House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
This Government are focused on enhancing and spreading opportunity and growing our economy. We will ensure that a high quality range of post-16 qualifications is available to sixth forms, through the independent curriculum and assessment review—which is well under way—and through the continued roll-out of T-levels.
Lincoln Jopp
In Spelthorne we have six secondary schools, only two of which provide A-levels; the rest are middle schools taking pupils only up to GCSE level. There have been plans in the past to increase sixth-form provision in Spelthorne, but they have been in abeyance for two years. Will the Minister please agree to meet me, so that we can work out what is causing this blockage and unlock the opportunity to which she has just referred?
Janet Daby
Obviously many things needed attention because of the last Government, and many things were not accomplished, but I am sure that my noble Friend Baroness Smith of Malvern will be willing to meet the hon. Member to discuss his concerns.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
In my constituency there is no A-level provision. Some students have told me that they have to travel for hours just to study, and others consider this a barrier to continuing at school at all. Will my hon. Friend work with me to bring A-levels back to Knowsley?
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for her thoughtful question. The Government are committed to ensuring that young people have access to appropriate education and career opportunities, but the focus must be on delivering provision that offers them the best learning experience and opportunities possible. In Knowsley, A-level provision has not been deemed viable owing to a lack of demand, but students there have access to high quality post-16 academic provision in surrounding boroughs.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Staff in non-academised sixth-form colleges are not being offered the same pay increase as staff in academised colleges. It is understood that a sum of money is available for post-16 education, but colleges have been left completely unclear about whether that sum will be enough to offset the national insurance increase or whether they will find, as universities have, that it is entirely eaten up by that increase. Will the Minister agree to publish the cost of the national insurance increase to sixth-form colleges, and if she will not publish it, why on earth not?
Janet Daby
I find it shocking that the shadow Minister has taken no responsibility for the many circumstances in which we have found ourselves having to make decisions that are in the best interests of students and colleges. We are conducting various reviews to try to ensure that we put right the mess that we inherited.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Breakfast clubs break down barriers to opportunity so that children are ready to learn. They are proven to boost attendance, attainment, wellbeing and behaviour, and they also provide essential childcare options for parents. In only a few days, hundreds of schools have applied to become early adopters because they know that these clubs can improve children’s life chances and, crucially, academic standards.
Terry Jermy
As a former youth worker and a former school governor, I know that this initiative will make a huge difference, and I have written to all the schools in my constituency encouraging them to apply. Will the Secretary of State please outline the next steps?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he is undertaking in making his local schools aware of the opportunities that breakfast clubs present. The early adopters scheme will enable up to 750 participating schools to start providing them from April 2025 onwards. We have tripled investment in breakfast clubs following the Budget. Schools have until 20 December to apply for the scheme, and I would encourage many more to do so.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Thousands of schools are already participating in the national school breakfast club programme, including many special schools and secondary schools, but the clubs actually have a bigger effect on attendance. The Secretary of State has talked a great deal about breakfast clubs in primary schools, but what is the future for the existing clubs in those special and secondary schools?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the interest that I know—from his former roles—he takes in this issue. We are building on the existing programmes, expanding investment and opportunities, but I agree with him that we need to ensure that breakfast clubs are available to all children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities. To ensure that the roll-out is a success, some of the early adopters will be in special and alternative provision schools.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I welcome the decision to introduce breakfast clubs, which will have an amazing impact on pupils in my constituency and everywhere else. Will the Secretary of State tell us a little about the logistics of rolling out the programme throughout the country, and how quickly that can be done?
Bridget Phillipson
As I said, schools have until 20 December to apply to take part in the early adopters scheme. That is because we want to ensure that we establish the scheme, and understand the benefits and challenges, before we roll it out across the country. We are determined to get this right, and we will build on the early adopters to deliver universal free breakfast clubs in every primary school in England.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
While the children’s wellbeing Bill proposes statutory breakfast programmes, research from the Food Foundation shows that such clubs are more likely to benefit wealthier families because of the convenience that they offer working parents. By contrast, offering children free school lunches is known to help iron out inequalities. Some 800,000 children in poverty are ineligible for free school meals, and more than 200,000 eligible children are not registered. Does the Secretary of State agree that expanding school lunches, and implementing auto-enrolment for free school meals for all children, would be an effective and equitable approach to tackling food insecurity and supporting our children’s health and academic performance?
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Lady is right to identify the importance of ensuring that all our children have healthy, balanced and nutritious diets, including at school. However, she will know that the situation that this Government inherited from the previous Government means that we have had to take some very tough decisions. We will set out more in due course as we set out legislation that we promised in the King’s Speech. I slightly take issue with some of the evidence she points to, because the evidence on breakfast clubs demonstrates wider benefits for all children in attainment, wellbeing and overall performance.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Because of the increase in national insurance, the Early Years Alliance is warning of a 20% increase in fees for early years parents, which affects nurseries and things like paid-for breakfast clubs. It says that the Budget will be a “recipe for total disaster”, with up to four in 10 early years providers closing unless drastic action is taken. As a first step towards averting that disaster, will the Secretary of State now agree to publish the Department’s estimate of how much the national insurance increase will cost early years providers? If she will not publish it, why not? Does the House not deserve to have this information?
Bridget Phillipson
I take the concerns of early years providers very seriously indeed, and we will set out in due course the funding rates and the approach that we are taking. The hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party are very keen to complain about and criticise the measures that we set out in the Budget, yet the Leader of the Opposition herself said that she would refuse to reverse them. They want all the benefits—the teachers, the breakfast clubs and rising standards—but they are not prepared to take the tough decisions that are necessary. As a former Treasury Minister, the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), should know better, because she saw the scale of the fiscal inheritance that this Government inherited from her party.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
As the first step towards our opportunity mission, we have begun the critical work of recruiting 6,500 new expert teachers. We have fully funded a 5.5% pay award, begun Ofsted reform, and taken steps to make teachers’ work more flexible and ensure that workloads are more manageable. I am determined to reset the relationship between Government and the workforce to drive high and rising standards for all our children.
Amanda Martin
At a recent local public meeting in Paulsgrove, Portsmouth, parents raised concerns about school provision and the learning environment. As a local authority, we sit in the bottom three in the league tables. What steps is the Secretary of State taking not only to improve recruitment and retention in specialist subjects, but to ensure that there are key staff in specialist areas, where different learning environments are needed in our classrooms?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the challenges that we face in particular parts of the country, and there are no greater champions of Portsmouth than her and the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan). We are taking steps to ensure that teaching is the go-to profession for our best graduates, as well as ensuring that we keep experienced, well-qualified professionals in teaching. On specialist support, we have set out measures around SEND reform and additional investment to address the challenges that my hon. Friend identifies.
Bambos Charalambous
I begin by thanking all the teachers, support staff and senior leaders in my constituency of Southgate and Wood Green, and across the country, for their hard work ensuring that our children receive the high quality education they deserve. Teachers’ pay, their workload and the environment in which they work have been highlighted as reasons why they leave the profession. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps she is taking to address the reasons for teachers quitting the profession?
Bridget Phillipson
I join my hon. Friend in praising the amazing teachers and support staff in his constituency and across our country for the vital work that they do. I want to ensure not only that we keep teachers in the profession but that they thrive in it, which is why I was pleased to agree to the recommendation of a 5.5% pay award, but we know that there is much more to do to keep experienced, dedicated staff in the profession. I know from speaking to many of them that many of the challenges they face go way beyond the school gate. That is why I am proud to lead the work on child poverty, together with the Work and Pensions Secretary, to address some of the drivers of workload and pressures that many of our school staff are facing.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Some 9,000 women in their 30s left teaching in 2022-23. This is the single biggest age group leaving teaching in Bath and across the country. Will the Government improve maternity pay for teachers and teaching assistants?
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Lady is right to identify that challenge, and I have used that statistic many times myself. I am really concerned about the big numbers of experienced women, particularly those in their 30s, who leave teaching because they find it too difficult to combine work with family life. That is why, as part of what we have set out to the School Teachers Review Body process, we have asked it to look specifically at some of those challenges. As part of our wider work across Government to make work pay, we are ensuring better rights at work and that maternity protections are rolled out for workers across our country.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which shows that I am in the 19th year of being a proud primary school governor. The Secretary of State will know that schools are led by teachers but also that many volunteers go towards making our schools the brilliant places of learning that they are. Too many of the schools in my constituency have vacancies for governors. Will the Secretary of State tell us what she is doing to increase the recruitment and retention of school governors?
Bridget Phillipson
I congratulate the hon. Lady on the important work that she does as a school governor. They are the unsung heroes across our communities in terms of the support they provide to our schools. I recognise the increasing challenge that she sets out around how we can ensure that people come forward to take on those important roles. That is why we have been working with the bodies representing governors to ensure that we attract more people into those important roles to drive forward standards in our schools.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
Schools with primary age pupils can now apply to become early adopters of the universal free breakfast club programme starting from April 2025. Up to 750 participating schools will be funded to provide access to a free universal breakfast club lasting at least 30 minutes that includes food.
Matt Turmaine
In my constituency, parents speak to me about their worries and concerns regarding education provision and support. These range from being able to get their children into a good local school to how they will be able to continue to work while parenting. Will my hon. Friend outline further the benefits that breakfast clubs will bring to parents and pupils in constituencies such as mine?
Stephen Morgan
This Government are committed to making quick progress to deliver on our commitment to offer a free breakfast club in every primary school to ensure that children are ready to learn at the start of the school day. The Chancellor has announced a tripling of investment in breakfast clubs, driving improvements to behaviour, attendance and attainment and, for parents, more choices over childcare.
David Burton-Sampson
I have contacted all the primary schools in my constituency to encourage them to become early adopters. Child poverty in my constituency stands at 12.1%, and food bank use has risen by 433% over the last five years. Does my hon. Friend agree that breakfast clubs will be part of the solution by helping to lift children out of poverty, giving them food in their belly to start the school day and encouraging their parents back into part-time employment?
Stephen Morgan
Parents and carers up and down the country are still struggling with the cost of living. As part of our mission to bring down barriers to opportunity, breakfast clubs give parents and carers the confidence that their child can access a breakfast, should they need one, and we are supporting families to work with the cost of childcare. It is a pity that the Conservatives cannot say whether they back our plan to deliver better life chances for all children in all parts of the country.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Nurseries and the small businesses that provide before and after-school clubs are being whacked by national insurance increases, and there is little clarity from the Government about how these breakfast clubs will work, which has the potential to undermine another part of their business model. What representations has the Education Secretary made to the Chancellor to deal with the massive hole that she has blown in her plans?
Stephen Morgan
We take no lectures from the Conservative party on how it failed children over the last 14 years. I have heard providers’ concerns about early years funding, and I recognise the importance of local authorities and providers planning ahead for the pivotal expansion year. We will be updating the House very soon on that issue.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Recently I met my constituent Farhan Adam, a winner of headmaster of the year, who lamented the fact that he spends more time addressing issues such as food insecurity than doing what he loves, which is teaching. This is not surprising as, according to the Food Foundation, approximately 18% of households with children are experiencing food insecurity. Does the Secretary of State agree that, in addition to breakfast clubs, lifting the two-child cap would help to alleviate this problem?
Stephen Morgan
Breakfast clubs offer a huge amount, including food and club provision. I encourage the hon. Member to consider that for roll-out in his constituency. More broadly, he will be aware of the ministerial taskforce focused on child poverty, which will report in the new year.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
The Government recognise that breaking down barriers to opportunity for children with special educational needs and disabilities will take a cross-Government approach. To that end, I recently met the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), to discuss how we can work together to solve some of the challenges. The Department for Education is committed to ensuring adequate support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and recently announced £740 million of capital funding to support children with SEN to learn and thrive in mainstream settings.
Sarah Green
A recent National Audit Office report makes it clear that, without reform, the SEN system is financially unsustainable. The Minister will know that, since 2020, local authorities such as Buckinghamshire council have been able to exclude their dedicated school grant deficits from their main revenue budgets. That statutory override means that local authorities do not breach their duty to set a balanced budget, but it is due to end in March 2026, and there is currently no identified solution. Can the Minister share more on what urgent conversations she is having with colleagues to ensure that local authorities get the certainty they need?
Catherine McKinnell
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government regulations, which ringfence dedicated support grant deficits from councils’ wider financial position, were amended. The statutory override goes up to March 2026, when it expires, and we are currently considering how best to continue support for local authorities with deficits. Fundamentally, this is about reforming the system to ensure that more children can be educated within a mainstream setting, and that we have special school places available for those with the most complex needs.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Perranporth academy in my constituency plans to provide significant SEN provision, but it is one of 44 schools currently under a value-for-money review. As of last week, the head of Perranporth primary school had not been consulted on this. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the plight of Perranporth academy?
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns, and we recognise the unprecedented pressures that local authorities are under. High needs funding, which we recently increased, will benefit both mainstream schools and special schools because we will ensure the funding reaches children who need it. However, I recognise the issues and concerns that he raises, and will be happy to arrange a meeting to discuss this further.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Last week’s announcement of capital funding to ensure that mainstream schools are more inclusive for children with special needs is, of course, welcome, but the Minister will know that, for many children with additional needs, even the most inclusive mainstream schools simply are not appropriate. With two in three special schools at or over capacity, can she provide a timeline for when the 67 planned special free schools will be delivered? Will she commit to looking favourably on local authority applications for such schools?
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the hon. Lady for her recognition of the additional funding. We expect the funding to create thousands of new places, particularly in mainstream schools but also in special schools and other specialist settings. We will confirm the allocations for individual local authorities in the spring, as they know best how to invest in their local area. We are keeping the free schools programme under review and will provide that confirmation in due course.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
Supporting kinship placements is critical to deliver our opportunity mission to ensure that children grow up in safe and loving homes. We have recently announced a £40 million package to trial a kinship allowance. The trial will test whether an allowance can support more children to settle with family and friends.
Alice Macdonald
I recently met kinship carers in Norwich, who do an amazing job in very difficult circumstances. One of the biggest challenges they face is financial support. Kinship’s recent “Forgotten” report found that children in kinship care are struggling because of an inaccessible and complicated picture of support. Has the Minister made an assessment of extending relevant financial support, such as pupil premium plus, to all children in kinship care?
Janet Daby
This Government acknowledge and appreciate the crucial role that kinship carers play. I am pleased that the virtual school heads scheme has been expanded to support kinship children. I encourage kinship carers and schools to work together to support kinship children and those with identified needs. The Department will continue to review the matter, to ensure that children get the right support.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Minister’s response about kinship carers. What progress has been made on offering kinship carers respite provision, so that they can be given short-term breaks to ease the pressures facing kinship families?
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very good question. It is important that kinship carers, as well as the children they are looking after, have the support they need. Through the process of family group decision making, families will come together to have conversations about how best to support children in kinship care. Respite and other related matters will be discussed to ensure that the right provision is in place. This Government are committed to getting it right for children, especially where the previous Government failed.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
The previous Government left behind a skills system that was fragmented and failing: falling numbers of apprenticeships for young people; adults unable to find the training courses they need; businesses confused; and no plans to equip people with the skills for the economy and opportunities of tomorrow. We are turning the page by establishing Skills England to unify that fragmented landscape, and bringing forward a plan for post-16 education and skills, which will deliver the education and training pathways that our economy, employers and learners need.
Anna Dixon
Some 3.8 million people aged 19 and over benefit from skills education in England every year. I pay tribute to all the hard-working professionals employed in further education, including at Shipley college in my constituency. However, businesses in Saltaire tell me that they struggle to recruit people with the digital and tech skills that they need locally. I welcome steps taken by the Government to address skills shortage vacancies. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the benefits of Skills England will be felt by businesses in Shipley?
Bridget Phillipson
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the staff at Shipley college. She is right that it is time that we, as a country, took skills much more seriously. We were left with skills shortages in many key areas, including those she identified. We will be giving businesses the flexibility they have been asking for, to unlock growth and drive opportunity through the reformed growth and skills levy.
Joe Morris
When I speak to small businesses in my constituency of Hexham, they regularly decry an inability to recruit young people from the area, who want to remain in the area where they grew up. Will the Secretary of State assure me that we will be working with small and medium-sized businesses to ensure that young people can remain where they grew up, should they wish to do so, which sadly was very hard under the previous Government?
Bridget Phillipson
Following on from small business Saturday, we all recognise that small employers are the backbone of our economy. My hon. Friend is right that it should not be the case that young people in places such as Hexham should have to get out in order to get on. We are creating Skills England to fill the skills gaps we see across our country. Skills England will also work with our regional mayors to ensure that we address some of the regional inequalities we see, as well as some of the opportunity areas, because we know that particular parts of the country have a real ability to drive forward growth, jobs and opportunities.
Dave Robertson
South Staffordshire college’s creative arts faculty is based at Lichfield college in my constituency. In January, it will open a new state-of-the-art recording studio and rehearsal space that will allow students to develop skills in both music performance and music production, ensuring that they are well prepared for careers in the creative arts for their entire future. Does the Secretary of State agree that such investments are essential for the UK to maintain its role as a global leader in the creative arts, and that the Government should support them wherever they can?
Bridget Phillipson
Absolutely. That is why we set out in the Budget an additional £300 million of capital investment for our colleges. I am sure that the opportunities that my hon. Friend sets out are just the kind that we need to see across our country. The creative industries have a crucial role to play in driving growth in communities right across our country, and through our curriculum and assessment review we will ensure that all young people have the chance to study a wide range of subjects.
Jen Craft
This morning I had the pleasure of visiting South Essex college in my constituency, which offers a significant variety of post-16 skills-based courses, from theatre and music production through to digital skills, robotics and hospitality. The college is keen to raise the aspirations of local young people, matching their ambitions with the needs of employers in the region. What role does the Secretary of State see the further education sector playing in delivering the Government’s skills agenda?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that our further education colleges have a crucial role to play in providing opportunities for our young people and for adult returners to education. Colleges have a strong impact on regional economic growth. We think that they have a bigger role to play still, which is why they will be a central part of what we take forward through Skills England.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
At the general election, the Government said that they would specifically target technical training in areas such as construction, engineering and digital, in order to take pressure off immigration into key roles, so why are they failing to act on the pay gap between further education teaching posts and those in schools?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree that there is a very big pay gap for further education; I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that it took place over the last 14 years, during which his party was in power. I absolutely accept the challenge that more is required, because our further education colleges have a crucial role to play, but that is the situation we inherited from the Conservative party.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Secretary of State will be aware that all analyses of the supply of green skills, such as the recent global climate talent stocktake, show a massive undersupply of such skills. Demand is growing at double the rate of supply. What are the Government’s plans to address that important shortfall, and will the Secretary of State or her officials meet me to discuss how such plans might include unblocking the approval of new qualifications—for example, the currently blocked natural history GCSE?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree that there are lots of job opportunities in the years to come in clean technology, green jobs and much more besides. That is why we have started work very quickly to begin the process of legislating to establish Skills England, which already exists in shadow form. It has already undertaken an audit of what more is required. I know that there are lots of fantastic new jobs out there connected to construction and engineering that align very much with our drive towards net zero. I am more than happy to ensure that the hon. Lady gets a meeting on the topic.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
There has never been greater urgency for us to equip our young people with the skills they need to enter a career in farming, yet only half of those who took level 3 agricultural apprenticeships in Cumbria last year completed them, and no level 4 apprenticeships were available. Will the Secretary of State look at this worrying situation, pay personal attention to it, and provide the funding necessary for us to have agricultural apprenticeships in Britain’s leading agricultural county?
Bridget Phillipson
I am more than happy to look personally at the issue that the hon. Gentleman sets out, to ensure that we do more in this area. He will be aware that we have a review under way of level 3 qualifications, but we know that as a country we need to do much more on level 4 and 5 qualifications as well. If he will share further information with me, I will happily look into the matter.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Lytchett Minster school in my constituency is proud of its record in delivering level 3 BTecs; in fact, its sixth form would not survive without BTecs. What assurance can the Secretary of State give me about the continuation of these really important qualifications, which suit less academically able children?
Bridget Phillipson
We are making good progress on our post-16 qualifications reform review, which will report by the end of the year, so the hon. Lady does not have long to wait to hear the outcomes of that review.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Before the election, Labour promised to let businesses spend 50% of their apprenticeship levy money on non-apprenticeships, but now Ministers say the commitment is under review. Ministers are taking away the flexibility of businesses to spend their own money on level 7 apprenticeships—a big change to the principles of the levy. Will the Secretary of State confirm when the review of her own policy will conclude, and will she rule out doing to level 6 apprenticeships what she is doing to level 7 apprenticeships?
Bridget Phillipson
We remain committed to reforming the failing apprenticeship levy and turning it into a growth and skills levy with up to 50% flexibility for employers, driving new opportunities in growth areas across our country, alongside ensuring that we deliver many more apprenticeship starts for our young people. We inherited a situation where apprenticeship starts were falling at a time when we urgently need to invest in the skills of the next generation. We will work with business through Skills England to drive forward what is required for adult learners as well as young people.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
All children deserve a rich and broad education so that they do not miss out on subjects, such as music, art and drama. As part of our opportunity mission, we have launched an independent, expert-led curriculum and assessment review, and we are committed to ensuring that young people are supported to study creative subjects.
Dr Opher
Over the past 14 years, the amount of creative education, particularly at primary level, has been reducing and reducing, so I welcome what the Minister said. There is evidence that doing creative things and learning creative subjects improves our wellbeing, mental health and academic learning. Would the Minister support my campaign to bring musical instrument teaching to every primary school in the country, not just the more well-off ones?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend speaks with great wisdom. We have confirmed £79 million of funding for a national network of music hubs to give children and young people the opportunity to learn to sing or play an instrument, to create music and to progress their musical interests and talents. We have also launched the music opportunities pilot, with £5.8 million of funding over four years to support students with special educational needs and disabilities and those with less means to access the opportunities to do so.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
The Secretary of State has made it clear that she would like more time spent on creative subjects, but she must ensure that does not come at the expense of an academic education. Last week’s international education stats found that English children are the best at maths in the western world. That is brilliant news and testament to the hard work of teachers and pupils. It is also down to a world-class curriculum put in place by the previous Government. Will she finally celebrate those results and instruct her curriculum review that it must not dilute academic standards and put that progress at risk?
Catherine McKinnell
From their shameless sense of pride, we would never know that the Conservative Government left England’s school standards getting worse. Conservative Members may be happy that half of disadvantaged pupils in state schools did not meet the requirements in reading, writing or maths at the end of primary school, but we do not think their record is anything to be proud of. Standards is the watchword for this Labour Government, and not just for some of our children but for all of them.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
Secondary schools are required to teach about sexual exploitation, and this Labour Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls within a decade. Education has a key role to play in addressing that.
Catherine Fookes
I agree entirely. As we near the end of the 16 days of activism, it is really important that we continue to talk about commercial sexual exploitation, which is the exchange of money, accommodation, services or goods for sex acts. It has an impact on all young people’s lives, including in my constituency of Monmouthshire, particularly through exposure to violent online pornography, as well as via the damaging message conveyed by the fact that there is legal impunity for running pimping websites. Does the Minister agree that schools should be supported in addressing these issues through a whole-school approach to combating sexism and sexual harassment, as advocated by organisations such as UK Feminista?
Catherine McKinnell
Of course I agree with my hon. Friend that taking a whole-school approach to tackling sexual abuse and violence is incredibly important. The statutory guidance is very clear that relationship and sexual health education should be delivered through a whole-school approach. Through our safer streets and opportunities missions, the Government are considering how best to support schools in tackling this issue.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
We are making good progress with the review of qualifications reform, which has focused on the level 3 qualifications that are scheduled to have their funding removed on 31 July 2025. We are working quickly to provide certainty to the sector, and will publish the outcomes of the review before the end of the year.
Gareth Snell
I draw the House’s attention to my declared interests: I am the governor of a sixth-form college. I thank the Minister for that answer, but she will know that the certainty that she hopes to give is simply not there. Colleges have had to put off printing prospectuses. They have had open evenings and assemblies for schools at which they have not been able to confirm what they will teach. There are staff allocation issues, and they have even been asked to make projections about T-level funding for T-levels that they are not sure they will have the pupil numbers for, because they do not know which equivalent BTecs will be stood down. They will enter 2025 not knowing what they can teach. Does she think that is acceptable? What support will there be for colleges that will have to turn things around very quickly, whatever the outcome of the review?
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for really pushing me on this issue, and for explaining the situation so well. I acknowledge to him and the sector the uncertainty and difficulties in this area. Following the election, we moved quickly to pause the defunding that was scheduled for 31 July 2024. I fully appreciate that colleges need time to plan their provision, and that students need time to plan what courses they will take. We are working as quickly as possible to conclude the review, and we will publish the outcomes before the end of the year.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Tackling child poverty is at the heart of our opportunity mission. After a decade of Conservative Government, far too many children are growing up in poverty. It is a scar on our society, a blight on young lives, and the centrepiece of the Conservatives’ shameful legacy. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and I are getting on with the job of chairing the child poverty taskforce, which has started the urgent work needed ahead of the publication of our child poverty strategy in spring 2025.
Chris McDonald
During the summer, I visited the holiday activities and food programme run by Stockton borough council, which provides a healthy meal for low-income families in my constituency. Can my right hon. Friend provide some assurance that funding for that programme will continue into next year?
Bridget Phillipson
I join my hon. Friend by extending my thanks to the staff at Stockton borough council for their hard work on the holiday activities and food programme over the past year. We are working through our budget settlement to agree measures to support families during the holidays, and in due course we will set out what further steps we can take. He will know, as I do, that while talent is spread across our country, opportunity is not. His constituency is full of children whom the Conservatives let down. This Labour Government will break down barriers.
Michelle Welsh
We know that children growing up in poverty on average do less well in education, with many children also having to miss out on other enriching school activities such as days out because they simply cannot afford them. Does the Secretary of State agree that every child, including the almost 7,000 children living in poverty in my Sherwood Forest constituency, should have the same opportunities to thrive at school, and that tackling child poverty is essential in ensuring that every child can succeed?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree; it is absolutely right that children in my hon. Friend’s constituency deserve every chance to achieve and thrive, and that is the ultimate goal of our child poverty taskforce. As the Prime Minister set out just last week through our plan for change, we want to give every child the best start in life, and that is just not possible if millions of children across our country are growing up in poverty.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
The Government’s ambition is that all children with special educational needs receive the right support to succeed, where possible in mainstream schools. We will strengthen accountability and improve inclusivity through Ofsted, and we will support professionals to develop their SEND expertise. High needs funding will increase by almost £1 billion in the next spending year.
Helen Morgan
Children with special educational needs and disabilities in Shropshire are relatively poorly funded compared with those in the rest of the country. Top-up funding for those with the highest level of needs is just £7,000, meaning that the schools that support them cannot even afford a full-time teaching assistant to help them progress. Can the Minister describe what she is doing to ensure that funding is fairly distributed across the country, so that children with special educational needs can get the help they need wherever they live?
Catherine McKinnell
We know that local authorities have been significantly impacted by increased demand for education, health and care plans, as well as challenges in workforce capacity. We expect the £740 million of additional investment to create thousands of new places in both mainstream and special schools and in specialist settings. We will confirm the allocations to specific local authorities, which know how best to invest in their local areas to increase capacity as needed, in the spring.
Dr Pinkerton
Across Surrey last year, more than 1,800 children with special educational needs were absent from school for more than a third of the time. Special educational needs co-ordinators are incredibly frustrated that EHCPs are coming back from our local council with the wrong names, describing the wrong conditions and offering the wrong packages of care. Teachers are stretched, headteachers cannot stretch their budgets any further, and one or both parents are having to give up employment to look after their children, yet the leadership of Surrey county council has said that there is not a problem with special educational needs, but that there are parents who are too articulate. Would the Minister please meet me and SENCOs to discuss this very serious—
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say to the hon. Gentleman that it is much easier if he gets to the question, instead of having all the preamble? I cannot get other people in. I think the question was clear.
Catherine McKinnell
Following the most recent local area SEND inspection by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission in September 2023, the Department—working alongside NHS England—continues to track the progress that the Surrey partnership is making against the areas for improvement that were identified, offering support and advice to the local authority. I appreciate the significant concerns that the hon. Gentleman outlines, and we will continue to keep the situation under review.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Bradstow special school in my constituency supports some of the most vulnerable children across the south-east. More than half of those children are from families in Kent, yet Tory-led Kent county council has refused to pay £2 million in fees, contributing to that school now facing closure. Kent has been offered the school for free, including all of its land, yet it is refusing to keep the school open. Will the Minister join me in urging Kent county council to take responsibility and work with the governing body, staff and children’s families to ensure that we can keep this vital school open?
Catherine McKinnell
If we are to improve the situation that far too many children face in relation to special educational needs and disabilities, and to meet demand, which we know is outstripping supply, it is vital that areas work together in partnership. That is why we very much recommend that local authorities work together with health partners and local schools to solve some of those challenges together. The Department for Education will work closely with them to make sure that every child gets the education they deserve.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
A National Audit Office report published in October highlights that special educational needs places in independent schools can cost two and a half times as much as in state schools. Does the Minister agree that if we are to ensure that children get the support they need in future, we will have to assist local authorities in expanding their number of special needs places?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We know that the situation needs reform, and that we need much greater capacity within mainstream schools so that children with special educational needs and disabilities can be educated alongside their peers where that is the appropriate place for them to be, but also so that special school places are available where needed. That is why we have put in £740 million of additional investment to support mainstream schools to expand their specialist provision.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Children growing up in our country deserve the best start in life, and nothing less. That is why, last week, the Prime Minister published his plan for change, including an ambitious target to ensure that, by the end of the Parliament, a record proportion of children are ready for school. We will do this by transforming the early years, creating and expanding nurseries, rolling out childcare, strengthening family services and focusing on early intervention.
Mr Speaker, as we approach the end of the term, I wish you and all the staff of the House a very merry Christmas, and send my thanks to all the staff working across education.
Esther McVey
I have met private schools in and around Tatton that are attended by my constituents’ children, and they have all me told that, despite having applied for a VAT number, not one of them has received it. Will the Secretary of State explain to me what discussions she is having with the Chancellor to put this right, particularly in the light of the rushed implementation of this misguided ideological policy in January?
Bridget Phillipson
I would be happy to make sure that the point the right hon. Lady raises is looked into, but on the wider policy priority, I say to her that this party and this Government are determined to expand opportunity right across our country for the vast majority of children, who go to state schools. The Opposition may be happy to defend the indefensible, but should they wish to oppose what we are setting out, they need to say how they are going to pay for it.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concern. As she will know, this Government inherited a broken system from the previous Government. We want to make sure that all children with SEND receive the support they need to achieve and thrive. We have announced £740 million of high needs capital funding for next year for additional places, which will support our ambition to improve inclusivity in mainstream schools.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was passed by Parliament prior to the election. By the end of its passage through both Houses, the Labour party had agreed in principle with the need for the Act. However, just after the election, Government sources said the Act was a Tory “hate speech charter”. Now I read in the papers that the Department may commence the legislation without the tort. Can I ask the Secretary of State to clear up this mess and to tell the House what her plan is for the freedom of speech Act?
Bridget Phillipson
This Government are absolutely committed to freedom of speech and academic freedom. We want to make sure that our universities are places of intellectual challenge and rigour, where people will be exposed to views with which they may disagree. We paused commencement of the previous Government’s legislation because of the serious concerns raised by very many people, including from minority groups, about how the Act would apply. We are consulting with stakeholders, and we intend to set out our position in due course.
Laura Trott
Since the Secretary of State decided to pause this legislation, gender-critical women, among others, have racked up enormous legal fees, which have caused some to remortgage their houses. Professor Jo Phoenix has said publicly that if it had been in force, the Act would have saved her that precise ordeal. Inaction has consequences, and this delay is causing harm. Will the Secretary of State accept that, and get on with implementing the legislation?
Bridget Phillipson
I do accept that academics should be free to express a wide range of views, and there will be views that people sometimes find challenging, but it also matters that we have legislation that is workable. I am afraid that the legislation the right hon. Lady’s party set out just did not achieve that, and we have had to consider so many challenges raised by minority groups. The former Universities Minister herself said that she was concerned about what it would mean for Holocaust denial on campus. We need to get this right.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
May I, too, take this opportunity to wish a merry Christmas to all of our teachers and school support staff when they finally get to the Christmas break?
We are working at pace to recruit 6,500 new teachers. We have fully funded the 5.5% pay award, we have removed reductive headline Ofsted judgments, and we are working to reduce workloads and ensure more flexibility. We have announced a £233 million package of recruitment incentives, and we are very committed to supporting our teaching workforce.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
A new report from the Institute for Public Policy Research shows that the most deprived areas have a third fewer childcare places than the most affluent. If the Government are serious about improving school readiness among our children, will the Secretary of State look at the Liberal Democrat proposal to triple the early years pupil premium so that we can tackle the disadvantage gap when it matters most?
Bridget Phillipson
I do recognise the challenge the hon. Lady sets out and the very real challenge the Government have inherited in the provision of places. Our approach of rolling out nursery space within primary schools is crucial to creating the places that are required. There is more that we need to do. The system and sector overall require reform, and we will set out more in this area before long.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Catherine McKinnell
I recognise the difficulties my hon. Friend has outlined. Changes to pension entitlement have caused the significant backlog in processing that we have inherited, but good progress is now being made. The Department and the administrator are focused on speeding it up. I appreciate the concerns he has raised and he might want to write to me with more detail, or a meeting could certainly be arranged.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Catherine McKinnell
I recognise the issue the hon. Gentleman raises. It is important that we have the right balance between mainstream inclusion and specialist provision where it is needed. If it would be helpful for him to have a meeting to discuss specific concerns in his area, I would more than happy to arrange it.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of early support for babies. The plan for change sets out that we will improve support through pregnancy and early childhood. The Start for Life programme is the responsibility of Department of Health and Social Care Ministers, but officials would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this important issue.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Lady raises an important point. We are working at pace to ensure that we have more professionals, along with the Department of Health and Social Care, which is also ensuring that we have the right workforce to support all children with special educational needs. I will write to the hon. Lady with specific details of the steps being taken.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Catherine McKinnell
Local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that there are sufficient secondary school places and that children can go to school, and travel should not be a barrier to their getting to school. I know how important this issue is for parents, and I would be happy to arrange a meeting for my hon. Friend to discuss it further.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Lady raises an important matter, which far too many people are having to raise. I would be happy to meet her not only to discuss this matter further, but to reiterate the steps we are taking to fix this broken SEND system.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
We know that good quality early years education can play a significant role in closing the disadvantage gap, yet the Government have inherited a situation in which families who live in disadvantaged areas are the least likely to be able to access good quality childcare. How will the Secretary of State ensure that access to good quality childcare and early years education is at the heart of the Government’s child poverty strategy?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree strongly, and that is why, alongside additional investment, there must be reform. We will make sure that the areas that my hon. Friend identifies are addressed. I look forward to discussing them in front of the Select Committee before too long.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Catherine McKinnell
Local authorities normally support special units in schools with funding from their high needs budget, but officials would be happy to investigate the funding arrangements for this school. Cornwall county council is being allocated a provisional amount of more than £86.6 million in the 2025-26 financial year through the high needs national funding formula, but we are happy to take away the particular issue that the hon. Gentleman raises.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Parents, teachers and students in my constituency were horrified to find out that the University of Brighton Academies Trust has been taking a whopping 20% of the Government grant meant for our local schools and education. What is the Minister doing to resolve these issues and make sure that every child in Hastings and Rye gets the best quality education?
Catherine McKinnell
I agree with my hon. Friend. Outcomes in some schools in Hastings are just not good enough. We are all determined to drive up standards. Department officials continue to work with the University of Brighton Academies Trust on that. We are committed to ending its current financial model and to collaborating with school leaders on future budget setting to ensure we can drive high and rising standards in every school, including in Hastings.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Research shows that money habits are instilled in young people from the age of seven. What are the Government doing to improve financial education in schools, particularly in England, where that is not currently on the national curriculum?
Bridget Phillipson
We have launched our curriculum and assessment review to make sure that issues such as the one that the hon. Gentleman identifies are taken into account. It is a shame that we seem to hear nothing from the Opposition but negativity about the curriculum and assessment review. We are determined to make sure that all our children get a brilliant education, with high standards and strong academic outcomes, as well as the kind of life skills that he is right to identify.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
We are all keenly aware of the significant challenges that further education colleges continue to face, such as difficulties around repair agreements and funding, which are not helped by the opportunism from the Opposition, who are responsible for the mess those colleges are in in the first place. Can the Minister tell us more about the steps she is taking to ensure that these engines for opportunity for our young people, such as Leyton sixth-form college, have the support they need to thrive?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
This Government recognise the vital role that FE teachers play in equipping learners with the skills they need to drive growth in our economy. We are totally committed, and we are keeping our eye and our finger on it. We have provided an additional £300 million for further education to ensure that young people develop the skills that this country so desperately needs.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Over the weekend, Immanuel prep in my constituency announced it was closing, citing VAT on school fees and other damaging Labour policies. Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the damage that will do to Jewish children growing up in my constituency and the surrounding area, who will be deprived of access to a Jewish education, which they richly deserve?
Stephen Morgan
The Government’s fiscal inheritance is so dire that we have to take tough, but necessary decisions and take them quickly. Removing VAT exemptions from January is the right thing to do to deliver for every child across our country.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I was delighted to spend Friday afternoon with Cats Whiskers day nursery and earlier this year, I visited Tops day nursery, which is ranked ninth in the Department’s top 100 apprenticeship employees. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to increase the number and quality of childcare apprenticeships?
Bridget Phillipson
I pay tribute to the providers in my hon. Friend’s constituency for their work. We want to see great careers right across the early years sector from apprenticeships all the way up to graduate level. I will happily meet him to discuss that further.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State reconfirm her commitment to academies and to the policy of academisation?
Bridget Phillipson
We want all schools to do well for our children and to drive high and rising standards regardless of the name above the door.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Academisation has created fragmentation in lines of accountability, leaving local authorities carrying much risk, not least when it comes to SEND provision. Will my hon. Friend look at academy governance structures to ensure that local authorities can carry that responsibility and be able to deliver for children with SEN?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Rather than obsessing about structures and names over doors, we are determined to ensure that every child in every community has a good school and that schools work together in communities with their local authorities to co-operate on place planning and admissions, with every child getting the best education and every school having high and rising standards.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
At just £952, the East Riding of Yorkshire has the lowest high needs block funding of any local authority in the country. Ministers have committed themselves to looking again at the formula so that we can have the right one. Will they please commit to doing everything they can to bring it in for the next financial year so that we do not have another year of grossly unfair and disproportionate distributions of funding?
Bridget Phillipson
The right hon. Gentleman will know that this is a complex area. It would not have been possible to make any changes to the funding formula this year, but we will look in the future at what changes might be required. I am sure that as part of that process he will make representations on behalf of his constituents.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I talk to special educational needs co-ordinators across Harlow and Essex on a regular basis, partly because my best friend is one. He tells me that a number of special educational needs co-ordinators—easy for me to say—are leaving the profession because of their high workload and the stress that it causes. What support will the Government give to ensure that special educational needs co-ordinators get the support, including mental health support, that they need?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for special educational needs in his community. We know that SENCOs perform a vital function in making sure that children and their families get the support they need to access the education they deserve. He is right that they deserve support as well. We need to encourage more people to be trained up in and understand the needs of children with special educational needs so that everybody can play their part in creating an inclusive education system.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Businesses report that cyber-attacks are increasing, as is the amount of time they have to wait to employ someone to deal with those cyber-attacks. What is the Department doing to fill that skills gap?
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Member is right that there are skills gaps in cyber, digital and tech overall. That is why Skills England will drive forward our work in addressing those skills gaps as well as in ensuring that our young people have great careers in the years to come. That is one area in particular where I know there is lots of opportunity for young people to enjoy a fantastic career.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
Itchen sixth-form college in my constituency was recently judged to be “outstanding” by Ofsted. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the college? Does she agree that future success requires us to sort out financial inconsistencies such as lecturers’ pay and VAT liabilities?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend identifies a number of the challenges that we have inherited as a new Government. We are working as quickly as we can to address them. We want to ensure that teachers right across the sector, whether in our schools, the FE sector or colleges, get the support, the pay and the recognition that they deserve.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
In Brighton’s non-academy sixth-form colleges, the current teacher strike action stems largely from the Government not providing the same funding to cover pay uplifts as they do for schools and academies. Will the Secretary of State urgently correct that unjustified funding anomaly?
Bridget Phillipson
At the Budget, we set out an additional £300 million for further education. The hon. Lady will know that the Government are not responsible for and play no role in setting or making recommendations about teacher pay in FE colleges. We are looking closely at sixth-form colleges too as part of this, which again is part of the challenge that we inherited from the last Government.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I welcome this Government’s ambition to ensure that 40,000 extra children are school ready every year. However, at schools such as West End school in Oswaldtwistle in my constituency, there are no extra classrooms to make extra nursery provision available. Will the Minister consider capital funding to ensure that lots of primary schools have the opportunity to extend high quality nursery provision?
Stephen Morgan
The Government are committed to rolling out school-based nurseries. I would welcome the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those issues further.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I assure the Education Secretary that we are very positive about schooling in this country. I am sure that she will want to thank all school leaders for their work to help English schools to soar up the rankings for the programme for international student assessment and programme for international student assessment rankings—PISA and TIMMS—but will she join me in sending personal congratulations to Katharine Birbalsingh, whose approach to discipline, the curriculum and teacher-led instruction makes her school Michaela the best in the country?
Bridget Phillipson
I will always celebrate the fantastic work of our school leaders and teachers, because they are how we will drive high and rising standards across our school system. The hon. Gentleman and I probably have more in common than he realises. He might recognise these words:
“The greatest injustice in Britain today is that your life is still largely determined not by your efforts and talents but by where you come from, who your parents are and what schools you attend. This is wrong.”
They are taken from the 2017 Conservative manifesto, which he was involved in writing. This Government will right those wrongs and break the link between background—
Mr Speaker
Order. It might be easier if I say it. One side says, “It’s all their fault,” and the other says, “They’ve been in power.” That is the answer to every question.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I recently visited Heasandford primary school in my constituency, which is in a dire state. Will the Minister meet me and Lancashire county council to see what we can do to repair the school—the biggest in Lancashire by class number—and make sure that it is fit for children’s ambitions in Burnley?
Stephen Morgan
We are committed to improving the condition of the estate through the annual funding programme. I will happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss those issues further.
Planning Committees: Reform
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on plans for the reform of planning committees.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
As the House will be aware, in our first King’s Speech in July the Government announced their intention to introduce a planning and infrastructure Bill, designed to streamline the delivery of essential housing and infrastructure across the country and support sustained economic growth. We made clear at the time that an important component of that Bill would be measures to modernise the operation of planning committees.
Planning committees play a vital role in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. However, if we are to undo the damage that the previous Government did to housing supply in this country and deliver homes in the places that our communities need, we must ensure that they are operating as effectively as possible. As we look to develop Government policy in this area, we are determined to avoid the mistakes of previous Conservative Administrations, who were rightly criticised for bringing forward planning legislation without sufficient engagement or consultation.
We also want to ensure that the changes to the operation of planning committees that we ultimately take forward are as robust as possible, drawing on feedback from those who navigate England’s planning system on a daily basis. That is why today we have published a working paper that sets out our initial thinking for modernising planning committees. This is just the latest in a series of working papers on planning reform, and it is explicitly designed to kick-start engagement before we launch a formal Government consultation on a more detailed proposition. As such, I assure Members across the House that there will be plenty of opportunity to engage with and debate these matters in the months ahead.
The working paper seeks views on three potential changes: first, a national scheme of delegation, setting out which types of planning applications should be determined at committee and which by expert planning officers. We believe that that would bring clarity and consistency to both applicants and communities about how applications are determined. Secondly, the introduction of dedicated committees for strategic development would allow members of those committees to dedicate energy to the most significant projects. Thirdly, the introduction of mandatory planning training for committee members would enable applicants to be confident in the knowledge of those making these decisions. Taken together, the changes are designed to help streamline local planning decision making, maximise the use of professional skills and judgment of trained planners, and focus the time of elected councillors on the most significant or controversial applications.
As I said a moment ago, the working paper published today is merely the start of our engagement with the sector on this important issue. It is not a firm set of confirmed proposals, and we will use discussions in the new year to refine our approach. We will then prepare final policy proposals, on which we will launch a consultation in the usual way.
Let me finish by making it clear that the proposals that we are testing through the publication of this working paper are merely one part of a much wider set of reforms to the ailing planning system that we inherited from the previous Government. I look forward to updating hon. Members as we proceed to deliver on other aspects of the Government’s ambitious housing and planning agenda.
David Simmonds
Many of us were surprised to hear the Secretary of State tell us over the weekend that there are enough homes in this country. The planning system is an area of interest to all Members and to our constituents; I know it is to you in particular, Mr Speaker, and to your constituency. Planning matters, because it impacts the look and feel of our communities. It has been the subject of numerous parliamentary questions, both at the Dispatch Box and in writing. In response to all those questions, we have been told to await the national planning policy framework. It therefore seems a discourtesy to us to hear so much about the proposed reforms to the planning system in a series of media interviews over the weekend.
Some questions emerge from this. It is clear from the Department’s figures that 96% of planning applications are decided on by officers using delegated powers. That is up from 75% in 2000. It is that 4% to which the local democratic voice is so relevant. On the planning reform working paper, first, what assessment has been made of the impact on local democracy—for example, on the ability of ward councillors to call in a controversial application, or on cases in which reserved matters are approved, but then there is a breach by the developer, so the application needs to come back before a committee for further consideration and enforcement?
Given that 89% of major applications are decided within either 13 weeks or the agreed deadlines, will the full council still be able to call in major strategic applications that will have a significant impact on their area? Already, 87% of applications are granted by local authorities; will neighbourhood plans retain the legal status that enables the communities that write them to have a say on what goes on in their area? Given that 83% of minor applications are already agreed within timescale, who in the local authority will decide whether a matter is to be referred to a committee? Given the huge increase in housing planning permissions granted under the previous Government, when do the Government intend to start work on getting developers developing and builders building, rather than tinkering with a democratic system that has already delivered more than 1 million homes with consent in England?
Matthew Pennycook
I have to say, it is quite rich hearing the hon. Gentleman crow about planning permissions in the system. We are experiencing the lowest number of planning permissions and completions for a decade, as a result of the Conservatives’ changes to the national planning policy framework, made in December 2023, which torpedoed supply and hit growth across this country.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the NPPF. We fully intend to bring forward a revised NPPF before the end of the year. These changes do not relate to the NPPF, as I made clear in my initial response. We are consulting, in an initial sense, on the changes before bringing forward formal proposals for consultation alongside the planning and infrastructure Bill—another part of the Government’s reform agenda.
The hon. Gentleman rightly made it clear that 96% of decisions are already made by planning officers. The other 4% of decisions, though, are incredibly important; they represent a substantial portion of total units in the planning process, because many major applications go to a planning committee for consideration. While we know that there is good practice out there, the number and type of applications that committees consider still varies widely between local planning authorities. Some committee decisions are not made in accordance with material planning considerations, and some committees repeatedly revisit or relitigate developments that have already been considered by elected members through the local plan process. We need to streamline the local planning system in order to provide the homes and places that we need, and to empower trained planning professionals to get the best use out of the system.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about neighbourhood plans. I have been very clear on several occasions in the House that the protections for neighbourhood plans in the NPPF will remain. As well as firm proposals on this proposition around modernising planning committees, we will bring forward further details about changes to the national planning policy framework in due course.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will know that I am passionately committed to local councils and local democracy, but does he understand the frustration that many of us feel when a planning authority democratically approves a local plan after consulting the community, but then, when an application is made to build homes, the same councillors turn down the application, despite it being consistent with the local plan? Is the Minister’s main objective to try to remove that sort of decision making, which holds up the whole process, and to ensure, in consultation with the Local Government Association and others in local government, that we can find a better way forward, so that we can get the permissions to build the homes that the country badly needs?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He has huge expertise in this area from his time as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and he is absolutely right. We have been clear that the best way for local communities to shape the decisions about what to build, where, is through local plans. It is appalling that we have inherited a situation in which less than a third of places are covered by up-to-date local plans. We need to boost that, and—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) will allow me, what we are looking at, in the changes that we are consulting on, in a soft form, through the working paper, is how we can ensure that planning committees make decisions on the most significant and controversial applications, including those that are not in line with local plans, rather than spending their time poring over decisions that have been made in an allocation framework through the local plan process. Hon. Members will see in the working paper that one of our proposals, for a national scheme for delegation, would require all applications that are in accordance with the development plan to be determined by officers. That will free up committees to focus on controversial development that is out of step with the local plan that elected members and officers put forward after consultation with their communities.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
As there are 8.5 million people in England with unmet housing need, the Liberal Democrats welcome the plans for further house building. For us, the priority has to be the delivery of social homes. We need 150,000 annually, and we need housing that local people can genuinely afford. On the topic of social housing, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Let us be clear: when Whitehall takes planning decisions out of the hands of local councillors, it is taking decisions out of the hands of local people. That is undemocratic, and we would reverse that. Instead, Government should unblock the thousands of permitted homes that are not being built—for example, through “use it or lose it” permissions, by having more than just one extra planning officer per local authority, and by allowing councils to set their fees and to ringfence that income for planning departments. Will the Minister allow councils to set their application fees, and ensure that that funding is ringfenced for planning departments?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that set of questions, and I am glad that he personally welcomes housing. When it comes to his party, on this issue, as on so many others, the view you get depends on what part of the country you are in. We are absolutely committed to increasing the delivery of social and affordable homes. We have taken decisive early steps to bring that forward, including by securing an additional £500 million in the Budget for the affordable homes programme.
Until the Liberal Democrats set out how they will pay for 150,000 social rented homes a year, I find the hon. Gentleman’s ambition in that area a little lacking in credibility. We are taking steps to get serious on build out—that is part of our planning agenda—but on these changes, we think it is right that planning committees should operate as effectively as possible in exercising democratic oversight, not revisit or relitigate the same decisions, and focus on applications that require planning committee member input. He is absolutely right that we need more planning capacity in the system. That is why we are making changes through the NPPF to support that, and why at the Budget the Chancellor announced a £46 million package of investment to support capacity and capability in local planning authorities.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
When I was leader of Manchester city council, I spent a large percentage of my time trying to right the wrongs of Labour and Conservative Governments in the ’60s and ’70s who had made a similar dash to build many, many houses. I spent my time finding ways to fund the demolition of deck-access housing. As a result, I became convinced that the solution to every problem is not more power to the centre. The people in Chorley know what is best for Chorley, Mr Speaker, just as the people in Manchester know what is best for Manchester. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will look at the mistakes that were made in the ’60s and ’70s in the dash for building, and ensure that we do not have really bad decisions made from the centre, or the exclusion of local councils?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right about some of the bad decisions that were made in the past. I am a keen student of history and am well aware of some of them, and we definitely take them into account when making our own decisions. On what he said about seizing power from the centre, this is absolutely nothing of the sort. We are proposing a national scheme of delegation to provide consistency in how councils make these important decisions. That involves a national scheme of delegation, which balances vital local democratic oversight with ensuring that planning committees operate as effectively as possible. In instances where local councillors are not making the decisions and applications can be dealt with by trained local planning officers—not by me, or by officials in Whitehall—we think that is the right thing to do, in order to streamline the delivery of essential housing in parts of the country that are crying out for those homes.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
There is nothing more controversial than Governments seeking to bypass local democracy. I saw that with the desire of the last Government to bypass local democracy by imposing a special development order on RAF Scampton, and I see it now with the many applications to build solar farms that are ostensibly national infrastructure projects. The present planning system was largely created by the Labour Government, and has stood the test of time. Can the Minister assure me that whatever he decides finally, we will not degrade local democracy? It is essential that people join a council, and join a planning committee, knowing that they have real powers and are not under the cosh of Government, or plans imposed by Government.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. We have to take steps to fix the ailing planning system that we have inherited. It is failing on a number of fronts, and trust and confidence in it is at a record low. As for the assertion that we have heard, for all the hyperbole from Conservative Members, we are not seizing power from the centre. We are saying to local communities, “Put an up-to-date local plan in place, and when sites are allocated through that local plan, you can be confident that they will be built out in the manner that you have specified. It is through local plans that you get your control.” However, when it comes to the decisions on specific sites, let us ensure, if we can, that elected members are directed towards the most significant and controversial applications, as opposed to some of the minor applications that involve technical reserved matters questions. I have sat on a planning committee; I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has. In the case of those applications, the initial decision can be re-litigated and revisited, rather than the technical issues being put to us. Let us ensure that those decisions sit in the hands of trained planning professionals, and get planning committee member time focused on the applications that deserve it.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
It is good to see the Government’s recommitment to the importance of local plans. In July this year, Milton Keynes city council went through the important process of developing a local plan. During the election campaign, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), visited my home town and described the development of a local plan as “reckless”. Will the Minister reassure us that this Government do not believe that local plans are reckless, but consider them necessary for the sustainable delivery of the homes that the country needs?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I absolutely agree with him. We have a local-plan-led planning system, in which fewer than a third of areas have an up-to-date local plan, and that is unsustainable. We are absolutely determined to drive towards universal local plan coverage. The measures on which we are consulting—and I emphasise that this is a working paper; we are seeking views, and hon. Members are more than welcome to submit theirs as we refine our proposals—will reinforce and support the plan-led system by ensuring that officer and member time is focused on the applications where that is most needed. Communities can have confidence that once they have an up-to-date local plan, it can be decided what to build, and where, in accordance with the wishes of local communities and the wider national planning policy framework.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
As the Housing and Planning Minister will be aware, both Dacorum borough council and Three Rivers district council in my constituency are Lib Dem-controlled; Three Rivers has been for over 20 years. Both councils do not have an up-to-date local plan. Can the Minister advise the House about what would happen if the Government imposed a local plan on an authority? Would those decisions be delegated to officers? If so, the process would have no democratic mandate at all.
Matthew Pennycook
We have not outlined any proposals in the working paper that relate to call-ins or the takeover of local plans from the centre. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, though, that Ministers already have powers to take over a local plan in extremis; they have not been used before. We are more than willing to use all the powers at our disposal to ensure that we have up-to-date local plan coverage. If there are local authorities out there—I say this very candidly and openly to the House—that resist the changes that we are trying to make and take no steps towards putting an up-to-date local plan in place, we will consider using all the powers at our disposal. It is through local plans that we will drive sustainable housing supply in the years to come.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I welcome the mandatory training. As a former chair of a planning committee, I know that training was part of the process that we implemented, so it is good to see that it will be delivered across the board. We approved some developments multiple times on the same site, such as a maternity block in my constituency, which was then flipped and sold on to another developer. Could the Minister please tell us what steps are being taken to account for land banking or flipping sites via developers?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are good examples of training across the country. Hon. Members seemed to indicate earlier that they thought that mandatory training for councillors was in place. It is not in place. We know there are good examples out there, but provision is inconsistent, and we think that we need to take forward mandatory training to ensure that all councillors have the necessary knowledge to make the best decisions on individual applications.
On my hon. Friend’s point about trading of land, she is absolutely right. There is far too much speculative development in this country. We have a dysfunctional land market. Again, I come back to the importance of up-to-date local plans. It is through up-to-date local plans that communities have the ability to shape development in their area in the best possible way in accordance with their wishes. On build-out more generally, we are considering what options might be available to us to ensure that the build-out of consented sites goes forward, alongside our new homes accelerator, which was announced a few months back.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Until September this year, I was a proud elected member of Stockport council. I made decisions on planning, because in Stockport we decide at ward level what is appropriate for each ward. If I understand the Government’s suggestions correctly, the power to decide for ourselves has been taken away from Stockport council. Could the Minister confirm my understanding?
Matthew Pennycook
I am afraid to say that the hon. Lady’s understanding is not correct. I encourage her to read the working paper. It is a working paper, and we are seeking initial views on a national scheme of delegation. There are three options in the working paper. I look forward to her submitting her views in full, and I will happily consider them.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s new ambition on homes and note that the stated aim is to ensure that
“skilled planning officers in local authorities are given the appropriate amount of trust and empowerment.”
Unfortunately, that is not the case in Middlesbrough, because the last Tory Government handed over power to the unwanted Middlesbrough Development Corporation, which totally undermined the council’s planning department and instead used a private planning consultancy, at a significantly higher cost to the public purse and with a considerable loss of democratic authority. What assurances can the Minister give me that Middlesbrough will get the trust, the empowerment and, indeed, the affordable housing that it needs, and that local democratic legitimacy will be restored?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of local empowerment and of local communities shaping development in their areas—most importantly, as I have made clear in answer to several questions, through up-to-date local plans.
My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not comment on the specifics of the development corporation in his area, but on planning officers more generally, the Government want to make sure—this is what we are testing through the proposals in the working paper—that skilled planning officers in local authorities have the right level of trust and empowerment to resolve select applications more quickly in the service of residents and business. We also want to ensure that planning professionals are fully supported in their roles, and that their experience and skills are put to best use, which will allow members to focus on the most significant and most controversial applications, including those out of line with up-to-date local plans.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
There are a remarkable number of contradictions. The Minister says that he wants more democratic oversight while removing the democratic local voice of councillors. He said he is being decisive while also saying he has existing powers that he has not used and that this is not a firm set of proposals. He is not proposing anything around tech and improvements, while the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is giving a big speech this week on exactly that, as the centrepiece of Government change. Why does the Minister think that the way to bring clarity to the transport system and local plan is to tell people to engage with the local plan, then at the same time tell them that if they do so, the people most engaged with that, the democratically elected councillors, will be ignored if they then follow that local plan?
Matthew Pennycook
I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that, for a start, he has clearly not read the working paper. His question was a mess of contradictions. What we are clearly saying to local communities is, “Get an up-to-date local plan in place; you can then have confidence that that local plan will be delivered; you can have confidence that applications in line with that local plan will be delivered; and you can have confidence that elected planning members will be focused on the most significant and the most controversial applications, and that local planning officers in those authorities can ensure that other applications that need not go before members are determined in accordance with the local plan as well as the national planning policy framework.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
We have had trouble with house building because the speed with which houses are built has been dictated by developers. What we need to see, when planning permission is granted, is that the developer must either use it or lose it. We cannot allow those companies to continue to land bank and use their land only when they are confident that house prices are continuing to rise. Does my hon. Friend intend to deal with those aspects of the housing market?
Matthew Pennycook
On many sites across the country there are genuine reasons, including those of viability, why sites are not built out. It is not as simple as saying that every consented site that is not being built out is being sat on deliberately by developers, but we know that land is traded speculatively. I want to reassure my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour that, as I have made clear in answer to previous questions, there are existing powers that we can consider bringing into force, and there are measures that we took forward in the consultation on the national planning policy framework that we think will help build-out, particularly on proposals around mixed-use sites, but there is potentially more that we can do in this area and we are keeping the matter under close review.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Speaking as—until recently—the leader of a district council and a long-term member of our planning committee, I do not recognise the issues that the Minister is citing. A lot of the things he says relate to the absence of a local plan. I fully agree with that. My council has just put in place a new local plan, which is hopefully being approved right now. A better way to get more affordable housing would be to look at the way local authorities can finance the building of those houses and fix that. It would be better to allow local authorities to charge appropriate amounts to cover the costs of the planning, so that they can get the necessary planning officers, and far better to look at how many councils already do mandatory training. I hear from Liberal Democrat colleagues that they all had to do mandatory training, as I did in my council, so that is in place. I would like to see a list of how many councils do not do that. We also need to make water companies statutory consultees so that we do not hit flooding problems. Those changes will help. The problem is not in the planning process. More than 1 million applications have been allowed but not built—
Matthew Pennycook
Indeed, Mr Speaker, and I get a strong sense that an Adjournment debate application will be coming your way on several of those issues. Let me address a number of them. The hon. Gentleman says that training is in place in most parts of the country, in which case local authorities should have no problem with mandatory training being requested by the centre, and only a small number of authorities—if it is a small number—would have to put such training in place.
The hon. Gentleman makes points on capacity and planning fees. I hope he will have seen in the recent consultation on proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework that the Government set out proposed changes to planning application fees and also sought views on the localisation of such fees.
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I would encourage him to read the working paper. Most planning committees make well considered and fair decisions most of the time, but we know that there is practice out there of planning committees making decisions that are not in accordance with material planning considerations, repeatedly revisiting and re-litigating the planning answers. We have to look at how we can streamline that process, and I encourage him to engage with that work.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
So much of the success of a local plan seems to hinge on co-production with local communities. Will the Minister describe effective models of that?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the problems we have in our planning system is that not enough people engage with applications or, in particular, with the local plan process. We need to ensure that more people are engaged upstream in the production of local plans because, as I said, they are the best way to shape development in a particular local community. There are a number of things we can do, not least through some of the innovations coming forward as a result of the previous Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which has a huge amount of potential in terms of digital planning and how it can allow communities to see spatially the type of development that might come forward in their area.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
This working paper smacks of having been thought up after a request for options to streamline the planning process. What is the evidence that what planning committees decide is the fundamental obstacle in the planning system? There is no evidence to suggest that these decisions are the problem. The problems are far wider.
The reason why the Government will not succeed in building 1.5 million homes in England and Wales between now and the general election is a far bigger problem. Will the Government produce a comprehensive assessment of all the things that delay house building in this country? We would then see how significant, or insignificant, this figure is.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman gives the impression that I stood up today and said, “This is our solution to all the flaws of the planning system in England.” This is one small part of a much wider planning reform agenda. He will know that, in our first month in office, we brought forward very significant changes to the national planning policy framework. We are committed to introducing a planning and infrastructure Bill early next year. This working paper is one small part of a larger agenda, but it is an important part, because we know that planning applications are taking far too long in particular. We need to streamline the process to ensure that we get the homes and places coming forward that our communities need.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Unlike other colleagues, I have never been on a planning committee. However, I know the effects of the current system and its failings. I know that only 19% of major decisions are made within the 13-week statutory framework, and I know that we have an absolute housing crisis in this country. I know the impact of the delay, prevarication and rampant nimbyism we saw over the past 14 years. Does the Minister agree that it is finally time to grasp these issues head-on?
Matthew Pennycook
In a word, yes. In some ways, I feel quite envious of my hon. Friend having not sat on a planning committee. It is an experience that I think everyone in the House should undergo at one point in their career. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These proposals are to test some of the measures that we are considering bringing forward in the planning and infrastructure Bill, the objective of which is to encourage better quality development that is aligned with local development plans, to facilitate the speedy delivery of the quality homes and places that our communities need, and to give applicants the certainty they need that their applications will be determined in a timely manner.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
In advance of these proposals, has the Minister made any assessment of the number of senior local authority planning officers who move on to work directly for, or as private planning consultants to, large developers? Will he consider something I would like to see done anyway, which is registers of interests, gifts and hospitality, and bringing senior planners under the wing of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, or a similar independent body, so that we can have the transparency we really need?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Lady for her suggestion. Proposals in that area are not considered as part of this working paper, but she is more than welcome to submit her views in detail on that point.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Crewe FC, a fantastic community football club in my constituency, has plans for over £1 million of investment in grassroots football facilities, but that is at risk because of delays in the Cheshire East planning department. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s drive to reform planning should ensure speedier decision making, in order to deliver the crucial facilities that our communities need?
Matthew Pennycook
As I said in response to a previous question, part of the objective of the proposals set out in the working paper is to test whether they will facilitate the speedy delivery of homes and places that our communities need. My hon. Friend is right that speed is part of the challenge, but there is also a big challenge around the capacity and capability of local planning departments. We consulted on changes to application fees and localisation of such fees in the recent consultation on the NPPF. The Department has a dedicated planning capacity and capability programme that directs support at local authorities, but we hope the £46 million package of investment secured in the Budget will go some way to supporting local planning authorities with the help they need on capacity and capability. That is a hugely important part of the system, and we need to support those who want to do the right thing.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In an exchange a few moments ago, the Minister seemed to agree that this measure is designed to fight nimbyism. I understand what nimbyism means when it relates to an individual objector or a group of objectors, but when it relates to the members of a planning committee, that suggests that the Minister regards an elected body of specialist councillors as people who are saying “not in my back yard”, when in fact they are considering the welfare of their communities. Would he like to think about that point again?
Matthew Pennycook
In general terms, I find the yimby versus nimby debate incredibly reductive; it does not get to heart of some of the challenges that we face with our planning system. We are not accusing elected councillors across the country of acting in a knee-jerk, nimby way. We are saying to them that there is a way to streamline the process, where we can focus their time and energy on those applications that are significant or controversial, and allow trained planning officers to make decisions in other areas, in accordance with up-to-date local plans, which are the best ways that communities have to shape development in their area.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
We are in a housing crisis. Last year, the number of planning permissions granted was the lowest in a decade. What work is the Minister undertaking to turn the page on the failure of the last Government, so that we can build the social housing that is desperately needed in places such as Portsmouth, where viability and cost pose difficulties and barriers? Will he meet me to discuss the Portsmouth local plan?
Matthew Pennycook
The evidence speaks for itself. Partly as a result of the change that the previous Government made to the national planning policy framework in December 2023, housing supply in this country has nose-dived. Permissions and completions are at their lowest in a decade—
Matthew Pennycook
It is true. The Office for Budget Responsibility is projecting that supply will dip below 200,000 homes this year, and the affordable homes programme is on course to deliver between 110,000 and 130,000 affordable homes, not the original 180,000 that were allotted to it. We are taking steps to increase the supply of social and affordable homes, including using the £500 million in additional funding secured for the affordable homes programme in the recent Budget.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Labour-led Basildon borough council’s new draft plan is at the regulation 18 stage, but it proposes a completely unsustainable 27,000 new properties across the borough, including 4,300 in Wickford, in my constituency, which is completely unsustainable and would involve concreting over whole swathes of our local green belt. As well as reimposing mandatory housing targets, which are an insult to local democracy, why is Labour now trying to neuter local planning committees of democratically elected councillors, taking away the say of local people, when it is desperately difficult to persuade people to vote in local elections as it is?
Matthew Pennycook
Mr Speaker, you will forgive me if I do not comment on the specifics of the local planning question, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the role of the Secretary of State in planning applications. We set out transitional arrangements in the NPPF consultation in July for how local plans at regulation 18 and 19 stage will proceed through the system, to ensure that we get up-to-date local plans through where appropriate and meet housing need in terms of the revised standard method that we have put forward.
We are determined to get these homes built. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) says that those levels of housing are unsustainable. It will be for the Planning Inspectorate to decide whether the local plan is sound, but I do not take issue in any way with the ambition that the local authority is showing. We have an acute and entrenched housing crisis in this country. Every week in my advice surgery—I am sure that his is the same—people come to me who are desperately in need of houses. The 1 million homes that the previous Government built in the last Parliament are not enough. We will build 1.5 million homes over the next five years.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Two weekends ago, while knocking on doors, I met a mother who lives with her two adult children. Both those children have professional jobs and earn decent salaries, yet cannot afford their own home, so they are stuck living back in the family home while they save up the money that they need. The housing crisis that the Government inherited has ended the dream of home ownership for too many young people. Will the Minister set out what more we can do to ensure that the dream of home ownership is open to everyone in my constituency?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I say, we inherited an acute and entrenched housing crisis, with 1.3 million people languishing on social housing waiting lists and a generation locked out of home ownership. To their shame, the Conservative Government passed on a situation where 150,000 homeless children are in temporary accommodation as we speak. We have to build the homes that our people need, and we are determined to do so.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities, and the MP for a constituency that suffers from surface water flooding as well as river flooding, I am concerned that the proposals will divert decision making away from those with the greatest local knowledge. When a flooding area is drained, the water has to go somewhere else, and where it goes is critical to the people living in the surrounding area. Can the Minister reassure me that the proposals will not dilute the importance of local knowledge in making critical decisions about draining and flooding when we build?
Matthew Pennycook
I can reassure the hon. Lady on that point. The proposals will operate within the context of a national planning policy framework that has very clear requirements in relation to flooding. We are in no way removing local expertise and knowledge from the system; either experienced and trained local planning officers or locally elected authority members should make the decisions, but we have to ensure that they are making the right ones, and that their energy is focused in the right way, to streamline the decisions that we need. We heard the statistics on how planning applications are not progressing through the system at a timely pace. We need to turn things around.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I associate myself with the comments of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), on ensuring that the planning authority for Middlesbrough sits within Middlesbrough. Young families in Teesside are desperate to get on the housing ladder, yet last year the number of new homes given planning permission fell to a 10-year low. Can the Minister reassure the House of the steps that he will take to ensure that homes are built and that we get Britain building again?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: permissions have fallen sharply, in part because of changes that the previous Government made to the national planning policy framework, which gave local authorities myriad excuses to bring forward plans that were below their nominal target, although it remained in place. We have got to oversupply permissions into the system, which is precisely why the proposed changes in our consultation on the NPPF would make 370,000 the standard method total envelope. That is how we will build 1.5 million homes over the next five years.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister said that this country has plenty of houses. If that is true, can the Minister explain why the Government are imposing an 82% increase in the housing target for Bromsgrove district?
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we consulted on a revised standard method that we think meets the scale of the ambition required to build the homes that our people need across the country. We realise that it will put pressure on those areas that need to increase their targets. We have put forward proposals on how support will be put in place, but that is the level of ambition that we need to meet an acute and entrenched housing crisis, the consequences of which I have set out.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister was at pains to say this weekend that nature recovery could happen hand in hand with the ambitious planning target she set. The Environmental Audit Committee is looking at the matter. Our opening inquiry is into the environmental impact of the plans being set out by the Minister. Will the training of planning committee members cover matters such as renewable energy, floodplains and renewable transport to ensure that new planning applications do not negatively impact the environment?
Matthew Pennycook
On mandatory training, we are considering a wide range of implementation options. We are keen to work with all stakeholders. I encourage my hon. Friend in his capacity as Committee Chair to put his views into the consultation—we want to determine the best way forward. On nature more generally, we are clear that there is a win-win to be had. The status quo is not working. Nature recovery is not proceeding in the strategic way that is possible. Development is not coming forward; it is being held up and deterred. If there is a win-win that does not involve a reduction in environmental protections, we want to bring it forward, and that is what we are looking to do in the planning and infrastructure Bill next year.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The reform represents a loss of control when local communities such as mine in the lakes and the dales are desperate for more control. With over 90% of the homes in some of our villages being second homes, we are crying out for the Minister to bring in a change of use for planning for second homes so that we can limit the numbers in those communities. Will he look at doing that in the coming days?
Matthew Pennycook
I refute entirely the hon. Gentleman’s claim that the changes represent a loss of control. I encourage him to read the paper, which is about ensuring that decisions are taken by the right local, experienced—professional or elected—members as is appropriate. He and I have had this conversation about second homes many times before. He knows that we are looking and are interested in what additional powers we can give local communities to bear down on the negative impacts of excessive concentrations of short-term lets and second homes. We want to give local communities more power to tackle some of those problems, not less. The proposals in the working paper are in line with that general sentiment.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his work on this and other areas to boost growth across the country for families in my constituency and elsewhere. I note that this weekend the Leader of the Opposition met her Canadian Conservative counterpart —a Conservative who has embraced planning reform and pro-growth measures and who is gaining rapidly in the polls, as far as I can see. Does he agree that it is interesting to see Conservative Members taking an entirely different approach, opposing sensible changes that would support growth in this country and sticking with chaos in the planning system, rather than stability, which is the foundation for economic growth?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is right. These are sensible, proportionate changes to streamline the delivery of housing across the country—housing that we desperately need. If the Conservatives want to put their heads in the sand and resist reform in this area, all they will be doing is digging their long-term electoral grave. The people of this country want good homes and good neighbourhoods to live in. That is what we are determined to bring forward.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Minister speaks of mandatory training for councillors, but it has been tried before. It sounds like an effort by central Government to make councillors think more like planning officers, rather than be representatives of their local community. Those of us who have served on local authorities know full well that there are frequently recommendations from officers to approve major schemes, which, in the wider context—infrastructure, schools, GPs and so on—planning committees have refused. Can the Minister assure us that they would still have discretion to turn down applications, even if the recommendation from officers was to approve them?
Matthew Pennycook
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to engage with the proposals set out in the working paper. Nothing is definite, nothing is finite; these are our initial views, which we want to test, and I welcome his contribution to that. We are saying in particular that, yes, elected members should be taking decisions on the most significant and controversial applications, but for minor reserved matters and technical issues on which skilled local planning officers can come forward and make decisions, that is helpful and appropriate to streamline the planning system locally.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Residents in towns and villages across my constituency want an efficient and accountable planning system. Could the Minister set out in more detail how he sees these plans interacting with processes around master planning and the negotiation of planning conditions?
Matthew Pennycook
I encourage my hon. Friend to read the working paper. He is welcome to submit his views on the potential interaction of these proposals with master planning and planning conditions. We have not set out specific proposals for those areas in the working paper, but I am more than happy to take his views into account.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I was never brave enough to serve on a planning committee during my 10 years as a local councillor—there are just not enough hours in the day. There are a range of views on this. I have some sympathy with the notion that we need to speed up the delivery of new homes—we have a housing crisis, and it is important that we do that—but does the Minister accept that, with the streamlining he is talking about, one new planning authority simply will not cut it?
Matthew Pennycook
The 300 planning officers that we are working to bring through the system with apprenticeships and training are just one part of the solution to address the real capacity and capability constraints that local planning departments face. I have already outlined, as I hope the hon. Gentleman heard, the £46 million of investment allocated in the Budget to help local authorities with planning capacity and capability. As I said, we have also consulted on proposals for the potential localisation of fees. The 300 planners are one element of how we want to support local planning authorities to get capacity in the system, so that they can make decisions at pace and in a timely manner.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I am pleased that the Government are consulting on the creation of smaller targeted planning committees specifically for strategic development. Ebbsfleet Garden City in my constituency shows the value of strategic development. The new settlement is expected to grow from 5,000 to 15,000 homes over the next decade. Notwithstanding key challenges—including the need for better access to decent bus services and, in my view, for the Elizabeth line to be extended to Ebbsfleet—the way that the community is being developed shows the importance of planning for place rather than for individual developments. Will the Minister consider joining me on a visit to see how the Government could, for their plans for a generation of new towns, learn from Ebbsfleet’s lessons?
Matthew Pennycook
I think I am owed a visit to Ebbsfleet at some point, so I will happily take that up with my hon. Friend outside the Chamber. I am glad that he mentions strategic planning committees—one of the changes that we have put forward in the working paper and would like views on. We think that they should cover, in theory, large-scale allocated regeneration or industrial sites, including urban extensions or opportunity areas—large sites in local communities that could benefit from a more streamlined process. A smaller group of elected councillors with the expertise and knowledge about a specific site could make decisions about it, rather than all such proposals being taken to wider planning committees.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Is it not the case that the Government have realised that the mandatory top-down targets they came up with are now unachievable, and that, in their panic, they have come up with a policy that will undermine local democratic voices and take people away from, not closer to, the democratic process?
Matthew Pennycook
I do not know what the hon. Gentleman’s definition of “panic” is, but these are proposals that we set out in the King’s Speech and said we would bring forward—that was in July. I am not sure how that constitutes panic, but he might give me a lesson in that.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Some 47% of all the casework my office processed last week was regarding housing, or lack thereof. We absolutely must build 1.5 million new homes in this country if we are to solve the housing crisis and restore the dream of home ownership. I have certainly known councillors to oppose housing developments because they worry that the necessary infrastructure—the schools, roads, GP appointments and so on—will not come with it. What reassurances can my hon. Friend give that, either as part of these smaller reforms around committees or as part of the broader reforms we are bringing in, we will absolutely make sure that we build the necessary infrastructure alongside the necessary houses?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. To return to an earlier question, there are a small number of people out there who are out-and-out nimbys—as we might put it—who will resist development of any kind in their area. There is a much wider group of people in our communities across the country who want to see better, infrastructure-led development. That is something we are taking forward, not least through changes consulted on in the NPPF, but we know there is more work to do in this area. I would be more than happy to speak to my hon. Friend about what more we can do.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is not local planning authorities that stop house building, but land supplies and land banking, as we have already heard this afternoon. In Bath and north-east Somerset alone, something like 2,000 homes have received planning permission but have not been built yet. Should the Government not concentrate on land banking rather than threatening to destroy a vital part of local democracy, and why is land banking not part of the Minister’s consultation paper?
Matthew Pennycook
It is not either/or. We have to have more permissions going into the system and more timely planning decisions made in accordance with material planning considerations and in a consistent way, not relitigating or revisiting decisions that have been made in outline. However, we also absolutely have to take action on land supply and build-out, and I have made clear in answer to previous questions that we are giving the matter further thought.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituents often complain about the amount of time it takes for a plan to go from paper to the end product. In fact, it is a conversation I often have with my best hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). [Hon. Members: “Aww!”] I need some brownie points back.
Can you tell me—[Interruption.] Can the Minister tell me how these plans can speed up that process for my constituents in Harlow?
Matthew Pennycook
It is progress, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We do need to speed up the process of local plan development. In a way that the previous Government never did, we are going to adhere to the timelines we are setting for local plan development—for new-style local plans to come forward—and we need to ensure that individual planning applications are made in a timely manner, within the set timelines, to give certainty to the sector that what they bring forward can be built out if they put an application in.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
May I say gently to the Minister that he has been passed a bit of a dud here? I think that experienced Labour Members know that, which is why not a single long-standing Member on the Minister’s Benches has stood up to defend this specific policy this afternoon. Is that because Labour Members, like most MPs, know that the local planning committees they have been involved in and seen make important decisions on a regular basis? They cannot be replaced by planning officers, because those officers are not embedded in local communities. Does the Minister really think that planning officers can replace local councillors on important matters such as this?
Matthew Pennycook
I say to the hon. Gentleman that 96% of planning application decisions are already made by planning officers. What we are saying is that there is a way to streamline the system that we want to test views on, which will ensure that the most significant and controversial applications still come to elected members, but that we get the full use out of trained planning officers, who are embedded in their local communities and are cognisant of what a local plan requires.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
I, too, am happy to speak with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) concerning my planning issues, but I am hoping that the Minister can answer the question too. Tory-led Tonbridge and Malling borough council has allowed predatory development in Burham, Eccles and Wouldham, precisely because it has not delivered a local plan over many years. Does the Minister agree that we need firm timetables for the delivery of local plans that are robust and listen to local concerns, but also that training should be put in place for appeals so that taxpayers in those local areas are not burdened with fines?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. At the moment, the system incentivises allowing speculative development to come forward and go to the Planning Inspectorate on appeal, because then the local authority or local council members are not responsible for the decision. We have to ensure that we have better, up-to-date local plan coverage, which is the best way to shape development in the area. Less speculative development on unallocated sites will therefore come forward, with more allocated and planned development through the local plans system, but with streamlined and timely decisions. That is what we are aiming for, and this working paper is but a small aspect of that wider agenda we are taking forward.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Some 57% of East Devon is made up of national landscapes, previously known as areas of outstanding natural beauty. I welcome the fact that these areas are protected from housing and industrial development, but for planning committees that have to meet the Minister’s targets, national landscapes compress the area that remains, which can be devastating for flood-prone villages such as Feniton. How are these reforms going to help people who are seeing housing targets concentrated on their village because they live near a national landscape?
Matthew Pennycook
I hope the hon. Gentleman is aware that in those areas—he highlights very real problems about the unavailability of data to shape local targets across areas where there are such protected places—the Planning Inspectorate will test whether a local plan is sound, and will make a judgment about whether such hard constraints make a difference to the allocations the local area needs to bring forward. I am more than happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman about the specifics of development in his area if he would find that helpful.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his answers. He has put forward some very positive ideas to advance housing development, and that must not be ignored by anybody in this House. Has he had the opportunity to have any discussions with the devolved Administrations, bearing in mind the UK-wide need for reform of planning, no matter where it is, to allow for affordable housing, business premises, expansion and, vitally, the need to increase and attract manufacturing production capabilities for our economic growth and community standards, and to restore confidence for home ownership?
Matthew Pennycook
Can I say that I always welcome a question from the hon. Member, not least because it signals the end of an urgent question?
I would say to the hon. Member that my ministerial colleagues in the Department and I regularly meet our counterparts from the devolved authorities to learn lessons about what is different, but also about what is similar and about some of the challenges we face in a shared way across this United Kingdom.
Syria
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on Syria. Over less than a fortnight there has been an extraordinary change. What began as an opposition offensive in north-western Syria quickly became a headlong retreat by pro-Assad forces and, over the weekend, the fall of his murderous regime. On 30 November, the regime withdrew from Aleppo; on 5 December, Hama; on 6 December, Daraa and Homs; and on 7 December, Damascus.
As this Government came into office, some in the international community and some in this House asked whether we would re-engage with Assad. His Russian and Iranian allies have long championed him, last year he returned to the Arab League, and increasingly other Governments were also starting to step up their presence in Damascus. This Government choose not to re-engage. We said no because Assad is a monster. We said no because Assad was a dictator whose sole interest was his wealth and his power. We said no because Assad is a criminal who defied all laws and norms to use chemical weapons against the Syrian people. We said no because Assad is a butcher with the blood of countless innocents on his hands. We said no because Assad was a drug dealer, funding his regime through Captagon and illicit finance, and we said no because he was never ever going to change.
There were those who used to call Assad “the lion of Damascus.” Now we see the reality: Assad is the rat of Damascus, fleeing to Moscow with his tail between his legs. How fitting he should end up there. We see streets of Syrians cheering his demise, tearing down his statutes and re-uniting with loved ones who had been disappeared. We have long hoped to see him gone and welcome the opportunity this brings for the people of Syria.
Assad’s demise is not just a humiliation for him and his henchman; it is a humiliation for Russia and Iran. Iran’s so-called axis of resistance is crumbling before our eyes and all Vladimir Putin has got from his attempt to prop up Assad for more than a decade is a fallen dictator filing for asylum in Moscow. He says he wants to return Russia to its imperial glory, but after more than 1,000 days he has not subjugated Ukraine. Putin’s fake empire stops short just a few miles outside Donetsk. I have no fear of it, only disgust.
Of course, our revulsion at Assad, his henchmen and those who propped him up must not blind us to the risks of this moment. Assad’s demise brings no guarantee of peace. This is a moment of danger as well as opportunity for Syrians and for the region. The humanitarian situation in Syria is dire, with almost 17 million people in need. Millions are refugees still, largely in neighbouring Türkiye, Lebanon and Jordan. Seeing so many start to return to Syria is a positive sign of their hopes for a better future now that Assad is gone, but a lot depends on what happens now. This flow into Syria could quickly become a flow back out, which would potentially increase the numbers using dangerous, illegal migration routes to continental Europe and the United Kingdom.
Syria has proven to be a hotbed of extremism. The House will know that the group whose offensive first pushed back the regime, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham—or HTS, as it is now being called—are a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK as an alias of al-Qaeda. That should rightly make us cautious. Thus far, HTS have offered reassurances to minorities in Aleppo, Hama and Damascus. They have also committed to co-operating with the international community over monitoring chemical weapons. We will judge HTS by their actions, monitoring closely how they and other parties to this conflict treat all civilians in areas they control.
The UK and our allies have spent over a decade combating terrorism in Syria. Daesh remains one of the most significant terrorist threats to the UK, our allies and our interests overseas. We take seriously our duty as a Government to protect the public from this and other terrorist threats.
Amid this uncertainty, the Government have three priorities, first and foremost of which is protecting all civilians, including, of course, minorities. For more than a decade, Syria has been racked by terrible sectarian violence. We continue to do what we can to provide humanitarian support wherever we can. The UK has spent over £4 billion on the Syrian crisis to date. UK-funded mobile medical units already provide emergency services across northern Syria. Last week, we gave a further £300,000 to the White Helmets and today the Prime Minister has announced an additional £11 million of humanitarian support for Syrians.
The second priority is securing an inclusive, negotiated political settlement, as I discussed with the UN special envoy for Syria, Geir Pedersen, yesterday. This is how the Syrian people can begin to chart a path to a united and peaceful Syria.
The final priority is preventing escalation into the wider region. For more than a year, the middle east has been in the grip of a series of interlocking conflicts, which threatened to become an even more catastrophic war; and in Syria itself, Russia and Iran have kept Assad’s regime on life support. If we are to achieve a better future for Syrians, we should let Syrians themselves determine their future.
We must learn another lesson from this crisis, too. Illicit finance was a fundamental part of Assad’s playbook, and it is part of Putin’s playbook and the playbook of dictators and criminals around the world. This hurts ordinary people in our own country and people in Syria. It drives up crime and drives up house prices here in the UK. That is why today I am announcing £36 million in new funding for the National Crime Agency on anti-corruption, a new anti-corruption champion in Margaret Hodge and new sanctions on those using the illicit gold trade. Previous Governments have neglected that fight; for this Government, it is a mission-critical issue.
With events moving so quickly, the Government have been taking every available opportunity to underline our priorities. Today, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister is in the region visiting the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Over the weekend, I have discussed the situation with my Turkish, Israeli, Emirati and Jordanian counterparts, as well as the UN envoy. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has also just come back from the region, having attended the Doha forum and the Manama dialogue. Whatever the coming days bring, I reassure the House that our intense diplomatic engagement will continue.
Assad’s victims can be found all over the world. Many have found sanctuary here in the UK over the years, including film-maker Waad al-Kateab. As she said,
“we have hope to get our country back”.
The UK stands by Syrians like Waad and by Assad’s victims across the world. In the face of uncertainty and new dangers, we will secure the UK against terrorism and illegal migration, while helping Syrians to achieve a better future. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement. The Conservative Government called for President Assad to go more than a decade ago, and few will shed any tears at this vile tyrant’s removal from office. He bears responsibility for countless deaths, the torture of his opponents, the use of chemical weapons and repression on a horrendous scale. Half a million people have died as a result of his abhorrent actions and this conflict. We all remember the shocking images, day after day, of the barbaric impact of this conflict, and the debates in this House, including the indecision of the west in responding to chemical weapon attacks, which should weigh heavily on our conscience.
While Assad may have sought sanctuary in Russia, we look to the Foreign Secretary to explain what steps will be taken to gather evidence of the crimes his reprehensible regime is responsible for and the actions being taken to bring him to face justice. In view of the situation in Syria, what is the Government’s assessment of the implications for the Syrian resettlement programme? Can he confirm that despite Assad fleeing to Russia to claim asylum, there will be no asylum claims from former members of the Assad regime in this country, many of whom will be associated with human rights abuses?
As the Foreign Secretary said, what happens next is critically important for the civilians of Syria, who have endured so much trauma and tragedy, and for the wider region. Syrians need to be protected by those now controlling territory. That means the protection of all communities, groups and minorities. The House must speak with one voice on that, and some will ask what the UK can do and what we should or should not do. There are no easy answers in the days ahead, but it is profoundly in our national interest that we take whatever action we can, including with our partners, to counter any further instability in Syria.
Like Ministers, I was in the region this weekend discussing the situation with some of our key and crucial partners. Given the large porous borders, violence, insurgency and flow of weapons in the region, can the Foreign Secretary give details of the work being undertaken to strengthen and secure the borders of neighbouring countries? There is a significant risk of a power vacuum in Syria, which could lead to a breakdown of law and order and a proliferation of criminal activities, including the smuggling of weapons and drug production on an industrial scale. Will the Foreign Secretary give an update on the actions being taken to monitor and respond to those criminal activities? Will he also comment on the risk to our security from foreign terrorist fighters being freed from prisons? Will he give his assessment of the risk of the state’s weapons, including potential chemical weapons, falling into the control of those who would cause us harm and threaten our security?
Instability can fuel a rise in extremism, and not only in Syria. There is a risk that ISIS will seek to exploit the present situation; this is also an issue at home. Will the Foreign Secretary inform us whether a cross-Government review of security and defence implications, including terrorism risks, is under way? To what level can he share—I appreciate that he might not be able to do so fully in the House—what discussions are under way with our intelligence partners to counter extremists and security threats from the region?
Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s historical links to al-Qaeda and their ideology are well known, so they have been proscribed for good reason. Will the Foreign Secretary give a timetable for the reported review of HTS and share the details of the legal mechanism that he will use for that review? Will he give assurances that the Government, with their partners, will be considering the potential threat that HTS pose immediately both to Syria and the region, as well as to our own interests? Security should always be the No. 1 consideration for us all, and we should not forget where this group originally came from. We need to be looking not just at their words but at their actions.
For years, the Assad regime was bailed out by the Russians, the Iranians and Hezbollah, but with Russia now focused on its illegal invasion in Ukraine and with Iran’s presence in the region depleted, will the Foreign Secretary give the Government’s assessment of how this change in Syria will affect the dynamics in the time ahead? What is the strategy for dealing with Iran, which still wants a foothold in Syria to exploit and funnel the misery that we have seen for too long? While we must work towards a better future for Syria, I hope that the Foreign Secretary will agree that the Government must remain alert and prepared for the risks and threats that could still emerge.
Mr Lammy
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her remarks. Last week, she was in touch with her concerns about what was taking place, and we were able to correspond. I am grateful for the manner in which we have been able to engage on this very serious issue.
The shadow Foreign Secretary rightly raised the terrible human rights records of Russia and Iran in backing this grim, brutal regime. She is absolutely right that they should be held to account for their actions. She will know that we do not have a diplomatic presence in Syria at this time, and indeed the Syrians do not have a diplomatic presence here in the UK, so recording these actions is not straightforward. However, as she would expect, we continue to work with non-governmental organisations and civil society to support them in their efforts. We will see over the coming days and weeks how they can both record and hold to account those who kept Syria under this brutal regime not just for the last 13 years, but in the years before that under the regime of Assad’s father.
The shadow Foreign Secretary raised Syrian resettlement. Let me say that that is premature. The House has sought on a cross-party basis to support the humanitarian needs of Syrians; indeed, she would have seen that in her previous role in government. We recognise the displacement next door in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and neighbouring countries, and we will continue to support people in those refugee camps and through the humanitarian aid that we support in-country at this time.
The shadow Foreign Secretary raised the tremendous issues on the ground. We are all rightly concerned about increased terrorism that might engulf the country, which has different sections, communities, minorities and regions—not just HTS, as has been reported in the papers. Against that backdrop, a Cobra has been convened to fully understand these issues across Government. It would not be right to comment on intelligence matters at this time, but she will understand that the Government are active, as she would expect us to be.
The shadow Foreign Secretary is right about the threat not just of terrorism but of illicit drugs. Having just come back from the region, I am sure that she will have heard Gulf allies raise the issue of Captagon and illegal drugs that also propped up Assad’s regime and flooded into Gulf countries. We continue to monitor that. None of us wants Syria to become like Libya next door—fractured and vulnerable to different terrorist groups. We will do all we can. That is why I spoke to the UN envoy yesterday—I will continue to stay in close dialogue with him—and to Jordan, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and others. The UK will do all it can to support this new representative process that has the people of Syria at its heart. We want the jubilation to continue, and not be replaced by another bloody and brutal regime.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Across the House we all celebrate the end of this terrible regime, but the very last thing that the Syrian people want, as my right hon. Friend said, is for one tyrant to be replaced by another, but with an Islamic flag. There is another way, but it will not be easy.
I am glad to hear that my right hon. Friend has begun talking to the UN special representative, because Syrians have been working on other plans—other constitutions and laws—over a long period, under the auspices of the United Nations. What is desperately needed now is to ensure that inclusive transitional arrangements are put in place that can take Syria into a brighter world, with the political system that the long-suffering Syrian people need and deserve, to give them an extraordinary, multi-ethnic, multi-background country. I hope that that is our priority and that we do not simply step back and say, “Oh well, what can we do?”
Mr Lammy
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to ensure that Druze, Alawites, Christians, as well as Sunni and Shi’a Muslims and Kurds, have a place in this vast, ancient and important country, and that civilian life is protected. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) spoke to representatives of civil society just yesterday, and why I was discussing what happens now. For example, Iran supplied the oil to Syria. Who will supply that oil now? We must find ways in which public officials in Syria can be paid so that they can do that job. Over the coming hours we desperately need to get policing back in Syria, so that there is not widespread disorder. For all of those reasons, my right hon. Friend is right that we must work with civil society and local partners.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for early sight of his statement. The fall of the Assad regime is momentous for the millions of Syrians who have suffered under his brutal rule. The al-Assad dynasty were despots, who used chemical weapons against their own people. The images emerging today from Saydnaya prison illustrate the lengths that the regime took to murder, torture and silence its opponents. What steps are being taken to ensure that both Bashar and his brother Maher al-Assad face justice for the crimes that they have committed?
These developments create immediate strategic challenges for the UK. Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the UK is taking urgent action with our allies to identify, locate and secure the stockpiles of chemical weapons in Syria? What assessment can he offer of how this change will impact Russian military capabilities, particularly in respect of its bases at Latakia and Tartus?
There is joy for many liberated Syrians today. This has been a national process of liberation—it is not that of just one group. The international community must learn the lessons of other regime changes and seek to support a process of reconciliation and transition that is led by the Syrian people, and not imposed from outside. Will the Foreign Secretary say in a little more detail how the UK will support an inclusive national process that leads to a fresh constitution, and, in due course, free and fair elections? Will he reassure the House that any recognition of a new Government in Syria will depend on sustained evidence that political, minority and human rights are being protected?
The Foreign Secretary is right that the displacement of civilians from Syria under Assad has deepened the need for humanitarian support in the region. He mentions £11 million in emergency funding, but the drop in humanitarian and other aid to Syria from the UK from 2016 to 2022 was £289 million. Does he therefore agree that there is an urgent need to restore the UK’s aid budget to help displaced people in their home countries, so they have less need to flee overseas?
Assad has fallen. We should act swiftly to support the UK’s strategic interests in the region, and we must do all we can to ensure that what rises in his place represents all the Syrians who yearn to live peacefully, side by side with their neighbours.
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Russia and Iran must be held to account for the way they propped up this regime and supported a man who used chemical weapons on his own population. I hope the hon. Gentleman welcomes the further sanctions that I announced, and the appointment of Baroness Hodge to lead across Government on issues of illicit finance. We will, of course, work with others, including the French, on the actions they have brought.
The hon. Gentleman raises, importantly, the issue of stockpiles of chemical weapons. He will have seen that Julani has been clear that he will not use chemical weapons, and that he will work with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on that issue, and we will monitor that very closely. Any use of chemical weapons would be grievous, and the international community would have to come together to do all we could to support the Syrian people.
The hon. Gentleman also asks what more can we do. At this point in time, the important thing is to work with the key countries in the region, particularly neighbours and Arab partners, and work closely with our E3 partners and the current and incoming US Governments. That is the key combination to doing all we can to support Syria at this time.
I mentioned the real concerns about disorder and energy supply and oil, and how we support the public sector to move forward in the appropriate manner, ensuring they are paid so that people can do their job. The hon. Gentleman raises the point about aid, and I think we should reflect on something: were the British people and this Parliament, and Parliaments before it, not united in supporting Syria with a record amount of sums—more than any other country in the world—just imagine where Syria would be today, notwithstanding the number of displaced peoples and the challenges that currently exist.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Since 28 November, almost a million Syrians, most of them women and children, have been displaced internally due to the recent violence. More than 7.2 million Syrians are internally displaced and around 6.2 million are long-term refugees, mostly in neighbouring countries. The Foreign Secretary is right to say that Assad’s fall could allow millions of refugees to finally return home, but what comes next could also escalate the country’s displacement crisis. Will he tell us more about what steps he is taking with our partners on the worst-case scenario, and will he commit to continuing, and indeed increasing, our support for host refugee countries, for example, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend raises these issues with tremendous experience. She will know that Syria faces the highest number of displaced people internally, and that results in various pressures. Of course, if chaos or further violence were to ensue over the coming days, there would be further displacement within the country. She rightly raises the issues for neighbouring countries, all of which have been very keen to speak to me and this Government about the pressures that they would face from further displacement. I reassure her that I have discussed that, particularly with Turkey and Jordan at this time, and they want to work with us to make what is coming in Syria work as best it can for the local population.
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Syria now presents a toxic mix. It is a large, heavily armoured but now ungoverned country. There are a range of militia groups affiliated to both state and non-state actors. It has a number of fragile neighbours, and we are at a fork-in-the-road moment. Rather than discuss talking about Syria with neighbours, what specific action will the UK Government take to ensure that we maximise the chance of success and minimise the chance of failure? For example, will we re-establish a diplomatic presence in Damascus, and if so, on what timescale? In the period before the inauguration of President-elect Trump, what action will we take with the American Administration to make sure that there is not a hiatus before the Trump Administration take formal office?
Mr Lammy
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that, of course, we are talking to the American Administration. I know that when he was Foreign Secretary, he tried to move quickly, but announcing within 24 hours that we are reopening an embassy in Syria would be hasty. The pressing issue at this time is humanitarian aid and working with partners on the issues around energy and order that all are raising with us. We will continue to reflect on our ongoing diplomatic relations with Syria. He will recognise, too, from his time in office, that we have particular concerns about the north-eastern corridor in Syria and real concerns relating to counter-terrorism and Daesh, which is of course No. 1 in the UK’s considerations.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I welcome everything in the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and he is right that we must not be blind to the risks of this moment. I want to ask him about two groups. First, what is his hope in the future process for the millions of Syrians who have fled Syria over the past decades? Also, the Kurdish community is one of the largest ethnic communities without a state, and I wonder what hope he has of engaging them in this process for the future.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right to raise the displaced people, many of whom are beginning that journey back home. The important thing is that they go home to a country that continues to fuel the hope in their hearts and that can cope with the new increased population that will no doubt demand public services.
My hon. Friend raised the subject of the Kurdish minority group who are also in the country. As I have said, and as the United Nations envoy has said, it has to be an inclusive country with a place for everyone. However, my hon. Friend will recognise that in that north-eastern corridor we work with all partners, but keep a careful eye on anything that comes anywhere close to terrorism.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we should not be surprised that one war criminal, President Putin, is now sheltering another, Assad? He will be aware that substantial assets owned by Assad or those linked to him are frozen in this country. Will he consider, in due course, whether we might use those for the benefit of the people of Syria?
Mr Lammy
Yes, absolutely. The right hon. Gentleman is right. We look at some of the horrors in the world—Syria, of course, but also Sudan, not far away, and Ukraine—and we see behind them the hand of Putin. That is why we must do all that we can to hold him to account for the tyranny that he is raining across the world.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
A few days ago I met Sawsan Abou Zainedin of Madaniya, a Syrian non-governmental organisation. She speaks powerfully of the shared responsibility of Syrians to build an inclusive state governed by law and citizenship. As they do that, will the Foreign Secretary commit himself to increasing UK support for Syrian civil society? Will he also increase support for human rights experts, including the UN, as they document the horrific crimes that have been committed against Syrian civilians and work to bring to justice those responsible?
Mr Lammy
The £11 million that I announced earlier does, of course, include further support for civil society, which is vital at this time.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Today my thoughts are with Bashar Helmi and Mounzer Darsani and their families, and with all the other Syrian refugees who escaped Assad’s brutality and resettled on the Isle of Bute. Their hope, and the hope of all the people of Syria, will be that Syrians are now able to secure the peaceful future that they want, rather than Syria becoming a battlefield in another’s proxy war. How would the Foreign Secretary explain and legally justify the fact that the Syrians whom he mentioned, who were on the street cheering the demise of Assad, having waited five decades to be free of him, were, on day one, on the receiving end of a massive Israeli airstrike?
Mr Lammy
I spoke to my Israeli counterpart yesterday, and it is right to understand that there are legitimate security concerns for Israel, particularly in the context of a country that has housed ISIS, Daesh, and al-Qaeda. I wish it were as simple as the hon. Gentleman seems to think it is. For all the reasons that I have given, we want an exclusive society that supports everyone, but none of us can have any truck with terrorist groups.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
On the demise of Assad’s regime in Syria, my thoughts are with the Syrian people, who have been left to pick up the pieces after his barbaric actions, including his use of chemical weapons. No doubt, having propped up his brutal rule for more than a decade, both Putin and the Iranian leadership are now nursing their bloody noses.
Peace and stability will be foremost in everyone’s mind, and I understand that the Government are urgently reviewing the lifting of the terrorism proscription of Syrian rebel groups, but surely there must be an undertaking beforehand that the rights of women and minorities will be secured. Following the recent reports of Israeli strikes against chemical weapons depots in Syria, what measures are being taken, in collaboration with our international partners, to ensure that those are made secure and do not cause harm to civilians?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the Chair of the Defence Committee. He is right to mention the importance of women, and I reassure him that the funds that we are making available will absolutely support women. He mentions proscription. The situation on the ground in Syria is very fluid. Our priority at this time is the safety of Syrian civilians, but let me be absolutely clear: we do not comment on proscription, for good reason, but we should recognise that al-Qaeda has killed hundreds of British citizens in barbaric attacks spanning decades. That was the original reason why HTS were proscribed.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I have never regretted my vote in favour of military action in 2013, and I certainly welcome the fact that President Assad has been brought down. I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has to say on humanitarian aid, but there are myriad UN Security Council resolutions in place on humanitarian aid, and on rebuilding Syria in all its forms. What role does the Foreign Secretary see the UN—and indeed those Security Council resolutions—playing?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman is right to mention the importance of the UN, and resolution 2254 is particularly relevant to Syria. If he reviews that resolution, he will see that it largely assumes that the Assad regime is in place, so it is important to support the UN special representative at this time. If Syria is to succeed, there must be a greater role for the UN, and I intend to discuss these issues with the Secretary-General and others in the coming days and weeks.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I share the delight of my Syrian friends that Assad has gone. I only wish that the world had acted to support the Syrian people sooner, and that our dear friend Jo Cox was around to see this. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), for meeting the Syrian British Consortium in Doha over the weekend, and I look forward to a further meeting with him and the group in due course.
Despite the denial and downplaying of Assad’s crimes over the years, including by some Members of this House, it is undeniable that hundreds of thousands of people have been imprisoned by Assad, including in Saydnaya prison. There is an urgent need to release those prisoners. Some of them are several storeys down, and there are reports on the ground that people are unable to free them at the moment, such are the electronic locks that have been put on the gates. The White Helmets are on the ground, trying to unlock the gates so that people can be freed, but there is a real worry that they will not get to them in time, and that people will starve, or even run out of oxygen. What can the British Government and the international community do to ensure that, in the next 24 hours, more is done to get technical support on the ground, so that we can unlock the doors and free the political prisoners?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue. So grim was the Assad regime that I saw a young child—a toddler, effectively—walking out of a prison. This issue has commanded a lot of attention in the last few hours. We will continue to support civil society and public services as best we can in getting individuals out, but he will recognise that that is against a backdrop of some constraints. We do not have a diplomatic presence in Syria—we have not had one for a very long time. He mentions prisoners; we should never forget the 100,000 or more people who have simply disappeared. We hope and pray that many of those people will come out from underground.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I gently remind the House that one should never idealise the oppositions in these scenarios? Some of what I have heard today reminds me very much of what I heard in this House after the downfall of Saddam Hussein and of Muammar Gaddafi. The truth is that in Syria, it is a choice between monsters and maniacs. I do not regret my votes either, in 2013 and 2015, when the coalition wanted to bomb first one side and then the other in the same civil war. Can the Foreign Secretary throw some light on what he expects Turkey to do, having supported the Islamist opposition, now that it will be face to face with its Kurdish enemies?
Mr Lammy
The Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee is right—
Mr Lammy
Forgive me. The ex-Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee is right to highlight the complexity of these issues. He will recognise that Turkey has the most complex of relationships with HTS. In fact, many have forgotten that HTS are a proscribed organisation in Turkey. Turkey also has legitimate terrorist concerns, which it has raised with this country on a number of occasions. Notwithstanding the complexity of the situation, we have to work with all groups in an inclusive manner, but I will be really clear that in the UK, we remain concerned about Daesh, and about extremism in camps that we know exist in the north-east. We are vigilant about those issues, and we are happy to—we have to—work with Kurdish minority groups, who will assist us in that enterprise.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Could my right hon. Friend share his assessment of the impact of events in Syria on the stability of the wider middle east, particularly Palestine, Israel and Lebanon? Is there a particular role for UN blue helmets beyond the buffer zones, given what has happened around the Golan heights?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. On the one hand, some of what we see in Syria is a consequence of a diminished Hezbollah and a diminished Iran. On the other hand, we do not want further friction between Syria, its neighbours and others in the region. I saw the tanks that moved into the Golan heights, and I spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister yesterday. He said that he believed that that was temporary, and that it was in response to what Israel sees as a breach of the agreement struck in the 1970s between the two parties, given that the Syrian regime has now fled from that border. I hope that the situation is temporary, but I recognise the security concerns.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The situation in Syria will inevitably lead to changes and increased pressure on migration routes. What steps have the Government taken so far on asylum claims from Syrian nationals? Can he commit to making sure that the Home Affairs Committee is kept updated on any changes?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Lady is right to raise these issues. That is why I mentioned them in my statement, and why we are working in-country, both in Syria and with neighbours, to ensure that we do not have new migration routes open up. We want a safe and secure Syria that is inclusive of all communities; we have to be mindful of that.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Like many cities, Exeter is home to a Syrian refugee community, and it is frankly delighted by the demise of Assad’s appalling regime. What efforts can the Government make to support an inclusive political settlement that includes all Syria’s ethnic and religious groups—including, of course, the Kurdish community—potentially on the federal model, which has proven successful elsewhere in the region?
Mr Lammy
We recognise that many Syrians who have found a home in the United Kingdom are here specifically because Syria was not an inclusive place. As we hold out for that inclusive place, our intent is to work with partners to try to bring it about, but the truth is that this has to come from the Syrian people. The best we can do is to support public services and civil society. Long gone are the days when a P5 member such as ourselves could seek to construct the terms under which freedom is achieved. We have to work with partners on the ground.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
We welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement on this fast-evolving situation. He has referred to the opportunities and risks for the many displaced Syrians who are looking to return to Syria. Will the Government be providing assistance to those Syrians in this country who wish to return to their homeland? Will the Government look to follow the example of European nations such as Germany, which has suspended asylum applications?
Mr Lammy
I have to say that that has not been put to me in the last few hours. The issue that has been put to me is the humanitarian need in Syria and the humanitarian support for its neighbours. I think the consensus in this House and the significant funds with which we have supported Syria should reassure people of our content to support people on the ground in the region.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Thirty-five years ago, as the evil regime of Erich Honecker collapsed and the Berlin wall came down, the threat of chaos in East Germany was countered, and that country reintegrated into western Europe only with the investment of $2 trillion. The Foreign Secretary rightly speaks of the dangers to the UK that continuing chaos in Syria could cause. If Syria is not to sink further into despair, and if the UK and other democracies are not to feel the repercussions, where will the necessary investment for Syria’s reconstruction come from?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend raises an important issue, looking ahead. He will recognise that there is a real bandwidth problem as we look across the world, and particularly across the middle east. Many would like to see a ceasefire in Gaza—I certainly would—and the road to reconstruction begin. Many of us want to see Putin exit his troops from Ukraine and face justice, and there will be the necessary reconstruction there. Of course reconstruction is necessary in Syria, but I remind the House that, under both the last Government and this Government, this country has provided £4 billion-worth of aid. UK taxpayers have played their part in supporting Syria. We have announced a further £11 million today, and we continue to play our part, but no one would suggest that we could do it all on our own.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The situation in the middle east is extremely volatile, and the situation that has played out in Syria over recent days only adds to that instability. Has the Foreign Secretary had conversations in recent days with Ministry of Defence colleagues about the potential need to reinforce and bolster security at our sovereign base areas in Cyprus?
Mr Lammy
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that those discussions are ongoing, as he would expect given the extent of the challenges in the middle east, and particularly the challenges previously in Lebanon.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The fall of Assad’s regime marks a pivotal moment for Syria, offering a chance to end over a decade of brutal conflict and suffering at the hands of a man content with using chemical weapons against his fellow citizens. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that Britain works with international partners to secure a stable and inclusive future for Syria, so that all Syrian people can finally live in peace and rebuild their lives?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for the opportunity to repeat that it is very important for me to talk to Emirati, Turkish and Jordanian colleagues at this time, and for the Foreign Office operation to be engaged with the United States and others to ensure that we see a transition to genuine representation that is inclusive.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
In 2013, this House voted against UK military action following the use of chemical weapons by Bashar al-Assad’s Government. One effect of that vote was to deter the British Government from taking action, but another effect was to have influenced the US Government into taking no action at that time. Will the Foreign Secretary support Parliament debating and voting on any future UK military action, even if we have learned from 2013 that there may be times when such scrutiny should happen after military action takes place?
Mr Lammy
Drawing on my 24 years of experience in this House, I would say that all Members take the subject of military action with a seriousness and sobriety we do not see with any other issue that comes to the Chamber. I do not think there is any disagreement in the House about Assad. It is important to remember that the person responsible for the crimes against the Syrian people is Assad, and his brutal regime.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The joy on the faces of Syrians and the horrors of the Saydnaya prison emphasise both the evil of the Assad regime and the hope for Syria’s future, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said. However, the complexity of the ethnic, religious, political and military groupings within Syria and the wider region makes the pathway to a stable, peaceful and inclusive Syria challenging, to say the least. What practical steps can the UK take to support the bringing together of the appropriate Syrian representatives, to help enable them to build the peaceful, stable Syria that we all wish to see?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right, and she is drawing on years of experience of the issues of cohesion and the bringing together of different communities. Over the coming days, I hope to see that inclusivity in action. I have said to the UN special representative that the UK stands ready to support him in whatever way he deems necessary. Clearly, the UN will play an important role over the coming days. It is important that the regional actors, along with partners here in Europe and in the United States, are able to convene to ensure that the new rising tide in Syria is able to keep the hope that the people are demonstrating on the streets alive.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Syrian Democratic Forces are managing detention facilities holding 9,000 Daesh fighters in Syria. What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the likelihood of ensuring the continued management of those facilities, keeping people who threaten our security imprisoned? What action is he taking with allies to achieve that outcome?
Mr Lammy
As I have said, this is the No. 1 issue for the UK Government. We will continue to work closely with in-country partners and those in neighbouring countries to ensure that safety for our population. This is a very serious issue and the UK Government are fully engaged across all channels.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s decision to appoint Dame Margaret Hodge as the anti-corruption champion. She will do important work on illicit trading, not least in relation to drugs in Syria. We must not allow those routes to be a source of resource for violent terrorist groups. On the night when it became clear that the Assad regime was about to crumble, many of my constituents in Barking from Syrian backgrounds watched minute by minute—it was a highly emotional night for them. Along with the rest of the world, they saw the regime fall and, with it, decades of brutal rule that had destroyed lives. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that not only is this a moment of hope for the Syrian people, but it is a critical moment as we see the Russian and Iranian influence in the region pushed back, which is better for British national security?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for paying tribute to Baroness Hodge, who has been a doughty champion on issues of illicit finance. I am so pleased that she accepted this appointment. I was with her this morning at the National Crime Agency. My hon. Friend talks of the joy and hope in the hearts of members of the Syrian community in her constituency. We are seeing that right across our country and across the global community. We have to do all we can to support it, and hope and pray that Syria moves into a brighter future, understanding that it is one of the most ancient of countries. It has been a home for so many communities, and is one of the centres of the birth of civilisation.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I think we all welcome the fall of the Assad regime, but it is important that he and his henchmen are eventually brought to justice. As we have seen in Iraq and Libya, the swift fall of a dictator leads to a dysfunctional state, with potential for illegal immigration, terrorism and many other problems. What can the Foreign Secretary say about Britain’s role in ensuring that Syria does not become a dysfunctional regime, how we can prevent terrorism from moving from Syria into other parts of the world and, importantly, how we can deal on the ground with those who will genuinely have to seek asylum, rather than pushing them into the hands of people smugglers?
Mr Lammy
At the heart of what the right hon. Gentleman says is justice. He is absolutely right that the joy will quickly turn into accountability for what went before. We may see it coming out of the prisons, as people begin to interrogate what happened to the 100,000 who disappeared. People will want to hold those responsible accountable, and that is understandable. The right hon. Gentleman also raises important counter-terrorism issues. Daesh’s ability to direct, enable and inspire attacks within our country is significant; we have seen it behind a lot of global events. That is why we are proud of the part that we play in the global coalition against Daesh, and the work that we do in north-eastern Syria in particular.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
What discussions are taking place with Turkey, because the SDF in the north and the east of Syria is doing an important job in containing Daesh fighters, and it is essential that it is able to continue to do that? Does the Foreign Secretary fear that Turkey’s actions may have a detrimental effect on the job that the SDF is doing?
Mr Lammy
I reassure my hon. Friend that I have a good working relationship with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Hakan Fidan. I spoke to him yesterday, and last week in Malta. I fully expect Turkey, as a member of NATO and a close friend of our country, to continue to work with us on those pressing issues, recognising the threats to itself as well as to the United Kingdom.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement on what I know is a fast-evolving situation. In the coming days and weeks, he will have to think about the issue of diplomatic relations with Syria. Does he agree that one prerequisite of that relationship must be the handing over of any chemical weaponry that Assad has left behind, and will he work with international partners to ensure that that chemical weaponry is taken off the hands of anyone who wants to retain it, so that it is destroyed and does not fall into dangerous hands?
Mr Lammy
In so many ways, this horrid story, or at least the global attention on this horrid story, began with the use of chemical weapons. It would be fitting to see them taken away and absolutely destroyed so that they can never be used again. It has been important to seek the clarification that those who have led this rebellion are working with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and have set themselves against any use of chemical weapons and the preservation of those stockpiles.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the diligent and hard work of his Ministers, in particular the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), in keeping the House apprised of the ongoing issues, as he did last week and in the background over prior weeks.
Last week, I urged greater awareness of how the developments in Syria are interconnected, particularly with regard to Russia’s distraction and weakness. We all welcome the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on the escalation of the matter to a Cobra secretariat and the broad coalition we see on the Front Bench, in particular noting the security implications, the Home Office on migration flows, and his Department and the Ministry of Defence’s role in any stabilisation work. Will the Secretary of State provide his view on his Department’s ability to support such a significant piece of stabilisation activity alongside other work, following the disbandment of a Department for which that was the sole role?
As we know, the Russians have used their presence in Syria to expand their brutal security presence in other parts of the world, in particular Africa. What steps are we taking to assess how the developments will impact African states that have learned to rely on Russia for their security? Have we extended our hand of friendship to those states so they have the opportunity to avoid the manifestation of such situations? Finally—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Members have to keep their questions short.
Mr Lammy
I could listen to my hon. Friend all afternoon, but let me set about answering his questions. I am grateful that he mentioned my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, because it enables me to thank him for the way he is pursuing his role at this time, getting right across the region and the issue and drawing on his own experience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) is right to raise the aid question and how, indeed, that aid is spent. In the context of Syria, sadly, we are talking about a civil society and non-governmental organisations that have been on the ground for many years, so he can draw some confidence from the accountability in the way we work with them. That was, for example, why we have made a further £300,000 available to the White Helmets, which has such a tremendous record. He is also right to talk about Africa and the way in which Russia has used Syria as a staging post for its actions there. Of course, we are making the necessary assessments of that capability now that Russia has retreated.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement. I welcome his confirmation of the continuation of UK humanitarian aid to the people of Syria. I also welcome his commitment that the future governance of Syria must be decided by the Syrian people and not by foreign actors. Does he agree that a safe, secure, stable and prosperous Syria is in the interests of not only the Syrian people but Britain? Will he commit the UK to taking all possible steps to support the peaceful transition to such a Syria?
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I welcome the long-overdue fall of Assad’s murderous regime and recognise the joy and hope and also trepidation that many Syrians are feeling. It is disgraceful that the first thought of some has been to call for Syrian refugees to be forced to return, while the hard-right Austrian Government have suspended family reunification and talked of resuming deportations. Will the Government pledge their continued support of those who have fled Syria and made their home in the UK and for their freedom to choose whether they return or remain here?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right to raise those issues. It is important to remember that Syrians have now been in this country for many years indeed. Their lives are here; their children were born here. Those are just not the first issues that come to mind. It is also important to recognise that Syria’s neighbouring countries—Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan—bear the biggest number of displaced people who have had to flee Syria. We can see from the scenes in the region that Syrians want to go back—they are desperate to go back—and we should support them to do that with the public services that they will no doubt need.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
No one should grieve the demise of Assad, who was propped up for far too long by Russia and Iran. However, the links of HTS to al-Qaeda mean that the future is far from certain or secure. With that in mind, what steps have the Government taken to promote the rule of law in Syria?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. Twenty-one years ago, al-Qaeda drove a truck-bomb into our consulate in Istanbul, killing 16 British and Turkish members of staff, and we should never, ever forget that. It was in the serious context of HTS being an alias of al-Qaeda back in 2017 that it was proscribed in the United Kingdom. I will not comment on issues of proscription, but one would expect any responsible Government to consider the detail of these issues very soberly and carefully, with partners such as the United States, for which that organisation remains proscribed.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Syrian diaspora in York will welcome the fall of the Assad regime, but what follows really matters. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the International Criminal Court about the crucial gathering of evidence at this time of transition to build the case for justice, which is the Court’s responsibility?
Mr Lammy
I assure my hon. Friend that we will of course do all we can to ensure that Assad is held to account. He is now huddled in Russia with that other war criminal, Putin, who must also be held to account for his monstrous crimes.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I do not think that anybody could deny Syrians their moment of joy over the weekend after their 13 years of devastating civil war and over half a century of being brutalised by the Assad regimes. However, a Syria whose future is decided by Syrians needs long-term stability. In the medium term, what work is being undertaken by the office for conflict, stabilisation and mediation to analyse the situation, and will it be made available to the House? In the shorter term, we have seen what can happen in other places after such a moment of joy, so in his immediate response, what lessons will the Foreign Secretary take from Iraq and Libya?
Mr Lammy
What happened in Iraq and Libya—the vacuum that engulfed those countries when a dictator left, leading to sectarian violence from group upon group and to those places becoming havens for terrorism—is deeply worrying. That is why, despite the joy, we remain cautious. We are keen to work with partners on the ground, keen to support civil society, and keen to encourage an inclusive society, as has been indicated by the UN special representative. We will continue to do all we can to avoid the quagmire that could replace the fallen dictator.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)
It has been deeply moving to see Syrian families reunited after years in Assad’s prisons. On the wider situation, it is important that we learn the lessons from the past—not least from Iraq and Libya, where years of even greater chaos and disaster replaced the dictatorships. Many countries are militarily involved in Syria, but people do not want our military resources or troops dragged into more wars in the middle east. Can the Foreign Secretary assure us that —as distinct from humanitarian aid, which is welcome—no military resources or personnel will be sent to Syria?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has outlined the dangers after a dictator falls. He will understand that it would be wrong of me to comment on operational issues, but I find the scenario that he raises highly, highly, highly unlikely.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
As the people of Syria come out of the horrors of war, torture and imprisonment, and many go into asylum, can the Foreign Secretary assure us that the foreign troops in Syria at the present time—particularly the Turkish troops in the north—will leave; that they will respect the right of the Kurdish people to live safely in their own area; and that any incoming Government in Damascus will also respect the diversity of the country and all the minorities, particularly the Kurdish minority? From his discussions with the Israeli Foreign Minister, is the Foreign Secretary satisfied that Israel will withdraw immediately from the area that it has illegally occupied over the past couple of days, just north of the already illegally occupied Golan heights?
Mr Lammy
We are in the early days of a fluid situation, so it is not for me to give the right hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks, except to say that of course I continue to talk to our closest allies in the region about their security concerns and the issues facing Syria. In relation to the conversation that I had with the Israeli Foreign Minister, there is an arrangement in place—it was put in place in 1970s. It has worked and has sustained an arrangement in the Golan heights. The Israelis’ assessment was that the withdrawal of the regime over the past few days—and the potential for chaos, which has been discussed in this House and was indicated in the right hon. Gentleman’s question—has required them to protect that buffer zone. As I have said, I hope that that situation is temporary.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
As we have just heard, Israel seized more territory in the Syrian-controlled Golan heights yesterday. The Foreign Secretary just mentioned that Israel said that would be temporary, but the occupation is recognised as illegal under international law, so what will happen if the Israelis decide that it is not temporary?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend rightly says that that territory is illegally occupied. I confirm from the Dispatch Box that, as has been the case under successive Governments, the UK assessment is that it is occupied land.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
May I bring the Foreign Secretary back to a point raised by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), which I do not think he fully addressed? Will he assure the House that the Government will block any asylum applications from Assad’s acolytes in the years ahead?
Mr Lammy
I have seen it mentioned in the past few days that Asma al-Assad, as someone with UK citizenship, might attempt to come to our country. I confirm that she is a sanctioned individual and is not welcome here in the UK. Having appointed Margaret Hodge to her role this morning, and having introduced in the past five months more sanctions than ever before in that space of time, I assure the House that I will do everything in my power to ensure that no one from that family finds a place in the UK.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I declare an interest, in that several years ago I advised the moderate Syrian opposition coalition and other moderates. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order to ensure that the Syrian people are at the heart of the new Syria and to strengthen stability, it is important that the new political structures are democratic and pluralistic; that the moderate opposition, who have dedicated themselves to planning for this day ever since the horrors of 2011, are closely involved; and that engagement with our allies and the United Nations—which I know is ongoing—is prioritised, particularly given UN Security Council resolution 2254?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and for his work on, experience of and dedication to these issues over many years. There has been a lot of focus on HTS, but he will recognise that those who freed Damascus contain many groups. Many groups make up the opposition, coming from different positions, and the inclusive Syria that we talk about has to be a place that includes all of them. My hon. Friend is right to put on the record those groups that our own country has been able to work with over many years.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement. The downfall of the Assad regime and the liberation of Damascus are to be lauded. The same Damascus, of course, is one of the earliest places where Christianity was taught and preached, as the Bible mentions—Damascus is often mentioned in the good book.
The free world has failed in the protection of minority groups and religious beliefs. We need to be mindful that Turkey and Turkish-led terrorists are currently attacking Kurds in northern Syria. It is estimated that Turkey has killed some 300,000 Kurds in northern Syria since 2018, with another 300,000 facing the same fate today. Furthermore, with Damascus having gained its freedom, minorities in Syria must be protected against the brutal, violent and evil HTS. Will the Secretary of State ensure that this transitional peace Government will engage to protect all religious minorities in Syria?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House of the ancient nature of Syria, and the many religious communities that have found a home there and made it up over thousands of years. We will continue to work with all such groups, and the hon. Gentleman’s question underlines the complexity of the issue and the challenges for Syria as we look ahead.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
Members from across the House, including the Secretary of State, have talked about the religious and ethnic complexities of Syria. What does the Secretary of State make of those who are calling for a federal-type system in Syria? Should the Government be giving capacity and voice to those views and approaches?
Mr Lammy
There have been a number of propositions in the last few days, all of which merit further scrutiny and understanding. I am not going to back any single suggestion on behalf of the UK—I think it is important that those suggestions should come from organisations on the ground, and that we continue to work with regional partners. I stand by what I said before at the Dispatch Box: long gone are the days in which a plan is drawn up in the UK Foreign Office and presented as if it is the plan. That cannot be the way; we have to work with the grain of Syrian society, as complex and diverse as my hon. Friend rightly suggests it is.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
Like Minister Falconer, I was at the Doha forum this weekend, and there was palpable relief among the vast majority of delegates that the brutal murderer Assad had finally fallen. However, Sergey Lavrov also attended the Doha forum, and although I boycotted his session, the readout was that he was deeply uncomfortable in answering questions about Syria—rightly so, as he has so much Syrian blood on his hands, alongside his boss Vladimir Putin. Does my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary agree that it is unacceptable for Russia to retain its two military bases in Syria, and that those bases must be closed down for the stability of the region?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend makes a very strong point about Russian capability and desire. The two bases that exist also run operations into Africa and support militia groups on the African continent, and Russia’s long-standing, cynical desire to have a deep sea port in the region is what sat behind Putin’s support for Assad in the first place. We see Vladimir Putin in this Parliament.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I quickly remind Members that I am going to run this statement to the end. I think the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley referred to Minister Falconer by name, which of course he should not have done.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
In his statement, the Foreign Secretary referred to HTS co-operating with the international community on the monitoring of chemical weapons. Given the situation on the ground in Syria and the ongoing chaos, what confidence does he have that there is the capacity for HTS to conduct that work? Is there anything the UK Government can do to support the capacity in the region to keep those weapons safe?
Mr Lammy
Working with the OPCW on the ground is hugely important, and the work of the UN envoy is also essential. We will do all that we can to ensure those stockpiles are properly protected.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
There will be great jubilation at seeing the back of Assad. I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, including his reference to illicit finance, which is critically important, and what he said about building an inclusive society that protects minorities. This is a great moment of hope, but it comes with trepidation as well. The Foreign Secretary spoke of a new hope for Syrians getting their country back, and I am grateful for his clarification regarding the Golan heights. Whatever emerges from this transition, I know he shares the desire to seek a reliable partner and a supporter of democracy to replace this dreadful regime, but can he say something about the urgency of establishing that partnership and the timescale for it? What work is going on with partners to make sure that it happens quickly?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful for the interest in these issues and in the region that my hon. Friend has shown over many, many years. He will understand that we are in the foothills here, and that a lot has to be done to stabilise Syria at this time. In that context, it is a little premature to give a timetable. I understand why he wants one—he wants to guarantee that things will not go south over the coming months—but the issues that I raised relating to oil, fuel and energy and support for public services are pressing on our minds. We have to ensure that disorder does not set in, and that is what we will be working closely on with partners over the coming days.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and the detailed and nuanced answers he has given to what have been some complex questions are extremely welcome. One thing that is not complex is the fact that Assad is a murderer who has taken 500,000 people’s lives, and my right hon. Friend was absolutely right to resist calls to reopen channels and negotiate with him.
I have two questions: one simple, one not so simple. First, does my right hon. Friend agree that every single Member of this House should welcome the downfall of Assad? Secondly, does he have thoughts on what this means for Russia? Will its catastrophic failure in Syria change its behaviour in other conflicts, including in Ukraine?
Mr Lammy
I think my hon. Friend can feel the united position on Assad in this Chamber. We are one of the great democratic Chambers of the world, which is why we know a dictator when we see one, and we call that out across the House. On the other point my hon. Friend makes about Putin, I am always reassured in these moments that in the end dictators fall because they never attend to all of their population. They always suppress the will of minority groups and opposition, and in the end they have to run their countries with a horrible, horrendous iron rod, because they know—as we saw with those statues coming down—that there is a target on their back. That is where I take heart about the future of Vladimir Putin.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I want to echo the calls welcoming the downfall of the brutal and evil Assad regime, and just to press the Foreign Secretary a little. What steps will the Government take to preserve all the humanitarian routes available, and to ensure that a moderate, prosperous and, indeed, multi-polar Syria emerges from the present situation?
Mr Lammy
There is the £11 million I have announced in further aid to support the civil groups. As I have said, I have had conversations today with regional partners to ensure that those routes are available, and it is good to see people feeling able to return home.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend was right in his statement to emphasise the effects of global instability on illegal immigration into the UK. Not only is supporting displaced Syrians as they return home the right thing to do—although it is the right thing to do—but it supports the security of the UK. Can he assure the House that Syrians returning home will have ongoing humanitarian support from this Government?
Mr Lammy
Yes, I am very pleased to say that at the Dispatch Box.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I join the Foreign Secretary, the shadow Foreign Secretary and everyone across this House in welcoming the demise of Assad’s brutal regime. Unlike my predecessor in Rochdale, Mr George Galloway, who tweeted his support for Assad this weekend, much to the disdain of many in my constituency, I do not mourn Assad’s demise. We should not be surprised by Mr Galloway, given that he has long been a friend of dictators across the planet. I remind the Foreign Secretary that Assad was no friend of the Palestinian people—he bombed, tortured and murdered Palestinians who stood up to him. Does my right hon. Friend also recognise their bravery today?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to remind the House that our own democracy has demagogues and charlatans who can prey on individuals. He is also right to remind us that so few were safe under Assad’s brutal regime, which saw the murder of hundreds of thousands of people, people disappearing on a scale that certainly the 21st century had not seen and the use of chemical weapons. That he has found safety and comfort in Russia is, frankly, appalling. He should be rotting in a jail for all that he has done.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Like many in this House, I have campaigned and worked with Syrian friends in their struggle over much of the last decade, and I welcome the demise of Assad. The Secretary of State is absolutely correct that it is for the Syrian people to decide what happens next, although I greatly fear that the voices of many Syrian people will not be heard unless they are given strong international support to be heard. There is a strong pro-democracy and pro-human rights movement in Syria, particularly among women and youth-led organisations. What are the Government doing to ensure that the voices of women and youth are heard?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the importance of women and youth. Women have been mentioned, but youth not so much this afternoon. I have been aware of youth groups in Syria over many years, and we will do all we can to amplify those voices at this time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for the statement.
Bill Presented
Domestic Abuse (Aggravated Offences) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Josh Babarinde, supported by Caroline Voaden, Alex Brewer, Lisa Smart, Liz Jarvis, Anna Sabine, Calum Miller, Ben Maguire, Alison Bennett, Charlotte Cane, Helen Maguire and Dr Danny Chambers, presented a Bill to create certain domestic abuse aggravated offences; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2025, and to be printed (Bill 145).
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Monday 9th December 2024
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 View all Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 9 December 2024 - (9 Dec 2024)
20:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 89 / Noes: 340 - Question accordingly negatived.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Developing and implementing training on public protection procedures—
“(1) The Secretary of State must take steps as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to ensure that—
(a) adequate training provision is made available for persons responsible for qualifying premises or qualifying events in respect of public protection procedures that includes—
(i) the monitoring of premises or events and the immediate vicinity of premises or events;
(ii) evacuation procedures and the movement of individuals into, out of and within a premises or event;
(iii) physical safety and security of occupants in a premises;
(iv) provision of security information to individuals on a premises or at an event; and
(v) other measures related to terrorism protection training;
(b) a training implementation plan is put in place to ensure all organisations and persons to which the provisions of this Act apply are encouraged to undertake training related to public protection procedures.
(2) Functions of the Secretary of State under this section may be exercised by any organisation or persons authorised to do so by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the steps they have taken in relation to subsection (1).”
This new clause, together with Amendment 28, would require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a training plan in respect of qualifying premises and events before Parts 1 and 2 of the Act are commenced.
Government amendments 1 and 2.
Amendment 27, in clause 19, page 15, line 5, leave out “different” and insert “lower”.
This amendment restricts the Secretary of State to lowering the daily penalties rate for non-compliance by regulation.
Government amendments 3 and 4.
Amendment 25, in clause 32, page 22, line 35, leave out “100” and insert “200”.
This amendment sets the floor for standard duty at 200 individuals.
Amendment 26, page 22, line 38, leave out “500” and insert “799”.
This amendment sets the floor for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events at 799 individuals.
Amendment 28, in clause 37, page 25, line 31, leave out from “force” to end of line 36 and insert
“on the day after the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on developing and implementing training on public protection procedures contained within this Act.”This amendment is consequential on NC2.
Government amendments 5 to 24.
Matt Vickers
I pay tribute to everyone who has contributed to the Martyn’s law campaign, the incredible group of individuals who are the Survivors Against Terror, and all the businesses, charities, local authorities, civil servants and security partners that have helped to shape the Bill. Most importantly, I thank the tireless campaigner Figen Murray, and her son Martyn in whose name this Bill has been devised. I would like to reflect for a moment on Martyn and the 21 other innocent victims who were killed in the heinous attack in the Manchester Arena in 2017. The loss of their lives and the pain of their families and friends must never be forgotten.
I pass on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who is unable to be present today to speak on behalf of the official Opposition.
Martyn’s law was a manifesto pledge for the Conservative party, and we published a version of the legislation in draft during the last Parliament. We took the issue of public protection very seriously when in office. We delivered £1 billion of counter-terrorism funding for 2024-25, so our forces can mount a swift and effective response to any terrorist attack. Funding will total at least £1 billion in 2024-25 as we provided essential support for counter-terrorism policing and ensured the police had the resources they needed to meet and deal with the threat of terrorism. We enshrined our Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 in law, introducing tougher sentences and ending the automatic release of potential terrorist offenders. Those found guilty of serious terror offences will now be handed a minimum 14-year prison term and up to 25 years on licence.
Part of the reason for publishing this legislation in draft was a concern to get the balance right for the different premises to which it applies—their responsibilities, and how feasible it is for them to effectively comply with those responsibilities and with public safety. We are grateful to the Home Affairs Committee, which undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and made valuable recommendations, and to all those who responded to the Home Office consultation. It is because Martyn’s law is so important that it is imperative we get it right in this place. It is in that spirit of support, co-operation and openness that we have suggested small amendments to the Bill.
New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on the effectiveness of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator of these new provisions for both this House and other places within 18 months of the passing of the Bill. This is in recognition of the challenges inherent in extending new regulatory powers to an existing body. The report would include a comparative cost-benefit analysis of the SIA’s regulatory functions and an analysis of the implications if those functions were alternatively carried out at the local authority level.
The SIA’s role in this Bill is extensive, and it is our view that a review after the roll-out of the new provisions will provide the Government with the opportunity to take stock and decide whether the existing arrangements are the most effective regulatory framework. If they are a success, that is fantastic, but if there are issues, it is surely best to address them early and, if necessary, make changes then and there. I know there has been some anxiety from organisations about a perceived lack of clarity in how the SIA will approach regulation and whether it has the institutional dexterity to understand such a diverse range of venues.
From my discussions with relevant representative groups, businesses and venue operators around the country, I know there is wide-ranging support for the changes in our amendment from the industry. They want to ensure their venues are as safe as they can be. Indeed, many have already taken steps unilaterally to improve security and are eager to work with the Government on further progress. However, there is a feeling that current advice and guidance is limited, and this lack of information is leading to anxiety, particularly at a time when business confidence is falling and new taxes are incoming. Therefore I ask the Government to ensure that affected venues and industries are given full advice on how to comply with the incoming regulations as soon as possible. By agreeing to a future review of the SIA’s regulatory effectiveness now, the Government can ease those anxieties and ensure that everyone is focused on the most important objectives: delivering the provisions in the Bill and bolstering our collective security. For that reason, I ask the Government to support new clause 1.
We have tabled amendment 27 in a similar spirit of openness and co-operation. It would prevent the Secretary of State from increasing by regulations the daily amount venues can be fined under this legislation. As the Bill stands, places that are classified as standard duty venues can be fined up to £500 a day for violation. For those classed as enhanced duty venues, the fine is £50,000 a day for violation. I know the Minister will have met many of the organisations that are required to make changes under the Bill, and I am sure that he, like me, found them to be actively supportive of the changes and genuinely interested in working collaboratively towards better safety regulations.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Without the regulations and guidelines being set out clearly, there is a risk that businesses will worry about being fined quite heavily just because they do not quite know what they should be doing. Does my hon. Friend agree that this amendment and new clause 1 will help cement that clarity in place?
Matt Vickers
All the people in the industry are genuinely and wholeheartedly committed to improving the safety of their venues, but there are anxieties and concerns about what that means. The review of who is in charge and who is responsible for ensuring compliance will get rid of those anxieties and foster confidence in the industry and let us move forward together with the industry.
We would like reassurance about how the Government intend to use the powers to increase the rate of daily penalties. The Bill allows the SIA to levy large fines for non- compliance with the requirements of this legislation in addition to the daily penalties. For a sector recovering from covid, those could be difficult to meet, as could a daily penalty of £500 levied on a small organisation run by volunteers.
We have heard from several trade associations about the potential impact. Neil Sharpley, policy chair of the Federation of Small Businesses, said the FSB is “broadly supportive” of the Bill but added that
“we are concerned about the administrative impact of the burden that will be imposed on smaller businesses, and we are concerned about the costs.”
Michael Kill, CEO of the Night Time Industries Association, said that
“it is crucial to address the proportionality of the proposed measures, within all settings. We must ensure that the balance between heightened security and practical implementation is carefully considered.”
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
As my hon. Friend knows, I piloted the measure as shadow Minister on Second Reading. I welcome the Minister to his place and thank him for his usual courtesy.
This is genuinely not a political point, but does my hon. Friend agree that, with other measures currently burdening small business such as increases in taxation, business rates and national insurance contributions, this amendment helps because it allows venues to plan and make sure that not too much money is going out? That applies particularly to charities and smaller venues. That is why the remit of the SIA must be checked, and why this amendment should be backed.
Matt Vickers
I could not agree more. There is huge anxiety among businesses about challenges and pressures—whether the national insurance contribution increases on employers or the huge change to small business rate relief affecting small businesses in leisure, hospitality and retail, slashing it from 75% to 40%. These are challenging times, including for very small family businesses, and also, as my hon. Friend points out, for the voluntary sector and many organisations that prop up our communities and play a central role. By perfecting this Bill, we can relieve those anxieties and allow those organisations to follow on with confidence and comply with the measures in the Bill.
I would appreciate some reassurance from the Minister about how he expects to use the powers to change daily penalties. I hope he will demonstrate that the ethos of the Bill is collaboration between the state and private organisations, not the establishment of an increasingly costly financial penalisation system. We believe that would help to settle any underlying anxieties and allow both the Government and venues to focus on working together to ensure that the roll-out of this Bill is the very best it can be.
Amendments 25 and 26 stop the Secretary of State changing qualifying tier amounts by regulation. They are simply designed to provide future certainty to organisations as they work to become compliant with the Bill. They would remove the power of the Secretary of State to lower the threshold for the standard duty premises and enhanced duty premises from 200 and 799 individuals respectively. The current qualification levels have been determined after consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. These are significant policy choices and I believe the Government have reached this position after listening to that feedback. As I have set out today, the industry and venues are actively supportive of the Bill and actively want to play their part in improving venue security. We worry about the uncertainty caused by the potential of the Secretary of State to change the thresholds for the standard and enhanced duty premises in future. How is that power compatible with allowing the industry to plan long term, in the knowledge that the qualifying criteria for each tier will not change?
We want to ensure that venues have the confidence to commit the required resources to adopting the provisions of the Bill, knowing that the rules will not change suddenly. Impact assessments have shown the challenges that face different types of venues. Smaller venues and lower capacity premises such as places of worship, village halls and community centres showed particular concern about the impact on fellow smaller businesses and their ability to meet the revised requirements within the small resources available to them.
About four in 10—or 39%—of respondents from premises with a capacity of 100 to 299 agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack. Nearly half—46%—disagreed and said that only larger premises should have a legal obligation. About half—51%—reported that revised requirements would be difficult to take forward. Six in 10, or 58%, were at least somewhat concerned that the cost of meeting the standard tier requirements would affect their organisation’s financial ability to continue operating. Among those from places of worship or village halls, only around three in 10 agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack.
More than 54% of those from village halls and community centres, which typically have a smaller capacity than premises across other sectors—72% had a capacity of 100 to 299—disagreed and said only larger premises should have a legal obligation. Over half of those from places of worship and village halls felt the revised requirement would be difficult to take forward, mainly due to the perceived burden in time and effort. I therefore ask the Minister in what circumstances he would envisage needing to lower the floor for either standard or enhanced duty premises and what consultation would take place before the Government did so.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that proportionality is particularly important? While clearly venues like the Manchester Arena should have a properly worked out plan, it is inappropriate for village halls and church halls to worry about the cost and bureaucracy involved. Can we have the lightest possible touch for those small community venues?
Matt Vickers
That is right. The community organisations that are affected, whether parish halls, village halls, churches, or small businesses such as the local pub, are invaluable to, and sit at the heart of, our communities, and it is essential that we protect them. There is a balance between what everyone who supports the Bill wants from these protections, be they on the Opposition or Government Benches, namely to prevent the most horrific atrocities, and ensuring that those businesses and community organisations can continue to exist.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The Bill’s provisions are appropriate for venues below the enhanced tier. They are proportionate, low-cost and not onerous. They are prompts to encourage organisations to do the kind of thinking that they should do anyway to prevent terrorism or any kinds of attack. The measures are not disproportionate at all, and the legislation is appropriate in that respect.
Matt Vickers
I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. An existing regulatory body is being given an additional job; there is no harm in coming back after 18 months to review whether the provisions are working and are fit for purpose. Similarly, there is logic in the House having a say on the fees and penalties that might be applied, rather than that being delegated to the Secretary of State. Those logical changes could relieve some of the anxiety in the sector. Everyone wants the Bill to go forward and fulfil its objective of making our communities safer, but some of the anxieties in the sector about unexpected and unintended consequences for community venues and small businesses are real, so let us relieve some of them by agreeing the amendments.
Paul Holmes
I hope the shadow Minister will forgive me for intervening once again, but I expressed concern about the “responsible person” element at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading. As he has outlined, smaller charity and voluntary sector bodies, such as theatres and community organisations, welcome the aims of the Bill, as do I, but when voluntary organisations are responsible for allocating someone who will be legally responsible to the Security Industry Authority, that spreads fear among those organisations, given the bureaucracy that they already face. Does he agree that we need to look carefully at how great a burden we put on theatre groups, and in particular on voluntary community associations, which will be subject to the regulations?
Matt Vickers
We need to reflect, take time, and review the measures in 18 months, including the regulations. Many of our community and voluntary organisations already struggle to find the manpower to fulfil their functions, and this is another function. Its purpose is right, and it is right to take the legislation forward and provide these protections, but we have to consider the wider perspective and the proportionality for smaller venues, given the potential impact on communities.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is not in my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but I am church warden of a small parish church. Most parish churches would probably come under the 200-person limit, but the vast majority would be caught by 100-plus. Not only is there fear among volunteers who have to take on this responsibility, but significant risk of unintended consequences. Volunteers may not be prepared to take on the responsibility, and as a result, vital community infrastructure spaces may close to the public. Would that not be a terrible unintended consequence of this well-meaning Bill?
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend is right. We look at the numbers—100 and 200—and think of organisations we know, and events that we have attended in churches and parish halls. I used to be a Scout leader, and the paperwork, the burden and the challenges used to put us off, in many ways, from fulfilling some of our functions. People who might have come along to help one day get slightly put off by the challenges and responsibilities that come with doing so. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the shadow Minister not welcome the fact that the Bill increases the capacity from 100 to 200? His Government previously set the limit at 100—the figure that he is so concerned about.
Matt Vickers
I welcome the revisions; that is why we had scrutiny. The fact that the figures can be determined unilaterally is the concern. There is agreement across the House that it is right to take the Bill forward. We are looking at what we can do at the edges to mitigate the impact for smaller venues, but I agree in principle with what the hon. Member says.
Jerome Mayhew
I am particularly concerned about the Secretary of State or Minister having the power to reduce the number from 200 back to 100 by regulation. That is addressed by amendment 25. Does my hon. Friend agree that in the absence of significant evidence or consultation to support such a move, 100 is essentially an arbitrary number? Why 100, and not 125, 150 or 175? Does he agree that we need more evidence to support that regulation-making power being given to the Secretary of State? Does he therefore agree that amendment 25 is a sensible alternative?
Matt Vickers
I agree entirely. There is no reason why we should not bring that measure to the House for decision. There is no reason to delegate that power to the Secretary of State. It would be sensible to take that delegation out. We have just talked about the fact that some people think the number should be 100, and others think it should be 200. It would be logical to bring the measure back to the House, if required, in due course, and I hope the Minister agrees.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
We all hope that the Bill is absolutely right—that is what we want—but there is nothing wrong with increased scrutiny. Would it not be right for the Government to accept new clause 1, so that we can ensure that there is a review? Through that, we can get the evidence, and then we will know whether we have got it right.
Matt Vickers
That is entirely right. Most of the amendments are about looking at what we can do around the edges of the Bill to mitigate the challenges for small community organisations and small businesses.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
We have to be careful. Of course we want to work cross-party, and should be cognisant of small business, but on the other side of the debate, campaigners are worried that the Bill is already leaning too much the other way, and we will start to lose proportionality if we adopt the shadow Minister’s amendments.
Matt Vickers
I slightly disagree. A body is taking on this regulation. Reviewing this in 18 months to see whether it is working is sensible. Keeping the ability to make decisions on numbers, rather than giving it to the Secretary of State, is a logical way forward. We all want this Bill to work, and we all realise the meaningful and important reasons why the Bill was brought forward, but we are talking about mitigation. All the amendments are fair, logical and sound in how they try to balance the two interests. We want to make all venues safe, whatever their scale or size, but we need to do so in a way that allows businesses and community organisations to carry on delivering, at the heart of our communities.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Last week, along with Opposition colleagues, I met representatives of a number of hospitality businesses across different sectors. Everyone wants to make their venue more secure, and everyone acknowledged the importance of the legislation, but there are points to address on clarity and the uncertainty being caused. We have talked about the responsibility of volunteers, and where it starts and ends. Some venues will have queues outside, and it is not clear how the legislation will work in that case. An 18-month review is important, because it would allow us to look at whether the legislation is making people more safe and secure. Does the shadow Minister agree?
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend is right. When it comes to the Bill, the stakes are high for small community organisations and small businesses, so I see no harm in reviewing the regulations after 18 months, and in keeping those powers for the House, rather than delegating them to the Secretary of State. That is logical and makes a lot of sense for many venues. It is the way forward.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 2(2)(c), defining the premises that will be covered by the legislation, states:
“it is reasonable to expect that from time to time 200 or more individuals may be present”.
Under the regulations, that might read “100 or more”. Coming back to my experience as a member of the parish church, I would love there to be 100 or 200 people present, but the congregation is closer to six or seven. However, the capacity of the church—the structure—is sufficient to take in 100 or 200 people. While on the face of it, the legislation seems reasonable, does my hon. Friend share my concern that a facility that could welcome 199 people may not have the structures in place, or physically have the people available, to support the increased burden placed on it by the Bill? That would increase the risks of unintended consequences and closure. That would be dealt with by amendment 25.
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend is entirely right. In voluntary organisations, men and women who tend to do something else by day give their time to volunteer in the evening or at the weekend. They have other things going on in their lives. They will not necessarily be expert on the laws surrounding venues and what goes on in them, but from time to time—once a year, or once every two years—they will be expected to know about these regulations and to comply with them. There is logic in keeping the number at the intended 200, as well as in reviewing the regulations. We would allow the regulatory body to come back on that point 18 months, in the review, when we would review those numbers. We are just saying that these things should not be delegated to the Secretary of State at this point.
Tim Roca
I welcome the progress of this important Bill. We know the danger of terrorism in this country for the constituents we represent. There have been 15 domestic terror attacks since 2017, as well as the tragic arena bombing. That excludes terrorism in Northern Ireland. There have also been 43 late-stage plots foiled by the security services. We recently heard from the head of the Security Service about a 48% increase in terror investigations in the last year alone, so the threat is absolutely real and it is always changing.
We have had various attacks, including the marauding-style terrorist attacks that we saw so tragically here in London some years ago. The Bill is a crucial to making sure that premises, businesses and venues do what they can to keep people safe. We know from businesses and venues that they understand their obligations to their patrons, whoever they might be, and they want to keep them safe.
We have had a healthy debate about the Bill’s provisions. There has been a sensible, mature, cross-party discussion about what works and what is practicable. I pay tribute to Manchester city council for the exercises it undertook. It worked with businesses to ensure that measures were both sensible and proportionate while keeping people safe. Across I think 10 sessions last year, and having spoken to 700 businesses and 2,000 people, it went through some of the measures in the Bill, and businesses overwhelmingly supported them. They understood the need for them, and that they were not onerous. Those ranged from businesses as large as Printworks, which many people in Manchester will know, down to local restaurants and bars, and the response was incredibly positive.
I say that because I want to reassure hon. Members from across the House about the proportionality of the measures in the Bill. In fact, I will quote Gareth Worthington, the night-time economy officer at the Manchester business improvement district:
“If a venue operator does not know how to evacuate their venue they should not be running that venue and if training can be provided to help make that evacuation safer then venues should grasp it with both hands.”
On the thresholds, we have arrived at a sensible place. We had a healthy debate in the Public Bill Committee on them, and I think they are reasonable. I reiterate that I think campaigners would perceive any tweaking of provisions on the thresholds or delegated powers for the Secretary of State as a watering down of the Bill.
Tim Roca
I shall not, because I think we have touched on that point enough.
Finally, I pay tribute to my constituent Figen Murray for her bravery in championing these measures. No parent would ever want to have the name of their child on a law if they could help it, but she has worked tirelessly to push forward these measures. I hope to see them enacted. I recommend the Bill and thank the Minister for his hard work on it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I echo the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca): this has been a constructive, cross-party legislative process. I also pay tribute to the Security Minister for the way in which he has engaged with me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, cross-party. My comments on the Bill are made in that spirit.
The purpose of the Bill, as well as new clause 2, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, is clear. I am pleased that the House has been given the opportunity to champion Martyn’s family and their campaign. The Bill draws clear lessons from the tragic 2017 attack and brings fresh commitments to protecting lives.
Sir Ashley Fox
On that point, does the hon. Member not think that those volunteers in church halls and other small venues would be put off by the thought of having to go through a training course, implementing a training plan and all the other aspects of new clause 2? While those may be worthy objectives for larger venues, does he really think them desirable for small venues? Does he not perceive the risk that they may put off volunteers who would otherwise freely give of their time?
Ben Maguire
I spoke to many venues across my constituency this weekend, and actually they were more put off by the ambiguity of the Bill and the lack of specifics that they will be required to undertake. New clause 2 would give them that clarity and ensure that they knew exactly what was required of them under the Bill.
Dr Luke Evans
I think that the volunteer side in particular is concerning a lot of people. One thing that strikes me about new clause 2 is that, given that these are often volunteer organisations, who would fund the training? Has there been thought about who would pay for it and how much it would cost? Small venues like my village halls may struggle to make a couple of hundred pounds a year, let alone be able to afford further training. I wonder if the hon. Member would enlighten me on how that may work.
Ben Maguire
I suspect that that will be a question for the Minister when we come towards the end of the debate. It is certainly something that volunteers will seek clarity on so that they can know exactly what is required of them under the Bill. Without adequate training, we will end up with just vague asks of them, and they will not know exactly how to carry out their duties under the legislation.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
With due respect, the hon. Gentleman said that the cost was a question for the Minister, but since this is his proposed new clause, surely he should have some idea of the financial and other implications for the organisations that would have to comply with it.
Ben Maguire
I certainly would not suggest, and neither would the Liberal Democrats, that the training fee should fall on small venues, but the Government should consider it so that there is clarity for those smaller venues. I hope that answers the right hon. Member’s question.
The new clause covers evacuation procedures, monitoring of premises, physical safety and security and the overall provision of protecting lives. It would also establish a full training implementation plan, with the Secretary of State regularly updating Parliament to ensure that the right progress is being made. Crucially, it would ensure that our businesses are fully supported and given the clarity that they need. The public deserve to know that wherever they are—at a concert, a wedding or a local cider festival—staff are properly trained to respond to such emergencies. They should have confidence that venues are held to a consistent standard of preparation and readiness. For the venues themselves, the new clause would greatly improve safety, and would provide clarity and consistency on the standards that they must meet under this law.
Of course, there are concerns from many micro and small businesses about the financial impact and additional bureaucracy that these requirements may bring. That is why the new clause proposes a practical training plan to minimise the financial burden, with scalable and specific training.
Jerome Mayhew
I have already mentioned that I am a church warden of a small parish church, so I have practical experience. I also have other duties—I am the safeguarding officer, because there are insufficient volunteers who are prepared to undergo the quite significant training needed to maintain safeguarding duties in that organisation. I accept that, given the Church of England’s troubled history over the past 20 years, safeguarding is a necessary part of modern life, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that the duties imposed on volunteers are cumulative in their impact? I can be a Member of Parliament, a church warden and a safeguarding officer, but can I also be responsible for the additional costs and responsibilities that he has in mind?
Ben Maguire
Certainly, the intention of new clause 2 is not to be a burden on our small venues, but to do the opposite and make sure that they have clarity on what they are supposed to do, what their responsibilities are and how they practically carry out the requirements contained in this legislation.
I was glad to receive the promising indication of a commitment in writing by the Security Minister. He said that if the Bill is given Royal Assent, an implementation period of 24 months will be set. That will give venues the time to understand their new obligations, plan and prepare and, if needed, provide training to staff. The Government promise that training will be supplied by a number of expert security partners. I look forward to hearing more details on that.
Over the weekend, I met various local venues in my North Cornwall constituency, such as the Sea View Farm Shop, which expressed concerns over possible fencing requirements. Its venue hosts small outdoor festivals with between 1,500 and 2,000 attendees. It is similar in scale to the nearby Rock Oyster Festival, and can be contrasted with much larger events such as Boardmasters, which hosts over 60,000 people. Could the Minister provide clarity on the requirements for outdoor events?
We are not seeking to push the new clause to a vote, but we seek reassurance from the Minister today about training for staff and operators for venues big and small. New clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, proposes a review of the role of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator. We do not oppose a cost-benefit analysis of the role of the SIA, but we worry about the impact of additional responsibility on local government, which is already stretched to breaking point, without the accompanying resources to deliver that.
I welcome the intent to ensure efficiency and effectiveness, but I must stress the need for reassurance that smaller venues, such as the village halls that we have heard about and the community centres that, as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) said, are often run by volunteers, will not be disproportionately impacted. In North Cornwall, we have venues such as the John Betjeman Centre in Wadebridge, village halls in Padstow, Lewannick and St Mabyn and many more.
I acknowledge amendments 25 and 26 to raise the minimum capacity thresholds for standard and enhanced duty premises to 200 and 800, respectively. These spaces are integral to our communities yet they operate with limited resources, often run by volunteers, and cannot shoulder excessive regulatory burdens. Any changes must prioritise support and scalability for these organisations, so that they are equipped to meet public protection requirements without being overwhelmed. This legislation will not be able to do that if it is too burdensome for businesses, which are not clear what their obligations really are.
Will the Minister confirm that the content of our new clause will be given due consideration? Keeping everyone safe is the absolute priority, but by providing clear guidance and training we can avoid burdening our already struggling local businesses, and ensure that they have the clarity that they need about the legislation.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I would like to start by expressing my admiration for Figen Murray for her unwavering advocacy of this Bill, in memory of her son, Martyn. Her defiant message to promote peace and positive change in Martyn’s name has been a source of inspiration to us all. Figen’s strength and dedication in pushing for meaningful reforms to prevent such devastating attacks is truly commendable. Her courage and commitment continue to drive this important work, and we are deeply grateful for her contributions.
As a former police officer, I believe that this legislation represents an important step forward in improving our national security framework and in providing our communities with greater protection from the evolving threat of terrorism. The Bill is needed as the level of threat remains complex, evolving and enduring. By implementing stronger security measures, providing clearer responsibilities for venue owners and enhancing co-ordination between relevant agencies, this legislation will help safeguard the public in places where they gather, work and celebrate. In an increasingly unpredictable world, it is vital that we remain proactive to protect our communities and strengthen the resilience of our society. The Bill is a crucial part of that effort.
By designating a person responsible for considering the risks and for planning a response in the event of a terrorist attack, we are taking a proactive and structured approach to security. The role is about not only managing immediate responses, but fostering a culture of vigilance, communication and preparedness within communities and organisations in general. The legislation will ensure that our response is as effective as possible.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I thank him for his service in the police. Three victims of the Manchester Arena bombing were from my constituency —Sorrell Leczkowski, Courtney Boyle and Wendy Fawell —which is why I am so supportive of the Bill. He is talking about the duties of venues and their managers, but does he agree that it would be helpful for the Government to give clear guidance about their responsibilities for outdoor and public spaces when managing the particular regulatory framework that the Bill will create?
Matt Bishop
I wholeheartedly agree that that is a very important part of the legislation.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
What has been striking about the debate so far is the extent of cross-party consensus on this matter. My worry is that the Bill contains a set of proposals that we might be supporting because they are something that we deem possible to do, whereas we may be neglecting some things that are harder to do. In the inquiry into the bombing, several aspects of the story were very concerning, from the way the asylum system worked through to the Prevent programme. While 90% of MI5’s counter-terrorism casework is Islamist, the latest data shows that the number of Prevent referrals for young people suspected of Islamist radicalisation has fallen from 3,706 in 2016-17 to only 781 in 2022-23. As a former police officer, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have to do something to ensure that Prevent is properly targeted at the real threats we face?
Matt Bishop
I wholeheartedly agree; anything to support Prevent training in schools and education is very important.
The legislation will ensure that our response is as effective as possible and minimise the risks to lives and infrastructure. It is essential that everyone, from leadership to staff members, understands the importance of this role and supports the planning and implementation of all safety protocols.
However, the Bill is not just about securing physical spaces; it is about fostering a sense of security and trust in the places where we work, gather and celebrate. At a time when the threat of terrorism can cause widespread fear and uncertainty, knowing that protective measures are in place allows people to go about their daily lives with greater confidence. It is about protecting not just our buildings, but the social fabric that holds our communities together.
Being a member of the Bill Committee was insightful. It was an opportunity to closely examine the provisions of this important legislation and engage in constructive discussion with my colleagues, other stakeholders and those sadly affected by terrorism. In Committee sittings, I was pleased to hear that various businesses and venues are already implementing the standards of the Bill in their operations, which are intended to ensure that public premises and events are better prepared so that if the unthinkable happens, they are ready to respond.
The response to the Bill highlights the commitment of many organisations to the safety and security of the public, and their recognition of the importance of proactive measures in the face of potential threats. It demonstrates a shared understanding that protecting people from harm is the responsibility of not just the Government, but everybody in our society. The Bill seeks to formalise and build on those efforts, ensuring that security practices are consistent, comprehensive and capable of meeting the evolving nature of the terrorist threat.
I acknowledge the concerns raised during this debate and in Committee, which I believe have been addressed to make the Bill more effective, fair and responsive to the challenges at hand. As we move forward, it is crucial to remember that this is a shared responsibility; as I said, the Government cannot act alone.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talks about shared responsibility, and how it is the responsibility of us all to protect each other. As a former police officer, is he not worried about a degree of vigilantism, with untrained people taking the law into their own hands and doing things that perhaps, as a police officer, he thinks police officers would be best placed to do?
Matt Bishop
That is a fair point, but I am not worried that the Bill will cause that. I think that the wider general public will allow the police to deal with the matters in hand when they need to, but there may be, as I mentioned, several opportunities to act on this together.
Public venues, businesses, local authorities and communities themselves must all work in tandem to create a robust, unified front against terrorism. By integrating efforts across sectors, we make our society stronger, more resilient and able to respond more effectively to threats while ensuring the safety of every individual.
Terrorism is not a static threat—it constantly involves, and so must our response. The Bill will ensure that we remain ahead of emerging risks. As we have seen in recent years, attacks are becoming more unpredictable, more dispersed and harder to anticipate. The legislation will give us the tools and the framework needed to adapt and respond to those ever-changing threats. The legislation is about more than policy; it is about the future we want to build for our children, our families and our communities. We owe it to future generations to ensure that they inherit a society that values safety, peace and resilience. By taking action now, we lay the foundation for a stronger, safer tomorrow.
Paul Holmes
Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I had to nip upstairs to sit in a Bill Committee programming session.
I am delighted to be here to speak on this legislation. As I mentioned earlier to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), I had the privilege of working alongside the Minister when I was the shadow Home Affairs Minister who took the Bill through Second Reading. I say again to the Minister, and to the Home Secretary, that I am a big fan of his, as he knows. That is for genuine purposes: for the way he treated me as the shadow Home Affairs Minister at the time, with informal consultations and phone calls, and for genuinely opening up the spirit of cross-party working on this legislation. I congratulate him and pay tribute to him, his Department and all officials working on the legislation for making sure the Opposition were involved. I am very pleased that he is in his place this evening so that I can thank him for that spirit of co-operation.
We know that the Bill is a key piece of legislation and a commitment that the Conservatives made at the last general election, and I am delighted that the Government have taken it forward. As he will know, I spoke of some concerns on Second Reading that I want to chase the Minister on, if he might be so bold as to try to answer them at the end. I have a number of concerns that I will speak about briefly, as you will be delighted hear, Madam Deputy Speaker. I cannot promise to be too brief, but I will be as brief as I can. You will have to excuse me if I am out of breath—I did run upstairs and then back downstairs to get here in time, and I am not the fittest person in the Chamber.
I pay tribute to Figen Murray and Martyn’s family. As I said on Second Reading, it should not require circumstances such as those we have seen to bring about a change in legislation. However, Figen Murray can rest assured that Martyn has played a huge role in changing the law for the good, and Martyn’s family have a right to be proud of that legacy.
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 1 and amendments 25 and 27, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns). We all support the aims of the Bill and want to see the legislation succeed. We want to make venues across the country safer and to ensure they have the correct apparatus in place so that people who use hospitality or other venues across the country, of all shapes and sizes, can do so with confidence that a system and a regulatory framework are in place. We want people to be safe when they use those venues. My constituents expect that. I expect that for myself and for my family.
Just last night, my family and I used a hospitality venue for a good couple of pints. That will be one of the venues covered by this regulatory framework. Sitting there, looking forward at the parliamentary agenda, I thought how venues such as that one have a number of concerns. Those are the things I want to talk about this evening. In our constituencies, we have voluntary sector organisations, theatre groups, community centres and charities of all shapes and sizes who volunteer every day to do their best by their community, to represent the community and to work for the community in the best way possible. I remain concerned that, as has been outlined by a number of my hon. Friends, including the shadow Minister, there remains an undue burden that will be placed on those organisations, because of some of the environmental factors—I wondered how to put that, as I do not want this speech to be political at all—that have been placed on them in recent months.
Patrick Spencer
Will my hon. Friend speak for a moment about the situation facing small football clubs? They often have many people turning up week after week to watch their team play and are on a tiny budget with tiny margins, no money to spare and no money available for training. In such circumstances, surely those clubs will be really hard done by under some of the provisions in the Bill.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is correct. My constituency has a number of small football organisations, some of which are subject to legislation that is currently going through the Lords more slowly than we would necessarily expect a piece of legislation to progress. The income of small football groups will be the focus of that Bill. However, my hon. Friend is right: not only does this Bill cover small football venues and football clubs, but it covers all sorts of organisations, some of which I have mentioned.
There are small community theatres, for example, which are the backbone of many small communities. People want to go to them with their family and watch amateur dramatics. The plays are sometimes better than in the west end—I have seen them—and the scale of some venues means that they will be in the lower tier under the Bill, but they have very small incomes. There are also charities with very small incomes that have been affected by fiscal decisions in the Budget. I assure the Minister that I am not being political, but as the impact assessment shows, and as the constituents I have spoken to have said, many charities will be affected by increased costs through their national insurance contributions and the different taxation that will come in.
From what I have read, the average cost for smaller venues will be £330 a year and the cost for larger organisations will be £5,000 a year. Those are the latest figures that I can find, but perhaps the Minister will clarify that additional cost of £330 a year for smaller venues, because to many organisations, that will place a big burden on them. I met representatives of small theatres recently who were concerned that they have not been invited to a roundtable with the Minister to discuss the implications for the sector. I would be grateful if he outlined whether the Government intend to meet them, based on their concerns about the Bill.
I will bring my comments within the scope of new clause 1. Given the issues that I have outlined, I think the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford to have a review process for the SIA is perfectly sensible. When we set up a new organisation that has some kind of independence, regulatory enforcement capacity or management capacity, it seems purely sensible that after the period set in the new clause, we look to see whether its action has been proportionate, whether there has been overreach and whether it is doing its job properly. Has it taken the full responsibilities outlined in the legislation? Members may not think that it is overworking; it might be that it is underworking and we need to give it more responsibilities in the long run.
It seems perfectly sensible for the Government and the Minister to come to the Floor of the House. They should see new clause 1 in the spirit in which it is intended. Opposition Front Benchers, me and all my colleagues want the Bill to succeed, but we want it to be proportionate. When we set up an organisation with such responsibilities and an organisational jurisdiction, we want to ensure that it is reviewed, that it is conducting itself and taking its responsibilities seriously, and that the system is working.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 1 is not about a presumption of finding fault, but about ensuring that the proposals work correctly? It is so important that the regulator and the regulatory role work perfectly so that the Bill can be implemented in the way that is expected.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is reasonable and a very good colleague in the way she carries out her duties in this House, so it will come as no surprise to hear that I absolutely agree with her. I do say that about some Government Members, so I am not being partisan—[Interruption.] Most of the time. However, my hon. Friend makes a good point.
That is why the Minister should see new clause 1 in the spirit in which it is intended. We do not want to disrupt the passage of the Bill. We do not want to disrupt the good intentions and the outcomes that everybody, on both sides of the House, wants. As a Conservative, I naturally think that the state should not be big or oversized. When we set up organisations such as this, it is natural that the House and Members will want scrutiny functions to make sure that the organisation acts within the spirit of the law and within its jurisdiction and responsibilities. I think that is perfectly reasonable.
Dr Luke Evans
For me, when we think about creating the regulator, it is about ensuring that it is effective. It needs to be staffed and funded appropriately, and we need to ensure that it does the job that the House expects it to do. The idea of having a system to report back is important when we make these provisions. When my hon. Friend was shadow Minister, did he give any thought to how many businesses come within scope, and whether there are resources in the regulator to even provide those assessments, so that we can make sure that it is held accountable and that this is effective legislation?
Paul Holmes
I would like to say that I have given that great thought, but as hon. Members across the House will know, after we came back in July, my tenure as a shadow Home Affairs Minister was rather short—[Interruption.] I thank the Minister, who said, “Shame”. That was after being shadow Northern Ireland Minister, shadow Foreign Affairs Minister and other Ministers, too. But I took this piece of legislation very seriously. The Government should make that decision, but I hope that the SIA is properly resourced and that it conducts its duties in the right way. That is why I think new clause 1 should be accepted this evening.
I do not want to overstay my welcome, but I will speak briefly about one of the concerns that I raised on Second Reading about the responsible person element of the Bill. I remain seriously concerned about this, and it was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). Although I accept the scope of the Bill and the impact that it will have on the statute book, many organisations, particularly during cost of living crises and at this time of year, rely on their volunteers, and if we place undue and burdensome regulations on them, volunteers will simply not come forward and be in the voluntary sector. Charities are going through a difficult time. I remain concerned that if we tip slightly too much towards being overburdensome on those very small organisations, we will see a dearth of people in the voluntary sector. No one wants to discourage people from volunteering—we do not, and I know the shadow Minister and the Minister do not—but I worry that the thresholds set out in the Bill will have unintended consequences. I ask the Minister to look seriously at new clause 1 and amendments 25 and 26, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford.
Many will be happy to know that I am drawing my comments to a close. However, I am personally delighted that this Bill is before the House in record time, five months after the Government came into office. I hope that the Minister will see that the Opposition are working, and will continue to work, in a constructive way to get this on to the statute book. It is sad that, in order to have a relatively major piece of legislation changed so rapidly, we had to go through the atrocities that we saw in Manchester and terrorist attacks around the United Kingdom. However, I know that the legacy that Martyn leaves is one that his family will be greatly proud of, as this country should be. This is a mainstream, major piece of legislation, and I hope that by working together, we will ensure that people who go to venues for many years to come will be protected, and they will be protected in Martyn’s name.
Chris Murray
I welcome the fact that the discussion in the House today shows real cross-party support for the aims, principles and objectives of the Bill, and that the amendments focus only on nuances and more technical aspects. That shows that we are all united in trying to achieve this goal and in preventing tragedies such as that which happened in Manchester from happening again.
In trying to understand those nuances and where the more technical sides should be drawn, it is useful to reflect on the legislation’s key dimensions and advantages. First, obviously, it makes terrorist attacks less likely. The terrorist threat is substantial and we know that it is changing. It has gone from large-scale infrastructure and iconic sites to much more workaday, normal locations.
The most recent terrorist attack that we tragically saw in this country was an attack on a children’s dance class. It is clear that the terror threat is evolving and we must evolve with it, which is why the Bill is important, but it is also important because it minimises the death and destruction that result from a terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks may still happen despite our best efforts, and it is important for us to plan for that eventuality and make the right decisions in order to be ready when they do happen.
The former President Obama’s Under-Secretary of State for Homeland Security, the Harvard professor Juliette Kayyem, has talked of the “boom” of a terror moment or crisis, and divides planning into “pre-boom” and “post-boom”. Pre-boom is what must be done to prevent an event from taking place, but it is equally important to plan for the post-boom moment. We must ensure that even those running small venues have done some thinking in advance of an attack. What are the escape routes? Who needs to have the keys? What happens if they send people in this direction rather than that direction?
The Bill incorporates a distinction between enhanced and non-enhanced tiers, and that too is important. In my constituency we put on some of the biggest and best events in the world. I am utterly confident that those in the football and rugby stadiums and theatres who are in charge of security planning do all this thinking anyway, but there are many smaller venues where it has not occurred to people that that is necessarily their role, but which are now in the line of fire. It is important for people to recognise that responsibility, because the public have a right to expect it. The Bill codifies what should be happening anyway. We must bear that in mind as we decide where to set the thresholds, who falls in or outside scope, and what level of burden we expect organisations and venues to face.
In Committee, it was reassuring to hear several of my concerns being allayed. One of them has already been discussed, namely the impact on business and the potential for a burden. There is no denying that something of a burden will be placed on some organisations where no one has done any thinking or preparation for a potential terrorist or other attack, but the Bill contains very proportionate elements that do not impose much of an extra burden. Its requirements are intuitive, they are not onerous, they are straightforward and they are commonsensical. As I said in an intervention earlier, they are essentially prompts for organisations to do the kind of thinking that we would hope they were doing already to avoid an attack. That not only avoids attacks, but mitigates their impact.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the proportionality of the Bill, which we discussed in Committee. The word “burden” has been used a great deal this afternoon. In his evidence to the Committee, Andy Burnham said:
“I just think that we cannot talk ourselves into a sort of thing where it is all too big a burden. I can tell you from experience: a terrorist attack is a massive burden on a city and what it does challenges everybody at every level—and that is ongoing. Like Figen said, Manchester will never be the same again after what happened. It has changed us but it has strengthened us and made us more united, and as I say, I do not want any other city to go through that.”––[Official Report, Terrorism (Protection of Premises Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2024; c. 16, Q11.]
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a proportionate Bill, and that the burden of a terrorist attack far outweighs any burden caused by its provisions?
Chris Murray
Absolutely. There is a small element of burden in the Bill, but it is light-touch and proportionate, and the alternative scenario is significantly more burdensome. In my own city of Edinburgh, the impact of a terrorist attack and of people not feeling secure in the aftermath could be destructive not just to the lives affected by the attack, but to the whole economy on which our city is based, which is event-focused. It is right for us to draw that distinction, and to seek to get the balance exactly right.
Nick Timothy
The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent speech about the “protect” element of the counter-terrorism strategy. It is clear from the Manchester attack inquiry report that the asylum system is a big part of the story.
Salman Abedi and his brother Hashem—who planned the attack and prepared the explosives, and was as guilty of the attack as Salman—were born in Britain to Libyan asylum seeker parents. Their father, Ramadan Abedi, was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an Islamist militia. He was granted asylum in this country, but travelled back and forth between Britain and Libya throughout that time, which is a story that we often hear about people who are granted asylum here. Given the number of people who come here illegally and across the channel, whom we have no ability to investigate and on whom we cannot make checks, how does the hon. Gentleman think we might reform the asylum system to prevent such things from happening again?
Chris Murray
I am struggling to understand quite how that falls within the scope of this debate, but it is important to discuss the issue of how we deal with terrorism. As we have seen in the history of this country, terrorist attacks can be both foreign and domestic. They can be homegrown, or they can come from overseas. I have talked about the need to prepare for an attack before it happens, so that mitigations can be introduced. They can be long term, which means looking at where the threat is emanating from, or they can be immediately in advance of an attack, which means introducing security measures. My argument, however, is that the benefit of the Bill relates to what happens after the attack has taken place. We need to help the smaller venues that now find themselves within the scope of terrorist attacks to prepare for those attacks. It is not a question of who committed the offence, but a question of how they are prepared to deal with that event.
Dr Luke Evans
I was fortunate enough to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s Westminster Hall debate on the Edinburgh fringe and its success around the world. That is a prime example of where the Bill might be helpful. Has the hon. Gentleman given any thought to how those small venues can work together? If they share best practice, that can create an environment of security. I wonder whether the fringe organisations themselves have thought about this, given that they are, by their very nature, likely to be a target. Sharing best practice may help to strengthen the entire environment when people visit it.
Chris Murray
That intervention was slightly more in scope and was also about Edinburgh, so I was happier to take it.
The hon. Gentleman is right. Indeed, in advance of the Bill Committee debate and the debate that we are having now, I spoke to Edinburgh city council and to some of the event organisers, who told me that it is exactly because Edinburgh has become a place where fringe events take place regularly that these considerations have been normalised. Our city has put a lot of the necessary infrastructure in place, along with the thinking and the organisational requirements—and there is also a corporate memory between the small venues—to cope with terrorist events. As Andy Burnham pointed out in his evidence, Edinburgh is one of the national leaders on this front. However, I recognise that not every community has that advantage, which is why the Bill will extend to other communities the measures that already benefit mine.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Member said earlier that these were “prompts”, and that what we should consider was what happened after an attack. What is worrying is that the Bill goes beyond that. It talks about occasions on which it is suspected that a terrorist offence might take place or is taking place. That is not an “after”. The Bill creates an obligation for those who are in charge of the event in question to prevent individuals from entering. Before an event or while it is happening, there is a security obligation on some of these small groups to prevent people from entering the premises. That is not a prompt; it is a huge burden on the organisers.
Chris Murray
The right hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. Again, having been on the Public Bill Committee, my argument is that the Bill is proportionate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I look forward to the other contributions to the debate. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, terrorist threats are now a way of life, be they lone-wolf attacks, aggression and poisonings by Russia, attacks by terrorist groups from across the world, or Iranian attacks on those who support a free Iran. Such attacks focus our attention on where we are. It is good to see the Minister in his place, and I look forward to his comments. I wish to be constructive in my comments, and I have a few questions to ask. Hopefully, the Minister can give me some reassurances.
In Northern Ireland, terrorist attacks were the norm for some 30-odd years. I declare an interest: I served in the Ulster Defence Regiment for three years, and in the Territorial Army for 11 and a half years. Why is it that when my fellow soldiers in the Ulster Defence Regiment and my part-time colleagues the Territorial Army went to a restaurant or café, they sought out a place where they could watch everything that was happening? They could see who was coming in and who was going out, and they had an escape route, so that they could get out quickly. That was the life that we led. In this debate, we are asking our churches, our charities, our missionary groups and those who run community halls to consider things of which they have no experience. I am not saying that critically; I am saying it observationally, because I want them to be aware.
When the gallant Minister got the call to serve in uniform, he answered it. I put on the record our thanks to him for doing that, which tells us a lot about the Minister and his psyche. I look back at some of the atrocities and I am reminded of the Darkley massacre, in which the Irish National Liberation Army burst into a church and killed a number of people who were attending—innocent people. Had it not been for the bravery of some of the people on the door, more probably would have been killed. I think of Tullyvallen Orange hall, near Newry, where the IRA killed a number of Orangemen, simply because they were Orangemen.
The point I am making is that that was our life in Northern Ireland, and now we are asking our churches, our charities and other groups across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to look at providing better security. We are asking people with no experience to do that—people who have never considered there to be any need to do so—but we are doing it for a purpose.
We all support this legislation. I want to put on the record that I support it, and I understand the reasoning behind it. We were all incredibly concerned about the Manchester atrocity; it is an example of what we have to try to stop.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I completely understand that we are asking people to consider something that they have never experienced or had to consider, but is that not what we do with fire regulations?
Jim Shannon
With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, this is not about fire regulations; it is about making sure that nobody dies, which is different. It is much, much more than fire regulations, which require people to check whether an extinguisher is working. This Bill is about making sure that nobody comes in to kill anybody, so it is a different scenario. I respect the hon. Gentleman, but we have to get a bit of focus.
I am reminded of the community hall where the Rev. Robert Bradford was killed. The caretaker was on the door when the IRA came. They shot the caretaker and the reverend, and his plaque is at the back of this Chamber. I am ever mindful of his courage and the stand that he took. These are the things that we deal with. We are not better than anybody else, but these are the things that we have faced down the years.
I want to focus on churches. On Second Reading, I spoke about Northern Ireland’s unfortunate experience of these matters, and about the need for churches and places of worship to have a plan in place. I made it my business to go and talk to my churches and to get their thoughts. They want to be part of the process, so we need to see how we can help them. I note that a few of my questions have been asked by other hon. Members, so I will restrict my remarks to churches’ questions about their roles and responsibilities. I ask my questions constructively.
On new clause 2, which I understand will not be moved tonight, I have spoken to a number of churches and key holders in my constituency, and they have all told me that they include terrorism plans in their annual child protection training, which they undertake at their own cost. Those are massive steps for people who may have faced some of these things in the past, but who suddenly find themselves thrown into the cauldron because of where they are. One church highlighted that it ran a special awareness event after the Southport atrocity in recognition that the church hall, where most of the adults gather, is a different building from the one used for church events.
I just want to understand how the process will work. This hyper-awareness is good as long as it is not driven by fear. I want to focus on that fear. I think it was the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) who referred to the fear that some people experience on these issues. In church services and meetings, where there are children and elderly people present, or in community group meetings, we do not normally have to deal with these things, but now we have to, because it is important. The legislation is important. That is why the Minister is bringing it forward, and why the House will support it.
We need to ensure that the larger venues and churches have support, so that there is no fear—just a plan of action. People can focus on the fear and become incredibly worried, or they can focus on a plan of action to ensure that if something happens, they can stop it. That is where I wish to focus. I will give the example of Queen’s hall in Newtownards in my constituency, which can hold about 300 people. The events that I have been to there are nearly all charity events. It holds charity events, church events and fundraising events for missionary organisations, and they all galvanise a lot of people and bring them in. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) referred to the onus being on the organisations. I always try to be constructive, and I ask the Minister constructively what that will mean for how such places function, and how they will focus on looking after the people.
I also ask for clarity on the help that churches can expect to receive on training, to ensure that they are compliant with the standard tier expectations. They are not saying that they will not do what the Bill asks. They will; that is not the issue. I am just thinking about how we can help those churches, charity groups and others to gain the experience that they will clearly need. Will funding be made available to the charitable sector for the provision of training and assistance? Will a dedicated professional be available to churches on this issue? Will they check that churches are compliant and have a fit-for-purpose plan of action? That is my request on behalf of the churches that have spoken to me.
We must remember that churches can be largely self-governing, and the smaller churches outside the mainstream of the Presbyterians, the Anglicans, the Methodists and the Roman Catholics do not have bodies to break this down for them. I am asking on behalf of those smaller churches. I attend a smaller church—the Baptist church—but I am also thinking of the Elim church and the Brethren halls, of which my Strangford constituency has a great many, with large congregations. I make these queries in a constructive fashion, and I know that the Minister will give the answers, not just to me but to everyone in the House.
Dr Luke Evans
I too have lots of churches in my constituency, and while I fully support the legislation, I do worry about some of the rural churches. There is a risk of a fine, if they are not compliant. Does that mean that there is a risk that those venues, which are already under stress, would not be able to open? I hope that is not the case, and that the Minister can allay some of my fears, but given how the legislation is written, that could be a prospect. That would be very damaging for many of the rural churches in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Member has made his point very well, and I am sure that the Minister will answer it. I just want to make sure that the churches, the charities, the missionary groups and the community groups across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are able to meet, and that they get the necessary help to ensure that normal life continues. The churches all need to know what to do and when.
It took me a long time to be able to talk about the Southport stabbings, because they left horrors in the mind of every one of us. They shocked many on the mainland, but in Northern Ireland they recalled to our memories horrific attacks and the days of having men at our doors during a service. Times have changed, and so too have procedures, but we still have enough trauma to recognise the danger. The churches and charity groups tell me that they want to be equipped, and to be able to respond. This legislation calls for the churches and the charities to be equipped. I am asking the Government, and in particular the Minister, to ensure that there is help and support, in case the unthinkable does take place.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
This legislation is a fitting tribute to Martyn Hett and the lives of 21 others that were tragically cut short in the 2017 Manchester Arena attack. It is also a testament to the tireless efforts of Martyn’s mother, Figen Murray, who has campaigned with such dignity and determination to ensure that no family endures the pain that hers has suffered. This Bill is about increased resilience for us as a country. It seeks to make our public spaces safer by requiring premises and events to take proportionate, practical steps to prepare for and mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack. It is about ensuring that if the unthinkable happens, lives are saved and harm is reduced. I speak with personal conviction on this matter. Having served in a counter-terror role, I have seen at first hand the devastating consequences of terrorism and the critical importance of the prior preparation that this Bill lays out. It is essential that our laws and systems keep pace with an ever-evolving risk.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Manchester, in a way, stimulated or catalysed this legislation. It is bigger than that, but it is no more tragic, for it could not possibly be, as he has described. He is also right to say that terrorists are becoming more adaptable, so we have to adapt the way we deal with them. Legislation is part of that. It is difficult, because legislation takes a long time to perfect, if properly scrutinised in this House. The amendments that have been tabled today are an attempt to improve the Bill, not to frustrate it. Does he agree that the Minister and the Government will need to regularly review the provisions of the legislation—there is reference in the Bill to reviews, guidance and so on—and that that will become an ongoing part of how we deal with that increasing adaptability on the part of those who seek to do us harm?
Mike Tapp
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. Any threat that this country faces is continuously reviewed by the Ministry of Defence, MI5, the police and the Government, and we adapt our approaches to suit.
That brings me to the fact that since 2017, MI5 and the police have disrupted 43 late-stage attacks, yet we have seen 15 domestic terror attacks in this country. These incidents underline the ongoing and difficult nature of the threats. I am sure the whole House will agree that we have the finest intelligence services in the world, and we owe it to them to enable their work as much as we possibly can from this place. This Bill is another step towards achieving that. The approach it proposes is both practical and proportionate for small and large venues. I commend the Government for engaging widely in the development of the Bill and for working with businesses, local authorities and security experts to ensure that it is both effective and proportionate. It is right that we in this House support the Bill, and in doing so, we send a clear message that we will not only remember those we have lost but act decisively to protect those we serve.
Jerome Mayhew
Mention has been made during the course of this debate of cross-party consensus and what a good thing that is. In some senses that is absolutely right. We should have absolute cross-party consensus on honouring the memory of Martyn Hett and all those who were killed and injured in the Manchester Arena attack in May 2017, but I raise a note of caution because sometimes when we stop being adversarial in this place, we create legislation that is not as good as it could be. That is particularly the case where we have a very emotive issue such as this, and where there is a huge amount of personal sympathy across all the parties in the House. There is a risk that extreme circumstances provoke a natural reaction of saying, “Something must be done. This has to be prevented from ever happening again,” and we end up with bad law.
There is a good example of this risk in the Bill’s progression from its development under the previous Administration, through the election and out the other side. The initial intention of clause 2 was that the standard duty would apply to premises with a capacity to welcome 100-plus people. In my view, this would have had a wholly disproportionate impact on the kind of community buildings that I represent as a church warden, as well as on the village halls that we have already discussed. Pretty much every village hall has the capacity to accommodate 100 people. Every church, bar the very smallest chapels, can expect to welcome 100 people at a wedding or funeral from time to time. There is a tiny, infinitesimally small risk of terrorism in these typically rural areas, yet the previous Administration’s Bill would have imposed very significant costs and time commitments on volunteers. I have already mentioned a couple of times that I am a church warden and, again, I emphasise the risk of unintended consequences when we are all so keen to get on that we do not challenge each other.
Sir John Hayes
To reassure my hon. Friend on that subject, he will understand that those of us who have served on the Intelligence and Security Committee are fearless in holding Ministers to account, as this Minister will no doubt find out, and similarly fearless in challenging the agencies, which do such a wonderful job for us. He is right that the agencies need to be questioned appropriately and scrutinised fully.
On my hon. Friend’s second point, about proportionality, it is, of course, right that our response to risk measures the real character of that risk and is proportionate to it.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention, and I am reassured by his comments.
In a previous life, I was a barrister specialising in health and safety risk and risk management, and I was later the managing director of the leisure company Go Ape—Members might not have heard of it—and was responsible for the risk management of over 1 million customers a year. We could have killed every single one of them, so I am deeply familiar with the appropriate mechanisms for risk management. One risk that has to be taken into account is that, if the response is too great or too onerous for the assessed risk, people might not think it is reasonable, leading to omission.
Effective risk management requires mitigations to be put in place that bear some relation to the severity of the anticipated adverse event multiplied by its likelihood. I am very concerned that the previous Administration’s initial proposal that these duties should apply to premises with a capacity of as few as 100 people would have broken that association between a reasonable response and the assessed risk.
I am therefore grateful and impressed that the Government have listened and changed clause 2(2)(c) to raise the standard duty threshold to a capacity of 200. To my mind, that seems a reasonable compromise to protect smaller facilities, which are, of course, most likely to rely entirely on volunteers, and are unlikely to have the financial capacity to undertake the kind of paid-for training suggested by the Liberal Democrat new clause 2 or to have enough volunteers who are prepared to accept this additional burden on their free time. I think this strikes the right balance. However, I am concerned that paragraph (a) in clause 32 introduces a power, through regulations, to reduce the figure back down to 100 without giving a reason. Why is that?
I therefore support new clauses 25 and 26, which would set minimum thresholds of 200 for the standard duty and 500 for the enhanced duty. A cross-party approach has taken the Bill this far, and it is important that that approach is maintained.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I join other Members in paying tribute to Figen Murray for the tenacity and courage with which she has campaigned—a campaign that has done so much to bring us to this point. Any of us who have been touched, even indirectly, by a terrorist attack know the pain, the loss and the shock. That pain is only made worse if there is a suspicion that anything, no matter how slight, might have been done to have avoided or reduced the harm done. In fighting this campaign, Mrs Murray really has done Martyn’s memory proud.
As has been obvious throughout this debate, there is a huge amount of consensus on the need for the measures in this Bill. It is a good Bill. The draft Bill before the election was a good draft, it was improved by pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Bill that this Government introduced and that has come out of Committee is better. The decision before us tonight is not whether we want these measures, because I think we agree, without exception, that we do. The decision before us is what can be done to make this the very best Bill it can be—one that provides the protections that are so clearly needed, as we heard from witnesses in the Committee’s evidence sessions and throughout the debate around the Bill, both inside and outside this House, without putting an unnecessary burden on those venues that do not need it for the purpose that we seek.
It is precisely because this Bill has broadly struck the right note that I rise to support new clauses 25 and 26, tabled in the names of the shadow Minister and the shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) respectively. In doing so, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to hospitality, although I intend to speak primarily not on the hospitality sector, but on the voluntary sector and volunteer-run venues.
I am thinking, in particular, of a venue in the constituency I represented until this year’s general election. The Brierley Hill Civic is a medium-sized venue in the Black Country and, about a decade ago, an asset transfer process was started to transfer it from Dudley council to Dudley council for voluntary service. Over that time, Dudley CVS has done a fantastic job—a really professional job in every sense of the word—in providing a first-class venue for the area. It will typically host a few events each year that top 500 attendees, although they do not reach as high as 800.
The standard duty in this Bill is absolutely appropriate for a venue like Brierley Hill Civic. The concern is about how Dudley CVS, which is primarily run by volunteers, would be able to fulfil the enhanced duties if the threshold were suddenly lowered, taking the venue into the enhanced duty category. That would cause them great difficulty on a practical level as well as a financial level, because as a non-profit-making organisation, they have to balance the books.
Sammy Wilson
I fully understand the reasoning and the demand for a Bill such as this when it became known that, after a terrorist event, lives were lost because of bad organisation. If it is possible to introduce legislation that helps to avoid a situation that we have seen develop in the past, then of course we should do it. However, we have to be cognisant that when we introduce legislation, it has consequences for the people to whom it applies.
As we have heard time and again during the debate, Members believe that this legislation is both proportionate and practical. If Members genuinely believe that that is the case, there is absolutely no reason why new clause 1 should not be supported. We are entering a new field and imposing new regulations on bodies that were not regulated in relation to terrorism before, so surely it is important that we find out whether or not the objective and the intention is actually fulfilled. One way to do that is to monitor the effect over a period of time.
I have some concerns about the legislation, which people have already raised. In many cases, I do not think that the measures are practical. Secondly, I do not believe that they will not have an impact. That is not what Members expected and it is not what they want. Members across the House have said that they think the legislation may put people off engaging in activities that they would have undertaken in the absence of the regulations—activities that make a valuable contribution to their communities.
There is always a danger that people interpret the legislation that comes before the House, and sometimes our own rhetoric encourages them to do so. They may think a result of this legislation will be that it reduces the danger of people suffering a terrorist attack. To be clear, that is not and cannot be the purpose of the Bill. Terrorist attacks can be stopped only if we have intelligence, the security forces can act on that intelligence and we act in time. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) pointed out, the legislation is more about what happens after the event. However, it is not only about what happens after the event. The legislation puts obligations on people before they make a decision to undertake an event. Some of the wording in the Bill raises concerns.
Chris Murray
To clarify, I was not saying the legislation was only of value after an event. I said that part of its value was the impact it had on planning for the period after an event. On the burden the right hon. Gentleman talks about on people making preparations, does he accept that it is important that they consider the potential impact of events and think in advance about that in taking those decisions? That is how we will avoid the kind of atrocities we have seen.
Sammy Wilson
Let us look at some of the language and the requirements in the Bill that are totally reasonable. For example, the Bill sets out that people who are organising events should have plans
“for evacuating individuals from the premises”.
As far as I know, that already happens. At many of the events I attend, before the event even starts, somebody stands up and says, “Here are some house rules: in the event of a fire, the exits are here, here and here. Leave in an orderly way. When you get outside, meet at a certain point, so we can check everybody is out of the area.” There are measures in the Bill that are reasonable and that I would assume people are already doing. If they are not doing them, then it is not onerous on them to start saying that at the beginning of an event.
However, the Bill applies to retail as well. It is easy to communicate that kind of information to people if they are in a theatre or at some kind of concert, but it is a bit more difficult to communicate that to individuals when they are moving in and out of retail premises. We have to be careful about the practicalities of what we ask people to do.
Let me set out some of the things I have concerns about, which I believe are unreasonable to require of organisations. First, “public protection procedures” have to be
“followed by individuals working on the premises or at the event if there is reason to suspect that an act of terrorism is occurring, or is about to occur, on the premises”.
I suppose it is fairly obvious if something is “occurring” —we know if something is happening—but what if it is likely or “about to occur”? Are organisers meant to liaise with the police and get intelligence from them—intelligence that the police may not be able to divulge, or may not even have? What onus does it put on individuals in terms of preparation, given the random nature of terrorism? We have seen somebody go into a pre-school class with a knife. Nobody could have anticipated that.
Furthermore, when an event is occurring, or might be about to occur, the organiser has to prevent individuals from entering the premises. If I were organising an event, I would want to know what kind of security requirement that puts on me as the organiser. Am I meant to ensure that a security presence is there? What kind of security presence? We have talked quite a lot tonight about the fact that many events of 200 people could be organised by ordinary community groups. I think of theatre groups in my constituency. The only interest that people who organise such events have is acting. They do not have any of the skills that might be required to prevent people from entering the premises, so do they need to have security apparatus, such as security people?
The next measure about which there is a degree of ambiguity is the requirement that organisers do not divulge security information relating to the premises or event. I understand that they should not send out plans of the building in which they will be operating, showing the doors through which people can come in and get out, and the easy and hard ways into the premises. However, the Bill goes further than that. The organisers cannot give information about the event. The whole purpose of an event is to publicise it. Where will it be held? At what time will it be held? How many people can be facilitated? How do people get tickets? The point that I am trying to make is that there is language in the Bill about which I would have a lot of questions, were I an individual who was subject to it, because if I did not get it right, there would be a fine of up to £5,000 or £10,000.
Ben Maguire
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he is making a compelling case to support new clause 2, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would provide for training to address some of the ambiguity that he describes?
Sammy Wilson
I do not believe that training would address the ambiguity, because the ambiguity is in the wording of the legislation with which people will be required to comply. We all know what happens with training schools. As soon as training is mentioned, people start rubbing their hands and thinking how much they will charge for it. We are talking about training for a one-off event.
When we introduce such legislation, we have to be careful not to put a burden on people. I know that Members have said that this is not a burden, but I hope that I have explained why I believe the Bill puts a burden on people whose main job is not security. I understand common-sense requirements being made of event organisers, but if someone’s main job is not security at such events, they are more likely simply to drop the event.
I also support the amendments about the ability of the Secretary of State to change regulations, because that ability relates to not just the size of the premises, which can be decreased, but the purpose for which the premises will be used, the people who can be held responsible, and the scope of the premises that can be covered. The powers in clause 32 to amend the legislation are fairly extensive, and if the Secretary of State decides that there are to be changes in those four areas, the legislation that we approve tonight could be radically different in a year’s time, because the review depends upon whether there is a need to reduce the vulnerability of events, as per clause 6(5).
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I pay tribute to Figen Murray and her campaign team. That she has somehow been able to channel personal grief into a fierce determination to change the law is beyond inspiring. We should be clear that we would not be here tonight without her campaigning efforts. The whole House owes her a debt of gratitude.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today. As ever, I will endeavour to respond to the points that have been raised. I am particularly grateful for the constructive approach that has been taken to considering the Bill, today and at previous stages. I place on the record my thanks to the Opposition for the constructive way in which they have approached the Bill throughout its passage. It is time that this cross-party commitment to improving the safety and security of venues is delivered without further delay, and I am proud that we are moving one step closer tonight.
As hon. Members have heard during the passage of the Bill, the threat picture is complex, evolving and enduring. Since 2017, agencies and law enforcement have disrupted 43 late-stage plots, and there have been 15 domestic terror attacks. In October, we heard from the director general of MI5 that the country is subject to the most interconnected threat environment that we have ever seen. Sadly, terrorists can seek to target a variety of locations. The examples of terrorist attacks that have been raised during the passage of the Bill are a sombre reminder of that. I pay tribute again to all victims and survivors of past attacks, as well as their loved ones, and all those affected. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to supporting anyone affected by a terrorist attack.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister and, indeed, the Opposition on the Bill. Of course, all hon. Members hope that future attacks will be prevented by the Bill, but, as has been mentioned, it is also about planning to ensure increased survivability for those impacted by an attack. With that comes the need to ensure that the support we provide to victims is fit for purpose. What efforts will the Minister make to improve support for victims of terrorism?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the most humbling parts of this job is meeting those who have been the victims of terrorism and their families. I think of people like Figen Murray, Brendan Cox, Travis Frain, Dr Cath Hill—all people I have spoken to recently. We are working across Government to progress this important work, and I intend to meet victims and survivors in the new year to hear more about their experiences and say more about what we will do as a Government to support them.
The Bill will improve protective security and organisational preparedness across the UK, making us safer. We heard about the excellent work that many businesses and organisations already do to improve their security and preparedness. However, without a legislative requirement, there is no consistency. The Bill seeks to address that gap and complement the outstanding work that the police, the security services and other partners continue to do to combat the terror threat. As a result, qualifying premises and events should be better prepared to respond and to reduce harm in the event of a terrorist attack. Additionally, certain larger premises and events will have to take steps to reduce their vulnerability to terrorist attacks.
The public have a right to feel safe, and that is what this legislation seeks to deliver. I am grateful for the considered way in which the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) approached the debate. It is clear that the focus of the Opposition’s amendments and concerns is on, among other things, the impact on business and smaller organisations. I assure him that that has been a central consideration for the Government, informed by extensive engagement, as well as pre-legislative scrutiny by the Home Affairs Committee and two public consultations under the previous Government. As a result, the version of the Bill that this Government have brought forward includes important changes to ensure that we can achieve public protection outcomes and that there are no undue burdens on businesses and other organisations.
The Government have, of course, raised the standard tier threshold from 100 to 200, which creates a more appropriate scope. We have also added a reasonably practicable standard of requirements for the procedures required under both tiers. That concept is in line with other regulatory regimes, such as health and safety, and is designed to allow procedures and measures to be tailored to the specific circumstances of a premises or event.
Sir John Hayes
Mindful of what the Minister said about consulting and acting in accordance with the consultation, and of what I said earlier about the changing character of the threat, I ask him to commit from the Dispatch Box to considering, as the legislation begins to have effect, changing the guidance and improving regulation where necessary, sensitive to those circumstances.
Dan Jarvis
If the right hon. Gentleman bears with me for a moment, I intend to say more on the matter, but I assure him that if he is not satisfied, I will give way to him again.
We have introduced a fairer basis for calculating whether a premises or event is in scope. Replacing capacity with the “reasonable expectation” of the number of people who may be present will reflect the actual usage of premises or attendance at events. I am confident that this version of the Bill strikes precisely the right balance.
I turn to amendments 25 and 26 tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton West for the Opposition. Clause 32 will allow the Secretary of State to increase or decrease the qualifying threshold for either tier. We anticipate that the thresholds would be reduced to either floor only in very limited circumstances, such as if the nature of the threat from terrorism were to change significantly. That will enable the regime to maintain an appropriate balance between being able to protect the public and managing the burden on those responsible for premises and events. The amendments proposed would remove that ability.
Furthermore, the power is narrowly drafted, and regulations made under it will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In requiring the approval of both Houses before they are made, parliamentarians will be able to scrutinise any proposed changes. The Government therefore do not support the amendments.
I thank the hon. Member for amendment 27. I thought he made his points in a reasonable way, as he often does. While I understand the sentiment, the Government do not support the amendment, but let me explain why. It is intended that the Security Industry Authority will rely on advice and guidance in the first instance. However, a credible enforcement regime with suitable monetary penalties is necessary to ensure that the regulator can secure compliance, particularly where the regulator identifies serious or persistent non-compliance.
The maximum daily penalty amounts are set at a level to counter financial gain from non-compliance, recognising the breadth of organisations in scope as well as the potentially more serious consequences at larger venues. It is important that the Secretary of State has the power, by regulation, to change those maximum amounts, including to increase them if necessary—for example, if the amounts were to prove ineffective in ensuring compliance, or the figures needed updating to reflect changes in economic circumstances in the longer term.
Critically, when determining penalty amounts, the Bill requires the SIA to take into account a range of factors, including the seriousness of the contravention, any action taken to remedy or mitigate its effects, and an organisation’s ability to pay. That will ensure the penalties are effective but proportionate. I reassure Members that changes will be subject to the affirmative procedure, unless they are simply to reflect inflation.
The hon. Member raised concerns over the role of the SIA as the regulator, which I believe is the motivation for tabling new clause 1. There are several reasons why the Government do not support the new clause. The Government are confident that the SIA is the right delivery option for the Martyn’s law regulator, owing to its years of experience in increasing security standards and ensuring public protection. It already plays an important role in safeguarding the public through its work regulating the private security industry. The SIA has long-established inspection and enforcement functions that ensure compliance with its licensing regime, and it already works with security partners to promote best practice around counter-terrorism protective security.
Dan Jarvis
If the hon. Member will bear with me, I am going to address some of the points he raised.
Furthermore, it will take at least 24 months following Royal Assent for the SIA to begin undertaking its enforcement duties. It would not be fair of us, nor indeed possible, to judge its performance before it has begun carrying out its new functions, which seems to be the effect of the new clause.
Dan Jarvis
I will make a bit of progress.
I can also assure the House that the Bill already contains provisions to ensure the appropriate oversight of the SIA. Ultimately, the Bill gives the SIA the tools that it will need to deliver its new enforcement functions successfully. We are committed to exploring wider opportunities to strengthen the SIA so that it can carry out its public protection role and deliver the Government’s ambitious agenda.
I turn to the amendments on training provision tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire). I thank him again for his interest in that important issue. As he knows, the Bill has been developed to ensure that those working at premises and events are better prepared to respond quickly to evolving situations in the event of a terrorist attack occurring or being suspected. Those workers make rapid decisions and take actions that could save lives. There is no specific training requirement in the Bill, but it is essential that workers with responsibility for carrying out public protection procedures are adequately instructed—and, where appropriate, trained—to do so. Training and instruction will be tailored to the premises and events in question, and to the procedures that they have developed, rather than our using a one-size-fits-all approach.
Dan Jarvis
I will make a bit more progress.
The Government think that the focus of premises and events should be on how to ensure that their people can effectively carry out their roles, rather than requiring the completion of generic modules or courses. We understand the importance of training, and so have committed to publishing free dedicated guidance and support. That guidance will ensure that those responsible for qualifying premises and events have the information required to understand and identify training needs. The Government also intend to signpost a range of training offers, including the significant support that we offer in the shape of access to expert advice and training on ProtectUK, which already includes free access to the “Action Counters Terrorism” and “See, Check and Notify” training packages. Furthermore, following Royal Assent, the Government intend for there to be an implementation period of at least 24 months before the legislation’s commencement. We are confident that that will allow sufficient time to understand the new obligations and to plan and prepare accordingly, including by training staff where necessary.
I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to respond to points made by a number of hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) made important points about the threat of terrorism. He also rightly paid tribute to Manchester city council for its work with local businesses. What he said about proportionality should reassure any businesses that might have concerns.
As a former police officer, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) speaks with great authority on these matters, and I pay tribute to him for his service. He rightly made the point that the Bill is not just about securing physical premises but has a wider value, and that protecting the public is not just a matter for Government; others also have an important responsibility in that area.
Let me turn to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), who has been very patient. I have to say, I am a little mystified that he is not on the Opposition Front Bench. He seems an effective performer and responded well on Second Reading. [Interruption.] I am not sure that I am helping him, but I thought he made a strong contribution again tonight, and I found his words about Martyn’s legacy particularly moving. I am grateful for his constructive approach this evening and previously. He helpfully highlighted concerns about smaller venues, particularly small theatres. I assure him that there has been extensive consultation with smaller venues, although I am sorry that it did not include the constituency venue that he mentioned.
All hon. Members have village halls, churches and community halls in our constituencies, and we all recognise the hugely important role that volunteers play. The Government raised the standard tier threshold from 100 to 200 people specifically in response to the feedback, including from those operating smaller venues similar to ones that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley mentioned. We assess that that has resulted in a reduction in the proportion of village halls in scope of the Bill’s requirements from 56% under the original proposals to 13% now. I assure him that we will continue to work closely with smaller venues to ensure the easiest transition to the new arrangements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) said that the nature of terrorism is constantly evolving, and that we need to plan to protect against it. He pointed out that the Bill contains straightforward measures—prompts, essentially—that are light touch and proportionate. He also very helpfully referenced the Edinburgh example. I hope that that provides positive evidence of the potential benefits to businesses of the measures.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was constructive, as he always is. He speaks with great experience and authority on matters relating to terrorism, so I always listen carefully to what he has to say, and often find it profoundly moving, as I have again tonight. He mentioned churches, which he has raised with me before. The Government acknowledge that places of worship have a unique and important role in communities right across the country, and have considered them very carefully in the context of this legislation. We have consulted extensively with churches and with places of worship more generally, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to work closely with them to ensure that they have the support and guidance they need. That is a commitment that I make to him.
Dan Jarvis
I am conscious of time, so I will keep going, not least because I want to briefly reflect on the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp). He spoke with personal conviction and experience, and I know that he understands the importance of preparation and planning—I will not say the second bit of that phrase. He also rightly paid tribute to our intelligence services, and I echo that tribute.
The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) spoke with authority, not just as a Member of this House but as a church warden, and made a really interesting point about critical challenge. I hope he will appreciate this point: the Bill is the result of two very extensive public consultations and pre-legislative scrutiny. It is forged from all that work. That is why I am confident that the measures in the Bill are proportionate and reasonable. However, I was grateful for the constructive challenge he offered.
The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) made a number of constructive points about thresholds. I hope the responses I have already given have provided him and the venue in his constituency with the reassurance they want. Finally, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) spoke with passion, as he always does, and raised a number of entirely reasonable concerns. I am afraid that we will not agree on every aspect of them this evening, but I hope that he will at least acknowledge that the Government have worked incredibly hard to ensure that the Bill is proportionate and not unreasonable, given the nature of the threat we face.
I will touch briefly on the Government amendments, which make only very minor and technical changes to the Bill to ensure that its purpose and intent is clear. They include small drafting changes for consistency, to remove unnecessary text, and to clarify technical detail.
In closing, I again pay tribute to Figen Murray and her campaign team, and thank them. Their campaigning for this legislation has been an inspiration to us all. Figen’s son Martyn lost his life in the Manchester bombing. As the Home Secretary said on Second Reading,
“To suffer such a horrendous loss and somehow find the strength to fight for changes…is heroic.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 624.]
This is a vitally important Bill. The public deserve to feel safe when visiting public premises and attending events. It is therefore right that appropriate and reasonably practical steps be taken to protect staff and the public from the impact of terrorism. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve. Security will always be the foundation on which everything else is built, and for this Government, nothing will matter more. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.
Matt Vickers
I thank the Minister for his considered response to the debate. However, while entirely supporting the objectives of the Bill, we do not see why the Government cannot commit to a review of the effectiveness of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator, given that the Bill places an entirely new set of requirements on venues and an entirely new set of responsibilities on the SIA, so we will press new clause 1 to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dan Jarvis
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I start by thanking everyone across the House who has contributed to the debates on the Bill for their incisive and necessary contributions and their considered scrutiny. I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather) who has done such an excellent job in whipping the Bill through. I also thank the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for their work on the Opposition Front Bench during the earlier stages of the Bill and the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for taking over so ably on Report. I look forward to continuing to work with him in his new role.
Hon. Members will be aware of the Bill’s history, coming as it does out of the tragic events of the Manchester Arena attack in May 2017. I take this opportunity once more to pay tribute to the 22 victims of the horrific Manchester Arena attack, and to Figen Murray, mother of one of the victims, Martyn Hett. Her campaigning has been crucial in driving the Bill forward. We would simply not be here debating this legislation without her.
During these debates, I have been particularly moved by the contributions of hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of constituents who have been affected by the attacks in Manchester, Borough Market and elsewhere, and the important reflections and lessons we can learn from recent history in Northern Ireland. The Bill is one part of our already extensive efforts across Government, including those of the police and security services, to combat the threat of terrorism. I take the opportunity to thank them for their vital work in keeping our country safe; we owe them a debt of gratitude.
As hon. Members have heard me say more than once in this place, the first responsibility of any Government is to keep the public safe. This cross-party commitment to improve the safety and security of venues in the wake of the Manchester Arena attack must be delivered without further delay. The Bill was a manifesto commitment, and I am proud that we have been able to introduce it so early in the Session. I thank colleagues from across the House for their support for the Bill, which has enabled it to progress through its stages in this place so smoothly. I am also grateful to the previous members of the Home Affairs Committee for their report; its recommendations have been crucial in shaping the Bill.
I also take the opportunity to say an enormous thank you to the following people: Ella Terry in my private office; the Bill team of Tom Ball, Chloe White, James Fair and Izzy Hancock; Michelle Chapman and the policy team; Kris Lee and his legal team; Joel Wolchover and Tim McAtackney at the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel; and Debbie Bartlett and Shaun Hipgrave, whose leadership over several years has been exemplary. I also thank all the many civil servants, including those in the Home Office analysis and insight and comms teams, who have worked on the Bill with great diligence and professionalism. Many of them have done so for several years. Finally, I thank the fantastic staff of this place for their work in supporting the Bill’s logistics, in particular the Doorkeepers and the parliamentary Clerks’ team.
I finish with a gentle word of encouragement to colleagues in the other place. It has been wonderful to have seen consensus on the Bill in this place. I hope that they will agree with us on the importance of the Bill and that this manifesto commitment can proceed as smoothly through the other place as it has done here. After several years, and as Figen has said, it is time to get this done.
Matt Vickers
Recent years have seen too many tragedies and too many precious lives taken by terrorist attacks—hurt that will never truly heal. Despite those tragedies, inspirational people such as Figen Murray and Survivors Against Terror have shown us that good can come from bad, and that the power is in our hands to act, even in the shadow of grief. Martyn’s law and everyone who has worked to make it a reality are an embodiment of that spirit.
Implementing this legislation will require us all to work together. National security is a collective endeavour. Organisations affected by the changes are acutely aware of their responsibility. They understand the importance of protecting their customers from terror, and are committed to ensuring that people can attend concerts, exhibitions and performances with the confidence that they are safe. That spirit of collaboration and mutual responsibility ultimately will make the provisions in Martyn’s law a success.
The responsibility goes both ways. Just as we expect venues to take the necessary steps in the Bill, they expect the Government to approach its implementation in a measured and sensible manner. I want to finish by thanking the Government for continuing the important work on the Bill, and to reiterate to the Minister my willingness to work with him on its passing and implementation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 2 to 5 together.
Ordered,
Backbench Business
That Wendy Morton be discharged from the Backbench Business Committee and Martin Vickers be added.
Culture, Media and Sport
That Mims Davies be discharged from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and Damian Hinds be added.
Science, Innovation and Technology
That Josh Simons be discharged from the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and Jon Pearce be added.
Treasury
That Lucy Rigby be discharged from the Treasury Committee and John Grady be added.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Pimping websites and paying for sex
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I rise on the 15th day of the 16 days of activism against violence against women and girls. Sexual exploitation for commercial gain is a form of violence and abuse. Pimping websites provide a platform for abusers to sell women for sex, and our current legislation is inadequate to tackle it.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of West Lancashire,
Declares that demand from the minority of men who pay for sex is driving the prostitution and sex trafficking trade, and this sexual exploitation is being facilitated by pimping websites that operate with impunity.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to outlaw pimping websites and paying for sex, and provide support, not sanctions, to victims of sexual exploitation.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003027]
Waste and Recycling
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise these issues this evening. The UK Government’s approach to waste management and recycling has evolved significantly in recent years, reflecting growing environmental concerns and the push for sustainability. Every single year, the UK generates nearly 200 million tonnes of total waste, but recycling rates in England have been stagnant for some time. The previous Conservative Government made huge efforts to improve that in recent years. Their simpler recycling reforms will move us towards a more consistent system across England. In 2026 we are expected to see the majority of planned recycling reforms come into effect, with recyclable plastic films to come in 2027.
The last Government made great progress with their “maximising resources, minimising waste” programme, which brought together a range of initiatives to keep products and materials in circulation for as long as possible, and at their highest value, including through increasing reuse, repair and remanufacture, helping to grow the economy and boost employment. These plans included scrapping fees for households to have bulky domestic furniture collected from their homes in 2025, saving people money and making it easier for them to recycle furniture so it can be reused, as well as helping to prevent fly-tipping.
The last Government did not stop there. They also made reforms to ensure collections of food waste for most households across England by 2026. Further still, they delivered on reforms for reporting requirements for extended producer responsibility, meaning that producers and businesses will be required to pay for the collection and disposal of household packaging that they supply when it becomes waste. That will cut waste and move costs away from local authorities.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Minister will not be surprised to see me speak in a debate on waste. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that for all his recounting of what the previous Conservative Government did, he may want to look to Wales and to the experience and success of the Welsh Labour Government, who have some of the highest recycling rates in the world.
Matt Vickers
I am glad to hear that. Hopefully Stockton’s Labour borough council can learn some lessons from Wales, because we have some of the most shambolic recycling rates in the entire country. There will be lessons to learn for Stockton-on-Tees borough council. Extended producer responsibilities will cut waste and move costs away from local authorities and taxpayers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. When it comes to records and what is being done well, I think we should recognise that my own local council is near the very top of the recycling charts in Northern Ireland, although there is still much to be achieved, of course. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that to reach all our local government targets, and if we want to be good stewards of what we have, more support must be available to supply bigger recycling bins to customers? Further to that, does he agree that we should ask the Minister to provide help to councils to enable them to do even more with recycling?
Matt Vickers
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The receptacles that we recycle in are a game changer. In Stockton, we have these disposable bags that disappear off down the road whenever it is windy, never to be seen again. Having the right recycling receptacles is important. As a country, we need to look to the councils that do it well, learn the lessons and roll out best practice.
The previous Government kick-started plans for a comprehensive deposit return scheme. It is estimated that UK consumers go through about 14 billion plastic drinks bottles and 9 billion drinks cans every single year, often contributing to our litter epidemic.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend raises the issue of plastic. With the growth of anaerobic digesters dealing with more food waste, energy-from-waste incinerators are now burning more plastic. BBC analysis of five years of real data shows that incinerators are now the dirtiest way to produce power. Does he agree that in dealing with recycling and its growth, we should not be building more incinerators—and in particular not building the Wisbech incinerator?
Matt Vickers
I agree wholeheartedly. Putting these plants in the right place is a very big deal—I know how hard my right hon. Friend worked to prevent that. I could not agree more. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on the roll-out of the deposit return scheme and say when it is set to be delivered.
Of course, it is not just businesses but local communities that can support the Government’s goals to ensure responsible waste disposal.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If the hon. Member could come further forward and sit back down, a formal intervention could then be made quite smoothly and quickly.
Iqbal Mohamed
I thank the hon. Gentleman. My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.
On the matter of consumers taking responsibility for recycling, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the prevalence of accessible recycling centres, and having them close to where people live, is important in increasing the volume of recycling that we can achieve? One recycling centre that was used by my constituents has been closed down, which means that the nearest centre now is more than 3 miles away. Does he agree that keeping these recycling centres open and making them more effective at recycling would be a step forward?
Matt Vickers
I agree entirely. As we look across the piece at the challenges we face in recycling, we should be doing everything we can to make it as convenient and as local to people as possible. We have to worry about the consequences of not having local recycling schemes. Some people might dispose of their waste irresponsibly and choose to fly-tip instead of making the journey.
An estimated 2.25 million pieces of litter are dropped every day in the UK, with the consequence that around £1 billion is spent every year by local authorities and land managers to clear it up. In Stockton West, we are fortunate to have some amazing, community-spirited litter-picking groups: the Thornaby community litter pickers, the Eaglescliffe community litter project, the Ingleby Barwick litter pickers and the Hartburn community litter pick. These incredible volunteers protect our environment and restore pride in our communities.
The last Government took action and increased the maximum fines for fly-tippers from £400 to £1,000, alongside increasing the maximum fine for those who litter or graffiti from £150 to £500. What further steps are the Government taking to tackle that important issue, and what steps are they taking to support and recognise these important community litter pick groups?
The Government must allow an environment for businesses to innovate and help to create solutions that support households to reduce waste, and they must tackle the 40.4 million tonnes of commercial and industrial waste generated every year. Businesses that innovate in this space for the common social good include Amazon, whose Multibank initiative helps redistribute 750,000 items of surplus goods to families in need. We were delighted to see its most recent scheme launch in Teesside, reducing waste while improving people’s lives.
Humans waste around 40% of the food produced, and that contributes 10% of global emissions. The Government should champion enterprises such as Too Good To Go in their efforts to reduce food waste, taking excess produce and ensuring that it is put to good, value-for-money use. Currently, the Government’s target is to reduce food waste by 50% by 2030, and they must take further policy measures to ensure that we reach that target. One cost-effective measure to the taxpayer that Too Good To Go is calling for is mandatory public food waste reporting, which would deliver a vital first step in measuring food wastage and drive businesses to innovate for meaningful change and allow customers to make informed decisions. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are considering mandatory food waste reporting?
The answer to our waste and recycling challenges starts at home—in fact, in every home in the country, and how they dispose of their waste. Local authorities have the biggest role in determining that, as they decide how and where people can dispose of their waste and recycling. Although the Government can go so far directly, they also have a role in ensuring that local authorities are doing all they can to support residents and businesses to drive up recycling rates. While UK councils are required to run a service that collects recycling and garden waste separate from general waste, councils are not obligated by legislation to separate the different types of recycling. Different recyclable materials may not be collected if it is not “technically or economically practicable”.
A study by the TaxPayers’ Alliance found that many constituents and households had concerns that they would have to deal with multiple different bins, placing unnecessary obligations on households and businesses. We have seen a complete disparity among local authorities when it comes to delivering the Government’s waste and recycling strategy. Some local authorities have up to 10 different bins compared with others that have only two. Although waste collection is one of the primary services provided by councils, the inconsistent and often inefficient approach has hugely varying consequences. Good, efficient councils provide accessible, reliable, well-used services, while others less so, with real consequences for littering, fly-tipping and recycling rates.
In my constituency, Stockton’s Labour-led council provides the worst example, with poor services and even poorer value for money. Stockton’s Labour council has presided over the worst recycling rate in the region, and its rates are so poor that they are among the worst in the entire country. Local litter pickers have questioned why the council are failing to take action on fly-tippers, with Stockton being among the lowest performing when it comes to issuing penalties. All the while, the verges of the A66, one of the gateways to the town, remain covered in discarded cans, bottles and rubbish.
It is about to get a whole lot worse. Despite Labour subjecting residents to some of the highest council tax rates in the entire country, the council decided to vastly reduce waste and recycling services. It is axing weekly bin collections, and now residents will have to stack up waste for fortnightly collections. It has closed four local recycling centres, making people travel to other towns to dispose of their recycling.
Adam Jogee
I am enjoying listening to the hon. Gentleman’s expression of support for Labour-led Stockton-on-Tees borough council. Between 2017 and 2019, the UK shipped 263 containers of waste to Sri Lanka. The UK had labelled them “used mattresses, carpets and rugs”, but what Sri Lankan authorities found inside the containers has been described as “far more sinister”. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whereas the last Government had plenty of warm words, they were very quick to throw the problem as far away as they could?
Matt Vickers
That is an interesting point. I think that there is a responsibility on the Government and local authorities to ensure that we recycle stuff rather than shipping it abroad or putting it into landfill. It is our problem, and we should sort it out at home whenever possible. I look forward to what will be achieved in the next few years.
Stockton-on-Tees borough council is ending our free green waste collections, imposing additional charges on anyone wanting to get rid of grass clippings, fallen leaves and garden waste. The changes represent a fly-tippers charter, and there are now fears that Stockton could become the UK’s fly-tipping capital, because these barriers could lead to more people disposing of waste irresponsibly. Residents ask me why their services are being slashed when the council tax that they pay is among the highest in the country.
While those on my Labour council are no good at dealing with waste collection, they are experts at producing plenty of waste. The council has spent nearly £16 million on recruitment consultants since 2021—£370,000 a month. It is refusing to answer questions about the use of other consultants and the costs; it is spending more on director salaries of over £100,000 than other councils across the region; it is spending money on flying people out to Montpellier and Copenhagen to watch shows and decide whether they are worth featuring at the local festival; it continues to throw VIP soirées with free food and drink for councillors; and much, much more. Does the Minister agree that when it comes to delivering the Government’s recycling aims and ambitions and driving up the UK’s stagnant recycling rates, we need to ensure that all councils take their role seriously?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for raising this issue—he has certainly had a busy day, having moved from the Front Bench to the Back Benches—and I thank everyone else who has taken part in the debate.
The Secretary of State has made it clear that resources and waste are a priority issue for DEFRA, and I am pleased to share our plans in this regard. The Government are committed to the transition to a circular economy—a future in which we keep our resources in use for longer, reduce our carbon emissions and invest in critical infrastructure and green jobs in every nation and region, and in which our economy prospers and nature thrives. We want to abandon our linear and unsustainable “take, make, throw” model, which means that we extract resources from the Earth, make things and then throw them away, because there is no such place as “away”. If the whole world consumed resources as we do in the UK, we would need 2.5 times the Earth’s raw materials to sustain our current systems. Meanwhile, nearly 100 million tonnes of residual waste is disposed of annually, and waste crime alone costs our economy £1 billion every year.
That cannot continue. We must and will move toward a system that values longevity, repair and reuse over disposal. In our manifesto, we pledged to reduce waste by moving to a circular economy. That is why we have committed ourselves to developing a circular economy strategy for England, which we will create in partnership with experts from industry, academia, civil society, local government and beyond.
Steve Barclay
I am glad that the Minister has described this as a priority. She has a statutory target to halve residual waste, but what she has not mentioned is the impact that will have on mega-incinerators that are being built essentially to burn plastic. Does she accept that more than 30 environmental charities—charities usually linked to her party and the left—are strongly opposed to those incinerators, and will she commit herself to publishing an impact assessment on the effect of reducing residual waste on the need for incinerators?
Mary Creagh
I will come on to those points later in my speech, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will intervene if he does not get the satisfaction and clarity that he seeks. Good things come to those who wait.
Let me begin with the strategy. We want to have an economy-wide transformation of our relationship with our resources, which is all about supporting the Government’s missions to kick-start economic growth, make Britain a clean energy superpower, and accelerate the path to net zero through our efforts to tackle waste crime and take back our streets. To answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Stockton West, preventing food waste is key to my Department, and we are reviewing a range of issues associated with food waste in the supply chain. We hope to make further announcements soon.
Let me address the collection and packaging reforms, which the hon. Member outlined. They are an important starting point in transitioning to a circular economy, and we are proud of the steps that we have taken so far. Over the next three years, simpler recycling, extended producer responsibility and the deposit return scheme will deliver transformational change, creating thousands of new jobs and stimulating billions of pounds’ worth of investment. Those three areas make up the three-legged stool of this Government’s plan to kick-start the circular economy, so I will briefly take each one in turn.
The first area is simpler recycling. We recently affirmed our commitment to delivering simpler recycling in England, which will be introduced for businesses from 31 March 2025 and for households from 31 March 2026. This Government inherited legislation introduced by the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) that could have required households to have up to seven bins. As the hon. Member for Stockton West rightly said, some councils have up to 10 bins, but that is because they thought they were doing the right thing, given the signals that were being sent out under the previous Government. That places an unnecessary burden on people and businesses, and unnecessary clutter in everyone’s front and back gardens. We are simplifying the rules to make recycling easier for people, while stimulating growth, maximising the benefits and ending the postcode lottery for recycling. Across England, people will be able to recycle the same materials at home, work or school.
The legislation for simpler recycling has already come into force. To confirm the final details of the policy, we laid regulations before Parliament on 3 December. The policy will support our ambition to recycle 65% of municipal waste by 2035. It is important to remember that figure, because when the last Labour Government brought in the landfill tax reforms in 2002, the original target was to have a recycling rate of 50% by 2015—a target that, sadly, was lost under the previous Government. Ten years on from that date, the target has still not been met.
The policy will also deliver an estimated £11.8 billion-worth of carbon savings between 2024 and 2035. As we have heard, local circumstances differ across the country, so we are making sure that councils and other waste collectors have the flexibility to make the best local choices. We know that local authorities may want to review their waste collection services to ensure that they provide best value for money. As is currently the case, local councils will continue to decide the frequency of waste collections in a way that suits the needs of their local community. The Government’s priority is to ensure that households’ needs are met, so we have recently published guidance to support councils in this area.
The second area is extended producer responsibility for packaging. To help fund simpler recycling, we are introducing in parallel extended producer responsibility for packaging, or pEPR, which will require obligated producers to pay the full end of life costs associated with the packaging that they place on the market. That will bring more than £1 billion of investment into local government waste collections, and incentivise producers to reduce unnecessary packaging and make what they use even more sustainable. Those regulations have now been debated in both Houses. They received unanimous cross-party support and will come into force on 1 January 2025.
The third and final leg is the deposit return scheme—DRS—for drinks containers. We have seen this work in over 50 countries around the world. The DRS will make a real difference to people’s lives by tackling litter and cleaning up our streets. Recycling rates will increase and the drinks industry will benefit from the high quality recycled materials that the DRS will provide. We are committed to delivering a deposit return scheme in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland in October 2027 and we will continue to work closely with industry partners, the Scottish Government and the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to launch the scheme.
Iqbal Mohamed
I worked across Europe for more than 15 years, and a DRS scheme has been in place all over Europe during all that time. I have been hearing for so long that it would arrive in the UK, but it has not, so I would be interested to hear the timescales. Also, will the Government consider putting restrictions on the use of fresh plastics for drinks bottles? Instead of them being recyclable, can we make them recycled?
Mary Creagh
I share the hon. Gentleman’s impatience. I am old enough to remember, as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee in 2017, hearing several predecessors of the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire promising that we would have a DRS scheme. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) is also right to say that there is no point in recycling if there is no end market. I welcomed the plastic packaging tax that was introduced under the prime ministership of Theresa May, which mandates a 30% recycled content. The question, where fossil fuels are very cheap, is how we drive business’s behaviour change, and that is under active consideration to ensure that there is an end market for the recyclates that are placed on the market.
On the hon. Gentleman’s question about the timescale, we laid the regulations for England and Northern Ireland before Parliament on 25 November and we plan for the regulations to come into force in late January, parliamentary time permitting. The Scottish Government will then make the necessary amendments to legislation in Scotland. After that, the three Governments will appoint the Deposit Management Organisation in April 2025, for which applications opened on Monday 2 December, so this is all hot off the press, and this is a timely debate. The aim is for the DRS to come into force on 1 October 2027.
However, there is much more to do. On Friday, I was delighted to visit Suez’s Malpass Farm facility in Rugby. Working in partnership with Cemex, Suez has provided 1 million tonnes of climafuel from non-recyclable waste, diverting it from landfill and reducing coal consumption in the neighbouring Cemex plant by 75,000 tonnes, thus enabling big industrial decarbonisation. Earlier today, I made a quick trip up to Newark to visit the Curry’s site, which is home to one of its unique repair centres. I saw how Curry’s, a great and proud British company, is using its resources and its market position to repair and refurbish broken phones, laptops and tablets, and I recommend its refurbishment website to anyone looking for a last-minute gift from Santa.
Such industrial partnerships, working together to maximise the value of resources, demonstrate the role that the resources and waste sector can play in supporting net zero and supporting economic growth. A high-performing resources and waste sector is key to driving a circular economy. However, waste crime threatens this by taking resources away from that circular economy and from the good businesses that want to do the right thing and make those green investments. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) is interested in this, and I am glad to see him in his traditional place. Waste crime costs the country £1 billion a year, and we know that 18% of waste may be handled illegally at some point in the waste supply chain. That is around 34 million tonnes of waste every year. We are committed to tackling this scourge.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Minister has spoken about many different types of rubbish, but not where it often goes, which is to household waste recycling centres. Not content with the Tory tip tax, cash-strapped Norfolk county council has gone further in trying to encourage fly-tipping by creating a mad booking system for residents who want to use household waste recycling centres. Will the Minister extend the same guidance to household waste recycling centres that she has talked about extending to kerbside recycling schemes?
Mary Creagh
I am very happy to look at that, but I gently tell the hon. Gentleman that after more than a decade of austerity, providing more services with less money is a challenge, and many local councils have not been able to square that circle. Rather than indulging in thinking about what could be done in a perfect world, we have to look at the world we are in and ask, “What can we do?” It is clear that this three-legged stool of reforms will put some much-needed fresh cash into the system, so that the various municipal collections can be ready for the go-live dates, and there may be opportunities in that.
We have had several debates about fly-tipping, and there were more than 1 million fly-tipping incidents in 2022-23, which is 10% more than we had three years ago. As the hon. Member for Stockton West said, Stockton-on-Tees alone has had 1,700 fly-tipping incidents. We cannot allow these incidents to continue, and I pay tribute to the many local litter groups he has met. I will have the enjoyment of meeting the Aylesbury Wombles in Parliament this Wednesday, and there are little groups everywhere.
We want fly-tippers and vandals to clean up the mess they have created, and we must take back our country from these criminals who blight our communities and undermine legitimate businesses. I look forward to providing details on that.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to my favourite Minister in His Majesty’s Government for giving way. Notwithstanding any legal action relating to Walleys Quarry, will the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), and the Minister join me in paying tribute to all the hard-working, good and loyal subjects in Newcastle-under-Lyme who campaigned, day in and day out, for clean air, healthier lungs and the kind of change we so desperately want to see?
Mary Creagh
What we saw there was a local community campaigning to stop the stink, and I am pleased that the regulator has taken swift action.
On the point raised by the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire about energy from waste, his Government failed to reach their recycling targets. We do not support over-capacity of energy from waste, and incineration should be an option only for waste that cannot be prevented, reused or recycled, such as medical waste or nappies.
In the waste hierarchy, recovering energy from waste is still preferable to disposing of waste in landfill. It maximises the value of the resources being disposed of, and avoids the greater environmental impact of landfill, which continues for generations, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). We cannot solve today’s problems by storing them up for future generations, so we will shortly publish our analysis of the need for further energy from waste development in England, following delivery of our reforms. However, I make it clear that it is for the relevant planning authority to determine the need for proposed developments. Our capacity assessment will help inform decision making on planning.
Steve Barclay
In a classic example of joined-up government, many of these incinerators, including the Wisbech incinerator, are classed as nationally significant infrastructure, so decisions on them are made by the Government, not devolved locally. I welcome the Minister saying that she does not support over-capacity of incineration, just as I welcome her ambition to increase recycling, but given that she wants increased recycling, there will be over-capacity of incineration. We need to see the impact assessment so that we can see the trajectory, and can see the increasing rate at which waste will be recycled. We can then avoid the over-capacity. When will we see that impact assessment, so that we do not have too much capacity in incineration?
Mary Creagh
I am a bit mystified by the right hon. Gentleman’s question, because he put a stop to planning decisions on energy from waste. Did he not conduct an impact assessment beforehand?
Steve Barclay
I do not want to intervene too much, but as a point of clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was recused as the Minister, so I certainly did not make that decision. I am making the argument against incineration; I would have thought that the Minister would support that, because she wants more recycling. Over 30 environmental charities say that incineration is the dirtiest way to produce energy—that it is as dirty as coal. Five years of analysis by the BBC found it was the dirtiest. I am highlighting the contradiction between the Government saying that they are for the environment and clean energy, and there being a risk of over-capacity in incineration, which burns plastics and is harmful to the environment. I am highlighting that contradiction and saying that that is the reason why the Government should publish an impact assessment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Now that the House is aware that Mr Barclay recused himself, we should not repeat that statement, but no doubt the Minister wishes to respond.
Mary Creagh
I am very keen to set the record straight, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman had to say. It is important that we do not incinerate recyclable materials. The environmental permitting regulations prevent the incineration of separately collected paper, metal, glass or plastic waste unless it has gone through some form of treatment process first, and, following that treatment, incineration is the best environmental outcome. As I say, we will publish our capacity assessment before the end of this year, and we do not support incineration over-capacity.
If we look at the waste hierarchy, waste incineration does not compete with or conflict with recycling. I think the right hon. Gentleman may have been talking to Madam Deputy Speaker when I was describing my visit to Rugby, where it is possible to see some uses for energy from waste that help with the hardest to abate industrial sectors. The process for cement, for example, requires a furnace that is heated to 1,400°C. In my view, the end result in that case means that it is a good use of incineration. That is what comes out of the municipal recycling facilities—out of our black bins—and it is the very tail end of the waste process I have described.
We have consulted on expanding the UK emissions trading scheme to include waste incineration and energy from waste, in order to divert plastics away from incineration. We are taking on board responses, and we will detail final policy on that in due course. We are including energy from waste under decarbonisation readiness requirements. We believe that any energy-producing waste facility seeking an environmental permit needs to look at how it will decarbonise. Moving to a circular economy is no small task, but we will do so by working collaboratively, and across this House, building on the policy left by the previous Government.
Adam Jogee
The Minister talks about the importance of working across Government, across this House and across our communities. Notwithstanding her position as my favourite Minister in His Majesty’s Government, I gently put to her the importance of looking at councils that give planning consent to developments in and around landfill sites. In Newcastle-under-Lyme, a number of housing developments have been built right around Walleys Quarry. That has a material impact on the health and wellbeing of the people who move there, and more generally on how our community is viewed. I urge her to have the appropriate conversations with colleagues across Government to ensure that the 1.5 million homes that we all want are built in the right places, with the right communication and consultation when decisions are taken.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Minister may wish to check Hansard to see how many times the hon. Member has mentioned his “favourite Minister”.
Mary Creagh
Indeed, and how many times my hon. Friend has mentioned Walleys Quarry.
Mary Creagh
I think the kindest thing that we can say is that the experience of Walleys Quarry is a learning experience for us all. I have a former landfill site in my constituency that has been properly remediated and covered over, with housing built alongside it. It started out as a clay quarry for brickmaking. Then it became a landfill site for the council, and now it is housing, but the site has been properly remediated. I think the problems have come through a lack of guidance and regulation about where housing can and should be built, an understandable keenness to build the homes that people desperately need, and a failure to understand that things should not be placed 30 metres away from a landfill site. It is simply not acceptable. Certainly, that is a learning point that we are bringing into the planning and infrastructure Bill.
Moving to a circular economy is no small task, but we are committed to playing our part, building the UK Government’s reputation at home and abroad, and driving green jobs, green growth and the green shoots of recovery in every nation and region of our country.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2024
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz.
The draft regulations will add four pieces of legislation to the list set out in section 17(3) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 so that legislation can be temporarily modified as part of financial market infrastructure sandboxes. The Treasury was granted the power to make provision for FMI sandboxes by section 13 of FSMA 2023, and the list of legislation that the Treasury can temporarily modify in an FMI sandbox is set out in section 17(3).
An FMI sandbox is designed to provide a controlled regulatory environment in which existing legislation and regulation is temporarily removed or modified. FMI sandbox participants can test new and developing technologies and practices that would otherwise be inhibited by existing legislation outside of the sandbox. If activity in an FMI sandbox is successful, and only after laying a report before Parliament, the Treasury can make permanent changes to legislation by introducing a further affirmative statutory instrument.
The testing of new technology and practices is inherently uncertain and will evolve over time, meaning that it is likely that the list of legislation in scope will need to be added to. For that reason, the Treasury has the power to add further legislation to the list in section 17(3) of FSMA 2023, as set out in section 17(6). Through the testing of new technologies and practices in an FMI sandbox, we are likely to identify additional legislative modifications, and the ability to add further legislation to the list is a way of ensuring that the FMI sandbox regime can be kept up to date.
The draft regulations exercise the power set out in section 17(6) of FSMA 2023, so that the four items of legislation can be added to support two FMI sandboxes, namely the existing digital securities sandbox, which I will refer to as DSS, and the future private intermittent securities and capital exchange system sandbox, also known as the PISCES sandbox—we love acronyms in the Treasury. The DSS will enable firms to test new and innovative technology across financial market infrastructure activities, and the PISCES sandbox will allow private companies to have their shares traded on an intermittent basis on a new type of stock market.
The draft regulations will bring the following legislation into scope of the power to make temporary modifications in FMI sandboxes: the Stock Transfer (Gilt-edged Securities) (CGO Service) Regulations 1985, which I will refer to as “STRs”; the Government Stock Regulations 2004, which I will refer to as “GSRs”; the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, which I will refer to as “MLRs”; and regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council, also known as the prospectus regulation, which we inherited from the EU.
Temporarily modifying the STRs and GSRs will enable us to support the issuance of a digital gilt instrument through the DSS. I and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury set out further details of that pilot in written ministerial statements to both Houses on 18 November, which hon. Members may have seen. The MLRs will be modified to facilitate an exemption from the cryptoasset regime in the MLRs for DSS participants, on the basis that activity in the DSS will involve securities, such as bonds and equities, that are already regulated, so conventional anti-money laundering legislation will be applied in the normal way. The prospectus regulation will be modified as part of the PISCES sandbox so that prospectus requirements can be disapplied in favour of bespoke disclosure requirements in that sandbox.
I should note at this point that the draft regulations do not make any temporary changes to the four specific items of legislation. Under the procedure stipulated by FSMA 2023, that will be done as part of further negative SIs to be laid before Parliament, which will provide all the relevant explanatory information for the changes being made to each enactment. The Government published a draft of the instrument that will set up the PISCES sandbox in November for public comment ahead of its being laid before Parliament in May. The DSS was established by a statutory instrument laid last December, although changes to the MLRs will require a further statutory instrument, which is to be laid before Parliament in January.
I recognise that this is a very technical measure, but the draft regulations will make changes consistent with the powers established by FSMA 2023—the Conservative party led the introduction of that Act, and we supported it when we were in opposition—and support the continued development of the DSS and of future FMI sandboxes, such as the PISCES sandbox. The Government believe that this will help to support innovation through each of these FMI sandboxes. I hope that the Committee will feel able to support the draft regulations and their objectives, and I commend them to the Committee.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I think this is the fourth or fifth time that the Minister and I have met across a Committee room, and yet again I do not think we are going to have any problems at all. At the last of our meetings in one of these rooms, I asked her a number of questions, and I am incredibly grateful to her and her office for getting back to me so quickly. I think that illustrates the very good working relationship between the Opposition and the Government in this respect.
The Opposition are delighted with all these measures. I was struggling to work out some complicated questions in order to make the Minister work for her office, but the only one I could come up with is on the timeline. She made reference to some further statutory instruments that will be introduced, and it would be very helpful if we had an idea of the timeline for when the process will be completed.
Aside from that, we are very happy to support the draft regulations and I thank the Minister very much for all those acronyms—I am learning more and more each time we meet.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the shadow Minister for his comments about our constructive relationship. I am sure there will be many fights in these rooms, but they are not happening yet. He will be delighted to know that we will be back here at 6 o’clock to consider a similarly simple statutory instrument.
We intend to lay the statutory instrument providing the legal framework for the PISCES sandbox before Parliament by May next year. As the shadow Minister will probably know, the testing of new technology and practices is uncertain, so there may be further FMI sandboxes with a different focus that require changes to legislation that have not been considered previously. Therefore, it is not really possible to set out a timeline, but the statutory instrument for PISCES will be laid by May 2025.
As I am sure the shadow Minister will recognise, the draft regulations are an important step forward in the development of the digital securities sandbox and future financial market infrastructure sandboxes such as PISCES, which is world leading and very impressive for our Government, and will be a good thing for the financial services sector. The draft regulations will ensure that FMI sandboxes are able to facilitate innovation while ensuring that all the risks are proportionately managed, as well as ensuring that firms are incentivised to participate.
The changes will be laid out in detail in a negative statutory instrument that we intend to lay before Parliament. We will be modifying the money laundering regulations to ensure that activity in the digital securities sandbox is not caught under the definition of cryptoassets in the MLRs. We will also provide the shadow Minister with a timeline on that, if that makes sense.
I thank Members for participating in the debate. I hope they found it informative, I hope they will learn all the acronyms, like I have, and I hope they will join me in supporting the draft regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Modifications) Order 2024
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Modifications) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
The Government have made clear their support for building societies—mutually-owned financial institutions that specialise in savings and mortgage products—as part of our commitment to modernise the Building Societies Act 1986. The draft order forms part of that commitment. It makes small but much-needed updates to the Building Societies Act 1986 to remove some unnecessary corporate governance burdens for the sector, aligning requirements with those provided to companies operating under the Companies Act 2006. Overall, the instrument supports the Government’s ambition to unlock the full potential of the mutuals sector to help drive innovation and inclusive growth across our country.
The order modernises the 1986 Act by making provisions in two places. First, it amends sections 60 and 61 of the 1986 Act to remove all references to the normal or compulsory retirement age of 70 for directors. This updates the 1986 Act, bringing it in line with the Companies Act 2006, providing building societies with greater flexibility in appointing directors and ending an outdated age-based restriction. After the amendment provided by this statutory instrument, section 60(11) and section 60(13) of the 1986 Act will specify that all directors must step down after three years, regardless of age, although they may be re-elected; members will therefore still be able to scrutinise the performance of all directors, even after the removal of the age requirement.
Secondly, the order amends section 80 of the 1986 Act, changing the current requirement for the balance sheet of a building society to be signed by two directors and the chief executive officer to allow one director to sign the balance sheet on behalf of the board. This further aligns the 1986 Act with the requirement for companies under the Companies Act 2006, removing an unnecessary burden for building societies. The amendment will not impact on the reliability and accountability of the process, as the full board of a building society is still required to approve the annual reports and accounts, and the signing director’s responsibility is not enhanced by the change.
Together, these amendments will modernise the Building Societies Act 1986 and ensure that building societies have the same modern flexibilities as retail banks operating under the Companies Act 2006. The changes have been supported by the building society sector. For instance, the proposal to amend the Act to allow one director to sign the balance sheet on behalf of the board was welcomed by the sector in a consultation published under the previous Government in December 2021. Although the removal of the retirement age for building society directors was not part of that consultation, it was proposed by the Building Societies Association and another large building society as part of their responses, as seen in the consultation responses published in December 2022. It is therefore evident that the amendments have the support of the sector.
As I mentioned earlier, the order forms part of the Government’s commitment to modernise the Building Societies Act 1986. Some of us may remember that the Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Act 2024 achieved Royal Assent earlier this year. It allows for real-time virtual participation at building society general meetings and provides the Government with powers to introduce subsequent legislation to further modernise the 1986 Act. The Government will look to introduce the changes enabled by that Act in due course.
To conclude—I say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, once again, as we meet for the second time today—the order will make small but important updates to the Building Societies Act 1986, modernising the Act to align certain corporate governance requirements with the same flexibilities afforded to companies under the Companies Act 2006. It will help to deliver on the Government’s commitment to unlock the full potential of the mutuals sector through ensuring that the legislation supports building societies to grow. I hope that colleagues will help me in supporting the amendments; I commend the order to the Committee.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
This Committee may go on record as one of the swiftest yet!
It makes perfect sense to modify the Building Societies Act 1986 to bring it in line with the Companies Act 2006. We have no objection to the order. It is possible that it may only affect one building society, but none the less it would be fairly old-fashioned to have two separate sets of rules depending on which type of business we are discussing. We are behind the order, which makes a huge amount of sense. I will not take any more of the Committee’s time.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Ecuador) Order 2024
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Ecuador) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you as Chair, Mrs Harris.
The order before the Committee gives effect to a first-time double taxation convention with Ecuador. It will provide a clear and fair framework for the taxation and administration of cross-border transactions between the United Kingdom and Ecuador, benefiting businesses and the economies of both countries by removing barriers to cross-border trade and investment. The DTC is based mainly on the OECD model tax convention, which contains a set of internationally agreed principles that make DTCs easier for businesses to understand and for tax administrations to apply.
I turn now to some of the main features of the DTC. It provides limits on the withholding taxes that can be charged on dividends, royalties and interest, which in many circumstances are less than the tax rates applied under Ecuador’s domestic law. There are specific exemptions for dividends and interest paid to pension funds and for interest paid to financial institutions, which will be of benefit to UK pension funds and to banks with interests in Ecuador.
The DTC limits the circumstances in which the trading profits of an enterprise based in one country may be taxed in the other country. That will be welcomed, for instance, by United Kingdom businesses looking to provide services to customers in Ecuador, such as in the life sciences, infrastructure and financial services sectors, as it will ensure that businesses will not face Ecuadorian withholding taxes on some payments for those services.
The agreement contains all the minimum standards introduced by the joint OECD and G20 project on base erosion and profit shifting. Those standards ensure that DTCs are not used to avoid or evade tax, and include a statement in the preamble that it is not a purpose of a DTC to create opportunities for tax evasion and avoidance, and a principal purpose test that denies treaty benefits in cases of abuse.
Another anti-avoidance rule included in the new treaty is a tie-breaker provision for determining corporate residence based on agreement by the competent authorities of each country. The DTC also allows for the exchange of information between the two countries to facilitate tax transparency and provides for mutual assistance in the collection of tax debts.
Together, these features strengthen both countries’ defences against tax avoidance and evasion. The order includes dispute resolution provisions that go beyond the minimum standard set out in the final recommendations of the BEPS project by providing that, where a taxpayer considers that the DTC has not been applied correctly, they can present their case to either tax authority, and not just where they are resident.
In summary, this agreement is one that the UK can welcome, fulfilling a long-held ambition to conclude a DTC with Ecuador and filling another gap in the UK’s network of DTCs in Latin America. It will provide a stable, long-term framework within which trade and investment between the United Kingdom and Ecuador can flourish. I commend the order to the Committee.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
I echo the Minister in saying it is a pleasure to serve on the Committee under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.
The Minister will be pleased to know that it is not the intention of the official Opposition to divide the Committee on this tax treaty. However, I have a number of questions —he may be able to answer them today, but I am perfectly happy if he wants to reply in writing subsequently.
This treaty follows on from the agreement signed in Quito on 6 August this year. Can the Minister provide us with an update on the status of Ecuador’s ratification of this treaty? As I understand it, that will be subject to its National Assembly, but there are elections to the National Assembly coming up in March next year and the President only holds a majority through a coalition. I would be grateful for any update on the status and expected date of ratification.
I echo the Minister’s comments about the importance of stimulating exports and trade with Ecuador. We have very limited trade at the moment, and hopefully this agreement will help from the point of view of both imports and exports, and of direct investment.
The Minister mentioned that this agreement was based on the OECD model tax convention. That model, as hon. Members probably know, has been in place for 30 or 40 years—maybe even longer—and many tax treaties around the world are signed around these conventions. However, there is a slight deviation in part of this agreement. In paragraph 5.16 of the explanatory memorandum, relating to article 5 on permanent establishment, it says that the agreement
“has a wider scope than the OECD Model, reflecting Ecuador’s preference. In particular, it has a lower threshold of 183 days for a building site to give a PE. It also deems there to be a PE where services are provided by an enterprise in the other territory for more than 183 days in total in a 12-month period.”
As there is very little for the Committee to note that is different from the OECD model, I hope the Minister does not mind me asking about that one point I have highlighted.
Furthermore, Ecuador is, as best I know, not a member of the OECD, or certainly has not signed up to pillar 2, the agreement on global minimum taxation for multinational enterprises. Any implication in this tax treaty relating to Ecuador’s status on that question would be of interest, but again that is not a matter for us to divide the Committee on today.
James Murray
I welcome the comments from the shadow Minister and his party’s support for this double taxation treaty.
First, on Ecuador’s ratification of the DTC, Ecuador has indicated that it will complete the process by the end of this year, which I think gives the shadow Minister the timetable he was seeking. If this Committee supports the DTC today, it will take effect from 1 January 2025, as long as the necessary diplomatic exchanges are all completed in time. Taxpayers and businesses in the UK will be able to benefit from the DTC provisions from that date.
The other questions the shadow Minister asked related to the explanatory memorandum and the relationship with pillar 2. There are provisions taken from the United Nations model tax convention, which many developing countries prefer, and which are present in many of the UK’s treaties. They reflect the support for developing countries as they want to engage in the process. Ecuador’s approach to pillar 2 more broadly is probably a question more for the Government of Ecuador than for me but, as the shadow Minister will know, we are committed to the effective delivery of pillar 2 in the UK and to ensuring that the necessary legislation is put in place. Indeed, there is legislation on that in the current Finance Bill, so I look forward potentially to his support for that Bill when it comes to the Chamber.
To conclude, this statutory instrument to approve the double taxation treaty will ensure that we have a modern DTC in place in both countries, providing a stable foundation for investment and growth, while at the same time, crucially, making it harder for people to avoid their taxes in the UK if that is something they are trying to do. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his contribution and I hope the Committee will see fit to support the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
National bus fare cap
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fireworks: Sale and Use
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 639319 and 700013 relating to the sale and use of fireworks.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to introduce the two e-petitions on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Like me, many colleagues will have received countless pieces of correspondence regarding fireworks, so it is no surprise that both e-petitions received significant numbers of signatures. The first received more than 50,000 signatures in the first six months. I particularly thank Chloe Brindley for creating the petition, and for her elegant arguments for banning the sale of fireworks to the general public. Chloe outlines many of the negative impacts of firework use, including animal stress and post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as the impact on our A&E services. Chloe is in the Public Gallery today.
The second e-petition was kindly brought to the attention of the House by Alan Smith, whom I was privileged to meet last week, and I am pleased is also in the Gallery. It is a pleasure to welcome him to the House. The petition garnered more than 75,000 signatures, despite being created only a month ago. Alan’s story is particularly harrowing but, given that we are considering the terrible and traumatic damage that fireworks can do, it is an important one, and I hope he will not mind my mentioning it.
On the night of 28 October 2021, two teenagers, who were under age, went to their local fireworks shop and asked, “What are the good ones to let off at people?” They were not refused service, nor did the owner of the shop ask them for identification. Later that evening, they would take the fireworks they had purchased and stuff them, lit, through the letterbox of 88-year-old Josephine Smith, Alan’s mother, starting a fire that went on to kill her. Not only was that a shocking tragedy and an outrageous, harrowing act, but it shows, without a shadow of doubt, that fireworks are not toys and are not risk-free. If used in that manner, they are weapons that can kill.
Whether through accident or malice, 113 people find themselves spending an average of two days in hospital because of fireworks injuries, and research suggests that the total number of injuries is higher. However, fireworks have impacts far wider than those on the users, as the petitions’ signatories will know. Excessively loud bangs and flashes from fireworks can make the surrounding area feel like a warzone. In Keighley, which I am exceptionally proud to represent, fireworks are used throughout the year, often well into the early hours of the morning. There are times when the night sky above Keighley is lit up under the constant thunder of fireworks. The use of fireworks may peak around and in the run-up to bonfire night, but for many of us it is an issue throughout the whole calendar year. In places such as Keighley, and in many other communities right across the country, many are negatively impacted by the antisocial use of fireworks. Working people who just want to get a decent night’s sleep cannot, because of the sheer nuisance caused by fireworks.
Unsurprisingly, fireworks have a dramatic effect on those who suffer from PTSD. Our veterans may quite literally fear that they have been thrust back into a life-or-death situation, and can be completely debilitated by their use. Other victims of trauma can be triggered even if the event that led to their condition has no connection to the sounds or sights of fireworks. I heard that at first hand just last week, when I met representatives of Anxiety UK, Help for Heroes, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the Firework Campaign to prepare for this debate. I thank them for their time.
As with humans, fireworks can also trigger the fight-or-flight response in animals. Pets and livestock alike are often terrified by fireworks, and unlike us they do not understand the consequences when they are let off. Of course, that leads not only to incredible distress but, in some circumstances, to the injury or death of animals. I have heard in correspondence from across my Keighley and Ilkley constituency of farm animals stampeding as a result of loud bangs, tearing through fences in their panic, injuring themselves and others, and being at risk of causing road accidents. I have also heard much about dogs, cats and rabbits—in fact, almost every single kind of pet—being negatively impacted.
In November, we learned of the tragic death of Roxie, a baby red panda at Edinburgh Zoo. She died on bonfire night due to the stress caused by fireworks being let off throughout the city centre. We must also be conscious of wildlife who do not have a voice but are nevertheless affected. We often forget them but, as those animals are more sensitive to sound than us, they are also impacted considerably. What we hear as a distant rumble can seem to them like a much more threatening, intense experience.
Distressing fireworks are used as tools for crimes in my constituency and throughout the country, as many colleagues have told me. Fireworks are used as weapons against emergency services and as nuisance items in antisocial behaviour by youths. In 2021, firefighters attended an incident in my constituency and came under attack by a group of 15 youths hurling fireworks at them. The fact that the individuals were able to source the fireworks to carry out those acts was incredibly distressing, not only because of those who were impacted but because it shows how easy it is to get hold of fireworks.
Fireworks have many more impacts, not least causing hearing damage, interrupting sleep and affecting those with sensory processing disorders. I hope Members will forgive me when I say that I and others have raised these concerns before. I take this opportunity to stress that I am absolutely still concerned about this issue.
Before I discuss the way forward, it is important to mention the existing body of regulations. The sale of fireworks is banned to anyone under the age of 18, and for the largest fireworks for public use, but that does not stop people buying them, and it does not stop individuals selling them to under-18s. Setting off any firework is also banned after 11 pm, except on certain evenings, but I fear that, as in the case of Josephine Smith, the regulations are not being properly followed, as we all know.
I recognise that e-petition 639319 calls for a ban. Indeed, along with those who signed the petition, some 74% of people more widely who have got involved with the many fireworks petitions to come before the House believe that a ban is the right way forward. I must admit that, personally, I am reluctant to endorse bans when they are not completely necessary, but there is growing evidence, including testimony from the many people I spoke to in the run-up to the debate and from police incidents, that enforcement will never be enough to tackle this issue. Simply put, once those who let off fireworks as part of antisocial behaviour have abandoned the scene, it is extremely difficult to catch the culprits.
Of course, we must recognise the freedom to enjoy fireworks, but above all else we must protect the liberties of those who are so devastatingly affected, because there is certainly no freedom for those who are trapped in their homes throughout the year because of fireworks misuse. If the illegal use of fireworks cannot be curtailed, the only option we are left with is stricter regulation at the point of sale. Although it may be difficult to catch an offender using fireworks, it is surely easier for authorities to ensure that regulations are followed at the point of sale, and to advise fireworks businesses to use discretion when they fear that fireworks may be used improperly.
In a report published this morning, the campaigner Hamza Rehman highlighted the rise in the stockpiling of fireworks across the Bradford district, with fireworks being bought in bulk and stored in private garages to be sold at a later date. I have no doubt that the same is going on in other constituencies throughout the country, and that it could be curtailed if we enforced the laws that are already in place. Even a simple requirement to apply for a permit may be a sufficient barrier to cancel out many nuisance buyers of fireworks, who can currently purchase fireworks as easily as they can a bottle of wine.
Stricter requirements could also be introduced, such as raising the age limit. None the less, we must be careful not to force the sale of fireworks underground and create an even more dangerous situation. I hope that in the debate many other Members will get to the heart of the issue and explore the action we can take, as this issue has been idly discussed for far too long. I know that many Members have raised it in the House time and again.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing this really important debate. Like his constituents, mine next door in Shipley have raised concerns about antisocial fireworks. Under the last Labour Government, the Fireworks Act 2003 and the Fireworks Regulations 2004 were introduced to restrict the antisocial use of fireworks; since then, there has been very little action. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a review to tighten up the regulations is long overdue?
Robbie Moore
I thank my constituency neighbour and friend for raising that issue. The challenge is that although previous Labour Administrations introduced regulations, the stark reality on the ground is that there has been no real change. There is still antisocial behaviour, the misuse of fireworks and people getting away with buying fireworks—in my constituency, and I suspect in the hon. Lady’s—when they are under the age of 18. Having seen the Government’s response to both e-petitions, released earlier today, I do not believe they are willing to go far enough, albeit they have said they are willing to listen. I hope Members will contribute in respect of the actions the Government should take.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for introducing this subject. My constituent Annie Riddle has lived in the Harnham district of Salisbury for 34 years, and her four dogs have been left in the state of trembling wrecks as a consequence of the random use of fireworks. Does my hon. Friend agree that better public education on just how destructive the use of fireworks is to the health of many people—he mentioned veterans, for example—and to the animal kingdom is important to changing behaviours on the ground? That must be part of the solution.
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree. Better education is critical for the wider public—for not only those behaving antisocially but those organising large events. As part of the evidence taken before this debate, I heard that even big public events have a negative consequence on pets at home, wildlife, farm animals, or veterans living nearby. Education is key but, personally, I would like to see tougher licensing provisions and much more resource put into enforcement.
I commend the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for bringing forward a private Member’s Bill aimed at tackling this issue. In my opinion, the next step forward must be a commitment from the Government to undertake proper research into and impact assessments of firework regulation, so that we can reach a cross-party solution to the issue. Findings from the Petitions Committee, the Government and stakeholders have all pointed out that a lack of evidence limits any serious policy changes. We must therefore ensure that the Government have the evidence available as quickly as possible so that they can make further legislative changes, if they so desire.
If a ban or restrictions are necessary, they will take time to implement, so we must also take immediate action. Local councils must be supported to deliver proper enforcement immediately, as must the police to tackle those using fireworks illegally. There is no point in having regulations and laws in place if they are not enforced. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent the Government from delivering that support right now.
E-petition 639319 received a response from the previous Government, and I am glad that the current Government responded this morning to e-petition 700013. But as I said, the Government must go much further than just giving warm words. I hope this debate will be an opportunity for all Members to stress to the Minister the points they wish to make on behalf of their constituents, and that the Minister will be able to expand on that in his response. I am sure he will appreciate that this issue is of deep concern to the many petitioners who signed the petitions.
I am not opposed to fireworks in and of themselves, but I definitely wish to see much tighter licensing provisions, much stronger enforcement and a change so that fireworks can be used only at licensed events. I say to the Government that we simply cannot continue to ignore the growing public demand for change. I hope this debate marks the beginning of real change on fireworks legislation. Fireworks bring joy to many, but their misuse can have devastating effects. When used antisocially, they disturb the peace of an entire neighbourhood, terrify pets and leave vulnerable people trapped in their homes. The culprits terrorise neighbourhoods, as unfortunately I have seen in Keighley.
The petitions are not one-offs—indeed, since May 2022 five other petitions relating to fireworks have been put before Parliament—nor are the concerns of the petitioners without justification. In the face of such concerns, there must be action, and that cannot occur until we have had the weight of a full Government policy assessment to decide the best way forward. I fear that if we choose to continue to ignore this issue, there will inevitably be more unnecessary deaths, injuries and traumas for victims of fireworks in the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. I remind all Members that they should bob if they wish to speak in the debate. Twenty-four Members have put in to speak, so I will have to impose a time limit of six minutes, because I am anxious that everyone should get in. I remind you all that the more interventions there are, the more likely it is that someone may not get to speak at all.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I appreciate the opportunity to take part in what is obviously a wildly popular debate, and will therefore make a short contribution on behalf of the 181 constituents in Newport East who have signed the petitions as well as the 130-plus who have been in touch on social media. I apologise profusely that I cannot stay till the end of the debate as I will be chairing the parliamentary Labour party meeting, and I thank you, Sir Edward, for allowing me to do that.
Like others, I have been a regular contributor to fireworks debates over the years. This year I am very proud to be a supporter of the Fireworks Bill, a private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). She does absolutely great work on the subject, and I wish her much success with her Bill.
I take part in these debates with a bit of a heavy heart, because from my youth, which was a while ago, I have very happy memories of bonfire night, as my late and very lovely dad would insist on fireworks in our back garden. It is fair to say he very much liked risk and hated organised fun of any kind, so we never went to displays. I therefore understand why people enjoy fireworks, and I acknowledge that many people use them responsibly and that there are enforcement measures for those who do not.
However, the days of a small tin of fireworks in the back garden are long gone, which is why constituents have a keen and passionate interest in this issue and regularly raise it with me. Fireworks are bigger, louder and more powerful than ever before and are easily available from unlicensed vendors. As the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) said, fireworks season now seems to last through autumn and winter. I agree with all the points that he made. This is distressing for animals. For constituents who are veterans with PTSD, it is difficult. The antisocial use of fireworks impacts on children and teenagers, and staff in A&E have to deal with fireworks-inflicted burns.
This is a seasonal debate, and we return to it every year. Constituents report having fireworks thrown at them at bus stops, animals being too traumatised to go out, the terrorising of livestock, fireworks being put through letterboxes, and more. As one constituent put it,
“a generation that can’t smoke but can buy mini bombs seems bizarre”.
I pay tribute to the partnership work of the council, the police and the fire service in Newport East on big nights such as firework night and new year’s eve. It is much appreciated in our communities.
The vast majority of the constituents who have been in touch with me in recent weeks want fireworks to be allowed only for organised displays. I recognise their concerns, and I fully support the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North to restrict the sale of fireworks to licensed shops, lower the noise limit to 90 dB and remove the loudest fireworks—F2 and F3—from sale.
Finally, I want to give a big thanks to the police for their enforcement work. Let us make their lives and those of overstretched local authority officers easier by looking again at the legislation.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend, I have grown up enjoying fireworks in the garden, especially with my children. Does she agree that the solution may be to reduce the noise levels from 120 dB to 90 dB, as is the case in New Zealand, to better enforce the rules relating to the times during which fireworks can be let off, and to increase the age limit for firework sales? That would enable people to enjoy a family firework occasion while ensuring safeguards are in place.
Jessica Morden
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. He proposes some sensible measures, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North will talk about.
It is time that we look again at the legislation so we do not keep returning to these debates year after year. People should not live in misery, so it is time we tackled this issue.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) very much for leading this important debate; I agree with a great deal of what he said. I also thank the many petitioners who raised the issue. As the MP for Hazel Grove, I was not surprised to see that my constituency has one of the highest numbers of signatures. That highlights the strength of feeling among my neighbours.
Fireworks are among the most common topics that my constituents get in touch with me about; that was the case before I was elected in July, when I was a local councillor, and has been since. I also care about the issue because I am the owner of a mischievous rescue dog, Bonnie, who is absolutely terrified of fireworks—both the lights and, particularly, the noise—so the period between the end of October and the new year is always particularly upsetting for her.
We all vaguely know when to expect the beginning of the firework season, but these days fireworks do not seem to stop. Many displays seem to occur outside the typical season, and it is the same for kids enjoying themselves on the estate behind my house. Across the autumn and beyond, there is little I can do to prevent the enormous distress that Bonnie goes through each year. Every time she hears the opening whizzes or bangs, she throws herself around the room or across the garden, barking furiously and absolutely terrified. There is only so long that we can keep her inside with the blinds closed, with drum and bass blasting out to block out the noise. The call of nature calls her outside from time to time, and then she is back to being terrified again. I am sure that experience will resonate with the tens of millions of people across the UK who have animals in their homes.
The impact of fireworks is felt not only by pets and their owners but by all the wildlife across the UK, as well as the many people who have conditions such as PTSD or sensitivity to unexpected noises. We should not have to expect or accept regular and continuous fireworks displays for many weeks of every year. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley rightly pointed out the difficulties in enforcing the existing regulations.
I am a Liberal, and I do not think we should ban things just because I find them annoying, but I do think that when my actions harm someone else and my freedoms bump into someone else’s, we should look at whether we have the balance right. In the majority of states and territories in Australia, it is illegal for members of the public to possess and use fireworks. In the few regions that permit public use, they are limited to a small number of very specific holidays. In other states, they are carried out only by trained and licensed pyrotechnicians or those they have approved and instructed.
We must balance the cultural significance and recreational value of fireworks displays on special holidays with the safety and welfare of people, pets and wildlife. If we adopt Australian-style legislation, local authorities would be able to manage their own fireworks calendars and prevent the continuous barrage of fireworks that we regularly face in the last few months of every year.
The petitions are a mandate from our constituents to act. We need to do more to protect our friends, families, pets and wildlife from the harmful effects of fireworks. I urge the Government to take action to reduce the detrimental impact of fireworks across our communities and to adopt similar legislation to that which we see elsewhere. On behalf of my many constituents who signed the two petitions, and particularly on behalf of my mischievous and pyrophobic rescue dog Bonnie, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss these issues today.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for presenting the petition. We have this debate every single year—it is heartening to see the widespread support for the debate and for the petitions. I want to thank every single member of the public who signed and shared them, making sure their voices are heard loud and clear here in Parliament. That is incredibly impressive and to be welcomed.
We have these well-meaning debates every year and we hear the same thing time and again: “Isn’t this awful? Isn’t this horrific? It has a horrible impact on our constituents’ lives”, yet we have not seen action for 10 years. Nothing has changed. We know that the problems exist. The licensing laws mean that any registered seller, even if they do not have a special firework sale licence, can sell fireworks during the festive period. That seems absolutely the wrong way round. At a time when people go out of their way to buy fireworks for bonfire night, new year’s eve and lunar new year, any unlicensed seller can now sell fireworks. That seems a perverse way of doing things. If it is not good enough for the rest of the year, why is it good enough for the part of the year when most fireworks are used?
I have heard people say today, “We have this debate at this time of year because we have had a lot of complaints about firework use in our inboxes”, but for constituencies such as mine in Luton North, this is an all-year-round thing. Fireworks have become not just something for a special event, but something that happens day in, day out—not even always when it is dark, which is bizarre. I have been out on the doorstep in the summer and people have said that they have an issue with fireworks, and those fireworks have gone off in the middle of the day. Their unpredictable nature causes a huge problem, whereas people can plan their lives around properly licensed, regulated and organised professional displays. The chaotic, sporadic and frequent use of very loud fireworks is very different.
I will talk about my private Member’s Bill in a minute, but I think we need to look at licensing because the existing laws are so difficult to enforce. Just six fixed penalty notices have been issued in the past three years, which indicates a serious problem. We know the police are overstretched. I am currently working with Bedfordshire police and Luton borough council on a new way to report fireworks use, but we need to see things change—we need solutions. I am grateful for all the MPs that have supported my private Member’s Bill, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). We have to do something different because people with PTSD and people with young children who just want a good night’s sleep are struggling.
Let us not forget the animals. Last week I spoke to Guide Dogs UK and the fireworks lobby, which is very small but very loud, ironically. It tells us we should train our animals better, but nothing is better trained than a guide dog. Guide dog users have told me that during the firework season, they cannot take their dogs out because some of them are so frightened. They described it as like having a car that does not work. Children with special educational needs and disabilities and parents of non-verbal children find it incredibly distressing.
My Bill seeks three simple things. The first is an end to the loophole in licensing for sales, so that we have the same regulations throughout the year—only licensed sellers should be able to sell fireworks. The second is a limit of 90 dB—the same as a lawnmower—on the sound of fireworks that are for general public consumption. At the moment, the limit is 120 dB, which is the sound of a rock concert. Thirdly, we need to ensure that the loudest categories of fireworks—F2 and F3—are not available for public consumption. We have seen the damage they have caused and heard how they are being used as weapons. If they were anything else, we would be talking about banning them outright. I have learned from my first time around: this is not my first rodeo with a private Member’s Bill on fireworks—it is my second one.
We have also seen a surge in online sales of fireworks, which is a real issue. My Bill covers online as well as high street retailers. We are seeing fireworks advertised on TikTok and Facebook. Those are not places where we should be going to get something so potentially dangerous to the user, as well as those around them. I am grateful that Members in the Chamber seem to be quite supportive of my Bill. There is a difference from previous debates on fireworks: we have had a change of Government and there is a different Minister responding. I hope that he has a different response for us.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank the petitioners for raising this important issue, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for setting out the issues behind the petitions so well. I know from my own mailbag that many people are concerned about the unintended impact that fireworks have.
Fireworks should be a symbol of joy and happiness, with everyone in awe as they light up the sky. People often use them to celebrate and mark special occasions while surrounded by friends and family. Whether it is bonfire night, new year’s eve or just a simple get together, there is no doubt that fireworks make for a fun time and bring people together. However, we should not forget that that is not always the case.
As we have heard, fireworks can have unintended consequences. People suffering from PTSD and trauma are at a particular risk, as are those with severe mental health issues. Pets and animals often get frightened by fireworks, abandoning their owners to find safety. Others become extremely anxious and, in the worst cases, tragically pass away. As Members have heard, a baby red panda called Roxie died of distress at Edinburgh Zoo on bonfire night this year. For some of my constituents in the Scottish Borders, that is the reason they contacted me and encouraged me to participate in this debate.
A report by the Office of Product Safety and Standards in 2020 stated that noise blasts resulting from fireworks can be particularly stressful to dogs. The report highlighted that some farm animals, such as pigs, should not be exposed to the kind of noise levels that fireworks make. Fireworks can also trigger significant behavioural changes in cattle. In the last 13 years, there have been at least 98 horse injuries, and 20 fatalities. When it comes to the effects on people, the report states that there were 990 injuries due to the misuse of fireworks in 2005, and there is evidence that they can exacerbate stress and anxiety. The report raises legitimate questions about how and where fireworks are used, and whether they do more harm than good.
Over the years, greater restrictions have been enacted in Scotland. The Fireworks (Scotland) Regulations 2004 restrict the times of day when fireworks can be used by the general public, and the times of day that they can be supplied to the general public. However, the most significant piece of legislation affecting fireworks regulation in Scotland is the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022. Although part of it is still to come into force, that Act will significantly toughen up the law in this area. It is now an offence to supply and distribute fireworks to persons under the age of 18. Anyone found guilty faces a maximum fine of £5,000 or a six-month prison sentence. Local authorities in Scotland now have the power to designate firework control zones, which are areas where fireworks are prohibited and cannot be used. In some cities, such as Edinburgh and Glasgow, additional control zones are coming into force.
Despite the increased regulation of the use of fireworks, concerns remain. I very much sympathise with those who have been affected by the misuse of fireworks, particularly those who have been directly affected by some terrible acts and brought forward these petitions. The offenders committing those serious criminal acts should be punished. However, I am very reluctant to ban anything, and I am worried that, as a society and a country, we are moving into an extreme nanny state where we rush to ban everything and anything that poses some level of risk.
Home Office data shows that there were seven fatalities from fireworks between 2010 and 2020. Meanwhile, the World Animal Foundation claims that 27 people die in the UK every year from accidents involving cows. Does that mean we need to ban the keeping of cows because they pose a risk? If we are to strike the right balance between fun and safety, the starting point must surely be to ensure that the existing rules and regulations for fireworks are always followed and enforced. The data suggests that misuse is the biggest issue, not the fireworks themselves. Instead of talking about banning, let us talk about personal responsibility. If an individual is irresponsible or commits a crime with a firework, they should face the full force of the law. Let us give local authorities and the police the powers and resources they need to properly enforce it. Let us learn from different parts of the UK, such as the different rules that we have in Scotland compared with England, to understand which interventions are effective and which need to be reformed.
In conclusion, I do not support a ban on fireworks altogether, but I support their proper regulation and their being used safely at all times. I hope that is where we can take this debate.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing this very important debate, and I thank all those who organised the petitions, especially my constituents who signed one or both.
In Hounslow, as in many areas represented by Members here, we have almost continuous fireworks through Diwali, bonfire night and the birthday of Guru Nanak, as well as new year’s eve nowadays, which I do not think used to happen. On new year’s eve, the fireworks can last for 24 hours, as local people who hail from different parts of the world let them off at the same time as their family and friends back home, or just because they feel like it. There is also the danger of exploding fireworks. I have a relative who, as a child, lost her eye when the kids were messing around. One new year’s eve, when we were at a party in our neighbour’s house, suddenly all the children were no longer in the back room watching films—it was suspiciously quiet. They were in the road, egging on a group of very drunk young men who were letting off fireworks with no safety measures whatsoever. Yet again this year, I have had a string of emails over the autumn from concerned constituents who almost certainly signed these petitions.
As Members have said, and as others will no doubt say for the rest of the debate, a common complaint is fireworks being let off well after midnight, sometimes up to 3 am, disturbing families and those doing shift work. People do not object to public displays at a social time, but they do not want them in the middle of the night. The impact on animals is increasingly cited by constituents, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has stated:
“There is increasing evidence that fireworks can have negative effects on the behaviour and wellbeing of animals.”
Constituents cite the increasing number of days on which late-night and early-morning displays happen over a number of weeks from October through to the new year.
I agree with others that the legislation needs updating for our safety, for our ability to get a reasonable night’s sleep, and for the wellbeing of our pets and wild animals, so I welcome the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). Legislation has not been updated for 20 years, but, as other Members have said, fireworks being bought in shops are far louder and more powerful than they were in the past.
The current legislation says that fireworks can be bought from unlicensed traders for Chinese new year, Diwali, bonfire night and new year, but not at other times. Why the religious discrimination in favour of some and not others? How does that work in a highly diverse constituency such as mine, where people celebrate, often with fireworks, on many days, anniversaries and other religious festivals? Sometimes, they might just be celebrating grandad’s birthday. Animals do not know whether it is a religious holiday or grandad’s birthday; they are equally traumatised whatever the occasion, so would it not be fair if there were a level playing field, with organised, licensed displays and quieter, safer fireworks?
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I want to draw attention to another petition handed into Downing Street recently, which had 1.1 million signatures. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to encourage manufacturers to design and produce quieter fireworks?
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know that it is possible to buy bright, colourful, exciting fireworks that do not make nearly so much noise, and some jurisdictions already legislate for that.
During the firework season, our hospitals work even harder than ever, treating what are too often life-changing injuries. Local authorities do not have the resources to enforce the 11 pm to 7 am legislation, so, in my experience, that aspect of the law is not worth the paper it is written on.
I support restricting the use of fireworks in some way. Scotland allows local councils to designate firework-free zones in areas where fireworks are likely to have a greater impact on animals, the environment and vulnerable people. As has been mentioned, we could have a decibel limit, as is the case in New Zealand, where the sound level has been brought down from 120 dB to 90 dB. We should certainly address who can sell fireworks and in what circumstances. When I was very young, I was working for a community organisation and I was sent to buy the fireworks for the bonfire night display that we were organising. I found the address of the seller—a flat high up in a tower block in Camden, packed from floor to ceiling with boxes and boxes of fireworks. If that is not a justification for licensing sellers, I do not know what is.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for leading this debate.
I begin by thanking the many people from my Cheadle constituency who have signed the petitions, and all those who have contacted me over the last few months about the sale and use of fireworks in our community. Firework displays are incredibly popular in Cheadle. A number of organisations and community groups hold events throughout the year, including around bonfire night and new year, as well as during religious and cultural festivals such as Diwali and Chinese new year. The vast majority of events are held and managed properly, and adhere to all the necessary guidelines and laws. Such events are vital in bringing people together and building community cohesion across Cheadle. That said, many of my residents have contacted me about the other side of firework use, which relates to what is said in the petitions.
The growth in antisocial behaviour across the country has alarmed many of us, and Cheadle is no exception. Cuts over the last decade to local authority and police spending have seen our youth services reduced to below the bare minimum, and on-street policing stretched to breaking point. That has resulted in more and more antisocial behaviour in some areas in my constituency, leaving many of my residents feeling helpless and unsafe. All cases of antisocial behaviour peak and dip in patterns depending on the time of year. Summer months, for example, can be terrible as the lighter evenings lead to more young people staying outside with little to do, while the period just before Christmas, when firework sales are up, is another period of peak activity.
I want to make the important point that this is not a demonisation of young people. For 10 years, central and, in some cases, local government have let our young people down. We have seen young people’s services systematically decimated in this country to the point where they can hardly be called services any more. Youth centres are now a thing of the past; after-school clubs and services are regularly cut as schools manage even tighter budgets; and as the cost of living crisis grows, sports clubs and other activities have become too costly for many families living in my area. All in all, many young people in my constituency have been given a raw deal and are left with literally nothing to do.
Without the appropriate structures and guidance around them, a small minority of young people will find less productive ways to fill their time. That leads to the issues faced today by some of my residents, such as Stephanie, who on her way back home one evening was set upon by a group who threw a firework at her. Stephanie was incredibly lucky; she is disabled and the firework missed her by just a few inches—she told me that she could feel the heat of the rocket go past her head.
I have also been contacted by Di, who has been forced to provide what she calls a cocktail of drugs to her dog throughout October and November due to the incessant noise and flashes from fireworks being set off in her street. Her dog is terrified and can be calmed only through sedation. It puts so much strain on Di and has caused her huge amounts of stress and anxiety. As well as by Stephanie and Di, I have been contacted by residents who suffer from PTSD, some of whom are veterans. Fireworks cause huge amounts of mental stress for those people, further impacting their mental health and quality of life.
What can we do? For me, enforcement is the issue here. The current law puts much emphasis on councils ensuring that fireworks are being sold correctly and legally, and it is the responsibility of local councils and the police to ensure that any breaking of the law is tackled and punished appropriately. But in a world where councils are being forced to cut more and more services and police chiefs are writing to the Chancellor to say that they cannot fund the officers they currently have, is it any wonder that our constituents feel that not enough is being done? It is clear that the solution to tackling this issue lies with our local authorities and giving them the tools to crack down on shops and businesses that are selling fireworks illegally.
We need to ensure that the police have the resources to tackle antisocial behaviour when it peaks, such as during fireworks season, and that those crimes are put through the system as efficiently as possible so that effective punishments are delivered and those impacted are given the justice they deserve. We have to be able to provide that level of service when tackling antisocial behaviour. Otherwise, any new laws or guidance the Government produce will be as ineffective as the laws we currently have. Parallel to that, we need a statutory youth service that provides for, guides and helps young people to reach their full potential.
Finally, there are two things raised in the petition that I would be interested in further discussing. First, the regulation of quieter fireworks for private use makes complete sense to me; I would be very supportive of that. Secondly, providing local authorities with the power to declare firework-free zones may be a useful tool in tackling nuisance hotspots. While police and council resources are stretched, that could help to concentrate efforts in particular areas. However, it should not be used as a way to escape the fact that more funding is required for our emergency services and local authorities.
I thank my residents for contacting me about this issue and would like to say to them that I understand how troubled and worried they are by what is happening in their communities. I will do all I can to push the Government to ensure that the police and Stockport council have the resources needed to tackle this issue.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening the debate on this important petition. Fireworks have many positives, and we have heard a number of them already. Many of our earliest memories are related to the times that we come together: our first sparkler in the garden with friends and family; bringing in the new year with loved ones; and important cultural and religious events, which are often times for unity and for the community to come together. It is important that we do not lose sight of the positive role that fireworks can play in our society.
But as we have heard painfully often today, there are often serious consequences from firework misuse. For many, fireworks season is a time not of joy, but of fear and dread each year. Like many other hon. Members, I have heard from many people in my constituency who are concerned about the impact of fireworks on animals, loved ones, vulnerable people and veterans in our community. These are very serious and legitimate concerns, and I am pleased that we have the time here in Westminster Hall today to consider them fully. The strong interest in this issue demonstrated by Members shows how seriously we are taking it.
The current regulatory framework was designed to support people to enjoy fireworks while reducing the risks, dangers and disruption to pets, property and people. There is an open question about whether the existing firework regulations strike the right balance between enjoyment of fireworks and their negative effects, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to engage with businesses, consumer groups and charities to gather evidence on the issues with and impacts of fireworks; that has recently been outlined in a number of Government responses to parliamentary questions. I hope that commitment will lead to a more formal review of the fireworks policy and legislative framework to see whether it is still fit for purpose. As we have heard today, given the growth in online sales and in the size and decibel limit of firework use domestically, it seems the right time for a full review of regulations.
That said, regulations are an effective tool only if they are properly enforced. I have heard from many of my constituents that the existing rules on fireworks are already broken without consequence or punishment. It strikes me that although it is easy to regulate the fireworks sold in shops or online, it is much harder to enforce regulations once fireworks have been bought. I hope that, in the future, as well as changing regulations we give full and due consideration to how that issue can also be addressed, to ensure that enforcement can be fully self-funding through tougher fines for those breaching regulations.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I held a public meeting in my constituency of Rother Valley and we discussed a lot of the regulations that my hon. Friend and others have mentioned in this debate. However, does he agree that we can do more as a community? Perhaps in local villages such as Harthill, Kiveton Park, Dinnington and Maltby in my constituency, we could set aside weekends where we encourage people to enjoy fireworks, but the rest of the month could be set aside for those who perhaps do not enjoy fireworks.
Danny Beales
It is almost as if my hon. Friend had a copy of my speech, because I am just about to turn to that point; I might speak to my researcher, in case he has been leaking my emails.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It must be said that the public displays of fireworks that many of us were used to are now often a thing of the past. In any village or town, people used to go to the green on important occasions and there would be a public display of fireworks, often led by the community and the local authority, and often free. Far too often now, those public displays are either not free—indeed, they are often very high-cost for a family—or, as is more common, not taking place at all.
I remember going to the Thames each year with my family, travelling from Uxbridge and South Ruislip to the centre of London to enjoy such displays. Now, they are heavily ticketed and heavily priced, so many people have now turned to having individual private displays in their gardens instead. I hope we will give consideration to my hon. Friend’s point about how we can encourage collective displays that are much better regulated and, as he said, much better communicated to local residents.
To conclude, it is time now for a full and detailed review of the fireworks regulatory framework, considering enforcement as well, so that we can balance the needs of those who have legitimate desires to celebrate, bringing their families and communities together, but also strike the right balance and preventing the significant issues of the misuse and overuse of fireworks.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for bringing this issue to Westminster Hall.
As we have already heard, fireworks can be a very polarising subject. Like many other Members, in the run-up to this debate I have had countless emails from animal lovers in my constituency who want to see certain fireworks banned, and noise limits and other restrictions introduced. However, I have also had briefings from fireworks fans and lovers of our bonfire night traditions who worry about moves to change the law.
Someone who has always understood both sides of that debate is Alan Smith and it is on Alan’s behalf that I speak today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley has said, Alan is the son of my constituent, Josephine Smith. She was a beautiful 88-year-old lady from Harold Wood, who lost her life in a house fire after a lit firework was stuffed through her letterbox in October 2021. Alan is in the Gallery today and I am very grateful to him for his courage in highlighting an issue that has caused him and his family such pain and trauma.
Alan recently came to Parliament to speak to me, and I know that he has also spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley. He described the role that Guy Fawkes night always played in his happy family when he was growing up; it was one of the few times in the year when everybody got together. Each year his dad, Derek, would go to the shop to buy a little display box, a pack of sparklers and maybe a pack of rockets, as happens in many families; Josephine would make the jacket potatoes; their two ponies were put in their stables and the cattle put in another field; and the dog would go into the house, with the radio on. When raising his own family, Alan always had a fireworks display in the garden, or they attended a local organised display. His experience was like that of countless of our constituents.
However, on 28 October 2021, those happy memories and traditions were upended. Around 9 o’clock, he was woken by his wife, Lisa, with the words he still hears every day: “Al, your mum’s house is on fire.” When he rushed to Josephine’s home, he recalls, he saw emergency services outside the building, and then saw his mother’s body being brought, lifeless, in a fireman’s arms. The scene, he says, was like a horror movie. A fire officer later came over to say that they found a firework just inside the door.
Early the next morning, the family were told that arrests had been made: an 18-year-old and 15-year-old had deliberately put a firework through Josephine’s door. They were later charged with arson and manslaughter. During the trial at the Old Bailey, CCTV of the night in question was shown. It showed teenagers laughing and joking with the salesperson. I have seen the CCTV with Alan, and it is very worrying. The conversation from the two youths included the following: “People are going to get terrorised tonight,” and “We are going to throw them at the police.” The person manning the shop goes on to say, “You can hold them, throw them, do what you like with them.” Alan’s entire family were distraught. Two stupid boys had been sold fireworks by a man apparently with years of experience in selling them, and full knowledge of the boys’ intentions. Both those young people are now serving custodial sentences.
A further trial had to take place for the shop owner and sales assistant. As Alan says:
“The two youths were stupid, irresponsible thugs who had not had the best of childhoods and were not even thinking when they caused havoc in our lives that night.”
In contrast, the retailer
“was a grown man with years of experience in selling fireworks, yet still decided to sell them to a minor who had stated his intentions to ‘terrorise’.”
Fireworks4Sale, the shop involved, was fined in the region of £17,000. The seller himself was fined £1,200 and received a six-week sentence, which was suspended for 12 months. The actions of the shop that night made Alan question whether the laws and regulations for the sale of fireworks are robust enough. That brings me here today to debate the petition that Alan started, from his grief and desire not to see future tragedies like that which led to the loss of his beautiful mother.
The debate around the use of fireworks creates a great deal of division, but despite the tragedy Alan can still see both sides of the argument. He says:
“Arguing and insulting each other is not the way to a sensible and mutually agreeable solution to the problem.”
He asks for
“a sensible, respectful debate, so those that wish to enjoy fireworks on the few important days of the year can do so. And in turn, those who have pets, PTSD, mental health issues etc only have to manage their situation on a handful of dates a year.”
The fireworks used to take Josephine’s life were bought on a whim on a local high street. Alan asks whether a more robust licence requirement might have prevented her death.
The Minister has kindly agreed to meet me and Alan in the new year. Before then, I want to ask some brief questions on Alan’s behalf. First, fireworks can currently be used from 7 am to 11 pm, 365 days a year; would a 4 pm to 10 pm window be more acceptable? Secondly, the safe distance from F2 fireworks is 8 metres, and the safe distance from F3 fireworks is 25 metres; given that the vast majority of UK gardens do not meet that minimum size, is it safe to use them in private gardens? Thirdly, fireworks can be bought easily on the high street—it was an impulse that resulted in Josephine’s death—so do regulations around high street sale need to change? Fourthly, even when fireworks are set off legally at organised displays, organisers often do not take into account the surroundings, so should there be safe buffer zones around such displays?
Many debates have taken place over the years, and the response is often that the industry is already heavily regulated and that the regulations are adequate. I therefore ask on Alan’s behalf, and on behalf of everybody whose constituents are affected by this: is now the time to look at the issue much more deeply, so that future tragedies, like that which affected Josephine, do not happen?
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I pay tribute to Alan and his family, whose horrific story we have just heard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.
We are a nation of animal lovers, and it is deeply upsetting to hear stories about pets and wild animals being distressed by fireworks, but equally this issue affects people with PTSD and children with SEND. A growing number of constituents from across Bexleyheath and Crayford have written to me about this issue and the problems with the regulations. I was a councillor when the regulations were introduced 20 years ago; there was improvement at the time, but there clearly continue to be issues today.
Under the current legislation, members of the public are not required to have any form of licence or training to let off consumer fireworks. Public displays are controlled and must take place during set times, but private displays can go on well into the night. A recent study by the RSPCA found that as many as 14 million Britons plan to have a private display each year. Dog owners report that dogs are scared of fireworks and exhibit the five signs of stress. Pet owners say they have no choice but to try to manage their pets, as the fireworks remain out of their control and they cannot remove the triggers.
The regulations state that fireworks can be set off past 11 pm on four nights of the year, when the cut-off is extended to 1 am. Under the current rules, it is impossible to predict when fireworks may go off, especially around that time of the year. In my area of south-east London, fireworks are a nightly occurrence for a month or two in the autumn, and they continue into the early hours.
I welcome the private Member’s Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) has introduced, and her asks of the Minister. I hope the Minister will outline plans for stricter enforcement of the sale of fireworks and to give more powers to local authorities such as the London borough of Bexley to stop disturbances. I also hope he will address the asks in my hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward.
Like many other Members, I have been calling for tougher action on the misuse of fireworks for many years, because this issue is of great concern to many of constituents in Bradford East. Across our community, the inconsiderate and antisocial use of fireworks by a small minority is causing misery—as others emphasised, it is a small minority, as many people use fireworks considerately. As we have heard, families have been kept awake at night, residents are disturbed during the day, and vulnerable groups, such as children with sensory sensitivities and the elderly, have been disproportionately affected.
I have written to Ministers on a number of occasions over the past decade to call for stronger licensing powers, a reduction in noise levels and restrictions on the sale of fireworks, yet they have failed to act. Time and again, they have insisted that the existing laws are sufficient, but that response ignores the reality on the ground. The question we must ask is: if the powers are adequate, why do so many of our communities feel that their concerns are being ignored? Why are so many residents, councils and charities calling for change? Let me be clear: I am not calling for a complete ban on fireworks. Alongside my constituents, I am calling for a sensible and balanced approach to regulation that ensures fireworks can be enjoyed safely without causing undue harm and distress.
Firework misuse is not unique to Bradford, although the impact on our city is clearly felt. Residents have shared their harrowing experiences. Meanwhile, Ban the Menace Fireworks, a local initiative, is supported by 30,000 signatures, and the number continues to rise. That highlights the devastating impact of late-night fireworks on the public. Quite rightly, animal welfare organisations including the RSPCA and Dogs Trust have made it clear that the distress caused to pets, livestock and wildlife is unacceptable. Those charities have called for clear, achievable reforms. It is clear that the current legislation is outdated, not working, and insufficient.
Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituent Hayley from Adel, who is woken at 3 o’clock in the morning, that we have to address this antisocial behaviour? As he says, the current legislation is not working. A reduction in the decibel limit would not diminish the joy; in fact, it could increase the joy, because it could increase accessibility for people to attend fireworks displays. It would diminish the terrible impacts we have heard about today, from Roxie to the tragic story of those in the Public Gallery.
Imran Hussain
My hon. Friend is right. Those who use fireworks responsibly would be little concerned about a reduction in the noise level. It is a sensible call that many people, including my constituents, charity groups and others, have been making for many years now.
While the current laws restrict the hours during which fireworks can be set off and impose age restrictions, they do little to prevent the antisocial behaviour that we see in our communities. Much of the misery is caused by antisocial behaviour. Our local authorities and police forces, including my own Bradford council and West Yorkshire police, have repeatedly stated that their hands are tied by inadequate laws and a lack of resources. Despite the challenges, I take this opportunity to commend Bradford council for its proactive approach in working with venues and other parties to reduce the antisocial use of fireworks, and in calling for stricter laws on noise levels and sales.
I feel that any criticism of local authorities is not warranted, because the reality is that if they had the extra powers they have been requesting for many years—certainly during my time in Parliament—they would deal with the issue differently. We must not forget that over the last decade trading standards and our police force have had their resources massively reduced, which impacts enforcement. I consistently argue that councils need more powers to tackle the issue effectively.
In recent years, we have heard about the issue from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), who previously introduced a Bill on the subject. Today, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) is doing fantastic work in this area, and she has my full support. The measures they have brought to Parliament are backed by many public petitions signed by thousands in all our constituencies. That is why I urge the Government to take immediate steps. This is not a call to end fireworks—that is certainly not my call, which I hope is supported by others. Fireworks can and should be a source of joy, community and celebration, but their misuse is causing distress, harm and destruction to too many people.
It is time for the Government to listen to our communities, empower councils and put in place sensible, enforceable regulations that balance enjoyment with responsibility. The Minister and I have worked together for many years and I know he understands this. I therefore urge him to address four points in particular today: stronger licensing and enforcement powers, the reduction of noise levels, restrictions on the sale of fireworks, and giving further enforcement powers not just to local authorities but to trading standards and other enforcement bodies, to allow us to move forward.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening this important debate on the sale and misuse of fireworks.
Like many people young and old, I enjoy the magic of fireworks lighting up the night sky, bringing joy and wonder, and as a former chemistry teacher I cannot help but become immersed in the science of fireworks—the science of the colours and of each and every precisely timed explosion. However, my enthusiasm is tempered by my awareness of the darker side of fireworks when they are misused. I know, at first hand, of the devastation that can unfold when fireworks fall into the wrong hands. They are not toys: they are powerful explosives with the potential to cause life-changing injuries and even death. I share my condolences with the family and loved ones of Josephine, the emergency workers and all affected by that tragedy. When misused, fireworks will endanger lives and put communities at risk.
I am a mom to Bruce, a 14-year-old pet Labrador. As a gun dog Bruce is, ironically, petrified of fireworks, and there is very little I can do to reassure him when he is left trembling and distressed. Many of my constituents in Wolverhampton North East have shared similar stories about their pets, from terrified cats hiding under furniture to horses panicking and injuring themselves and others.
Animals are not the only ones that are petrified. There are so many people living with PTSD, particularly veterans, and fireworks are a source of profound distress. Combat Stress reports a surge in calls for support during this season, as the bangs and flashes of fireworks can mimic the sounds of frontline combat. These triggers can leave veterans grappling with flashbacks and overwhelming anxiety.
Children are also at risk. More than 550 children were taken to A&E around bonfire night in 2021, with most injuries occurring at private displays and many suffering life-changing burns to their hands, faces or eyes. Those scars, both physical and emotional, can last a lifetime.
The current legislation is simply not enough. Fireworks can be purchased online with relative ease and used daily—365 days a year—with limited restrictions. That easy access undermines our ability to protect the most vulnerable. To address this, I would welcome further debate on a series of changes, including further restricting sales to licensed shops; restricting firework use to specific celebrations, such as Guy Fawkes night, new year’s eve and Diwali, to mention a few; reducing maximum noise levels to 90 dB to minimise distress for animals and those who are sensitive to sound; enforcing more robust and stricter checks by retailers, including mandatory age verification; and increasing price thresholds to discourage reckless use.
Public support for better legislation is overwhelming. In just the last few months more than 60 Wolverhampton North East residents have raised concerns with me personally. A recent RSPCA survey found that 91% of respondents support quieter alternatives, and a significant majority believe they would be just as enjoyable as traditional fireworks.
Fireworks can bring communities, families and friends together at a time of joy and celebration, but for too many they bring fear, trauma and harm. I urge the Government to review the current legislation and take action to protect our communities, our animals and those who are vulnerable. With that, we can ensure that fireworks are used responsibly, bringing joy, not distress, to all.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this debate, which has a specific resonance in my constituency. When Edinburgh Zoo told me what happened to the baby red panda whose birth we had all welcomed and celebrated just a few days before, my stomach dropped. It was heartbreaking. What terror she must have felt alone in the dark, bombarded by loud noises she could not have understood and with no comfort. We later learned that her mother had also died probably as a result of stress caused by fireworks.
I thought about other animals, not just in Edinburgh Zoo but across the country. My dog had paced the floor barking, running in from the garden terrified when the first of what seemed like hundreds of fireworks began going off. Worse, I thought about the accident and emergency departments that would deal with burns. I thought about instances like the heartbreaking story of Josephine. I pay tribute to her family and thank them for allowing her story to be shared here today.
I, too, am reluctant to ban fireworks, partly because I loved bonfire night as a child. When we were parents of young children, our group of friends loved the annual firework display, with hot drinks and snacks organised by the school. Hogmanay for me is defined by the awe-inspiring firework displays from Sydney to New York to mark their respective midnights, and Edinburgh is of course always a highlight.
I have always believed that the availability of fireworks for those spectacular organised public displays was part of a valuable expression of celebration, but now I am not so sure. That is why I welcome the private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). We need to somehow limit noise levels, especially of fireworks sold to the public, so perhaps the time has come to question our attitude to fireworks, if not through legislation. We need to think about how we prevent celebrations descending into antisocial nuisance. Many people agree that something should be done—they signed the petitions, after all—so it is time we listened.
We know from official figures that around 2,000 people visit accident and emergency departments with firework-related injuries every year, many of them severe burns that require long-term treatment. Sadly Roxie, the red panda cub, is not the only animal casualty. The Kennel Club says that around 80% of dog owners notice their pets shivering, barking excessively, hiding, howling and crying as a result of stress caused by fireworks. The British Veterinary Association says that some animals suffer such terror that they have to be put down.
It may seem unusual that the death of one baby red panda in a zoo should cause such outrage, but perhaps it is the irony of an endangered species being legally protected across Asia, carefully looked after and bred by one of the world’s respected zoological societies and yet utterly defenceless against noisy fireworks, or perhaps it is the innocence of a tiny orphaned creature that tugs at our heartstrings. Whatever the reason, it is time that the UK Government paid attention to the people who have signed this petition to say that we must find a way of preventing the damage that is done every year.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Like the hon. Lady, I have had multiple complaints from constituents who are concerned about the impact of fireworks on the most vulnerable, children and pets. That particularly applies to fireworks being set off by people in their gardens or illegally in public places. According to recent research, Slough has 18 firework-related events, displays or shops per 10 square miles, which is the highest number of any UK town. Does the hon. Lady agree that centrally-held events are often safer and more considerate, and limit the environmental impact on our local areas?
Christine Jardine
I agree that that is often the case, but it still leaves the problem of noise, which is central.
In Scotland we have an unusual situation: the use of fireworks is devolved, but the regulation of the sale of fireworks is reserved, so local authorities such as Edinburgh have brought in trial control zones. Edinburgh Zoo welcomed that, but suggested that silent or at least quieter fireworks might be the solution; others want an outright ban or specially controlled areas. As I say, Edinburgh introduced such areas this year, but unfortunately it could not select the area around Edinburgh Zoo in my constituency. Whatever the solution, we have to find it quickly or accept that fireworks and firework displays will be consigned to the past because they are too noisy, stressful for animals and dangerous for people.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for presenting this debate on restricting the public sale of fireworks. It has strong public support, including in my constituency of Glasgow South West. I am delighted to support my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) and her private Member’s Bill to ban the sale of the loudest fireworks and to ensure that fireworks are purchased only from licensed premises. If the Bill is passed, the public sale of fireworks would be restricted all over Britain, including in Scotland.
I will share some of the adverse experiences that have taken place in Glasgow South West. For many years, Pollokshields in my constituency has suffered the impact of over-the-counter fireworks on bonfire night and the weeks around it. I saw the disasters that resulted from fireworks when I worked as a junior doctor many years ago in my local A&E—not only burns, but penetrating injuries from the increasingly high velocity of more sophisticated fireworks. This year, the situation in Pollokshields could have been helped by the introduction of a local byelaw using a firework control zone. Devastatingly, the paperwork was put in too late by Glasgow city council and it did not come to fruition.
Instead, in the weeks around 5 November, Pollokshields residents—my constituents—were subjected to loud, intrusive fireworks being set off on roads and pavements, from inside cars, and everywhere in between. On bonfire night itself, there were fires on roundabouts and disturbances into the early morning of 6 November, with even the police fearing for their safety. That was not an abstract fear because, in the previous year, 40 police officers across Glasgow were injured in firework-related incidents.
In Pollokshields the morning after, shrapnel was left in and around parks and gardens, risking injury to children, and the remnants of fires could still be seen down the main promenade of Albert Drive. Despite the criminality on their doorstep, community council members led by chair Ameen Mohammed, and local schools and residents, engaged in a massive clean-up operation to bring back dignity to the streets that were once their own.
I also held an emergency public meeting where community members engaged with the police and councillors in an attempt to reconcile themselves to what had taken place and to raise concerns. As a result, the police spent precious resources scouring hours of CCTV to make arrests and send a strong signal that criminality will not be tolerated in our community. IGlasgow South West is probably the most culturally diverse community in Scotland, where fireworks are often used in festivals and religious celebrations. I personally know the significance of such celebrations, which should of course be facilitated, but it is time to accept that there need to be controls on general sales so that they are curtailed for the common good.
Over and above the impact of fireworks on pets, children and the vulnerable, I note that when my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) asked on 30 October whether an impact assessment had been done on the effect of the noise of fireworks on the mental health of veterans, the answer was that there had not. At a time when our mental health services are stretched beyond recognition, we must be cognisant that veterans can often suffer from PTSD, as has been mentioned, and other mental health issues for which fireworks are a recognised trigger.
Directing fireworks to controlled settings has many benefits beyond safety. They can become a focus for community cohesion and a stimulus for small businesses to diversify into servicing those events. Moving forward, I hope to work constructively on the Fireworks Bill with Members from all parties, because it is clear from these petitions that modern society demands that this issue needs to be sorted.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening this important debate. I, too, pay tribute to Josephine’s family.
Fireworks have been part of our celebrations and traditions for years. Whether at a public display or a family gathering with sparklers and sausages, they can bring joy and excitement. However, for some people, including hundreds in my constituency of Eastleigh, fireworks are more than just a spectacle—they are a source of profound distress. As we have heard, those living with PTSD, dementia or other mental health challenges can find the unexpected bangs and flashes deeply disorientating and distressing. For shift workers, including our NHS staff, and for families with young children, the sudden noises can be incredibly disturbing.
Of course, it is not just human beings who are affected. As I know from my personal experience of having a much-missed rescue dog who was petrified every November and new year’s eve, fireworks can be terrifying for our four-legged friends. Research by the Blue Cross tells us that 70% of pets are affected by fireworks, with many trembling in fear, hiding for hours or even becoming physically ill. Horses startled by fireworks have been known to suffer injuries. Sadly, there have even been cases of animals losing their life as a result of stress caused by fireworks.
We need to strike a balance. Public firework displays provide a structured and predictable environment, minimising unexpected noise and allowing people to prepare. However, private fireworks, when used carelessly and at unexpected times of the year or in instances of antisocial behaviour, can amplify the distress for both people and animals. That is where our collective responsibility comes in.
What steps are the Government taking to address the concerns of people living with PTSD, dementia or other vulnerabilities, who are disproportionately affected by fireworks? I support calls to reduce the noise limits for F2 and F3 fireworks to 90 dB, and to enhance the legislation governing the use and sale of fireworks. Will the Minister consider setting stricter noise limits for fireworks sold for private use to ensure that they are safer and more inclusive for people and animals?
Finally, I echo the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison). Ultimately, it is our emergency services, our NHS, our vets and our animal rescue centres that have to pick up the pieces. A proper review of the fireworks legislation is long overdue.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing the debate.
In the days running up to 5 November this year, I met by chance at an event in Edinburgh an off-duty police officer who lives in my constituency, and he explained to me that he had been injured on Guy Fawkes night in 2023 and had still not made a full recovery. He was just one of 62 police officers injured after being targeted with fireworks and other projectiles as part of a significant outbreak of antisocial behaviour around Guy Fawkes night that year. I stress “other projectiles” because it is not just fireworks, but fireworks are a catalyst for antisocial behaviour and they are also, obviously, extremely dangerous. I talk about “antisocial behaviour”, but we all know that that is just a euphemism; it is outright lawlessness that we are confronted with at times in Edinburgh in relation to fireworks.
[David Mundell in the Chair]
In the days running up to Guy Fawkes night—I keep wanting to call it Guy Fireworks night—this year, I met with two community police officers to support a local shopkeeper who was concerned about shoplifting. Both were set to be on duty on 5 November, and both had been through so-called public order training. I had to wish them both good luck. It is shameful that we know such violence is coming on 5 November, but all we can really do as MPs is wish the police officers good luck. We should be empowering them and also protecting them.
When the night came in Edinburgh South West, we saw disorder in Sighthill, Oxgangs, Calder Road and Broomview. Thankfully, we only saw one injury, which was to a female police officer. Nevertheless, the police were clear:
“The levels of violence and aggression police officers, fire service and ambulance service personnel faced in some areas was wholly unacceptable”.
They said that residents were left
“terrified as serious disorder took place in their communities and vital bus services that allow safe travel across our city were violently attacked”.
I know that Members will not know Edinburgh well, but I will list the bus services affected just to give the scale of what happened. They included Lothian Buses services 2, 12, 14, 21, 30, 46, 48 and 400. There are many jobs where people’s partners worry about them when they go to work, but driving a bus should not be one of them. We really have to take steps to tackle that.
The police are still hunting down those responsible, and so far several houses have been searched under warrant and several vehicles seized. There have been 27 people arrested in Edinburgh and they have been charged with 64 offences. The police showed me a huge stash of fireworks that they took out of one car on 5 November. The driver had set himself up as a mobile fireworks delivery service, and he was cautioned and charged accordingly. I do not understand how one person was able to buy that volume of fireworks.
My office is engaging with communities impacted by the disorder to ask what they think needs to change. There is fantastic community partnership work going on to try to tackle the causes of antisocial behaviour of all types, but people are saying that, where fireworks are concerned, we have to do more to tackle both their supply and their use. We already have a mix of dispersal zones and firework control zones across Scotland, particularly in Edinburgh, to try to control the problem.
Firework control zones are designed to reduce the negative effects of fireworks on the environment and vulnerable groups, as well as to support animal welfare. They essentially make it illegal to set off fireworks, including within private property. However, imagine the job of the police in trying to identify who is letting a firework off in their back garden. How are they supposed to enforce that? Israel’s Iron Dome comes to mind, but perhaps it is not applicable in that setting. The Scottish Government said that the control zones were
“a key milestone in the journey towards a cultural change in Scotland’s relationship with fireworks.”
This is not a criticism, because the legislation is well intentioned, but so far there is little evidence that it is having an impact. A senior police officer told me that the orders were “mildly preventative at best.”
John Lamont
The hon. Member is making an excellent point, but does he agree that, in Scotland, the issue is about resources as well? The local authorities and police authorities of Scotland just do not have the resources to police this. He is making the point that the legislation and rules are there, but, if he reads some of their responses, he will see that the police are concerned about their ability to enforce them effectively. It comes down to the money from the Scottish Government for the police and local authorities.
Dr Arthur
I support the police, both north and south of the border, having more resources. I am one of those people who is quite happy to pose next to the police at a community event and share those pictures on my Facebook page, but the price I pay for that is to support them in their calls. What resources do they need to deal with fireworks? Do they need helicopters to see where they are being launched from? We need to tackle the import and sale of these devices, and we have to be honest about that.
The police officer was clear with me that more could be done to restrict the import and sale of fireworks, which was the point I just made, and I think we have to listen to the police on this issue. The chaos in my constituency and what I hear from police officers is why I am here today. We have known that fireworks are dangerous all my life. I can remember warnings on “Blue Peter”, when we used to get told to keep our fireworks in metal biscuit tins—remember those dangerous days? We knew back then about the impact of fireworks on animals too. At this point, I have to mention my cat, Millie—other people have mentioned dogs, but there have been no cats yet. Since then, fireworks have only got bigger and their misuse has become an increasingly significant driver of antisocial behaviour.
The British Fireworks Association wrote to me—I am sure it wrote to others—to say that fireworks-related injuries account for less than 0.03% of all A&E attendances.
Ruth Cadbury
I, too, read the briefing from the British Fireworks Association, and what concerned me was that it seemed to underemphasise the damage being caused by providing the tiny percentage of people who are injured. Does my hon. Friend agree that that ignores the fear, terror and trauma of animals and people, which Members across the Chamber have been addressing in this good debate?
Dr Arthur
Absolutely. We cannot reduce the issue to numbers; it is about the human impact. There are 25 million attendances at A&E every year, so that figure of 0.03% is 7,500 people. That is incredible. The British Fireworks Association has a list of actions that it thinks the Government could pursue, and we should engage on that. These are difficult times for Government finances, so why not fund some of those measures via a levy on firework sales?
I apologise to Alan Smith for talking about this, but a video was shared locally of a firework being put through someone’s letterbox that could have started a fire in that house. I checked the data, and between 2010 and 2023 there were 291 non-fatal firework-related casualties due to fires, and seven fatalities. Earlier, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) compared that number with the number of injuries resulting from cows. We are discussing fireworks, not cows. It is time to act and place tighter controls on the sale and import of fireworks. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for presenting this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I also thank the 285 Gloucester residents who signed the petitions, and the scores more who have emailed me about the issue. Fireworks are a hallmark of celebrations in my constituency and around the world. From Eid, Chinese new year and Diwali, to bonfire night and new year’s eve, for many they symbolise moments of unity, happiness and cultural expression. However, I understand that for many others, the sight and sound of fireworks is not so warmly received.
Like many Members in the Chamber, I have received dozens of emails from constituents expressing their concerns about the use of fireworks. Some have written to me to highlight the risks they pose to the wellbeing and safety of pets and wild animals. Others have expressed concern about the effects that they may have on those with PTSD or respiratory conditions, and on people with autism and Down’s syndrome, who may be more sensitive to loud noises. Additionally, many of my constituents have raised concerns regarding the use of fireworks to commit crime. I share all of those concerns, and I am not alone in that, as demonstrated by today’s debate.
From the several public petitions that I have seen, I know that the concerns that I hear in Gloucester are echoed across the country. The issue is not confined to my constituency, but resonates nationwide. Sadly, in Gloucester there have been a number of crimes involving the use of fireworks, including fireworks being posted through letterboxes and set off in people’s front gardens. That is incredibly dangerous, as the cases of those present in the Public Gallery show us. We need to tackle that surge in antisocial behaviour, and I am pleased that the Government have set out their commitment to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour in all our communities.
I am also concerned about the pressure we place on our emergency services. Last year on bonfire night weekend, people sought advice on burn injuries from the NHS every 21 seconds. The fire service is under immense pressure too, responding to frequent call-outs regarding fireworks. That is particularly concerning, as we lost almost a fifth of the fire service workforce under the last Government, further exacerbating the strain.
I am saddened to hear of the effects fireworks have on our wildlife and pets, which suffer as a result. As a father of a rather sleepless one-year-old, I also highlight the struggle of parents with young children who just want a few peaceful hours of sleep. We must find a balance one that allows people to enjoy fireworks while ensuring that their enjoyment does not negatively impact others.
We need thoughtful and considerate legislation and we as individuals must be mindful of the impact of our actions on those around us. It is clear from the debate that the current regulations and enforcement do not work. I am particularly persuaded by the articulate arguments made by hon. Members from across the House for lowering the decibel limit to 90 dB, in accordance with international comparators.
I am pleased that the Government will work with businesses and charities to inform any future fireworks policy. We must ensure that legislation on the use and sale of fireworks keeps the public safe, prevents the misuse of fireworks and protects our pets and wildlife.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
Fireworks are used all over the world as a way of celebrating different events, and they bring enjoyment to many. However, fireworks now continue throughout the winter season; they are not set off just on bonfire night, Diwali, new year and Chinese new year. Fireworks can cause significant injury and fear to people and animals, and their increased use makes it difficult to predict and prepare. Almost 200 of my constituents have signed the two petitions we are debating, and I know that many more share their sentiment.
Last week, I met up with former Stourbridge councillor Karen Shakespeare, who has campaigned tirelessly over 15 years for a change in the law on fireworks. Her dog Henry is petrified of fireworks; a single bang sends him into a panic and he cannot be soothed for many hours afterwards. Karen has previously submitted motions to Dudley council calling for a change to regulations on local displays and lobbied the office responsible for public protection along with the RSPCA. In Dudley borough, the main fireworks display takes place at Himley Hall, a site surrounded by farmland and woodland, with additional local displays happening at various sports grounds. Karen and I would like to see a move towards alternative displays, such as drone displays, which would eliminate noise and environmental impact while offering a high-quality display that could increase attendance and profit for the event.
George the Stourbridge station cat told me that during fireworks season he is not allowed out on “pawtrol” in case he gets startled. His colleague Simone’s greyhound gets distressed to the point of refusing to eat and shaking and panting for hours. Ahead of this debate, I reached out to several local animal rescues, including CatsMatter, Stour Valley Cat Rescue and Stourbridge RSPCA, which all told me that their animals can become traumatised by fireworks. They all spoke of making preparations well ahead of 5 November due to random fireworks being set off weeks before and after that date. All the rescues make efforts to drown out the noise by closing curtains and leaving a radio or television on, but it is difficult to negate all the noise as fireworks can go off at all times of the day. There is constant worry about the potential for major stress and heart attacks, especially for rabbits and other small mammals. Horses, farm livestock, wildlife and birds die every year because of fireworks set off for our enjoyment.
One rescue told me about Coco the cat, who developed feline idiopathic cystitis as a direct result of fireworks. FIC is an inflammation of the bladder caused by stress and is extremely painful for cats. There is no cure, only management of the condition and measures to make the animal less stressed. It can take weeks for a flare-up to settle down, and Coco struggles to go to the toilet. It is visibly painful for her and she cries out to her owner. The vet prescribes pain relief, but the unpredictable use of fireworks makes them difficult to avoid. I have also heard reports of foxes running into roads in front of cars, birds falling out of trees and even badgers falling off walls in a bid to rush for safety.
The charity Guide Dogs says that around a quarter of guide dog owners report their animals showing signs of distress when they see or hear fireworks. The organisation works hard to socialise the dogs and expose them to firework noise using recordings, but even so, some dogs take longer to recover from unexpected loud sounds, which can restrict the activities of guide dog owners during the fireworks season.
As well as the clear impact on animals, there is a significant effect on the NHS, which has to deal with firework-related injuries. During my NHS career I saw many life-changing injuries, often in young people, caused by irresponsible use of fireworks. Those injuries ranged from minor burns to loss of fingers, limbs and sight. In 2024, how can we think it is okay to sell explosives at the local shop? It simply does not make sense.
The Scottish Government have introduced tighter regulation around the sale of fireworks. I believe that any change in the law in England and Wales should build on the Scottish example and aim to go further. The Petitions Committee carried out an extensive inquiry into fireworks in 2019, and concluded that it could not support an outright ban on the public use and buying of fireworks, but it stated:
“Inconsiderate and irresponsible use of fireworks should be considered as socially unacceptable as drink driving.”
The petitions call for users of fireworks in the UK to be required to obtain a licence, with the aims of reducing public noise and nuisance, preventing crime and disorder, improving public safety, and protecting people and animals from harm. A licensing system would allow sales to continue without affecting the industry, and would eliminate concerns about black market sales. The introduction of licences would increase public education about firework safety and prevent impulse buying.
I fully support the recommendations put forward by the RSPCA and the Social Market Foundation, and the licensing proposals put forward by the Firework Campaign UK, which include reducing the maximum decibel level, limiting the sale of category F1 and F2 fireworks, and designating firework-free zones in areas where fireworks are likely to have a greater impact on animals, the environment and vulnerable people. Local authorities have a unique opportunity to showcase alternatives, such as drone displays, light shows and quieter fireworks, and can lead the way by setting an example for others to follow. That would help to increase the popularity of alternatives and encourage suppliers to stock them.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his opening speech, which covered many of the points that I want to make. I also wholeheartedly echo everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) said.
Bonfire night brings great joy to people across the west coast of Scotland. For the most part people use fireworks safely, but they remain a significant problem in Glasgow and the west of Scotland. I recently met a constituent who has worked for many years at Edinburgh zoo, and one of her responsibilities was to look after its red pandas and black and white pandas. She explained to me how the death of the two pandas came about: she said that there is no doubt that the cause was fireworks in Edinburgh. Like her colleagues, she is absolutely heartbroken about what happened to the red pandas.
Fireworks cause misery for people with PTSD, young parents, people with autism, animals and people across Glasgow, so we need to think about how to manage and regulate them. Clearly, in Scotland and across our family of nations, the current situation is not working. Although fireworks bring joy, they also bring misery to many communities.
The SNP council in Glasgow has cancelled the major public displays, particularly in Glasgow Green, and the reason for that has never been fully explained. We need to give people opportunities to see fireworks, and councils cancelling displays without explaining why do not help.
The power to restrict the use of fireworks is, in the main, devolved to the Scottish Government. I regret to say that, although there has been legislative reform, it has not been an unalloyed success. The flagship measure was the introduction of a licensing system, but the Scottish Government say that that has been postponed to at least 2026 due to resourcing issues. Well, this Government have provided £4.9 billion to the Scottish Government, so hopefully they will start to make some progress on introducing that much-needed reform, which will prevent misery from being inflicted on my constituents and others in Glasgow.
The Scottish legislation also included firework control zones, and one was to be introduced in Glasgow, in the constituency neighbouring mine. That was bungled by the SNP council, which simply did not use the correct time period for the notice. As every trainee lawyer knows, it is necessary to count the days for a notice properly if it is to be effective. That basic error has caused misery for my constituents and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West.
There is much hard work by council officials, fire services and the police to deal with fireworks in Glasgow. However, the legislation is not working: it is not being properly implemented. How can it be that in Edinburgh it is not possible to introduce an exclusion zone for fireworks around a zoo, which obviously has many animals? How can it be that we cannot review the introduction of exclusion zones around buildings such as hospitals? Clearly, the legislation is not being properly implemented, is not properly drafted and requires thorough review.
I am actually a big fan of fireworks; I love fireworks. However, my enjoyment of fireworks should not inflict misery on animals and people in my communities in Glasgow East. It is clearly time, in Glasgow, in Scotland and in England and Wales, for us to review how fireworks are regulated. Many good ideas about how to improve the system have been suggested in this debate, and there is much to consider and learn from every contribution to it. However, the current situation is not sustainable and I submit that it is high time that both the Scottish Government and the UK Government looked at this issue again.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I will call Lizzie Collinge and then Patrick Hurley. If there is anyone else who has not been called and wishes to speak, please can they indicate that to me?
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve here in Westminster Hall today under your chairship, and I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing this important debate.
I will speak about the impact of fireworks on my constituents in Morecambe and Lunesdale. I have to declare an interest, as I absolutely love fireworks; I cannot get enough of them. I am also a heavy metal fan, so maybe I just like loud bangs in the dark. [Laughter.]
However, hearing from constituents who are deeply affected by the weeks and weeks of fireworks that we get at certain times of the year has persuaded me that we need to have this debate. Constituents tell me of terrified animals and terrified humans, and they also tell me about the weeks of fireworks surrounding bonfire night and new year’s eve. Because that lasts for weeks and weeks, it gives them no opportunity to plan and to feel safe. My joy in fireworks is their terror.
What specific action needs to be taken is up for debate. The petitioners have asked for a ban on sales of fireworks to the public and there are excellent arguments for that, which have been made here today and through the petitions. Initially, I was instinctively reluctant even to consider a ban on all public sales as a first step, because although fireworks can be deeply harmful, they also bring families and communities together in celebration.
I thought, “Is there an alternative?” Maybe it could be limiting the number of days per year that fireworks are allowed, for example on bonfire night and the nearest Saturday, replicating that across the year for important events such as new year or Diwali. Would enforcing such a system ruthlessly and alongside age verification allow people the freedom to enjoy fireworks but also minimise harm, which is the desired impact? My constituents tell me that if they can plan for the fireworks, it minimises the harm they experience, so the situation would not be so bad.
However, as I wrote this speech, I really thought the issue through. On balance, and having heard the stories of fireworks being used as weapons and the harrowing story of the Smiths, I believe that it is right to examine all options to regulate the sale of fireworks. A change in regulation may also create market incentives to develop more options and cheaper options, such as silent fireworks, drones or laser shows. Those options would allow families to come together to enjoy a show, but they would also protect people and pets from some of the devastating impacts of the misuse of fireworks.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell.
I thank the petitioners and the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for the opportunity of today’s debate on firework regulation, and I also thank the Petitions Committee for its decision to grant the debate.
Like many hon. Members, I love fireworks and I certainly do not think that they should be banned. In my constituency of Southport, we are proud to host the British musical fireworks championship every year in Victoria park. Often a sight to behold, it always features excellent displays, but that is the point: they are displays, they are specialised and regulated. Many technicians are on hand to ensure safety, and specialised explosive technicians set off the displays.
Neither the petitions nor the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) call for a total ban on fireworks. They both celebrate the enjoyment that the majority of people feel from firework displays. However, I am sympathetic to the idea that our current framework does not do enough to protect people and animals, and allows fireworks to be used dangerously and irresponsibly. Look at the current regulations. Allowing unlicensed traders to sell category F2 and F3 fireworks over a month around bonfire night, as well as during new year, Chinese new year and Diwali, is excessive. It means that there are widespread firework displays over an entire month, which disproportionately affects our vulnerable groups in society.
One such group is our veterans, many of whom are suffering from PTSD or other forms of distress from fighting for our country. During the period of remembrance, as it is so close to bonfire night, we put our veterans under further pressure. The charity Combat Stress has recorded a higher rate of distressed veterans accessing its services during the period around bonfire night, due to the whistles, the bangs and all the paraphernalia reminding them of past trauma. I welcome the Government’s support for veterans and attempts to provide more services for veterans’ health through NHS England, but that enhanced distress could be stopped by shifting the balance more in favour of regulating firework sales.
Alongside that, the well documented effects of excessive firework displays on our pets and animals are saddening. Despite us being a nation of animal lovers, according to the Kennel Club, one in five dogs show signs of distress, and Cats Protection reported that in 2024, 64% of cat owners feel that fireworks have negatively impacted their cats.
There is also a serious risk that the current regulations allow the irresponsible use of fireworks. NHS England reported 113 firework-related injuries in 2023-24. Most of those injuries happen at family events and amateur displays, due to the widespread availability of most fireworks. Back in 2020, the chief constable and the chief fire officer for Lancashire, with oversight for part of my constituency, spoke out about introducing regulations similar to those proposed by the petitions, due to police officers having had fireworks launched at them. Our emergency services should be able to go about their lives without fear of being attacked. More recently, police officers had fireworks shot at them in attacks during the riots this summer. One way to clamp down on such extreme attacks on our emergency services would be to reduce the availability of fireworks.
We can minimise the impact on our vulnerable groups in society by supporting some of the regulations suggested in the petitions. We should limit the sale of F2 and F3 fireworks to licensed firework shops only, and encourage those wanting to have displays to be recognised as firework-safe handlers and technicians. Against that backdrop, I welcome the public bringing the issue to Parliament. I also welcome the Fireworks Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North, which would introduce many of the changes we have talked about. I hope that it will get time for debate on the Floor of the Chamber. To conclude, I welcome the Government’s commitment to monitor the situation, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing this important debate. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for ensuring that the sale and use of fireworks receive parliamentary scrutiny. I join colleagues in welcoming those who are in the Public Gallery and those at home who have signed the petitions and are watching us debate this important matter. I add my condolences to Alan and his family on the very distressing story that we heard earlier.
Overall, 161 people in my constituency signed the petition to ban the general sale of fireworks, or at least to limit their sale to licence holders. I take their views very seriously, and not only because my own dog Rhea is absolutely terrified of fireworks, as all gundogs are, at least in my experience. I have to say that my childhood love of fireworks has paled after seeing the fear that she experiences.
I rescued Rhea as a little puppy from Spain and was desperately trying to settle her in. Unfortunately, it was during firework season. While I was trying to move her from a safe space, a neighbour’s firework landed on a tin roof in my garden. My neighbour’s garden was really not big enough for the firework display that they thought they should have. That explosion, and that firework landing on the tin roof, was such a nightmare that Rhea disappeared into the frozen night, not to be found until at lunch time the following day some very kind neighbours, some five miles away, found her on the other side of a river. My story was a lucky one, although she was a much thinner dog, and a constantly terrified dog in the years onwards, so it is perfectly understandable why constituents of mine, the RSPCA and other leading charities are so concerned about the impact of fireworks on all animals.
I thank hon. Members for raising the plight of the baby panda at Edinburgh Zoo, who died from stress related to firework use. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) has highlighted the impact that fireworks have, not just on pets but on our natural environment more broadly. Her reference to the Australian approach was particularly insightful. I hope that the Government will reflect on those suggestions.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) have expressed, fireworks can pose a serious challenge to people with post-traumatic stress disorders, particularly veterans. I know from participating in the armed forces parliamentary scheme and from having met many veterans in my constituency that it is unexpected fireworks that cause particular stress. As the chief executive of Combat Stress, Chloe Mackay, rightly points out, if we give people more notice that fireworks are planned, those with PTSD will be able to use coping mechanisms and prepare in advance.
Although we are not completely convinced that more primary legislation is necessarily the right way to minimise firework disruption, the Liberal Democrats do support existing measures to minimise the disruption that can be the result of firework use. We are also open to a limit to the maximum noise level for fireworks, especially for those that are sold to the public for private displays.
My neighbour the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who is unfortunately no longer in his place, made the good point that prioritising education to the wider public would be a good way to more effectively reduce the damage that fireworks cause in our communities. The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) mentioned that her local council does great work to educate the local public on how firework safety works, particularly on bonfire night.
It is clear from today’s debate that the UK must engage in more in-depth consultation, both with the businesses that sell the fireworks and with people who are affected by the disruption and the danger that fireworks can cause. It is important that we recognise how much more powerful fireworks have become since the days when my father bought boxes of sparklers and rockets. The Liberal Democrats look forward to the Second Reading of the private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). I hope that this debate has generated the attention that the issue rightly deserves.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. What a pleasure it is to be part of this substantial debate. It is the largest petitions debate in which I have ever had the privilege of taking part, and it was opened enormously ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore).
It is clear that this is a matter of great concern across the House, including in my constituency of Arundel and South Downs, where many people, including myself, are great lovers of dogs. We are fortunate to be able to exercise our dogs on the beautiful south downs. There are also many horse owners—my constituency is a big area of equine ownership—so I am familiar with the real challenges created by the deployment of unlicensed explosives over a significant part of the year: it seems that they go off throughout all the autumn months. We also heard about how fireworks are bigger and louder than before. That sounds a bit like the one about policemen getting younger, but I am told that it is objectively the case that fireworks have become bigger and louder.
I congratulate the petitioners, Chloe Brindley and Alan Smith. If Chloe does not mind, I will particularly commend Alan’s bravery in highlighting an issue that has a real personal resonance for him and his family. He has bravely shared his story, and his Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), did it great justice. That is exactly what this debate is all about.
It is clear that, as we have heard from both sides of the Chamber, no action is not the answer. I really hope the Government are listening. Members of my party and others, as well as some of the petitioners, think that although a ban should not be a first resort, it should not be taken off the table as a last resort.
Some of the compliance measures are completely inadequate. We have heard a large menu, to which I invite the Government to respond. I appreciate that it is not always easy to respond at the Dispatch Box, so if we are left a little bit wanting, perhaps the Minister will be so kind as to take the matter away for further consideration. As hon. Members have mentioned, this is not the first time that this House has sought to put in place greater protections.
We heard about the lack of sentences for the improper sale of fireworks; if such sentences had been in place, the tragic death of Alan’s mother might not have happened. We know that our police and blue light forces are under great pressure, but we also know that to govern is to choose. We all have to make choices with limited resources, and it would be good to see this area of criminality targeted.
We heard about a menu of opportunities to tighten up regulations and particularly to restrict the stockpiling of fireworks. Although I am concerned about rushing to a ban that would deny the enjoyment that we heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), it is also true that there is no possible reason for people to stockpile explosive fireworks, potentially in residential premises. This is an area that could be looked at again. The same is true of the age limit on purchase. Without answering those questions for the Government, the House should explore all those areas in more detail. I suspect that measures that are couched in the right way and are evidence-led will attract support across the House.
Substantial contributions have been made today. On the Opposition’s part, let me say that we hear them loud and clear. I commend all involved: this has been an excellent use of the House’s time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. As the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), said, this has been a good debate and a wide range of suggestions have been made.
We had speeches from 20 Back-Benchers: my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge), the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), and my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), for Glasgow East (John Grady), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Southport (Patrick Hurley). That was quite a good spread across the isles: it shows that the issue affects everyone in this great nation of ours. Everyone spoke with great passion and insight into how fireworks affect individuals, and there were a range of suggestions about what might be done.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on leading this important debate. He set out well the balance of issues that we have to take into account when considering these matters. As he highlighted, fireworks can have a dreadful impact.
The two petitions that we are debating are “Ban the sale of fireworks to the general public” and “Limit the sale and use of Fireworks to licence holders only”. I join the shadow Secretary of State in paying tribute to Chloe Brindley and Alan Smith for their work in helping to get the petitions debated today. The debate has shown that there is an appetite across the House to look at the issue. As a constituency MP and as a member of the Government, I know from my own postbag that it is an issue of widespread concern.
I express my condolences to the family of Josephine Smith, who, as we know, sadly passed away following the placing of a firework through her letterbox. The tragic story, which was conveyed by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster, brings home the consequences of the deliberate misuse of fireworks. We heard from her about how the CCTV caught those responsible talking about what they might do, and I cannot imagine how difficult that must have been to view that irresponsible behaviour. The hon. Lady conveyed Mr Smith’s thoughts well. He asked for a sensible and respectful debate, and I certainly believe that we have had one today. I assure him that we will meet in the new year and that we will continue to engage in a sensible and respectful way. There are many things to explore in what he said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North has caught the attention of a lot of Members with her private Member’s Bill. She highlighted what is arguably an illogical approach to licensing, and mentioned the challenge of enforcement, which all Members spoke about. Many Members clearly feel that the enforcement regime is not working as it should. There may be a number of reasons for that. She also mentioned the impact on children with special educational needs and on guide dogs, and the impact of online sales, which were not something of which we were cognisant when fireworks were last legislated for. Those were important points.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West is not in her place, but her constituency contains Edinburgh Zoo, where Roxie the panda cub sadly died. That graphically brings home the impact that fireworks can have on animals. She was right to highlight the irony of a zoo doing its utmost to protect an endangered species but losing an animal through the deliberate and possibly unthinking acts of humans. There are many elements to this. We must recognise that for many people and animals, noise and disruption can be challenging. That is why we have had this debate today and why many people have signed the petition.
We must recognise that for the many people who use and enjoy fireworks responsibly, they are an important part of their life for enjoying celebrations with family and friends, and as part of the wider community. We know they are a popular product: the industry is valued at £200 million a year. Research published by the Social Market Foundation showed that 77% of the public like fireworks a lot or somewhat. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford said, about 14 million Britons—a significant number of people—plan to have their own displays each year. However, the research also showed that only 15% of people in Great Britain want the regulations to stay as they are. It was clear from the debate that a lot of Members share that view. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge mentioned, there is potential for alternatives, including the use of light displays, drones and lasers. The use of alternatives was also highlighted in the Social Market Foundation report.
As Members have said, the Petitions Committee launched an inquiry into the sale and use of fireworks in 2019, which gave people the opportunity to raise their concerns. I believe it attracted more than 350 written submissions. The Committee made a number of recommendations but did not, in the end, advocate for a total ban on fireworks. I think it recognised the concern that doing so would create a black market. When we look at the possibility of a total ban, we must recognise that an extensive regulatory framework for fireworks already exists. We should also recognise that, particularly in Scotland, there have been a number of developments in trying to regulate them. I listened with great interest to what my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow South West and Edinburgh South West said about their experiences of that system. They both talked about the horrendous injuries that police officers and other public servants have received, and why it is so important for them to get control of the issue.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West said that a lot of this is just lawlessness, he hit the nail on the head. That feels such a long way away from the displays that many Members talked about from their youth. How we have gone from that innocent, joyful experience to downright anarchy is a sad indictment, I am afraid. I also noted my hon. Friend’s question about whether exclusion zones have been as effective as we would have liked. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East suggested that their application had not been as good as we would have liked. There are certainly things we need to look at from the experience of Glasgow and Edinburgh so far, to understand whether that tool is fit for purpose.
Under the Fireworks Act 2003, the Fireworks Regulations 2004 introduced a package of measures to reduce the nuisance and injuries caused by the misuse of fireworks, which forms part of the broader public concern with the problems of antisocial behaviour. As we know, there is an 11 pm curfew for the use of fireworks, with later exceptions only for the traditional firework periods of 5 November, Diwali, new year’s eve and Chinese new year, as well as for local authority displays, celebrations and events. In addition, the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015 include a 120 dB noise limit on the fireworks available to consumers. It should be said that the majority of people who use fireworks do so appropriately and have a sensible and responsible attitude to them, but, as we have heard this afternoon, too many people use them in a dangerous, inconsiderate or antisocial manner.
The police, local authorities and other local agencies have a range of tools and powers that they can use to respond to antisocial behaviour, including the antisocial use of fireworks offence through the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Going even further back, the Explosives Act 1875 made it an offence to throw, cast or fire a firework into a highway, street, thoroughfare or public place, demonstrating that it is sadly not a new problem.
Members have referred to the different categories of fireworks. It is worth setting out the fact that retailers must not sell low or medium-hazard fireworks, known as F2 and F3 fireworks, to anyone under the age of 18. Category F1, classed as very low hazard, cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 16. F4 fireworks are the most hazardous and can be sold only to those with specialist knowledge who have undertaken training recognised in the fireworks business and who hold a valid liability insurance. It is also an offence for anyone under the age of 18 to possess an F2, F3 or F4 firework in a public place, or for anyone to possess an F4 firework unless it is for specified professional reasons. Those offences can attract a £90 on-the-spot fine or, on summary conviction, up to six months’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine.
Retailers are restricted to selling consumer fireworks during a limited period around each of the seasonal celebrations that I have mentioned. Retailers may supply fireworks to the public outside of those periods only if they obtain a licence from their local licensing authority, so fireworks are less available to purchase outside those seasons. There are storage limits and strict rules around how and where fireworks are stored in business premises—the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth is not an example of how they should be adhered to.
Sarah Owen
I welcome the Minister’s thorough response. On the point about loosening the licensing laws to accommodate other sellers so that they can sell fireworks at times when people actually want to buy them—such as for fireworks night and new year—does that not seem a perverse way of doing things? If people are buying fireworks, they should be doing so from licensed, reputable sellers.
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I think I have already recognised and acknowledged that there is a slight incongruity about how it works, which is something we will consider as we move forward.
Local authority trading standards work with retailers to ensure that fireworks are sold safely, and they have powers to enforce. Again, we have heard questions about whether that is currently sufficient. Trading standards can also enforce against those selling fireworks without an appropriate licence—for example, outside the normal selling period. But it is clear from the debate that some Members feel the current legislation is not only inadequate but is not being enforced properly.
Some Members mentioned the issue of noise. We recognise the impact of fireworks on vulnerable people, including veterans and those with post-traumatic stress disorder, and animals. That, along with antisocial use, is a key concern, as I have heard on a number of occasions. This year I launched a fireworks campaign to provide guidance on minimising their negative impacts. The campaign was well received on social media and shared by our key enforcement partners. But of course those who were determined to cause trouble and those who do not have any respect for others will not take heed of that.
Various animal charities have published guidance on how to protect animals during the fireworks season. We will continue to work collaboratively with animal welfare organisations, alongside other charities, to ensure that the messaging reaches the public.
Dr Arthur
I thank the Minister for giving way when time is moving on. It is really good to hear about that campaign, but it would be good to get a commitment to publish any analysis of how it went. If the campaign has not worked, perhaps we need to go even further next year.
Justin Madders
This is the first time in several years that the campaign has taken place. Hopefully there will be a baseline of evidence that we can look to. I will commit to write to my hon. Friend to see what we can elicit from officials in that respect.
As I say, UK fireworks retailers support the voluntary fireworks code, which contains advice on safety and considerate use. Many lower-noise firework products—those around 90 dB or below—are already on the market, with consumers recognising that as an option. I hope that market continues to grow. Intelligence has been shared that shows that some considerate supermarket retailers are now stocking lower-noise fireworks, and some refuse to stock fireworks altogether. Testing commissioned by the Office for Product Safety and Standards found that consumer firework products have a very high compliance with the 120 dB limit set out in law, so the issue is not with the products but with where the law sets the limit.
Many Members raised concerns about the noise and disruption that fireworks cause, but acknowledged that displays have a contribution to make to community groups up and down the country as they often raise money for good causes. In 2019, the Petitions Committee noted that point and stated that
“these community displays have widespread local support and increase community cohesion.”
It also noted that a ban on fireworks could have unintended consequences, such as a “substantial economic effect” on the industry and the risk of a black market, which the National Fire Chiefs Council and the National Police Chiefs’ Council raised in their evidence to the inquiry. There is a lot to consider, but we recognise the strength of feeling about fireworks and their negative impact on some groups in society. I also recognise the need for effective regulation in this area.
We must recognise the place of fireworks in cultural and community celebrations and consider carefully any unintended consequences. I acknowledge that, as has been said, there is a paucity of evidence about the effectiveness of the current regulations. I am committed to engaging with all stakeholders, including businesses, consumer groups and charities, to understand the issues and inform any future decisions in this policy area. The safety of the public and the impact on people and animals will be paramount in those considerations. I hope this dialogue will continue.
Robbie Moore
On behalf of the Petitions Committee, let me say how grateful we are to Chloe Brindley and Alan Smith for very kindly bringing forward the petitions, which gathered so much support in a relatively short period—thank you. I also extend my condolences once again to Alan, who is in the Public Gallery, for the tragic circumstances in which his mother lost her life.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. We have heard from Members from across the country—from Glasgow and Edinburgh right the way down to Luton and, of course, from Keighley and Ilkley. Our constituents contact us about this issue because when fireworks are misused, they impact us all—parents with a newborn, working people who just want to get a decent night’s sleep, veterans suffering anxiety issues, and pets and wildlife.
Everyone who spoke mentioned the challenging circumstances around antisocial behaviour. As the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) said eloquently, fireworks are explosives that can be purchased. A common theme of all Members’ speeches was that we must push the Government for stronger licensing, noise reduction and restrictions on sale, and for more enforcement powers to be given to our police and local authorities so that they can properly enforce the existing legislation and anything that comes down the line.
It is my duty, on behalf of the Petitions Committee and the petitioners, to urge the Government to act. We heard very kind words from the Minister—he said the Government are listening and reviewing, and he summarised the existing legislation—but we want the Government to go much further on the five points that have been raised. We urge the Government and the Minister to have further exchanges with the petitioners and Members from throughout the House, and I hope they will listen to the points that Members made very strongly today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 639319 and 700013 relating to the sale and use of fireworks.
Written Statements
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business Growth Service
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
Small businesses are the beating heart of our high streets and our communities and are essential to our economic success. There are 5.5 million small businesses in the UK—99.8% of all businesses—accounting for 16.6 million jobs and £2.8 trillion annual turnover. Small businesses exported £107.9 billion of goods in 2023. They are also fundamental to regional development and our ability to secure growth and good jobs.
That is why I am delighted to announce that my Department will launch the Business Growth Service in 2025. The Business Growth Service will make it simpler for businesses across the UK to get the help they need to grow and thrive in today’s economy and into the future.
Inspired by successful international examples, the Business Growth Service will simplify a fragmented array of SME support under a single, trusted banner to give firms an easy path to the help they need.
This Government were elected on a promise to restore economic stability and deliver the change people need in their local communities. Working in partnership with local and devolved governments across the UK, and partners such as the Growth Hubs network, Innovate UK, and the British Business Bank, the Business Growth Service will provide direct support and introduce SMEs to other relevant services and providers they need to grow.
The Business Growth Service will work with the Government’s international network to support and advise companies on how to grow overseas.
My aim is for the service to be up and running in the first half of 2025.
There is a wide range of support available for businesses across the UK, but all too often small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are faced with barriers when they try to access it. The Business Growth Service will remove these barriers, providing businesses with the help and support they need to unlock their potential for future growth.
In the coming months, my Department will be consulting widely with businesses, representative bodies, experts, the devolved governments and local government in the design, development and implementation of the Business Growth Service.
I will update Parliament on progress again in due course.
[HCWS287]
Hydrogen to Power Business Model: Consultation Response
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
I am tabling this statement to inform Members of the publication of the hydrogen to power market intervention consultation response on 9 December 2024. This response commits to delivering a hydrogen to power business model to support the accelerated deployment of hydrogen to power as low-carbon long-duration flexible electricity generating capacity.
Making Britain a clean energy superpower by 2030 is one of the Prime Minister’s five missions. Unabated gas currently provides the majority of flexibility in Great Britain and so the deployment of hydrogen to power—the conversion of low-carbon hydrogen to produce low-carbon electricity—will play an important part in displacing unabated gas generation from the power system, to support the clean power mission, and the Government’s legally binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.
Low-carbon hydrogen can make our energy system more flexible, resilient, and independent. When connected with large-scale storage, hydrogen to power can provide electricity to cover longer periods of lower renewable output, while also creating a decarbonisation pathway for unabated gas power plants. The hydrogen to power business model will de-risk investment in hydrogen to power by mitigating the deployment barriers we identified, through a dispatchable power agreement-style business model, helping to support the unlocking of investment in hydrogen to power and improving the pipeline of projects.
The response document commits to:
Delivering a Hydrogen to Power Business Model based on a Dispatchable Power Agreement-style mechanism to support the deployment of hydrogen to power.
Publishing a Hydrogen to Power Business Model market engagement document in 2025 outlining further detail on the proposed design of the Hydrogen to Power Business Model and plans for launching the first allocation round.
Establishing a hydrogen to power industry expert working group. This will provide a key forum for Hydrogen to Power Business Model design and strategic policy considerations.
Enabling hydrogen to power to participate in the Capacity Market as soon as practical.
This publication is an important step towards supporting the deployment of hydrogen to power, a key low-carbon flexible technology, and therefore facilitating a clean power system. It will build on the positive stakeholder feedback received through the consultation and provide industry with clarity on Government’s position on the technology and the next steps for implementing the market intervention.
[HCWS288]
Avian Influenza Outbreak Response
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock), has made the following written statement today.
Avian influenza (“bird flu”) is once again threatening both wild and kept birds across Great Britain with two strains of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) (H5N1 and H5N5) now circulating in our wild bird population.
DEFRA recognises the unprecedented outbreaks of avian influenza in recent years have been an incredibly difficult time for bird keepers who are on the frontline of this terrible disease and in particular that the poultry and egg sectors have been under serious pressure. Practising good biosecurity at all times remains vital to protect flocks across the country from avian influenza and all bird keepers are being urged to remain vigilant and take action to protect their birds.
In response to the cases of HPAI this winter DEFRA and the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) have stood up their well-established outbreak structures to control and eradicate disease, restore normal trade, and assist local communities’ recovery. DEFRA and APHA’s approach to avian influenza considers the latest scientific and ornithological evidence and veterinary advice, and is set out in the notifiable avian disease control strategy for Great Britain supported by the mitigation strategy for avian influenza in wild birds in England and Wales. Current policy reflects our experience of responding to past outbreaks of exotic animal disease and is in line with international standards of best practice for disease control.
Government action on animal disease control is led by APHA, who carry out routine surveillance of disease risks in the UK and globally, to help the Government anticipate future threats to animal health. To support this work, in Great Britain members of the public are encouraged to report findings of dead wild birds using the online reporting service or by calling the DEFRA helpline: 03459 335577.
The latest cases of HPAI have followed recent detections through APHA wild bird surveillance programme of HPAI H5N1 and HPAI H5N5 in wild birds in the area surrounding the infected premises. Reporting dead wild birds helps DEFRA and APHA understand the risk of avian influenza and other diseases to different species groups of wild birds, the risk posed to poultry and other captive birds, and the risk of overspill into mammals. The risk of incursion of HPAI H5 in wild birds in Great Britain is currently assessed as high—event occurs very often. The risk of poultry exposure has also increased and is now assessed as low—event is rare but does occur—where good biosecurity is consistently applied at all times, but medium—event occurs regularly—where there is suboptimal or poor biosecurity.
Upholding high biosecurity standards is paramount to food production and food safety, for human and animal health, protecting biodiversity and to support our economy and trade. The UK has robust disease control measures in place to prevent disease outbreaks spreading, and a strong track record of controlling and eliminating outbreaks. Animal disease outbreaks cause animals to suffer, damage businesses and cost the UK taxpayer significant sums of money. Together the Government and animal keepers must do everything we can to keep disease out and protect animal health and welfare.
Supporting bird keepers, the public and conservation bodies to prepare and respond to the threat of avian influenza continues to be one of DEFRA’s priorities. Government are clear that all farmers, producers and animal keepers should implement strong biosecurity measures and report suspected disease immediately. DEFRA and APHA will continue to work closely with industry to ensure good flock management and husbandry practices are implemented on all farms regardless of size or scale. While also working closely with the UK Health Security Agency and the Health and Safety Executive with regard to the protection of human health from this zoonotic pathogen.
While there have been no cases of HPAI confirmed in Wales or Scotland during this outbreak, following the case in poultry in England, in line with WOAH rules, Great Britain is no longer free from HPAI. There have been no cases of avian influenza in Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland retains its self-declared zonal freedom from HPAI. However, there are some restrictions on exports of affected commodities to third countries from the UK. To facilitate trade, it remains DEFRA’s objective to achieve WOAH HPAI freedom across the UK at the earliest opportunity.
In addition, while vaccination of poultry and other captive birds against avian influenza, excluding those in licensed zoos in England, is not currently permitted and will not be a viable option for the 2024-25 season, DEFRA continues to invest in avian influenza research and the UK is committed to exploring opportunities for preventive vaccination for poultry and other captive birds.
With regard to vaccination to protect public health, while avian influenza is primarily a disease of birds, the UK Government have agreed a contract for more than five million doses of human H5 influenza vaccine to boost the country’s resilience in the event of a possible H5 influenza pandemic. This purchase has been made as part of long-established plans to boost the UK’s access to vaccines for a wider range of pathogens of pandemic potential. However, it is only if an avian influenza virus were to start spreading among humans, of which there is no evidence at this stage, that the human H5 influenza vaccine would be used. This procurement will strengthen the UK’s preparedness for a H5 influenza-originated pandemic by ensuring that vaccines are immediately available, while a pandemic specific vaccine is made ready. The UK Government already have an advance purchase agreement for pandemic vaccines if or when they are needed, that would be tailored to combat the specific pandemic influenza strain identified at the time.
Avian influenza risk levels are regularly reviewed and our response adapted accordingly. We publish our risk assessments online and share the evolving picture directly with our expert stakeholder groups. It is too early to predict the outlook for future seasons and risk levels may increase further this winter, associated with the migratory pattern of waterfowl and environmental conditions becoming more favourable for virus survival. Practising good biosecurity at all times protects the health and welfare of kept birds and for commercial keepers will help protect their business from HPAI and other diseases. The need for avian influenza prevention zones (AIPZ) mandating enhanced biosecurity will be kept under review.
All bird keepers must register their poultry and other captive birds, even if only kept as pets—with the exception of certain psittacines and passerines. Registered keepers will receive regular updates and guidance to help protect their birds from avian influenza. Having a good register also saves taxpayer resources when infection is found, because we already know where birds are kept. In addition, anyone can subscribe to APHA’s free animal disease alerts service for the latest information on updated risk levels, guidance and new cases in Great Britain regardless of whether they keep birds. Further information on the latest situation and what can be done prevent avian influenza and stop it spreading and how to spot and report suspicion in kept or wild birds or mammals can be found in DEFRA’s guidance at www.gov.uk/birdflu
[HCWS289]
Anti-Corruption Champion: Appointment
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
My hon Friends, the Minister of State for Europe, North America and Overseas Territories (Stephen Doughty), the Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq) and I, are today pleased to announce the appointment of Baroness Hodge of Barking as the Prime Minister’s new anti-corruption champion.
Corruption and the illicit finance that stems from it undermine this Government’s objectives at every turn, both domestically and across the world. Corruption weakens the rule of law and undermines economic growth. It fuels crime on British streets by enabling drug dealers and smuggling gangs. It inflates UK property prices. Today’s appointment is another way in which this Government are proving their commitment to tackling these pernicious harms.
As champion Baroness Hodge will have three core responsibilities:
Helping the Government to drive development of a new Anti-Corruption Strategy and provide a challenge function for its delivery, once agreed.
Acting as a Government entry point on anti-corruption issues for Parliamentarians, private sector representatives and civil society.
Where required, engaging internationally to help drive progress on UK priorities.
We believe that the appointment of a champion will be beneficial in driving forwards and supporting the anti-corruption agenda. We recognise that this has been a long-awaited announcement since the previous champion stood down from his role. Baroness Hodge brings experience as a leading parliamentary and public campaigner on anti-corruption, strong relationships with key stakeholders and a background in public service to this role. We look forward to working together to deliver an ambitious Government-wide agenda to tackle the devastating impacts of corruption and the illicit finance that stems from it, both at home and overseas.
[HCWS290]
House of Lords
Maintained Schools: Term Dates
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carrington
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to allow maintained schools to set the number of days on which they are open during a school year, in the same way as for academy schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the current regulations. Academies generally tend to follow the same structure as local authority-maintained schools, and we encourage local areas to work collaboratively to minimise any disruption to parents. Schools and local authorities should design their term structure first and foremost to benefit pupils’ education. Variable term dates can cause difficulties for parents, and allowing greater divergence would exacerbate that.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and declare my interest as a trustee of a community-maintained school in High Wycombe. My Question is to highlight the current difficulties experienced by maintained schools in the recruitment of teachers when the number of days they are required to open to students is fewer than that required of academies. There is a growing pattern of two-week half terms being offered by academies in the middle of the autumn term, but not by maintained schools. It is in the interests of childcare and parents, when they have children attending a range of schools, that holiday and term dates coincide. Do the Government intend to extend the flexibility to offering extended holidays to maintained schools, or at least to level up the required number of days that all schools should be open for children?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Under regulations, schools are expected to be open for 190 days, or 380 sessions, each year. As I suggested in my initial Answer, it is also important that there is local co-ordination around holiday dates in order to support parents and to ensure consistency, in the way the noble Lord described.
I think the noble Lord started by saying that this makes it more difficult to recruit teachers. Of course, while it is important that children have a fixed week and a specified number of days, it is of course possible, as has been the case, to develop more flexible ways in which teachers can work. The department is keen to promote that by, for example, funding a programme focused on embedding flexible working in schools. I hope that will be one of the things that will enable us to improve teacher recruitment.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I thoroughly agree with everything the Minister has said. She is right that schools must be open for 190 days—195 days for teachers, so they can do the five days of in-service training. There has to be flexibility for such things as religious holidays in faith schools and wake walks in Lancashire; you have to be able to deal with those changes. The real problem occurs when academies with headquarters in, say, the London area but schools in the north-west try to standardise the holidays and do not take those regional variations into account. Of course, travel companies shoot up the prices during the main school holidays, and it becomes very difficult for families to afford those prices.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I simply reiterate what I said: it is important that there is co-operation at a local level to cover the types of schools where parents might have a child in each, to ensure consistency in school holidays. But I take the noble Lord’s point about that possibly differing from place to place. In the end, we need to focus on what is the best arrangement and the appropriate amount of time for children to be in school, so that they can get the best possible opportunity to learn.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, time at school is extremely important, but so is school readiness, and I warmly commend the Government on the targets announced last week. What are the Government doing, or can they do, to better support excellent charities such as Growing Minds in Oxfordshire? It does the most brilliant job but struggles all the time to keep going as it prepares children better for school.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right: how well you do throughout the whole of the rest of your education is often determined very early on in your school life. That is why, last week, the Prime Minister set out our target to ensure that 75% of children are school ready by the age of five. That is an increase on the current figure; noble Lords may be quite shocked to hear that fewer children than that are ready to start learning at the age of five. Whether through government-funded provision or government-supported voluntary sector provision such as that outlined by my noble friend, we must focus on making sure that children and their families are ready for them to start school and gain the absolute most that they can out of their time there.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, what is the Government’s opinion of Devon County Council’s proposal to charge schools £21,000 for each pupil whom they permanently exclude?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
That has not been drawn to my attention, but I am certainly willing to look into it and perhaps come back to the noble Lord.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I know the Minister shares my view that it is one thing to have the schools open, but it is another to make sure that all the pupils are there. What are the Government doing to try to reduce the amount of absenteeism in schools, especially of vulnerable children?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right: if children are not in school, they cannot learn. Although levels of absenteeism are marginally better this year than last, they are still considerably worse than before the pandemic, with around 1.6 million children—more than one in five—missing at least one day per fortnight. This is why we need a wide-ranging approach to tackling absenteeism. We need to build on the detailed data we now have available to us. We need to expect schools to focus, before a child becomes persistently absent, on the reasons why they are absent and what intervention may be necessary. We need schools to learn from those who are tacking this issue much more effectively. We are investing £15 million in expanding the specialist attendance mentoring programme for persistently absent pupils. We need to make sure that the new guidance issued in August is being followed appropriately, because this is a fundamental issue on which we need to make progress. Children need to be in school in order to learn, and in order to prevent the disruption to others in class that happens when children are absent.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches support the flexibility that academies enjoy, and we trust the discretion of trust and school leaders in how they make their decisions. With that in mind, we are extremely concerned that the Employment Rights Bill will cut across those freedoms and potentially create a ceiling, rather than a floor, in terms and conditions of employment for teaching assistants and support staff more widely. Can the Minister reassure the House that this will not happen?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Some enormously good work has been done by academies and maintained schools on using teaching and non-teaching staff to ensure that children are getting a good education. None of it, as far as I can see, depends on them having in place inadequate, discriminatory or undermining employment conditions for their support staff. I do not see why providing a suitable and appropriate basis for people’s employment should in any way undermine the excellent work being done by our schools.
Lord Lexden (Con)
The Minister mentioned the importance of co-ordination between maintained schools and academies. How widespread is that desirable co-ordination, and what plans do the Government have for extending it?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
In most local authority areas there is usually a general coherence between the holiday sessions offered by maintained schools and by academies. While academy trusts are free to set their own term and holiday dates, generally there is co-ordination across local authority areas. For the sake of parents, it is, as we have discussed, generally a good thing.
Vocational Training
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that their legislative agenda does not undermine vocational training.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill is crucial for a skills system that is more responsive to employers’ skills needs. We will ensure continuity during the transition of functions from IfATE to the Secretary of State and thereby to Skills England, including guidance to learners and employers. Occupational standards, apprenticeship assessment plans and technical qualifications that are being prepared or considered for approval at the point that functions are transferred from IfATE to the Secretary of State will continue.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the IfATE transfer of functions Bill currently making its passage through your Lordships’ House takes those powers, particularly regarding standards and assessment, away from employer-led organisation and gives them to the Secretary of State. How can the Minister assure the House that this transfer of powers will not undermine confidence in vocational training?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As we have discussed at some length as the Bill has gone through this House, the intention in shifting the functions is to enable them to be used by Skills England, which will be very much driven by the needs of employers, working alongside trade unions and bringing in the necessary regional and local co-ordination. I hope I provided some reassurance in Committee. There is no intention that we should move away from a system where the occupational standards and assessment plans are determined by employer groups. It is fundamentally important, to build confidence in apprenticeships and other technical qualifications, that they fulfil the requirements of employers. That is the intention for when Skills England takes on that role.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the legacy of the last Government was nearly 7 million people of working age with little or no qualifications, one in five workers lacking even basic computer skills and the number of apprenticeships falling off a cliff? Does she agree that the remedy, to revitalise vocational training in this country, is in part to have an active industrial strategy involving both employers and unions, and investing in our FE colleges—in kit and equipment but also in staff?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right; we have a skills shortage, and it has worsened over recent years in the way she describes. That means we need the industrial strategy this Government are developing, but we need it linked closely to a much more coherent skills system, led by Skills England, which will identify, with the partnership I outlined previously, current and future skills gaps. Those gaps will then be met by improved opportunities for technical education and apprenticeships. She is also right that a key partner in delivering that will be our FE colleges, for which this Government were of course able to find an additional £300 million of revenue and £300 million of capital in the recent Budget Statement.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
How do the Government propose to fill the many skills gaps in our workforce without overhauling the school curriculum to prepare young people for life and work and vocational skills, in contrast to the overbearing, academic knowledge-rich curriculum of the previous Government?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. Whether young people—and older people—have success in their careers and can access the skills they need starts before the age of 16. It starts with the school curriculum. It is with that intention that we have set up the curriculum and assessment review, to look precisely at how we can maintain and improve our standards of numeracy and literacy, while also ensuring that we enable the curriculum and schools to have the space to develop precisely the sort of skills and aptitudes that the noble Baroness outlined.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I turn the Minister’s attention to vocational training for exceptionally talented dancers and musicians, which starts at a much earlier age than we are discussing. She will know that the kind of training required is not available in the state system but is provided by schools on the Music and Dance Scheme, which are able to recruit on talent alone, regardless of financial circumstances. What are the Government doing to ensure that the legislative agenda will not impede the ability of those schools to be blind to finance and look only at talent; so that anybody with the drive and the capability can enjoy their full potential, and our creative industries will remain fully inclusive of the broad diversity of our society?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness has contributed considerably to my education, while I have been in this place, on the crucial role played by those really excellent music and dance schools. That is why the Government’s Music and Dance Scheme enables enormously talented young people, regardless of their background, to access that education—to ensure that we can continue that pipeline of completely brilliant and elite musicians and dancers, who are so important to this country’s creative sector.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, FE college enrolments of 14 to 16 year-olds have surged by nearly one-third in the past four years, according to a recent study by the Association of Colleges, with over half consistently from the two most deprived quintiles. These students, however, mostly on vocational courses, do not have the same access to transport funding and free meals as their counterparts in schools. Can the Minister outline what steps the Government will take to address this very basic inequality?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is right about some of the opportunities available to 14 to 16 year-olds in our excellent FE colleges. I was not clear about the particular inequality that he is talking about. It is of course the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that students have the school transport that they need to enable them to complete their education. I did not think there was a discrepancy between institutions in the way the right reverend Prelate outlines. I will take certainly that away and perhaps come back to him with some more information about it.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, further to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, how will the Government ensure that there are clearer pathways for young people who do not aspire to university, but seek to develop vocational or technical skills for careers, including in the construction sector? How will they address the critical shortages of skilled tradespeople such as bricklayers, without whom plans to build 1.5 million homes in the next five years are simply not achievable?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that we need to improve the careers advice available to young people in our schools. That is why this Government are investing in it and in the expert advisers who deliver it. He is right about construction skills; we need the excellent contribution of our FE colleges. For example, the £140 million that we announced two or three weeks ago will, through the Construction Industry Training Board and the National House Building Council, contribute to the development of skills hubs that link to large housing developments. This is precisely to ensure that we have the skilled tradespeople we need to deliver the Government’s important target to build 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the combination of the Government’s IfATE Bill, which dilutes the role of employers in developing qualifications and standards, and the proposal for the growth and skills levy points to more change, and new delay and uncertainty, in a system that desperately needs stability if employers are really to have confidence in it. The noble Baroness talked about the powers that will be used by Skills England. She knows, from debates in Committee, that the whole House wants Skills England to succeed, even though it is not mentioned in the IfATE Bill. I wonder whether the noble Baroness would make my day by announcing what government amendments might come forward on Report to address the House’s concerns?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
At this time of year in particular, I am always keen to make the noble Baroness’s day. I assure her that I am reflecting hard on the good debates that we have had in Committee and thinking about how I can provide some assurance to noble Lords about the role of Skills England. As I described, it will be enormously important to ensure the development of our skills system, which noble Lords have identified that it needs. I assure the noble Baroness, as I did on several occasions during debates on the Bill, that there will be continuity of the occupational standards and assessment plans that have been or are currently being developed, during the transfer of those functions. I will come back to noble Lords on the other issues before Report, in a way that I hope reassures them about the significance that this Government place on Skills England and this House’s ability to monitor it and to hold us to account for its delivery.
House of Lords: Numbers and Eligibility
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce the number of peers who are eligible to sit in the House of Lords.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, the scrutiny and challenge role of the House of Lords is important, but the House has grown in size as introductions have increased faster than departures. The Government’s manifesto outlines several measures that could have the effect of reducing the size of the House. The first is the removal of hereditary Peers; further measures include retirement age and participation requirements. I am grateful for the debate that we had last month and the engagement of colleagues from across the House on these issues. I am keen to continue this ongoing dialogue about how best to implement these commitments.
Lord Fowler (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. If the aim of the Government is to reduce the size of the House, is not the most important action they can take to make an immediate commitment to follow a policy of restraint in making new appointments?
I agree with what I hope was the noble Baroness’s view that hereditary Peers make a big contribution to the work of this House. Against that, there are some appointed Peers who over the years have made little or no contribution to the House. They may be better candidates for removal than the hereditary Peers.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
First, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, who has been passionate on this issue for the same reason most of us are—we want an effective House that does the job it is charged with. His point about new appointments might have been better addressed to the last Government—I know he tried—because when the Labour Government left office after 12 years, we had 24 more Peers than the Opposition, but when the Conservatives left office they had 100 more Peers than the Labour Party. That difference between Government and Opposition, regardless of the parties, is too great. I am on record as saying that the House works better when the main party of government and of opposition have roughly equal numbers.
The noble Lord is absolutely right about participation, and I have been grateful to noble Lords from across the House who have suggested ways forward that we might look at. We will continue that dialogue on how we can have the most effective House possible, to ensure that it does the job it is here to do.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
Can Ministers consider the transition arrangements I have called for? They are: a core of 500 salaried voting Members; a further non-voting but otherwise participating group, declining in membership, who are allowance remunerated with some flexibility on age; and an additional, fully participating voting tier of 100, declining in numbers, available for ministerial appointment but free, on loss of office, to move to non-voting status. That transitional reform avoids much difficulty, protects much of today’s membership and potentially reduces costs and numbers, paving the way to a more comprehensive reform. Could it at least be considered?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord has clearly thought long and hard about this subject. I am not sure I followed entirely every proposal he made, but I am grateful to noble Lords who have come forward with suggestions. I think the House would like something straightforward. I must admit that I am not convinced we should have Members of the House with different status, if that is what he was suggesting. I would like to feel that all Members of the House were treated equally.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, why is the Minister bringing forward legislation to remove some of the hardest-working Members of the House, when over the last three years 157 Members have turned up less than 20% of the time and there are 21 on leave of absence, some for more than three years? Surely it would be better to take out people who make no contribution than to pick on those hereditaries who make a substantial contribution to this House.
On any day, even in the most controversial of circumstances, on average about 450 Members turn up, out of some 800. Is not the attempt to take out the hereditaries just a piece of gerrymandering by the Labour Party, which, we are told, already has a list of 30 would-be Peers coming to this House?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord cannot resist it, can he? I do not think “taking people out” is quite the language we want to use in the House. As he knows, I have been trying to address across the House the point he makes on leave of absence. I previously proposed a limit on the number of leaves of absence a Member of this House can take without reference to the Sub-Committee on Leave of Absence. That did not find favour with the party opposite, but I still think it is a good thing to look at and I will take that away and look at leave absence.
This is not about doing anything to harm the Official Opposition. The noble Lord pulls a face at me, but if he is saying that his party cannot be an effective Opposition without hereditary Peers in the House, it says a lot about the rest of his Members. I do not agree with him; I think the party opposite is fully able to mount effective opposition. Even after the removal of all the hereditaries, his party will still be the largest party in this House.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
The House of Lords badly needs radically updating if it is going to be a fit revising House for modern Britain. The Government seem to be starting with a piecemeal approach, so when the hereditaries are gone, would the next logical step not be to dispense with the Lords Spiritual, an equally anachronistic body who would otherwise stick out in this place like a sore thumb?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
This issue was raised in the House of Commons, and an amendment was tabled by a Conservative Member of Parliament to remove the Bishops. It got a very small vote in the Commons and was rejected; I have not detected an appetite for that in your Lordships’ House, either. On the noble Baroness’s more serious point about a piecemeal approach, we should have a proper discussion about moving forward. I am not one of those who wants a big bang reform—that is what led to inertia and no reform taking place. I think there is an appetite for gradual reform of this House.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, would it be a good idea to ask the Opposition—the Tory party—to reduce their numbers by 75% of those who have been jammed in over the past few years, to make it a bit more equal?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am sure the party opposite has heard my noble friend’s comments. I think 75% might be a bit harsh.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness rightly sets store by her party’s manifesto. The Labour manifesto pledged:
“At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords.”
Full stop, end of paragraph. Will the Government implement this very specific manifesto promise in this Parliament?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, how and when we implement our manifesto is, as it is for every single party, a matter for the Government. One of the things I committed to this House is having discussions on how we implement 80; I said that in the first Answer. There is also the issue of participation. I think the House will want to have a view on those things, and I am happy to accept representations on how they are implemented.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, may I suggest that in future, Peers are appointed for a limited period, say 10 or 15 years?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, that was not the commitment in the Labour Party manifesto, but it has been raised with me by several noble Lords. There are different views across the House on that. I think the Burns report recommended 15 years, and another suggestion was 20 years. There is a choice for the House to make. I have not detected overall support for that. Partly, it has come about because much younger Peers have been appointed, and an appointment for life means that they are here for a very long time. The contrary to that is that hopefully, they will build up great expertise during their time here.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am over here on the right wing, for reasons I shall not go into. It is astonishing to hear the Opposition spokesman calling for retirement at 80: that means a whole swathe of the people opposite, as well as on this side, will go. Further to the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Forsyth, whom I agree with, when I raised the question of participation in the debate last time, I mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Botham, whom we never see. I was then immediately attacked in the press by his daughter, who said that it is difficult for him to come down from the north-east of England. Well, if it is difficult from the north-east of England, it is a lot more difficult from Scotland, I can tell you that. We have Members from Orkney, and that is even more difficult. Can the Minister confirm that once we get rid of the hereditaries—and that needs to be done quickly—she will convene all-party discussions to look at all these questions, including that of participation?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I remain grateful to him. He talks about a retirement age of 80. He knows—he was one of the first to mention it—that it is not 80 but the end of the Parliament in which somebody turns 80. We have been having discussions around the House, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have given me suggestions already. I do not want to dwell on individual Peers’ attendance, but we all want every Member to play a full role and be committed to the work of your Lordships’ House.
Private Low-carbon Investment: Green Finance Institute Report
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to respond to the Green Finance Institute’s report A Greenprint for Property Linked Finance in the UK, published in November, to accelerate private low-carbon investment into existing homes.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, we recognise the important role that private finance can play in helping us to achieve our decarbonisation ambitions. My officials have met the Green Finance Institute several times to discuss the potential for property-linked finance in a UK context. We will continue to work with industry stakeholders to explore options for working with the private sector, including banks and building societies, to scale up private finance to accelerate efforts in this area.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome those conversations that the Minister has had. As he knows, the way to bring down energy bills for families is to insulate their homes. Indeed, homes account for almost a quarter of carbon emissions. Perhaps the Minister could be a little more precise. These discussions can take a long time. The £6 billion, which I welcome, in the Government’s warm homes plan is just a small amount of the money that is needed to refurbish UK buildings. Given that legislation is often required to implement these schemes, can he give some sort of timetable of when bringing such private finance into this sector will happen?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that this is an important area of policy. We reckon that buildings account for 31% of total UK emissions, and heating is 75% of that proportion of emissions, so I very much take his point that there is an urgent need to make progress. I cannot give him an exact time. Looking at international experience of these kinds of schemes, it is not altogether positive. In the US experience, for instance, it may have worked for multi-occupational commercial properties but, for individuals, it does not seem to have made much progress.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister not share my disappointment that his Government have no plans to review the level of the warm homes discount? Given that there does not seem to be any urgency in renovating existing homes, will he use his good offices to put pressure on the Government to review the level of the warm homes discount? I refer to my interest as president of National Energy Action.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this is the third time the noble Baroness has asked me this question in the last two weeks. I am afraid that we have not moved on from that position. On the warm homes plan, as she will know, we made it clear in the Budget that we will see a total investment of £3.2 billion in warmer homes across 2025-26. She is right that making progress in relation to energy-efficient homes is very important indeed.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, while it is important to make sure that older homes are brought up to standard, does the Minister accept that there is merit in ensuring that all developments going ahead use heat pumps for the entire development? That works in areas of Germany. Will the Minister consider doing that?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to raise new homes but part of the issue we have is that we have the oldest housing stock in Europe and a third of our housing was built before World War II. As far as her question is concerned, I can tell her that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has indicated that it is working on future standards. These will set new homes and buildings on a path that moves away from relying on volatile fossil fuel markets and ensures that they are fit for a net-zero future. This is likely to see a mix of low-carbon technologies used for heating, including heat pumps and heat networks. Of course, the point the noble Baroness raises is an important one.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Minister raised international comparisons and learning from other countries. He also said—I cannot remember his exact words—that in the United States residential market, property-linked finance has not always been successful or well taken up. Can the Minister explain some of the reasons for that and what his department has learned from that experience in the United States residential market?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, one of the issues is that home owners did not really understand what they were signing up to. In California, for instance, the state enacted a preservation and consumer protection Act, which led to an almost 90% decline in originations. More generally, the Green Deal that the coalition Government brought in shows some of the problems. First, the interest rates on offer were not sufficiently competitive; secondly, it was very complex to make an application; and, thirdly, there were lots of allegations of mis-selling. Given all that, the Government withdrew it. We need to learn a lot of lessons if we are going to make progress.
It is thought that currently owners are deterred from making a major investment in energy-efficiency improvements because they do not expect to live in the home for a sufficient length of time to get the money back through energy efficiency. The whole point about the GFI proposal is for longer-term loans that are assigned to the property, to keep interest rates low and give people a much better opportunity to make this investment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in an earlier Question your Lordships’ House was talking about vocational training and education. However it is funded, can the Minister assure me that ensuring we have the vocational skills and the building skills needed for home insulation is of the highest priority to the Government? That is crucial for the climate, for the health of the nation and for saving households money.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot really respond better than by saying that my noble friend answered the point thoroughly. We at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero keep a close eye on skills needs. In fact, the whole energy sector has great potential for growth in really high-skilled jobs in the future. Since 2021 the department has invested over £28 million in skills and training, which has resulted in 33,000 training opportunities in retrofit, clean heat and energy efficiency roles. I take the noble Baroness’s point and we keep this issue under very close review.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, cold homes drive up ill health, our energy bills and our emissions. At least one-fifth of the UK’s CO2 emissions come from home heating and our homes are some of the worst insulated in western Europe, with 27 million of our homes needing to be retrofitted. Does the Minister agree that property-linked finance makes sense? I ask him to look at it in relation to heat pumps, particularly with a view to bringing in enabling legislation and pilot programmes so that the Government can find the schemes that really work.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I agree with the premise of the challenge that we face. We responded positively, as do I, to the proposals made by the Green Finance Institute, which is why we are working on this seriously and discussing it with it, and we will be looking at the outcome of the pilots in commercial properties that the GFI is going to take forward in the next few months. But I have to point out to the House that this is not easy. Current experience suggests that unless you can ensure that a scheme is easy for people to understand and know what they are getting themselves into, and can offer competitive interest rates, it is not going to fly. We need to make this a credible scheme.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register. How do the Government plan to balance the drive for low-carbon homes with the risks of increasing housing costs or creating barriers for those already struggling in the housing market?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, that is an interesting question. Clearly, one issue about taking forward such a scheme is that one does not want to make it difficult for people to sell their homes. Again, I suggest that evidence from the US shows that, although the intention was for the charge to stay with the property, when it came to individuals, many sellers wiped off the charge to make the sale realisable. We need to keep a careful eye on ensuring that if we introduce such a scheme we do not have a negative impact on the housing market in the way the noble Lord has suggested.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I have asked several Questions recently in connection with solar panels, particularly solar farms, which occupy good agricultural land in this country. Surely the Government can do more to encourage the installation of solar panels, both on domestic properties and, more particularly, on industrial properties, where there are large roof spaces available for solar panels. Would that not be a much better idea?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I very much take the noble Lord’s suggestions. We have seen a big expansion in solar; we could see more. I agree with him about industrial sites, but we also need ground-based solar, and the fact is that, even if we achieved all our ambitions around solar, it would take a very small percentage of agricultural land to provide it.
Business of the House
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 11 December to enable the second reading of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill to begin before oral questions.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I thought it would be useful to set out for the House how proceedings on Wednesday will work. We will sit at 11 am to start the Second Reading of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. We will pause proceedings around 1 pm. The House will then sit at 3 pm for Oral Questions in the normal way. We will then resume the Second Reading of the Bill and complete it that day. Currently, we expect that the advisory speaking time for Back-Bench contributions to the Second Reading will be five minutes. We will advertise the final advisory time in the usual way when the list closes at 6 pm this evening. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister really think it appropriate that, for a major constitutional change of the kind that is proposed in the Bill, we should be limited to five minutes? Of course, Members of the House will realise that that is advisory, so we may be sitting very late indeed.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the advisory time is based on the number of Members speaking. It is advisory out of courtesy to the whole House. Looking at other debates of a similar nature and time, I am confident that the House can make its views known in that time.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, following what my noble friend has just said, would it not have been better to have had a two-day debate? I declare an interest: alas, because of professional engagements, I cannot get here at 11 am, and I had hoped to participate in the Second Reading debate. A two-day debate would have been altogether preferable.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry about that; I would have welcomed the noble Viscount’s contribution. However, he will appreciate that two days are sometimes difficult for other colleagues. This was agreed, via the usual channels, with the Chief Whip’s Office.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 21 and 28 October be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 2 December.
Football Governance Bill [HL]
Monday 9th December 2024
(3 days, 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-IV(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (6 Dec 2024)
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as we begin day 4 of Committee on the Football Governance Bill, we have an ambitious target today and I urge all noble Lords to work together to achieve it. I particularly draw the Committee’s attention to the front page of today’s lists from the Government Whips’ Office and all the reminders about speaking times, which were agreed by the House last year. I remind the Committee of that and we expect noble Lords to work together to make progress to that ambitious target; we need to get to it today.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, the rubric states quite clearly the expectations that there are on Members of the House. Those are of course maximum time limits, not targets to be aimed for, but the document also says that Members
“should not summarise or repeat at length points made by others, and if speaking more than once a Member should not repeat points they have already made”.
I have already sat through a couple of hours of this Committee and heard that done repeatedly. Will the usual channels intervene if people deviate from the subject or are repetitious, and therefore ask them to sit down?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I thank my noble friend for that. I hope that we will not need to intervene, but the Whips on the government Bench will certainly intervene if necessary. I ask all noble Lords to read the points on Committee stage, which were agreed by the House. We do not want repetition; we want proper scrutiny, with progress made today on the Bill. We have a number of groups to get through, but it is perfectly achievable in the time.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, I suggest that we now begin.
Clause 6: The IFR’s objectives
Amendment 51
Lord Hayward
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 51 stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham. He has asked me to move it because he is, unfortunately, unavailable on this occasion. Perhaps I might observe that, out of the 300-plus amendments, some 120-plus of them come from the Government’s own Back Benches.
This amendment deals with an area which I have touched on on a number of occasions during debate on the Bill’s clauses and subsections: the financial impact that it will have on the different leagues. They are not named in the Bill, but we all know which ones we are talking about.
I am particularly interested to be talking to Amendment 51 on the basis of the Prime Minister’s own Damascene conversion—if I can refer to Syria as being the place in the public eye at the moment—to avoiding, where possible, impositions on the private sector by regulation. He commented on that in his speech last Thursday. It would appear that he is now of the view that regulation should be kept to a minimum, or that the Civil Service—I specifically exclude the civil servants advising the Minister, who have been very helpful throughout—is providing a “tepid bath” of steady decline. I think those were the Prime Minister’s words. Other Ministers have then been sent out to clarify on the matter, one of whom today described it as an attempt to take the approach of a start-up. Well, my noble friend Lord Markham has identified how to aim to start up and the funding needed when one actually takes that approach, which may not be conducive to the overall approach outlined in the Bill for football regulation.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 57 in this first group. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, in his place and I appreciate his cameo role in this Committee. I had not noticed him here for most of the deliberations of the Committee, but we welcome him anyway.
This is a probing amendment to press the Government on how much intervention they envisage the regulator pursuing in the internal financial affairs of clubs. It is a probing amendment because we on this side seek to solicit from the Minister more precise details, which are not in the Bill, about how much she and the Government envisage the independent football regulator having a part to play in the technical minutiae of the finances of each club.
Because of the nature of the Bill and the wide-ranging powers under its Henry VIII clauses, we simply do not know the degree of interference in those 116 clubs. For instance, will a club be required periodically to enunciate its liquidity requirements on a quarterly, half-yearly or annual basis? What debt cap rules will they have? What player acquisition and sales issues will the regulator become involved in?
Importantly, there are also the decisions taken by the boards of the 116 football clubs around land and property, which are covered elsewhere in the Bill but relate to this amendment—where they play and what contractual arrangements they may have with landowners on a rental, leasehold or freehold basis. Will the regulator be prescriptive about which banking arrangements, and with which organisations, each club is free to enter into?
These are important issues. This Committee’s effective scrutiny requires more insight from the Government into the regulator’s intentions regarding financial regulation, not least because other non-departmental public bodies already have significant powers and the capacity to intervene directly in what are, in effect, small and medium-sized enterprises and significant, big businesses turning over large amounts of money. There are the Financial Conduct Authority, the Competition and Markets Authority and His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, and local authorities have widespread powers to intervene in the everyday activities of the clubs contained within their local government areas. There are also various companies Acts, such as the Companies Act 2006 and that of 2016, that are within the bailiwick of the interface between government and football clubs.
As we asked on the sweeping powers over raising finance, and since the Bill does not expand on this, is Parliament not being asked to write a blank cheque to allow the Government to regulate as they wish? Not just the Premier League but clubs in other leagues are most concerned about this because of the nature of this legislation. Will the Minister address the concerns of each of those clubs about the powers of the regulator potentially to interfere in each club’s everyday financial affairs?
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I refer the Committee to my interests declared in the register. I support Amendment 71 tabled by my noble friend Lord Markham, which raises a crucial point regarding the backstop mechanism. We must be clear at the outset about what this mechanism governs and, critically, what it does not.
First, it is vital to understand that the backstop is categorically not about the fair apportionment of collective football revenues. Each party—the Premier League and the EFL—has its own central broadcast revenues. Indeed, the EFL has just secured a landmark five-year domestic broadcasting deal worth nearly £1 billion, increasing its central revenues by 50% from next season. This is testament to the Championship’s growing competitiveness and appeal.
I will not dwell on the fact that many of its recipients are incredibly wealthy—I believe there are nine billionaire owners in the Championship, along with many other extremely well-funded ownership groups—but I will dwell on the fact that, despite its very healthy income, the EFL does not give any money to the National League. It gives no funding to the leagues directly below it. It is the Premier League that supports the National League. Far from some sort of neutral arbitration to allow all parties to share with each other, the backstop is in fact a mechanism for the forcible redirection of billions of pounds of Premier League revenue only. In other words, this is one set of private businesses handing over money to another competing set, even if they do not want to give more than the £1.6 billion they already do and it damages their ability to compete.
The critical point, therefore, is that this backstop mechanism represents a completely unprecedented and untested intervention in what are the private commercial rights of Premier League clubs only. It impacts uniquely on Premier League clubs. The gravity and novelty of such an intervention demands the most careful consideration. Crucially, the backstop introduces a major and radical change in the Bill: the inclusion of parachute payments. This decision was taken without adequate consultation with Premier League clubs.
I mentioned earlier in Committee that just seven out of 20 clubs were invited to a 30-minute meeting on the Bill with the Secretary of State between the Government taking office in July and the decision, which was taken in October. It is no surprise that this lack of consultation has produced such a reckless decision. There simply cannot have been an appropriate understanding by the Government of its potential consequences.
Parachute payments are not a financial convenience; they are a cornerstone of the Premier League’s competitive balance. Without them, clubs cannot plan for long-term investment, or the stability required to maintain the intense competitiveness that is the hallmark of the Premier League and a significant driver of its global appeal. Parachutes are also—this is an often-overlooked point—a key part of the financial incentives for Championship clubs to invest in that league, knowing that if they reach the promised land, it will not all be undone with one bad year.
To fundamentally alter this system risks undermining the very factors that have made the Premier League such a global success and one of the UK’s greatest soft power assets. Potentially harming the magic ingredient of the Premier League’s competitive balance threatens to destabilise long-term commitments, jeopardising investment in lower-league stadiums, academies and community programmes. I believe it would fundamentally undermine the Championship, too.
We should also consider the concerns raised by UEFA. It has warned that the backstop mechanism could disrupt the balance of power in football governance and negatively affect the competitive equilibrium in both domestic and European competitions. UEFA has urged the Government to carefully reconsider their approach, emphasising that mandating redistribution in this way risks deterring amicable solutions and the very investments that underpin the success of English football.
This unprecedented intervention into private commercial rights must be carefully scrutinised. It very obviously has a differential and disproportionate impact on the clubs within the Premier League. It is also clear that the consequences of this seismic and deeply flawed intervention have not been fully understood. We do, as UEFA has said, need to reconsider this critical issue.
Lord Markham (Con)
I rise to speak to my amendment to Clause 71 on financial redistribution, and to add to the very valuable points made by my noble friend Lady Brady.
What the Bill seeks to do—which I have not seen in relation to any other regulator in the UK—is to give the regulator unprecedented powers to take money from one part of the sector or certain companies and give it to another. In any other field, this would be unheard of. Can you imagine the FCA saying, “I think HSBC should give some money to Barclays”? Can you imagine Ofwat saying to Severn Trent, “Thames Water is having a bit of a hard time, can you help it out”? Can you imagine Ofcom saying that Sky should help ITV out where advertising revenues are going down? That is unheard of among regulators.
I value the days in Committee as there is such knowledge around the House, so I would love it if any noble Lord could come up with an example of where a regulator has got the power to take away money from a part of the sector or company and give it to another. I would love to hear it.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
On the noble Lord’s point, can he explain to me what happened to the banks when the financial crash came and they ran out of money, or the money was disappearing? Who stepped up then and financed all the banks? The Government did. That was an example of rebalancing and ensuring that the money supply could keep going throughout—that is why they did it.
This Bill will ensure that the rest of the pyramid can survive and carry on. One document I read today says that in 2022-23,
“20 members of the Premier League and five … in the EFL … received 92% of the distributable”
wealth—£3 billion—while
“the other 67 professional clubs”
got £245 million. Is that fair?
Lord Markham (Con)
That goes right to the heart of this conversation. I can point out loads of industries where there are only one or two top companies. Think of the share of the search revenue that Google has. Is that fair? Is it the role of a regulator to get involved and say, “Oh, Google, you should give some money to Bing, because it’s not doing that well”? That is exactly my point.
The noble Lord made a point about the banking sector. The Government stepped in there because they felt that there were wider consequences for the whole economy. They stepped in; they did not say, “Barclays, you should give some money to HSBC”. What we are talking about here is fundamentally different. It is a different set of regulatory powers that I do not think anyone has seen—
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
We are talking here about a fundamentally different thing: the football pyramid and its sustainability. That is what this Bill is about. The question from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was entirely fair. Is it fair that the top 20 Premier League members and the top five clubs in the Championship get 92% of the television revenues generated, when it is the whole of the football world, in a sense, that helps generate those revenues? I do not think it is fair, and I want to hear the noble Lord, Lord Markham, comment on its fairness or otherwise.
Lord Markham (Con)
Is it fair that Federer, Djokovic and Murray earned so much in their time? Did Wimbledon not need all the players to take part for it to be so valuable? Is it fair that Verstappen has won the championship four or five times in a row and is earning far more than everyone else? That is about sporting competitiveness—or competitiveness in anything. It is not the role of a regulator to start to redistribute income; I believe fervently that we will then get the law of unintended consequences.
My noble friend Lady Brady talked about parachute payments. This weekend was a perfect example of why the Premier League is the most popular league in the world. Crystal Palace held Man City to a draw. Can you believe that Crystal Palace—fourth from the bottom, right on the edge of being relegated—would have invested that much in players if they knew that, if they got relegated, they would lose all that money and face almost financial ruin in the Championship without it? I do not think so. I think a regulator would have said, “Oh, Palace, it’s not very sustainable having all that money when you could go down”. That would fundamentally alter the competitiveness of those games. That is the value of the Premier League. People will tune in, because they know that it will not be a walkover between Palace and City in this example; they know that it will be a competitive game.
Countries all over the world are prepared to pay more money than anyone else to see these games because they are competitive. Take the Bundesliga or the Italian or Spanish leagues: there are two or three top clubs and then a lot of also-rans, so it is not competitive in the same way. That is the danger we face here. By allowing regulators to redistribute income, on the basis that it is not fair that the top clubs are getting more, you will alter the whole competitiveness of the structure. Again, we say that it is not fair, but is it fair that the Championship is the sixth wealthiest in the world, while the Premier League is the wealthiest? Why is that? First, it gets a lot of payments down from the Premier League as part of voluntary arrangements. Secondly, it is because of how the whole of football has been set up for clubs to be promoted: money is being invested to give them a chance.
We have all said many times that this is our number one industry worldwide—there is no doubt whatever about that. We then have the second tier, which is number six worldwide. There is nothing else like that, and I believe we are at risk of putting that whole system under threat if we meddle in these ways.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I declare an interest, having acted recently for Manchester City in relation to the charges by the Premier League. I put it to the noble Lord that the system he and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, portray of Premier League clubs having the normal activity of a commercial company that can to do what it likes is simply incorrect. The Premier League itself imposes considerable restraints via financial fair play on what companies can spend and how they use their money. It does that because this is a sport, and the effectiveness of the sport depends on competitive constraints. What the regulator may or may not do is simply an aspect of that. The world that the noble Lord portrays simply does not exist.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. He makes a very strong point, which is that the current system of regulation for Premier League clubs, and the EFL doing it for its clubs, seeks absolutely to set up that competitive environment and those financial fair play rules. My point supports what the noble Lord said: there already is a system of checks and balances, which is working well and making sure that our English Premier League is the first in the world and the Championship is the sixth. Why do we need a regulator coming in between that?
I perfectly accept that there are certain things that the regulator is important for, such as the breakaway league, but is it really the best place to start to have financial distribution from one club to another? That is why I brought this amendment forward. We are fundamentally asking a regulator to do something that we have not asked any other regulator to do in the whole of the economic environment. I thank noble Lords for their interventions; they have added to the debate. I look forward to discussing this further.
Briefly, my other amendments, Amendments 126 and 130, again try to ensure that we do not get mission creep, that we are quite clear about the information the regulator should be asking for from the clubs, and that we cannot set up a regulator that is allowed to go on a complete fishing trip in a lot of these areas. The amendments would set out what information the regulator can ask for from clubs and what they should provide in their strategic business plans, so that we are all clear about that without an endless list that goes on and on. Again, I speak in the context not just of the large clubs; a lot of these are very small clubs, without a large amount of resource to reply to lots of information requests. We need to be quite clear about what we are asking the regulator to do.
I hope this has contributed to the debate. I hope noble Lords will reflect on the fact that we are asking the regulator to do more than we do in any other sector—in our most successful sector too—and whether that is wise.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I speak in favour of these amendments, which would enhance the regulator’s approach. I particularly support Amendments 51 and 52, in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude. The language change may appear subtle—to replace “protect and promote” with
“monitor and where necessary intervene to safeguard”—
in the IFR’s objectives, but the implications for the regulator’s behaviour would be important.
The Minister has said several times in our previous debates that she believes the regulator’s approach should be proportionate. That is welcome, but I am concerned that the current wording of the objectives does not fully support that intention. We have discussed overregulation at length, and the potential for it is clear, particularly as we do not have a counterbalancing growth or success duty to guard against such an approach.
It is important to remember that most clubs, at all levels of the game, are well run. There is no justification for an overly risk-averse set of financial rules that can dampen investment and threaten our hard-won global leadership position, or for infrastructure investments that drive long-term value to be second-guessed. We can guard against such unnecessary interference and regulatory creep. My noble friend Lord Maude’s suggested wording could provide an underpinning for a more proportionate approach. It would recognise that most clubs manage their affairs responsibly and that football’s existing structures in the main work effectively, but would allow for targeted regulatory intervention for genuine issues that have been identified and where it becomes very clear that IFR action is necessary.
The systemic resilience objective requires particularly careful consideration, as we must set an appropriately high bar for macro-level interventions that may fundamentally change how football works. Changing this objective to one to intervene where resilience is “substantially threatened” would properly frame the backstop power as a true emergency brake. As the Minister herself said, it should not be a routine tool.
This matters hugely. As we have heard already in discussions in Committee, the football pyramid depends hugely on the Premier League’s commercial success. Constant intervention risk in a readily available backstop would create exactly the kind of uncertainty we do not want to see that could damage long-term investment. We must make sure that the backstop power genuinely is an “in case of emergency only” tool.
The commercial confidentiality provisions tabled by my noble friend on the Front Bench are equally important. As we know, football clubs compete internationally for players, commercial partnerships and broadcast value. Forcing the detailed disclosure of business strategies or commercially sensitive information could damage clubs’ ability to operate effectively in these markets.
This group of amendments is about ensuring that the regulator enhances rather than inhibits what makes English football successful: genuine competition, where well-run clubs can thrive through strong management, innovation and calculated ambition. Once again, we are talking about a set of changes that could provide the regulator with a lighter-touch, proportionate model of regulation. I hope the Minister will give them some serious consideration.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it might be convenient if I say a few words now. I remind the Committee that many of the people taking part today do not like regulation. I have heard that—a lot. I have a bad short-term memory because I am dyslexic, and I have got the message very clearly, so can we just leave it there?
The aim of the Bill is to create a sound framework for football. Even if you do not think those at the top are in trouble, everybody is agreed that, periodically, the other bits look as though they are going to collapse and fall away, or will have to be replaced, as well as all the little local dramas going on. That has been going on for decades, and we have all heard it.
We are going to have a regulator. The worst type of regulator is one that stands back and does not intervene until it is too late, and has to go in with a heavy hand. We want a regulator that we know will intervene and, as I put it at Second Reading, bite hard enough to leave a scar; a body that will actually do something and let people know that there will be consequences for not complying with the regulation. That is what the Bill is about—and what it has been about since the first version. I hope that we can progress on the line that we are trying to make the regulator work properly, and that we do not have too much repetition of points that have already been made.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Markham’s Amendment 71. It was criticised from all the other Benches on grounds of fairness. I just want to interrogate slightly what the critics mean when they say that this regulator will make things fairer.
We are famously a fair-minded people—you can always appeal to a Brit’s sense of fair play—but the word can be ambiguous. Does it mean equity, merit or need? Suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and I were to buy a cake together, and he spent £3 on it and I spent £2. What would be the fair distribution? Would it be a 60:40 distribution—in other words, dependent on what we had put in? Would it be 50:50? Would it depend on which of us looked hungrier—in other words, based on need? Sometimes these things are all merged together.
I find that, in politics, the word is a kind of boast; it is used to mean, “Look at me: I am a nice, caring person”. It is a way of signalling your decency: “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?” When applied to this particular case, we are in danger of entering into a kind of Atlas Shrugged world, where we politicians and state regulators decide what is fair, rather than leaving it to those most involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, says that we want a regulator that can bite and leave scars. I would rather not have the scars. I would rather have our extremely successful football system unscarred. He added that it existed for decades without regulation, which I think tells us something. I accept that we have lost that argument and will get some kind of regulator, but I appeal to the Government, at least on the other amendments in this group.
The Minister, at Second Reading and again at the start of Committee, repeatedly said that she wanted the scope of the regulator to be restricted, and I do not for a second doubt her sincerity. We also have heard lots of people on all sides already trying to extend its scope—not to limit and circumscribe it but quite the opposite. Indeed, if we look down the list of some of these amendments, we see that, even before it has come into law, people are saying that it needs to apply to women’s games, we need regulations on diversity of ticket holders, and so on.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 51 and 52 in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham—I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hayward for moving Amendment 51 on his behalf—and to Amendment 57 in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and then Amendments 71, 126 and 130 in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham. To those final three, I have also added my name.
The amendments in this group seek to restrict some of the wider powers granted to the new independent football regulator in the Bill as presently drafted. Amendments 51 and 52 would alter the fundamental objectives of the regulator. As drafted, the Bill states that the objectives of the regulator include
“to protect and promote the financial soundness of regulated clubs”,
and
“to protect and promote the financial resilience of English football”.
In essence, that is both a specific objective, directed at clubs themselves, and a general objective, which applies to English football as a whole. Leaving aside the important question of what constitutes English football—which we have already debated but not yet had much success in ascertaining—and indeed the question of what the Government mean by “financial soundness” and “financial resilience”, my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham has sought through his amendments to probe the Government’s intention to set the regulator’s objective as being to protect and to promote. In place of those words, my noble friend proposes the alternative description,
“monitor and where necessary intervene”.
His amendment thus addresses the core question of how activist a regulator we want. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere for underlining that point in his contribution. I look forward to the Minister’s response both to the amendments and to that that core argument. That is, I think, what Members of the Committee have been probing in this group.
Clearly, as drafted, the Bill sets the independent football regulator an active objective to protect and promote English football. That objective is necessarily continuous and seemingly proactive. It could be taken by the regulator to require constant involvement, giving rise once again to the concerns that the Committee has raised about excessive activity and mission creep. By contrast, a lighter-touch duty to monitor the financial soundness of clubs and the financial resilience of English football could allow clubs to get on with their ultimate objective of winning competitions without the overbearing and excessive involvement of this new regulator. I was struck that my noble friend’s amendment is explicit that the regulator’s objective would involve active intervention only “where necessary”. That is a helpful formulation and discipline when drafting legislation.
The question these amendments pose to the Committee, therefore, is whether we want an active, interventionist and potentially overbearing regulator, which might run the risk of getting in the way of our world-class football clubs; or a vigilant, diligent but ultimately careful regulator, which has a duty to stay its hand and intervene only when necessary. I have stretched from teeth to hands in extending the metaphor used by the noble Lord, Lord Addington; I agree that the regulator must have teeth and must be seen to have them. We would like to see those teeth bared from time to time, and to hear them gnashing but, like my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, I would rather not see the scars from those teeth on world-class and highly successful businesses and clubs too often.
We have to strike the right balance to make sure that we have a regulator that commands the respect that it needs to, without biting too often and too damagingly. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on where to draw the line, both in the legislation and the words that we have, and on what the Government hope the Bill will bring about for the regulator.
Amendment 57, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, places a prohibition on the regulator from intervening in the internal financial affairs of regulated clubs. His amendment allows us to consider an important issue, on which a number of noble Lords touched. I know that my noble friend feels very strongly about the possibility of this regulator hampering the ability of clubs to operate as the successful businesses that they are at present, so I welcome his attempt to see whether there is a sensible way of placing some restrictions or limitations on the role that the regulator might play.
As I made clear from Second Reading onwards, we support the establishment of this regulator. We recognise that specific market failures have been raised and recognised, both by fans during the fan-led review and by the previous Government’s work, which helped to inform this Bill’s precursor. The ability of the regulator to have at least some role in regulating the finances of clubs will, I hope, allow it to attempt to address the problems that have been identified. However, we again want to make sure that it does not do so in a way that damages the successful businesses that they are.
Amendment 71 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, and I put my name to it as well. It seeks to prevent the regulator from transferring funds from one private club to another. Mindful of the Government Chief Whip’s entreaties, I do not wish to repeat my noble friend’s argument, so I merely pose a question to the Minister: are there any circumstances in which she and the Government feel that a transfer would be appropriate? If there are no circumstances that she can envisage and set out, what are the problems with embracing my noble friend’s amendment?
I will also say something about my noble friend’s Amendment 126, which seeks to strike out Clause 16(3)(c). That provision of the Bill allows the regulator to require clubs to provide any “such other information”, as the regulator decides in its rules, when those clubs are applying for their provisional licences. Once again, those rules are not set out in the Bill, but are to be determined at a later date so, as clubs are planning their financial affairs for the near future and beginning their preparations for the licensing regime that will be ushered in once the Bill gains Royal Assent, they will not know what information they will be required to provide to the regulator. All we have in the Bill is a vague requirement that they must produce a “personnel statement” and a “strategic business plan”, but there is no further information here and paragraph (c) seems to allow the regulator to request anything that it may choose. That is a distinct lack of clarity for clubs, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s view on whether we can add to that clarity by being more precise.
Finally, Amendment 130, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, would prevent the regulator from requiring information that is not specified in the Bill to be included in a club’s strategic business plan. The current drafting of the Bill grants the regulator a concerningly wide power to require clubs to include
“such other information as may be specified by the IFR in rules”.
This is yet another example of a lack of clarity in the Bill, and I am grateful to my noble friend for highlighting it. Where there is a lack of clarity regarding the regulator’s duties, there is uncertainty for the party that is to be regulated. It seems regrettable that the clubs should not get the clarity that they need about their duties under this part of the Bill but must wait until the regulator has published its rules in due course. Can the Minister give us a flavour of the kind of information requirements that the Government think that the regulator might be likely to include in its rules? Is that something that the Government have discussed with those who are preparing the regulator’s work in this area? Can she elaborate on this for the Committee’s understanding? I am grateful to her and to noble Lords who have spoken on this group.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, it is important to remember that Premier League clubs are already extensively regulated by the rules of the Premier League. The problem is that those rules are made by the 20 Premier League clubs themselves. They are also regulated, as all football is regulated, by UEFA. I gave the example a few moments ago of financial fair play. The virtue of the Government’s proposals surely is that the regulation will be by an independent person. That is what is required. The defects of all the proposed amendments in this group would be simply to confine the discretion of the independent regulator to respond to circumstances as they arise.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Maude of Horsham, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Markham, for these amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for introducing this group. I particularly welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which reminds us of why we are here.
Starting with Amendments 51 and 52, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, I understand that their aim is to clarify that the regulator should only intervene where necessary and in response to substantial risks. I assure the noble Lord that this aim is already appropriately achieved by the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said—and apologies if I paraphrase this incorrectly—this is about ensuring a sound financial basis for football. It will be for the regulator to identify risks to a club’s financial soundness or the financial resilience of the system and to act accordingly. It would be disproportionate and unreasonable for the regulator to intervene where it did not think that the benefits of doing so would outweigh any costs imposed. The Explanatory Notes to this clause make clear that, in the advancement of its systemic financial resilience objective, the regulator
“will identify, monitor and if necessary take action to mitigate systemic risks in order to protect the aggregate financial sustainability and resilience of English football”.
However, we reject the notion that the regulator should be able to act only once risks have become so severe that they substantially threaten the system. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, mentioned the banking crisis; the amendment under discussion could be argued to be equivalent to a financial services regulator noticing sub-prime lending and credit default swap trading in 2007 but not being able to intervene until Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008. Instead, the regulator should be able proactively to mitigate risks when they are identified. We believe that “protect and promote” appropriately conveys this, to ensure a future forward-looking regulator. However, I reassure your Lordships’ House that this does not mean that the regulator will be placing undue restrictions on clubs, pre-empting risks that have not yet materialised.
Turning to Amendment 57 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, I am afraid that the noble Lord’s amendment is at odds with the aims and objective of the regulator. It undermines the very intention of a Bill that had the support of all three main political parties at the election less than three months ago. Indeed, the shadow Secretary of State in the other place has stated:
“I genuinely think that this is an excellent Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/24; col. 244.]
We are looking to set up a predominantly financial regulator. Stopping the regulator from taking any action relating to a club’s internal finances would defeat that purpose. The regulator’s statutory mandate is to deliver its objective; it will achieve these aims using only the powers given to it in statute, such as the licensing regime and the owners’ and directors’ test. The regulator would, therefore, not become involved in the club’s finances, unless it thought that the action would lead to it delivering its objectives. Its powers place clear limits on the extent to which it can require things of clubs.
Lord Markham (Con)
I want to make sure I properly understood the answer to the question on the circumstances in which the Minister would say it was appropriate to take money from one club and give it to another. The Minister answered that the Bill was not seeking to do that because it was looking at the movement of money between competitions. But if you take more money from the Premier League to give to the Championship and other clubs, by definition the clubs receive less money, so that is what happens there. I am not sure that saying money is coming from the competition, not the clubs, is an answer; the money is coming from the clubs. I was not sure about the Minister’s answer. When you change the payments between the Premier League, that directly impacts the clubs and the money they receive.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My understanding is that the amendment would prevent money going from club to club. The model is around distribution between leagues or competitions, as the noble Lord suggests. There is already a situation in which the Premier League recognises that some financial redistribution is needed. I refer the noble Lord to previous discussions about why the regulator and financial redistribution of some type are required within the football pyramid.
Amendments 126 and 130 relate to the regulator being able to state in its rules any further information that is required to accompany the application for a provisional licence or the strategic business plan. The regulator will be independent, and it will be the expert. We need to give it the flexibility to implement its regime as it considers appropriate. This includes being able to request additional information in a club’s application if necessary to satisfy itself that the club will meet the test for a provisional operating licence. This will be set out up front in the rules, so clubs will always know in advance what is required of them when submitting an application or a strategic business plan. For the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the noble Lords’ amendments, and I hope they will not press them.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I find the Minister’s answer interesting, but I will start by making a comment in relation to my noble friend—I do address him as my noble friend—Lord Addington’s remarks regarding regulation. The concerns we have on these Benches are in relation not to regulation per se but to regulatory creep and regulatory definition. The first few clauses in the Bill in one form or another either cover inadequately or do not cover the question of regulation.
My first amendments related to sustainability and the breadth of that comment. The Minister has just made her observations in relation to “targeted”, “prioritised” and “proportionate”. We are trying to establish precisely what the regulator can operate to, more clearly than we have in the Bill as it stands. It is not clear, and the net result is, as we know and as has been observed by any number of Members across this House, that we watch regulators use regulatory creep one after another after another.
The Minister used the words “proportionate” and “targeted”. Is the regulator going to have exactly the same interpretation of “proportionate” or “targeted” as the Minister? No. By definition there are no minds alike, and therefore they will be different. In this set of amendments we are trying to find out precisely how the regulator should operate. Without that clarity, the Bill gives the regulator what I regard, and I think many people on this side of the Committee particularly regard, as undue breadth of self-interpretation. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to the Premier League and the payments that are made. I agree with parts of the comments that he made, but we have here a unique operation whereby the Premier League makes payments to other clubs in other divisions and to those facing threats of relegation so that the whole system does not fail.
The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, identified the banking crisis. Under those circumstances, Governments worldwide intervened in all sorts of ways in all sorts of businesses. That is not comparable with trying to regulate a sport, and a highly successful sport as it is. What is significant and interesting is that although the Premier League passes money downwards, the Championship does not. It receives money and could easily pass money down, but fails to do so. Therefore, one is looking at a complicated position in terms of regulation and the impact it will have, in a way that has been eloquently identified in a number of contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, from her understanding, unique in this Chamber, of the operation of both the Championship and the Premier League.
I will continue to seek clarity, as I am sure others will, on what is intended behind the work of the regulator. That is what we are here to do, and we should do it step by step as we look at each clause and subsection. Having made those comments and noted what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Blunkett
“(d) to ensure regulated clubs have a clear, appropriate governance structure with a board consisting of executive and non-executive directors enabling decisions to be taken collectively.”
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I rise to move Amendment 54 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and to speak to the associated Amendment 159, which relates to Schedule 5 and the role of the regulator in relation to the code of practice.
I hope we will not spend an hour on this group. Having sat through parts of the first two days in Committee, I have heard exactly the same arguments this afternoon as I heard on the previous groups, including on the definition of football, what we mean by competition and even what fairness is. Well, I know that fairness is not the argument about whether the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, pays his due share towards a piglet pie at Brighton’s football ground.
What is this all about? It is quite right that we in this House should scrutinise, raise legitimate argument and challenge a Bill of this sort, but I say to the Premier League, and to those who are, by the very nature of the debate over the last three Committee days, involved in taking the briefings: overdo this and you will do so at your peril, because at some point millions of fans out there might learn what is going on with the filibuster taking place in this Committee and, when they do, they will be very angry.
The Premier League, with its money and its brilliant legal and lobbying support, needs to just reflect on whether this filibuster and what is being done in this Committee is benefiting it. I think not—sometimes overdoing it can be really detrimental.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have no idea whether there is filibustering going on, nor whether everybody on this side of the Committee who I have not spoken to is in the pockets of the Premier League, but I feel there is a kind of gaslighting going on. I take the Bill seriously. I have read as much as I can. Nobody in the Premier League has come anywhere near me, should the noble Lord want to know, nor written my speeches or talked to me.
It is just not fair. There is a lot in the Bill to get one’s head around and to try to speak to. If there is repetition going on in this debate, it is people on the other side constantly saying that anyone scrutinising the Bill must have been got at by the Premier League. That is certainly not true of a wide range of us.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that if you do not have the hat on, you are not wearing it. It is not an individual I am talking about.
I would like artificial intelligence or GPT to do a word count of exactly what the Benches opposite have said over and over again over the last three days in Committee. I started to do that again this afternoon. There were the same phrases, the same arguments and the same resentment all over again about the idea that we should regulate.
Bear in mind, this whole issue came out of the report of a former Conservative Sport Minister. It was subject to a White Paper by the previous Conservative Government in February 2023, and legislation was then drawn up by the Conservative Government. After all that further scrutiny and debate outside, we are now debating it under a Labour Government—ho, ho, ho.
Let us be clear: get this wrong and it will not be the Premier League that loses out; it will be a pyramid, which by its very nature is built from the bottom. Without the rest of the EFL and beyond, we would not have a Premier League. You could ring-fence the 20 clubs, which is what some of them would like; I am sure it would be fantastic for the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, to know that West Ham would never be relegated. I would love Sheffield Wednesday to never be relegated ever again. In fact, I ought to declare a reverse interest: my family and I sponsor a member of the Sheffield Wednesday squad, Callum Paterson. My only resentment is that the manager does not put him on the field often enough. There we are, Saturday after Saturday—and, these days, Sunday after Sunday—seeing competition working and seeing the struggle that is going on.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 157 in my name; I am grateful to those who have added their names. It seeks to add to the governance requirements for licensed football clubs that there should be at least two independent non-executive directors appointed to their main board. The remit for these directors should follow the definition set out in the UK Corporate Governance Code developed by the Financial Reporting Council. I thank the Arsenal Supporters’ Trust for its support for me in putting this amendment together.
As your Lordships know, independent non-executive directors bring independent expertise, scrutiny and accountability to a board, and would have a key role to play in upholding the principles of the Bill around financial sustainability and supporter engagement. I had a quick look and noted that Brighton & Hove Albion Football Club have several independent non-executives; West Ham are reported to have a couple; Liverpool have solely Kenny Dalglish; and Arsenal have simply the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Peckham.
I think we should have more than just the one. The appointment of independent non-executive directors, and their role in advising and scrutinising a club’s financial position, can be an effective check and balance. It is likely to mitigate the need for an independent regulator to intervene regularly, as more issues will be successfully addressed through the accountability that independent non-execs provide.
They can also safeguard the interests of the association’s stakeholders and membership, as the code sets out. In this case, that means supporters. The UK Corporate Code sets out how independent non-execs have a role in overseeing effective engagement with stakeholders. In the case of football, this would of course be adopted to cover supporters and would really help to develop progress on the requirement for effective fan engagement by providing independent senior voices who would play a key part in ensuring effective dialogue with fans.
In that vein, the DCMS requires all national governing bodies for sport to appoint independent non-executive directors to their boards, as set out in the sports governance code. So I ask the Minister to set out provision for independent non-execs on the face of the Bill, or give us reassurance that the regulator itself will bring forward requirements around this issue in the governance code that it will produce.
Lord Markham (Con)
I would like to support absolutely these amendments. I say for the record—and I am sure that I speak for all contributors to these debates—that I am making these points because I care deeply about football and about what is best for football. I think these amendments absolutely do that.
I have many examples of sitting on boards as an independent non-exec director; they are absolutely the sort of people we want, making sure that a club is putting forward appropriate business plans that are sensible, and sometimes taking a risk—risk appetite is in these amendments—but with the right approach to doing so. Having that balance on the board, of owners, supporters and independent, wise heads, has got to be a sensible thing. With that in mind, I offer my support for the amendments.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to speak to Amendments 54, 156 and 157. I apologise to your Lordships for not being here on the previous day of Committee but, as chair of Sport Wales—I declare my interest—I was chairing a meeting of Welsh governing bodies of sport.
In my time involved in sport, I have sat on a number of different sports bodies, including British Athletics, where intimate knowledge of the sport is really helpful, and the Olympic Park London Legacy Development Corporation, where wider knowledge of a range of sports makes a difference. I put my name on these amendments because I sat for two years on the board of Yorkshire County Cricket Club and was interim chair for nine months. As part of that, I was challenged occasionally on whether I knew the laws of cricket and how dare I put my name forward for this. But I was not there as an independent non-executive to umpire a game; I was there to bring good governance to the county.
Bringing that jigsaw of skills is really important. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, mentioned, there is a sports governance code. Olympic and Paralympic sport have benefited greatly from having this. It is about bringing that expertise, accountability and scrutiny. For me, it is about setting the tone for the whole pyramid of the game, and how that feeds up to the Premier League. If we do not get this right for the pyramid, we do not get it right for the sport. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these amendments.
Lord Reay (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to Amendment 249, laid down by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and Amendment 156 from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Regrettably, I was not able to participate at Second Reading, for which I apologise. I declare an interest as an enthusiastic football fan and supporter of West Ham United since the days of Bobby Moore and Geoff Hurst—which dates me a bit.
Clause 20 of this Bill introduces corporate governance duties with regard to equality, diversity and inclusion. Amendment 249 from the noble Lord, Lord Mann, would create an additional duty on football clubs to produce an annual report detailing the club’s diversity and inclusion strategy. This sounds in theory like a good thing. The problem here is that the Football Association’s idea of diversity and inclusion seems to be to promote some forms of diversity while silencing—even excluding—others.
The current approach at the FA punishes and excludes one particular group: women who object to male inclusion in the women’s game. Noble Lords have previously spoken in this House about the 17 year-old girl who was disciplined and suspended for asking a male player on the pitch in a women’s game, “Are you a bloke—a male player in a women’s game?” She was suspended. That is not inclusion.
Amendment 156, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, proposes that the corporate government statement must include a club’s plan to improve the diversity of season ticket holders, staff and senior managers. The FA’s investigations unit helped Newcastle United Football Club collect personal information about a lesbian fan which resulted in her suspension by the club from attending matches because someone at her club did not like her social media posts. This behaviour by the FA and the club is not inclusion.
Both examples show intolerance of what are called gender-critical views—that is, the ordinary scientific and common-sense understanding that there are two sexes, that human beings cannot change sex and that sex matters. Those are mainstream views and they are critical to ensuring fairness and safety in sport. People who hold and express them are protected against discrimination and harassment on the basis of belief by the Equality Act 2010, but the FA is punishing female players and fans for expressing these views.
Through its partnership with Stonewall, the FA has made its campaign one of intolerance, disallowing the expression of any views other than the mantra of “trans women are women”. When diversity and inclusion is defined by more tolerance, I shall welcome it. If we compel English football to pursue more of this so-called diversity and inclusion, it will be at the further expense of women and girls.
What is the solution? The solution is to stop talking in vague terms about diversity and inclusion and have the courage to talk about the groups who need to be included: women and girls, gay men and those who are disabled. Let us have less of the thought-policing and more genuine inclusion. Until we can do that, we must oppose the further imposition of vague diversity and inclusion requirements, because they are anything but inclusive.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, before I speak to Amendment 156 in particular, I want to address a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. There have been 51 clubs in the Premier League since its inception, and there are no permanent members of the Premier League. The Premier League is responsible. It works in a way that looks after the entire pyramid, with its £1.6 billion voluntary redistribution, and it is that money that powers the entire Premier League.
I have spent 32 years—almost all my career—working in professional football across the Football League and the Premier League. My suggestions for amendments are, in a way, to assist the Government to make the Bill work better and avoid the unintended consequences that we all fear and keep warning about.
Amendment 156, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, concerns inclusion and diversity among season ticket holders in the corporate governance statement. I want to say at the outset that diversity is undoubtedly a critical issue in any industry, and football is no exception. Clubs across the pyramid should and do strive to be welcoming and inclusive spaces for all. However, with respect to the noble Lord, the amendment makes a profound and dangerous error. It proposes to involve the regulator in micromanaging some of the most fiercely prized and deeply personal relationships that football clubs hold: their connection with their season ticket holders.
Season ticket holders are the beating heart of football clubs. They are not just customers; they are custodians of the club’s heritage and identity. They represent generations of loyalty, support and community spirit. To suggest that the club should be required to actively manage and engineer the diversity of this group fundamentally misunderstands the organic and deeply embedded nature of these relationships. It risks turning something sacred and delicate into a crude tick-box exercise. For what purpose? To satisfy an external regulator’s misguided notion of progress. I cannot stress enough how risky that would be. It is yet another sign of the scope creep and dangers that lurk in the Bill.
I am not saying that football does not have a role to play in promoting diversity and inclusion—it absolutely does, and clubs up and down the country are already leading by example in the brilliant work that they do every day in this regard. But these initiatives arise from the clubs themselves, born out of genuine commitment and not fear of regulatory overreach. That is how to foster real, lasting change—not by imposing quotas or forcing clubs to meet arbitrary targets but by working with them to build on the good will and trust that they already share with their communities.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I hear what the noble Baroness says about diversity. This weekend, a West Ham player, Antonio, had a terrible car accident and is in hospital now. If you had seen some of the vile and disgusting comments on social media about the player and the club, you would begin to understand why we need diversity.
I have just looked it up, and the dictionary says that diversity is
“the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations”,
and that
“equality and diversity should be supported for their own sake”.
I do not have that rosy picture of football supporters. I lived through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s and heard the chants at various football grounds, which we cannot now repeat in this Chamber. Things are getting better and more acceptable, but it has not gone away. We need diversity to be brought to the fore.
As for the idea that we can just let the clubs do nothing and let this evolve, that just will not happen. We need to make statements. We need, via the regulator and via some of these amendments, to enshrine things in a regulator’s role. What is wrong with having a diversity report that a football club would produce once a year? It is not a tick-box exercise; it stops comments being made about certain footballers about gender, colour, creed or whatever. The more we can introduce that and embed it into football, the less vitriolic nonsense we will get. You still hear it, even on Sky, when they then say, “If you heard anything you shouldn’t have heard, we apologise for that”. That is what you get as an answer—but it needs stopping. These kinds of amendments are needed to enshrine in the regulator the ability to say to clubs, “You will give that report and commit to doing all those things around what diversity means”.
Baroness Brady (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments about the West Ham player, Michail Antonio. It was a real shock to me on Saturday when I received a call from the police about his car accident, but I am pleased to report that he has had an operation and is recovering well. I take the opportunity to thank all the NHS staff and all the emergency services, including the air ambulance and the firefighters who cut him free from his car.
I agree with the noble Lord that the comments footballers are subject to is a terrible shame. It is absolutely horrific and that is a problem with social media. Clubs themselves do everything they can. At West Ham, we have the highest standard of equality and diversity; you cannot be awarded any higher standard than we have. We take it very seriously and that feeds down through our entire club. I thank him for making those comments. Football is trying to deal with those things, but there could be help from other places. We know about the Online Safety Act and that could really help.
Baroness Young of Hornsey (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 157. I declare an interest as a Premier League season ticket holder. I apologise to the Committee for not having been present during previous debates on the Bill, but I have endeavoured to keep up with its progress.
This part of our discussion seems to overlay lots of different and very complex issues, piling them all into one or two amendments. As I speak to Amendment 157, I will try to focus on governance and having independent, non-executive directors on boards, which is absolutely essential when looking at this issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, has pointed out, there is this idea of football clubs being not just a business or a commercial entity, as other commercial entities are. They are also considered to be community assets, so there is a wide range of stakeholders involved in the promotion, adoration, despair and all the other emotions that go with being a football fan. As has been rightly pointed out, it almost defines something about England.
It is therefore important to try to ensure, as far as possible without being too prescriptive, that we have independent non-executive directors on boards because of the accountability. At the moment, I think many fans feel that there is no accountability. I take on board a lot of the points made about how progressive and determined clubs are to counter the horrible things that happen online and elsewhere, but clubs have also not been terribly successful in changing the faces that sit around those boardroom tables. If we look at reviews such as Sir John Parker’s review of ethnic diversity on boards, there has been some improvement in some sectors. I would gladly be persuaded by those who know better if it is the case that diversity has been increased around those tables.
That is just one part of it. To me, this feels like a move for basic good practice. We have the Nolan principles and we have guidance from the Institute of Directors. All those kinds of guidelines need transparency and people to speak up for them who do not have an interest in a particular way on those boards.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I have not had the chance yet to speak to my amendments but I am grateful to other noble Lords for participating in the debate and making their comments and views well known. I am slightly disturbed that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, has rather overinterpreted my Amendment 156. I was not aware that I was in favour of imposing quotas, but it is an interesting point.
Amendment 156 is there simply to raise the issue of ensuring that in corporate governance, football clubs are obliged to improve the diversity within the club, not just among season ticket holders but among staff and senior managers. We have made great progress through football and its barrier-breaking approach to the world of sport over the last 30 or 40 years. I can remember some pretty unpleasant scenes at football grounds when I first started watching football seriously. Gladly, those have become much less frequent but there is a real and genuine issue about representation, particularly of black players then not getting opportunities in off-field representation at all levels of management.
I have received a useful briefing today from the Black Footballers Partnership, which points out exactly that. Only two of the current 92 league managers are black, despite black footballers making up 43% of the players. The Black Footballers Partnership data shows that despite achieving 14% of all FIFA pro licences and one in four of UEFA licences, black players secure only 4% of the coaching and other managerial roles. There is clearly something not right there.
It is important that clubs are obliged to think through some of these issues. Quotas may or may not be the way to do it but we have opportunity here for football to think about improving the levels of diversity, not just in football management but in all management positions and other roles within the clubs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, said, clubs have led the way and have played a really startling and dynamic role over time.
With this amendment—and I am grateful to those who have signed it and spoken to it—I am trying to get football to begin thinking more widely about diversity in its broadest sense so that in the future it is just part and parcel of how it should be. I guess the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, would think that this is regulation creep, but I do not see it that way; I see it as setting standards for the future. Football has a proud reputation, and it is one it should build on.
In this amendment, we are seeking to encourage football to build on its reputation, because that is what needs to be done to make the world of football more inclusive and better reflect the society in which it is located. If we can do that, I think the values of football—competition and solidarity—will be much better represented. It would add to the fairness and equity that is there within a very competitive game.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I think the motivation behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, posits diversity as something you cannot possibly be against. Of course, we are all against prejudice—I hope—and that seems very commonsensical. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made the point that he tabled this amendment so we could have a proper discussion about diversity.
The problem for me is that diversity, in the context of governance of organisations, is already established across a wide range of organisations. I am afraid it has not been for the good of those organisations. I will address the problems of diversity as a bureaucratic intervention, especially in the hands of a regulator, and why I think it will not be good for football. That does not mean I am implicitly on the side of people who are racists or not interested in equal rights or fairness.
It is important that we have some perspective here. We might note that there are 64 different nationalities represented in the Premier League, as well as a myriad of religious denominations. For players in all the different football teams across the league, that is surely proof of meritocracy—rather than box-ticking diversity schemes—that provides the riches of talents, that is colour-blind and that is not interested in people based on their characteristics.
I also think we have huge diversity in fanbase, and it has not needed a regulator to organise schemes to ensure that English football is loved by hundreds of millions of people of all shapes and sizes, ethnicities and socioeconomic backgrounds across the globe. Meanwhile, female fans, players and popular momentum are propelling women’s football into the limelight. Therefore, I do not think that football is an example of a pale, male, stale institution that is waiting for a regulator to sort it out.
Both the amendments I am concerned about, Amendments 156 and 249, mention the clubs’ employees and monitoring and reporting on staff diversity. But I think we need to take heed of some of the negative lessons from other workplaces, particularly the public sector. Whatever the intention, too often an over-preoccupation with diversity is less likely to create more fairness for staff but does create an explosion of jobs for human resources—HR—apparatchiks, who manage the diversity and inclusion schemes that we set up.
It is worth noting that Britain has one of the largest HR sectors in the world. It is one area of growth that somebody somewhere might be proud of, although I am rather in despair at it. According to the British Labour Force Survey, there was an 83% increase in HR jobs between 2011 and 2023. As journalist Lucy Barton pointed out, that means that HR workers currently outnumber NHS doctors three to one. Let that sink in. A lot of this growth is due to job creation in relation to EDI demands. I do not think we should go ahead with these amendments on diversity and inclusion but, if we do, I propose some sort of cost-benefit analysis. The salaries needed for the hours and hours of paperwork that the regulator will be checking that the clubs do could be incredibly financially burdensome—even crippling—on many clubs.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I am a little bewildered by the direction of the debate. Some of these amendments have been put to tease out the issues. My general commentary would be rather different from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who seemed very unkeen on the tremendous work being done across football by the clubs, which I commend. Indeed, I do not just commend it; I can quantify it. I reference my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests as the Government’s adviser on anti-Semitism, then and now. I am particularly impressed by the first ever programme of anti-Semitism training in football, which was launched two years ago. There were a few eyebrows at first, with people asking, “What is this?” In two years, two-thirds of English football has volunteered to be trained. Significant numbers are having their academies trained and some are having players, the board and staff trained. It is particularly interesting and valuable that the biggest single piece of training in the city of Leeds—ever—was the training of Leeds United stewards under this programme.
I am delighted that Liverpool Football Club will be one of many clubs starting in the new year. The list of engagements on this in the first quarter of next year is quite formidable—but there is space for more. This is a success in football, because of what it said to the small number of Jewish players, Jewish staff and Jewish fans: you are valued here.
Just last week, I was at Leyton Orient, where the Jewish supporters’ group sponsored the match against Bristol Rovers. Leyton Orient outperformed anything they had done this season as a response. There will be the first-ever Hanukkah events at Fulham Football Club and at Leeds United Football Club. Other new groups are being formed. Other groups have existing events around Hanukkah and Holocaust Memorial Day. This is a positive, and it is not to the exclusion of any other group. Indeed, we find that other small groups of people who perhaps do not see many people like themselves in the stadium, on the pitch or in the club also welcome it. I have seen clubs embrace that as well. If I was running a club, which I have no desire to do—sometimes I would like to influence one or two of the footballing decisions, but would not we all?—then I would want my club to do that and welcome it. I would call it a good business plan.
On the whole question of diversity, one of its weaknesses and the reason why I tabled an amendment, just to tease out what the Government think—not because I think this is a good regulation necessarily but it should be good club business—is that there is a deficit in the number of black players getting into the better coaching and managerial jobs. That is clearly to the detriment of our national game. Their talent is not being used. How that is captured and by whom is, of course, important, but from a business point of view it is a competitive disadvantage if a large group of participants in the game are then not getting into the coaching and managerial side even vaguely relative to the numbers who participate as players. It is clearly a weakness, and whichever clubs are best at addressing that will have a competitive advantage. I am interested in teasing out and listening to the Minister on how we can help football to grab that.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the overall picture is that football is full of EDI officers. I have had the pleasure of meeting many of them over the last two years —indeed a majority in English football. They are excellent people doing brilliant work. They are out doing work in the community as well, supporting young players from a range of backgrounds. They are a key strength in the clubs and in the clubs’ business plans, as well as in the communities. They should be commended. The more we can encourage that by whatever means, the better we will be doing our job.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mann. He is a man of great good sense and pragmatism. In fact, I could have agreed with most of what he said but, unfortunately, on this occasion I will not agree with his amendment.
First of all, I will go back to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which I agree with. It is very sensible, and the Minister would be wise to accept it. But his preamble was simply wrong. It presupposes that external forces are exerting inappropriate pressure on this side to make cases in their favour, which is completely untrue. I say that because we on this side are merely going through the proper process of scrutiny and oversight, which is our job, to test the efficacy or otherwise of the Bill. Remember: we had a general election, and we have a new Administration, a new Bill and a new Opposition. Therefore, we are quite within our rights to challenge the Bill on its face.
I pray in aid figures from the past few years about the number of Committee days given over to various Bills in this House. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 had 17 sitting days. We have six. The Children and Families Act 2014 had 12 sitting days, and the Localism Act 2011 had 10. There are a number of examples. Much as I hugely respect the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, I respectfully disagree with him.
I move on to the specific issues of, particularly, Amendment 156 from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and Amendment 249 from the noble Lord, Lord Mann. These are two quite insidious amendments; I find them quite Orwellian, actually. It is not that we do not trust local football clubs to do the right thing in terms of community outreach, working with their community and improving equality and diversity, but noble Lords are being asked to put those powers into a regulator that will develop a national template. Whether, therefore, you are Bristol Rovers, Brentford, Brighton and Hove Albion or Bradford City—to use some alliteration—you will be told what you have to put in place in terms of your EDI policies, which I do not think is right. It nationalises corporate philanthropy and community outreach. It is also a displacement activity, because it presupposes that that work is not already being done.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 54 with regard to the governance of clubs. I am sorry that I could not take part at Second Reading, but I have been present for a significant part of Committee. I have been a season ticket holder at either Sunderland or QPR for most of my life, and I now have three season tickets at QPR for myself, my son and grandson—I fear what I have done to both of them, but that is another problem.
In 2005, I undertook a report for the Football Association on its governance. Quite a number of important proposals that I made were carried out, but I am afraid that some were not. I sometimes think that, if they had been, there would have been for the Bill that we are having to spend so much time on now.
As far as experience goes, I was a member of the board of QPR for a few years and I have been the chairman of a bank. For me, there are some interesting similarities between football and banking: both are rather risky activities. The risks in football are about the performance of the team, the loss of value of players, either because of form or injury, and the risks involved in promotion and relegation. From my observation, and experience at the time, the biggest risk to clubs is overreaching; it is about taking too much risk. They are very often funded by owners or directors. Things go downhill and the directors then want their money back, if it was in the form of loans, which forces clubs into selling players at a loss.
The banks have a prudential regulator and I accept that there is a clear need for some body that has oversight for football as well from the point of view of prudential regulation. The point was made earlier that it is no good coming along once problems have emerged. You need systems and processes in place that monitor areas of activities where risks lie.
I am a great supporter of requirements of good governance in all kinds of organisations. I have sat on many boards, and I have seen good boards and not so good boards. There is a great deal of difference. It is significant to me that, when I was involved in banking and dealing with financial regulators, they placed great emphasis on the quality of the board in overseeing what was going on and particularly the risks it was undertaking. It seems to me to follow naturally that there should be the same requirement for the football regulator with respect to clubs.
I add—it is not for today—that I looked at the requirements and some of the governance issues that have been suggested for the regulator, but I am not sure all would pass the standards of good governance. For example, the exclusive role of the chairman in choosing the chief executive seems slightly odd for a body that has non-executive directors as well as a chairman. But I very much support this amendment.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I rise to question Amendment 156 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Bolton and Lady Grey-Thompson. It is a great pleasure to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, because it is a reminder to us of how much experience we have here, from a board director of a Premier League football club to regular supporters and, in the noble Lord’s case, the holder of three season tickets. I pay tribute to him and his long-suffering son and grandson.
The point that I want to make about Amendment 156 is about season tickets. I do not think anybody in your Lordships’ House would argue against diversity in staff and senior managers. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, made the good point that about 40% of Premier League players are from a BME background, but that that does not continue into senior management. That has been the case for a long time and there is clearly more work to do on that.
However, the first part of Amendment 156 talks about
“the diversity of season ticket holders”.
When I saw that, I was worried about the law of unintended consequences. How on earth do you sort out that issue? For season tickets for my team there is something called supply and demand. There are several options for having a season ticket at Manchester United, as there are at other Premier League clubs, but how do you work it out? There is a waiting list, because of supply and demand. Several thousand people are waiting to become season ticket holders, so can the Minister advise the Committee how this amendment would be looked at?
There are a limited number of seats at a ground: in the case of Old Trafford, there are 75,000 seats and a waiting list of 10,000. I have had a season ticket for many years. Recently, they changed where you could sit at Old Trafford. I was unsure for a while whether I would have a ticket for where I moved to. I was told that there was no guarantee that I would have a ticket, which, as you can imagine, was quite distressing for somebody who had been a season ticket holder for many years. As it turned out, I was lucky enough to have a ticket, in the way that several thousand were not.
There is also the option of a league match ticket book. That enables me to go to Premier League games only. There is the cup option—the FA Cup, the Carabao Cup and the European Cup options. There is also a ticket forwarding membership of £20. I mention that because, if you are looking at diversity, you may not be able to get a season ticket holder, but if you want to go and see a Premier League club, becoming a member gives you access to get a ticket. It might not be your favourite Premier League game against your local opposition or any other club in the Premier League, but anybody could apply, become a member of their local club and should be able to get a ticket for a cup game. It may not be a Saturday or a Sunday; it may be a midweek game. Diversity is in evidence at Premier League clubs. For example, accessibility for disability has been there in many clubs for many years. When I sit there before kick-off at Manchester United, I see significant diversity around me. What surprises me is the people who fly around the world to see their team play, as they do for so many other Premier League clubs.
The Premier League is the best premier league in the world for a good reason. It attracts diversity by that very principle. I would be interested in how the regulator would ensure diversity of ticket holders. I say yes when it comes to staff and senior management—I do not think anybody could disagree with that. However, it is complicated, and so much to do with this Bill is the law of unintended consequences. You cannot tell people who have been on waiting lists for many years that they cannot become a season ticket holder because of some diversity report from a regulator.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 54, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and Amendment 157, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I shall speak also to Amendment 249, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, which has a lot to commend it.
Before I comment briefly on those three, I want on the record to thank the Minister. We met this morning. We are fortunate in this Committee to have a Minister who is patient, engaging, professional and, unquestionably, inclusive in her approach to many different amendments and many different views that are expressed throughout this Chamber. When she consistently says how much she is enjoying this, some of us might question that, but there is no doubt that if she is, she deserves to, because she has the respect of the Committee and certainly my respect for the way in which she has engaged with us.
I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for whom I have many decades of respect. I was completely in agreement with 50% of what he said today, but I caution him in labelling a large number of Members of this Committee as purely spouting the views of the Premier League, trying to talk this Bill out or, more importantly perhaps, breaching the admonition from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that because both Front Benches supported the Bill, we should not scrutinise it. He will know that for many decades I have been a passionate and independent voice for sport. My own deeply held view is that the autonomy and self-regulation of sport worldwide, be it in the International Olympic Committee, FIFA, UEFA or any number of international sporting bodies, are essential to the success of sport and ultimately those who participate in it.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I point out to the noble Lord that the whole point is that this regulator is independent. Obviously, it is influenced strongly by government decisions, but it is independent. Surely, many of the concerns that the noble Lord is expressing—as, indeed, is the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—are answered by the appointment of a sensible regulator who will act in a proportionate manner.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I only wish I could say to the noble Lord that that is what we have in front of us. Had we had the opportunity to sit with him and explore each and every clause as we have gone through this, we might have been able to say so, but that is not the case. This is not light-touch regulation. This is not even regulation that you find in the Companies Act.
Let me give the noble Lord a quick example; I risk admonition for repeating a point that I made earlier, but I will make it very quickly indeed. When you give powers to the regulator to explore not just the controlling influence of a football club but those who “significantly” influence a football club, those are very different roles. You have “controlling” in the Premier League; you have “significant influence” in the Bill. Significant influence can reach back as far as the Crown Prince, who has significant influence over the PIF, which owns Newcastle, whereas, by definition in this Bill, he does not control that club, nor would the Premier League investigate him on that basis.
So it is reasonable to accept the noble Lord’s premise—I wish it were true that this is light-touch regulation—but, in reality, this is incredibly intrusive, highly detailed regulation. It goes further than the regulation I put in place in 1990 when I was the Minister responsible for water privatisation and we were setting up Ofwat. That was light-touch regulation in comparison with this extraordinarily detailed Bill. That is the most important point driving my concern about unintended consequences—what some people call the “mission creep” of regulation.
I turn to the amendments. Given that we are going to have a Bill for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said—there is all-party support for having legislation of this kind—we may as well get it right. There is real merit in looking at the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—backed so eloquently, as ever, by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—which would
“ensure regulated clubs have a clear, appropriate governance structure with a board consisting of executive and non-executive directors enabling decisions to be taken collectively”.
I hope that it would not be just regulated clubs. I hope that all clubs in all sports would do that, because the benefits of having both executive and non-executive directors is well known to those of us in sport—not least in the British Olympic Association, which I had the privilege of chairing.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, has widespread support in this House for the work he has done on anti-Semitism and anti-Semitism training. I am glad that he tabled his amendment, because it gives us an opportunity to thank him on behalf of sport and on behalf of football. That work has been absolutely critical; I say this not just as a fellow Leeds fan but because, across sport as a whole, it is vital that we put equality, inclusion and diversity right at the top of what we do.
We are expected to do that outside football. I have an interest to declare as the chair of Amey, which has some 13,000 people. Almost the first thing that I did as chairman was set up an ESG committee immediately beneath the board and chair it so that I could ensure inclusion and diversity were right at the heart of our policy and were in the DNA of everybody who worked in that organisation. I do not believe that that is different from sport and I do not believe that that is different from football.
So, if we are to have legislation—which, as noble Lords know, I regret—let us get this right and listen carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said in the first 50% of his speech, and to the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Mann. There is real merit in the Minister taking this away and thinking about what we would expect to see from the regulator in this context.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak in this debate, but I am afraid that some of the comments that have been made have obliged me to do so.
However, before I come on to the amendments and the comments made in the speeches, I would just like all your Lordships to look around you. We are talking about equality, inclusion and diversity. What proportion of this Chamber is disabled, non-white, gay or lesbian? The answer is: very, very few. It is a compliment to the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, that she is a great example of what women can achieve at the top of the football tree, and that we have a female Minister responding. But I stand here, as I said in my first speech to this Chamber, as the founder chairman of the world’s first gay rugby club. It celebrated its 29th anniversary only just under two months ago and will celebrate, I expect, its 30th anniversary next 1 November.
I find it utterly unacceptable to suggest, as has been suggested, that we should not tackle the question of trans individuals in society. I am proud that I did a podcast the other week with a member of my club, who himself has undergone the process of moving from female to male. He is proud of having done it. There are issues that we have to address in society, as well as issues that we have to address in sport. I believe that on occasion it is appropriate to put things into legislation as an “encouragement” to people to behave in a certain way. It is all very well saying, “Well, we have the right policies and we’ll do it all right”, but I come back to this point: look at this Chamber.
I have not taken any guidance, as Lord Blunkett suggested, from the Premier League, and in fact, on a previous occasion in Committee, I made the point that actually the Premiers League, for all its right efforts, was not messaging correctly. I believe that that is the case here. In rugby we have had openly gay World Cup final referees and a captain of the Welsh rugby team, but we have no openly gay, top-level professional players at the moment, as far as I am aware. But football is behind the times despite the best encouragements from individuals, and it is therefore well worth while asking the question of the Minister and of the regulator, “How are you actually going to tackle these issues?”—because issues they remain.
I will conclude on the observation in relation to Rainbow Laces. Rainbow Laces has been adopted by sport throughout as a means of messaging to people as to how they should behave to other minority groups. They must continue to do so. It is not a political gesture; it is a gesture on behalf of society as a whole to other parts of society. I believe we have achieved so much, but we could achieve so much more.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Maybe the noble Lord and I can have a fruitful conversation outside this debate. For today’s purposes, does he understand that in a discussion about inclusion and diversity, women are concerned about women’s rights and women’s equality? Among women footballers and the parents of young girls they are encouraging to get involved in women’s football and training and so on, there is great discomfort, as the tennis guru Judy Murray said at the weekend. Will he acknowledge that this has nothing to do with individuals? It is to do with the political approach. At the moment, women do not feel included or represented in football because this issue is put to one side, and therefore everyone talking about EDI and all the rest of it is just a slap in the face.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I understand the concerns and am quite happy to take a conversation with any Member of the House outside this Chamber. I do not want to prolong the debate this afternoon. I have made my comments. I hope that the regulations we follow in relation to this regulator coincide with company legislation, because that seems to be the appropriate route to go down. I will no doubt continue at a later stage. I think it is important above all to send out a very clear message from this Chamber about what we believe we should achieve—not necessarily legislate—in relation to equality, inclusion and diversity.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, in opening this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, expressed the hope that we would not take another hour dealing with this group of amendments. We have taken well over an hour. I find this debate very odd because we all seem to agree that equality, diversity and inclusion are of enormous importance in football. The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, rightly spoke of the great efforts that West Ham in particular has made and the great results. Many other clubs have done the same. I would be astonished if a Bill dealing with these matters did not require the independent regulator to look at equality, diversity and inclusion and to have broad powers across the scope of football to do so.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who knows how much I respect him, that I have had no contact at any point with the Premier League, unless you count occasionally buying a ticket to one of the member clubs. Far from filibustering, my intervention on the previous round was the first time I had spoken since Second Reading, and I kept it to about four minutes. I opposed this Bill very strenuously when it was proposed in the previous Parliament. I am sure he will allow that it is not exactly the same Bill. It has been beefed up in various ways, and those ways need scrutiny.
One of the ways in which it has been beefed up, even short of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is in strengthening the EDI provisions. I have to stand back and ask whether it is proper for a regulator to tell private clubs what kind of people should be their ticket holders. Is there not a basic principle of proportionality and property here that says it is in your interest to have as many ticket holders as you can, and it is in their interest, if they are interested, to come? Does that intersection of who wants to come and how much they are prepared to pay not represent the right place in a free society? We are not some autocracy where we impose values on free-standing organisations.
In our present mood we sacralise the values of EDI but tomorrow it may be something else, and that would be equally wrong because there is such a thing as freedom. There is such a thing as a private space, and that is an essential building block of a free society. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam—he will correctly me if I get this wrong—says it is shocking that only 4% of senior management positions are held by black people. According to the 2021 census, the proportion of black people in the UK is 4.0%. In other words, without any intervention, without anyone telling them what to do, we happen to have an exactly representative number. But even if that were not the case—even if, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was saying, there is a much higher proportion of black players in Premier League clubs—surely that is meritocracy. Why would it be the business of government to try to bring that number into line with the population?
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Does the noble Lord not think it is rather odd that in a sport where something like 43% or 44% of the players are black, very few of those players make it through into management positions in those same professional leagues? Does he not think there is something slightly amiss there?
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
The figure that is out of whack with the population is the number of players, not the number of managers, which is exactly in line with the population as a whole. The noble Lord may have a problem with that. I do not have a problem with that because it is plainly meritocratic. Clubs are interested in winning, so they pay people who are going to produce the results that they want on the pitch. If their fans are not happy with it, they stay away. That is how the system works and why, frankly, I think the whole Bill is wrong. I realise I have lost that argument, but we are not some insecure South American junta that has to tell private clubs what to do and appoint commissars over sport.
I do not want to be accused of filibustering this one, and I have gone just over three minutes, so I will finish by saying that if we are to have this wretched regulator, let us at least make it as proportionate and as in line with the rest of our law as possible, on which note I will support the rest of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, because it seems quite sensible to bring any regulator into line with the usual standards of corporate governance.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we did not quite give the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the debate of under an hour that he hoped for, but I note, for the benefit of the Government Chief Whip when he comes to read the Official Report, that this group is composed entirely of Labour Back-Bench amendments. We have heard the arguments and motivations for tabling the amendments advanced by noble Lords who did so; we have tested their arguments and examined the intended and unintended consequences. That is the work of this Committee, and I am glad we have done it. We had a fruitful and useful debate with quite a lot of agreement between noble Lords about their anxieties and some of the problems that we want to solve, but also some shared anxieties about the problems that might flow from the way in which the noble Lords who tabled the amendments propose doing so.
I start on a point on which I think we all agreed and add my strong support for the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Knight of Weymouth, and those who signed them, including the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, about independent non-executive directors. They are sensible and constructive amendments. One reason we have been moving quite slowly in this Committee is perhaps, as is often the case, that the Government have listened to the debate and rejected all the amendments tabled so far, urging noble Lords to withdraw them and saying that they are not necessary. Amendments 54 and 157 are good amendments on which to break that trend; there was clear support for them from across the Committee, including the Cross Benches. I hope that, even if the Minister is not willing to accept the amendments as drafted, she will in this case look at how we can strengthen the oversight of the work of clubs through the work of independent non-executive directors.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his contribution and the support he gave to amendments we have previously discussed about the independence of the chief executive and the way in which they are appointed. There is some valuable stuff there for the Government to take away. It is very much linked to the broader debate we have had about diversity. If we can get the non-executive leadership of clubs right, then, as well as improving the scrutiny and accountability of the work of those clubs, we will add to their diversity—not just the diversity of the personnel sitting on the boards but the diversity of thought and the open-mindedness to make sure that the clubs are continuing the work that noble Lords have rightly pointed to. That includes making sure that they continue to be open, inclusive and growth-focused, concerned with attracting new fans to football and making sure that talented people, whoever they are and whatever their background, are able to rise as far up the football pyramid as their talents will take them. I hope the Minister will look favourably on Amendments 54 and 157.
Like other noble Lords, although I appreciate the motivations behind the other amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 156 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, I am worried about some of the consequences that might flow from it and the way he proposes it. That is not to disagree with what other noble Lords have said about the important issue that he raises, or to lose sight of the huge progress that has been made. I was not around in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s, of which the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, rightly reminded us, but the behaviour of football and football fans and clubs in those decades was often not to the credit of this nation. We should be very proud of the strides that football has made, voluntarily, through the work of its fans and the people who operate the clubs, in being a more inclusive and welcoming environment open to the talents of everybody.
I know why the noble Lord has probed this area. He wants the work that is undeniably still needed to build on that to continue. Like other noble Lords who have probed it, I worry about some of the practicalities and where his amendment, as worded, would take us. There is a material difference between monitoring the diversity of a workforce and the diversity of a fan base and season ticket holders, as I think the noble Lord would acknowledge. I would particularly be concerned about asking fans and ticket buyers to disclose quite sensitive information that they do not presently share with the football team of their choice about their religion, ethnicity, sexuality and so forth. I am not quite sure how, for season ticket holders, that work would build on things.
Amendment 249, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, gives me the opportunity to echo the thanks that my noble friend Lord Moynihan expressed to him for his work on tackling anti-Semitism, not just in football but more broadly. I was in Downing Street when he first took on the role as the Government’s independent adviser on anti-Semitism, so I have seen the work that he has done in a number of spheres to tackle prejudice in that area.
Noble Lords will undoubtedly agree that diversity and inclusion in the workplace can be of benefit not just to staff but to an organisation corporately. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, expressed that this was a probing amendment to see what the Government’s view was and to highlight some of the work that football does. He is right to do so, particularly on that last element, because clubs across the football pyramid have a number of strategies and are doing great work in this area through their own volition. Arsenal, for example, have had a diversity, equality and inclusion plan called Arsenal for Everyone since 2008. Arsenal did that by themselves; they did not require a regulator to force them to publish a plan.
Article 27 of the UEFA club licensing regulations, which detail the standards that clubs must meet before they can participate in a UEFA competition, contains social and environmental sustainability conditions. It states that:
“The licence applicant must establish and implement a social and environmental sustainability strategy in line with the UEFA Football Sustainability Strategy 2030 and relevant UEFA guidelines, for at least the areas of equality and inclusion, anti-racism, child and youth protection and welfare, football for all abilities, and environmental protection”.
That is a wide-ranging list of good causes for it to encourage people to think about. There is not exactly a lack of corporate governance requirements in this area already placed on clubs, and noble Lords have pointed to a number of highly commendable initiatives to build on our work here.
I was in your Lordships’ House on Friday when the noble Lord, Lord Mann, spoke in the archiepiscopal debate that we have in the run-up to Christmas, led by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. He warned against the temptation to reach for the legislative lever in every instance to drive forward good work. This is an area where a lot of great work is already being done, to the credit of people in football. I would be wary about measures that are too restrictive or prescriptive that would cut against that.
I will not go into the details of the lively debate that my noble friend Lord Reay and others had, other than to note that these are issues which are not party political; they were raised at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. My noble friend Lord Hayward’s intervention reminds us not just of his long-standing and pioneering role in championing inclusion in sport but of the fact that these are complicated matters that sport and so many parts of society are grappling with. I do not think that writing something into this Bill in the way that is envisaged would help that, but I am very grateful for the opportunity to have had a detailed debate on this. It has been useful, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank my noble friends Lord Blunkett, Lord Bassam of Brighton, Lord Knight of Weymouth, Lord Mann and Lady Taylor of Bolton for tabling these amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for the role she has played in supporting some of the amendments. It has been useful to have the discussion. The debate is a reminder that, at times, players are often at the brunt of quite a lot of unpleasantness, not least on social media.
I am sure that noble Lords across the Committee will join others who have spoken about the dreadful accident that took place at the weekend involving Michail Antonio, and wish him a speedy and full recovery. I cannot imagine what it was like to take the phone call that the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, had to take. Our thoughts are with him and his family and colleagues.
Good corporate governance is the bedrock of any well-functioning business, and there is agreement on this across the Committee. However, the Government believe that this has been lacking at some clubs to date, and that is why it will be an important part of the regime.
I begin with Amendment 54, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blunkett. While I agree with the intention, I assure my noble friend that ensuring regulated clubs have good corporate governance is already well provided for in the Bill; for example, the mandatory licence condition requiring clubs to report against a new corporate governance code for football clubs. We do not feel it is appropriate to add this level of specificity to the regulator’s objectives. As my noble friend made clear, good governance protects fans and owners. Good corporate governance will contribute to a club’s financial soundness, which is already captured within the objectives in this clause.
Amendment 156, from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, and Amendment 249, from my noble friend Lord Mann, concern equality, diversity and inclusion. I strongly agree with the principle of these amendments that clubs should be more transparent with regards to equality, diversity and inclusion. However, I believe that Amendment 249 is not necessary. As part of the corporate governance statement mandatory licence condition, all licensed clubs will already be required to report on what action they are taking on equality, diversity and inclusion. The Bill specifically includes equality, diversity and inclusion in its definition of corporate governance. We therefore expect to see recommendations about equality, diversity and inclusion in the regulator’s corporate governance code.
On Amendment 156, as I have outlined, clubs will already be required to report on what action they are taking on EDI. My noble friend Lord Mann mentioned important examples of where clubs are already taking action. I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on my noble friend’s contribution, particularly as it relates to anti-Semitism. I also agree with many of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, in his contribution.
Reporting on the diversity of staff and senior managers would be typical of how these types of transparency measures work. However, regarding the point on season ticket holders, we do not feel that it is the regulator’s place to act here. As a financial sustainability regulator, the regulator’s interest in equality, diversity and inclusion is that it contributes to good corporate decision-making, which in turn makes clubs more sustainable.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, that, beyond this, it is not for the regulator to get involved in the diversity of a club’s fan base. A club might like to take note if its fan base does not represent its local area. Some examples of clubs reaching out to communities have been mentioned by noble Lords in the course of the debate. There are already actions being taken on fan diversity by clubs, competition organisers and wider stakeholders.
In response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, we think that EDI reporting is a good thing. A lack of basic good corporate governance threatens the sustainability of football clubs. We have seen in the past crises at clubs that may have been avoided with some simple improvements to how the club was run. That is why the regulator will introduce a new football club corporate governance code. The regulator will work with the industry to design the code and will support clubs in applying it, in addition to encouraging best practice.
The requirement for clubs to publicly report against this code is designed to increase transparency, scrutiny and accountability. Clubs will have the flexibility to interpret the principles of the code and explain how they have applied them to suit their individual circumstances. We are clear that the regulator will not prescriptively micromanage each club’s board. That is not its role, and would cause a significant burden to the regulator itself and to clubs.
Amendment 157, in the name of my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth, seeks to add a further limb to a club’s corporate governance reporting by explaining how it meets the standard of the UK Corporate Governance Code in relation to the appointment of non-executive directors. I thank him for raising this issue and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for illustrating why a range of skills—what she referred to as a jigsaw—helps in delivering good governance.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend and I hope to be able to converse with her before Report, purely on the grounds that if you do not have a governing body that consists not only of non-execs, which I note my noble friend Lord Knight’s amendment alluded to as well, but also officers who are the executive directors of a board then it is difficult to progress. There has been unanimity today from all sides of the Chamber in relation to the direction of travel.
We are now two and a half hours or more in, so I will have to follow my own strictures in being very brief. I make it clear that I accept that scrutiny is crucial.
On diversity, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that there is a real difference between woke gesturism and downright silliness and a genuine commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion. We must be able to make that distinction, and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, did so very well. I have to say to him that I had aspirations when I was very young to be the first blind football manager, but it was pointed out to me that I might be better being a referee so that when people shouted, “Get a guide dog!”, I could say, “I’ve got one already”.
It is nice that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, raised the issue of Michail Antonio, and I am pleased that I had alignment with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, on this. Michail Antonio once scored a crucial goal with a dislocated collarbone, and we will never forget that. I wish him well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Markham
(d) to promote the growth of English football (referred to in this Act as “the growth objective”);(e) to promote and protect financial investment in English football (referred to in this Act as “the financial investment objective”).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment creates two new objectives the IFR must promote.
Lord Markham (Con)
I hope that this proves to be a quicker debate, because I would hope that what we are talking about here are not controversial measures but measures that go to the heart of the regulatory framework we are trying to establish. It is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is not in his place. Although we are supportive of the principles of regulation, as my noble friend Lord Hayward said, we are trying to make sure that that regulation is set up in the right way.
Our debates in Committee stage so far have all been about the first few pages of the Bill, which are about the regulatory framework and objectives; the point of my Amendment 56 is that if you only have an objective of sustainability, it is one-dimensional and that is not good for the game. I will freely admit that I have spoken to a Premier League club which wrote to me about that—Brentford—and I hope that noble Lords would agree that Brentford is exactly the sort of club we should listen to in this sort of debate, because it is a club that has come through the divisions and is seen as a well-run model club—and one definitely not guaranteed its place in the Premier League. So it has an important contribution to make to this debate.
The letter that Brentford wrote to me and to local MPs says: “a regulatory framework that prioritises stability above all else would be disproportionate. It could mean the regulator financially constraining some Premier League clubs more than others. For Brentford, a club that has risen against the odds to the Premier League, such restrictions risk stifling our ability to grow and compete with larger, established clubs”. That is why I tabled this amendment, to expand the regulator objectives. Otherwise, there is the danger exactly as written in the letter, which I am happy to share with all Members here and which has also been sent to local MPs.
The exact concern of Brentford’s chairman is that, if the regulatory framework is just based on financial sustainability, it risks entrenching the closed-shop nature of the top clubs and will restrict the ability of the Brentfords of the world to compete. From its point of view, having an objective that promotes the growth of all English football, protects financial investment in the game and means that you know you can reap the rewards from investing in a club is very important. Amendment 56 seeks to add this, and is, I hope, uncontroversial, because who would not want to promote growth? We know that that is the Government’s number one objective, and it is fundamental to the Bank of England’s remit and a lot of other regulators also have growth objectives.
In the new clause proposed in my Amendment 58, subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) refer to the “financial soundness” and “resilience” of clubs and aim to ensure that the regulator takes into account the whole financial picture of clubs, looking at their assets and liabilities—their whole balance sheet—and their ability to meet any future liabilities. In other words, we want a holistic picture of their sustainability. Funnily enough, that is akin to what the Chancellor announced in the Budget about government spending and so-called “persnuffle”—or PSNFL—which looks at assets and liabilities to make sure you have a rounded picture of the health of the Government’s, or the country’s, finances. Amendment 58 tries to encourage a similar approach to looking at the overall wealth of a club and its overall balance sheet strengths.
Proposed new subsection (1)(c) looks to make sure that the heritage of English football, which we all agree is vital to all this, is rounded out in its definition, while proposed new subsection (1)(d) looks at all the things that are key to the health of the overall game. It would make sure that the regulator, when it looks at how it acts in this space, looks at the overall health of the game—the growth of football in terms of TV viewership, matchday audience, fan engagement, number of clubs and number of fans. I shall not repeat the arguments that we made earlier, but noble Lords will be aware that these are the key things—that media rights go to the heart of the value and TV stations around the world pay to back those media rights, for the health of those sorts of objectives that we would like to see it have.
That is why, in introducing this amendment, I am trying to make sure that we have a much more rounded definition, going to the heart of the framework of what we hope the regulator would look to do and have in place. I hope that noble Lords will be able to support what I hope is a very sensible objective and will take on board the concerns of the Brentford chair—if it was only one-dimensional and looking at financial sustainability alone. I hope that the Minister will be able to take those points away for further consideration. I beg to move.
Baroness Brady (Con)
I support Amendments 56 and 58, tabled by my noble friend Lord Markham, which together propose critical enhancements to the objectives of the regulator. These amendments seek to establish clear and ambitious goals for the regulator, while ensuring that its powers remain proportionate and carefully defined.
Amendment 56 introduces two new objectives for the regulator: to promote the growth of English football and to promote and protect financial investment in the game. These objectives are not just desirable; they seem to me to be essential, if we are to preserve the vibrancy, competitiveness and international appeal of English football.
The Premier League is the crown jewel of global football. Its growth and success have been driven by significant financial investments, made in good faith and with the legitimate expectation of stable and predictable regulatory conditions. Without that certainty, clubs would not have been able to commit to the infrastructure, youth development or community programmes that are now the pillars of our game. Yet, as currently framed, the regulator’s remit is heavily focused on constraints, restrictions and redistribution. While these may be important, without taking growth into account, they risk creating a chilling effect on the investment that has driven English football to its current heights. To constrain without also providing balance is to risk stagnation or, worse, managed decline.
Amendment 58 complements this by providing detailed definitions of these new objectives. It outlines what growth means in practical terms: increasing TV viewership, matchday attendance, fan engagement, the number of clubs and the number of fans. These are good proxies, in my view, for the growth of football and ensuring that the regulator’s actions are aligned with the long-term health of the game. Although promoting growth and protecting investment are vital, I listened carefully to the Minister’s argument that a growth duty or purpose could in fact be scope-widening. I believe that she indicated that it could place the regulator in conflict with the broader European framework of football governance. This would risk significant repercussions—but only, of course, for those clubs competing in European competitions.
This is one of the tensions at the heart of the Bill. You could have proper balance in the regulatory regime’s design, so that it is de-risked, light-touch, pro-growth and business-friendly and protects this highly successful industry—but, in doing so, you potentially risk the future of a smaller number of clubs which may, one day, be barred from European competition. Alternatively, you could do what the Government have done, and you therefore risk setting up the regulator to be harmful to growth, overly intrusive, risk-averse and dampening to investment—but, in doing so, you are more likely to be compliant with UEFA, although no one has been able to provide a cast-iron guarantee on that.
In supporting these amendments, I urge Ministers to take this opportunity to refine the objectives of the IFR to set it firmly on the path to success. We need to create objectives that support football’s future without overextending the regulator’s reach or compromising the autonomy of competition tools, which must rightly remain the domain of the competitions themselves. I hope that, as we deepen our scrutiny of the Bill, we can find a better balance.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friends’ amendment, for the obvious reason that, from the beginning of our discussions, we have not substantially defined in the Bill what we mean by “English football”, other than by alighting on the word “sustainability”. We also have not defined what we mean by the “heritage of English football”. That was specified in the impact assessment—in fact, it says on the first page that we do not know what the heritage of English football is.
This is a very helpful amendment from my noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, because it at least gives us and the regulator an opportunity to have a firm understanding in the Bill, among all stakeholders in all leagues, of what we mean by the heritage of English football. It is important that it means the tangible and intangible elements that define the unique historical identity of English football. I am surprised that the Government, for whatever reasons, have decided not to adopt that in the Bill and have left it to—
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I am a bit surprised, because the Benches opposite have, on several occasions, accused us on this side of trying to extend the reach of the regulator. The noble Lord asked: what is English football? In the Bill English football covers the top five levels—that is the definition. Personally, I think it should go to level six, but it is at level five. It is clear what it means by English football.
Under subsection 1(d) of the proposed new clause, Amendment 58 seeks to increase “the number of clubs”. I do not see how you can increase the number of clubs without it taking in other levels beyond those in the Bill. These amendments seek to extend the role of the regulator, which is rather inconsistent from those opposite.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
As usual, the noble Lord makes a very pertinent and astute point. I disagree with it, because what we are seeking to do is further define what is in the Bill. There is a lack of definition—there has been since we discussed the issue in relation to Clause 1 a week or so ago. That is the difficulty.
The general point the noble Lord makes is also pertinent, because we are still deciding whether this is a hybrid Bill. It is important that we define English football, because if we do not properly define it, there will be an issue of hybridity. According to the Minister’s letter, as I understand it, it is still only provisionally being ruled as a hybrid Bill, and there is no definitive position.
The point that I was making was that we need a proper framework. The new clause proposed by the amendment would add that definition to the Bill. It would therefore make it a better and more holistic Bill. At the moment, there are significant concerns about the Bill’s enabling powers and Henry VIII powers, and the new wording would go some way—were it to be adopted by the Minister; I live in hope that it might be on Report—to ameliorate that issue. For that reason, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Markham.
Lord Wrottesley (Con)
My Lords, I start by offering sincere apologies for not being able to contribute at Second Reading. I am afraid that I had to attend a close friend’s funeral. I did, however, manage to be in the Chamber for the latter part of that debate. I have watched the debate back on Parliament TV, updated myself via Hansard and, where able, attended most of the Committee. I also apologise if parts of what I say might have been more appropriate for Second Reading, but I feel that your Lordships may deserve a bit of background on why I feel privileged to offer some reflections to the Committee on this matter. This may, mercifully, be the only substantial contribution that I make on the Bill.
I declare my interests, as set out in the register, specifically having around 12 years of direct experience in sports governance, but also make an admission. First, I have been a lifelong Chelsea supporter and, as an excepted hereditary, I have of course passed that unfortunate affliction down to my sons and even to my nine year-old daughter who, yes, plays football—although she confessed the other day to having considered the unthinkable: supporting Manchester City. Given Chelsea’s recent form, though, I hope that she will now revert to her inherited team.
I support my noble friend’s amendments that try to define the objectives of the regulator, as well as others that have already sought to address the actual purpose of the Bill. Where I hope we will eventually get to is that something can be financially sound, resilient and sustainable, and grow and be successful. We have already discussed that if sustainability is the sole rationale and motivator for this legislation, sustainability could have a far lower bar and be an inhibitor to growth and success. Given the context of being one of this country’s greatest exports, the success of the English Premier League and now the English Football League is not solely dependent on their sustainability. There is much more to it. I suggest that they are successful not simply because of their sustainability, or unsuccessful because of the lack of it. They are deemed successful because of a whole host of factors, be that results on and off the pitch, financial sustainability, fan engagement or community outreach, to name but a few. Are growth and success not things that we should ask clubs, leagues and all stakeholders to strive for? What enables them to be successful and what should we try to support through the Bill?
In my view, and as we have heard from other noble Lords, the UK is globally successful in the game of football, and the Premier League, the EFL and other successful domestic leagues have grown to a position of global prominence because of various factors, including the game’s heritage and the English language—the lingua franca of football, as indeed it is with most global sports. Football is successful in the UK because of the pro-business environment in this country, which encourages foreign investment into our game and, ironically, is potentially threatened by aspects of the Bill.
We must also credit the consistently strong leadership of the Premier League, its global appeal through strong marketing and its willingness to embrace expertise from abroad in players, coaches and support staff. Some of your Lordships might remember that this pursuit of excellence and diversity was strongly criticised in the first few years of the Premier League’s existence. It was seen as a threat to homegrown player development and that talent progressing up the pathway to the national team—an attitude that I think we can all now agree has been shown up by the recent successes of our national teams.
More broadly, football’s success relies on this country’s position in the world and, yes, the crucial part played by our strong domestic marketplace, characterised by the role that a fiercely loyal fan base has in supporting the leagues and their teams. Above all, it is the ability of so many of the clubs in the UK to build brands around themselves—some of them mega-brands—that has led to five of the top 10 best-supported clubs in their global reach being from the UK, with just one from Germany, one from Italy, one from France and two from Spain. The bottom UK-based team in that top 10, Arsenal, has over 40 million followers on Facebook alone, with a fan base that extends far beyond these shores.
All these factors are more complex and, frankly, equally as important as some of the simpler definitions contained in the Bill. Growth and success are what the Bill should seek to preserve, enable and maybe protect, rather than inhibit. To repeat: the Bill should be about preserving and promoting growth and success, not just ensuring, for instance, sustainability.
Do we measure success simply by sustainability or should we seek a broader, more detailed and more accurate set of definitions—a higher bar as a North Star for this Bill, as suggested by my noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson in their Amendments 56 and 58? This could be a subtle but fundamental tweak to what this Bill is trying to achieve.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to both amendments in this group, to which I have added my name. I am very grateful to my noble friends who have spoken to them, particularly my noble friend Lord Wrottesley, who brings many years’ experience of sports governance. The Committee is grateful to have had his insights. These two amendments attempt to expand the objectives of the regulator under the Bill. These objectives will be fundamental guiding principles by which the regulator will have to abide and will inform its operation from its conception.
Amendment 56 introduces two new objectives into Clause 6. The first is a growth objective and the second a financial investment objective. The growth objective is not intended to encourage a more activist regulator, to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. We do not want to see the regulator take further action than necessary; we want it to have the growth of the sport constantly in mind so that, when it carries out its other duties, it does not restrict the ability of clubs to look forward and plan for the future. I take his point about our wording on the number of clubs; we want to see the growth of football, so if new clubs spring up and enter the pyramid then he and I would jointly welcome that objective. However, I take the point that this would create more work for the regulator and the regulatory regime. As he will see from our wording in proposed new paragraph (d), what we have suggested as metrics
“includes, but is not limited to”.
It is an attempt to point to some metrics for growth, but if there are better ways of doing it then we are certainly open to hearing them.
By trying to focus the mind of the regulator on growth, we would ensure that, when it is drafting its rules or working on the levy or financial thresholds it may set, it will always have regard to how its work and rules will allow clubs to grow. We mean not financial growth but growth in every aspect. That is why Amendment 58 tries to expand on the meanings of the growth objective and gives a number of examples in the legislation. As it sets out, that objective would include the
“continued … expansion of all aspects of regulated clubs and specified competitions”.
We want clubs to be able to increase their revenues so that they can continue to invest in the future of the game, not just for their own sake but for the whole pyramid, and help the regulator achieve its financial sustainability objective. We also want them to increase their match-day attendance, TV viewership, fan base and more.
The focus on growing the fan base relates to an amendment to which the Committee has already given some thought, which called for the inclusion of current and prospective fans in the stated criteria for the sustainability of English football. In a similar vein, this amendment is trying to stress the importance of expanding the fan base of English football and appealing to future supporters as well as current ones.
I will also address the inclusion of a financial investment objective, as my noble friend Lord Markham set out in moving his amendment. This would seek to ensure that the regulator always considers the impact of its actions on the security of future investment in English football. As all noble Lords will know, professional clubs in this country would not be the world leaders they are today or command the fan base that my noble friend Lord Wrottesley set out without significant investment. This amendment does not attempt to place any restrictions on the regulator but, as with the growth objective, seeks to keep it on the straight and narrow so that it exercises its functions only ever in a manner that genuinely benefits football.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for Amendments 56 and 58. I look forward to reading the letter to which he referred when it is forwarded to the Committee.
On Amendment 56, while we appreciate the intent of the amendment and agree that English football should continue to be as successful as it has been, we do not believe the amendment is necessary to safeguard this. The growth of English football over the past 30 years and the financial investment in it have been widely regarded as a huge success and have turned it—as has been noted by a number of noble Lords across the Committee—into a global export. However, in pursuing such growth and investment, systemic issues have grown throughout English football which justify regulation. Some noble Lords have suggested that football’s growth is evidence that regulation is not needed, but these two things are not mutually exclusive. English football is both successful and fragile, with issues of sustainability throughout the pyramid.
We have discussed the reasons why the game needs regulating at some length, so I am not going to go through them again, but the main aim of the Bill is to address these issues to ensure financial soundness and resilience of clubs and to safeguard the heritage of English football—all things that football has shown itself unable to do. On growth and attracting investment, on the other hand, football has already shown itself to be incredibly good at both those things and does not need, in our view, a statutory regulator to promote them. Indeed, as is clear from its articles of association, “promoting” the game is one of the objectives for which the FA is established.
Noble Lords have raised concerns about breaching UEFA and FIFA’s statutes. In my view, stepping on the FA’s toes here is exactly the sort of thing that might risk that. That is why we do not believe that the regulator needs primary objectives to actively pursue growth and financial investment. However, the Bill already makes provision to safeguard these features. As part of its general duties, the regulator must have regard to the desirability of avoiding impacts on important outcomes in football—domestic sporting competition, the competitiveness of our clubs against international clubs, and investment into football—rather than a general growth objective.
The bespoke and novel duties in Clause 7 acknowledge the specific market features that have contributed to English football’s growth and will be key to its continued success. Much of the success of English football has come from investment and exciting competition, and we do not believe the Bill will in any way deter this. Indeed, a stable and more certain regulatory environment will be more likely to attract investors. These amendments would require the regulator to bring into scope anything that relates to the growth of English football. This would include things like broadcasting revenues, transfer fees, sponsorship deals and many other areas. Not only would this dramatically widen the scope but the regulator would also be required to become actively involved in these areas.
My noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie highlighted that these amendments would broaden the scope of the regulator. We cannot on the one hand warn against scope creep and over-intervention in a successful free market and on the other hand call for a statutory regulator to be tasked with growing the market. Regulators exist to address specific problems that the market cannot address itself. Football has a sustainability problem and not a growth one.
On Amendment 58 specifically, the additional detail in subsection (1)(a) to (c) in the noble Lord’s proposed new clause is already included in the Explanatory Notes which cover heritage. Explanatory Notes provide illustrative detail about the intention behind legislation and not drafting intended for the Bill. As the noble Lord will appreciate, the purpose of Explanatory Notes is to provide additional illustrative detail. However, this kind of detail is not appropriate for the face of the legislation, because good legislation should be clear and concise, and the current drafting is in line with that ambition.
I want also to draw noble Lords’ attention to the letter I sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, on this same topic of a growth duty. A copy of that letter was also placed in the House Libraries. For the reasons I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions, and the Minister for replying. Before I come to address what has been said, I thank my noble friends for their contributions and especially my noble friend Lady Brady for her point that there are concerns about UEFA competitions as well that we are seeking to address in this.
Although I did not hear anyone say that these were not desirable objectives, I heard two reasons not to introduce them. First, the Minister said that we are already successful on investment and the Bill will not deter it. I am afraid that is where there is a fundamental disagreement, because the Bill introduces new aspects to this. It gives the regulator responsibility to make sure clubs are sustainable and says that the regulator can look at this through things such as the parachute payments and the solidarity payments. That fundamentally changes the investment proposition in clubs. The letter from the Brentford chair makes the point, as have others, that clubs would be much less likely to invest in new players and in resources if they did not have the safety net of parachute payments if they were to go down. That will directly affect investment in clubs via the change in the laws that we are talking about and the responsibilities of the regulator to look only at sustainability. It is the same for solidarity payments. We are changing the playing field and moving the goalposts, so we cannot expect everything to go on as normal. That will inevitably affect the investment proposition, so it will impact the amount of money we see going into the game.
That comes on to the second point that was raised about why we should not introduce these amendments: that we are somehow trying to expand the regulator’s duties, which goes counter to everything we have said so far about it being light touch. That is not what we are trying to do. We are trying to make sure that the regulator will have more than one objective when it looks at the measures it can take. If it has only one objective, about sustainability, we hope it will interpret it broadly, but I could make all clubs sustainable tomorrow by saying that all the Premier League money should be distributed. That would do it. It would give everyone loads of money, it is completely sustainable and the regulator could say, “That’s fantastic, job done”. But we know it would fundamentally harm the whole structure and the whole environment.
I do not think for one moment that a regulator would be as unwise as that, but the main point of what we are trying to do is to set out what we believe are the right objectives. As I mentioned, the Government have done that with the Bank of England and given it growth objectives alongside inflation objectives. They have done it with Ofwat and with Ofgem. They have given all of them their regulatory requirements and a growth objective. We are trying to make sure that the regulator is wise in any measures it puts in place by always having other objectives that are for the good of the game. That is not increasing its reach; it is just making sure that it has more than one objective. I hope this is something we will be able to talk about further.
Lord Hayward (Con)
Was my noble friend as surprised as I was by the Minister’s use of the phrase that the Bill should be clear and concise? Is not the problem we have been trying to tackle precisely that there is a complete lack of clarity in a Bill that is anything but concise?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, and I thank my noble friend for exactly that point. It is about the clarity of the objective. The most important thing we can all do as legislators is set down what we think the regulator should do. That is why we spent three days trying to work out exactly what we want. It is fundamental to everything we are trying to do. That is why it is taking time. I hear reasons such as, “It’s not necessary”, but why not make it an objective? If the regulator is going to do it anyway then fair enough, but why not be sure that it will take growth and success as its key North Star in all this? With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Markham
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I hope that this one will be simpler. A lot of the amendments in this group are just trying to make sure that there is more specificity; I go back to my noble friend Lord Hayward’s previous point about making sure there is absolute clarity on what we want the regulator to do. Amendment 59 would take out
“so far as reasonably practicable”
because we want to make sure that there are no areas of greyness. We think that these are things the regulator must do.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Markham for setting out the amendments in this group and, in his absence, my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham. He tabled some of these amendments but, as we heard earlier today, is unable to be with us to speak to them.
This group of amendments concerns the general duties of the independent football regulator. Its role is to ensure the long-term sustainability, fairness and competitiveness of football in the UK; that is vital. The regulator is entrusted with overseeing the interests of clubs, players, fans and other key parties in the sport, so its role is invaluable. It is critical, therefore, that we lay out clearly and concisely, if we can, its duties and responsibilities.
The amendments in this group seek to provide the independent football regulator with a clear and effective framework in which to carry out its responsibilities, and to strike the right balance between governance, competition and the continued growth of the sport.
I speak in support of Amendment 61, which would introduce a duty for the new regulator to advance the growth objective. The whole Committee can agree on wanting football to flourish, expand its reach, and continue to thrive both on and off the pitch. That is the intention of Amendment 61 and the growth objective. Football’s growth, in participation and in financial sustainability, is critical for its future. The amendment before us would ensure that the regulator’s actions remain firmly aligned with advancing football’s expansion, ensuring that the sport continues to thrive and serve the interests of all involved, from grass roots to the professional game.
Amendment 59 proposes removing the phrase
“so far as reasonably practicable”
from Clause 7. This would complement Amendment 61 by strengthening the regulator’s mandate. By removing what is superfluous and ambiguous language, we would help to ensure that the regulator is not constrained by excessively cautious qualifiers. Instead, it would be given a clearer, more explicit duty to act decisively in line with its core responsibilities, including the imperative of promoting growth in the football sector. In the previous debate, we proposed additional wording that the Government did not need; here, we are seeking to help concision by striking out terms that we think are ambiguous and superfluous.
Amendment 61A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham, highlights the importance of the independent regulator in working within existing competition structures where they are already operating effectively. The new regulator should not interfere unnecessarily with systems that are working well and delivering positive outcomes. Instead, it must focus on enhancing and supporting those structures, ensuring that they remain adequate and capable of meeting the needs of the game. That would prevent the duplication of regulatory functions and ensure maximum efficiency.
My noble friend Lord Maude’s Amendment 64 seeks to safeguard the integrity of football competitions by ensuring that the football regulator avoids actions that could undermine the important work and effort of competition organisers. His amendment would set a useful boundary between the regulator and the autonomy of clubs. Additionally, it would ensure that the independent football regulator does not conflict with the existing rules set by competition organisers. These protections are important for preserving the competitive spirit of football, which drives both the sporting and commercial success of the game. By ensuring that the regulator respects the frameworks that are already established, these amendments would permit football to evolve without unnecessary disruption and foster an environment where the sport can flourish at all levels.
My noble friend Lord Markham’s Amendment 67, which I have signed, seeks to ensure that the independent regulator avoids actions that could undermine competition. That competitive spirit is fundamental to football’s success, both in the excitement engendered among fans and the drive for clubs to grow and innovate. This amendment seeks to ensure that regulatory actions do not unintentionally harm what is such an essential element of the sport.
Finally, Amendment 69 seeks to strengthen the clarity and focus of the regulator’s mandate by ensuring that it operates consistently with the objectives outlined in Clause 6. Clause 7(3) states that the regulator must have regard to its regulatory principles, the “state of the game” report, the football governance statement and any guidance published. Curiously, though, it does not state that the regulator must have regard to its objectives under Clause 6. If the objectives are to mean anything, surely the Bill should try to create a duty for the regulator to have regard to those objectives in exercising its functions. I am curious as to whether that is a gap that we could close here.
The amendments in this group work together to provide the new independent football regulator with a clear, direct and effective framework for fulfilling its duties. They seek also to set out distinct boundaries and make sure that the regulator’s powers do not encroach on the competitive spirit of the clubs. I hope the Minister thinks that, in doing that, they strike the right balance between regulation and freedom. I look forward to her thoughts on this.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Maude of Horsham, for tabling these amendments and the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson, for speaking to the amendments in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Maude.
I start with Amendment 59, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham. The regulator’s purpose is to protect and promote the sustainability of English football. To deliver this, the legislation sets out three clear objectives: club financial soundness, systemic financial resilience and heritage. It absolutely follows that we would expect it to always act with that purpose and those objectives in mind.
This amendment would have consequences for both the regulator and the industry. The result is that the regulator could face considerably more risk of legal challenge, even if it acted reasonably and in good faith in a way that it intended to advance its objectives. If the regulator always had to prove that any action it took was directly compatible with its purpose and would advance an objective, this would introduce a considerable burden on the regulator and the cost would ultimately be paid for by industry and, potentially, indirectly by fans. We are confident that Clause 7 as drafted appropriately constrains the regulator to act in line with its purpose and objectives without introducing unnecessary, costly and restrictive procedural burdens.
I turn to Amendment 61, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham. As set out in the previous group, we appreciate the intent of amendments on this topic and agree that English football should continue to be as successful as it has been, but we do not believe that a growth objective is necessary to safeguard this. The sole aim of the Bill is to address issues that football has shown itself unable to resolve to ensure the financial soundness of clubs and the resilience of English football, and to safeguard the heritage of English football. As with the previous amendments in group 3, this amendment would dramatically widen the scope of the regulator, which is not something the Government wish to do. In order to satisfy the duty that this amendment proposes to always advance growth in every action it takes, the regulator would end up intervening on issues that affect growth, rather than effectively solving the problems it has been set up to tackle.
On Amendments 61A and 64, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, we are confident that the Bill is already clear that competition organisers will not be unduly restricted in how they manage their competitions. The regulator has a clear regulatory principle to co-operate constructively with competition organisers and to recognise the wider footballing context, including existing competition-specific rules. Let me be clear: the regulator will not be deferring to the leagues or their rules, but it is in no one’s interests for there to be conflict. The regulator will not be standing in the way of clubs’ ambitions. Provided they do so prudently, we have always been clear that clubs will be able to invest, spend and take calculated risks. This is reflected in the legislation.
On Amendment 67, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, while I understand the desire to explicitly protect the financial interests of the leagues, this amendment is unnecessary given the existing statutory duties including in the Bill. As I mentioned, the Bill already requires the regulator to consider the competitiveness of regulated clubs, alongside any potential adverse effects on financial investment. Clearly, these things impact on the competitiveness and success of the leagues themselves. Additionally, where we consider it relevant to specific functions of the regulator, there are explicit requirements for it to consider the potential impact on the finances of the leagues. For example, as part of the backstop process, the regulator has a specific duty not to choose a proposal that would place an undue burden on the commercial interests of either league.
Finally, on Amendment 69, in the name of noble Lord, Lord Markham, I reassure the noble Lord that the desired intent is already achieved by the wording of Clause 7(1). This states that that the regulator
“must, so far as reasonably practicable”,
advance the regulator’s objectives when exercising its functions. To meet this duty to advance its objectives, the regulator would have to have regard to its objectives, so the intent of the amendment is already achieved.
For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept these amendments and ask that noble Lords do not press them.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the Minister. I will not go around the same loop again. A lot of this is again around the growth and success objectives . We rehearsed those arguments quite well in the previous groups. However, I would question a new point that the Minister made: that, somehow, they would open up the regulator to legal challenge. I am not sure that I agree with that. I do not believe that the growth objectives that Ofwat, Ofgem, other regulators and the Bank of England have open them up to any more legal challenge. It is just saying that it is a criterion and trying to make sure that in any decisions they make, they have more than one objective that they are seeking to fulfil. I will not go beyond that and rehearse the arguments, but I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Mann
“(d) adverse impact on women’s football.”
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 65 is not about whether women’s football should be covered by the Bill; it is about something quite different. I will very briefly illustrate it with an issue that would arise at a regulated club, the National League Solihull Moors Football Club, should this Bill go through. I do not know whether the issue has been resolved and, in a sense, that is rather incidental to my point.
The issue, from what I have ascertained, is that Solihull Moors has a women’s football team as well as a men’s football team and, because of that, with a licence, it would be regulated under the men’s football team. The women’s football team would be quite separate, but the women’s football team plays in the same complex as the men’s team. Also, the business had been structured with a set of community interest companies that were required to break even. The one that the women’s football team played on did not break even, which led to them being thrown off their pitch. However, the facility had been part-funded by the Football Foundation.
That is a particular comment on Solihull Moors, but also a real example from this year. Using it as an illustration, in that situation, where funding has been received and a women’s club has been, as some claim, thrown off so they are not able to play on a facility, is this an issue for the regulator? It should be. The regulator could, for example, look at whether the moneys that were given by the Football Foundation should be repaid. While it is a small issue in monetary terms, if you are a women’s football club and you are thrown off the pitch, it is a big issue. So the reason for tabling this amendment is to see whether this kind of situation is covered. If it is not, I suggest it requires an amendment similar to or the same as the one I have tabled. I beg to move.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I rise in support and to give an example of a similar unintended consequence. This is around the 3 pm kick-off on Saturday games and not allowing those to be televised. Again, that was set up exactly because Premier League games, if they were televised, would impact the attendance of the Championship League and other EFL games, because they knew that people would be watching those games instead. Within that regulatory framework, they had a view on the impact of how that one competition could impact the other competitions.
In a similar way, what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is trying to do is to add, in proposed new paragraph (d), the impact on the women’s game and make sure that it is one of the considerations taken into account. Without it, you could be taking action around the men’s games in the competition that has those unintended consequences—so I support it.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is one of those that reflects real life. Anybody who has set up any club of any structure at any point knows that, if you are working between two bodies—I have seen it very much at junior level between rugby and cricket clubs—their interests seem suddenly to contradict each other under a new set of circumstances. I hope that the Minister will have a reassuring answer about the flexibility and ability of the regulator to intervene and try to find a way forward, because this is a real problem that will occur every now and again. It is probably not a structural thing, but “Is the flexibility there?” is a genuine question. I do not think any of us wants one of our regulators to suddenly start having a negative effect.
My Amendment 70 in this group basically says that support should be available for the women’s game. We have already covered this issue at some length, so I will not go much further than to say that we should not exclude giving the women’s game some help, because it is developing and going forward, and it is very important to the foreseeable future of developing elite-level sport in this country. We should address that by having another look and asking what the capacity is.
I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is ready to speak to her amendment. Can we find out what flexibility there is and what the regulator is seen to be doing to handle these not quite down-the-line situations, where there are positive outcomes that we hope would be facilitated by it?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I will say just a word, because Amendment 72 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is included in this group. We have, to a certain extent, discussed this already, because this reflects on the kind of support that clubs would get were they to seek a licence, get a provisional licence or try to comply with the regulations that will be there. The Minister was very reassuring when we discussed this previously, but I hope that, at some stage during the passage of the Bill through either House, we can get a little more detail on how this may work in practice.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 72, but shall comment briefly on the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Mann and Lord Addington.
We need to be clear that this is a regulator for the men’s game, not the game of football. I am really excited to see the growth of women’s football; it has a massive impact on society. Some 80% of women are not fit enough to be healthy, and football is one of those sports that connects and is changing the relationship between girls and physical activity and sport. I was at the Wales v Northern Ireland women’s game the other week and the groups of teenage girls coming to support in a way that they might not support the men’s game, and the little girls dressed in their Welsh kit and goalkeeper’s kit, was a really beautiful sight to see.
But the women’s game needs to be protected and nurtured, and I do not want to see any unintended consequences of regulation or anything that makes it harder for women to be involved in what is an incredible game. I am meeting the Minister this week, and this is one of things I will be discussing with her.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will be very brief. In my view, these are proper probing amendments about unintended consequences—such as with Solihull—and the need to support women to get to the elite level, as well as the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. This is not about having an argument or asking the Government to rethink anything; these are truly probing amendments asking the Minister and those who work on the Bill to look at these points and make the Bill better. I am so thankful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Markham, in that. This group gets to the nub of an issue that can be dealt with very quickly.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I will pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and refer to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mann. My understanding is that the regulator cannot take the women’s game into account, even where, in theory, the accounts may relate to both. Indeed, on the face of the Bill, as I read it—I look forward to the Minister’s clarification—it would be possible for clever accounting to move money and, indeed, even financial exposure, across to the women’s game and therefore exclude it from the consideration of the regulator. I hope I am wrong in that. I can see that there would be ample opportunity for approaches to the accounts and the financial strength of clubs to be manipulated in a way that I am sure was not the intention of the Government or the regulator. The Minister will no doubt clarify that when she comes to respond.
This goes back to the possibility of amending the scope of the Bill in the future. In other words, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, this is exclusively a men’s regulator. I was a bit concerned about the language in the report to Parliament and to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which was prepared by the department, recommending that women’s football be “given a chance” to self-regulate. That is rather a condescending phrase to the sport. Therefore, it is not surprising that a number of people in the sport have been rather concerned that the women’s game has not been given equal opportunity. UEFA has brought in solidarity payments for the Women’s Champions League clubs to support the growth of the women’s game. That is not the case in the UK. I can completely see the arguments that people like Kelly Simmons have made: if the benefits of the regulator are as strong as the Minister has expressed to the Committee, then it could enhance and expand club licensing criteria to raise standards in women’s football—the performance of women’s football as well as medical and welfare provision.
If the Bill offers so strong a benefit to the sport as the Minister makes out, it is unfortunate that the women’s game should be put to one side and simply told it is being given a chance to prove itself and, in due course, might see the benefits that the Minister says exist in this Bill for football. That is my biggest concern. I think it is a concern felt by many in women’s football; I see the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, nodding in assent.
It is important for the Minister to address both the role of the regulator in relation to what a football club does to promote women’s football and the wider implication that many in women’s football feel: that they are being somehow excluded from the great benefits we have regularly heard about in Committee from the Minister about the game as a whole.
I hope the Minister will respond to both those points; that would be helpful to the Committee. If they are not positive responses, then this will perhaps be something we should return to at a later stage, to make sure that the women’s game is not disadvantaged by the introduction of the regulator.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak on Amendments 65, 70 and 72, which focus on ensuring financial support for the women’s game and protecting it from many adverse impacts resulting from the Bill.
While I respect the intention behind these amendments, I believe that they are not strictly necessary. I want to underline the significant commitment that many Premier League clubs already have to the women’s game. A vast majority of Premier League clubs operate women’s teams—including West Ham, which had a fantastic 5-2 win yesterday. We do that not as an obligation but as a genuine commitment to growing and professionalising women’s football. We all want our women’s teams to succeed, thrive and contribute to the broader success story of English football.
The truth is that not one WSL team makes any money—actually, not one even breaks even. They all lose between £1.5 million and £5 million a year, so they are currently wholly reliant on the men’s teams playing in the Premier League for their funding. The Premier League’s commitment is not just rhetorical; it is backed by meaningful action. Premier League clubs have provided substantial financial support and shared their expertise, facilities and resources. A recent example of that is a £20 million interest-free loan, which was made available to the women’s NewCo to help build a robust foundation for future growth, alongside a co-operation agreement with the Premier League to assist with growing, commercialising and attracting investment to the women’s game. The Premier League also invests £6 million in over 70 emerging talent centres across the country, to bring brilliant and diverse talent into the women’s and girls’ game from the widest possible range of backgrounds.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I will follow on from a comment by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, on the contribution made by the men’s game and men’s clubs to the women’s team in the same club.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I worked with others to ensure that the women’s rugby tournament was brought to this country next year. We are pleased to say that we were successful in doing that, but it needed assistance from the Government and it received a grant.
The Minister has, on a number of occasions, referred to the levy being proportionate, and I have been critical of her on this. It is important that an indication is given as to whether money paid by a football club—let us take West Ham as an example—to support the women’s club will be taken into consideration by the regulator when assessing what payment should be made overall to the levy. There would be a serious danger that, if that money is included in the regulator’s assessment of what is proportionate, football clubs will, quite naturally, reduce the amount of money that they give to the women’s game.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, like others, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for moving his Amendment 65, which probes an important area and a potentially concerning consequence. I am grateful for the example that he raised of Solihull Moors and look forward to the reassurances that I hope the Minister will give. However, even if she gives those reassurances, the noble Lord’s amendment is modest and I wonder whether there is a case—belt and braces—for us to make an amendment saying that the regulator should work in a way that does not have an adverse impact on women’s football. That feels sensible, even if the Minister does not share the concern about the specific instance that her noble friend has raised.
Like others who have spoken, we on these Benches are full of praise and excitement for the role that women’s football and women’s sport more generally play in our society. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, spoke powerfully about the inspiration that it is to many young women and girls, the transformative impacts that it has on their health and so much more. I am pleased that we have come such a long way from the days of old, when women were banned from playing professional football—a ban that was lifted only in 1971, but the effect of which can still be seen and has reverberated through the development of the women’s game for generations.
The FA took on the administration of women’s football only 30 years ago, in 1994, and the Women’s Super League became a fully professional league only in 2018. But, as noble Lords have pointed out, recent years have seen some striking, powerful and inspirational examples of the growth in the women’s game and, hearteningly, in the interest and appreciation that it is getting right across society. Correspondingly, there has been an enormous increase in the attention that it has garnered, with 77,000 fans attending the women’s FA Cup final last year. I know that all noble Lords fondly remember the astounding victory achieved by the Lionesses in the 2022 European Championship.
However, there is a concern, as has been expressed in this debate, that regulating women’s football now might not be the right moment in the development of the women’s game and women’s clubs. The Raising the Bar report, led by Karen Carney, stated:
“Given its stage of development, continued growth of matchday, broadcast and sponsorship revenue—with a view for the women’s game to become independently sustainable—is the right way to incentivise continued long term investment by clubs”.
Women’s football is obviously, and regrettably, not at the same stage of development as the men’s game—the men’s game had such a significant head start in terms of the professional apparatus around it—and the relative losses incurred by clubs are not in the same ballpark. Thus issues with financial stability are not comparable. There is recognition of that, although there was some surprise and, at Second Reading, a number of noble Lords from across the House rightly mentioned the women’s game as an area for us to be mindful of, so it was helpful to have had this debate.
Another issue is the level of investment that women’s football requires. As my noble friend Lady Brady pointed out, for women’s teams to come closer to the men’s game, significant financial investment will be needed. We are therefore right to question whether that is best served by and encouraged through this regulatory regime. However, I note the paradoxes that my noble friend highlighted in making that point and applying it to the women’s game, while conceding the argument in relation to the men’s game. I therefore understand why, at present, women’s football might not be included in the scope of this new regulatory regime.
However, it is useful to have had this debate and it would be useful to understand the Government’s intent here. Perhaps the Minister can explain the means by which the women’s game might be brought closer to the men’s game and how, if that happens and it falls into some of the same mistakes that we have seen in the men’s game, the women’s game might be captured by this regulatory regime. On the flipside, if the men’s regime learns from the women’s game and is able to regulate itself better, would that mean that there will be a lightening of the regulatory burden or are we past the point of no return for the men’s game? It would be interesting to hear that.
Like my noble friend Lord Moynihan, I slightly regret the wording of giving the women’s game a “chance” to regulate itself, but I am sure from looking at the Government’s accompanying notes that it is not meant pejoratively.
Amendment 72 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, sits slightly uneasily with the others because it is not just about the women’s game, but she explained why she has tabled that amendment and why she hopes to hear a bit from her noble friend the Minister. What she is seeking here is a welcome addition; it is only right that the regulator should be required to give assistance to clubs that are seeking licences. One of the themes that has been drawn out by many noble Lords in our scrutiny so far is the issue of how clubs will be able to adjust to these new licensing requirements. If the regulator does not implement this scheme in the correct manner, clubs will suffer, so it is only right that it should provide assistance to clubs to allow them effectively and efficiently to understand the new requirements that the Bill and its regulatory regime bring about. I will listen with interest to the Minister’s response to her noble friend on that and the other amendments in this group.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank my noble friends Lord Mann and Lady Taylor of Bolton, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for tabling these amendments, including on the important issue of the women’s game.
I reassure noble Lords that we are completely aligned on our commitment to women’s football. As I have said previously in your Lordships’ House, I was not allowed to play football when I was at school. I could not be more delighted that my nieces can not only play football but take for granted that they can, and that they are encouraged to do so. I am as excited at the growth in women’s football as is the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I asked a number of questions similar to those that noble Lords asked, so I hope that the answers I have had, which form a large part of my speaking notes tonight, will provide them the reassurance that I was provided when I asked those questions in preparation for your Lordships’ Committee.
At present, the regulator will not cover women’s football. In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the regulator will not be concerned with women’s teams’ accounts even where they are affiliated to men’s clubs. However, it is empowered to obtain and consider information from a club’s wider corporate group. I reassure the noble Lord that clubs should not be able to circumvent requirements through creative accounting in the manner that the noble Lord described as potentially being an issue.
The regulator will be concerned only with the sustainability of the clubs which will be within the scope of its regime. Women’s football is in such an exciting place and we really do hope that it will be able to grow and succeed in a sustainable way. Indeed, the wider football ecosystem already provides financial support to the women’s game—a point made eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady.
The FA has a 2024-28 women’s and girls’ football strategy, which states that by 2028 it will
“secure significant additional funding and investment to support women’s and girls’ grassroots football and pyramid”,
among other things. In addition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, said, the Premier League has provided a £20 million interest-free loan to the Women’s Professional Leagues Limited to help build strong foundations for the women’s game.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
Can the Minister clarify what she has just said? Is she saying that the regulator would not be able to intervene in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, in introducing his amendment?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
On the example of Solihull, the response I made related specifically to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised about the creative use of accounting being used to avoid things. My understanding is that it is empowered to obtain and consider information regarding the club’s wider corporate group where it has reason to do so. It might be worth me getting further clarification from officials and ensuring that a letter outlining that is placed in the Library so that all noble Lords are clear on that point.
Lord Mann (Lab)
That would be highly useful of the Minister, and I thank her.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Government will continue to support the FA and Women’s Professional Leagues Ltd as the women’s game forges its own path. We completely understand the desire to see appropriate protections put in place for women’s football. As I said, I have a historical vested interest in that I was not allowed to play football at school, and none of us wants to see issues like those at Reading, where the women’s team suffers as a result of issues at the affiliated men’s club. My noble friend Lord Mann gave the example of Solihull Moors, which was also cited by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard.
At present the intention is that this will be a regulator for the men’s game, and we have already discussed the reasons for that. Asking the regulator to then consider its impact on the women’s game could constitute a widening of that scope. I am confident that this is something that the industry authorities governing the women’s game will be able to tackle through their own rules for women’s clubs with affiliated men’s teams. They deserve the time, space and opportunity to do so.
I apologise if some of the language in the Explanatory Notes came across as clunky or inappropriate. I am confident that that was not the intention of those drafting them.
The Government’s position is in line with the recommendations of Karen Carney’s independent review of domestic women’s football, which was published in July 2023. The review recommended that the women’s game should be given the opportunity to self-regulate rather than moving immediately to independent statutory regulation, and the Government support that recommendation.
On Amendment 72 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, I agree that the regulator should help clubs to comply with regulations as much as reasonably possible. It is in everyone’s interest for clubs to become compliant quickly and with as little additional burden as possible. That is why provisions for a collaborative approach are already in place. The regulatory principle in Clause 8(b) encourages the regulator to,
“so far as reasonably practicable, co-operate, and proactively and constructively engage, with … clubs”.
The regulatory principle in Clause 8(c) also encourages the regulator to be proportionate.
For the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the amendments in this group and I hope that my noble friends and noble Lords will not press them.
Lord Mann (Lab)
I look forward to receiving the letter from the Minister. I will say—and officials may be listening in—that if we had a situation where a football club had a licence and was being regulated by the regulator, and that football club then threw its women’s team off their pitch so that they could not play, the regulator would look particularly stupid and impotent, and doubtless would be suggesting that the Government and Parliament may need to amend the law. I hope this matter can be looked at to see whether there is a way in which we can get around that without giving extra powers to the regulator, so I look forward to receiving that letter and I am sure other noble Lords do as well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to support children with special educational needs and disabilities.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I am aware that there have been a number of debates and Questions about education provision recently. I am sure the Minister is also keenly aware of this, especially today. A common theme has emerged that the current provision for supporting children with educational needs and disabilities does not work, with rising numbers, a greater range of need and local authorities unable to fund support. What I find most concerning is that there is a lack of ambition for SEND children. Despite increased levels of funding and higher levels of identification, these are not leading to better educational attainment. We all agree that something must be done, and therefore I make no apologies for bringing this Question for Short Debate to the House to enable us to push the Government on what that something should be.
I refer to my interests as chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland. Cerebral palsy is a good condition to consider in SEND provision. Everyone with CP is affected differently. It is an umbrella term, so the needs and abilities of people with CP will vary tremendously. Some children with complex CP will need intensive input that can be provided only by special schools, often outside the state sector. Even for these children, gaining an EHCP can be challenging and an adversarial process. Once their level of support has been agreed, it is very difficult to change, despite the potential for needs to change as they grow.
Many children with CP do well in mainstream settings. Cerebral palsy always affects mobility, so physical access and ease of moving around a school can become issues. One in two has a learning disability or sensory processing issues, and may also have other conditions such as epilepsy or autism, so there are challenges in identifying what the right support needs to be. I have had many conversations with adults with CP, some of whom attended special schools and some of whom attended mainstream schools. Some had experience of both. There is no right answer, as there are pros and cons for both, but, looking back, many of these adults did not have a positive experience of education in either setting. What illustrates the need for change most poignantly for me is that, too often, education for SEND children is about just getting through the system, from one placement to the next. No one, it seems, ever asks a disabled child what they want to be when they grow up.
In preparation for this debate, I spoke to many people, including staff at Treloar School and College in Hampshire, who provide an amazing education for some of the most profoundly complex physically disabled children. Their college students started a business venture called “Let Me In”, which offers accessibility audits to local businesses to help them improve access and employment opportunities for disabled people. It is the sort of initiative that positively illustrates the Gatsby benchmarks in action. I love it because, while Treloar takes children from the age of four, ambition and preparing students to lead meaningful adult lives, based on what children can do rather than what they cannot, are at the heart of everything from early years provision all the way up to its college students.
Unfortunately, the SEND system is predicated on what children cannot do, not what they can. To qualify for an EHCP, you need a diagnosis of something, hence the rush to find labels for things and, for those who can, to turn to private consultants to get a label for their child. None of this is helpful in supporting the self-esteem of the child, building relationships with parents or identifying what the best support for the child should be. By looking at deficits at the outset, the system is putting up barriers. It is setting out to be adversarial. Would it not be better to think, “Let Me In”? Let us turn the system on its head and be ambitious for these children.
What happens to children as they wait, sometimes for a whole school year or more, for all these assessments and reviews? They are not at school at all; they are missing out on education and falling even further behind their peers. We are not even monitoring this. In an Answer to my Written Question, the Minister confirmed:
“The department does not hold data on how many children with SEND are currently not able to be placed in a suitable school”.
Surely this is something that she could change.
A diagnosis tells you nothing about the impairment level that a person experiences or how a child could learn in a classroom. As a condition such as cerebral palsy—or any other umbrella condition, such as autism—illustrates, a diagnosis in itself is not the be-all and end-all. It can be challenging to distinguish between some conditions and behavioural issues, or between second language issues and dyslexia. Children may have a number of different conditions and needs. Diagnoses have a tendency to skew the figures. We point to the huge rises in social, emotional and mental health needs, and physical disability is often seen as niche.
Not everything requires additional learning support, but currently we are failing too many of those who need it. Some issues, such as home environment or a lack of family support, are beyond the scope of the school to change, let alone the Department for Education. Other issues will be apparent in pre-school years, for which I believe we need a far more cross-sector approach.
Early identification is key, particularly in the realm of speech and language issues. Speech and language therapists play an essential role not only in supporting communication but in identifying cognitive ability and other issues. Given the very high prevalence of speech and language and communication needs among SEND children, the Government must consider how speech and language services are resourced, how specialist therapists are retained, and ensure a sufficient training pipeline.
Fundamentally, barriers to opportunity will be broken down only if all constituent parts work together—schools, parents, health professionals and local councils. I encourage the Minister to look outside the state sector, as independent schools have taken up the baton where often state schools have been unable to. This does not mean one route is better than the other but that we should look at all the education sector to see what is working, support it, and roll it out as widely as we can, not tax it. Involving the independent sector is part of the solution.
If we do not adopt a surplus system rather than a deficit system, we are failing not only SEND children but all our children, as too much resource and time is taken up trying to focus on how we keep this creaking system going. I welcome the announcement in the Budget of an extra £1 billion for high-needs provision and the additional capital funding, but I fear it will be quickly swallowed up, especially when I hear about one mainstream secondary that needs £250,000 to mend a broken lift to enable the school to be accessible. Have the Government set out priorities for this extra funding?
Although ensuring that children can physically get into the classroom is important, so is what they do when they get there. I look forward to the Minister telling us more about the Government’s plans to improve outcomes for SEND children. I assure her that we are here to help and support her. I welcome contributions from other noble Lords and thank them for contributing to this short debate.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, and I thank her for leading this debate in such a brilliant way.
My brief comments relate to the educational needs of children born prematurely and the challenges faced by parents and children in getting the system to help them. My comments are based solely on evidence received from many parents by the House of Lords Preterm Birth Committee, which I chaired.
Approximately 45,000 pre-term births occur annually in England. For most children who survive the neonatal period, the outcome is good, but for a significant number, particularly those born between 24 and 31 weeks’ gestation, while the incidence of physical disability is low, the most common outcome is a whole spectrum of cognitive impairment that extends into adulthood. Apart from poor hearing and sight, some children also suffer from epilepsy—and we have already heard of the problems that education has with children with epilepsy. Children born prematurely show problems with memory, attention and problem-solving, and social and emotional problems, withdrawn behaviour and communication difficulties. While some will need long-term healthcare, for most it is their educational needs that need greater attention and therefore consume more resources than healthcare does.
Entering school is a stressful time for children born prematurely and their parents—a flashpoint when the cognitive, social and emotional difficulties experienced by children emerge or become exacerbated. Many parents are worried that their child is not mature enough to enter school according to the cut-off point in age to start school. Children born prematurely are more likely to have special educational needs and learning difficulties than children born at term.
Parents reported a lack of understanding and awareness of the needs of children born prematurely and, therefore, a lack of support in educational settings. While the government guidance recognises the option of deferment to school entry, we heard many parents face bureaucratic hurdles and that there is a lack of understanding on the part of local authorities and schools of the educational needs of children born prematurely. Parents asked for help to make it easier to ask for deferring school entry and for schools to be aware of the birth history of the children, for example, by including the information on the school entry form. Parents who gave evidence were pleading for a way forward that recognises the educational needs of children born pre-term and the need of support from schools to take on board the views and experiences of parents, including options to defer entry.
Our committee was unable to find a way forward, except to support the efforts of voluntary programmes, such as the Prem Aware Award scheme, to raise awareness of prematurity in schools. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to how the children and the parents of children born prematurely can be helped.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for securing this debate. One of the most rewarding pieces of work in which I was involved when I was on the staff of Lichfield Cathedral about 15 years ago was a partnership with a local school for pupils with SEND to create a bespoke multisensory tour involving water, incense, bells, holding crosses and even, judiciously, fire. At first, the cathedral guides were dubious, having been used to providing school visitors simply with a verbal commentary on the history and architecture of the building, but before long they were the ones advocating that the multisensory interactive components be incorporated into all our school visits. The result was a definite uplift in our overall educational offer—and I shall come back to that at the end, if I may.
The Church of England’s National Society for Education has set out a vision for a future curriculum that combines aspiration and equity to support the flourishing of all pupils. Three areas emerge as essential to this vision: first, investment in high capacity and integrated professional services; secondly, access to a broad curriculum for students with SEND; and, thirdly, the need for flexible metrics to evaluate effective teaching.
First, multiagency professional services must be properly funded to provide holistic support to children with SEND. I have in mind the fields of educational psychology, speech and language therapy, occupational therapy and child mental health, all of which have been in decline in recent years. We must ensure an equitable provision for every child, not a postcode lottery wholly reliant on the resources and capacities of overstretched local authorities.
Secondly, we must avoid the assumption that one single approach will suit all students with SEND. The challenges that some experience are cognitive, while others face physical, sensory and social communication barriers. The wide variety of needs and abilities demands in turn a varied curriculum but one that is nevertheless ambitious and in no way dilutes content for students with SEND.
Thirdly, there is a danger of an overreliance on formulaic assessments to measure the success of an educational offering. It is short-sighted to seek to incentivise high-quality and consistent teaching by demanding adherence to a single accountability framework or assessment mechanism. Indeed, each of the latest Ofsted reviews on subject knowledge concludes that there is no single approach that guarantees delivery of a high-quality curriculum.
Finally, in a recent debate, my right reverend friend the Bishop of Lincoln—previously lead bishop for education and chair of the National Society—highlighted the potential of Church-based special schools. Bearing in mind the tremendous constraints on mainstream education and the chronically underfunded and overstretched special education sector, I hope that this possibility will be given serious consideration.
A focus on support for children with SEND is obviously worth while, because those children themselves matter to us. If our experience in Lichfield is any guide, such support is capable of generating learning that can enrich the education that we offer all pupils. That is the reason I am so grateful for this short debate and for the opportunity to contribute to it.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate and pay tribute to the fantastic work that she does as chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland, in addition to her duties in your Lordships’ House. As someone who has spent time in state mainstream and special schools, and also a mainstream independent school, I completely agree with her about the urgent need to address the damaging culture of low aspiration.
My noble friend speaks with great authority; I speak, if not with authority, certainly with the experience of someone who has lived with a disability since birth and, more specifically, as someone who provides proof of the way a mainstream independent education can transform the life chances of a disabled child who does not come from a privileged background. My remarks this evening therefore focus on this crucial question: does the Government’s proposed extension of VAT to private schools support the 99,000 children with SEN and disabilities who do not have an EHCP? Clearly, it does not. Indeed, if the Government proceed as planned, I am afraid that they will begin next year—the 30th anniversary year of the Disability Discrimination Act, or DDA—by in effect discriminating against disabled children.
I had the privilege of working with Labour parliamentary giants such as the late, great, Lord Ashley of Stoke and Lord Morris of Manchester. Labour played a pivotal part in securing the DDA; it was as much to Labour’s credit as to the Major Government’s that the DDA became law. So I am bemused that this Labour Government should be about to mark such a disability rights milestone by failing to take these children’s SEN and disabilities into account and exempt them.
The Minister may say that these are tough choices. I have to say that that would be a wholly inadequate and insensitive response to these children and their families, which serves only to underline the extent to which the Government have lost sight of one simple fact: these are innocent, vulnerable, disabled children, whose education will, because of their disability, quite literally be—as it has been for me—their salvation.
I conclude by pleading with the Minister to urge the Secretary of State and the Chancellor to begin the 30th anniversary year of the DDA not by discriminating against these children but by taking their SEN and disabilities into account and exempting them. They and I look to this Labour Government to show them some understanding and compassion, and to give them hope. Otherwise, some of these innocent, vulnerable children will be facing the worst Christmas of their young lives.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has declared that 75% of five year-olds should have reached a good level of development. This is one of his key goals—I support that fully. I will refer exclusively to deaf children in these few minutes. Nearly 1 million people are born in the UK profoundly deaf. This gives us approximately 50,000 deaf children, as of today. Those children are nearly all put into normal classes, where they have no specialist teaching to help them speak, nor to understand what others are saying; yet speaking and comprehending what others are saying are the essential keys to these children reaching the good level of development to which the Prime Minister refers.
There are only 860 qualified teachers of speech therapy in Britain, so the lack of speech therapy is one of the key problems. Deaf children need to learn to speak in the same way as their family and classmates; and, equally, they need to be able to understand what others are saying. Yet there are 1.9 million children in the queue for speech therapy in the UK today. The likelihood of deaf children getting to the front of that queue is rather small. Deafness, of course, excludes children, not just from speaking and from understanding speech, but from other subjects as well. Even sports, for example, give deaf children problems with balance, since physical deafness means balance is also harmed.
There is another way and I ask the Minister to consider singing teaching. The strength of singing lies in its capacity to create correct articulation; language; the meaning of words and sentences; plus strengthening physical health through breathing and posture. Even better, social participation of all kinds comes when children are in a choir or taught singing individually. Singing and interacting with others through music is an important window out of the loneliness that is a direct result of the disability of deafness in children.
I ask the Minister to make these 50,000 children a top disability educational priority. This could be an easy win that flows right into this Government’s commitment to education for all children, provided that every possible tool is brought into place, including, but not only, music. Might the Minister meet me to discuss the ways in which music brings all children, even those of every disability, right into the harmonious fold with others? I would be grateful.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a former general secretary of the Independent Schools Council and the current president of the Independent Schools Association, one of the council’s constituent bodies, whose 690 members include many schools, most of them small, which excel in teaching and caring for children with special needs: schools which are loved and cherished by hard-working families of limited means up and down our land. They are far, far removed from the world of the large, expensive, independent schools, once known as public schools—a term that has now largely fallen into abeyance thanks to the current fashion for representing the independent sector as consisting of private schools.
A recent article on special needs provision stated that
“private schools have become part of the safety net for children”,
adding that the
“government should have recognised how the independent sector has become the backstop for a broken system”.
These words were written by a senior Labour Member of Parliament—long regarded as being on the left of the party—who has come to recognise the value of the wide and diverse provision for children with SEND in the independent sector, which has such a long tradition of excellence in this sphere. Almost 30% of independent schools are special needs schools.
Others too recognise the great importance of the independent sector in supplementing and reinforcing the state sector in this crucial area in a spirit of partnership: a principle fostered by the last Labour Government. A special needs co-ordinator who has worked at a state school for 40 years has written to tell me that “many private schools have been formed specifically to cater for special needs. They provide centres of excellence, often where there is a deficit regionally. Why risk losing them?”. It is a risk no Government should take but, sadly, this Government are taking it.
The Government say they will grant exemption from their education tax only to children with education, health and care plans. As my noble friend Lord Shinkwin has pointed out, nearly 100,000 children in independent schools do not have these hard-to-come-by plans, which parents often have to fight hard to acquire. Last year, over 13,000 SEND tribunal cases cost councils over £45 million. Even as this debate progresses today, families will be wondering how they are going to afford Labour’s education tax; many will decide that they cannot.
Labour says that schools themselves can cover much of their tax. That is wrong. The small schools, of which the sector largely consists, have to raise each year the means by which to meet their costs. Demand for EHC plans will rise. Demand for places in state schools will rise. State schools will struggle to provide them at the same level of care and support as in the independent sector. Good independent special needs schools will shut.
The right course—in the interests of education—is obvious: some clear guiding principles should be laid down. First, all pupils with diagnosed SEND and all those eligible for disability living allowance should be exempt from the education tax. Secondly, a tax threshold should be set—based on the number of pupils—to protect smaller special schools from closure. Thirdly, an independent review should be conducted after six months to provide proper factual evidence of how the education tax—launched hurriedly without full consultation—is affecting the most vulnerable children who look to our education system to meet their special needs. That is what a responsible Government would do.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register. I thank my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie for securing this important debate.
I make no apologies for the fact that my contribution is going to be based around the education tax. The Government’s impact assessment on levying VAT on private education noted that state schools have statutory duties to provide the correct level of support for SEN pupils. How do the Government propose to do this, given that many of the schools are in financial deficit with stretched resources? As I understand it, the £740 million announced two weeks ago will mostly be for buildings and accessibility in mainstream schools. But what about people with learning disabilities? Who will recruit and train the teachers? Where would we find the speech and language therapists, the occupational therapists and the educational psychologists?
What will happen to the large number of pupils with SEN and without EHCPs who attend private schools and who—I agree with my noble friend Lord Shinkwin—will no longer be able to afford the fees? Many of those pupils have migrated from the state sector for smaller class sizes and to avoid the overwhelming impact of noise and chaos in school corridors.
We are not talking about rich parents; we are talking about parents who can see the difference this makes to their children, and who have found a lack of individual support and teaching assistant capacity in the state sector. We are talking about families where both parents are working in order to pay the fees—parents who have made enormous sacrifices to create the best possible opportunities for their children.
An example of this is a school close to us in east Sussex, which both my daughters attended. It has a pupil on the autistic spectrum who does not have an EHCP. He also needs an individual learning assistant. His parents cannot afford the VAT and the assistant. They are having to pull their son out of the school where he has thrived. They are going to home-school him. They do not consider this a choice; they have no choice. All they want to do is what is best for their son.
I have heard that parents will be making cutbacks and compromises in their budgeting on holidays, the weekly food shop and clothing rather than give up on such private education. Again, many of those people have come from the state sector because it could not cope with their children’s needs. This will lead to further pastoral concern for the well-being of these young people and their families. As Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, has written:
“When I heard of parents remortgaging their homes and working three minimum-wage jobs to access an environment which the child could engage, placing VAT on fees was a step too far … private schools have become … the safety net for children struggling, melting and breaking”.
To remove this safety net from parents who face exhausting struggles daily to provide the best opportunities for their children demonstrates a lamentable ignorance and a failure to think deeply enough about what life is like as a parent of a disabled child. If the Government would like more enlightenment, I would be only too happy to help.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I thank my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie for this important debate. The current SEND system does not work. This is the third debate on SEND that I have been involved in in my short time in this House, and there seems to be a remarkable level of agreement on the issues and the solutions. There have been a number of task forces and consultations on this, also with a good degree of consensus on the issues and the solutions. The recent October NAO report made plain the issues we see in SEND: increasing expenditure and higher numbers but no consistent improvement in outcomes, and frustration for families, children and those working in the system.
The DfE spends more than £10.7 billion on SEND and a significant sum is spent by councils. We have 1.9 million pupils with SEND. EHCP numbers are up 140% since 2015, and 31% of SEND inspections in the past year or so noted widespread or systematic failings. The number of tribunals has gone up by 50% since 2018. Families lack confidence in the system. There is a shortage of specialist state school places, requiring councils to commission high-cost private placements. There is significant variation in access across the country and by the season of birth. On top of that, there is a major issue with school transport. The system is simply not financially viable, and councils risk going bust over this.
We need to change the system. There are multiple reports to this effect. We need to move from an adversarial to an inclusive system, with support available when it is needed and early assessment and diagnosis. We need to align incentives so that all parts of the system work together, with clear guidance on what level of support is available for a given need and moving away from the adversarial tribunals system. Ofsted needs to hold schools to account for their inclusivity and the support they give those with SEND. Those not with SEND also need the right level of support, but schools also need funding for these. We need more staff—various Members have mentioned educational psychologists, SENCOs and mental health and speech and language therapists.
Finally, as has been pointed out by several noble Lords, ambition is important for our children. We need a system that is focused on improving outcomes for children, not one that focuses on what children cannot do, and the right levels of provision; we need a focus on what could be done. The system is simply not sustainable; we need to use the resources to deliver an excellent system, not prop up a failing one. Government and other stakeholders need to have the willingness to act. While that will be difficult because of a lack of trust in the current system, particularly from parents, to not act would condemn more children to a failing system that is financially unstainable. I say to the Minister: be bold and ambitious for our children.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as set out in the register.
Something that has run through everything we have said about special educational needs is that there is a series of hurdles to get through. The first is to be recognised and the second is to access the help that is required. I will concentrate my few minutes on the first.
If you do not get an identification, everything else is doomed. Oddly, if you have a physical disability that is obvious to anyone, that would probably be slightly less of a problem. If you are on the neurodiverse spectrum—the one that I know best—and you have a dramatic failure, you are much more likely to be identified. The problem is that most people are not in those categories. We need somebody within the school structure who can spot developmental problems, whether it is in very early years or further along.
One-off systems will not work, because virtually everything we have been talking about here comes under the heading of a spectrum. The diversity within spectrums means that people will have different levels in the manifestation of their problems with the education system in front of them. If they do not have a problem with it, we do not worry. Will the Government take the first steps to make sure that there are more people who can spot these problems within the school system? If we do that, we stand a chance of getting that person, their parents and the system to come round and say, “Yes, let’s work differently”.
Once the person has been identified—I am probably again clinging back to nurse and my own group first, but it is applicable—if the school does not have the relevant knowledge, it tends to suddenly says, “Oh, we’ll give you extra help”. If you are a dyslexic with a bad short-term memory and bad language processing skills, and you fail on the work that everybody else is doing in the classroom, you will simply fail some more if you are given more of the work that you failed at. The same will be true of other conditions.
What is needed is somebody who will temper that work to the individual needs of the person. That requires knowledge and, above all, flexibility. Do you have the capacity in the school system not to say what should be being done but to ask what the best result we can get is? If you do not, you are, in effect, condemning more people to fail—and to fail in a way that will probably be disruptive to others around them.
When she comes to reply, will the Minister say what plans the Government have for better identification throughout the school system? There is so much that can be done from this good start, including the accurate engagement of parents. I have heard it said that special educational needs are for posh kids, because they are the ones who can fight through and get the identification. If the Minister wants to leave with one great claim to fame at the end of her time in office or her Government’s, it should be to get the schools to say, “Your child has a problem. Here’s a solution”. Parents should not have to go banging on doors, asking, “Why is my child not succeeding? I have spoken to an expert”. Change that and you change everything.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Fraser for securing this debate, bringing her expertise to your Lordships’ House, and making sure that the issues affecting children with special educational needs and disabilities stay on the agenda, with a real focus on ambition.
This is clearly a very long-standing issue. The Green Paper from 2011 identified many of the issues that your Lordships have raised this evening, and clearly it gives me no pleasure to recognise that. Despite everyone’s best efforts—those in schools, parents and children—the system is not working, and there is real inconsistency in the identification of SEND geographically, by school within regions, and by characteristic. For example, 50% of summer-born boys will be given a SEND identification during their time at primary. I do not think any of us can really believe that to be an accurate reflection of the situation.
Most importantly, the system is not working for children, whether that is in the classroom, where they have been described as being in it but not of it, or in relation to the results that they achieve. There is the risk that expectations are lowered for children with a label, and research suggests strongly that this is exactly what plays out in practice: parents fight for a label and then it backfires on their child.
We have seen an explosion in the identification of autism, ADHD, social, emotional and mental health problems, and speech and language issues. I would like to spend just a moment on those. Nearly every parent tries to make sure that their children are ready for school, but it seems that we need to do more to make sure that everyone understands the importance of early emotional development and language acquisition.
The Minister will be aware of the research showing the link between a family’s screen use and a child’s language environment, with the average toddler missing out on hearing more than 1,000 words a day due to screen time. Given the incredible rise in speech and language delays identified at school, surely the Government need to act on this. Similarly, in the other areas of rapid increase in identification, the evidence is growing about the harmful effects of screens on children with symptoms of ADHD and social, emotional and mental health problems in potentially both creating and exacerbating their symptoms. Will the Government look seriously at the impact of having smartphones in schools on the well-being of our children, particularly those with special educational needs?
The previous Government’s SEND and AP implementation plan recommended the introduction of national standards. I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on the Government’s plan for those. This Government recently announced that they were not continuing with the Safety Valve programme, which provided funding to create local capacity. I wonder if she could expand on what will happen instead. Earlier today, I mentioned the Employment Rights Bill. Given the importance of teaching assistants and other support staff for children with special educational needs, I hope the Minister will ensure that it will not represent a ceiling on what trusts are able to offer their staff.
I end where my noble friend started: we must make sure that we ask children with disabilities what their dreams are and that we all work to help fulfil them.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, as others have, I start by expressing my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, for opening this important debate. Notwithstanding that this is my third appearance at the Dispatch Box today, and not the first time I have addressed this issue from it, I think that identifies its importance for all Members of your Lordships’ House, and in particular for the noble Baroness. I know that she is a champion for those with cerebral palsy and that the organisation she supports plays a key role in helping children, young people and adults to build skills, knowledge, confidence and relationships.
We have heard a range of perspectives today from across the House, emphasising personal experiences and our understanding of how those shape our special educational needs and the SEND system, which so many rely on across the country. I was particularly interested in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about the impact on premature children. I will have to undertake to look further at the committee report that he identified. We are aware of the challenges in the SEND system, where outcomes for children are often poor and in a system that can be adversarial for parents and carers to navigate. We understand how urgently we need to address these issues. We have the ambition that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, urged on us. However, these are complex issues. We will need a considered approach to deliver sustainable changes, because we know that the current system needs to do so much more to meet the needs of children with SEND. We face significant challenges in the sufficiency of provision and public confidence. The outcomes for children and young people with SEND are often disappointing. Here I wholeheartedly support, as all noble Lords have, the aspiration that we should expect the highest possible standards for children with special educational needs and disabilities. We should start with the question: “What do they want to be and how can we support them to achieve that?”
As recent reports from Isos and the National Audit Office have identified, there is a crisis in the system—a system that has been neglected and failed to meet the needs of children and families for too long. Improving the SEND system is a priority for this Government. We want all children, regardless of where they are in the country, to receive the right support to succeed in their education and lead happy, healthy and productive adult lives.
The noble Lords, Lord Shinkwin and Lord Lexden, and the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, raised the issue of VAT on private school fees, another issue that I have discussed on several occasions from this Dispatch Box. In sharing the view of noble Lords that we need the highest possible aspirations for our children, I re-emphasise that we need the highest possible aspirations for our children, whichever type of school they are in. Clearly, what is happening in our state sector is not good enough for the 93% of children educated there. Notwithstanding that, we are committed to ensuring that pupils whose needs necessitate a place at a private school are not impacted by the policy. Where children have their place identified as part of the education, health and care plan, they will of course not be impacted by the changes that are being made to VAT.
The reforms that families need and deserve will take time, but the Government have already taken action to support the system. First, all teachers are teachers of special educational needs and disabilities. To ensure that teachers have the skills to support all pupils to succeed, including those with SEND, we are implementing a range of teacher-training reforms which begins with initial teacher training and continues into early career teaching, through to middle and senior leadership.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, quite rightly made the point that we need to start early to identify and support children. Early years will be part of the wider SEND reforms. We are committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in all mainstream settings as well as ensuring that special schools cater for those with the most complex needs. To support this, we have launched new training resources for early educators to help them to support children with developmental differences. We have also funded training for up to 7,000 early years special educational needs co-ordinators.
High-quality teaching is central to ensuring that all children are given the best possible opportunity to achieve in their education. That is why we are recruiting an additional 6,500 teachers and have implemented a range of teacher training reforms, as I have outlined. On 1 September 2024, the Government introduced a new mandatory leadership level national professional qualification for SENCOs. We have also launched an independent curriculum assessment review to look closely at the key challenges to attainment that children and young people face, particularly those with SEND.
In reference to the calls from several noble Lords for investment in the professionals, who are so important, I say that we are also investing over £21 million to train 400 new educational psychologists, but we need additional funding in our broader school funding system. To improve outcomes for our most vulnerable children and ensure that the system is financially sustainable, we are providing almost £1 billion more for high-needs budgets in 2025-26, bringing total high-needs funding to £11.9 billion. This more consistent and widespread approach will be more important than the safety valve system that the noble Baroness referenced, which, of course, by definition was able to cope only with those local authorities in extreme situations. All local authorities need support and that is our reason for the approach that we have taken. This funding will help local authorities and schools with the increasing costs of supporting children and young people with complex SEND.
Last week, we also announced an additional £740 million for high-needs capital in 2025-26. This new funding can be used to adapt classrooms to be more accessible for children with SEND, and to create specialist facilities within mainstream schools that can deliver more intensive support adapted to suit the pupils’ needs, alongside continuing to support pupils in special schools with the most complex needs.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, also raised the important point about speech and language therapists. We know that continuing to build the pipeline of speech and language therapists is essential. That is why the speech and language degree apprenticeship was introduced, which is now in its third year of delivery and offers an alternative pathway into a successful career as a speech and language therapist. In addition, working with NHS England, the funding for the Early Language and Support for Every Child pathfinders will continue until at least 2025. It is trialling new ways of working to better identify and support children with speech and language issues in early years and primary school settings.
I am very attracted to the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, for more use of music not only with respect to students with special educational needs but broadly across our curriculum. As per our recent announcement, we expect all music hubs to have an inclusion strategy and lead to ensure that music education is fully inclusive in mainstream and special schools. We recently announced £5.8 million for the Music Opportunities pilot over four years to help support disadvantaged and SEND pupils.
Obviously, there is more to be done. The Government will bring a new focus on improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream education settings, where most children with special educational needs and disabilities are taught and where most children’s needs are identified. We are moving to an approach rooted in partnership, creating certainty for all children, parents and teachers, in a core offer of education. To transform the outcomes of all young people with SEND, children need to feel that they belong in school. We will support professionals who work with children and young people with SEND to increase their SEND expertise.
We will also encourage mainstream schools to set up resourced provision or special educational needs units to increase capacity so that more children and young people with SEND can benefit from mainstream education. We will strengthen accountability to ensure that mainstream schools are as inclusive as possible. As part of this, we are working closely with Ofsted to develop proposals for how inspections could operate in future and how outcomes could be reported within a new report card system. All our work will be guided by what families, experts, leaders and front-line professionals tell us. We can get this right only if we listen and work together on solutions.
This work has already begun with the appointment of Tom Rees, chief executive of Ormiston Academies Trust, to lead a group of experts to help us drive forward work on inclusion in mainstream education settings, and with the appointment of Dame Christine Lenehan as strategic adviser for SEND. She will play a key role in convening and engaging with the sector, including leaders, practitioners, children and families, and will support work to engage parliamentarians as we refine and deliver our SEND reform. To drive support for neurodivergent children and young people in mainstream education, we have appointed Professor Karen Guldberg as chair of a new group bringing together neurodiversity experts and those with lived experience.
Together, we can restore trust in the system and improve it so that more and more children and young people get the support they need to succeed in their education and later in life. As we heard today, many noble Lords have considerable experience and expertise in SEND. I look forward to working and collaborating with noble Lords to realise this vision, which I know Members of this House will share.
Football Governance Bill [HL]
Monday 9th December 2024
(3 days, 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 Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 41-IV(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (6 Dec 2024)
Baroness Brady
“(d) differential impact on regulated clubs participating in, or seeking to qualify for, competitions organised by international football bodies.”
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 67A in my name addresses a critical oversight in the Bill. It is intended to properly recognise the clearly differential impact of regulation on certain clubs, specifically those participating in or seeking to qualify for competitions organised by international governing bodies. This amendment is essential to ensuring that the unique challenges faced by Premier League clubs, especially in the context of UEFA and FIFA, are properly understood and accounted for.
I begin with the elephant in the room: UEFA’s refusal to endorse this regulatory regime. We know that UEFA has explicitly raised objections to the Bill’s provisions, warning that mandatory redistributions and other aspects of state interference risk breaching its rules on the autonomy of sport. This is no small matter. UEFA and FIFA hold significant leverage over clubs competing in their competitions, and they have made it clear that this leverage could be exercised if the Bill’s provisions conflict with their frameworks. Premier League clubs that qualify for European competition—clubs that have spent years building their competitiveness and investing in their success—are now being placed in an unenviable and unique position. They face the very real risk that this regulatory framework could put them in conflict with UEFA and FIFA, creating ongoing uncertainty and jeopardising their ability to compete on the European stage.
The consequences of such a conflict are potentially catastrophic, not just for the clubs involved, although it affects them uniquely, but for the reputation and stability of English football as a whole. The differential impact of the Bill in this respect is stark. Premier League clubs, particularly those involved in UEFA competitions, are the only entities at risk of disqualification due to regulatory conflicts. They are also the only clubs that must navigate both domestic regulation and the additional compliance burdens imposed by UEFA licensing. This small class of clubs is being asked to shoulder very specific, disproportionate burdens and risks that directly affect their operations, financial stability and competitive standing. Let us not forget that these clubs are the financial engine of the football pyramid. They generate billions in revenue, attract international investment and support grass-roots football through solidarity payments. Yet the Bill places them in a uniquely precarious position, where their ability to operate and succeed could be undermined by regulatory uncertainty and conflict with international governing bodies.
Unlike lower league clubs, Premier League clubs that aspire to European success operate under the shadow of UEFA’s and FIFA’s leverage. This is not a temporary issue; it is a permanent dynamic. UEFA has already made it clear in correspondence, which the Government has refused to publish, that certain provisions in the Bill could jeopardise compliance with its framework. This gives UEFA and FIFA ongoing leverage over Premier League clubs, creating a regulatory environment that could become fundamentally unstable.
The Bill compounds this problem by failing to address how the regulator would navigate these international conflicts. While it empowers the regulator to impose unprecedented interventions, such as backstop powers over financial distributions, it does so without requiring the regulator to consult or co-ordinate with UEFA or FIFA. This omission leaves clubs caught between competing regulatory demands with no clear resolution mechanism.
The potential consequences of these conflicts go beyond individual clubs. If Premier League clubs are disqualified from European competitions, or face ongoing regulatory uncertainty, it would damage the Premier League’s reputation, diminish its global competitiveness and, ultimately, reduce the revenues that flow down the pyramid. This is not scaremongering. It is a very real risk, uncovered by this Committee, which this the amendment addresses.
The amendment also speaks to a broader issue of fairness. Premier League clubs are being disproportionately impacted by the Bill, including the backstop, because they are the only funder of other leagues in the pyramid. Yet their unique position and vulnerabilities are not adequately reflected in the legislation. By explicitly recognising the different impacts on clubs participating in international competitions, we can at least begin to address this imbalance and ensure that the Bill does not inadvertently harm the clubs but helps drive the success of English football. If we are to create a regulatory framework that commands trust and confidence, we must acknowledge these differential impacts openly and honestly. The amendment is a vital step towards that goal.
This amendment is not about special treatment for Premier League clubs. It is about recognising the unique challenges they face, ensuring that regulation does not create more problems than it solves. By acknowledging the differential impacts on clubs participating in international competitions, we can create a regulatory framework that is fair, proportionate and fit for purpose. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment, to ensure that the Bill reflects the realities of modern football and the global stage on which our clubs operate. I beg to move.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I want briefly to support my noble friend’s comments and amendment. We have already set out our concerns about UEFA and FIFA’s objections. The Minister has suggested that our concerns are somewhat misplaced. Given the comments that have just been made, our concerns have unfortunately not been allayed. The fundamental issue is that, rightly or wrongly, the letter from UEFA and FIFA was in the papers; we have seen concerns that were raised.
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the Minister has not been able to fully explain to the Committee exactly what has been said. She said that constructive conversations have happened. That is great news and we are all pleased to hear it but, up to this point, she has not been able to give us any detail to match the concerns that we have seen in this letter. Does she feel able today to give us a bit more detail and some categorical examples of where FIFA and UEFA have said that they are now happy with the Government’s position and happy with the Bill as it is? We could balance that with what we have seen in the papers and the press from the letter, and what we have heard in some—I am sure—well-intentioned comments from the Minister about what has been said, but with nothing tangible to back it up.
Does she have any correspondence with UEFA or FIFA, or any more tangible evidence that she can give us, to help us with the words she has been saying, which, I am sure, reflect conversations she may have had in meetings? This would give us some more tangible evidence that the issues that my noble friend has raised will not come to pass. Until we have that, we will have to return to this and, I am afraid, press the Minister for any more information she can give us.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness just said, could we have the answer tonight as to what the state of play actually is? If we get some assurance that, “Providing we do not do X and Y, which we hope is not the intention of the Bill, we are fine”, then this will get put to bed. If the Minister can see some way of assuring us, even if it had to be on Chatham House terms or something, that would help, because we do not want there to be a problem. If we can get that assurance out there, this issue will go away. Let us face facts: it just would not exist.
We want there to be a competition. Presumably, Europe wants the Premier League there. The reason why we have this Bill is about Europe. It was because of fans protesting that they were going to lose their competition and their traditions to Europe, and politicians saying, “We’ll intervene”, which most people agreed with. If we can get an assurance that there is something solid that means we would have to do something radically different to turn this bad scenario into a living nightmare, that is fine. We cannot guarantee the future; we can deal only with the Bill in front of us. If the Minister can give us those assurances she will have my full support.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, over the weekend, I and colleagues from across the Committee wrote to the Minister and sought to be very specific about the points that have just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Brady. It would be helpful to the Committee—I mentioned this to the Minister this morning too—to put on record the specific concerns that could lead to differences of opinion between the two regulatory frameworks: the regulatory framework we are seeking to put into legislation and the regulatory framework that already exists within UEFA and in FIFA. Indeed, if the answer to all the points that I will raise is that there is no conflict, the Committee will be satisfied and so will I.
I would be grateful if we could have specific clarification on UEFA and FIFA’s position concerning the regulatory powers contained in the legislation. Given the extensive scope of the Bill’s powers and their potential impact on clubs and national teams participating in UEFA or FIFA competitions, I would be grateful if the Government could confirm whether UEFA and FIFA have been consulted on each of the following categories of powers: whether UEFA has specifically approved the proposed regulatory framework, particularly the revenue distribution backstop powers; the licensing framework and powers; the IFR’s independence; the IFR’s accountability mechanisms; the Secretary of State’s broad-ranging powers; the delegated powers; the financial oversight mechanisms; and the interaction between IFR rules and UEFA/FIFA regulations. If there are any areas where UEFA or FIFA has or will, in response to this request, express reservations or express modifications then I would be grateful if the Committee could be informed.
Have the Government commissioned expert legal advice on these issues? How has this impacted on the design of the legislation? How will potential conflicts between UEFA/FIFA regulations and these various powers be resolved, especially regarding revenue distribution arrangements, competition participation rules, financial monitoring requirements, the licensing system, and the extensive rule-making powers granted to the IFR? This clarification is essential for ensuring the smooth implementation of the new regulatory framework and avoiding any potential conflicts with existing football governance structures.
As my noble friend mentioned, as reported in the press, in a letter from UEFA to the Secretary of State, UEFA warned against “government interference” in football. It points out that it has very “specific rules” that guard against state interference to
“guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition”.
The Bill, however, gives the regulator and the Government the following powers over football in England. I would very much welcome confirmation from the Government, not today but in due course, that in the meeting the Minister of Sport had with UEFA— referred to by the Minister on an earlier Committee day—the Minister brought these powers to the attention of UEFA and it confirmed that they do not amount to “government interference”.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I was not going to intervene, but the noble Lord has said time and again that the Bill may jeopardise British clubs competing in Europe. Can the Minister clarify that in Italy the legislative decree 9/2008—the Melandri law—and in Spain the royal decree law 5/2015 both deal with the distribution of audio-visual rights, and both insist on a significant amount of distribution to lower clubs? I have not heard that clubs from Italy or Spain have been refused participation in European competitions.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I support in the strongest possible terms my noble friend’s Amendment 67A. After the backstop issue, this is the most important issue in the Bill. For the fans of some teams, the ability to play in Europe and their clubs’ fortunes there are more important than what happens with the national side. We are being asked to consider something so fundamental that we cannot do it with this proposed legislation unless the Government publish the letter and any subsequent conversations that they have had with UEFA. Otherwise, we cannot really take into account the full ramifications of what the Bill may do.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, summed it up best when he said that it was the risk of the breakaway league that caused the Bill to come into consideration in the first place. I humbly request that the Minister shares with the Committee everything that UEFA has said in relation to the Bill.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, earlier there was a tetchy mood in which it was suggested that some of the contributions were simply time-wasting—and the word “filibustering” was used. When I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I could see eyes rolling and people thinking that he was reading out an endless list and just time-wasting. But I think he did the Committee a great service by doing that, because he reminded us of the enormity of the powers that the Bill is affording a regulator. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is not in his place, earlier made the point that it is just a regulator and that it is independent, and said, “What is your problem with this? We can trust them—they won’t do anything malign”. But this House and Parliament are telling that independent regulator what powers it has and determining what political interventions it can made. At least some of us have been concerned less about the financial situation but about the creeping politicisation of the number of powers that have been given precisely because it will not be a light-touch independent regulator, as I am sure the Government want it to be. That list was therefore very important.
It is our responsibility to make sure, first, that no unintended consequences come from the Bill and, secondly, that the Government are absolutely transparent about every single thing, including letters from UEFA. They should tell us what they fear and what the risks are. People keep talking about grown-ups in the room in politics. If we are going to be grown-ups, we want to know straightforwardly what the Bill risks. The idea that the only opposition to the Bill is from people who are ideologically opposed to regulation per se is malign. It is not true. Some people may be—but it is because of football that we need to know these things, and that is all.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady Brady because, as has been mentioned, we have highlighted what is probably the number one issue. In all the time that we as noble Lords have spent here, we have shown that everyone cares. We are spending all this time here because we care about football massively and because what we are seeing here is, if noble Lords will excuse the pun, probably the biggest own goal. Everything behind the Bill is well intended but, if we get ourselves into a situation where we are suspended as an association, that will set football back decades. It is very real.
UEFA says that it is concerned and that:
“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”.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan set out a long list of all those things. I want to set out one simple example. In the backstop, the regulator is given the power to decide on one league’s proposal over another league’s proposal. By definition, it is picking one side versus the other. That means, axiomatically, that those associations are no longer responsible for the decision; one of them must lose out, so one of them cannot be responsible for it. I cannot see any way in which that does not trigger what UEFA is saying—that the association is then no longer fully responsible because the decision has been taken out of its hands.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is correct that examples from Italy and Spain show that this is fine—again, I am grateful for her contribution because nothing would make us happier than that being the case—but the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right that it is binary at this point. The Minister can give us an absolute assurance so that this goes away. We all hope that this gets killed as an issue and that we need never mention it again but, unless the Minister can give that absolute assurance, we are in a world where this does not go away; it is going to come back and hang on because there is risk. I am sorry to put it as bluntly as that but, unless the Minister can give a 100% yes, the lingering danger here is such a big own goal, as I mentioned before. We really need to take this opportunity to kill this as a subject right now.
Again, I thank my noble friend Lady Brady for bringing this issue up; I really hope that the Minister can clear it up once and for all.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I just want to clarify my position. I did not want an absolute yes; I wanted a probable yes in the most civilised world. Going forward, that is what I was looking for, because we cannot let UEFA dictate our sovereign law to us, can we?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Brady for her Amendment 67A and for the passion and clarity with which she set out her reasons for it; I am also grateful for her undoubted expertise in this area, as in so many others that we are examining in this Committee. This is a very important point, as my noble friend Lord Markham echoed. A number of clubs enter teams in international competitions, and these international competitions have their own requirements and rules by which the clubs who take part in them have to abide.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, for tabling this amendment, which gives us a further opportunity to have a discussion on international competitions. I understand that the intent of the amendment is to ensure that English clubs can continue to participate and compete successfully in international competitions. That is something we all want. As we have discussed at length previously, the Government are confident that nothing in this Bill as drafted will jeopardise the participation of our clubs in international competitions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, raised a point on UEFA statutes. As I have reiterated previously, in the strongest terms, we have engaged extensively with UEFA in the development of the Bill. As has been confirmed by the FA, we are confident that the Bill as drafted will not breach any of UEFA’s statutes. The regulator will be operationally independent of this Government and any future Government, and will not exert an undue influence on the FA’s ability to govern the game. This was confirmed by the FA itself in oral evidence given to the House of Commons Public Bill Committee on 14 May this year, during the passage of the previous Bill, introduced by the last Government. Both Ministers and officials have engaged regularly with the FA, UEFA and FIFA about the Bill, and they will continue to do so as the Bill progresses and beyond.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
Obviously that is great, but the Bill has changed since then, particularly around the backstop provision. The noble Baroness on the Labour Bench was talking about before this new Bill came into effect: does that still stand? Has there been an update from the FA on that, because some of the provisions in the Bill have changed?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I understand that the FA’s position on this point has not changed.
We completely agree that, in the course of regulating, the regulator should not unduly harm the ability of regulated English clubs to compete against their rivals and to succeed in those competitions. This is why Clause 7(2)(a) already relates to avoiding effects on the sporting competitiveness of one regulated club against another. This would cover the “differential impact” to which the noble Baroness’s amendment refers.
Clause 7(2)(b) also relates to avoiding
“adverse effects on the competitiveness of regulated clubs against other clubs”.
This includes against international competitors, as the Explanatory Notes clarify. These provisions already achieve the aims of the noble Baroness’s amendment to minimise impacts on competitiveness, and in fact do so more holistically, recognising that competitiveness matters beyond just the relatively small proportion of clubs competing in, or vying for, European football.
On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, while I remain confident that nothing in the Bill as drafted would jeopardise the participation of English clubs in international competitions, I do understand his concerns. On UEFA and FIFA, we are speaking to the relevant authorities and will give noble Lords the reassurance on the specific points raised by the noble Lord in the coming weeks before Report.
For the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the noble Baroness’s amendment and hope that she will withdraw it.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and other noble Lords for their contributions. However, I am deeply concerned about the assurances offered. While the Minister again claims that UEFA is comfortable with the Bill, the assertion is at odds with what we know. UEFA has explicitly raised objections to aspects of the Bill, including the risk of state interference breaching its rules. The correspondence exists, yet the Government refuse to publish it. If UEFA is so comfortable with the Bill, why the lack of transparency? Why not share its position openly with the House?
The Minister may be interested to know that, a couple of days ago, I spoke to Mark Bullingham, the CEO of the FA. He told me that only UEFA itself, not the FA, can confirm whether the Bill breaches its statutes, and that he believes that it will not give that confirmation because it will not want to give up its leverage. That is deeply worrying.
This amendment does not create complexity; it adds clarity. It ensures that the regulator considers the unique and unavoidable fact that Premier League clubs operate under dual compliance requirements—domestic regulation and UEFA licensing. Ignoring this reality risks leaving clubs exposed to significant conflicts with the governing bodies, which creates confusion and the instability that the Minister says the Bill seeks to avoid.
The claim that Premier League clubs are not disproportionately impacted is demonstrably incorrect. Only Premier League clubs are subject to UEFA licensing requirements, only they face the prospect of disqualification from European competitions, and only they are exposed to the dual pressures of domestic regulation and international oversight. They also fund the competition and the pyramid. This is not about prioritising one group of clubs over others; it is about recognising that their unique position requires tailored consideration.
The Premier League is not just a league; it is global powerhouse and the financial engine of our football pyramid. The risks of conflict with UEFA and FIFA are real, and they are uniquely borne by Premier League clubs. This amendment does not create division; it addresses it. It ensures that the regulator has the tools and the mandate to navigate these challenges fairly and effectively. I urge the Minister to reconsider her position as we progress towards Report and to reflect on the broader consequences of dismissing these concerns. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hayward
“(2A) The IFR must publish an annual statement to report on how it has considered, measured and performed in relation to its general duties under 7(2).”
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Maude, I rise to move Amendment 68. I intend to speak more fully later, but I welcome the group as it stands because the amendments in it cover the issues that will arise soon after the completion of this legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I rise in support of this group of amendments, particularly my Amendment 328 in which, in short, I seek to assess the impact of the Bill and the independent football regulator on the Premier League.
When I spoke at Second Reading, I highlighted my view from the perspective of a fan of football because football is so much more—it is more than a business; it is a love, a passion, for billions around the world. In Committee, there has been much debate about the potential impact on the game, which is so loved and successful, from the implementation of an independent regulator which may inadvertently temper both the game’s passion and its commercial success. I now put on my business head and shall explore how the regulator means to measure its impact on the clubs it will regulate.
First, what data will the regulator require to report on its effectiveness and on how it is impacting football, particularly the Premier League? Secondly, how will the regulator report to the Secretary of State on how this global industry is operating in many different environments? When we start to explore that question, a further question should come to our minds: are we actually talking about football or something different?
My love for Tottenham Hotspur Football Club remains undiminished despite the testing of my resolve almost every weekend—and last weekend was no exception. However, I ask noble Lords to look further than what occurs on the pitch. My club, like many, has and will continue to invest heavily not just in players but in infrastructure. I must congratulate our chairman Daniel Levy on building a truly world-class stadium in Tottenham, but please note that I did not say “football stadium”, for the Tottenham Hotspur stadium is much more. It has been built to exacting specifications so that it can also host American National Football League games with an entirely separate pitch built underneath the football pitch—a real feat of engineering—and completely different changing rooms have been incorporated into the stadium to meet the exacting requirements of the NFL squad sizes and their expansive kits. More than 120,000 spectators watched NLF games at the Tottenham Hotspur stadium during 2019, 2022 and 2023, and thousands more will this year, which means that already 12 of the NFL’s 32 American teams have played in the new stadium.
But this is not all. We have also welcomed Beyoncé, Guns N’ Roses, Lady Gaga and many other world-class stars. World title boxing fights have been hosted, and we have F1 DRIVE London, the official Formula 1 karting experience. When I walk up towards this gigantic modern-day Colosseum that sits on White Hart Lane, I see the Premier League logo proudly attached to the facade but, alongside it, the Formula 1 and NFL logos—probably with space for a few more. The club quite rightly states on its website:
“Tottenham Hotspur Stadium has become a new sports and entertainment destination for London, bringing a boost of circa £344m to the local economy every year”.
Tottenham is widely regarded as a well-run football club, with owners firmly focused on delivering a sustainable business operation and quality entertainment—I will not talk about trophies.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 68, 89, 120 and 121, which focus on ensuring accountability and transparency and are critical to protecting the Premier League and safeguarding its unique role in the football pyramid.
This Bill introduces a radical new framework for the governance of football, one that includes significant regulatory oversight and redistribution mechanisms. We are the first country ever to do this, and I am worried that we may well suffer from first-mover disadvantage. There are profound changes in this Bill that will impact every level of the game, and it is essential that the Government and the regulator are held to account for the consequences of these measures. Regular reporting is not just a bureaucratic necessity; it is a vital safeguard to ensure that the interests of all stakeholders, particularly those of the Premier League, are protected.
If we are to introduce a regulator with such extensive powers, it must be held accountable for the full range of consequences its decisions may have. The competitive balance of the Premier League—its very dynamism and unpredictability—is central to its global appeal. This, in turn, drives its ability to attract world-class players, managers and investment, generating revenues that flow down the football pyramid. Yet, without baselining these measures or requiring the regulator to report on its impact in these areas, we risk implementing a system that could inadvertently undermine the Premier League’s success.
Similarly, international competitiveness is a crucial factor for the Premier League. It is the most watched and admired league in the world, representing a unique soft power asset for the UK. The ability of Premier League clubs to compete at the highest level in Europe has been a driving force behind their commercial success, as well as their capacity to support the wider game through solidarity payments and grass-roots initiatives, all of which are voluntary. However well-meaning, if the regulator’s interventions dampen investment or create uncertainty, this international competitiveness could be severely compromised, and yet somewhat incredibly there is no requirement in the Bill for the regulator to monitor or report on this.
Investment is another area where the absence of reporting requirements is deeply concerning. Premier League clubs operate in a highly competitive global market for players, sponsorship and broadcasting rights. Long-term investment decisions, whether in infrastructure, youth academies or community programs, depend on regulatory certainty and stability. If the regulator’s actions lead to a chilling effect on investment, it would have profound consequences not only for the Premier League but for the whole football ecosystem. Again, there is no provision in the Bill to track or report on this impact, leaving us blind to the unintended consequences that could arise.
The amendments before us, particularly Amendment 68, in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude, seek to address these gaps. They recognise that we cannot introduce such a transformative regulatory framework without ensuring that it is judged against the metrics that matter most: competitive balance, international competitiveness and the ability to attract investment. Unless we retain these qualities, we will end up with a much smaller, less well-funded and far less successful football pyramid. The question of stability in a rapidly declining ecosystem becomes somewhat irrelevant.
We must ensure that we have a clear understanding of whether this legislation is achieving its aims or instead introducing unintended and potentially harmful consequences. For example, if the redistribution mechanisms introduced by the regulator begin to destabilise clubs’ financial planning or deter investment, we must know about it quickly and transparently. If the regulator’s powers are being applied unevenly or disproportionately, we need to be able to challenge and rectify that. If the Premier League’s unique role in funding the pyramid is being undermined by these changes, we surely need a mechanism to address that impact.
I encourage the Minister to consider the spirit of these amendments and, between now and Report, consider ways that the accountability and transparency mechanisms can be considerably strengthened.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 120 and following on from the point that my noble friend Lady Brady made, I hope to put some meat on the bones of what we would be asking the regulator to produce in its annual report.
Right now, all that the Bill says is that we are asking it to produce a summary of the activities undertaken during the year and for any other information that the Secretary of State sees fit. The whole purpose of our debates over the last few days is to make sure the regulator is fit for purpose in its objectives and that its performance is then measured against those objectives. My amendment—non-controversial, I hope—is about trying to hold the regulator to account. It seeks to add that the regulator should look at and report on clubs’ compliance against directed action, regulator finances, enforcement action, their performance against their own objectives, how much time it has taken to grant licences to clubs and any salaries above £100,000. It is quite a simple list that seeks to hold the regulator to account and get clarity on what its performance has been for the year, so it can then improve performance going forward.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, and the other contributions. The transitory nature of sport is such that, when the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, stood up to speak, West Ham were leading 2-0, but by the time she sat down they were leading 1-0—VAR had intervened. I pay credit to the noble Baroness for being here and paying such attention to the detail of the Bill, given the interest she declared, and which we are all aware of, in relation to West Ham.
The series of amendments here all deal with the reporting duty after the Bill has been passed and at the point of implementation. As others have indicated, it is key that there is a clear understanding, not only for the regulator or government but for the fans, who are key to the Bill—the whole idea of the Bill is about involving the fans—that the regulator is obliged to explain to the fans precisely why he has done things and that he recognises the impact of his actions on fans, clubs and players. At all levels, it is necessary that we have that information and understanding—and rapidly.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, is proposing to speak to her amendments in this group.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
The amendment in this group that I tabled has been covered by some of the earlier discussions we had and some of the assurances that the Minister gave.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I look forward to her noble friend the Minister’s response to it, if she feels she has anything to add to it in this group.
The debates that we have had on this group, which concerns reporting requirements, cast my mind back to the debates we had during the passage of the Online Safety Bill on testing the duties for Ofcom to report back on how it would operate the new regulatory regime that the Act set up. My noble friend Lord Ranger of Northwood talked about future-proofing and emerging technologies, and this is an opportunity, through the reporting, to make sure that the changing technology and new areas of work are not just in the mind of the regulator but brought back before Parliament for some consideration.
My noble friend Lady Brady—I pay tribute to her being here for the consideration of the Bill, particularly this evening—described the first-mover disadvantage. Notwithstanding the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, mentioned about the Italian and Spanish legislation—and I will certainly look at the extent to which that has lessons for us—what we are doing here is on a scale not done by any other jurisdiction. We want to make sure, as we are doing it, that it is working and that it is brought back before Parliament for proper consideration.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have brought amendments in this group and spoken to them. My Amendment 121 in this group is simple and technical. The Bill states that the regulator
“must arrange for a copy of every report under this section to be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State”.
The wording of the amendment and the original wording of the Bill may seem very similar, but the substantive difference here is that we think that the duty should fall on the Secretary of State to lay the report before Parliament, not on the regulator. The Secretary of State is directly answerable to Parliament, whereas the independent football regulator, at least in the way that the Bill currently envisages it, is not. Surely it is therefore the Secretary of State’s responsibility to ensure that Parliament is fully informed of the actions of the regulator and to present the relevant documents to Parliament for scrutiny.
That would not be interfering with the regulator’s independence. Ministers already do this on behalf of other independent regulators: they are not carrying out the regulation but they bring documents before Parliament on the regulators’ behalf. Indeed, they are often asked about the way that regulation works, in addition to the power of Select Committees to call people who work at the regulators directly before them.
My amendment would also standardise the wording of the Bill. For example, Clause 11(6) states:
“The Secretary of State must lay any football governance statement, or any revised statement, published under this section before Parliament”,
and Clause 13(6) states:
“The Secretary of State must lay any guidance, or revised guidance, published under this section before Parliament”.
If the Bill envisages elsewhere that the onus is on the Secretary of State to lay documents before Parliament, I do not understand why it does not do so also in Clause 14. I am curious to probe the logic in the drafting to see why there is that discrepancy and whether we ought to change it.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for moving Amendment 68 on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, and all noble Lords for their thorough discussion of it and the other amendments in this group. The amendment, along with Amendment 89 from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, seeks to place additional reporting requirements on the regulator to increase transparency and accountability.
On Amendment 68, I understand the desire to ensure that the success of English football is protected and that the regulator monitors, evaluates and can be held accountable for its impact on the factors set out in Clause 7. However, the impact of the regulator in these areas should already be reviewed in both the “state of the game” report and the regulator’s annual report. This is true also in respect of Amendment 89. The annual report that the regulator will be required to produce and lay before Parliament at the end of each financial year will be on the exercise of its functions. The Secretary of State may also direct the regulator on what that annual report must include; they could, for example, already require the regulator to report on each of the specific aspects, including those in my noble friend’s amendment.
It is absolutely right that the regulator can be made to report on specific aspects of its performance and that these can vary from time to time, depending on the activity of the regulator and the state of the industry. We strongly expect that the regulator’s annual report would naturally include how well it had fared in advancing its objectives, but rest assured that if the regulator did not naturally report on this, the Secretary of State could direct it to.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Does the Minister accept that if the Secretary of State decided that was not necessary but Parliament wanted to hear it, as the Bill is drafted, it is the Secretary of State who wins that? This is decided by the Executive and not by the legislature. Does she not think there is a role for Parliament to be a bit more assertive in what it would like to hear, rather than relying on a Secretary of State who shares its wishes and is willing to facilitate that?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I assume that if the relevant parliamentary committee felt that it was not getting the information it required, it would have quite an interesting evidence session with the regulator. It would be a very brave Secretary of State who did not include the information that Parliament wanted in an annual report of that nature or ask the regulator to do that. I can see the noble Lord shaking his head. I am not convinced that anything I could say on any of the points raised would satisfy him so, with respect, perhaps I could move on to other points.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Minister is accidentally proving my point. This is the frustration of parliamentarians when we ask questions and do not get what we want from an Executive. She is right that there is a role for Select Committees here, but I worry that the Secretary of State may not need to be that brave to avoid asking for these things. We are just keen to probe how Parliament can be a bit more precise in making sure it gets what it wants, but I will let her continue.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I suggest that noble Lords might discuss this at further length with the shadow regulator. As noble Lords will be aware, they have made themselves available and I am sure that, as the Bill progresses, they would be happy to have further conversations.
I turn to Amendment 120 from the noble Lord, Lord Markham. As I touched on earlier, the annual report is a vital mechanism for the regulator to be held to account. I therefore understand the desire to ensure that this report is comprehensive and covers the necessary detail. It will be in the power of the Secretary of State to specify any required contents, which are not, as Amendment 120 would ask for, all listed in the Bill. This is so that a much more adaptive approach can be taken, year by year, and so as to not constrain the issues that should be covered in the report.
With regard to Amendment 121, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, that the annual report will be laid before Parliament so that it can be scrutinised. If it is not, the regulator will be in breach of its statutory obligations; therefore, the intent of this amendment is already achieved.
Moving on to Amendment 122 from my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, I thank him for raising this issue and am sympathetic to his viewpoint. Women’s football was discussed in the previous group of amendments and, as I outlined, the Government support the recommendation of the independent review of women’s football, published in July 2023. It set out that the women’s game should be given the opportunity to self-regulate, rather than moving immediately to independent statutory regulation. We appreciate, however, that this situation may change and that women’s football might need to be brought into scope down the line to safeguard its future.
As is clarified in the Explanatory Notes, the Secretary of State will already keep under ongoing review whether it is appropriate to amend the specified competitions. Clause 2(5) already requires the Secretary of State to carry out a formal assessment, including consultation, before doing this and to publish and lay its results before Parliament. The assessment can be triggered at any point so if any change in circumstance occurs, the Secretary of State is able to react. We therefore think that the principle of this amendment is already catered for and do not believe it is right for a clause with a specified timeline to be added to the Bill.
The Government recognise the intent behind Amendment 328 from the noble Lord, Lord Ranger of Northwood. It is vital that the regulator is transparent about the burden that its regulatory activities may have on clubs and competition organisers so that it can be held accountable. From the start, we have been clear that we wish to establish a regulator for football that will take a proportionate approach to regulation. We do not wish to introduce a regulator that will impose onerous and burdensome requirements on the clubs. That is why the regulator will have a statutory requirement when exercising its functions to have regard to the desirability of avoiding impacts on features such as competitiveness and investability. We expect that the impact of the regulator on the market, including on regulated clubs and the leagues, will be reviewed in both the “state of the game” report and the regulator’s annual report.
I reiterate: the Secretary of State and Parliament will be able to scrutinise these reports. We believe that this ongoing accountability is more appropriate than a one-time review by the Secretary of State six months after the Act has passed. It would not be fair or indeed helpful to evaluate the regulator’s performance or impacts after just six months of a brand new regime. For the reasons I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Markham
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the IFR to use its resources in the most efficient, expedient and economic way.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I have got up a number of times today to say that a particular amendment is not controversial and I hope it will be an easy one for the Minister to agree to. I have not been correct yet, because the Minister has not agreed to any, but I think that with this one I am on to a good thing. Everything that I am trying to do here is to make sure that what is written down in the Bill really does happen.
To take the exact wording on the regulator’s regulatory principles, in a number of places it says that it “should” use its resources
“in the most efficient, expedient and economic way”.
We are saying no, it must. It “should”, as far as is reasonably practicable,
“co-operate, and proactively and constructively engage”
with clubs, owners and competition organisers. Again, we are saying no, it must. There can be lots of good intentions, and lots of times when you can say that someone should do something. My mum told me that I should eat my greens. I cannot say that I always did. In all these instances, it is about making sure that the wording that the Minister and her team put in the Bill means that things really do happen.
Again, we suggest that the regulator “must” act in a way that
“recognises the specific context of football and the fact that clubs are subject to rules, requirements and restrictions”;
it “must” act consistently,
“recognising the differences between clubs and competitions and the differences between the circumstances affecting clubs”;
it “must” act in a way that
“recognises the responsibilities of owners, senior managers and other officers of clubs in relation to the requirements placed on clubs under or by virtue of this Act”;
and it “must” act
“as transparently as reasonably practicable”.
Again, we are just making sure that everything that the Minister has put down by way of the wording of Bill must happen, not just should happen. I think, this time, I am backing up exactly what the Minister would like to see happen. There are also a couple of other sensible amendments from others that fans should be consulted and engaged with in all this, which I also hope would get a resounding yes from the Minister. I look forward to hearing her response in terms of making sure that what she would like to happen really does happen. I beg to move.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 78, and I would like to begin with a quote, that
“there is no reference to players as a group the regulator should co-operate with … There is not a single mention of players, even though they are the main employment group within the regulated clubs. This means that the decisions that the regulator makes could have a tangible impact on their employment. For example, if the regulator exercises its powers to withdraw approval for a competition or refuses a licence to a club owner, there would be a direct consequence on the contracts of and conditions for players … Just as with fans, the professional game could not exist without players, so will the Minister explain why players are not mentioned in this part or elsewhere in the Bill?”—[Official Report, Commons, Football Governance Bill Committee, 16/5/24; col. 129.]
Those are the words of the then shadow Sports Minister, Stephanie Peacock MP, on 16 May, when the original version of this Bill was in Committee in another place. For that reason, I know that I am pushing at an open door here, because Stephanie Peacock is of course now the Minister for Sport.
As shadow Sports Minister, Stephanie Peacock not only robustly argued in favour of her amendment but then forced the matter to a vote, which, as is always the case with opposition parties in Committee in the other place, was lost. Therefore, it was both surprising and disappointing to myself and a number of others to find that this Bill—amended only in minor ways from the Tory Bill—did not include mention of players. Ms Peacock’s amendment in May this year included five categories of people and organisations to be added to Clause 8. I have taken out four of those so as to focus on much the most important: namely, the players.
Jock Stein, one of the greatest managers ever, once said, “Football without fans is nothing”. He was right, of course. As evidenced in 2020 during the pandemic, all games at the top level in England were played behind closed doors, and I defy anyone to say it was worth the effort. We all know it was driven shamelessly by the financial aspect of it, but as an experience it was, exactly as Mr Stein said, nothing.
Important as fans are—I am very much one of them—it was shown to be possible to play matches without them. Try doing the same without players. The players are not simply another stakeholder group in football, and it is fatuous, not to say insulting, that they should be categorised as such. Decisions made by the regulator have the potential directly to impact their careers and their contracts, as Stephanie Peacock said. It should not be left up to the regulator to decide whether they need to engage with them or not. In essence, this is, I believe, an employee relations issue rather than a football issue, as is the need for players to be viewed as distinct from other stakeholder groups.
The PFA—Professional Footballers’ Association—represents a very high proportion of the professional players in the Premier League and the English Football League. You might think that young men earning millions of pounds each season would not feel the need to join a trade union. You might, but according to the PFA, membership among Premier League players is close to 100%. Based on my experience as a full-time trade union official, that is remarkable in any sector of employment. But for such wealthy individuals to have calculated that there is benefit to them in becoming part of a union and working collectively, and having people work on their behalf, is astonishing. To suggest that players and their trade union should not be a group of people that the regulator should—to quote Clause 8—“proactively and constructively engage” with is frankly a nonsense.
The absence of players and their representatives constitutes a clear and obvious lacuna in this Bill so, with respect, I say to my noble friend, please sort it.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 80 in my name seeks to include football supporters’ trusts on the face of the Bill to ensure that they are consulted on all matters relating to fan engagement as set out in the Bill. It is not intended to restrict the regulator, as the Bill states, or to restrict other fan groups being involved.
I declare an interest in that I am currently a director of Manchester United Supporters Trust and was its former chairman over the past decade. It is a very substantial trust with over 100,000 members, and initially came into being in 1998 in opposition to the Murdoch bid for the club, followed by the bitterly opposed leveraged takeover by the Glazer family in 2005. However, in the last decade, the trust has developed a constructive relationship with senior management which delivers fan consultation and representation for supporters. Supporters’ trusts are uniquely equipped to perform this role, and every club would benefit from engaging with such a body.
Currently, there are 149 supporters’ trusts across the football pyramid: 16 in the Premier League, 18 in the Championship, 20 in League One, 15 in League Two and 80 in non-league football. Most, if not all, trusts are registered with the FCA and operate under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014.
I invite my noble friend the Minister to accept this amendment on the basis that supporters’ trusts provide an existing substantive platform for fans to have a voice in club decisions. It is a structure that should be utilised to the benefit of football as a whole. It is an existing and vibrant structure that I envisage the independent regulator would welcome working with from the outset.
It is important for the Committee to appreciate the many facets of supporters’ trusts and how they contribute to football as a whole. Invariably, the trusts are democratically elected, operating, as I have said, under FCA-approved constitution and rules. They help to ensure the interests of the wider fan base and community they represent. This is vital in sustaining the contact with fans and in the case of smaller clubs.
Trusts often emphasise local community values and initiatives. The trust can help to maintain strong ties with the local fan base, fostering a sense of belonging and identity. This is relevant to the Premier League as well as non-league clubs. Many clubs have charitable foundations that, in my experience, work closely with their trusts. Foundations work with local schools, using their links with the club to assist teachers in their roles. Many also support local food banks.
Trusts, by raising funds through their membership and donations, can contribute to the financial health of the club. This can be particularly beneficial in the smaller clubs that face financial difficulties, as has been seen in recent history, where trusts have been instrumental in saving their clubs.
Trusts invariably advocate for transparency in club operations, hoping to make club management accountable. This can, of course, lead to better governance practices and more ethical decision-making. The Bill, of course, very helpfully and constructively sets out the criteria which clubs and fan groups have to take into account. Supporters’ trusts wish to focus on the long-term sustainability of their club rather than short-term profits, which is often the case for the owners of clubs. This perspective can lead to more responsible management of resources. Where supporters’ trusts are represented on club boards, they can influence strategic decisions, ensuring that the fan perspective is included in the governance, which, of course, is crucial.
All fans can join trusts, and this can promote inclusivity within the club, assuring that the fans, regardless of background, have the opportunity to participate in club activities and governance. As has been seen in times of crisis, such as financial troubles or ownership disputes, trusts can mobilise fan support to advocate for the club’s best interests, potentially influencing outcomes in the interests of supporters and the club as a whole. An obvious recent example was the attempt by a few clubs, including Manchester United, to establish a closed European super league.
Overall, supporters’ trusts enhance the governance of football clubs by fostering a more inclusive, accountable and community-oriented approach. Therefore, with great respect to my noble friend the Minister, I urge that this amendment be accepted.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 81 stands in contrast to my noble friend’s amendment, which is very exclusive in suggesting that the only format of supporters’ group should be the trust format. In this country and, indeed, across the rest of the world there is a huge range of different kinds of football cultures and football groups.
I should declare an interest, of course. Although I have no pecuniary interest whatever—I own no shares, and I receive no dividends or payments—I have the joy, or the pain, of being able to discuss with my many thousands of members the trials and tribulations of Leeds United Football Club. A number are in this Chamber even this evening—more than one.
However, there are different kinds of fan group. If the Government—or, at a later stage, the House—wish to see the regulator having to liaise with fan groups, then in essence there is a range of choices. It could be randomised—whoever the regulator chooses, but that seems neither appropriate nor efficient. It could be, as my noble friend suggests, exclusively for the trusts, or it could be, as I am suggesting, any fan group that has some kind of democratic structure. The reason for a democratic structure is that you are then representing somebody rather than representing yourself.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mann, not least because I am a member of his supporters’ group. We also have another supporters’ group, for Leeds United. Members of Parliament in both Houses are parties to the WhatsApp group. While the public-facing position regarding the manager is always one of support, it cannot always be said that those on the WhatsApp group speak in such gentle and supportive terms of the manager after one or two defeats.
That aside, I support the noble Lord, Lord Watson. He made an extremely important point, and it was wise to pray in aid the Minister in another place regarding his Amendment 78. If we are to have a regulator, surely, in terms of financial regulation and the overall financial role, we cannot just ignore the players, let alone the fact that they are right at the heart of the game.
The total wage bill across Europe’s big five leagues—England, Germany, Spain, Italy and France—was £13 billion in 2022-23, up from 12.3 billion in the prior season. We all know that, in certain circumstances, players are brands in their own right. Many boast bigger social media followings than their clubs. Sponsors know this, investors are taking note and the clubs know it.
Only this week in the Financial Times, the IMG sports and entertainment president, George Pyne, stated:
“The players are the most valuable asset in the sport … With social and digital media, commercial opportunities today are more valuable than they might have been 10 years ago because these players are now brands in themselves”.
It is a people business; it is relationships that matter, and relationships with the players are central to the success of any football club. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, is right. If we are to have a state-appointed regulator, that regulator, in looking at the finances of the club and taking an overall view of it, must engage with the footballers and listen to their representations.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, and to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson. Your Lordships may expect a former TUC leader to advocate the principle of workforce engagement and consultation, but it was over a decade ago that the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, in his report No Stone Unturned, talked about the value of what he called “shop-floor wisdom”.
It is not just a case of fair access. In my experience, there have been many positive examples of where shop-floor wisdom has made for much better decision-making. The workforce and their representatives are what I would describe as the canaries in the mine. They can see when organisations are heading for trouble from the inside, they have good ideas about how to make industries stable, sustainable and fair, and their ideas deserve to be heard. Nowhere is that more relevant than in football. When club owners and managers tell the regulator a particular story, players and their representatives can provide a crucial quality check.
They may agree with the owners; they may not. But the new regulator would benefit from hearing the workforce perspective. I have heard a lot about finances in this debate. I offer just a gentle reminder that, if you were to ask any fan, they would say that true wealth is created on the pitch. Like Labour and, indeed, across this House, the PFA proudly believes in the unifying power of football in society, and it is a guardian of those values. Players must have a right to a voice: a right, enshrined in law, to be consulted on equal terms.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I have had my name down as a supporting figure on three occasions. I just cannot resist, with this talk of “should” and “must”. It does sound awfully like “may” and “shall”, which is something steady to go back to. My question for the Minister is: is there any difference legally between the two words? If there is not—in certain circumstances, there is not—can we just hear that?
On the amendments, I start with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, which I supported. Yes, you should consult your players. They are your primary asset; they are what the fans come to watch. It would seem sensible; that is why I am in support. I realise that I might be backing two horses in the same race by putting my name to these two amendments, but the fact is that various fan groups need some interaction with the regulator. How that is done is incredibly important.
To return to the players, without them you have no product. You have no financial resource; you have nothing to come behind. Not consulting them is ridiculous, to be perfectly honest. Many people will tell me that they are overpaid namby-pambies or whatever. I do not agree, but people will tell you that. The fact is that every time you run around as a professional athlete, you are risking your career, or risking it being shortened. Every time you are told to play that extra game when you are not quite ready for it yet, or you are a little bit tired, you are risking your career and your professional value. You may be playing injured, for instance. We should hear from this group. They have short, often very productive careers.
Often, though, they do not. What we tend to do in this debate is think about the Premiership, but we are talking about the entire structure, going down. Many people are just making a living—sometimes a good living—for a short period of time. We must make sure that they are consulted as well. The entire structure going down is something that we are in danger of forgetting repeatedly in this Bill. So I hope that the Minister will give us some clarification here. Players must be consulted and there must be a way of talking to the fans. Is this just another one of the hardy perennials of Parliament going down the “may” or “shall” route? Does the wording change in the lead amendment make any difference?
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson. I wholeheartedly agree that footballers are at the heart of football. Without them, we certainly could not achieve anything at all. The relationship with players is absolutely vital to football clubs. West Ham was one of the very few clubs during the pandemic where I and my footballers took a 30% pay cut to ensure that all other staff were paid in full and that nobody lost their job; that is part of the spirit and it is why footballers really must be consulted.
I also support Amendment 86, which would introduce vital principles to guide the regulator’s approach. These principles reflect a sophisticated understanding of how football actually works and what makes it successful. The existing principles in Clause 8 of the Bill appear largely defensive and process focused. In essence, they tell us that the regulator should use resources efficiently, co-operate with stakeholders and act proportionately. With respect, I would argue that these are descriptions of basic administrative competence, not meaningful regulatory philosophy. No one would argue for inefficiency or disproportionality, and that is really the test of whether these are real, consequential principles.
More concerning is what these principles admit. They say nothing about preserving what makes English football successful; nothing about maintaining the competitive tension that drives our game’s appeal; and nothing about enabling the responsible ambition that has created the world’s most watched sporting competition.
Let me begin with the fundamental point that I believe is captured by this excellent amendment: the need for clearly identified harm and least-intrusive measures. Football thrives on calculated risk taking and sporting ambition. A regulator consistently intervening without clear necessity will suffocate the very qualities that make our game exciting. This is not about weakening regulation; it is about making it effective.
Consider how successful football regulation actually works. The Premier League has developed sophisticated mechanisms for maintaining financial sustainability while preserving competitive tension. When issues arise, they are typically best addressed through existing structures that understand football’s unique dynamics. This amendment would ensure that the regulator works with those proven systems rather than creating unnecessary parallel requirements.
The principles around competitive tension and ambitious ownership are particularly crucial. The Premier League’s success rests on maintaining genuine competition, where any club can succeed through good management and investment. Aspiration can happen because clubs are empowered and incentivised to take measured risks in pursuit of sporting achievement. The amendments focus on commercial autonomy and innovation, reflecting another vital truth: football’s success comes from constant evolution. The Premier League leads the world precisely because it enables responsible innovation in everything from broadcasting arrangements to community engagement. Overly prescriptive regulation risks spoiling this competitive advantage that we have developed.
Most importantly, these principles would ensure that the regulator maintains proper focus by requiring clear evidence of harm and demonstration that the existing structures cannot address issues. We would avoid unnecessary intervention while maintaining proper oversight. This would help us enhance, rather than inhibit, what makes English football successful.
Lord Wrottesley (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to seek clarity on a key point that does not seem clear in some of noble Lords’ amendments, in particular Amendment 79 from this group. From what I can tell in reviewing the Bill and debates around it—I beg your Lordships’ and particularly the Minister’s indulgence if I have missed something and this has been adequately addressed—we have not yet defined a fan. I make my sincere apologies, but I need to point out this abundantly obvious fact. Amendment 79 is a one-word amendment.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
Can I help the noble Lord? The debate on defining sustainability was about three hours on the first day and, on fans, about two and a half hours on the second day. I think we have done both of those subjects to death, for hours and hours.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
We may not have got to a conclusion, but what about repetition? Here we go again. We have had the discussion; the Minister gave us her answer; we move on. But we have not moved on because, two days later, it is brought up again—and again and again.
This is the frustration that some people are having. I understand the need to examine and tease out but, if we do not like the teasing out, we cannot keep going back every day to keep teasing out. We will never finish; that is the problem with it. We have had an enormous debate on sustainability and on fans.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I rise to make one point of clarification. I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and would be very pleased if the Minister indicated her support for it, because I have been having discussions about whether we should table further amendments on players in other parts of the Bill—but I will wait on the interest.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, referred to players and touched on the question of staff. It is not only players who should be included; there should also be references to staff because, after all is said and done, any football club employs not only players but large numbers of staff. Both players and staff should be covered by any amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it is telling that so many noble Lords from both principal sides of your Lordships’ House have tabled amendments about the regulatory principles established by the Bill, which have been gathered in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, has assembled an impressive coalition of support for his Amendment 78. He secured the support of my noble friend Lady Brady, his friend the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, and the present Sports Minister, Stephanie Peacock. The Minister keeps reminding us of things that were said in the last Parliament and arguing that we should be bound by them, so I hope she will demand the same consistency from her honourable friend and will pay heed to the support that Amendment 78 has secured.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson, is right that this seems a clear and obvious lacuna in the Bill. I do not think we have had a professional footballer in your Lordships’ House. We have professional cricketers and Olympians and Paralympians, and we have noble Lords with interesting and considerable experience, but he has given voice to a group of people who have not yet been spoken up for in this Bill. Perhaps noble Lords can think of one. I cannot, so maybe it is a suggestion for his noble friend.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I am slightly embarrassed, but there has been a former professional footballer on the Labour Benches. He is now deceased. He was certainly here in the early 2000s. I shall find out his name.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank my noble friend and the noble Lord for rightly recalling him. It is right that he and professional footballers are getting the attention they deserve. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s response.
I have risen to speak to my amendments in this group—Amendments 74, 75, 76, 82, 84 and 85—as well as to express my support for Amendments 73 and 83 in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham and Amendments 86 and 87 in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham.
My Amendment 74 focuses on the meaning of the word “expedient”. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, did not like it last time I mentioned a dictionary definition. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, reached for his dictionary earlier in today’s Committee, so I hope she will not mind me doing so. I think it is important in this instance because in the Cambridge English Dictionary the word “expedient” is defined as,
“helpful or useful in a particular situation, but sometimes not morally acceptable”.
I was quite struck by that definition. I am not quite sure why a regulator, a public body, should be using its resources in a manner that is sometimes improper or immoral, and I think it is worth scrutinising the choice of that word and the message it might send to the independent regulator.
Our choice of language matters, particularly where legislation is concerned. The words in front of us in the Bill, as well as those uttered by the Minister from the Dispatch Box opposite, can be called upon in a court of law and relied upon to explain decisions and decide appropriate courses of action. The regulator will be deriving its power from this Bill and will be operating according to the principles set out in Clause 8, so it is an absolute necessity that the language in the Bill is clear and well chosen, and I do not think “expedient” meets that test.
A number of the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Markham in this group are very simple. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, highlighted, they change “may” or “should” to “must”. I echo the points that he made, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, made when she had an amendment making the same change earlier in the Committee. When moving that amendment, she noted that it was pretty straightforward, and I would make the same observation about our amendments today.
In seeking to make these straightforward changes, we are asking the Government why the less rigorous words “may” and “should” have been used in these instances. That is important to ascertain because of the significance of establishing the regulatory principles in the Bill. The first principle is that the regulator should use its resources in the most efficient—“expedient” as presently set out—and economic way. However, any public body that will be taking funds from the public purse, which this regulator will in its initial period, must be required to use its resources in the most efficient and economic way possible. The word “should” gives a degree of leeway here. I am sure that the clubs that will be paying the levy would not be happy with the regulator using the money they are giving it in an inefficient and uneconomical manner, so Amendment 73 attempts to tighten the phrasing here and remove that leeway.
My Amendment 75 would change the “may” to a “must” in paragraph (b). This would mean that the Bill required the regulator to co-operate and engage with the relevant parties. That amendment is complementary to my Amendment 76, which would leave out the words
“so far as reasonably practicable”.
Again, that amendment is about tightening up the wording of this provision to give the regulator strict instructions rather than looser intent.
I have put my name to Amendment 79 alongside those of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lords, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Addington, which would also amend paragraph (b). The amendment would add fans as one of the parties with which the regulator must co-operate and would therefore standardise this paragraph with other portions of the Bill.
My other amendments in this group—that is, Amendments 82, 84 and 85—would all change a “should” to a “must”. Amendment 82 would amend paragraph (d) so that the regulator must acknowledge the unique sporting context of football. That is particularly important for regulated clubs since, as the Bill rightly points out and as my noble friend Lady Brady and others have been keen to stress, football clubs operate in a very different environment from other businesses. The top clubs in the English football pyramid will have teams in both national and international competitions, so the rules and regulations they will already be required to follow must be taken into account by the new regulator.
My Amendment 84 states that the independent football regulator must hold officers of a club responsible for the actions of the club where appropriate.
Amendment 85 says that the regulator must operate transparently. Transparency, of course, has a wide range of benefits. The Institute for Government, in its report The Benefits of Transparency, argues that:
“Collating and publishing government data can also help improve the performance of government services, through the monitoring of key metrics and by increasing access to data across government”.
The Institute for Government also points to benefits relating to improved efficiencies, accountability and value for money. Given all this, surely the Bill’s language should seek to require this new regulator to operate with that sort of transparency as well.
I will not enter into the debate that we had over the rival Back-Bench Labour Amendments 80 and 81 from the noble Lords, Lord Shamash and Lord Mann—although the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in true Liberal Democrat fashion, has signed both. I am interested in the Minister’s view as to whether, between those two, she has a preference in consulting supporters, trusts or elected representatives of football club supporters’ groups. I will not reopen the question of the definition of fans, but I am interested in whether she has a preference between those two amendments.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and, through them, the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, and my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, Lady Taylor of Bolton, Lord Shamash and Lord Mann, for these amendments. This has been a wide-ranging debate.
I particularly welcome the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and the clarity that he provided. I have noted a number of noble Lords coming back and asking me similar questions to those that we have we had in previous groupings. I will endeavour to continue to give the same answer when required, but it was helpful for the noble Lord to point out that at times we are having a circular and repetitive discussion.
Amendments 73, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83, 84 and 85 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson, intend to reword the regulatory principles. They seem fundamentally driven by the desire to ensure that the regulator is held more strongly to the principles. However, we are confident that the current wording of the Bill, which has not changed since the previous Conservative Government laid this Bill before Parliament, is more than sufficient to ensure that the regulator operates in an appropriate way and strikes the balance between steering the regulator’s approach and not impinging on its adaptability and independence. By laying out explicitly in the Bill the principles by which the regulator should exercise its functions, we are already making a clear statement about the importance of these stated factors. However, these are intended to be principles, not duties, and the drafting reflects that.
In relation to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the difference between “must”, “should” and so forth, we do not agree that the regulator must be required to do these things at all times and in all cases but rather that some flexibility is important. To give an example, if the regulator were enforcing against a club, it might not be appropriate or possible for the regulator to constructively engage and co-operate with that club, as principle (b) encourages it to do. By having these principles as “should” and not “must”, that flexibility is achieved.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I appreciate that the Minister is trying to make progress and is moving through a large number of amendments. To refer back to Amendment 78, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, the Minister said that she looked forward to a further discussion at a later stage. Could she state whether she agrees with the idea that the regulator must engage with football players and their representatives? I think the mood of the Committee went a bit further than just having hopeful discussions in future, and that this was something that really should be considered to be placed in the primary legislation. Could she be a little more explicit? I know that she was sympathetic, but does she agree that that is an issue that should now be looked at in the context of the legislation?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord might need to be content with my sympathy at this stage. I genuinely look forward to future discussions on this point.
Overall, the Government have been clear that the regulator should take a participative approach to regulation, meaning that it would co-operate constructively with the regulated industry where possible. There are some parts of the Bill—this is one of them—that directly relate to the people or organisations being regulated, rather than to stakeholders across the game more widely. The intention of the regulatory principle in question is to guide the regulator to co-operate constructively specifically with the regulated industry where possible, as this co-operative approach might not otherwise be explicit. We think that to list every possible stakeholder, or possible interpretation of fans or fan groups, that the regulator “should” ever engage with during the course of regulation, could be onerous on participants and the regulator. However, I am happy to meet my noble friends to discuss further how we can reassure fans that they will be consulted where appropriate. For supporters and their relevant representative groups it is clear that the regulator should be acting in their interests. There are several places where this is formalised through specific consultation requirements; for example, in relation to Clause 45, the prohibited competitions clause.
For decisions materially impacting players, I recognise that the game is nothing without players, as I said earlier; it is absolutely right that the regulator works with them on matters that impact them. As I mentioned, the specific regulatory principle in question is intended to steer the regulator to co-operate with the regulated population. This does not include players, as they are not themselves subject to the regulator’s regime. This would be not an appropriate place to include players, or indeed any other stakeholder group. However, I understand the desire among noble Lords to ensure that important stakeholder groups are appropriately acknowledged in the Bill.
I am sure we will revisit this topic ahead of Report and in future debates. With that said, and for the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the amendments in this group. I hope that noble Lords and my noble friends will not press them.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the Minister. I thought we had an uncontroversial set of amendments with a great deal of consensus around the issue of players and fans. I thought that we almost had the ball in the back of the net. We had some sympathy from the Minister, who said she was looking forward to discussing this further; unfortunately, we did not quite get a yes. I hope we can firm that up as we continue to press for a goal as the Bill approaches Report. There was a large degree of consensus in the Chamber that we definitely “must” include players and fans, rather than just “should”. I hope we are able to pursue that further as the Bill progresses. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(2) The IFR is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Equality Act 2010.”
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I have the only amendment in this group. Amendment 88 is intended merely as a probing amendment to give us the opportunity to ask the Minister what the Government’s policies will be with regard to the other legal requirements that will be placed on the regulator. I am simply seeking some clarifications here, which I hope she can give.
The amendment states that the independent football regulator must be bound by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Equality Act 2010. I note that Schedule 12 addresses these issues by inserting the name of the independent football regulator into the respective Acts of Parliament, but I am seeking clarification principally on how the Government will put in place concrete plans of action to ensure that the regulator abides by both those Acts.
I must admit that I have not read from cover to cover Sir Tony Blair’s memoir A Journey, published in 2010, but there is one passage that I have read and re-read with relish. It is brief so, mindful of the entreaties of the Government Chief Whip but noting the fans of Sir Tony on the Benches opposite, I will quote it:
“Freedom of Information. Three harmless words. I look at those words as I write them, and feel like shaking my head till it drops off my shoulders. You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop. There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate. I quake at the imbecility of it. Once I appreciated the full enormity of the blunder, I used to say—more than a little unfairly—to any civil servant who would listen: Where was Sir Humphrey when I needed him? We had legislated in the first throes of power. How could you, knowing what you know have allowed us to do such a thing so utterly undermining of sensible government?”
I was struck by that passage. It bears returning to. There are lessons there for a Labour Government with a large majority and seeking to legislate in new ways to reflect on. But this is the law of the land and these are important Acts of Parliament. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what actions the Government will take to ensure that the regulator acts with the transparency required under the Freedom of Information Act, notwithstanding Sir Tony’s views on it now, and the Equality Act 2010. I beg to move.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for this amendment to ensure that the regulator must comply with the Freedom of Information Act and the Equality Act. This is, of course, very important. That is why, per the consequential amendments outlined in paragraphs 4 and 9 of Schedule 12, the regulator will already be subject to these Acts. As a result, this amendment would duplicate this requirement that is already in the Bill and is therefore not necessary. As the noble Lord will be aware from his time as a Minister, legislation should be clear and concise where possible. His amendment would lengthen the Bill to duplicate an existing requirement. On that basis, I hope he will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister. As I say, I was mindful that it is in Schedule 12, but she did not give much additional information on how the Government will seek to work with the regulator in making sure that it is adhered to. However, I appreciate that that is for the regulator. I am grateful to her for those reassurances. I have not yet had the pleasure of reading the former Prime Minister’s memoir from cover to cover so, with Christmas coming, I note that my wish list is still to be filled. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Addington
“Televising of football matches of national interest(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.(2) After Section 299 (categorisation of listed events) (2)(d) insert—“(e) the Independent Football Regulator, established by the Football Governance Act 2024, in relation to televising of football matches between licensed football clubs.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the IFR as a statutory consultee on the listing of sporting events for free-to-air coverage.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord McNally tabled two amendments about making sure that terrestrial television carries football matches.
When we talk about the quality of football that makes the nation treasure it, access is an important factor. We have had many arguments about what should be covered by free-to-air services. What should be on there? The “crown jewel” events. We are talking about something that we have had for a long time, because there are certain events that will not be hidden behind a pay wall. Seeing one or two of these primary gems makes sure that you have a better connection with the rest of the game. I hope that we will make sure that we continue to get them.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in Amendments 91 and 92. I support his view on having free-to-air services for certain sports. My main reason is to expose those sports to the next generation—the youngers coming through. He mentioned rugby—which is not as available as it used to be, certainly not compared with when I was young—but this applies to other sports, including cricket specifically, as well as golf and boxing, which all now have very restricted free-to-air viewing. You wonder what that does to the current generation of children, who may want to be exposed to the sport, but cannot because their parents, for whatever reason, do not have subscriptions to the various channels.
Of course, the regulator will not cover Scotland—perhaps it will have its own regulator following this—but, currently, the Scotland men’s national football matches are available only on YouTube. You could say that that is equivalent to free-to-air viewing, but it is not in any way how international football should be presented. The whole question of how sport is made available to future generations—although it is not really for our debate today—is one that we need to think about very seriously.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I say simply that, while some very good arguments have been put forward, we have to be very careful here. The whole question of listed events that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I have been engaged on for many decades, let alone a year, is a complicated and difficult issue.
Currently, the Secretary of State has to opine as to whether listing an event meets the criterion of having “special national resonance”. That, in its own right, is a difficult thing for the Secretary of State to opine on. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, will recall that, only five years ago, the then Secretary of State made a famous speech on listed events where she put forward the idea that whenever a men’s event was listed, the women’s equivalent should be too. That brought into play a whole series of complex questions, which were important but certainly set the hares running among the people who were focused on listing events.
This is complicated further by virtue of a generational change. Young people increasingly access, and are comfortable accessing, all forms of media to watch the sporting events that they wish to see, sometimes in ways that do not necessarily follow the rules. The changing media landscape, certainly for young people, means that the listed event question may even become obsolete. I am not saying that it will but that is the sort of question that is now being posed as a result of the different patterns of media accessed particularly by young people, as opposed to our generation. I am being courteous to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, when I say that, because he looks a good deal younger than I am.
In that context, I would hesitate to push the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as valuable as they are, to further consideration in this Bill. However, it is important and probably timely that we now look at the whole question of listed events separately because they are vital to many sports. Equally, in the context of football, and without the wider issues that I have sought to bring to the Committee’s attention, we may be too focused on one sport and not considering the wider implications of what should and should not be listed in today’s media landscape.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. The amendment is probably badly worded, but I am sure the inference is about the England football team rather than league clubs and football teams. I was lucky enough to watch England win the World Cup in 1966. I was 14, and it was on television. After that match, loads of people who did not particularly like football began to play football. Geoff Hurst, Martin Peters and Bobby Moore—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brady—show the power of that. Geoff Hurst still goes around inspiring people, even now in his later years in life. If you are speaking of putting people on committees, you could ask for no finer a person than Geoff Hurst.
If we are talking about free to air and it is a national team, that is where you will get more of an audience—to see England play live, rather than having to pay to watch it on any of the paid-for channels. The noble Lord is right: it sits with the golf, the cricket and all the other important sports. But football is our national sport, and our national football team should be live on air, especially major competitions.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, in introducing this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, used the phrase “hiding behind a paywall”. I wonder whether that is really a fair description of paying for something. When I got my phone, it was hiding behind a paywall: it was not given to me free; I had to shell out for it. I need a new car at the moment; my heap of junk of a Nissan has collapsed. The new one is hiding behind a paywall, and I have to pay for it. I had to pay for my dinner tonight; it was hiding behind a paywall.
There is an assumption here that there is no such thing as private property or free contract and that everything ought to be somehow at the disposition of regulators or of state officials. That is not how we got here. If you do not respect the fundamental ability of sporting clubs or indeed broadcasters to do what they think is in their best interests, you end up with suboptimal outcomes. This is a very neat demonstration of why, once you create these regulatory structures, they expand and expand—because people airily demand things and feel very virtuous in demanding them without any thought for the practicalities of the people who have to implement them.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I oppose Amendments 91 and 92 because they try to make the regulator a consultee on listed events and would place a duty on it to have regard to the desirability of making more domestic games free to air. I have huge respect for the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Goddard, and their colleagues, and I know that these amendments relate to a manifesto commitment made by their party, but I hope it is helpful to talk a little about how football’s broadcast economy works in practice.
The Premier League’s domestic broadcasting rights are contracted through to 2029. Of course, they represent far more than a simple commercial arrangement: they form the foundation of English football’s entire economic model, and their thoughtful and innovative packaging is a hugely important part of the Premier League’s success. The substantial revenues they generate enable the Premier League to provide £1.6 billion of support to the wider pyramid, representing 16% of central revenues, of which—I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson, may like to know—£25 million goes to funding the PFA. That is why it keeps its joining fee at £20 and its subs at £150.
The sophistication and complexity of broadcasting arrangements is enormous and a huge source of competitive advantage for English football. Each broadcasting slot and each package of rights exists within an intricate ecosystem where values are fundamentally interdependent. These are not discrete assets that can be easily separated; they form a carefully balanced whole that has taken decades to develop to create value and appeal. Forcing certain matches to be free to air would not just affect those specific fixtures; it would fundamentally undermine the value proposition of every broadcasting package.
Premium broadcasters invest based on exclusive content that attracts subscribers. Remove that exclusivity—even partially—and decouple certain packages from each other and the entire model becomes unsustainable. The consequences that would cascade throughout football are significant. A significant reduction in broadcast values would not just affect Premier League clubs but immediately impact the entire pyramid through reduced solidarity payments, youth development funding and grass-roots investment. The damage to football’s economic ecosystem would be profound and potentially irreversible.
Of course, this sort of intervention would create exactly the kind of seismic instability the regulator is meant to prevent. In an attempt to increase access to certain matches, it would risk destabilising the very mechanism that funds football’s broader development and sustainability. The Premier League’s success in maintaining the growing broadcast revenues, which benefit the entire game, comes through very careful and innovative management of these arrangements. While I respect my noble friend’s motivations and good intentions here, I must strongly oppose the expansion of the scope of the IFR in the way proposed.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 265 falls in this group. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, who has tabled it with me. I know he shares my gratitude to the public service broadcasters with which we have discussed this matter.
Our amendment and the two in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke, all attempt to bring protections for the listed events regime into the scope of the Bill, or at least to give us the opportunity to have the debate that my noble friend Lord Moynihan rightly says is needed and perhaps even overdue. In saying that, I am very mindful that we were likely to have had that debate in the exchanges on the now Media Act earlier this year, had the general election not intervened and had the then Bill not gone through the abbreviated processes in wash-up. I think my noble friend is right and that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would have agreed, had he been here, that these issues deserve some consideration.
The amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and I have brought forward is intended to probe the Government about how they plan to protect digital on-demand rights for the listed events regime. While live television viewing of events is currently included in the regime, there is nothing to stop clipped videos of digital on-demand rights from going behind a paywall. My noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere would certainly have enthusiastically taken part and would have made some very interesting points in the debate we could have had on the listed events regime. This is in the context of public service broadcasters that are broadcasting things that have been deemed particularly important for the public to see in a way that is different from the commercial suppliers, which can provide so many other things to people in the differing ways that they do.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for tabling these amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for moving the amendment at the start of the debate on this group. Amendments 91 and 92 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, raise an important issue that I welcome the opportunity to discuss.
The Government are keen to ensure that sporting events are made available to the public as widely as possible. That is why we have the listed events regime. From the start, there have been strong voices from a number of areas that the regulator must have a tightly defined remit and must not intervene in areas where it is more appropriate for the football authorities and other bodies to take the lead. I am sure the noble Lords will agree that the bar for statutory intervention in any market should be high, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, although with different words. That is why we have ensured that the regulator’s remit is focused solely on tackling the specific market failures that carry a risk of significant harm to fans and communities but which we believe the industry cannot solve through self-regulation.
I sympathise with the noble Lord’s desire to see more matches free to air and understand the frustration of fans who do not always have access to watch their team. I have particular sympathy for the point made by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie about the access of young people to sport. However, we do not feel it is right to expand the regulator’s remit by including it as a body that must be consulted on which free-to-air football matches are broadcast and to have to take into account the desirability of promoting more football matches becoming listed events. This widened remit of considering broadcasting and commercial decisions would prove a distraction from the key responsibility of the regulator to ensure the financial sustainability of football clubs and would widen the scope of the Bill.
Turning to Amendment 265 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I was slightly surprised that the Opposition were so keen to debate this amendment now given that it is contingent on Amendment 263, which we will come to later in Committee. Nevertheless, in the spirit of good will, I will respond.
As we face a changing media landscape, we must account for alternative forms of content and ensure the scope of the backstop is not restricted only to television broadcasting rights. This amendment intends to ensure that it is clear that a wide variety of content is in scope of the definition of “relevant revenue”. However, the existing drafting of the Bill has already been chosen carefully to ensure that we encapsulate alternative media sources. The current definition of “relevant revenue” already covers all sales or acquisitions of rights to exploit the broadcasting of football matches, which would apply to revenue produced by online content as well if that online content used footage from broadcast matches. Therefore, the concern underlying the amendment is suitably addressed by the current drafting of the Bill. For the reasons set out, I am unable to accept the noble Lords’ amendments, and I hope that they will not be pressed.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, that was not the most positive response I have had to an amendment, but it was worth raising the idea of the listed events and certain things being culturally important. I will take away what the Minister has said and look at it, but it is about the principle that certain things are a little more important and reflect well on the actual product. It can be regarded as a little bit of advertising for those people who are taking some money.
If we cast across to other sports, I hope that people will bear in mind the experience of England Rugby. At one point, it was selling its home games, which meant that fans saw England only when they were away—that was the situation a number of years ago. There is a certain point beyond which you are cutting off people and interest, and possibly the expansion of the rest of your market. Yes, things hide behind paywalls if you have not got the money to pay for it or, as often happens in the modern broadcast world, you discover you bought the wrong bit. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, although I reserve my position about looking at it again.
Lord Evans of Rainow
“Requirements on Football Agents(1) The IFR must use its powers under this part to ensure that any person who is licenced by the Football Association to provide football agent services (“a football agent”) must—(a) always act in the best interests of their client Players, Coaches or Clubs and in accordance with their fiduciary duties;(b) abide by article 16 of the FIFA Football Agent Regulations relating to their conduct;(c) respect and adhere to the statutes, regulations, directives and decisions of the competent bodies of FIFA, the IFR and the Football Association;(d) avoid conflicts of interest while providing their Football Agent Services;(e) ensure that their name, FIFA licence number, FA registration number, signature, the name of their client Player, Coach or Club and any other information as may be required by The Association from time to time appear in any contracts resulting from the provision of their Football Agent Service.(2) Any football agent must, upon request, cooperate with the relevant body of the Football Association, or with the IFR, with respect to any type of information.(3) A football agent must submit to the Football Association and the IFR any agreement with a Player, Coach or Club other than a Representation Agreement, including but not limited to agreements relating to Other Services within 14 days of execution.(4) Within 14 days of payment of a fee related to any agreement entered into with a Player, Coach or Club other than a Representation Agreement, a football agent must submit confirmation of receipt and proof of receipt of such payment to the Football Association and the IFR.(5) For the purposes of this section, a person is a football agent if they provide football agents services.(6) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (5), “football agent services” means football-related services performed for or on behalf of a Client, including any negotiation, communication relating or preparatory to the same, or other related activity, with the purpose, objective or intention of concluding a Transaction.”
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 93 would place new requirements on the independent football regulator with regard to football agents. There is nothing new about agents. They have a role to play in the football league, but they have a disproportionate influence now on players, clubs and the league.
Premier League clubs spent a combined £409 million on agents and intermediaries in the 12 months to February 2024, according to the Football Association report last week. Most of this money is leaving football. FIFA is trying to implement some clear and fair rules to the transfer system, including regulations on agents, for the sake of transparency, accountability and better redistribution across all levels of the game. FIFA president Gianni Infantino has said that more money should be going to
“the clubs that trained and developed the players signed”.
He called on Governments and lawmakers to join him and
“play an active role in ensuring the funds generated in transfers are kept within football and are shared with clubs from all around the world, as they are absolutely key for current and future generations of footballers”.
It appears to be a glaring omission, therefore, that we have this 125-page Bill to regulate football, yet agents are not mentioned once. This cannot be right. There exists a set of Football Association regulations that license agents, which are based on the FIFA Football Agent Regulations. These were approved by the FIFA council on 16 December 2022 and sought to provide a balanced legal instrument to protect the effective functioning and integrity of football transfer systems. The importance of this system cannot be overestimated. Without a properly functioning transfer market, clubs would not be able to obtain the world-class talent they so desperately require; players would not be able to climb the ladder and progress their career, which would instead stagnate; and fans would suffer, too, as they would not be able to enjoy the dynamism and excitement that transfer windows bring to the game or see new faces play in the team that they so love.
However, those FIFA regulations have faced legal challenges in the German courts. On 24 May 2023, the district court of Dortmund placed an injunction demanding that FIFA suspend a number of provisions of its football agent regulations for any transfer that was linked with the European Union. The FIFA circular that was sent to the relevant national associations, of which the FA was one, said that the ruling was
“inconsistent with … judicial decisions in other European countries”.
Consequently, large parts of the FA’s own regulations were suspended in December last year.
This amendment seeks to rectify the situation without creating regulatory overlap with the FA by codifying the regulations that had to be suspended. It therefore would not double up on the licensing rules that the FA and FIFA have already set out, but would instead complement those rules. Under this amendment, the regulator would have a duty to ensure that anyone who is licensed by the FA to carry out football agent services abides by Article 16 of the FIFA regulations. That article establishes the rights and obligations of agents. It ensures that agents act in good faith, comply with reporting requirements and uphold the values of the game. Unfortunately, the provision that required agents to comply with Article 16 was one of those that was suspended.
This amendment would also require agents to co-operate with the FA and the independent football regulator whenever those bodies should require, and to ensure that they operate with full transparency.
I believe it is only right that these rules should be reintroduced, so that is what my amendment seeks to achieve. I would be most grateful if the Minister could commit to reviewing the requirements placed on football agents and inform the Committee of what action the Government plan to take to ensure that agents are held to the same standards by this regulator as clubs and leagues will be.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment, which seeks to address one of the most significant and unresolved issues in football governance: the regulation of football agents. The amendment is not just about imposing stricter rules on agents; it is about protecting the financial stability of English football and ensuring that the resources within the game are directed towards its growth and long-term health.
In the last five years, Premier League clubs alone have spent a staggering £1.65 billion on agents’ fees. This represents an extraordinary extraction of wealth from the game. It is money that could otherwise be invested in stadiums, academies, community projects, et cetera. The agent market is riddled with dysfunction. The incentive structures are fundamentally misaligned, with practices such as dual representation creating inflationary pressures on transfer market fees and wages. Without reform, the unchecked escalation of agent fees will continue to threaten the financial stability of clubs, and limit the growth and potential of the industry.
While the amendment addresses a critical issue, it also highlights a broader concern: the lack of meaningful engagement from the Government on how to support English football beyond the confines of the Bill. The Bill creates significant new regulatory obligations and risks for damage within football, particularly for Premier League clubs, without addressing the areas where government action could help the game thrive. Let me be clear: the amendment provides an opportunity to have that conversation. It forces us to ask why the Government have not engaged with clubs on how to help clubs grow and succeed while addressing the inefficiencies in football or the opportunities we have to grow with government assistance.
For example, on access to talent, since Brexit English clubs have faced significantly restricted access to international talent compared with competitor leagues. Reforming these laws could reduce player acquisition costs, improve competitiveness and enhance the financial health of the pyramid. On tax incentives for investment, football infrastructure is a national asset. Other countries, such as France and the US, recognise this through targeted tax incentives for stadium development and training facilities. Yet here in the UK we have no similar framework to support clubs to make these long-term investments. These are areas where constructive government engagement could make a real difference. Yet, instead of addressing these opportunities, the Bill focuses on imposing new obligations without offering the tools to support growth or mitigate the unintended consequences. Premier League clubs would really welcome engagement on these potential growth opportunities.
Turning back to agents, the lack of effective regulation has been an ongoing issue for decades. The Premier League has already attempted to address this through initiatives such as its 2017 review into intermediaries, which identified serious problems, including the lack of qualifications, excessive influence, and weak enforcement mechanisms. While clubs are willing to take bold unilateral steps, including banning dual representation, these measures were ultimately not implemented, because FIFA launched its own reform process. However, FIFA’s efforts have stalled due to the legal challenges my noble friend mentioned, and its proposed cap on agents’ fees has been deemed unlawful in the UK. Without primary legislation, meaningful reform remains out of reach.
The amendment is therefore timely. It provides a legislative framework to ensure that agents act in the best interest of their clients, comply with FIFA regulations and disclose key information about their activities. These measures would not only bring transparency but reduce the inflationary pressures caused by the current dysfunctional system. Whether the Bill is deemed the appropriate place for action or not, I hope the Government will engage with clubs and leagues on how to pursue much-needed reform in a way that safeguards competitiveness.
In this respect, this amendment also serves a broader purpose: it highlights the imbalance in how the Government are approaching the Bill. Clubs are being asked to shoulder significant new regulatory burdens, yet there is little or no discussion about how the Government could support them in other critical areas. Whether it is addressing the dysfunction in the agent market, widening access to talent or incentivising infrastructure investment, so much more could be done to help English football grow and succeed.
This amendment addresses a pressing issue that has gone unregulated for far too long. The influence of agents on the game and the resources extracted through their fees cannot be ignored. At the same time, this amendment is a reminder of the broader need for the Government to engage with football on how to support growth and sustainability, not just impose new obligations. I urge the Minister to take this opportunity to engage meaningfully with clubs and leagues, not just on the regulation of agents but on the wider opportunities I have mentioned, to ensure that English football remains the most dynamic and competitive league in the world.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I support both my noble friends who have spoken to this amendment.
We spoke earlier about the importance of taking into account the players—the noble Lord, Lord Watson, raised that. Agents push, not least to increase the opportunities for the players to earn money, and one of the biggest problems and the reason why we should engage with players—for example, with the Club World Cup coming up—is that further strain is placed on the elite players. Agents are directly involved in that market; they go right to the heart of the financial stability of the game.
The agent market is central to the infrastructure of professional football. If we are to have a regulator, it is inconceivable that it should not consider the impact of agents, which some see as heavily dysfunctional and others see as beneficial if regulated—FIFA has gone through huge challenges recently in terms of the overall regulation of that market.
The regulation is difficult enough, but it is impossible not to regulate football as is proposed under this legislation without the regulator taking into account the impact of agents on the financial stability of the clubs. That is the key point. To a great extent, the financial stability of clubs relies on the good working of the agent market.
I hope that when the Minister comes to respond, she will reflect on that and on the importance of this amendment, and that she will look to see whether advice, even, can be given to the regulator to ensure that this is fully taken into account, to ensure a smooth functioning of the professional football market and, above all, the financial stability of the clubs.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow for tabling his Amendment 93 and giving us the opportunity to discuss the duties of, requirements for and obligations on football agents. As my noble friend established, there is no mention of agents anywhere in the Bill—it is another group, as with the useful debate we had earlier on professional players, where the Bill is perhaps more silent than it ought to be. I will not put my noble friend on the spot and ask him, as I did on that group, whether there ever have been professional football agents in your Lordships’ House—I suppose that may be a bit more likely than professional footballers. It seems I have exhausted his parliamentary, historical and sporting knowledge in this instance.
This has been a helpful area of consideration for us. As my noble friend Lady Brady set out very clearly, football agents are one of the areas that absolutely require greater consideration when we consider the regulation of English football. Attempts to bring them under the scope of FIFA and of the Football Association’s regulatory frameworks have been somewhat successful but have not been fully implemented, for the reasons my noble friend mentioned.
The role of a football agent is one of significant influence. Agents negotiate contracts, secure endorsements and guide careers. In many cases they hold the futures of young and often vulnerable players in their hands. It is therefore imperative that agents act in the best interests of their clients. My noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow’s amendment enshrines that important principle, requiring agents to abide by fiduciary duties and to avoid conflicts of interest. Such measures are not only common sense but consistent with the values of fairness and accountability that underpin so much else of the Bill.
Article 16 of FIFA’s Football Agent Regulations already sets out high standards for agents’ conduct, but adherence to these standards has been inconsistent. By incorporating them in our domestic legislation in the way that my noble friend’s amendment suggests and through the powers of the new independent football regulator, we would send a strong message that, in this country, we expect the highest standards and are prepared to enforce them.
My noble friend’s amendment also addresses transparency—another important issue. Requiring agents to disclose agreements and payments would ensure that all interested parties, including clubs and governing bodies, can scrutinise transactions. This is particularly important when vast sums of money are at stake and public confidence is on the line. Greater transparency is not just good for governance; it is essential to maintaining the very credibility of the sport.
This amendment would involve additional burdens on agents—my noble friends Lord Evans and Lady Brady were quite candid in saying that in their speeches—but we must remember that these are people who operate in an industry where the stakes are extremely high. Professional football is a multi-billion-pound sector with far-reaching economic and social implications. It is not unreasonable to expect those operating in it to meet rigorous professional standards; of course, that is what the Bill seeks to do for clubs and other parties in the sector. If the Government are willing to take the steps that they are taking to regulate clubs and competition organisers, why would they not be willing to do so with agents? I ask that neutrally because it is a worthwhile area for us to probe.
Moreover, this amendment would uphold individual responsibility by demanding ethical conduct from agents. It would reinforce accountability by ensuring that the regulator can scrutinise agents’ practices effectively and would protect the integrity of the market, creating a level playing field for clubs and players. This amendment is about protecting the players, many of whom are young people stepping into a world of vast financial opportunity but also, of course, of significant risk. By holding agents to these high standards, we would ensure that players are not exploited or misled, enabling them to focus on their careers, fulfil their potential and delight fans of football for many years to come.
I share the anxiety that my noble friends set out in terms of the behaviours that we have seen in this area. There have long been allegations of financial misconduct or bungs by agents acting in English football. An agent and senior club manager exposed by the Daily Telegraph investigation in 2016 were later suspended by the FA, having been charged with bribery—a very serious offence—so the independent football regulator must do all that is possible to avoid the corruption of the beautiful game and serious crimes such as this.
There is also the matter of fraudulent transfers, such of that of Ali Dia. In November 1996, Dia’s agent famously convinced Graeme Souness, then the Southampton manager, that he was the cousin of the FIFA World Player of the Year and Ballon d’Or winner, George Weah, which led to Dia signing a one-month contract with Southampton just a few days later. Dia played only one match in his short spell at the club: he came on as a substitute in a league game but was then himself substituted. He was subsequently released just 14 days into his contract. Dia’s teammate for that one game, Matt Le Tissier, is quoted as saying:
“He ran around the pitch like Bambi on ice; it was very embarrassing to watch”.
These are the sorts of scenarios that we want to avoid—scenarios through which clubs are defrauded and players are exploited. This is a sensible amendment to help ensure the integrity of football, which is very much in keeping with the spirit of the Bill and many of the measures that are already in it. I hope that the Minister looks favourably upon it and gives it the consideration it deserves.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, for his amendment, which was an interesting contribution to this Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, eloquently outlined the costs to the game. The actions of some football agents are clearly a concern, with both the Government and FIFA publicly recognising it as a serious issue. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, gave a number of specific examples.
FIFA has recognised the need for the better international regulation of agents and proposed reforms on this to its member associations. The Government agree with the fan-led review that a global, game-wide solution, led by the industry, is preferable to statutory regulation of agents through the independent football regulator. Trying to address this issue unilaterally could simply push global talent to other markets, so a multilateral solution is preferable. If there is reform, the Government will work with the FA to ensure that any future regulation is fit for purpose. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am most grateful to the Minister for her response. I am somewhat disappointed by talk of a unilateral approach, given that FIFA is calling for other countries and authorities to work with it, but perhaps we can revisit this at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the State of the Game report to include, in its overview of issues affecting English football, factors related to the community and social impact of regulated clubs.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, there are quite a lot of amendments in this group, so I should say at the outset that I am trying to get assurances from the Minister on two specific points. They relate to the “state of the game” report, on which I know a lot of work has already been done.
The first assurance is that the report will be as comprehensive as possible. My colleagues and I have listed a number of items that should be included. Some are issues that we have already discussed. Some are very significant, such as community, social impact, how well managed clubs are, an assessment of the distribution arrangements, issues around women’s football, multi-club ownership, player welfare, equalities and social inclusion. All those things should be encompassed by the “state of the game” report, and, without going into any one of them at this stage, I hope we can agree that this report should be as comprehensive as possible. It is important that the regulator has independent and substantial information on which to make judgments. That is the first point that I raise with the Minister and on which I seek her assurances.
My second point concerns the timing of the report. As I said, I know that a lot of work has gone on to prepare for the report. The Bill suggests that it should be out as soon as possible, but gives an 18-month deadline. One amendment in this group seeks to reduce that to 12 months. Given the amount of attention on the Bill, that it has been in the pipeline for so long and that people are aware of these issues, a 12-month timescale should be appropriate. I hope the Minister agrees that the report should be published as soon as possible.
There is also the question of how often we should have this report. The Bill suggests five years and my amendment suggests three. It suggests that the report should be presented to Parliament. This is not a controversial area, but some reassurances would be beneficial, so that everybody is clear where we are going forward.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the “state of the game” report is one of those things that has been almost universally welcomed. It will look at this very big and complex industry, with a very successful top and struggling foundations—that is how the industry appears to many people.
My name appears on this amendment alongside that of the noble Baroness because of things such as social impact. We are doing this because it is reckoned to be an important subject that matters a lot to people, and we keep being told that it is a big business—the biggest invisible earner going. If we get a report that is too narrow, we will not be looking at this huge social impact and what goes on.
Many of the things that we are talking about here are out of scope of the main operation of the Bill, but they should be looked at somewhere. The women’s game is one that comes to mind, along with players, which these amendments propose would feature here. If we are not going to look at such things in the Bill, we should look at them in the “state of the game” report.
It is a huge subject that we are talking about here; we have taken on something that is quite brave. If we do not find out how it is functioning and what is going on, we will be missing a trick. I would hope that we would do this as soon as we can—having slightly more frequent reports, at least at the beginning, would not be a bad idea. The “state of the game” report is a huge opportunity for gathering a great deal of very useful information.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I support many of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has raised under Amendment 94. I see that the Chief Whip is in his place; he will be pleased to note that nine of the amendments that we are considering now came from the Labour Benches, and that we have reached page 6 of the Bill.
The noble Baroness made the important point that Parliament should receive and debate the “state of the game” report. I am perfectly happy for the regulator, if we are going to have one, to present the report. However, in presenting the report, full attention needs to be paid to factors relating to the community and social impacts of regulated clubs and the women’s game. It is impossible when looking at this overall—and the Bill says that:
“A state of the game report must include … an overview of the main issues that the IFR considers to be affecting English football”,
—not to consider the development in the women’s game. It is a central part of English football, as cited in the Bill.
There is one other area at which we need to look at a later stage, on which I have no intention of detaining the Committee this evening. The regulator is looking at English football clubs and the game in England, but 14 Premier League clubs are in multi-club ownership, which stretches far beyond our shores. That is much more than in any other league in Europe. That has significant impacts on the financial regulation of the game. It provides greater bargaining power in commercial contracts and increases significantly the brand reach of those clubs, while allowing for the pooling of resources. There is flexibility with player transfers and loans. Certainly, within the English game, there is prohibition control over the management of more than one club, and UEFA states that you cannot have one controller covering two or more clubs in the same European competition. All these are actually central financial issues, and they have to be considered in any assessment of the health of the game in England.
I am concerned—I hope the Minister can respond and help me with this—that, if the regulator is prohibited from looking at the impact of multi-club ownership, there is a huge amount of important material when it comes to understanding the financial health of the game in England that would be outside the remit of the regulator. If I am wrong on that, no doubt the Minister will say that the regulator is absolutely entitled to look at each and every aspect of the multi-club ownership that takes place, principally in the Premier League. I will not detain the Committee by going further, but I simply table the fact that I think it is an essential and central point in any state of the game report and of the work of the regulator moving forward, and I would appreciate any clarity that the Minister can throw on that this evening.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 101 in my name. It seeks to address a fundamental imbalance in how we will assess the health of English football under this new regulatory framework. The Premier League has become the world’s most successful sporting competition through a sophisticated balance of sporting merit and commercial innovation. Every weekend, millions watch matches where any team can beat any other, where promoted clubs can dream of European football and where calculated ambition is rewarded. This competitive drama has created extraordinary value that benefits the entire football pyramid, yet this Bill creates a concerning issue in how we will measure success. While the regulator must produce a state of the game report, its content focuses almost entirely on identifying problems and assessing risks. There is no requirement to evaluate how a regulatory intervention might affect the very qualities that have made English football successful.
This amendment would require the regulator to assess and report on three areas: first, competitive balance and sporting merit, the foundation of football’s appeal; secondly, our international position, crucial given the growing competition from other leagues and competitions around the world; and, thirdly, our ability to attract investment, which is essential for maintaining the quality that drives broadcast value and pyramid funding.
Without proper assessment of the competitive matrix, how would we know whether regulation was inadvertently creating barriers to sporting achievement? Without tracking our international position, how could we identify whether intervention was damaging our ability to attract global talent? Without measuring investment impact, how would we spot whether regulation was deterring the responsible ambition that drives football growth? If the state of the game report is to be as Ministers have described it—the definitive evidence base of football’s health that will drive the regulator’s whole agenda—it is crucial that the report considers both the risks and the success factors. We cannot protect what we do not measure. We must not allow these protective regulatory principles to become completely meaningless.
The amendment would create crucial feedback loops. It would allow Parliament and stakeholders to identify early-warning signs if regulation begins to damage football’s essential qualities. It would provide evidence to enable the regulator to adjust its regulatory approach if unintended consequences emerge. Most importantly, it would ensure that we protect proper oversight while preserving what makes English football so special. Without this amendment, we risk creating a regulator focused solely on managing decline rather than protecting success.
I would be grateful therefore if the Minister could explain why, in her view, the state of the game report should not assess regulatory impact. Will she also explain how Parliament will otherwise be in a position to judge whether this world-first and intrinsically risky regulatory approach is going to be able to maintain English football’s success, growth and vitality?
Lord Markham (Con)
I rise to speak to my Amendment 104, but I start by saying that I agree with the thrust set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, that we want this to be a comprehensive report. We all agree that we need a common factual basis on which to try to agree onward action. As such, I agree that this needs to be the first thing that the regulator does. With that, I am sympathetic towards the quicker timeframe. Obviously, I am mindful that we need to give it a certain amount of time so that it can do the report properly; six months is probably unrealistic as a quick proposal but 12 months should be enough time. Beyond that, given how quickly things move, every three years is a reasonable frequency.
Before I come on to Amendment 104, I admit that I am a bit concerned by Amendment 95, which asks the regulator to report with its assessment of how well each club is managed. It is one thing working with each club and looking at its plans; having to report on that is almost like a different level of burden of proof when it comes to the evidence needed. I am sure the regulator will be nervous about putting this down in black and white without having a strong evidential base. When you are trying to do that across 116 clubs, it creates a duty that is probably burdensome on the whole industry. It would result in a whole host of Deloittes, KPMGs and PwCs of the world going into every club, all 116 of them, to try and find assess how well they are run.
I turn to my Amendment 104. Key to this is football financial health. We all agree that it is critical to everything that we have been talking about—to sustainability and to the whole pyramid payment system and how much money is going at the top end. Every time I have proposed something, I have thought it was not controversial, and have said so many times over the last few days. I have then been—“upset” is too strong a word—mildly disappointed that it was not taken up by the Minister. I hope that asking the regulator to write in the “state of the game” report a section on football financial health is a no-brainer. Even though we are getting towards extra time, and into stoppage time, I hope we can have one thing chalked up that the Minister is happy to take away and agree to tonight.
Similarly, on the state of fan engagement, one thing that united the whole Chamber earlier was when we were talking about how fans should be consulted in all this. I hope that including a section on fan engagement in the “state of the game” report would be considered as close to a no-brainer as you would hope to get.
Lastly, proposed new paragraph (f) looks at the operation of the current regulators and an assessment of how well the independent regulator performs. That comes on to a clause later with the subsidiarity principle, and we are asking the independent regulator to, for want of a better term, contract out different functions where a current regulator—the FA, the Premier League or whatever—is better placed to do that. That is the general principle that we hope to get established. However, for it to be able to do that, the football regulator in the “state of the game” report first needs to report on the functions of the current regulators and how well they fulfil them.
Again, late into stoppage time, I hope these will be seen as quite sensible and uncontroversial measures. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on them later.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, we are, I hope, on the home straight, to take a metaphor from another sport. I rise to support an amendment in this group, to say nothing about some others, and to oppose some others.
I take my thoughts from a reflection on Hong Kong and its enormous success as an economic entity for many decades before, lamentably, we had to lose it to the Chinese—with the current appalling situation that we now see in Hong Kong. Why was Hong Kong so successful? It is generally acknowledged that Sir John Cowperthwaite took an attitude of benign neglect to its success. He arrived in Hong Kong, he was urged to govern, and he said, “No, I’m going to step back because it’s doing very well without my interference”. He assiduously prevented reports being written about Hong Kong.
I am very much in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Brady because it seeks to limit the report, and I say nothing about the various timing amendments, which I do not feel qualified to discuss, but I did say at Second Reading that this Bill was a Christmas tree and, unfortunately, people like to hang baubles on Christmas trees: “Let’s look at women’s football”; “Let’s look at the environment”; “Let’s look at so many things”—it is irresistible when you have a Christmas tree. What is wrong with having a report on these interesting, important things? We go back to Cowperthwaite: if you have a report, people feel urged to do something about it. If you say, “My report says that there’s something wrong here, or that more could be done there”, then that moves on to the impetus to interfere more and more.
There are two attitudes in this House to what is going on in football in this country. There is the attitude that we know best and that we say what is fair—fairness seems to be the prime objective among many speakers. There are others who are saying, “Why are you wanting to interfere with what is working so well?” I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for defying the injunction not to repeat ourselves, since he repeated himself earlier this evening in claiming that there was this catastrophic situation in the lower orders of football. I do not see it. Football is thriving. Others said the same when the point was made before—but good on him for defying this attempt to suppress deeply held thoughts, even if spoke twice.
No actions have no consequences. Attempts in these amendments to put more and more into this Bill will be detrimental to the great sport of soccer in this country.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly say a few words about my Amendments 106, 108 and 109. Given the hour, I will not speak at length. As with the other amendments in this group, these concern the “state of the game” report. I am grateful to all those who brought amendments in this group and who have contributed to it.
My Amendment 106 is attempting to address a very similar point as does Amendment 105, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. Both amendments are attempting to reduce the period in which the regulator will have to publish the first “state of the game” report. As the noble Baroness noted, my amendment changes this from 18 months to six months, whereas theirs looks to change it to 12 months, but the reasoning behind both is the same. The sooner we understand the state of the game under this new framework, the better we can refine and improve the regulator’s role. I think that the sooner that happens the better, but I am not precious about the precise time.
Amendment 108 in my name requires the “state of the game” report to be published every four years to allow for a full and proper reappraisal of the issues facing football. The original draft of the Bill, when it was introduced by the previous Conversative Government, set the period for republishing the report at three years, and the current version sets it at five. With this amendment, I am trying to probe the Government as to why they have made the change that they have in this instance, and I would be grateful if the Minister could say.
With Amendment 109, again, I am trying to probe the Government’s intent. The Bill includes numerous references to consultations with fans, but it does not include any reference to engagement with fans on the draft “state of the game” report. I am curious as to the reasoning behind the drafting. If the Government believe that fans should be consulted elsewhere in the Bill, why not in this instance and with this provision?
I will not speak at length to the other amendments in this group that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, have tabled, but I am grateful to them for their thoughts in doing so.
I will touch on Amendment 103, because I am conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is not here to mention it. Her amendment deals with the question of environmental sustainability. That falls very much into the category of the baubles on the Christmas tree that my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea would be very sceptical of. While football has a role to play in tackling climate change, the regulator must ensure that its focus remains on football governance. In the noble Baroness’s absence, I wanted to make sure that her amendment was noted, and if the Minister has anything to say on it, I am sure that she will be grateful to read it back.
Amendment 104, in the name of my noble friend Lord Markham, and to which I have added my name, attempts to expand the scope of the “state of the game” report. This requires the regulator to include an assessment of the overall financial health of football, an assessment of the current state of fan engagement and an overview of the current regulatory functions that are carried out by existing football bodies. We think that these additions are crucial. Financial health is the bedrock of football’s future, and fan engagement is its very soul. We must also respect and leverage the expertise of existing bodies, such as the FA, in ensuring that the regulator complements, rather than duplicates, their efforts.
The amendments tabled in this group reflect the wide-ranging interests and challenges facing English football. On these Benches, our priority is to ensure that the Bill creates a framework for governance that is robust, focused and effective. We must protect the integrity of the game, empower clubs to succeed and respect the fans who are its beating heart. I hope the Minister will seek to do that too in her response.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton and the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, for tabling these amendments and for the discussion of them. I will take them in turn.
I turn first to Amendment 94 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton. While I understand the intent behind this amendment, we do not consider it necessary and believe the Bill already covers this issue, and I hope that this reassures her. The positive social impact of regulated clubs in their communities features in the very definition of the sustainability of English football in Clause 1, so we fully expect that the regulator will naturally cover these areas in the “state of the game” report.
I turn to another of my noble friend Lady Taylor’s amendments in this grouping, Amendment 100. While the areas that my noble friend highlights, such as environmental sustainability and ethics, are important, they are not within the remit of the regulator and therefore will not be in scope of the “state of the game” report. In so far as the other areas are relevant to the regulator’s functions under the Bill, it already has the power to report on, for instance, a club’s general financial sustainability.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased there is such agreement about the importance of the “state of the game” report. The Minister has given some elements of reassurance, but on others I wish she could have gone a little further.
Because of the late time, we have not discussed in depth all the elements we were talking about. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned multi-club ownership, which I think we will come unto at a later stage.
The one point I cannot agree with that has been said is that football has benefited from benign neglect. Benign neglect of good governance in football is the reason we are here today.
But there has been progress here. I am glad everybody accepts that this report will be important. On that basis, at this stage, I withdraw my amendment.