Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, you know the drill. If there is a vote in the Chamber, we shall adjourn the Committee to allow you to take part.
Holocaust Memorial Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Eccles
“(1A) The management responsibilities in subsection (1)(a) to (c) must be discharged by a Non-Departmental Public Body.”
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, when I put down this amendment it seemed to me that we had arrived at a time when we needed clarification about who was going to manage this project. It is approaching construction and has been under consideration for a long time. We have known that there was going to be a Parliament-approved executive management, but we have not got one yet, and so that was my purpose.
If I may go back briefly into the history, the chair of the commission, Mr Davis, said this on pages 6 and 7 of the foreword to Britain’s Promise to Remember:
“To take these recommendations forward the Commission proposes the immediate creation of a permanent independent body. This body will implement the recommendations to commemorate the Holocaust and ensure a world-leading educational initiative”.
I emphasise the phrase, “world-leading educational initiative”.
It is true to say that, if you read Britain’s Promise to Remember, you find that the main emphasis is on education. That was confirmed on page 16, which said:
“The Commission’s final recommendation is the immediate creation of a permanent independent body. This organisation would oversee the establishment of the new National Memorial and Learning Centre, run that Centre and administer the endowment fund”.
The point I would like to emphasise is that it says both times, “independent body”. I take that to mean that, when the public body is formed, the people who comprise it would be entitled to make up their own minds, and, at least, to make their own presentation.
In January 2015, this was confirmed in the House of Commons by David Cameron, now my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, when he said:
“The Commission proposes a new independent body to deliver all these recommendations and wants to see … the creation of the National Memorial in 2016-17, and the Learning Centre within the next Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/15; col. 20WS.]
The thing I want to emphasise there is that, right from the start, there was an acceptance that the memorial was one thing and the world-class education initiative was another, and that it would take a very considerable time to achieve. There was no intention that they should be contemporaneous. They would be going along at the same time, but at a very different speed.
Subsequent to that, there was an appointment made by the Prime Minister, again in January, when David Cameron announced that Sir Peter Bazalgette would serve as the chairman of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, with, it goes on—although this is not a quote—the expectation that the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation would be executive. I do not want to get into an argument about “advisory” versus “executive”. I simply say that what happened while Sir Peter was the chairman included what I would regard as some executive actions: he set out to the 50 different sites to see whether he could find the best one; he was there when the Victoria Tower Gardens were agreed on; and he mounted the competition for the most suitable building.
In April 2018, as we know, Sir Peter resigned and the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation became, as I would say, advisory. I just add that I do not think that you would name a body in the way in which that body was named if you intended it to be advisory—it does not sound right to me.
The matter of how this institution was to be managed went on for a long time, with discussions and thoughts, but it rose to the surface again only when the National Audit Office did its investigation in 2022. That report says in terms that the department had studied what sort of a permanent, independent body there should be and had come to the conclusion that its recommendation was that it should be a new non-departmental public body. That recommendation stands, and no doubt we shall be told during these proceedings what has happened to it subsequently, but it seems to me to be high time that some action is taken. After all, Parliament must come into the process, and that always takes time. We are only about a year away from lots of action on the ground. Surely if a chair and a chief executive were to be appointed following the creation of an NDPB, there would be plenty for them to do. They are not going to be bad value for money. When construction starts, there will be many things to do: they will have to study the building and see what they think about how they will run it and how it will deliver the best value for money.
On the subject of the building, I want to make one point. People may ask the question that I would ask, because in my amendment I am talking about the management under Clause 1(1)(a) to (c). Clause 1(1)(a) refers to “a centre for learning”. In the headline, of course, it is called a learning centre. If I understand it correctly, I do not think that what is proposed to go into the building at present can possibly be described as a learning centre.
Learning centres came from America. They are institutions that are normally attached to other institutions, in particular to schools and universities, and—this is a definition—they provide
“a dedicated facility where people can come to learn at a time that suits them in a comfortable and supportive environment”.
If noble Lords want an example, the British Library—the ex-chair of which, the noble Baroness, is not here —does entirely what that definition says. It seems to me that the parliamentary draftsmen must have had some reason for putting “Learning Centre” in the heading but “a centre for learning” in the text. I will be very interested to know why that difference is there, as will, I guess, anybody appointed to manage the institution.
There are many other things. The Treasury will, I think, be quite difficult on occasions during the progress of this project. It will be influenced by how much money is coming from private sources, in particular the charitable trust. The relationship between the chair and chief executive of the new institution and the charitable trust will be of great importance, as will the relationship with the management of the gardens and the Royal Parks. Of course, we have a different ministry above the Royal Parks: DCMS. Anyone who has experience of public bodies—I have been chief executive of one, CDC, and chairman of another, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew—knows that all these things take a lot of time and careful negotiation, so there is plenty of work to do. If there was a worry about the cost of having them on the books, the ministry would probably be ready to disband part of its special team that it has put together so far. It is urgent that we move to form this management. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for opening this group. I will speak to my Amendment 22, which seeks to limit the amount of time that Victoria Tower Gardens can be closed to the public as a result of events linked to the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre to three days a year.
The protection conferred on Victoria Tower Gardens by the original Act of 1900 was put in place to ensure access to the park as a park in perpetuity. This is particularly important to residents in the locality, many of whom live in flats and would not otherwise have access to green spaces. We cannot discuss this Bill without giving due consideration to them and what protections will be in place for them. I note that, in responding to these concerns, the Select Committee report states that limiting the closure dates of Victoria Tower Gardens is a “reasonable request”, as it particularly affects residents who use it on a weekly basis.
There are a number of reasons why the Select Committee’s recommendation 2 and the promotor’s assurance 10 are inadequate to address this and why I suggest that protections need to be enshrined in the Bill, which is what my amendment is designed to do. First, the recommendation by the Select Committee is that this be taken forward in by-laws by the Royal Parks, as the body responsible for maintaining the parts of Victoria Tower Gardens that fall outside the perimeter of the proposed memorial and learning centre.
Parks owned by local authorities usually rely on by-laws. However, for the Royal Parks there is a succession of Acts of Parliament substituting for these by-laws. Usually, decisions on how to apply these regulations are delegated by the Secretary of State for DCMS to TRP management. However, the Secretary of State has the power to overrule the Royal Parks, as happened in May 2024 when the gardens were closed for three days to the public over a bank holiday weekend for an event. It is worth noting, too, that the Royal Parks remain reliant for 60% of their annual income on DCMS. As a result, it is extremely unlikely that the promoter or the authority subsequently created to run the HMLC would be refused permission to close the parks by DCMS or the Royal Parks if it requested it. That is why there must be protections in the Bill.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Eccles in his Amendment 5 and will speak to my Amendment 33. When I first saw the department’s plan to manage this, I was tempted to ask the Minister facetiously whether he would put the experts of HS2 in charge of the project since they seemed to have all the matching qualities outlined in the devastating “red for danger” Infrastructure and Projects Authority report. But then I had a panic—perhaps they might not realise that I was being facetious and actually put HS2 in charge.
The National Audit Office said in a devasting report of 2022 that the department had informed it that it hoped to get an NDPB up and running about a year before the centre opened. It would be in charge of running it but have no role in managing its construction. The key findings of that NAO report were that:
“The Department does not have a track record of managing programmes of this nature … The Department has recruited specialists from across the civil service and externally, but the team does not have staff with programme management expertise in senior positions”.
However, the devasting criticism of the project is not a comment by the NAO but is printed on page 11 of the report as an organisation chart showing the nine bodies under the Secretary of State that will have input into its management. The department calls this “the governance structure”. I have given a copy of this to the Minister, to Hansard and to the clerks. Of course, we cannot enter it into Hansard, so I will read out what it says.
At the bottom of the chart are three organisations credited with giving independent assurance. One is the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which has already condemned the management of the project. Another is the Cabinet Office, which must give approval on business cases and procurement. Then there is the Treasury. The NAO report says that the Treasury’s role is to be:
“Responsible for allocating funding for the programme. Treasury approval is required at different stages as per the Integrated Assurance and Approval Plan … As a condition of the funding, the Department must seek further Treasury approval if the programme is forecast to use more than half of the approved contingency”.
We all know what the Treasury is like: no one will be able to buy a nail to build this place without months and months of Treasury approval. That is another government department with management rights over this project.
Then there are three advisory boards: the foundation advisory board, the academic advisory board and the construction advisory board. The members of the foundation advisory board are extremely distinguished and will all have firm views on fulfilling their role of defining the overall vision for the programme, including content of the learning centre. But the academic advisory board,
“Provides a peer-review process and discussion forum for the envisioned exhibition content”.
So now we have two expert bodies advising on content and a paralysed programme board terrified to decide between them or reject their advice. This is a recipe for delay and completely contradictory decisions as the programme board attempts to please everyone.
Above those advisory bodies, we have the programme board itself. I hope that noble Lords are listening carefully, because this is what it will do:
“Meets monthly and is chaired by the senior responsible owner. It is the decision-making authority for the programme and collectively owns the programme’s objectives. It monitors the performance of individual projects and work packages, as well as the risks and issues affecting delivery and the mitigations in place to address them. Members include the programme director, programme manager and project leads. Representatives from other parts of the Department, such as Procurement, and external stakeholders, including specialist contractors, are also invited to meetings”.
What an extraordinarily huge bunch of people with no power except to monitor performance, assess risks and pass things on to the oversight board.
The oversight board is one level higher up. It will meet
“2-3 times a year with representatives from the Foundation Advisory Board and senior government. Sets the strategic direction of the programme and is the escalation point for the Programme Board; any changes to the strategic direction need Oversight Board approval”.
Next, we have the investment sub-committee, whose remit is:
“The ISC must approve new project or programme business cases. The programme must seek further ISC approval if it is forecast to use more than half of the approved cost contingency.”
Finally, at the top of this indecision tree is the Secretary of State as
“the ultimate escalation point and sits on the Oversight Board”.
In summary, we have three advisory committees, one organisation with responsibility for finance, two powerful government departments with the final say on finance and two other boards that monitor things and talk about them. There is one thing missing—a straightforward delivery board whose mission given to it by the Secretary of State should be simply this: “You will deliver this project X at a cost Y by day Z and you will suffer penalty P if you fail to deliver and you are a day late.” Get rid of all the other talking shops except the foundation advisory board, which can advise on content but with no say on design or construction. Once new plans are approved in detail, no changes should be made at all. We have all seen in the buildings around Parliament—from Portcullis House onwards—how architects and designers loved to have a committee of politicians in charge, who changed the design regularly, costing an absolute fortune.
This Heath Robinson so-called management structure devised by the department is a recipe for argument, delay and cost overruns. However, it has one magnificent feature cleverly built in by civil servants: with this structure, not a single person can be held accountable for failure. If the cost goes from £138 million to £200 million, which of these bodies gets the blame, or if it is three years late, or if the Jewish community condemns it at the end as not being appropriate? That is why we need a new non-departmental public body set up now and given a simple set of objectives to deliver a set project at a set date at a set cost. That is the only way this can ever work.
I turn now to my Amendment 33 and the future management of Victoria Tower Gardens. In April 1946, the Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, told Conservative MPs in a Commons debate:
“We are the masters at the moment, and … for a very long time to come”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/4/1946; col. 1213.]
I now hear Cabinet Ministers saying that the new Attorney-General is telling them, “I am the master now”. Be that as it may, the relevance of this comment is that I fear that any new NDPB set up to run the completed project will feel that it is the all-powerful master of Victoria Tower Gardens, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out.
The NDPB will be under the overall control of a Secretary of State, partly funded by the Government, and possibly eventually fully funded if the costs grow out of control. It will have, no doubt, a senior civil servant or two from the department, and some others of the great and the good. With the clout it will have from government, it will feel that it can dictate all aspects of the governance of the gardens.
We can guess what will happen: if it finds long queues, it will create roped-off chicanes, like those zigzag lines you get in airports, and do so with no consultation with the garden authorities. What will it do to stop visitors spreading out over the rest of the garden to have picnics, as in Berlin, and taking up the space of other garden users?
We simply have no idea what pressures may arise to infringe on the rest of Victoria Tower Gardens. Therefore, as Amendment 33 makes clear, the NDPB must not have any authority over any other parts of the garden and must consult local residents in advance through the relevant local amenity societies with regard to any matters which may affect the free use of Victoria Tower Gardens as a garden open to the rest of the public. Anything else would be inappropriate.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I want to say a word or two in support of my noble friend Lord Eccles and his amendment and my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Much of what I was going to say has been well forked over already, but I think it underlines the importance of moving towards a clear structure and organisation as quickly as possible.
The spider’s web of committees and advisory boards referred to by my noble friend on page 11 of the National Audit Office’s report must be a recipe for disaster. As he pointed out very forcefully, it is a way to ensure that nobody will ever be blamed for anything. It does not matter whether it is too much money, design faults, cost overruns, failure to meet timescales or failure to meet commitments, as page 13 of the National Audit Office’s report puts it—they can only have been designed and drafted by Sir Humphrey—it is, in effect, an organisational blank cheque. We need to make sure that it is very much better controlled, in the interests of performance delivery, the taxpayer and Parliament as a scrutinising body.
I hope that the Minister, who has so far put his foot to the metal, will take some time to think about these organisational problems, which are very real and have been brought forward by the National Audit Office on other pages of its report. If we do not do that, we are setting ourselves up for a very unhappy period during which this project gets going.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I seconded the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate and I agree with it. It is important also to look at the report from the excellent Select Committee that dealt with it. It says:
“The limitation of closure dates seems to us to be a reasonable request”.
That is what the right reverend Prelate said. It went on to say:
“It is not appropriate for an amendment to the Bill … but is probably best addressed in byelaws applicable to VTG”.
My experience of government is that, very often, by-laws get ignored to a certain extent, so we want to be clear where the limitations are. That is why I support the amendment.
I want to go on about closure dates, not least after my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Hodgson have raised the issue. The issue is around who is going to run this. In paragraph 104, the Select Committee assumed that:
“The Royal Parks … will be the body responsible for maintenance of those parts of VTG outside the perimeter of the proposed HMLC”.
I think we need to get this absolutely clear. The Royal Parks, as I recall—and somebody will correct me if I am wrong—opposed the whole idea because it thought it was an inappropriate place to put a memorial and learning centre. Therefore, we need to be absolutely clear who is responsible for what.
Those of us who have worked in government, as many in this Room have, and many of them for longer than me, know that if there is no clear line of responsibility then nobody is responsible for anything. We need to have a clear line of responsibility in this, and that is why I support these amendments.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of all the amendments in this group, which are about closure and governance. Perhaps I will wrap up closure first, because it is a discrete issue.
There has been a tendency, since it was first chosen, for the promoters to treat Victoria Tower Gardens as a private park of their own. It was closed for a day in May 2024 for a Holocaust commemoration event in which the main message was that people had better get used to it. The Royal Parks, which manages the gardens, said that its initial decision to refuse permission for the commemoration event to take place there was based on its “longstanding policy” of not allowing “religious activity” in its parks, apart from annual acts of remembrance where memorials already exist”. But, lo and behold, the gardens have been closed again this year for the same purpose.
Issues of transparency are being played out now in real time. The park was closed last year on a May bank holiday weekend. We were told that that would be a one-off, but we now discover that it is planned again for April this year, without any consultation or forewarning. This is creating a precedent in breach of existing Royal Parks policies.
One can see what will happen: because the learning centre will be so small, every time there is a need for a meeting, the whole of the park will be closed off. Little gilt chairs and a tent will be put in, and the park will be taken over. That is why it is extremely necessary to have something in the Bill to prevent this total takeover.
This brings me to governance. In a nutshell, those of us who are concerned about governance—Peers sitting in this Room today—have written to the National Audit Office reminding it that, on 5 July 2022, it put out a report that was critical of the management of the project and called for reforms. We do not know whether those reforms have been carried out. The ministry says that it has done so, but many Peers do not think that any of those reforms have been carried out. There is no evidence that the department has addressed the National Audit Office’s concerns about the lack of management and project management, or the number of bodies, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred to. There does not seem to be one body that is in charge of delivery. When questioned last time about who is responsible, the Minister said simply, “The Government”. Again, we await a response from the National Audit Office, and hope that it will re-open its report.
The governance of this project has always been a mystery. The original foundation was composed of more donors to the Tory party than scholars, and no executives. Can the Minister tell us, in straightforward language, who is in charge of executing this project and its future governance? A new NDPB will have to be created to manage it, its relationship with the park managers has yet to be defined, and there is no information about how it will deal with local residents. It will have to be limited in its power. We need enlightenment on how it will work—including the clash with the various bodies running the gardens—and how it will relate to the bodies responsible for the restoration and renewal of this Palace, with all the building equipment that will be required. How will these things all work together?
We were told at the outset of this project that the Government would kick-start a society-wide fundraising effort to deliver the project and an endowment fund. There has been no sign of that. Incidentally, some Holocaust survivors live very modestly; they are all elderly, and they need the extra comforts demanded by age and their past suffering. Perhaps that would be a better way to direct fundraising, if there is any.
The insubstantial nature of management may explain why countless attempts by me to get any information about the project from the department, by way of freedom of information requests, have been fiercely resisted. It is almost as if the department is ashamed of what might be revealed. We hope that, today, the Minister will tell us what plans there are for management.
The problems revealed by the National Audit Office report were that the department was an unsuitable sponsor, was not perceived as independent and has never sponsored a comparable institution or any major cultural sector initiative. Its near-exclusive focus on the search for a site has not turned out well, as we know, and there has been a failure so far to create an independent body. There has been no transparency around site selection or finance, and value for money has never been mentioned or addressed.
There has also been no parliamentary scrutiny of the project until now. There has been a lack of qualified external appraisal of the project brief, the design and the environmental effects of the proposals. There has been a lack of sufficient consultation with the public on the site; such consultation as there was was very much rigged and curtailed. There has been a lack of attention to public feedback on the design. There has been a lack of consultation with the academic community; there is a British association of Holocaust scholars, who feel that they have not been involved.
There is no business plan in evidence, let alone consulted on, or management clarity. Even operational management is unclear. The management of the project has been invisible, shifting and problematic throughout; for example, there have been issues with the Royal Parks throughout the process, that organisation having been in opposition. No charitable foundation of substance has been created. We believe that there is a small one, organised by Sir Gerald Ronson, but where is the major endowment fund that is required? That is the subject of another amendment.
Of course, the department is conflicted in every way. It has made no effort to carry out an independent planning process but has made itself the planning applicant—and, at the last minute, it has had to delegate the calling in and determination of the application to a junior Minister; this was 12 months after the application was submitted. Now, we call on the Minister to be clear about the management. This project has been known about for nine years. I cannot imagine any other project that has been left to drift in the way this one has; I therefore support all the amendments in this group.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred to a document, a copy of which I have in my hand: Programme Governance for the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, issued by DLUHC. It refers to 10 different entities, which have together produced, on the academic content of the learning centre, a box containing 13 words:
“Provides a peer-review process and discussion forum for the envisioned exhibition content”—
whatever that amounts to. If there had been one NDPB in existence, it would have been put to shame in both Houses of this Parliament for producing such an empty vessel as is contained in those 13 words. It contains no reference to the content or structure of the learning centre; to the opportunities that would arise from the learning centre; to the academic components of the centre; or to the staffing of the centre.
I invite the Minister to look at those words as an example of how this multiplicity of components has, in effect, led to no programming whatever of this learning centre. At the moment, all it is—despite those 10 entities—is four small rooms in which there will be computerised images that someone will choose. Are we to take it that the whole purpose of the academic advisory board is to do a show of computerised images and select the ones that will be shown for the time being? That does not sound like any learning centre I have ever seen, and does not accord to the definition that we heard reference to earlier.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on closure dates. I was a member of the Select Committee, which, as he told us, took the view that it should not table an amendment to the Bill. Select Committees are very reluctant to amend a Bill; if we did so, we would have the Bill amended before it reached discussion in this House. The place for consideration of amendments is in Committee or on Report. Whatever you see in paragraph 104 should not inhibit in any way the freedom of this Committee or the House to discuss whether an amendment is appropriate. We set out in appendix 7 to our report the various inhibitions and restrictions on a Select Committee in making amendments. It is well to bear in mind that, while we said that there should be no amendment, that in no way need operate against the right reverend Prelate’s amendment.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I think there is general agreement that there should be an independent, stand-alone body. I have no doubt that, once this Bill becomes an Act, that is one of the first things the Government will do. I say this very gently and with no criticism intended, because part of the process of planning is that you can object to things and use all force and every possibility to slow things down. However, one reason it has cost so much is the delays, which are caused by people exercising their democratic rights. I do not complain about that whatever.
However, the question is whether these things should be in the Bill. Frankly, I doubt that they should. With due respect to the right reverend Prelate, I am a little queasy about limiting in the Holocaust Bill the number of days in which we commemorate 6 million dead. Why are we not limiting the number of dog shows, open-air cinemas and organised picnics and exercise in the parks? It looks peculiar that we should pick on the Holocaust and Jews in this Bill. I urge the right reverend Prelate to think again about this and whether we can use common sense to find ways to ensure that people can enjoy the park. It looks appallingly bad for the Holocaust to be picked out.
I say in the gentlest way that I do not recognise any of noble Lords’ descriptions of the academic board. It is only right that we ensure that this is a balanced memorial and learning centre, which does not glorify the British Empire but shows what happened during the Holocaust and our reaction to it, warts and all. That seems a reasonable thing. Frankly, all the various plugs have to be pulled, because we cannot spend public money on what goes inside and start to employ a major director until we have authority to build this. That is not just subject to this Bill; it will also be subject to a further planning consideration. We are some way from being able to appoint people to commit public expenditure to do that, so I am very dubious that any of this should be in the Bill. The Government have made a number of commitments on all three of these things, and they should be made to deliver on them.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, I spoke on the first day in Committee to make clear my support for the memorial but my great concern about the learning centre. It seems increasingly clear that there is an extraordinary vagueness about what it will be made of, how it will be run and how long it will take to produce. I pressed the Minister for an indication of any quotations we might have, any companies that might be willing to build it and any idea of what their costs might be. He very kindly replied to say,
“the simple answer is that we will seek tenders for the main construction”.—[Official Report, 4/3/25; col. GC 68.]
That means that the Government have no idea, either, what this might actually cost.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I want briefly to endorse, in general terms, what has been said already, but I invite your Lordships to look at this slightly differently: from the perspective of land use, in which I have had a considerable amount of experience, in various ways, during my career. The point was well made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who said that the learning centre will become the focus of Victoria Tower Gardens. When that happens, de facto, if not de jure, Victoria Tower Gardens will become the curtilage of the learning centre and will not be a distinct and important entity.
We have heard about the proposals for the management of the various elements coming to the Victoria Tower Gardens, and some of them seem to be prolix, too complicated, muddled and so on. I do not wish to go down that road. The fundamental point is that, if and when this occurs and is a great success, people will no doubt ask, “Where is the Holocaust memorial learning centre?” and the answer will be, “It is in Victoria Tower Gardens”. When land use changes, the whole character of an area changes. Perhaps the most obvious current example in London is the redevelopment, over the last decade or so, around King’s Cross. It was, frankly, a squalid, low area, but is now up and coming, and entirely different. That has happened organically. These changes happen once something gets under way in an organic way over which Governments have remarkably little control.
If what is being proposed is the great success that its advocates claim it will be, it will fundamentally change the character of Victoria Tower Gardens and the area immediately surrounding it, and there will be nothing Governments can do, through governance mechanisms, to deal with it. It is important that we appreciate that possibility in our discussions about these matters.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, may I just elucidate a couple of points that have arisen? First, the delay in this project, which is undoubted, arises solely from the fact that Victoria Tower Gardens was chosen in defiance and ignorance of the 1900 statute that forbade building there. That is the reason for the delay and the litigation.
Secondly, Crufts is a bad analogy for closing the park. The learning centre may well be open 365 days a year, day and night, for all we know. However, we are talking about protecting the rest of the park, over which the prohibition in the 1900 statute will remain. It would be in defiance of that statute if the park were to be closed every now and then, quite frequently, for a meeting.
Finally, it has frequently been said in these debates that this and that issue will be sorted out in the planning application. However, we then hear that we do not know whether there will be a full planning application or whether the Minister will call it in. We need a direct statement from the Minister. Will there be a new, full planning application, starting with Westminster City Council?
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, before the Minister responds, I will briefly come in on something my noble friend Lord Pickles said about 6 million Jews. I am sure many people here have been to Yad Vashem, which is one of the most moving places I have been to. I have been there three times, and it is absolutely heartbreaking every time—as any memorial and learning centre to commemorate the Jewish Holocaust of the mid-20th century under the Nazis should be.
However, my noble friend said that for 6 million Jews we should have about three days of closure a year, but this memorial is about the Holocaust, not about the 6 million Jews—as I think it should be. It is about the Holocaust in general. Are we going to have one for the Armenian holocaust, where a huge number of Armenians were slaughtered by the Turks in the 1920s? Are we going to have one for the Rwandan holocaust? I have been to Rwanda and know that it was equally as awful. It was just as much of a holocaust as the Jewish one, with one million out of eight million people in Rwandan murdered. Are we going to have one for Holodomor, which saw the slaughter of Ukrainians under Stalin in the 1930s? All of these are examples of holocausts. That is why we are talking about three days, to stop there being endless holocaust events.
Lord Pickles (Con)
I think I was with my noble friend on his last visit to Yad Vashem. Like him, I have been there many times, and I am always moved by the process. However, we need to make it absolutely clear that there is only one Holocaust. A number of genocides have occurred before and after, but there is only one Holocaust: that was the murder of 6 million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My noble friend Lord Robathan has made a very good point, and my noble friend Lord Pickles is right that there is only one Holocaust. But the briefing for this centre says that other genocides will also be commemorated there. So there will be things about Holodomor, and possibly Rwanda, and Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao or whoever they may be. Though there is only one really evil Holocaust, the Shoah, other genocides will also be commemorated. In my opinion, that dilutes the purpose of a Holocaust memorial.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was one of the few Members of either House—alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, who will confirm what I am saying—who attended a meeting organised to discuss the contents of the learning centre. The meeting was addressed by a historian who made it absolutely clear that this is not a learning centre about genocides; it is a learning centre specifically about the Holocaust, and it will not relativise the Holocaust and it will not compare the Holocaust to other genocides. The only extent to which other genocides may be mentioned is on the way out, where it might say something along the lines of, “Since then, there have been other genocides, showing we have not yet learned lessons”. The learning centre will be devoted specifically and solely to the Holocaust. That is what it is.
I was not going to take part in this debate but while I am on my feet, I have some questions for the right reverend Prelate. Why did he fix on three days? What was the basis for it and who did he consult? Is it based on the number of Holocaust commemorations? Did he speak to Holocaust survivors? Why did he decide that just three days in the entire year might be appropriate to remember the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis?
I point out gently to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that I do not see what would be objectionable about people visiting the Holocaust memorial and sitting on the grass to eat their sandwiches afterwards. Why should they not have a picnic in the park if they choose to do so? It is what many other visitors to the park do. How would he distinguish between people visiting the memorial and having their lunch and people visiting the park and having their lunch? Many of the people visiting the memorial will be people who would visit the park anyway. Lots of people who visit the memorial will be people who live within the vicinity of the memorial or work in Westminster, so why would he object? I assume that he would not object to any of those people eating their sandwiches in the park. Why would he object to visitors to the memorial doing so?
My final point is that lots of the contributions to this suggest that the memorial and learning centre are going to take over the whole park. We have just heard a speech about land use as though it is going to transform the nature of the park. I gently point out to everybody in these discussions that the memorial and learning centre will in fact take up just 7.5% of the land in the park. I am sure that the Minister will confirm this when he concludes. It is a complete fallacy that it is going to take over the whole park and totally transform this part of Westminster.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, will he just accept that if 3,000 to 4,000 people come every day—those are the numbers we have been given—that will affect the way the park operates from the point of view of the local residents? I am not saying that it is impossible to do, but will he accept that there is a distinct difference when that volume of people comes to visit the memorial and learning centre? It is bound to make a difference. To suggest that it will make no difference at all and it will be business as usual is naive, if I may make so bold.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
What I will say is that millions of people visit Westminster all year round. Tourists from all over the world come to Westminster and some of those will visit the memorial. I do not think that this will add significantly to the numbers that we already see visiting Westminster.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
The noble Lord referred to me in his remarks and I wish to respond. It is a matter of numbers. I came through the park today, as I do every day, and there were a few people out exercising their little doggies and picking up their mess, and kiddies having little picnics, but if we are going to have these 40 busloads of people eating their sandwiches, the park will be absolutely overwhelmed by excessive numbers and all those other activities will be frozen out, because of the dominance of numbers of those visiting the centre.
If I may say so, the noble Lord was absolutely wrong. I need to open my laptop and find the report. He may have talked to an expert who said that the Holocaust will be the only thing commemorated, but that is not what the official report says. The official report mentions other genocides that will also be commemorated. Of course, it does not refer to them as a Holocaust, because they are not, but it refers to the commemoration of other genocides. That was mentioned in the official Holocaust Commission report and it is referred to in the report published by the department, so it is incorrect to say that the centre will purely be for the Holocaust. I wish it were and I would like to see amendments saying that it should be devoted to the Holocaust only.
The other point about the size is also utterly wrong. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, it will be four pokey little rooms underground and 48% of the construction underground will not be available to the public: it is ducts, stairways and non-usable space. So we will have an inadequate learning centre far too small for the purpose but far too large for the park, visited, if the Government are right, by tens of thousands of people who will inevitably, in the nicest possible way, with their picnics and so on, squeeze out the other users of that park whom I see every single day.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, before I support my noble friend Lord Pickles, I should say that I voted for this back in 2013 when I was a Member of Parliament under David Cameron. Since then, every Prime Minister—May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak and indeed Keir Starmer, the current Prime Minister—supported this. All Prime Ministers will support this application. Why is it that Prime Ministers support it? Because they are global leaders. Go around the globe or around Europe, to Berlin, for example, or to America. The Holocaust memorial in Berlin is its centrepiece; you cannot visit Berlin without seeing the Holocaust memorial.
In my view—I am biased, I admit—London is the greatest global city, so therefore to have this memorial as close to the British Parliament, the mother of all Parliaments, is exactly the right place. I say to some noble Lords—many of them are my friends—that this is starting to sound like a local authority council chamber. This is not a local government council chamber. This is the mother of all Parliaments. I believe that this is the right memorial in the right place in this great city.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord is completely correct to make the point about Berlin, where the memorial and the learning centre are right next door to the parliament building, right at the centre of national life. It is really significant. If you go to Washington, you will see its memorial and museum right at the centre of national life. If you go to Paris, you would barely know that the Holocaust had taken place and, if you go to Vienna, it is a bizarre concrete box tucked away in a square in the middle of nowhere. The point he makes is exactly right. Next to Parliament, showing what happens when politics is poisoned by racism and extremism—that is why it should be built in Westminster.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lord, it is quite clear from the exchanges that we have had this afternoon that the site of this learning centre is extremely controversial. It seems to me that a memorial to 6 million people is almost sacred. It should not be built in a place that arouses controversy of this sort. It is disrespectful to the dead that it should be a subject of controversy and, because it is a subject of controversy, it should be moved to somewhere else.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
I am sorry to comment yet again, but it seems to me deeply ironic that people who oppose it, and of course the controversy, then complain about the controversy and say it should be built somewhere else. It also seems ironic that people who have, as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said, campaigned against it and caused the delays now say that the delays are a reason for siting it somewhere else. I do not understand these points.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
I remind noble Lords that interventions should be brief and for points of clarification. Can we now proceed with the debate? Thank you.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
I wonder if I could just make a very small point of clarification. As a personal view, I entirely agree that the memorial should be in Victoria Tower Gardens. What I worry about is the attempt to shoehorn in the learning centre as well. If we were able to have a standalone, well-designed, come-and-see memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, it would get my vote immediately, because I also have in mind a world-class educational initiative, and I cannot see that the building proposed, or any of the preparations that have been made, go anywhere near creating a world educational initiative. In the world educational initiative, it is not only the understanding of what happened but what we think about it now and where we are going in these very difficult days where we have similar problems to face.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I am worried that Members are getting a little agitated. I do not think that they should be concerned, because there has not been a single Holocaust memorial built anywhere in the world where this kind of controversy did not occur. People, by and large, do not like them. They do not want them, but once they are built, they are very proud of them.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I have visited the Berlin memorial more than once. It is widely regarded as inappropriate and ineffective. People picnic on it, they bicycle around it, they dance on top of it. They do not know what it is and, of course, what good has it done in Germany? Where is Germany heading now? Look at the rise of anti-Semitism across Europe. There is no relationship at all between the position of a memorial and the effect that it has.
As for the contents of the learning centre, there will be an amendment later. However, Answers to the many parliamentary Questions I have asked have always said that the memorial will contain references to other genocides. This genocide or that genocide—the Government do not seem to know which ones but have always referred to others. It is only very recently that someone has said, “Oh, but the genocide of the Jews is more important than the others and shouldn’t be compared”.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am going to stick to the Bill in front of us, particularly the amendments in this group that relate to the future management of the Victoria Tower Gardens. Many noble Lords use the gardens frequently. I used to do so twice a day. Many use it often—every day. It is an important green space in the heart of our capital city and noble Lords are right to raise questions about the future management of the gardens. I know we will be debating the protections for the existing installations and trees in the next group.
During my time as a Minister in DLUHC, now MHCLG, I worked on the delivery of the Holocaust Memorial. We support the delivery of the memorial as soon as possible. It is almost a national shame that we are 10 years down the road and it is 80 years since the release of many people from those terrible camps. As I said last week, however, it is vital that the memorial is delivered soon, so that some of our survivors can still be with us. I just cannot imagine the opening of this memorial after so long without some survivors still to be there.
I was interested in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Eccles and Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. They raise important questions for the Government about who will manage the learning centre and the memorial. I will listen with interest to the Minister’s reply, as this is an important area where we deserve some clarity from the Government on the future direction of their project. However, my noble friend Lord Pickles is absolutely right. We do not have even planning permission yet, let alone the future management structure of the memorial and learning centre. It will be important for the body responsible for the memorial and learning centre to work with local communities as well. I am sure the Minister is listening to that. As we move forward, the two groups will have to work together regularly on what is happening at the centre and how the park is protected.
I am inclined to support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans in his Amendment 22 on closures of the gardens. It is important that the gardens are not closed to local people too often. That can be discussed with local people on an ongoing basis. That happens all over this country where parks are sometimes used for community use, whereby the community talks to the people responsible for the park. I am sure it happens with the Royal Parks as well. Many people enjoy Victoria Tower Gardens regularly; we must consider their interests as we work to deliver the memorial.
I see an argument for the gardens being closed to the public on only a small number of days, and Holocaust Memorial Day would be one example. But the underlying theme here is that we must balance the rights of the different groups who use the gardens, and the right reverend Prelate’s amendment may help achieve that balance. However, it is inappropriate for that to be in the Bill. That is not what the Bill is about. As with many of the amendments that we shall debate today, these are planning considerations. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the amendments in this group.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My noble friend said that we have not yet had a planning application. Would she care to join the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in pressing the Minister on this yes or no question: will there be a new, fresh planning application? Also, will she press the Minister in demanding a new planning application?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I will make that ask of the Minister in our debate on a subsequent group; if he does not answer now, I will repeat it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been another passionate debate. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their Amendments 5, 22 and 23. With this group of amendments, we are in essence considering the future of Victoria Tower Gardens as a place where all members of the public can enjoy free access to a green space in the very heart of Westminster.
From the beginning of the design process, the importance of maintaining access to Victoria Tower Gardens has been a high priority. The design that we are taking forward was selected from a long list of exciting and high-quality proposals partly because it showed a great deal of respect for the gardens, positioning the memorial at the southern end and leaving the great majority of open space to the public; I will not get into the debate on the size of the project because that will be discussed in our debate on the third group. Our proposals also include a high level of investment in the gardens themselves: we will improve the quality of the paths, the planting and the grass lawn; and we will provide new boardwalks, enabling better views of the Thames, with paths and seating made more easily accessible for all.
Amendment 22 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans would impose a statutory limit on the number of closures of Victoria Tower Gardens for commemoration events related to the Holocaust. As I have said—I will say it again now—it has always been our intention that Victoria Tower Gardens should remain open to the public, with only a small area taken for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre when it is built. We are well aware of the value placed on the green open space by local residents, nearby office workers and visitors to Parliament, not to mention parliamentarians themselves; that is why the Bill ensures that the requirement to maintain Victoria Tower Gardens as a garden open to the public will remain.
Assurances were given to the Lords Select Committee on various points, including commitments relating to the management of Victoria Tower Gardens; these were mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. Ministers will continue to be held accountable for those public assurances by Parliament in the normal way.
Closures were discussed in some depth by the Lords Select Committee. The result was that the committee’s special report directed a recommendation to the Royal Parks—which manages the gardens on behalf of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—to consider this matter going forward. A number of noble Lords, in particular the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned the closure of Victoria Tower Gardens for the Yom HaShoah event on Sunday 5 May. This was requested by the then Culture Secretary because the gardens’ location made them more accessible for frail Holocaust survivors than the usual venue in Hyde Park. Contrary to claims by petitioners at the hearing on 20 November, our understanding is that the partial closure was for one day only, with the playground remaining open until midday—not the three days that have been mentioned. No decisions have been taken on future closures of the entirety of Victoria Tower Gardens to facilitate Holocaust-related commemoration events once the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is built.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, why, then, is a commemoration event—I nearly said a closure; it will no doubt involve closure—being advertised right now, for April? People are being invited to buy tickets for it.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I am not aware of that event, but I am happy to have a conversation with the noble Baroness on this issue. I remind noble Lords that it was because of the frailty of Holocaust survivors that it was deemed appropriate for them to attend here, at Victoria Tower Gardens next to Parliament, rather than Hyde Park.
Given that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is intended to be the national focal point of Holocaust remembrance, it is expected that it will host annual events to mark Holocaust Memorial Day and Yom HaShoah. The Government would expect the Holocaust memorial and learning centre operating body to work closely with the body responsible for the wider arrangements of the Victoria Tower Gardens to agree arrangements for any other proposed or required closures associated with the Holocaust memorial and learning centre.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asked the important question of who will be responsible for the project: who will be charge? It is quite straightforward: it will be the Secretary of State, the Deputy Prime Minister. It is clear in Clause 1. One of the big reasons we have put the Holocaust memorial in a Bill is for Clause 1 to give permission for the Secretary of State to spend on the project.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
On that question, given the number of bodies on the sheet of the National Audit Office, will the Minister write to Members of the Committee to say, “These are the people involved in each of those bodies, and this is what they cost”? As my noble friend Lord Eccles said, there is a huge range of people and possibilities for cost. I do not expect the answer now, but it would be helpful for our future deliberations if we knew what the current structure costs and, therefore, the urgency to move to my noble friend’s proposed change.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, makes an excellent point. In response to his request, I am absolutely happy to provide all the details on the structure and the associated issues that he raised. We will write not just to him but to the wider Committee.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I think the Minister said that the Secretary of State will be in charge. Do I take it, therefore, that the delivery body will be the Secretary of State and the department? The Secretary of State will draw up the design for the architects, after the planning permission, and she and her officers will let the contract and put in its terms and conditions, the cost overruns and all that sort of thing, so that by the time the NDPB is set up to run it, the Minister’s department will be managing the delivery of this contract. Is that right?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The Secretary of State is responsible for the delivery of the project.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I want to move on because there are a lot of points to come on to that I am pretty confident noble Lords will ask about, but I assure them that I will come back to the points raised.
In our response to the Select Committee’s report, we have said that we will seek to work with the Royal Parks in taking forward the recommendation. That said, I believe it would be completely wrong to set a formal limit on Holocaust-related events and not on other types of event. The Bill should not pre-empt the discussions we will have with the Royal Parks at the appropriate time by setting an arbitrary statutory limit on closures. We will work proactively with the Royal Parks to find a suitable solution that properly respects the rights and interests of all parties.
Amendment 33, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to set out the future management responsibilities for different parts of Victoria Tower Gardens.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, although these matters are important and need careful attention, the Bill is not the place to deal with them and it would be premature to attempt to do so. Decisions on the precise form and function of the operating body for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre have yet to be taken. However, I can assure the Committee that we have no plans for the operating body to take on responsibility for the management and maintenance of Victoria Tower Gardens beyond that part of the gardens occupied by the memorial and learning centre. We were pleased to give an assurance to this effect to the Lords Select Committee when it scrutinised the Bill.
Victoria Tower Gardens is Crown land for which the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible. The Royal Parks charity manages the gardens on behalf of DCMS under its overall contract to maintain London’s Royal Parks and other plots of land, including Victoria Tower Gardens, which do not have royal park status. We fully recognise the importance of close co-operation between the body responsible for operating the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and the body responsible for managing Victoria Tower Gardens.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will seek to ensure, through sponsorship and contracting arrangements, that the two bodies co-operate within a framework which enables each to pursue their distinct objectives. I am sure that both bodies will recognise the importance of consulting local residents—a point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—as well as amenity groups in advance on any changes that will affect their access to the gardens.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord King, about the cost, the figure of £138.8 million was published in 2023 and is based on the advice of professional cost consultants. At no point will we seek tenders for construction until we have planning consent.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the infrastructure authority did not say that the only reason this project is undeliverable is that we did not have a Bill. It listed a whole host of reasons why it was undeliverable: no plan, no proper costing and no one really in charge. I do not want to go on at length about it, but I can certainly look out the exact quote for the Minister.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, finally, I turn to Amendment 5 from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, which would require the Holocaust memorial and learning centre to be managed by a non-departmental public body. The Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission report included a specific recommendation for the
“creation of a permanent independent body”
with responsibility for implementing the commission’s
“recommendations to commemorate the Holocaust and ensure a world-leading educational initiative”
in the long term.
The noble Viscount talked about the learning centre. We envisage an ambitious programme of educational activities. Some will be delivered on site and many will be delivered by working in partnership with other organisations, such as the Holocaust Educational Trust. The commission’s vision, which the Government accepted, was that such a body would guide, sponsor and facilitate ongoing commemoration and educational initiatives to ensure that the memory of the Holocaust and its lessons remain vibrant and current for all future generations.
A range of options are being considered for operating the memorial and learning centre. As a significant public investment, responsibility for managing the centre will need to rest with a body ultimately accountable to Parliament. The cost of running the memorial and learning centre will be met through a mixture of fundraising and grant funding, as with many other government-sponsored organisations.
As no decisions have yet been taken by the Government on the right model for operating the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, it would not be right to tie our hands by including a statutory requirement that it be a non-departmental public body. Indeed, it would be premature to do so, given that we do not yet have planning permission for the centre to be built.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asked about future planning permission. It is for the designated Planning Minister to decide what he will do and what approach to take to planning.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, raised numerous examples of the creation of Holocaust memorials and museums across the world. I want to talk about the one in the United States, which I visited in 2018. The proposal to create a Holocaust memorial museum in Washington was announced in 1979, yet the memorial did not open until 1993. It was announced by the Administration of President Carter and opened by President Clinton. The site chosen, next to the National Mall in Washington, DC, generated considerable opposition, including on the grounds that it would lead to anti-Semitism because Jews would be seen as having privileged status, that injustices in American history were more deserving of memorials, that it would be used to whitewash America’s responses to the Holocaust or not do enough to celebrate its responses, or that the Holocaust was not relevant to American history.
All these reasons for opposition were given; another was that it was the right idea but in the wrong place. By 1987, the final architectural design was agreed but criticism and demands for changes to the design continued. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum was opened by President Clinton in 1993.
I understand that there is opposition and that there has been delay, but time is of the essence. I want to echo the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. We want to ensure that Holocaust survivors are, we hope, present and alive to witness this being built and completed. I hope my explanations will enable noble Lords to understand why I am unable to accept their amendments. I request that the noble Viscount withdraws his amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
May I just make sure that the record reflects accurately what the Infrastructure and Projects Authority actually said? On 16 January this year, it said:
“Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed”.
Never once did it mention that it was undeliverable because we had not got a Bill yet and I would like the record to reflect that accurately. I am afraid that the Minister may have been fed a line.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Before we round up the debate, these generic arguments are not relevant to the Bill. Let me remind the Committee, in the kindest way, that the Bill has two main functions. One is in Clause 1, which allows the Secretary of State to spend on the project; the other is in Clause 2, to disapply the 1900 London Act for the project to be built. I appreciate the noble Lord’s reflections but we are speaking to amendments here. However, there is an opportunity for discussion during the planning process.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, that was a very interesting but not particularly easy debate to sum up and comment on. If I may, I will stay rather tightly focused on the management of the project and I need to ask the Minister some questions. I think he is saying that there will be a public body to manage the project, but now is not the time to set it up. I disagree with that, of course, because it seems that there is a whole raft of things on which it would be better to give the new management body the time to work it out and to do some important things.
The Minister has also said that if anything needs to be done and it is not at all clear who is to do it, the Secretary of State would be responsible for doing it. My experience, which is considerable, is that that is completely impractical. It amounts to a non-answer, because the Secretary of State is so far away from the front line of the battle that it is just impractical to maintain that she can sort it out. I insist that it would be better, and much more workmanlike, to have a body properly authorised by Parliament, accountable and up for being asked all the detailed questions.
Let me give a few examples. When the construction starts, is the Minister saying that only 7.5% of the park will be involved? It would be very interesting to have, in the middle of the letting of a contract for the basement box, an answer to the question about what percentage of the park will be involved and what rules will be needed.
As my noble friend Lord Blencathra says, at the moment there does not seem to be a decision-making process that can deal with, for example, the relationship between the project and its promoter and the park. If we had a non-departmental public body, what its chairman would say, if he took my advice, is that we need the best possible relationship we can foster with the park. We need an agreement. We need a pretty detailed memorandum of understanding. We cannot work without having some rules, whereby we know what you are doing and what I am doing, because we are being made jointly responsible for the future of this great park.
When it comes to improvements, on what authority is the Minister saying that his department will be responsible for improvements? Has he got an agreement with the DCMS, which is responsible for the park, or are we going to have a parliamentary turf war about it?
Quite honestly, all the comments that have been made relate to the need for clarity and certainty, and the need for us to be able to see who is in charge, who is accountable and, if something happens, to whom we go with a prospect of getting an enforceable answer. We have not been comforted—and I have not been comforted in the least.
I am grateful to everyone who has spoken. Given the time and the importance that I attach to the need to have a clear management structure, I will leave it there, but we will come back to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Strathcarron
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, the well-known Buxton memorial commemorates the Abolition of Slavery Act 1833 and marks the immense contribution of British parliamentarians who campaigned for abolition, including Wilberforce, Clarkson, Thomas Fowell Buxton and others. It was commissioned by Buxton’s son, Charles, who was also an MP. It was designed in the neo-Gothic style by Samuel Teulon. It was completed in 1866, and it was historically significant enough at the time to be placed in Parliament Square. It was removed from there and reinstated in Victoria Tower Gardens in 1957. It was placed very deliberately on an axis with St John the Evangelist church in Smith Square. It is grade 2 listed on both architectural merit and because of the significance of the historical event that it commemorates.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in supporting my noble friend, I will speak to my Amendments 11, 12 and 37 in this group.
As my noble friend Lord Strathcarron said, this well-known memorial commemorates the 1833 Act to emancipate slaves and marks the immense contribution of British parliamentarians who campaigned for abolition, including Wilberforce, Clarkson, Thomas Fowell Buxton and others. It was commissioned by Charles Buxton MP, the son of Thomas Fowell Buxton, and designed in the neo-Gothic style by Samuel Teulon. It was completed in 1866 and originally placed in Parliament Square. It was removed from there in 1949 and reinstated in Victoria Tower Gardens in 1957, being placed carefully at an axis with St John the Evangelist church in Smith Square. It is a grade 2 listed monument both on architectural merit and because of the significance of the historical event that it marks.
The setting of the monument will undoubtedly be harmed by the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Even the planning inspector, who ultimately recommended the approval of the memorial and learning centre, accepted that there would be significant harm; however, he felt that the other benefits—having ignored the impediments of the 1900 Act—outweighed this harm.
Like my noble friend Lord Strathcarron, I am grateful to the architect member of the London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust who has measured the distance between the memorial and the riverside as approximately 5 metres. If the proposals for the Holocaust memorial go forward, the Buxton memorial will be just 2 metres away from the courtyard drop. Those proposals include the suggestion for a stone bench around that 2-metre edge of the memorial. Were this to occur, it would create a pinch point, with the remaining crowds walking along the riverside. I suggest that that is quite unacceptable. The Buxton memorial is a vital part of British history and it should not be infringed upon or sidelined.
I stress that this is not a matter of prioritising a monument to the abolition of slavery over the extermination of 6 million Jews. We on this side of the argument all say that there should be an appropriately sized and relevant monument to the Holocaust in Victoria Tower Gardens. We reject the grotesque, oversized Adjaye fins as not suitable for this space. These giant fins would overwhelm the Buxton memorial; any poky little path between it and the fins or the learning centre should be at least 8 metres wide, so that the memorial can be properly seen from a reasonable distance.
I do not know whether noble Lords have ever gone up Parliament Street on the southern side and looked across at the Treasury and the FCDO buildings. They are quite magnificent, but you cannot appreciate their beauty since you are only 30 yards away. They are as magnificent as the government buildings in Washington or Paris, but, in Paris, Baron Haussmann made the streets so wide that you can see and appreciate the beauty from a distance. I suggest that we need that same principle to apply to the Buxton memorial and to any properly sized Holocaust monument. They should be magnificent and visible from all parts of the gardens. The awful thing about Adjaye’s giant fins is that, since he could not design a proper monument to honour 6 million Jews, he went for size and the same monument that was rejected by Ottawa.
I am not necessarily a conspiracy theorist, but I have looked at dozens and dozens of artist impressions of the Adjaye monument and I am stumped. I am willing to be corrected and pointed in the right direction, but I cannot find any artist impression which has got more than 16 fins. The thing is going to have 23 fins, as represented in the plan, but I cannot find any artist impression showing me what 23 fins would look like. It has been minimised to show 16 fins, and so these impressions show that the 16 fins do not interfere with the Buxton memorial at all. As I said, I am not a conspiracy theorist but, if anyone has got an artist impression with the 23 fins, please send it to me.
I appreciate that when the great and the good are conned by architectural psychobabble into accepting a design, they do not then want to admit that they got it wrong. I can see my colleagues digging in as deep on this as Adjaye’s bunker. However, if we are forced to accept this second-best solution and have the 23 fins, let us make sure that they are not so gigantic as to dominate the gardens and obscure the Buxton memorial or the view of the magnificent southern gable of Parliament.
If one of the key components here is supposed to be the underground learning centre, grossly inadequate though it is, then surely we do not need such a giant monstrosity on top of it. If we have to have a monstrosity, let us have a smaller monstrosity. My Amendment 11 says that any Holocaust monument must not exceed the dimensions of the Buxton memorial. That would leave ample scope for a good and magnificent Holocaust monument.
The base of the Buxton memorial is octagonal, about 12 feet in diameter with open arches on the eight sides, and is supported on clustered shafts of polished Devonshire marble. I will not go into all of the details, but what was cleverly designed into the memorial is quite magnificent. All of that magnificent work and story is delivered in something that is 12 feet wide and about 40 feet high. If we can commemorate something as important as the abolition of slavery, where some estimates say that 2 million died in transit, we can commemorate the murder of 6 million Jews in a similarly and appropriately sized monument.
Of course, the Buxton memorial was not always there; it was originally in Parliament Square before it was moved. There were heated debates in Parliament on moving it, and the last word must go to Lord Winster, a junior minister under Clement Attlee, who said:
“This memorial is not a statue. It is a memorial fountain which commemorates a noble deed, the reversal of a system which was the very negation of humanity”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/12/1949; col. 1430.]
I suggest that those words should apply to the Holocaust memorial as well. It is very fitting. That is why the Buxton memorial must not be diminished or hidden by giant, irrelevant bronze fins, à la the discredited Adjaye design.
My Amendment 37 seeks to protect the path used by 95 % of the local people and visitors who use the gardens. The promoters say that they will try to keep open the path alongside the river. I travel through the gardens twice a day when the House is sitting, unless we are sitting so late that the garden is closed. I have only once in 30 years gone along the huge detour of the river path, just to see if it were worthwhile—hardly anyone uses it.
However, on the main footpath, which runs parallel to Millbank, I see daily heavy use. Each morning and evening I will see four or five people exercising their doggies and collecting any mess. The main footpath is essential for them. Every morning, at a regular time, I see two or three nannies with tiny tots in tow. These kiddies are no more than 18 inches high, in their little yellow vests, and each nanny will have two or three of them on either side, safely holding hands or tied together. They make very slow but safe progress along this path. I do not know where they come from or where they go, but I have never seen them on the river path. Indeed, that may be too far for them to walk.
These are some of the main users. The others are individuals—not organised games—playing football or other games. There are those having little picnics, but not hundreds of people and 40 buses squashed into the place to have picnics.
If this main footpath is taken over for construction purposes and cannot be used, thousands of users every day will be deprived of the use of the garden. None of us will want to take a detour round by the river path to get to the route that we normally use.
The promoters need to create access for their construction equipment—possibly at the southern end of the park, where the children’s playground currently is, and possibly a new one—so that the whole of the current path, the main footpath alongside Millbank, remains open during construction and afterwards. It should not be beyond their ability or that of the department to tell the constructors to create a new access route so that the path can be kept open. Those are my amendments and I commend them to the Committee.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 25 and 40 in my name. Before I do so, I express support for Amendment 26, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans, about the refreshment kiosk. I believe that it is neither appropriate nor fitting to have somebody selling burgers and chips and ice cream in a place that should be devoted to reflection and remembrance of the cruel murder of 6 million people and the lifelong impact on the lives of survivors and their families. I also support Amendment 43, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on fire risk. That is on the basis of public safety, which underpins my amendments as well.
Among the dangers associated with the choice of siting an underground learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, the most serious is the flood risk. This is a critical issue, given that large numbers of visitors, including children and people with disabilities, are expected to visit. The site chosen for the learning centre is in flood zone 3a according to the Environment Agency, which means that it has a one in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding if undefended. Normally, planning regulations would not allow a basement development in a zone 3a area. Atkins and Co carried out a flood zone 3 risk assessment for the original planning application. It is clear that the risks revealed by that report have not been correctly considered.
There are four kinds of flood risk, the most serious of which is the risk of inundation from the nearby tidal River Thames. This could happen either by overtopping of the embankment wall, if the water level is higher than the defences, or by breach flooding, in the case of a break in the wall. The latter would be catastrophic to life and property, as the proposed development is below ground level and the design of the proposed building has no above-ground refuge.
I turn first to the danger of overtopping. Because of the development’s proximity to the river, the Environment Agency requires that it must be a minimum of 16 metres from the flood defence wall—presumably to avoid the development undermining the wall’s foundation—and that the wall must be demonstrably high enough and in good condition for the lifetime of the development. A visual assessment at the time showed some defects that required maintenance, ongoing monitoring and inspection. However, the Environment Agency had no current plans for maintenance of the river wall at this location. I therefore ask: who is going to do it? We do not really know the effect on the wall of the construction work of this major underground development.
Because of climate change, and the fact that presumably the building is meant to last until at least until 2100, if not longer, the EA plans that the wall’s height will need to be raised by then to take account of the rise in sea level and consequent river level. By then, the EA expects the peak river level to rise by 950 millimetres above the current level. When this is reached, it will be more than 1 metre above the general level of Victoria Tower Gardens and the entrance to the proposed below-ground learning centre. However, there is a margin of error of only half a metre between the proposed increase in wall height and the expected river level, which is very little in a storm. The learning centre could have to be closed, not just on three days a year but on several days every month because of the risk of river water overtopping the wall.
Flooding has happened here before. The southern section of the site is partially within the area of the historic flooding information. However, data confidence is low because the records were hand-drawn and their extent is limited. It could be even more at risk than the records show.
Breach flooding is much riskier. Westminster City Council’s map shows what would happen if there was a breach in the embankment wall—perhaps in the case of terrorist action, contact by a vessel, a disastrous collapse of an adjacent building, or undermining of the foundations of the wall by unusual pressure from several storms one after the other, such as we have had this winter. What the map clearly shows is that the site is not only smack bang in the middle of the likely inundation area but right in the middle of the area that would be flooded within 30 minutes of the commencement of such an inundation.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 26. First, I add that, living in Hertfordshire, I am in touch with the distinguished Buxton family of today, one of whom is about to become our high sheriff sometime soon. They have expressed to me in correspondence something of their great concern.
Amendment 26 seeks to prevent the establishment of refreshment kiosks or static outbuildings in Victoria Tower Gardens. The first thing I want to mention relates to the preservation of the atmosphere of the park, which provides a valuable place of rest and relaxation to so many. Hot dog stands, souvenir stalls, litter and crowding would significantly change the character and experience of the park. If this project is as successful as it is planned to be, it will attract large numbers of people and potentially long queues. I believe that it would be proportionate and necessary to protect the park from this in the Bill. It has already been questioned whether it would be appropriate to have snacks, crisps and drinks for sale at the site of a memorial that is reflecting on the extraordinary suffering of so many people.
Further, the plans proposed for the centre show a new kiosk at the southern end of the garden, near the children’s playground. The Select Committee reported significant concerns regarding large crowds of visitors to the proposed centre at a kiosk immediately adjacent to the playground, raising child safety issues. Its recommendation 1 is that the kiosk be removed from present plans. Significantly, in response to this recommendation, the promoter stated only that they would look carefully at the design and location of the kiosk, not that they would remove it. The promoter has given the Select Committee an assurance that a review will be carried out with the design team of the arrangements proposed for the southern end of the gardens, with a view to ensuring an appropriate separation of the playground from other visitors to the gardens, including visitors to the proposed centre.
My concerns around the enforceability or account-ability of the assurances given by the promoter, which I mentioned earlier with reference to Amendment 22, also apply here, and give rationale for my seeking to enshrine these restrictions in the Bill.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I will say a few words in support of the excellent presentation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, of her Amendments 25 and 40.
I would never accuse the Minister of being predictable—I would not offend him in that way—but I think I hear a little echo in my ear of him making a speech in response to the noble Baroness, saying that all these things could be dealt with at the planning proceedings. If he is going to say that, I just remind the Committee about the reality of planning proceedings.
First, they are very large and expensive on an issue such as this. Every aspect of the planning is considered at those planning proceedings. I hope, in a few minutes, to move my Amendment 15, which relates to security, and a similar point arises here. If we can discover at an early stage, through the mechanism that the noble Baroness suggests in Amendment 25, that this site is too dangerous, for flooding reasons, for planning consent to be given, let us discover that now and not during planning proceedings on the 47th day of the 78-day hearing—if we are lucky that it is that short. All that the noble Baroness is suggesting is that there should be a report, but that report would define whether this site was fit for the purposes expressed in Clauses 1 and 2.
I suggest that some aspects of this issue are, for obvious reasons, of genuine interest to Parliament, not least its proximity to Parliament and the fact that, for example, flooding in Victoria Tower Gardens because of the construction of this underground edifice—if that is not a contradiction in terms—could affect our enjoyment, as people working here, and the enjoyment of those who work for us, of what goes on in this Parliament.
I just remind the Minister of what happened last Saturday. A quite small incident occurred in which somebody managed to get through security and climb up the Elizabeth Tower. I promise that I will say nothing that is sub judice—nothing to do with the perpetrator or the case. If that had happened on a Monday when we were here, Parliament would probably have had to be adjourned for two days for that issue to be dealt with, on grounds of safety and security. One of the ways that we can deal with such issues, before a lengthy planning appeal, is to allow the sort of measure proposed here.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I have an amendment that I put in this group because it should go with the amendment introduced so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
On 4 March, the Minister was asked whether a new full planning permission application would go back to Westminster City Council. He replied that
“that is in the hands of the designated Minister”,—[Official Report, 4/3/25; col. GC 92.]
so I hold out no great hope for revised planning permission.
My amendment relates to safety. I was pleased to be able to be heard by the Select Committee. I draw attention to its report, which stated that the promoter has undertaken to
“make representations to the Secretary of State in relation to security considerations”
and
“consult with the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons and the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords, Community Security Trust, the Metropolitan Police, the National Protective Security Authority and Westminster City Council”.
There is no mention of the London Fire Brigade, yet here we have a proposal for an underground learning centre with a single entrance.
I had quite a lot of difficulty, so I am grateful to those who managed to let me see some floor plans of this proposed education centre. I was becoming increasingly concerned about the security and fire risks—and the gas risk, which links to fire—that could be incurred in an underground centre. I notice that there are several staircases, which all come up into a communal area, and so-called fire escape routes.
I then looked at disasters that have happened underground. We all remember the King’s Cross fire, in which there were 31 fatalities. One of the findings was that there was a flashover—the trench effect where a tongue of fire comes up into a central area so fast that nobody can escape. Here we are talking about people being trapped underground. In that fire, there were alternative routes that a lot of people escaped through—although one was blocked by a locked door, which aggravated the disaster. The other thing is that, if you use water fog equipment, people have to be trained in its use. Has there been consideration of whether the paint and surfaces used in this underground space will be fire resistant?
I also looked at what happened in the Moscow theatre siege. People were held in an enclosed space and fentanyl gas was used, which rendered them unconscious very quickly. One problem was that it suppressed respiration in many of the unconscious people and there was not adequate naloxone available to reverse the effect. I can envisage someone going in with a canister of something like fentanyl gas in a plastic container and releasing it. I hope noble Lords will excuse me if they do not like the language, but we know that people hide things in body cavities; it would not be difficult to hide 10 to 20 mil of some compressed gas in either the rectum or vagina and go underground.
My other concern, which relates to that, came from the sarin gas attack in the Tokyo underground, where it was evident that people had to get to the victims rapidly but there was no advanced airway support available, hence the mortality rate went up.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I had almost finished. I stress that I am not against there being a memorial. My worry is the design as put forward for this learning centre and where it is—in a limited space, with the potential for danger that would bring it into deep disrepute, very rapidly, in the event of an incident.
The last thing to say—I am hesitant to talk about it, but I will because security is terribly important—is that we know what happened when Novichok was used in Salisbury. I cannot see how any security screening system will adequately detect somebody with serious malintent trying to destroy the whole essence of this learning centre by creating a terrorist-type attack. There would be real problems evacuating people at great speed from a space underground.
With that, I leave my concerns on the table in relation to the design that we have seen and the placing of the centre.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
My Lords, I thank the many friends with whom I share so much politically and with whom I do not agree on this matter. I hope they will excuse me if I speak my mind, as they have spoken theirs.
I should say at the beginning that I am a patron of the Wiener Holocaust Library, that I sat on the Holocaust Commission of David Cameron, and that my mother is a Holocaust survivor, all of which gives me a special interest in this debate.
It was interesting that the Buxton memorial was raised. Funnily enough, the siting of the Buxton memorial was one of the main reasons, originally, for my being persuaded that Victoria Tower Gardens would be the ideal place for the Holocaust memorial. I think it will create a garden of conscience that links the Pankhurst statue to the Buxton memorial and the Holocaust memorial, right by the Houses of Parliament. It is also interesting that the Buxton memorial was raised because, when it was placed there, Lord Rea argued that it should not be, because Victoria Tower Gardens was a tranquil place and putting a memorial there would be a bad idea. We are now being told that because that memorial is there, we should not put anything else there.
It is the case that, when we are talking about the Holocaust memorial being not as nice as the Buxton memorial, Viscount Swinton and Earl Jowitt both argued that the Buxton memorial should not be placed in Victoria Tower Gardens because it was a Gothic monstrosity and hideously ugly. This just proves my mother’s point, which she made to me when everyone said that no one would ever go to Brent Cross Shopping Centre, which was near our house: people can find a reason to be against everything.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
Does the noble Lord not feel that some of his comments are just a little flippant? We are talking about the safety of people’s lives here.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
I am literally repeating the noble Baroness’s points. If she feels that they are flippant, maybe she should not have made them. These are all points that were raised.
In addition, it was said that people will be trampled to death in the communal areas and poisoned with Novichok. These are all points that were made seriously, and that could apply, of course, to any structure. We are talking about building a reasonably modest structure near Parliament, with four rooms underneath it. We have managed to build nuclear power stations, railways and shopping centres in this country, almost all of them without all these terrible consequences happening because people are able to organise themselves and plan things so that disasters are coped with.
We absolutely have the capability of doing that with this centre. These are all alarmist ideas that will not come to pass. This is an extremely simple proposal for a very fitting memorial. I can understand why people might not want it, particularly if they live nearby, but it is a fitting response to the Holocaust and it is in the right place.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Finkelstein said that this is a modest memorial. It may be a modest underground centre, which is inadequate for the purpose, but it is 23 giant bronze fins that will dominate the park. There is nothing modest about that at all. I think he diminishes some of the concerns that people have.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, my concern is not that terrorists may set off some device underground—the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is the best person to advise on this—but that they may set off a harmless smoke grenade or device underground, so that everyone piles up outside and that is when the terrorists execute their main attack.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
So that it is not seen as though I have raised points that were not raised, it was specifically said that poisonous gas would be set off. I did not make that up.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I would like to correct the record. I did not say that it will be set off. I am concerned that there has not been a fire assessment and an air flow assessment. I hope that, when the Minister comes to respond, he will be able to reassure us that there has been an adequate air flow assessment relating to the proposed architectural brief that we have seen. I made the point that I am not against a memorial. I think it is completely inappropriate to suggest that those of us who have raised concern over this design and the place of it are somehow opposed to having an appropriate memorial. Many of us have relatives who had deeply traumatic experiences. We have not paraded them here. We are dealing with what it is suggested is to be constructed and with how we move forward.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I do not belong to that small group of people who think that any old memorial will do, as long as we get one. Let me remind your Lordships that we already have at least half a dozen Holocaust memorials in this country and at least 21 learning centres, including the much-praised one set up by the grandfather of the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein. I cannot see anything going up in VTG that will better that.
I want to add a few comments on the three topics that are in this group: the kiosk, flooding and the memorials. I feel very strongly about the kiosk, and I am grateful to the Select Committee. Indeed, I am grateful to members of the Select Committee for turning up today and at other hearings, given that they sat through the objections for about six weeks, with great patience, and were very constrained in what they could say. Their presence here, I think, speaks for itself. We are grateful.
On the kiosk, the Select Committee said that its principal concern was
“the congregation of very large numbers of visitors at the proposed new kiosk immediately adjacent to the playground. This raises child safety issues. Unless there is some overriding necessity for the proposed new kiosk, we recommend”
that it should be removed “from the present plans”. This was in response to my submission to the committee that there should be no food and drink sales, let alone souvenirs and hamburger vans, in the gardens or nearby if the memorial is sited there.
It seems to me that to allow a kiosk shows a profound misunderstanding of what a memorial should be reminding us of. A café of a coke-and-crisps nature, which is what this would be, because it would be for park-goers, visitors and all sorts, is deeply disrespectful as a memorial to people who starved to death. Having a café there will simply cause more congestion, litter and crowding. Those are the reasons for the amendment.
This café would not be like one you might find in Yad Vashem or in Washington, because it would be open to the whole neighbourhood and everyone who turns up. A new café would bring all the detritus that such cafés inevitably bring to a public park, with thousands of people queuing and using it—both those coming out to do so and passers-by. It is not a good idea. Indeed, if it were removed, there would be more room for the playground, which is being reduced in size.
In response, the promoter said no more than that they will look at the design and location carefully. Driven as it is by commercial attitudes and wanting to maximise the day-trip atmosphere, I have grave doubts about this. It may also be thinking of the many builders who will be in the gardens for decades doing restoration and renewal, who will want their mugs of builder’s tea, just adding to the inappropriate atmosphere. The presence of not only the kiosk but crowds in the gardens will no doubt bring vans selling burgers and ice cream, and souvenir sellers. I have no confidence that by-laws will prevent this. It is imperative that if a memorial atmosphere is to be created, such smelly and noisy intrusions should be prevented—making more room for the playground, as I said.
On flooding, I defer, of course, to the masterly presentation by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. The trouble with all the pictures we have seen of the proposed memorial is that it is always in the sunshine, and it is always sketches. Rain and inclement weather seem never to be considered in the plans. For example, the promoters have mentioned gatherings of hundreds of people on the sloping entrance to the learning centre, but in reality, would they stand there for hours in the rain, especially if they are elderly?
We do not know what escape routes there would be if water entered the basement. As has been explained, there is no above-ground refuge space. Even a mild incursion of water into the gardens over the little wall would seep in and certainly make a visit unpleasantly soggy. There is a picture on Twitter of the river water going over the little wall last summer. If the local drainage system is overwhelmed by heavy rain, the water will find its way into basements. Indeed, a basement dwelling in this area would not be permitted at all. The only solution is a redesign, with the entrance far above any possible flood level—or, of course, to move to a better site. Central sites of as much importance as this are available.
Visitors’ lives are being put at risk to make a political point about the Westminster location, which is the source of all the trouble. Will the Minister explain why the detailed objections to the location because of flooding, expressed in letters from the Environment Agency to Westminster City Council in 2019, are not being dealt with? We need a full report on the risks and how they can be dealt with, given by structural engineers in conjunction with the Environment Agency.
Finally, I will say a word or two about the Buxton memorial. The Buxton family is very much with us. Indeed, it has been a very good coincidence that Mr Richard Buxton, a direct descendant of Thomas Buxton, happens to be a planning solicitor and has worked with our group of objectors all along. We know that the planning inspector accepted that the development would cause harm to the Buxton memorial.
It is worse than that, because the problem with the inspector’s inquiry was that he did not have in mind, and was ignorant of, the 1900 Act prohibiting building in Victoria Tower Gardens. Had he been able to take that on board and balance the benefits of the 1900 prohibition against the damage to the memorial, I think his words would have been even more strident. With the proposed developments in place, the prominence of the Buxton memorial will be largely removed, because the view will change from open parkland to one focused on the nature of the memorial.
The very few who were consulted beforehand were told that any design for the gardens had to harmonise with the Buxton memorial. They were told in Manchester that planning permission was a mere formality anyway. Not only that: the Windrush demand for a monument to slavery in Victoria Tower Gardens was turned down for lack of space. It seems wrong to diminish the visibility of the Buxton memorial, which provides a focus and an educational asset that could perhaps be developed to cater for the views of other groups that are rightly concerned with this long and shameful practice. I would deplore anything that devalued its importance.
Obviously, then, I support the amendments in this group. The Holocaust memorial should be no bigger than the Buxton memorial. There should be room to walk around it to enable it to be seen properly. I can safely surmise that future generations will think of us, quite rightly, as Philistines and wreckers if we allow the destruction, in visual terms, of these memorials.
Lord Sassoon (Con)
My Lords, I start by referring to my interests, which I set out at earlier stages of the Bill. I speak now in support of my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Amendment 11, in particular, because it really is the key to reconciling the positions of my two noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Finkelstein. It goes to the heart of the Bill because, whatever the Minister may say, this seems to be a Bill about planning. These amendments go to the heart of the planning issues in the Bill: the Minister is shaking his head but, by the very fact that this is a hybrid Bill, it brings into it private interests that, by definition in this case, cover planning matters. The Minister is nodding at that. Whether we like it or not, planning matters are brought in.
More fundamentally than that, there are two substantive clauses in the Bill. I remind noble Lords that Clause 2 fundamentally changes the planning regime applying to Victoria Tower Gardens. I do not know how we can get away without either discussing planning matters or having the Minister respond to them, rather than saying, “These are all for later”.
I was sorry not to have been here for the first day in Committee, but I read the Official Report carefully. The Minister said:
“Planning permission is still to be granted”—
we know that—
“and noble Lords will have plenty of opportunity to raise these important and pertinent points on the planning side”.—[Official Report, 4/3/25; col. GC 92.]
If I understood him correctly, he rowed back on that a little last week, but, if I heard him correctly earlier this afternoon, he said that these questions about the planning process will be for the designated Minister. It would be very helpful to the Committee if, when he responds, the Minister could either explain whether noble Lords will have plenty of opportunity—that would be fine because the Minister speaks for the Government and the Bill can enshrine that; it would be welcomed by many of us if the Bill did enshrine our having plenty of opportunity, which could be via restarting the planning process or somewhere else—or correct himself by saying that there is nothing in the Bill to give us any comfort about the future planning, because it is all in the hands of the designated Minister. It has to be one or the other.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
Obviously we can all differ on what is reasonable and what is modest, but it was not a misrepresentation of what anyone said. I just read back what people said.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, I, too, rise to support Amendment 11. As my noble friend has just said, if Amendment 11 were adhered to, it is possible that the various sides of this argument could come together with a solution that would be acceptable to everyone. I have never read any newspaper article or heard anybody say that there should not be a memorial.
My noble friend Lord Finkelstein described rather movingly the various other memorials in the gardens. They are memorials to good triumphing over evil in the development of human history. It would be totally right to have another such memorial in that place that could be revered. There would be no question of having a kiosk selling ice cream and burgers beside it. It would be a memorial. If it fitted into the description in Amendment 11 in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, it would be an appropriate size, and we would all hope that it would be designed by an artist who would produce a beautiful memorial. The problem is that unless we adhere to Amendment 11, there will also be a learning centre underground which, as various noble Lords have said, would bring with it so many risks. The greatest risk of all is why, if we want to produce a proper memorial to a terrible period in history when 6 million Jews died and many more suffered, would we put it underground where it could not be seen or admired and simply caused problems?
Let us have a memorial, a beautiful memorial that everyone can admire, but let us have a learning centre somewhere else where it would be safe, accessible and non-controversial, a place where children could be taken and, yes, possibly have their ice-cream and burgers if they are on a school trip, a different place where it would not get in the way of a beautiful memorial. It is difficult to understand how this Government, who profess to care about green spaces, about children not being on their phones but being outside and about the preservation of the environment should want to support a plan to take away the utility of one of the very few green spaces in this part of London.
This is not about just Victoria Tower Gardens, Parliament and history. It is about the way in which families in this area live their everyday lives. Children play in that park. I had a child who played in that park every day because his mother—me—did not have time to take him any further afield, as I was constantly in the House of Commons. That park is important to families and to the welfare of children. Why on earth would we hide under that park a learning centre when we could put up a beautiful memorial which everyone unanimously supports?
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, briefly, I support the last two speakers because one of the problems that we face in this Committee is that it seems we are being asked in this Bill to approve something, the details of which we do not really know. A lot of the debate has been about planning consent. The point—I am proposing to come back with an amendment later that may elaborate on it further—is that the 1900 Act imposed certain statutory restrictive covenants—I think that is a fair way of putting it—in respect of this building and Victoria Tower Gardens.
The history of restrictive covenants goes back a long time in English land law and antedates planning consent. The point about a restrictive covenant is that it is not applied against the same criteria as when planning permission is granted. We are being asked to release the restrictive covenants when we do not know what the actual proposition in front of us will be. It is a case of “Rely on me and trust me”, but I am afraid I do not. That is why we need—
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I feel slightly in the position of that well-known 16th-century Spanish jurist at the University of Salamanca who was arrested by the Inquisition when giving a lecture. Fourteen years later, after he was released, he came back and said: “As I was saying before I was interrupted”. My simple proposition is that we should be entitled to know in detail what is proposed before we are asked to remove the covenants of which we are custodian. I shall leave it at that.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there is a reason why we do not know the detail. It is because it is for the planning system, and this Bill allows the planning system to deal with the memorial. As I understand it, that is the whole point. It is not for us to grant, debate or decide on planning grounds that will be dealt with by the planning system when it eventually gets there, after Parliament has completed its deliberations.
I was not going to comment on this group, but I want very gently to respond to something that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said earlier. She suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, had paraded his victimhood, which, frankly—
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
I am sorry, it was the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am sorry, but I really think we should focus on the Bill in front of us. It is just not helpful to have this to-and-fro between people and to make accusations about things that were not said. I will be interested to go back and see the printed record when it comes out. In the event that I have caused offence to an individual, I will duly apologise, because there was no intention whatever to cause any offence to anyone alive or deceased.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
I was simply responding to something that the noble Baroness said, but I accept what she has just said.
On the point about the kiosk, at the moment there is a kiosk where children and others can buy refreshments when visiting the park. If that kiosk were removed as part of this proposal, the Government would have been attacked for that. They are also being attacked because the kiosk will still be there when the memorial is built. To be fair to them on this, they could not have satisfied people either way.
I do not think it is at all offensive to visit the memorial and learning centre and then want to sit down, have a cup of tea and discuss what you have seen and learned with the people who you visited it with. When I went to Yad Vashem with my dad, he was not the least bit offended that there was a restaurant there, where we had lunch. In fact, every time I have visited Yad Vashem, we have had lunch before or after. There is nothing offensive about refreshments being available at or near the memorial.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in the nicest possible way, I will not challenge my noble friend Lord Finkelstein but merely comment that he must have better eyesight than I do. When I look at the representations of the fins, they do not seem to be entirely modest. They are absolutely massive. He said that they are appropriate. I ask those with strong Jewish heritage whether they have ever heard the figure of 23 or 22—the gaps—mentioned before. All my life, the only figure which mattered for the Holocaust was 6 million Jews slaughtered, massacred, killed. The idea is that these giant fins are somehow appropriate because the gaps between them represent 22 countries. Has any noble Lord in this Committee ever heard of that before, apart from in this planning application? To my knowledge, neither 23 fins nor 22 gaps have anything to do with Jewish history. If we want something appropriate, it must represent 6 million Jews slaughtered.
We will come in a later amendment to what would be an appropriate design, but I am also prompted to ask a question on the refreshment kiosk. I use the park regularly, and in summertime or when there is a coach party to the Commons, the kiddies come into the park. They have their sandwich wrappers and a huge amount of Pret A Manger bags, and they all religiously try to put them into the litter bins. At times, those bins have been stuffed absolutely full and litter is spread all around. If there is a refreshment kiosk for thousands of people, that is likely to happen as well, and we will see a huge amount of litter.
Some may argue that we should have more litter bins and fill them up. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, with his expertise here, may comment on this. The first thing that the Metropolitan Police would do when there is a terrorist threat is remove all the bins. You cannot get a litter bin at Euston station or anywhere else because they are a terrorist threat. We could have a kiosk selling sandwiches, crisps and so on and all the people having their picnics, but end up with no litter bins to put the rubbish in. If there are litter bins, they ought to be policed and patrolled.
This is not a trivial point; I am not trying to diminish the whole argument by talking about litter. It is a legitimate point about other people’s enjoyment of the gardens. They may also want to have their picnic and sandwiches but find that there is no place to put the garbage afterwards.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, on that last point, that is exactly what the management of a non-departmental public body would discuss with the management of the gardens—how they will cope with litter and what facilities there are. They would need to work together, but we have not got anybody whatever to work with on the garden management at the moment. Until we have a public body, there will not be anybody.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I shall just say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Amendment 11. If, along the way, I gently chide my noble friend Lord Finkelstein, who I greatly admire, I hope he will forgive me. He made a speech last week in Committee, which he used in his article in the Times on Wednesday, and very important and powerful it is. He concluded by saying, “Let’s get building”, and that is where I part company with him because we are not arguing about a memorial. I think we are all saying, universally, that we want to have a memorial. The question is: what are we going to build? To say at the end of his article “Let’s get building” sort of implies that the Committee was somehow opposing the idea that there should be a memorial at all.
From my point of view, the design we presently have is outsized, out of sync and out of style. For my noble friend to say that this is like objecting to the Brent Cross shopping centre is really not fair to those of us who have a serious concern about what it will look like and how it will work. I think that the words, “reasonably modest”, which have been used a lot this afternoon, are really shown up when along with my noble friend’s article was a picture of what is proposed. How that can be described as “reasonably modest”, when you see a picture of it is quite hard to understand. Also—this was probably not my noble friend but his picture editor—the fact that it says underneath this extraordinarily ugly memorial
“The memorial embodies what Britain fought for and her Parliament stands for”
seems doubly disappointing. I hope that we can find a way, following my noble friend Lord Sassoon’s suggestion, to stick to the principle that we want a memorial and find a way that is more in sync with its surroundings, as my noble friend suggests in his Amendment 11.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
Just to clarify the point on “reasonably modest”, it has been a reasonable subject for discussion and obviously opinions will differ about how big this ought to be. In the Holocaust Commission, we had a debate about the different designs. Some people liked this design and others did not, but my point about “reasonably modest” concerned itself with the difficulty of building this memorial or, indeed, anything, nearby. I was just observing that we manage, as humanity, to cope with quite a lot of building and this is, on the scale of many of the things that we build, “reasonably modest”. Thus, the problems that were raised seem have been overcome on some quite big projects in comparison with this one. That is the point of my argument about reasonable modesty.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure whether we are supposed to declare our interests at each sitting, but I draw attention to my interests in the register relating to this project. I do not want to bring any discord but I feel I am about to enter into the war of the Buxtons, because my noble friend Lord Leigh, who is not in his place, asked me to pass on a message to the Committee from Jonathan Buxton, who is very happy for me to quote it:
“I would like to think that if Sir Thomas and his fellow abolitionists were around today, they would be 100% in favour of the Holocaust memorial”.
I understand of course that other Buxtons disagree with this, but I felt that the Committee might like to hear it.
I want to say two other things, but first I turn to this question of the kiosk, which I think is very badly formed. My noble friend is right: you can go to Yad Vashem and you do not need to go to the museum to use its facilities. You can get a hot dog outside the memorial in Washington and I do not think that in any way affects the spirituality of the thing.
One of my great delights, for the past 50 years of my association with Lady Pickles, is that we often spend our weekends looking at various cathedrals around the country. It is a passion of mine. I can tell noble Lords that you can get a very nice cappuccino in Lincoln Cathedral and a very nice date and walnut cake in York. In listening to the right reverend Prelate, I thought that perhaps I should go to St Albans Cathedral, and wondered what I might expect there. I am delighted to say that, if I go there, I can go to the Abbot’s Kitchen café, which is open from 10 am until 4 pm, and treat Lady Pickles to a coffee and walnut cake for £4.05. I do not think that that will in any way affect my enjoyment of the spirituality of the cathedral; it certainly has not spoilt it in the many cathedrals that I have had the pleasure to go round, both in this country and in France.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
The noble Lord was formerly a distinguished Minister in charge of planning. Does he not recall that, on several occasions, as a Minister, he called in planning applications and took those cases out of the hands of the local authority, where they would have been considered, and made decisions that dramatically affected the future of those proposals? Does he not agree that there is a significant difference between a case where somebody applies for planning permission to build even a memorial and a case where there is a parliamentary Bill that allows a Minister to spend money on that memorial?
Lord Pickles (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, intervened on me; I should be able to reply to him.
If I had expressed a view about a planning application, I would not have dealt with it; I would not have called it in. We are very strict. I must say that we know what is going on here, with people asking, “Will the Minister give a guarantee?” That would be predetermination. The noble Lord is a distinguished lawyer; he knows that it would be grounds for a judicial review if we predetermined it. We separate carefully, to ensure that the people taking decisions on planning have not expressed a view on it and are not subject to views expressed by either the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister. I assured that in the past five years.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I want to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Carlile. I am a lawyer; I am also a chartered surveyor in the planning and development division of the RICS. I worked professionally in this area, a long time ago, for a number of years.
The point is that there is a fundamental difference between the covenant and the planning consent. We are not being asked to form any view about the merits of a planning application or anything like that, because were that to be the case, the draft legislation in front of us would make it explicitly clear that we were taking by statute the power to grant planning permission. The two consents run in parallel, and we should view them like that. The criteria that apply in determining each of the two are not the same.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I too wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, though I may say it less elegantly. The reason we are talking about planning in this Committee is that we simply do not trust the Government—the previous Government or this Government—not to overrule Westminster City Council. If the Government will give a cast-iron commitment that they will abide by whatever Westminster City Council decides—that they will not call it in or get an inspector to reverse it, and that the Minister will not reverse it either—then all my concerns about planning would be removed. If the Government will trust the decision of Westminster City Council, I think no noble Lords in this Committee would be talking about the planning application.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for explaining so well the reasoning behind why we should wait for the planning system. I was going to say something very similar, but now I do not need to because of the timing. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could take the opportunity to give this Committee more detail about the process and the legalities, and about the reasons why we are doing what we are in this Bill, and where it should not then have anything to do with the planning system. That is an important thing to do and I ask that we have it in writing, to clarify this well in time for Report.
I was going to say something about all the other amendments in this group, but I feel that they would be much better discussed within the planning system and not within this Bill.
I will mention something about tea rooms. Interestingly, when I came in today, I was very much in support of not having them, but, having listened to the evidence and thought about it, it is actually not a bad thing to have that in a park that is used by all sorts of people for all sorts of different reasons. I certainly will not be supporting that proposal any longer. As far as I am concerned, all the other amendments should be dealt with in the planning system, so it is not worth my taking up any more of the Committee’s time.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Strathcarron and Lord Blencathra, the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Finlay, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for bringing these amendments. This group covers a set of topics relating to the potential impact of the proposed development. As we consider these topics, it is necessary to keep in mind the relationship between this Bill and the process for seeking planning consent.
The Bill does not include provisions to grant planning consent. I am quite sure that noble Lords would have criticised the Government forcefully if we had tried to bypass the normal route for seeking planning consent by including any such provisions in our Bill, a point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles. The planning process, put in place by Parliament and regulated through the courts, is the proper process for considering a development such as the national Holocaust memorial and learning centre.
Let me be clear in addressing the points of the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, in relation to the planning process, which a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, alluded to. We, as the applicant, stand by the current planning application. We do not intend to withdraw it. It is for the designated Minister to decide how to deal with the current application. We understand that he has three broad options: to invite written representations and then decide; to hold a further planning inquiry; or to hold a round-table discussion. All options would mean opportunities for opposing views to be considered. It is for the designated Minister to decide the approach.
The arrangements are perfectly proper. When they were challenged in the court in 2020, that challenge did not succeed. In all called-in applications, it is for the designated Minister to decide the mode of considering the application. We have given an assurance to the Lords Select Committee that we will make sure that Peers and MPs are notified when the process of retaking the planning decision starts. There will therefore be opportunities for people to make their views known. It will be up to the designated Minister to decide how to deal with those views, including whether to have a new inquiry.
The planning process requires extensive consultation, detailed scrutiny by technical experts and consideration of an extensive range of statutory provisions, regulations and planning policies. The process enables a balancing exercise to be conducted, in which the benefits and impacts of any proposal can be properly assessed. With the greatest respect to noble Lords, and acknowledging the deep expertise that can be found across the Committee, I submit that we should be extremely wary of interfering in these processes. We are not sitting here as a planning committee. I suspect that few of us here will have read all 6,000-plus pages of evidence submitted with the planning application, or the many detailed responses from experts, supporters and opponents of the programme. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for setting this point out in detail. I will now turn to the amendments in question.
Amendment 7, from the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, relating to other memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens, would have the effect of tying the hands of the planning decision-maker and stopping the current proposal. The amendment would give protection to those memorials above and beyond the protections they already enjoy as listed buildings. We all want to ensure that the memorials and monuments in Victoria Tower Gardens, and their setting, are respected. Our design is sensitive to the heritage and existing uses of Victoria Tower Gardens. It includes enhancements to the gardens that will help all visitors, including better pathways and improved access to existing memorials.
The planning inspector considered a great deal of evidence from all sides and looked in great detail at the impact on the gardens and on existing memorials before concluding that any harms to heritage assets were outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. As drafted, the proposed change to Clause 2 is not necessary to ensure that memorials are given proper weight in the planning process. It would, however, act as a barrier to proceeding with the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 7.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
It is of course open to the person determining the planning application and/or the appeal—depending on the circumstances—to impose conditions that fundamentally change the scheme from the thing that is currently under discussion by us. Is that not right?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, unfortunately I did not get the gist of what the noble Lord said, but I assume he was talking about the future planning process.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My point is quite simply that the outcome of the planning process, if planning permission were to be granted, could be that the scheme would be permitted, but subject to conditions such that it would be completely different from what we are currently considering.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Yes, that could be the case. Again, it is for the designated Minister to set out the process; it is a decision for them.
Amendments 11 and 12 from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, concern the Buxton memorial. The Buxton memorial provides a striking and important reminder of the role that British parliamentarians played in the eventual ending of slavery across the British Empire, a point that many noble Lords made eloquently. It is perhaps fair to point out that its design is not to everyone’s taste. I noted that in a debate in the other place in 1949 considering plans for the remodelling of Parliament Square, the then Member of Parliament for Twickenham expressed the view that the Buxton memorial had “no artistic merit whatever”. That is not this Government’s view.
Lord Sassoon (Con)
The noble Lord did not address my point about UNESCO. This has nothing to do with planning processes. Under the World Heritage Convention, state parties—in this case, the UK Government—
“are also expected to protect the World Heritage values of the properties inscribed”.
Will the Minister confirm that the undertakings to UNESCO are not part of any planning process and answer my question about how the Government regard their obligations in this case to UNESCO? Do they know better what is not appropriate in a world heritage site?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
We will discuss UNESCO on a later amendment. It will need a bit of explanation, and I would like to discuss it in depth. If he could wait for that group, I will discuss that point.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, as I understand it—I will look carefully at the official record to check that my understanding is correct—the Minister’s answer to the question about whether there will be a new planning process is, “Well, maybe”. He said that the Minister in charge has three options: to make the decision, to set up a new planning process or to have a round table. We do not know which, yet he has relied heavily in his responses to the various concerns raised on the fact that these will be considered in a planning application. Yet he also said that the Government will stick to the original planning application. Which is it?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thought I was quite clear in saying that an existing planning application has gone in. This Bill is to disapply the 1900 Act to allow the project to proceed. The designated Minister will have a number of options, from which he must decide which is the best way forward for the planning process, but every option will include an opportunity for representations to be made.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, there are three options and we do not know which the Minister is going to choose. Is that right?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, that is the norm and to be expected. It is totally independent from the whole process. It is for him to decide how we will proceed with planning on this particular point; that is the normal process when Ministers are calling decisions. That is how these options work.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
This will be my last comment of the evening. Is there anyone in this Room who seriously believes that the Minister will pick the option of a fresh planning application to Westminster City Council? Of course he will not.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Can the Minister explain what would happen to his three options in this scenario? On the day this Bill receives Royal Assent—if it does—what is there to stop the Minister saying within 24 hours, “The only obstacle that existed against giving planning permission last time has been removed, and I am giving it here and now”?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, let me be absolutely clear. I understand that noble Lords have lots of concerns, strong views and opinions on this matter, but there is a process in place in which the designated Minister is totally independent from the whole planning process. I cannot stand here and speak on behalf of an independent decision made by a Minister who is detached from this process. It is up to the Minister to decide how to take this forward and how to look at the application. My job here, in promoting this Bill in the Lords, is to look at these clauses and to ensure that we discuss and debate the clauses in front of us. I understand that there are lots of various concerns around the statutory planning process, but it is not for me to move forward with those. I have to look at the remit of the clauses ahead of us. The Minister will make his own decision—that is as it should be.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed. This has been a really interesting and, as always, passionate debate, with lots of great opinions on all sides.
I am aware that it has taken us four hours to discuss two groups, and we have not yet got on to the juicy subjects of security, how this project relates to restoration and renewal, and indeed the whole design. To save time, I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for summing up the amendments that we heard about on flooding, security and the kiosk. Afterwards, there were some very useful contributions on planning from the noble Lords, Lord Sassoon and Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Laing.
I find myself in agreement with the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, to reach out. It seems to me, from what I have heard over the past two days, as we are nearly at the end of the second day in Committee—this is just my opinion; I am not speaking for anyone else—that there is an acceptance that there should be a Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. What is in dispute is its size, scale, ugliness and whatever else—those are subjective things—but my hearing suggests that the fact that there will be a memorial in the gardens has acceptance. The problems all relate to the learning centre: I cannot find anybody, except for the proposers, who are for it.
Last week, I was talking about this outside the Committee with one of the proposers, who said that there is no practical alternative. I was quite flabbergasted; this learning centre may or may not be many things but one thing it certainly is not is practical. We have yet to hear—I am sure that we will at some length—about the problems around traffic, security, restoration and renewal, and about the fact that this proposal is totally inadequate. It is far from practical.
As for there being no alternatives, there are loads of alternatives, and all of them close by. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, suggested one that I personally found very acceptable: Richmond House, next to the Cenotaph —crane a slight neck there and you can see the Houses of Parliament. This would seem to satisfy every consideration, including the cost aspect, which we debated slightly on day one. I will not come back to it but I remind the Committee that we signed off the Elizabeth Tower at £29 million and it ended up costing £81 million. Let us face it, no one has the faintest idea what this memorial and learning centre—in particular the learning centre, which is where the construction costs will be—is going to cost.
I hope that, as we do not have much more time today—at this rate, we are going to be here for another 10 days or two weeks—the Government will show some flexibility and acknowledge the feeling that, yes, there should be a memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, and we can then discuss the scale and all those other things. Can we please consider seriously moving the learning centre to somewhere more appropriate, where it can do real justice to the purpose it is meant to have? With that, I would like to withdraw my amendment.
Licensed Oil and Gas Fields: Emissions
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they plan to assess the ‘scope 3 emissions’ of licensed oil and gas fields, and what impact they have on their emission reduction targets.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have consulted on supplementary environmental guidance relating to emissions from burning extracted oil and gas. We are working towards publication of finalised guidance as soon as possible. Emissions produced by burning oil and gas are accounted for in our domestic targets for the sectors which use these fuels. Emissions are not accounted for in carbon budgets if this fuel is burned outside the United Kingdom.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be with me in expressing concern about the collision in the North Sea and in sending hope to the rescue services, the sailors and, of course, all marine life.
I thank the Minister for his Answer. That was exactly what I was concerned about. Once the gas and oil are extracted, the total emissions should then be accounted for, on the assumption that it will all be burned, whether or not it is exported or moved somewhere else.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, first, I join the noble Baroness in expressing my sympathy to all concerned in the tragic events that have taken place in the North Sea. I also agree with her that we should pay tribute to the emergency services—and, of course, we are very concerned about the environmental impact.
I ought to explain to the House that scope 1 emissions are direct company emissions that occur from sources owned or controlled by the company. Scope 2 are indirect emissions resulting from generation of purchased energy, typically electricity, or purchased heat. Scope 3 are all indirect emissions not included in scope 2 that occur in the value chain of the reporting company and include downstream and upstream emissions—if noble Lords wished to know what those scopes were.
The point here is that we would be double-counting the emissions—or that is the risk—if we went down the route that the noble Baroness suggests. We had this consultation in the light of the Finch judgment, because we needed to revise the environmental impact assessment to take account of scope 3 emissions. We are carefully considering the consultation at the moment, and it would be premature for me to say anything more at this stage.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Peers for the Planet. Did the consultation involve—I do not think that it did—the issue of ending venting and flaring, which is not essential, from oil and gas fields in the North Sea? We know how damaging that is, and the Minister will recollect that during debates on the Energy Bill noble Lords across the House took a view that it was a dangerous practice that needed ending. What are the Government doing about ending it?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is right that venting and flaring are not covered in the EIA consultation, which is about scope 3, and I think they would come into scope 1. We are, of course, concerned about this and are considering the matter. My understanding is that the upstream oil and gas sector overall makes up to 3% of total net territorial greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, we are committed to meeting carbon budgets 4, 5 and 6, and we have just received advice from the Climate Change Committee in relation to carbon budget 7—all those things come into the mix as well—but I certainly take seriously the point that the noble Baroness raises.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, given the Supreme Court decision and the new rules on oil and gas production being consulted on, what other measures and assessments of extra resources are the Government considering or undertaking to ensure that continued progress is made towards a just transition in the North Sea?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl is right. We issued a consultation paper last week in relation to the North Sea and the transition that takes place. There is a decline that has carried on for many years in North Sea production. On the other hand, the workers in the North Sea are very skilled, and there is no question that, as the number of workers in the oil and gas fields reduces, so there is a big demand to increase the workforce in offshore oil and gas. The consultation, our policy of a just transition and the jobs hubs that we have established are very much geared towards ensuring that we make use of very skilled people and find new employment for them.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, when the carbon capture and storage schemes were given the go-ahead recently, the one in Scotland was not among those that were given the go-ahead. When does the Minister expect further consideration of this?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we are of course in discussions with His Majesty’s Treasury over the next spending review and it would be premature for me to comment on any of the detail. Clearly, carbon capture, usage and storage have a very important role to play in the future, and I have noted my noble friend’s elegant bid for investment in Scotland in that regard.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, the Government have repeatedly refused to clarify whether Jackdaw and Rosebank will be shut down under their policy of refusing to grant any new oil and gas licences. That is despite both licences being granted in 2022 and 2023 in recognition of their contribution to net zero and to our national energy security. Will the Minister please clarify that this is not another example of government policy being dictated by lawyers rather than by politicians? How does he expect the Chancellor to fulfil her growth agenda with the most expensive energy prices in the OECD?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the best way to deal with energy prices is to move from being utterly reliant on international gas prices subject to the volatility that has arisen from the invasion of Ukraine by Putin. That is why we must move towards clean power as soon as we possibly can, to give ourselves energy security.
I cannot answer that question in relation to Rosebank and Jackdaw. The original consent decisions were subject to judicial review, which was paused pending the outcome of the Finch judgment. In the light of the Finch judgment, as I have said, we are consulting on new environmental impact assessments. When we have produced those, it will then be up to developers to make applications for consents according to the new guidelines we have produced. I cannot forecast the outcome of that process.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, who in government is responsible for collecting the data on spillages from the oil and gas industry operations in the UK? Scope 3 emissions take account primarily of greenhouse gas emissions, but they also take account of pollution. How do the Government deal with pollution, particularly in marine protected areas due to those spillages?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in relation to the North Sea, the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning has an important role to play in the work that is undertaken on oil and gas. Of course, we have wider environmental law. Defra has a role to play. The Department for Transport—obviously, in relation to the tragic incident that has taken place—also has a role to play. On the point the noble Baroness raised, there has to be a cross-government approach to protecting biodiversity and the health of our seas. My department certainly plays its part in that.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I declare that I will become the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation from next month. Have the Government assessed the amount of lost investment, lost jobs, lost tax revenue and lost balance of payments costs in the unwelcome approach that we take to new gas and oil in the UK? We are simply substituting supply with that of our foreign competitors, notably Norway, Qatar and the US. Into the future, that could be domestic.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, as an avid reader of the Daily Telegraph, I was of course well aware of the noble Lord’s appointment. I heartily congratulate him on it and welcome him to our debates on energy. However, he is wrong. The best way to proceed is the way we are doing, by ensuring that we grow home-produced, clean-power energy. This is the best way to grow the economy. As for investment in the North Sea, the very fact that we are producing a consultation on environmental impact assessment and last week produced our consultation in relation to our policy of issuing no more licences gives clarity to the industry in which investment can continue to take place.
East Coast Main Line
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beith
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consultation will take place with rail users on the latest version of the proposed East Coast Main Line timetable.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the east coast main line timetable change is putting into effect the fruits of a £4 billion investment into the route since 2019. The timetable was consulted on in 2021, and feedback from that was incorporated. After a lengthy period, and following an industry task force review, the Secretary of State and I have agreed to the delivery of the timetable in December 2025.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, what in the consultation process was done about the fact that the most savage cut anywhere on the network applies to people from the Scottish Borders and Northumberland? They use Berwick-upon-Tweed station, where LNER’s hourly service will be reduced to a two-hourly service. Passengers will also probably find that, if they try to use any of the other operators, LNER tickets will not be accepted by them.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Constructing a railway timetable on one of the busiest routes in Britain is very difficult indeed. The benefits of the east coast main line modernisation are significantly faster journeys between London and Scotland, and an extra hourly London to Newcastle service. There are other improvements all the way up and down the line from King’s Cross to Edinburgh. In total—including CrossCountry and TransPennine services—the number of trains calling at Berwick and Alnmouth stations are the highest they have ever been. The noble Lord is right that there is some reduction in through trains from Berwick, but it is offset by an increase in CrossCountry, which has already taken place, and a further increase will take place on TransPennine in December 2025.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister give the House a commitment that the new timetable will remain as it is now, that the same number of direct trains from Northallerton and Darlington as at present will be maintained and that it will not follow the 2021 timetable? There are a number of businesses that rely on taking the trains from Northallerton and Darlington and having a direct service.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I understand—and I am sure that people who run the railway also understand —that there are some trade-offs to be made in the execution of the east coast main line upgrade. I know that there have been some improvements in the proposition of services in Northallerton as a result of local representations. I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness to explain what they are and what the pattern of service will be from December 2025.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, as a regular user of the east coast main line—and acknowledging the fact that it is already in national hands—and despite the comments of other noble Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate David Horne, the chief executive of LNER, on providing, in general, a very good service on that line. Can the Minister confirm that, in the Great British Railways development, no extra impediments, regulations or obstacles will be placed in the way of a business such as LNER in developing that business on the east coast?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I welcome the noble Lord’s favourable views about the management of LNER and I agree entirely with him that the direction of that company under public ownership has been very good.
The instigation of Great British Railways, following the successful passage through this House and the other place, is definitely not intended to impede those people managing the railway on a route-operating and train-operating company basis. I say to the noble Lord that the whole point of Great British Railways is to give those people some real power in delivering better services for passengers than the fragmented railway does now. After all, it took four years to institute this timetable because it was so difficult to get agreement between all the parties, and this shows, more than ever before, that a guiding mind for the railway is absolutely what is needed to institute improvements for both passengers and freight.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, in the spirit of railway consultation, I met with the noble Lords, Lord Snape and Lord Bradley, and we are inviting the managing director of Avanti trains, Andy Mellors, for lunch. So my question is, would the Minister like to join us?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Colloquially, “you’re on your own with that one”. I meet the managing director of Avanti trains more often than I should have to, and the fact remains that Avanti’s performance, in stark contrast to that of LNER, still needs improvement. Actually, the service on the west coast ought to emulate the service on the east coast.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as a regular passenger, along with the noble Lord, Lord Beith, on the 9.30 from Edinburgh on the publicly owned LNER, I can say that it is a regularly efficient service. Unfortunately, yesterday, I had to travel on the west coast, on Avanti, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, who will confirm that the 9.36 train was cancelled without any explanation. So when are we going to bring Avanti into public ownership so we can have a decent service on the west coast as well?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am afraid that I do not have the time or facilities to give each Member of this House the train information that they need on their daily journeys, although I will do my best if they ask me. Of course, there is a serious point to this. The House will have heard before that, actually, Avanti has not breached the contract that it was awarded when the original contract was extended. That is why I meet Mr Mellors and his management team on a regular basis, because I am exhorting them to perform the contract that the Government contracted them to do. The noble Lord is right that sometimes the service is not very good.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as well as the detail of the timetable, its accuracy is at least as important?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I certainly would agree. It is a real skill on today’s railway to fit so many trains in, with so many different station calls. There is a serious point to the original question that the noble Lord asked, which is that there are some compromises to be made. The strange position that I find myself in after four years of saying, “Where is this timetable?” and “How are we going to put it in?” is that it had to come to the Minister for agreement to do it. I think there are probably only two other countries in the world where Ministers decide the times of trains: North Korea and Russia.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, open-access operators on the east coast main line have delivered significant benefits to passengers through increased competition, lower fares and additional journey options. So why have His Majesty’s Government rejected eight out of the last nine applications for new open-access services?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have two points to make to the noble Earl. First, the improvements in journey time between London and Scotland—particularly between King’s Cross and Edinburgh—apply equally to LNER and to LUMO, which is the open-access operator. Of course, the Government have not rejected eight out of nine applications. They have analysed the effect of those applications both on the reliability of the railway and on the revenue of the railway, and hence the effect on taxpayers’ subsidy. Their recommendation to the ORR, which currently decides open-access applications, is that those should be refused; but it is the ORR’s independent decision and we await its decision on all those nine applications and others.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, since the train drivers were given a very substantial pay increase, what has happened to train drivers’ productivity and train punctuality?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The increase in pay given to both train drivers and other railway staff last summer was not very different from the offer made by the previous Government, which was not sufficient to settle the dispute. The additional 2% that was paid last July stopped the dispute, which had cost the nation nearly £1 billion-worth of lost revenue on the railways. The result is that passenger numbers are steadily growing. The productivity of train drivers is, of course, a function of the timetable. The more services you run, the more likely it is that they will be more productive. That is a matter for their current employers, whether they are publicly owned or not.
It is interesting that, even if it had been decided by the Government last summer that they wanted to see productivity improvements for train drivers, in fact there were no extant proposals to allow that to happen, because many of the employers had withheld them pending the resolution of a dispute not about what the benefits of their productivity were but about who made the money out of the productivity, whether it was them or the Government.
Council of Nations and Regions
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask His Majesty’s Government what are the intended functions and constitutional role of the Council of Nations and Regions.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Baroness Smith of Cluny) (Lab)
My Lords, the council is designed to facilitate genuine partnership working between the UK Government, the devolved Governments, the Mayor of London and the mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities. It brings together Governments and authorities with devolved responsibilities to determine actions for tackling some of the biggest and most cross-cutting challenges the country faces. The functions of the council are set out in its published terms of reference.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the devolution White Paper said that the Council of the Nations and Regions
“will provide unparalleled opportunities for Mayors … to engage government at the highest levels on a systematic basis”.
There were 11 mayors at its first meeting six months ago, alongside the First Ministers from the devolved Administrations. How many mayors will attend when all the English combined authorities are set up? How often is it intended to meet, given that it was suggested it should meet for a second occasion in the early months of this year? How does it relate to other intergovernmental forums, such as the British-Irish Council? How does it relate to Gordon Brown’s 2022 proposal for a council of the nations and regions that would replace the House of Lords?
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
My Lords, settle in. I will attempt to deal with some of those matters; no doubt they can be raised by other Members. The Council of the Nations and Regions is a completely new way of addressing intergovernmental relations. It is a unique forum for the mayors and the First Ministers to meet the senior leadership in the UK Government. Plainly, the number of mayors is a moving feast. The Government are encouraging as many English authorities to achieve mayoral status as possible, but this is a work in progress, although it is happening at pace. As the council develops, the Government will keep its structures and numbers under review—in consultation, of course, with the devolved Governments.
On the British-Irish Council, I think that feeds into a bigger question about intergovernmental structures generally. The Council of the Nations and Regions is a unique forum, and it is different from any others. Each forum serves a specific purpose, as does the British-Irish Council. Many of them come from historic agreements and situations. The Council of the Nations and Regions is in no way intended to replace any existing structures, but simply to supplement them.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the noble and learned Baroness to her place. I of course welcome all and any bodies that bring the different parts of the United Kingdom together for a purpose, but how do we avoid duplication and instead have complementarity in the different bodies, whether that is the east-west council or the Council of the Nations and Regions?
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises an important point. There is, of course, no purpose in simply duplicating structures. That is why I sought in my last answer to emphasise the unique nature of this particular body. The Prime Minister has been clear that it will have genuine purpose and that it is not simply to be a talking shop. Other structures, however, address different problems and sensitivities. This particular structure will, for example, sit alongside the top-tier meetings that will continue to take place between the First Ministers and the Prime Minister, which will happen at the same time as these meetings. That goes towards efficiency of the use of structures rather than duplication, because the relevant people will be travelling in any event.
To the earlier question from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about when the next meeting will take place, it will take place in the spring. The Council of the Nations and Regions will meet twice a year alongside the other structures that I mentioned.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I too welcome my noble and learned friend to her place. The Government recently announced a “third era” for the Scotland Office. The first was to establish devolution. The second, sadly, was mired in conflict and division. Does she agree that the third era should be about co-operation and delivery, and that this should be the focus for all who want to see Scotland prosper and succeed?
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. As the Secretary of State for Scotland said last Friday:
“The vast majority of Scots want their two governments to work together to increase living standards and improve public services”.
From being based in Scotland, as this House is aware that I am, I can see this at first hand. I am told at official level, at the political level and from what I read in the newspapers that there is a consensus that inter- governmental relations have been vastly improved since the election of this Labour Government.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the Council of the Nations and Regions brings another apparatus into the rather crowded field of devolved government. Can the Minister outline the process for resolving disagreements between devolved Administrations, the council and the UK Government, if, indeed, one exists?
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. It goes to the heart of any intergovernmental structure: the structures only work if the participants can find agreement and work co-operatively. The first meeting of the Council of the Nations and Regions was nothing but a success. There was agreement on how it should meet, a communiqué was produced following the meeting and it will meet again six months after its first meeting. It is also clear from the wider landscape of the relationships between the two Governments that it is adding to the picture of good working relationships.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I cannot speak for Scotland like the Minister can, but in Wales there certainly is a lack of clarity regarding the objectives of this body among not only some politicians but the media. After a 12-month first run of this body, will the Government publish a White Paper outlining what it has achieved and what it hopes to achieve, and invite discussion in the Senedd in Cardiff and in other devolved Parliaments to ensure that there is a full understanding and co-ordination of the aspiration for this body?
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. The purpose of the council is to deal with cross-cutting issues and strategic questions. For example, growth was on the agenda at the first meeting and some substantial actions came out of that—tangible outcomes that can be pointed to. The next issue, which will be tackled in the spring, will be of a similar nature. It is not in the nature of such discussions that a White Paper would assist the overall landscape. It is about relationships, tackling the big issues and delivering for the people.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, the inter- governmental relations review, which reported in January 2022, so just over three years ago, introduced a structure of quarterly and annual reports on the state of inter- governmental relations. As the council is additional to the existing structures, and as those reports initially came from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—and have now transferred back to the Cabinet Office—can the Minister update us on when the next report will come out and whether the reporting system is still in place?
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for his question. I do not have that information to hand, but I will be very happy to write with it in due course.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, the Council of the Nations and Regions has real potential to improve economic activity in regions such as Yorkshire and the Humber, and throughout other regions in the UK. However, as a former Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber, I know how important it is to have a strong Civil Service presence in the regions to deliver on the functions of the council. Can my noble and learned friend the Minister assure me that getting that strong regional presence for the Civil Service will be a priority for the Government? I hope that was what the Secretary of State, Pat McFadden, was hinting at in his weekend interviews.
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
Yes, I agree whole- heartedly with my noble friend that having the Civil Service out of London and in the regions is vital. I work from a UK government building in Edinburgh that has a large contingent from HMRC, as well as colleagues from the Cabinet Office, the Scotland Office and my own office. It is very easy to see the benefits of having departments in the regions. As I am sure noble Lords know, the Foreign Office also has a large presence outside Glasgow. It is vital to joined-up government that we have a Civil Service that serves the regions in England, as well as the nations in Scotland, and this Government are committed to that.
Autism and Learning Disabilities: Hospital Detention
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to respond to recent reports of an autistic woman with learning disabilities being detained in a mental health hospital for 45 years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, this Question refers to a very sad and concerning story. This Government want more people with a learning disability and autistic people to be supported in the community, not detained in mental health hospitals. That is why we are proposing reforms to the Mental Health Act, which this House is currently scrutinising. Through this, we want to help ensure that people get the support they need in the community, improving care and keeping people out of hospitals.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
I thank the Minister, and I am sure the whole House was appalled by this shocking case, which came to light only due to a BBC investigation. Does the Minister agree that to prevent such a terrible situation arising again, we cannot just wait for the Mental Health Bill to get on the statute book with its current five- to 10-year implementation period? What immediate plans do the Government have to set up a system to review long-term detentions? Does the Minister agree with me that a mental health commissioner, currently under debate in the Bill, could take on this role?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tempting me to agree with her comments about a mental health commissioner. We have debated that, and the noble Baroness is aware that we do not feel that this is the right way forward. However, I am sure we will return to that on Report.
With regard to not waiting for the Mental Health Bill to become an Act, of course I agree. The number of people with a learning disability and autistic people who are in mental health hospitals is unacceptable, and there are still too many detained who could be supported in their communities. We have taken immediate action in allocating funding to local areas: £124 million for learning disability and autism services. We are making sure that the workforce has the right skills and knowledge through work such as the HOPE(S) model. We are providing for the CQC to deliver independent care (education) and treatment reviews. NHS planning guidance provides a continued focus on improving mental health and learning disability care, with an objective to deliver a minimum—I emphasise minimum— 10% reduction in the use of in-patient care.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, for 25 years, this woman’s detention was in long-term segregation. My review of this practice, which was commissioned by the previous Government, recommended that people in LTS must have an independent review, should have national support to reduce confinement, and be allocated an independent project manager to co-ordinate their timely discharge. But despite the unequivocal success of the ICETR programme, the HOPE(S) intervention and senior intervenors’ support, funding has been cut at the end of this year. Will the Government commit to funding these vital initiatives to end this rights-depriving restrictive practice?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her contribution and expertise in this area, which I know we all look to in your Lordships’ House, as well as outside it. The points she makes are quite right and important. On this particular case, which is very sad and concerning, I understand that the person is now living in the community with 24/7 care and has been since 2022. I saw at Rampton how people were being supported out into the community with the right support. On the example the noble Baroness gave, we are very keen to improve the uptake of advocacy services, and she will know that all these matters are being addressed in our discussions on the Mental Health Bill.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my particular interest in this subject as the younger sister of a woman with severe learning difficulties who was detained in a hospital for many years. Is my noble friend the Minister confident that this sort of tragic lengthy detention of a non-verbal woman with both autism and learning disabilities will be prevented in future by the register proposed in the Mental Health Bill to be established and maintained by integrated care boards?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Yes, because we are, as my noble friend knows, updating an Act that is over 40 years old, to keep pace with demands and changes, and to meet our expectations of providing care through a compassionate and appropriate service. There were particular circumstances in this case, which I do not seek to excuse, but it is not appropriate for me to go into them. It is important to look at specific cases.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, there are over 2,000 people with autism and learning disabilities locked up in these facilities at huge cost. Putting them into the community does not necessarily work because the infrastructure is not there. Will the Minister commit to funding the necessary care and housing for this cohort?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right to raise the fact that at the end of January 2025 there were some 2,065 people with a learning disability, autism, or both, in mental health in-patient settings. The population I referred to is not a static one; there are new admissions every month. We know, for example, that in January 2024, some 10,000 discharges to the community had been undertaken since 2015. So it is not necessarily the same group of people. She will know that funding decisions are made at the appropriate point. Again, this is a matter of great importance to the Mental Health Bill, and we will continue to take that through the House to get it into the best place possible.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, during the 45 years that this poor autistic lady with learning disabilities was detained and the 25 years she was in segregation, we have had Governments of all political colours, so this is clearly not a political issue. Indeed, I remember the Minister challenging me on such detentions when I was in her place. Given that, are the Government any closer to understanding the barriers that prevent such patients from being released into the community? Rather than assuming that the state always has a solution, have the Government and the NHS had conversations with local community civil society organisations so that they can support these patients once they are released into the community?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This matter is one of concern on all sides and yes, indeed, we continually have those discussions, because this is not just something for the NHS and social care—the third sector is absolutely key. I have already outlined the measures we are currently taking and the way in which we continue to monitor.
On the question about obstacles, it is about having the right community provision in place and also about having the right pathway and treating people as individuals. Increasingly, that is the case, and a revised Mental Health Act will be a tremendous support in this area.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I hope the Minister will agree that the use of the Mental Health Act in these circumstances should be a last resort and a minimal experience. What happened to this lady is no credit to our society as a whole. Can the Minister say what steps have been taken since this lady’s experience came to light to ensure that other people are not subject to the same experience? We really need to learn from this experience.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Regrettably, that person’s experience is not a lone example. That is why, for example, the Mental Health Bill will limit the scope to detain people with a learning disability and autistic people, so that they can be detained under Section 2(3) only if they have a co-occurring mental disorder that requires hospital treatment. That is key because, in the times that we are talking about, people were detained just because of autism or a learning disability. That is not acceptable.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend the Minister and advise her that your Lordships’ House has a specialist committee that is dealing with the review of the Autism Act 2009. I encourage my noble friend and her ministerial colleagues, both in health and social care and in education, to undertake a review of that Act to ensure that it is fit for purpose, for the needs of autistic people.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am very grateful to the committee for its work and I am certainly looking forward to its report. The Government will respond to that report within two months. It is indeed vital work that is being undertaken.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am sure that all Members of the House will agree that we are very lucky to have such excellent Deputy Speakers who support the Lord Speaker and the Senior Deputy Speaker in their work, spending many hours on the Woolsack, at the Table and in Grand Committee. That is why, before we go to the primary business, I have a few remarks to make.
I remind the House of our responsibilities to support the Deputy Speakers as well as the clerks, who are also doing an excellent job, and refrain from behaviour that is below the standards that we expect from each other in this House. When the noble Lord on the Woolsack stands up, we should sit down; that needs to be observed at all times. When the House is sitting and debates are ongoing, all Members should ensure that long conversations on the Benches with colleagues instead take place outside the Chamber. There have been several instances of increased chatter during Members’ contributions. This is not only not in line with the overall good standards of courtesy in the House, but it also makes the management of the Chamber for the clerks, the noble Lord on the Woolsack and the Whips all the more difficult.
Movement around the Chamber should be limited when a Member is speaking. There are increased reports of noble Lords walking in front of Members of the House while they are making contributions. This can be distracting, makes it harder for noble Lords to be heard and is rude. No Member of this House should walk between the Woolsack and the Table at any point when the House is sitting, especially when the noble Lord on the Woolsack is speaking. It is disrespectful, and we should expect better of each other. Please do not do this. It is important that we do not restrict the ability of the noble Lord on the Woolsack and the Clerk at the Table to see each other as well as the wider House.
We have also seen increased movement around the Chamber when a Division is called, with Members jumping up straightaway. I remind colleagues that, once a Question has been put, the voting system needs to be activated before a vote can take place. So noble Lords should please wait until the noble Lord on the Woolsack has advised that voting is open, and has sat down, before proceeding to the voting Lobbies. After three minutes, when the Question is put again, both sides need to say loudly, “Content”, or “Not content”, for the vote to continue. I remind your Lordships that a microphone is on during the Divisions, and it does pick up our conversations.
While I am on my feet, I also remind noble Lords that, when you arrive in the voting Lobby, please place your pass firmly on the card reader and make sure your vote is recorded; you will get a ping and a visual confirmation that you have voted. The act of walking through the Lobby does not cast a vote; it must be recorded on the reader. Votes can be close, so try not to be the noble Lord who lost a vote for their side because they just walked through the Lobby but never actually voted. Finally, please leave the Lobby quickly after voting; do not stand behind the Tellers talking and making it harder for other noble Lords to walk through.
If we observe these simple courtesies, rules and procedures, it will improve the working of the House for everyone—Members, clerks, doorkeepers and all staff—and it will look better for the public who are watching our proceedings.
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, has consented to place his interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, this Bill has its genesis in the evening of 22 May 2017 in the Manchester Arena, where more than 1,000 people were injured and 22 were killed in a terror attack—the sole responsibility of the terrorist involved. This Bill is a tribute to those victims and to the victims of other terrorist attacks. They will never ever be forgotten.
Noble Lords will be aware, of course, of the campaigning work of Figen Murray and her team. We would not be here today without her and her team, and I give them my thanks. This Bill will now be known as Martyn’s law in memory of Figen’s son, Martyn, who died in that Manchester terror attack. I also pay tribute to the security and intelligence services, law enforcement and others, who work day in and day out to protect this country from the ongoing threat of terrorism, and to the first responders who are on the front line, if and when the worst happens.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debates on the Bill. They have been astute and considered, and I am deeply grateful for their scrutiny. I hope that we have had a collaborative, constructive approach to this Bill, and it is important that such legislation on terrorism has cross-party support across this House and the House of Commons. I am proud to be one of the Ministers who have brought this to fruition on behalf of the Government.
I thank Minister Dan Jarvis, who led the Bill in the House of Commons, and my noble friends Lady Anderson and Lord Moraes, the Whips on the Government Benches who have worked to tight timetables. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower—and his colleagues, the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Cameron of Lochiel—as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for their leadership on the Benches opposite.
I thank the policy, legal and Bill teams in the Home Office, which have worked under the previous Government and this Government; their tireless work has made this Bill possible. I also thank the team at the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for drafting the Bill. I extend my deep and perpetual gratitude to the parliamentary staff, doorkeepers, clerks and others for their professionalism and their continued support for the Bill and your Lordships’ House.
This Bill will help save lives. As it leaves this House now, I look forward to its final passage in the House of Commons soon and its continuance to Royal Assent in due course. I commend it to the House.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill forward for Third Reading. I express my gratitude to all noble Lords for their diligent scrutiny and contributions throughout the Bill’s progression.
I also extend my sincere thanks, once again, to Figen Murray—together with her team, as the Minister mentioned—whose tireless campaigning has been instrumental in ensuring that we make progress on stronger protection for premises. Without her dedication, the Bill would not have progressed as it has.
I am pleased that we had the opportunity for a thorough debate around the important issues contained in the Bill both in Committee and on Report. On Report, several crucial issues were raised; foremost among them was the concern that the Bill should not place an undue burden on smaller businesses and voluntary organisations. Indeed, I still have some concerns about that, and its eventual effect remains to be seen. We heard compelling arguments from my noble friends Lord Udny- Lister, Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord De Mauley about the challenges faced by small enterprises, charities, events and community groups, particularly in implementing the necessary security measures without excessive financial or administrative strain.
Similarly, concerns were voiced regarding the potential impact on volunteers and organisations in the cultural, sporting and heritage sectors. We heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester on the potential issues for hundreds of church communities and how they will be affected. These discussions underscored the necessity of ensuring that the provisions of the Bill are not only effective but proportionate and pragmatic in their application. While I am disappointed that the Government felt unable to support amendments that sought to protect smaller businesses and volunteers, we acknowledge the importance of moving forward with a Bill that still represents a significant step forward in our collective security.
We also welcome the Government’s clarification on the Henry VIII powers contained in the Bill, an issue of legitimate concern that was rightly debated in detail. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for bringing amendments to refine these provisions. I commend the Minister on engaging seriously with these concerns and ensuring that the necessary clarifications were made. This is precisely the kind of constructive scrutiny in your Lordships’ House that strengthens legislation, and I am grateful to all who participated in this process.
I thank my noble friends Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Sandhurst for their support on the Bill. I must also mention our support team on this side, Henry Mitson and Max McGiffen.
As we move towards the implementation of the Bill, it is vital that those affected by its provisions—businesses, charities, local authorities and venue operators —receive clear guidance and support. The effectiveness of this legislation will be determined not by the words on the page alone but by how well it is put into practice. Adequate resources, training and advice must be provided to ensure that compliance is achievable and that security measures are implemented effectively without unnecessary complexity or confusion. To that end, a watchful eye will be kept on the performance of the Security Industry Authority.
Furthermore, we must continue to evaluate the impact of these measures once they are in force. Security threats evolve, and our responses must remain adaptable. I hope that the Government will remain open to reviewing and, if necessary, refining the legislation in the future to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of those it seeks to protect.
In conclusion, the Bill represents a significant and necessary step in our ongoing efforts to protect the public from the scourge of terrorism. While no legislation can eliminate it entirely, we have a duty to take every reasonable measure to mitigate threats and to ensure that venues and public spaces are as prepared as possible. The Bill is a tribute to those who have tragically lost their lives to terrorism, and a testament to our resolve that we will do all we can to prevent future tragedies.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, as has been said, thanks must primarily go to Figen Murray, Stuart Murray and their team. Not for a minute have they allowed us to forget the significance of the Bill, which Figen instigated. Their staying power is remarkable, but not really a surprise in view of their history.
In the absence of my noble friend Lady Suttie from these Benches, we thank the Minister and his team for their helpfulness, openness and, as he said, collaboration, which we have really appreciated. I thank my noble friend Lady Suttie for being so easy to work with and so clear about what we wanted to achieve. As ever, I thank Elizabeth Plummer in our Whips’ Office. I have often said to her that she works so hard on legislation that she should do the last bit and be here to speak to it.
The Bill will not stop terrorism but has a very important part to play in the response to it, and we are pleased that challenges to the Bill have been resisted. We look forward to following its implementation.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, the discussions we have had both in this Chamber and beyond have been deeply thoughtful and constructive, motivated by a shared desire to protect the public while ensuring that the measures we introduce are both proportionate and workable.
However, I remain very concerned about the potential impact of this legislation on volunteers and volunteer-run organisations and on their enthusiasm to take up the mantle to run those vital village halls and community centres that we heard so much about during the passage of the Bill.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his assurance that the Government will keep the matter under review. I think it is incumbent on us all to ensure that the burdens imposed by this legislation on very small businesses and community enterprises are closely monitored and that, in the event that it has the adverse impact I fear, the matter can come back before the House for examination.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the comments from noble Lords. The Bill now goes to the House of Commons with government amendments and amendments the Government have supported, and I look forward to a speedy passage to Royal Assent.
Football Governance Bill [HL]
17:03 - Division on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 224 / Noes: 267 - Amendment 4 disagreed.
18:01 - Division on Amendment 7 - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 257 - Amendment 7 disagreed.
18:37 - Division on Amendment 8 - Ayes: 181 / Noes: 234 - Amendment 8 disagreed.
19:36 - Division on Amendment 13 - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 168 - Amendment 13 disagreed.
“(1) The purpose of this Act is to protect the financial sustainability and success of English football.(1A) The Secretary of State must, in taking any action under this Act, have regard to this purpose.(1B) The Independent Football Regulator must, in exercising its functions under this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the purpose clause to include financial sustainability and success, and to give legal effect by requiring the Secretary of State and the IFR to have regard to that purpose.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I begin this first day on Report by thanking the Minister for her considerable engagement on the Bill. It is nearly two months since Committee finished, and I am sure that scarcely a day has passed in the weeks that have intervened without her talking about this Bill with the Bill team or with colleagues across your Lordships’ House. I am particularly grateful, on my behalf and that of my noble friend Lord Markham, for the many meetings she has had with us on the Opposition Front Bench to talk about it. I know she has spent a great deal of time talking to noble Lords from across the House.
I also welcome the government amendments that she has tabled, some of which develop thoughts raised on all sides of the House in Committee, demonstrating that she and her team have listened to some of the concerns that we raised in Committee and that she has heard those from all sides of the House.
I particularly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, who have seen a lot of the issues they raised—through, I think, more than 100 amendments in Committee—taken forward. I hope we might yet still be able to persuade the Minister of one or two others, but we thank her for the amendments she has brought forward.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group, which includes Amendment 15, to which I have added my name. As I said in Committee, the Government have been very vocal in their demands for existing regulators to institute cultural change within their organisations to help deliver economic growth, rather than excessively focusing on risk.
In January, the Chancellor said:
“Every regulator, no matter what sector, has a part to play by tearing down the regulatory barriers that hold back growth. I want to see this mission woven into the very fabric of our regulators through a cultural shift from excessively focusing on risk to helping drive growth”.
That is a call I strongly support. Regulators have a significant influence over the economy, and it is only right that they take into account the need for growth in their actions and decisions. It was a significant oversight not to include such a commitment to ensuring the continued growth of football, one of our most successful sectors, from the outset in the remit of the new regulator.
I would therefore like to thank the Minister for listening to the points raised on this issue and coming forward with the government amendment that obliges the regulator to have regard to the desirability of exercising its functions in a way that avoids any adverse effects on the financial growth of English football. It is an extremely welcome change to the Bill and an important addition to the IFR’s duties. I thank the Minister.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests as declared in the register. I begin by welcoming the positive engagement that many of us have had with Ministers and the department since Committee. It is clear that the Government have been listening and are responding thoughtfully to a number of concerns raised by noble Lords from all sides of the House. I thank the Minister and the Bill team sincerely for their collaborative approach. Most importantly, I believe the ongoing dialogue we have established will result in a more effective Bill, which of course is our job here in this place.
I rise to strongly welcome Amendment 14, the Government’s proposed inclusion of a new duty on the IFR to avoid the adverse impacts on growth. This reflects the balanced and proportionate approach many noble Lords have advocated throughout this process, and which I know the Government genuinely intend. This is a very positive development. The new duty should help to ensure the regulator does take such a balanced approach in practice. Its inclusion is an acknowledgement that, to ensure that English football remains financially sustainable, we must not inadvertently constrain the game’s ability to continue to grow and succeed.
This is an important way to frame the approach of the regulator from the very beginning, but I hope it will also have specific practical benefits. For example, the new duty should help to prevent the IFR adopting an overly risk-averse or restrictive approach to financial regulation which could otherwise limit football clubs’ ability to invest and innovate. It should also serve as a significant check on any regulatory decision around the flow of Premier League funding, ensuring that determinations on financial distributions remain balanced and proportionate, and avoiding unintended harm to the commercial strength and international competitiveness of the league.
In short, this growth duty does offer some meaningful reassurances to football clubs that the regulator will approach its task constructively, supporting the long-term success and dynamism of the whole game and helping us to navigate the challenges of the future, not just fix the issues of the past. I am very grateful to the Minister. There is more to do, and we will talk about a number of further proposals throughout Report, but I am happy to offer my support for this amendment. I believe a growth duty is a meaningful and substantial step forward in this legislation.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, has said. I too have greatly benefited from the constructive engagement of the Minister and the Bill team, and I am very grateful to them for the time they have taken and the listening they have done to the concerns that were raised during Committee. I should declare my interests for today. One of my areas of practice is as a barrister of sports law; I represent Manchester City in disciplinary proceedings —and I am a supporter of Arsenal Football Club.
I have one lawyer’s point on Amendment 1 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. His proposed new Clause 1(1A) and (1B) would put on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State and the IFR, in exercising their functions, must have regard to the purpose of what will be the Act. That is entirely unnecessary because one of the basic principles of modern administrative law is that powers conferred under an Act may lawfully be used only to advance the objectives of the Act. That has been the law since the statement of Lord Reid in the Padfield case of 1968. It would be unfortunate if this Bill included something that is otherwise implicit in all legislation; it would cast doubt on Bills that do not include such provisions.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I rise merely to add my support to what has been said, and to commend the Government for having been on a journey to recognise some of the points made in Committee, which, as my noble friend Lord Parkinson said from the Front Bench, was some two months ago. I hope I will not be thought ungracious if I simply comment that it was mildly irritating for us to be criticised for submitting this Bill to the scrutiny that we did in Committee, and to be accused of filibustering, when the Government were all the time listening to what we were saying and moving in the direction we were advocating.
I would merely comment that a number of us across the House advocated in Committee that an obligation to pursue growth in English football should be a key part of the purposes of the Bill. That was rejected by the Government at the time—almost contemporaneously with the Chancellor of the Exchequer using her bully pulpit to advocate that all the other regulators should be doing precisely what we were proposing.
We welcome the conversion and the journey, and we hope that more concessions will be made towards making the activities of this regulator less damaging than seemed to be the danger in the way the Bill was originally constructed. There will be more for us to discuss on that subject later.
Lord Markham (Con)
I will speak briefly about the growth amendment in my name. Like other noble Lords, I welcome the Government’s recognition of the importance of growth and, generally, I welcome the input from the Minister and the collaborative manner.
I want to make one point quite clear for the record. There are two main reasons for the success of the Premier League. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, pointed out, it has 44% of the best players in the world. Secondly, every game is competitive. Why is that important in this context? Two elements that the regulator can be involved in could impact that. One is the backstop: if there is too much redistribution between the Premier League and the other leagues, the Premier League will no longer be able to attract the best players in the world, and that will impact the attractiveness of the sport. The other element is the parachute payments: if those are impacted to a degree that clubs no longer feel confident to invest in new players if they have just been promoted or are under threat of relegation—making those games less competitive—the Premier League will become less attractive.
That is why it is very important to put on the record that, instead of having one just dimension where the regulator considers the sustainability of clubs—that would always point it towards redistributing more money —it now has the twin objective of growth. That will mean that it needs to counter that with making sure that the Premier League and all of football is very successful—because it can attract the best players because it has the financial resources to do so—and that all clubs want to invest because they know that they have the safety net should they be relegated.
Again, I am very pleased to see that that extra dimension is now added in there. That will be an important point that the regulator will always have by its side as it considers the Bill.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, at the end of the day, the purpose of this first amendment is simply to increase financial sustainability and to require the Secretary of State to do a number of things. The Bill as it stands clearly and simply states the purpose, review and key priorities:
“The purpose of this Act is to protect and promote the sustainability of English football”.
I for one would be content not to put in finance and many other things, because that opens a big can of worms. The Bill then spells out clearly in Clause 2 how to achieve that particular purpose. This amendment would truncate a big piece of work that has been done.
So I still support the idea that the purpose of this Act is to protect, promote and sustain English football. That is a wonderful way of doing it. The amendment would reduce it to financial sustainability and the Secretary of State having powers to do this, that and the other. This particular Bill is really about the independent regulator; do not suddenly introduce the Secretary of State in the purposes. So I would not like to support or go with this amendment, because it is not as careful and clear as the purpose we have at the moment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for tabling his amendments, and for his kind words and his engagement on this Bill. I extend those thanks to all noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House for their engagement, and for the time and input that I have benefited from over the last few weeks and months.
I will start with Amendment 2. I reassure the noble Lord that, although the Bill does not specify the requirement to consider both prospective and current fans, this is implicit within the existing requirement. Football would not serve the interests of fans if the game were unattractive or unwelcoming to new fans. The regulator is also inherently future minded, with the requirement to focus on sustainability and the long-term protection of the club and its heritage assets. Future fans are therefore already required to be in the regulator’s mind when it makes its decisions. This is also reflected in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply and for the recognition that the Government also want to see the growth of English football in non-financial ways such as she set out. I take the points she made about the drafting and the need for precision in this Bill, so I thank her for her engagement on that point as well.
I congratulate my noble friends Lady Evans of Bowes Park and Lady Brady, in particular, who raised the issue of growth in Committee. As I say, I am glad that the Government have brought it forward, as it is consistent with what they are doing vis-à-vis many other regulators—so I am glad that we have the government amendment here. I am glad, too, for the recognition that the regulator and all who care about English football will be focused on prospective fans as well as current ones. This is more than just a preservation order being slapped on football; it is something to encourage its sustainability and growth.
As my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham said, it is welcome to see the change from some of the responses that we had in Committee. I thank the Sports Minister for the apology that she gave to my noble friend Lady Brady, following an article that she wrote in the Daily Mail. I think that that was appreciated by my noble friend and the others who were mentioned in it.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his lawyer’s point, which I take on board. I would have been very happy if the Minister had said that she would accept just proposed new subsection (1)—but I heard also what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, said. I proffered Amendment 1 in the spirit of compromise, but in the spirit of compromise I am happy to withdraw it and move on to other amendments.
Lord Addington
“(c) meets the social responsibility duty set out in section (Social responsibility duty).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment includes in the definition of English football sustainability the social responsibility duty created by the amendment after Clause 51 in the name of Lord Addington.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the amendments to which I put my name are trying to point out the fact that we regard these football clubs as being social assets—things that should actually reach into their community. We were inspired by a series of meetings with various bits of the football community, because they did not seem to be taking it on board that wholeheartedly—so I proposed a series of amendments giving specific duties to what those clubs covered by this should do.
I give great thanks to the Minister, who clearly listened to at least the concept of this proposal, if not my particular idea, and has come up with the Government’s own Amendment 32. I am really here just to say that, if the Minister wanted to add to her amendment by accepting mine, I would be incredibly grateful—but her own amendment, bringing in corporate governance to the schedules of the Bill, is one that may give us a chance to grow and develop the idea of community interaction between clubs and the communities that they serve. That is very important. There has been far too much talk in this debate about financial aspects and great growth, et cetera. Nothing stays still for ever; Italian football has been very popular and may be again—who knows?
The fact of the matter is that these are things that we now regard as social assets, and clearly that is something that the Bill should embrace. Saying that they have an outstanding duty to their community is something that we should embrace. I would not feel bad if any of the other professional sports in this country took on some of this duty as well—I would welcome it with open arms.
I thank the Minister and look forward to her comments on my humble efforts, but this is very much the Minister’s championing of an idea, and I thank her and the Government for bringing forward her amendment, which I shall wholeheartedly support when it is moved.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 3 and 32, which would make the economic and social impact of a football club part of its corporate governance requirements. It has become something of a cliché to point out that football clubs are deeply woven into the fabric of their communities, but it is such an important part of why football is so important in the lives of millions in our countries.
If I may, I will very briefly share what this looks like in practice, through the example of my own club, West Ham United. I am proud that our foundation reaches over 50,000 people annually across east London, operating in some of the most deprived boroughs in our country. When West Ham moved to the London Stadium, we made a commitment that this would not just be about a bigger stadium but about deeper community roots.
The foundation now delivers over 30 different programmes, focusing on health, education, employment and social inclusion. During the pandemic, players and staff personally delivered meals to vulnerable residents. The club and fans made significant financial contributions to local food banks. None of this was seen as charity; it was about responsibility. It is what a football club is all about. Our award-winning Players’ Project has seen first team players become ambassadors for specific community initiatives, giving not just their names but their time and their genuine engagement. These connections matter profoundly to local residents.
What makes these initiatives particularly powerful is that they leverage what football does uniquely well: they bring people together across the divides of age, background and circumstances. When a young person struggling with education attends a programme at West Ham United, they engage in ways that traditional institutions often cannot reach them. I have seen the personal impact for myself countless times.
The economic impact is equally significant. West Ham supports thousands of jobs, directly and through a supply chain predominantly sourced within east London. My club has contributed £323 million in gross value added to the regional economy through supply chain, supporting employment and the visitor economy. Match day brings vital trade to local businesses, where targeted employment programmes have helped hundreds of local residents find sustainable work.
These amendments would help to ensure that such contributions are not peripheral or dependent on the good will of particular owners but are fundamental to how clubs operate and are governed. I commend the Minister, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for supporting these amendments. I know that this is a particular passion for the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in relation to his Amendment 50, which is also part of this group. I believe he has had some productive conversations with the Premier League about how we can build on our experience and support football charities.
I believe the league will now be examining how we can work with expert organisations, such as the NCVO, to make good governance advice more accessible to small community organisations. This would be a good use of the Premier League’s reach and profile within communities, so I am pleased it is happening.
Football clubs receive extraordinary loyalty and emotional investment from their communities. These amendments formalise that this relationship is reciprocal and should be embedded in governance structures. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask as we develop this new regulatory framework, so I fully support these amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, we have spent some seven days discussing the detail of the Bill, and I think this is probably the first time I can rise and say that I actually agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. It is true that football has the power to do an awful lot of good. Many clubs—not just West Ham —actually do an awful lot of good in their community. The Minister has tabled Amendment 32, and my noble friend Lord Bassam and I have added our names to it, because this is one of the issues that we have discussed with the Minister and have mentioned in this House.
I will resist the temptation to talk about the good work that Bolton Wanderers does in the community. Suffice it to say that it is one of the few clubs that has actually got a chair who not only talks about helping the community but actually involves herself in the overnight sleep-outs for charity and other such activities. It is a mark of the level of commitment that many of the people who run football clubs have towards their communities and it is something that we should appreciate.
There is sometimes an accusation of sportswashing when clubs make big gestures, but an awful lot of direct involvement with communities can make a difference. In this context, it is particularly important in terms of men’s mental health, because many football groups are reaching people who would not be reached in any other way.
Therefore, I am very grateful to the Minister for the time that she has taken to talk to all of us about these issues, and for the amendment she has tabled, which I am very happy to support.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I commend Bolton Wanderers and West Ham on what they do in and for their local communities. There are many other clubs which do likewise—I know about Arsenal and Manchester City.
I too very much welcome government Amendment 32. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Addington, says what he says. I respectfully suggest that his amendments are overregulation, which we all wish to avoid in this Bill. Government Amendment 32 suffices.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in case everyone thought a bout of consensus had broken out, I beg to differ. I have some reservations about this group. I find myself at odds with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which neither of us will be surprised by, but I also find myself at odds with the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, which is perhaps more surprising having been through Committee.
Let me raise some of my reservations. We have been consistently told that this legislation is necessary to protect football clubs precisely because they are such intrinsic parts of our community and interwoven into our society. It is those authentic, organic relationships with local areas and generations of fans I am worried this Bill could undermine. I am not convinced that the clubs need a regulator to add something that could become a performative and unnecessary corporate governance duty. That is one of my reservations.
I was also somewhat surprised to see the Government’s Amendment 32, making a club’s contribution to the economic and social well-being of its local community part of its corporate governance. That was somehow quite insulting, as though clubs need officialdom to tell them to be socially responsible. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, indicated, that is very much the ecosystem of connectedness that is in clubs’ DNA. There is a danger of overregulation here.
In a later group on regulatory principles, the Government’s Amendment 18—which I do welcome—states as a regulatory principle that the independent football regulator should have regard to whether any requirement or restriction is necessary before it imposes it and asks the IFR to consider
“whether a similar outcome could be achieved by less burdensome means”.
Amendment 32 seems to fail that test. I am worried about putting in the Bill a regulation that could be interpreted as asking football to take on responsibilities far removed from football in a regulatory fashion that makes them behave somewhere between social engineering and social work. I would like some reassurance that this will not contradict or add a burden of regulation on clubs in what they already are doing. Why do we need to have it written down in the Bill?
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I think there is a severe danger of there being a consensus around the sentiments, at any rate, reflected in this group of amendments. The point has been made by a number of your Lordships that this is what good clubs do. Successful clubs are deeply rooted in, and serve, their communities, act as a focal point for social action and social activity, and can do enormous good.
On Thursday evening, I shall go, in hope, to watch Tottenham play in the Europa League. The following morning, I shall attend the governors’ meeting of the London Academy of Excellence Tottenham, which is a brilliant sixth-form academy that serves disadvantaged young people with academic promise from across the community. Its principal business sponsor is Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Its premises are in the Lilywhite House, which is the office headquarters of the club. It is brilliantly successful. Tottenham, like most successful clubs, is deeply entrenched and embedded in the local community.
I therefore have some sympathy when the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asks about whether this is necessary. The clubs that take their social and community responsibilities seriously because that is what they need to do as part of their success and their obligations—it is part of the debt they owe to the communities they are part of—will not find it a regulatory burden, because they are, as the noble Baroness said, doing it already. While I am generally allergic to new regulatory powers when the case for them is not overwhelmingly proven, I am willing to make an exception in this case.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I would like to offer praise to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for having a go at a very necessary social responsibility question in his Amendment 3, so I thank him for doing it. His name is also on Amendment 32 in this group, which is a distillation of what I think he would like to say to already successful clubs that are engaged in social responsibility in their area. Amendment 32 would be the one I would go for if a vote were called, whereas the noble Lord’s Amendment 3 has woken us up to the possibility that if you are working in a community and living in a community, you have a responsibility to it—you should not just take the money out.
As a vicar in Tulse Hill near Brixton, when most of our houses were not in very good shape and I was living in a vicarage, I felt that my duty and responsibility to Tulse Hill estate and St Martin’s estate was to engage the local council fully, and it agreed to provide a lot of change as a result. I understand the question of responsibility, but I think Amendment 32 gets what the noble Lord wants in Amendment 3, so he should go for Amendment 32 and not for Amendment 3.
Lord Markham (Con)
From this side, I would like to join the recognition from all noble Lords about the social value that clubs bring. I need only to look at my six year-old, who is barely ever not wearing his Cole Palmer shirt, to know that it is much bigger than just an economic interest. Clubs fully understand that, and I think that point was made very well by all noble Lords—the particular examples from my noble friend Lady Brady were very well made.
Clubs realise that they are the leaders in their field, and I think we have all seen countless examples of them doing it again and again. In terms of getting the balance right, though, we shall talk later—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made the point as well—about wanting to make sure the regulator is light touch. I think the Government get that right in their Amendment 32—again, I think we all agree on the intentions—but the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, may go slightly to the other side of the fence. However, I think we have a united gathering, for want of a better word, around the Government’s amendment. From our side, we very much welcome that, and welcome the continued work of the clubs on the social front as well.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for raising this issue on Report and giving us the opportunity to discuss it further. I also thank him for his very kind words and, not least, for his persuasive arguments over the past few weeks. I am grateful to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for their time on many occasions. I am also grateful to noble Lords from across the House, irrespective of whether they agree with the government position, although I feel that there was a general consensus.
I think that what we are all agreed on across your Lordships’ House, including the Government, is that clubs play a vital role in their local communities. It is a key part of what makes football our national game as well as our local anchor. However, as I previously stated in Committee, we believe that the noble Lord’s amendments would expand the scope of the regulator too far and are potentially overprescriptive, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, expressed much more elegantly than I can.
The regulator should be focused on areas of critical need, addressing genuine market failures rather than regulating on issues that the industry can solve. There are many different ways a club can make a difference and serve its local community. We have heard some fabulous examples throughout the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House, including a number we have heard today, such as that of West Ham during the pandemic, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton mentioned the charity work of her team, Bolton Wanderers.
This is why we are confident that government Amendment 32 strikes the right balance. We want to encourage clubs to continue their great work in their local communities without restricting the manner or form in which they achieve it. For example, clubs could match their community outreach initiatives to the size and resources of their clubs and to the specific communities’ needs and issues, which may vary. This could include the bespoke training for charities and community groups envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Like him, we agree that the regulator can shine a light on this vital work carried out by clubs up and down the country and therefore encourage more outreach. That is why we have brought forward the government amendment, which would require clubs to report on the actions they are carrying out.
Government Amendment 32 would mean that the regulator includes clubs’ community contributions in its corporate governance code and adds criteria for what constitutes corporate governance for football clubs. I welcome support for the government amendment from my noble friends Lord Bassam and Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who have co-sponsored the amendment. This is very much in the spirit of co-operation and discussion that we have had over the past few weeks. It will be explicit in the Bill that a club’s contribution to the economic and social well-being of its local community is part of its corporate governance. That will ensure that clubs outline how they contribute to their local communities in their corporate governance statement.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, we do not think this is heavy-handed or overregulation; this is, as the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, said, what good clubs already do. If they were not contributing to their local community, they would, however, be expected to explain the reason for that in their statement. Their report would be published online to allow for public scrutiny so they can be held accountable for their actions or inaction. We believe this will encourage transparency and, as with the approach to corporate governance more widely, this will in turn encourage greater action in this space.
Above all, this approach will allow flexibility for each club to comply in accordance with their resources and size and in a way suited to their own community’s needs. Additionally, when the regulator publishes its corporate governance report on clubs, best practice can be shared with the industry. The approach will also ensure that we do not step on the toes of the likes of the FA, which already spearheads good social and community initiatives across football.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord that we are taking appropriate action to ensure that this important issue is captured without giving without rise to scope creep. For these reasons, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, and I commend government Amendment 32.
Lord Addington (LD)
Well, my Lords, there were hints of normal service being resumed at the end of that. It just goes to show that we have to look at what we are actually trying to achieve here. If good clubs do it anyway, why should they be hamstrung by doing it when bad ones do not? That is something I would say: a bit of basic fair play. Also, the idea of light-touch has been spoken about very much in this debate—it is one of the mantras—but I just received information from the EFL saying that it is worried about this, because what does “light-touch” mean? Does it mean doing virtually nothing? The noble Baroness shakes her head, but we will possibly drag that out during the course of the Bill. I have heard Lords debates in which “light-touch” was described as being asleep at the wheel and only paying attention when there is a disaster.
I would hope that the careful use of regulation, encouraging people to do the things they should, is something we do not shy away from. The good ones do it—bravo—but let us make the rest join in. I hope that we can take this principle forward in this Bill and other pieces of legislation. Just because somebody is good does not mean to say that everybody will be. I do not know how many pieces of legislation have that principle running through the middle of them like a stick of rock. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and look forward to supporting the government amendment when it is moved.
Lord Moynihan
“(3A) In exercising their powers and functions under this Act, the Secretary of State or the IFR may not act in a way which conflicts with any regulations or rules of international football governing bodies.”
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, as well as moving Amendment 4, I shall speak to Amendment 5, which is consequential. I place on record my thanks to the Minister for her much-appreciated constant support for all Members of your Lordships’ House, not least me, regarding meetings, letters and her engagement on the numerous issues that are relevant to the Bill, which already this afternoon has been improved.
My amendment recognises that English football operates successfully in an intensely competitive global market. In Europe, UEFA runs the Champions League. This summer, FIFA hosts the first Club World Cup competition, with $1 billion in prize money available. Chelsea and Manchester City will compete for the trophy in the States. They do so for one reason: FIFA and UEFA recognise the Football Association as the sole governing body for all rules and regulations governing football in England. That is why the FA has a veto over any rule change in the constitution of the Premier League. The FA is the sole member of UEFA and FIFA. The FA is the sole footballing member of the British Olympic Association, meaning that the FA has control over the men’s and women’s Great Britain Olympic football teams. All England’s professional football teams are members of the FA. The English Football League, made up of the three fully professional divisions below the Premier League is self-governing, subject to the FA’s sanctions. In another place, David Newton, giving evidence to the committee, stated that
“the FA is responsible for 16 million or 17 million players and all the money flows within football”.—[Official Report, Commons, Football Governance Bill Committee, 14/5/24; col. 63.]
Like every other league in England, the FA Premier League comes under the jurisdiction of the FA and must submit its rules each year for approval and sanction. However, this fundamental duty of the governing body is not reflected in this Bill, which is why my amendment seeks to protect our football clubs, to avoid jeopardising their growth in international competition and the authority of the FA. Sadly, as drafted the Bill removes the FA from the face of football regulation in England. Its 13 mentions in the 124 pages are mostly definitional: the company number is there in one reference; the FA is referred to as the Football Association in a couple of others; it is not there as a voting board member of the IFR. Otherwise, it is purely an organisation that is consulted without any authority, without any need for the IFR to take into account what the Football Association, the one recognised governing body of football in this country, feels. The FA is given one power, on page 40, in Clause 49(2), which is its one power in the whole Bill:
“A regulated club must not change the name of a relevant team operated by the club unless the change has been approved by the Football Association”.
That is the one name-changing power in the Bill.
UEFA has never hesitated in making clear that it is imperative to protect and preserve the independence of the Football Association as the sole governing body for football in England, in accordance with the UEFA and FIFA statutes. UEFA stated that legislation that
“compromises the FA’s autonomy as the primary regulator of football in England”
would be non-compliant with these statutes, which are upheld and enforced rigorously across Europe and globally. UEFA warned last year that there should be
“no government interference in the running of football. We have specific rules that guard against this in order to guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition; the ultimate sanction for which would be excluding”
the national governing body
“from Uefa and teams from competition”.
UEFA’s statutes do not permit it to recognise the primacy of a state-licensed regulator. The autonomy of the FA cannot be challenged. It has no right to hand its core powers to a government-appointed regulator which conflicts with UEFA’s regulation. This was well covered in Committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, said:
“I do not want fans to be alarmed by our discussion”.—[Official Report, 27/11/24; col. 761.]
She referred to the letter, which she said was a private letter from UEFA, and there was no intention for it to be published. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out during the debate, the letter
“is obviously relevant to the Bill … Transparency demands, in my respectful submission, that we be allowed to see it—unless UEFA will not allow that”.—[Official Report, 15/1/25; col. 1236.]
We heard in January that UEFA did not want it published, but only a couple of weeks ago we had a different answer from DCMS. A request was made to the DCMS freedom of information team, and the reply to James Wild MP reads as follows: “We have dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act. We regret that we were unable to respond to your request because it exceeds the cost limit set out by the Act. Section 12 of the Act makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information when the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days in determining whether the department holds the information, locating, retrieving and extracting the information. We consider your request would be over the statutory limit, because this would take considerable resources, involving many staff across the department. UEFA is a key stakeholder across sport and is engaged with the department on a regular basis”.
It would take some imagination to work that into a script of “Yes Minister”. Consider if every country established its own regulator without the national governing body being at the centre. This would lead to a fragmented, inefficient and inconsistent approach to football governance across the continent and, in essence, challenge and hinder the ability of UEFA, FIFA and the IOC to maintain cohesive and effective governance standards.
This amendment, recognising that the FA is in no way part of the proposed legislation that your Lordships are considering, would protect English football and our clubs. In many ways, it is a growth amendment. If the Minister is right and there is no threat of scope creep, the amendment lies comfortably in the Bill. If I and my colleagues are right, its place in the Bill provides a protection against mission creep, which none of us wants to see. I therefore hope that the House will support us, and I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, eloquently explains why the Secretary of State and the IFR must seek to avoid conflict with UEFA and FIFA regulations. They are the governing bodies, despite the lunacy of some of their decisions, most recently the FIFA proposals to expand the World Cup to 64 teams and to extend half-time so that there can be a concert while players seek to maintain warmth and fitness. Notwithstanding that, they are the governing bodies, and the structure of English football recognises this.
It does so because both UEFA and FIFA impose in their rules and regulations an obligation on member associations—the FA, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, says—to comply with UEFA and FIFA regulations, and to ensure that clubs and leagues also comply with UEFA and FIFA regulations. The FA imposes a similar obligation on member leagues and the Premier League—its rule B14. It imposes a contractual commitment on clubs and the Premier League to comply with the statutes and regulations of FIFA and UEFA.
Notwithstanding all this, I am, with great respect, doubtful as to the wisdom of Amendment 4 from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Do we really wish to incorporate into English law, so that it is a matter that can be raised in the High Court, the statutes and regulations of UEFA and FIFA? Is it really our wish to allow those who are concerned by a decision of the Secretary of State or of the IFR to go to court and say that the decision is a breach of a UEFA or FIFA regulation? It would be welcomed enormously by sports lawyers such as me. The opportunities for litigation are endless because, regrettably, the UEFA and FIFA regulations are not always drafted with the precision and clarity—I put it modestly—that we expect and see from the parliamentary draftsmen in this country.
I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, could address this point when he comes to reply. There will be a further enormous expanse of litigation in football, and we will find that decisions are even more regularly open to litigation—to challenge in the courts—if his amendment is accepted.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I almost expected the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to withdraw these two amendments following the meeting we had yesterday with the FA. I am absolutely certain that his shoulders dropped when we asked a question of the FA regarding FIFA and UEFA, and the FA confirmed to the people there—I was there, as were the noble Lords, Lord Birt, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington —that it had had letters and emails from FIFA and UEFA supporting the regulator. Their only concern was—choose the words you want—state creep, scope creep or mission creep. Providing that those things do not happen, they are content that we have a regulator.
The threat from UEFA and FIFA was discussed time and again in Committee. I think that fox was completely shot yesterday because the FA openly and honestly said, “We have had letters and emails saying they have no problem with the regulator, providing there is no state creep, scope creep or mission creep”, which I believe there will not be.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I chaired the meeting referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and I too was very puzzled that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, decided to proceed with his amendment today. The FA was very clear that UEFA and FIFA were very happy with where we had got to with the legislation and that they were satisfied. It made clear too that DCMS was right not to want to publish the correspondence to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made clear and obvious reference.
I agree with the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I was somewhat surprised that he—the lawyer and expert in football litigation that he is—made some of them. As he said, only one group of people will benefit from this—those who do sports lawyering.
I invite the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, not to press his amendments—they are not necessary. If we were to be mistaken and accepted them into the Bill, it would slow down the operation of the independent football regulator, and I do not think anybody wants that. It could lead only to a reduction in the effectiveness and speed of the regulator’s operation. I hope that having heard what the FA said about it, as he did yesterday, and the assurance it gave to me and others in the room that it is happy and that UEFA and FIFA are happy, he will in good grace not press the amendments.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Moynihan has articulated the case for his amendments with great clarity. Without revisiting all the arguments made in Committee, my fundamental concern is straightforward: we must avoid inadvertently ceding control of English football to external bodies.
The relationship with international governing bodies inevitably creates tension points where our interests may diverge. The Premier League, UEFA and FIFA are not just partners, fellow rule-makers and governing bodies; they are also competitors that run competitions involving English clubs.
Unless UEFA and FIFA provide unequivocal confirmation that nothing in this Bill raises concerns about state interference, the truth is that the Premier League will face ongoing vulnerability. The regulator could become a strategic pressure point of international football politics, with English football losing sovereignty over our domestic arrangements as a consequence.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I just want to reassure the noble Baroness, who was unfortunately not able to attend the FA meeting yesterday, that the FA was very explicit—and it was asked very directly—that it is content with this Bill. It assured those of us who were present at that meeting yesterday that it has assurances that UEFA is not at all concerned with this Bill and is happy with it as it stands. Thankfully, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was at that meeting, so he can confirm that that is what was said.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, if what we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, is true—UEFA would say that, wouldn’t they?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, there is an absurdity and a very serious point at the heart of this debate. We have talked a lot about a letter that we have not seen and which, in answer to a Freedom of Information Act request, the department says it cannot find within three and a half days, and within £600, even though the Minister referred to it from the Dispatch Box during our debates in Committee.
This letter is assuming an almost mythical status, which is unhelpful to this debate; that is reflected in the frustrations that have been expressed today and were expressed in Committee. We would be helped enormously if we could see it. We know that UEFA had expressed concerns about the Bill in the letter that has not been shared. Noble Lords rightly want to ensure that those concerns have been allayed, because of the very serious ramifications they would have for English teams competing in international competitions.
I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lady Brady—with their great experience from their own involvement in football—as a former Sports Minister who understands the byzantine world of international sports regulation better than most Members of your Lordships’ House in pursuing this point.
I take on board what noble Lords have said about the private briefing that they were able to attend yesterday and the assurances that were given by the FA on behalf of UEFA, but it would be awfully nice to hear this from the horse’s mouth. We know that UEFA wrote expressing concerns about the Bill earlier in its passage, and it has not said anything further. I find its silence deafening. We are asked to accept reassurances passed through an intermediary to a private meeting of your Lordships. It seems to me that this matter could be settled either if the noble Baroness was able to reveal the letter that we are all searching around and shaking a bucket to collect £600 to allow the department to find under the Freedom of Information Act, or if she could say a bit more, or if UEFA would say this to us directly, or if—in the absence of that, and in the face of the deafening silence—we could put in the Bill what seems to be a reflection of the Government’s own position. I take what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, says—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will give way in a minute. I take what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, says about the income generation that this will provide to sports lawyers, but I think he would accept that there is plenty in this Bill for sports lawyers to get involved with in the new regulatory regime that it ushers in, and I suspect that they will find plenty to occupy them, with or without this amendment. I give way.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I ask the noble Lord whether he would have been in the habit when he was a Minister of revealing the contents of private correspondence?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I was always in the habit of complying with the Freedom of Information Act and, in this instance, my advice to the noble Baroness would be to give us as much as she can about UEFA’s concerns. It is very clearly a matter of concern here in your Lordships’ House. I hope the matter can be settled. Maybe the noble Baroness can say a bit more about the correspondence that she has had with UEFA but, if not, I hope that my noble friend Lord Moynihan will continue to pursue this important issue.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I had been slightly unnerved by the tone of the debate up to this group. I now feel myself in much more comfortable territory—under attack and revisiting the issue of international competitions.
I understand the intent of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to put beyond any doubt that the Bill and the regulator will not breach UEFA or FIFA statutes. I would like to thank him for his time, both in writing and in meeting myself and officials. However, I would like once again to reassure your Lordships’ House that these amendments are not necessary. At the very least, they are trying to solve a problem that does not exist; at worst, they attempt to create an issue that does not exist.
I would be a brave and foolish Minister if I proposed legislation that risked us being banned from international competitions. UEFA has again confirmed in writing with the Secretary of State, just last month—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, and other noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Taylor and Lord Bassam highlighted, the FA confirmed directly to noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, just yesterday—that the Bill, as drafted, does not breach UEFA statutes.
The regulator will be operationally independent of the Government and will not exert an undue influence on the FA’s ability to govern the game. The extent of its statutory powers and duties will simply not allow it to do so. I know that there have been requests to see the letter that UEFA has sent to the Government that was leaked to the media last year. I wrote to UEFA, following the conclusion of Committee, asking whether they would be content for me to release the letter, but they replied that they would rather that communications be kept private. It is important that I respect this request to ensure that the Government can continue to have honest and constructive conversations with our stakeholders.
I turn to the issue of the FOI. This is—
Lord Pannick (CB)
I would be grateful if the Minister could throw any light on what a freedom of information request should state.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As if I planned this seamlessly, I was just coming on to the FoI request. In my view—this is not what I got from the Box note—this is a lesson on how to get an FoI request rejected, unless rejection was actually the intent. I hope the Benches opposite will bear with me as I explain. The FoI request referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Parkinson, was an extremely broad request for all correspondence ever to the department from UEFA. In the response, the requester was advised to narrow his request to a particular timeframe for the department to be able to respond. In my humble view, that sounds perfectly reasonable. I understand that such a letter has not yet been sent in, but, clearly, the responder may choose to accept the advice from officials.
Turning to the specifics of the amendments themselves, much as I do not want to see the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, lose the opportunity for future litigation, I am afraid that, rather than protecting English football, his amendments would have serious unintended consequences. The amendments would see a regulator established by an Act of Parliament in this country take a position of deference to a private international organisation. That would not only undermine the sovereignty of Parliament but leave English football in a very weak position.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, raised concerns, both today and on the fourth day in Committee, that the Bill compounds the problem of UEFA’s and FIFA’s ongoing leverage over Premier League clubs, creating a regulatory environment that could become fundamentally unstable. While I do not accept that that is currently the case for the Bill, amending current drafting, to fix in statute that the regulator must fall in line with whatever rules those organisations set, would surely create such an issue. The result of these amendments would be a concerning loss of autonomy and independence for the regulator and, in turn, for English football as a whole. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contribution to this debate. I will attempt to respond to the comments that have been made.
I attended the meeting yesterday, and I was very attentive to what was said. The first question was about UEFA, and the first thing said in response by Joanna Manning-Cooper, who represented the FA at the meeting, was that UEFA has been
“happy since the start of the journey”.
I wrote that down; that was precisely what she said. I have to say to noble Lords that the correspondence that was sent in September last year to the Secretary of State reflected five pages of unhappiness about the potential of this legislation as far as UEFA was concerned. It is inconceivable, to any noble Lord who has read that letter, that that could possibly be seen as UEFA’s happiness since the start of the journey.
I make that point because I would never have started with the strength that I have had on this subject in Committee, and today, unless I had read the letter. I was sent two different copies of the same letter from two different sources; it has been widely distributed. Everything that I said in my opening remarks reflected the content of that letter and the very real concerns that UEFA had.
I am surprised that the Government have not published that letter, and I believe that they should have done so, because it is simply not true to say that UEFA has been happy since the start of the journey. It is also disingenuous to say that the request that was made was so wide as to have taken a great deal of time, when everybody knows precisely what correspondence was requested. The Written Question placed by James Wild was: please provide an electronic copy of correspondence from UEFA
“on the proposal to introduce a football regulator”.
That is specific; it is not wide in its remit. Everybody knows which letter we are talking about. It is disingenuous to say that it would take three and a half days for a civil servant to go through all the letters that UEFA has sent on the subject of the introduction of a football regulator, when this Bill has been only a year in the making, including the time that the Conservative Party spent on it. As I said, I would not have taken the view that I had—including when listening to the meeting yesterday—if I had not also registered very significant surprise at the comment that the Bill will take no powers away from the Football Association.
Lord Moynihan
“(3) For the purposes of this Act a “specified competition” includes—(a) the Premier League,(b) the English Football League, and(c) the National League,and any successors to those leagues.(3A) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the competitions specified in section (3).”
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 6 I shall speak also to my Amendment 82. The purpose of Amendment 6 is found in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report of 20 November last year. It makes the very reasonable point that, in a Bill of this kind, it is probably wise and helpful to state in it whom it refers to. The fact of the matter is that the Bill makes no reference to whom it refers.
The committee says that
“the Bill’s scope and purpose should appear clearly in the Bill. Clause 1 … states the purpose of this Bill as being to protect and promote the sustainability of English football. Yet the meaning of ‘English football’ (and therefore the remit of the IFR) is incomplete and requires filling out in regulations made by the Secretary of State. We recommend that the power of the Secretary of State in clause 2 to define ‘specified competitions’ should be removed from the Bill”.
This is because it is self-evident and clear that the
“Government policy is … that the top five leagues of the men’s professional game should be regulated”.
It concludes:
“This policy should appear in primary legislation, not be relegated to secondary legislation”.
It is fairly rare that a Bill of this magnitude and importance—certainly in sport—does not say to whom it refers but instead says that, in due course, the Secretary of State will come forward and tell us to whom it refers.
An argument has been put forward that if the Bill said to whom it refers it would make it hybrid. It is indeed interesting that, in describing this amendment, the Government called it a hybrid amendment—but it is not at all. As far as I was concerned when tabling it, it was to put in the Bill to whom this legislation refers, which seemed self-evidently sensible. However, I can see that there is the possibility that saying to whom it refers can turn it into a hybrid Bill—some people would hold that view. I was advised by the head of public Bill procedure that my amendment would put certain leagues in the Bill as leagues that need to be included in the independent football regulator’s remit, as set out in regulations.
The regulation-making power in Clause 2(3) does not specify any leagues and has a dehybridising provision attached to it. So it is interesting that, without naming the clubs or the leagues to which this legislation refers, the Bill still has a dehybridising provision attached to it.
I assume that the Government recognise that, if the Bill said to whom it referred, there was a possibility that this would make it hybrid. The way that this has been done so far is by avoiding putting a hybrid provision in the Bill, in that there may not be a genuine class of football clubs playing in certain leagues but not others. In the view of the officials, the leagues specified in my amendment do not form a genuine class. Therefore, if the House agreed to my amendment, the Bill would be at a high risk of becoming hybrid. I do not want to put that to a vote and test the will of the House because there is clear evidence, in both Houses, that there is a will to move forward with this legislation. If there is therefore a move by the Government to avoid it being tested for hybridity by putting the clubs and leagues into secondary legislation, that is the decision that underpins the Government’s wish to enact this legislation.
However, I will move this amendment because it is important to try not to avoid saying to whom and to which competition the Bill refers. When we scrutinise legislation we need to know to whom it refers. It is neither sensible nor wise to bring legislation forward before either House without clarity on that point. Therefore, I believe that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made an important point for the House to consider. I beg to move.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Moynihan that the name of this group on the list circulated by the Government Whips’ Office is a little unfortunate. This is an important issue into which we stumbled unwittingly in Committee. It is not clear that even the amendment which my noble friend Lord Moynihan has moved would make the Bill hybrid. This is a question which needs to be considered separately. Both in the amendment which my noble friend Lord Markham and I brought in Committee, and in the other amendments brought by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, relating to National League North and South, we stumbled across the conundrum that my noble friend Lord Moynihan has set out: that, by trying to say in the Bill whom it regulates, there was a risk that it would have to be considered hybrid and dealt with in that way.
As my noble friend has said, this reflects the concern raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House. In its eighth report, it recommended explicitly that this delegated power be removed from the Bill. It said:
“Government policy is clear—that the top five leagues of the men’s professional game should be regulated. This policy should appear in primary legislation, not be relegated to secondary legislation”.
It is unfortunate that we have been unable to find a way around this problem. In one of the meetings which my noble friend Lord Markham and I had with the Minister and the Bill team between Committee and now, we asked them to go back to parliamentary counsel to see whether there was another way around this. No other way has been found, which is unfortunate.
I take the point that the Minister made in our conversation that it is very clear who is being regulated by this Bill in the first instance. There has been a lot of consultation with them, both during the previous Parliament and in this one. My concern, reflected in my Amendment 85, is about those who might be brought into scope—say the women’s game, or the National League North and South if, in due course, future Governments were to agree with the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made in Committee. There are plenty of people in football who have not had the same degree of engagement with this Bill that the top five leagues have had which has got us to this point. That is why I tabled my Amendment 85, which concerns the dehybridising provisions of the secondary legislation that might be brought forward by this Bill to try to ensure that those football organisations that might come under the scope of the Bill in the future can have the same level of consultation and opportunity to give their views that the top five leagues in the men’s professional game have had hitherto.
I am grateful to all the minds that have been applied to this problem and to the members of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for highlighting it. I regret that we have not been able to find a way of saying in the Bill who is being regulated but, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, none of us wants to delay the Bill by exploring this point further. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is an interesting one: hybridisation being caused, in effect, by naming some clubs, or rather the structures. The main thing here is that we want the Bill to progress. Any danger of hybridisation is something that we want to avoid. Thus I shall be resisting these amendments.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the defect of imprecision is unfortunate, but it can be cured by secondary legislation, which is far preferable to the serious risk that the Bill would be hybrid.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the group. It is an issue that we have discussed at length throughout the Bill’s passage through this House. I for one thank noble Lords who suggested that it would be helpful if we could progress the legislation so that we get the regulator in place.
On Amendments 6 and 82 from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I understand his desire to have upfront clarity in the Bill as to which competitions will initially be in scope of the regulator’s regime. However, again, the noble Lord may be trying to solve a problem that potentially does not exist. There is no doubt as to which competitions are in scope of the regulator’s regime at this point, and which will not be. By delegating this to secondary legislation, we are following the precedent established by other similar sport-related legislation. Without wanting to seem ungracious, this includes the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and the Football Spectators Act 1989, the latter of which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will be very familiar with, as he was the Bill Minister in the other place during its passage.
The approach that the Government are taking is both reasonable and the result of extensive, evidence-based consultation with all key stakeholders in the industry. The delegated power ensures that the competitions in scope can be amended in a timely manner and ensures that the scope of the regime remains relevant. It future- proofs for future innovations and protects against circumvention by ensuring that clubs and competition organisers cannot simply reconstitute, rename or establish new domestic competitions to avoid the regulator’s regime.
The Government’s intended scope for the regulator is well known; it has been a subject of policy development process over many years, both by this Government and the previous Government, which has involved extensive consultation with the clubs and leagues that will be in scope. Any changes to the scope in future would be based on clear evidence and proper consultation as part of a published Secretary of State assessment. The requirement to consult before future uses of the power is set out on in the Bill. Any changes would be subject to the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure.
On Amendment 85 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, this is a standard provision in many Bills, including the Media Bill, which I note he was the Minister for. To future-proof this legislation, regulations have to be able to be made in a timely way; getting bogged down in lengthy parliamentary proceedings could undermine the Government’s ability to keep the regulatory framework up to date and ensure that it remains effective. This is of no benefit to anyone, including the industry. This comes back to the perceived issue of hybridity that has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords today.
As I set out in Committee and in our memorandum, the policy intent being the top five tiers of men’s English football has never been in doubt. Throughout the development of the policy over the past three years, there have been countless opportunities for all affected and interested parties to make representations on this scope. This amendment would serve no purpose other than to delay the implementation and effect of the regulator. It would be set up, incurring a cost, but unable to act while crucial regulations establishing its scope were bogged down in years of process.
I have set out very clear reasons for the approach taken on defining the scope of the regime and will not take up your Lordships’ time further relitigating this issue. For those reasons, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contribution to this debate. For the avoidance of doubt, I was not around for the 1975 Bill—I was far too young—but I was present for the 1989 Bill, as the Minister rightly pointed out. I was working on that important Bill with my great and noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, whom I am glad to see in his place today.
There is a serious point, which was why I tabled this amendment. When we look closely at Bills and scrutinise them, we really must try to start from the premise that we know who we are talking about and which competitions we are talking about. When the Minister says that there is absolutely no doubt about which competitions and clubs we are talking about, one would expect the House and the Government to put it in the Bill.
Lord Moynihan
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 7, I will also speak to Amendment 28, which refer to the owners’ and directors’ test, which goes far beyond the regulatory requirements in sport—in FIFA, UEFA, the FA and the Premier League. It would require an additional test to be made to determine a potential owner of a football club, and that additional test is one of influence. My amendment seeks to leave out reference to the “influence” a person can have over the activities of a club in being considered for a licence to operate as a professional football club in England, to create clarity in the Bill.
In trying to understand what “influence” means, we are immediately referred to paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 1, where, in keeping with the financial regulation, we are once again somewhat left in the dark:
“The Secretary of State must prepare and publish guidance about the meaning of significant influence or control for the purposes of this Schedule”—
in other words, for the purposes of the test. As such, as we scrutinise the Bill before us, we have no certainty as to the meaning of “significant influence”, yet its impact on the Premier League and on EFL clubs could prove far-reaching.
In Committee, I took the example of Newcastle to seek clarity from the Government by working through a specific case. Newcastle is majority-owned and financially controlled by the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, the PIF. The PIF became the majority shareholder and de facto owner of the club, with 80% of the shares acquired, in October 2021. The chair of the PIF is the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the son of Saudi Arabia’s King. MBS, as he is known, runs the Saudi Government.
For once, there is a clear distinction between this Bill and the one inherited from the last Conservative Government. In the Conservative Bill, there was a protection against the Government-appointed regulator investigating whether MBS, the Crown Prince and chair of the PIF, was a fit and proper person to exercise control over Newcastle through the chairmanship of the PIF. This Government then deleted the very protection which the previous Conservative Government put in the Bill that required the regulator to have regard to the foreign and trade policy objectives of the Government. This removal was a direct consequence of UEFA’s insistence to the Prime Minister that such protection politicises sport.
Sadly, I assure the House that, for anyone who has read this Bill, the answer to Newcastle fans is that, unlike under the Premier League or UEFA rules, the Crown Prince is open to investigation by the regulator, and the Minister was clear on that question. That is exactly what the Government intend the regulator to do, because they have removed the one protection it had. The regulator in the Bill has full rights to use his or her many powers to investigate and opine over the suitability, or otherwise, of any owner who exercises a degree of influence over any club, including Newcastle United. That is just one example. Such detailed and intrusive due diligence risks being replicated across the Premier League unless the Bill is amended as I propose.
The Secretary of State will write the guidance that determines what significant influence or control means, yet there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to consult anyone on drafting that guidance. We can speculate what the definition might be by looking at other legislation where the same phrase is used, but there is no guarantee that the Secretary of State will follow the same approach on this Bill as has been taken for other legislation. So, it is not worth relying on the Companies Act guidance, because there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to follow that guidance. The Premier League rulebook requirements about acquisition of control are significantly narrower in scope than this Bill. In fact, I could find no example of any legislation regarding any sport anywhere in the world that is so intrusive as to have the phrase “significant influence over”, as a criterion for ownership.
Without any doubt, the Crown Prince is an owner in the context of the Bill, an owner who exercises influence over the activities of the club as defined in proposed statute and regulation. I understand that, since December, it has been made clear to the Government that any proposal to put the Crown Prince through the detailed due diligence would be resisted. After all, it does not exist in any other sport worldwide, so it would be the first time any country had legislated to that extent for the ownership of a professional club. It would potentially lead to the PIF revising its proposals for a substantial investment in the Newcastle area, or so that is said in the world of sport. I hope that the Minister can dispel that rumour and confirm that nothing of the sort has been said to anyone in Number 10 or DCMS. It would also help the House to know, if the Saudi Crown Prince is to be excluded, whether all state entities are to be excluded from the influence test.
This is the most far-reaching direct political intervention in the running of any sport in the history of this country —a country which once gave the world rules and regulations for sport to be universal, autonomous and self-regulating, in the context of the discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is a historic irony that it should now be our Government to be the first Government to take control of sport. Existing Premier League ownership tests are already onerous, as they should be. The influence test only creates uncertainty, militates against growth and has the potential to be deeply damaging to English football without generating any benefit. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my substantial Amendment 45, together with the consequential Amendments 42, 43 and 44. I have followed the Bill closely from the stand—it has been televised on every occasion it has been debated.
My amendment seeks to delete the unnecessary and counterproductive Clause 27, which is prematurely engaged at the very earliest stages of a potential sale and purchase agreement between the seller of a football club and perhaps a number of purchasers. By deleting Clause 27, notification will be engaged only once the parties have reached a conditional agreement and heads of terms and a single preferred bidder has emerged. At that point, Clause 28 would be engaged as in the Bill.
Football is a game of dreams, and some dream so hard that they want to own their own club. In a small way, I am one of those people. Back in 1932, my grandfather was an Olympic athlete, and he was known as Flying Fuller. Back then, he answered a small advertisement in the Eastern Daily Press and acquired 250 shares in the Norwich City Football Club. When he passed away 40 years ago, I inherited those shares. I have enjoyed attending the annual general meetings and generally being a keen observer of how the business of football operates ever since.
From that 40-year perspective, I can tell noble Lords how clubs change hands, and it is not how the Bill contemplates. The Bill anticipates that, at some point, someone dreams big and they need to submit themselves to the IFR so that an army of Rachels can measure them up for the sheepskin coat, which is the particular uniform that owners of football clubs tend to wear. Forget for a moment that time might be of the essence, that they might be subject to an HMRC winding-up order or that there might be other cash flow issues; even before the seller can open the books, the purchaser needs to have been vetted by a civil servant.
How have we come to this place? This is not how deals work. Unless the books are opened, how could the purchaser even know whether the deal was feasible? Then, unless the purchaser was qualified, the seller could not open those books for fear that person was a charlatan. Noble Lords can see the jeopardy here.
Quite simply, the new law, and Clause 27 in particular, would prevent buyer and seller being put together. This Bill purports to stop clubs going bust, but the actions of the Bill would ensure that they did.
As I look back and reflect on the ownership of our club in Norwich, during my small slice of ownership, I recall how Norwich City Football Club was owned by Robert Chase, a local builder. When the wind blew out of his sails, it needed somebody with deeper pockets to take over, but nobody came forward. By and by, a man called Geoffrey Watling, who owned a local taxi firm, came forward to act as midwife, and he held that club while he hawked it around. Here was a modest man with a deep interest in the community. He understood what the role of the football club can and should be, and he put himself in harm’s way when nobody else would step up to the plate. All Norwich fans thank him for what he did. The main stand, even today, is named for him. Eventually, Delia Smith, the famous TV chef, together with her husband Michael Wynn-Jones, acquired the shares of the club in a story that was beautifully told in the Times about three weeks ago. It must have been a very expensive taxi ride for them both, and no two people could have done more to act in the public interest and save our club.
Last week the club entered a new phase with a new owner, Mark Attanasio, taking a leading role. We hope he can bring us to past glories. By all accounts, he is a worthy custodian of our club. I would rather have Delia’s blessing than Rachel’s.
The purpose of telling these tales is that had there been a regulator operating under Clause 27, Robert Chase would have thrown in the towel long before he did. Kind-hearted Geoffrey Watling would not have been allowed to step in as midwife, because he would have failed Clause 37(4). He only owned a taxi company; he had no qualifications. You would have to question why a husband and wife team from Suffolk would put themselves in harm’s way to own Norwich City Football Club in Norfolk, similarly failing Clause 37(4), because being a cook is not necessarily the requisite qualification for club ownership. Put simply, as a result of Clause 27, our club would have folded; it would have prevented these deals before they even started. With the best of intentions, Labour is creating a doom loop for clubs in trouble—a vortex from which few will be able to escape. The consequence of Clause 27 is to condemn a club in trouble to extinction.
My amendments would not prevent the IFR eventually certifying someone under Clause 28, but it would stop the snuffing out of hope at Clause 27. Of course, it is regrettable that only faceless bureaucrats can allow you to don the sheepskin coat in the first place. In my view, the regulator should not be allowed at this early stage to prevent clubs doing different and taking those calculated risks—the rolling of the dice.
Football is not just embellished by the great players—the Beckhams and the Ronaldos. It is decorated by the local characters, people like the Roberts, the Geoffreys, the Delias and the Michaels. We should be encouraging them to dream. Labour is at risk of turning our national game into the dull men’s club—a system where local people are prematurely discouraged from standing up for their communities, and big business and remote shareholders with fat lawyers are preferred. This is in direct conflict with the two key outcomes set out in Clause 1, where the economic and social well-being of local communities are key objectives.
I was with Delia on that infamous “Let’s be ‘avin’ you” rant 20 years and two weeks ago. It passed into our legend and our lexicon. It is part of the colour of the game and our nation, yet this is exactly the sort of thing that will be lost if we do not attract and cherish the community-minded people. For the sake of anyone who loves our game, do not make it even harder than it is to get to the start line. Let us abandon Clause 27 and just rely on Clause 28, at which point the deal’s certainty is greater.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I return to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, seeking to leave out “influence or”. There are in fact two references to “influence” in Clause 3. Clause 3(2)(b)—the one that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, focuses on—mentions
“a higher degree of influence”,
and Clause 3(2)(c) mentions “a degree of influence”. Is there any assistance in the Bill as to what is meant by either of those concepts? They seem very vague indeed to me.
In paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 1, on page 83, there is an obligation on the Secretary of State—the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to this—to
“prepare and publish guidance about the meaning of significant influence”,
but that is a different matter. Significant influence is plainly distinct from
“a higher degree of influence”
or “a degree of influence”. I am not suggesting that the Minister provides guidance now, but it may be a matter that can be addressed when the Bill goes to the other place. There really needs to be some assistance provided to the regulator and others as to what these vague concepts mean.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, we are on the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on the degree. Naturally, the removal of
“a higher degree of influence”
seems to be watering down the regulatory powers of the regulator. That is a very dangerous road to go down. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that. If Amendment 7 were pushed to a vote, we would not support it.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan for the forensic way he set out the case for his Amendment 7. The example with which he illustrated it—one he has used throughout the passage of this Bill—is certainly one that captured my attention, coming from Whitley Bay. It is causing some concern across Tyneside and among Newcastle United’s many fans across the world. I would be failing in my Geordie duty if I did not take this opportunity to wish the team the best of luck for the Carabao Cup this weekend.
I understand that the Minister cannot speak for a regulator that is to be independent and that does not yet exist, but I hope she will be able to say a bit about the implications of the Bill, such as the one that my noble friend Lord Moynihan set out. It clearly has some very serious consequences, not just for Newcastle in the example he has given but potentially for other teams in the future. I look forward to hearing what she says.
I want to say a little about my two amendments in this group, Amendments 46 and 47. As we said in Committee, among the many changes the Government have made to the Bill, compared with the Bill that the previous Government brought forward in the previous Parliament, was one we understand the case for. In the earlier version of the Bill, there was a provision stating that the regulator must have regard to the Government’s foreign and trade policy when making determinations for the owners’ test. This is an example of a concern that UEFA raised. That has been reported publicly, and the Government were very clear when they made the change to the Bill now before us that it was in response to concerns by UEFA that this undermined the independence of the regulator and that if it was to have regard to the Government’s foreign or trade policy, it would be too close to the Government’s view, in the eyes of UEFA.
I can understand the rationale for making that change, but in Committee I expressed some concerns about the unintended consequences of that and the potential loopholes. I gave the example that if there were to be two potential foreign owners of a club, one from a friendly nation and one from a nation with which this country does not enjoy friendly relations—we can all think of some examples that would spring readily to mind in the troubled world we face today—we would all be clear on which way we would like to see the independent regulator come down, even if the Government are not able to direct it, or if it is not able to have regard to the Government’s foreign policy.
My Amendment 46 would insert a provision highlighting
“whether the individual is reasonably believed to be, or have been, involved in terrorism related activity”.
I am sure that noble Lords would not want such a person to be an owner or director of one of our prominent football teams.
Amendment 47 sets out a number of agencies—the National Crime Agency, the Security Service, the Serious Fraud Office and others—that the new regulator may consult in carrying out its test. I have watered down my amendment from Committee to say “may consult”, not “must consult”, in the hope that this will find some greater support from the Government. I understand the reasons for the change that they have made to the Bill, but I do hope that the noble Baroness will be able to look at these ways in which we might be able to tighten up the potential for a loophole, so that we can avoid seeing the sorts of people that none of us want to see taking control of English football clubs.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson, Lord Moynihan and Lord Fuller, for tabling their amendments, as it provides me with the opportunity to restate the Government’s position on these points and provide some clarification. I join the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in wishing Newcastle good luck in their forthcoming match. We can agree on some things in your Lordships’ House.
I start with Amendments 7 and 28, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Before I go into a bit more detail, I would like to clarify whether incumbent owners or officers could be tested. Indeed, they can be tested. The regulator can test incumbent owners or officers where it has grounds for concern about their fitness or, for owners only, the source of their wealth—but, I repeat, only where there are grounds for concern. It is vital that we have a strong definition of an ultimate owner in order to give transparency to fans and hold owners to account. The Government are intent on providing the regulator with the tools to identify the ultimate owner as accurately as possible.
On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, point on precedent, this is why the Bill’s drafting takes its lead from the precedent of other Acts using “influence or control”, including the Companies Act’s “persons with significant control” regime, and the economic crime Act’s “beneficial owners” regime. We are confident that we have the correct definition to achieve the Bill’s aim. It ensures that an individual who exerts significant influence over a club, more than that of any other owner, can still be identified as the ultimate owner even if they do not have formal legal control. In fact, without this definition, ultimate owners could circumvent regulation. It is fundamental that clubs have suitable custodians in order to secure the future of clubs and, most importantly, to protect the game that fans hold so dear. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord can understand the importance of the definition.
I turn now to Amendment 28. As I outlined in Committee, I agree that it is important that the industry has certainty as to what the regulator will consider significant influence by owners. That is why the Secretary of State’s guidance will be produced in good time in order to give this clarity. I want to make it clear that the Bill’s provisions that define “owner” in Clause 3 and Schedule 1 come into force on the day the Bill becomes an Act. That means that the obligation for the Secretary of State to produce this guidance comes into force on that day.
We have taken on board the valuable points the noble Lord raised in Committee. After looking at this again in detail, we stand by our position that the intent of this amendment is met without needing to change the Bill. We do agree that, before guidance is produced, clubs should not be expected to identify those who meet the definition of an owner by exercising significant influence or control. I would therefore like to provide greater reassurance that the scenario the noble Lord is concerned about should not be an issue. I can commit that the Secretary of State’s guidance will be produced before clubs are required to identify their owners who meet the definition of having significant influence or control to the regulator.
In response to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on why we have not defined “significant influence and control” on the face of the Bill and are putting it in guidance instead, this approach is based on precedent. As I mentioned, the Companies Act also sets out the definition of “significant influence or control” in guidance rather than legislation. The Secretary of State’s guidance will give clarity to owners about who meets the definition.
Turning now to Amendments 42, 43, 44 and 45 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I think it was a bit cheeky and that one should take a slight exception to the notion that Delia Smith is just a cook. I would argue that she is, through her professional career, arguably also a highly successful businesswoman. Leaving that point aside, however, the requirement to notify is there for a reason. Keeping unsuitable owners and officers out is a core part of the regulator’s regime. We want the regulator to block these individuals from entering the system, and not to have difficult, costly battles to remove them after the fact. So it needs to know who a club’s respective new owners and officers are before they buy or join the club. Put simply, the regulator needs to be able to gather the information that it needs to test them and work with them and the club to ensure that they submit a proper application in good time. It will help the regulator prepare to act quickly when it receives the application.
Clause 27 plays another important function. If a person has, for whatever reason, become an owner or officer of a club without the regulator first having found them suitable, they still have to notify the regulator as soon as possible after the event. Without this provision, there could be untested, unsuitable individuals in the system that the regulator was unaware of.
I move now to Amendment 46, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham. We agree that it would not be right for money related to terrorism to find its way into our clubs. The Bill, as already drafted, already stops that through its provisions on serious criminal conduct. Serious criminal conduct includes offences listed in Section 41 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. That is an extensive list of terrorism-related offences, ranging, to name a few, from membership of a banned organisation to encouraging terrorism to offences related to funding terrorism. Serious criminal conduct, including these terrorism offences, is considered under the ODT “source of wealth” and “honesty and integrity” tests. The club licensing regime lets the regulator block funding that is connected to serious criminal conduct. That is why we are confident that the Bill appropriately and thoroughly deals with terrorism-related activities.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 47, also in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham. I am pleased to have another opportunity to highlight the information-sharing agreements that the regulator can and will use to its advantage. I absolutely agree that the regulator may need to work closely with other organisations and stakeholders when exercising its wider functions. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the discussions we have had on this point.
The Bill establishes a gateway for the regulator to share information with a range of organisations, including HMRC, the National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office. It also creates a specific gateway for HMRC to share information with the regulator and empowers the Secretary of State to create other such gateways by regulations, as needed. The regulator may already consult whoever it needs to in order to make robust decisions. The regulator will seek information and expertise from relevant organisations to help it to stay live to both national and international concerns. The shadow regulator is already building a strong relationship with the NCA and law enforcement to ensure that the regulator is in a strong position to gather and receive the information it needs. We are confident that the Bill adequately empowers the regulator to gather such information. For the reasons I have set out, I would be grateful if the noble Lord could withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I turn first to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and his comment that by accepting this amendment, we would be watering down the regulation. On the contrary, if you look at the regulatory requirements of FIFA and UEFA, the FA, the Premier League or any of the other national governing bodies in football in Europe—which I have done—it is not a matter of watering down. This makes a much more intrusive additional layer of regulation which does not exist in any of the other countries. I simply put it to the noble Lord that there must be a reason for that. There is a good reason why, to the detailed regulation which exists in FIFA, UEFA, the FA and the Premier League, it is unnecessary to add this additional layer.
My noble friend Lord Parkinson on the Front Bench mentioned the exchange that took place over the clause having regard to foreign and trade policy objectives of the Government. It was a classic example of when UEFA said “Jump” and the British Government’s position was “How high?” I fear that if you take the FA out of the equation, which has happened now, we will see far more work for lawyers in the future than the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, anticipates. His point, however, on this amendment was perceptive and accurate. If the legislation is not changed this evening, it is incumbent on the Secretary of State at a future opportunity to make it absolutely clear in his consideration, which he will undertake, to make sure that there is clarity on that.
As far the Companies Act is concerned, I simply say to the House that there is no requirement whatever for the Secretary of State to take it into consideration when opining on this subject. If there is, it should be written into the Bill. Once again, as I have mentioned before, there are 31 different areas where we are going to wait to hear the detail of the competitions, the clubs and exactly what “influence” means—this is all for the future. This is in many respects a shell Bill, but using “influence” over has the impact that I have mentioned in the example of Newcastle, and I am very concerned about it.
I ask the Minister to write to me if she would, because I appreciate that she will not have had time to respond to the concerns that have been expressed with regard to the owners of Newcastle, not just with regard to the club, but to the response to this Bill when enacted in their investment in the Newcastle area, over and beyond their financing of the club. As I understand it, those rumours that are circulating are well grounded, but the Minister will no doubt be able to tell me. This is meant to be a growth Bill: all regulators are meant to grow the businesses that they regulate, but I fear that this will have exactly the opposite effect, and I think Newcastle may be on the receiving end of that. If we do not change the Bill to remove the “influence” over as a key criterion of control, we will have made an error, and for that reason I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Maude of Horsham
“3A “(1) The Secretary of State is to nominate a person (“the nominated person”) to be the chair.(2) The nominated person must appear before a relevant Parliamentary Committee if invited to do so.(3) The Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of the nominated person unless the relevant Parliamentary Committee has held a confirmatory vote if the Committee wishes to do so.(4) Where the relevant Parliamentary Committee has expressed a negative opinion on the appointment of the nominated person, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of the nominated person.(5) Where the relevant Parliamentary Committee has expressed a positive opinion on the appointment of the nominated person, the Secretary of State may proceed with the appointment of the nominated person.(6) A relevant Parliamentary Committee is any Committee of the House of Commons, or House of Lords, or of both Houses, which has notified the Secretary of State, in writing, that they have assumed the function of scrutiny of football regulation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the chair may undergo pre-appointment scrutiny and be approved by a select committee of Parliament.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 8 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe. I do not need to detain your Lordships for long on this.
The amendment puts into the Bill what the Minister has already committed to in her letter to my noble friend Lord Moynihan on 13 January, in which she said that the chair of the independent football regulator will be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the DCMS Select Committee. We welcome that commitment. It is a good commitment. Of course, her word is her bond. But her word is not necessarily the bond of future Ministers, and it is important that this commitment is in the Bill. It is very hard to see why there could be any objection to that.
I am not wedded to the wording of the amendment. If the Minister is inclined to say that she will bring back at Third Reading an improved version which gives effect in substance to what is contained in my amendment, I will be content not to press this amendment to a Division.
However, it is important to reflect on why it matters that this appointment, which will happen if this all goes through, will happen on a regular basis. New chairs will be appointed. The nature of the debates that we have been having in your Lordships’ Chamber today illustrates how important it is. It remains the case that what is being introduced for the first time is a regulator of a sport which includes the most successful sporting league in the world of any kind. English football is a huge success. We take risks with its success at our peril but also at the political peril of the Government of the day, who, if things go wrong, will rightly be blamed for setting this up in a way that has created that peril.
I know from my own experience that subjecting the chair of an important public appointment to scrutiny by a Select Committee can be hazardous. I remember an appointment that I made as a Minister was subjected to that scrutiny. The candidate whom we had selected did not measure up under the examination of the Select Committee. We had to re-run the process. That candidate had not shown themselves to be across the issues and the sensitivities, and that was an appointment which required strength and the ability to stand up to the Government and resist the blandishments of the Government, whoever the Government were—and it was the Government that I was a member of. The Select Committee was right. So it is important, given how the actions of this regulator can damage something which is important economically for the country but also very dear to the hearts of billions of people across the world. It gives pleasure and, periodically, as we all know, pain, to many of us. It is very important that the person carrying these awesome responsibilities is fully tested before they take up their role.
While we welcome the commitment that the Minister has made, that this appointment will be subject to scrutiny by the relevant Select Committee, I urge the House to support the idea that this commitment should be in the Bill, for other Ministers in the future who may not have the same good intentions that she has. Therefore, I urge the House to support this amendment, unless she is willing to commit that she will come back at Third Reading with something giving substantive effect to what this amendment would introduce. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, to respond briefly to the noble Lord’s comments, I quite understand where he is coming from in ensuring a proper and effective process in securing good-quality public appointments. His reflections on his experience were very interesting.
However, this amendment possibly goes a bit too far. I am not sure the noble Lord would have approved of giving Parliament the effective veto that his amendment, looking at the detail, clearly does. I am sure my noble friend the Minister has made an offer in good faith to ensure that there can be pre-appointment scrutiny of the post of chair of the regulator. I hear what the noble Lord says but, tempting though it is, it would lead us down a path which is not common in our jurisdiction. I know that in the States, there are public appointment processes in which, effectively, Congress can veto an appointment, but I do not think that is the road that we want to go down.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
Of course, it is right that it is usual for an adverse vote in a Select Committee where there is pre-appointment scrutiny to be only advisory. I cannot remember, but there may even have been an example of a Government ignoring that, and it has not been binding. If the Government want to come back with an alternative version which reflects the comments the noble Lord is making, I would be willing to withdraw the amendment in favour of that. But the reality, of course, is that whether in the Bill it is a binding vote of the Select Committee or an advisory vote, the effect is pretty much the same.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Paragraph (4) of the noble Lord’s amendment says the following:
“Where the relevant Parliamentary Committee has expressed a negative opinion on the appointment of the nominated person, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of the nominated person”.
According to my interpretation, that is clearly a veto. I am sure the Minister will reflect on the noble Lord’s words.
The other amendments in the group which the Minister has tabled today, and which my noble friend Lady Taylor and I have signed up to, are pretty straightforward and I am sure the House will support them. They simply make sure that there is a proper process to ensure declaration and registration of members of the regulatory board and the expert panel, and I commend the Minister for bringing those forward.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, in the debate on the sunset clause in Committee, it was evident that the Committee felt strongly that there should be greater post-legislative scrutiny. The Committee was clearly agreed on the end, if not necessarily the means. I am glad that since that was moved, the Minister has tabled amendments which are extremely helpful in that regard. I ask her, in that spirit of helpfulness, to respond to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham and me. Its effect is certainly capable of being interpreted in the way the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has just described. It may be that the Minister has some alternative to offer at Third Reading, as my noble friend suggested, and we await with interest what she has to say.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Maude, but I just want to describe my experience. In 2009, I went before the Health Select Committee as a candidate for appointment to the chair of the Food Standards Agency. The record will show that the vast majority of questions I was asked were to do with my previous role as the Housing and Regeneration Minister, working for Lord Prescott. Three of the Members I was facing lived in areas where they did not want any development, which I had approved. They were not at all interested in the appointment that I was up for and being scrutinised on, and they went back to the past, so we have to be careful about that.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham, and I have to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Given that, to be fair, noble Lords on both sides of the House have consistently advocated proper scrutiny and oversight of this new regulator, which, after all, has unprecedented sweeping powers, it is appropriate and reasonable for us to seek to test the personal manifesto, vision and leadership of someone who assumes the chairmanship.
We are told that there are some interesting names in the frame: Sanjay Bhandari, for instance, the Kick It Out chairman, has been mooted as a potential leader of the new regulator. Whether that happens is another issue, but the Minister will know that the civil service public appointments process can sometimes be criticised for its secretiveness: it is not that transparent until right at the end, when the basket of appointables is placed in front of the Minister. With that in mind, the case for opportunities for new candidates to put their arguments to parliamentarians for pre-legislative scrutiny is quite compelling.
Having served for four years on the Public Accounts Committee in the other place, I know from experience that, yes, it was make or break. Senior civil servants and Permanent Secretaries did sometimes drop a clanger at those meetings; equally, they often rose to the occasion. There was inherent value in them having the opportunity to put their case.
Finally, there is a precedent. Senior appointments to the Financial Conduct Authority routinely go before the Treasury Select Committee, and there are other Committees that interrogate the candidates put forward. Just because it has not been done before does not mean it should not be tried on this occasion, given that we have a brand-new body with wide-ranging powers.
I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on this amendment, which does not undermine the Bill. Even though I am very much a Football Governance Bill sceptic, I know it is going to happen, so I want to improve it. Irrespective of party affiliation, we will improve it by testing the mettle of candidates for senior leadership roles. For those reasons, I implore the Minister to look at this amendment benignly and perhaps support it, if not tonight, certainly in the form of a new amendment along these lines at Third Reading.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, as the debate has progressed, I have become a little more concerned about this. There is clearly the idea that this independent body is going to be a political football—pardon the pun—kicked around at the beginning, in the form of the question of who is acceptable. We have to trust independence a little more, I am afraid. None of us will be happy with everybody all the time, but I think we have to have it.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s Amendment 10 and to support the other amendments in this group. Our amendment is quite modest and uncontroversial, in that we seek to limit the number of individuals appointed to the expert panel to 20. I think we would all agree that 20 is actually quite a large number. It is the figure that was in the Conservative version of the Bill, which for some reason the Government removed. I must be honest, 20 sounds like a lot to me, so to enable that figure to be higher probably leaves us open to jokes such as, “How many regulators does it take to change a light bulb?” Twenty will definitely do it, and I hope the Government will be happy to bear that in mind. There is a serious point here. We talk about wanting a light touch and to remove red tape, but a body of more than 20 would definitely be unwieldy.
I support the amendments tabled by the Minister and others. I welcome transparency being at the heart of the regulator’s work, and it is entirely correct that any potential conflicts should be openly declared.
Finally, there is a consensus that Amendment 8 from my noble friend Lord Maude is a sensible move. As my noble friend said, we are perfectly happy to accept the assurances the Minister gave about subsequent chairs. She is happy for this to happen for the first chair, so the precedent has been set. I therefore hope that it is not a big ask that some assurances are made for future ones, and that there is flexibility in respect of the format.
I will also take the opportunity, given that there has been quite a bit of press speculation, to ask whether there is any update on the timing for announcing the potential candidates and when we might see them in place.
I hope the Minister will either accept this amendment or give an undertaking for Third Reading. If not, my noble friend will have our full support if he wishes to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
It was slightly disingenuous of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, when we are talking about pre-scrutiny of approval, to name a proposed candidate when, apparently, there are two proposed candidates. If he knows the other candidate, perhaps it might be helpful if he named him or her as well.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I was merely reporting what had been published on Sky News, and I think thousands of football fans would have considered it. I hope to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, that no disingenuousness was intended.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their amendments. On Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Maude, I understand the desire for the scrutiny of the appointment of the regulator’s chair and I am grateful for the thoughtful speech he made outlining the reasons behind the amendment. Getting the chair right, both now and in the future, will be pivotal for the success of the new regulator. I will not go into names or press speculation. I understand that progress is being made on the appointment. I am not involved in that, so I will not comment further.
The chair, as the public leader of the regulator, must be a competent and strong individual, free from any vested interests. I assure noble Lords from across the House that the existing public appointments process is robust, run in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments, and one that Parliament can and should have faith in.
As per Cabinet Office guidance, parliamentary Select Committees can already carry out pre-appointment scrutiny hearings and offer their views to the Secretary of State. The chair of the regulator is subject to that scrutiny. The Secretary of State will, of course, weigh any committee’s views carefully, as the Cabinet Office guidance already sets out; this will be the case for the future.
However, the Governance Code on Public Appointments sets out that Ministers have the ultimate responsibility for appointment decisions for which they are accountable to Parliament. It is not common for Parliament to hold a statutory right of veto over such public appointments and we cannot see a reason to set that precedent with this regulator. In response to my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, our view is that this amendment would represent a veto.
Amendment 10, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, seeks to place a cap on the number of members of the regulator’s expert panel. The regulator’s independent expert panel will play a vital role in making various important decisions across the regulator’s regime, when and where it is appropriate. It is essential that the panel has a range of relevant expertise and experience to reflect the diversity and complexity of decisions that may come before it.
The number of members of the expert panel is to be determined by the chief executive officer in response to the operational need. The Government do not want to fetter the effectiveness of the expert panel by introducing a cap on the maximum number of members of the panel as this amendment seeks to do, however sensible that level may appear to noble Lords. The regulator needs the flexibility to react in the event of high workload for the panel. The regulator will be required to deliver value for money and has a regulatory principle underpinning this. We do not believe that the CEO would appoint and maintain an unnecessarily bloated panel.
Finally, I turn to government Amendments 9 and 11. In Committee, my noble friends Lady Taylor of Bolton and Lord Bassam of Brighton, among others, emphasised the real importance of protecting the regulator from conflicts of interest. The Government are in complete agreement that the independence of the regulator must be protected, including against vested interests. Although the Bill already makes provision for managing such conflicts of interest, we have tabled government amendments to strengthen these protections even further and beyond any doubt.
The amendments require the regulator to establish and maintain a system whereby the members of the regulator’s board and its expert panel must declare their relevant interests, and a record of these interests must be kept and maintained. This will ensure that all board and expert panel members declare relevant interests from the outset of their appointment and on an ongoing basis. This is good practice not only for transparency but to help the regulator manage any conflicts and to insulate its decisions from potential vested or competing interests.
I hope that those reasons have reassured your Lordships’ House and that noble Lords will not press their amendments. I will move government Amendments 9 and 11 in due course.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. On the comments made at the outset by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I am open-minded about whether the Bill should contain what is effectively a veto or whether it should accord with the more usual practice. As I said, if the Minister were to give an undertaking that she would come back with an amendment framed in those terms at Third Reading, I would be willing not to press this amendment to a Division, but I have not heard that commitment from her, which is a disappointment.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who is obviously scarred by his personal experience. I simply remind him that hard cases make bad law, and his sounds like a particularly hard case, for which he has my sympathy.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, seemed to be recommending—arguing, really—that there should be no pre-appointment scrutiny at all, let alone whether it should be in the Bill. Therefore, he is presumably urging the Minister to withdraw the commitment she has made that there should be pre-appointment scrutiny. On the substantive point he made in arguing that scrutiny would turn the regulator into a political football, the reverse is actually the case. It is important that the regulator should be genuinely independent, and my experience of observing these scrutiny procedures is that Select Committees are particularly concerned to test the capability of the nominee to exercise genuine, robust independence. Rather than turning the nominee into someone who is overly influenced by the scrutiny, it is to test whether they are capable of withstanding it. That is the consideration.
I am grateful for all contributions, but in the absence of the quite modest commitment I have requested the Minister to make, I want to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 8.
Baroness Twycross
“Declaration and registration of interests of members of the Board
6A (1) The IFR must establish and maintain a system for the declaration and registration of relevant interests of members of the Board.(2) In this paragraph “relevant interest”, in relation to a member of the Board, means a financial or other interest that may be relevant to the IFR’s exercise of its functions under this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the IFR to establish and maintain a system for the declaration and registration of relevant interests of members of the Board.
Baroness Twycross
“Declaration and registration of interests of members of the Expert Panel
23A (1) The IFR must establish and maintain a system for the declaration and registration of relevant interests of members of the Expert Panel.(2) In this paragraph “relevant interest”, in relation to a member of the Expert Panel, means a financial or other interest that may be relevant to the IFR’s exercise of its functions under this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the IFR to establish and maintain a system for the declaration and registration of relevant interests of members of the Expert Panel.
“(d) to monitor and promote the reduction of English football’s climate and environmental impacts (referred to in this Act as “the environmental objective”).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add climate and environment impact reduction to the IFR’s objectives.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will not move Amendment 12 but I will speak to Amendment 13. Is that all right?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
You would need to say “not moved” to Amendment 12, but if you speak to it now you can then move it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Thank you very much.
Amendment 13 is quite an important amendment for me, because a noble Lord challenged me earlier, saying, “Surely you’re not going to bother to push this to a vote; otherwise, it could be in every Bill”. Well, yes, of course: as a Green, I would like an awareness of the Climate Change Act to be inherent in every Bill. Unfortunately, it is not at the moment. That is why this amendment is so important.
I am a football fan. Despite being a Green and despite all its flaws, I absolutely love football. I am well aware of the power that football clubs have over their fan base and their sphere of influence into wider society. We all know now that we have to limit our impact on the planet, that we need to use less plastic and that everything can be polluted by plastic—our own lungs, the sea, absolutely everything. Some clubs are trying very hard, but many, many fail.
Amendment 13 tries in particular to acknowledge the link between environmental and financial sustainability and the urgent need for the games regulator to be empowered to drive greener practices. The idea that the independent football regulator’s remit should include consideration for environmental sustainability is backed by Pledgeball and fellow sport and sustainability organisations Sports for Climate Action and Nature at Loughborough University, the Cool Down Sport for Climate Action Network, and the Football and Climate Change Newsletter.
In 2021, in response to a number of high-profile crises that had arisen in the sport, there was the fan-led review, which has been discussed already, chaired by the former Sports Minister, Tracey Crouch. Many of the review’s 10 findings focused on financial stability at the clubs, fan input, equality, inclusion, diversity and welfare, but it is also crucial that a focus on environmental standards and sustainability is part of the regulator’s remit.
In Committee, Ministers resisted amendments about environmental sustainability on the basis that such measures would put a burden and cost on the regulator and on the clubs. Ministers also argued that voluntary sustainability efforts by clubs and leagues were, and would continue to be, sufficient. However, although some clubs are doing commendable work in this area, progress is inconsistent, erratic and lacks enforcement. Without regulation, football will have fragmented, inadequate responses to climate threats.
It has been predicted that, at the current rate of climate change, one in five English clubs could be at high or very high risk of flooding by 2050. The average grass-roots pitch already loses around five weeks of play every season due to adverse weather. Approximately 120,000 fixtures are called off each year due to unplayable conditions of various kinds.
Additionally, government policy already links financial stability to climate risk. The Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee is required to consider climate risks in its financial stability assessments. Defra has also asked several major UK regulators, including Ofcom, to submit a report on how climate risks are affecting the sector. Football should be no different.
My Amendment 13 would ensure that clubs comply with the Climate Change Act 2008 to secure the long-term environmental sustainability of English football. I simply feel that this is too important to leave, so I will move it later.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 25 seeks to address a key issue: how the new regulator will operate in practice and the transparency with which it will exercise its powers. But first, I welcome the Government’s decision to adjust the frequency of the Secretary of State’s statement on football governance from every three years to every five. This sensible change now aligns the timing of various key processes across the Bill, ensuring consistency, clarity and practical efficiency. I thank the Minister for listening to the points raised in Committee and responding positively with her amendment.
On guidance and consultation and my amendment, the Bill currently requires guidance only for discretionary licence conditions, leaving many critical regulatory functions without similar obligations. I want to briefly highlight three key areas where greater clarity is essential and guidance should, in my view, be mandatory.
First, financial sustainability is the regulator’s primary purpose, yet there is no obligation for the regulator to define how it will assess soundness or resilience through guidance. Clubs making long-term investment decisions deserve clarity on how these will be evaluated. Can the Minister please confirm that the regulator will define these incredibly important terms, which influence the overall approach the regulator takes and therefore what regulated parties should expect, in the “state of the game” report?
Secondly, the owners’ and directors’ test—vital for responsible investment—lacks detail in the legislation itself. Without requirements to consult clubs and existing and potential investors on its design, we risk creating unnecessary uncertainty. There is a requirement to consult on the definition of “significant influence or control” within the ownership rules, but no consultation requirements for the test itself.
Thirdly, the backstop power over financial distributions could fundamentally alter football’s economics, yet the regulator need not explain its approach or methodology ahead of a determination. For a mechanism with such profound implications, this seems to represent an obvious gap in procedural and legal safeguards. This uncertainty around guidance could create practical problems. The Premier League’s broadcast deal runs to 2030. Clubs like mine are making infrastructure decisions spanning similar timeframes or even longer.
How can responsible planning occur without regulatory clarity? Surely mandatory guidance across a whole range of areas in this Bill would be conducive to generating greater clarity and regulatory certainty. These amendments would require the regulator to provide guidance across all functions and to consult appropriately. I am not seeking to constrain the regulator’s authority, just to ensure that powers are exercised transparently and coherently. If, as the Minister assures us, this will be a collaborative regulator, I ask her to commit to embedding that principle more comprehensively in the legislation itself.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 13, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for tabling this significant addition to the Bill.
Our national game has a vital role to play in support of the Government’s commitment to reach net zero by 2050, not least because there is a vital connection between the long-term financial sustainability of English football and its long-term environmental sustainability. We know that climate change impacts sport; we therefore need to equip clubs, especially those in the lower leagues, to mitigate the vagaries of extreme weather, whether in the form of droughts or torrential rain. Incorporating a duty to monitor and reduce the climate impacts of English football would only enhance its value to our nation and local communities.
Football clubs have a history of social, cultural and even moral leadership. I celebrate the example of Kick It Out, a campaign established in 1993, under the name Let’s Kick Racism Out of Football, to raise awareness and tackle all forms of discrimination in sport. Given this precedent, I invite noble Lords to imagine the difference it would make in South Yorkshire if Barnsley, Doncaster Rovers, Rotherham United, Sheffield United and Sheffield Wednesday football clubs together led the way in our region to a more climate-friendly future.
Why should English football not be on the front foot, rather than on the back foot, in the journey to net zero? I am tempted to call it an open goal. I commend the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, we had a useful debate in Committee on environmental amendments. I was one of those promoting them, but I was much reassured by the Minister’s comments that they were not necessary. I support those comments. This is where I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones: if, with a bit of research, she looks at the workings of all the other regulators, even the FCA and so on, she will find that all of them publish a commitment to sustainability and acknowledge the role and responsibility they have for ensuring that we meet net-zero targets. These amendments, well-intentioned though they are, do not need to be in the Bill. They are not necessary.
It would be better if we focused on what clubs are currently doing. My own club, Brighton & Hove Albion, has a sustainable transport policy, and most football clubs now commit to such policies. I think we get most of our fans to the grounds by some form of public transport—I am told that it is about 50% or 60%—and most clubs would recognise that as an agreeable target. Legislation is not required to do that; what is required is close working with the local authority and the transport undertakers.
While there is a good intention behind this proposal, I do not think we need to have it in the Bill. Most regulators already subscribe to statements on sustainable practices. While the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield made a good point, clubs are already working hard in this area to promote good environmental practice. Although these amendments are well intentioned, I believe that they are unnecessary, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will not push them.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 27—not as a learned lawyer, like the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is in his place; not as a former Sports Minister with immense understanding, like the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan; and not as a senior and experienced administrator of a huge club, like the noble Baroness, Lady Brady—but as a humble fan. I have not spoken much on the Bill, but when I have, I have spoken as a lifelong football fan who pays regularly to watch my beloved club, Tottenham Hotspur, for better or worse. I very much sense, feel and hear the varied opinions of fans on the independent football regulator, reflecting a mix of hope, scepticism and concern.
I acknowledge that there is some enthusiasm on the terraces, but it is tempered by doubts about the regulator’s scope and power. Some fans are worried that it will not address their immediate concerns, such as the rising ticket prices, the loss of cup replays or clubs prioritising lucrative overseas pre-season tours over local engagement. Posts on X suggest scepticism about whether the independent football regulator can truly challenge the entrenched power of the Premier League’s wealthy owners. As one user noted:
“It can’t force clubs to lower ticket prices”.
Others fear that it may impose bureaucratic burdens without delivering meaningful change, potentially even threatening the competitiveness of English football. Fans can be quite astute in their analysis and hopes for what a regulator was intended to do, as they now meet the harsh reality of what a regulator might actually do.
This comes at a time when some clubs—dare I use the example of English football’s biggest commercial club, Manchester United—face demonstrations from their fans demanding change. Fans are themselves motivated by a myriad of reasons, and much of their ire has to do with the performance of their team on the pitch. However, one of the issues at the heart of the Manchester United fans’ fury is ticket prices. That was why a specific fan demonstration was organised—following the raising of ticket prices to £66 and the removal of some concessions in December last year—and the issue continues to rumble on. In February, the Fulham Supporters’ Trust described the decision to sell adult away tickets for the Old Trafford cup tie at between £51 and £61 as “callous”, with away tickets capped at £30 for Premier League matches.
I do not want to be accused of picking on Manchester United, especially as it is having as poor a season as my own club, where the natives are also extremely restless, as the noble Lord, Lord Maude, knows. Again, that is for many footballing reasons, but also because of the restriction on ticket concessions that was announced this season. The same can be said of a number of other Premier League clubs, where ticket prices are going only one way and potentially acting as a barrier to many fans experiencing the beautiful, great game at a ground.
It must be acknowledged that clubs, especially Premier League clubs, are facing challenges. Clubs generate huge revenues, but, equally, they have huge outgoings and are continually chasing footballing talent and investing to achieve success in a highly competitive international market. They also face national financial pressures, such as the impact of the Labour Government’s national insurance increases on their employee base; the Labour Government’s increase of the national minimum wage; the further compliance costs that will accompany the Labour Government’s new Employment Rights Bill; and then the independent football regulator’s levy. We can debate the impact of the IFR on the footballing pyramid, but a question I share with millions of football fans is: will all these additional costs and that of the IFR on EPL clubs, and every single club in the land, mean that ticket prices will go up?
Rather than meeting the aspiration of helping fans to reduce ticket prices, the cost of the independent financial regulator is likely to do the exact opposite. Therefore, I have sought to make a modest amendment to Clause 14: that the IFR’s annual report include
“a review of the impact of the activity of the IFR on ticket prices”,
to give us fans some comfort that the burden of the independent football regulator will not fall on us.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious that the debates on this Bill have been somewhat lengthy, so I will be incredibly brief. I support, with absolute delight, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, on her Amendment 13. I do so for three reasons.
The first relates to the oft overused phrase “soft power”. No one can deny football’s huge following or the impression it has on so many—and that applies equally to fans in this country and abroad. As has been said already, the Premier League makes up the largest share of the UK’s television exports, and football is broadcast to over 1.5 billion people in just shy of 190 countries. As noble Lords have noted, throughout the ages football has pushed and campaigned on many important issues, so it is right that the many things that clubs promote at home and abroad should include the environment, nature and broader sustainability.
That leads me to my second point, which is, in effect, football’s hard power. Clubs can make a difference through not just all the sites they own but what they offer during matches to the fans.
My third point is broader: I wish to speak to those who cannot support this amendment, however well intentioned it is, because they do not support the idea of a regulator. The debate we are having now is about this amendment; it is not about the Bill in its entirety. Whether we agree with it or not, the Bill will end up passing. So the question to me now is not about the virtue of the regulator but about how we can improve it.
To conclude, this amendment does not have specific targets or rules on what exactly clubs should fund or what their boards should look like, or seeks to interfere needlessly in how they are run or how their games are played. The key is that this amendment calls for regard of what is already in other legislation. It is something that we are all expected to do ourselves and, as has been said, that so many clubs do already under their own steam: to play their part. If the noble Baroness presses her amendment to a vote, I respectfully urge all noble Lords to support her.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Ranger of Northwood, as well as my noble friend Lord Maude’s earlier point about the individual who will become the regulator. While we are discussing Manchester United, I note that I am a season ticket holder of the club; my noble friend Lord Ranger made a point about the recent increase in ticket prices.
This regulator will be answerable to supporters, while at the same time—as my noble friend Lady Brady said—making it clear what the owners of the football clubs can expect for investment purposes. This independent football regulator will be located in Manchester. Given the sheer size and scale of the protests—75,000 people go to Old Trafford week in, week out, and they may be minded to go to the location of the regulator— I would be interested to know what calibre of person, he or she, will be able to cope with those protests, which will inevitably end up outside their premises. How will they interact with those supporters, while at the same time making sure that they act professionally and responsibly so that the owners of the football businesses can carry on with the investment that we all want? Ultimately, this is about the future success of the Premier League.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome government Amendment 24, which reduces the minimum frequency of the revised football governance statements from every three years to every five years. That is a positive direction of travel, reining in a disproportionately burdensome bureaucracy. I was fearful that clubs might be in a perpetual state of having to fulfil the paperwork rather than improve governance, let alone improve football. I am glad to see that amendment.
Another worry that some of us have raised is the need to rein in politicised mission creep, so I oppose Amendments 12 and 13. Amendment 13 seems to be the focus, linking this Bill to the Climate Change Act and linking environmental sustainability to economic sustainability and making climate and environmental impact reduction part of the IFR’s objectives. I think this is incredibly unwise for a number of reasons. It goes against the Government’s Amendment 14, debated earlier, which all sides of the House lauded and I agree with, which is a commitment to avoid any adverse effects on the financial growth of English football.
Let us be honest: outside of football, even the Government are now acknowledging that net-zero targets and environmental regulations are often expensive and burdensome barriers to economic growth. They do not allow the Government and whole swathes of the corporate world to pursue, for example, infrastructure projects such as building houses. I do not think that it is uncontentious to say that, because “environmental sustainability” and “economic sustainability” will appear in the same provision, there is no tension between them; I think there is. I also think that this would really be an example of scope creep, which the Minister has assured us will not happen; UEFA and FIFA have been promised that it will not happen, as we were told earlier.
In Committee, I spoke against adding football clubs into this ever-greater, non-football-related political territory, setting essentially politically driven environmental hoops to jump through. In Committee, the Minister assured us that the Government had no intention of accepting these Green demands into the legislation, and I was reassured. But I want the Minister to promise, if she can, that the independent regulator will not—once this Bill is passed, which undoubtedly it will be—simply slip them into the governance remit. I am worried because the green lobby is very active, persistent and wealthy and, to be honest, has an interest in pursuing this after this Bill is long gone.
Larger clubs with lots of money might well be able to go along with a lot of these things that this Bill demands. We know that there are all sorts of Premier League football clubs at the moment that are more than happy to have sponsorship by green energy companies and so on. We have seen a lot of that happen. I think this could amount to eco-virtue signalling that ticks the social responsibility boxes of the big clubs and a sort of greenwashing that we know the corporate social responsibility industry does so well. But I fear that it will distract smaller clubs from their core role of thinking about financial stability and improving their governance so that we have better football clubs, and it will drag them into this extraneous environmental sustainability world.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, many clubs do what they can to promote the environment, and that is all well and good and I totally support it; what I do not support is Amendment 13 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. What the noble Baroness is seeking to do is to impose on the IFR a duty to exercise its functions in a way that is compatible with the Climate Change Act. If the Climate Change Act already imposes duties on everybody including the IFR, this is otiose and unnecessary; if the Climate Change Act does not impose duties in any event on the IFR, I am very doubtful indeed that it is appropriate to use this legislation, which is concerned with many other topics, to impose such a duty. In my view, it is not necessary to put this in the Bill.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I will support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, makes a substantial point about why in law it probably will not really help, but in spirit I am with it.
More importantly, the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, made an important point about fans not being able to afford to watch football. I have been amazed for a long time, probably about 20 years, that working people in particular, with perhaps two children, might visit two games a week. I do not know how they afford it. It has always been, generally, a working person’s game—it is not a class issue, but I think, generally speaking, it has been—and it has inelastic demand. By that, I mean that it is a tribal thing: we cannot explain the reason that we get excited and depressed about football teams. I am hoping that Sheffield Wednesday will win tonight; I will be depressed, I will be—
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
Not surprised when that does not happen.
There is something within us that is very hard. The most obvious thing a football fan could do would be to stop going to the games to effect change in a club, but it is very hard for them to do so. Therefore, a regulator asking reasonable questions of a club about why it has increased ticket prices is a very sensible option. If it is there to check on the validity and, I suppose, the due diligence around the ownership, I would have thought that this is the very least it could do in looking around the due diligence and looking after the fans.
No one else really looks after the fans. Outside the Premier League, the quality of looking after the fans is pretty awful. From the toilets to the restaurants—if they ever pass as that—it has traditionally been pretty diabolical. I would have thought that the regulator ought to be looking at such things, as well as whether the money going into the club is straightforward and comes from the sources that are alleged. I will certainly support the ticket price amendment, should it be put.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, having listened to this debate, I have discovered that I have no original points to make. I discovered, having had a quick discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that if it is in law anyway, it is law. On enforcement capacity, probably the earlier amendment of the two was better or more relevant, but we have already said that it is out of scope following Committee.
When it comes to ticket pricing, it will be interesting to hear what the Government think will be done, or what is within the capacity of the regulator, to at least justify ticket price increases. There is enormous pressure for prices to go up, but you also have a duty to your community. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this. I will base any reaction on the Minister’s response.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the two government amendments in this group. They reflect amendments I tabled in Committee. The first reduces the frequency with which the Secretary of State may revise the football governance statements, bringing it more in line with the parliamentary cycle rather than every three years. The second removes the Secretary of State’s power to amend the definition of the football season. This always seemed a disproportionate power. Why a Cabinet Minister ought to define a football season is a point that has bemused many football fans. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for Amendments 24 and 87, which she has brought forward on those points.
Like other noble Lords, I applaud my noble friend Lord Ranger of Northwood for his passionate speech in favour of his Amendment 27, which seeks to require the regulator’s annual report to include a review of the impact of its activities on ticket prices. The important argument here is not that the regulator should dictate ticket prices to clubs. I recognise the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made about how clubs often try the patience of their fans, but it is a commercial decision for clubs to take. There is a distinct possibility that the activities of the new regulator may force clubs to increase ticket prices further.
This is different from the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, made in pointing to the duty already in the Bill. The regulator will charge a levy to clubs. It will bring in higher compliance and legal costs, and many clubs will have to hire extra staff to comply with the new legal duties. That is all acknowledged in the Government’s impact assessment. When we couple that with the Government’s job tax, the increase in the minimum wage and the impending duties in the Employment Rights Bill, we can see that football clubs will be facing significant cost pressures over the coming years.
Inevitably, the only solution for many clubs—here I am thinking not predominantly about Premier League or Championship clubs but about clubs in League Two and the National League, which are the smaller and less well-off clubs—will be to hike ticket prices to offset these new and increased costs. It is clear that we need this assessment of the impact of the regulator’s actions on ticket prices. If Parliament is to give its assent and create this regulator, I think it owes it to fans to make sure that the impact of that cost is properly accounted for.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, my noble friend Lord Ranger and others have reflected on the fact that fans have very high expectations of this Bill and this regulator. They hope that the Bill, including the provisions in Schedule 4, will allow them to benefit from lower ticket prices, but I fear that the reverse is likely to be the case—higher costs leading to higher ticket prices for fans. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ranger will pursue his point on behalf of football fans across the country.
I am pleased that my noble friend Lady Brady has retabled her very sensible amendments to ensure that the regulator publishes guidance, not just to its functions under Clauses 21 to 25 but to its functions under the whole Bill. The regulator needs to translate the somewhat abstract powers and duties set out in the Bill into a more detailed and cohesive explanation of the rules it will be producing to support clubs in understanding precisely what will be expected of them. If it does that clearly, that may go some way to mitigating the costs that the new regulatory regime will impose on them. My noble friend’s Amendment 25 is a very simple one, but its impact would be helpful to all clubs facing these new regulations.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield and my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, I must regretfully say that I cannot support them on the amendment they have spoken passionately about. As I set out in Committee, we worry about the propensity for mission creep here. They have very wisely chosen to put their initiative behind Amendment 13, which is the more modest of the two and reflects an Act of Parliament that has already been passed with duties under it. While we cannot support the noble Baroness’s Amendment 13, neither will we oppose it if she presses it to a vote.
With renewed thanks to the Minister for the government amendments in this group, I look forward to her response.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not sure I have many original thoughts either, although I will try to address the points raised during the debate, starting with Amendments 12 and 13 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I thank her for these amendments.
I am really comfortable with her absolute determination—as is her right—to raise environmental issues in every single way at every point of our deliberations in your Lordships’ House. The noble Baroness is right that we need to limit our impact. I note that she has support from the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Gascoigne, demonstrating her incredible ability to forge unlikely—some might say unholy—alliances with very noble aims. I apologise to the right reverend Prelate; I am not referring to him in that sweeping statement.
The Government are absolutely committed to environmental sustainability. One of the Prime Minister’s five national missions is to accelerate the transition towards clean energy and ensure that the UK fulfils its legal obligation to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and other speakers, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, that as a huge part of our national psyche, all sports, including football, have an important role to play in this transition.
The Government expect authorities across the sport to be working together to advance environmental sustainability. However, we do not feel it is right to add environmental sustainability to the regulator’s objectives or general duties. The bar for statutory intervention in any market should be very high. That is why the regulator’s focus should be on the problems that football has clearly shown itself to be unable to properly address through self-regulation.
By contrast, football has demonstrated the ability to take action on the environment. You only have to look at Forest Green Rovers as a brilliant example of a club taking action on environmental issues lower down the pyramid. At the highest level, the Premier League’s new sustainability pledge, involving a new minimum standard of action on environmental issues across both the clubs and the league, is another good example. This is only a starting point upon which future initiatives must build. Football authorities must take more proactive steps to accelerate their environmental initiatives. However, it is within the gift of the leagues, clubs and other authorities across the game to do so without government intervention.
This Amendment would also constitute scope creep, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—something that I know noble Lords all agree we should be wary of, not least with the additional burdens it would impose on the regulator and the industry. Therefore, I hope the noble Baroness will not press these amendments.
Amendment 25 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, seeks to bind the regulator to produce guidance on every aspect of its functions. In our view, this is disproportionate and would be a significant burden on the regulator. We are not aware of a precedent for any regulator being required to publish guidance about every single aspect of its functions. In many cases, it would be unnecessary and not relevant to clubs or competition organisers. This would involve engagement and consultation with clubs, adding significant burdens to them. The regulator will, where necessary, produce guidance in consultation with relevant stake- holders, in line with its duties and principles. I therefore hope the noble Baroness will feel sufficiently reassured to not move her amendment.
On Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ranger of Northwood, regarding ticket prices, the annual report is clearly a vital mechanism for the regulator to be held to account. I understand the desire to ensure that this report is comprehensive and covers necessary detail. It was really helpful to have his explanation of the intent of his amendment. I recognise how important ticket prices are to fans and recognise the noble Lord’s determination to raise this important issue on behalf of fans.
Ticket pricing is ultimately a matter for clubs. That is exactly why this Government have made it explicit in the Bill that clubs must consult their fans on ticket pricing as part of their fan engagement. This is the way to ensure that fans can have their voices heard on such an impactful issue; the annual report is not the most effective place to achieve this. The regulator may well choose to look at ticket pricing as part of the “state of the game” report. However, as it is a commercial decision, the regulator will not intervene, aside from ensuring that clubs consult their fans.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, particularly my co-signees: the very holy right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield and the very brave—and possibly slightly less holy—noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. Their speeches were short, powerful and to the point, which I think the whole House appreciated.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that calling my amendment well intentioned was probably the nicest thing he has ever said about a Green Party person, so I am going to bank that. However, he is completely wrong, because acknowledging a commitment—which is what he said various organisations do—is not the same as actually doing it. So I would argue that this amendment is absolutely relevant. Subscribing to statements—which was another phrase the noble Lord used—does not mean doing it; I want clubs to do it. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is totally wrong; this is not otiose or unnecessary. In fact, we added this very provision to the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025—in Section 10. If it was relevant then, it is relevant now.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, was very kind in saying that the Opposition would not oppose this amendment. I am touched by the Opposition’s kindness towards me. Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I was told that the Liberal Democrats are abstaining on this, which I found quite shocking. That seems an abnegation of their concern about this issue, and I am very disappointed.
The Minister offered such kind words about my amendment, even though she said no. When she said that this Government have a complete commitment to environmental obligations, I know she was incredibly sincere. However, our views on how the Government are dealing with the environment probably differ slightly. I realise that is partly because I could be called a rabid green—I want green stuff in absolutely everything—but at the same time I think I am right, and the Government are wrong. My amendment would make it easier for clubs to do the right thing for their fans and for wider society. So we need this amendment in the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
What does the noble Baroness wish to do with Amendment 12?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The amendment was moved. Does the noble Baroness wish to withdraw it?
“(c) is compatible with the Climate Change Act 2008 and secures the long-term environmental sustainability of English football.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I thank the chorus behind me for telling me what to do. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Twycross
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the IFR to have regard to the desirability of exercising its functions in a way that avoids any adverse effects on the financial growth of English football.
Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, although I recognise and welcome some of the changes the Lord Chancellor has made in this Statement, they are far from sufficient in tackling the court backlog. It is of course tempting for any new Government to blame the outgoing Administration for all they possibly can. For that reason, I want to focus my remarks on what has happened since this Government took office in July last year.
On taking office, the Lord Chancellor was advised that at least 6,500 sitting days were available to tackle the growing court backlog—yet, instead of seizing that opportunity, the Lord Chancellor added only 500 sitting days, and still the backlog continued to expand. In response, the Lord Chancellor added a further 2,000 sitting days a month later, but by then the backlog had only worsened. Now, eight months after the Lord Chancellor assumed office, we learned last week that she is still rejecting available sitting days and, in a surprising admission, she conceded that the court backlog will only continue to grow. This is simply inexcusable.
The Lord Chancellor said that victims will receive quicker justice—yet victims of serious crimes such as rape are being told that their cases will not be heard until 2028. This is not just a matter of inconvenience or inefficiency; it is a failure to deliver the justice that victims deserve and expect. So it is critical that we act now, before the backlog expands further. It is vital that we fully maximise our court capacity, utilising every available day and exploring every possible avenue within the judiciary to relieve pressure and create additional capacity—there of course being a distinction between system capacity and judicial capacity.
I am confident that the Minister understands the importance of this. Cutting the court backlog will undoubtedly be a difficult task. However, it is essential that we have a clear plan and timetable for when this backlog will fall. So will the Minister tell the House by what date the Government expect the backlog to fall? Will he explain exactly why the Lord Chancellor did not, or will not, take up the 2,500 additional sitting days offered by the Lady Chief Justice? I look forward to hearing a clear and positive response.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the Statement describes the Government’s inheritance from the last Administration on Crown Court capacity as little short of disgraceful. It was worse than that: it was an utter disgrace. Sadly, even with the measures announced in the Statement, an utter disgrace it remains. A once great system of criminal justice, admired internationally, has sunk to a level of service that has produced unpardonable delays; decrepit courts—and not enough of them; and underpaid and demoralised staff and lawyers. Offenders are in custody on remand for unacceptable periods and prosecutions are dropped on many occasions because victims and witnesses lose heart and abandon cases, lacking the confidence that they will ever see justice. When trials eventually happen, they are bedevilled by lapse of time and witnesses’ failing recollection. Overall, the level of public trust in our criminal justice system as a whole is rightly, abysmally low.
Furthermore, the system would be even worse were it not for the tireless commitment of those who work within it, mostly underrewarded staff, lawyers and, in particular, our committed, indefatigable and independent judiciary, who struggle to keep the courts working with some semblance of order against overwhelming odds.
This Statement represents a move in the right direction. To that extent, we welcome it, but it is not enough. The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor recognise that. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, she has acknowledged that, even with the funding and measures she has announced, the backlog will grow. She pins her hopes on more radical measures of structural reform that may or may not be proposed by the Leveson review. These will take place only when the review has reported and its recommendations have been implemented. Far more extensive measures are needed now to bring down the backlog.
There is, after all, no significant saving of resources in keeping people hanging around for long periods—often running to years—with their lives largely on hold because we cannot get cases to trial. I do not question the Government’s recognition of the seriousness of the crisis they inherited and we now face, but I do question the lack of urgency.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. Why is it that, at a time of catastrophic shortage of sitting days, a progressive Government, dedicated to the delivery of justice, should simply accept that the concordat process of agreeing a number of court sitting days should be a negotiation between the Government and the judiciary? The Lady Chief Justice, a judge widely admired for her level-headedness and good judgment, sought agreement to an extra 6,500 days a year. She advised the Government that that many extra days were available to address the court backlog of 73,000 cases within the system as it stands. Why have the Government not simply accepted that? Why have they not agreed to all the extra days for which she sought sanction and arranged to provide more? Those extra cases would make a significant difference.
In its report published last Wednesday 5 March, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee described the MoJ as
“tinkering at the edges, reacting to each new issue that affects the courts, without planning for long-term solutions.”
How is it that the Government have not made swifter progress with initiating a comprehensive programme of necessary repairs to our courts? Of course, the increased funding for repairs is very welcome, but why is the urgency lacking? This was a known problem way before last July’s general election. Might some of the Nightingale courts not have been retained in use to clear part of the backlog? Have the Government considered evening and weekend sittings for uncontested cases, leaving more court days available for trials?
I know that the Government are well aware of the disproportionate effect of long delays on cases of rape and serious sexual violence. Victims withdraw from prosecutions under the psychological pressure that these cases entail. The average wait for serious sexual offence cases, not from report or charge but from arrival at Crown Court to completion, is now 356 days. This is a shocking figure. Many cases wait far longer. Have the Government considered according an enhanced status to these cases because of the particular difficulties they face in order to get them on more quickly?
We agree that there is a need for long-term reform and we trust that Sir Brian Leveson’s review will make recommendations that will help restore our criminal justice system. There is much that we can do now and I invite the Minister to take back to his department an invitation to the Government to do much more, more quickly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to his current role. This is the first time I have encountered him speaking from the Dispatch Box.
The Government inherited a record and rising backlog that now stands at 73,000 cases—twice the figure of five years ago. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, there is a human cost to these delays. Victims are waiting years for justice and the attrition rate in rape cases has more than doubled in the last five years, from 2.9% in 2019 to 7.5% now—so I recognise the figures he quoted. This Government are funding a record allocation of Crown Court sitting days to deliver swifter justice for victims—110,000 sitting days next year, which is 4,000 more than the last Government funded.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, asked me a number of questions. Basically, the question was why we were not maximising the number of sitting days and taking up the Lady Chief Justice’s offer, as he put it, of sitting at capacity in the Crown Court system. There are two simple answers to that. One is a cash constraint—and I think we need to acknowledge that the Lord Chancellor has wider responsibilities than the courts and has to balance how the money is spent on the whole criminal justice system. We acknowledge that there are serious issues, and we have increased the number of sitting days. The second point is that it is wise to keep some headroom within the Crown Court system. We saw the benefit of that when we had the riots last year and were able to deal with them really quite quickly, in part because of the policy of keeping some headroom within the Crown Court system.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, rightly said that trials are bedevilled by delays, and he was right when he said that victims drop out of the system and there are many problems because of the many delays within our system. The noble Lord mentioned the concordat process. It is worth noting that that process has been accelerated this year; it has been resolved much earlier in the year than in many previous years, which will give more certainty to the judges when they are planning and allocating their sitting days between the various courts. That is the benefit of the system that the Lord Chancellor has introduced.
I reject the charge that we are tinkering at the edges. The fundamental point, which I think the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Cameron, acknowledged, is that ever-increasing sitting days will not solve the problem. We need more radical reforms, and we are looking to Sir Brian Leveson to present reforms. A number of things are being constantly talked about in the papers. We do not know exactly what he is going to recommend, but we are absolutely clear that there needs to be a much more radical change in how we deal with trials in the magistrates’ courts and Crown Courts. We have obviously gone some way within the magistrates’ courts by doubling magistrates’ sentencing powers to 12 months—but, again, that is a marginal benefit, and there need to be other changes. We are looking forward to Sir Brian’s recommendations.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, spoke about repairs to the courts. As I think he acknowledged, there has been an increase in court maintenance, up to £148 million from £120 million—but of course we are trying to catch up on many years of underinvesting in our court estate. I have personally seen a number of courts that are in dire need of emergency maintenance. I acknowledge the point that the noble Lord made, but we are taking steps in the right direction to try to increase the quality of our court estate—and there are a number of Nightingale courts still operating, partly for that reason.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, made another point about the sexual offences or RASSO cases, and how people are waiting far too long. Some courts, including Bristol Crown Court, I believe, are using a different approach—I hesitate to use the word “specialist”—to how they bring on RASSO-related cases. I believe that a couple of other Crown Courts are looking at this as well. Nevertheless, I acknowledge the point that the noble Lord made about the importance of doing this—otherwise, you will get a higher victim drop-out, which is not in the interests of justice.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, before abolishing any element of trial by jury, does the Minister accept that the Government should prioritise improving the effectiveness of the Crown Court by swift progress of cases and by appointing a cadre of procedure judges to ensure that the number of hearings per case is reduced dramatically, thereby saving a great deal of time?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for giving me notice of that question. I absolutely recognise the point on the importance of cases coming on in time. One hears far too many stories of cases having to be abandoned, often because of poor administration of the case. We have a number of pilot courts—I think it is about 10—where we are introducing case co-ordinators. They are people whose only job is to go over the cases to make sure that all the different elements are in place and to make sure that the case gets on. I realise that that is not exactly the point that the noble Lord made, but it is acknowledging the importance of making sure that these cases get on and are not abandoned for any reason.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I have a couple of questions. First, it is very clear that if you get a backlog in the system, people will plead not guilty. That was my experience with the magistrates’ court in Gloucestershire in 2006, and I do not believe that anything has changed. Therefore, my first question is: what are the Government’s projections, going forward over the next 12 months, as to the likely increase in those awaiting trial? The real problem is that if you do not clear the backlog, it makes it worse because it is always tempting to put off facing reality; it just gets worse and worse.
Secondly, in a court system time is always lost during the day. One problem that we have relates to prisons and the difficulty of bringing prisoners to the courts on time. What is being done to ensure that is improved? I remember this being a problem more than 20 years ago, and it really required extraordinarily tough contract management. I took some of the job on myself, as the Ministry of Justice did not seem capable of doing it. What is being done to manage the contracts so that they are managed as a commercial contract should be managed, and there are penalties or other stern action taken if a prisoner is late? I hope that the contracts are tough enough to ensure that.
In connection with prisons, when I chaired the Commission on Justice in Wales, it was obvious that there was a problem in funding the criminal justice system. I do not think that there can be any real doubt that the financial problems arise from the overall fiscal constraints, which I completely understand, on what money is available for justice—but you are driven to the conclusion that if the Exchequer will not provide more money, the only place it can come from is reducing the prison population. When are we going to find out not how we avoid the crisis that will come in the early part of next year but what is being fundamentally done to reassess our policy of sending people to prison for a very long time? That, I believe, is at the heart of the problem.
The Lord Chancellor spoke very eloquently—and I commend her on this—of dealing with the question of an intermediate court, but the much more difficult political question is dealing with the sentiment that was impressed on us some years ago that “prison works”. I do not believe that is true, but it works to undermine all the rest of the justice system by there not being enough money for paying lawyers to do their job properly and funding the administration of justice.
I am sorry—I took my second question in two parts. I commend the Lord Chancellor on what she has done, but there are other problems to which we need to face up.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I agree with the concluding sentence of the noble and learned Lord—there are indeed other problems which we need to face up to, and reducing the prison population is one of the most fundamental of them. In many ways, that problem goes hand in hand with the problem of the Crown Court backlog. The noble and learned Lord will know that my noble friend Lord Timpson went to Spain to see their prison system, and my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor went to Texas, looking constructively at other ways of dealing with these issues. Of course, as he said, reoffending rates are crucial in trying to reduce the backlog and there will be legislation on this coming forward in due course.
The noble and learned Lord opened by talking about the incentive to plead not guilty because of the lengthy backlogs. That is undoubtedly true; I have heard that point made many times. It is an added incentive for us to try to reduce the backlogs. There will be a number of benefits to this, and the noble and learned Lord has pointed to one in particular.
Regarding intermediate courts or giving magistrates more sentencing powers, it is my understanding that magistrates’ courts work about five times more quickly than Crown Courts. I do not know what Sir Brian is going to recommend, but, if more work could be done within magistrates’ courts, that would help as well.
The noble and learned Lord spoke about bringing prisoners to court in a timely way. I of course agree with that point. The last mini-campaign I did when I was still a sitting magistrate was to try to allow prison vans in London to use the emergency service lanes to get people to court. It was a minor battle I had with the Mayor of London and I am afraid that I lost it. Nevertheless, the point he makes is a good one. It is very important that everybody gets to court on time, so that the whole process can be properly managed, which is of benefit to everybody involved in it.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
Perhaps I could ask a supplementary question. Has the Ministry of Justice got a really tough contract manager? All of one’s commercial experience shows that, if you contract out a service, you have to be tough in the performance of it. I need not raise the problems that have arisen. In the past, contract delivery companies did not have a good record, if one might say this.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
What I can say is that I have been in meetings with the Permanent Secretary and the Lord Chancellor and I would not like to be on the wrong side of them when they are talking directly to contractors—which they do every now and again.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, following the points made by the noble and learned Lord, does the Minister agree that it is about not only contract management but the design of the contract from the very beginning, so there can be break clauses or a contract may be terminated if it is not properly performed? Also, following the noble and learned Lord’s comments, does the Minister agree that what will be far more helpful to justice proceeding more speedily is to suggest not that pre-sentence reports are a bad thing but that well-designed pre-sentence reports can assist in the appropriate sentences being applied as part of the attempt to reduce reoffending?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Yes, I agree with the points the noble Baroness makes. The aspiration is to move towards a greater proportion of offenders having pre-sentence reports before they are sentenced. To me, that seems an obvious state of affairs. So, I agree with the point that the noble Baroness made on that. Regarding the contracts, I understand that they do have break clauses and can be terminated: that is a possibility within current contracts, as far as I understand it.
Football Governance Bill [HL]
21:52 - Division on Amendment 27 - Ayes: 43 / Noes: 120 - Amendment 27 disagreed.
Lord Moynihan
“(f) its duties under section (Protection against trade disputes).”
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I shall address Amendments 16 and 26, standing in my name on the Marshalled List. In moving this amendment, let me set out a number of legal issues that have been raised outside this House. To set them in context, what we are talking about tonight is the importance of the Premier League. It is watched by 1.9 billion people across 189 countries. It is the most successful domestic league in the world. Its financial support flows down through the football pyramid. It supports £8 billion in gross value added to the economy. It contributes more than £4 billion annually to the Exchequer and supports more than 90,000 jobs. The Championship, which it strongly supports, is the sixth most successful league in Europe. The issues which are central to this amendment reflect the importance of the Premier League, which generates more revenue internationally than domestically. It has attracted substantial foreign investment over recent years and operates within a complex international regulatory framework governed by UEFA, FIFA and numerous international trade and investment arrangements to which the UK is a party—though the FA will no longer play a part.
The establishment of the IFR introduces unique risks of potential legal dispute with international investors and potential complications regarding the UK’s compliance with international obligations. Two significant issues arise. The first is the impact on foreign investors: many Premier League clubs have significant foreign investment, relying on regulatory stability, property rights protections and non-discriminatory treatment. The second is trade agreement compliance: the UK has international obligations, including investment protections within trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties requiring fair and equitable treatment, transparency and non-discrimination towards foreign investors. Non-compliance could trigger diplomatic repercussions and costly arbitration claims.
The key legal risks which exist, are, I believe, threefold. The first, which we will come to discuss on a future occasion, arises from the assiduous work of the noble Lord, Lord Birt. The mechanism of the backstop as it is currently structured—and I will not go into it this evening except in the context of my amendment, to look at its legal implications—allows the regulator to impose financial redistribution without clear or predefined limits, effectively giving it the power to divert private commercial revenues arbitrarily. Such intervention poses a significant risk of constituting what lawyers call indirect expropriation, where regulatory action substantially diminishes the economic value of investments without fair compensation. Foreign investors protected by bilateral investment treaties have reasonable expectations of regulatory stability and fairness. An unlimited or unpredictable redistribution power would likely trigger claims under international investment treaties, arguing violation of their rights to fair and equitable treatment and protection from uncompensated expropriation.
Secondly, as we have discussed earlier this evening, there are risks from new ownership rules retrospectively applied. The Bill proposes potentially retrospective and uncertain changes to the owners’ and directors’ test. These new, undefined ownership criteria could retrospectively affect existing owners, potentially forcing divestment of clubs by foreign investors based on criteria not in place at the time of investment. Such retrospective application could breach fundamental legal principles of fairness, stability and investor protection. It could be interpreted as discriminatory and arbitrary treatment under international investment law, leading to significant litigation risk and investor state arbitration claims, damaging the UK’s international credibility as a reliable investment destination.
Thirdly, there are the risks of discrimination. Linked to the points I have just made, regulatory actions perceived as disproportionately targeting foreign-owned clubs, particularly through retrospective regulatory criteria, risk breaching international obligations of non-discrimination between national treatment and most favoured nation treatment. Investors could legitimately claim discriminatory treatment, triggering significant diplomatic and legal disputes.
If there is validity in law to these concerns, my amendment is carefully designed to seek to mitigate them. It explicitly requires the football regulator to comply fully with the UK’s international trade and investment obligations, thereby avoiding unnecessary litigation or trade disputes. It mandates non-discriminatory and proportionate regulatory interventions, ensuring predictability and stability for international investors. Thirdly, in my second amendment before your Lordships this evening, early consultation between the football regulator, HM Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade to proactively manage compliance with international obligations will avoid regulatory paralysis.
Embedding these protective measures in this Bill, which I see as being as helpful as possible to the Government on this front, clarifies the regulatory framework up front. It pre-empts costly disputes and ensures that the regulator aligns clearly with the UK’s international economic and diplomatic interests from the outset. It is, therefore, a helpful amendment. It is intended to be pragmatic and is necessary for addressing significant international and domestic risks comprehensively. It respects property rights, ensures regulatory proportionality and maintains international investor confidence, which is critical in the Premier League to ensure growth. It thus safeguards the UK’s attractiveness and reputation as the premier destination for global football capital. I beg to move.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan for his vital and very sensible amendments in this group. As he has touched on, there could be some serious unintended consequences unless we introduce his amendments to the Bill. The Premier League, as we have said many times, is the most successful football league in the world. One of the major reasons for that is its openness to global investment and its attractiveness for that. Foreign investors have played a transformational role in modernising clubs, developing world-class infrastructure and cementing English football to an elite global brand. They have helped to create the most competitive and commercially successful football league in the world.
Yet without my noble friend’s amendment, the Government will be introducing a regulatory framework that could unfairly target foreign-owned clubs, placing them at a disadvantage compared with those owned by UK investors. That is not fair, not necessary and not in the best interests of English football. I am sure that this is not intended by the regulator, but it could be one of those unintended consequences as to where some of those decisions might fall. The amendment asking for Treasury advice, for want of a better word, ensures that the IFR is not sleepwalking into some of these difficulties, which I hope will be seen as very sensible and helpful in all of this. As my noble friend mentioned, most important is that any investor has a clear set of rules that they can rely on, and which are guaranteed and completely transparent.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was briefer than I had anticipated; I had intended putting this point to him. We have had a lot of discussion about the intervention of UEFA in terms of the regulator not being able to take into account UK government foreign policies and trade policies, following that provision having been withdrawn from the Bill. How does that differ from Amendment 26, which expects international trade agreements to come within the consideration of the regulator? Surely the two are the same. In either case, they are getting into the realms of government policy, which UEFA has made it quite clear it is unhappy about.
Lord Markham (Con)
This amendment is trying to avoid that and do it the other way around. Our trade agreements are in place already and well-known. We are asking the football regulator to do many things, but I would not expect it to know, because of the large levels of foreign ownership, how its decisions might disproportionately affect some segments versus other segments and how that could trip over some of the World Trade Organization agreements or other such bodies. That is what we are trying to protect against. Hopefully, it is not even relevant, but again it is trying to ensure that we do not sleepwalk into something that is thoroughly unintended. This is a simple precautionary amendment to avoid such unintended consequences.
So, as I say, we must all recognise that our existing trade agreements are not just beneficial but vital for our future growth. The Government have repeatedly said, quite rightly, that growth is their number one mission. All we are trying to do with this amendment is make sure that we do not inadvertently trip up on one of those and the regulator has one of those unintended consequences, because clearly none of us wants to see that happen.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his amendments. There is much on which we agree, but, unfortunately, I cannot agree that these amendments in this group are required. Good investment, which comes in many forms, has helped make English football the global success it is today, and this Government are absolutely committed to continuing that. Of course, this regulator will not discriminate against foreign investors or act unfairly against anyone else—nothing in this Bill allows it to do so. This amendment is not needed to prevent that. Not only is it unnecessary but, as noble Lords will appreciate, it would be highly unusual to bring a broad range of treaty obligations directly into our domestic law in such a sweeping way.
This Government take our international obligations very seriously and the Bill complies with our treaty commitments. But, if foreign investors have concerns about the regulator’s decisions, there are mechanisms within our treaties to allow them to raise these concerns at the international level and, if necessary, to bring disputes. That is the appropriate forum, not our domestic courts. Let me be clear once more: we are confident that the Bill complies with our international obligations. Nothing in it requires or even allows the regulator to make discriminatory or unfair decisions.
Finally, I was slightly surprised to see the last part of this amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We have carefully ensured the regulator’s independence from government and ensured that UEFA is content with the Bill as drafted, so I was not clear why the noble Lord wants to require the regulator to consult the Treasury and DBT on a wide range of occasions and risk undermining the regulator’s independence. This would be concerning, especially given how much time the noble Lord has spent discussing UEFA and FIFA throughout the passage of the Bill through your Lordships’ House, and I am sure the risk would be highly concerning for many others in this House. That is why I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend from the Front Bench and the Minister for their contributions, and for the intervention, although I regret that I was not in a position to answer it, because I had already attempted to set the scene before the House managed to resume in full.
My amendment was not about UEFA. The purpose of the amendments this evening was about explicit statutory acknowledgement to reinforce clarity, reduce the legal uncertainties and prevent inadvertent breaches, demonstrating transparency, foresight and collaboration between the relevant government departments. It was to simplify what I anticipate will be, potentially, a legal minefield and to make sure that, if we did that in the legislation, we would avoid many of the issues that were going to, potentially, follow as a result of this legislation.
In parentheses, one of the problems that will follow comes from the intervention from the noble Lord: namely, UEFA is now out of this loop. UEFA is only a stepping stone: the running of football in the United Kingdom is through its member, the FA, and the FA, as we have debated and concluded within the House this evening, has no role within the financial regulation of football in this country. That is the first time that has happened anywhere in Europe. In Spain, it is fully at the heart of the financial regulation of that country, and indeed was party to working with government in order to follow a model that the Premier League has instituted here in the United Kingdom.
It is a dangerous path to move away from the autonomy of world sport. I will not go into this again, but I am trying to do a service to the noble Lord who has intervened this evening, because I know he has been an assiduous attender in Committee. It is a dangerous path: if you legislate to run sport and have financial management of sport and you ignore in practice the role of the governing body, which is the FA, you set up potential legal complexities that would otherwise not arise. That is why I have put forward these proposals: simply to give additional protection to those legal challenges that could arise as a result of this legislation and to move the amendments before the House.
Baroness Twycross
“(i) persons on whom it may impose requirements or restrictions, namely clubs, owners, senior managers and other officers of clubs, and competition organisers, and(ii) other persons who may be affected by its decisions, including players and fans;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the regulatory principle in clause 8(b) so that the IFR should co-operate, and proactively and constructively engage, with persons who may be affected by its decisions.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This group contains a number of government amendments to the regulatory principles. I am grateful to noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House for the engagement we have had over the past few weeks both in Committee and in meetings. It has been helpful.
First, on Amendment 17, we all know that football without fans is nothing. It has always been the intention that the regulator would engage with fans and any others impacted by the regulator’s decisions, where they are relevant. It is vital to the Government that the essential value of players and fans to English football is demonstrated both in the legislation and the regulator’s engagement. I thank my noble friends Lady O’Grady and Lord Watson of Invergowrie for their engagement in ensuring that that value is reflected in the legislation, as well as my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their support for this amendment. This amendment will clarify that intent and make it explicit in the Bill. It will both reflect the essential nature of players and fans to English football and ensure that the regulator is directed to engage with both groups.
Turning to Amendments 18 and 19 concerning light- touch regulation, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for tabling his amendment and for his extensive discussion of this issue with me and officials. We agree wholeheartedly that light-touch regulation should be the aim of the regulator. It should have a bias—against unnecessary intervention, against excessive burdens on the industry, towards co-operation and engagement before intervention, and towards proportionate interventions that deliver real benefits. That is why I have tabled Amendment 18 to clarify the intention that the regulatory regime should be light-touch.
We carefully considered the best way to deliver this aim, including whether to use the term “light-touch” in the Bill. We believe the regulatory principles should be as clear and specific as possible. Each time the regulator acts, it should be clear whether it has met the Bill’s requirements; that is, whether it has had regard to the principles. That is why our new principle in Amendment 18 centres around a test of necessity and whether the same outcome could be achieved in a less burdensome way. These, like the existing Clause 8(c) test of proportionality, reflect concepts that are well understood in public law and will give clubs, leagues and the regulator appropriate legal certainty.
“Light-touch”, by contrast, is not typical legislative drafting. That could make it difficult for both regulator and regulated to be 100% certain of their legal positions. As debates in Committee made clear, one person’s “light-touch” regulation is another’s “overreach”. Allowing a margin of discretion is a less novel concept, but we none the less have concerns about its legal certainty.
In our view, the wording “necessity”, “consideration of alternatives” and “proportionality” are clear tests that will let both regulator and regulated act with confidence. That is what our regulatory principles and government Amendment 18 deliver. I can assure the House that the principles in Clause 8, including our Amendment 18, enshrine a light-touch approach in law.
Finally, on government Amendment 20, this minor drafting change seeks to clarify the regulator’s responsibility under this regulatory principle. Although it will not materially change the effect of the principle, an obligation for a public body to have “regard to” is well precedented and understood by the industry.
For the reasons I have set out, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will not move his amendment. I beg to move government Amendment 17.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to say a few words on Amendment 17 just moved by my noble friend the Minister. I tabled an amendment in Committee to try to ensure that the players appeared in the Bill, as originally they did not.
I very much welcome the fact that my noble friend has listened to the representations, not just by me and my noble friend Lady O’Grady but by the Professional Footballers’ Association and others, who have made the very reasonable case that, with the insertion of a reference to players as a group in this section, the regulator is expected to,
“so far as reasonably practicable, co-operate, and proactively and constructively engage”
with players. In effect, they become statutory consultees of the IFR, which is only appropriate because there is of course no football without the players. I very much welcome the wording that the Minister has come forward with; it meets my concerns and those of others.
The other part of this is the fans. I also put forward an amendment in Committee proposing that the fans should be defined in some way. I have had discussions with my noble friend the Minister. It was always going to be difficult. I assume that it will soon become the job of the regulator to define what a fan is. I still hold to the belief that you need to have some address for a fan if you are going to consult them. That is why I proposed in Committee that season ticket holders should be the best way of deciding who the fans are for consultation purposes, but I accept that it has not been possible to reach any kind of consensus on that.
I welcome the wording in this amendment. Again, I commend my noble friend and the Government on listening to representations and coming up with wording as a result.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I will not add very much to what my noble friend has already said about the importance and value of having players and fans recognised in the consultation process, except to say that it is probably the most important part.
I was worried at the outset of the legislation—with the Bill that the party currently in opposition put in place before the election—that there was absolutely no reference to players or fans. They are an essential part. Without them, where would the game be? We might not be able to define what fans are, but they are many things, in many different ways and places. We sort of know what they are without being able to define them.
My noble friend Lady Taylor and I also signed up to Amendment 18, because I think it is important that there is a clear statement in the legislation to the effect that the best way forward is usually without recourse to excessive bureaucracy and regulation. If the IFR can find a way to do things that does not have to resort to that, then all for the good. For that reason, while I am encouraged by the amendment of noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and it certainly touches on a rather important point, I think the Government have matched that point with their amendment. I am not sure it is easy to define “light-touch”—no doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will tell me that it is—but it is not a term that is commonly used in legislation, certainly not regulatory legislation.
I am pleased that this issue is being properly surfaced, and I am delighted that the Government have responded to it in a really positive way. I hope that both fans and players will be pleased to see that they have been written into this legislation.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister on that point about engagement with fans. As I alluded to before the dinner break, sometimes those fans are in the tens of thousands. Can she share with us how the regulator will engage with those fans? If the regulator will refer to fan representatives, who would those representatives be on a case-by-case basis or club-by-club basis?
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I welcome Amendment 18, because it addresses in a very clear manner one of the main concerns which was expressed across the House in Committee. The concern was that the new regulator should operate with a light touch. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that it is not a phrase that is used in legislation, but we all know what it means—apart from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I will come back to the noble Lord in a moment.
The concern that was expressed repeatedly in Committee was that the regulator is operating in the context of a highly successful business that brings billions of pounds of revenue into this country every year and provides enormous amounts of pleasure and excitement to billions of people across the world—although the pleasure is not experienced at the Emirates Stadium if you are watching Arsenal on every occasion you attend a home match. Furthermore, in recent months this Government have expressed in other contexts a concern that regulators should not be a barrier to growth. There is, then, a vital need to put in this Bill a clause that requires the regulator to have regard to the need to exercise the very extensive powers that have been conferred only if it is really necessary to do so.
I mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Addington, because earlier this afternoon, in an earlier group, he expressed concern about light-touch regulation. He asked whether it really means “being asleep at the wheel”—that was his phrase—or acting only when a disaster occurs. I do not understand light-touch regulation to mean anything of the sort. It means, in the present context of a highly successful industry, being aware of the equal or greater danger of overregulation which could damage this very successful industry. There is—to use a sporting metaphor, which I hope is appropriate—a real danger of own goals by the regulator wherever it comes on to the field of play.
The Minister was sympathetic to this concern in Committee, and she undertook to go away with her officials to consider this important point. I am genuinely grateful to her and the Bill team for the amount of time they have spent discussing this issue with me and other Lords. I am very pleased that she has tabled Amendment 18, which adds this new regulatory principle to Clause 8. Under the amendment, a priority would be given in the Bill so that the regulator must
“have regard to whether the requirement or restriction is necessary and whether a similar outcome could be achieved by less burdensome means”.
Amendment 18 will make a considerable improvement to the Bill. I am very grateful to the Government for having listened and acted on this important topic.
The Minister today confirmed that the purpose of Amendment 18 is to clarify the intention for this regulatory regime. There are different views about that across the House, but she has clarified that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the regime will be implemented and exercised with a light touch. I think that we all understand what that means, even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, it is not appropriate or necessary to include that phrase in the Bill.
In the light of what the Government have brought forward and what the Minister has said, I do not intend to press my Amendment 19—although I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, for adding their support to it.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I too will comment a little on the point about light-touch regulation. Before I do, earlier today—prompted, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—the Minister offered her good wishes to Newcastle in the Carabao Cup final at the weekend. I wondered whether she would also be willing to offer her best wishes to Liverpool at the weekend, with the due impartiality that is merited. We need a little help tonight, because we are 1-0 down at half time to PSG, so she might like to send her immediate good wishes before it is too late for that game.
Needless to say—I have said this before—I truly support the regulation of English football, and I will not repeat what I have said in earlier debates. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made clear, the Government’s amendment is extremely helpful. He intends not to press his own amendment, but I did not see anything wrong with underlining the point with the addition of “light-touch”.
Throughout my career, I experienced the public benefits of effective regulation in broadcasting. However, we know that not all regulation has proved successful in the UK or in other countries, and we must learn from both the successes and the lack of success. As the Chancellor said just a month ago, our economy has “suffered” due to “stifling and unpredictable regulation”. Overregulation bequeathed us the absurdly expensive and long-delayed HS2. On the other hand, under- regulation brings us sewage flowing freely into Lake Windermere, so we have to get the right kind of regulation.
These amendments should oblige the regulator to practise considered and proportionate regulation, focusing on what really matters—and more than one thing really matters, as has come out again and again in this debate. Above all, effective regulation here means ensuring that English football clubs should be well and prudently managed.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for Amendment 17, which I signed. It says that players and fans should be regarded. When discussing professional sport, the two key elements are: somebody to play and somebody to watch. Both should be recognised within the structure of this legislation as important.
With the huge amount of appetite for football, players are clearly under pressure of being overplayed. How they should be looked after is an important factor that all sports are dealing with. I encourage the regulator, when it comes out, to take a serious look at this, as well as the rights of fans. We had great fun debating which diverse group should be consulted. Well, let somebody else figure it out—we could not.
When it comes to light touch, I will break a habit of mine and read out something from the EFL which I received, I think, yesterday:
“The EFL does not support the enshrining of ‘light touch’ as a regulatory principle in the Bill … Light touch is an extremely subjective term that the IFR will struggle to meaningfully define as it goes about its activities … It also risks limiting the effectiveness of Regulators once it is operational, which instead should have the ability to determine what is the ‘right touch’”—
dozens of other expressions are available—
“to deal with any situation it is required to address”.
Hiding behind a mantra is never a good idea. What the Government have here is quantifiable at the very least, so I say yes to that. I hope that we can go forward, because the minute you get something like “It has to be light touch”, you will get it wrong. It has to be effective. I hope the Government and the regulator enshrine effectiveness from this point on; it does not matter if it is light or heavy, it matters if it works.
Baroness Brady (Con)
My Lords, I support the Government’s Amendment 18, which introduces a regulatory principle focused on necessity, proportionality and minimising regulatory burden. The Government deserve credit for this amendment. It is an attempt to recognise the concerns, expressed across the House during Committee, that this Bill outlines an overly complex and intrusive regulatory framework for football.
Indeed, I recall that the Government expressly ruled out a light-touch “watchdog” option in their impact assessment, in justifying the need for a more interventionist approach. We should bear in mind that this Bill overall is not easily described as “light touch”, but the Government’s amendment is an attempt to clarify Ministers’ intentions, which I believe are for a light-touch framework. We should note the obvious point that it is not an attempt to change the overall licensing framework, existing regulatory model, extensive range of powers, or broad suite of sanctions. Nevertheless, short of a wholesale change of approach and a much slimmer Bill, the tension this principle introduces is how the regulator exercises those powers, so it is welcome.
But I, for one, would like the Government to go further, both in the Bill and in guidance and their engagement with the shadow regulator. That is why I supported my noble friend Lord Pannick’s additional amendment detailing light touch, which I know he has now not moved. What I would like to suggest today is that Ministers enhance their amendment further by explicitly enabling different types of intervention approaches for different leagues, guiding towards greater reliance on leagues where appropriate.
The football pyramid is diverse, with varying risk profiles and governance capabilities. What is appropriate for Maidenhead United in the National League is very unlikely to be appropriate for Manchester United. The Premier League, for instance, has developed robust governance and regulatory structures over many years. It has built financial monitoring systems that effectively maintain competitive balance while ensuring club sustainability. I have not heard a single Minister or Peer in this House express any concern over the sustainability of Premier League clubs.
Steering the regulator more explicitly to tailor its approach to intervening based on a league’s governance standards, rulebooks and enforcement practices would be a very sensible approach. It would ensure regulatory resources target genuine areas of risk in the pyramid and would really help to bring about what I would describe as a “right-touch” regime—light touch where effective systems already operate, but more interventionist where they do not. I think this could deliver a more efficient model, as well as create positive incentives for leagues to strengthen their own governance frameworks.
Perhaps when the Minister responds, she could commit to working with me, the football authorities and the shadow regulator to encourage this common-sense approach, recognising the practical benefits that would be realised by working more closely with the leagues, by acknowledging the natural differences within our diverse football pyramid, and by steering the regulator to adopt a targeted, risk-based approach.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Brady about the importance of a light-touch approach: not just the light touch in the way we do things today but the light touch in how we might innovate and take our game forward in the future. My wife and I spent Christmas in Oman, when the Gulf states were having their own little world cup. The key point there was how they are innovating, building a nation through football, breaking down barriers and changing the way things are done in football.
More of the same will not be the recipe for success for the English game as we look forward. I want to illustrate this with a story. Earlier this evening, I explained that I was a shareholder of Norwich City Football Club. About 30 years ago, the club auditors told us that a certain Alan Sugar—a Member of your Lordships’ House—had decided to move his players from the profit and loss and on to the balance sheet. It was the first time this had ever happened. At that moment, in the blink of an eye, English football changed.
What our noble friend did was turn a series of cottage industries—clubs that were grounded in local communities—into investable propositions. Whether he appreciated it at the time or not, it was that stroke of the pen that put British football clubs on the path to greatness. Overnight, football became better capitalised, becoming a magnet for investment and success. People say that Sky made the difference, but the truth is that it was our noble friend who made football so investible in the first place.
Can you imagine how an overbearing regulator might have reacted if this astonishingly innovative but unprecedented accounting proposal to move players from the P and L to the balance sheet had been made? We need this light touch. This was a huge innovation. Would it have happened if this regulator had been overbearing? Of course not. I have always found it strange that the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, has not been publicly recognised for what he did. Viewing his innovation through the lens of history has transformed the prospects of English football.
My purpose in telling this story is that the regulator must continue to be flexible and to adapt to the future as it can be—not just as it is today. The principle of the light touch is essential for us to maintain the leadership of English football at the forefront of our industry, being flexible and imaginative. Nobody owes us our place in history. We have to keep moving forward to survive. If we are overly fossilised in the system as it is today, we risk falling behind. So I am very focused on and supportive of a light-touch approach and I am pleased that it is on the amendments in front of us.
Lord Markham (Con)
I start by not thanking the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for his update on the score, because I am hoping to catch the highlights at the end. So I hope that, when he speaks further on his amendments, we will have no further updates; that is a small plea.
On a more serious matter, I too add my thanks to the Minister for listening and bringing forward this series of amendments. They cover the sentiment of what I think we all agree the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others were trying to do with their light touch. I must admit that I am particularly taken by the points made by my noble friends Lady Brady and Lord Fuller around a variable-touch model. We will move on to talk on day two about some of the other things. There was a big consensus around the House on trying to promote independent and non-exec directors on the boards of these clubs. Again, this is something that will come up later.
What we want more than anything is well-run clubs and a system in which, if a club is well run and has independent non-exec directors who are making sure it is run in a good manner, we really do have a light-touch model. At the same time, we should have flexibility. If there are greater concerns, there should be a heavier touch. Again, we have precedent for this. We have so-called special measures in schools and situations such as those.
I thank the Minister for recognising that sentiment about a light touch and bringing it forward. As the Bill goes through the Lords, I would ask her to consider whether we can bring a variable touch so that there is not just a one-size-fits-all approach and that, if clubs show that they are well run and reputable, they will not need the same level of scrutiny and the same burdens placed on them as those that are in more difficulties. With that, I welcome these amendments and I wish to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the idea of a variable-touch model.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, this group and the discussion we have had reflect the value of the style of debate that we have in your Lordships’ House. I welcome the opportunity for us to work with noble Lords from across the House to refine the Bill. We thought the Bill was good when the previous Government had it; we thought our version was very slightly better; and we have the possibility of sending an even better version to be considered in the other place.
In starting my response to the comments made during this short debate, and with appropriate and due impartiality, I am very happy to pass on my best wishes to Liverpool FC—I will not comment on the score. Whichever team anyone supports, I think all noble Lords can agree that without players we would have no game. On that basis alone, it is right that they are included. I thank the noble Lords and my noble friends who have signed the Government’s amendment on that, and who took time to talk us through where it should sit within the Bill.
A lot of the discussion relates to definitions—whether about a light touch and what that means, or about fans and who they are. I want to say a little more about fans. The Government do not see themselves as the arbitrator of who counts as a football fan. That is something that fans and clubs themselves are in the best position to understand and discern. The makeup of a fan base differs from club to club; this diversity is part of the reason why the English football pyramid is so special. This is why the Government have introduced this legislation to protect English football by making it more sustainable and to help put fans back at the centre of their clubs, amplifying their voices on the issues that matter to them.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, about how the regulator will engage with fans, it will do so on a case-by-case basis. I would be happy to arrange for the noble Lord to speak to the shadow regulator team to provide him with more information about how it might do that. The regulator, once established, will be able to provide guidance for clubs on how to best consult fans. This will ensure that clubs have an appropriate framework in place that allows them to regularly meet and consult this group on key strategic matters and supporter interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked the key question about whether the regulator will have to ask itself whether intervention will address some substantial mischief, is likely to achieve some substantial benefit and is required because a similar outcome could not be achieved by a less burdensome means. That is our understanding. If that is the noble Lord’s understanding of where we are going with this amendment, that understanding is correct.
The noble Lord, Lord Birt, spoke about the risk of both underregulation and overregulation. This is about balance; we have added a new regulatory principle to achieve this aim, but we still think this will mean that the regulator will be effective. This is key, as both the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made clear. The first part of this new principle of considering
“whether the requirement or restriction is necessary”
directs the regulator towards a light-touch approach to intervention as a whole, acting only where it needs to. I do not think we are a million miles away from where the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, thinks we should be, and I am happy to meet with her again to talk this through a bit further should she find that helpful.
The second part of the new principle ensures that any intervention that is considered necessary is as light-touch as possible by directing the regulator towards the least burdensome mechanism available in the specific circumstances of the outcome sought. Amendment 18 facilitates the regulator to take a different approach to clubs, alongside the proportionality principle, to ensure that each action taken by the regulator is the least burdensome it can be. We have not chosen to call that light-touch in the regulation, but it is intended to be light-touch. With that, I commend Amendment 17 to the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Newlove) (Con)
This is where it could go to VAR.
Amendment 18
Baroness Twycross
“(ba) it should, before it imposes any requirement or restriction on a person, have regard to whether the requirement or restriction is necessary and whether a similar outcome could be achieved by less burdensome means;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment includes a regulatory principle that the IFR should, before it imposes any requirement or restriction on a person, have regard to whether it is necessary and whether a similar outcome could be achieved by less burdensome means.
Baroness Twycross
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a minor drafting change to the regulatory principle in clause 8(d).
Lord Birt
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, Amendments 21 and 22 are in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I strongly support the notion of a “state of the game” report, above all to encourage an evidenced and sophisticated dialogue between the leagues about fund flow, either in direct negotiation or as part of the mediation process if the backstop is triggered. But I will make three points.
First, the Bill currently states that the report should include
“information about any other matters relating to the state of English football”.
One highly critical matter, which has come up more than once today, is the global position of the English game. The Premier League, as was said a moment ago, is the most successful sporting league of any kind in the whole world, its global broadcasting revenues now surpassing those raised domestically. We propose that the “state of the game” report should capture the position of the Premier League in relation to other major European leagues—the purpose of our Amendment 21.
Secondly, producing the first draft of the “state of the game” report should not take, as the Bill suggests, up to 18 months. Football is an incredibly data-rich activity, as I have learned over these last few months, with enormous pools of relevant publicly available information at home and abroad. Six months to produce the report should be quite sufficient.
Thirdly, the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Pannick, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and I will argue next Monday that a well-evidenced “state of the game” report should be the first step in a redesigned backstop process. But there is a problem. The Bill indicates that, after the first “state of the game” report is complete, future reports will be produced on a five-year cycle. We cannot be certain at what point in the five-year cycle the backstop might be triggered—this is all quite technical. Hence, our Amendment 22 suggests that, if the backstop is triggered and more than two years have passed since the last report, the “state of the game” report should be refreshed and updated before the backstop mediation process begins.
I do not plan to test the opinion of the House, but we tabled these amendments in the hope that the Government will continue to refine the Bill, as they have been doing, as they take their next steps. We hope they will consider these points. I beg to move.
Lord Markham (Con)
Given the late hour, I will speak briefly in support of these amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, quite rightly said, the value of the global rights is now greater than the value of the domestic rights. Of course, it is the rights money that affords the best players in the world. We have put out this stat before: the Premier League has 44% of the best players in the world, which makes it the most exciting, which creates a virtuous circle and grows the rights. It is entirely proper that the global appeal should be recognised in the “state of the game” report. We wholeheartedly support the amendments.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for his amendment. I am grateful for the huge amount of time and effort that the noble Lord has put into considering how we could all further improve this legislation. I also thank him for the amount of time he has given to discussing it with my officials and me over many weeks.
This amendment would see the regulator having to provide an overview of English football’s global appeal in the “state of the game” report. The report is focused on the issues affecting English football so far as relevant to the exercise of the regulator’s functions. The issue that this amendment intends to capture will likely already be captured in the “state of the game” report, as it could impact the regulator’s objectives and duties. We have purposely left the required content of the “state of the game” report broadly to the regulator’s discretion to ensure flexibility and independence. It would not be possible to list every issue worth including, as the list would be too long and doing so would remove the regulator’s ability to prioritise issues and to adjust them over time.
Amendment 22, requiring an updated “state of the game” report if the backstop is triggered, could place a significant burden on the regulator, and might slow the process down significantly. In our view, three months would definitely not be long enough to update a review of English football, given the breadth and depth of relevant issues it must cover. The regulator has to identify the analysis needed, request it from parties, let them respond, analyse it and consult on findings before publishing.
We also have to consider the significant burdens this amendment would place on the regulator, but particularly on smaller clubs. Furthermore, an updated “state of the game” report would be required solely if an application to trigger the backstop was put forward, regardless of whether that application was accepted. Ultimately, a three-month delay in the backstop process, with the burden on both the regulator and the industry to engage with a rushed updated review, would likely be disproportionate to the benefits. I therefore hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
When the backstop first has to happen, the “state of the game” report is critical as part of the process. Is the noble Baroness now saying that for any future triggering of the backstop, the “state of the game” report is not part of that process? We thought she had said that it was always part of the triggering process. I may have completely misunderstood, so if the noble Baroness could clarify that, it would be really helpful.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The issue is whether there would automatically be a “state of the game” report simply because of a request to trigger the process. Once a “state of the game” report is in existence, it may or may not be necessary for it to be updated if somebody triggers the process. In our view, the automatic triggering of an updating of the “state of the game” report is disproportionate. There would already be a report in place. We absolutely intend for a “state of the game” report to be in place before an initial process is triggered. Clearly, it would have to be written within the relevant timeframe in the legislation.
Lord Pannick (CB)
May I suggest to the Minister that five years is an awfully long time between “state of the game” reports? That may be the defect here. The game can and does change immeasurably within a period of five years. Perhaps the Bill team and the Minister could consider, when the Bill goes to the other place, whether it might be more appropriate to have a more regular update on the “state of the game” report, perhaps every three years.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will take that point away and return to this issue with noble Lords. My view is that it does not necessarily need to be more frequent, but we can discuss that further.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We on these Benches welcome the government amendment that makes it five years, so that the “state of the game” report is more aligned with the parliamentary timetable. We may touch on this when we speak to the later group from the noble Lord, Lord Birt.
Lord Birt (CB)
I thank the Minister for her response. I also thank her, as others did earlier, for her extreme generosity with her time and that of her Bill team. We have spent many long hours discussing these things. Given what she has just said, I hope that we may spend some more hours discussing these matters. It is actually rather a technical question: it is not a matter of high principle—it is a practical matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just said, imagine that the backstop is triggered four years after the previous “state of the game” report. Everyone will be saying, “This isn’t very relevant any longer; everything has changed”. I hope that the very good dialogue we have had over these last weeks can continue, because I do not really agree with the account the Minister has just given. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Addington
“Review of advertising and sponsorship related to gambling in English football(1) Within one year of establishment, the IFR must conduct a review of advertising and sponsorship related to gambling in English football.(2) The review must make recommendations regarding the necessary steps to achieve the elimination of advertising and sponsorship related to gambling in English football within five years of the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the review before Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the IFR to conduct a review and make recommendations regarding the steps required to eliminate advertising and sponsorship related to gambling in English football.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 23, 29, 53 and 54 standing in my name. This is something that we have touched on—gambling and football. Certain sports such as horseracing tend to be dependent on gambling, but we have something of a surfeit of gambling advertising on our televisions: it is everywhere. In these amendments, I am suggesting that football might be one place we could do without it. The revenue might be very useful to the clubs involved, but we have already heard about the huge reach of football as a subject, and the fact that there is a huge demand for it. Can we not get rid of gambling here?
I have proposed four different ways of removing gambling from the football structure. We have removed other forms of gambling. The occasional flutter might not be as damaging as cigarettes, but it is very damaging for some people. It is an international sport. Look at Kenya and its problems with children gambling on the Premier League. Gambling has developed, and football is a lovely thing because you have lots of nice options to have occasional bets on. It has grown out of all recognition, into probably something none of us would even have suspected 20 years ago. I am proposing four ways of getting gambling to exit from professional football.
I could go on at great length about this, but it is fairly late and we had a good go at it in Committee. I hope the Government will say that they are going to do something on gambling in this Bill. I have given four options, and a bit of movement might make me more willing to withdraw the amendment. If I do not hear that at the appropriate time, I will press the amendment to a vote, because we have to draw a line in the sand at some point.
We have to stop it. Football markets itself as the universal game from childhood onwards. It is almost impossible. I had a discussion with the Advertising Association over a very nice dinner provided by it. The people there were talking about AI, and I asked them whether AI would allow them to filter out children. It was a resolute no, or at least they do not think so at the moment.
We have to do something here; it has got ridiculous. Can we please take some steps to stop advertising in football being quite so pervasive? It is not just on television, is on the radio, et cetera. If the Government are prepared to take some steps I will of course back them, because a slice is better than no cake. So, if the Government are prepared to do that, they will have my full support. If not, I will push this to a vote, probably on Amendment 53. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I want to say a few words on this amendment because I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has been saying, although I am not sure that this is the vehicle for what he actually wants to do. There are many concerns about gambling, including in football, but I want to mention what one club has actually done. That club just happens to be Bolton Wanderers, which may not surprise people who have been here on other occasions.
In 2021, Bolton Wanderers closed all the on-site betting facilities that had been there for many years. That was a very big step. It committed the club to a new approach of not allowing gambling anywhere near the actual stadium, which was really important. It included not just direct gambling companies but those who were involved in them. It was a big step forward, because in the north-west, gambling has been quite a significant problem.
That was a big step for a club. There are other clubs that can and should do likewise, but Bolton Wanderers actually went one step further and introduced a system with others in the area, providing courses for fans who had been concerned about their own gambling habits and did not know where to access help. There was an outreach programme which I understand has had some degree of success, including a group called Against the Odds, which was worried about the gambling logo and the number of adverts going round the stadium during a match. It is not a solution to all the problems associated with gambling, but I mention it because it indicates what individual clubs can do, and we should encourage others to follow suit.
I agree with the noble Lord that there are the many wider problems that he has mentioned. I am personally not against gambling, per se, but I am against some of the tactics used by gambling companies to suck people in to becoming addicted and gambling more than they can afford. This is a bigger issue than just football; therefore, I understand if my noble friend the Minister cannot accept that we should be doing this in this Bill. But it is important that we are aware of that problem and that football clubs can help in these situations.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this group of amendments, which is antagonistic to every aspect of gambling being involved in football, seems to me to be the epitome of what I have been warning about in terms of an intrusive and disproportionate regulatory overreach.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I and other Members of the Lib Dem Benches have exchanged views on gambling, both in Committee and previously, so I will aim to avoid repeating that. In some ways, this group of amendments, along with the earlier amendments on the environment, express a worry that the independent football regulator will be used as a Trojan horse for a range of political hobby-horses.
One of the aims of the Bill is that the football regulator will help clubs, particularly smaller clubs, become financially sustainable and avoid financial jeopardy. That has been a compelling and convincing argument for this Bill. So why would we cut off a perfectly legitimate source of funding in the form of lucrative sponsorship, which is what these amendments would do? Gambling companies provide significant revenue through sponsorship for football teams. That money helps clubs not only pay staff salaries, upgrade training facilities and maintain stadiums but invest in youth academies and community projects—they often help fund and fuel those social responsibility projects that the noble Lord seemed so keen on earlier this evening.
Any special discriminatory treatment of the gambling industry as potential sponsors would imply a moralistic and politically charged decision-making about which sponsors are virtuous enough to be allowed. The regulator and this Bill should keep well away from that. I am sure that, in this House, there will be people who will cheer on Dale Vince’s sponsorship of Forest Green and his ownership of Ecotricity—that would pass muster as a particular type of company, as other renewable energy companies are. In all seriousness, your Lordships might not like gambling, but what about the people who do not like airlines? What is going to happen to Emirates in relation to Arsenal, or Etihad Airways at Man City? What about those big financial services companies that also fund football teams? Who will make those kinds of moralistic decisions?
Finally, gambling is a legal activity. It is also a legitimate form of entertainment and a long-standing social activity that many people find exciting, thrilling, gets the adrenaline going and risky. Yes, you can lose and that can be disappointing, but sometimes it is thrilling when you win. One of the reasons why that is attractive is because anyone who follows the football will recognise the pattern, which is “Guess what? I might win, but I rarely do. But I can just about cope”. It is understandable that some football fans will occasionally have the odd bet and enjoy it. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. Based on my own family, I am more than aware of problem gambling. Do not get me wrong: it is a vicious, nasty and horrible thing when it happens, but obsessive, compulsive gamblers are a small minority and they should not be used as an excuse to deprive football teams of valuable financial support. The Bill should have absolutely nothing to do with that kind of puritan moralism.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, while I acknowledge the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised, I must agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that this is not the Bill for those concerns. We have got to be cautious in ensuring that the focus of the Bill remains squarely on football governance and not introduce far-reaching regulations on other matters—particularly in relation to gambling, where it risks duplicating or cutting across the work of the Gambling Commission, the Advertising Standards Authority and many other regulators that look into this thorny question and provide useful research and pointers to both the gambling industry and to those who want to tackle the harms that can be associated with it.
At present, there are no prohibitions concerning the types of companies from which clubs may accept advertising or sponsorship in this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, in setting out the case for his amendments, showed they were very sweeping. He wants to get rid of it entirely from football, so he has proposed some very sweeping amendments on this issue. It also cuts against the work, which the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, pointed out, that many individual clubs are already undertaking to ensure that what they do in this regard is done responsibly in the face of their fans.
Therefore, given the broader implications of the noble Lord’s amendments and the fact that this Bill was never intended to address complicated issues such as this, I do not think we should be taking it in this direction. If the noble Lord does divide on his amendments, we will not be supporting them.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his amendments in this group. As the Minister for Gambling, I acknowledge the importance of monitoring the impact of gambling sponsorship in football. Indeed, the noble Lord has raised this with me on a regular basis. I absolutely agree that, where gambling advertising and sponsorship appear in relation to football clubs, they must do so in a socially responsible way. The cumulative impact of gambling advertising, specifically around football, is, as I said, raised with me frequently.
I have already set the gambling industry, relatively recently, a task to raise standards to ensure that gambling advertising more widely is both proportionate and appropriate. This work will be monitored closely. It is fair and reasonable for the Government to challenge the sector to make self-regulatory improvements first. In our view, this can deliver positive change more quickly. The Premier League has already made a decision to ban front-of-shirt sponsorship by gambling firms by the end of next season, and many clubs, as highlighted by my noble friend Lady Taylor, already do not take sponsorship or advertising by gambling firms.
All major sports have also published their gambling sponsorship codes of conduct, which set minimum standards for gambling sponsorships within sport. We will work with sports bodies to undertake a review of the implementation and impact of the codes of conduct to ensure they are effective. This review will provide key evidence to inform the most appropriate next steps. However, we do not believe the regulator should have a specific role in commercial matters such as advertising and sponsorship, which are rightly decisions for clubs.
It is important to recognise the vital revenue that many clubs currently rely on via advertising and sponsorship from gambling firms, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. We have to be wary of scope creep that sees the regulator straying into matters that should be reserved for the industry and stepping on the toes of industry authorities such as the FA and other regulators that have a remit over this area of policy.
On Amendment 29, current drafting already requires fan engagement on clubs’ business priorities and strategic approach. Discussion of a club’s overall approach to sponsorship could reasonably play a role in these consultations. We do not, however, think it appropriate for the regulator to require specific fan engagement on gambling advertising and sponsorship specifically, especially as it would not be relevant at all clubs, such as those with no gambling sponsors.
On Amendment 53, what constitutes the promotion of gambling could be interpreted extremely widely, such as players not being able to take part in competitions that have gambling sponsors. Clearly, this would, or could, have significant unintended consequences for clubs and the sport more widely.
On Amendment 23, a review of gambling advertising and sponsorship in football should not, in our view, be the responsibility of a regulator with a specific remit of the kind intended by this legislation. As I have set out, the Government are already taking action in this space in conjunction with the industry and governing bodies in football and other sports. This will review the implementation and impact of the codes of conduct to ensure they are effective. If further action on sponsorship and advertising is needed, we will take it, but for the reasons I have set out I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for her response. However, it seems to be, “Yes, something should be done—at some point in the future, we will definitely do something”. I do not really think that we can carry on like that. We have to try to do something as quickly as possible, because the combination of the smartphone and the universal web means that the temptation to gamble is constantly with us. It is something that we have not addressed properly. Most of our regulation is designed for a day before the smartphone, so I hope that we will do something now.
As I said, a series of amendments was put down to give a series of options for the Government. The Government have decided not to bite. So I give fair notice that I will be pressing Amendment 53 when the time comes, but I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 23, standing in my name.
Baroness Twycross
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the minimum frequency of revised football governance statements from every three years to every five years.
Lord Ranger of Northwood
“(aa) a review of the impact of the activity of the IFR on ticket prices, and”
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her consideration of my amendment earlier this evening. I note that she mentioned that the annual report was not the place for the information about the potential cost implications of the independent financial football regulator in terms of its impact on ticket prices. I respectfully disagree. I think that report would be exactly the place that any financial implications that come from the IFR and the impact that they would have on football fans should be.
I also note her letter about cost implications, which also identifies that up to two and a half full-time equivalents could be placed in larger clubs in terms of cost requirements for compliance, and up to 0.5 equivalents for smaller clubs. These are significant figures. They would have an impact on the costs for clubs across our country.
I also noted in the letter that the costs would be borne by those with the broadest shoulders—a term normally used for taxation. I feel that we must be careful about placing a further burden on the shoulders of English football fans. So, with respect, I would like to test the opinion of the House on my amendment.
Baroness Twycross
“(b) any emblem or crest of a relevant team operated by the club;(ba) the predominant home shirt colours of a relevant team operated by the club;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds a reference to a team’s “emblem” alongside “crest”, to avoid confusion with the heraldic use of the term “crest”.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his passion for heraldry and the interesting discussions we have had on this topic in Committee and afterwards. The Government absolutely agree on the importance of this legislation being able accurately to protect club heritage. That is why officials have worked closely with the College of Arms, and I thank it for its engagement. In doing so, we have ensured that the legislation remains in step with both the FA’s heritage guidelines and heraldic terminology. The Government have tabled Amendments 30 and 49 to expand the references from “crest” to “crest or emblem”, and the noble Lord has my commitment that we will add additional clarity in the Explanatory Notes which accompany the Bill. We will include language to the effect of the noble Lord’s Amendment 80 in the Explanatory Notes.
Turning to government Amendments 48 and 79, I would like to thank my eagle-eyed noble friend Lord Bassam again for raising awareness of the consistency of drafting in Clause 46. We absolutely agree that it is best for language to be consistent where possible. That is why we are bringing forward this amendment to align drafting. I would like to reassure noble Lords that this change has no impact on the policy; none the less, it is a change we are welcoming. I beg to move.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, for reasons I cannot fathom, our debates on heraldry always seem to come late in the evening. But I am delighted to see that it is commanding such interest from the Government Benches this evening. I take that as great encouragement.
I thank the Minister and her officials, who have taken a number of meetings and had a number of conversations on a subject that might seem recherché but is important not just to me but to the College of Arms and, indeed, to many who have been following the Bill. As I set out in Committee, this point was raised on social media; in a very new medium, an ancient problem was highlighted.
Some might think that the use of correct heraldic terminology is trivial, but it is my firm view that it is not. Not only should we generally aim for precision in the language we use in legislation but where the provisions of the Bill, and indeed the actions of the regulator, may intervene in the activities of a body as venerable as the College of Arms, we need to ensure that we get it right.
I welcome the good will that is reflected in the fact that the Government have brought forward some amendments, but I am afraid we have not quite got there yet, which is why I have risen to speak to my Amendment 80. To briefly summarise what I set out in Committee, the problem in government Amendment 30, which the Minister has just moved, is the term “crest”—which some will take to be the badge part of a coat of arms but is in fact what appears above it. The word “crest” is repeated in the explanatory statement to Amendment 30, where the Minister has said:
“This amendment adds a reference to a team’s ‘emblem’ alongside ‘crest’, to avoid confusion with the … use of the term ‘crest’”.
It is better to avoid that confusion by not using it, hence the amendment I brought in Committee suggesting that we should properly call it a “badge”. We are repeating the incorrect term, which is the problem that I and the College of Arms have been raising with the Government.
During the meetings we have had, we have been trying to land this point with the Government but have not quite been able to get there. I am aware that correspondence was had with the Minister’s department only today, following up the points. I know the college welcomes what she is going to put in the Explanatory Notes, as do I—that is very helpful—but it is looking for a saving clause that simply asserts, or reasserts, the authority of the Kings of Arms over armorial bearings. That is the sticking point that I hope we might yet be able to resolve on this matter.
As I understand from the College of Arms, the department’s argument is that the regulator does not approve the content or substance of a proposed club badge but merely decides whether it went through the required process of consultation under the Bill. The department argues, therefore, that there is never any risk of the regulator straying on to the college’s turf since the regulator is not involved in the question of what a badge consists of or looks like. The Government argue that that is why nothing is needed. Rather perversely, they argue that a saving clause would create the impression that there is a conflict here, but that misses the point. When taken as a whole, the Bill does create approval for a badge, which it incorrectly calls a crest, albeit via consultation with fans and others. The Bill creates a mechanism for the approval, and indeed disapproval, of a badge—mistakenly called a crest—in statute. That cannot fail to create a sense that, at some level, the badge that has gone through the process has achieved some kind of authorised status.
In Committee we discussed the examples of problems that may occur. In lots of local authorities, a football club uses the same or a similar coat of arms as the local authority. If there were to be a conflict between that local authority and that club about the proper use of it, the College of Arms would be asked to step in and adjudicate. So there is a risk that the Bill unwittingly encroaches on the Crown’s prerogative in regard to heraldry. This is not the same as trademarks, but in the case of coats of arms we are talking about the Crown prerogative, which surely limits the extent to which parallel clauses for other parties are required.
What the College of Arms is asking for, and what I am suggesting in my Amendment 80, is not unusual. There are plenty of examples of saving clauses in other legislation; for instance, Section 33 of the Immigration Act 1971. My Amendment 80, which the college hopes to see put on the face of the Bill, not just in the Explanatory Notes, would follow the well-established precedent of protecting with absolute certainty the rights of the Kings of Arms.
All of us who have come into your Lordships’ House have taken our first steps in this Chamber following, slowly and reverently, the footsteps of the Garter Principal King of Arms, an office that has existed since 1415. We went to see him at the College of Arms, to seek agreement for our very names and titles. We have sworn an oath of allegiance to the sovereign that it is his solemn duty to proclaim at the moment of accession. So I hope that we can give him a few moments of our attention, even at this late hour and at this late stage of the Bill.
The saving clause that I have proposed, drafted in general terms, will not create the impression that the regulator will be involved in considering the substance of designs—or anything else, for that matter. I believe it is a simple but important amendment, which I very much hope the Minister will be able to accept. Happily, if there should need to be a Division on my Amendment 80, it would not come tonight but on day 2. I hope that, if she is not able to give that reassurance now, she will be able to take it away, reflect on it further—particularly in the light of the correspondence that I know she and her department have had today—and avoid the need to divide on this.
I am very grateful for the time and attention that the Minister has given, and for the improvements that we have had already. This final insertion really is the matter that would allay the concerns of the College of Arms and, therefore, my concerns as well. I beg to move.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, again for his engagement on this matter and for his amendment.
We genuinely do not think that this matter is trivial but we do believe that the language in the noble Lord’s amendment would be a redundant addition to the legislation; we do not think that it is required. This is because, aside from the terminology used regarding the club emblems, the regulator’s powers are not expected to interact with the College of Arms and, therefore, the powers of the Kings of Arms.
Indeed, the regulator will ensure that fans have been properly consulted on proposed changes, but it will not be for the regulator to approve designs, only the process of clubs working with fans. This is rightly for other organisations, including the College of Arms, but also the Intellectual Property Office and other bodies.
As the regulator has no role in what the crest or emblem looks like, nor whether it infringes on any trademarks or copyright, it is implicit that the relevant body’s decision will supersede any related action by the regulator. There are many instances where the regime has been designed specifically not to conflict with existing powers and processes, such as law enforcement investigations or HMRC business requirements. However, it is unnecessary and unconventional practice for all parties that may work on parallel issues to the statutory body to be listed.
I hope that, through the changes we have made, and through further explanations in the Explanatory Notes, the noble Lord will be reassured that the sanctity of the College of Arms will be preserved. I am happy to meet him to discuss this further but, for the reasons that I have set out, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment. I hope that noble Lords will support these government amendments. I beg to move Amendment 30.