide some relief for the most deprived families.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a particular problem in Cornwall, where there are over 13,000 short-term lettings going on? The problem with those people who do short-term letting is that they seem not to pay much attention to the rules and orders of the accommodation where they stay. They keep people awake all night, very often, and have visitors coming whose identities are unknown. This is a security risk too. Will the Minister do something about these short-term lets?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is great to hear about Cornwall so much this afternoon. I hope that people who are in communities will get in touch with their local council, which can act against anti-social behaviour. It is a matter for those who run Airbnb and other lettings companies. Generally, they are well run, but, where they are not, it is perfectly possible for communities to get in touch with their local authority to make the necessary complaints. We have introduced powers to charge 100% council tax on second homes, and things like that, and we are taking action on second homes. I hope that this will ease the position, but I urge anybody suffering from that kind of anti-social behaviour to contact their local authority.
Drones: RAF Bases
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent reports of drones flying over RAF bases in East Anglia.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
The Ministry of Defence is aware of these reports and is working closely with the US visiting forces, Home Office police forces and other partners to respond to recent events. We will work with the civil authorities to prosecute those responsible. We take any safety issues seriously and maintain robust measures at Ministry of Defence sites, including counter-drone capabilities. My noble friend will understand that I am unable to comment further on the specific security procedures at our sites. This remains a live criminal investigation.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Answer that he was able to give. There have been additional sightings of unidentified drones over our aircraft carrier HMS “Queen Elizabeth”. It may be that these flights are not a coincidence. Does my noble friend agree that these are matters of potentially serious concern, given that drones are now so ubiquitous and given what we know their role is in warfare? The House will remember that Gatwick Airport was completely closed a few years ago by unidentified drones. As a result of that, the RAF has acquired new equipment, known as ORCUS, designed to deter drones. Do our Armed Forces have enough of it? Can my noble friend reassure the House that the Government are doing all they can to work with our international partners, especially the Americans, to find out what is going on and how best to protect our bases?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. We are working with our international partners, including the United States. Of course, we are trying to ensure that we have all the equipment that is needed to tackle any of these attacks that we face. Similarly, with respect to the aircraft carrier, I can say that a civilian drone was observed in the vicinity of HMS “Queen Elizabeth” on 22 November, but it got no closer than 250 metres. I can reassure my noble friend that we take all of this seriously, and we will work closely to ensure the safety of all our sites.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I am aware that there is a series of very effective assets which can be deployed to air defence. I do not expect the Minister to comment further on those, but I will ask him, specifically, how the ground-based air defence system is progressing.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is obviously a matter of real importance, and the defence review is looking at what we should do with respect to air defence in the round, including defence of the homeland, as the noble Baroness asks.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, this is a question not just of defence sites but of much wider national resilience. We have seen the extensive use of drones in Ukraine against non-military targets. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government will look at this problem in that much wider context? Quite clearly, we cannot mount air defence systems around every single part of our critical national infrastructure, and we have to ensure that we have some other method of protecting them against this new threat.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for that important comment, and I will make sure that it is reflected upon within the Ministry of Defence. He makes a really important point about air defence—of course that is an important aspect of it—but there are other ways of protecting our sites and other ways of conducting warfare. Ukraine has shown us the importance of hybrid warfare, and that certainly is something that the defence review will look at. But I will take his very important comments back to the MoD.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister worked very closely with me and others during the passage of the National Security Act 2023. The then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, was very responsive and worked collegiately across the whole House on a cross-party basis. Section 4 of that legislation is the prohibition of drones in the vicinity of prohibited places, which include these bases. I ask the Minister to reassure the House on two things: first, that local communities are very aware of the national security legislation in these areas; and, secondly, when it comes to a national security threat, that the full elements of law and order will be deployed under national security legislation to ensure that there are no breaches.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his question. He is quite right with respect to the National Security Act. Let us be clear, in various pieces of legislation, not just the National Security Act, it is illegal for drones to be flown over or in the vicinity of these military sites. People should be aware of that, and local communities should be reassured. In terms of national security, the same Act that he and I passed under the last Government ensures that there are penalties of up to 14 years for this sort of activity, and people should be aware of that. All agencies and parts of the state will work to ensure that we identify and do what we can with those who are conducting these acts.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I might build on the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, if I may—or not.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I think it is this side. I refer to my interests in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. I too wanted to follow up the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. This is a widespread issue. Drones are comparatively cheap; they are easy to mobilise; they can be used, potentially, with an explosive or chemical or even a radiological payload; and they can be used for hostile surveillance. There are all sorts of uses, not just by hostile nations, but by criminal gangs and terrorists and so on.
This is not just a question for national defence against national defence assets, but it must be a question of the police around the country having the appropriate equipment and facilities. Can the Minister reassure us that we are going to have that country-wide, whole-of-government response to the threat from drones, which, as we have seen in other countries, can be extensive?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My noble friend makes a really important point. The defence review will address national resilience. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, has also said, of course air defence means missiles and other things in the conventional way in which we interpret that term. It also includes being able to deal with low- tech mass efficiently and cost effectively. Clearly, we will need to address that—and we will—as the hybrid threat and the low-cost, low-technology threat will be part of the warfare of the future.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
The Minister has outlined some of the challenges that we face but there is a bigger issue here. Under Article 3 of our NATO treaty, we have an obligation to deliver national resilience in the UK. It is not just about the air threat—it is about guarding critical national infrastructure, not just military bases but power stations. We have not done this en masse for a very long time, and, like other noble Lords, I simply seek reassurance that we are thinking about this in the SDR because the manpower required is significant. I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for the work he does as director of the Army Reserve. On national resilience, the threats and warfare of the future have been shown from Ukraine and elsewhere. It is not just tanks, it is not just aircraft—it is about national resilience to withstand hybrid attack, such as attacks on information and our critical national infrastructure. The ability to defend against physical and cyberattack is crucial to withstanding the threats that we will face in the future. That has to be a part of any future defence review, and it will be. Without it, we will leave our country weaker than it should be in the face of such threats.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the House will hear from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, does the deployment of Armed Forces personnel indicate that the local police forces do not have the ability to investigate drones, as required by the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Gold Command for the sites in East Anglia is the Ministry of Defence Police. That force has the ability, knowledge and expertise to deal with some of the threats that the noble and gallant Lord has pointed out. His question demonstrates the need for the Ministry of Defence Police to work closely with Home Office police forces and other agencies to defend those sites.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
As the operator of a registered drone under the CAA, my concerns are that in this country there is a considerable and increasing number of drones being operated by people illegally. They pose a direct threat, not only to military installations and the zones around our airfields, but around civil facilities. Can the Minister comment on how much policing is going on generally, and how many prosecutions of these illegal activities are taking place?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The illegal use of drones is certainly an area of concern for us all. In terms of the numbers of prosecutions, the best thing for me to do, which would be of benefit to the noble Lord and the whole House, is for me to refer to my colleagues across government for a satisfactory answer. I shall then write to the noble Lord with the statistics he requests about what action is taking place, and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
“Get Britain Working” White Paper
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this White Paper and are very keen that it should work and deliver positive outcomes for people who are out of the labour market, people who are economically inactive, those with health problems, and young people trying to get a productive start in life. Many of the proposals contained in the White Paper are either based on or continuations of some of the work we started in government—our WorkWell pilot schemes, our youth offer with youth hubs, and the universal support schemes—but we are not quite sure about the carrying on of the fit note, so I would be grateful for some confirmation on that. It is critical that the outcomes of the White Paper proposals work and, to that end, we really want them to.
I will talk about outcomes, which are important when looking at the investment being committed to this important area of work. As many in this House will know, I spent many years working with others in this sphere, so noble Lords must forgive my passion and commitment to the subject. Let me give just a few examples. On ThinkForward, we put our advisers in schools, working with the teachers and the management team. Our job was to prevent young people becoming NEET in the first place. The outcomes were that 85% of the 14 to 16 year-olds showed significant improvement in their attendance and behaviour. Some 60% of the group achieved at least five GCSEs at grade A to C and —wait for it—96% of the 17 to 18 year-olds in further education, employment or training were still there after a year.
Then we put our advisers into doctors’ surgeries. Let me tell your Lordships about the outcomes: a 20% reduction in GP appointments, a 74% reduction in referrals to practice counsellors—not that there is anything wrong with counsellors—and a 34% reduction in antidepressant prescriptions. Some 36% of people who completed the course were in employment and 80% of the 36% were still in employment 12 months later. This was for one surgery with a cohort of 200 people, at a cost of just over £2,000 a job. The noble Baroness who was the Minister of State for Education visited the project and saw for herself how great it was.
My other point on outcomes is, as noble Lords have heard me say many times, that getting someone into a job is one thing but keeping them there is another. Will His Majesty’s Government publish a set of metrics against which we can judge the success of Get Britain Working? Will they publish quarterly performance data? This will allow us to see what is working—and, indeed, what needs to change—to make this policy more effective. There is nothing wrong with changing half way through or changing course; people who do not change their minds do not change anything. Once someone has a job, will they retain the support of their coach to help them stay in work to ensure that the return on the investment reaches its full potential?
On employers, economic activity is not a problem that the Government can solve on their own. Businesses are the engine of our economy. They create jobs. No Government can improve employment rates without creating an environment where business can thrive and grow. If people are to get off benefits and into work, there must be jobs for them to do. However, as a result of this Government’s Budget, businesses are saying that they will no longer be hiring. Some 50,000 jobs will be lost from this Budget alone, according to the OBR. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s decision to raise employer national insurance contributions has had a negative impact on the chances of finding employment? If the Minister wishes to help more 18 year- olds into work, I respectfully suggest—I was challenged on this many times here—that she might speak to the Chancellor who has made it so that from April it will cost £5,000 more for a business to employ someone.
The Minister might also take the opportunity to speak to the Business Secretary whose Employment Rights Bill will, according to the Government’s own impact assessment, make it less likely that employers will take on young people. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s policies are counterproductive and making it harder for people to get into work? Only employers create jobs—and they have a very challenging time ahead.
As much as the people we are trying to help need continued, robust support, so do employers. We will be asking them to try to integrate people with various issues into their workforce. Let me tell noble Lords about one project I was involved in. A very high-profile car company said it wanted to integrate long-term unemployed people into its workforce. We got a young girl booking the executive travel for the workforce. She turned up for work on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday but on Friday she was a no-show. Our staff went round and knocked on the door. She came down in her pyjamas. We said, “What are you up to?”. She said, “I never went to school on a Friday and nobody said anything”. That is true. We told her to get dressed and took her to work. The next week, the same thing happened. We went round, knocked on the door and took her to work. The third week, she showed up and it was not a problem. That is an example of the level of support that people need.
We on these Benches fully support the review of the apprenticeship levy. It is much needed and will be welcomed by employers. But I am disappointed that those on the Labour Benches in the other place could not recognise the significant work that came before them on apprenticeships. We have had over 5.8 million apprentices earning while they learn since 2010, 225,000 of them at degree level since degree apprenticeships were launched by the Conservative Government. Over that time, we developed 690 high-quality apprenticeship standards in partnership with 5,000 employers, 370 of those in STEM subjects, ensuring that we delivered the skills the country needs. This is a record to be proud of and I know the Minister will be keen to build on it.
I come now to the merging of jobcentres and the careers service. It is good to see the continued cross-government working between the DWP, the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care. It is really important that the Government work across departments. The merging of Jobcentre Plus and the National Careers Service is a significant move. Can the Minister tell the House what assessment and analysis has been made to result in this decision? What is the plan for the merged service to become operational and what do His Majesty’s Government forecast that the benefits will be? What is the plan for ensuring the staff have the skills to carry out their roles? What is the timetable to deliver the new service and when will it become operational?
The challenge to Get Britain Working should not be underestimated but do we really need to wait one to two years for it to gain momentum? I assure the whole House that we on these Benches want this to work; we want Britain to work. For the sake of the people, we all want to help. To quote my leader in the other place: we are here for you—let us help. I personally pledge any help I can give to making this work.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we welcome the encouragement the Government are giving to improving apprenticeships, reforming jobcentres and investing in the health service to cut mental health and other health problems affecting labour activity rates. The long-term sickness at the end of this Parliament, projected to be 2.8 million, is clearly completely unacceptable, and the social and benefit costs of that will be dire. We need to transform our training, career and employment services. The only problem is that we have been arguing and discussing this for more than 50 years of my political life. It comes up in every generation.
In this sort of debate or Statement, we should have in front of us all the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, from the Budget debate. She said that
“if Britain were ranked against each of the 50 US states in terms of wealth, it would be last, with Britain’s GDP per capita … below America’s poorest state, Mississippi”.—[Official Report, 11/11/24; col. 1614.]
Our per capital income in this country has not grown for 10 or possibly 15 years; 25 years ago our economy was larger than China’s, and we are now 20% of the size of China. Those are the warning signals, and therefore investment in training is absolutely fundamental to the Government’s growth strategy.
I have six points, which I hope will be helpful, on aspects that I am worried about. First, as I said, we have been struggling with our training, career services and jobcentres for more than 50 years. There have been so many initiatives. Does the Minister accept that it is not going to take one year, nor five years, nor possibly even 10 years? This is a 20-year programme to get this right. It needs investment and long-term planning to achieve comprehensive reform.
Secondly, are the Government worried that there is a huge shortage of resources here? There are a number of schemes in this White Paper devolving to mayors eight trailblazers; we are going to spend £45 million next year. That is just £6 million per region. It sounds like quite a lot of money but in reality it is not, so there is just a slight worry that this is a sticking plaster trying to deal with a long-term problem. Too many of these funding projects are just for one year, when we actually need a long-term plan. The White Paper seeks to bring together the jobcentres and the National Careers Service to transform our training arrangements. This is going to involve a major culture change. Any other organisation undergoing this would be planning for the long term and understand that it is going to take a major effort to achieve it, let alone make an impact. Do the Government realise this?
Thirdly, the youth guarantee is a fine objective, but in the White Paper there is very little mention of the role of further education. This is one sector, outside universities, that has been neglected and underresourced over the last few years, but it is fundamental to all this. Are the Government going to set some objectives and produce a reform of further education?
Obviously, the one priority that the Government have set—quite rightly—is that we must clear the backlog in mental health care and in the health services, but all the evidence is that early intervention is required to get people back into work quickly. Is there a conflict between the long-term need to clear the backlog and having resources to deal with the short-term, immediate need?
Finally, reducing the backlog in the NHS, which is behind a lot of these problems, is going to require real progress in social care. I know that the Government are struggling to come up with their reforms on this, but I repeat that releasing the NHS beds that are being used for social care is absolutely fundamental to providing beds to get people back into the labour market. They cannot get the care at the moment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their very constructive responses. It is a marked difference from the other place, but plus ça change. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, both for her welcome for the White Paper and for the constructive way in which she approaches these questions. I pay tribute to the work that she has done over many years at Tomorrow’s People and looking at this. I think we will find as we go on that she and I probably share more of an interest—a commonality—in these questions. I may differ with her on some of the choices that her Government made, but we share a view that we have to do what is right to get people into work and to support them to stay there.
Let me do the formal bit first. Yesterday the Government published the Get Britain Working White Paper, bringing forward what we see as the biggest reforms to employment support in a generation. We have already heard that the UK now faces a significant challenge. We have a near-record 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness or disability. Add to that that one in eight of our young people is not in education, employment or training. A stat that I had not seen before but that shocked me is that in England almost a fifth of working-age adults do not have even the equivalent of one GCSE. If we are starting from that position, how can we possibly carry on as we are and expect things not to carry on the way they have been?
Addressing challenges on that scale needs a different approach. We are determined to start a process that we know will take time but will continue to drive down economic inactivity and create opportunity. It will involve fundamental reform of the Department for Work and Pensions, focusing it firmly as a department for work. It will mean overhauling Jobcentre Plus to create, as we have heard, a new employment service, bringing it together with the National Careers Service in England.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, asked whether we would give people help to stay in work. She is so right: our aim is not just to get people into jobs. The whole point of the new service is that it will not just be for those out of work, because it will be careers as well. It is there to get people to get into a job, get on in work and then progress and develop a career. We have to turn this country from one of inactivity, low pay and low-opportunity jobs to one that can transform not just the lives of individuals but the country, so the system will be universal and do all those things.
Supporting young people has to be crucial. We will improve access to training and job opportunities and establish the youth guarantee that was mentioned, so that young people are earning or learning. As a first step, we are working with mayoral authorities to set up the eight youth guarantee trailblazers with £45 million of funding. I think there is a dialogue to be had between the two Front Benches, because one reason that we are doing trailblazers is that we need to know what works. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, is absolutely right: if we find out that something works, we do more of it; if we find out that it does not work, we do something different. That is why we need trailblazers to know what will work. How can we better get local and central government working together to give people better support when they are young and desperately need opportunity?
Local knowledge is crucial. The White Paper is based on the assumption that we want to empower local leaders to know best what is there for their community and show leadership. Every area in England will be supported to bring forward a local “Get Britain Working” plan, and there will be £125 million going out for those eight trailblazers, looking right across England and including one in Wales. Three of the English trail- blazers will also receive a share of £45 million for dedicated input from the NHS. So often, health is a barrier to getting people into work. We have to join up public services to have any chance of getting this right.
We also know that good work is good for health. We want to get the NHS and the wider health system working to improve employment outcomes, so we will target extra support on driving down waiting times. But we also have to address the key public health issues that contribute to worklessness. We will expand access to expert employment advisers as part of treatment and care pathways.
We are also committed to tackling the root causes of mental health problems. The youth guarantee will support young people to access and navigate their way through mental health services, and there will be specialist mental health support in every school and health professionals available in colleges. We have prioritised funding, despite the tough spending round, to expand NHS talking therapies and the individual placement support programme.
There is loads more going on. We have an independent “Keep Britain Working” review, in partnership with business and led by Sir Charlie Mayfield, who used to chair John Lewis. That will help us to understand the role of employers in creating and maintaining healthy jobs and healthy workplaces. We have set out the principles to reform health and disability benefits, to ensure that the system supports people who can work to start or remain in work, in a way that is fair but also fiscally sustainable. We have launched the guidance for Connect to Work, our new locally led supported employment programme.
I was asked a number of questions. I probably will not get through them all in the time, but there were a few practical ones. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, asked about fit notes. She may remember that there was a call for evidence about fit notes. That closed in July and we have received more than 1,900 responses. Those are being analysed at the moment, and the results will inform our approach going forward. On the question of work coach support, I completely relate to her comments about the Friday girl. At the heart of this is the relationship between the work coach and the people they try to support into work. If we can get that right, all kinds of things are possible.
I have long said—I think I said this to the noble Baroness when we were in opposite positions—that I have been worried for some time that the danger was that our system was still designed as though the major challenge facing the labour market was unemployed people who did not want to work. However, for quite some time it has been people who struggle to work for a range of reasons to do with health or disability, and the system has to be able to address all of that. We are trying to turn this around to focus on making sure people get the support they need, at the time they need it, in the way that works best for them, so they can get jobs and keep them.
The noble Baroness has loads of experience working with young people, and, if it is going to work, we need to make sure that work coaches have that. We will set up a work coach academy to make sure that we can drive up the skills of our work coaches. That will be at the heart of making this work.
I was also asked about GDP per capita and productivity. GDP per capita is essentially about growth and we have to get this right. If we are going to deal with growth, we have to deal with the fundamentals of the economy. I will not go through the pantomime of mentioning black holes because, hey, life is short.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
If you insist. My Lords, this Government inherited a massive black hole—
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Oh well. The reality is that it was quite clear to us that the Government needed to take some difficult decisions to deliver long-term stability and growth. Businesses need stability, infra- structure and a health service and transport system that function, to be able to operate.
We recognise the pressures on business, and our Ministers have been out there speaking to the Federation of Small Businesses, the Chambers of Commerce and the CBI. They are very keen to work with us on this, because they know that their members have hundreds of thousands of vacancies they cannot fill. One-third of those are because of skills gaps. They know that 300,000 people every year fall out of work due to a health or disability problems. We have to support them and support the individuals dealing with that. We want our jobcentres to serve business and to be not a place you go as a last resort when you cannot hire anyone but a place of first resort where you find people and get the learning, experience and support to make your business function.
I would really defend against the challenge that the programme is too small. This is one-year funding for a reason. It is because these are trailblazers to figure out what works. We know what does not work. If what we had been doing worked, we would not have 2.8 million people who are out of work due to long-term sickness or disability. We have to test processes to make sure they work. We are going to learn from that, but we know this is a long-term process.
I should add for the record that many of the policy areas described in the White Paper are devolved in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. To be clear, in those cases, the focus on the White Paper is on the actions of the UK Government in England. But we will be working closely with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to ensure that everything we do dovetails well with existing devolved support. We are keen to understand what works well across the UK and to learn from Northern Ireland’s experience of delivering employment and career support.
I recognise that these are ambitious reforms. I know they will take time and they will need help—not just from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, but from stakeholders and experts across the economy. But we can do this. Together, we can build a labour market that gives everyone the opportunity to be the person they want to be. Also, we can be the country we all want us to be. To do that, we need to get Britain working again.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the numbers of young people we are talking about who are not in employment or education. The Minister will know that earlier this year the Public Services Committee of this House set out a report based on a study of the transitional arrangements many of these young people experience as they move from school to employment, especially those with a disability or long-term health problems.
We had the extremes in the evidence. Some were simply brushed aside as being unemployable for a lifetime. For others, services and employers at local level got together and produced some wonderful opportunities to completely change the life chances of these young people. Could the Minister assure the House that the Government will look at this report and take forward the recommendations? They were considerable and intended to achieve some of the outcomes set out in this paper.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention and also of course for his many years of experience and work in the field of social policy and social care. I very much feel that what he described is what we are trying to do, and I absolutely assure him that the report will be looked at in detail and we will go through the recommendations carefully. One challenge we have is that it is too easy to write off young people. Nowadays, they are judged: the assumption is that they are not trying very hard and the expectations are there. Actually, I do not meet young people who do not want to be out there building a life. It is just that, sometimes, the challenges feel too big. If we can find the right way to support them—if we can get proper mental health support in place and if we can help employers to know how best to work with people who have mental health challenges—we can get people into jobs and they can stay in them.
In the years that I worked with single parents, for example, one thing I learned is that if people have found it difficult to get a job, if they find one that works for them, they are the most loyal employees anyone could get, because they have found a way in and something that works, and it becomes a brilliant relationship. So I am grateful to the noble Lord for that and I will take a careful look at it.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, on Friday morning, I was in a Jobcentre Plus office with a 50 year- old woman who has always worked—but not for the last two years, following a major spinal operation and rehabilitation. She is now ready to get back into work. When we went into that office, we were told that she was not entitled to any support from a disability job coach or adviser, although she is in receipt of PIP. The reason given was that she does not claim an unemployment benefit. What does the Minister suggest I do next to help this person? Why are we discriminating against disabled people wanting to get into work, whether they are claiming a benefit or not?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am sorry to hear of the experience that the noble Baroness’s friend or family member had. What she said goes right to the heart of what we are doing. The point of the national jobs and careers service is that it is not just for people claiming benefits: it is for anybody who needs help getting into work, getting back to work or getting on in work. If we narrow it down to simply being about benefits, we will end up putting the incentives in the wrong place.
One thing that worries us about how the system has worked is that a lot of work coaches’ time is spent checking up to see whether everyone has ticked all the boxes and whether those on benefits have done all the right things. Of course, conditionality will always be a part of the system, but we want to see whether there are ways to reform that so that we can test different ways of making sure that people stay connected and work coaches can spend more time devoted to individuals —including the person that the noble Baroness described —to get them back into work if they want. There are 600,000 people out there who are long-term sick or disabled who want to work, but somehow they are not able to. We have to do something about that and we are determined to.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, there is much to welcome in these proposals for reform of employment support and their aim of better health and good work. But can my noble friend please assure me, first, that the emphasis will be more on carrots than on sticks? Secondly, can she assure me that transforming a department for welfare into a department for work will not mean further social security cuts or abandoning any attempt to repair the serious damage wreaked on the social security system over the past 14 years, at the cost of its role in addressing poverty and providing genuine security?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Let me reassure my noble friend of two things. First, we are absolutely committed to tackling the scourge of child poverty, and the Government are completely committed to making sure that how the social security system works is part of that—so I can reassure her on that front.
Secondly, we often talk in terms of carrots and sticks, but I am not sure that that is very helpful. Most people want to get on: they want a satisfying job that will be rewarding in itself and that will also feed them and their family. People want the same things that we want for them, but lots of things get in the way. Our job is to set the system up so that it is aligned to go with that—to get barriers out of the way, to support people, to give them all the help they can get and to get them over the line.
Obviously, some people will not be able to work on grounds of severe disability or perhaps sickness, or maybe their caring responsibilities do not make that possible. The Department for Work and Pensions is there to support them, as it is to support pensioners and those who need our help. A small number of people really do not want to work and, frankly, they should. We are quite clear that we will support them and, in return, we expect them to do their bit. But, in between, surely we can design a system that is not just carrots or sticks but goes with the grain and helps people to be themselves.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the White Paper and the Minister’s comments. I know her total passion for trying to unlock the potential of young people. In that spirit, my question is about education and the links between education and skills. She mentioned one GCSE. I am concerned that the financial literacy of our young people is very poor and we need to lay particular emphasis on that. I would also welcome the support of the Government to unlock apprenticeships, with better conditions for employers to take on young people much earlier than they currently do.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, and commend her for her work in the field of financial services over many years. She makes an important point about financial literacy. It is an interesting question. To give a simple example, if I go into a supermarket, I will sometimes see an offer on four cans of tomatoes which will actually be more expensive per can than the single cans sitting next to them. If people do not have basic maths, they will not even have the life skills they need when they most need them. If people do not understand what an APR means, how are they to know whether they are getting a decent deal, never mind beginning to think about pensions? I absolutely agree about the importance of that.
I also think it is really important to get apprenticeships right. One thing we are doing is putting money into more foundation apprenticeships, to give more young people the chance to get in much earlier. If people can get a foot on the ladder, or just get in the door, they can be inspired by something: it is a chance to do something, see something, achieve something, often to just be part of a team. After that, who knows where it can go? The noble Baroness raised two important points and I thank her for them.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have two questions. I very much support the eight trailblazers for the youth guarantee, but what is meant by “the west of England”? Will the Government take further education to be as important as higher education?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The main trailblazers are based on combined authorities and the youth trailblazers are being negotiated, so I will have to come back to the noble and learned Baroness on the boundaries of the west of England. On further education, I am absolutely supportive of that. The Government have already invested an additional £300 million of revenue funding into further education to support young people to get the skills they need, and are providing £300 million of capital investment to support colleges to maintain, improve and ensure the suitability of their estate. If she has been to one recently, she will know how much that is needed in some parts. On the apprenticeships fund, £40 million is being directed into delivering shorter and foundation apprenticeships in key sectors. We think that is a way to help people to move forward in the skills area.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, following up on the point made opposite about apprentices, does my noble friend the Minister agree that nothing less than an apprenticeship guarantee is required? If so, what steps will the Government take, working with employers, to make sure that there is an apprenticeship guarantee, so that the many young people who are leaving school and are unable to get access to an apprenticeship will in future be able to do so?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the aim of our youth guarantee is to go further than that. We want every young person to be guaranteed to get either high-quality training, an apprenticeship or a job, or the support to get into one of those places. There are many young people for whom an apprenticeship is absolutely the right thing; there are others for whom more training is necessary, and others for whom a job is the right way forward. That is what we want: at that age, that is the choice that people should have. They should be earning or learning, and a job, an apprenticeship or education is the way forward.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I welcome this White Paper, especially the emphasis on supporting young people into work and recognising that there are lots of different pathways that are suitable for people. It is difficult to distinguish what parts are relevant to Wales. There is reference in the White Paper to the trailblazer in Wales, so can the Minister clarify how this will work and where in Wales it will be?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I share this: I have a grid that tells me which bits are devolved and which are not in different parts, because I struggle to keep track of it. The noble Baroness probably knows much more about this than I do, for which I pay tribute. Essentially, in Wales, as she will know, health is devolved; employment support, including youth, skills and training, is devolved; careers are devolved; and welfare reform is reserved. We are going to work with the Welsh Government; for example, there is already a youth guarantee in Wales, as I am sure she is aware. Some of the principles in our White Paper go with the grain of work that has already begun in Wales and we will work with the Welsh Government on a Wales-based trailblazer and to figure out how best we can join up with what they are already doing, where the gaps are and how we can learn together. It will be very much a partnership question. In Scotland, it is slightly different again—not that she asked about Scotland—because different parts are devolved. In Northern Ireland, it is pretty much all transferred. We have already begun speaking to officials in all the devolved Administrations with a view to taking this forward.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, paragraph 45 refers to the fact that the economically inactive are
“more likely (than the population as a whole) to have no qualifications, and some may also face other complex disadvantages, including homelessness, drug or alcohol addiction and contact with the criminal justice system”—
I stress that final point. In many cases, especially regarding criminal convictions and paper qualifications, these factors become insuperable barriers to gaining employment, even when they have no relevance to the actual requirements of the job concerned. Given that the best way to get a job is to have a job, I ask the Minister to look critically at these discriminatory practices, which are as prevalent in the public sector as in the private sector, and are not only damaging to individuals and their families but incredibly economically inefficient as they impact on hundreds of thousands of our citizens.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank my noble friend, and I do not need persuading of this. One of the most inspiring things I have seen in the DWP—I did not start it, so I can say this—has been work with prison work coaches. They are based inside prisons, working with those who are preparing to leave, to try to make sure that we can get them into a job. I am working closely with my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, and our departments are working together to try to find the best ways in which we can ease the transition from prisons into work. When we look at the levels of recidivism, which are staggeringly high—never mind what happens in young offender institutions—we know that, if we cannot crack this, it will not only be a potentially lifelong challenge for an individual, which they will never really overcome, but a huge problem for the state, both in the loss of opportunity for that individual and their talents and in terms of future crime. My noble friend raises a really important point.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register. Black and Asian women, particularly Bangladeshi and Pakistani women, have high unemployment rates and find it very difficult to get back into work after 15 or 20 years of caring responsibilities; for example, they may not have the digital skills they need. What are the Government doing to get these women into work? Are the apprenticeship schemes aimed at returners to work reaching these groups of women?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises an important point and I pay tribute to her work with the Muslim Women’s Network and with so many in her community. There is a range of support out there and I have seen some good examples. On Employability Day, I spoke to one programme which was doing fantastic work with women from a number of minority communities who were returning to work, or maybe had never been in work, after their children had grown up. They had very particular barriers and the scheme was designed to focus on them.
One of our challenges is finding a way to get people not only into work, which is really important, but to develop in work. I am sure the noble Baroness will know this better than I do, but if you look at the distribution of people who are in jobs at national minimum wage or national living wage, there are overwhelmingly more young people and older people, but also Bangladeshi people and Pakistani people are much more likely to be in low-paid jobs. The one thing we know from the evidence is that if you start at a low pay, you stay in low pay—it is very hard to break out of it. One of the challenges in the new system, which we are determined to get right, as we develop the new national jobs and careers service, is: how do we help people, whatever their background, to have the opportunity to get in, but also to get on and have ambitions?
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, in opposition, the Labour Party said it would be the most business-friendly ever. However, since the last Budget, is the Minister aware that every single employer organisation, ranging from the CBI and the IoD to the NFU and the British Retail Consortium, have condemned the Budget as being thoroughly anti-business? Can she answer the question from the noble Baroness on the shadow Front Bench about how the Government are now going to repair relations with business? How can the Government deliver these programmes and strategies without the good will and support of business and wealth creators?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
As I said earlier, we have been very grateful that business and business organisations have made it clear that they do want to work with us on this, because there is a clear area of common interest. There are currently over 800,000 vacancies in the economy and businesses need to be able to recruit people, but they cannot do so.
On the broader point, I try not to play the political pantomime game on the Front Bench, but I have to say to the noble Lord that if we had not had the economic crash we did, we would not have to take the measures we have done. We did not want to take them, but we have to repair the economy and our public services, and get our economy growing again, and this Government will do what it takes.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, the community and voluntary sector plays a key part in getting people into work, not only offering placements but actively working with groups that are difficult to reach. Does my noble friend agree that a lot of those voluntary and community groups are pushed out of this space because they are small and cannot bid for the contracts put forward by the DWP? That is an area she could look at, to ensure that groups such as the Just for Women Centre in County Durham, which does great work, can actually get those contracts.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My noble friend knows that the way to my heart is to mention County Durham. I should probably declare an interest, although it is so old that it is not an interest. Once upon a time I contracted with the then DWP to run employment programmes for single parents. That was about 100 years ago, so it is probably too old to be there now.
In response to my noble friend’s question, he is absolutely right that it is very hard for small voluntary organisations to bid for national contracts, yet they can often reach people that central government will never be able to. We have heard examples from around the House today. One of my hopes is that the more we can localise things, the easier it will be to involve a range of partners from an area, and people will know who the good players in their area are. Furthermore, the issues are different in different areas; as the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, explained, some areas may have a large Muslim or Bangladeshi community, and in other areas there may be large numbers of young people and single parents. Under this system, each area will have a better sense of what its problems are and which partners can be worked with. The aim of the trailblazer areas is to see what difference that system can make.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I have received a message from a person in Birmingham with 20 years’ engineering experience who has been unemployed and is now a zero-hours contract worker. He says that engineering has been decimated by high energy costs and that our energy costs are more than double those of the French and four times those of the Chinese. When are the Government going to control energy costs and save skilled jobs? Over to you, Minister.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I never like to say that something is outside my range but sometimes it really is. The Government have a very clear strategy on green energy and building green jobs, and on building pathways to secure British energy. The creation of Great British Energy and the strategies around it will all make a difference. I am afraid that is the limit of my knowledge.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, not that many years ago, I had the pleasure of being chairman of the National Maritime Museum and got to know that area very well—it had a lot of unemployment. One day I was introduced to somebody who came along to the museum who was fourth generation on the dole. He said that it was not worth his while, considering the size of his house, to consider a job unless it paid somewhere near £48,000. I bring it up because everybody here, I would suggest, was born with a work ethic and was proud to get a job, but so many people now find all the ways possible to avoid doing so. I know how much this means to the Minister and my question is: how are we going to get people off the dole? There are millions of people who should not be on it at all.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
This is such a hard one. I have no doubt that there are some people out there who really do not want to work and cannot be bothered. They would not get £48,000 in benefits—they would not be able to—but I am sure there are such people out there. However, I have been around this game a long time and my experience is that most people do want to work; there are just huge problems and the figures back that up. We do not have a massive unemployment problem; we have a massive inactivity problem. We have a physical health problem, a mental health problem and a crisis of sickness, disability and an ageing population.
The challenge of years gone by may have been to make sure that everybody wanted to work. The challenge of today’s economy is to make sure that everybody is able to work, and that they are able to get the job they need to help transform our economy. If we do not do that, businesses cannot fill vacancies, the economy cannot grow and nothing can happen. We are going to do it.
Football Governance Bill [HL]
Wednesday 27th November 2024
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Football Governance Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 41-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (26 Nov 2024)
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 2, 3 and 4, in the names of my noble friends Lord Hayward, Lord Moynihan and Lord Maude of Horsham. I look forward to hearing them introduce their amendments later.
I am very pleased to open this first day in Committee on the Football Governance Bill and thank all noble Lords for their evident interest in it. I repeat my thanks to the Minister for the time she has made available to me and my noble friend Lord Markham as well as to other noble Lords across the Committee. I also thank her for the letters she sent this morning following the Second Reading debate; they were greatly appreciated by all who spoke then.
It is fitting that we open this debate with perhaps the most fundamental of the issues under discussion: what will this Bill do, what are its guiding principles and what is its overarching purpose? The Bill states that it intends
“to protect and promote the sustainability of English football”.
The inclusion of the word “sustainability” in this initial purpose clause is a curious matter and the reason I tabled my Amendment 1. Why should English football be merely sustainable? Taken at face value, sustainability is a reasonable approach, and perhaps a reasonable one to take in this Bill. The Cambridge English Dictionary, which is far superior to dictionaries available from other universities, defines the word “sustainable” as being
“able to continue over a period of time”.
I would not argue against English football being able to continue long into the future—that is the reason that the Bill has been brought before your Lordships—but is that all we want from it? My Amendment 1 seeks to question and, I hope, to clarify what we are trying to achieve through the Bill. By removing the words, “the sustainability of”, from Clause 1, I am trying to highlight that the Bill should be aimed at protecting English football in toto.
As I set out at Second Reading, football has an incredibly long and rich history in this country. The Football Association was the first of its kind anywhere in the world, as was the English Football League. I spoke of the importance of heritage and how the distinct identities of each and every football club arouse the passions of so many people across the country and the globe. This strength of feeling and these passions are not best encapsulated by the limited notion of sustainability; they include something much more human and emotional, which we should have a go at capturing. Surely, through the Bill, we are also seeking to protect and promote these emotions and desires for the game.
I note that the provisions on home grounds and team colours seek to work to that effect, as do further amendments that my noble friend Lord Markham and I tabled, which we look forward to discussing later in Committee. However, if there are provisions relating to this in the Bill, why does the purpose clause at the very beginning—Clause 1—not address it? Sustainability is too limited a condition for success. If we leave it as it is, would we not condemn the regulator from the start to be inert? Would the regulator not be frozen in time and unable to look to the future and to the positive beneficial changes that could be made to the game? It is important that the regulator should have a forward-thinking attitude. It should not be merely content with the current state of football but constantly looking to drive the game forward. If it does not, this whole endeavour would be, at best, a wasted opportunity and, at worst, a failure.
That is why it is so vital to question what is meant by “sustainability” in the clause and seek to go beyond that limited and limiting definition, which risks putting the sport in a box or creating stasis. As my noble friends have pointed out through their amendments, which we will consider shortly, we could, rather than striking out words in the clause, supplement sustainability. My noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham, through his Amendments 4 and 4A, invites us to extend our focus to the success and growth of football. Those are two key goals and are important when we discuss the Bill and the game. No club would want to be frozen in time, never moving forward, eschewing new ventures or winning new glories. As has been pointed out by my noble friend Lady Brady, the many advantages of English football come from achieving the right balance between growth, competition and aspiration. Should we not look to place each of those concepts in the Bill or encapsulating them in its foundational principles? Those would give the regulator a clearer guiding path and ensure that it does not stray from the objectives that the Bill and this Parliament seek to set out.
One of the concepts that my noble friend Lord Maude mentions is growth; the Bill would stand to gain from its inclusion, focusing the regulator on moving the sport forward by growing the number of fans, the amount of revenue, the extent of viewership at home and around the world, and in other areas. I hope that this would entrench from the outset a forward-thinking vision, thereby preventing the independent football regulator from falling into the trap of other regulatory bodies, which have been blinkered in their outlook.
Like other noble Lords, I have been struck by the coverage we have seen this week from the all-party group that has looked at the work and conduct of the Financial Conduct Authority. Cross-party and cross-House concerns have been raised about the way in which the FCA has gone about its work. It is important, as we set up a new regulator, to give it clear instructions about what we want it to do and clear guard-rails about what we do not want it to do.
As I said at Second Reading, it is important that we get the Bill right. If we do not provide the regulator with the necessary tools from the outset, we would be setting it up merely to fail. That would have catastrophic consequences for the game and all those in this country who love it.
Football is, as well as a hugely enjoyed pastime, one of our largest and most popular industries. The Premier League makes up the largest share of the United Kingdom’s television exports, totalling £1.4 billion in 2019-20. Football is broadcast to over 1.5 billion people in 189 countries across the world. Through that export and shared enjoyment, it amplifies our values, spreads the best of British culture and generates hugely important economic growth for the whole nation. Football is undoubtedly a significant soft-power asset for the United Kingdom, and it is important to keep that in mind as we begin our detailed consideration of the Bill in Committee.
That is to say nothing of the millions of people who follow football here at home. To all those people in the United Kingdom and across the world, the ruination of English football would rip the heart out of communities across the length and breadth of the country. I am sure that Members of the Committee would not want that, and I hope that giving detailed thought to the purpose of the Bill and dwelling on its initial clause will be a way to lift our aspirations for it and seek a more important and meaningful goal than mere sustainability. I beg to move.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for the eloquent way in which he moved the amendment and started the important debate on this group. It is important that we take time to consider this properly, because the Bill, if enacted in this form, will create a state regulator with an ability to impose a levy to make exactions on the football clubs that make up the football leagues. It is important that the tone of the regulator is set from the beginning.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, before I start my comments in relation to my amendment and the others in this group, I want to thank the Minister for her kind comments at the end of Second Reading, when she said she hoped she would not need to call on my refereeing skills too often. I appreciated the thought, but when she made that comment she was probably unaware that, when I qualified as a rugby referee, the laws said that the decision of the referee was correct and final. Given that breadth of my ruling, I am quite willing to use it on any number of occasions.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, drew attention to our failures at national level, but, of course, this legislation relates specifically to the league clubs. In proposing amendments to the Bill in a number of places, I am not saying that everything that exists within the leagues is perfect—it is not; what I am asking in my amendments and in my probable support for others is whether this Bill needs substantial change.
I have tabled an amendment to insert “success”. I said at Second Reading that I was disappointed that there was no reference to success at any point within the Bill. My noble friend Lord Maude just referred to project creep. Clause 1 says that the purpose of the Bill is to
“promote the sustainability of English football”,
but the Explanatory Notes refer to
“the primary aim of ensuring the long-term sustainability and resilience”.
Somebody has immediately written in another element of what the regulator’s responsibility would be. There inevitably will be creep, and it is therefore important that we include some other terminology to which any regulator needs to operate.
The world of sport is changing and changing fast. We cannot, as the noble Lord, Lord Maude, said, work on the basis that one is going to have an English Football League and a Premier League, and that is fine, and it will achieve what it achieves now without any change. We see the NFL hosting matches in this country. Why is it doing that? It is because it wants to extend its footprint and income on a worldwide basis; it wants to challenge other sports. Equally, American college football has reorganised recently. If we look at tennis, cycling and every single major sport, we see that they are reorganising because they are trying to extend their footprints to a worldwide base. The IPL is a classic example of how a sport has been changed. I agree completely with what the noble Lord, Lord Maude, said about how, with the way this Bill is phrased, football will be surrounded in aspic, it will carry on, and we will protect everything; there will be no change. What will happen then is that other sports take over on a worldwide basis in terms of viewership, income, finance and therefore attention around the world.
My amendment would insert “success” in the first clause and in one or two other places. I looked at the impact assessment—I intend to return on a number of occasions to that, because to be blunt, it is not an impact assessment. As the noble Lord, Lord Maude, suggested, the figures are interesting; I would be generous to say that I think they are interesting. My understanding is that some of the clubs that were asked to give an indication as to the costs that would be involved said they did not know. I would like the Minister to indicate what detailed figures were identified by the clubs that were consulted.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend on the Front Bench, and those spoken to by my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord Hayward. I will also offer some expression of sympathy to the Government, because it is not altogether clear what the origins of this word “sustainability” may be. I suggest that they go back to the original so-called fan-led review produced by Tracey Crouch, which I have here and which noble Lords will have read. The Bill is drawn expressly from the so-called fan-led review.
I say in parenthesis that “fan-led review” seems a strange title for it, since Dame Tracey emphasises in the report that its conclusions are hers alone. Although I pay tribute to the work she did and the consultation she undertook, she received 20,000 responses and there are some 33 million football fans, but we will leave that for a moment.
I will read the very opening of Dame Tracey’s foreword as it sets the tone for the Bill as a whole and for an element that is missing from it. She wrote in her introduction:
“For those who say that English football is world leading at club level and there is no need to change I would argue that it is possible simultaneously to celebrate the current global success of the Premier League at the same time as having deep concerns about the fragility of the wider foundations of the game. It is both true that our game is genuinely world leading and that there is a real risk of widespread failures and a potential collapse of the pyramid as we know it”.
So Dame Tracey made two points. One was about the success of the game and the other its fragility and the potential failures, but the oddity of the way the Bill is presented—my noble friends all picked this up and elucidated it in their speeches—is that the first part of the Bill refers only to the fragility of the system by using this word “sustainability”. There is nothing about success in it. I suggest to Ministers and to noble Lords that some reference to success would be a better reflection of what was originally in Tracey Crouch’s report and the balance that she gave between the fragility and the success of the game—for the two, after all, may be bound up together.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for missing Second Reading. I feel like I am coming on at half-time into this debate, but sometimes if you come on at half-time you have a little bit more energy.
I want to address the sustainability issue, because it is fundamental to what we are trying to do. I am not sure whether any other Member of this House has been in the unenviable position I was in as a leader of a borough, when the local football club came to me and said, “We’re going to go bankrupt and go bust unless you financially support us”, which I had to do at Stockport. We offered all our support, and we did it for a reason. It is more than just a football club, as other speakers have said; they are part of the fabric of society and of communities. They are economic drivers for towns. Most of these football clubs were built in town centres. They kick off at 3 pm on a Saturday because men, predominantly, used to work Saturday morning and they would go to the football in the afternoon. As we watch global football now, we see football matches at 5.30 pm, 8 pm and 10 pm. No one cares about the supporters. When Newcastle played West Ham the other night, the last train home from Newcastle left before the final whistle.
There is a bigger picture at stake here about how you regulate and control football, so my opening comment is that the sustainability bit—the bit that says a football club must be able to sustain itself—must be core to what we are trying to do. On all this saying, “The Premier League will look after itself”, I wish people would not keep bringing the Premier League in as the golden egg. It is the Championship, League One, League Two and the non-league teams—that is your pyramid. That is part of the regulator’s job: to secure their sustainability.
I say to all Members when they go through the Bill —some things in it are quite laudable and supportable—that the aim is not to get into the situation we have got into before, where the six that were going to join the European league could have collapsed the pyramid. That needs to be stopped again. Owners buy a football club like somebody buys a yacht or a hotel. That has to be stopped, as does changing the colours a team plays in and changing the ethos of a club. That is regulation, but at the heart of it is sustainability. That needs to be woven into the Bill somewhere, if not on the face of it: sustainability absolutely must be included in the regulator’s remit.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, sustainability is an insufficient word to describe what the Bill should be trying to achieve. It is necessary but not sufficient. We need football to flourish, develop and innovate and the Bill should make that extremely clear. As I mentioned at Second Reading, I have been around a long time and remember when football was highly conservative. I remember when football bitterly resisted the notion of live broadcasting, which was completely and utterly to transform and create the modern game.
The regulator must not stop football developing, and that needs to be crystal clear in the Bill. Football needs to continue to innovate, as it has done over the last 30 years. The notion for the European super league was quite wrong and rightly kicked into touch, but there are other possibilities in the modern age for having European leagues based on merit and allowing the game to develop. Live-streaming games which are not broadcast live on a subscription service for fans would be a perfectly reasonable way to allow the game to develop. Let us ask the regulator not to stand in the way of the game continuing to improve as it has done so successfully over recent decades.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I want to make a few brief comments, not least because, as I have been here rather a long time, I know what is happening when speakers use the words “word search” and “dictionary definition”. It is not exactly intended to accelerate the passage of a Bill. I will be brief even if others, perhaps, were not. I remind Members opposite that this Bill came out of an inquiry from a Conservative former Sports Minister and was a Conservative piece of legislation introduced in the other House, so it is not exactly rushed. In terms of sustainability, there are a heck of a lot of clubs that would settle for any guarantee that they had a future and that the future was more secure for them.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I have great respect for the noble Baroness, but she just made reference to comments I made in relation to word search. I believed that doing the word search emphasised the point I was trying to make in relation to the amendment that I had tabled and the comments that other people had made as well.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
That is how the noble Lord saw it, and I will say it how I saw it. What I was going to say in relation to the last contribution was that, yes, we all want the football leagues—the Premier League and everybody—to flourish and be more successful, but football will be a success only if the whole pyramid can flourish and be sustainable.
I want to say a word about Amendment 10, which is just one practical suggestion that could be considered to help clubs manage their own financial stability. One of problems we have seen in football over recent years is a degree of optimism on the part of football management about what it can achieve by minimal investment. Amendment 10, which my noble friend Lord Bassam and I have tabled, suggests that regulated clubs under the Bill should meet a financial commitment to have resources for at least six months. Many businesses are under very similar obligations. Charities have to have some financial security, so it would be worth considering whether we should actually make that kind of obligation something that the regulator should look at because, unless we get the overall funding of football clubs more sustainable, the whole pyramid will not be sustainable.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 3, and in so doing will cover a number of other amendments in the group. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, that I see this as a Bill that is almost uniquely all-party. Both Front Benches are in favour of it. One introduced it in another place, albeit for another purpose; the Prime Minister at that time talked about dropping a legislative bomb in the path of a possible breakaway super league. It has morphed quite considerably since that time to take into account many other issues.
In a sense, it is a Bill of two parts, and they have not always completely aligned. On the one hand, there is the role of the regulator with regard to the financial success or otherwise of English football. We will come to what that means in a moment, because it is fairly important. On the other hand, there are the many recommendations that came out of the fan-led review. The noble Baroness and I have both been around a long time; it is about 40 years since I started in the other place, and I have rarely seen a Bill with 340 amendments tabled from all sides of the House before we got to Committee. That is because many Members of your Lordships’ House are interested in the fan-led review; equally there are those—I echo the words that she has just said—who are concerned indeed that a regulator should not diminish or damage the success of the football league on which the waterfall payments depend. The more successful that Premier League is, the better for football and the better for everything that we are looking at.
My noble friend in sport—dare I say that?—the noble Lord, Lord Mann, looked just a moment or two ago as if he felt that spending too much time on the Bill was nearly as depressing as three minutes before the end of the Swansea-Leeds game at the weekend, and some noble Lords opposite look as though that is how they feel. However, at the weekend he was awakened by a wonderful goal that led to a 4-3 victory by Leeds, which we both celebrated.
I want to focus first on the important issue of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, because it is important that we recognise and understand clearly what it stated. It said:
“The fundamental purpose of the Bill is to ‘protect and promote the sustainability of English football.’ … One must go through a series of definitions only to find that the Bill does not, after all, provide the definition of English football. Ultimately, the meaning of ‘English football’ depends on regulations to be made in due course by the Secretary of State—albeit by the affirmative procedure”.
The report stated:
“‘English football’ means ‘all regulated clubs and specified competitions, taken together’. A regulated club means a club that operates a relevant team. A relevant team means a team that is entered into, is a member of, or participates in a specified competition. A specified competition means a competition specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State”.
That means that the meaning of English football is deliberately left unclear on the face of the Bill that we are debating in this critical Committee. The answer will emerge only after the Bill is enacted, when the Secretary of State makes regulations to fill in the definitional gap left in the meaning of “specified competition”. As a result, the remit of the new regulator is presently unclear. The report goes on to conclude with a recommendation that
“the power of the Secretary of State in clause 2 to define ‘specified competitions’ should be removed from the Bill. Government policy is clear—that the top five leagues of the men’s professional game should be regulated. This policy should appear in primary legislation, not be relegated to secondary legislation”.
My noble friend who has just spoken from the Back Benches is also aware that, as we have discussed, there is a question of hybridity about the Bill. When the Minister comes to respond to this set of amendments, I would be grateful if she could say, first, what she intends to do to give clarity to the issue of English football and what it means in the context of this legislation and, secondly, answer the question on hybridity. Until we have answers to those two questions, we have a number of challenges. I think there is widespread agreement across both sides of this House that there should not be a whole series of major decisions left to secondary legislation. They should be in the Bill and we should be considering them in detail as we progress.
On the question of sustainability, which is key to this series of amendments and the first part of this legislation on the role of the regulator, I hope that Amendment 12 in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude commands widespread agreement across the House. It provides that football needs to continue
“to be globally competitive in relation to audience and quality … to attract significant domestic and foreign investment …. to grow economically in terms of commercial revenues, domestic and international broadcasting agreements, and asset and enterprise values”
and continue
“to produce industry-led agreements on the distribution of revenues”.
Capital will travel overseas if that is not the case. Fans will benefit from ensuring that they and their clubs see success in English football, and that success is driven by a successful Premier League.
We can debate at length how much money flows through to the rest of English football but, unquestionably, the more successful the Premier League is, the better for the fans and better for the clubs that should benefit from that. The regulator is appointed in part to opine on that relationship, so it is critically important that the regulator takes into account the success of the Premier League and of English football. Indeed, the Prime Minister is very much on that page as well. He has recently pledged to get rid of regulation: his view is that he would
“do everything in my power to galvanise growth including getting rid of regulation that needlessly holds back investment”.
So we need to explore in detail the powers of the regulator and what it is going to do—and immediately, that is a highly complex area of regulation.
The regulator that we are appointing here also has to work alongside the regulations put in place by the Premier League, the EFL, UEFA and FIFA. We have already seen what happened when UEFA came forward and said, “We don’t like one of the powers that you’re giving to the regulator”. The Government immediately said, “You’ve told us to jump—how high? We’ll remove that from the Bill”. We therefore have a highly complex tapestry of regulation and are adding significant further regulation to that. I am going to look, in further deliberations of this Committee, at how we align the work of the regulator to the UEFA financial fair play regulations.
The point that the Minister made in Committee was really about the number of Premier League clubs that have been in trouble over the years. She kindly referenced and name-checked my comment in her letter, which we have very much appreciated today. She said:
“The Noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referenced there having been ‘only seven liquidations since 1945’. For the fans and communities who bore the brunt of those failures, that is seven too many. There have also been over 60 instances of professional clubs entering administration since 1992”.
Yes, I agree that there have been seven liquidations since 1945 and seven too many, but that is nothing like the number of liquidations and insolvencies we see in society at any given time. The numbers for the country at large are substantially greater and football has been highly successful. Only last year, something like 25,158 companies went into liquidation in the country at large, with 2,827 of those being compulsory liquidations.
So I think that the success of English football has been underestimated by the Minister and by those have been compiling the arguments that, in some sense, we should not on the face of the Bill recognise the importance of growth, financial success and financial sustainability, which are at the core of the amendment that I have tabled.
With those initial comments, I will just add one other very important point for the consideration of the Committee. All the indications are that in France, which has far greater regulation, and in Germany, which has much greater regulation as well, there is no evidence that that regulation has forestalled the insolvency of some of the clubs made insolvent under those two regulatory bodies. On the contrary, it is not the regulation that stops insolvency after all. I am very happy to give way to the Minister on this. If there is a club that seems to be in financial trouble, what will the regulator do about it? At what stage will he or she intervene? At what stage will they therefore state whatever steps they feel should be taken at that point?
That is not on the face of the Bill because, no doubt, it is the Minister’s view that that should be left to regulation and it is up to the regulator. But the reality is that you appoint a regulator only if you really believe there is a serious problem and you know exactly what that regulator would do in any given circumstance. That has not been the case in either France or Germany, which are the two major case studies relevant to us at this stage. So I would echo the points that have been made. We need to make sure on face of the Bill that the regulator recognises that football should be as successful financially as possible, and that nothing the regulator does should inhibit the success and growth of the financial success of football. With those comments, I am supportive of both my noble friend Lord Maude’s amendment and, clearly, my own.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in Committee on the Bill, and obviously at Second Reading as well. I put on record my thanks to the Minister for her helpful and comprehensive letter today, which also referenced my reference to Woolworths. I think she might have misunderstood what I was saying, but we will let that pass.
I will focus specifically on Clause 1, which is the centre of this Bill: it is the cause, the purpose and the raison d’être of this Bill. As I mentioned at Second Reading, if you cannot adequately identify what the problem is that you are seeking to solve, you are very unlikely to reach an efficacious solution. This Bill—this Act, assuming it gets Royal Assent at some point—will be a living document. It will be the Government, the state, via a large regulator with unique powers, intervening in what hitherto has been a very successful commercial activity—perhaps one of the most successful commercial and business activities in the whole of our country, and certainly one that is globally very well regarded.
Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government to look seriously at the excellent amendments put down by my noble friend Lord Parkinson and to take on board some of the points raised by my noble friends Lord Maude, Lord Moynihan and Lord Hayward. The odd thing is that the Bill is drafted in such a way that it ignores some of the key points made in the impact assessment. The first page of the impact assessment contains a commitment to “improve financial sustainability”, which is in my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s amendment. However, in the Bill the wording is quite opaque and that wording does not appear.
Equally, focusing narrowly on Clause 1—which is the reason the Bill is coming to this House—I note that it seems odd that the local community is not defined in primary legislation. Ministers will say, “That’s because we need the leeway to bring forward subsequent secondary legislation and statutory instruments for unusual circumstances”. That is not an ignoble or unfair interpretation, but it is a difficult proposition to put to this Committee when we have to judge what is in front of us and not what might happen in the future in a very complex market model. So that omission is still problematic, which is why I repeat it from Second Reading. The other issue is that clubs’ fans are not defined definitively in the Bill, probably for the same reason.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I am intrigued by the amendments from the Benches opposite because there is a degree of amnesia in some of this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, moves to strike out “sustainability” from Clause 1. I have a copy of the Bill that was introduced in another place at the beginning of the year. In Clause 1, “Purpose and overview”, it says:
“The purpose of this Act is to protect and promote the sustainability of English football”.
That is the same wording as is in the Bill before us. I say to noble Lords on the Benches opposite that this Clause 1 is exactly the same as the Clause 1 that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, would have brought to this House, had he still been the Minister and had the Conservative Party not lost the general election. So I am extremely puzzled by the approach of noble Lords opposite.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
Picking up that point, I think the noble Lord is trying to make it appear as if this is a partisan thing, but it is not. I would have tabled exactly the same amendments if this had been the previous Government’s Bill that he refers to. This is not a party-political matter at all; it is about a game that we are passionate about and that is a spectacular success. We do not want to see something done that damages it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
The noble Lord has the benefit of supporting Horsham FC. I have the benefit of supporting Brighton and Hove Albion, and I am absolutely passionate about my football club, which is one of the best clubs in the Premier League. I would not be party to wishing to do anything that damages the Premier League, and neither would my colleagues on these Benches. We recognise, understand and appreciate that the Premier League is an institution that is more than worth supporting. It is the best in the world and we know that.
The other thing that noble Lords need to focus on in this debate is that when the noble Lords opposite were in government, they were very keen to have this legislation. A DCMS report published in September 2023 quoted the findings of a research paper that showed that there continues to be
“a widespread issue of clubs being run in unsustainable ways from a traditional financial analysis viewpoint”.
That was then the position of the party now in opposition, and I am hoping that it has the same range of concerns about our football finances now as it did back then, because it was quite clear that that was the primary motive for the legislation, and it is the primary motive for the legislation today. It is about its financial sustainability.
If a product or a good cannot be produced in a way that is sustainable, it will not be, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, made a great song and dance about, successful. That is why my noble friend Lady Taylor and I have tabled our amendments in the first group—to focus on making sure that the Bill and the regulator that the Government are seeking to create promote the sustainability and success of our beautiful game. That is why we are here today; that is what we are arguing about and what we are so passionate about. It is for that very reason that we tabled our Amendment 10 to Clause 1.
I hope that the party opposite is not going to suffer from this collective amnesia for too long, but that it will get behind the Bill, get behind the purpose and objectives set out very clearly in that first clause—a clause that, in government, it amply supported and gave voice to. We need to get behind the Bill and make sure that it is sustainable for the future.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest in the Register of Lords’ Interests, as the elected chair of a football supporters’ group with 13,000 members. On Sunday, the weather advice was that nobody should travel in south Wales. I and 3,000 others did travel in south Wales. On Sunday afternoon, we travelled, not of our choice but because football fixtures are being changed to all sorts of obscure times. We went, and returned very late, very happily. That will not be the case at all fixtures if I wish to attend this House. In the new year, we have three fixtures that have been shifted to 8 pm on a Monday, and that does not quite balance with the sitting times of the House. I am just one fan, but there are many thousands who face that.
Imagine trying to get to Plymouth by 12.30 pm on a Sunday. That is what we had to do. It is not an easy way of life, and it is not just the bishops who are losing custom by this odd scheduling. It affects people’s ability. If there were to be an added word in here, it should be “enjoyment”—enjoyment of the game. Yesterday, one club, Manchester United, announced its new prices for this season. For a child, the minimum price is £66. That was my first away fixture, supporting Leeds United, aged five. I was lifted over the barriers—in for free—as I was at Leeds until the age of eight or nine, because that was how children were welcomed then. I did not pay to go in for the very many hundreds of matches I went to in that age span, and now it is £66. Well, it is a business.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who has good football taste, was none the less slightly awry with the example he gave in terms of liquidation, insolvency and the problems. If we take where I live—I will take Lincoln City and Notts County at random—both were about to disappear. The only reason they survived is that the supporters saved them. That is the difference between this industry and other industries. There are countless examples. If they were private sector businesses, they would have vanished.
In some cases, the fans could not do it. In 1987, as a Leeds United fan living in London with a few friends, I got a season ticket for a club called Wimbledon. It was a good choice; we got to the cup final with Wimbledon. I had a young daughter and I could not get to Leeds all the time, so a group of us went to Wimbledon in our spare time. If you are a fan of Wimbledon and your club wins the cup after coming from nowhere, you see what that does for the area and the fans, and people in south London. Then, a few years later, your club is extinguished, gone, shifted to Milton Keynes—vanished. The fans had the wherewithal to set it up again as AFC Wimbledon, and build from the bottom up, which is what they are having to do at Bury.
I almost thought that one or two noble Lords were suggesting that the state should not intervene in successful business, and I will end on this point. If we combine Scottish and English football, the most successful moment in terms of success on the pitch was around 1971. England had won the World Cup; Manchester United were the first English team to win the European Cup. Celtic had won the European Cup in 1967; Rangers were about to win the European Cup Winners’ Cup. We had the Cup Winners’ cup and the Fairs cup, and a whole succession of English teams about to take on the European Cup through the 1970s and dominate world football. It was the one moment when both Scottish and English football were at their height.
On the 2 January 1971, at a high moment, 66 people died at Ibrox football stadium. The state did very little intervening then. Then there was the fire at Bradford— I knew people who were there—when the state had not intervened sufficiently in the industry, and people died. Then there was Hillsborough, where people died. The state has intervened in the sport and the interventions, when they have been hard and focused, have been transformative. It was not the owners of the clubs who brought in the model of football with all-seater stadiums, revenue generation and corporate hospitality. I shall tell you the first club that did it. It was Glasgow Rangers. After 1971, their manager, Willie Waddell, went to see how others across the world did it. They rebuilt the stadium before anyone else did because of his experience of seeing people dying in front of him—that is state intervention.
In the balance between the fans, the state, the entrepreneurship and people’s ability to put in money—if anyone wants to put money into our club, we would be delighted because we are not trying to stop that—we want to see a slight tilt so that the fans are listened to. If we end up shifted to the bottom like the fans of Bury—I do not think we will, but you never know—the state should allow us to do something that they were not able to do; that is, for more to be done along the lines of what was done by the genius of those Wimbledon fans. It took them years to get back up. Wimbledon Football Club, having beaten Liverpool in the cup final in 1988, should have been able to survive seamlessly with their fans. That is the point of this regulation, and it is why I hope the Opposition Front Bench will be reluctant to further push this line of argument.
There are interesting issues that should be explored in getting that balance right. It will be legitimate to go into them and hold the Government to account, to question and even amend. Sustainability means that I, as a fan, will have my club in the future, whether it is badly or well run. That is what is critical about this legislation, and I commend the Government for bringing it forward.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I refer the Committee to my interests, which are declared in the register. I want to give the noble Lord, Lord Mann, a bit of comfort in that had he been going to a Premier League away game, he would have paid only £30, because there has been a cap on the price of away tickets for the past five years.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I am told that EFL clubs are likely to lose around £450 million in this current football season, and I think the noble Baroness said something similar. The regulator in this Bill, which is focused primarily on financial sustainability, is surely a good thing for football regulation because it is trying to make sure that those clubs—yes, involved in the business of risk and jeopardy—are financially sustainable and have a duty to their communities, and that their activities do not risk the future of those clubs. The point of the legislation, from the previous Government and our Government, is to make sure those clubs can be sustained and not have undue financial risk.
Baroness Brady (Con)
I thank the noble Lord; he made his point very well. The Bill does not say “financial sustainability”. Sustainability is not defined. If you put sustainability above overall success, growth and the competitive nature of the game, you might have a safer league, but you will have one that no one wants to watch. You might, notionally, have a more sustainable ecosystem, but it will also be smaller, more boring and poorer. If sustainability is the number one aim of the regulator, can the Minister explain to us what she and the Government consider to be the definition of the “sustainability” of English football? Can she also explain why sustainability does not include supporting the sustainability of the success and growth of the Premier League?
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I intervene briefly as an impartial Cross-Bencher. In the interest of productivity, I am aware that we are still on the amendment to:
“Clause 1, page 1, line 4”—
although many of us are still discussing line 1. I will suggest a compromise. The word “sustainability” on its own is too undefined; I suggest that it should be “financial sustainability and success”—thereby combining Amendments 1, 2 and 3.
However, I do not agree with Amendment 4. On growth, I would go back to the banking sector. I know that football is a very different industry, but banking and the financial services in the noughties had the most phenomenal growth rates and we are still all picking up the tab as taxpayers. That was not financially sustainable. So my suggestion is that the words should be “financial sustainable” and “success”—those two together.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4, because words matter. We have been debating the words “sustainable” and “sustainability”, but I will mention the word “unpredictable”—as was my team this weekend in trouncing Manchester City 4-0 away; a completely unpredictable result by all accounts. That is exactly what the Bill is trying to work against—if somewhat inadvertently.
Having spoken to many organisations in the professional game, I get a sense that the Bill is trying to establish a vision for the game that it does not need to. That vision needs to be left in the hands of this successful industry. That is why there is a general feeling that, when we are focusing on whether it is sustainable or on how much we are listening to fans, we are stepping in to an arena that we do not actually want to control and should leave to the people who have been so successful so far.
Many views have been expressed—including, with respect, those of the noble Lord, Lord Mann—on football’s past, but we should be cautious of looking back through rose-tinted spectacles at the history of our game. Yes, it is celebrated by fans, but the future is about innovation, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said. Whatever we say, the game will evolve—because of pressures from fans and commercial pressures. The European Super League did not succeed, but have we seen what UEFA has done with the Champions League? It has evolved again, with more games and more clubs. I am not sure that I completely understand the process it works in at the moment, but it has created a whole new league. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said, maybe the Church is losing some of its customers, but these leagues and clubs are gaining customers, eyeballs and commercial contracts that are only getting bigger. So something is succeeding and it will continue to succeed and drive the evolution of our game.
I say in conclusion that, as we go through the Bill and look at the regulator, can we say that the regulator does not drive the vision of football—leave that to the successful industry—but steps in if there is going to be significant failure? That is what a good regulator should do.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for withdrawing from the Second Reading debate at short notice because of an urgent personal matter, and also draw the attention of the Committee to my declaration. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mann, I have occasionally not paid for football tickets as a guest of the EFL and the Premier League, mainly in my former role as shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary.
It is right that we focus on definitions, and I should like to point out a couple of the amendments in this basket. We are saying that we want to protect the sustainability of football and are effectively or explicitly saying that football is so unsustainable that the state wants to intervene in a market to such an extent that we are going to create a new regulator—another regulator. I have been in politics for about 40 years and I have been in many debates where people often talk about the failure of regulators and regulation. If there is one lesson that I have learned from that, it is that the politics of regulation are this: you can always delegate power but you can never delegate responsibility.
What we are saying to 1.5 billion people on the planet is that we are so concerned that your weekly viewing of English football is so unsustainable that politicians, the ones who moved Clause 1 last year and the ones who are moving Clause 1 this year, are taking responsibility for your hopes, desires, heartache and disappointment every week when you watch English football. Well, in the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby, that is about the bravest and most courageous decision I have ever seen taken in either House of Parliament. Good luck with that.
My second point is this: I have been in another bit of the territory, trying to get the Secretary of State to define what she means by “football fan”. Whatever you think a football fan is, an English football fan—the ones I am thinking about today watch a lot of football, including the World Cup and European Championship —wants everyone in this House to guarantee that our national team will be able to play in every international competition.
The noble Lord, Lord Maude, has spoken to Amendment 6, which he has told the Minister is very helpful to the Government. On this occasion, I agree with him. This is explicitly saying to English football fans, “We will not allow our regulator to allow the rules of UEFA or FIFA to be breached such that there is a threat to England playing in future competitions”. We are not going to resolve this discussion today, but I guarantee that by the end of the passage of this Bill, this Parliament will have to say to 1.5 billion English football fans that we will guarantee that England can play in an international competition. I should be grateful if, in his summation, the Minister could reassure at least this English football fan that that will be the case at the end of this Bill.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 4, to which I have added my name. I must admit that I am slightly surprised that it seems controversial to want to make it clear in the legislation that the purpose of the Bill in setting up the new regulator is to ensure the continued success and growth of English football. That is exactly what the regulator, or part of the idea behind the regulator, is supposed to do. To achieve sustainability and resilience in the game, the regulator will need to preserve and encourage the conditions for growth and continued success. So, I do not quite understand the issues around having those objectives added to the Bill. As we have already heard, there is huge success that can be built on.
Lord Markham (Con)
I must admit that I am similarly scratching my head over how the debate seems to have gone into whether it needs to be one or the other—whether there is somehow a trade-off between sustainability and success. I am just surprised that success is not something that we would all want. I do not just mean success in terms of England playing in all the tournaments, which I hope we would all agree we want, and I do not just mean success in terms of taking on responsibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, says, for how well the teams do. We are talking about the success of the game in terms of the financial wherewithal.
I am a big believer that in life you want to maximise the size of the cake before you argue how you divide it. How do you maximise the size of the cake? Certain measures are vital to that. TV viewership is key—not just because of how much people enjoy watching the game, but that is what the media rights companies pay for. That is what is paying for the game, so why would we not want that as one of the criteria? I think the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, was absolutely correct. Why is there not room for both? Why, all of a sudden, as the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, said, has growth become something we do not want here? Surely we all want growth; the Government are saying, quite rightly, that they are all about growth. I could not agree more, so why would not we want a measure of success here in the objectives of the football regulator to have growth?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
I hear what the noble Lord is saying, and as I have been chairing the Industry and Regulators Committee, I have heard a lot about growth. What worries me is that in one moment he and his colleagues are complaining that the regulator is going to be interfering too much, but in the next, we are hearing that the regulator should do more—it should be responsible for growth, for getting more fans and for getting more viewers. Is it more or is it less?
Lord Markham (Con)
I am very glad the noble Baroness mentioned that. When you set the objectives of any organisation, you want to set out the balancing factors. If it is only sustainability, you can get into the lowest common denominator, because a regulator would have absolutely done its job, by the nature of what is set down, just by the survival of all the clubs. There is a very easy way to do that: just dole out all the Premier League money to all the clubs straight away. That would make them all sustainable, giving the money to all the clubs. I think we would all agree that that would be a pretty nonsensical way to do it, but that would achieve the objective. If you set only a single objective, it is very one-dimensional.
Why would you not want a regulator to take into account that the overall financial health of the game is dependent on the TV viewership? That is what drives the money. What drives the TV viewership? It is how competitive the games are—not just the top games but all the games through the league? As I mentioned at Second Reading, and as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, mentioned, we are people who have sold and bought media rights around the world. The reason why countries as far flung as Nigeria, Thailand and everywhere else will pay so much for the rights is that every game is competitive. There is a chance that Bournemouth will go out and beat Liverpool, so everyone cares about it. The Premier League does not have a God-given right to be successful. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, many years ago, the Italian league was more successful. The difference today is that you do not have just two or three top teams, as you see in Germany, Spain and Italy. You have a whole host of teams which are all competitive in the league, so every game becomes interesting to watch.
My concern in all of this is if the only criterion set down is that of sustainability, it is so one-dimensional that the regulator could just decide to discharge its duties in that way. I hope it will not, but when it comes back to the scrutiny that we are all saying it should have, the regulator could sit here among us all and say, “Look, I have made all these clubs sustainable. Okay, too bad that the TV viewership has gone down and too bad that a load of the games are no longer competitive, so the TV rights money has gone down, but they are all sustainable, because I doled out all the money”. I do not think that is what any of us would want. I really do not understand why this should be. This is not a political point; I really do not understand the objective at all. I am literally scratching my head as to why there should be a problem with that.
That is why in our later amendments we try to put in other criteria of success. Those are designed to be the ones that are all about maximising the size of the financial pie, by making sure that TV viewership and attendance are high. People forget in all of this—
Lord Mann (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Would he like to comment on the Premier League vote of last week? Some clubs, led by Manchester City, wanted to grow the amount of money coming into football by allowing different forms of sponsorship, which were designed purely and precisely to put more money into certain clubs—for example, Manchester City, which is obviously why it is in favour. That would obviously be growing the amount of money going into the game, as the noble Lord said. Is that an issue that the regulator should be deciding or, on his argument, that the clubs should be deciding?
Lord Markham (Con)
I definitely do not want the regulator to be involved in every nook and cranny, but when the regulator is sitting here in front of us and we are assessing whether or not it has done a good job, to me, the only criterion is not whether all the clubs are still out there in existence. That is a pretty limiting move. Why would we want to narrow ourselves down to that measure? I do not understand why any noble Lord would not want an objective to be that TV viewership goes up or that media sports rights money goes up. I will sit down to give noble Lords a chance.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, asks: would we want a matter such as that to be decided by the regulator or the clubs? Well, the clubs made the right decision. The decision was: “We want the Premier League to remain very competitive to prevent those who have access to, in effect, unlimited funds being able to stack the odds in their favour”. The clubs made a decision that this would not become a less competitive league than it currently is.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his point. I would totally include in that measure of success, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, says, enjoyment. That is absolutely part of it, because it is the enjoyment which means that people will pay a lot of money for their TV subscriptions, but it is all about the financial health of the game.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, I know that in terms of Clause 10 and the funds for six months, the amendment is well intentioned and sounds quite reasonable. However, I have been speaking to a different Premier League chair—I am sure that we have all been speaking to club chairmen—and from one of those clubs that is very respectable. They are afraid of having to lock a lot of money into escrow for their sustainability. They said that all that this will stop them doing is investing in their team and their players. They look at their club as a balance sheet, with assets and liabilities. If the worst came to worst, they would look to sell one of their players, because they are assets. That is what businesses do; it is what clubs do. You do not need to say, “You’ve got to lock six months’ worth of money in there, £30 million, so you can’t afford a striker”. It is, “If you want to buy that striker, take the risk,” as my noble friend would say.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
Would the noble Lord agree that many other businesses have constraints on the kind of reserves that they have to have and that charities certainly have constraints on the reserves that they have to have? One of the difficulties, when many clubs go under or are on the verge of going under, is that there is a category of football creditors who have special access to any money that might be there, so lots of local businesses, as well as many fans, get really hit if things go wrong. Even discussing this seems to be alien to him. I am not saying that the wording of that amendment is perfect, but it is an area that is worthy of consideration if we are going to improve the future of clubs throughout the pyramid going forward.
Lord Markham (Con)
The point that I was trying to make is that I absolutely agree that the noble Baroness’s amendment is well intended in terms of sustainability. I am worried that, as we all get back to the mission creep point and try to resolve all these things, we get into the law of unintended consequences. I know from speaking to a club chairman that if you put that money aside in that way, all you will do is deter their ability to invest in players. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, if we want to make ourselves unpopular in all this, it is by starting to do things that stop clubs buying players and investing. We think that VAR is unpopular today. Suddenly, you make all the clubs put £30 million to £40 million in escrow and they cannot buy those players. That would be a very brave decision for a Minister.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Following up on my noble friend’s point, looking at the finances of some clubs, you do wonder. Would the noble Lord, who has been in business himself, tolerate a situation where he only had five hours’ worth of reserves? Nottingham Forest last year spent something like £58 million on wages but had just £25,000 in cash reserves. I know that this is not uncommon across the world of football, but is that a highly desirable state of affairs? Is that not something that we should focus on? Is it not why we want good financial sustainable regulation? That is why we have got to this point where both sides of the Chamber have accepted the need to have a football regulator.
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord may be looking down the wrong end of the telescope. It is not that they have got only £25,000 in cash. You have to look at the whole balance sheet. The fact that they have a load of players who are worth a lot of money, who they could sell, means that they are fine financially. There are loads of companies out there today in positions of net debt. Most FTSE 100 companies have debt as a vital part of their balance sheet. You would be saying to them, “Oh, you haven’t got much money in your account, you’re in a net debt position”, when the value, when you look at all the assets too, means that it is in the FTSE 100 and is a very successful company. That is an example of why the whole area of us as politicians trying to get involved in setting criteria worries me. We will put things forward that are well intended but have unintended consequences. We will come on to this in later debates on the Bill.
I will finish. I hope that noble Lords understand that the reason why we have gone over time is that we have had a good discussion. It has been helpful in terms of the questions that have been asked. I would be pleased if the Minister could say why we would not want those measures of success as part of the criteria.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
The simplistic argument is, “Well, I can just sell a player”. Actually, you cannot just sell a player. We have a one-month window in January and the end of the season. If it is mid-October and that happens, you cannot sell a player. What do you do then? That is the point. You cannot run a football club on a shoestring because it makes them competitive. That is not the name of the game. The noble Lord’s argument seems to be that if we give them all the money, they will not try their hardest anymore. That is fanciful; it is not true. Football clubs need to be sustainable. They need to be able to pay their way. I could not buy a car if I could not afford the deposit. I could not buy a Rolls-Royce tomorrow saying, “I’ll give you the deposit, but I don’t have it with me today, so give me the car and, when I do quite well, I’ll give you the money”. That is not how life works. Football is a business like every other business. The noble Lord seems to want it to run in a way that is foreign to every principle of business.
Lord Markham (Con)
Speaking as a former chief financial officer of a FTSE 250 company, I would say that, in those examples, if you found yourself in a situation where you could not sell a player until the next window, that would be very poor financial management by the CFO, who would probably get sacked pretty darn quick if they led their cash flow into those sorts of situations. In extremis, if you needed to do that, the bank would lend the money against that because there are assets on the balance sheet that they can borrow against. Every FTSE 100 company is set up in that way. They meet their cash requirements by looking at their assets and raising debt where they need to against them.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord has sat down. I just want to make a few comments on some of the points that have emerged in a very interesting debate. The noble Lords, Lord Hayward and Lord Maude, talk about success—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
Is it an intervention?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House for the noble Lord, Lord Markham, to make it clear now whether he has not completed his remarks, in which case it would be appropriate for the noble Lord to wait a moment, or if he has sat down.
Lord Markham (Con)
We have had a good debate. When the Minister replies, can she explain why it is not felt appropriate to have these measures of success to get the overall financial wealth of the game? I will now sit down.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I thought that the noble Lord had indicated that he had finished. On success, which the two noble Lords that I mentioned talked about, the whole question seems to me to be totally subjective. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, said, what is success for one club is not success for another. I suggest that for at least half the clubs in the Premier League, success is not being relegated rather than winning anything.
Baroness Brady (Con)
Just to clarify, I said that what sustainability is for one club is different from what it is for another, not success.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
That is interesting. Someone in the debate said that we should have financial sustainability and success. I think that in this setting the two, if not interchangeable, mean very similar things.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and others, talked about the competitiveness and the jeopardy. As you can hear, although I am an AFC Wimbledon season ticket holder, I do not come from south London. When I lived in Scotland, my club was Dundee United. They were Scottish champions in 1983. Next season, Aberdeen were Scottish champions. There has been no team but Rangers or Celtic as Scottish champions in the 40 years since. That is a low bar, perhaps, but in fact only two clubs have won the Premier League more than twice in the 32 years of its existence. It is all very well to talk, as the noble Lord, Lord Markham, did, about Bournemouth beating Manchester City. Yes, it is always possible, but a club such as Bournemouth could never aspire to winning the Premier League. Only a very small number of clubs could realistically—
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I am going to come on to that in a minute. Only two clubs have won the Championship more than twice. Three clubs have won it once. If you ask people how many times Liverpool has won the Premier League they will probably say four or five. No, it has won it once, the same as Leicester City and Blackburn Rovers. Of course there is jeopardy; many clubs can be very competitive within a game, but winning the league is something different.
I know that noble Lords have talked about selling television rights and said that it is a very attractive league across the world, and I accept that. However, we have to tone it down a bit on the competitiveness of the Premier League, because there are not really all that many clubs that can aspire to become its champions. That is not to disparage it, but it is just a fact of the past 32 years.
Lord Hayward (Con)
Will the noble Lord accept that since 2000 the four major leagues in Europe—Spain, Italy, Germany and England—have effectively produced the same number of different champions in each case, either six or seven?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
Yes, I can accept those figures. I accept the noble Lord’s general premise, although I am not sure about Spain. I do not think that more than two clubs have won La Liga; actually, the two Madrid clubs and Barcelona have won it.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, talked about comparing England with France and Germany. I am not sure that is a fair comparison because in Germany the clubs are fan- owned. No club can have more than 49% ownership—51% is owned by the members of those clubs. There is not a direct comparison there. Yet Germany has been disproportionately successful in European competitions over that same period.
I want to move on to something else that my noble friend Lord Mann talked about— the opposition of many on the Opposition Benches. Unless I misinterpreted my namesake, my noble friend Lord Watson seemed to say that he was not in favour of the regulator having the powers that the Bill suggests. On the question of the role of the state, I thought that my noble friend Lord Mann was going to say that the Taylor report, which followed the terrible events of Hillsborough, was driven by the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Quite right—I do not think anybody would object to that. There are cases where state intervention is appropriate and the only answer. If it had just been decided that we would hope all clubs produced all-seater stadiums for safety reasons, we would still be waiting for some of them.
That is one of the issues that we will probably come to later. The other one is the question of who is a fan. It is not for today, but it is very important to define what a fan is. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, talked about Peterborough and how Posh fans are spread right across the fen-lands and beyond. If you are defining a fan, it really has to be a season ticket holder, because otherwise you cannot pin them down. Manchester United and all the big clubs have fans across the world. You could not possibly consult them. I am sensitive that noble Lords will not necessarily agree with that. What about somebody who cannot afford a season ticket or who is not physically able to go to a match? I accept that, so we have to try to pin that down, and it will be one of the most difficult aspects of the Bill, because if we are going to take the views of fans into account, we have to have a means of corralling them and then taking those opinions. At this stage, I do not see how we can do that beyond season tickets.
My noble friend Lady Taylor talked about the sustainability and the success of English football, not just the Premier League but right down the system. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, talked of Stockport County. They sunk right down to level 6 in the National League North after going through some very traumatic periods, but have been able to come back up to level 3. My noble friend Lord Mann talked about AFC Wimbledon; in nine years they came from, basically, parks football to being back in in the Football League. It is natural that we tend to concentrate on the Premier League, but there has to be some understanding that the clubs below them are important. I am being opportunistic, but the Labour Government have talked about fixing the foundations. In any sense, when you look to go forward, you must have strong foundations. The foundations of English football are right down at the grass roots. I am not talking about the amateur level.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
The noble Lord references Amendment 10 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton. Will that amendment not potentially embed in primary legislation an economic concept of moral hazard? It is an economic term: a situation where a party has an incentive to take risks because it does not have to bear the full costs of those risks. That is going to be on the face of the Bill for the new regime, and will be directed by the new regulator. Is that not the case?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
We will have to see how that comes out in debate. I am not quite sure what the import of that amendment is. That is one of the issues about the role of the regulator. Noble Lords, particularly on the other side of the Chamber, are seeking to give him or her greater powers or influence than intended in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said at one point that we do not need a regulator because nothing is wrong. There is something wrong, because the Premier League and the English Football League have been unable to reach agreement on the disbursement of the funds from the top level to levels below. That is one of the problems in the system at the moment.
Baroness Brady (Con)
There is a deal in place agreed by all parties on how funds are distributed; 16% or £1.6 billion is distributed. It is also important to note that the Premier League has more title winners in the last 15 seasons than La Liga, the Bundesliga and Serie A, and the fewest number of titles won by one club than any other top European league over the same period, which shows it is competitive. That is why it is the best league in the world and the most valuable, and that is what we have to protect, because without that broadcast revenue the whole pyramid suffers.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I know the noble Baroness has experience with one of the major Premier League clubs but, in a sense, she has made my argument for me. The other leagues are less competitive, but I am just saying that if only four clubs can win the championship twice in 32 years, it is not spread very wide, and I would like to see it spread more widely, as many other people would—no doubt including those at her own club.
Lord Markham (Con)
I think the noble Lord misunderstands what I meant by competitive. It is not just which teams can win the Premier League overall and, as the noble Baroness showed, more teams can win here than anywhere else. It is the competitiveness of every single game, because the value is that you have so many games that people all around the world want to pay to watch, so they are interested in watching all the games. Brentford might not win the league, but they know they are going to be competitive against Man City and Liverpool and Arsenal, and they are the games that people want to watch. When we talk about competitiveness, it means that every single game is competitive and that is what the viewership wants to see, and drives the value up of the rights.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
That point was made earlier. I would not say every game is competitive, but I take the noble Lord’s point. I do not want to say any more at this stage because it is important that we get some clarity on how we go forward after this initial debate, because there are many important sections of the Bill that we need to look at in detail. The regulator will have a role, and we have to use this to make sure that it is absolutely clear. Some of the issues raised by noble Lords are legitimate, and until we can have our debates on each of these, we cannot quite see what shape this Bill and the role of the regulator will have. I thank noble Lords for the points made, and I think there are a lot of issues that we will follow up.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, if we do not get up to Amendment 36, we have a big job ahead of us, so I am going to be very brief.
Take the BBC. The director-general, the chair and the board really try to work hard to meet its objectives. It is there to entertain, to inform, to educate—and those objectives live in the same organisation. I do not know why, in the same way, the regulator cannot see its job as one of sustainability and success as well as growth.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when trying to sum up these several hours of debate, I felt at times that we were dancing on the head of a pin. Sustainability —what actually does it mean? What do the Government think it means? That is the one question I would give to the Minister. Does it mean sustaining a successful Premier League? Well, I would hope so. Is sustainability making sure—remember, this Bill encapsulates it—that those five tiers of professional football are functioning? That is what is in this Bill—five tiers of professional football. That is what has allowed the resurrection of teams which got it wrong—there was somewhere to go.
Making sure that that is sustainable means that the fans want something. I hope I never cross the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on this subject because there was a great deal of fire in the belly there; my noble friend Lord Goddard might have got close at times, but I think we will give the noble Lord that one on points. The fans want something and are hugely emotionally and physically invested in this structure. That is what is behind the Bill. Football is not another business; it is not even another sports business. It is not—and may all that is holy be thanked—WWE. It is not something that we will throw away; it is embedded in the identity of much of our society. I say that as a rugby player. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, is my friend—I will say yes to him and “sir” when he is refereeing, but only then.
So it is that that comes through. The question here is about the word “sustainability”. What do the Government envisage it is? Let us get it out here now. Where will this be backed up? Where will it be shown so that we can know what is going on? Pepper v Hart is clearly not enough here. If we can get that, we can move on, but we must remember that we do not want the Premier League to be damaged, because it provides the money for the other good things to happen. That is the balance we must achieve—or at least get close to.
We cannot guarantee that it will be the best league in the world for ever. Will there be government intervention to make sure that it is successful? That would be a strange position for many noble Lords who have spoken.
Baroness Brady (Con)
The point is that the government regulator should not make it less successful by over- regulating, mission creep and making it so difficult to keep it competitive that it ends up having a detrimental effect.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, we come back to semantics, definition and interpretation. How do you interpret success? Is it by lack of regulation or by intervention? I do not think FIFA and UEFA would be terribly happy if it was felt that it was possible for a regulator to interpret success.
I hope that the Minister, who will have better access to this information than anybody else here—at least, I really hope she will—will be able to say what sustainability is, where does it go and what is the Government’s vision? That is what has happened here.
The Bill is about keeping five tiers of professional football functioning, with an escape route when it goes wrong, if we want to be terribly mercenary, for the top clubs. It gives a chance to rebuild and come back. That is difficult—Leeds have done it briefly; the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is smiling at me—but that is what is behind the Bill. It is not just about the Premier League, it is about the whole thing. I hope that the Minister will be able to correct—or rather, clarify—these points.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this has been a long but I think helpful debate, particularly towards the end when the more conversational changes that Committee allows exposed some fundamental differences, if not in party politics then in political philosophy and outlook. It is very valuable that we start our scrutiny of the Bill by reminding ourselves of the differing views and hopes of not just your Lordships in Committee but the many fans whose hopes ride on the job that the regulator is being asked to do and the way in which it is being asked to do it. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that it felt at times like matters of semantics, but it is important to make sure that the words in the Bill are carefully chosen and that the Government’s intentions behind each of those words are properly probed. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about the Government’s intentions for the regulator and the way it will and will not carry out its duties.
I do not want to dwell too long on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton; I do not want to be accused of playing for time, as they do in football. However, I want to reassure her of the spirit in which those of us on these Benches are scrutinising this important Bill. As she said, and as my noble friend Lord Moynihan and others said, the Bill has enjoyed cross-party gestation and support. I made that very clear in my comments at Second Reading. It arises from the fan-led review led by the former Conservative MP, Dame Tracey Crouch, which was introduced to another place in the last Parliament. It has been changed by the new Government, as is their right, and we want to make sure that when it gets to the statute book it does so in the right shape and form. My noble friend Lord Moynihan noted that there are 340 amendments already tabled, and more than 100 of them are in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I think it is a strength of this House that we will look at each amendment and give it the airing it needs, and that we scrutinise the Bill and read the Bill documents as carefully as my noble friend Lord Hayward has done. I know that your Lordships will not demur from that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, set out clearly and powerfully the case for her Amendment 10, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, particularly in the exchanges with my noble friend Lord Markham. I hope that that helped bring some clarity, both to the argument the noble Baroness was advancing and counterarguments from across the House. The exchange on her amendment chimed with our concern that “sustainability” is too imprecise or insufficient a term to stand on its own. She gave a practical and useful example of the way in which the Bill might expand on how we guarantee the sustainability of football and football clubs. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was seeking a cure for amnesia, understandably. I never had the pleasure of being the Bill Minister for this Bill, but he will remember from our many exchanges when I sat on the other side of the House that I was looking forward to the Bill coming to your Lordships’ House. He will also remember that, as a Minister, I had the pleasure of taking a number of Bills through and faced keen scrutiny from him and other Members on the Opposition Front Bench, carrying out, as was their right, the Opposition’s duty to scrutinise government legislation. I hope that he remembers, as he does not suffer from amnesia, that I was always open to ways of improving Bills, including those I took through as a Minister. If he thinks I am being too careful or conscientious in my scrutiny, it is only because I learned from the best.
This is important because, as my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham said, the Bill brings about an unprecedented intrusion by the state into a sport and an industry that is a resounding success story. My noble friend extolled the benefits of inertia, and I agree. We want the regulator to be carefully constrained, but we want it to be respected and able to fulfil its duties with authority. That is why it is important that we make sure it is not backward looking, nor that it seeks simply to preserve football as it is today in aspic, but can demonstrate to football clubs and to fans around the world that it shares their aspirations for the future of the game.
My noble friend also struck an almost Schumpeterian note by reminding us that sustainability, particularly in this complex ecology of the football pyramid, has sometimes been delivered through new clubs, new tournaments and new successes emerging from the ashes of previous failures, so sustainability can be delivered in ways that may feel turbulent as we go through them. I thought that was a useful point. We want to ensure that we avoid the unwitting or avoidable failures, such as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, so powerfully set out in the example he gave, and to make sure that the clubs that matter so much to their communities are protected—they are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, like just any other business; they have a social purpose, which we have already well considered—but it is the nature of sport that there are winners and losers. We also have to bear that in mind as we look at the regulator and the way it will carry out its work.
We could probably save ourselves a lot of time if we heeded my noble friend Lord Hayward’s referee’s whistle and just accepted his rulings on everything. I am glad that he had gone through the impact assessment so carefully. I agree that there should be more references to success than to Bury, for instance, in the impact assessment and some of the accompanying documents.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, was right to warn about the inadvertent danger of sending the message that a sport loved by 1.5 billion people around the world is not sustainable without a new law, a new regulator or the intervention of politicians. My noble friend Lady Brady pointed out in both her speech and her interventions that sustainability can mean different things to different people and that, as something with no end state, it is very difficult to define. I think that is why we have given it so much attention in our debate on this first group.
The noble Lord, Lord Birt, was very helpful in saying that sustainability is a necessary but not sufficient term. My amendment would strike out the words, not because I disagree with them but because I do not think they are enough. The way he put it was right: the regulator must not stop football developing.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, made a powerful case for adding the word enjoyment. I enjoyed not only the way he did it but also his powerful reminder of the necessity of government and state intervention in the past in football, particularly in relation to the disasters and terrible incidents that he rightly reminded us of, which we want to avoid happening again.
I was struck by the compromise from the Cross Benches from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, and his suggestion of “financial sustainability and success”. I wonder whether the Minister will set out her thoughts on that, as well as on the point that my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park made about growth. This is something, after all, that chimes with the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the work of the Government more broadly. We want to ensure that the regulator is a growth-focused one that helps the growth not just of the game but of our economy.
This has been a long debate, but in debates on the Online Safety Act, which I had the pleasure of taking through your Lordships’ House, we spent a lot of time talking about having a declaration of purpose at the beginning of the Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, pressed me hard on it from the Opposition Benches. I remind your Lordships that we made that change and put it in the Bill because I thought it was important for the regulator to be given a clear message from Parliament and in legislation about what its role should be and how it should do it. I was glad to make that change.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, reminded us in his analogy with the BBC of the Reithian principles, which we also inserted into the Media Act—again a Bill that I took through. I was happy to amend it to make sure that that Act also reflected important statements of intent and ways of working. So I make no apology for having invited the Committee to spend some time thinking carefully, as we embark on our scrutiny of the Bill, about the role of the regulator and the message that we send through the Act of Parliament that we pass about the way it should do it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for raising the amendments in this group. This discussion has arguably gone into extra time, although I am assured that we have not got to the point of a penalty shoot-out—although that might be one way to arrive at a conclusion, given that I no longer intend to take up the refereeing option from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, having heard very clearly what he said.
It is clear that the enthusiasm for talking about football demonstrated at Second Reading remains strong. I am not surprised, however, given the time we have spent on this group, that my noble friend Lord Watson of Wyre Forest appears to have contributed on the next group. I will respond to his points then.
Before I get into the substance of the amendments we have discussed this afternoon, I want to make a general point that was made succinctly by my noble friend Lord Bassam: it is clear that the party opposite has very unfortunately caught an element of collective amnesia. It appears to have forgotten that it was a Conservative Party that was in government and brought forward a very similar Bill just a few months ago—a point made elegantly by my noble friend Lady Taylor. All serious parties—I include the Conservatives in that—had a commitment to introducing an independent football regulator as part of their manifesto.
Notwithstanding the length of the debate, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, made an interesting point about growth that has not been substantially covered by the notes I have. I would welcome further discussion on this point with her and am happy to meet to discuss it further.
Taking each amendment in turn, unfortunately, I have to disagree with the principle of Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and of Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham. The fan-led review, led by Dame Tracey Crouch, laid bare the facts of English football today. The review is the justification for the Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, asked for, and the basis of the Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, asked for when he asked what problem we were trying to address. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for highlighting Dame Tracey Crouch’s point that the game is both a success and fragile at the same time—a point reflected, in my view, in the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Ranger.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Lord Mann, gave other examples of where the state has intervened in football. Although, as a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, it is undoubtedly hugely successful in many ways and has grown substantially since the formation of the Premier League in 1992, and our football is a global export that we should be proud of, the game’s financial model is broken. Too many clubs are in financial distress, fans are not being listened to, and just a few years ago top clubs attempted to break away from the Premier League to join a European super league. That move undermined the very principles of football in this country. The Bill is designed to combat these issues, identified by the previous Government.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for Amendment 3 and for his contribution to this debate, not least for highlighting the cross-party support for an independent football regulator. In response to his point on hybridity, I think we will come on to this in a later group, but this is a matter for the examiners, not the Government. I am happy to discuss this and others points in the debate on the relevant group, which I believe is the eighth group. We will potentially come to that at some point in the near future.
Unfortunately, the Government do not agree with the intent of Amendment 3 to narrow the purpose of the entire Bill specifically to financial sustainability. The purpose of the Bill is sustainability, as already defined in Clause 1. I highlight to noble Lords that they will find the Government’s definition if they turn from page 1 to page 2 of the Bill. I hope this answers the query from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about the Government’s intent in this regard. It is about a continuation of service—to continue to serve the interests of fans and contribute to the well-being of the local communities that regulated clubs serve.
I listened with interest to the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and all noble Lords will recognise her passion and expertise. I welcomed the passionate description from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, of what the Bill is about. It is about those fans and the communities. Of course, financial sustainability is an important part of this. If a club suffers financial collapse, it cannot continue to serve its fans and community. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that this is exactly the same as any other financial club, a point echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
However, there is more to it than this. If a club’s balance sheet remains healthy but it ups sticks, moves 60 miles away and changes its name, badge and shirt colours, that is not a continuation of service either. Clause 6 sets out the regulator’s objectives, breaking down the overarching purpose of the Bill into its component parts. That is where noble Lords will see the club financial soundness and systemic financial resilience objectives, alongside the heritage objectives. That is the right place for them, and we believe this structure appropriately conveys the regulator’s aims and priorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, asked whether all clubs in a league would have to adhere to the same rules. The regulator will be proportionate and adaptive in its approach, rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach that requires all clubs, regardless of their level, to adhere to the same approach.
Moving to other amendments, I thank my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton and Lord Bassam of Brighton for Amendments 10, 53 and 63, which raise interesting points about how much funding is required by individual clubs in the pyramid. On Amendment 10, the Government understand that the intent is to explicitly define sustainability in Clause 1 as the ability for a club to meet its financial commitments for at least the next six months.
This amendment would also effectively seek to alter the purpose of the Bill by adding to the definition of sustainability in relation to English football as a whole. As I have already stated, we believe that sustainability is already appropriately defined in Clause 1. I have no doubt that my noble friends’ intention was to define the financial soundness of a club as per the regulator’s objective in Clause 6. However, here we do not believe that it is necessarily appropriate to define general financial soundness in this way. We believe that there are circumstances in which the ability to meet financial commitments for six months may be an appropriate measure, but it is a blunt one and may not also and will not also be the case.
It will be for the regulator to set out exactly what it considers constitutes financial soundness. We think this is the right approach. However, the Explanatory Notes to Clause 6 clarify that:
“‘Financial soundness’ is a measure of a club’s expected ability to continue meeting its liabilities and debts in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances … This will involve an assessment of a wide range of factors and circumstances relating to a club’s long-term financial sustainability and resilience”.
I hope my noble friends are reassured as to the benefits of this approach.
The Government also recognise the good intent behind Amendment 53, which is to clarify that the regulator should be concerned with the financial resilience and sustainability of English football. I hope I can reassure my noble friend that, in our view, the desired intent is already achieved by the wording of the regulator’s objectives in Clause 6, and the purpose of the Bill in Clause 1.
Care was taken in the exact choice of the wording. “Financial resilience” feels appropriate in relation to the wider football system, as an established concept regarding the ability of the system to withstand shocks. “Financial soundness” feels more appropriate when referring to individual clubs, as an established concept regarding the financial health of organisations. “Sustainability” feels appropriate when referring to the overarching purpose of the Bill to ensure a continuation of service. To repeat “sustainability” in this objective could risk confusing these concepts and how they interact. I again point all noble Lords to the Explanatory Notes, which provide more detail on these various objectives and, I hope, provide some reassurance on the points raised.
Amendment 63 seeks to ensure that the financial position or soundness of regulated clubs is not diminished relative to other, non-regulated clubs. In line with its objectives, this regulator will be tasked with protecting and promoting the financial soundness of regulated clubs. Therefore, I hope my noble friends will agree that it is not necessary to place this additional requirement on it to not adversely affect financial soundness.
Amendments 4A, 7A and 62 are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, and Amendments 2, 209, 226 and 231 are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. In response to the surprise from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, that this is included, I understand the desire to ensure that the success of English football is protected and would like to be explicit that we believe this is achieved in the Bill already. As previously stated, the Bill is largely the same, not least in the part we have been discussing this evening so far, as that published by the previous Government, in which the noble Lord served.
As part of its secondary duties, the regulator must have regard to avoiding impacts on important outcomes in football. This extends to domestic sporting competition, the competitiveness of our clubs against international clubs, and investment into football. Actively pursuing these outcomes will remain the responsibility of the industry rather than the regulator, but the regulator will avoid unduly harming them while it strives for sustainability.
On Amendments 2, 4A and 7A specifically, if, as part of the purpose of the Bill, the regulator were required to protect the success as well as the sustainability of English football, it would not be afforded the flexibility needed to solve the clear and present issues within football currently. As someone who at Second Reading admitted to supporting Oxford United—who, sadly, lost their most recent games—I feel that success would be a hard ask of any regulator.
Similarly, my noble friend Lord Mann mentioned enjoyment. I know that most noble Lords will appreciate that sometimes that enjoyment can be quite painful as well.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Yes, suffering—all noble Lords will suffer for their football clubs as well, at times.
Lord Markham (Con)
I think the Minister did not quite understand. She was talking about success in terms of success of teams. The point about success that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and I were trying to make was about TV viewership, which drives the media rights value. I have not seen that anywhere else in the Bill, and I would be grateful if the Minister could say where it is addressed.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I might have been being flippant, so I apologise to the Committee. After the length of time we have been discussing this, I came up with some flippant remarks. That was not to undermine the noble Lord’s point.
Much of the success of English football has come from investment, and we do not believe the Bill will in any way deter this. Nor do we believe that the regulator will detract from the noble Lord’s point about what might be measures of success. Indeed, a stable, more certain regulatory environment is likely, in the Government’s view, to attract investors with a more long-term, prudent approach to stewarding and growing these community assets.
These amendments would require the regulator to bring into scope anything that relates to the growth of English football. This would include things such as broadcasting revenues—which the noble Lord referred to—transfer fees and sponsorship deals, alongside many other areas. Not only would this dramatically widen the scope but the regulator would be required to become actively involved in these areas, potentially causing unintentional harms when looking to advance these worthy objectives. I am sure noble Lords will agree that this is not a space we necessarily want to have the regulator interfering in.
Lord Hayward (Con)
May I just seek clarification? She has covered a very wide-ranging debate as quickly and reasonably as possible, and I have no criticism of the manner in which she has done that. The key debate has been around the word “sustainability”. I think that, earlier in her reply, she said that it was defined at some point. The powers to operate are in Clause 1 and there is no definition in Clause 2. If she has given clarification at some point, I will check it in Hansard, but I am seeking clarification as to whether there is, within the Bill, “sustainability”. For that purpose, the powers identified in Clause 1 do not define it, and looking under key definitions in Clause 2, it does not appear to be there, either.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I draw the noble Lord’s attention, and other noble Lords’ attention, to the first line on page 2. Even if it does not have the word “definition”, it is quite clearly a definition. It says:
“For the purposes of this section, English football is sustainable if it … continues to serve the interests of fans of regulated clubs, and … continues to contribute to the economic or social well-being of the local communities with which regulated clubs are associated”.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her remarks and I agree with my noble friend Lord Hayward that she has covered a wide-ranging debate very reasonably. It was useful to get some of the thinking in the Government’s mind behind the way that Clause 1 is set out, and she was right to draw attention, as she did at the end, to the way Clause 2 tries to expand on this. As she knows, we have amendments down to look at that a bit further.
I am sorry that she repeated the points about amnesia. The reason I rose again to speak at some length before her concluding remarks was to reiterate the cross-party gestation that the Bill has had and the interest that is there. She mentioned that her notes gave her little to say on the points that my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park raised about growth. After a debate of this length, there was time to get a few additional notes, so I hope she might be able to write to my noble friend and the rest of the Committee on that. But I am grateful for what she said. I will go back through the official record and look at the points that noble Lords have raised in relation to Clause 1. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moynihan
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 5 and 24 standing in my name. In the spirit of cross-party support for this Bill, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, for moving my amendment so eloquently. Should the Minister be in complete agreement with him, I think we could curtail this debate immediately and place the wording on the face of the Bill, since what I was looking for was exactly what he sought—namely, to insert
“within the rules laid down by UEFA, FIFA and the International Olympic Committee, relating to the autonomy of sport from government influence and control”.
Since there surely can be nobody who does not want to see us continue to play in UEFA competitions and the World Cup, to make that clear on the face of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, spoke to, is important.
Why is this being raised? It is being raised because UEFA has already—before we even got to Committee—raised specific concerns about the Government’s proposal to establish an independent football regulator, emphasising potential government interference in football governance. UEFA made four key objections, as I understand it. I have not had sight of the letter, but perhaps the Minister could confirm that in her response. First, it talked about the autonomy of football governance. UEFA insists that football should be self-regulated without external government influence. As I understand it, in the letter from the UEFA general secretary, Theodore Theodoridis, he stated that there should be
“no government interference in the running of football”.
The second point that he made was about the impact on UEFA competitions. UEFA warned that government interference could lead to the exclusion of English federations and clubs from European competitions, including the Champions League and the European Championships. This concern was highlighted in communications to UK officials, where UEFA emphasised the risks associated with the proposed regulator’s powers.
The third concern that UEFA expressed was on the regulatory powers and the competitive balance, which was referred to in earlier debates this afternoon. UEFA, as I understand it, is apprehensive about the proposed regulator’s backstop powers, which we will come to at a later stage of the Committee’s proceedings. Those are powers to intervene in funding discussions between the Premier League and the English Football League. UEFA argues that such intervention could disrupt the competitive balance and hinder amicable solutions within the football ecosystem. This is interesting; the point was made earlier about the comparison between the German system and the system that we have here. The reason I made that comparison was that Germany has possibly got the most regulated football in Europe in terms of what they call the Sonderweg, which translates as the “special unique past”. It is based on financial regulation and measures, including the 50-plus-one rule.
The point I was making was that the insolvency levels and the financial position of clubs within Germany and the UK are broadly similar, so it is not the regulation that impacts on that. UEFA has therefore concluded, comfortably within its own rules, that Germany, under its regulation, satisfies UEFA’s criteria. However, it raised a fourth point about licensing and club ownership. The proposed regulator would have had the authority to implement a licensing system for clubs and influence club ownership decisions based on the UK’s trade and foreign policy. That was the specific point withdrawn—removed—from the original Bill, and UEFA made it clear that it feared this could lead to fragmented governance across Europe and undermine the independence of football clubs.
These concerns that UEFA has brought forward are very serious. They would have a significant impact on our ability to play in the Champions League and the European Championship—indeed, if we apply the same logic to FIFA, in the World Cup as well. The preservation of the autonomy of football governance is therefore incredibly important. I hope we all agree that in introducing a football regulator nothing should jeopardise the autonomy of football governance and that we are within the rules and regulations set out by UEFA, which are comprehensive, as well as within FIFA’s. There should be nothing that could allow a regulator to overreach that boundary and thus disrupt the sport’s established structure.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
I agree that we want to see our clubs competing at the highest level, and the national team as well. Earlier, the noble Lord said that the level of regulation in France, and indeed in Germany, was much tougher than anything that we are going to have in the Bill. But those countries have not got into difficulties, given the regulation that they have, so I do not really see why we should either.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My point was that that is not the case. I do not want to go back into our debate on the first group, but the financial stability in the English system is no different. It is very similar to the financial stability in both the French and German systems. The levels of insolvency are, broadly speaking, the same. It is therefore not the level of regulation that is creating financial stability. If it was, the argument that we needed more regulation to create financial stability would hold water, but in practice it does not.
My point on this set of amendments is simply that if we all agree on this legislation and the role of the regulator, which is not comprehensively defined in the Bill, despite its length—the Minister has said, rightly, that we do not know the details of how the regulator will use its powers in any given situation—the one thing we can be sure about is that we do not want that regulator ever to use its powers in contravention of the UEFA and FIFA guidelines, by which we would have admission to play in European competitions and the World Cup. Should that be the case, there should be no difficulty in placing in the Bill that the whole operation of the regulator should be
“within the rules laid down by FIFA, UEFA and the International Olympic Committee, relating to the autonomy of sport from government influence and control”.
I added the International Olympic Committee because the same principles of autonomy apply, albeit that the British Olympic Association does not enter a men’s football team at present. It certainly enters a women’s football team and would wish to continue to do so. The Bill would enable, by secondary legislation if necessary, the Government to include the women’s game within the scope of this Act, as it would then be. I am thus also looking to have protection of
“the autonomy of sport from government influence and control”
in the Bill for the International Olympic Committee. For those reasons, I put these two amendments before the House. I beg to move Amendment 5.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan for the way in which he has introduced and moved his Amendment 5. My Amendment 6, which also carries the name of my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park, has a similar effect. It would deal with the consequences if the Bill is not amended in a way that protects against those consequences. It is another way of getting at the same point—the same danger, risk and jeopardy that English football is potentially in if this is not dealt with at a very early stage.
On this business of English football having its own autonomy and not being subject to influence or control by government, we know that there are countries where football is an important activity and where national teams take part in international competitions. But in some of those countries, the boundary between where the state ends and the Government begins is sometimes unclear. It may be contended that in these circumstances, given the undoubted influence and control over English football that will come if the Bill is enacted in its current form, there will be state intervention, for sure. Is that the Government? It will be contended that this is an independent regulator.
None the less, it is a regulator appointed by Ministers in the Government. Its powers will be defined in secondary legislation drafted by the Government and if there is mission creep and scope creep, which some of us fear is almost inevitable, that will come about because of government decisions. This is a real issue; it is not scare- mongering. UEFA has written on these concerns, so when it is argued that this cannot really matter because Germany has regulated football, the fact is that that has been done in a way that prevents those concerns.
UEFA, which matters for these purposes, is not content at this stage that this jeopardy does not exist, so it has to be dealt with. The sooner that the Minister can give us some comfort that she understands how serious this is and the political danger the Government would be in if they—by lack of proper care and attention to these risks—allowed this malign effect to come about. It is very important to indicate at the earliest possible stage, which is really tonight, in this debate, that a provision which deals with this risk will be incorporated into the Bill by way of government amendment. I think that would be a great comfort to all of us.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My understanding of the exchange of correspondence was that UEFA’s primary concern was that the scope of the legislation in the Bill may go beyond financial concerns. It was entirely happy with the regulator being concerned about the finances of football, and rightly so. I do not quite see the fear that lies behind this set of amendments. Although the noble Lord is right that we need early clarification, the regulator’s purposes are clear: they are about ensuring sustainability and success, and all the rest of it, of our brilliant game. I think UEFA was just seeking clarification that it was tightly constrained around the notion of football finances.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am a bit of a Brighton supporter myself. Tottenham is my first love; Horsham is my second; Brighton comes a very close third. I hope the letter from UEFA will be published so that we can see in exact detail what is said and therefore satisfy ourselves that the concerns will be dealt with comprehensively and finally so that there is no lingering anxiety.
I totally understand the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I wish I could be as happy as he is that there is no risk of subsequent mission creep, which is exactly the concern that UEFA raised. Some of us have raised that, in the Bill as currently drafted, there is scope for precisely the kind of mission and scope creep that UEFA seems to have identified. That is why it is so important at this stage that it should be dealt with and for it to be finally laid to rest that this concern need not be a concern.
My noble friend Lord Goodman spoke about the political risk for the Government if they come to be the people who have enacted a Bill which inflicts savage damage on English people’s expectations that their clubs will be able to participate in the Champions League, the Europa League and even the Europa Conference League, which West Ham so spectacularly won. It has to be dealt with quickly, cleanly and effectively, so that we no longer need to have sleepless nights over this.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome this group as a point of clarification and reassurance, as has been asked for. I would expect the Minister to accept this, because she has been at great pains to stress that this is intended—I do not doubt her good faith—as light-touch regulation motivated by the best of intentions. But I think that there is a real problem with this Bill that could potentially destroy football, so I want that worry at least to be taken seriously.
The examples given by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Maude, were in relation to UEFA and FIFA and what damage could be done. I understand that, but I think this is a point of principle. It is really important that the Government state at this point that they believe that the Bill is not to be used as a vehicle for government interference in football. That is what they agree with, so why not put it in the Bill?
Should I just be having a moment of paranoid delusions? I spent as much time reading the amendments last night as noble Lords spent on the first group, possibly longer—i.e. it took me a long time. They are, in many instances, the vehicle for what can be described only as a wide range of political hobby-horses for people who believe that this Bill and the regulator should be asked to do things that are extraordinarily contentious, political and have absolutely nothing to do with football. The fact that they are deemed in scope of the discussion on this Bill is nerve-wracking. Consequently, this group seeks—very importantly—to state as a matter of principle that the Government should not interfere in the autonomy and independence of football in England and Wales, and English football particularly.
I want to stress, and I said it at Second Reading, that this not just because of any technical matter; it is because football came from and remains at its heart a grass-roots part of civil society. The last thing it needs is an overbearing political hand that will try to shape it into the image of the particular Government of the day. The particular Government of the day might be one that the Government trust; it might be one that many football fans trust, but imagine if it was not? We do not want the political fashions of the day to dominate football—to destroy football. I think the Minister will agree and therefore accept these amendments willingly, because it will reassure us that we are not all being paranoid about it. It will reassure football fans that the Government are doing it in their best interests rather than trying to use football as a hobby-horse to push a particular political agenda.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I want to ask the Minister to follow up on something she said in her wind-up speech at Second Reading. She said that, that week,
“the Minister for Sport had a productive discussion with UEFA and they committed to continuing to work together”.—[Official Report, 13/11/24; col. 1908.]
Obviously, it was just a reference, but I wonder whether she might be in a position to give more detail about that conversation, whether some issues raised in the letter have now been dealt with, and what continuing conversations might entail. As she mentioned it quite briefly at Second Reading, it would be great to get a bit more information if she can provide it to us. If she cannot do it now, could she perhaps write to all noble Lords to give us the latest on the discussions that have been ongoing?
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments from my noble friends Lord Moynihan, Lord Maude and Lady Evans of Bowes Park. The important thing we are missing is the sweeping enabling powers in the Bill; I think there are 42 powers and a number of Henry VIII powers.
The Prime Minister said on 17 September in response to UEFA:
“I don’t think there’s any problem with the rules, because this is a truly independent regulator. But as you’d expect, we’re talking to UEFA, and I’m sure we’ll find a way through this”.
I reiterate the view of my noble friend Lady Evans and ask for an update from the Minister.
I am not sure if the Prime Minister has actually read the Bill. If he did, he would surely concede that particularly in Clause 11, “Football governance statement”, there are very wide-ranging powers. For instance, Clause 11(3) states:
“The Secretary of State may revise any football governance statement”,
while Clause 11(1) states:
“The Secretary of State may prepare a statement”.
In paragraph 28 of the Explanatory Notes, there are significant powers that are open to future interpretation in a court of law. This is an unprecedented situation, but the notes state that
“guidance is intended to aid the IFR in interpreting the intention of legislation and to inform the detailed development and implementation of its regime. IFR guidance to the industry should give clubs greater information about the specific requirements of the regime, including how the IFR will operate and what is expected of clubs”.
With the best will in the world, that is a very pervasive, far-reaching, enabling power for the Secretary of State and Ministers in the department to exercise. If I can beg the forgiveness of noble Lords, I am slightly sceptical. I am not quite taking the side of FIFA and UEFA, but I have some empathy with the concerns they have about mission creep and a movement from financial issues into the minutiae and technical, granular operation of different football clubs. That is why my noble friends and I are raising this issue. I hope and expect the Minister to address those concerns.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I have been in this House for 10 years this year. For eight of those years, I was on committees for secondary legislation and primary legislation. It is a little bit rich for the Conservatives to start complaining about Henry VIII powers, when I spent most almost 10 years trying to stop Ministers from across the previous Government taking Henry VIII powers at every single opportunity. I think people need to put this into perspective.
I hear what the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Maude, are saying. I believe they are saying it with the right intentions and from the heart. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has opened the tin a little bit by saying that the conversation going on between the Government and UEFA is about finances but not about this.
So is there an element of sabre rattling? I do not know, but we on these Benches would like clarification from the Minister—this can be clarified quickly—on whether any of these three amendments are true, can be true or can be dealt with in the Bill. If they can, we can put this to bed quickly, but, if they cannot, there is some mileage in considering the alternatives, which are the last things that anybody wants. I do not want Stockport County not to be able to play in the Champions League in 30 years because of an oversight in this Committee one night.
Finally, can we end this love-in with Brighton & Hove Albion? You beat Manchester City once; you did not win the World Cup.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, made a point about Clause 11. I have read it and I have also read the previous Clause 11. As far as I can see, they are absolutely identical. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, can help us, because he would have been in the DCMS at the time. Was it the case then that Ministers sought assurances from UEFA and FIFA that there was nothing in the Bill’s powers that would have offended them? If that is the case, and if Clause 11 is so important in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, this argument is probably a bit of a non-argument in the end, because we have had that clarification and assurance through the exchange of letters that took place in September this year.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I think this is important. The last two contributions have just reminded me. I do not care what was in the previous Government’s Bill, which, to be honest, I would have stood up and argued against at that time as well.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I entirely accept that the noble Baroness would have done that, but I was more concerned about the argument coming from the Official Opposition.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I agree, but I was going to appeal to us myself to try to tackle the Bill—which is so important in many ways—with at least a little of the spirit of what is in the best interests of football, rather than what is in the best interests of the political footballs of political parties. That is just an appeal—it might not work—because Henry VIII powers, for example, are anti-democratic and illiberal whoever uses them. I do not therefore want not to be able to criticise them in case somebody thinks that I am on the side of the Tories or that I am anti-Labour. That is not the point, surely.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I will briefly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I take on board the Maude doctrine, which is that, had we had the opportunity to have scrutiny and oversight of the Bill at the appropriate moment, I would have made exactly the same points to my own Government when they were in power. So, with all due respect to the noble Lord, he is flogging a dead horse by keeping on saying that this was a Tory Bill. We are today considering a Labour government Bill on its merits and its efficacy, which is why we are debating it.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 6. I clarify for the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, that there is no state regulator in France or Germany—all the regulation there is football-led—so this is something completely different.
I will raise with the Minister the alarming letter that UEFA sent the Secretary of State. In it, the warnings are spelled out very clearly, as are the concerns about “governance interference” in football. It points out that it has very “specific rules” that guard against state interference in order to
“guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition”.
It states:
“If every country established its own regulator with similarly broad powers, this could lead to a fragmented, inefficient and inconsistent approach to football governance across the continent and in essence hinder the ability of UEFA and other bodies to maintain cohesive and effective governance standards across Europe”.
It goes on to say that
“it is imperative to protect and preserve the independence of the FA in accordance with UEFA and FIFA statutes”.
It warns against anything that could compromise
“the FA’s autonomy as the primary regulator of football in England”
or the ability of domestic leagues to set
“their own season-to-season financial sustainability rules”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, it gives stark warnings about the backstop power and licensing. UEFA expresses significant concerns about the backstop and stresses the importance of preserving collaboration and voluntary agreements in football governance, while cautioning against overreliance on regulatory backstop powers that could disrupt the sport’s balance and stability.
It says that the backstop threatens
“the balance of power within football governance”
and that
“mandating redistribution which affects the competitive balance in the game and wider European competition would be of concern to us”
and would
“prevent amicable solutions being found”.
UEFA says that the backstop in the current Bill should be “carefully reconsidered”.
However, despite those warnings from UEFA, the Government have made the backstop even wider and broader in scope, to now include parachute payments, which are fundamental to competitive balance. They have removed the incentives for a football-led deal, which goes specifically against the advice of UEFA. So it appears that the Government have ignored that letter and its warnings. UEFA spells out that
“the ultimate sanction would be excluding the federation from UEFA and teams from competition”.
No matter how small the Minister may say the risk is, the inclusion of this amendment will help to ensure that the IFR does not act in a way that enables such unintended consequences for football fans. That would be a huge relief.
We should be careful not to empower this regulator without fully addressing the concerns of the international governing bodies in advance. If we create even a small but ever-present risk of intervention in the future, that could put the Government, the regulator and our competitions in an invidious position down the track, especially in circumstances where the interests of English football may not align with UEFA or FIFA—for example, in the event of future disagreements on the football calendar. I therefore urge the Minister to give assurances that every single issue raised in the letter has now been dealt with to UEFA’s satisfaction, including its concerns on financial distributions and independence from government. This leverage, once granted, cannot be taken back.
It is imperative that nothing in the Bill gives the regulator powers to interfere with the rules that already govern football—which, by the way, is one of the most governed and regulated industries around. We have to comply with FIFA rules, UEFA rules, Football Association rules, Premier League rules and EFL rules—and now we have the IFR rules. We will be tied up in more red tape than a company applying for a post-Brexit import licence.
So will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to allow a full copy of the letter she received from UEFA to be put in the House of Lords Library and the Commons Library for every single Peer and MP to be able to see it, read it and be aware of its nature and tone and of the consequences it spells out, so that every Peer in this House can take that into account when they consider why this amendment is so important and so necessary?
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, I continue to be humbled by the gentle kindness and grace with which Members of this House help relatively new Members understand the list of amendments in Committee on Bills. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for helping to steer me back on course. To reciprocate the kindness, I say that I enthusiastically support his amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Maude.
I apologise to my noble friend the Minister for adding to her confusion. She withheld comfort on that first debate in relation to the clarity I was seeking on whether English football teams and England will be able to play in European and international competitions at the end of the Bill. I say to her that now is the time: she can end my confusion, give the clarity that this Committee deserves and end the ambiguity by saying that England and English football clubs will be playing in international tournaments, because these important amendments are trying to get that reassurance to every football fan in England tonight.
Lord Birt (CB)
I agree that that reassurance is essential, but the only way to get it is not through publishing the letter but through knowing that UEFA and FIFA have agreed that we would be compliant.
Lord Markham (Con)
On that point, I think that is the only way. We all agree that this would be such a big risk. I looked it up before the debate, because this is not just the equivalent of us scoring an own goal, it is like a hat-trick of own goals, so I looked at whether there has ever been an example of a hat-trick of own goals. I found out that the most own goals ever scored in a match was 149. We may go close even to that. There is a real point here, and it was very well made by my noble friend Lady Brady, but I really want to unpack it.
What we are talking about here is a lot more than what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was saying about the pure financial sustainability of clubs. The concern of UEFA is:
“A Member Association may … be suspended if state authorities interfere … in such a significant way that … it may no longer be considered as fully responsible”.
The Premier League has thought very carefully about how it wants to bring in such things as parachute payments in order to, as we were talking about before, have competitiveness right the way through the game. It is to encourage those clubs—again, I have spoken to clubs about this—to invest, even though they might be in the bottom half of the table, because if they get relegated, they have that safety net. Without that safety net of parachute payments, they would not invest, so they would not be competitive.
What we are talking about here is that if we start to alter those parachute payments and the regulator starts to get involved in that, that is fundamentally altering the competitiveness of the game, so interfering in a way that I feel that UEFA, given the comments it is making, is absolutely going to say that we are overstepping the mark. To my mind, the only way to overcome that, while it is helpful to have these amendments, would be to have a meeting with UEFA—I know meetings have been had—and having a letter from UEFA clearing it, saying that this is something it is happy with and that it will not cut across it. If we do not do that, there will be a fundamental danger of what I think all of us would agree would be the biggest own goal of all.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Maude of Horsham for their amendments in this group and for the way they set them out. I support the reasons behind their amendments.
Amendment 5, moved by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, would add a critical provision ensuring that the autonomy of sport from government influence is respected, in accordance with the established rules of FIFA, UEFA, and the International Olympic Committee. The purpose of Clause 1, as stated, is
“to protect and promote the sustainability of English football”,
and my noble friend’s Amendment 5 would provide the necessary framework for achieving that purpose, while upholding international standards. FIFA, UEFA and the International Olympic Committee have clear rules regarding the autonomy of sports organisations and their independence from government control. Failing to adhere to these principles risks sanctions from these bodies, including the very serious sanctions that noble Lords across the Committee have set out, such as the exclusion of national teams or clubs from international competitions. My noble friend’s amendment would ensure that the Bill operates within these very clear and well-established boundaries, safeguarding England’s participation in international football.
Amendment 6, from my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham, is crucial, as it would directly protect England’s participation in international football tournaments such as the Euros and the World Cup. Again, FIFA and UEFA have stringent rules regarding government interference in football governance. The test here, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough and others set out, is not for the Minister to imagine what she or the present Government may do, but what future Governments might do with the powers afforded them by the Bill, including the very sweeping secondary powers that it sets out.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I genuinely welcome these amendments and appreciate the sincerity of the concerns noble Lords may have about the possible ramifications were the regulator to operate outside of governing body rules, including the potential ramifications for domestic teams playing in international competitions. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, noted that this threat might be alarming to fans. It behoves us all in your Lordships’ Committee not to spread unwarranted alarm and I hope it will be useful if I am able, in response to this debate, to reassure noble Lords—and, through the debate, fans—that we do not believe that there is any risk from the Bill as it stands to our domestic teams playing in international competitions. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that we definitely have the interests of fans at heart, and I say to my noble friend Lord Watson that I welcome his comments; I am not confused and nor should noble Lords be.
On Amendments 5 and 6, I assure the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Maude of Horsham, and my noble friend Lord Watson that there is no intention that the regulator will fall foul of UEFA’s, FIFA’s or the International Olympic Committee’s rules, or that the regulator will take any action that would lead to English club or international sides being unable to play in certain competitions, such as the European Championships.
The Government have worked closely and consulted with UEFA, FIFA and, in particular, the FA throughout the development of the Bill, and will continue to work with them as it progresses through Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, raised remarks I made at Second Reading. I can confirm that the Minister for Sport recently held a very positive and constructive meeting with UEFA, in which she reiterated that we will continue to work with it as the Bill progresses. We have listened to previous concerns and have responded by removing a clause from the previous Bill which required government foreign and trade policy to be considered when approving takeovers. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, I hope I can provide assurance, in that my understanding is very clear that they have confirmed that they do not now have concerns about the Bill as it stands.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Noble Lords are listening carefully to the Minister’s words, and she says it is her “understanding”. Is it the Government’s clear view that UEFA and FIFA are happy? She said also that it is not the intention of the Bill that this would take English football into areas that might cause conflict, but I think noble Lords were probing not the intention but the risk that it might do so. Perhaps she is able provide something further in writing, but noble Lords are seeking certainty and precision in her response.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
There is nothing in the Bill that conflicts with English clubs or the English national side competing in international games, as the rules of the international bodies stand currently.
Baroness Brady (Con)
Have UEFA told the Minister that, or is that her understanding?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As I said, UEFA had a meeting with the Minister for Sport. My understanding from that meeting, at which I was not present, is that this was confirmed. It has not raised other concerns. If any noble Lord knows of other concerns that it has raised directly with them, please get in touch afterwards.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
We are listening very carefully to this, and it is really important. I have absolutely no doubt about the honesty of the Minister’s —or the Government’s—intentions and sincerity. The concern is that stating that it is not the intention that the regulator would do anything, or that the Bill would have any effect that would conflict with these international football bodies, is not quite as reassuring as it is meant to sound. The concern has always been the unintended effects, and the fact that, for all their good intentions, she, the Government and indeed the Prime Minister cannot bind future Governments. The regulator is meant to be independent, so there is scope for activity. Unless it is explicitly excluded in the primary legislation, there will continue to be a doubt, whatever good words we hear either first or second hand. To put it beyond any doubt, it is essential that this is in the Bill.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I can only repeat that I know that the Minister for Sport is clear that she had a positive and constructive meeting with UEFA, and that we will continue to work with it. The only other point I was aiming to make on this matter, rather than repeating what I had already said, was that when the Government say that we want to keep the Bill within its current scope, this is clearly partly to avoid mission creep, with the unintended consequence that we might then stray into areas that are problematic. When we debate subsequent groups, please note that it is front and centre of our minds that we are very clear that this Government will do nothing to jeopardise the ability of English clubs or the England team to play in international competitions, whether they are European, world-level or at the Olympics. I hope that noble Lords accept that there is no intention to do anything that will jeopardise that. The advice we have had is that this will not be the case. The engagement with UEFA is essential, and it is aimed at ensuring that there are not any unintended consequences that would damage the ability of English clubs or national teams to compete in UEFA, FIFA or Olympic competitions.
This legislation does not impose undue third-party influence on the FA, and therefore does not breach FIFA or UEFA statutes, which the FA has confirmed. In any case, there is an additional safeguard already in place in the Bill, in that the regulator must have regard to its duty to avoid any effect on sporting competitiveness of regulated clubs. For the avoidance of any doubt, and to ensure that there is no possibility of any clauses that may concern these sporting bodies, we have already taken action. As previously noted during the debate, we have removed a clause from the previous Bill which allowed government foreign policy and trade considerations to be considered when approving takeovers. The regulator will be fully independent from Government and tightly focused on the financial sustainability of the game.
On Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I say that we are extremely confident that no powers or potential actions taken by the regulator would be in breach of the rules, and thus preclude England’s national teams from competing in international competitions. We are mindful of UEFA’s governing principles around undue third-party influence, and this has shaped how we are setting up the regulator.
I am proud that this is a Labour Government Bill that we are taking through this House, as was noted, with agreement from the previous Government. This legislation will not impact the intention for our teams to play in UEFA competitions. For the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the noble Lords’ amendments and hope that they will not press them.
Baroness Brady (Con)
Just before the Minister sits down, can she confirm if she could, and would, place in the Library the letter that the Secretary of State received from UEFA, so all Peers have a chance to read it? I know the Minister stated that this was not alarming, but I think the majority of people would find it alarming.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Baroness refers to my point about this not being alarming. I do not want fans to be alarmed by our discussion. It was a private letter from UEFA; there is no intention for it to be published. I assure noble Lords that this Government will not do anything to jeopardise the FA’s membership of UEFA or the participation of English teams in UEFA competitions.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am a little disappointed by the Minister’s reply to my noble friend. An important point to bear in mind is that we are not probing just the Government’s intentions, and the Minister has been very clear that it is not the Government’s intention to put in peril English clubs’ participation in international tournaments. However, the risk is that the independent regulator—ironically, as it is more independent from Government and able to do things—could take us into areas that do jeopardise that. The Government have made some changes to the Bill to try and satisfy concerns raised about its independence from Government, and we will touch on those, but I know that they are trying to help. Can she address the distinction between the Government’s intentions and actions, and what the Bill does in bringing about an independent regulator that can, through its actions, inadvertently lead to some of the jeopardy raised by noble Lords?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As per the FA articles of association, the FA is established to promote and govern the game of association football. This Bill will not affect the FA’s ability to do that independently without undue influence, so it will not breach UEFA and FIFA statutes as they are currently drafted. The FA gave all evidence to this effect to the Committee in the other place, during the passage of the previous Bill.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for what I am sure is a completely genuine and committed response to the many points that have been made. However, I hope she will understand that it worries this Committee to hear that fans might be alarmed by something, so we must not show it to them”.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
That is not what I said. My point was that this conversation and this debate may be alarming, and I believe it is unduly alarming to fans, although nothing in this Bill would preclude us from international games, whether that is English clubs or the national team.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I am sorry, but the Minister was very clear in her response to my noble friend that the publication of the letter might cause alarm, and that that was one of the reasons why it was not to be published. If I misunderstood, I apologise to the Minister, but I would simply say that, if there is no alarm from the letter, why not publish it? Why not place the letter in the House of Lords Library so that we can review it?
Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:48 - Division on Baroness Hoey’s amendment to the Motion. - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 45 - Baroness Hoey’s amendment to the Motion disagreed.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 October be approved.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the instrument before you provides for the introduction of the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme. The purpose of the instrument is to implement arrangements agreed under the Windsor Framework which were announced in February last year. The framework represents an important step forward for the people of Northern Ireland by significantly improving on the arrangements that existed under the original Northern Ireland protocol. This Government have been very clear in their intention to secure new, better arrangements for sanitary and phytosanitary matters with the EU. We are clear that we want to continue to simplify this process as far as possible in order to support those across the United Kingdom, whilst protecting our internal market.
Turning to the SI itself, this scheme will simplify the requirements associated with moving pet dogs, cats and ferrets from Great Britain to Northern Ireland significantly. It replaces single-use animal health certificates with a free-of-charge lifelong travel document and removes the need for costly pet health treatments. Pet owners who travel frequently with their pets, or those who rely on the services of an assistance dog to travel independently, will benefit substantially from this change in approach. I am pleased to say that this benefit has been recognised by Guide Dogs UK specifically, which has noted the positive impact of removing single-use EU certificates on assistance dogs travelling to Northern Ireland.
Movement of pets for other reasons, such as young assistance dogs being moved to Northern Ireland for training or the movement of police or military working dogs from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, will also benefit. This SI also reaffirms the Government’s commitment to unfettered access, in that those from Northern Ireland have no requirements whatever beyond the need for a microchip, as is good practice already and in line with this Government’s approach to high animal welfare standards. Finally, the SI empowers relevant competent authorities to carry out their respective responsibilities as part of the scheme in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. This will ensure that the scheme is sufficiently robust and ensure that those travelling with their pets have the best experience possible.
To summarise, the Windsor Framework is already successfully restoring the smooth flow of trade within the UK internal market by removing the burdens that have disrupted east-west trade, as well as safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the union. This instrument is essential in implementing those benefits: an international treaty negotiated by the last Government that this Government have committed to delivering in good faith. I hope noble Lords will agree that the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme delivers significant benefits for pet owners and for assistance dog users across the UK, and I urge all to support its implementation. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Hoey
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations treat pets travelling to Northern Ireland differently from those travelling to any other part of the United Kingdom.”
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I will not be quite as short as the Minister, because it is important that noble Lords understand this in a great deal more detail. Sometimes the words that sound very positive are not nearly as positive when you go into the detail. These regulations are in effect about a new aspect of the Irish Sea border that has not had expression until this point because of the grace periods.
As we are an animal-loving nation, I am sure that this statutory instrument will resonate with the British public, perhaps more than the other ones that I and other Members have prayed against in the past. The draft Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024 will impact the everyday lives of people seeking to move for non-trading purposes from one part of the United Kingdom, Great Britain, to another, Northern Ireland, when they travel with a pet under the terms of the regulations.
The experience of visiting Northern Ireland with your pet dog or cat, or even a ferret, will be made to feel like a visit to a foreign country. It will be possible for you to travel from GB to NI with pets, including guide dogs—despite what we were told in the past—only if you have ensured that, first, your pet is fitted with a microchip; and, secondly, you have successfully applied to join the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme and have a pet travel document, which amounts to a pet passport. Meeting the requirements for that document remain obscure, because their definition, and indeed the potential for their definition to be changed, rests not with this Parliament but with the EU Commission—in regulation 4(1). Thirdly, as you travel with your pets, you must submit to full documentary and identity Irish Sea border checks, subject to sanctions. Fourthly, and very importantly, you must sign a form saying you will not attempt to enter the Republic of Ireland.
Of course, if your pet is found wanting in any way during the border checks, you will then suffer the inconvenience of being sent immediately to an SPS inspection facility, where you must remain with your animal unless and until you are permitted to leave. You could have your membership of the UK pet travel documents scheme suspended. So it is the fourth and final bullet point that makes these regulations particularly absurd, because it seeks to impose an Irish Sea border for internal UK movements while keeping the border for moving into the Republic. On the one hand, we are told that there can be no border across the island of Ireland, which is why there must be a border down the Irish Sea; but, on the other, the regulations before us do not comply with that logic. It is, by any measure, absurd to have both.
Your Lordships need to look at the implications of, if you use the pet travel scheme, having to sign that you will not go over the border to the Republic with your pet. Does the Minister have any idea of the effect that this will have on the casual tourist, who, perhaps having visited the Glens of Antrim, decides to drive down to the Ring of Kerry? There will be specific tourist implications of this, on top of the tourism effect of having to get a pet passport in the first place. Relatives going back home for Christmas or summer holidays next year, as they have always done, will no longer be able simply to travel freely with their pet within their own country.
Can noble Lords imagine how they would feel if it were their county in England, Scotland or Wales that required this extra bureaucracy? This could spell the end of holiday trips for pet owners from GB to NI and then on to the Republic, when they want to explore both Northern Ireland and the Republic. If they have a pet passport, they will have renounced their right to go to the Republic. That makes the border more of an obstruction than having border control posts on it, because at least in that eventuality, you could still cross over it. If you have a pet travel document, you cannot go to the Republic of Ireland via NI, unless you leave your pet behind or find somewhere in Northern Ireland to fulfil all these requirements. Can the Minister say where those requirements will be fulfilled in Northern Ireland for that travelling person?
The Minister might respond by saying, “Yes, that’s right”. However, that would be ridiculous, because rather than making it less of a border, the border is being made more of a border than ever, by preventing people with pets travelling over it. What advice will be given to prevent them breaking the law? Will they be told to drive back to get a boat to Liverpool and then to get the boat from Liverpool to Dublin? Does the Minister have an answer to this question? I assure her that neither Defra nor DAERA has that answer. All the people who have rung them, over the past week or so, get a different view every single time depending on whom they speak to. I wonder whether anyone in Defra or DAERA actually understands the detail of these regulations.
The Minister could say, “No, if you want to stay in Northern Ireland and then go on to the Republic, you can, but not on the basis of the pet travel scheme. You have to stay in Belfast or Larne, and we will then give you entry on the basis of EU regulation 576/2013—not on the basis of a pet travel document under the pet travel scheme”. So where will that happen and what will the cost be? In that instance, the reality of the rationale for the pet passport—being subject to documentary checks, having your pet checked, with the possibility of being sent to an SPS centre and being made to feel as though you are going to a foreign country—makes no sense, because these animals are not going to the Republic. They will remain in the EU under EU law, as designated by the withdrawal agreement. On that basis, we do not need to divide our own country. We do not need a pet travel scheme for the movements of pets that do not leave the UK, with pets and people being sent to SPS facilities. Have His Majesty’s Government even thought about the fundamental implications of the pet travel document making the open border absolute?
As the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear—as does Article 12 of the now very famous EU regulation 1231, the important one that allows the EU to govern the division of our country—pets can be moved into the Republic of Ireland only if one is subject to another border. The rationale is absurd. If the border for moving a pet from NI to the Republic of Ireland is such that it cannot be crossed without engaging in border requirements, surely the rationale for the Irish Sea border evaporates. It is particularly absurd when you remember that, to get the pet passport originally to take your animal to Northern Ireland, you have to sign that you will not take it into the Republic. So there should be no need for any restrictions on taking your pet on holiday or to visit relatives in Northern Ireland from GB.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. We are having this debate in your Lordships’ Chamber because the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has put down a regret amendment. It is important that these matters are debated. We must ensure that the negative instruments that will be coming forward are fully debated. Every one of the statutory instruments that come forward under the Windsor framework must be properly debated, because these laws are being brought forward to implement what a foreign jurisdiction has decided should be the law of the United Kingdom. In the 21st century, we should not accept colonial rule. We abolished it elsewhere. We believe it should not be tolerated for one second. People should have the democratic right to decide their laws for themselves, in their interests. Yet there are many people in this Chamber and the other Chamber who rail against Henry VIII clauses and so on but seem quite happy to take legislation from the European Union made by the European Commission in its interests, and not in the interests of the United Kingdom, without any consultation from any MP or mere MLA in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We are expected at times just to nod it through.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has gone through in detail the implications of this statutory instrument. I detect some people in the Chamber almost smiling and sort of thinking: “This is all very detailed. We’re talking about dogs and cats. This is not worthy of this Chamber. What’s this all about?” Quite frankly, I believe that these matters need to be properly scrutinised. These things matter to the owners of pets, and it should matter to all citizens who believe in democracy that these laws should be made by us.
We have before us the Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations. The ridiculous part about this debate is that we are having to debate European laws regulating the movement of pet animals owned by British citizens between one part of the United Kingdom and another. That is an outrage. People should not be smiling about that, smirking or thinking it is all a bit of a nonsense. This is serious stuff, and it matters. This is just one of what are going to be hundreds, thousands, of such laws made by the European Union and implemented through these statutory instruments by the process set out in the withdrawal Act. People can say, “Well, on this particular issue, it is not that serious or, on that issue, it does not do any real harm”. But cumulatively over time, all this does grave damage to democracy. It does grave damage and harm to the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within this United Kingdom.
We had a debate earlier on how to safeguard Northern Ireland’s place within the union. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said, we heard soft words, kind words and all the rest of it. Yet this is the reality of what is happening. One cannot secure the union by undermining the union in this way. If we believe in sovereignty, then it should be sovereignty for all the United Kingdom. We cannot have Brexit for part of the United Kingdom and leave other parts behind. I dare say that if your Lordships and many of those who are not here were presented with the regulations when they were leaving their London homes to go to the shire country estate or to where they live at the weekend and were told, “I am sorry, when you leave London, go to Shropshire, Glasgow, Cardiff, Leicester or wherever it is, you are going to have to apply for a pet passport. You are going to have to enrol for a pet travel scheme. You are going to have to ensure that you declare that your pet will not be moved into a foreign jurisdiction; and it applies, and you can prove that this passport relates entirely to the animal that is in your company”, people in England, Scotland and Wales, Members of Parliament, and Members of your Lordships’ House would not tolerate that for a second, especially when they were told that the reason that they were being asked to do it was that the European Union demanded it. We should be taking these matters much more seriously.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has said, we will be told—the Minister has said it—that this is a great improvement on what was theoretically going to be a dire situation under the original protocol, when we were going to be subject to the panoply of a full international border for pet movements, as if one was bringing a pet from a third country into the European Union. That was rightly dismissed by many of us who said that it was a disgraceful, unacceptable and unworkable regime. But let us remember, and your Lordships need to be reminded, that there were many in this House, in the other place and in Northern Ireland—Members, the leadership of the SDLP and Sinn Féin, and the leadership of the Alliance Party—who said, knowing the full diabolical terms of that protocol, that it had to be not just implemented but rigorously applied. That is how fervently pro-EU and anti-democratic they were. When we hear some of those representatives now lecture us about what is in the best interests of Northern Ireland, let us remember their position on this—ultra ideologically driven and not in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland in any shape or form.
Now we are told that things have greatly improved. The grace periods were implemented by the previous Government to prevent that dire protocol being implemented. Even the implementation of the grace periods was fiercely resisted, again by many of the same players and actors and characters. We were told that it was a breach of international law, an outrageous, flagrant breach of the UK’s responsibilities, requirements and obligations under an international treaty. Forget about the harm that it would do to UK citizens and all the things that I have outlined in terms of democracy, sovereignty and so on. Again, that was fiercely resisted. When you hear some of the same people argue in favour of what is now being presented under the Windsor Framework, remember where they are coming from in this debate.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
It is this side, thank you.
My Lords, I refer to the register of Members’ interests, as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House and of the Government’s Veterinary Medicines Working Group. We had a similar debate on the Windsor Framework some weeks ago and I suppose that we have had debates like this on other statutory instruments in relation to the Windsor Framework. It is an issue that divides communities in Northern Ireland along broadly political constitutional lines. However, we must not forget that the Windsor Framework is a result of Brexit. It would not be here if we did not have Brexit. That is the political reality that we all face and must countenance.
I for one support the Windsor Framework and I supported the protocol, which I believed was the best means of dealing with the challenges that were presented by Brexit for trade in goods on the island of Ireland, both north and south. Before Brexit, goods moved freely across the island, helping to sustain and underpin our economies, both north and south. That fact was recognised in the Good Friday agreement, which was referred to earlier today, and in the three-stranded relationships as a result of that agreement, whether it was the Northern Ireland Executive, the Assembly, the North/South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council.
Prior to and since the vote on the Brexit referendum, many of us have insisted that there was a need for a special status for Northern Ireland because of those unique trading and political relationships on the island. That fact has not diminished and now manifests itself in the Windsor Framework, which exists to manage those challenging relationships that exist—there is no doubt they are challenging. I believe that where there are imperfections with some areas of trade within the Windsor Framework, they need resolution through dialogue and negotiation between the UK and the EU.
On veterinary medicines, my noble friend on the Front Bench very ably chairs our Veterinary Medicine Working Group, which is trying to understand and deal with the challenges presented to our agri-food industry in Northern Ireland and to resolve with the EU those challenges with the supply of medicines to our veterinarians in Northern Ireland, as well as looking at an SPS veterinary agreement. I believe the same applies with pets and companion animals; it requires sensible management of this issue to ensure that there are no impediments.
I say to those who supported Brexit and who bring forward these regret amendments to your Lordships’ House to challenge every piece of secondary legislation on the Windsor Framework as an attack on the constitutional sovereignty of the UK and Northern Ireland that I believe that is disingenuous. I recognise their reasons for doing so, but I do not agree with them. At the end of the day, those same people and those same representatives argued for the hardest possible Brexit, and sometimes you get what you argued for. Put simply, I believe we would have been better to remain in the EU, and I am pleased that my colleagues in the new Labour Government, via the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers, are working with the EU on a reset of those relationships, notwithstanding the realities of the situation. For my part, I have my own political identity as a democratic Irish nationalist, but I recognise the difficulties that my colleagues on the Front Bench are presented with.
The purpose of the instrument under discussion this evening is to ensure the smooth movement of pet dogs, cats and ferrets from GB to Northern Ireland, while ensuring that any pet movements from GB and Ireland or other EU member states remain subject to the relevant EU requirements. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, considered that this instrument
“is an example of where wider consultation would have been desirable”.
Our role in that Committee is largely process-driven, and effective engagement and communication through a publicity campaign and notices in veterinary surgeries will definitely be vital to improve public understanding of how the scheme will operate in practice.
Therefore, can my noble friend say whether there are any plans to do such publicity, and will she talk to ministerial colleagues, maybe through the usual channels, about the necessity for more consultation in relation to statutory instruments as per the Windsor Framework? That would help in explaining the detail not only to public representatives but to wider business and the communities throughout Northern Ireland.
Businesses want to see a resolution to all the challenges presented by Brexit and the bureaucracy of the Windsor Framework, and many businesses have said to me that they welcomed any agreement when faced with the catastrophic alternative of a no-deal Brexit. Business and trade in Northern Ireland welcomed an agreement that provided continued access to the all-Ireland market, which many businesses in Northern Ireland relied on. Furthermore, it welcomes a unique solution for a unique place with trade, social, family and emotive ties with both Britain and Ireland. It is also worth noting that in the assessment of the recent Queen’s University survey, most respondents—around 57%—again want MLAs to vote in favour of the continued application of Articles 5 to 10 of the protocol/Windsor Framework. That vote is expected by the Secretary of State to take place before the Christmas Recess of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
In wanting the dismantling of the Windsor Framework, I wonder whether those who object realise that their fervour for opposition could result in tampering with the human rights and equality provisions of the Good Friday agreement that the Windsor Framework seeks to protect, as well as the single electricity market which exists on the island?
In conclusion, I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I totally support this statutory instrument. I support the Windsor Framework because it is a necessary legal device to deal with the complexities that were presented to us in Ireland, north and south, on the issue of Brexit. We need a pragmatic solution rather than choosing to have political contests and duels simply for the sake of them.
Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that debate is necessary in a democratic society, but that all of us have to ask whether this is in the best interests of our businesses and economy? Perhaps my noble friend could also tell us how this statutory instrument can be progressed to full implementation stage and what she sees as evolving and developing as part of that full implementation?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for moving her amendment and securing this important debate. She made a very powerful and detailed speech. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on his excellent contribution. As I know the Minister appreciates, there are many noble Lords who feel very strongly about the Windsor Framework. I hope the Government will take these concerns seriously as they work to deliver a fair settlement for Northern Ireland now that we have left the EU.
In particular, the Government’s stated policy of seeking closer ties with our partners in the European Union is concerning to many in Northern Ireland, and we on these Benches are clear that the Government must not do anything that undermines Northern Ireland’s access to the UK internal market.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, there has been some confusion about speaking, so I beg your Lordships’ indulgence and will speak as briefly as I can on this issue.
I put on record the fact that I have never supported the Windsor Framework; I have spoken and voted against it previously. I pay tribute to my friend, the indefatigable and persistent noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her amendment, which naturally I support. I also support and pay tribute to Jim Allister KC and Member of Parliament for North Antrim for the excellent evidence he provided to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. He raised important issues, including the potential breach of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and of the UN Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States.
I found the powerful remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, very compelling and astute. We have a lacuna in terms of our scrutiny and oversight of EU issues in this House and the other place. We no longer have the European Scrutiny Committee, chaired by Bill Cash, my former colleague in the other place. Even the European Affairs Committee in this House is not tasked in its terms of reference to look in detail at statutory instruments such as this. As noble Lords will know, we are very unlikely, by convention, to be in a position to amend or strike down statutory instruments.
I will make a few very brief points. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, wished to relitigate Brexit; we are not talking about that, we are talking about this statutory instrument. Nevertheless, it is about the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. It is about a border in the Irish Sea. It is about treating people in Armagh, Fermanagh, Antrim and Down and other parts of Northern Ireland as second-class citizens vis-à-vis people in Surrey, Shropshire or Kent. That is very important.
It is also so unnecessary because, as I have said before in this House, Lars Karlsson brought forward what the EU rather derisively called “magical thinking” but were technical solutions to enable an SPS regime to be put in place in Northern Ireland. That would have avoided a hard border and would not have led us to these draconian regulations.
I am also concerned about these regulations because they were foisted on our Government in 2023 after we left the European Union. They have been made by a supranational legal, legislative and political entity over which we have had no control, influence or ability to make our views clear. That is a significant issue.
I will finish with a detail for the Minister. I am sorry that she has had this hospital pass this evening. She is an excellent Minister, if I may say so, but she is in safe hands with the Northern Ireland Whip sat next to her, making sure that she is on the straight and narrow.
I will press the Minister very briefly. Defra said it is going to engage comprehensively in the run-up to the launch in March 2025. Can she elucidate on that a little bit and tell us a bit more about it? As she knows, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee talked about the lack of proper and comprehensive public consultation.
In Regulation 5(3) in Part 3, the threshold of evidence for the individual who owns the pet to have to report to the SPS inspection facility is very low and very arbitrary. Maybe the Minister will say something about that.
Is reasonable doubt built into the regulations in cases of suspension following non-compliance under Regulation 6? It is very important that is not misused.
I have two other points. On the reviews, the speed of response by the competent authority in reviewing the decisions is not included in the regulations and it should be. Finally, how will the storage of data under Regulations 9 and 10 be managed? Quite a lot of data is going to be collected. Will it be safe and how will it be stored?
We cannot vote down this statutory instrument. It is a constitutional and democratic outrage. I find it unacceptable. For that reason, I will strongly support the very reasonable and sensible amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I support the statutory instrument because it follows logically from the Windsor Framework, which is complex and, in many respects, inevitably unsatisfactory in certain details but a necessary compromise with the European Union and one that is part of the process by which devolution was restored to Northern Ireland. Underneath everything that lies in the statutory instrument is the concept that Ireland is one eco unit. That is what is in the Windsor Framework and what underlies this legislation. It is the most fundamental point underlying it.
However, the Windsor Framework does not say that Ireland is one economic unit. This is an important point to make while we address this subject. Page 5 of the Windsor Framework says:
“Inherent in this new way forward is the prospect of significant divergence between the two distinct economies on the island of Ireland—from food and drink to plants and pets, building on the existing differences in every area of economic and political life such as services”—
which, by the way, appear to be very strong now in Northern Ireland—
“migration, currency and taxation”.
That is the Windsor Framework. That is the international law that the Government, who give a very strong emphasis to their commitment to international law, are committed to.
Yet today I listened to the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson—at Question Time giving excellent answers, for which I am extremely grateful, to a number of searching questions, but on this point, she said something that is open to misinterpretation. She said there is an island economy. I agree. There is no question that there is an island economy and that for some activity, whether it be dairy products or the single electricity market, which has been mentioned already tonight, as well as a handful of individual companies that operate on an all-Ireland basis, there is an island economy, but there are many more individual companies operating across the UK’s internal market.
The Government are in a position where they cannot leave any ambiguity. This is part of the process by which Stormont was returned, and the Good Friday agreement was returned to operation. The “island economy” is a complex and slippery phrase. I have just said that I can understand completely why somebody might say there is one, but it is also very important to notice the very strong commitment in the Windsor Framework to there being two distinct economies on the island of Ireland. I suppose you can say that the island economy is a fact; it is just not as significant as the fact there are two distinct economies on the island of Ireland. There is a danger here that if we do not get this right, the whole compromise which has led to the re-establishment of Stormont will start to unravel. This is a commitment the Government have entered into in international law.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I cannot fault virtually anything the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said in her eloquent analysis from a technical point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, made a very important point that there is going to be a conveyor belt of these regulations as far as the eye can see at this time. Every time one of these comes along, there will be a wailing and a gnashing of teeth, and we will complain, and quite rightly so, because it is an affront to our status as citizens of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned the future and how things can be changed. I think we have to shift our focus to how we change things in a permanent and much more beneficial way.
In 2026, there is a review pencilled in of the trade and co-operation agreement. I believe that we should be putting our heads together now to develop a series of proposals that can rectify, in as far as it is possible, the situation we are in. While politicians do not like to say it, the truth is that this problem is fundamentally insoluble because we are half in and half out of the single market and half in and half of the United Kingdom’s single market. So, ultimately, we are fiddling around with these sorts of things and tweaking them, and tonight the Minister can justifiably say that this instrument is less bad than the one before it and that is true, but, as was pointed by the noble Baroness, what do we do with tourists? Does somebody bring their pet with them and have no intention of staying in Northern Ireland? We can all find ways to chip away at these things, and that is true.
However, we must now focus on working up an alternative that at least would begin to restore some of the sovereignty and remove some of the friction. I have to say that if people had done their homework some years ago, all of this was foreseen and foreseeable. There are no surprises here. The minutiae might be different. We might see something here that we had not quite seen, but we all knew and were told and were warned—we had debates galore in this House and in other places—that when the negotiation on Brexit was taking place, it was probably the worst piece of United Kingdom statecraft that many of us have ever witnessed. It was a bad negotiation and, ironically, some of those who negotiated it who are sitting on their Benches are getting up and attacking the negotiation. The individual who led it is attacking the outcome of his own negotiation, but that is neither here nor there.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I rise to support the regret amendment, moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and supported by my noble friend Lord Dodds.
The protocol and the Windsor Framework were built on a false and rotten foundation. The Windsor Framework was sold as a great step forward from the original protocol through which Northern Ireland would enter into the promised land flowing with milk and honey and foreign investors would be so excited by Northern Ireland’s favoured position in the United Kingdom, having access to the single market of the European Union, that they would be camping out and patiently waiting in line to invest in the Province.
Of course, having access to the European single market, we would have to subject ourselves to EU laws over which the elected Members here at Westminster or in the Assembly would have no influence. The concept that 300 areas of EU law should be imposed on Northern Ireland is highly offensive. It recklessly violates our constitutional position in the United Kingdom and dismisses the fundamentals of this heralded Belfast agreement, which demanded that any constitutional issue would have to be decided by a cross-community vote—in other words, by a majority of unionists and nationalists.
The purpose of this instrument is to provide a statutory basis for the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme, which is agreed under that Windsor Framework. According to Defra, the scheme will enable the “smooth and straightforward movement” of pets—pet dogs, including assistant dogs, cats and ferrets—from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, while ensuring that any pet movements from GB into Ireland or any other member state remain subject to the relevant EU law requirement. It has been acknowledged by the department that this is but another example of where a wider consultation would have been desirable. In other words, it did not take place in that wider context.
However, to my mind, deeper consultation would be meaningless whenever we have a Government that have closed their mind as regards the implications of the Windsor Framework. When Europe makes its demands, our Government usually cave in. The United Kingdom Government have got Northern Ireland so entangled with Europe under the protocol and the Windsor Framework that the only way to grant equal constitutional rights to the people of Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom is, in my opinion, to scrap the protocol and the Windsor Framework.
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said about taking the way forward and getting the alternative. But there is a big problem with an alternative because the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, who has spoken, and the noble Baroness who is speaking for the Lib Dems have in fact said that the protocol had to be rigorously implemented. In actual fact the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said again tonight that she wants the Windsor Framework to be rigorously implemented. Getting an alternative, when there are those who see a need not for change but rather for a rigorous implementation of what is there at present, which is totally unacceptable to many within Northern Ireland as British citizens, is going to be very difficult.
Under these regulations, pets can travel from Northern Ireland to GB and return from GB without needing any pet travel documents and will not be subject to any checks or processes. However, the same does not apply to pets travelling from GB to Northern Ireland. This is another part of the United Kingdom. GB pet owners will need to show that they have a valid pet passport document which applies to the pet that they are travelling with. They will need a valid GB address to obtain a pet travel document and that will be checked during the course of applying for it. Why has this happened? It is simply because the EU has legislated for it to happen within the United Kingdom—a foreign authority legislating what happens between two parts of the same United Kingdom. We have been told constantly that we have left that authority. In fact, listening to the Minister earlier on today we were told that Brexit will not be changed, so therefore we have left.
If persons from GB come to Northern Ireland with their dog and then wish to visit a friend over the border in the Irish Republic, they must subject themselves to a full SPS border check for their pet. Under these regulations, should the EU feel that they are not being implemented to the satisfaction of EU-authorised personnel, their operation can be suspended, or whatever other steps the EU feels appropriate will be taken.
If any animal—pet dogs, including assistance dogs, cats or ferrets—does not meet EU standards regarding documentation or identity checks, the animal can be taken into SPS custody. What impact assessment has been done on the regulations, or is this another example of simply being subservient to EU demands? What detailed consultations were held with guide dog owners? In the other place, the Minister explained the reason for her acceptance of this imposition by Europe and divergence within the United Kingdom:
“We believe in keeping our word and in fulfilling our obligations”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 6/11/24; col. 7.]
I ask the Minister: what does she feel about her Government’s obligations to the people of Northern Ireland and respecting the integrity of the United Kingdom? Surely, it is time to take a stand and to reject this Windsor Framework imposition. I, for one, am happy to vote—
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
Before the noble Lord sits down, he referred to the necessity and requirement for cross-community support, and he is absolutely right to highlight that important part of the arrangements in Northern Ireland. Therefore, would he accept that when the noble Lord, Lord Empey, read out various paragraphs of the proposal from Boris Johnson to the European Union at that time, he seemed to overlook and omit a key paragraph of part of that? He has done this on a number of occasions. It is that those proposals could happen only with the full consent of unionists and nationalists, not just in the Northern Ireland Assembly but in the Executive—so both nationalists and unionists would have an absolute lock on whether it happened or not. That is something that, of course, now unionists in Northern Ireland would take your right arm off for.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention and I wholeheartedly agree with him. It is now on the record, and I think it would have been good to read that part into the record as well.
The sad reality is that the goalposts have been moved recently. Because, in the vote taken in the Northern Ireland Assembly, for the first time—50 years—they have now declared there is no need for a cross-community vote. Members in this House have campaigned that this was so essential. The Belfast agreement was quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, tonight. The Belfast agreement.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
It is sacrosanct; it cannot be changed. Yet the reality is that, for this vote, it is being put into the bin and now it must be a simple majority vote. That is despicable, that is disgraceful and those who support it ought to be ashamed.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was not going to speak, but I feel I should, given some of the commentary around the House—some of it, quite frankly, was not correct. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Dodds corrected some of the commentary from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, in relation to 2019. Of course, we know that the reasons we got to 2019 were laid in 2017, in relation to the Prime Minister’s negotiations and how she set the agenda at that time.
One area I will raise again, like other noble Lords and noble Baronesses, is openness and transparency. Again, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee concluded that wider consultation would have been desirable. I take the point that was made about the level of scrutiny in the other place being fleeting at best. When I read through Hansard for the other place, I was, frankly, shocked at the level of scrutiny that had taken place.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, it will hardly come as a surprise to anyone that I will support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, as will my colleagues. In the debate on these regulations in another place, the Minister’s main defence was that they should be celebrated as an achievement because they represented an advance on what went before. There are two huge problems with that argument, as I see it, and I implore the Minister to be more sensitive to Northern Ireland—somehow, I think she will be—than the Minister in the other place was.
In the first instance, if these regulations were an improvement on what went before, they would be wholly unacceptable, because they are still a function of EU regulation 1231, which has already been mentioned tonight by others. It allows our country to be divided in two and hands the governance of that division, in the final analysis, to the European Union. In the second instance, they are not an improvement on what has gone before but a deterioration, because the marker against which the Government suggest that an improvement is being made is entirely theoretical, because the division to which they allude was never ever accommodated.
Let us, therefore, not play with words: these regulations confront us with a new level of division within ourselves from March 2025. I also appeal to the Minister not to confuse the issue by saying that Northern Ireland has always been treated differently for SPS purposes. There is a distinction, in my view anyway, between internal SPS checks within a sovereign country, on one hand, and the imposition of an international plant health border—I cannot think of any other way to say it—along with an international customs border, on the other, for the purpose of dividing our country into two. This is why people travelling from England to Northern Ireland have never before had to travel with a pet passport, border checks and the possibility of having their dogs remitted to an SPS facility. It is incredible—unbelievable.
I also appeal to the Minister not to tell us in Northern Ireland that we have nothing to worry about because the difficulties face those moving from GB to Northern Ireland and not the other way around. In the first instance, it is not correct that there are no burdens imposed on the movement of pets from Northern Ireland to GB. EU regulation 1231 makes it clear that pets must be microchipped, which is currently common only for dogs. In the second instance, however, and far more importantly, people who state that we have nothing to worry about because the burden is on east-west movements completely misjudge the situation and completely misunderstand us. Northern Ireland is the smallest part of the United Kingdom. If the Government impose any obstacles on people moving from GB to Northern Ireland, that necessarily makes the people of Northern Ireland feel more isolated and cut off, which is completely unacceptable.
The regulations confront us with exactly the same difficulty we confronted when looking at the Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant and Animal Health) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2024 in October. On that occasion we were forced to recognise that it was impossible to scrutinise the regulations without also scrutinising EU regulation 2023/1231, especially Articles 4 and 12. On this occasion, we have to look especially at Articles 12 and 14 of regulation 1231, as well as the regulations immediately before us.
In coming to today’s debate we must first remind ourselves of the title of EU regulation 1231:
“Regulation (EU) 2023/1231 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2023 on specific rules relating to the entry into Northern Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom of certain consignments of retail goods, plants for planting, seed potatoes, machinery and certain vehicles operated for agricultural or forestry purposes, as well as non-commercial movements of certain pet animals into Northern Ireland”.
This is a piece of legislation that relates not just to Northern Ireland but to the whole United Kingdom and it divides our country by an international border imposed by and governed by the EU.
Article 12 requires that if you wish to travel from Great Britain to see family in Northern Ireland with your pet dog, you can do so only if, first, you acquire a pet travel document validating that your pet is micro- chipped. Secondly, you have to sign a form renouncing your right to travel with your pet into the Republic of Ireland. Thirdly, your pet and its papers have to be checked on moving from GB to Northern Ireland—and you do so uncertainly, because you know that both you and your pet can be prevented from proceeding freely and may be sent to an SPS facility and not allowed to leave unless and until permission to do so is granted. In other words, you are made to feel like you are visiting a foreign country, and we are made to feel like we are foreigners.
In the last debate, the Minister sought to defend the imposition of EU regulation 1231, by which the EU not only imposes but asserts its sovereign right to govern the border in a way that is completely contrary to international law. The UN Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations does not tolerate any action such as that effected by the Windsor Framework and EU regulation 1231. It states that:
“Every State shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other State or country”.
How can we accommodate legislation, such as the Windsor Framework, that violates international law? No country can accommodate its division into two, especially when this also results in the disenfranchisement of 1.9 million people and the creation of a colony in 2024. The Government can kid themselves that all is well and that we can all live with this, but no country with an ounce of self-respect or commitment to its citizens, and any hope of a future, can accommodate this. They must wake up and adopt the EU (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill that is to have its Second Reading on 6 December in another place.
As my noble friend Lord McCrea has ably stated, we do not do majoritarianism in Northern Ireland. We have not been doing it for 50 years but, all of a sudden, in this instance, it is the acceptable way. If there was to be majority rule on other things in Northern Ireland, I suspect that those who are in favour of this regulation would be the first on their feet to say, “This is not the way we do things”. This is not the way it is done in Northern Ireland and the pending vote, which the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has already referred to, is a departure from those who gave us the Belfast agreement.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to these regulations, and for all the hard work she is doing to try to resolve the extremely difficult issues, which have been raised so eloquently by so many noble Lords.
I have three brief points. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for the opportunity to discuss these issues. However, I am not going to disappoint her, and I am going to say what she predicted I would. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and, as I have said on several occasions during these debates, I am afraid that we are in this situation because of the type of hard Brexit that the previous Government chose to adopt, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, eloquently said when he read out Boris Johnson’s memo.
In the rush to get Brexit done, incompatible promises were made in haste, which means that measures such as these regulations will keep on being introduced in order to make the system work. None the less, these Benches welcome these regulations because we believe they are a significant improvement on their previous requirement, as set out in the Northern Ireland protocol. They are a move towards a common-sense approach to these matters, allowing maximum freedom for pets between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while recognising the need to maintain high biodiversity standards.
It is particularly welcome that the pet travel document will be valid for the lifetime of a pet, which I believe—indeed, I hope—will minimise the need for bureaucracy. However, I would like to follow the question asked by noble Lords from the DUP, although I will ask it in a slightly different way. It is about how these regulations will be enforced in practice. As I understand it, the pet owner will be obliged to confirm that the pet which has travelled from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will not then subsequently move to Ireland, and therefore the EU. However, given that there is no border on the island of Ireland, how will these provisions be checked and enforced in reality?
My second question is really one of curiosity: why are these regulations just limited to dogs, cats and ferrets? What happens to pets being transported from Great Britain to Northern Ireland that are not currently covered by these three categories? Perhaps there is a logical reason for it, but I am not quite sure what it is.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the many contributions we have had this evening and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. As a number of noble Lords have said, including the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, it is important to have opportunities to debate these issues in some depth, because they are complex issues. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for appreciating that I am doing my best to work through these complex issues and understand all the different perspectives and points of view, so that I can do my job as effectively, efficiently and transparently as possible as we move forward on some quite complicated—and, in some quarters, controversial—regulations.
Regarding the Windsor Framework, there has been a lot of discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, made some very pertinent points and referenced some things that have been previously mentioned by my noble friend Lady Anderson. I have got a lot of questions to answer and I do not want to get bogged down in wider discussions about the Windsor Framework at this point—I will come back to them. However, one thing I do want to say, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie mentioned this, is that we are trying to work more constructively with the European Union; we are trying to reset that relationship. I have heard a number of criticisms of the European Union’s attitude towards discussions and negotiations and I am hoping that, with a more constructive approach to working with the EU, we may be able to make some progress in how we manage things going forward.
A number of questions were asked around checks. To be completely clear, Northern Ireland pet owners will not face any checks and there will be no checks for pets travelling from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. I will go on to a few other questions. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about unfettered trade and whether the Government were still committed to it. I can confirm that the Government have long-standing commitments to ensuring that Northern Ireland’s businesses have unfettered access to their most important market, which is of course Great Britain. That was legislated for in the UK Internal Market Act 2020 and is reflected in the border target operating model, which this Government are continuing.
The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, asked whether there had been an impact assessment. I can confirm that a de minimis assessment was completed for this statutory instrument, which is in line with standard practices and thresholds for the evaluation of impacts where these are expected to fall under the de minimis threshold. The assessment is that the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme will deliver large net benefits, particularly to UK pet owners.
Consultation, and the lack of it, was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. While there may not have been a formal consultation, the Government engaged comprehensively with interested stakeholders—including pet owners, ferry and airline companies that operate the travel routes between GB and Northern Ireland, and commercially owned pet microchip database operators—when the regulations were drafted.
Assistance dogs were mentioned. Guide Dogs UK has specifically highlighted the positive impact of removing single-use EU certificates on assistance dog owners who are travelling to Northern Ireland. The British Veterinary Association outlined that the arrangement will reduce paperwork and health treatments for vets.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie asked about the information being provided. I can confirm to her that there will be a public communications campaign; it is currently being planned. Officials are working with stakeholders, including vets, on that communications plan.
I turn to the SI’s requirement that pet owners apply for pet travel documents, because a number of questions were asked about that. Under the Northern Ireland protocol, dog owners in Great Britain would have to go to the vet and be checked for EU animal health certificates, rabies vaccinations or tapeworm treatments. That would cost the pet owner a considerable amount of money every time they wanted to travel into Northern Ireland. In practice, there are currently no routine checks on pets travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but of course this was only a temporary arrangement while the Windsor Framework pet travel scheme was being agreed. Officials have always reserved the right to undertake checks, should there be any suspicion of illegal activity or any welfare concerns.
The Northern Ireland pet travel scheme is designed to greatly simplify pet movements to Northern Ireland. There are no health treatment requirements; instead, the pet travel document requires more basic information. It is free. It can be applied for very easily and quickly online, and you do not need to visit a vet to do that. I also want to confirm that Northern Ireland-based pet owners will not need any pet travel documentation or be subject to any process when they return home with their pets. The scheme needs to ensure that GB pet owners have a valid pet travel document, because we need to mitigate against any abuse of the scheme. We believe that the new arrangement will involve a smoother experience than the current legal requirements.
Microchipping was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. I confirm that microchipping is already a legal requirement in England, Scotland and Wales for all dogs. It is now a requirement for cats in England—that came into force in June of this year. Microchipping is considered good practice, and it is also part of the Government’s commitment to world-leading standards in companion animal welfare. We believe that this approach to microchipping reflects existing requirements and practice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked whether there would be exemption certificates for microchipping on the basis that a dog might not be able to be microchipped if a vet said that that was the case. I have been assured that if the pet cannot be microchipped with a UK chip, the pet owner can still travel with the pet animal from GB to Northern Ireland under the existing pet passport scheme.
There were mentions about how burdensome the scheme could be; the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, referred to burdens. Clearly, the scheme needs to be adhered to, but the new arrangements will create a cheaper and smoother experience for those travelling with their pet from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, because it removes the need for pet health treatments, as I mentioned. This is because the scheme recognises, for example, the rabies-free status of the UK. As other noble Lords have said, the benefit is that it also lasts for the entire lifetime of the pet.
I turn to some other questions. How will things be enforced? One thing that is important to say is that I am sure the vast majority of people will comply with the scheme and the rules. The Government intend to provide comprehensive support to those travelling with their pets to ensure that they can do so. I cannot remember now who asked about pets being taken to facilities. We need something in place, because you cannot have something that is open to abuse. You have to have some kinds of checks in place and something that happens if people do not comply. But we do expect this to be very rare. If any pet is taken to a facility, we expect that to be extremely rare—but, clearly, it is a new scheme that will be monitored and we will check progress.
Another question that the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked was why the scheme covers only cats, dogs and ferrets. It is for the very simple reason that these pets make up the vast majority of movements and it is about keeping things simple and manageable. It is in line with relevant applicable regulations that have grouped these animals together. Also, they are those most susceptible to rabies. That is that is the other reason for having that in place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked whether everyone travelling with pets would have to be checked to identify whether people are not resident in the UK: are they travelling to Northern Ireland via GB in transit from another country? Onward travel to the EU was mentioned. There are no new requirements applied by the Windsor Framework concerning movements into Ireland, the EU or for those who are not resident in the UK, or otherwise not covered by the pet travel scheme. What is required in these circumstances is unchanged by the Windsor Framework. If pet owners wish to travel with their pet on to Ireland, provided the same rules that have applied throughout Ireland’s membership of the EU are adhered to, that option remains available to them.
I will conclude. It has been a long debate, so if I have not answered anything, I will go through Hansard carefully and write to noble Lords. I just want to summarise. The Northern Ireland pet travel scheme certainly has benefits. It is new, sustainable, durable and will support non-commercial pet travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and secure the smooth movement of pets within the UK. It will also remove costs, pet health treatments and red tape.
I want to make one point before I conclude. I am very aware of the concerns that have been raised during the debate on this SI. I am aware that similar concerns were raised on previous SIs and I am sure that, as further SIs come forward, we will return to these discussions and debates. I want to reassure noble Lords who have expressed concerns that I am continuing to engage constructively with DAERA and relevant organisations in Northern Ireland. It is important that we start to rebuild trust in these areas. In fact, I am going to Belfast next week for a couple of days and intend to do that regularly as part of my portfolio. I know that a number of broader issues that have been discussed. I very much appreciated the meeting I had with noble Lords representing Northern Ireland some weeks ago and look forward to continuing that ongoing engagement, where we can get more into the depth of these broader concerns. Having said that, I thank once again all noble Lords for their contributions.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Can the Minister discuss with her ministerial colleagues, looking towards the review in 2026 of the trade and co-operation agreement, work which can be undertaken to find a way out of this as best as possible? It would at least be reassuring to Members. I hope that work has already started but, if it has not, it ought to.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I apologise; I know that the noble Lord raised this in his speech. I am more than happy to speak to ministerial colleagues on those matters.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. I want to say, as usual when this kind of statutory instrument is being discussed, that it goes much wider than the actual SI. I kept my remarks specifically to pets, and a number of questions were asked which it was very difficult for the Minister to answer. I very much appreciate her genuine sympathy and concern. We will go through Hansard to see what more needs to be answered, because one of the things that has come out of tonight’s debate is that there is genuine confusion, much more within the departments than even with the Minister. That has to be sorted.
I thank those noble Lords who supported my regret amendment. The two noble Lords who opposed it did not say anything specific about what was wrong with the issues that I raised; they tended to go wider than that. I am sorry if I pre-empted the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I always know that she will say that it is all Brexit’s fault. However, I thank her very much for asking some questions that were very relevant to the debate.
Scrutiny is the reason that we are here tonight and why these SIs always take a long time; I know that there are many frustrated colleagues here tonight wishing that this had gone through in a quick hour. It is because there is no real scrutiny in Northern Ireland. As the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said, many MLAs now say that quite a lot of what is going on there is a farce in terms of scrutiny. The scrutiny for this part of the United Kingdom is more and more having to come in this Chamber, which is why we have these debates.
I am still not at all satisfied and feel very strongly that all those animal lovers out there watching this tonight—many knew that it was happening, particularly the Kennel Club, which I mentioned earlier—will not feel satisfied about any of the answers and will not understand why our Governments have allowed this to happen. I keep tabling regret amendments. I am getting fed up with regret. I would like to press this amendment to a vote.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, at one minute to 10 it is not practical to go back to the Football Governance Bill. We have done only two groups today, having started this afternoon. We will have discussions with the usual channels over the next couple of days because we have only four days left on the Bill and many more groups to do. I will be discussing how we will make much greater progress than we have made today.