Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill
(2 days, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire.
The Bill is most welcome, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, for bringing it forward. It makes the necessary provisions to ensure that, where divergence has arisen across the whole of Great Britain, shared democratic values are brought into closer practical alignment. In doing so, it strengthens the unity of our democratic system while respecting the distinct identities of the devolved nations. We on these Benches have always sought to bridge the gaps between the constituent communities that make our country so unique and vibrant.
It is right to acknowledge that the Bill builds on the work of the previous Government, including the Elections Act 2022, which took important steps to reinforce the security and transparency of our democratic processes. That Act introduced measures such as digital imprints on online campaign materials and enhanced security for political funding—reforms that were both timely and necessary. It is therefore regrettable that legislative consent was not granted for those measures at the time. This Bill now goes some way to mitigate the effect of those divisions.
I also reiterate what my noble friend Lady Scott said at Second Reading: I urge the Government to reconsider any proposals to dilute voter ID requirements. Today we are legislating to make voting easier while maintaining appropriate safeguards. We must not, at the same time, take steps to weaken the security of our elections.
Finally, accessibility is vital, but so too is security. Protecting the integrity of our elections by guarding against fraud or interference is a core duty of any responsible Government. In the other place, my honourable friend Paul Holmes rightly called for Ministers to
“take decisive and proactive steps…to prevent malign influence, whether domestic or foreign”—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/25; col. 594.]
as we modernise and reform our systems. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could use this opportunity to set out what specific steps the Government are taking to uphold that commitment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to and support for the Bill, and particularly my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen for his stewardship of the Bill through this House.
Our democracy remains at the heart of our Government’s purpose and mission. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, the Government will bring forward a number of changes in the forthcoming elections Bill, which will come before this House in due course; we will have the opportunity to discuss these matters further at that point.
I thank my noble friend Lord Murphy for his excellent contribution to our democratic process.
Lord Rennard (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, I note that I agree with some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, if not all of them. He makes some good points about the different gaps in and problems within our election laws. In our Second Reading and Committee debates, many of us across the House spoke about the need to consolidate properly all election laws.
We recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, has done extremely well in bringing this Bill forward— I shall call it a small, tidying-up measure. It is still a very important principle that people in Scotland and Wales can apply online to vote as absent voters; that should probably have been done in 2022, without needing a Private Member’s Bill. We frequently have debates in which the expertise in this House highlights the need, as the law commissions keep emphasising, for proper consolidation of election laws, bringing together the legislation of 2000 and the old legislation of the Representation of the People Act. Can the Minister say a bit more about the Government’s intention regarding consolidating election law in general?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rennard; he is right to flag up that more work is to be done on elections. That is why, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, I referred to the forthcoming elections Bill. I am sure that noble Lords in this House, where there is indeed a great deal of expertise in election matters, will want to contribute to that Bill as it comes forward.
I hope we will be able to incorporate many of the matters we have discussed over the years that have been missed out of the elections process or need further tightening because of current circumstances— I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, was referring to that too. We have seen a significant change in the way things operate, so we need to make sure that election law keeps up with that. That is our aim as we bring forward the elections Bill, and I look forward to the contributions of all Members of the House when we do so.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, it is quite difficult for a Welsh Labour politician to talk about elections dispassionately, but I will try to do that. I thank all those who have been involved in the Bill—my honourable friend Tracy Gilbert from the other place and, of course, all the officials and parliamentary officials who have put the Bill through. I would like to thank all Members here who realised that this is a small but important step in the right direction, in the sense that now, at last, voters in Scotland and Wales will be able to apply online for postal and proxy votes for the Senedd, the Scottish Parliament and for Scottish and Welsh local elections.
There is one point I want to emphasise before I sit down, and I know the Minister is aware of this. Now that the Bill has gone through its parliamentary stages and will become law very soon, it is important, because there are six months left before those important elections next year, that the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government now properly look at these new arrangements and ensure that people can vote by proxy or by post at the next Senedd and Scottish Parliament elections. As I said at Second Reading, I will continue to vote at Llantarnam church hall.
I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Licensing Hours Extensions Bill
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen may have been hesitant to talk about elections this morning, but the Bill I propose may allow him to drown his sorrows a little easier. It is a genuine privilege to bring forward the Licensing Hours Extension Bill, a small but meaningful reform that will make a tangible difference to hospitality businesses, local communities and the millions of people who gather in pubs across England and Wales.
The Bill has travelled a steady, consensual path. It nearly reached this House before the last general election, under the stewardship of my colleague Emma Lewell. I am pleased to say that it received cross-party support when both she and my honourable friend Andrew Ranger, the Member for Wrexham, guided it through the Commons. It was supported by Ministers in both Governments, and that breadth of agreement reflects something rare and precious: a shared recognition of the cultural, social and economic importance of the great British pub, so ably represented by the good people of the British Beer & Pub Association, known to all Members of this House, which also supports this legislation.
The Bill makes a straightforward amendment to the Licensing Act 2003, the legislation that sets out the framework for four licensable activities: the sale of alcohol, and its supply, the provision of regulated entertainment, and the provision of late-night refreshment. Under Section 172 of that Act, the Secretary of State has the power to make an order extending licensing hours across England and Wales to mark occasions of
“exceptional international, national, or local significance”.
These national extensions allow all licensed premises to stay open for longer, should they wish to do so.
Over the past two decades, the power has been used sparingly, but effectively. It has enabled communities to celebrate together during the royal weddings in 2011 and 2018; Her late Majesty the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012; the Platinum Jubilee in 2022; and His Majesty the King’s Coronation in 2023. More recently, it was used to mark the 80th anniversary of VE Day earlier this year, and during major sporting events such as Euro 2020—played in 2021—and Euro 2024, in which the England men’s football team participated. Most recently, licensing hours were extended when the Lionesses achieved their magnificent victory in securing a second European Championship title.
These nationally shared moments remind us that the role of the pub is not just commercial; pubs are the beating hearts of our communities. They are places where we come together in times of joy, pride and sometimes sorrow. They are where strangers become friends, where neighbours meet and where the shared story of our national life unfolds. Two-thirds of adults believe their local pub plays a vital role in tackling loneliness and social isolation. For many, especially in rural areas or small towns, it is the one place where the door is generally always open and where a conversation is never far away.
Economically too, this sector is a powerhouse: some 45,000 pubs and nearly 2,000 breweries support over a million jobs. They contribute £34 billion in gross value added to the economy and generate £18 billion in tax revenue. Almost half the workforce is aged between 16 and 24, making pubs and hospitality one of the most significant sources of opportunity for young people entering the labour market. Pubs sustain high streets in every part of the country, from great cities to small coastal towns. They sponsor local football teams, host community meetings and support charity events. They help our villages remain viable and our cities vibrant. And yet, despite their value, too many publicans face obstacles that make their work harder than it needs to be.
Under the current system, when a moment of national significant arises—whether a royal celebration, a major sporting final or a solemn occasion of mourning—pubs and hospitality venues often face unnecessary bureaucracy. They must either apply individually for a temporary event notice, which costs money and requires at least 10 days’ notice, or they must wait for Parliament to approve a blanket extension through the affirmative procedure. If Parliament is not sitting, that flexibility simply does not exist.
We saw the consequences of that in August 2023, when the Lionesses reached the World Cup final. It was a huge moment of national pride, watched by millions, yet thousands of venues were unable to open early and allow communities to come together. The Government could not extend licensing hours across England and Wales because there was not time to secure approval in both Houses. The Bill seeks to correct that. It replaces the affirmative procedure with the negative resolution procedure. In practice, that means that the Home Secretary may grant a temporary national extension to licensing hours more swiftly, without requiring a debate in both Houses, while preserving Parliament’s right to object. This is a pragmatic change that makes the system flexible, responsive and fit for purpose. It removes red tape, saves businesses money and ensures that we can respond in real time to moments that bring the nation together.
There is also a practical economic benefit. National license extensions save every affected business the cost and administrative burden of applying individually for a temporary event notice—£21 per application—while relieving local licensing authorities of the work involved in processing large numbers of requests in a short period of time.
At the same time, the Bill safeguards parliamentary scrutiny. If any Member of either House objects to a proposed extension, they retain the right to pray against it, meaning a debate can still take place. The only difference is that such a debate would not be automatic. This approach strikes the right balance between efficiency and accountability. As past experience shows, national extensions of this kind have been universally welcomed and commanded broad consensus. It is difficult to imagine objection to an extension marking a royal jubilee, a Coronation or a major sporting event.
Importantly, the Bill does not alter the criteria for extensions. National orders will still be determined on a case-by-case basis by the Secretary of State, normally the Home Secretary, and will be introduced only for events that are, in the words of the Licensing Act,
“of exceptional international, national, or local significance”.
The process for temporary event notices remains unchanged.
The Bill, then, is both a modest and meaningful change. It is a technical adjustment, but one that will bring real benefits to business and communities alike. It recognises that pubs are more than places of trade— they are spaces of togetherness and continuity in an age when many of our shared rituals have frayed. It acknowledges that our legislative processes must be nimble enough to keep pace with modern life. In a country where a football final, a royal commemoration or a moment of remembrance can unite millions, it should not be impossible for our communities to celebrate or to reflect together simply because of procedural delay.
The hospitality industry continues to recover from the shocks of the pandemic and sustained cost pressures. Many landlords and staff have had to show extraordinary resilience. Removing unnecessary administrative barriers, even small ones, sends an important signal of confidence and respect for their role in our national life.
The Bill embodies a simple principle: that government should trust communities and businesses to come together responsibly in moments that matter. It removes friction without removing oversight, and it tidies a process that has outlived its practicality while preserving the checks and balances that Parliament rightly expects. It also reminds us of something beyond procedure. When the national anthem plays in a crowded pub, when glasses are raised in memory of a monarch or in celebration of a local hero, when laughter and conversation spill out into the street after a match, we see the best of who we are—neighbours, friends and citizens, bound by shared experience.
The Bill cannot solve every challenge facing our pubs and brewers but it is a step in the right direction. It is proportionate, practical and unifying. It ensures that the Secretary of State can act swiftly when the nation wishes to come together, and that Parliament can still hold Ministers to account if it so chooses. For all these reasons, I commend the Licensing Hours Extensions Bill to the House and invite your Lordships to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair and founder of Team Domenica.
When I joined your Lordships’ House, I vowed to speak only on things that I knew about, so your Lordships might be surprised to see me on my feet for this licensing Bill. However, in a few weeks’ time my charity is opening a pub in Brighton. This has required major investment for the acquisition, refurbishment and training facilities, funded by a combination of donations and a significant mortgage. It will give enhanced training opportunities for our candidates, in addition to our existing cafes and coffee roastery. When I asked Jeremy Clarkson for advice, his reply was succinct: “Don’t do it”. This was followed by a list of all the things that could and would go wrong.
Before I go into that, I would like to start by saying that I have no objection whatever to cutting the red tape and regulatory costs around opening hours, and I acknowledge that the Bill could be only a good thing for the industry. However, I have broader concerns.
My team are currently recruiting staff at all levels for the pub, and they have been flabbergasted by the hundreds of applications that they have received for every single job that we have advertised—and this is in Brighton, a city where hospitality is a major component of the economy. As recently as two years ago, hospitality venues were really struggling to fill vacancies. The impact of last year’s Budget is huge, and has been immediate, concentrated and socially regressive.
According to PAYE data published by the Office for National Statistics, 110,000 jobs have been lost in this sector between June 2024 and July 2025. Hospitality now employs 2.1 million people, and 60% of them are under 25. It is an entry level into work for young people, particularly those with no skills or qualifications, for those needing support into work, and for those people—such as our candidates—with learning disabilities, for whom a job can be life transforming. The new NIC threshold means an employer is paying tax on someone working seven to eight hours a week rather than 16 to 18 as previously. This has had a negative impact on an industry which largely relies on part-time workers and has caused pubs to slash jobs and decrease opening hours. I fear that the Employment Rights Bill coming down the track will make employing this cohort even more challenging, and the benefits bill will therefore increase on its alarming upward curve.
The Government need to start being serious about measures that will grow the economy and create jobs. They should reverse this threshold change and even take it higher than it was before the last Budget. In fact, UKHospitality lobbied for such a raise in the threshold before the last Budget to create jobs, and the Government did the opposite, without any consultation or impact assessment.
In its recent report, the Institute of Economic Affairs said:
“Employment and vacancies are down, working-age inactivity remains an apparently intractable problem, and unemployment continues its upward creep. Job losses are particularly noticeable in retailing and hospitality”.
A third of all minimum wage workers work in shops, bars and restaurants. This recent hike in employer national insurance contributions has brought many part-time workers into the Government’s net who were previously exempt.
Alan Vallance, the CEO of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, said last week that the country
“faces a damaging cliff edge if the Chancellor decides to raid businesses again”.
He said that businesses trying to deliver growth are being held back. Firms are telling him that it is
“too expensive to do business, with confidence in free-fall over skyrocketing operating costs amid high taxes, an outdated business rates system and soaring energy bills”.
UKHospitality has put forward several ideas and can demonstrate in each case what the real benefits would be to the economy and public finances. Here are a few of them. The first thing it suggests is to lower business rates to revive the high streets. Business rates are a sin tax on running community-based businesses. Our high streets and hospitality venues are a vital and economic resource.
The next suggestion is to fix NICs to boost jobs. Sectors such as hospitality, which provide accessible careers, have been hit hardest, as I just said. The impact on someone earning £25,000 a year was twice as bad as on someone earning £150,000, and the largest number of job losses have been in hospitality. Exemptions should include those at the start of their careers and people returning to work from welfare. I add to that list those with learning disabilities. This would support job creation and reduce the benefits bill.
The third suggestion is to cut VAT to drive investment. The EU average VAT rate on hospitality is between 10% and 13%. Last week, Ireland announced that it would cut its rate to 9%, yet in the UK we still pay the full 20%, making it so much harder for people to support their local businesses. UKHospitality is calling for a cut on VAT to the EU average, which would pay for itself over the course of the Parliament with higher tax receipts.
As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, the social and community importance of bars and pubs cannot be overestimated. Pubs are the centre of our communities, yet increasingly, people are drinking at home because they can no longer afford the price of a pint. As one person in the business said to me, 1p off a pint was a very unfunny joke. Our duty on alcohol is the second highest in Europe, topped only by Finland’s. People need to meet face to face, to feel a sense of belonging and connection. Hospitality venues are not just in towns and cities but in rural communities. They are the heartbeat of those communities, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson said, but, frankly, they need resuscitation. The isolation that rural communities feel—particularly farming communities, which are under so much pressure at the moment—is a very real issue, and pubs in the country are closing at an alarming rate.
The Government should now recognise the importance of this sector for economic growth, wealth creation, responsible consumption, social integration, community connection and cultural richness, and throw their weight behind this industry. The British Beer and Pub Association has estimated that 375 pubs will close before the end of this year in England, Wales and Scotland. Our Prime Minister has said that he wants to
“bring the buzz back to Britain’s boozers”.
He has got that the wrong way round. Bring the boozers back, and perhaps the buzz will follow.
As I said at the beginning, I am in not in any way against this Bill, but giving pubs the ability to trade later will not be any help with all the issues they face. Many of them can no longer afford to open every day, let alone late at night.
Let me end with an extract from Jeremy Clarkson’s email:
“When you step into a pub that you are running, you immediately notice the broken light bulb and the wonky loo roll dispenser and the cockeyed picture. And as there’s no money in hospitality these days, you can’t afford to get someone in to put everything right. You must do it yourself. And then, while you are doing it, a food allergy enthusiast will claim they saw a potato which has made them go blind and then the guy who you employ to clean the lavatories after the pub shuts will phone in sick so you’ll have to do that too. It’s relentless. But … there will come a time when everyone sits down after work and has a drink and a sausage roll and all of a sudden it’ll make sense. And it’ll especially make sense for you because you’re doing it for a very good reason”.
That very good reason is why I am speaking on this subject today. We have called our pub the North Star, as we guide our candidates into work and are constantly there for them when they embark on their journeys into employment.
Meanwhile, I will fight as hard as I can to ensure that the hospitality business can thrive again, not just for our candidates and their prospects but for all of us in our communities. Pubs are a quintessential symbol of Britishness, and it is our patriotic duty to keep them open and affordable, both for those who run them and for those who drop in for a drink, a meal and a conversation. Above all, none of us wants to hear for a final time that always unpopular phrase, “Last orders, please.”
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this Licensing Hours Extensions Bill. It is a sensible, straightforward change that will enable the public to support our hospitality sector with cross-party support. I hope it helps to mitigate the unnecessary strain put on local licensing authorities by preventing the current process of large numbers of applications being viewed at late notice, as well as giving certainty to businesses.
The hospitality sector helps to bring people together. As the co-chair of the loneliness APPG, I believe it is vital to enable and support our young people to socialise. The Covid-19 pandemic had an incredibly damaging impact on our young people’s well-being, with almost half of parents reporting that their children’s social and emotional skills worsened as a result. Furthermore, the hospitality sector is intertwined with the arts, with a trip to the theatre likely to include a drink and a meal out. The music, performing and visual arts sectors aid in cultural enrichment, bringing in over £11 billion to the UK economy each year, with our West End box office generating almost 1/10th of that. More broadly, hospitality brings in over £62 billion to the UK, providing 2.6 million jobs, making it the sixth-largest UK industry in terms of employment.
However, this Government’s track record does little to inspire confidence, actively undermining the sector since they came to office. Indeed, 111,000 jobs have been lost in the hospitality sector across the UK, with 30,000 jobs going here in London. It is hardly surprising that such a phenomenon is occurring when it now costs on average an extra £2,500 to add a member of staff, even before wages. In a nation that has a really high unemployment rate, surely we do not want to add more to this list.
Like other businesses across the UK, the hospitality sector has faced significant additional challenges since the Labour Government came to power. Each hospitality business has been expected to come up with an extra £30,000 to £80,000 in additional operating costs, according to the Night Time Industries Association. That staggering figure is the culmination of the national insurance contribution rate increases and an increase in the living wage of 6.7%, not to mention broader market instabilities and lack of confidence. These Government decisions not only make your night-time trip out more expensive but they make it less likely to happen at all. The night-time economy sector has faced a 15.8% contraction over the summer. The Times reported that a third of pubs, bars, restaurants and hotels are losing money and are at risk due to recent tax rises. These numbers reflect a growing understanding that a Labour Government are not conducive to business.
This predicament is even worse in our capital. The Mayor of London appointed Amy Lamé as a night czar. He paid her a huge sum of money, but she oversaw a massive decline in London nightlife which has yet to be put right. Economics aside, safety is a huge limiting factor, especially for women, on enjoying the hospitality sector. Two-thirds of respondents said they would be more likely to stay out later, and thus spend more money, if better night transportation was provided. I hope the Government will encourage the Mayor of London and TfL to put more effort into rolling out the Night Tube—for example, opening it up on Thursday, which has become the new Friday for many Londoners.
While I commend this Bill in its endeavours, I am deeply concerned by the challenges facing the hospitality sector due to the uncertain economic environment overseen by this Government, with business confidence falling to minus 74, the lowest reading since the survey began in 2016. As Michael Kill, the CEO of the Night Time Industries Association, put it:
“This past year has been a devastating chapter for the night time economy”.
The Government must do more than this Bill to help the night-time economy grow and prosper. They need to provide a pro-business environment, an agenda that will help this society rebuild not only the night-time economy but employment, particularly for young people. This is an area of our economy that gives many unskilled young people their start in employment and, without it, their lives will be destroyed before they even begin.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the opportunity to speak in the gap. I would like to make a few comments specifically in relation to this Bill.
I was previously the chief executive of the British Beer & Pub Association. I spent many a happy hour— or not—preparing, negotiating and discussing this particular piece of legislation with the Government at the time. I also brought the court case that resulted in the change in legislation, with the result that it was possible for people to drink at hours when the men’s football World Cup was taking place in Japan and South Korea.
As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, pubs are used on many occasions and in many different circumstances. I remember only too well having a conversation with him about the merits and demerits of moving the Greets Green and Lyng ward from one constituency in the Black Country to another. Boundaries may be resolved in some interesting places on occasions.
More seriously, this is an important piece of deregulatory legislation. It is a small step that I think is absolutely necessary. The problems that we have seen, in relation to the inability to bring forward changes in hours because Parliament is not sitting, have been highlighted on a number of occasions. This is a small but necessary deregulatory measure that is welcomed by the hospitality industry. I wish the Bill fair for the next few stages and contributions.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, who has sponsored this Bill and dedicated much time to ensuring its smooth progress. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed today. The noble Lords, Lord Hayward and Lord Bailey of Paddington, brought their experience of our hospitality sector, of local communities and of the workings of our licensing regime.
This sector needs all the help it can get: the Government’s misguided changes to national insurance have caused it needless damage. My noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest, who spoke so eloquently on such a precious subject, is working to open a pub that will employ people with disabilities. This commendable endeavour is testament to her long-standing support for the disabled. I hope that the Government will give a clear commitment to supporting pubs that may be affected by this legislation, particularly those that play an important role in empowering people with disabilities.
This Bill seeks to amend the Licensing Act 2003 in a modest but meaningful way by moving the statutory instrument under Section 172 so that orders to relax licensing hours for significant occasions may be made under the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative procedure. Although there is no need to make this discussion political, I believe that, at its heart, this is a Conservative-minded proposal. It is about removing bureaucracy, supporting local businesses and empowering communities to celebrate together. The Bill should have everyone’s support.
As other noble Lords have said, our hospitality sector is a vital part of local economies. Pubs, restaurants and other licensed premises are community hubs and meeting places. They anchor our high streets. They contribute to the social fabric of our towns and villages. They provide important employment opportunities to people of all ages, from students to the retired. As one honourable Member in the other place put it:
“Constituents … would welcome this relatively minor change so that they can come together, support their local hospitality spots and mark those occasions”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/1/25; col. 663.]
This Bill will give businesses the flexibility that they need to respond when our country comes together, whether that be for a major sporting occasion, a local occasion or a royal occasion.
By removing an unnecessary layer of parliamentary procedure, this Bill will free up parliamentary time. It will not alter the substantive provisions for when extensions may be granted: rather, it will streamline the mechanism. That will give this House time to discuss other matters of national importance, so it is a double win.
Finally, the Bill promotes community celebration and social cohesion. Many of our treasured national moments, such as royal celebrations and major finals, lead communities to gather together in pubs and other licensed premises. The current process sometimes delays suitable responses, for example when Parliament is in recess. Enabling licensing hours to be extended in a timely, practical manner for these events will mean that we can better support our citizens who want to gather together. It will help communities bond.
Although we on these Benches warmly support the Bill’s principle and intend to lend it our backing, we recognise the need for proportionate safeguards and oversight, which the Bill upholds and provides. The Bill does not change the core test of what is of “exceptional significance”. The Secretary of State must still judge whether an extension is justified. This Bill still ensures democratic oversight through the prayer mechanism. It allows Parliament to object where necessary, but the Government must still plan ahead and consult the police and local authorities. As Ministers here and in the other place have noted, the police have generally supported such extensions and there has been no disproportionate rise in crime or disorder.
Overall, this Bill strikes a good balance. It supports business and community and it protects the importance of democratic oversight. We on these Benches want to enable and encourage enterprise to back our hospitality sector and strengthen local communities—and to do so without unnecessary red tape. This Bill is a timely and sensible measure, so we on these Benches welcome it. We support its passage. I look forward to this important step being taken so that, when our nation comes together in celebration, local venues can also do so in a safe manner and with minimum delay. I lend the Bill my support.
I end my speech today on a high note with a quotation from a fine old song, “The Beer-Drinking Briton”, written to a tune by Thomas Arne, the author of “Rule, Britannia!” It goes:
“Let us sing our own treasures, old England’s good cheer. To the profits and pleasures of stout British beer”.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
Oh dear—the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has presented me with a with a rhetorical challenge to which I shall not attempt to rise.
I thank my noble friend Lord Watson for sponsoring this Bill and congratulate him on a wonderfully eloquent speech. I also thank my honourable friend the Member for Wrexham, who introduced the Bill and helped secure its successful passage in the other place. The Bill has enjoyed cross-party consensus and has the Government’s full support; I have been delighted to hear the words of support from around your Lordships’ House this morning.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for drawing our attention to the long—though not too long—history of this important deregulatory measure. Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to relax licensing hours in England and Wales for occasions of exceptional international, national or local significance, as many noble Lords have said. Each case is considered on its merits and any order specifies the relevant times and dates. As noble Lords have noted, these orders bring practical benefits: businesses can open for longer, communities can celebrate together and licensing authorities are spared the considerable administrative burden of processing numerous individual applications. Importantly, no premises is obliged to extend its hours, but a blanket extension removes the need for temporary event notices, saving considerable time and cost.
The Bill proposes a targeted procedural change to allow such orders to be made under the negative resolution procedure, rather than the current affirmative procedure. As noble Lords have noted, this is a modest but important reform. The power has been used sparingly and only for events of genuine significance. My noble friend Lord Watson identified occasions on which we have used it, such as Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee, the Coronation of His Majesty the King, the 80th anniversary of VE Day and major sporting events such as the UEFA European Championship. The proposed changes offer several advantages.
First, they reduce unnecessary and considerable administrative pressures. A single time-limited relaxation removes the need for thousands of separate notices and the associated resource demands. This is particularly valuable for the hospitality sector. A number of noble Lords have referred to the importance of the hospitality sector. As of March 2025, the hospitality sector supported 2.6 million jobs—slightly more than the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, referred to—and 174,000 businesses across the UK.
Earlier this year, the DBT and HMT commissioned a task force to consider how the licensing regime could better support the hospitality sector. I draw attention to this because a number of noble Lords have asked what we are doing to support the hospitality sector. Since the Bill relates to licensing reform, I should put this on the record. The task force report, published in July, made 10 recommendations, the majority of which the Government support. Earlier this month, a call for evidence was launched to seek further views on these recommended actions. The call for evidence is due to close very soon, on 6 November. Proposals include a national licensing policy framework, a review of outdated licence conditions and an increase in the permitted number of temporary notices. I know that this does not answer every consideration that noble Lords have raised, but I hope it gives some reassurance that the Government are taking the licensing framework seriously and taking action.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, on what sounds like a wonderful project in Brighton. The North Star sounds like the perfect name. I admire what she is doing there, but she would not expect me to comment on suggestions for the Budget, and I will not. It is above my pay grade.
The second thing to which I want to draw attention, and for me the most important aspect of these reforms, on which I have spoken in your Lordships’ House before, is that these extensions serve a vital social purpose. They enable communities to come together and celebrate together—whether for royal milestones, sporting achievements or moments of rather more sombre national reflection—within licensed, regulated environments. This fosters civic pride, community cohesion and safer and more resilient communities. For my money, I emphasise that bringing communities together seems the most important benefit of this measure.
A number of noble Lords have drawn attention to the problem of timeliness that we have at the moment. Some occasions, especially sporting finals, arise at short notice, giving rise to a great deal of expectancy among the nation about where we will end up. In 2021, when the England men’s team reached the Euro 2020 final, an order was made within three days, as my noble friend Lord Watson and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, mentioned. However, as noted, in 2023 when the England women’s team reached the World Cup final, it was not possible to extend licensing hours because we were in recess. That does not seem a very good explanation. The negative procedure would allow orders to be made even when Parliament is not sitting, ensuring a swift and proportionate response. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, for his important work on loneliness, and draw attention, as he did, to the benefit of this Bill regarding loneliness.
Concerns about reduced scrutiny, if any were to be raised, are unfounded. Under the negative resolution procedure, any order remains subject to annulment by either House, preserving Parliament’s ability to scrutinise and challenge as appropriate. The power in Section 172 will continue to be used sparingly, only for occasions of exceptional and important significance. The statutory guidance is clear. Regular special occasions should be anticipated in operating schedules, and the criteria for extensions will remain strictly applied. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, noted, there is no evidence that these extensions lead to problems of anti-social behaviour or disorder.
The Bill applies only to England and Wales, as licensing is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It delivers a focused procedural improvement with real-world benefits, reducing bureaucracy, supporting community celebration and enabling timely action without diminishing parliamentary oversight. The Government fully support the Bill, and I know that noble Lords do also. I am afraid that I cannot end my speech quite as wonderfully as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, but I hope I have conveyed even a boring Minister’s enthusiasm for this measure.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a good-natured, thoughtful and very convivial debate. I am grateful for all contributions made today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, made very thoughtful contributions about wider policies that could be adopted to support the hospitality sector. I am sure that the Front Bench heard that. Many of their contributions, I hope, will be considered in the other place when it comes to the Budget and policy ahead. I have one small piece of advice for the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, on the opening of her pub, from my limited experience of running bars, clubs and festivals. Of the 69 million people who live in this country, the last person she should take advice from on how to change a light bulb is Jeremy Clarkson.
I should have known that the genesis of this Bill was in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, because it is clear, proportionate and practical. I am grateful for his support today in a way that I was not grateful for the convincing arguments he made to the Electoral Commission for the removal of Greets Green and Lyng ward from my constituency in the boundary changes. That was a very important part of my life. None the less, I am grateful to him and to both Front Benches.
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
(2 days, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brennan of Canton
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, I confess to your Lordships that I have blatantly plagiarised this speech, if copying oneself can be categorised as plagiarism. I kicked off this Bill in the House of Commons in 2024, albeit with one slight tweak from its current incarnation. It is not unique for someone to introduce a Bill in the House of Commons and get it through Second Reading. Another Member is doing a similar thing right now. In the House of Commons I got it through Second Reading and Committee, only for it to fall as a result of a walk in the rain taken by Rishi Sunak and the subsequent snap general election. It is nice to be able to reintroduce it here in the House of Lords. I hope that with your Lordships’ support, this time we can get it to the final whistle.
On Sunday 11 July 2021, the final of the men’s Euros football tournament at Wembley Stadium could have resulted not just in the sad loss for the England football team on that occasion but in a tragic loss of life. That was the finding of the independent review conducted by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, into the events of that day. It suggested that we narrowly escaped a disaster that could have resulted in fatalities or irreversible injuries.
For everyone here, I am sure that the mere thought that such a catastrophe is still possible in this country at a football match in the 21st century, after the tragedies of the latter part of the last century, is profoundly unsettling. Those present at the Euro 2020 final, which took place in 2021 because of Covid, witnessed at first hand the reckless behaviour of some people seeking to enter the stadium without a ticket. When the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, of which I was a member at the time, undertook an inquiry following the Euros, I admit that I was genuinely shocked—I think that I was not the only one—to discover that entering, or attempting to enter, a football match without a ticket is not a specific criminal offence.
That is why the committee acknowledged the need for the Bill, which I introduced, in a recommendation in its Safety at major sporting events report, published in December 2023. It demonstrated the broad cross-party recognition of this problem and the consensus on the need for legislative action to put it right. All the members of the Select Committee at that time who held seats within its territorial scope—England and Wales—were named as co-sponsors when I introduced the Bill in the other place. After the 2024 general election, the Bill was picked up by Linsey Farnsworth MP, who has done a sterling job in steering it skilfully through all its Commons stages and improving, with a slight tweak, on my original.
The Bill would bring into law recommendations that came out of the Select Committee’s findings and the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, by amending the Football (Offences) Act 1991 to introduce a new offence of unauthorised or attempted unauthorised entry to football matches. It is estimated that, at the Euro 2020 final, somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 ticketless individuals were able to gain entry. Many people will have seen the disorder, overcrowding and safety hazards that resulted from those events. Those actions not only compromised the safety and security of stewards, police officers, spectators, players and officials, but greatly tarnished the reputation of the sport and of this country. On the security of stewards at the ground, I had a brief conversation before today’s session with the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, who I see is still in his place having spoken on the previous Bill. He confirmed to me that in a past life he was a security guard at Wembley Stadium and frequently witnessed this kind of behaviour and dangerous activity going on. I thank him for his support of my Bill.
The current legal framework does not address the problem. Those caught entering a stadium without authorisation face no legal repercussions. Those attempting to enter are simply moved on and often try to gain entry multiple times. There are no consequences for their selfish actions, which risk jeopardising matches and could recklessly endanger the safety and lives of others. The Bill is intended to respond directly to those challenges by making unauthorised entry into football matches a specific offence. The aim is to deter people from attempting to enter stadiums without a valid ticket.
Back in 2024, I did an interview with, among others, Martin Keown, the former Arsenal footballer, on talkSPORT radio, and there was clear agreement in our discussion and some of the phone-ins that the deterrent effect is a significant part of this measure. A fine of up to £1,000 might be a deterrent but, under the Bill a conviction for this offence could lead to a court-imposed football banning order under the Football Spectators Act 1989 and Football (Offences) Act 1991, which would prevent a person attending football matches for a specific period of between three and 10 years. That would be an even greater deterrent. The Bill seeks to address all forms of unauthorised entry, recognising the broad spectrum of tactics that can be employed to gain illicit access to stadiums.
The scope of the Bill, as I said earlier, extends across England and Wales and across the top tiers of domestic football. We are not talking about park matches in your local area here. The Bill includes the Premier League, the Championship, League One, League Two, the National League, the Women’s Super League, the Women’s Super Leage 2 and Cymru Premier, as well as international matches in England and Wales.
My local team Cardiff City’s stadium hosts the games not just of Cardiff City Football Club but the Welsh national teams. It would be remiss of me not to mention the usually impeccable behaviour of Welsh football fans attending matches there and the crackling atmosphere they create with their passionate renditions of songs such as “Hen Wlad fy Nhadau” and “Yma o Hyd”.
The Bill is slightly from the one that I introduced previously. There is a small change in the wording of proposed new Section 1A(3) of the 1991 Act in this version of the Bill. The provision outlines proposed possible defences and proposed new Section 1A(3)(b) has been clarified so that it covers cases in which a person “reasonably believed” that they had a ticket for the match but in fact did not. That is to ensure that a person who innocently buys a counterfeit ticket is not criminalised under this offence, which is specifically about fan safety and preventing overcrowding. As before, the defence also applies in relation to a person using a genuine ticket that they are not eligible to use—for example, an adult using a child’s ticket. That is because there would already be a reserved seat in the stadium and safety would not be an issue with respect to overcrowding.
The vast majority of football fans across the country, supporting clubs such as my team, Cardiff City, or any others, do so in the right spirit. It is important that they feel safe and secure when supporting their football teams. I make it clear that the intention of the Bill is to support real football fans and to keep them safe and secure while they are enjoying the spectacle of supporting their team. Football is a big part of our culture. In recent years, football has grown ever more important in the national culture of Wales, and it has always been of huge importance across the rest of the UK, bringing together individuals from all walks of life in shared support of their teams. The actions of a few should not be allowed to compromise the safety and security of the majority.
I have been mindful with the Bill of the balance between enhancing security and maintaining the open and inclusive nature of football matches. The intention is not to criminalise fans or create barriers to genuine supporters enjoying the game. Instead, the focus is on preventing those who would seek to cause disorder and harm entering stadiums, thus ensuring a safer environment for all. By strengthening the legal framework, we can deter unauthorised entry, reduce the risk of disorder and violence, and ensure that football continues to be a source of joy and community for everyone. I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I support the Bill. I congratulate Linsey Farnsworth in another place on the initiative she has taken and, particularly, the work that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, has done on the Bill, both in another place and indeed here today. I wish him well—all my comments will be in that context, because I think there may be some areas where we can seek to strengthen the Bill and consider some of its implications.
I too will share with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, a bit of past experience on this. The Football Spectators Act 1989 was a Bill that I piloted through the Commons as Minister for Sport. The subsequent Act that he referred to, the Football (Offences) Act 1991, addresses broader forms of football-related disorder, allowing for the banning orders, which do not make, as has rightly been pointed out, unauthorised entry itself a prosecutable offence. It is important and may be helpful, especially when we get to Committee, to reflect on the conversations that took place at the time of the original Bill, during the Thatcher and the Major Governments. Thirty-five years on, some of those same arguments were raised by Katie Lam in another place and echoed during the Bill’s proceedings.
No law can be effective unless you have the resources to bring the perpetrators to justice, and the cost of policing will be substantial. As Katie Lam clearly stated:
“It is … right that we give police and organisers the tools that they need, not just to remove people in the moment, but to prevent repeat offences through banning orders”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/25; col. 1253.]
When the original legislation was first considered, this proposal came up, and concern was expressed by the police, some of the clubs and politicians about how well the offences could be policed and how much additional policing costs and stewarding would follow.
Christopher Chope MP, who is notable for his interventions on Private Members’ Bills who and was also around at the time, back in the early 1990s, stated in Committee on this Bill in another place:
“I fear that what will happen is that an individual will be picked on every now and again, but when there is a problem of mass trespass, we will not be able to do anything about it because nobody will be able to police it ... there is a danger that bringing the criminal law into these areas will result in disappointment and, as a result, bring the law into disrepute; we put all these laws on the statute book, but we cannot actually do anything about them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/25; col. 1251.]
This was a real concern when we first addressed the possibility of the proposal in the Bill and it remains a concern now, but one I think we should address in Committee. Today, however, the Government have the opportunity to say that they will ensure that the full costs associated with enforcement will be made available. Sadly, recent precedent in a related area will not be in their favour.
It is interesting that, in introducing the Bill, the noble Lord referred to the importance of adjusting it to make sure that somebody who went in with a counterfeit ticket or the wrong ticket would effectively be exempt because this is a very narrow Bill. I hope that that would be included. I promise I am not going to push this to votes in Committee, but I think it is something that we need to look at very closely. It is a classic example of where the CMA has been given powers and those powers have not been used effectively; the resources have not been there to make sure that this problem of modern-day ticket-touting has been addressed.
There are literally thousands of people who go to football matches illegally—I will come to the laws that cover that—with tickets that have been acquired through bots or the secondary market. Many are rejected on entry. That unauthorised entry in itself often causes a fracas or problems because the individuals concerned feel that they have been unfairly treated.
So if we are going to achieve the praiseworthy goals set out in this Bill, and if this Bill is going to be worth more than the paper it is written on, which I believe it will be, the Government have to commit to ensure that the funding is in place for all the relevant authorities—in particular, for the police to be available on day one, while football clubs will need to invest in training, stewarding ticket systems and support staff. We knew this when considering this offence and drafting the Football (Offences) Bill back in 1991.
We should also be concerned about instances where fans are unfairly penalised due to miscommunication or misunderstanding about entry rights leading to unwarranted legal consequences. Above all, the political climate at the time when we bought the first two Bills, now Acts, did not warrant going further than we had with onerous but ultimately successful legislation to tackle football-related disorder.
In looking at the Casey review in detail, we must also address the central criticism she made about the loss of experienced stewards, leaving, “Wembley’s stewarding operation vulnerable” and her recommendations for stricter enforcement within the stadium, which can be read across into clubs as a whole. I think this was a clarion call to recognise that there are people who are willing to risk unauthorised entry to football matches—who the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, called the “mindless thugs” at Wembley that day—and a wake-up call for football clubs and venues, such as Wembley, that host national and international matches, to install and modernise their entry systems and ensure that their stewards are well trained and capable of strict enforcement of club, FIFA, UEFA and FA rules at matches.
It is important to recognise that a central and growing issue is the existence of some stadium, event and club employees who are, regrettably, bad apples willing to break the rules of the club and assist or facilitate entry with an invalid matchday ticket, which adds to the problem that the Bill seeks to address. There is nothing in the proposed legislation that deals with assisting or facilitating entry with an invalid matchday ticket, yet this is a significant problem that has been on the rise at some leading professional football clubs in recent years through a minority, but a very relevant minority, of corrupt staff associated with turnstile entry.
Last season alone, four stewards at one club facilitated entry for people with facsimile tickets, and they benefited financially. That small but relevant number of corrupt stewards, usually working with a tout outside the ground or on social media, provide a facsimile of a digital ticket to a purchaser for payment. On matchday, the purchaser is made aware of which turnstile to go to with the facsimile and which member of staff to speak to. The purchaser feigns a problem with the ticket; the corrupt steward then uses either a master access card or an override button on the turnstile to allow the purchaser entry into the stadium and takes his payoff. In one recent case, a highly respected investigator with extensive knowledge of this growing fraudulent activity saw 30 persons admitted to a stadium in this manner by one steward at one match.
This practice is, regrettably, becoming more prevalent. A simple clause making it an offence to facilitate or assist a person to enter a ground with an invalid matchday ticket or a matchday ticket that they were not eligible to use would plug this loophole that can cause problems at turnstiles and entry points to a match, which this Bill seeks to address.
I intend to put down an amendment to new Clause 1A(1)(b) which I hope will address this and allow us to debate in Committee an important change meaning that persons could attempt entry with copies of genuine tickets, and if they did there would be no offence committed. Under this legislation, bad actors, particularly under new Clause 1A(3), will simply tell customers that, if they have any problem with a ticket, they should simply say that they purchased it in good faith. Altercations where this is not accepted are rare, but cause many of the problems that the proposers of the Bill are seeking to avoid. A clause such that the person should be able to produce a valid receipt for the purchase of the invalid ticket could be inserted into the defence section as part of the criteria, and discussions could take place with clubs, regulators and, indeed, fans to make sure that this is practical and enforceable. Simply requiring anyone to believe that they had purchased something generally wrecks the good intentions of the proposed legislation.
In Committee, I will turn to the expensive and massive problem, which many noble Lords have heard me speak about over the past 10 years, of ticketing fraud perpetrated by corrupt players in the extensive secondary ticket market in the UK. One secondary market tout is known to have more than 1,000 memberships at a Premier League club. It is estimated that that business alone—the unauthorised and illegal use of the secondary market—costs between £100 million and £200 million of illicit business per annum, which is nearly £1 billion during this Parliament. It just shows how important it is to make sure that a genuine football fan can gain access to a football match with a valid ticket and that we tackle that problem.
This may not be the right Bill to do that, but it is certainly the right Bill to talk about it, in Committee, particularly since in football, as opposed to other sports, it is already illegal to sell tickets on the secondary market in the UK unless you are authorised by the event, organiser or club. That is what Section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was for—it made it a criminal offence for any unauthorised person to sell tickets for designated football matches—but it is not policed and the law is flouted. Again, it comes back to the resource of making sure that a well-intentioned law is properly policed and implemented.
These are just some of the issues that I hope we will be able to look at in detail. The Bill is exceptionally well-intentioned and has been worked through very hard. In Committee and subsequent stages, I believe we could look at making it even more effective and more valuable so that we protect the interests of true football fans, which is what all this is about, keep thugs out of the game in which they have no place and make sure that true football fans enjoy it, while also addressing the growing and extensive criminal behaviour in the much-abused secondary ticket market, which is one of the principal causes of unauthorised entry to football matches.
I wish the noble Lord every success with the passage of the Bill. I congratulate him on a lifetime commitment to sport and on making sure that issues such as this—minor in some ways, not huge legislation, but important to the future of football—find their way on to the statute book and win widespread support among the fans, the clubs and the wider community who want to see a truly legally binding and effective framework for football in this country.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I endorse the Bill and the principle of the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I will repeat nothing of his points but merely make observations to add to them.
I think Members of the House would be shocked at the prices for the average secondary market ticket for the Premier League today. The amount of cash and profit that can be dispensed to others in precisely the way the noble Lord articulated is greatly underestimated, as are estimates of the number of tickets in the Premier League going through the secondary market. This is very big business.
One point that the noble Lord did not make but that needs adding is that the majority of these tickets are being bought online electronically from abroad. Dublin is a huge centre for that but there are many more outside this country. That is the business model. The term used to me by the people with the most expertise in this field is organised crime, and that is what this is. It is not the old school of freelancers or interesting characters with a flat cap running a cash-in-hand business outside a stadium, who are still recognisable on occasion at sporting events. They are only a tiny bit of the problem. This is organised crime, big money, and that needs serious consideration. Another minor issue that needs serious consideration in Committee is whether FA Cup fixtures should be included, because then you have the potential of a range of other grounds that will suddenly have a huge fixture, and the problems associated with it, away from the norm.
There are many ingenious ways in which football fans will attempt to see fixtures. At Oxford United last March, I witnessed—although the police intervened after 10 minutes—the most ingenious of attempts. A van was parked in a public car park adjoining the smallest stand. A ladder, which was more like a window-cleaning device, was raised and, in great comfort, two fans started to observe the fixture from on high. Such was the angle of the ladder that they may well have technically been inside the stadium. I use that as an illustration of the many ways in which the true fan—but one without a ticket—may attempt to see a fixture.
I put this question for consideration to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan: the old Scratching Shed at Leeds United could be climbed from the outside. Whenever a fixture was full and the gates were locked, fans of all ages would climb on to its roof. The stands at the same stadium these days would not facilitate that, but there are clubs promoted to the National League where a similar concept would apply. The question, “What is illegal entry?”, needs a bit of consideration, because fans are ingenious and there are many ways in which things can be done that may not totally fit with health and safety regulations.
When I first went to football, I was getting in for free, not by going through the turnstile but by being lifted over it. That is my point regarding FA Cup fixtures because turnstiles come in many different shapes and forms. Until school dinners became particularly good, with treble massive servings, I was capable of being easily lifted—at a quite mature age really—over said turnstile, and at the time that guaranteed free entry. So that is an interesting question.
I appreciate that Scotland is not included in this, but on my last visit to Stenhousemuir Football Club, for a fixture of great interest, it was unclear when kick-off time was. I arrived early, when the turnstiles and ticket office were closed, walked into the stadium through the gate and sat down to wait. The match had almost begun by the time I remembered, my memory having been jogged by a steward, that I might not have a ticket. I had to leave the stadium, buy a ticket from a ticket office and then enter via the turnstile to get legal access. The point about the definition regarding ingenious fans—or, in that case, fans who did not have a clue what time kick-off was—is an interesting one, particularly in the National League.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I cannot leave that anecdote without recalling a story that I hope I am allowed to share, in the spirit of this debate. I had to introduce the football Bill back in the days when the House was completely packed. On the day when I was winding up, the House was totally full because the Bill was a major issue at the time. There was that moment before the Minister winds up when the House goes silent, and Dennis Skinner looked at me and said, “It’s all right for him. He can get in under the turnstile”.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, that shows the ingenuity that doubtless may have been attempted. I am considering when that could be used, before the Bill becomes law, to assist the noble Lord in accessing a certain match that he is keen to watch.
There are other points that need considering by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and the Committee. First, facial recognition is coming in. Serie A already has facial recognition; it is not in widespread use, but the technology is required in Italy. There are certainly two Premier League clubs that are bringing in facial recognition for part of their stadium at the moment. I do not say that the interesting question of facial recognition “coincides”, but it sits alongside this.
Secondly, there is the issue of political agitators, whose aim is to get on the pitch—they have attempted to do so—and the question of players’ safety in relation to that is a factor. I think the last recorded case was an environmental protester of some kind getting on a pitch, but that is a serious issue in relation to player safety, which has rightly been taken as more important in recent times. That would actually back up the crusade of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, to have this legislation come into place.
Thirdly, on policing issues, the last time this was a major problem in English football was not the Euro final. It was on 30 November 2023 at Villa Park, the home of Aston Villa. In a UEFA fixture, a club called Legia Warsaw from Poland were playing. The police and the safety advisory group of Birmingham City Council had not banned Legia Warsaw fans; in fact, 1,002 tickets had been sold to them, and they came to the fixture. Their numbers had been restricted, but another 1,000 came and attempted to force entry into the stadium, causing huge safety issues and immediate action by the matchday commander from the police and Aston Villa Football Club, who then closed the turnstiles and created other disorder outside as fans, both with and without tickets, could not get entry. That issue was identifiable; Legia Warsaw has had 35 fines from UEFA for fan behaviour.
For anyone who wants to know about hooliganism in football, hooligans put their stuff online. There are now websites and social media that are openly available for everyone to see. If anyone wants to know who causes the most problems, who are the worst, the nature of those problems and when they are most likely to occur, there is publicly available information. Legia Warsaw is known for being in the highest category of ultra-fans, given the problems they cause. They are a significant group of hooligans, as that term is used. This Bill will complement that. There was no collusion with staff there. It was an attempt at a forced break-in at a stadium.
I note that there is inaccurate discussion in the media at the moment of that incident and about policing. I have a report in front of me, an official police report, which I would like to quote from a little, because it is about another set of football supporters who are characterised in it as fanatical. The report says:
“This is expressed, among other things, in the lighting of flares”,
but,
“according to UEFA … and our police, there is no animosity between”
them and the supporters of the team they were playing, and this was not a high-risk match. This was Maccabi Tel Aviv playing Ajax in Amsterdam in November last year.
The report goes on to say that there was
“a special context, because of the war in the Middle East”.
The fixture also coincided with the national Kristallnacht commemoration in Amsterdam. There was “a daily pro-Palestine demonstration” at the railway station. This is from the official report, and there were supporters from a third club present in the city at the time: Fenerbahçe supporters, from Alkmaar in the Netherlands.
I want to quote regarding a couple of incidents, because this has been put in the media wrongly, not factually. This is the official statement of facts—the feitenrelaas—from the Dutch chief crown prosecutor, or whatever the equivalent title is, and the chief of police for Amsterdam. It is something that could be considered in this Bill. Should there be a statement of facts every time there is an incident? It is a requirement in the Netherlands to have a statement of facts. The night before the fixture, on a street called the Rokin, the report says that
“Around midnight … 50 Maccabi supporters pull on a Palestine flag hanging on a facade”.
That flag was removed and the video footage of it is on hooligan websites. It was put on by a Maccabi ultra-fan, one of those 50. A taxi was attacked at the same time on the same street, and other taxis were damaged. The hooliganism then was an issue and a problem.
The following day, the football match took place. During the day—the match was on an evening—there was one arrest by the police for a disturbance of the public order. There were no clashes between the fans or with local people. The football match took place, though there had been a problem because pro-Palestine demonstrators had attempted to go to a square in Amsterdam called Anton de Komplein. The report says:
“Upon arrival, this group splits up into small groups in search of the confrontation at the Arena”.
That is the Amsterdam arena: the football stadium of Ajax. Those are the specifics and the police deployment was there.
Additionally, it says in the next paragraph that there were
“social media messages confirming that there are groups … looking for a confrontation with Maccabi supporters”.
The police handled that throughout the day without such confrontations. However, the report goes on:
“After midnight, the problems arise due to small groups of rioters spread through the city centre and adjacent neighbourhoods. These groups commit violent hit and run actions, targeting Israeli supporters and people going out. These incidents take place in various places in the city centre”,
and it lists the 14 streets where that happened. It says:
“The police follow up on all reports”,
and the police patrol intervenes,
“where threats are visible and manage to keep rioters at a distance from Israelis. The police can prevent many incidents in this way. Nevertheless, rioters manage to commit serious assaults, resulting in injuries among Maccabi supporters. It appears to be particularly difficult for the police to take action against such flashpoints. Rioters move in small groups, on foot, by scooter or car, briefly attack Maccabi supporters and then disappear again … Loose groups of Maccabi supporters are gathered”,
and the police basically say that this quickly dissipates over time as the number of rioters disappears.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
May I remind the noble Lord of the advisory speaking time in this debate, please?
Lord Mann (Lab)
I shall be brief, because this is the last point I want to make from the report. It says:
“Several people were injured, five of whom were treated in hospital”.
Those five, I can confirm, were Israelis. It continues:
“Twenty to thirty Israeli supporters with minor injuries were taken in by the Jewish community”.
Now that is from the report of the chief of police. It goes on to detail the people who were arrested and where they were from. There were 49 Dutch arrested and 10 Israelis during that period. There were more Dutch arrested in the consequential days. That is a statement of fact from René de Beukelaer, the chief prosecutor, and the police chief, Peter Holla.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I remind the noble Lord that he is now well over his time. Can he please bring his remarks to a close?
Lord Mann (Lab)
The relevance of this is that the purpose of the Bill is to ensure safety at football matches. The interaction between the Bill and the need for guidance and guidelines, including for the police, on how it would be best used is fundamental to its success. Otherwise, what happens is that people will put things on social media suggesting that they are the facts of what happened, but those facts are fundamentally inaccurate. Having the Dutch system of a statement of facts as a potential amendment to this Bill would make a big difference.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, thank you very much for allowing me to speak in the gap. I fully support this Bill and congratulate my noble friend Lord Brennan on it. The comments from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and my noble friend Lord Mann have been fascinating. I have a slight interest to declare, having consulted the clerk, as I am the patron and former chairman of Manchester United Supporters’ Trust. That club’s ground is certainly one that you would not be able to use a ladder to look into.
I am particularly concerned about the mechanics of enforcement. If you have 3,500 people breaking into a ground, how on earth do you even begin to do this? I implore that when this Bill goes into Committee, how to deal with that is considered. Tailgating, which is where you follow in behind somebody, whether you do it above or below—I would probably be below, like the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—is really quite important, but tailgating is something we see all the time on the Tube. I have seen it at Old Trafford: usually, the person doing it is 10 times my size, so I let him get on with it, but the reality is that it could be caught by CCTV.
What I am concerned about is how we deal with enforcement and who is ultimately going to pay. The Bill focuses on the football clubs themselves; I suspect that while they will not want to, they may find themselves having to bear the burden of this. I look forward to hearing what happens about enforcement. I wish the Bill well and I congratulate my noble friend again.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is a Bill where there is no real argument against what it is doing. The fact you are attempting to get into a ground should be an offence; I believe that was raised in another place. Do we want it? Yes, because the attempt is where the disorder occurs. It is where other offences start and are liable to happen. So, yes, it should be there, and a banning order is probably an appropriate response along with a fine.
However, even those with greater expertise than me in this field have said that it is all about the enforcement. It may not be that this Bill is designed to cover that; it is understandable that it is not. To get it on the statute book is probably the first step. As has been mentioned, if you get your intelligence wrong or do not have the will to back it up, no piece of legislation means anything; there are lots of pieces of defunct legislation hanging around. You must follow it up. Indeed, the genesis of the disorder at the 2021 European finals was—I raised this in the House—a breakdown of intelligence and people not putting sufficient resources in to deal with the problem. Social media was mentioned; it became known that we were still spacing and there must be extra capacity in the stadium, so people went. We have to look at this in the round and make sure we back it up.
I do not think this Bill is somewhere we can correct everything. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, we can start to discuss details. Hopefully, the Minister, when we come to the details, will give us a better idea of the Government’s understanding and what we are going to do to go forward. That would be an appropriate use of Committee on this Bill. I am not sure whether amending it would help or hinder. I suspect that there is only so much time, even in a Session which seems to be as elastic as this one, to get something through. I would look forward to at least discussing that.
Once again, what this Bill says is good. The enforcement capacity—the gathering of intelligence and the will to act—is the elephant in the room. It is the elephant which has now been discussed, talked about and put a howdah on in this debate. We have to make sure we do that. We have to use everything that goes with it because, if you do not do that, it will become meaningless. There are also issues of facial recognition and subsequently identifying people who have broken the law. All of this stuff is probably there, but I do not know if it comes into the Bill or could be in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, when he replies, can let us know what the timeframe is, as indeed can the Minister. We will see what we can do then. I think this is good, but it is certainly not the whole story. There are certainly things the Government can do to make sure that this is more effective and that the policing of football is done more effectively. I wish this measure well.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for giving the House the opportunity to debate this Bill. I regret that we did not manage to pass these measures before, due to the general election last year, but I am glad we are picking up where we left off and following the advice of the 2021 report from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to legislate on tailgating and other forms of unauthorised entry at the earliest opportunity.
Tailgating and ticket fraud present both a financial blow and a great unfairness to clubs and fans alike. The great success of football lies in its accessibility for players and fans of all ages and abilities. Clubs become the bedrock of communities because they give people a shared purpose and responsibility in the upkeep of their team. This is undermined by those who breach entry. These clubs lose out on revenue, and genuine fans pay the price by being undercut. It is a wholly unjust practice.
There is also the danger that comes with the practice of unauthorised entry. Even lower and non-league clubs impose a maximum capacity for safety reasons, but the risk is exponentially heightened as the size of the stadium increases. At big events, where capacity is reached, there is simply no room for extra supporters in the stadium. When the capacity is breached, serious dangers arise,
As the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, referred to, the report on the Euros final by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, outlined risks of crowd collapses, door wedging, trampling and barrier collapses. These were very real possibilities that were narrowly avoided, but they were made possibilities only because of those entering the stadium unauthorised. Those events and the more recent 2024 Champions League final demonstrate why legislation to deter tailgating and other types of unauthorised entry, such as ticket fraud, are so important.
Those who are caught committing this infringement, as it stands, are likely to be thrown out of the stadium without further repercussions. Those who are caught before they have entered are simply turned away to attempt re-entry at another turnstile. Considering the very real risks posed by this practice, notwithstanding the thorough unfairness that it represents, these measures have not proved sufficient.
The Conservatives agree with the attempt to deal with this in a proportionate way. As the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said, introducing a summary offence, with a maximum fine of £1,000 and the likelihood that a conviction will lead to a court-imposed football banning order, seems to provide the proportionate deterrent. I hope that it will indeed, in practice, put an end to this conduct, once it is seen that attempting unlawfully to enter a stadium will bar those attempting it from far more than a single match in the future.
My two concerns lie with the drafting and implementation of this Bill. On drafting, proposed new Section 1A(3) appears quite broadly drafted and may inadvertently allow those who have committed this offence knowingly to be successful in mounting a defence in the courts. Could the Minister reassure me on this issue? On implementation, police numbers are down this year and forces are already stretched. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, we must ensure that we have the numbers needed to police this crime. If we manage to charge an unauthorised entry only every now and again, it will not have the intended impact and we here will have been paying lip service to this issue and no more. As the noble Lord, Lord Shamash, said, I hope the Government have a clear plan on implementation. Can the Minister provide us with some detail on this when he replies to the debate?
Similarly, a deterrent is successful if it is seen to work immediately. This means demonstrating, after this Bill has passed, that its powers will be used swiftly and effectively. I hope that the Government understand the importance of appearance and have planned how they might immediately demonstrate the law’s effectiveness.
I wholeheartedly support this Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, on bringing it before the House.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who have spoken today in what has been a very important and interesting debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Brennan of Canton for his work in sponsoring the Bill not just in your Lordships’ House but, as he noted, in the other place. I admire his determination and resolution to get the job done.
The Bill, as all noble Lords have noted, addresses a clear and pressing issue: the growing problem of unauthorised access to football matches, particularly at high-profile fixtures. It proposes a new football specific offence of unauthorised entry to designate matches to address this, capturing a broad range of behaviours from tailgating and forced entry to the use of forged documents and impersonation of matchday staff. I want to emphasise how important, as other noble Lords have acknowledged, this new offence of unauthorised entry is.
My noble friend Lord Mann and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, have referred to ingenious measures used in the past for entering football grounds. My noble friend Lord Mann said that, once he had his school dinners, he could not he could not be lifted over the turnstiles anymore. We have breakfast clubs now, so it will be even more difficult.
Crucially, this measure enables courts to impose football banning orders on convictions for the offences, which is very important. These are civil orders that provide a strong deterrent and are a vital tool to prevent repeat offending and protect public safety. A number of noble Lords asked what grounds we have for believing that these measures will be effective. I reassure your Lordships’ House that the evidence shows that football banning orders of the sort we are discussing are highly effective in transforming behaviour. The large majority of individuals whose orders have expired are assessed by police as no longer posing any significant threat of football-related violence or disorder. We know these orders are effective in deterring banned fans from attempting to enter stadiums, have strong rehabilitative impact and are regarded as a serious consequence by those considering unlawful behaviour. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Shamash, stressed the importance of enforcement, and of course I agree. But they will know that enforcement is a matter for local police forces on these matters.
On the question of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about resources being available, the Home Office remains committed to exploring ways to support policing in recovering a greater share of special police services costs. This is an important issue and requires careful consideration. To better understand the options and potential impact of any changes, we are conducting further engagement and analysis over the coming months and are grateful for policing’s continued engagement on this. So this matter is under very active consideration.
The Bill responds directly, as noble Lords have noted, to the recommendations of the independent review of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, into the serious disorder at the Euro 2020 final. I am sure that noble Lords recall those events vividly and therefore understand the importance of these measures. Thousands of ticketless individuals gained access to Wembley Stadium, many through mass forced entry or tailgating, and this problem is reoccurring. We saw further evidence of this at the 2024 UEFA Champions League final, again at Wembley, where groups of ticketless fans made repeated attempts to breach security. Similar behaviour is also seen at Premier League matches, particularly where away allocations are limited. This is a wider pattern, not a one-off event, and therefore we must address it. Such behaviour is not only selfish and dishonest but dangerous. It places enormous strain on stadium security, creates serious risks to public safety and undermines the experience of law-abiding fans, and it can be very expensive for clubs. This measure will help with that too.
The Government are clear that this cannot be allowed to continue, which is why we are actively supporting this Bill. Forced entry, tailgating and so-called jibbing are not victimless acts. Those involved are often aggressive, violent or threatening, and their actions can lead to overcrowding, blocked emergency exits and frightening conditions for innocent fans. In some cases, individuals have even attempted to bribe stewards or turnstile operators to gain access. This will also be captured by the new offence. The offence will additionally apply to those who knowingly attempt to use a ticket, whether physical or digital, that has already been used. This is not about criminalising honest mistakes or punishing fans who have been misled. The Bill includes important safeguards to ensure that individuals with lawful authority, such as emergency workers or stadium staff, are not caught by the offence when going about their business. It will also not apply to those who unwittingly purchase counterfeit tickets in good faith or breach the terms and conditions of a legitimate ticket.
I will clarify a couple of other matters that noble Lords raised. Although this Bill does not directly cover those who facilitate unauthorised entry, this conduct would be covered under the Fraud Act 2006 or the Theft Act 1968, depending on the facts of the case. I note, for my noble friend Lord Mann, that political agitators or anyone else entering the pitch without authorisation is committing an offence under Section 4 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991.
This is a proportionate, targeted and necessary measure. It reflects the unique public order challenges associated with football, which are not seen to the same extent in other sports or events. It is also consistent with the broader framework of the Football (Offences) Act.
As this was raised by noble friend Lord Mann, I reaffirm comments made in the other place about the Maccabi Tel Aviv game. As I think everyone knows from statements made in the other place, the Government fought hard to ensure that tickets would be made available for this game. However, Maccabi Tel Aviv ultimately took the difficult decision to reject the allocation, stating that it could not guarantee the safety of its supporters for the entire journey to the UK. Following the decision by Birmingham City Council last week, the Government worked closely with West Midlands Police and Birmingham City Council to support them to consider all the options available and to tell us what resources would be needed to manage the risks. The Culture Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Community Secretary were all involved in these extensive discussions and, although the ultimate decision regarding the admittance of away fans is for the local authority to make, we were clear that resources should not be the determining factor in deciding whether to admit Maccabi Tel Aviv fans. We are disappointed that the allocation will not be taken up.
This Bill enjoyed cross-party support throughout its passage through the other place, and rightly so. It has been welcomed by both the Football Association and the police as a timely and effective response to a growing problem. This is a fan-friendly measure that protects the vast majority of decent supporters from the actions of a disruptive minority. It will help to ensure that football remains a safe and welcoming environment for all and such an important part of our national life. Therefore, I reiterate the Government’s support for this measure and thank my noble friend for this important debate, which I am sure will be continued as the Bill makes progress.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging Second Reading debate. It has perhaps strayed a little into extra time, but I think VAR would determine that no one was offside in any of their remarks.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
I apologise.
I thank everyone who contributed to the debate, which was really good and absolutely in the true spirit of scrutinising legislation, which is obviously the raison d’être of this House. I will thank everyone who spoke individually. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, brought his vast experience to the debate, which was extremely welcome. His analysis of some of the things we might want to explore further in Committee, on Report and so on was extremely useful in considering the best way forward with the Bill. As he acknowledged, some of the issues may be beyond the scope of what we can achieve in a limited Private Member’s Bill within the time available.
Lots of the things the noble Lord brought up were very worthy of debate. He and others brought up resources, which are always an issue in any law and order measure. He and others also brought up what happens in situations of mass trespass. I will briefly make two points in response. First, the purpose of this Bill is principally to deter. If it is effective, that deterrence should be of great assistance with the issue of resources. Secondly, as others noted and hinted at, a situation of mass trespass is ultimately very difficult for the police and the authorities to deal with. But that is not the end of it: as this Bill introduces the potential football banning orders, further mass trespass in future might be helpfully dealt with by the fact that many of those individuals will be under football banning orders if they previously participated in such a mass trespass.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of forged tickets, which again is a wider issue beyond this Bill— I think he acknowledged that—and the trend of losing experienced stewards. There are lots of measures that could be taken in relation to that, not just in the public policy sphere but in sporting clubs and institutions themselves. As I mentioned, one experienced steward was lost when he became a Member of the House of Lords as the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington. Perhaps that sort of experience might be useful to our deliberations in future.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, also contributed to the debate. I will not go beyond the remarks made by my noble friend the Minister in relation to the Maccabi Tel Aviv match issue, but he made some points about the practicalities involved in the Bill. His description of how people gained entry to Oxford United rather reminded me of the descriptions that have been given of how thieves recently gained entry to the Louvre museum in Paris. If the Louvre museum cannot keep out people using a van and a cherry-picker, I am not sure that Oxford United will be able to.
On the broader point, the Bill speaks of premises, which goes beyond the simple environs of the stadium itself. It can be defined, as it is at Wembley Stadium, for example, as quite a wide-ranging area outside the actual turnstiles. That can be the designated point at which tickets can be checked and where unauthorised entry might be triggered. I understand his concerns about the scratching shed, but it is possible to extend that—and it does not sound to me from his description that the situation at Stenhousemuir is likely to result in overcrowding at any time in the near future. I remind him—although he did acknowledge it—that the scope of the Bill is England and Wales and does not extend as far north as Stenhousemuir.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has a huge expertise in sport. I thank him for his contribution to the debate and the fact that he rightly raised the same issues about enforcement, and I make the same points about deterrence as I did earlier in relation to that. I also thank my noble friend Lord Shamash, who also mentioned enforcement, which I think is something we can discuss further—but many of those issues are beyond the scope of this quite limited Private Member’s Bill. I thank my noble friend Lord Courtown, if he does not mind me calling him that, for his contribution and his wholehearted support for the Bill. I am glad that His Majesty’s Official Opposition are still in support of this Bill, as they were when they were in government prior to the general election. It is nice that there is still some consistency in politics these days, at least when it comes to this Bill. I also thank my noble friend Lord Lemos for outlining the Government’s support for the Bill and clarifying that the Fraud Act would come into play in relation to some of the concerns spoken about by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill
(2 days, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, this is a short, two-clause Bill, but an important one, aimed at amending existing legislation underpinning new secure 16 to 19 academies, otherwise known as secure schools. It comes from the other place, where my honourable friend Emma Foody, the Member of Parliament for Cramlington and Killingworth, sponsored the Bill. In the other place, it enjoyed the support of all parties.
Secure schools are a new form of custody for children and young people. The last Government acted to establish secure 16 to 19 academies in legislation; this Bill will make further necessary amendments to the Academies Act 2010 to make specific provisions in that Act relevant to the establishment of new secure schools.
I will say a word about the background. In 2016, Charlie Taylor published his important review of the youth justice system. The report made a number of important recommendations, including the need, shared by all, to reimagine how we care for children who commit serious enough offences to warrant detaining them in custody. His proposal was to create a new type of custodial environment, focused on the delivery of education and offering children the opportunity to gain the skills and qualifications necessary to prepare them for their release into the community. The Taylor review made a compelling case for change. Transforming the environments in which we detain and provide care for these children is as necessary now as it was then.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 established secure schools in legislation as secure 16 to 19 academies under the Academies Act 2010, and secure children’s homes under the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015. This Bill is now needed to make further amendments in the 2010 Act relevant to secure 16 to 19 academies. The proposed changes cover the termination period in which government continues to fund the secure school, should there be a need to end a funding agreement into which it has entered, as Section 2 of the Academies Act 2010 says, for a secure school. The Bill will also amend the duties placed on providers that enter into funding agreements with the Government prior to opening a secure school. These changes will provide for better and more integrated services.
The Bill consists of three measures. First, it will amend Section 2 of the 2010 Act to reduce the notice period for termination of a funding agreement under Section 2(2) of the 2010 Act from seven to two years for secure 16 to 19 academies. A two-year period will enable government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer and have more flexibility should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. Reducing this to two years in this case strikes a balance between avoiding a lengthy exit period, in which government would be committed to continuing to fund the secure school longer than necessary, and ensuring that secure school providers have the certainty of funding to avoid issues with recruiting and retaining the specialist staff required to work in this environment. The Government remain able to terminate funding agreements with secure school providers in the event of poor performance.
Secondly, the Bill will disapply Section 9 of the 2010 Act for secure 16 to 19 academies. This requires that the Secretary of State considers the impact of entering into a new academy funding agreement on other educational establishments in the area. While it is of course important that secure schools are registered as academies to ensure they mirror best practice in the community, they are fundamentally different, as secure schools do not compete with other schools.
Thirdly, the Bill will amend Section 10 of the 2010 Act, which currently requires that an academy provider consults appropriate persons on whether a funding agreement should be entered into. We recognise the importance of considering the impact on local communities when opening any new school. The Bill will amend that section to require the provider to consult appropriate persons on how the secure school should work with local partners, such as elected representatives or health and education services.
By supporting the Bill, the House would have an opportunity to create better services and thus strengthen the impact of secure schools on the lives of children within our justice system. I very much hope that colleagues across the House, as they did in the other place, will give this Bill their full support. I beg to move.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for bringing forward this Bill and presenting it with characteristic clarity. He brings immense experience as a former Minister at the Ministry of Justice and as a police and crime commissioner. The whole House recognises that expertise.
There are several reasons to welcome the Bill and wish it a smooth passage through its legislative stages in your Lordships’ House. This is an example of legislative continuity in policy, which we need to see more of—especially in the criminal justice system, where change takes time because of the high risks of getting it wrong.
This slow pace is evident in the fact that the Bill, as has been mentioned, and the policy of secure academies were first proposed by the Taylor review in 2016. That review sought to address the problem that half of 15 to 17 year-olds entering young offender institutions had
“the literacy or numeracy levels expected of a 7-11 year old”.
In addition, 40% of those under 18 entering these institutions had not been in school since they were 14. This was a problem. In 2016-17, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, who inspects secure training centres and young offender institutions, observed starkly in his annual report that
“there was not a single establishment that we inspected in England and Wales in which it was safe to hold children and young people”.
The review’s conclusion was that
“education needs to be central to our response to youth offending”
and it proposed secure academies, which would be more a school with security than a prison with education. I am sure we all support this focus on education, which is the surest path to improving and transforming young lives—to give them hope and a future, which is what we all want for them.
We are now in 2025. So far, only one such academy is open, and the House of Lords Library briefing for this debate tells us that it has been temporarily closed because of security failings over locks and doors. I stress that this is not a criticism of Oasis Restore, which has an outstanding track record in education and courageously stepped up to take on this challenging new type of school, but rather a reflection of the slow pace of change. It is also a lesson to successive Governments that, if we want change, we need to get faster and more efficient in delivering innovation, less risk averse and more patient in paying attention to results.
In 2022, the National Audit Office produced a report on children in custody, HC 1257. It said that the estimated cost of converting the Medway Secure Training Centre into the new Oasis Restore secure academy was £4.9 million when it was proposed in 2016, but by 2022 it had risen to £36.5 million. That is 745% over budget. I do not know if £36.5 million was the final figure—perhaps the Minister can inform us in her response—but given that this was a new facility designed for around 40 people, the capital cost per person was close to £1 million. The revenue cost for secure training centres is already £156,298 per person. That compares with a pupil funding premium of £5,995 per year in mainstream schools. These sums are very large.
I do not mean to be critical of this Government, because this has been the policy of successive Governments. I also do not think anyone would flinch for a moment if this investment meant that the broken and vulnerable lives in these establishments could be restored and they could make a positive contribution to society in future. We live in a society where, rightly, we have judgment through which people are held to account for their actions, but we also need a society of the second chance, which holds out the possibility of redemption. We simply cannot write off the lives of children at the age of 12 or 13. Every life has potential.
This matters because these numbers matter. My fear is that, when officials and Ministers look at the future of secure academies and implementing this policy and legislation, they will be mindful of the costs of the Medway Secure Training Centre and the experience of the Oasis Restore trust. That could mean that we will see fewer of these secure training centres.
Officials implement policy, but Ministers develop it and parliamentarians are supposed to scrutinise it. We have had over 11 Lord Chancellors in the 10 years since the secure academy policy was introduced in 2016. Yet there is reason for hope, because the current Lord Chancellor, David Lammy, has immense experience in and real passion for this area, as demonstrated by the Lammy review, which was very influential. I am also delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, in her place, because she brings immense experience and knowledge of the criminal justice system. There is hope for the future.
However, this is not the main focus of what I wanted to say. In reading up for this debate, I read a whole load of material on the youth justice system, and a number of things really surprised me. I want to focus on a more positive message around young people. One number that leaped out was that the number of children in custody reduced by 80% between 2011 and 2021—from 2,040 in 2010 to around 430 now. Noble Lords on this side of the House in particular, who always used to draw a correlation between the number of people in the prison establishment and the level of crime, might also be interested to hear what has happened to criminal offences proven to be committed by young people over that period of dramatic reduction. In 2010, the number of proven offences committed by children was 171,750. In the year ending 2022, that had reduced to 38,518. Why do we not hear more about these figures? Even with youth violence, which is prevalent everywhere you look, the number of violent offences proven to be committed by children and young people reduced from 35,000 in 2011 to about 12,000 now. These are remarkable statistics which we seldom hear. According to the NHS, last year saw the lowest number of admissions to hospital for knife-related assaults. We do not hear this positive news.
Fraser Nelson, the distinguished British journalist, wrote an essay for the Times, published on 8 August this year, titled “Violent, lawless, broken Britain? The facts tell a different story”. He is right. He points to the fact that most people, especially young people, get their news from social media, which often feeds on fear and exaggeration, and where bad news is amplified, drowning out the facts.
This matters. As the Violence Research Group at Cardiff University pointed out, serious violence in England and Wales has decreased substantially. This message needs to be better known, the group said, not least because of the fear of violence and the corrosive effect it has on individuals and communities. It makes children and young people feel less safe in our communities. To which I would add that it also erodes intergenerational trust, when the facts show that the current generation of children and young people is among the most law-abiding since the 1970s. Why do we not hear this more?
A report by Nacro, published in 2024, found that media coverage of young people is twice as likely to be negative as positive. Moreover, young people were labelled lazy, weak, selfish and dangerous, according to the report. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our current generation, I believe, is one of the most law-abiding that we have ever seen: they care more for the planet and care more for each other and for other people than any other generation in my living memory. Perhaps if young people read more of these affirming messages, they would realise how valued they are in our society and would be more positive about their future, and we might have even less need for these institutions in the future, too.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of this Bill, at the encouragement of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, who regrets that she cannot be in her place today.
Noble Lords may be aware that we on these Benches have a team of Bishops—the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Derby, Gloucester and Lichfield—who regularly visit prisons across the nation, meeting with those in prison, prison chaplains and prison governors, to hear about ongoing challenges and successes. They in particular are pleased to see this Bill enjoy cross-party support and are heartened that so many noble Lords and colleagues in another place share the conclusion that secure academies are a more promising alternative to giving children a custodial sentence. They are, fundamentally, educational establishments at the heart of work to rehabilitate, not simply penalise and ostracise, children.
We on these Benches are also encouraged by the Government’s aim to tailor the educational accommodation offer for children to the needs of each child individually. The teenage years are a crucial time in the emotional, mental and physical development of children. If they become disengaged from society at this critical juncture, it has a profound and enduring impact on the rest of their lives.
The Bill makes an important change to how consultation is carried out for secure academies. It does not, however, specify the appropriate persons to be consulted. We on these Benches would suggest that faith communities and chaplains should play a role in these discussions, as they have a pastoral and spiritual responsibility to the young people they serve. I know that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby is keen to follow progress regarding the temporary closure of the Oasis Restore secure school last month and the potential second secure school that the Youth Custody Service plans to open in the coming months.
I conclude by saying that any policy developed for children in custody must adhere to the principle that criminal justice for children should not, indeed cannot, simply follow a blueprint taken from the criminal justice system for adults. Children deserve their own separate care and consideration, and I am pleased that this Bill recognises that necessity.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this Bill is a decent addition to the statute book. The principal thing is the two-years as opposed to seven, because your client base is going to be there for only a couple of years, rather than the seven years that would be expected if you actually had an ordinary academy. It makes sense, so I do not see any objection.
I also follow the noble Lord, Lord Bates, in pointing out what is a historical fact and has been for many years: society is getting safer. I know that it does not sell many red-tops or make any nice reels on social media or programmes, but it is a fact. I remember someone once saying to me, “Why can’t we be safe, like we were in the time of Shakespeare?” It is then that one suddenly realises that the murder rate was about 20 times what it is now, because there was no police force and most people went around with a bladed weapon. It was de rigueur. So it is a trend that has been going on for a long time, but it is worth pointing it out.
The fear of crime is probably a bigger problem now. I totally endorse what the noble Lord said: it is something that should be said more often and by more people. The previous Government should also take some credit for lowering the rate of people being incarcerated—so congratulations, and please make sure all your colleagues point out that it is going down: that would be a really beneficial thing. One waits to see whether that will have any effect in the next interview on the dreadful state of youth crime in this country.
We must also note the client base here. The average person has not been in school since they were 14; most people I have spoken to have said the “scholars” were the ones who were there at 14. More often, it is earlier. That was a direct quote from somebody involved in the thing. Secondary school seems to be the cut-off, going through.
It would be almost incredible if I did not mention, with my background, alternative provision. It is accepted that everybody in there has a special educational need; that is the planning basis. What are we doing to make sure that we have a teaching staff in these institutions that can deal with the educational problems? If you are struggling in school and experiencing failure, which makes you more vulnerable to getting involved in the criminal justice system—it is a proven link—what are we doing to make sure that you are getting through and actually addressing this and making sure that your education process is acceptable?
The dyslexia group was the one I first met, because of my own connection. The autism group is another. Either they do not handle authority well or, more commonly, they are more easily led. These are just two that I have come across recently. Anybody who fails consistently in the education system cannot get employment, cannot work, cannot handle authority and cannot understand letters or messages. It is a fairly proven pathway. Are these schools going to make sure that they can address and educate the people they are getting? We need a specialist and focused workforce. Without that, it really will not make much difference because, if you have experienced failure in a classroom, being stuck in another classroom for another period of time is not going to improve your attitude to that institution. It has to be more relevant.
Somebody with dyslexia whom I met in one of these institutions said, “If I have to be told how to spell ‘cat’ again by somebody who doesn’t understand my brain just doesn’t work like that, I think I am justified in wanting to kill them”. I discouraged him from this attitude, but you can understand the frustration. I hope that, when the Minister replies, she will address this, or at least give us a chance to bring this out at another stage of the Bill—but I wish it well.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, please let me thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions on this important subject matter. As we have heard, secure 16 to 19 academies are a promising and innovative conceptual approach to improving the youth justice system. His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons’ 2016 review of that system advocated for new institutions aimed at giving those who committed a custodial offence
“a bespoke and intensive programme of study and support in a therapeutic and well-ordered environment”.
When in government, we agreed with the Chief Inspector of Prisons and set upon that task to introduce secure schools. As a result of that work, the first secure school, the Oasis Restore, was opened with the intention of offering young people who have made poor choices in the past the opportunity to receive rehabilitation, support and education, in order that they may acquire the skills and qualifications needed to both better their lives and avoid the same mistakes in the future. These mainly young men and women deserve a second chance. As my noble friend Lord Farmer, who strives relentlessly for positive prison reform and improving outcomes for offenders, would confirm, with the right help and guidance, these youngsters can turn their lives around for the better.
I believe that all noble Lords, regardless of political persuasion, would agree that it is in Parliament’s power to facilitate institutions that will provide this, while at the same time being entirely realistic that it will be no easy task. The Bill is a further step towards that end, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition fully support it.
The concept of secure schools presupposes institutions which are flexible, short-term and have a high turnover. Young people are rehabilitated at a secure school and released back into society if and when that happens. There is no guarantee of the demand for such schools, nor the tenure of their occupants. Giving these places of improvement the same treatment as if they were regular schools, or prescribing them with the same regulations and requirements, is not practical. It is crystal clear that secure schools urgently require their own remit, given what we know about the extremely regrettable situation of events at Oasis Restore. Assaults and disorder were reportedly rife, in a chaotic and often out of control atmosphere. This is a country mile away from the intent behind a secure school. The fact that the pilot secure school is facing these early challenges is firm evidence that they must have a wider and more adaptable scope for action.
As was so eloquently put by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, decreasing the notice period from seven years to two years allows for current and any future secure schools to be as flexible as the context requires. In a similar vein, disapplying the requirement to conduct an impact assessment on local maintained schools is prudent. Secure schools are a wholly different type of institution from the average school. They are jointly custodial and educational establishments. They are not competing for the same intake of students as local maintained schools. Therefore, comparing schools is both unnecessary and irrelevant. Requiring further considerations creates an additional layer of administrative bureaucracy that slows down the process. It is that very process which we are trying to achieve with secure schools—namely, the rehabilitation and further education of young people, which suffers as a result.
We understand that future secure schools will be dependent on funding, as well as the future success of Oasis Restore. We ask that the Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, might consider diverting some resource from their respective departments to focus on making Oasis Restore a shining template for what can be achieved with the right strategy and know-how.
As my noble friend Lord Farmer and many noble Lords across your Lordships’ House agree, including the noble Lord, Lord Bates, it is entirely possible to save young people from reoffending and living a life of crime, with all of the incremental negative consequences to society that go with it, if the right provision is given as early as possible. It is on us to play a pivotal role in helping secure schools to succeed, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition believe that the Bill achieves part of that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the positive and constructive debate on this important subject, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bach on bringing forward the Bill. I have been particularly struck by the emphasis of all those who spoke, including the noble Earl, on the fact that these are children and not just mini criminals.
It is the sad reality, however, that a small number of children commit offences so serious that there is no option other than to deprive them of their liberty in order to protect the public. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that these children receive appropriate support in order to prepare them for their eventual release. We want to go further and ensure that when they leave a custodial setting, they are in a position to make a better life for themselves.
Secure 16 to 19 academies, also known as secure schools, offer an opportunity to transform the experience of children who are detained by the state, having been sentenced or remanded in custody by the courts, giving them the opportunity to gain skills and qualifications which will enable them to return to the community and lead successful and crime-free lives, thus protecting the public from them reoffending in the future. This is part of the route for damaged children—damaged usually through no fault of their own—to lead a better life, which is better for children and better for the public.
As noble Lords have observed, secure schools were already established by the Academies Act 2010, and the previous Government deserve credit for that. This Bill is necessary to ensure specific provisions in the Act are relevant to these new custodial settings. The Government support the Bill because these amendments will create better services and thus strengthen the impact of secure schools on the lives of those children within our justice system.
I turn briefly to why we need secure schools. The good news is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Bates, said, the number of children in custody under the age of 18 has fallen drastically in recent years. He said 80%. I wish I could agree with that—the figure may be a little lower, at 60%—but the point is still an important one. That is 60% fewer children in custody than there were a decade ago. I say that is good news because this Government agree with the last—that we should deprive children of their liberty only as a last resort. This decline in numbers has rightly been commended as a success of the youth justice system.
However, for children who commit the most serious crimes, there is often no alternative but to protect the public by detaining them in custody. These children, now in custody, are among the most complex and vulnerable in society. They also present with very challenging behaviour, and the majority have committed offences of violence. It is a sad and depressing fact that children leaving custody have some of the highest reoffending rates in the justice system. The latest statistics show that 66% of children released from custody go on to reoffend within a year.
The children in custody are much more likely than their peers to have had a disrupted education. Government analysis shows around 90% of children sentenced to custody had a record of persistent absence. This means these children have lost out on months or years of learning. As the noble Lord, Lord Bates, said, many of them have not been at school for the last years that they were required to be there, and therefore they have lost out on that.
The evidence is clear about the importance of education as a factor preventing children offending. Secure schools offer an opportunity for these children to re-engage with education and to make the most of their potential. The secure school model has been developed in accordance with the best available evidence for what works in addressing the underlying causes of youth offending. That is why secure schools will offer children small environments, as homelike as can be achieved, with healthcare and education at their heart. As has already been said by others, including by the noble Lord, Lord Bates, these are not “prisons with education”; they are primarily schools, but within a protective, secure environment.
In them, children and young people will engage with integrated care, health and education services, which—most importantly—will be tailored to their individual needs. On entry, each young person has a full assessment of their needs, which will establish a baseline against which progress is measured and ensure that any hitherto unmet health and special educational needs are identified.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, many studies, including recent reports, have shown that, among children in the youth justice system, a disproportional number have special educational needs or are neurodivergent. Each child will therefore receive a personalised programme to build on their strengths and develop their potential, with the use of evidence-based interventions to help them build resilience and develop vital life and social skills to help them in the future. Education will take place in appropriately sized groups, including one-to-one where needed.
Children in secure schools have the opportunity to make educational progress on a par with their peers in mainstream schools, but, self-evidently, that will have to be proportionate to the length of their sentence. Secure schools work closely with youth offending teams, education, health and other community service providers, as well as young people’s families where appropriate. Planning for resettlement will start when a young person enters a secure school and be adapted to support transition to the adult estate where appropriate.
I turn briefly to why the Government support the Bill. Secure schools are a key reform in youth custody that best fit the evidence of what works to reduce reoffending and, ultimately, to protect the public by ensuring that there are fewer victims of youth crime. As noble Lords have heard, the first secure school was opened in August 2024. Your Lordships’ House will be aware—the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and the right reverend Prelate alluded to this—that, unfortunately, the school is temporarily closed while repairs are being made to a number of doors on the site to ensure the children’s safety. We take this matter extremely seriously, and officials are working as hard as possible so that the site can reopen in early 2026.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and the noble Earl for their acknowledgment that these early problems do not invalidate the whole system; they are issues from which the Government can and will learn to ensure that, when this is rolled out further, they will not be replicated. These early operational issues do not detract from the need to ensure that we have the most effective legislative basis for secure schools to operate in the future. By ensuring that secure schools function well, with proportionate termination measures and efficient processes for opening new schools, we can achieve that goal.
As my noble friend Lord Bach said, through the Bill we have an opportunity to enable government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer while having more flexibility should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. As other noble Lords have pointed out, engagement with local communities is a key part of the Ministry of Justice selection procedure for new custodial sites. Should there be a need to open new custodial sites, that will be dealt with through the normal planning procedure. The point is that we will be able to talk about how the delivery is managed rather than whether the site should be opened at all. I take on board the right reverend Prelate’s observations about the importance of faith communities.
This Bill will give providers the opportunity to engage with their local community, ensuring a more constructive consultation process that will seek to consult on how the secure school should work with local partners. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, asked about the cost of that. I am afraid that I do not have the figures with me but will, if I may, write to him with them.
I reiterate my thanks to my noble friend Lord Bach for bringing the Bill before the House. I thank the noble Earl for the characteristic generosity and good humour in his response from the Opposition Benches. I confirm, with great pleasure, that the Government support this important Bill, and I look forward to its passage through this House. I urge colleagues across the House to give it their full support.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, seldom have I heard such unanimity in this House in any debate at any time over many years. I warmly thank all those who have taken part in this important debate. It is important, because this is such a crucial subject for our country and our future. I particularly thank the Minister for her remarks and for the Government’s support for this Private Member’s Bill. Because of the unanimity, I want to say very little at this stage, except to say thank you.
I want to make just a couple of points. One is to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bates, whose speech I was particularly impressed by. The amount of work that had gone into the research that he had done into this subject was very impressive. The point about continuity in criminal justice policy seems one we have forgotten about for too long. Of course political parties must be free to discuss all issues that affect people, but in criminal justice, where there is automatic opposition from one side or another, it sometimes seems like a real barrier to progress. If we can act in agreement, as we have today at least, where all people of good will feel the same, then we should do so more often.
The only other point I want to make is that schemes such as this are expensive, obviously. They are bound to be and we should say that they are, but I think everyone in the House would agree that they are worth every penny if we can change the life of even one child—I hope many more than that—and give them every chance to lead a good, happy and successful life in the future. I beg to move.