Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Bull) (CB)
My Lords, as a reminder, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, before we start, I ask noble Lords, as I did on Monday, to declare their interests before they speak. If they did not do that on Monday, they need to do it today. In addition, as per paragraph 8.82 of the Companion, when it comes to pressing or withdrawing amendments at the end of the debate, I ask noble Lords to keep that debate short. We are not supposed to rehash and repeat the whole debate, so please keep it succinct.
Schedule 2: Payment systems regulation
Amendment 47A
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“6A After section 1QA insert—“1QB The Payment Systems Panel(1) Arrangements under section 1M must include the establishment and maintenance of a panel of persons (to be known as “the Payments System Panel”) to represent the interests of—(a) participants in regulated payment systems, and(b) those who use, or are likely to use, services provided by regulated payment systems.(2) The FCA must appoint one of the members of the Payments System Panel to be its chair.(3) The Treasury’s approval is required for the appointment or dismissal of the chair.(4) The FCA must appoint to the Payments System Panel such persons to represent interests and expertise relevant to the FCA’s payment systems objectives.””Member’s explanatory statement
Schedule 2, paragraph 6 removes the Payment System Regulator from the FCA’s statutory panel composition provisions and does not replace it with any payments-specific representation. This amendment and another in the name of Lord Holmes of Richmond seek to provide such representation.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open day two of Committee on the Financial Services and Markets Bill. As it is the first time I have spoken in Committee, I declare my interests as set out in the register around technology, as an adviser variously to the Crown Estate, Endava plc, Simmons & Simmons LLP, and as non-exec director of Avalanche BVI Inc and the Avalanche Foundation.
I had hoped to take part in day one of your Lordships’ deliberations on the Bill, but unfortunately there was a direct clash with the Sporting Events Bill in the Chamber. I was hoping to be able to perform some kind of Bill biathlon but, sadly, time clearly caught up with me and I found myself stuck on the track in there. However, it is a pleasure to open day two of the Bill. I will move Amendment 47A and speak to the other amendments in this group in my name. I give more than a nod to the other amendments in this group and I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for co-signing two of my amendments.
In essence, these amendments can be seen as a connected group. The intention set out in the Bill is clear that the PSR is no more and its functions are to move over to the FCA. That is a defensible and clear objective and it has been communicated. The difficulty is that it is not what the Bill currently achieves. In many ways, these amendments could be summed up by “Lost in Translation”, because key elements of the functions of the PSR, not least those critical elements around competition and innovation, have not come over and certainly have not been reproduced in the Bill to the same extent as they appear in their original statutory form. This is clearly a gap in the Bill that we have before us.
Amendment 47A suggests a payment systems panel. This goes to the second element of “Lost in Translation” in the Bill. Representation of those involved in and affected by payments has similarly disappeared and has not come across from the wording in the originating statute. This is critical, not only because it does not fulfil the Government’s stated intention with these parts of the Bill but because, when you think about it, so much in life involves a payment. Something is either started with a payment or ended with a payment and, if it is neither started nor ended with a payment, odds-on it is probably a payment in its own right. This needs to be put right in the Bill and I suggest that the payment system panel achieves that.
The remaining amendments in my name very much go to putting back those requirements and obligations, as set out in the originating statute, around competition and innovation. The Government have talked variously about the growth objective, not least the role that regulators have to play in it. Indeed, they summoned regulators to No. 11 for a regulators’ showdown— I am not sure what the collective noun for a group of regulators is, but it was certainly a gathering—focused solely on growth. Well, competition and innovation are critical to that growth objective.
I suggest that this suite of amendments fills the gap that is left in the existing draft of the Bill. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response and to the debate on this and the other amendments—those who have put them forward have all done so on similar and related issues. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 48. It addresses a simple but important point: the quality of regulation depends on the quality of consultation. At present, consultation periods vary unpredictably. Some run for many weeks; others, even on significant policy shifts, have been compressed into days. That inconsistency makes a system difficult for firms to plan around, inaccessible for consumer groups and individuals, and challenging for Parliament to scrutinise. I am a serial responder to consultations—I have been for over 20 years, not just on financial services—and I have experienced this difficulty myself.
The Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee, on which I serve, along with several other Members who are present in this Committee, heard extensive evidence on this. In our report Growing Pains, we concluded that the FCA and PRA need a better understanding of the lived experience of regulated firms in coping with consultations, policy statements, “Dear CEO” letters and the plethora of regulatory tools now used. That is a polite way of saying that the system is overloaded and fragmented.
My amendment would introduce proportionate, predictable windows: four to six weeks for minor changes and six to eight weeks for material ones. I seem to recall that, in Brussels, the time allowed was two months and for more complicated things an extension was available of three months. It would also be in line with that, so not out of line with international thinking. The amendment also sets out the factors that regulators must consider when deciding whether a proposal is minor or material. That embeds proportionality but without rigidity. I envisage that there could be, again, the opportunity for extensions in difficult cases. The FCA quite often does that, but usually quite late, after you have had a panic. Crucially, regulators may depart from these windows in exceptional circumstances, as I have said, but they must explain why. That is transparency, not constraint. It ensures that urgency can be accommodated but not used as a blanket justification for compressed consultation.
Predictable consultation matters because it is the only point where Parliament, industry, consumer groups, individuals and civil society generally can influence policy and rule-making. If windows are unpredictable or too short, smaller firms and resource-constrained consumer bodies are effectively excluded. Trade associations cannot consult their members, but their responses are important, as we know that many firms are reluctant to respond directly, for fear of being seen as criticising regulators and suffering supervisory consequences.
The various advisory panels have their place, of course, but they are not a substitute for open consultation. They rely on the knowledge of individuals, not the pooled experience of the market or the public. Industry has asked for this amendment, which tells us something important: the current system is not working as it should. Consultation should not be a matter of luck or timing; it should be predictable, fair and transparent. This amendment would support better engagement and better outcomes. It is a modest but essential part of the culture change that the Lords committee called for, and I hope that the Government will look on it favourably.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group that relate to the PSR. Before I run through those, I want to comment on Amendment 47A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. I must say that I am attracted by the idea of a payment systems panel. Payment systems are such a critical part of our financial services structure. They are used more often by more people and more businesses than any other financial service. If they go wrong, or become too expensive, or fail to prevent fraud or error effectively, the impact on individuals and businesses would be very significant. The abolition of the PSR risks dilution of attention to payment systems, so the creation of a panel has very real merit, and I will listen to the Minister’s answer with interest. I will also be interested to hear why the payment systems competition objective in the Bill is missing elements originally included in the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has pointed out.
I move on to my Amendment 49, which is simply a request for clarification and understanding. I have read new subsection 131Z3(2)(d)(ii), inserted by Schedule 2, a number of times, but have been struggling to understand the double negative in it. I think I now understand that it means that any system that includes any arrangements using digital settlement assets may be a payment system even if that system’s primary purpose is not that of enabling persons to transfer funds. Is that correct? If so, why is that? Why do we treat systems not primarily intended to be used for the transfer of funds, but which include digital settlement assets, differently from systems that do not include digital settlement assets?
Amendments 50 to 53 are all related and designed to reduce the discretion of the Treasury to designate or not designate a payment system as a regulated payment system. As it stands, the Bill gives the Treasury complete discretion. The Bill sets out when the Treasury may designate a payment system to be regulated, but whether it does so is entirely at its discretion, subject only to some consultations. If it does not wish to designate a payment system as a regulated payment system, it does not even need to consult. Similarly, new Section 131Z6 gives it complete discretion to withdraw any designation at will at any time. Why does that matter? That might be best illustrated by a completely hypothetical and obviously completely made-up example. Stablecoins are generally recognised as being primarily a payment system. Let us imagine that there might be a politician who has received a donation of, shall we say, £5 million from an overseas billionaire who is a major shareholder in the world’s leading stablecoin issuer. Perhaps that politician may not have registered such a donation. Let us imagine that that politician gains a position of influence over the Treasury and feels that the interests of his benefactor might be assisted if stablecoins, or indeed a particular stablecoin, were not designated as a regulated payment system. The Bill, as drafted, would allow exactly that to happen. Does the Minister agree that this feels somewhat inappropriate and open to potential abuse?
My amendments would reduce that discretion so that the Treasury must—“must”, not “may”—designate a payment system as a regulated payment system if it is satisfied that any deficiency in the design of the system, or any disruption of its operation, would likely have serious consequences for those who use or are likely to use the services provided by participants in the system. It would have to withdraw a designation if satisfied that those grounds are no longer met.
My Amendment 55 is another request for clarification; I recognise that it may not be required. Prior to being abolished, the PSR does not have a secondary competitiveness and growth objective such as that of the FCA. It has an objective to promote effective competition in the market for payment systems and services and an innovation objective, but those are different things. It was not clear to me when I read this whether, as the PSR becomes part of the FCA, the regulation of payment systems will become subject to the FCA’s wider set of objectives or not. This amendment aims to put that beyond doubt, but perhaps the Minister could confirm the position.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will make a few comments on amendments in this group and speak particularly to my Amendments 54 and 57. I say very gently that I agree with the other amendments in this group. My noble friend Lady Bowles is looking for consistency in the consultation period. Unless someone has been on the other side of a consultation period—not setting it but trying to respond to it—they may not know that the real-life difficulties of the inconsistency, frankly, are often a barrier, not just an annoyance. Amendment 47A is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and yes, it makes sense to have a payment systems panel on an issue such as this: we need to make sure that a full range of views and experience is taking a look at such a crucial piece of the financial plumbing.
On Amendment 55, I could not understand why ease of use should have been removed from the competition objective. That made no sense if we are thinking about people and consumers. I do not know whether the Government could explain that. I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. It had struck me but I did not do anything about it and I should have. His Amendment 49 deals with this capacity to exclude digital payment assets from definitions in payment systems, which just seems fundamentally wrong. We are moving in the direction of digital, these are coherent parts of the payment system and it is going to be relevant to the two amendments that I am about to discuss.
My Amendment 54 recognises that we are in a fast-changing world. We are increasingly in a time in which the payment system is made up of many more entities than just the conventional players. New schemes, platforms, exchanges and all kinds of services are coming on stream; these are key and many are digital. Amendment 54 emphasises that the FCA must, in its service-user objective, focus on “consumers”, a much clearer term than “users”. We have seen in the past that consumers get lost in this overall definition of users. It would require the FCA to look at the issues of inclusion, redress, access to cash, choice and interoperability from the perspective of the consumer in this increasingly complex world. As we move forward, many consumers will simply be bemused.
A simple example arose for me when, very recently, I spoke to an American firm planning to offer payroll services in the UK using 100% stablecoin. The firm is very confident that this will be in place shortly after the regulations are approved by the FCA. How does an employee receiving 100% of their salary in stablecoin turn that into cash at an ATM? Obviously, there are huge issues of access to cash, interoperability and who will pay for the necessary software and hardware changes.
Amendment 57 carries on with this theme and picks up an earlier group, addressing the need for all participants in the payment system, including tech companies, to pay their fair share. That is why the definition of “payment system” really matters and should not exclude digital assets. As the payments world changes so significantly, financial inclusion will be a far more complex issue, and it is untenable for the costs of this to fall just on the banks. My amendment makes it clear that every participant across all recognised payment systems must step up: we need a level playing field.
The intent of these really quite simple amendments is to help overcome the incredibly fragmented and confusing payments landscape in the UK, particularly when we look at it from the perspective of the consumer. It is an obstacle course and, frankly, general confusion and fragmentation let overseas entities take advantage of us. I am very troubled that the National Payments Vision of the Bank of England does not have digital assets in scope. The Bank issued its policy announcement on systemic stablecoin on Monday, and it says that its work will be in parallel with the National Payments Vision, but I am still trying to work out why the two are not properly linked together and coherent. There are new players in this field, and some are asserting that we need a single sovereign payments system to respond to core consumer needs and to join up the dots with consumers at its heart. I met the Canadian company Interac, and that is exactly what happens in Canada, so there are international examples, which do not seem to be under consideration in any of the material that I have been looking at.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for bringing forward this group of amendments, which raises several important questions around the future shape of payments regulation once the Payment Systems Regulator is brought within the FCA. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes for introducing Amendments 47A and 101A with simplicity and clarity; I note the support from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
Despite the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, I do not favour extending the FCA’s service user objective to include consumer redress or access to cash; indeed, I am against a levy for such purposes. In any event, payment system operators do not deal with customers. That is done by financial services firms.
I am more receptive to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on applying the secondary growth and competitiveness objective to the regulation of payment systems. Does the Minister intend to do this? If so, can it be done by the proposed regulations or does it need to go into the Bill? I should add that, as with so much in the Bill, the framework is broad while the substance is left to later regulations. That is a real concern, as it leaves a lacuna in parliamentary accountability.
We have been through the arguments on consumer credit and in-person banking, but I log them again for good order. I want also to address two central themes running through this group: first, the need for proper industry engagement and accountability in regulation-making; and, secondly, the question of whether the new regime is sufficiently clear and future-proofed.
On the first point, we welcome the amendments that seek to strengthen the consultation requirements and ensure adequate time for meaningful industry engagement, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, set out in her Amendment 48. That would have a dual effect. First, it would increase transparency and accountability for regulators. If regulators are required to consult properly, explain their reasoning, engage with those affected and publish clear strategies, we have a better chance of understanding not only what they are doing but why they are doing it. One point that is clearly of concern to other noble Lords is the extent of the discretion afforded to the Treasury in designating and de-designating payment systems.
The second effect is that this would ensure that those affected by regulation have a meaningful opportunity to have some input in our deliberations on the Bill and our discussions with industry. It has become clear that the regulatory environment seems to be planned and developed at some distance from the firms that are expected to comply. New regulations, handbooks and guidance may make sense to the people sitting in the FCA or the PRA, but they do not always make sense to those at the coalface: firms, compliance teams, payment providers and market participants. They have to interpret them to implement them and live with the operational consequences.
In this case, those with an interest go way beyond the regulators’ normal clients. For example, concerns have been expressed by retailers, which are usually quick to spot practical problems. I remember well that, when I was at Tesco, we were introducing the euro into our businesses in Ireland and elsewhere. Because of inadequate consultation, the timing was wrong, with training and IT changes needed during the busy Christmas period—a recipe for cost and chaos.
This is a real problem. If regulation is developed in a silo, away from the experience of market participants, even well-intentioned regulation can become impractical, disproportionate or poorly targeted. We end up with the regulator and the regulated working from different understandings of how the market actually functions. That is why I hope that the Minister will look constructively at the amendments that seek to strengthen consultation, transparency and meaningful engagement both with professional bodies and with market participants. Without proper planning, there will be a risk to growth—and, indeed, to the UK’s reputation on payment systems, which has generally been good.
The second major issue is the question of what exactly is covered by the regime. Is the Bill regulating the market as it exists today or preparing the UK for the market as it will exist in a few years? We will speak about digital finance and digital assets in later groups, but the point is highly relevant here, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, mentioned. If the Bill is to modernise and improve regulation, why does it feel in places as though it is being designed for a market that may already be out of date? We have the legal system, the financial services expertise, the markets, the professional services ecosystem and the technology capability to be a world leader, but leadership requires clarity and confidence from the Government and I do not think we are yet seeing enough of either in this Bill.
That brings me to the wider point about accountability and scope, which was raised on Monday. If the PSR’s functions are to be absorbed into the FCA, how will this new regime be properly held to account? How will the Government ensure that payments regulation does not become simply one more area lost within the wider FCA structure? I would be grateful if, in addition to my initial questions about growth, competitiveness and the level of delegation, the Minister could address three points.
First, how will the Government ensure that industry and professional bodies are brought into the regulation-making process early enough for their input to make a meaningful difference? Secondly, how will the Government ensure that the new regime is sufficiently clear and future-proofed to capture new forms of payments and digital finance, rather than regulating for the market of the past? Thirdly, how will the new payments regime be held to account once it sits within the FCA and what mechanisms will exist to ensure that Parliament, industry and consumers can properly scrutinise its operations? A lot of clarity is needed on this part of the Bill, which we of course support in principle. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and HM Treasury (Lord Stockwood) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Vaux, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Bowles, for tabling these amendments, and to the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will speak first to the amendments concerning the regulation of payment systems and then turn to Amendment 48 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, which raises a separate issue concerning the consultation processes of the FCA and PRA.
There is no doubt that payment systems are critical economic infrastructure. They must be secure and resilient, but also support competition, innovation and good outcomes for the households and businesses that rely on them. That is the purpose of the Bill. It consolidates the Payment Systems Regulator’s functions within the FCA to create a more coherent framework. This is an institutional reform and should not be seen as weakening consumer protection, competition regulation or regulatory standards. The PSR has been effective in driving competition and innovation among payments firms, but the current framework is too fragmented. The Bill will reduce the number of regulators with which firms need to engage.
It is worth stating that the Government have not rushed into this. We consulted on this proposal almost a year ago, in September 2025, and have been working on the details ever since. We published a detailed response in April this year. Throughout this process, the Government have been clear: the intention is not to fundamentally change how this part of the sector is regulated; it is about changing who regulates it to produce a more streamlined system. When I respond to each amendment, I hope that noble Lords will keep this in mind. I hope to reassure noble Lords that the Bill already provides the right framework.
I understand that the desire of Amendment 47A is to ensure payments-specific expertise and that the interests of users and the industry are heard in the FCA. However, the Government do not consider a new statutory payments system panel to be necessary, because the Bill ensures that the FCA’s general duty to consult in relation to its general policies and practices includes participants in regulated payment systems, including those who use or are likely to use services provided by participants in payment systems. We believe that this will ensure that their views will be considered without needing to recreate separate structures within the newly simplified regulatory framework.
I understand the concern in Amendment 49 about whether systems that involve digital settlement assets fall within the definition of a payment system. The Bill attempts to be clear that they can and are capable of designation, even where enabling the transfer of funds is not their primary purpose, reflecting how they may support payment activity within wider platforms.
Amendments 50 to 53 seek to make designation mandatory once the relevant payment systems definition and designation threshold is met, and to restrict the Treasury’s discretion to revise or withdraw designation notices. The Government do not consider that appropriate. As I have already stated, payment systems are technologically dynamic. The Treasury must retain discretion to assess the circumstances and to regulate proportionately, taking into account the relevant factors. Making designation automatic, or withdrawal too restrictive, could introduce rigidity and unintended consequences. Therefore, the Bill preserves the existing position whereby the Treasury may designate a system where it meets the definition of a payment system, and only where the relevant threshold is met. The Government have determined that it is appropriate to maintain a designation regime for payment systems because it facilitates more targeted and proportionate regulation.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I am not sure I fully understood the Minister’s response to Amendment 55. Does the FCA’s secondary growth and competitiveness objective apply to payment service systems under the Bill? That was the clarity I sought.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
It does indeed. Returning to Amendments 55A, 55B and 55C, I agree that the FCA must be able to consider user access and market entry by infrastructure and payment service providers. The Bill already achieves that. The FCA’s payment systems objectives are intended to be equivalent in substance and scope to the PSR’s existing objectives.
The noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Vaux, asked about drafting differences between the FCA and the PSR objectives. Changes in drafting of the FCA’s payment systems objectives are for simplification only. The FCA’s payment systems objectives retain the substance of the PSR’s objectives.
Turning to Amendment 57, the Government are committed to improving financial inclusion, but a new levy on payment system participants is not the right mechanism. The better course is targeted and proportionate action, including through the Government’s financial inclusion strategy and the recent allocation of £132.5 million in dormant assets funding to Fair4All Finance.
On Amendment 101A, the Bill already provides for the secondary competitiveness and growth objective to apply to the payment systems’ general functions. Any reporting on that secondary objective would include its application to payment systems’ regulation, as appropriate. Therefore, the Government consider the amendment unnecessary and are satisfied that the Bill already gives the FCA the right objectives to support innovation, competition and growth.
Finally, Amendment 48 seeks to introduce maximum and minimum lengths for the consultations undertaken by the FCA and PRA. I understand the desire to ensure that, where regulators consult on proposed rule changes, stakeholders have a fair opportunity to consider the proposals and respond properly. However, this amendment would impose a rigid statutory timetable on consultations, which will cover a very wide range of issues that vary considerably in complexity, urgency and market impact. The Government’s view is that it is appropriate to allow the regulators to determine the appropriate consultation period, rather than being bound to timings set in primary legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, is right on how we describe the interpretation of the drafting; I commend him for his skill in reading a very technical provision that I have had difficulty reading. He asked why payment systems that involve digital settlement assets are treated differently. This reflects the particular characteristics of digital settlement assets and the way the market is developing. It also reflects the existing arrangements under the PSR framework.
The Bill preserves flexibility to bring relevant systems within the scope of payment systems regulation, where they support payment activity. That does not mean automatic regulation. The system must still be designated by HMT before the FCA’s main powers apply. This approach ensures that the new framework is both future-proofed and proportionate. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, raised the issue of consultations with industry. The FCA works closely with industry, and the Bill sets out clear consultation requirements on the FCA to support this as it takes on this new role.
As I said at the start, I cannot accept these amendments, but I appreciate the spirit of where they come from. The Bill is aimed at ensuring that we have the right institutional framework for this part of the sector, while ensuring that we do not weaken those consumer protections. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, may I come back to the question of consultation? We are being asked to have a high degree of delegation with this change of governance for the Payment Systems Regulator. The Minister seems sure that the regulator will meaningfully consult the right people at the right time. It seems extraordinary to leave so much discretion with the regulators, particularly, as I explained, when they are moving into very new areas. He has rejected the idea of a panel, which would be one way of getting expertise into the system, and I wonder if he will think further about this.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
To come back on that, we have heard the criticism of the FCA loud and clear. The intention is for further debates to come back to what we believe is the current state of oversight and governance, and we are open to the conversations that the debates will lead to.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate. One of the key themes that ran through it and the Minister’s response is the question of clarity, or the lack thereof. Certainly, as a consequence of these changes as currently drafted, there is less clarity on payment systems regulation and on how the competition and innovation requirements will be satisfied in a broader context. I fully support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on his amendments, and I will come to the important amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles.
I am disappointed that the Minister did not take the opportunity to offer a consultation about consultations. The reality is that the Minister could take this opportunity to bring clarity to increasing and varying levels of opacity and unnecessary levels of control in the hands of the regulator, where they currently exist. We have seen this in financial services in recent Bills that we have considered; it goes beyond financial services to this sense of leaving regulators with greater powers as a consequence of significant statutes passed, as opposed to Parliament debating and determining these decisions, which in no sense would tie the regulators’ hands. In fact, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, would assist the regulators, because it would bring clarity on how to operate these consultations. There is a significant issue with consultations in financial services, and a significant issue with government consultations across the piece. It is not a party-political point; it has been the case for years. This is an opportunity to bring clarity to this and enable more firms, more individuals and more perspectives to be brought into what would then be better consultations and better outcomes as a result of that consultation process. I very much look forward to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, bringing her amendment back on Report. It is strong; it would not let too many cats out of too many bags—even though I stand with a Labrador at my feet—and I do not think that this will be the last we see of a number of these amendments. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Stockwood
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove a subsection which duplicates section 131Z19 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (inserted by paragraph 18 of Schedule 2).
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of the government amendments in this group is to ensure that the relevant provisions of the Bill operate clearly, consistently and in line with the Government’s original policy intent. They are technical and corrective in nature and do not change the underlying policy of the Bill. However, it is important that noble Lords understand the purpose of the amendments so that they can agree that they are minor and technical, so I will explain them briefly.
Amendments 56, 60 and 63 make minor, technical corrections to Schedule 2, which, taken with Clause 13, abolishes the Payment Systems Regulator and gives broadly equivalent functions to the FCA. Amendment 56 removes a duplicative provision from new Section 131Z9 to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 that is already covered by new Section 131Z19. Amendment 60 corrects a cross-reference so that the Bill refers to the correct FCA payment system powers when setting out how the Competition and Markets Authority is to determine an appeal.
Amendments 61, 62 and 63 ensure that references to the chair of the PSR, which will be obsolete after the PSR is abolished, are deleted in the correct places in Schedule 1ZA to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which concerns the FCA’s constitution and governance.
Amendments 143 to 145 are also minor and technical amendments. Amendment 143 and 144 ensure that Section 66A of FSMA is amended in a coherent and orderly way, regardless of whether the amendments to that section made by Clause 27 are commenced first or the amendments to that section made by Clause 36 are commenced first. Amendment 145 amends subsection (4) of new Section 55AA, inserted by Clause 29(3), to ensure that the language used there is consistent with the language used elsewhere in FSMA. The amendment simply replaces the words “is in force” with “has effect”. These amendments do not change the policy or legal effect of the affected clauses. They are drafting amendments for the purposes of coherence and consistency only.
I now turn to Amendments 147 to 150, to Clause 33. Clause 33 allows firms to apply for senior approval, subject to conditions or a limited period; they are known as permitted conditional applications. This helps support a more flexible approvals process. Amendments 147 to 150 are technical amendments that fix an error in the original drafting and will ensure that the framework operates as intended. Without these amendments, there is a risk that decisions will not be properly formalised and that the period for determining applications will not be applied consistently.
Amendments 147 and 149 provide that the period for determining permitted conditional applications is the same as for other senior manager applications. Amendments 148 and 150 provide that regulators must give written notice when they approve a permitted conditional application. Taken together, these amendments will ensure that the statutory framework works clearly and consistently in practice.
In summary, this group of government amendments makes technical corrections to ensure that the Bill works as intended. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting them.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have given the Minister notice that I intend to object to these amendments, so if he presses them, I will object and therefore they will not pass. It has been the custom of our House that when the Government table amendments to Bills, they notify all Members of the House—because the Government cannot determine which Peers might be interested in which amendments—and explain the amendments. It may well be that some of these amendments are technical and mean simply the correction of errors, but Members of your Lordships’ House should have the opportunity to consider them properly.
I became aware of this only late last week, when I suddenly realised that several government amendments had been put down—these and others—and that I had had no letter. I do not believe that anybody else has had a letter. Because of that, we ought to maintain the customary practices of your Lordships’ House. As I said, I will object to these amendments if they are put.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the government amendments in this group and declare my interest as a director of South Molton Street Capital, which is regulated by the FCA. I thank the Minister for explaining so clearly these amendments. He has described them as minor technical amendments and as descriptions around making language consistent with FSMA. Notwithstanding that, at the outset, we welcome these amendments in so far as they are intended to make the Bill clearer, correct cross-references, remove duplications and ensure that the legislation works as intended. The amendments before us are technical in character and, where they improve the coherence and operability of the Bill, we do not object to them.
However, following the words of my noble friend Lady Noakes, I want to raise a broader procedural point, because I think it matters for how this Committee is able to scrutinise the Bill properly. We understand that not all noble Lords who have taken a close interest in the Bill were engaged by the department on these government amendments. That is a concern. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us a clear commitment that, ahead of future stages, the Government will make every effort to engage with not only the Opposition Front Bench but noble Lords across the Committee who have raised substantive concerns, and to provide timely, written explanations of any further government amendments.
I understand that my noble friend Lady Noakes will be writing to the Minister about the way in which the Government have handled engagement and oversight around these amendments. Given the reservations of my noble friend and of her committee, it is right that we do not agree to these amendments today but rather see them reintroduced on Report, as a matter of principle.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, I am happy to apologise to the noble Baroness for any mix-up. It was my understanding that it was not necessary to do an all-Peers letter for only a handful of technical amendments. With that in mind, we believe that the amendments we have proposed are minor and technical in nature and were tabled in good time before the Committee’s first debate. They are on drafting errors and remove duplicate and obsolete provisions, ensuring that the relevant provisions in the Bill and FSMA operate clearly and consistently. I trust that my explanation has given the noble Baroness the information she needs, but I will withdraw the amendment for now and bring it back on Report.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“(1C) Regulations made under subsection (1A) may make provision in relation to— (a) the Financial Conduct Authority, in respect of its functions under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000;(b) the Financial Conduct Authority, in respect of its functions relating to payment services or electronic money;(c) Ofcom;(d) the National Crime Agency;(e) the National Economic Crime Centre;(f) law enforcement agencies.”Member's explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to require more effective intelligence sharing between supervisory authorities.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open on this group of amendments, which in many ways builds on the first group. This Bill is light on the use of technology and on the use of intelligence between the regulators which are spread across the financial services landscape. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said in responding to the first group, in many ways the Bill feels as if it is written for a time which is already rapidly evaporating. There are new payment mechanisms and new financial instruments. In fact, there are new products which are already dominating key parts of the market.
It would seem to make sense to have provision for more intelligence-sharing across the regulators, and indeed the broader landscape. Modern technologies are deployed by both participants and bad actors in this arena. Thus, it would seem to make sense to have combined activity, connected action and shared intelligence among the regulators and, within that, to bring technologies such as AI and others to bear in achieving it. I look forward to the debate on this amendment and others in this group, and to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments 64B and 69AA in this group, which are in my name. They direct attention to matters arising from the provisions in Clause 14 that are of great concern to the Law Society and the Law Society of Scotland. I apologise to the Minister for their late arrival; they are based on draft amendments that were not sent to me until Monday of this week. I am grateful to the Table Office for its help in drafting them at short notice.
The background to these amendments is as follows. The Law Society and the Law Society of Scotland are both regulatory authorities. Their current regulatory roles include responsibility for supervising compliance by solicitors, in their respective jurisdictions, with the UK’s anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing frameworks. They are, therefore, supervisory authorities of the kind referred to in the amendment to Section 49 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, as set out in Clause 14(2).
However, the regulation of anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing is only part of the responsibilities that these two societies exercise as regulators. Solicitors play an important role in tackling economic crime. The societies’ roles as AML supervisory bodies are a key component of their functions as regulators of the solicitor profession. This is a task that both societies take very seriously. I am told that the Law Society of Scotland employs a team of dedicated specialists with detailed, up-to-date knowledge of the trends in economic crime and the risks that are associated with the provision of legal services; I have no reason to think that the way in which the Law Society of England and Wales handles its responsibilities is any different.
The effect of the amendments proposed in Clause 14 would be to transfer, through regulations that we have not yet seen, the front-line AML supervision of the solicitor profession to the Financial Conduct Authority, as the single professional services regulator. The Law Society believes that this will amount to a seismic shake-up as to how law firms and their AML/CTF obligations are regulated, which risks sending shockwaves through the sector. It also says that adapting to this change has the potential to divert attention, resources and time from supporting clients and developing solicitors’ businesses, with effects that it would be quite hard to cope with.
The Law Society of Scotland strongly opposes this change. Its point is that it will lead to the duplication of systems of regulation. On the one hand, the society will continue to have its role as the profession’s regulator; on the other hand, there will be the FCA. Solicitor firms, large and small, will have to deal with them both in future, increasing the time spent and the cost of being regulated. This will bear heavily, especially on small firms in the remoter areas of Scotland, which often operate on very narrow margins. The population is thinly spread in these areas, as are the firms that exist to provide essential legal services there to the people who need them. Much will of course depend on how the FCA approaches its task, but anything that might lead to the disappearance of these firms due to the consequences would be very much to be regretted. That is what lies behind the Law Society of Scotland’s objection.
The Law Society of England and Wales, for its part, is concerned that, without a clear statement of their position by the Treasury and the FCA, Parliament is being asked to legislate for powers to enable the detail of the reforms to be enacted that remain unclear and which the sector has not yet seen.
My Amendment 64B focuses on the points that are of particular concern. I shall mention in relation to each one, as briefly as I can, the questions for which answers are sought from the Minister. Proposed new subsection (1C)(a) asks that the regulations be “proportionate and risk-based”. The question is whether the FCA intends to import its banking model into the process for all solicitors’ firms, small as well as large, or instead to take a risk-based approach. Should not the supervision in regard to this profession be tailored to the risks posed by the different sectors within it? Firms vary from the very small, with perhaps just one partner in a remote part of Scotland, to the very large international firms found in the City of London. How will the Government ensure that the small high street firms up and down the country are not disproportionately burdened by the system that they propose to operate?
Proposed new subsection (1C)(b) seeks appropriate protections for legal professional privilege and client confidentiality. Can the Minister confirm that nothing will be done under Clause 14 that will weaken legal professional privilege, which has a vital role in securing access to justice? The Solicitors Regulation Authority of the Law Society of England and Wales at present keeps all LPP material confidential. It may be used only for investigation and enforcement proceedings against the solicitor or the firm that it regulates. It may not be used in relation to proceedings that may be taken against its clients. Will the FCA follow the Law Society’s practice? Will it also accommodate the duty of confidentiality that underpins much legal work? Further, will it respect the obligations of the solicitor or the firm to the court?
Proposed new subsection (1D) seeks to avoid duplication. It is feared that the Treasury will introduce a broader system of regulation than the current regime, with the risk that this will duplicate the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s oversight, create unnecessary burdens and delay routine transactions. What practical mechanisms can be put in place to prevent solicitors from being subjected to overlapping requirements from both the FCA and the SRA?
Proposed new subsection (1E) calls for an impact assessment. How can the appropriateness of these powers be judged without seeing the underlying regime? Will the regulations be accompanied by assessments of their impact on those to be subjected to the system of supervision for which they provide? What estimate has been made of the compliance costs for these law firms? Will the powers be compatible with the way that legal services are regulated in Scotland, which has a different legal system from that in England and Wales?
My Amendment 69AA asks for a review of AML and CTF supervision within three years and a report that includes an assessment of each of the points to which I have drawn attention. I do not expect the Minister to answer my questions this evening. I have set them out because I hope that they may form the basis of some discussion, if the noble Lord is willing to meet me at some point before Report to go over these thoughts at greater leisure and in more detail.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I add some comments to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has said and what he is trying to achieve. I put on record my interests in the register as a chartered accounts and chartered tax adviser—I am very well versed in the burdens, I suppose, of the AML regulations in smaller practice. These are burdens that we all suffer almost daily if attempting to move money between one very regulated institution in the UK to another very regulated institution in the UK. We have all suffered it: you transfer funds from one to another, yet the receiving institution asks the same questions all over again, including proofs of source of funds, as the original organisation, in the UK, asked when you put those funds into that institution.
Frankly, the AML regulations have got out of control. We could do it in this Bill, and I think it is time to streamline what has become a real blockage in the UK. I had a quite ridiculous situation recently in purchasing a property: they wanted proof of funds for a transaction that I conducted in 1992. I struggled to find it, because it had long gone through the shredder, as one might imagine.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will make some comments on the amendments that have been discussed and then speak to the amendments in my name. I have some sympathy with the issues raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I very much hope that the Minister can clear up this issue of professional privilege and client confidentiality, because it seems to me that it is not in any way interpretable from the legislation or the Explanatory Notes, and it is key.
I also see that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, have tabled Amendment 69A to require a report on the transfer process, which seems very sensible. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has an amendment calling for a review of anti-money laundering and counter- terrorism financing supervision within three years. All those make some sense to me.
I will look particularly at Amendment 64A from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, because it hits part of the problem on the head. It seeks to require more effective intelligence sharing between supervisory authorities. It is that failure of intelligence sharing that many people consider to be the fundamental underlying cause of many of the problems we have today. It is not very clear that the proposals the Government are bringing forward are the easiest way to remedy that. I will say more on that later.
For my amendments in this group, I thank the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Association of Taxation Technicians for both clarifying issues and proposing legal language. Despite all the steps we have taken over recent years, London remains the global centre of choice for laundering dirty money, whether from crime, sanctions busting or political corruption. Estimates suggest that 40% of all laundered money globally goes through the City of London or the Crown dependencies—up to £325 billion a year. The primacy of the London money laundromat is not an accolade we wish to retain.
Part of the problem has been the fragmentation of oversight by 25 separate public and professional bodies, supervising not just financial institutions but the many enablers, ranging from accountants to solicitors, property agents and service companies. In 2018, the Government set up within the FCA what they hoped would be the answer: the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision, which the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, described as the OPBAS—I thought it was an acronym, not an initialism. It was put in place to oversee the 22 professional body supervisors, not the public ones. We need to acknowledge that it has had some real successes, but it has not been as effective as we had hoped. That goes back to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who is no longer in his place: the primary reason for this, in most people’s opinion, seems to be relatively poor communication and co-operation between OPBAS and the law enforcement agencies. Frankly, I cannot find anything in this Bill that begins to deal with that.
One approach to remedying this situation would have been to have given OPBAS proper resources and more teeth. Instead, the Government have decided that the FCA should take on directly all supervisory responsibility for anti-money laundering and counter- terrorism financing. Many in the professional bodies are very correctly worried that the FCA lacks the expertise and capacity to carry out the role it is being given, which is much more complex than just enforcement.
Many of the firms that the FCA will supervise on these AML issues are small to tiny. The FCA has no significant history of supervising small and tiny firms, and no understanding of the different operations and pressures of these entities or their specialist activities. The firms—this has been one of the strengths of the professional bodies—need compliance support, education, expert helplines, hand-holding and guidance from a supervisor that knows their business model.
My Amendments 65 to 69 should be seen as part of a whole. They are collectively intended to try to tackle that problem, and to clarify and ensure a workable transition process. Amendment 65 addresses education guidance and compliance support. Amendment 66 requires a proper transition timetable. Amendment 67 requires the FCA to have the necessary expertise and experience in tax, accounting, legal services, trust and company service provision—it does not have that at the moment. Amendment 68 requires transparency on supervisory costs and the fees that the FCA will levy. Amendment 69 requires a report in six months on how effective the new anti-money laundering system is.
Frankly, all of that should have been in the Bill, and none of it should be controversial. Once again, we have a situation where the Government seek to pass primary legislation that gives Ministers and regulators a blank sheet of paper to fill in as they wish with secondary legislation. At this point, as far as I can understand— I looked but could not find it—we do not even have a promise to publish the regulations for consultation.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the stand part notice on Clause 14 and Amendment 69A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Altrincham. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead—whom it is a particular pleasure to welcome to the Committee on this Bill—and to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for bringing forward a number of useful amendments in this group. My noble friend Lord Mackinlay of Richborough is right to summarise the concerns about and nonsenses of the money laundering regulations in general, which we should try to address as part of reform. We certainly support that.
The question we have to ask is whether the Government’s chosen mechanism is sufficiently clear, proportionate and workable. At present, I am concerned that it is not. Clause 14 represents a major structural change, moving front-line AML supervision for professional services from the existing professional body supervisors to the FCA. The Bill will allow FCA supervision of money laundering to be extended to several new areas—to 22 bodies in all, as we have heard, including solicitors, law firms, accountants, trust and company service providers and, in practice, estate agents. Yet, as with so much in this Bill, the framework is broad while the substance is left to later regulations. That is a real concern.
My Amendment 69A seeks to address that in part by requiring the Treasury to report to Parliament on the process for transferring responsibilities under Clause 14. That report would force the Government to set out how the transfer will work in practice, what steps will be taken to manage the transition, how costs will be assessed, how duplication will be avoided and how the FCA will acquire and maintain the necessary sector expertise—all points that have been raised in the debate.
We have heard serious concerns from industry and professional bodies about spiralling costs, duplication and regulatory uncertainty. The Law Society described the proposal as
“a seismic shakeup to how law firms and their AML … obligations are regulated”.
It warned that the change risks diverting
“attention, resources and time from supporting clients and growing their businesses”
towards adapting to a new and uncertain compliance regime. That concern should be taken seriously. The Government and the FCA should be seeking to simplify requirements, reduce duplication and minimise the compliance burden, while maintaining strong safeguards against economic crime.
The risk of duplication is particularly important. Solicitors are already subject to a distinct regulatory framework. They have professional obligations, ethical duties, responsibilities to the court, duties under the rule of law and obligations around client confidentiality and legal professional privilege. If the FCA is now to be added to that landscape as a supervisor, the Government must explain precisely how the new system will avoid overlapping or conflicting expectations.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, I am particularly concerned about sector expertise: if the FCA is to take on these responsibilities, it must have people within it who understand the professions and bodies that they will be supervising. It must understand how law firms operate, how client accounts work, how professional privilege functions and how smaller or high street firms differ from large practices.
Costs are another major concern. I emphasise that small and high street firms are worried that a move to FCA supervision may result in higher fees and new compliance costs. Many of these firms are already under pressure. They serve individuals, families and small businesses in communities across the country. If the effect of this reform is to impose disproportionate new costs on them, it could have real consequences for access to legal services. The FCA does not understand how to deal with thousands and thousands of such firms.
We also need to understand how regional capacity will be maintained. Professional services are not confined to London; it is one of their charms. AML risks and compliance responsibilities exist across the whole country. The existing professional body model has the advantage of sector-specific and, in many cases, locally embedded knowledge.
There is also a specific territorial issue here, as we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. The Law Society of Scotland has opposed the change and raised concerns about the compatibility of FCA supervision with the regulation of legal services in Scotland. The Government need to explain how these reforms will interact with devolved and existing statutory frameworks, as well as how they will avoid creating a two-track or conflicting regulatory regime. The noble and learned Lord also emphasised the SME issue, which seems to be a particular difficulty in Scotland.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville-Rolfe, the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham and Lord Holmes of Richmond, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for tabling these amendments relating to the implementation of anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing supervision reform. I would be more than happy to meet the noble and learned Lord to discuss his points in detail before Report. I thank him for that kind offer. I am also more than happy to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville- Rolfe, on her questions, although I will cover professional privilege in my response.
I recognise the broad concerns that sit behind these amendments. We all want to get this right. However, the Government do not believe that these additional statutory requirements are necessary. I will start by setting out why Clause 14 should stand part of the Bill. Because the UK is a global financial hub, we face heightened vulnerability to illicit finance, as has already been mentioned. The UK has a robust set of anti-money laundering rules, but the supervision of those rules is simply not consistent. The Government understand the burden of compliance, but their recent statutory instrument made money laundering regulation more proportionate by ensuring that requirements are enforced when and where the risks are highest, and reduced where they are not.
In October 2025, the Government announced their intention to reform the supervision framework, with the FCA becoming the supervisor of compliance on anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing rules for professional services firms. Clause 14 is designed to support this transition and ensure that the new supervisory regime can function effectively. It is worth restating that we believe that the vast majority of companies take seriously their responsibility to ensure that their clients’ funds are clean. We are grateful for their efforts; they are important gatekeepers, protecting the integrity of the UK economy. This reform will bring professional services firms in line with other regulated sectors, such as financial services, which are already overseen by a public sector supervisor. This is fair and proportionate.
The Government have recently published their updated anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing national risk assessment. It found that all professional services in scope of this reform remain high risk for money laundering, based on an extensive analysis of the available evidence and intelligence. Clause 14 is essential to ensure the effective implementation of these supervision reforms. Without it, the Government would lose the ability to make important provision in respect of co-operation and information sharing between the FCA and professional bodies.
Ongoing co-operation between the FCA and professional bodies will be key to ensuring that firms’ reform is effective; it has been mentioned by many noble Lords today. It will mean that additional burdens on firms, including dual regulation and issues around enforcement, are minimised. Without this, implementation of reform will be less effective, and firms will likely face additional burdens, which the Government are determined to avoid.
The Government’s objective is to simplify and strengthen the fragmented supervisory system, improve consistency across sectors and support more effective action against economic crime. Effective supervision depends on robust co-operation and information sharing between supervisors and other partners across the wider AML/CTF framework. Co-operation and information-sharing mechanisms will ensure that additional burdens on firms, including dual regulation and issues around enforcement, are minimised, addressing key concerns raised by stakeholders. Clause 14 provides the basis on which those future arrangements can be established. The Government therefore consider Clause 14 essential and strongly support its inclusion in the Bill. To re-emphasise the objective here, this is about simplifying and strengthening a fragmented supervisory system, improving consistency across the legal and accountancy sectors and ensuring that firms are supervised to a consistently high standard. There is no proposal to introduce new anti-money laundering obligations on businesses.
I turn now to Amendments 65 and 67, which are concerned with whether firms will continue to receive appropriate support and whether the FCA will possess sufficient sector-specific expertise, which has been raised by many noble Lords today. The Government agree that these are important issues. However, they are already central to implementation planning. The Treasury’s recent consultation on the FCA’s duties, powers and accountability demonstrated the importance that stake- holders place on sector expertise, guidance and engagement. The Government have been clear that implementation must involve the development of specialist expertise within the FCA and close engagement with existing supervisors and representative bodies.
The FCA also starts from a strong foundation. It already supervises firms for AML/CTF purposes and oversees legal and accountancy professional body supervision through the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision. This gives the FCA substantial experience of both AML/CTF supervision and the professional services landscape. The FCA will also ensure that there is clarity for practitioners on sector-specific issues, such as guidance on the treatment of documents covered by legal professional privilege.
The Government have also recognised the value of practitioner expertise. Consultation responses strongly supported practitioner-led guidance, and the Government have indicated in their response to the consultation, published on 18 June this year, that engagement with sector experts and existing guidance bodies will remain an important feature of the future regime. The Government therefore agree with the importance of preserving sector expertise and ensuring that firms continue to receive effective support. However, these issues are already being addressed through implementation planning, continued engagement with existing supervisors and representative bodies, the development of specialist capability within the FCA, and future guidance arrangements. The Government do not believe that additional statutory obligations on either the Treasury or the FCA are necessary to achieve those objectives.
Amendments 64B and 69AA reflect important stakeholder concerns surrounding the need for proportionality and a risk-based approach, appropriate protections for legal professional privilege and client confidentiality, and the need to minimise duplication and impact on supervised persons. These concerns were raised by respondents to the recent consultation, and the Government agree that they are very important issues. Amendment 64B would require regulations made under new powers to consider proportionality and a risk-based approach to supervision, provide appropriate protections for legal professional privilege and client confidentiality, and avoid duplication between regulators. It would also require the Treasury to publish an impact assessment prior to making regulations.
However, the money laundering regulations, or MLRs—the legislation that provides for our supervision regime—already provide protections in respect of the need for a risk-based approach and legal professional privilege. The risk-based approach underpins our supervision regime and is already set out in the legislation. The Government took additional steps to ensure that the existing regulations are proportionate through changes made via statutory instrument on 9 June 2026. The MLRs are kept under regular review to ensure that they are proportionate.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, particularly asked me to cover this point, so I take the opportunity to do so. The FCA will not be able to compel disclosure of legally privileged material under new responsibilities. It will provide guidance to ensure that privileged material is appropriately protected during supervisory activity. That is because this Government are committed to respecting the distinctive obligations that the legal sector has. Regulation 72 of the MLRs provides explicit protection for legal professional privilege. This will apply to regulations made under the new power conferred by Clause 14.
Finally, the power in Clause 14 will ensure that reciprocal co-operation and information-sharing between supervisors and professional bodies is central to the new regime, minimising duplication. Regulations made under the new power in Clause 14 will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. In making regulations, the Government consider the impact on firms; this is formally set out in our published regulatory impact assessment. Therefore, the additional requirement introduced by Amendment 64B would be duplicative of this process.
Amendment 69AA would require the Treasury to review regulations made under the new power in Clause 14 within three years of them being made, and to lay before Parliament a report summarising the conclusions of that review. The Government are already required to review the MLRs at intervals not exceeding five years, a requirement that would also apply to regulations made under the new powers in Clause 14. As a result, the Government regularly review the regulations to ensure that they are effective and proportionate, and to respond to emerging threats. This is evidenced by regular updates made to the regulations via secondary legislation, with the most recent changes made this month.
The Government’s aim is to minimise duplication and burdens on firms and to protect legal professional privilege and client confidentiality. These will be the most important factors when considering reviewing existing regulations. Consideration of these issues is already fundamental to our supervision regime, and the regulations are consistently reviewed to ensure that they continue to be fit for purpose. Therefore, the Government consider these additions to be unnecessary.
Amendments 66 and 69 are ultimately concerned with readiness and implementation. They seek assurances that the FCA will be capable of supervising professional services firms across different regions of the UK, and that the reform will proceed according to a clear timeline. The Government share the objective of ensuring the implementation is successful. While significant implementation planning has already taken place, substantial work will continue ahead of commencement. The Government have consistently recognised that this requires careful preparation, phased delivery, detailed transition planning and close collaboration with existing supervisors.
The Government have also been clear that effective implementation will require the development of sector-specific and jurisdiction-specific expertise, including a strong understanding of the legal sector, as mentioned, and of professional services firms of all sizes across all parts of the United Kingdom. HMT will work closely with the relevant bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland to ensure that implementation reflects the distinctiveness of their legal systems and is aligned with existing legislative and regulatory frameworks. This is already managed through governance and business planning. The FCA already operates nationwide and has confirmed that it anticipates having a significant presence for the new regime in its offices outside London, to ensure it has the capacity to supervise these additional sectors.
However, the Government do not believe that placing reporting requirements or implementation timetables in primary legislation is the right approach. Implementation of this reform is a complex programme involving systems development, recruitment, training, funding arrangements and transition planning. The Government must retain sufficient flexibility to ensure that these activities are delivered effectively. However, that does not mean firms will be left without certainty. The Government are already working closely with the FCA, HMRC and existing supervisors to ensure reform is implemented in an orderly way, including ensuring that businesses are clear about when transition will occur and have sufficient time to prepare for change. A statutory timetable risks becoming outdated and may constrain the Government’s ability to manage implementation in the most effective manner.
Furthermore, the detailed provisions on supervision reform will ultimately be delivered through future secondary legislation. This means that the Government will retain control over commencement and can ensure that functions are conferred only once appropriate implementation preparations have been completed.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Since it is Committee, I have a couple of points to raise with the Minister before we finish this important section. First, I think the industry needs some idea of the timeframe for these reviews and for the implementation of these changes. That may already exist in ministerial statements, but it would be extremely helpful if the Minister could look into that and let us know. We have had the experience of the defence investment plan, and the uncertainty that can be created when you do not know when major changes are being made is bad for the sector.
Secondly, on parliamentary privilege, a very niche point, do the plans to protect it apply to in-house counsel as well as external legal counsel? Small companies, such as estate agents, would not want to have to employ expensive solicitors and lawyers if they do not need to.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I will have to write to the noble Baroness on those points, to make sure that my answers are correct.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Bull) (CB)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is not here to withdraw his amendment, I will take it that his amendment is withdrawn.
Lord Ashcombe
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, unfortunately, I was unable to speak at Second Reading—like the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, as he mentioned on Monday—but I am delighted to be back in time to speak in Committee. I declare my interest as an employee of Marsh, an FCA-regulated firm.
The amendment in my name in this group, Amendments 69B and 73A, propose that our financial regulators move from a five-year to a three-year strategic planning cycle. At its heart, this is a straightforward proposition: regulators must keep pace with the world they regulate. In financial services, the rate of change has accelerated to such an extent that a five-year strategy can quickly become outdated. When the FCA and the PRA last set their strategies, few could have anticipated the speed and scale of the developments that followed. The volatility seen in digital assets, the rapid emergence of artificial intelligence in financial decision-making, the growing importance of cyber resilience to financial stability and the impact of geopolitical tensions on global markets have all evolved far more quickly than expected. Yet regulators remain bound by frameworks conceived for a very different environment.
A three-year cycle offers a more realistic and proportionate approach. It is not an arbitrary shift. It better reflects the pace of change in financial services, aligns more closely with the Treasury’s spending review cycle and mirrors the planning horizons adopted by many firms. It also corresponds more closely to the time it takes for innovation to move from novelty to something requiring clear regulatory oversight. Some may argue that a five-year cycle provides greater stability, but stability should not be confused with rigidity. A strategy that is clearly out of date does not offer certainty; it risks losing credibility. True stability lies in a framework that is regularly reviewed and refreshed, so that it remains relevant and dependable. Nor would a shorter cycle create unnecessary disruption. It would not require regulators to constantly change direction; rather, it would ensure that their strategies are revisited at appropriate intervals and updated where necessary. That strikes the right balance between continuity and responsiveness.
There is a practical consideration. Industry participants have consistently highlighted that five-year strategies can be overtaken by events well before their conclusion, making it harder for firms to plan with confidence. In reality, regulators have already had to adapt to unforeseen shocks—whether economic, geopolitical or technological —outside the normal review cycle. For that reason, this is not a radical proposal but a pragmatic one.
It is important that financial regulation does not rely on a planning horizon that no longer reflects the realities of the market. The FCA and the PRA are strong institutions, but even the most capable regulators cannot be expected to operate effectively within five-year strategies in a period of such rapid change. A three-year cycle is a measured reform. It would help to ensure that regulation remains responsive, credible and accountable, while fully respecting the independence of our regulators.
These are probing amendments. As such, can the Minister say why the Government chose to fix five-year periods for strategy reviews? I believe that is too long, so I look forward to hearing his thoughts on that. I also support the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 70, 71, 73, 74 and 76 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for adding his name to Amendments 70, 73 and 76.
At first sight, Clause 16 looks like a bit of “motherhood and apple pie” legislation. After all, what is not to like about five-year strategies, which are what most businesses do in the UK and internationally? A closer look at Clause 16, however, reveals a bit of a mess. The position we have at the moment is that the PRA is required to determine a strategy, and it does this by way of annual business plans. There is no requirement in statute for the FCA to do anything but it has routinely issued annual plans; last year, it issued a five-year strategy as well. So this is clearly a slightly messy area, and the Government are right to try to tidy it up.
I fear, however, that the solution in Clause 16 will make things worse. First, the requirement for a strategy seems to be a static one, requiring a five-year strategy to be set and then replaced when the five years have nearly run out. The subsections of new Sections 1JZA and 2E, to be inserted by Clause 16, envisage that the strategies can be revised or replaced, but it is unclear what the trigger for that is other than when the Treasury issues new recommendations in a remit letter. In the business world, strategies are kept under review and are often revisited annually—certainly more often than every five years. I believe that Clause 16 needs a positive requirement for the regulators to keep their strategies under review, if only to confirm their continuing validity. My noble friend Lord Ashcombe’s Amendments 64A and 73A would partly get round the problem by shortening the period, but they still envisage a static strategy; it would be three years and then, at two years and nine months, you would do another one, which is not a satisfactory approach to drawing up strategies.
The Explanatory Notes explain that these strategies are expected to be
“high level and focus on the FCA’s and PRA’s top priorities”.
That is fine, but it is not very useful for the regulated firms that want to know how the regulators’ actions will affect them in practice. If these five-year plans are anything like the FCA’s five-year strategy—all 20 pages of it are full of drawings, photographs and big letters—firms will be very disappointed. The FCA’s four priorities of being a smarter regulator, fighting financial crimes, supporting growth and helping consumers are so high level that they mean nothing to regulated firms.
At the moment, both regulators annually set out the detail of what they plan to do for the following year. Can the Minister say whether this will continue once the Bill becomes law? There will be no requirement in law for either the FCA or the PRA as a consequence of the Bill, and, given the lightweight content of the FCA’s five-year plan and the Government’s intentions for only high-level strategies, it would be a serious error if the regulators were not required to publish their detailed annual plans as well.
These are deficiencies in Clause 16 but they are not covered by specific amendments, mainly because, when I drew up my amendments, I was working on the naive premise that asking for a five-year strategy was a sound, if unexciting, proposition. As I have explained, I now see that as flawed in many ways. For this reason, I fully support the Clause 16 stand part notice in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles; I am sorry that I did not have time to add my name to it.
On the amendments that I have tabled, I will start with Amendment 70, which requires the FCA’s strategic priorities to include its secondary competitiveness and growth objective. The equivalent provision for the PRA in new Section 2E, inserted by Clause 16, says that the strategic priorities of the PRA include secondary objectives, whereas the drafting of new Clause 1JZA for the FCA does not extend to the secondary objectives. The Minister has helpfully written to me today to say that the Government sort of accept that but that they will work up their own amendment. I thank him for that and I look forward to seeing the text of that ahead of Report.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 72 and 75 and to my opposition to Clause 16 standing part of the Bill. I also support the other amendments in this group and their intentions: I think we could talk quite a lot longer about them all.
My Amendments 72 and 75 would require the regulators’ long-term strategies to include a review of their rulebooks, with the aim of identifying outdated or unnecessary requirements. That is a sensible and uncontroversial idea. No one disputes that the regulatory rulebook should be kept under review or that unnecessary or duplicative requirements should not be removed. Indeed, the FCA’s own handbook review consultation acknowledges that parts of the rulebook are outdated, unclear or internally inconsistent. I hope that this review idea can be taken up.
However, these amendments presently sit within Clause 16, which is where the problem lies. Clause 16 creates a statutory duty for the FCA and the PRA to produce long-term strategies. In principle, that is not objectionable; regulators have produced strategy documents before, and it is entirely proper that Ministers should be able to input as long as it is transparent, but there are other problems that have been elaborated on by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which I do not need to repeat. In practice, however, Clause 16 is the delegation engine for Clause 17. It is part of a process of downgrading the day-to-day requirements, the regulatory principles on rule-making, into a commentary in a five-year strategy document. This is a profound change in the constitutional architecture of financial regulation. What were once operational regulatory principles, enforceable by judicial review—even if that route is rarely pursued—become strategic aspirations, influenced by Ministers, unchallengeable by others and reviewed only every five years. The long-term strategy is being used as a vehicle to downgrade regulatory principles and apply them in a minimalist, non-operational way—just talk, no walk. If Clause 16 is to remain, it must be made significantly better and not simply operate as a Trojan horse.
The key thing about regulatory principles is how to make them sensibly relate to operational matters— I say sensibly because that has not happened. That is the problem. It may work for some of them to be dealt with more thematically and rather more regularly than five-year intervals, but others need consideration at the rule-making and supervisory level. While Ministers are meant to stay clear of day-to-day operational interference, like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I query whether Clause 16 overly restricts ministerial input. FSMA 2000 has always had a difficult settlement to keep government away from day-to-day decisions, but—as the financial crisis showed—it is inescapable that the buck stops with government. Clause 16 does not strike the right balance there.
My Amendments 72 and 75 point to rulebook review. As I said in a previous group, and as noted by the Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee, it is effectively the regulators’ system that is cluttered, fragmented and difficult to navigate. It is a lot harder to navigate than a few regulatory principles that the regulators complain about, but which are the only way to challenge that regulatory clutter. In the Lords committee report, a central finding was that culture change, not structural tinkering, is what is needed. Regulators must be clearer, more predictable and more proportionate in how they exercise their powers. The Clause 16 regulatory strategy does not deliver that; it substitutes what were enforceable operational requirements about proportionality with unenforceable talk.
It rather looks as though the regulators will avoid having to step up to the mark. They did not much like the committee’s report or its suggestions of culture change, and, as we will discuss when we get to Clause 17, in the words of one City commentator, it looks like the regulators have done a job on Parliament. Clause 16 is not about transparency, nor is it new in suggesting a strategy document. It is just a vehicle to diminish the accountability and effectiveness of the regulatory principles, and I oppose it.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I have added my name to three of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in this group. To be honest, I am not quite sure why I did not add my name to her other two; I should have done, so I apologise. The noble Baroness has already explained those with her usual clarity, so I will try hard not to repeat what she said.
Briefly, on Amendment 70, I was going to say that I assumed that the omission from the FCA’s strategic priorities of its secondary objective was an oversight. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has kindly shared with me an email she has received from the Minister that effectively confirms that, and that it will be sorted out at a later stage. Can I very gently say to the Minister that when he writes to noble Lords, it should be copied to all who have signed an amendment? On Amendments 73 and 76, I will listen with interest as to why the Treasury should be able to make recommendations to the FCA and the PRA only in relation to the long-term strategies—that is, every five years. I suspect that the Treasury will come to regret that restriction.
I have also added my support to Amendments 72 and 75 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, both of which would require the FCA and PRA to carry out a review of their regulations as part of the five-year strategy process, with a view to eliminating any unnecessary regulations. Rulebooks have a habit of growing—being added to—and scope has a tendency to creep, so a five-year spring clean must be a good thing and would be a good discipline that I would wholeheartedly support. I finish by saying that I share the reservations that have already been raised about the whole of Clause 16.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
My Lords, the Bill reflects the very substantial transfer of power, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, from Parliament and from existing regulators, such as the PSR and the 22 professional bodies with specialised knowledge of the sectors, as we discussed earlier. This reflects a high degree of centralisation of regulatory supervision, which may lead to a lack of clarity and, in some cases, as my noble friend Lord Mackinlay mentioned, double regulation for small firms. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, said earlier, the system is also already overloaded. In that context, given the extensive proposed changes and the real possibility of unintended consequences, it seems that the Government should consider the setting of strategy for the future as an important component of the Bill.
Although I support all the amendments in this group, I emphasise the need for consultation with regulated firms and the regular review of the rulebooks as provided for in Amendments 71, 72, 74 and 75. The Bill indeed provides for the publication of a document and consultation with one party—the Court of Directors of the Bank of England is specifically mentioned as a party that will be consulted—but seemingly not with any regulated firm, despite the fact that regulated firms could clearly be very helpful in the setting of long-term strategy. Amendments 71 and 74, proposed by my noble friend Lady Noakes, therefore seem essential additions to the Bill, as would Amendments 72 and 75, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I say a word of support in favour of these amendments. This industry, financial services, is one of the most innovatory and dynamic industries in this country and has led the world in its imaginative, entrepreneurial approach for centuries. What we are seeing—I am glad to follow my noble friend—is the centralisation of regulation in one ever greater regulatory body. This will mean that the slowest ships of the regulatory convoy will determine the pace.
For these reasons, it is imperative that the strategic review takes account, much more regularly than every five years, of the updating of business actions, business transactions and the tools used by the sector; and that, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out, it talks to the people who are the wealth creators whom it will regulate. For all the reasons that have been enunciated in the course of this short debate, including those from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, I support these amendments.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am going to be exceedingly brief. I support the amendments in this group.
My noble friend Lady Bowles has hit on the fundamental reason for my strong opposition, which is the constitutional issue. By chance, I happened to speak to a senior regulator in the financial services sector—I am not going to use their name because it would not be fair to do so—shortly after the Bill came out. We started looking at its clauses, and that person said to me, “Ah, but, in the long-term strategy, we will be able to explain to people in detail why we are doing what we choose to do”. To me, that absolutely summed up the issue as a whole. There was no concept at all that there would be parliamentary insight, parliamentary oversight or engagement; it was simply going to be a much better vehicle to explain to people why certain things that had been identified as necessary were necessary and were going to happen. There was no sense of challenge anywhere at all. That is a really dangerous way for us to move our legislation.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have taken part in this short debate. We are sympathetic to the broad purpose of requiring regulators to think strategically, but, if the regulatory strategies are to be meaningful, they must not simply become static documents published every few years then left on the shelf. As my noble friend Lady Noakes said, that is not the way we do it in business. Common practice is for five-year strategies, reviewed annually, and annual plans.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Ashcombe would reduce the strategy period from five years to three years. He is right that markets can change very quickly, as we keep hearing. A five-year strategy risks being set in stone for too long, unless the Minister is able to clarify that the plans will be updated regularly. If not, a shorter period, such as three years, would have real benefits. Perhaps the Minister can explain why the period of five years has been chosen and how he believes the strategies will remain agile and flexible.
I am delighted that the Minister said that he was prepared to accept Amendment 70 on competitiveness and growth. As I have said several times, the growth of the UK financial services sector is key to growth more generally. Regulation should say how the Government—or the regulator—understand that objective, how they are giving effect to it and how their regulatory approach is supporting growth in the market, because the UK has a large and dynamic financial services sector. My noble friend Lady Lawlor emphasised that point, which we should not forget, and we cannot assume that its international position is guaranteed. Regulation has a direct effect on investment, innovation, listings, lending and market depth, as well as on the attractiveness of the UK as a place to do business, so, if regulators are not required to think explicitly about this, the growth objective risks being honoured in theory but neglected in practice.
Amendments 71 and 74 on consultation are very welcome. As we have said in our debates on previous groups, bringing experts into the room in a timely way is a vital part of the regulatory process.
In my view, the boards of regulators have a part to play in the strategic plans, but my recollection is that those engaged in regulated companies were excluded from the non-executive roles on the PRA and the FCA. Is this still the case? My own board experience is that conflicts of interest can be managed. I believe that regulators will benefit from current knowledge from the industry, particularly given these new statutory strategies, the digital changes to which we keep referring and the expansion of the scope of the FCA. I would like to hear from the Minister what the current rules are—perhaps in a letter, as I have not raised this point with him before.
I also support the principle behind Amendments 72 and 75 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. They would require the FCA and the PRA to review their rulebooks and explain how they will simplify or remove rules that are outdated, unnecessary or duplicative. Regulation, as has been said, tends to accumulate. New rules and duties are added, but old rules are not always removed. Guidance, expectations and supervisory practice develop over time. A long-term strategy is not only about what new initiative the regulators want to pursue; it should also be about what the regulator can simplify. If a regular rulebook review is done with a view to making regulation less burdensome, cheaper to operate and supportive of growth, that will be a very positive step.
The amendments on Treasury recommendations also raise a serious question around accountability and regulator independence. There is, of course, a balance to be struck. We do not want day-to-day political interference in regulatory decisions but nor should independent regulators operate without clear strategic accountability to Parliament and the Government of the day, as my noble friend Lord Massey and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, explained better than I can. The Government should explain why the Treasury’s recommendation-making power is framed as it is, why it is limited in the way proposed and how Ministers expect it to operate in practice.
Finally, on the Clause 16 stand part notice, I understand the concerns raised in the debate. The value of that clause will depend entirely on whether the strategies produced are meaningful, responsive and capable of being scrutinised. If they become generic documents with broad statements of aspiration, they will add little. If they provide clear commitments, measurable priorities, proper engagement with growth and competitiveness, and a disciplined approach to reviewing the rulebook, they will be useful.
I very much look forward to a full response from the Minister to the points that have been made.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by explaining the Government’s purpose behind Clause 16 and why it should stand part of the Bill.
The Government have often heard feedback calling for the regulatory system to have an overall long-term strategy with clear goals, where the regulators consider the cumulative impacts of their policies and the interaction between supervision and rule-making. The reforms introduced by Clause 16 are intended to address this feedback and will improve transparency around the regulators’ long-term direction and focus, which the Government consider will support effective oversight and scrutiny of the regulators.
Clause 16 requires the FCA and the PRA each to prepare and publish long-term strategies so that stake- holders, including regulated firms, can better understand the regulators’ approach to the sector, and so that the Government and Parliament fully understand the regulators’ priorities and can more effectively hold them to account on how they are translating their objectives into actions and results. When the Government consulted on this proposal, it received strong support: 83% of respondents supported it and agreed that the regulators taking a more strategic and cohesive approach would benefit the sector by helping firms know what to expect.
I have listened carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords. However, the Government remain firmly of the view that Clause 16 will support scrutiny. By requiring a clear long-term strategic overview, Clause 16 will help the sector understand and plan more effectively for regulatory initiatives and will help interested parties engage with the regulators at a strategic level. Without Clause 16, there would be no requirement for the regulators to set out, in one place, their long-term priorities and approach in advancing their objectives. The aim of the strategies is to make it easier, not harder, for Parliament and stakeholders to scrutinise whether the regulators’ actions are coherent and aligned with the framework that Parliament has set.
On Amendment 70, the Government agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that the FCA’s secondary international competitiveness and growth objective should be central to the formulation of its long-term strategy. Growth is the number one priority for this Government and the financial services sector, as many have noted, is key to delivering this. The Government always intended the FCA’s long-term strategy to set out its priorities for advancing our international competitiveness and growth objective. We are looking into this point to determine if this is fully clear within the drafting of the clause, and we are open to tabling an amendment on Report should we determine that it is needed. I thank the noble Baroness for bringing this to my attention and commit to keeping her and other noble Lords informed as this consideration progresses.
I turn to Amendments 69B and 73A. The noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked me to explain the Government’s thinking behind the time periods here. The Government have set the length of this strategy as five years because, as has been noted, it is the standard time period for organisational strategies and is very common in the business world, as many noble Lords will appreciate. It also aligns with standard parliamentary terms and therefore the requirement for the Treasury to issue recommendations to the regulators at least once per Parliament. However, the Government recognise that financial services markets can evolve quickly and it is important that the regulators’ strategic documents remain current and useful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked me how the strategies would be kept under review. The Bill provides flexibility for the regulators to revise or publish a new strategy within the five-year period if circumstances require it, or to publish a strategy for a shorter period of time than five years. If they do the latter, it will need to be with an explanation about why this is appropriate. Five years is therefore a maximum interval, not a requirement to wait five years before making a change. For example, the Bill requires the regulators to consider whether they need to update their strategy or issue a new one whenever new Treasury recommendations are issued. The Government’s view is that this strikes the right balance between providing a long-term, stable framework and allowing regulators to respond when market, economic or regulatory conditions change.
On Amendments 73 and 76, the Government’s approach here is deliberate. The need for the regulators to take account of Treasury recommendations at a strategic level, rather than at the level of general functions, has been carefully considered. Under the new framework, the Treasury’s recommendations to the regulators regarding its economic priorities will inform the development of their strategic priorities. This is aligned with the change to the way that the regulatory principles will be applied, and I hope it demonstrates the Government’s confidence that influencing the regulators’ strategies is an effective mechanism for ensuring that they have an appropriate focus and are performing well.
Further to this, the framework has been carefully designed to ensure that Treasury recommendations are taken fully into account. As I mentioned earlier, regulators must consider updating or producing a new strategy whenever the Treasury sends a new recommendation letter. The regulators will continue to be obliged to respond annually to the Treasury on their actions in response to the recommendations separately from the strategy document. This will support continued transparency and accountability regarding how the regulators are taking government recommendations into account.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I just ask for clarification. The Minister talked about the way in which the Treasury will make recommendations and the regulator must take them into account. I did not hear the word “Parliament” anywhere in that. Where is the capacity for parliamentary recommendations and oversight to make sure that they are taken into account? Or is the purpose of this legislation to make sure that that does not exist?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I think this is part of a broader discussion. I am informed that this takes into account existing practices for how the reviews and overviews take place. Unless we decide, in the following debates, that we need an amendment to provide parliamentary overview, this will apply to the current regulatory framework as the oversight currently exists.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I may be being a bit dumb, but I did not understand that at all.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I do not want to get confused about this. My understanding is that this is already existing practice, but I will take this away and write to the noble Baronesses just to confirm that this is exactly correct. We are trying not to defer from the practice as it exists today, but I will write to clarify that.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I just add that the point of the principles is that they are, in effect, Parliament’s recommendations set in law. I am struggling to see how that fits into the question of who can recommend from this point in time.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I do not understand what happens when the strategy is right but the rules are wrong. What happens then? That does happen. We have, as I have called it before, the example that keeps on giving: when the FCA got the motor finance rules wrong. What happens then, when there is no way to correct that? The strategy, to treat customers fairly, might be right, but the rules produce something that is patently unfair. How can that be changed? There is nothing to measure against that now —the principles have gone.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
Again, we are trying to stress that the oversight that exists today will not be changed. The Treasury’s annual review should be able to take that into account. We believe that what we are putting forward here should not change the existing profile.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I am sorry, but if you change something in primary legislation and rub out what is happening in existing processes, you have changed it. You cannot change something at a higher level than primary legislation.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
We will have to come back to these points at a later date. This is a broader conversation on oversight, and points have been made on this subject outside the Room. I hope noble Lords will allow me to come back to these points, as I think this will come up in further debates both during and after Committee.
Turning to Amendments 72 and 75, the Government agree that regulation should be proportionate and support the objectives behind these amendments. Indeed, the Bill forms part of the Government’s broader effort to reduce the burden of regulation on businesses, ensuring that the UK has a regulatory environment that supports growth while maintaining high standards. The Government have made a commitment to cutting the administrative burden of regulation by 25% by the end of this Parliament. The financial services regulators are actively contributing to this agenda. For example, the PRA is implementing new insurance reporting requirements that will cut paperwork by one-third, contributing to savings for firms of £66 million per year, and the FCA has proposed removing some transaction reporting that would save firms over £100 million per year.
However, the Government do not think it would be appropriate to impose a requirement that every long-term strategy must include a full review of all regulations and a plan for eliminating them. A universal rule review exercise each time a strategy is prepared or revised would not be proportionate and would reduce the regulator’s capacity to focus on other priorities. There are existing requirements in FSMA which require the regulators to keep their rules under review and to publish statements on policy and on their approaches to reviewing the rules. The Government consider that this is a proportionate approach.
Amendments 71 and 74 seek to require the FCA and the PRA, when preparing and revising their long-term strategies, to consult persons they consider would be affected, including those they regulate. I understand the intention behind these amendments. If the regulators are to produce long-term strategies that are meaningful and credible, it is clearly important that they are informed by engagement with those who are affected by them. The Government have a clear expectation that the regulator’s strategies will be informed by that engagement.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Can the Minister explain why that is not included in the Bill? The Government expect them to engage with the industry. One would normally write consultation expectations into legislation. That is the normal practice. Why was it not done in this case?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
Again, we will have to come back to that point. One of the things we are trying to consider is how we do not overburden by creating more regulation, but we will have to review that point and come back to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
On that point, it seems to me that nothing is being done to challenge the burden of regulation on firms—instead, the obligations on the regulator are being reduced. When you reduce the obligations on the regulator—for example, to be proportionate—the corollary of that is that they are unrestricted in the way that they can then increase the burdens on firms. That may not be the talk, but that is the consequence of the legal construct that we are now looking at.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
There is a broad philosophical point being made about trusting the FCA and the regulators. Again, we will come back to this in further debates. It is a view that I understand, and we need to develop this through the process of the debate, but it is definitely not the intention to give them free rein to make laws randomly. I think we will have to come back to that later in Committee, if that is okay.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I ask for some clarification on this complex area. Under Clause 16, new Section 1JZA(7) states:
“A strategy may be revised by publishing a revised version of the strategy”.
Is the Minister confirming that, as it says in the Explanatory Notes, no consultation goes with that revision process?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
That is correct.
Amendments 71 and 74 seek to require the FCA and the PRA, when preparing or revising their long-term strategies, to consult persons they consider would be affected, including those they regulate. The Government have a clear expectation that the regulators’ strategies will be informed by engagement with industry, consumer representatives and other stakeholders. However, adding a statutory consultation requirement could lead to long delays between a new Government setting direction through a recommendation letter and the regulators putting a strategy in place.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Noakes, asked how the Government’s remit will work under the new system. The FCA and the PRA will now be required to have regard to their remit letters when producing or updating long-term strategies. The regulators will continue to be required to respond annually to remit letters, setting out the actions to which they will respond. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about non-executive directors; I will write to her on that as I do not have the answer to hand.
The accountability of the financial services regulators is clearly an important matter of huge interest to the Committee. I have heard a range of views today on exactly what this should look like, and we will continue to debate this issue in relation to subsequent clauses. However, regardless of views on the wider matters of transparency and accountability, I am confident that the majority will agree that long-term strategies will add to our understanding of the regulators’ strategic priorities and approach, which must be a good thing. I therefore ask that Clause 16 stands part of the Bill.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I have some questions for the Minister. Does he believe that the FCA’s five-year plan provides a model for what the Government have in mind for compliance with Clause 16, if it becomes law? I will start with that question.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Does the Minister believe that the FCA’s five-year plan, which started last year, is the model on which Clause 16 has been based? Is the Minister expecting that sort of document to be produced in response to Clause 16?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
What the clause is trying to represent is that this is the starting point. There is definitely work to do and it needs to be improved.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
What we have set out in answer to that question is that there is clearly a need for greater transparency and thinking about what the five-year plan looks like. In terms of the interaction with the Treasury, the hope is that we can get it into a position where it has greater clarity and certainty about long-term planning. It will be an emergent process, to ensure that it is improved on.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I put it to the Minister that this clause has no specificity around it: no ability for the Treasury to agree the format or content of a five-year plan; no requirement for consultation; and no requirement for the involvement of parliamentary committees. We are being asked to give a blank check with these rather vague requirements. There are words in the Explanatory Notes about the Government expecting these to be “high level”, which is why I asked for the Minister’s reflections on what is clearly a very high-level document from the FCA. I am not getting any sense of what is likely to come out as a response to that.
Linked to that is my second question. I asked earlier what the Minister’s response would be to the question of whether annual plans were required. At the moment, both regulators produce annual plans for what they will do in the year, which provide a very rich source of information for the regulated community on what they can expect. If we are to have those levels of detail, it may not matter at all if an airy-fairy five-year strategy document is produced, full of drawings, pictures and stuff like that. If, however, we will not have anything else, and if the Bill takes out the one existing requirement on the PRA to produce annual plans, then we have a problem.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I can clarify that an annual plan is required and will still be required. Let me write to the noble Baroness to confirm that.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Can I conclude my remarks with a plea to the Minister? He has taken away a number of issues arising from this debate, on which he will be writing one big letter or several medium-sized ones. It is normal, when something as contentious as this arises, for all Members of the Committee to be copied in on any such letters, not simply the one noble Lord who raised a specific query.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
May I ask the Minister for a clarification? In his answer to the question about not having consultation in the Bill itself, I think he said that the FCA would engage with firms but that he did not want this in statute. Do I understand that correctly?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
The sense is that it creates an administrative burden. We are trying to cut down on regulation as part of trying to accelerate growth, and we believe that that is the right balance.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Do we not want to reduce regulation on regulated firms, rather than regulators?
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, what an interesting debate this turned out to be. There are a number of flaws, which have been extremely well demonstrated by all noble Lords on this side of the Room. I thank the Minister for his answer to my question. I am also extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes for improving my amendment significantly by talking about annual plans, which is quite correct. However, it is imperative that we continue to have parliamentary oversight of the regulators. From the discussion we have had this afternoon, there is no doubt that this clause still has a number of legs in it, and the horse race will continue for some time. I am sure we look forward to coming back to this on Report but, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Noakes
“Review of regulatory principles(1) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Treasury must carry out a review of the regulatory principles in section 3B(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.(2) The review must in particular consider whether—(a) the regulatory principles duplicate other requirements in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 or elsewhere, or(b) are no longer required.(3) The review may make recommendations as to whether section 3B(1) needs to be amended or whether there are other mechanisms which can achieve the same result.(4) The review must be laid before each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment calls for a review of the regulatory principles in section 3B(1) of FSMA.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 77 calls for a review of the regulatory principles in Section 3B of FSMA 2000. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for adding his name to it. My amendment calls for the Treasury to review the regulatory principles and, in particular, identify those that are duplicated or no longer required. As we have already discussed in outline and will discuss further in a later group next week, FSMA currently requires the FCA and PRA to have regard to the regulatory principles in their general functions, but Clause 17 downgrades this by confining them to the new five-year strategy documents.
When your Lordships’ Financial Services Regulation Committee reported last year on the secondary competitiveness and growth objectives for the PRA and the FCA, it took eight pages of our report to describe the web of objectives, principles and “have regards” that the regulators have to live with. In fact, the eight pages covered only some of the “have regards”. The FCA told us that it had around 80 “have regards”, on top of the Chancellor’s remit letters and the regulatory principles themselves. The PRA said that its number was 25. My Amendment 77 should probably have required a review of all the “have regards”, and if I bring it back on Report I may well extend it to that.
In Committee, my amendment is focused on the regulatory principles, because, via Clause 17, these have become a contentious part of the Bill. There are currently eight regulatory principles in Section 3B, plus a vestigial reference to a ninth, and they include some very significant ones, such as proportionality, which we will also be discussing later in Committee. There were seven in the first iteration of FSMA, but they have been changed many times over the years and only three of the current principles directly read across to the original list—namely, efficiency and economy, proportionality and consumer responsibility—which suggests that not all the Section 3B principles are enduring in nature. We should expect the regulatory principles to represent the essential elements of how regulation should operate in practice and have some form of enduring quality. It is relatively clear that Section 3B of FSMA does not meet that test.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I hope to keep the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, happy by being very brief. One of the things that came out of the committee’s report was the proliferation of principles and “have regards”, et cetera. It is ripe for a review and an overhaul, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I very much suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and I would find significant differences in our ideal list of the regulatory principles in Section 3B(1) of FSMA. I will argue in the next group for a “have regard” to the risks of the private credit market to financial stability. In group 8, my colleagues will argue for a “have regard” on sustainability and in group 10 for a “have regard” on financial inclusion.
These are all probing amendments, but they reflect the need for principles to be reviewed, debated and potentially changed by Parliament, so that a review would have input from the regulators and from the Government, but the final decision would rest with Parliament, as it has always done in primary legislation.
To pick up one of the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made about durability, constant churn is unacceptable and would leave the regulators and the financial sector in confusion, and none of us wishes for that. But I think that on the whole, we can look back and say that Parliament has behaved responsibly. Not everybody likes all the principles, but the financial system and the regulators have not had difficulty in delivering, or considering and making sure it is having regard to, those particular principles, particularly when financial stability is at stake.
To me, what underlies all this is the democratic process. I do not believe that principles can be abdicated to a regulator, which is what happens with the Bill—they go off into the long-term strategy. I believe this is for Parliament, and I would very much always support a review. Parliament has that right and that responsibility.
Some of us rather suspect that the removal of the principles to the five-year strategy has been to provide a covert way to diminish the climate change principles. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, whom I respect, would move them through the front door, but for many of us there is a strong suspicion that this is removing them through the back door so that the Government do not get the opprobrium that would follow from groups that are concerned about net zero and climate change. Some in the financial services sector are actually very dedicated to achieving climate change targets, but there are also plenty of voices that regard every climate change target and every net zero as a cost and a regulatory burden, and it seems to me that those voices have had very strong sway with the Government.
I suspect, frankly, that we would never have had climate change in among the principles had it not been for Mark Carney, and I very much doubt they will survive in any substance as part of the long-term strategy unless there is something of a volte- face in attitudes as we keep going through very extreme weather conditions and it becomes apparent that there is a huge financial cost and a huge risk to financial stability from the extreme weather conditions and the consequence damage to our overall economic circumstances.
As I say, if the Government wish to change the principles, they should do it through the front door in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, proposes: raise the issues, tell Parliament that they wish to make changes and argue in favour of those changes. But that is a fundamentally different approach from taking principles, which I suspect they dislike, and moving them to a long-term strategy so that they will, over time, dwindle but without visibility or any parliamentary input.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, this is a welcome amendment because it raises important questions about the structure of our regulatory framework and in particular about whether the regulatory principle set out in Section 3B of FSMA—the eight principles—remain coherent, useful and properly calibrated to the circumstances in which we now find ourselves.
Over time, FSMA has accumulated objectives, secondary objectives, regulatory principles, “have regard” duties, reporting requirements and consultation obligations. Some of those are individually sensible and many were introduced for good reasons, but taken together, there is a real risk of regulatory layering. Duties and principles are added and new obligations are placed on regulators, but very little is ever taken away. The result is a framework that is increasingly complex and it is not always clear which duties genuinely drive regulatory behaviour and which simply sit on the statute book without translating into meaningful change.
The amendment asks the Treasury to review whether those principles are duplicative or remain necessary, and whether the framework could be simplified or improved. There is also a wider question, which was raised by the Financial Services Regulation Committee in its report last year, about whether these sorts of duties actually translate into anything meaningful in practice. It is one thing for Parliament to place a duty on a regulator to have regard to a particular principle or consideration—as my noble friend Lady Noakes mentioned, that is exactly what the Leeds reforms are trying to streamline—but quite another for that duty to shape decisions in a clear, measurable and accountable way.
Needless complexity matters for firms as well as for regulators. A complicated regulatory framework does not stay confined to the regulator; it filters down into consultations, supervisory expectations, compliance systems, legal advice and business decisions. If the statutory framework is unclear or duplicative, the burden ultimately falls on the firms that have to comply with it. At a time when we are asking financial services to support growth, investment and competitiveness, we should be especially alert to unnecessary regulatory complexity. The UK’s high regulatory standards are not in question, but there is a question as to whether the framework through which those standards are delivered is as clear, efficient and proportionate as it can be.
I therefore hope that the Minister will engage constructively with the amendment. I would be grateful if he could explain how far the principles have already been reviewed in preparation for this Bill, in the light of the comments from the Financial Services Regulation Committee. Do the Government accept that the accumulation of regulatory principles and duties can create complexity, and do they believe that the existing Section 3B principles remain fit for purpose? This amendment raises a valuable point; I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this debate. This clearly animates a lot of discussion. I particularly acknowledge the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the work of the Financial Services Regulation Committee in effectively scrutinising the work of the regulators. It is important work, and we intend through this process to support that and not diminish it in any way. As was clear from those contributions at Second Reading, noble Lords place a strong emphasis on getting the regulatory principles right. The Government also take this matter very seriously.
Amendment 77 would require the Treasury to carry out and lay before Parliament a review of the regulatory principles in Section 3B(1) of FSMA. I am sympathetic to efforts to streamline the process of making regulation and to giving regulators a clear and manageable set of issues on which to focus. However, the Government have already considered this question and have carried out a review of the regulatory principles, as well as the other “have regard” provisions mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The Government committed to this review in the Regulation Action Plan published in March 2025, and carried out the review with a view to identifying opportunities to rationalise those principles.
As a result of that review, the Government concluded that each of the regulatory principles in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is individually important; that they do not materially overlap with each other or with other requirements set out in legislation; and that they play an important role in providing transparency and supporting the Government and Parliament’s oversight of the regulators. However, the Government also found that the “have regard” provisions can reduce regulators’ ability to act strategically and with a clear focus.
Currently, the way that the principles operate results in the production of large volumes of information that do little to support effective overall scrutiny of a regulator’s performance. The Government have drafted the measures in this Bill with a view to rationalising how the regulators take these regulatory principles into account, without amending the principles themselves. We recognise that this is an area where there is significant interest; issues related to this amendment will continue to be debated during the passage of the Bill, when there will be an opportunity to discuss this area in greater detail. A further statutory review, beginning after Royal Assent, would duplicate the work that the Government have already undertaken.
I will come back to noble Lords’ specific questions in writing if I do not cover them later in the debate. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for taking part in this brief debate on what is, I think, an important area.
The Minister said that the Government have already reviewed the regulatory principles and found them to be absolutely fine. I find that quite remarkable, given that they clearly duplicate other requirements and that some are, frankly, almost incomprehensible; they have grown up over the years in various ways. As the Minister knows, the burden on my remarks was on the proliferation of have regards and not just the regulatory principles, which we will be debating in the context of the Government’s clear desire to downgrade the way in which they operate and to reduce the ability of Parliament to hold the regulators to account. We will return to that issue.
This is an important area for the Government to look at again. They say that they have reviewed all the have regards—there are many of them throughout FSMA—but I cannot believe that they have concluded that no change to the legislation is required. It beggars belief, because the have regards clearly overlap in some areas and are restated in others. I continue to believe that a proper review should be undertaken. I will remind myself of what the Government’s so-called review has already found, because I am not sure that I remember the details of it at the moment—I will check up on it between now and Report—but, as I indicated earlier, I may well return to this theme on Report, if not with this specific amendment. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“(2) In section 3B (regulatory principles to be applied by both regulators), in subsection (1), at the end insert—“(i) the need to consider—(i) the interconnections between private credit vehicles and PRA-authorised banks, insurance companies and pension fund, and(ii) the limitations of the FCA’s regulatory perimeter in managing the interconnection between private credit vehicles and non-regulated financial organisations.””Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment would replace the removal of the regulatory-principles duties in Clause 17 with a new “have regard” to risks to financial stability arising from the interconnection of private credit markets with banks, insurers and pension funds, as well as with non-regulated institutions.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, this is very much a probing amendment, but I thought that we ought to raise this issue; the Bill seemed an appropriate place to do so. Frankly, it is an issue on which we have hardly touched in Parliament.
Private credit markets are a phenomenon that has surged since the crash of 2008. Market-based finance accounts for around half of the UK and global financial sector assets, according to the Bank of England. Global private market assets were estimated at $18 trillion in 2025. As Sarah Breeden, a deputy Governor of the Bank of England, said in a speech made this year:
“They have not yet been tested, at that scale and complexity, by a broad based macroeconomic shock in a higher rate environment”.
At the same time, public debt is close to post-war highs, not just in the UK but globally, making it more difficult to respond to any financial shocks.
People sometimes see the private credit sector as distinct from other parts of finance. In the UK, the banking sector has lent to private credit funds at a scale to provide them with liquidity, with pretty much no transparency to evaluate the quality of funds. There is clearly co-investing and interconnections through derivatives. I cannot find good data to work out where the exposure lies, but there have been enough articles raising warning signs to convince me that there is something serious here that must be looked at.
UK pension funds have invested heavily in private assets. The Universities Superannuation Scheme has £7.8 billion in private credit exposure. Institutional providers such as TPT Investment Management have launched schemes specially for the use of UK pension schemes, and the Mansion House Accord encourages even more investment into these private markets. As I listened to the Pensions Minister during the passage of the then Pension Schemes Bill, I heard what sounded like claims that these private assets are high-return, low-risk assets and perfect for pensioners with very little savings. It is because of such a naive understanding of private credit, among other things, that that Bill was so important. That is why protecting the fiduciary duty of pension trustees dominated its passage; the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble friend Lady Bowles were instrumental in making sure that that fiduciary duty remained primary.
The insurance companies are deep into this, too. According to the Bank of England, in evidence given to the Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee:
“The interconnections between private markets and the life insurance sector have grown considerably, with analysis by the IMF … showing that approximately 35% of assets held by US life insurers and approximately 23% of those held by UK life insurers were allocated to private credit”.
It is clear that if the private credit market goes wrong, it goes wrong for the whole financial sector. It is not an exaggerated fear: the sector has serious liquidity issues. Anyone who picks up a newspaper can see that firms such as Blackstone, Oaktree, Apollo and Morgan Stanley, to name but a few, are now limiting or refusing redemptions. We cannot ignore the canary in the coal mine.
The Lords FSR Committee published a report on this sector in January, entitled Private Markets: Unknown Unknowns. At the end of that process—I give some credit to the committee—the Bank of England announced that it would conduct a system-wide exploratory scenario that will involve the banks, insurers, private equity companies and pension fund investors, but on a voluntary basis. It will report in 2027. The committee is to be commended for focusing on the issues in this sector, but I do not think that this satisfies a reasonable standard of parliamentary scrutiny or reflects a parliamentary responsibility to the public to make sure that we avoid another major financial crash. Therefore, my amendment is designed simply to put pressure on the Bank of England in order to get proper answers. I am still disturbed that it thinks it will do so only on a voluntary basis. I hope that the Bill as a whole can be amended to restore proper democratic oversight, and then Parliament could engage with finding a solution. One of the reasons so few people in both Houses are aware of the concerns about the issue is that there is virtually no vehicle for a debate, for consideration and for action.
The second part of my Amendment 78 addresses a problem that I have never heard widely discussed. If the private credit market goes bad—and the banks, because they are entangled with that market, begin to divest loans—what happens to small businesses dependent on bank credit? We saw this behaviour in 2008. After the crash, banks continued to fund the big companies but found every way possible—many of them legal but I would consider unethical—to call in loans to small companies. In loan agreements that were being paid in full and on time, there would be a covenant somewhere in the documents that said that if loan-to-property values fell below a certain level, the loan could be called. I am pretty sure that the small business never really thought that that was a significant paragraph in its loan agreement, but it proved the trigger and we saw basically every major bank exercise it.
The FCA refused to act and has always held the line that the regulatory perimeter means that it cannot offer protection to small businesses and that, instead, caveat emptor applies. To me, this is untenable in the complex world of finance that we have today. I want the regulators to take a proper look at the whole issue of the regulatory perimeter, if we are to go into a cycle of financial shocks.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on what may be the most important amendment that we will discuss in Committee, and I hope we might discuss it on Report as well. As she said, there is a huge lack of discussion of this issue in Parliament, whereas if you go to the pages of the Financial Times, for example, you will see, pretty well every day, alarming reports and strong headlines expressing concern about the issue. I am aware that we are operating under heatwave conditions, as is the rest of the nation. As with our credit system, we have all been puffed up by a lot of hot air, much of which has indeed been financed by our financial system, so I will be quite brief, but I want to pick up a couple of points that the noble Baroness made.
The powerful argument about a voluntary engagement with the stress test is just laughable—with a sick kind of laugh. We know what voluntary regulation has done in so many different areas of our business sectors, and that is not the way to go forward. The noble Baroness also talked about pension funds, particularly about investing in private credit and the grave concerns that it raises. There is quite a bit of research that indicates that the people profiting from this are the managers and companies, and pension funds are getting the same or lower returns as they are from other investments.
The most useful way I thought I could add to this was to go through the Financial Times private credit headlines for this month alone. I will give a representative selection of them. The first is:
“Are insurers becoming dangerously addicted to private credit ratings?”
It is a question-mark headline, to which the answer is clearly given as “yes” in the article. Here are some of the others:
“Apollo’s flagship private credit fund hit by 17% redemption requests”,
“BlackRock private credit fund honours less than 40% of redemption requests”,
“Partners Group limits withdrawals at private equity fund for wealthy individuals”,
and
“Cliffwater’s flagship private credit fund redemption requests hit 17%”.
Rather than expound at length, I refer noble Lords to a single book: This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff.
There is no reason to think that what we are doing now will be different from where we have been before. Private credit is a new structure of a very familiar form, and we have seen what happens with these new financial-engineering structures. The noble Baroness is doing an important job here of at least starting a discussion on this. That discussion should be held at much greater length in the main Chamber, and its subject should worry us all.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, was kind enough to refer to the committee I chair. I will offer a few comments on this area.
First, in line with what I said on the previous group of amendments, I do not believe that this is a regulatory principle in any real sense. It is certainly not one directed just at the PRA and the FCA; for example, the system-wide exploratory scenario, which the noble Baroness referred to, is being undertaken by the financial stability arm of the Bank. She referred to Sarah Breeden—that is her area, and she is not in the PRA or the FCA.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, read out some headlines from the Financial Times. She is right that there is a lot of noise around private credit. It is all based in the United States at the moment. It is often said that what starts in America comes to the UK, but there are a lot of differences between what has happened in the US, including what has gone seriously wrong, and what has happened here. It is encouraging that the Bank of England has taken the initiative to carry out the system-wide exploratory stress scenario—it is the only central bank in the world to do so.
There was criticism that this was voluntary, and that is because the players in the private credit market are not regulated organisations and so they have no obligation under existing law to provide information. However, it is my understanding that the degree of involvement of the organisations taking part that are not directly regulated by the PRA or the FCA—or are not involved in the activities we are discussing—has been satisfactory.
One thing I considered tabling for this Committee was the question of whether the Bank of England has sufficient powers to get the information from the non-regulated sector if it needed to do so. I would be grateful if the Minister could reflect on that question. All the time the information is being adequately obtained voluntarily, I do not see any need to legislate for it; I am just not aware of whether there is a backstop power, and I ran out of brain power for drafting an amendment to find out about that. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me a cue to raise this issue.
A lot of issues arise in relation to the impact of private credit on the existing regulated organisations—banks and insurance companies—but it is also fair to say that, although there is not complete transparency on what the second-order impact would be if there was a stress in this situation, there is a lot of awareness and supervisory engagement with the key players, as was explained to us during the conduct of the inquiry that my committee undertook. The committee did not find such a scary situation as has been portrayed by other Members of the Committee this afternoon.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, this amendment raises an important question around private credit and how our regulatory framework should respond to emerging risks in modern financial markets. I look forward to the Minister’s tactful comments on this amendment, given that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, spoke so well in favour of private credit in our debate on the fifth group on our first day in Committee. Here we are with the problems of private credit on our second day in Committee. The Minister will be extraordinarily tactful in handling that.
We will have a wider debate on Clause 17 and the regulatory principles in future groups, but this amendment touches on some of those broader questions. The specific issue raised here—private credit—is an important and timely one. Private credit has grown considerably as a feature of modern financial markets; it has, in fact, grown partly as a consequence of regulation. We are dealing now with regulation of a consequence of regulation as the markets have evolved. It can provide an important source of finance outside traditional banking channels, supporting businesses that need capital to invest, develop and grow. For that reason, we should be careful not to respond to its expansion in a way that unnecessarily restricts access to safe and productive credit; indeed, the Financial Services Regulation Committee concluded in its report earlier this year that private credit has developed rapidly and plays a useful economic role.
That is particularly important at a time when we want firms to invest, expand and access the finance they need. We should not create a regulatory environment in which the answer to every emerging market development is simply more regulation without proper regard to the consequences. Indeed, the Government have been keen to support private equity through greater investment from assets such as pension funds in the UK. If they want this sector to continue developing, they must ensure that regulation supports, rather than restricts, access to credit for consumers who choose to use these products.
At the same time, it is right to recognise that financial markets do not stand still. The system changes over time, and the regulatory framework must remain alert to those changes. Areas such as private credit, non-bank finance, digital finance and other fast-moving parts of the system demonstrate the need for regulation that reflects the market as it is developing, not simply the market as it looked when earlier legislation was drafted.
The key point, therefore, is one of balance. We need a market that is dynamic, innovative and capable of providing finance to the businesses on which growth depends, but we also need a regulatory framework that is sufficiently up to date to understand and monitor emerging risks. We should keep in mind, though, that risk can never be eliminated entirely. The role of regulation should be not to remove all risk from the system but to ensure that risks are properly understood, proportionately managed and developed with an eye to supporting economic development and growth.
For those reasons, we will listen carefully to the Minister’s response.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the focus of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on the vulnerabilities in the private credit system.
Although the Government are clear that the growth of private credit has brought benefits to the real economy, we and the financial regulators are very conscious of the potential vulnerabilities in this sector. Just last month, the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England joined their fellow G7 Finance Ministers and European Central Bank governors in agreeing that potential risks in the private credit ecosystem call for continued monitoring, including that of the interconnections with banks and insurers.
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, would require the PRA and the FCA to consider private credit’s interactions with the wider financial system in all cases where the regulatory principles are engaged, or else their decision-making could be unlawful. I assure her that the regulators are already working to understand these vulnerabilities deeply and to address them where necessary. This work does not require placing additional duties on the regulators.
I will highlight the existing work of those regulators. First, the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee has been focused on the risks of private markets for many years, and the Chancellor’s most recent remit letter to the FPC asks that that work continues. I specifically note the Bank’s system-wide exploratory scenario on private markets, the SWES—as if we needed another acronym. It is examining how a stress scenario could affect the UK’s private markets ecosystem and interconnected banks, insurers and pension funds, with significant participation across the industry. The UK’s system-wide regulator, the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee, is the right authority to carry out this work, and its findings will be laid before Parliament when it is complete.
For its part, the FCA also maintains a close focus on these risks, including in its firm-level supervision. Where specific issues are identified, targeted interventions follow. We also welcome the FCA’s work to improve the visibility of risks and data availability through its reviews of the alternative investment fund managers directive framework, and its efforts to raise standards on conflicts of interest, valuation practices and risk management.
I note the noble Baroness’s concerns about the FCA’s regulatory perimeter, but I emphasise that the marketing of funds in the UK is indeed subject to UK regulatory requirements, protecting UK investors. Further, the PRA continues to assess and mitigate risks from private markets to the banks and insurers it regulates. This includes its 2024 thematic review of private equity-related financing activities with banks.
Finally, given the cross-border nature of the private credit ecosystem, the Bank and the FCA are actively engaged in international work, including at the Financial Stability Board, which is chaired by the Governor of the Bank of England. The Government believe that, under our regulatory framework, vulnerabilities in private credit are being understood and addressed where needed, but there is of course much room to improve. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will of course withdraw this amendment, but I wanted to get this issue on the agenda, and we need to continue to do so. I say to the Government: do not be complacent in this situation. A few weeks before the crash in 2008, everybody in government would have told you how well the financial sector was functioning. Being a cynic can be quite helpful.
I am particularly concerned about the impact on small businesses when we run into the next financial shock, because there will be one. That regulatory perimeter is a serious issue that the Government should be looking at. I do not know whether you can get the regulators to look at it voluntarily. As far as they are concerned, you go to Parliament only to explain; it is not where you take instruction. I am concerned about these issues. I look forward to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on private credit, which will come later. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“(2) In section 3B (regulatory principles to be applied by both regulators), in subsection (1), at the end insert—“(i) the need to assess the impact on the taxpayer of any provision of backstop arrangements by the Bank of England to private stablecoin.””Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment would replace the removal of the regulatory-principles duties in Clause 17 with a new “have regard” to the risks to taxpayers should the Bank of England provide a liquidity backstop to private stablecoin.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, here I am again with another issue that I want to raise. It does not necessarily look like it, but this is another constitutional amendment. Digital money and stablecoin are coming. As I have said in the House before, I am not King Cnut but I am concerned that both the industry and the regulators treat stablecoin as merely a change in plumbing in the payments system. I understand the desire for the UK to be an attractive place for stablecoin companies and the need to build a substantial sterling stablecoin sector. What concerns me is that, at scale, it has huge consequences for the taxpayer to carry the liabilities, and it determines who has their hands on the levers of economic power. I will not pursue that last issue; it would take about 10 minutes and the Committee is beyond coping with that.
In October, the FCA will publish regulations for the non-systemic stablecoin players but, on Monday, the Bank of England launched its policy statement and draft rules for systemic stablecoin. The document is clearly a loosening of rules previously under discussion, but my attention was grabbed by the Bank’s confirmation that it will introduce a central bank liquidity facility for systemic stablecoin. In other words, if there is a run on stablecoin, the taxpayer is on the hook. It is true that liquidity facilities are offered to the banks but to extend this to stablecoin is a major decision. I am not saying that it is right or wrong, but a decision on this scale, with the liabilities that are consequent, is above the pay grade of the regulator. This should be a decision in which Parliament is fully engaged. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the Financial Services Regulation Committee has also been looking at stablecoin, so I have a few words to say on the topic.
I go back to my earlier point: this is not a regulatory principle that can be applied by the FCA and the PRA. It has very little to do with them, as it is the financial stability part of the Bank of England that has issued the policy. The backstop is just one part of the arrangements, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, will be aware. A very significant part of the assets of stablecoin issuers also need to be held in unremunerated form at the Bank of England—30%, which is a significant amount of money. If the noble Baroness is worried about the cost to the taxpayer, she might also reflect on the gain to the taxpayer for all the time that there is not a crisis because the Bank of England has access to free money, which is part of the whole deal.
The stablecoin package needs to be looked at as a whole, rather than one small part of it being picked out. The noble Baroness may still disagree with it, but it is a calibrated package which balances the risks, including keeping one-to-one asset backing, which will also go a long way to allaying her concerns.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that digital assets are a serious issue and that they deserve proper scrutiny. We come at it from a slightly different perspective. I note the point made by my noble friend Lady Noakes that this is not a matter for regulatory principles.
This week, as we have heard, the Bank of England published its final policy statement and draft code of practice for sterling-denominated systemic stablecoins. This may go some way to supporting institutional scale-up, but we are concerned by the general reaction, which has been that the fundamentals have not changed and that the prevailing regime we are left with could still leave UK issuers less attractive internationally.
We are very grateful for the work of the Financial Services Regulation Committee, under my noble friend Lady Noakes, with the help of her very distinguished committee. Yet again, it features in almost every part of this Bill. Its report, Stablecoins: Waiting for Regulation, makes it clear that the UK, in its view, is lagging behind the US and EU on stablecoin regulation. Stablecoins and other forms of digital money are no longer simply niche products or theoretical innovations; they have the potential to become part of the wider payments and financial infrastructure.
The danger now is that we risk creating, or at least allowing to persist, a regulatory grey zone. Firms need clarity on the duties, expectations and requirements that they will have to meet. That is why we are calling for a much clearer digital asset strategy from the Government. We need Ministers to take a position of leadership in this area. It is not enough to simply respond to developments as they arise in different parts of the digital stratosphere. We have tabled amendments alongside the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, who is somewhat expert in this area and is not here today, to probe the Government on the wider question of digital assets and digital finance strategy. We will come to those amendments in a later group. I do not want to pre-empt that debate now—not at this late hour, with so few people in Committee on such a hot day.
This amendment touches on the same underlying point: that the Government need to provide clarity and certainty. They need to provide leadership, whatever that is. I would be grateful if the Minister can briefly explain the Government’s position on stablecoins, and— in response to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has rightly raised—explain how stablecoins will help growth and competitiveness.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
Amendment 79 would require the FCA and PRA to assess the impact on the taxpayer of any provision of backstop arrangements by the Bank of England to private stablecoin when exercising their general functions. I support the noble Baroness’s goal of ensuring that all government and Bank of England activity provides good value for the taxpayer. The Bank of England already has a duty, established in the joint memorandum of understanding with HMT, to
“ensure value for money by minimising financial costs and risks to its capital”.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
At this hour, the only thing to do is to withdraw the amendment. I thank the Committee.
House of Lords
Hares: Close Season
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to bring forward legislation to introduce a close season for hares.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the hare is a much-loved species in this country, and England is among the few European countries that do not have a close season on shooting hares during their breeding season. This is a terrible oversight, and this Government’s animal welfare strategy has made a commitment to
“consider how to … introduce a close season for hares”.
It will require a suitable primary legislative vehicle, and Defra is exploring every opportunity to find one.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
I thank the Minister. I know she shares my frustration at the length of time it is taking for this legislation to appear. Although the hare can hide in the long grass, it is about time we flush it out. If the Minister has any suggestions for how we can advance this legislation I would be most grateful.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and others in this Chamber for their huge support to further this legislation. As I said, it needs primary legislation. Legislative slots are always tight, but we are actively looking at how we can find a space during this Parliament. I think the best way that people can help is to express why this is so important and the difference it would make to hares, and to demonstrate that this country is an anomaly in not having a close season.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
While a close season is certainly a good idea, I have previously recounted in this House the case of a farming family who, sadly, feel obliged to kill all the hares on their land—because, otherwise, gangs running lucrative betting on illegal hare-coursing crash through their gates, destroy their hedges and drive four-wheel drive vehicles across their food crops, terrorising anyone who tries to stop them. Does the Minister agree that a close season will have no effect on these dangerous people, and that more resourcing for rural policing is what is needed to combat them?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, who has raised this issue previously. The close season for hares is a separate issue from the problem of hare-coursing. Hare-coursing is an illegal activity. It should not be taking place. Unfortunately, it has been picked up by criminals and has proved very lucrative for those criminals, who run betting rings on it. I am extremely concerned by the increase in it, particularly in certain areas. I have written to the Home Office asking for a meeting to discuss this further, because the noble Lord is absolutely right that, without enforcement, this will not to be resolved. These are dangerous people, and we need to do something about it.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend for his unwavering commitment to this issue, both in the other place and in your Lordships’ House, and I also commend the Minister for her clarity on this issue. The Scottish Government took decisive action by introducing a statutory close season for brown hares in 2012 and have also taken steps to protect mountain hares through licensing measures. The evidence clearly indicates that the brown hare population in Scotland has remained broadly stable since then, while welfare risks associated with shooting during the breeding season have reduced significantly. In the light of this, can the Minister say—and I understand that there is a tight parliamentary timetable—why after 14 years we have not taken that particular step to protect hares?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I think the rumblings behind me have given the answer to that question. I am determined to find a way to do this, and I will do everything in my power to find a legislative slot. I have a cunning plan; we will have to see whether it comes off. The noble Baroness mentioned mountain hares. Any legislation that we bring forward will be designed to include better protections for mountain hares too.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I have kept two hares in my time: one 50 years ago, and one about 10 years ago. They were absolutely delightful. I would not dream of hurting hares, and I would not dream of shooting one. However, this is quite difficult, because the close season for hares gives them quite a long time. There may be ways to protect hares, other than what the Minister is suggesting, that we should pursue, including cutting down courses.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is entitled to his views on this, as everybody is. However, having looked at the evidence, my view is that a close season should run from the beginning of February through to the autumn.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, on animal welfare issues, I declare an interest as a dog owner. Some 45% of dog owners report that their dogs feel fear from fireworks, and the majority of people who have horses similarly find that fireworks affect their animals. Can the Minister say whether the Government have any plans to bring forward legislation to restrict the decibel limit to 90 decibels, and to restrict the time that fireworks can be sold, so that pet owners and their pets do not suffer needlessly?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
In talking about fireworks, the noble Earl is talking about something that is in the gift of the Department for Business and Trade, because the selling of fireworks is a trade issue. However, I can inform him and the House that I have had a meeting with the relevant Minister in DBT to discuss exactly this issue.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, I suggest to the Minister that the Government’s legislative programme is not the only mechanism by which this could be done. For example, have the Whips been putting out Private Members’ Bills, suggested Bills and handout Bills, which is a well-known practice on both sides? Further, there is still the opportunity at any stage to introduce a Bill, which I am sure would sail through the Commons. It could then come here and not take up government time.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend has allowed me to express my deep disappointment that the PMB on this, which was Defra’s priority PMB for this Session, was not picked up. I thank noble Lords who were prepared to put it forward but did not come early enough in the ballot.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, hare populations vary dramatically around our country, and the breeding season can be for most of the year. Can the Minister clarify that she will ensure that hares can still be controlled where appropriate? I declare an interest as the owner of land where hare populations need encouragement rather than control.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Absolutely, I can confirm that. The idea is to bring in a close season in line with those of other countries, not to stop control of hares absolutely.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I farm organically in Scotland and we have a number of hares around. In fact, when the close season came in in Scotland, it did not really do much to help the hare population, because there are enough foxes around to kill the hares, which I have tried but failed to do something about. What really helps is the creation of new habitat, and the Scottish version of the ELMS system has been very helpful in creating habitat for the hares. Can the Minister comment briefly about how ELMS could affect the habitat of hares?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
ELMS and the sustainable farming work that we are doing are designed to increase biodiversity in habitats and to help support the kind of habitat that the noble Earl is talking about. We are also looking at how we can best tackle things such as invasive species, which have a huge impact on our natural biodiversity. I am very keen that we work together on these things, because you cannot do things in silos. You have to bring things together if you are going to get the best result possible. I am sure the noble Earl would say that that was the same for red squirrels.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said earlier, and I declare my interests in the register. Is the Minister aware of the Hares Preservation Act 1892, which specifically forbids the sale of hares during the notional hare breeding season, 1 March to the end of July? Is that Act working and is it being enforced?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Acts from the 19th century have their place in some areas of legislation, but I think in protecting hares, we need to look at the current situation. Populations would have been very different then; farming was very different then. We need to look at how we best protect things such as the mountain hare, while at the same time having a close season for brown hares that aligns with those of other countries.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, it may be a little obscure to look at legislation from 1892, but from my experience all those years ago in government, there were possibilities of getting the Civil Service to be really creative in looking at how subsidiary legislation could be drawn from such laws. Quite often, I was told that it had to be primary, but it did not: it could be secondary. I wonder whether my noble friend could go back and have another go.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I can assure my noble friend that I have gone back—not just on this but on other things—a number of times to see whether we can bring in legislation without it being primary, but the lawyers have informed me that that is not the case. We need primary legislation. I am sure that the comments that my noble friend has made about older legislation will be looked at very carefully.
Scottish Government: Social Security Benefits
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the total amount transferred to the Scottish Government in the last financial year following the devolution of social security benefits.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, following the devolution of social security powers, the Scottish Government are responsible for funding and administering social security benefits, with funding transferred from the UK Government. Funding for devolved social security is provided through welfare block grant adjustments that transfer funding from the UK Government to the Scottish Government. In the most recent financial year, this amounted to £5.8 billion for the Scottish Government. Decisions on how funding is used are for the Scottish Government.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. In 2025-26, the total social security spend in Scotland was £6.9 billion, which amounts to £1.3 billion more than that which is transferred by the Treasury. It is far from clear how the SNP Government will manage to sustain this level of funding. Does the Minister agree that, to the extent that the Scottish Government have added top-ups, it is important to make it clear that the looming deficit from this and other unbudgeted expenditure is entirely the Scottish Government’s responsibility and they should not blame it on the UK Government—although they will undoubtedly try?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree; I am strong supporter of not blaming the UK Government. As the noble Baroness knows, funding is assessed through the fiscal framework, which links welfare block grant adjustments directly to UK Government spending on equivalent benefits. These adjustments are calculated on a forecast basis and reconciled on outturn, ensuring that funding reflects actual spending over time. The Scottish Government are then responsible for spending decisions, including on benefit levels and eligibility. Any additional spending on benefits is a choice for the Scottish Government and must come from within their own budget.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, is taking part remotely. I invite him to speak.
Lord Shinkwin (Con) [V]
My Lords, in the event of our being at war, which some experts suggest is increasingly likely by 2030, the massive and urgent recalibration of resources to defence will inevitably mean that those who need most support due to their disability will be hit the hardest. What advice are His Majesty’s Government giving to the Scottish Government on the careful management of their social security budget so that they can mitigate the worst effects of such an eventuality on those whose disability makes them most dependent?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question but I do not agree with the assumption underlying it. Of course we must spend more on defence, but we must also continue to support those who need that support the most. As I said in answer to the first Question, spending on benefits is a choice for the Scottish Government and must come from within their own budget.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Lord the Financial Secretary agree that fiscal responsibility should lie at the heart of the devolutionary settlement? Does he agree that maintaining fiscal credibility would be a particular challenge in the event of Scotland becoming independent? Is he aware that the Irish Free State had to cut the state pension by 10% in 1924 to maintain parity with sterling? Might he draw that to the attention of those who advocate Scottish independence?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I did not know the specific example that the noble Lord sets out and I am grateful to him for educating me, as he has done many times in the past. I agree that Scotland, in my view, is better off as part of the union and that independence would be disadvantageous to the people of Scotland and to the Scottish economy. I agree very much with what he says about continuing fiscal responsibility, both in Scotland and in the whole of the UK.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, unlike Scotland, which has taken on significant social security powers and used them directly to address child poverty in Scotland, Wales has limited control over the welfare system. Does the Minister agree with the principle of Gordon Brown’s report that nothing that is devolved to Scotland could not be devolved to Wales if the Senedd wants it?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I worked for Gordon Brown for quite some years. I did not always agree with him and I am not sure I do on this occasion. The noble Baroness knows that the fiscal framework sets a funding floor to ensure that the Welsh Government receive a fair level of relative funding. A review of the framework is triggered when relative funding falls to 115%. The Government remain committed to working with the Welsh Government to ensure the smooth delivery of their funding settlement, and there are ongoing discussions about funding flexibilities and their fiscal framework as part of this.
Baroness Davidson of Lundin Links (Con)
My Lords, the Scottish Fiscal Commission has forecast that over a million Scottish adults will be in receipt of disability payments by 2031 under the new Scottish social security system—that is over a fifth of the projected population. The divergence from Barnett consequentials in just this area is forecasted to be £1.2 billion, which will come, as the Minister says, either from spending cuts or rises in taxation—taxation rates already being the highest in the UK, reaching 48%. To help the Scottish Government balance the books and to give some relief to the Scottish taxpayer, I ask the Minister: what, if any, analysis has been done to assess the varying disability rates across the different parts of the UK, and what health interventions have proven successful in lowering those rates?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As the noble Baroness knows far better than I do, the fiscal framework is designed to ensure that funding is fair and fiscally neutral at the point of devolution. It provides the Scottish Government with funding that reflects UK Government spending, while also giving them full responsibility for policy decisions in devolved areas. So, as I have said, any additional spending on benefits is a choice for the Scottish Government and must come from within their own budget.
The noble Baroness alludes to wider welfare reform. She will be well aware that spending on welfare increased by £88 billion in the last five years of the previous Government. I do not think anyone believes that the system that we inherited is working. It abandoned too many people to a life on benefits, it wrote off too many people as too sick to work, and it condemned too many children to be too poor to eat, which is exactly why we are reforming the system. She will know that we have launched the Milburn review, focusing on the causes of youth unemployment in particular, and he will come back with specific recommendations later this year.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, tabled this Question in part because he is appalled that so many people he speaks to in Scotland think that the whole of their benefit comes from Scottish-only taxes, not just the top-up. Ahead of the Brexit referendum, many people whose areas had received millions in EU support declared that their area had never received a penny because the EU contribution was unacknowledged or obscured. Is it time to improve communication and strengthen the union by making it clear that the whole of the UK contributes to benefit funding in Scotland, as well as in the other nations?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
There is a lot in what the noble Baroness says. I obviously agree with her, as I often do, on the matter of the European Union. I agree with what she says; it is very much worth looking at.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, the Minister may be aware that it has cost the taxpayer more than £650 million to set up Social Security Scotland, yet there are countless examples of claimants who are on benefits administered by both Social Security Scotland and the Department for Work and Pensions who have had money deducted because of a lack of communication between the two agencies. What action can the UK Government take to improve communication between both departments to make sure that those in genuine need of support are not penalised?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I did not know about what the noble Lord says. I am more than happy to take that back to my DWP colleagues and to discuss it with them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Scottish Government are using this social security spending to deliver a more humane system that treats people with dignity. We have recently had the family finances project from the University of Glasgow and the University of Manchester, which shows that the Scottish child payment has reduced levels of food insecurity and material deprivation for children by about eight percentage points compared with comparable populations in England. Will the English Government follow suit?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness means the UK Government. I know that the Scottish Greens are in coalition with the SNP in Scotland, so presumably she supports what they are doing. As I have said already, it is a matter for the Scottish Government. They have full responsibility for policy decisions in devolved areas and any spending they choose to undertake must come from within their own budgets.
Resistant Hypertension
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the level of provision for treating patients with resistant hypertension including financial investment in renal denervation treatments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, the NHS is increasing the diagnosis and detection of hypertension and is supporting the identification of resistant hypertension and its treatment. Renal denervation remains an option for some patients but is currently not widely commissioned by the NHS, in line with NICE guidance. The cardiovascular disease modern service framework will further support diagnosis and accelerate our commitment to reduce premature mortality from heart disease and stroke by 25% in the next 10 years.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. This Government, thankfully, have a direct focus on prevention. In view of that, the UK expert clinical consensus on renal denervation, published in the Heart journal, concluded that existing commissioning arrangements no longer accurately reflect current evidence and technology evaluation on renal denervation. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister: will the Government reconsider and commit to reviewing national commissioning policies for renal denervation, so that funding and eligibility criteria for this technology are made clear and consistent across all eligible sectors?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I can indeed give the commitment to my noble friend that NHS England is currently reviewing the clinical evidence for the commissioning of renal denervation treatment, and recommendations are expected next year.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, while innovative treatments have an important role, uncontrolled high blood pressure remains one of the leading drivers of stroke, heart attacks and kidney failure. What work are the Government undertaking to improve prevention and management of high blood pressure, particularly in communities with the highest prevalence and the poorest outcomes?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right in what she says. This is a largely preventable condition and requires much movement from treatment to prevention, as the noble Baroness said. That means bearing down on certain lifestyle factors and encouraging people to seek to give up smoking, or not to take it up in the first place; to tackle obesity and support people in that; and to reduce alcohol consumption. It is important to note that identifying it at an early stage is crucial, because it allows us not only to support lifestyle changes but, where necessary, to provide medical intervention.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the remarks made so far by the Minister. We are aware of the drivers and that hypertension can lead to strokes and heart attacks. In particular, about 5% to 10% of those with hypertension have resistant hypertension. I ask the Minister specifically: when the cardiovascular disease modern service framework is published, will the Government consider explicitly defining resistant hypertension as a distinctive, high-risk subgroup, so that we will be able to ensure that a focus can be put on it and to help strategies to minimise serious cardiovascular diseases?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a helpful point. Indeed, the modern service framework will soon be published. Of course, as blood pressure is one of the seven risk factors for cardiovascular disease, as the noble Lord referred to, we have to improve detection and management. That is what the modern service framework will drive forward, particularly in local areas. Yes, it will make reference not just to hypertension, which is more widely applicable, but to resistant hypertension, as he suggested.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, NICE has recognised renal denervation as a potential treatment option for resistant hypertension, yet its use remains limited and subject to special arrangements for governance and research. What assessment have the Government made of the extent to which eligible patients are able to access renal denervation across England? Are Ministers concerned about the emergence of a postcode lottery in access to the treatment?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Looking to the future, obviously, one can only act on clinical guidance. Renal denervation, as I mentioned to my noble friend, is an emerging option for carefully selected patients at the moment, as the noble Lord said. What matters now is that evidence is emerging, and that is why it is being reassessed. We will not have to wait too long to see what the future will bring in this regard, but it certainly has a role to play.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I will refine the previous questions. Resistant hypertension occurs when the blood pressure does not respond to standard treatment of two, three or even four drugs—hence we call it resistant hypertension. The reason why the renal system is involved is because the sympathetic nervous system acts between the kidneys and the brain. That controls vasodilatation and the production of hormones that raise the blood pressure. By denerving the renal system, which are nerves on the arteries of the kidneys, you can cut out one of the nervous system’s interactions between kidneys and the brain. What is important, therefore, is that people who suffer from resistant hypertension are treated by specialists at a specialist centre that considers denervation as one of the options, because it is not always the only answer. Therefore, does the Minister agree that people with resistant hypertension should be treated in a specialist centre?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly would agree with that. Indeed, those who are diagnosed with resistant hypertension—and the noble Lord has, as ever, outlined how that is defined in a far better way than I could have done—can be referred by their GP to secondary care hospital hypertension services, so, to answer the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Evans, that does mean in-depth investigations and expert management. The House can be assured of that.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Health Data Research Service. We know that hypertension remains underdiagnosed, and it is right that the Government have diversified the detection pathways. However, between those first high recordings at a pharmacy or in social care, the information does not always flow through to the treatment location, so people remain undertreated as well as underdiagnosed. Can the Minister say what steps the department will take to address this failing?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That clearly matters immensely. We have invested in community pharmacy services, which have brought this into the heart of communities and made it easier and more attractive for people to have their blood pressure checked. As of February, we have some 10,000 community pharmacies delivering. We are also developing the online NHS health check and the modern service framework. Information from pharmacies should be going direct to GPs, but I am heartened, as we move towards the health Bill, by the advent of the single patient record.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, following on from the extraordinary explanation by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, of the background and the need for specialist centres, would a pilot project undertaken by NHS research help, in case there are any delays in assessing the information before us? This is something that the NHS should do more often—specific pilot projects to see how something works in practice.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As my noble friend says, we have had great success, and it has really helped us to have pilot projects in other areas such as mental health services. I ask my noble friend warmly to anticipate the modern service framework, because that will set out how we are to go forward in this regard.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, following on from my noble friend’s question and the Minister’s answer, there is no definition in the department of preventable spending. Will the new modern service framework determine a definition of what preventable spending is so that it can be tracked over time to see whether prevention is becoming the norm?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The modern service framework will focus on the cardiovascular disease pathway. I take the point that the noble Lord is making and assure him that, as he and the House will be aware, one of the three main pillars in the 10-year health plan is the move from sickness to prevention. Therefore, we will be looking at how we ensure that it delivers the results that we need. The modern service framework will be focused on consistent high quality and equitable care—in other words, on outcomes.
Edinburgh Anti-Muslim Attacks
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gohir
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the factors that contributed to the attacks on Muslims in Edinburgh on 19 June; and what steps they are taking to prevent the normalisation of anti-Muslim hatred, violence and discrimination.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, before inviting the Minister to respond to the noble Baroness’s topical Question, which is about the attack on Muslims in Edinburgh last week, I remind the House that no reference should be made to the criminal case currently before the courts in relation to the individual charged with the attack. Noble Lords are free to discuss the general issue, but the specific case remains sub judice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are deeply concerned by the attacks in Edinburgh. Our thoughts and prayers are with those injured and the wider community, as well as the families of the injured. Investigations are live but I can confirm that a suspect has been arrested and charged. On behalf of the Government, I thank the police and the emergency services for their response. We are continuing close engagement with the Scottish Government on this concerning incident, and we are working with police partners and communities to tackle anti-Muslim hostility, support victims and strengthen cohesion.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
Muslims are terrified and do not feel safe. When will the Government update the hate crime strategy? It expired in 2020. When will the Government strengthen hate crime legislation? Loopholes in the law are being exploited by hate preachers. For example, stirring of religious hatred has to meet a much higher threshold compared to stirring of racial hatred for it to be a criminal offence. For people who follow any faith, their safety matters too.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that people of any faith, and indeed of no faith, should feel safe, and we are taking sustained action to keep Muslims safe, to support victims and to challenge religious hatred. This includes strengthening protective security, with a record £40 million in funding for protective security measures, as set out in our strategy Protecting What Matters. We have adopted a clear definition of anti-Muslim hostility in order to consider some of the issues the noble Baroness raises, and we will appoint a special representative on anti-Muslim hostility. We have committed a £4 million fund to tackling anti-Muslim hostility as a first step.
Baroness Warsi (Non-Afl)
My Lords, when the public discourse is deliberately poisoned, it is inevitable that we see the kind of hatred we tragically saw play out on the streets of Edinburgh. Is the Minister familiar with the now extensive academic and investigative reports from the United States—and indeed here in the United Kingdom—that have tracked states, foreign funders and wealthy domestic individuals who fund and support a network of groups, individuals, think tanks and media outlets to instigate and spread anti-Muslim tropes, racism and division? What are the Government’s plans to tackle this in light of their announced aim to reduce malign funding and foreign influence in our politics and public life?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question, and I pay tribute to her long history of distinguished contributions on these issues. I am on day eight of my post as Faith Minister, so I am not familiar with all the academic research she cites, but I would be very happy to receive it from the noble Baroness and view it. On the substantive point she raises, as she knows, we have commissioned the Rycroft review and we will be legislating on political donations. But I take very seriously exactly the point she is making about not just anti-Muslim hostility but religious hatred generally: that there are external actors which are seeking to disrupt our politics and disturb our communities.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, the shocking attack on Muslims in Edinburgh is the latest among the many and increasing attacks we have seen. This is not happening in a vacuum, as noble Lords have set out; the increasing anti-Muslim rhetoric and Islamophobia are becoming more and more normalised. It was very disappointing that after the latest attack last week, there was no statement, no COBRA meeting and very little from the media, at a time when British Muslims are feeling increasingly fearful for and worried about their safety. Does the Minister accept that what we need now is strong leadership to tackle this, not platitudes or a tweet?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
There has been a statement from both the Prime Minister and the First Minister of Scotland, and I do not accept the characterisation that there is in any sense a lack of response to this. We understand that this problem of anti-Muslim hostility is getting worse. We take it seriously, and when incidents such as these occur, we will want to see the full force of the law used, and we will demonstrate the sort of leadership the noble Baroness is seeking. I do not quite recognise the picture she paints.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
I welcome the noble Lord to his place; I think it is his first time at the Dispatch Box, so welcome. We also associate ourselves with his comments about the Edinburgh incident.
The overwhelming majority of people in this country reject hatred and violence. However, recent years have seen increasing tensions between communities and the growth of extremist narratives from different quarters. What assessment have the Government made of these trends, and what action are they taking to strengthen social cohesion and mutual respect across society?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for those kind words; it is a pleasure to do business with her again. We have set out in our Protecting What Matters strategy clear actions towards more confident, cohesive and resilient communities. We want to protect the UK’s social fabric and strengthen pride, belonging and cohesion. We cannot make people love each other, but it is the Government’s job to help, enable and support people living in communities where people do trust each other. Specifically on extremism, we intend to publish an annual report on the state of extremism as part of Protecting What Matters.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, the Edinburgh incident happened last week. In Belfast the week before that, people were driven out of their homes because they were immigrants. A couple of weeks ago, a Sikh was attacked in the West Midlands; and a couple of months ago, two female Sikhs were raped in their homes—and so on and so forth. People seem to be scapegoating migrants for all their troubles. If they cannot get a house, they blame the migrants; if they cannot get a job, they blame the migrants; if they cannot get a doctor’s appointment, they blame migrants—even though the doctor is a migrant. Is it not about time that the Government did something to really protect migrants, especially the Sikhs, who have been attacked in the West Midlands?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. The really important point is that most of the incidents he mentions are crimes, and we want to see the full force of the law used against those crimes. They are not about breakdowns of trust; they are not about attitudes to immigrants; they are crimes, and we want to see the law used to deal with that. If the law needs strengthening, we will strengthen it, as we have on crime and policing. It would be invidious of me to pick on the experiences of individual religious or racial communities—I realise those often converge. However, our first duty as the Government is to enforce the law, and we will.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I am sure the whole House will agree that any violent attack against a specific community is utterly reprehensible. We have stood here too frequently in the last couple of years evaluating the aftermath of antisemitic attacks and attacks against Jewish people—violent terrorist attacks against a much tinier minority. Does the noble Lord agree that, given the plethora of anti-religious, terrorist and other criminal laws we have on the statute books, any further attempts to develop new policies and laws to deal with specific religions goes against the grain of our equality, and we should be even-handed and treat all religious discrimination fairly without two-tier perceptions of justice?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I absolutely do agree with that, and I do not think there is any question in my or the Government’s mind: we do not want two-tier protection for any individual community. On the noble Baroness’s question about antisemitism, my first visit in this job as Faith Minister was to the Heaton Park Synagogue in Manchester, and last week I also visited Manchester’s British Muslim Heritage Centre. I can tell the House that on both occasions, people were robust and trenchant in their views on the Government and what we are doing, but they were pleased to see me and pleased to see us taking action.
Darfur: Atrocities
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following atrocities in El Fasher in the Darfur region of Sudan, what assessment they have made of (1) the situation in El Obeid, and (2) of the likelihood of further genocide in Sudan.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
The Government are deeply concerned by reports of a potential RSF offensive on El Obeid. Last year, unimaginable horrors unfolded in El Fasher. The RSF has moved troops towards El Obeid and sent dozens of drone strikes. The risk of grave atrocities is acute. The UK maintains that genocide should be determined by a competent court. This does not prevent us taking action. The Foreign Secretary has sounded the alarm on El Obeid, mobilising the international community through the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council and raising it directly with counterparts.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The Foreign Secretary has said:
“El Obeid is on the precipice of an atrocity”,
in a country with an estimated 150,000 fatalities and between 14 million and 15 million displaced people. Given that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said yesterday, without a court determination, that what has been happening bears all “the hallmarks of genocide”, how does the Minister counter the criticism of the Government and their policies made yesterday at the International Development Committee of another place? In order to prevent further atrocities, as penholder at the United Nations Security Council, will we now demand an emergency debate, work for the extension of the arms embargo across Sudan and consider the deployment of blue helmets and the imposition of a no-fly zone?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I was at the International Development Committee yesterday, and I thought the evidence provided by the witnesses was compelling and impressive. I did not agree with it all, but I thought that those giving evidence did themselves a great deal of credit. I have asked officials this morning for renewed advice on duty to prevent and whether our responsibilities under the genocide convention are engaged in this instance, given what has happened so recently in El Fasher. The noble Lord will know that, up to now, the UN Secretary-General has deemed that the deployment of a force to protect civilians or a peacekeeping force would not be possible in this situation for reasons of there being no peace to keep and the difficulties of doing that, but we will continue to look at all available avenues in this situation. We do not want to see, as we did in El Fasher, another siege situation and all that unfolded at the end of that.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing this subject to the attention of the House once again. It is an incredibly important subject, and we should be concentrating more on it. The UN Human Rights Office has said that it has verified 546 instances of conflict-related sexual violence and that sexual violence is increasingly being used as a weapon of war in Sudan. Given the UK’s experience supporting the investigation—and hopefully, later, prosecution—of war crimes in Ukraine, what plans do His Majesty’s Government have to provide equivalent support for the prosecution of war criminals in Sudan?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have done a couple of things: we have deployed specialist teams on gender-based violence in the area, and we have a fact-finding mission. We are doing that so that proceedings can follow. I will not go into the detail of some of the violence here, but the degradation is abominable and truly shocking, and the impunity with which it is carried out is really quite shocking. We need to continue to do everything we can to prevent it and to hold those responsible to account.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I note the Minister’s reference to the action by the Security Council and the joint statement by Foreign Ministers of like-minded countries calling for a halt on the attack on El Obeid. But does she agree that the absence of any reference to consequences in those statements renders them ineffective and, furthermore, that repeated statements over the past few years that have not been backed up by action have emboldened rather than deterred the perpetrators of atrocities on all sides of the conflict?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have been on the record in this House on many occasions expressing frustration with the futility, sometimes, of the statements we make. They are hard to get agreed and very carefully worded, as the noble Lord knows. Do they have the real-world impact that we would wish to see? The truth is, not often enough. That does not mean it is wrong to pursue them, because the more light that is shone on these atrocities, the better. It is really important that we do that. I think we all agree that not enough attention is paid to this conflict and to what is happening in Sudan. They are an important tool. Are they sufficient? I agree with the noble Lord that they are not.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his important Question. I know that my noble friend the Minister is well aware of the nature of the appalling tragedy taking place in Sudan. One of the factors fuelling the extent of that ongoing tragedy is the continued supply of modern weaponry, drones and the training of mercenaries. Does she agree with me that our Labour Government should do all that they can to prevent the supply of such equipment? It is fuelling this disaster.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Absolutely. There is no doubt that this conflict is being prolonged and intensified because of the supply of drones and other high-tech equipment to armed groups within Sudan, not just the SAF and the RSF but many others. There are now double digits of countries involving themselves in this conflict. They need to stop. That is the only way we will see any kind of resolution. We need to get on to a ceasefire, some dialogue and a civilian-led process. That is the only way forward here. The arms pumped into Sudan and the illicit gold flows need to stop, because until they do there will be no motivation for the warring parties to get around the table and resolve this.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, the Government were well aware of the arms pipeline between the UAE and the RSF, which took place from mid-2023 onwards and resulted in several genocidal attacks. Therefore, there was a choice for the Government to put pressure on the UAE to stop that arms traffic, but they did not do so. Can the Minister say why that decision was made? Was it made by officials or, indeed, by the Minister?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I would like to stop arms flows from every country into Sudan. I think there should be a complete embargo, which is what the UK Government are pushing for. As for specific conversations with particular countries, I do not think there is a conversation that I or my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has had with the UAE or several other countries where we do not make that specific point.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entries in the register on organisations working in the Middle East and on conflict resolution. I thank the Minister. At a time when there is a lot of challenge in the air and on budgets, I know that she prioritises the issue of conflict-related sexual violence, having visited Sudan and Darfur. She has talked of the abhorrent nature of it. Meeting the victims of sexual violence in conflict leaves an impact embedded on one’s brain and heart. Therefore, I commend what she has done to continue what I hope she recognises as the important work of the previous Government.
My focus is very much on conflict resolution. What specific role is the United Kingdom playing in support of the efforts of the Quad, which brings all the key parties together, and notably the United States, to bring an end to this awful conflict?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We very much support the Quad process and have been active in doing so. We have provided channels of communication in support of the Quad. It is not the only process and there are other tasks to be undertaken. The UK is also involved in the civilian track because when, God willing, a ceasefire is achieved, we need to have that track up and running and in play. We are actively involved, alongside other partners, in having the relevant conversations to bring that about.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for all the answers she has given, as I thank the noble Lord for asking the Question. Only this week it was said in this Chamber that the conflict in Sudan does not have a high enough profile in our own media here and everywhere else. Will she talk to her friends and colleagues about whether it is possible to open a safe and legal route for any of the population of Sudan who would wish to come to the UK to escape the terrible situation they are in? We know that we have a large diaspora in the UK. It may be that, through a safe and legal route, we could alleviate the suffering of small numbers of people.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Obviously, that is a matter for the Home Office. I point out that most Sudanese refugees I have spoken to wish to stay in their region. They are furious about what is happening to their country. They feel very strongly that they wish to return and to provide leadership and support for the services that are needed to rebuild and reinstate peace. The UK supports millions of people on the borders of Sudan. It is desperately sad that they are unable to return home at this moment.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I too support the Minister’s robust and strong response. She mentioned the illicit flows of gold. Is she aware that the RSF has been exporting substantial quantities of gold to countries such as Kenya, Ethiopia and the UAE to help finance the provision of weapons and arms? Twenty years ago, there was a lot of focus on blood diamonds in west Africa. This blood gold is fuelling this truly horrendous conflict. Can more be done to try to expose the people who are buying this gold and to find ways of tracking and tracing it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Yes, that is a very good suggestion. It is why we had an illicit gold conference recently. I am well aware of the problem the noble Lord describes. The idea of having a consumer-facing campaign around this is excellent. I would like to get involved in leading it. It is so destructive, and it is without doubt fuelling this conflict. I would welcome any move to make consumers more aware of where their gold comes from and of the fact that it can be used to support the devasting atrocities that we see in Sudan.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I take the Minister back to the International Development Committee meeting that she attended yesterday, which has already been referred to. Nathaniel Raymond, executive director of the Humanitarian Research Lab at the Yale School of Public Health, testified that the UK had failed to act on intelligence and genocide warnings in Sudan. He specifically said that there had been not enough political will, and that it was blocked by the UK’s unwillingness to confront the UAE, the primary military enabler, as we know, of the RSF massacre in El Fasher in 2025. What direct representations were made in response to the intelligence that was received in order to try to combat an impending genocide?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have huge respect for Nathaniel, but I disagree with the analysis that some options were put to Ministers and we chose the least. That is just not my version of what happened. It is important that analysts are able to give their perspective, but sometimes it is also acceptable for government to gently push back and disagree. There are things we can do to attempt to prevent these kinds of atrocities, but we have to be completely honest about the extent of our powers in some of these situations. I think that because El Fasher happened we are seeing a very different approach to El Obeid, and we are being much more active. That is because of the visibility of the atrocities. We saw people videoing themselves committing those heinous acts in El Fasher. I respectfully disagree with Nathaniel on the narrow point that he made yesterday, although I have enormous respect for him.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it was recently reported that hundreds of Colombian private military contractors, apparently hired by a UAE-based company, transited through UAE military facilities before being deployed to Sudan to support the RSF. Are the Government aware of this case, and have they made representations to the UAE about it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We make frequent representations and I am aware of the Colombian link, alongside the links of very many other nations. This needs to stop. As long as this continues, this conflict will persist. We will not see the loss of life, the degradation of communities and the hideous sexual violence finish until other countries desist and stop fuelling this conflict.
National Security (State Threats) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 30 June to allow the National Security (State Threats) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day and that therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 47 (Amendments on Third Reading), amendments shall not be moved on Third Reading.
PATHWAYS Study: Puberty Suppression
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, the proposed PATHWAYS puberty blockers trial for 226 children as young as 11 risks becoming a medical scandal unfolding in real time. Gender-incongruent children include some of the most vulnerable children in society, with disproportionate numbers of that cohort having autism or mental disorders or being children in care. There is an unknown and inestimable correlation with social media that is yet to be uncovered. The challenges for these children and their families, and the difficulties they face, are not to be underestimated, but gender-incongruent and gender non-conforming behaviour is also often characteristic of children who grow up simply to be gay. Surely the Minister does not truly agree with a trial which will place children who would otherwise simply grow up to be healthy gay and lesbian adults on a pathway that may impair their fertility and their sexual development.
The data shows, and the Cass review accepted, that a very large majority of children presenting with gender incongruence will resolve without medical intervention. I assume that the Minister accepts this. That being the case, this trial will be subjecting many physically healthy young children to completely unnecessary medical risks. Let us be clear. The medical risks inherent in taking puberty blockers at such a young age are truly life-altering. They include possible lifelong consequences for brain development, including IQ, bone health, fertility and adult sexual function.
Shockingly, 2,000 children have already been treated with puberty blockers in this country. They were treated at the now closed Tavistock clinic. More scandalously, they went on to adult clinics and we are entirely in the dark about how they are today. The data linkage study to analyse the information about those children has not yet been done. A shocking six out of seven of those adult clinics they went on to have not released the data, despite Parliament legislating for it.
So, what are Ministers doing to require adult gender clinics receiving public money to provide that data? What is the current status of that process? And, when the Government still do not know what happened to the 2,000 children already treated, why and on what grounds are they exposing another cohort of healthy children to medical harm before that question has been answered? It is no good to point to the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, recommended a trial. Government cannot and should not outsource such decisions and it will be no defence to the litigation coming down the line, as it already is in the US, that the noble Baroness told the Government to do it.
In any case, there are major issues about consent, particularly given the nature of the trial as currently put together. I am deeply troubled by how the informed consent of children can possibly be obtained when they are too young to appreciate what they stand to lose: as young as 11. It is important to set out what they stand to lose. Commencing puberty blockers at an early age may make fertility preservation for these children impossible. Studies show that puberty blockers may affect brain development, including their IQ and memory function, as well as their bone density and organ development. There is currently no long-term data sufficient to quantify those risks. Then, of course, there is a risk that normal adult sexual function—let us call a spade a spade; we are talking about the ability to ever experience sexual pleasure—does not develop when puberty is interrupted at such an early stage.
In these circumstances, it is inexplicable that the Government have rejected the MHRA’s recommendation that children under 14 should not be included in any trial. This trial is for children from the age of 11. How does the Minister justify that children under 14 are to be included in the trial? And how does she argue that any child can give informed consent to such risks? Please can the Minister confirm that these risks and all others will be expressly communicated to the children and families concerned? If this trial goes ahead, it is inevitable that irreversible, unnecessary harm will be done to at least some of these children.
Finally, could the Minister confirm that the Government have carried out an assessment of the future liability coming down the tracks to the NHS, and therefore to the taxpayer? Have the ongoing treatment costs, the treatment-related harms and the future litigation risks been assessed? What is the estimated cost to the NHS and the taxpayer of those, and how will that be funded?
Polling in December 2025 showed that almost 70% of the public was against giving puberty blockers to children and 63% wanted this trial to be stopped. As the Government consider a fresh start in other ways, I beg the Minister to think again and stop this trial.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, this Statement takes place in the context of a relentless campaign against trans people that started among right-wing politicians in the United States of America but has been seized on here: the bandwagon has been jumped upon by politicians in this country. That is the context.
We on these Benches have a policy towards trans people that is based on our belief that trans people not only exist but have a right to exist, and they have a right to exist with the same dignity as the rest of us—and part of that is having access to appropriate healthcare. I ask the Government, as, I hope, they seek to defend this test against the kind of political campaigning that we have just heard, to bear in mind that the use of puberty inhibitors is not the harmful intervention that has just been characterised. It is a safe medical intervention that has been used for different conditions since the 1980s, and there is already a lot of data on it. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, identified in her review, an absence or at least an insufficiency of data about the use of inhibitors in relation to people who have gender dysphoria. That is why this trial, consisting of 226 people, in a highly regulated period of group activity, has been allowed to go ahead in order to generate the data that she says we need.
It is true that last week the independent MHRA approved an update to the basis on which the trial is going to happen, in order to make sure that the safeguards were increased. It is not unusual for that to happen in a medical trial. It is not unusual for trials to stop and take note of what has happened initially and then for revisions to be made to the basis on which they are run.
We on these Benches believe very strongly that medical treatment should be based on science and evidence, not on belief and ideology. This trial has been under sustained attack from political organisations such as Sex Matters which do not believe that trans people should exist or should exist with the dignities that they currently do. This trial is currently the only legal route for anybody to access puberty blockers, so in the interests not just of accurate scientific evidence but of children who need this treatment, will the Minister ensure that the people who have undertaken this research are protected from the relentless political attacks against trans people?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Cash, for their contributions, both of which highlight why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State led on this Statement by saying that this is
“a sensitive, emotive and difficult issue”.
He also said, which goes the point raised by both noble Baronesses, albeit coming at it from very different angles, that our duty as a Government—a duty for any Government and one which the last Government accepted and acted on—is
“to protect the safety and wellbeing of children”
and
“to follow expert clinical advice and take an evidence-led approach”.
We, like the previous Government will be sticking to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, used the word “outsourcing”. I do not believe that the last Government outsourced responsibility when NHS England commissioned a review from the most respected paediatrician in this area, the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Cass, who we are fortunate to have with us now in the House. I do not believe the last Government outsourced. I think they took a responsible, evidence-led approach.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, said at the time of her review:
“This is an area of remarkably weak evidence”.
Again, I agree. It is also important to observe a very strong divergence of medical opinion. There is always a choice. We can continue with uncertainty in an unsafe setting, where there is that strong divergence of medical opinion, or we can seek the evidence. Nobody in your Lordships’ House can predict the evidence because it does not exist yet.
As I say, I think the previous Government had the right approach, which was why we supported it in opposition. They accepted the recommendations of the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and, again, I feel that that is the responsible way forward.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the use of puberty-suppressing hormones has been banned indefinitely for gender dysphoria outside of research settings, so the trial we are talking about today is being set up to gather the evidence that the last Government wanted and we continue to want.
The trial was first approved by regulators in November 2025 and in February the MHRA requested changes to the trial protocol to make it even safer. This is quite normal in how these matters are dealt with. Perhaps I can give the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, the clear assurance that the changes to make it safer—which is absolutely the right thing to do—were around the age of those included in the trial, and monitoring possible impacts on bone density, future fertility and cognitive abilities. These are all points and concerns rightly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and have indeed been raised on a number of occasions in your Lordships’ House. I emphasise that it is usual for dialogue such as this to take place during a trial.
Reference was made to safeguards. There are a number listed. Again, I would ask noble Lords to look at them, but I will mention some of them. Children can participate only with the consent of a parent or guardian, and the child themselves must consent or assent. To the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, they can participate only if they are not subject to any safeguarding concerns, and if there is sufficient understanding by the young person—but also by their parent or guardian—of the nature of the treatment and its potential advantages and disadvantages. They can participate only if they have been deemed clinically appropriate by both the NHS care team and the national multidisciplinary team, and only if they are already accessing NHS gender services, including participating in a tailored package of psychosocial care.
All these safeguards rightly build in considerable safety preservation and ensure that it is the right people. I emphasise that there is no compulsion to take part in a trial, and indeed just getting close to one is a rigorous process. Due to ongoing legal proceedings, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, recruitment on to the trial will not begin immediately. We are currently in a set-up period, and we will set out our future plans in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred to protecting researchers from “relentless” attacks. I hope the whole of your Lordships’ House would agree with that. Those who carry out research and those who lead reviews—such as the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and indeed many others on our own Benches—in many different areas have been subject to the most relentless attacks. These have not all been via social media: sometimes they have been physical attacks. Violence is totally unacceptable and we cannot condone it in any way.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, I say that prospective participants will indeed have comprehensive information on the advantages and the potential risks, in a way that speaks to how they need that information. The minimum ages were agreed through detailed scientific discussions between the MHRA and the trial sponsor. This is all driven by what will provide the right evidence that we need for decisions, and that evidence is clinically led. I return to the point about age, which I know exercises noble Lords, and is a fair question to raise. It was recognised during discussions between the trial sponsor and the MHRA that the right balance had to be struck between the maturity level of participants and providing treatment at the most clinically appropriate point in puberty. That would, of course, be earlier for birth-registered females compared with birth-registered males.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cass, may make this point herself, but I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who will be available for a drop-in discussion with anybody who would like to go into more detail. I hope that noble Lords will avail themselves of that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, asked whether the Government had carried out an assessment of future liability. All research trials are expected to have appropriate insurance, and this one will. It will take into account any potential risks in a financial setting, as the noble Baroness referred to.
I will address one final point, although I am always happy to assist if noble Lords have other questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, asked about six out of seven clinics not releasing data. Data is very important. That is why NHS England is re-engaging with data-sharing organisations, on which the data study will be dependent. Of course, that is separate to this trial, but we absolutely expect all commissioned adult gender services to collaborate with the study to ensure its successful completion.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House that the next 20 minutes are for questions from Back-Benchers only.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the Minister. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned the need for data and scientific evidence. For the sake of transparency, we should mention that the Liberal Democrats received £1.33 million from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, which produces some of these puberty blockers. Further, just for clarification, Sex Matters has never believed that trans people do not exist. It is important to put that on the record.
I will press the Minister on the data linkage studies, because we would not need to put forward 226 vulnerable young people had NHS England and Ministers acted with a more robust strategy two years ago, when we raised this issue in the House, and forced the data linkage information from GIDS and others to be released so that it could be peer reviewed. Had that happened, we would have all the data on the short-term implications of these puberty blockers and on the long-term ramifications, and we therefore would not need this dangerous and risky puberty blockers trial, which, I have to say to the House, is going to be subject to very significant litigation.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am sure that the noble Lord will understand from my earlier comments that I do not accept the characterisation of the trial. I urge all noble Lords to look at the facts on the safety provisions, requirements and stringency, which have massively increased—perhaps since some noble Lords originally looked at the matter. Implicit in the noble Lord’s query is to question why we are having a clinical trial when there are a number of children who have already taken puberty blockers. That is a fair question, but I remind the noble Lord that the conclusion of the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, was that there was not enough evidence, for all the reasons I referred to.
It might be helpful to make clear that the information collected by the linkage study, to which the noble Lord referred, is much more limited than the detailed information that the research team will be able to collect on the relative benefits and the risks. I confirm that NHS England, which is responsible for the data linkage study, is taking the time to ensure that data is shared by the relevant organisations—which, after all, is exactly what we are all after.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is such a shame that the party opposite resiled from cross-party agreement on this research. It is fair to question its motivation for doing that and possibly reach the conclusion that it is unsympathetic to trans people. I welcome the Statement and my noble friend’s calm approach, which contrasts sharply with some of the language that has been used around this important issue. When it comes to the PATHWAYS trial, does my noble friend agree that we must follow the science and avoid vilification, polarising language and politicisation, for the good of young people and our communities?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly do agree with my noble friend. Indeed, her observations apply to any matters in respect of health, which should be evidence-led, based on fact, and based and rooted in scientific evidence. What we are dealing with here, as I said, is effectively a choice: a choice to do nothing and continue not providing the right healthcare in a safe and correct manner or to seek the evidence, as an independent review by the most esteemed paediatrician—as I said, it started under the previous Government, and rightly so—has advised us to do. I must emphasise that, if anybody listened, as I did, to the Secretary of State making his Statement in the House of Commons, I hope they will have got a sense that, actually, no one has jumped into this decision. What the Secretary of State said was that it was important to step back and look at the evidence. He himself told the Chamber how challenging he felt that was. I ask noble Lords never to underestimate how challenging this is, no matter what Government, what party, or what individual.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I agree with what the noble Baroness just said, but I have to say, before I ask my question, that I am hugely disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has chosen to question the motives of parliamentarians who are raising legitimate questions. That is no way for us to deal with an issue that is incredibly sensitive and involves children.
Clearly, a lot of very elaborate safeguarding protections are being put in place for this trial. There is an argument sometimes, when so much of that kind of thing is necessary, whether that in itself tells us something that we need to know about such a trial. However, if the trial leads to the puberty blockers being given the go-ahead, what can she tell us about the extent of the protections and safeguards that will be made available to all children who would then be eligible for these drugs? My concern, if they do become widely available, is that the pressure from teenagers to get access to those drugs will mean that it will not be possible to control it in quite the same way as this trial is being controlled at this time.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making but, in answer to her first question, this is not outwith any trial or intervention because there always has to be the clinical evidence and the approach to make sure that we are always seeking benefit, not harm. I am glad that the noble Baroness acknowledged the extensive safeguards. I hope that would reassure your Lordships’ House. Indeed, for children and young people who do take part in the trial, there will, for example, be repeated follow-up physical checks, questionnaires, blood tests, bone density scans and cognitive testing, all at the relevant time points. There will be psychosocial care throughout the trial. Importantly, the protocol also clarifies that, where there are significant concerns—again, I know this is a matter of concern about psychological well-being—that case then has to be promptly reviewed by the right clinician.
As for the future, I think we should wait for what the trial says. I am not going to speculate. I point out that we are not waiting, in terms of NHS care and support. Three services for children and young people have already opened in north-west London and in the south-west for those with gender dysphoria. NHS England will aim to deliver service provision in each region of England by the end of 2026-27. Again, that programme of work, rightly, was started under the previous Government. I think we all acknowledge that there are young people with gender dysphoria. They are to be seen, supported and dealt with in the most caring, appropriate and scientifically evidenced way possible.
Baroness Cass (CB)
My Lords, this is complex, and people across both sides of the House share one objective: to be cautious, careful and protective of children and young people. It is not my place here to answer many of the perfectly valid questions that have been raised, but I am developing a briefing based on proceedings in the Commons yesterday and I am listening carefully today, so I will not pick up on issues around the linkage study. I will refer to the Minister on one or two things.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, is right to say that the vast majority of children and young people desist, but the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is also right to say that some do not. The clinicians working in the new centres are gaining considerable experience and working holistically to try to determine which young people—a tiny number—they feel may benefit from these medications.
I am not worried about the children in the trial but I am seriously worried about the children not in the trial. Approximately 240 children who have come to the new clinics have admitted to being on an extraordinary cocktail of medications, including testosterone from age 11, with facial hair at 13. Why are they doing this? They are not being perverse: we have told them for 15 years that these drugs are safe, effective and even life-saving, so is it any surprise that they will now go to any lengths to get them? They are not foolish, and they say they want to know the answers on that. We as the medical profession have created this issue, so it is on our heads to solve it. Does the Minister agree with me that the children in the trial will be at considerably less risk than the ones we know about who have come to the NHS and the very many more we are aware of who are not coming to the NHS but are going straight to rogue providers?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness and I thank her for the offer of the briefing, which I mentioned earlier, and for her observations. I associate myself with what she said about the complexity of the matter, which is why I take it so seriously. The fact is that this situation exists. I am exercised about those who are accessing puberty blockers in an unregulated fashion. It is extremely concerning, which is another reason for this trial, as well as the services being set up. That is why we indefinitely banned the sale and supply of puberty blockers via private prescriptions, taking effect from January 2025. If offences are committed then those involved will be brought to justice, and rightly so.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, in my pre-political life I was a senior teacher at a very large comprehensive school, and responsible for child protection and what used to be called pastoral care. I dealt with lots of children who were confused about their sexuality, their place in the world and many other issues. I am afraid that I too would have asked the questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, asked, based on that real experience. My question is aligned to my past experience. Studies show that a disproportionate number of children and adolescents with gender distress have neurodivergent conditions, such as autism. These are protected under the Equality Act. Could the Minister explain how neurodivergence was taken into account when designing the PATHWAYS trial, in particular the consent process—that is what troubles me the most, if I am honest—and any equality impact assessment?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness gives me the chance to reiterate that all the questions are valid. We are dealing with a complex, sensitive and difficult issue. What matters is that we get to the right place. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, said, I know we are all agreed on protecting children and young people. That is our motivation.
The noble Baroness asked about consent. As I said, children can participate only with the consent of a parent or a guardian, and the children themselves must consent or assent. The individual circumstances and nature of a child will be closely considered as part of the consideration. That is absolutely crucial. Children and young people may participate only if they are not subject to any safeguarding concerns. I am happy to speak in greater detail to the noble Baroness. All of this will be extremely rigorous, and rightly so. When we talk about the trial, we are talking about volunteers—that is crucial. They can participate only if they have been deemed clinically appropriate by both the NHS care team and the national multidisciplinary team. There is, correctly, the opportunity at every level to consider every child or young person as an individual, which is so important.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
As some noble Lords know, I have some experience in my own family of the challenges around gender dysphoria and the difficulties for the trans community. I also have the experience of my mother, who was a haematologist at a time when there were great controversies surrounding that discipline. I was struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, said: there are GPs, psychiatrists and paediatricians—all sorts of medical professionals—wrestling with what the evidence may or may not show. While this is an extraordinarily difficult area, does the Minister agree that, in a world where there have been difficulties in the recent past, the responsibility of legislators is to try to equip all those professionals in the future with a clinically approved and evidence-led approach? It is only by having a highly safeguarded trial that we will move forward in a way that supports professionals operating in this area. If we demonise those individuals, the risk is that we never secure the evidence we need for the future.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree with that. In the Statement itself, the Secretary of State made the point that PATHWAYS is rightly one of the most scrutinised UK clinical trials of recent times. I am sure we all welcome that.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I would like to take the Minister down memory lane and explore with her the Mental Health Act and consent by those under 16. Can she confirm the law relating to that is still Gillick competence? My other questions follow on from that. In the situation where within the research programme they determine that the child is Gillick competent but the parents disagree, what remedies do the parents have and would they be able to go to court to challenge that, and be funded to do that? On the reverse, if the child is not deemed to be Gillick competent to give consent, and then the parents can give consent but are in dispute with each other, what remedies are there for them to settle that matter, and would they be funded to bring any such remedy?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will approach this in the most straightforward way I know. Obviously, if there are other matters, I would be very happy to talk to the noble Baroness, as I have before. From my point of view, the number one safeguard is not an either/or. Participation can occur only with the consent of a parent or guardian and—not or—the child themselves. In some of the circumstances the noble Baroness raised, that will not be an issue. Clearly, if there is any doubt about consent, assent or suitability, the child or young person will not be included in the trial; it is only where it can be shown that all the safeguards apply.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to both sides of the argument, which is very emotional and charged because people hold strict views on the trans community or the risks to children. Without the clinical trial, where will we be? Is not the clinical trial needed to answer some of the very questions that have been asked?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord takes me back to where I started. This Government, any Government, have a choice, but there is no neutral option here. We know that the status quo—which the last Government accepted and the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, clearly identified—is totally unacceptable and young people are not being protected. It would not be responsible to do nothing about that. We can discuss and disagree or agree about what the right thing is to do, but in his Statement, the Secretary of State made it clear that he has a responsibility to look at evidence and take clinical advice. That is the right thing to do.
Sporting Events Bill [HL]
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
“(5A) The provisions of sub-paragraph (1) are not breached by the use of a representation by the holder of a premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003, Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 and the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 if—(a) the representation is used solely for the purpose of indicating to members of the public that the licensed premises will be screening or broadcasting the sporting event,(b) the use of the representation does not suggest, expressly or by implication, that the licensed premises is an official sponsor of, or otherwise commercially associated with, the sporting event or its organiser, or(c) the representation has previously been used for a continued amount of time, independently of the sporting event taking place.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that, in the case of a sporting event being hosted in an area where a small or medium-sized enterprise’s (SME) pre-existing advertising may conflict with an advertising provision as laid out in this Bill, that SME is protected proportionately.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee—I had not quite got myself in the right position to start proceedings. This is a probing amendment that looks at some of the minor problems that arise when a big Bill such as this comes out. The amendment probably refers more than it should to licensed premises, but it is a way of finding out how the Government perceive we should proceed. For those small firms that are making a living and are affected by this, what happens next if we take on the structures in the Bill? This has been one of the small niggles we have had about these Bills and processes. Let us see if we can get it right or at least give certainty to those affected. I beg to move.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, at Second Reading, I raised the example of the butcher in Weymouth who, during the 2012 Paralympics and Olympics, was threatened with a £20,000 fine because he displayed in his shop window five strings of sausages in the shape of the five Olympic rings. He eventually got around this by changing the circles into squares, but it was a rather ludicrous example of the extremes to which some of the arrangements can go.
We are in a bit of difficulty, because before us we have a framework Bill which refers to lots of regulations to come, but we do not know what they will be. Yet at the same time, we all want to ensure that particularly SMEs can share in the benefit of hosting the sorts of events covered by the Bill. We therefore need to ensure that the regulations on association are flexible enough to protect the sponsors, who have paid a lot of money, but not be overly zealous in how we treat our small businesses, particularly those where the event is taking place.
Although my noble friend’s amendment relates to licensed premises, it could equally apply to all others. I want to test with the Minister a couple of questions. I am genuinely delighted that the impact assessment and Explanatory Memorandum, on pages 19 and 20, already give many exceptions that the Government are planning to introduce and which presumably will be picked up in the regulations. However, there are one or two areas where they do not go as far as many of the major sporting bodies have already gone. In 2012, many of our athletes were upset at not being allowed in any way, shape or form to thank the various people who had sponsored them over many years—an example could be one of my noble friend’s licensed premises supporting a particular athlete. They were not allowed to do so because of the tight restrictions: there was no way there could be any link between that unofficial sponsor and the individual athlete.
Equally, there were very strong regulations concerning what words could and could not be used. There was a whole list: you could not use “champion”; you could not even mention “London”, let alone “2012”. I am delighted that the IOC has, through changes to rule 40, made significant relaxations that now allow, for example, under certain circumstances, an athlete to thank their unofficial sponsor and the unofficial sponsor to refer to the athlete they have supported. There are various conditions around that.
However, there have also been changes to the language. The butcher I referred to earlier would now be allowed, under the IOC rules, to say “champion banger” or “gold medal sausage”. So, significant changes have taken place. Will the Minister ensure that relaxations and flexibilities such as those already introduced by the IOC for the Olympic and Paralympic Games will be covered by the regulations that will follow for each of the events covered by the Bill?
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the observations made by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Foster. This follows the line of the issues I raised on Monday concerning the impact assessment and the various impacts on small businesses. This amendment is clearly a probing amendment, but it is intended to establish protections for small businesses that may by chance get picked up in one way or another. We must ensure that we do not damage those businesses. As many of us said on Monday, mission creep ends up negatively impacting small businesses, often by chance.
I welcome the broad principle of this amendment, and I hope that further discussions will ensure that those protections, whether they be for individuals or businesses, are pursued.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and other noble Lords for their gold medal contributions today—if I am allowed to say that, at this stage at least. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and my noble friend Lord Hayward set out, there are quite often unintended consequences, the sausage being a perfect example of what we would all agree is a disproportionate response. I think all we are talking about here are common-sense provisions in all of this, which I know are very difficult to draft into any sort of amendment, but which at the same time I think we would all agree would be sensible. With that, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for tabling Amendment 58, which would introduce an exception to prohibition on unauthorised association. I understand that this amendment seeks to ensure that a licensed premises’ use of representations in pre-existing advertising material will not breach the prohibition, providing that the use does not suggest that the premises is an official sponsor of, or otherwise commercially associated with, a sporting event to which the unauthorised association provisions have been applied.
I can assure the Committee that a licensed premises’ use, or indeed any wider business use, of pre-existing advertising materials in this way will not breach the prohibition on unauthorised association. That is because the prohibition on unauthorised association applies only where a business uses a representation in a way that is likely to suggest to the public that it has an official association with the event. It is for event owners to agree with athletes and their individual sponsors—in response to the noble Lord, Lord Foster—the types of promotional activity that are to be permitted during an event. That is not for legislation.
I can also provide assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the Bill expressly provides that a business will not breach the prohibition on unauthorised association by providing factual information about the services it provides. The intention of this exception in paragraph 3(4)(b) of Schedule 4 is to enable businesses to factually describe goods sold and services they provide in the course of their normal business, where this is done in accordance with honest business practice. For example, a pub will be able to state that it is screening Euro 2028 matches without breaching the unauthorised association prohibition, provided it does not imply that it has an official association with Euro 2028. A B&B will also be able to state that it is within walking distance of a venue for Euro 2028 without breaching the prohibition.
We want to ensure that local businesses can show their support for major sporting events and we will work with event organisers to ensure that this is the case. The prohibition applies only to activity that would suggest to the public an official association with an event, meaning that there was a realistic chance that everyday members of the public would consider that such an association existed. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, cited the case of Olympic sausages; the example I have been asking officials about as I have gone through it is whether it is likely or unlikely that this Bill would prevent a local bakery selling football-themed cupcakes in support of Euro 2028, and I have been assured that it is not likely that that would happen. So, for the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply. Yes, I think the idea is that everybody is saying, can we avoid what we can only describe as the cock-up school of history? That is when something goes wrong that is unintended and gets in the way of the enjoyment here. I will take away what the noble Baroness has said, speak to people and see whether it is enough, because we might want to have a go again if it is seen that there is still some danger and we need some more clarity. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and hope that we do not have to return to it—but if we do, we do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(2A) A plan prepared under this Schedule must—(a) have regard to sustainable modes of transport, including public transport, walking and cycling,(b) aim to minimise greenhouse gas emissions associated with travel to and from sporting events, and(c) include arrangements for admission tickets to a sporting event to confer entitlement to travel on specified public transport services serving the event.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that transport plans for sporting events promote public transport and other sustainable modes of travel and seek to minimise transport-related emissions, and include integrated ticketing arrangements allowing spectators to travel on public transport using their event tickets.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Thank you. I am so sorry I was not at Second Reading. This is very much the sort of thing that I feel very strongly about. My three amendments in this group are on three different topics. One is transport, one is sustainability reporting and the third is on climate duty, all of which I feel very strongly about. I am going to find it hard not to bring these back if there is not progress.
It is extraordinary that this week, the hottest June day ever for the UK has been measured in Surrey. We are hotter here than California’s Death Valley, and that is saying something. We really are not weatherproofed and we are not heat-proofed. We are very lucky in this Chamber. I sat in Portcullis House at 9 am this morning: it was baking. We stewed in there. Of course, a lot of people do not have the advantage of air conditioning like this in their offices and in their public places.
I find it extraordinary that, in a week where parts of Britain have once again seen record temperatures, when red warnings have been issued because of extreme heat, and when climate change is impossible to ignore, we are debating a Bill that contains detailed provisions on transport planning for major sporting events but does not mention climate impact once.
Schedule 5 goes into considerable detail about transport plans. It tells organisers what they should consider, how they should co-ordinate and what arrangements should be put in place. Yet there is absolutely nothing about the environmental impact of those transport arrangements. For major sporting events, transport is often the biggest source of emissions. At the Birmingham Commonwealth Games, spectator travel accounted for more than half of the event’s carbon footprint. At Euro 2024, fan travel accounted for almost 80% of emissions. We need to be serious about reducing the environmental impact of major sporting events, and transport is the obvious place to start.
This amendment has two components. The first is that transport plans should have regard to sustainable travel options,
“including public transport, walking and cycling”,
and should seek to “minimise greenhouse gas emissions”. I am sure the Minister is well aware of all the work that happened in Ken Livingstone’s period at the London Assembly: we achieved a lot. The Government already tell us that rail is one of the greenest ways to travel. The Government’s own active travel investment strategy tells us that walking and cycling help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So we need to tell event organisers to take account of what the Government already recognise to be the lower-carbon options. Parliament has gone much further before, such as in the London Olympics, the majority of which was planned in the period of Ken Livingstone in London, and I am suggesting that we can do that in my later Amendment 88.
The second element concerns integrated ticketing. If we want people to leave their cars at home, we need to make the alternative the easy option for them. Again, we have a very recent and very successful example. Every match ticket for Euro 2024 came with a 36-hour public transport pass built into the ticket price. The result was a success, because more than 80% of fans travelled to venues by public transport and fewer than 5% travelled by car, and hundreds of thousands of rail journeys were made between host cities. This was achieved by making the sustainable choice the convenient choice. Integrated ticketing also benefits spectators. It is easier, cuts costs, and helps avoid congestion around venues. It improves the experience of fans while reducing emissions.
That seems a rare example of a policy that is good for the climate, organisers and the public. If there were ever an example of why we need to be adding in these amendments and preparing for climate resilience travel, it is today, when trains are cancelled due to heat and people are being asked not to travel. The Climate Change Committee has warned that climate risk will increasingly affect the operation of major events. When tens of thousands of people are trying to reach a venue within a narrow timeframe, those risks become particularly acute. What would it look like if we had today’s weather on the day of the Euro 2028 final?
Asking those preparing transport plans to think about sustainability and resilience is absolutely vital. The Government’s own impact assessment argues that legislation is necessary because voluntary arrangements alone do not provide sufficient certainty and consistency. If legislation is needed to ensure transport plans work effectively, why should climate impacts and climate resilience be left entirely to chance? Given the climate challenges we face and the examples of best practice we have already seen across Europe, that seems the very least we can expect.
On Amendment 87, on sustainability reporting, we hear the same language every time a major sporting event is bid for, such as world-leading sustainability, greenest games ever and low-carbon legacy, and it all sounds incredibly impressive at the time. But I get a bit fed up with the gap between the promises made and what actually happens. The Paris Olympics, for example, set itself up as the lowest-carbon games yet. In some respects, it did better than previous Olympics: emissions were lower than London or Rio, largely because they reused venues, cut down on new construction and made some sensible choices about energy and materials. But when you look a bit closer, the picture gets more complicated. Transport still dominated emissions; international travel still drove a huge carbon footprint; and, in the end, we are talking about millions of tonnes of CO2. Yes, there was progress, but it also showed something else very clearly: without proper reporting, it becomes very hard to know what was genuinely achieved, what was just assumed and what was simply good marketing.
That is the point of this amendment. We should not be relying on glossy bid documents and press releases to tell us whether promises have been kept. If we are serious about sustainability being part of these events, then we need to be just as serious about checking afterwards whether it actually happened. Right now, too often, the pattern is this: big promises at the bidding stage; celebration at the event; and very little scrutiny afterwards. This amendment says that, if you make environmental commitments before the event, you report on them afterwards—accurately, obviously—so that we can see what was delivered and was not.
Of course, there are already sustainability requirements for major sporting events, but they are patchy and inconsistent. Some bids are strong, while others are vague; some report properly, while others barely report at all. That makes it very hard to know what is actually being delivered. We need something more uniform: clear expectations that commitments are measured properly and reported before and after the event. Without that consistency, we are not tracking progress; we are just collecting promises—and, quite frankly, people are getting tired of empty promises.
Amendment 88 is on climate duty. We have had this kind of duty at past events—for example, in the London Olympics framework, where sustainability and wider environmental considerations were explicitly built into delivery. What we are seeing here in the Bill is a step backwards from that approach, just at the point when climate risks are more immediate, not less. We are told, including in the Government’s forthcoming major events strategy, that major events will continue to drive economic growth, enhance the UK’s soft power across the globe and strengthen social cohesion. Of course, they can do those things, but they cannot only be about that, and they certainly cannot deliver those benefits at the expense of our climate and environmental responsibility.
At the moment, the Bill is built around delivery, organisation and facilitation, but it is silent on sustainability. We need to put in place something that should already be clear here: a clear duty that, when exercising functions under the Bill, we must have regard to greenhouse gas emissions, sustainable transport, waste reduction and the UK’s climate and environmental targets. We can continue with a system where climate is assumed to be somebody else’s problem, or we can put in place a basic duty that ensures it is properly considered every time decisions are made on these events. I beg to move.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 91 seeks to insert a duty to clear up waste after a sporting event. This is a probing amendment that puts a clear, time-bound duty on the relevant local authority to keep event areas clear of litter and refuse during the event and to clean them at its conclusion. It extends explicitly to the public processions and assemblies connected with the event—the parades, fan zones and crowds—not only the stadium.
Why is this needed? I speak from lived experience and may incur the ire of the noble Baroness sat near me. Three weeks ago, as an Islington resident, I saw exactly what happens when no one is clearly responsible. On the morning after Arsenal’s title parade, the residential streets around me were strewn with broken glass, vomit, bottles, cans and bins overflowing. In its own guidance before the event, the council said, “We’re not putting any additional Portaloos out, so you’ll just have to find a pub or cafe to go in”. I pity people who live in the area who have a garden.
It is just crazy. Arsenal is not a poor club. It has just won the league. It is known to be a very financially successful club. Either Islington Council did not charge it enough money for the clean-up or the council funnelled the money that it got into another expense. Either way, it was unacceptable, especially considering the extortionate amount of council tax that I pay.
It stayed that way for the better part of 48 hours. There was no overnight clean-up. I had to steer my child around broken glass on the way to nursery drop-off. It is completely unacceptable. I am not a party pooper, I think the parade should absolutely have gone ahead, but residents already had to live through the parade; the least that could be expected is that it would be cleaned up properly afterwards.
For an example of how it can be done differently, turn your mind to Kensington and Chelsea and another big multi-day event that happens—with millions of people, so we are talking about exactly the same kind of scale. I know it has its fans and detractors, but Notting Hill Carnival happens over two days and by the Tuesday it is absolutely spotless on those streets. That is because the council gets a grip of the situation. I dare say Arsenal Football Club has a lot more money and funds available than the organisers of Notting Hill Carnival. So, there is something to be looked at there.
Why does this matter for the Bill? This is the framework for the events that we want to host the most: the Euros, the World Cup and the Olympics. They bring processions and assemblies across many host boroughs, over weeks rather than hours. If a single club parade can leave one London borough looking like it did for two days, picture a multi-week tournament with no clean-up duty written into the framework at all. The Bill covers ticketing, advertising, trading and transport, but the most basic civic question is absent: who keeps the streets clean and clears them afterwards?
My amendment would make the duty event specific, time-bound and explicit about processions and assemblies. It would close the gap that residents fall through. I am not wedded to the drafting. I am seeking a commitment in principle. Will the Government ensure that the framework does not leave host communities living with the aftermath and that host authorities are properly resourced to meet this duty, whether funded centrally or recovered from organisers?
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, which follow up the remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in that we ought to write into the Bill the requirement for the sports industry to recognise the effects of climate change and the need to adjust sporting facilities, materials and stadia to the fact that over the next few years we will see significant changes.
There is already a problem. Those of us who have been following the football in America have seen different stadia and different degrees of comfort for players and spectators. I think we need, at least for major events, to look at ways in which we can anticipate this and get the sporting industry to make its contribution towards the modification of climate change in this country and to adaptation to climate change.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I am in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on these amendments. I think she was very wise to bring this before the Committee, because this is a case where many of the international governing bodies and federations— the IOC in particular—have taken a lead. Without this legislation reflecting that, we would be seen to be behind what are important international obligations set by organisations such as the IOC. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, so there is cross-party support for his amendments. Whether the wording is right and sufficiently enabling is a matter for the Government to consider. I declare my interests. As the Minister knows, in 2012 I was chairman of the British Olympic Association, a member of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games and a member of the Olympic Board.
I will develop my argument and the reasons why. The International Olympic Committee has what it calls sustainability essentials, and any city bidding to host the Games has to meet those sustainability essentials when it bids. It then has a sustainability strategy, which it expects governing bodies around the world and all the national Olympic committees associated with the IOC to follow. When it comes to bidding for major events such as the ones we are talking about this afternoon in the context of this Bill, those who are bidding have to meet exceptionally high standards of sustainability and environmental protection, and it is right that they do.
I declare the fact that I sat on two commissions of the International Olympic Committee considering bids from other cities and then advising the members of the International Olympic Committee on the merits of those bids. One of the critical aspects of that was sustainability and the environment. If a city failed to meet those standards, it was very unlikely to succeed. For that reason, in the very early days of working closely with Ken Livingstone, the British Olympic Association sought to place sustainability right at the heart of the London bid that was judged in 2005. When I complete my remarks I will come on to the exceptionally important point that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made about judging the environmental legacy.
All credit should be given in this Committee for the work of Sir John Armitt and the Olympic Delivery Authority. Sir John Armitt is one of the most outstanding men of his generation when it comes to engineering and the work he did as chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority—the body that organised the building of the venues, facilities and infrastructure for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games—and the key environmental measures he implemented over several strategic areas, including waste management. He diverted 100% of operational waste away from landfill. An impressive 99% of waste generated from venue construction and decommissioning was reused or recycled.
On energy and emissions—an important point for the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on every occasion that he contributes to a debate such as this—it was incumbent on the ODA to cut carbon dioxide emissions by at least 20% compared with standard practices, so even where it was expected that we would see reductions, we had to go 20% further. The Olympic park energy centre utilised a combined cooling, heating and power system alongside biomass boilers burning sustainable fuels—far more sustainable than at Drax, I might add. Then there was the sustainable construction. The Olympic Stadium was built to be the most sustainable in Olympic history, repurposing old gas pipes and reducing materials.
Water conservation was important. Water was a serious challenge to the organisers of the Games in 2012, because the quality of the water that we had to achieve was tough to meet. For the organisers of the Games, it took many days of discussions with Thames Water at the time to meet the standards that the International Olympic Committee required in its contract with London to host the Games.
On the biodiversity side, the ODA implemented an Olympic biodiversity action plan to restore local rivers. Everyone knows what the East End of London looked like before the work started to bring the Games to London. They planted over 300,000 wetland plants and installed hundreds of bat and bird boxes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked about public transport. It was a requirement that, when it came to hosting in London, we had to design a public transport Games that banned spectator parking at venues and instead relied entirely on public transit, walking and cycling networks to manage emissions.
I mention those as examples, but there are many more. Many committees were put in place to implement one of the most impressive sustainability Games there has ever been. That was made even more difficult at the time because the transformation of the Lower Lea Valley into the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park required the most comprehensive environmental enabling works ever undertaken in the United Kingdom. Before 2007, when the work started, the 246-hectare site was nicknamed “London’s scrapyard”, serving a neglected, heavily polluted brownfield site packed with light industry, active landfills, a soap factory, gasworks and overhead power pylons. A great deal of work was done on site clearance and deconstruction. Over 98% of all demolition materials were recycled and directly reused in the new infrastructure. Workers removed 52 massive overhead electricity pylons and buried 13 kilometres of power cables in deep underground tunnels.
Then there was the green cleaning up: the soil washing. The soil was choked with a century of industrial toxins, including oil, tar, arsenic, lead and cyanide. Soil hospitals were created. The Olympic Delivery Authority, again under Sir John Armitt, set up onsite laboratories and five industrial soil-washing machines. A huge amount of work was done, and I would be very happy to talk at length about it because I am proud of the work that we did in London 2012. The reason for mentioning a number of these examples is to reinforce how import it is that, with legislation of this kind, when we are sending a signal to the world of sport that we want these major events to come, and they are going to pick up this Act, as hopefully it will then be, and look at it, if they do not see a real commitment to environmental sustainability on the face of the measure, they will question why, especially since we cover so many other aspects.
We need to find the right words that make it enabling. We must not be too prescriptive, because the prescription may be even tougher when it comes to the International Olympic Committee, FIFA or an international federation. But there is merit in looking at this seriously and I hope the Minister will respond positively. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has done a service to the Committee by tabling these amendments, as have the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and my noble friend. If we can attempt to find a framework to add to the Bill along the lines that they have suggested, the Bill will be significantly improved.
Lord Mawson (CB)
I was not going to speak on this, but I thought I might follow the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, because we both spent many years of our lives grappling with the London Olympics.
I first became involved in the London Olympics in 1999. The first meeting on day 1 was with someone called Richard Sumray, someone called Paul Brickell and myself. We met at the Bromley by Bow Centre over coffee and began to wonder, first, what would it be like to take on Paris in 2012 when it was the next city on the list? And where on earth was there enough land to do such a project?
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I just want to make a few comments on this. The idea that we would not have some sort of ongoing environmental impact built into one of these assessments is unthinkable, to be perfectly honest. The exact wording used in any of these might not be the one that has come through, but there should be something in there. There has been in previous projects and should continue to be. I hope the Minister will stand up and say, “Yes, it’s here, it will go in, here is the assurance”, because without it we have missed a trick and gone backwards on ourselves.
I remember the arguments about the roof. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, might think I was being flippant because, as someone who was consistently raising this, I stood up and said, “If you’re that bothered, I’ll have your ticket”. We can go on about such things, but let us remember that it was about the Games. It should be in here, but we need make sure it is the norm, because if it is exceptional then we are going backwards. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us that assurance when she speaks.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for leading the debate on this series of amendments. As she says, it is unavoidably in our minds today in the current heatwave. I am sure that noble Lords are particularly grateful to all the organisers of major sporting events who are working to adapt and tailor their events to the extreme temperatures that we are experiencing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is right to point to the importance of public and sustainable transport options. She is also right that they enhance the experience of people who are attending sporting events, both large and small. I have declared my interest in Formula 1 and my interest in the register of attending the British Grand Prix weekend last year. I did so by train and on the shuttle bus that the organisers at the Silverstone Circuit have been working so hard to make available, so that people can travel there in a sustainable manner. This was part of the broader commitment by Formula 1 to be net zero by 2030. Sports organisations, governing bodies and international bodies are all doing a great deal in order to provide the leadership and the changes that people rightly expect.
Major sporting events can be important focal points and rallying cries. As outlined in the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, they can be catalysts for important change in this area. He and my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke about the experience of the work done in the run-up to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned water quality. I thought, too, about the extensive debates in Paris about the quality of the water in the River Seine. When hosting these events, there is an important opportunity to bring focus to those discussions. Towards the end of his contribution, my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned ensuring that anything we do here is enabling and not too prescriptive, that it gets the balance right and acknowledges the leadership that many sporting bodies are already providing to try to achieve this. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, are right to raise this: there is merit in looking at what we can do with this legislation to drive that change in a positive way. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Amendment 95, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, refers to the major events strategy. Again, this is an area where it would be helpful to hear some of the Government’s thinking and whether there will there be a section on the environment and sustainability when it comes out.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harlech. Like my noble friend Lord Moynihan, he was unable to be here at Second Reading for constitutional reasons, but I am very glad to have him back in his place in your Lordships’ House. He has provided a strong example of the benefit of having a young, working parent on our Benches, taking part in debates such as this. On behalf of the residents of Islington and north London, he powerfully set out the impact of the celebrations that took place. Sadly, these were not dealt with and cleared up by Islington Council in the manner people would have expected—and certainly the manner that those who pay the large council tax in that borough would want.
I congratulate my noble friend on not reigniting the row that he had with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—who is a staunch Arsenal fan—during the debates on the Football Governance Bill. He has raised a very serious matter in this debate, and he clearly explained the impact that these things have. I hope the Minister will take seriously the concerns that he raised and make sure that the impact of major sporting events, and celebrations such as that, do not cause such hazards, inconvenience and dangers to local residents who are affected.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and my noble friend Lord Whitty for their amendments. As highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, there was clearly considerable consensus during the debate. I will, I hope, add to that a little, but I will probably not go as far as noble Lords would like.
This Government fully agree that environmental sustainability should be, and is, at the heart of planning and delivering the major sporting events that we host, not least—as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out—as we experience the extreme heat of this week. I, for one, am delighted to be in your Lordships’ Committee this afternoon, rather than outside in the extreme temperatures.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her work on the London Assembly and as deputy mayor for the environment and on sustainable travel. It was fascinating to hear from noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Mawson, about their work relating to London 2012. It was a reminder of the true expertise and experience in your Lordships’ House, which the ministerial team in DCMS is keen to make use of. This should not be seen as an issue that is not cross-party. It is our desire, and it is in all our interests, to make sure that we use the expertise and experience in your Lordships’ House. I will set in motion the setting up of a ministerial meeting with people who have been involved in previous bids. Why would the Government not want to benefit from the considerable knowledge that we have?
On the approach taken in the Bill, and to give just one example, we are proud of last year’s Women’s Rugby World Cup, which introduced a dedicated environmental sustainability programme across all eight host venues in England. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, we need to learn from current practice to get the balance right. The sector is already doing a lot.
Amendment 59 relates to sustainable transport. This Government recognise the importance of sustainable travel and are committed to supporting effective transport planning that helps spectators reach major sporting events safely, efficiently and, where possible, by lower-carbon modes of transport. This issue is not about the desirability of those modes of transport in principle but whether these detailed requirements should be mandated in primary legislation.
The Government’s view is that the plans prepared under Schedule 5 retain sufficient flexibility to reflect different venues, events and local transport networks. For those reasons, we do not consider it appropriate to prescribe this level of operational detail in the Bill. Major sporting events already vary significantly in scale, location, venue layout, spectator profile and local transport provision. Requiring admission tickets to confer entitlements to travel on specific public transport services would not always be within the gift of an event organiser or designated body. It may depend on commercial agreements between multiple transport operators, as well as on existing ticketing systems, service capacity and local network coverage.
It could cause unintended consequences for people using trains to commute in a sustainable way. As someone who lives on a train line that covers Wembley, I regularly share trains with people travelling to events. Most recently, when travelling while the Harry Styles concerts were taking place, I felt very underdressed— I lacked the sequins that seemed to be a requirement. In this Government’s view, sustainable transport is better secured through proportionate, locally appropriate event planning, rather than through potentially inflexible statutory requirements, but we agree that using sustainable transport is the aim.
I turn to Amendments 87 and 88, which would require organisers of events to which the Bill’s framework has been applied to publish reports on the environmental impacts associated with the event, and require the Secretary of State and event organises to have regard to climate and environmental objectives when exercising their functions under the Bill. Again, we agree with the spirit of these amendments. This is why the Bill explicitly stipulates that a sporting event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or a part of it in order for the framework to be applied. Social benefit here encompasses environmental and climate impact.
Lord Mawson (CB)
I thank the Minister for raising the point about us maybe sharing some of the knowledge we gained through the Olympics. I certainly would be really willing to do that, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, would as well. Some of us are concerned that, under successive Governments, lessons are not being learned from some of these projects. Some of us care a lot about the future of east London, and I worry that just a mile down the road, at the Royal Docks, we are not learning the lessons and are in danger of building the next phase of poverty in the East End of London, with developments literally with weeds between them. With the Olympic park, we were clear that we were building a mixed community that would connect housing, jobs and skills, health, and a whole range of enterprise and sport together in an integrated development.
I share with the Minister the thought that we need to get better at learning lessons. This Government rightly want to do some major regeneration programmes, which is correct, but I worry that the dots are not being joined here. I worry that if we do not do that then what we are seeing on the Royals will start to happen in lots of other communities across the country. I suspect that a conversation needs to happen—particularly with a new party leader, who may or may not know some of these things about place-making—about how there is an opportunity here that I fear will be missed unless we grab hold of it.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
To confirm, I will set up a meeting with people who have been involved in setting up previous major events. I would not have said that I would without checking with colleagues in the department, so I will try to set that in motion as soon as possible. I thank the noble Lord very much for his offer.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke. On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, I am an Arsenal supporter but I do not take responsibility for every single Arsenal supporter. It is appalling that there was so much waste. I thought he showed great discretion in not mentioning that Islington Council is a Labour council—that was very kind and sweet of him. Sadly, the Greens are only in opposition there, so perhaps by 2028 we might have more sway.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, tabled his Amendment 95 after the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, tabled hers. Had I seen his, I would probably have just supported it, but this has contributed to a debate, so it has been quite useful in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made some very kind comments. After his tabling that regret amendment yesterday on the Climate Change Act, and winning the vote, I really thought I would never speak to him again. But obviously, his kind comments have completely changed my mind. It is a pleasure to agree.
On the difference between the two Mayors of London, Ken Livingstone and Boris, I would just like to say that Ken did all the back-breaking work for the planning and in carrying it through. As for Boris Johnson, to cut any further emissions he put potted plants along the major roads, which was a fairly inadequate way of dealing with carbon emissions. But, you know—that was Boris.
It was fascinating to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, about these different things that happened during the Olympics. I felt quite heavily involved, but I had completely forgotten about the water situation, and all the pre-planning as well, which I did not know anything about. That was all fascinating.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I hope the Conservative Opposition are going to be really heartened by the fact that there was so much support for putting climate change issues into the Bill. Given that we have had support from all around the Chamber, I hope we can do something much more progressive.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that really, this is an obvious thing to do. The Minister knows I have huge respect for her and for her work here, but also at the London Assembly. But the Government have a problem here. With so much unanimity on this issue, the Government have to give way a little bit on this—a bit more than they perhaps want to.
Quite honestly, something that annoys me again and again with this Labour Government is that they talk about climate change, but they just do not get it. They do not see how to apply climate change measures to all the legislation they are putting through. The fact that it was completely left out, especially the transport sustainability issues, I just find astonishing. So, I will be pushing on this. The Government have to be seen to be aware not only of climate change but of the measures we can bring in to improve it.
I do not want to overstate the case, but we are responsible for future generations here. This really matters. I would love to be included in the discussions—although the Minister might not want me there. But if I can be, that would be great. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“(9) A plan under sub-paragraph (1) where the event is expected to attract 50,000 or more attendees on a single day must include—(a) a digital simulation model of anticipated crowd and traffic flows, validated against comparable event data,(b) accessible route modelling specifying the routing available to attendees with mobility impairments,(c) a real-time adaptation protocol that enables the relevant authority to implement AI-assisted adjustments to transport operations during the event, and(d) a post-event data-sharing obligation requiring anonymised crowd and transport flow data to be provided to relevant local authorities within six months of the event's conclusion for legacy infrastructure planning purposes.”Member's explanatory statement
The amendment requires digital twin modelling, which is now standard practice in infrastructure planning and was used, for example, in preparatory work for Euro 2024 in Germany.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to move Amendment 60 and to speak to Amendment 96 in my name. I look forward to the other amendments in this group.
This amendment continues a theme that I began on day one of our Committee debate on the Bill: the singular lack of anything in the Bill to take advantage of all the technologies, if human-led, that have such an incredible impact for the betterment of these major and mega sporting events when we bid and bring them to the United Kingdom.
Amendment 60 in essence just seeks to put in the Bill a digital twin to be part of the transport planning for major events involving 50,000 or more spectators. This would enable a variety of technologies to be deployed to drive a far better experience for spectators, all those involved with the event, and, equally importantly, all those who are not involved but are in the locality.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I support my noble friend Lord Holmes’s amendment. Just over a year ago, Jarrod Bleijie, who is the Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development in Queensland, came to visit this House and listened intently to a debate on sport. One of the aspects that he focused on was that Brisbane was actively integrating digital twin modelling into the preparations for the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The technology is being utilised across several phases of development, including urban planning, venue design and, as my noble friend mentioned in particular, transport optimisation. The points that my noble friend made are very relevant, because the Queensland Government’s SEQ—South East Queensland —digital twin initiative is leveraging predictive analytics to model traffic congestion, crowd movement and transit scheduling. This was exactly the point that my noble friend made about modelling in the locality. On the construction side, foundational projects such as Cross River Rail have built immersive replicas to test structural functionality and simulate passenger flows prior to their completion. There is no doubt that the importance of digital twin modelling in all major spectator sports events is now both understood and implemented.
My noble friend is right to alert the Government to embracing within the Bill, in some form, in the right terms and with the right phraseology, the challenges of integrating digital twin modelling as it stands. It will unquestionably morph into more sophisticated forms in the future. It would send a signal to potential bidders that we are very much on top of this technology and legislation.
Amendment 96 is focused on a cyber resilience plan. I do not want to be pedantic, but we really need a cyber security strategy, because that would provide the framework for what I think my noble friend seeks to achieve. We absolutely need to redouble our efforts to prepare for and prevent cyber threats. Everybody involved in major spectator sports events around the world now is completely focused on this important factor. There are too many bad actors out there looking to disrupt major events. Unfortunately, the major events that command global television coverage are targets for them, as was seen in the many cyber threats on the Paris Olympics. This will only increase.
The more we highlight the importance of these issues by placing them in the legislation in a suitable way to indicate that we are very cognisant of the importance of this as a part of preparing for any bid and, indeed, for the delivery of games that could face these threats in the future, the more we will be well-received internationally. The whole purpose of the legislation is to send a signal to the international federations—the IOC, FIFA and others—that we are not only prepared but aware of the major challenges that we face and that we are responding to them as a country. With those very few remarks, I absolutely support my noble friend’s intent.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, the point about cyber is really important. At Second Reading I referred to my involvement in the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Prior to the Games I had the opportunity of visiting the transport management hub, a group that, among other things, had put gizmos in all the traffic lights throughout London so that they could change the lights at a moment’s notice to enable traffic to move through. A cyber attack on that would have brought the whole of London to a standstill.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, raised this as an important issue, but he did not point out that this is a reality for sports organisations already. The latest research shows that 84% of the major sporting bodies around the world report that they have had at least one cyber attack recently, and 57% say they have had more than one. This is a very real issue. I look forward to the Minister’s response. It is vital that we have it included, ideally on the face of the Bill.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly run through the amendments in my name. One of the things about the Bill that we do not really like is the fact that there is nothing on infrastructure. It may be implied. My Amendment 78 is trying to put some infrastructure in there.
Amendment 77 is about the accommodation. Much of what we are talking about and much of the reference in the last debate about the legacy from London has been to do with accommodation of athletes, et cetera. If we do not get that in a games bid, suddenly it loses one of the big attractions when it comes to renovation, especially on the model of the London Games. I hope we get some reference in there. Championships may be different. They are different things with different structures. In Birmingham we had a thing about repurposing and borrowing the accommodation that was used, and in London we created new stuff. I hope we get a few thoughts on that.
The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter are about having a strategy towards a bidding process and making sure we have the capacity to intervene and get on with it. Even if it is seen that we have the capacity here, you have to organise it and bring it together. What are the Government thinking about to bring that latent capacity together and make sure it is always there? There are opportunities here. In most of the discussion on the Bill, I have not heard, “Oh no, we don’t want to bid; it’s a horrible inconvenience that will ruin my day”. I remember certain protests about the 2012 bid down in Greenwich being the best ones.
If we are assuming that it is going to be a good thing, where is the capacity? What are we doing to draw it together? There is a series of suggestions here, to be treated as probing amendments at the moment, about how we can do this and about infrastructure. Please can we have some thoughts on this? It is a very important part of this process going forward. If we do not bring it in, I think this is a Bill for a championship as opposed to a games. It fits better for a championship, when you are using sites and moving around the country, as opposed to a games. I hope the Government can say that I have got it all horribly wrong and missed something here. I wait to be informed.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in relation to his amendments. My concern is about creep. I referred earlier to ensuring that we do not have creep that affects small businesses. Here I am concerned about setting up an organisation that has to be maintained when there is nothing relevant to do. The noble Lord used the phrase “always there”. I do not think that is the intention he is aiming for, but if you put it in the Bill you are saying to government, “You have to have a group of people who are working on this all the time”. It is surely far better for government to have the capacity to respond at the right time as quickly as possible, rather than having an “always there” structure.
Associated with that, on the accommodation to which the noble Lord refers, it is my understanding— I am looking at those who were involved in 2012 and in other major sporting events—that when it comes to the Olympics, UEFA and FIFA, the accommodation strategy is decided by those bodies. They will enter into negotiations with worldwide hotel chains and say, “What are you going to do if we come to Manchester, London or wherever it may happen to be?” This is not a responsibility of government. In fact, most of those international organisations would regard it as an intrusion if they were being told, “We’ve already got a strategy and this is how we operate”, because it may well conflict with what is intended by the major sporting organisations.
I cited international gay rugby tournaments when I spoke on Monday, and next year there is the gay EuroGames in Cardiff. With these smaller competitions, you go to those major cities and seek assistance on accommodation. Cardiff is expecting 5,000 or 6,000 competitors and a fair number of spectators next year. Any major authority will maintain a process by which it can deal with those sorts of approaches, but on a much smaller basis. I do not want to see this legislation set up a government structure that is required on an ongoing basis or a belief that the Government should intrude on matters such as accommodation when the major sporting organisations do it themselves because that is how they want to operate.
Lord Mawson (CB)
The noble Lord is correct on that point. It was the IOC that had the view on what should happen with the accommodation on the Olympic park. For example, it did not put kitchens in, for very good reasons—the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will know more about this than I do. They wanted people eating not in that accommodation but in a special place, because if you are an Olympic athlete, eat the wrong foods and then have tests, there are implications. As a legacy company, we had the job afterwards of putting in the kitchens and a whole range of stuff to make all that work in its legacy format.
What you do want is close working relationships between that international body and those on the ground who are responsible for creating that legacy. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, may well agree that we learned on the go as we went on this journey together. It would be good if that kind of conversation about these close working relationships was happening between government and the international bodies on day one, so that we do not have to spend £323 million on a roof that does not quite work in legacy. Those connections really matter.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that helpful and affirmative intervention in relation to the points I am trying to make.
In broad terms, I do not want to see a structure that is required by government. One needs the capacity to respond quickly, in the right way, at the right time. That is how cities operate when they are trying to attract smaller international competitions of one form or another.
Lord Addington (LD)
That would be a perfectly acceptable response: that there is a capacity, that they will make sure they have the capacity to look at this and that there will be a strategy going forward. This is about clarification and finding out what happens here. As I read it, the Bill works perfectly well for a championship—it does not read so well for something for which you have to do a lot of construction work. I am trying to find out the Government’s thinking.
To back up the original point from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, here we must pay attention to the cyber and online world, as it is becoming an increasing part of it. His first amendment is a good tool—use it, because you will be expected to in future. The snappy video is being replaced by the plan. We are trying to get out of this important group of amendments what the Government are going to do, the limitations of the Bill—we have found some today—and what will be set down to the bidding structure that currently exists. Where the two overlap, we should find out what does not have to be done and what does.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification, which is important for understanding the directions in which this Bill should go, and what we believe it should achieve.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes, and all other noble Lords, for what I hope people will see as a good debate and a helpful contribution. We hope to make sure the UK is best placed for the best planned events, so I hope this will be taken in the spirit of helpfulness. As ever, my noble friend Lord Holmes brought us to the cutting edge of technology in the need for digital twins, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan set out the perfect example of Queensland for what is happening on that. He was absolutely right to remind us of the dangers from cyber attacks. With my other brief in my science and technology role, I am all too aware of that; it was brought out very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, with his traffic light gizmo example. I would quite like to have one of those for my way home.
What the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was getting to on the infrastructure and accommodation points was in some ways similar to the point we tried to make in our amendments on Monday to enable an Olympic development-type agency. As he said, it is not a championship-type event; it is a much bigger scale. These are all coming at the Bill from different angles to make sure that if this is to be enabling legislation, it is broad enough that when bodies of that scale are needed, this framework legislation is able to do it. I very much take my noble friend Lord Hayward’s point that we need to make sure we do not build overbearing full-time bureaucracies here.
The amendments in my name, and that of my noble friend Lord Parkinson, are trying to make sure that the UK is the best place possible to host these events. That is why we are asking the Secretary of State to make a report within six months on some of the impacts on and barriers to that. Noble Lords are only too aware that the recent changes to employer NI increases the cost of a worker by about £900 per year, and the minimum wage changes add another £1,000 per year to the cost of each worker. These are exactly the type of people needed to man these events and make them happen. Unfortunately, these recent changes and tax increases will have a disproportionate impact.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
When it comes to further consideration of the importance of Amendment 76, to which my noble friend is speaking at the moment, the noble Lords, Lord Mawson and Lord Addington, may well agree that we possibly need to expand on this so that we have the opportunity, not just within six months but within a year, five years and 10 years, to see that there has been an appropriate sporting, social and economic legacy, and indeed a sustainability and environmental legacy. It is really important, because so many commitments are given at the time of hosting a major sporting event. Admirable as it is to have a review after six months, for legacy this is vital. By working together we can learn a lot of lessons that can benefit other host cities around the world for major sporting events. I put that to my noble friend. Does he agree that we can at least look at that before we come to Report?
Lord Mawson (CB)
It is a rich conversation, and it is really important that we learn this lesson. One of the things we did not achieve with the London 2012 Games—and it is no one’s fault—was to have someone caring about the legacy and really worrying away on day one when we won those Games.
When we first had that meeting in Bromley-by-Bow in 1999 to worry about all this, we were blue-sky thinking and thought, “How on earth do you make movement on a thing that’s going to be impossible? Paris is going to win—they’re the next one on the list and the IOC has decided already”. Fortunately, through a good friend of mine, Ian Hargreaves, at that time the deputy editor of the Financial Times, I was taken one Saturday morning to meet the architect Richard Rogers at his house in Royal Avenue. I had never met Richard before. We had a conversation to check whether we were mad in pushing this kind of idea. When I shared the thought, he was quiet for about 10 seconds, and I thought, “He thinks we are mad”. But Richard was actually a great risk-taker and had built some amazing things. He said that he thought building a mixed community was the right idea, and that he would like to join us, with his mate Mike Davies, who was just finishing the Millennium Dome at that point. At our second meeting, we began to worry about not only where the venues might go on those 248 hectares but the detail of, for example, the press and broadcast centre. None of us had ever done this before, and we had a conversation about how many journalists there would be; we thought maybe 100 or 200. Richard said he would go away and find out. He had an interesting idea of putting the press centre under the stadium, in a way that only Richard Rogers could have thought of. He came to the next meeting and I asked, “How many is it?” He said, “Andrew, it’s about 100,000”. The press and broadcast centre was a building bigger than Canary Wharf.
During the journey, because no one was at that point owning the legacy, into that building went a massive cable that all the press could use—fantastic value despite its cost—that was then going to be removed in legacy, along with that massive building, at the taxpayer’s expense. Unless a few us—including Gavin Poole who built the Here East development, now a fantastic innovation hub in the middle of the East End of London generating jobs, skills and university investments —had owned that issue of legacy, and the significance of that cable coming into that building, it would all have been lost. My thought to government is this: how do we ensure that on these big events some individual is owning those questions from day one? When Governments put millions of pounds into these things, they need to have longer legs than just six weeks.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their interventions, and it shows the richness of this discussion. I agree with my noble friend Lord Moynihan on review timeframes that should be not just six months but longer terms. To the point on legacy from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, I will add my own small contribution. I was chair of London and Continental Railways around 2019 and 2020. For those noble Lords who are not aware, that was the body responsible for all the regeneration around the Stratford area, as an arm of the Department for Transport. We were developing housing on from that accommodation, and it has been a very successful site for affordable housing. One of the legacies is that on the housing and regeneration front it was massively successful.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Addington, Lord Holmes of Richmond, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Markham, and—although she is not in her place today—the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, for their amendments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Markham, that this has been a really helpful debate, in series of helpful debates on this Bill.
Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, would require digital modelling to be used in planning for certain sporting events, which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also spoke to in the example he gave of Queensland. Although the Government recognise the potential for digital tools to support transport planning for major sporting events, we do not agree that their use should be mandated through primary legislation.
Planning for such events must remain proportionate, flexible and responsive to local circumstances. Existing planning processes already allow event organisers, local authorities, transport operators and safety advisory groups to use digital modelling where that is helpful and appropriate. A city centre venue with established transport links may require a very different planning approach from a temporary venue or one in a less well-connected location.
We should also be cautious about placing specific technologies or methodologies in the Bill. Digital simulation, AI-assisted adaptation and related tools may be valuable, but technology, as noble Lords will be aware, evolves quickly and legislation should not risk becoming outdated. In addition, the proposed data-sharing requirement may raise practical questions around data governance, consistency, ownership, privacy and commercial sensitivity, even where anonymisation is envisaged. More broadly, effective transport planning for major events depends on local knowledge, venue design, crowd profile, policing, security, weather and wider network conditions. Those matters are best addressed through flexible operational planning supported by the transport measures in the Bill as needed, rather than by imposing a rigid statutory template.
On Amendment 76, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, hosting major sporting events is a highly competitive global market, with a number of rival nations investing heavily to attract and secure events. The sector continues to face challenges in delivering these events, with costs rising and consumer expectations continuing to grow. However, we disagree with a requirement to publish a report assessing the impact of the Government’s economic policies on the UK’s ability to attract and host major sporting events. We do not think that is required.
The Government remain committed to continuing to engage across the major events industry—not just sporting events—to better understand how we can support their growth, tackle these challenges, share learnings and support collaboration. Moreover, the UK’s competitive advantage is based not solely on the funding it provides or its wider economic landscape but on the strength of our overall offer. The UK is a proven, innovative and experienced host nation. We provide a stable and trusted environment, strong delivery partners, leading experts and world-class facilities. We have a world-leading reputation for excellence in event delivery because we stage complex events to the highest standards. We should be proud of this and the Bill seeks to build on this reputation. Our future pipeline of sporting events is a strong indicator of that reputation. The Bill is intended to increase regulatory certainty, further enhancing our credibility with event owners.
In June 2025, the Government committed more than £500 million to support the delivery of major sporting events hosted in the UK, including the Grand Départ for the Tour de France, the Tour de France Femmes in 2027 and UEFA Euro 2028, as well as a commitment to support the UK’s bids to host the 2029 World Athletics and World Para Athletics Championships, and the 2035 FIFA Women’s World Cup. I also want to highlight that UK Sport already evaluates the economic impact of major sporting events hosted in the UK, which naturally takes into consideration wider government policies. We will continue to work with UK Sport and partners on how we can maintain and strengthen the United Kingdom’s position globally.
Amendments 77 and 78, on accommodation and infrastructure respectively, were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I would never say the noble Lord has got it “horribly wrong”; however, I would probably say that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, got it right in his analysis.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I do not have favourites, but the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, wins that today. I used the words of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, so my apologies to him as well. The Government do not believe that these amendments are necessary, although I recognise that the concerns the noble Lord raises are to ensure that arrangements and infrastructure are adequate to serve major events, including, as he said, accommodation for athletes, whether that is purpose-built or repurposed. The example from London 2012 given by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, was helpful to illustrate this.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank the Minister for her kind comments. I ask her to encourage some of her colleagues on the ministerial Benches to acknowledge that, on occasions, there are good ideas from the Opposition Benches as well.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I would say there are on occasion. There is so much expertise in your Lordships’ House with regard to sporting events. I have always felt that where there is a good idea, we should not be partisan, so I would not disagree with the noble Lord.
However, the measures the amendments cover are exactly the type of technical requirements that are already set out in contractual hosting agreements and specified by the event owner. This means that there is a dialogue throughout the bidding process between prospective hosts and the event owner about existing capacity and infrastructure, what is required and where improvements would need to be made. Through this, prospective hosts provide the necessary assurances to the event owner that there is or will be sufficient capacity and infrastructure in place to deliver a successful event. Ahead of this, we would also expect the national governing body to work in collaboration with the relevant local authority that is ultimately responsible for delivering these key elements. As these are already accounted for in the bidding processes, these amendments could potentially place onerous or duplicative requirements on key delivery partners. I am happy to discuss that further with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, should he wish.
Amendments 80, 81 and 82 were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but are also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. We recognise the important intent behind them; taken together, they aim to ensure that the UK maintains its ability to bid for major international events. We also recognise that the amendments aim to increase transparency around the prioritisation of and bidding for sporting events to provide more certainty to the sector. However, in our view, it is not necessary to set this requirement in statute. I reassure your Lordships that the Government are committed to ensuring that the UK continues to build on its already world-leading reputation in this field. At the risk of agreeing too often in one debate with the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I agreed with many of the points he raised in this part of the debate.
There is a pre-existing process which sits behind those events the UK chooses to bid for, which is set out in the Gold Framework, as I have referenced previously. This also sets out the criteria against which events are assessed and prioritised. UK Sport undertakes a horizon-scanning of all the available hosting opportunities, and it undertakes feasibility work alongside formal engagement with the UK event co-ordination group, national governing bodies and local authorities twice a year to develop and agree the UK’s longlist of potential future major sporting event targets.
This hosting target list is also endorsed by DCMS. It is published online and is shared annually with the sector, as well as with cities, regions and nations across the UK, to facilitate event-hosting partnerships. This ensures transparency about our potential targets. It also aims to ensure that there is an ongoing 10-year major event strategic programming list in this regard. There is a balance to be struck, in our view, in ensuring that the UK does not hinder our competitive advantage by giving detailed insights to our potential competitors. UK Sport has also published Making Live Sport Matter, which sets out a series of guiding principles and key objectives for event hosting as the basis of a strategic framework for maintaining the country’s reputation as a world-leading host nation.
On noble Lords’ points around resourcing, UK Sport exists for exactly this purpose: to provide expertise. This includes conducting feasibility studies, including on alternative and sustainable delivery models, and evaluating the annual value of events. It also provides a range of strategic guidance and technical support to the sector. This includes a knowledge transfer programme to enhance and develop the sector’s expertise and develop collaborative and sustainable networks. We also believe it is important to retain the ability to be responsive and effective with public resources, as the requirements of bidding for and delivering major sporting events will change over time.
Amendment 96, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, would create a power for the Secretary of State to
“direct a qualifying person to maintain and share a cyber resilience plan … for a sporting event to which this Act applies”.
The noble Lord gave some powerful examples of the impact that cyber attacks might have, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that it is some bad actors who create the threat, which was also illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Foster. As he says, this is potentially a very real issue. The noble Lord talked about the gizmos in traffic lights and the advantage these may give to getting home. There were those of us at the London Assembly at the time who suspected that Boris already also had that in mind—but I move swiftly on from that.
This amendment would introduce a new statutory power, together with detailed requirements about the content, maintenance and review of cyber resilience plans. The National Cyber Security Centre guidance on cyber security for major events, to which this amendment refers, recognises that cyber security arrangements and requirements will differ according to the scale, location, systems and threat environment of the event in question. Such a legally binding list may not be relevant to every major sporting event.
Finally, there is also a practical challenge of monitoring compliance here. Details of cyber security plans are typically necessarily restricted to event organisers and do not generally involve government oversight. For those reasons, I ask that the noble Lord withdraw his amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Ultimately, sport is about winning, and it seems pretty clear that, in this group of amendments, my noble friend Lord Hayward won without even having an amendment in the group. That is, perhaps, how sport can go sometimes, as anybody who has played or spectated will very much appreciate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have commented on my amendments, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, who brought up gizmos—you can tell he is a scientist.
I say to the Minister that the wording may not be quite right in the amendments, but I ask her to reflect on the principles, strategies and criteria that any technology, while being technology neutral, would have to meet to achieve these objectives. Would that not be worth considering in a Bill of this type as we put it together at this stage? If we take the point of criteria, for example, you can effectively be technology neutral and largely technology future-proof because you focused on criteria and principles. It will be worth reflecting on whether some of that might be of value in the Bill.
Again, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part, and, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another to Clause 25 in the name of Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay would require Parliamentary consent before financial assistance can be granted.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 68, I will also speak to Amendments 72 and 73, all of which are much shorter than my previous amendment, which was just dispatched with.
The amendments in this group, which my noble friend Lord Markham has signed as well, are intended to prevent the financial assistance provisions in Clause 25 of the Bill becoming a blank cheque that successive Governments could fill out as they see fit. To do this, our amendments require that, before the appropriate national authority grants financial assistance in connection with a sporting event, the appropriate legislature must approve that assistance by resolution. This means in practice that, if the Secretary of State wants to help fund a particular event, the House of Commons must agree to any financial commitment. When the appropriate national authority is the Scottish Ministers, the Scottish Parliament must approve the funding, and where it is a Northern Ireland department, the Northern Ireland Assembly must give its consent.
It is a long-established principle that financial measures must be subject to approval by Parliament. Erskine May says in paragraph 33.2 that the “basic constitutional principle” of financial procedure is that
“the Crown requests money, the Commons grant it, and the Lords assent to the grant”.
It continues:
“In more modern terms, the Government presents to the House of Commons its detailed requirements for the financing of the public services; it is for the Commons, acting on the sole initiative of Ministers … to authorise the relevant expenditure”.
That is the crucial point: the Government must come to Parliament, specifically another place, with proposals for the sums to be spent on each object of expenditure, and those must be detailed requirements.
Of course, there are many Bills presented to Parliament which grant the Crown a more open-ended authorisation of expenditure, but, when those Bills are considered, Members of both Houses usually pass them knowing the object of the expenditure for which they are authorising, and the sums they are authorising. The impact assessment or a briefing or explanatory note from the Government would contain the Government’s estimate of how much the measures in that Bill would be likely to cost the public purse.
The Bill before us is not a usual piece of legislation, in the sense that it seeks to create a framework for future sporting events. We do not know to exactly which events the Bill will be applied in future, nor how much financial assistance the Government of the day might wish to grant those events. Clause 25 is an open-ended financial commitment, which potentially spans many decades into the future.
It is possible, without necessarily even looking many decades into the future, to envisage a Prime Minister who is fiscally less disciplined than others. I want to make sure that we are future-proofing the Bill for all eventualities.
Of course, the Bill is not accompanied by a detailed assessment of how much money the Government propose to spend as a result of Clause 25. That is not surprising. In fact, it is perfectly understandable. The very nature of an open-ended framework Bill such as this means that it is unknowable. But, if the Government are not able to tell us how much the Bill will cost in the long term, it is not just reasonable but a clear requirement to ensure that legislative consent is required for each instance of financial assistance granted under it. That will help us to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of each measure and, I hope, guarantee that fiscal probity is baked into the legislation.
All that our amendments seek to do is apply a very sound constitutional principle that the appropriation of public money should be agreed to by the House of Commons, elected by the people. I hope that the Minister and other noble Lords will agree. I beg to move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and to agree with everything that he said. I will build on his blank cheque, which was perfectly positioned phraseology. My Amendment 71 seeks to build on that in order to get the most from the moolah. If we are going to put financial assistance in place, as we do and will, it is only right and proper to make the most of that funding, to not restrict the funding and to not put issues around it that would make it less likely for us to win these major and mega sporting events. But we need to put in conditionality that will benefit the bid itself, the event and local communities and other organisations, not just at the event time but, if correctly put in place, for years and perhaps decades to come.
In no sense am I suggesting that the wording I have set out is exhaustive or covers all the issues at hand. I seek to demonstrate a sense of the threads of E, S and G running through this funding. It has to be right that local communities benefit directly from these events, because for mega events such as the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, they put up with a lot: the bid process, the extensive build process, Games time and a significant deconstruct of all the overlay and temporary venues. They deserve, and must have, an upside during that process, at the event time and, indeed, post event. It is not just the sport that should benefit. The local community is hosting these events as well and must be included in the upside and benefits that come from that.
In my other proposed subsections, I quite rightly set out to put everything around pay gap reporting, minimum wage, procurement and supply chain in the Bill. There is so much positive impact that can be driven through the procurement and supply chain process. It is worth, at least at a principles-based level, having something in the Bill to send out the signals as to what kinds of events we want to stage in this nation: not to limit the bid, not to control and not to affect the flexibility that one needs when a governing body is bidding, but rather to enhance, sharpen and add to the bid, and to the Games and the championships experience, and to have a sense that the stadia, community, part of a city and part of our country can look forward, post Games and post event—not looking back at something that has happened in the past but taking things forward that would not have happened and would not be part of that local community were it not for the staging of that event or that Games.
It is right that we seek to get the maximum and think about what we want to say about the funding put into these events. Criteria and principles seem a perfectly acceptable way of doing this. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. But, when you have spent many years at the other end of the telescope of these large events and have responsibilities for building the kit, enabling it all to work and making sure that it integrates in those communities, the detail really matters. One of the things we managed to achieve with the London Olympics—which was in no small part to do with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, Lord Coe and others—was to get cross-party support for this very big event, which we knew would probably go through different Governments and Mayors of London, and actually I think we achieved that. It was a very big and long event—and, by the way, we are still building out the Olympic Park today, so it was a big thing.
It is really important that, while there needs to be responsibility for large amounts of taxpayers’ money— I absolutely get that—if we are serious about these events, there also needs to be responsibility among our political parties to get cross-party agreement very early on.
That needs to happen not only at a national level. One or two of our colleagues in east London who were involved in the Labour councils there—I mention in particular my colleague Paul Brickell, who was a Labour councillor in Newham and ended up playing the lead role in regeneration as executive director—spent a lot of time building working relationships with the five Labour boroughs surrounding the Olympic Park, which when we began had a long history of being at war with each other. There was a lot of detailed work over cups of tea to build the relationships that support events such as this.
So, although I am in favour of being very careful about the money and get all of that, if we are serious about going for these events, there is a responsibility across our political parties to build working relationships early on and come to an agreement, so that those of us on the leading edge with day-to-day responsibility to make fast decisions tomorrow will not be held up by politics being played out on them somewhere else.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments that I assumed would not be needed. I assumed that we would have a series of debates about this. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, did a forensic job on the basic principles of where taxation comes from and how money is raised, going through. If the amendments are not needed, can the Minister tell us when she expects the interaction between the public system and Parliament on where the money comes from? That is a fairly reasonable question. If they have a structure behind what we are debating, we should know. I hope this is just a classic probing amendment, because that is what you should have at this point. We should know where we are going.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, that unless you get a commitment that everybody is prepared to buy into, there is no point doing anything, because it all needs a long-term plan. That is absolutely true, and if you start messing about with that, we just will not have any of these events, because no organising body in its right mind will come within a mile of us.
We have to have a degree of long-term planning. To get the benefits from events, we have to accept that even if Government A do something in a way that Government B do not particularly like when they come along, they will have to accept it and go along with it. Do not let your version of excellence be the enemy of the good on this.
I hope that, when the Minister responds, she will tell us exactly when these debates are to take place, what the structure will be going forward and what the spirit behind them is. The point is reasonable. I hope that there is an equally reasonable answer.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Parkinson. It comes to the heart of this Bill. This is, in effect, an enabling measure. It is agnostic about the events, but it is clear that it is about the major spectator sporting events of the future. It can provide a framework that will help to convince international federations, the IOC or FIFA that we are prepared, willing and ready to host one of those events. It is a pity it is agnostic because, as we heard on the first day in Committee, there are many events that would like to be included in this and, at present, we are unsure whether Wimbledon, the Open Championship et cetera could be covered.
Since the focus is on major events, such as a potential Olympic bid in 15 or 20 years’ time, it is concerning that what appears to have happened here is that we have enabling legislation that will come back to Parliament in the future through statutory instruments. When it comes to spending £10 billion at 2012 prices, that is simply not going to be acceptable to Parliament. We will require primary legislation. We will require a money Bill in order to consider whether that significant public spend is appropriate—even more so when you take the 2012 example, where the original bid was costed at £3.4 billion and it ended up at more than double that, and that is before accounting for the excellent work of the country’s intelligence and security services. I was present at a major debate about whether you included the security services’ work and costed it or you accepted that the security services would be working on something else at the time, so there was no additional cost as they simply switched across to the protection of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Leaving that aside, the important point is we had circa £10 billion-worth of public funding, and there is no way that secondary legislation on a regret Motion in your Lordships’ House is going to be sufficient for parliamentarians to come to a conclusion on that.
That brings me to the second point about the way that international sport is run under fiercely protected autonomy. To take the example of the Olympics, the bid committee is not initially set up by government to bid. The bid committee is the National Olympic Committee, and for us that is the British Olympic Association. The bid committee comes forward with the proposal for a city and it is responsible for preparing the bid documentation, which is known as the candidature file. That is formed by the city that is bidding, in the case of the Olympics, and the Olympic association of the host country. They go to their Government.
On the financing of a major event such as the Olympic Games, the role of the Government is to provide legally binding guarantees regarding, above all, funding. That is what is looked for from the Government: a legally binding guarantee regarding funding, taxation, customs and immigration. I shall take a few minutes to demonstrate this point and bring it to life in the context of what happened in London 2012. The guarantee that the Government provided in support of London 2012 was,
“to provide all necessary financial support to the Games”.
That was clearly made as a commitment by the providers of the public funding package for the Games. It was absolutely right that Parliament questioned that and asked what that guarantee meant.
The applicability of the guarantee in the context of London was confirmed by the Government in three concrete cases, where third parties requested additional assurance in respect of obligations undertaken by the organising committee. The first was Ticketmaster. The arrangement with Ticketmaster required assumption of responsibility for the refund of ticket purchases should the event be cancelled. The Government needed to step in to provide that security. Ticket revenues were a significant element of the organising committee’s budget and its cash flow. In lieu of requiring either that funds be held in escrow against potential refund claims or the provision of a costly letter of credit to support LOCOG’s undertaking to refund, Ticketmaster agreed to provide LOCOG with ticketing funds as received and recognised its obligation to refund as a binding and enforceable contractual obligation. The guarantee from the Government established the Government as the ultimate guarantor of any such shortfall. It is incumbent on a Government to let Parliament know that that is a potential financial requirement and to allow Parliament to decide whether that sort of decision can be taken by the Treasury, in the absence of coming back to Parliament, or by the relevant Minister—in the case of London, the Minister for the Olympic Games.
Another interesting point concerned the London Borough of Greenwich. One of the conditions specified in the grant of planning permission for the use of Greenwich Park required the organising committee to put in place arrangements to provide financial assistance so that the reinstatement of the park after the Games was funded and completed as envisaged in the planning applications. Again, to make sure that everybody was happy in that context, the Government provided the funding support.
In the IOC broadcast refund share agreement pursuant to the host city contract, the IOC made advance payments to LOCOG from the fees paid to the IOC by broadcast rightsholders, but, importantly, if the Games were cancelled fee rebates were due to the broadcasters. These were subject to a written assurance from the Government as the back guarantor.
I mention those three cases because I think they are important. They are significant, given the exposure of the Government and their support for that international event—in this case the Olympic Games. It is essential that, in providing that sort of support for a major international event, where the public are particularly interested in all aspects of it, the Government come back to Parliament and put into a finance measure or primary legislation the requirements that the Government are being asked to make by the International Olympic Committee, which owns the rights to the Games.
I hope the Minister will stand up and say that she accepts my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s request. He put it admirably. I have tried to add colour to it and to explain what it would mean in the practical reality of a major event. I very much hope that, if the Minister cannot accept the wording that my noble friend Lord Parkinson has put into his amendment, we can revisit this. It is of such importance for parliamentary accountability that issues of this nature should be considered in primary legislation or in debates in both Houses, rather than simply in a one-hour debate on a regret Motion.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Holmes of Richmond, for tabling the amendments in this group. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington. We do not believe the amendments are required either.
Amendments 68, 72 and 73, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, are intended to require parliamentary approval before financial assistance under Clause 25 can be given in relation to sporting events. This Government completely agree that scrutiny and transparency when it comes to public spending are vital. However, we do not believe that these amendments are necessary. First, for the avoidance of doubt, the funding power is not intended to lead to spending above and beyond what would have been provided anyway. Rather, it is a legal mechanism intended to ensure that any funding provided to sporting events has a clear statutory underpinning. This is in line with the principles set out in Managing Public Money.
Secondly, I want to be clear that this funding power is in line with established precedent for similar funding powers. Parliament already has responsibility to authorise government expenditure in this area through the supply estimates process, such as allocations for bidding for and staging major sporting events and legacy programmes.
These amendments, however, would go much further, effectively requiring the Government or devolved authorities to seek the approval of the relevant legislature every time they rely on this funding power, be it to fund a smaller-scale, grass-roots event or arts and culture programmes affiliated to sporting events. This has the potential to require parliamentary approval numerous times over the course of each year. To put this in perspective, over the past decade alone the UK secured and delivered almost 150 major sporting events, many with the support of government investment, and that is even before you count related activities. Once we add funding for domestic sporting events to the mix, the potential number of funding cases within scope goes up significantly.
I hope noble Lords understand therefore why the Government’s view is that these amendments are disproportionate and would place an unsustainable burden on Parliament. However, I assure noble Lords that, where financial assistance is provided by relying on this power, it will rightly remain subject to the same existing processes and ministerial accountability as any other spending of public money. Departments are required to produce robust business cases when spending public funds, in line with public Treasury guidance. Where funding needs are significant, this will also require a departmental spending review bid to His Majesty’s Treasury to be subject to even further scrutiny. There are a number of existing mechanisms which provide Parliament with additional ability to scrutinise such funding, including the Public Accounts Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, as well as committees in your Lordships’ House.
Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, would require organisers of major sporting events to publish, and commit to comply with, an environmental, social and governance impact compliance plan before funding can be provided where it exceeds £1 million in aggregate to a single recipient. As I hope I have already made clear, the Government are in full agreement with the point being made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes that, where public money is given in support of a major sporting event, it should be used responsibly, secure value for money for the public purse, and ensure that benefits are shared with local communities. This is something the Government will be thinking about even before we consider funding a major sporting event.
As already noted, the Gold Framework is clear that, where event organisers are seeking government investment, they must demonstrate the social value of these events, including with regard to many of the criteria the noble Lord sets out. Among other expectations, it outlines that event organisers must have meaningful plans in place to generate this positive social impact even before the event has started. Where the Government do decide to support a major sporting event, this requires a robust business case proportionate to the expenditure, in alignment with Green Book and Managing Public Money guidance. These frameworks expect departments to consider environmental, social and distributional impacts, including those set out by the noble Lord, such as through the public sector equality duty and environmental principles policy statement assessments.
Finally, as has already been made clear, Clause 25 already sets out that event funding can be given where needed, subject to conditions. This could absolutely include conditions related to all these areas, where warranted. Furthermore, international federations and event owners often specify their own expectations and requirements with regard to the social and environmental impacts that prospective bidders would be required to meet. For instance, UK bids for World Athletics events are required to comprehensively integrate sustainability to align with the governing body’s mandatory Athletics for a Better World standard, with the Glasgow 2024 World Indoor Athletics Championships having secured a platinum rating, which is the highest rating possible under the standard. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her response and to all noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendments. It was a useful discussion and I will look carefully at what the noble Baroness said as we move to the next stage of the Bill. As I said in opening, this is not an ordinary Bill. It is not normal for Parliament to be presented with a piece of legislation that permits completely open-ended financial commitments, so this is an important area for us to look at carefully.
For instance, when Parliament was considering what became the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, the Mayor of London and the Government had already by that point entered into a memorandum of understanding, setting out how the Games would be funded were we to win the bid. Parliament, therefore, was aware of both the event for which it was legislating and approximately what the financial liability would be. My noble friend Lord Moynihan set out in great detail—adding, as he says, colour and practical reality—the complexities of the agreements and guarantees that are required when we host events of this scale.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, that cross-party support is so important. That is why we are broadly supportive of this legislation and of the Government’s ambitions in this area. But having a proper debate in Parliament, where all the parties can get their concerns off their chest and reach a resolution, is an important part of securing that cross-party agreement. My noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond in his Amendment 71 sets out just some of the many areas that Members of Parliament in both Houses will rightly want to raise when we look at these things.
At one point in her response, the Minister talked about making a departmental funding bid to the Treasury. That is fine, but it is an internal scrutiny in Government, not a role for the elected House. This was a probing amendment, as everything is in Committee, but it is probing a very important matter, so I think we ought to look at this in more detail on Report. But, with gratitude to the Minister and all those who have spoken, for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Addington
“(1A) The appropriate national authority may, in connection with a sporting event, set expectations as to the investment to be made by relevant organisations in—(a) grassroots sporting venues or organisations, and(b) participation in sport at grassroots level, including community sporting projects and facilities.(1B) Financial assistance under subsection (1) may, in particular, be given subject to conditions requiring the recipient to make, or to secure that another person makes, investment of a kind mentioned in subsection (1A).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in Lord Addington’s name, enables the appropriate national authority to set expectations on event organisers and others who benefit commercially from a sporting event to invest in grassroots sport and community participation, and to make financial assistance under Clause 25 conditional on such investment.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I feel rather sorry for the Minister, because this amendment is once again going back to lessons learned from previous sporting events, particularly from the London Olympics. Although it was a success in many ways, one thing it did not do was encourage more people to play sport. This is universally accepted. When the committee on which I served, as did the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan —he might have led it, I cannot remember: it is a long time ago now—looked at this to find out what happened, the idea that it is just a straightforward inspiration for sport does not work. You have to do a bit more to encourage people to play sport.
There are good examples in world championships for rugby union and netball: there is argument about who devised the model first. You have a great spike in interest, but you must prepare the grass-roots clubs for people turning up who have not played. This is one of the cases when I found out just how old I am. Advertising for the Rugby World Cup totally missed me, because it was aimed at those aged 18 to 25. It was encouraging those with recent skills to get back to being involved in the game. But you had to make sure the clubs were ready for them. You have to have the grass roots ready to receive and you have to help them to do it. Big gestures from the boys at the top do not help with participation unless you have somewhere coming through where you can do it.
As has been said, these are probing amendments, but the Government need ideas. What are we actually going to do? We have this big sporting event, and we can use the models that the sports themselves have devised and take them further. That might help. I am not saying how it should be done—it may be greater capacity for playing facilities, training or coaching—but we have to make sure that we get people playing the sports. That is what this is about. This is an accepted failure from something which, other than that, was a success. We just did not do that one thing.
There is no point in someone watching something happen on television and saying, “Isn’t it marvellous?”, if we do not find out whether we have the capacity to do it, or even to start that process. We have to get them out and playing. That is what I would like, and it is what I am trying to get at: what is the Government’s thinking about getting a proper sporting legacy at grass-roots level that will give us the capacity to start finding champions? Unless we go down the route of testing everyone at the age of 14 to see who our champions are and saying, “The rest of you, just sit down and watch. There’s a box here. You press a button and watch other people”, because that is not what it is about, or it should not be.
Amendments 74 and 75 merely follow on from the spirit of Amendment 69. Can the Government tell us their thinking about encouraging people to correct the one big failure of something that has changed our whole debate about this issue—that is, the Olympics—by getting people playing sport? I beg to move.
Amendment 70 (to Amendment 69)
“(c) measures to improve the resilience of sporting infrastructure against the impacts of climate change, including flooding, extreme weather and heat.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds climate resilience to the list of considerations to be made by national authorities providing financial assistance to sporting events.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I fully support Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Obviously, major sporting events generate significant commercial benefits, but we have to ask what their legacy will be or could be. Too often we celebrate the spectacle, the television audiences and the economic boost, but the local clubs, pitches and volunteers, which sustain sport every week of the year, may see little benefit.
Amendment 69 seeks to address that by creating an expectation that those who benefit from major sporting events should also invest in grass-roots sport, community facilities and participation. After all, elite sport does not emerge from nowhere. Every international player and every Olympian starts somewhere. They start on local pitches, in community halls, in amateur clubs and in local swimming pools, with volunteer coaches giving up evenings and weekends. In many places, the local sports club is one of the few remaining community institutions where people of different ages and backgrounds come together regularly. So I warmly support the principle that grass-roots foundations, on which all sport ultimately depends, should be strengthened.
My Amendment 70 takes that further to add that the climate resilience for grass-roots sport should be included too. This is a month when I was locked out of my office because of potential flooding and, of course, we now have this incredible heatwave, so I argue that this amendment seems particularly relevant.
When we talk about investing in grass-roots facilities, we must also talk about protecting them. Across the country, grass-roots sport is already experiencing the effects of climate change. Football matches are cancelled because pitches are waterlogged, clubs face increasing repair costs after flooding and storms, and facilities are damaged by extreme weather. Heatwaves are clearly creating new challenges for us all, and these are real present-day problems for sports up and down the country.
Estimates suggest that between 120,000 and 150,000 grass-roots football matches are cancelled each season because pitches are unplayable due to rain and flooding. In parts of the country, pitches are already losing weeks of playable time every year because of changing weather patterns, and every cancelled match means lost revenue for clubs, disruption for volunteers and fewer opportunities for participation. Over time, of course, it threatens the viability of facilities that communities depend on.
The irony is that we can spend money improving a clubhouse, upgrading a pitch or expanding facilities only to find that those investments are increasingly vulnerable if resilience is not built in from the start. If public money or event-related investment is helping to support a community sports facility then surely it makes sense to ensure that the facility remains usable for years to come.
Lord Doyle (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to build on what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said in one specific regard. He is obviously right in what he says about London 2012, but I want to reflect that there was an initiative that attempted to deal with this—which I know very well because I worked for it at the time—called Join In Local Sport. Indeed, Members of this House kindly got involved in events that we held.
I shall focus on what we knew was a core challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Coe, spoke to us about this at the start of our initiative: after the 1984 Olympics, on going back to his sports club, he saw that there were queues of young people there who suddenly wanted to participate, but the key resource that they were missing was volunteers. We do not speak enough about the role of volunteers or the barriers that there are for people who want to be coaches and to support teams. Parents often get involved when it is their own child who wants to participate, but we need to keep them around and supported as volunteers for longer. As we look at participation in sport, I urge the Government to make sure that one of our key focuses is the pathways, incentives and encouragement that we can give to get more people to feel valued as volunteers within sport.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure the Government are going to accept these amendments as drafted, although I very much hope they will. For the record, it was the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, who chaired the parliamentary Select Committee that looked at the sports legacy from London 2012. We suggested in an earlier amendment that there should be frequent reviews—maybe after one year, after five years and after 10 years—of the sports legacy, the urban regeneration legacy and the social legacy of the significant investment that is put behind major sports events that are covered by the Bill.
It is wise and helpful to end my few remarks by saying that I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Doyle. We lost the opportunity after London 2012 to continue to encourage the many outstanding and wonderful volunteers who made the Games. It was the volunteers who made the Games, and they could so easily have been captivated by the atmosphere of a great sporting legacy and gone down to their clubs or initiatives such as the noble Lord’s excellent initiative and continued to be involved, but we lost those people.
I shall quote from the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, when we reported to the House on the sadness that the sports legacy had really not been delivered while so many other legacies had. The regeneration of the East End of London was outstanding, for example, and the Games themselves were historically wonderful in everyone’s memory, particularly the Paralympic Games, as well as the Olympic Games—they matched each other. This is what he said:
“How is it possible that the UK is world-leading in elite and professional sports, that 3 billion people across the world watch our Premier League matches in over 187 different countries and that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has consistently said, at Olympics after Olympics we are near the top of the league in terms of our elite activities, yet for decades we have failed at grass-roots level to get more people from more diverse backgrounds to be more active, despite all the investment that successive Governments have made?”
The point that he was really emphasising was that this was successive Governments; it was not a party-political point. He concluded:
“With one-third of the adult population at the moment getting less than 150 minutes of moderate activity each week; with schoolchildren doing consistently less activity both at school and at home; with PE marginalised in the school curriculum and no longer inspected by Ofsted while, as we heard in our evidence, many primary school teachers get less than three hours’ training in a three-year degree course, which is shameful, so physical literacy in most of our primary schools means nothing, frankly, because it does not appear on the league tables; with access to facilities ever more difficult; with local authorities closing swimming pools and leisure centres to save resources; and with transport non-existent for large parts of the day for large swathes of the community, we have become one of the most lazy, inactive nations in the … world. Those sections of the population with the poorest diets and the worst levels of deprivation are, not surprisingly, the least active, too, and of course the pandemic has disproportionately affected all the target groups”.—[Official Report, 4/2/22; col. 1208.]
That is the concern that many people on all sides of this Committee feel has been underestimated by successive Governments, and it is why the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has brought forward his amendment. The spirit of his amendment, and what he intends to do to remind us of these important facts, are vital. I welcome his work in that context. I hope the Minister is in a position to respond positively.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I was not involved in this aspect of the Games, but I was aware of the conversations going on about it at the time in east London. The Government might benefit from talking to Sir Robin Wales, the then Labour Mayor of Newham, who was deeply concerned about all this, and Tessa Sanderson, who tried to engage with this area. I suggest that the problem is seeing projects such as this as being about structures rather than people. If you really want this stuff to happen, you have to get interested in the Tessas and others of this world, on the ground, who want to do something about it, and back them. If my memory serves me correctly, they felt very unsupported and doubted whether the various large structures around them would do anything consistent long term. There are lessons to be learned here. Maybe if we have a conversation with some of these people, we can learn some of those lessons.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, I want to add to this briefly. I have been sitting and listening to what has been said, and the one thing I have not heard about is working and liaising with local government. At the end of the day, it is at the forefront of providing the facilities noble Lords are talking about. Over the years, underfunding has meant that swimming pools have been closed and other sports events have not been able to function. There needs to be recognition that we in this Committee and those higher up can say what we would like to see, but we have to work with local government because it has the routes into the community and the grass-roots organisations. Those volunteers—the parents noble Lords are talking about—have the reach and their first port of call is local government.
I just wanted to add that to the debate so we can bear that in mind. We cannot do this in isolation. We must involve local government.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this very helpful debate has, in many senses, continued the discussion we had thanks to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Moynihan, on day one in Committee, about the huge importance of leaving a legacy when we host a major sporting event. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, spoke very powerfully about that on Monday as well. The huge importance of our grass-roots sports organisations is clear once again. They do so much—not just when we are hosting these major events but particularly when the spotlight is shone on them—to get young people and people of all ages more active and more physically fit, helping improve their health and helping the pipeline of elite sports people for the future.
The Saturday morning football teams, the local cricket clubs and the swimming squads that meet in leisure centres up and down the land are the real heartbeat of the sporting culture in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, is absolutely right: three-quarters of grass-roots sports clubs depend on affordable, local, publicly funded leisure facilities to provide opportunities for people to get involved, try new sports and get more active. They certainly deserve our support. That is why it is sad to see the Government, in other departments, looking at watering down the role for Sport England in the planning system in protecting grass pitches and sports facilities. I do not know whether the Minister, when she comes to respond, can say a bit more about this review of the planning system and the role of Sport England. It has drawn concern from the Lioness, Jill Scott, and organisations such as Fields in Trust, and I hope their words of warning will be heeded.
Noble Lords are right to mention the sadness, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan put it, quoting the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, about that aspect of the last time this country hosted the Olympic and Paralympic Games. That summer of 2012 was one of the highlights of this century for this country, but that was a part of the process that we did not get as right or make as successful as we all wanted, in spite of great initiatives such as the Sport England’s Places People Play programme and the initiative the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, mentioned, with which he was associated at the time. There is a real opportunity when we host future major sporting events to make sure that we are driving forward that grass-roots legacy and driving the improvements we all want to see for future generations. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a real privilege to be part of the debate today and, with my own background, I have really enjoyed the rich contributions from around the Chamber. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the other noble Lords who have supported these amendments, especially referencing the importance they rightly attach to grass-roots sport, community participation and the legacy of major sporting events.
Taken together, these four amendments seek to enable expectations to be set around investment in grass-roots sport, including community projects and facilities, as well as in climate resilience, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has raised again. I know we had opportunities to discuss this earlier, and I probably will not dwell as much on that aspect as a result with these amendments. The amendments would also ensure that any funding under Clause 25 could be made conditional on such investment.
I said I was particularly pleased to be involved because, as a former local government leader, I recognise and completely understand the comments about the importance of local partnerships. As my noble friend Lady Dacres rightly stressed, we need to make sure that local government is at the centre of these plans. That runs throughout the Government’s approach in this regard. I emphasise that the Government are fully committed to maximising the positive legacy of major sporting events and, of course, this includes protecting and upgrading world-class facilities. But they are not just for elite athletes; they have to be accessible to local communities afterwards, and I think we have heard a great deal about that.
Picking up on the points that were made, DCMS, I am very pleased to say, is developing a national plan for physical activity that will demonstrate commitment to place-based working, embedding physical activity into local systems to strengthen the ties. We cannot look at this in isolation: it is leisure, health, civil society—all the benefits coming together. Of course, I have discussed this a great deal with the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, who emphasised detail. Details matter, particularly in the setting up of local partnerships.
We have clear principles in place to do this. The Gold Framework outlines that when seeking investment from the Government, event organisers must “have “meaningful plans” in place to generate a positive “social impact” even before the event has started. This includes considering how the event could lead to improvements in sporting facilities and infrastructure, as well as helping to tackle environmental issues. Critically, the Gold Framework is clear that the best legacy programmes are developed through engagement with the communities that they are meant to support. Picking up on the well-made points from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, this is what enables us to target funding where it is truly needed.
Participation, obviously, is the key thread running through all these principles. For example, we are investing £23 million into delivering legacy initiatives for the UEFA Euro 2028, which this Bill will help us to deliver, featuring the largest-ever community programme for a Euros tournament. It is obviously a multi-city hosting model; this also means that it is committed to supporting locally led legacy programmes, directly engaging diverse communities in design and delivery. The plans will be delivered by local stakeholders in both England and Ireland—the two host countries—to harness the power of sport and culture, bringing communities together and inspiring positive change. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, we talk a lot about the issue of volunteers, and why we are not attracting as many as before. This is all part of the strategy that the Government are bringing forward.
The current system works: it recognises that one size does not fit all, and provides flexibility that these amendments, in our view, would not. We need to continue to be able to be guided by evidence in any provision of public funding, as we have been doing, to allow us to maximise the benefits of our world-leading sporting events for the diverse communities we serve throughout the UK—of course, sport is a devolved matter for Wales and Scotland. The Sporting Events Bill will increase the UK’s prospects of hosting even more events, and with it the potential to generate more lasting socio- economic benefits for athletes and communities across the UK.
Where needed, Clause 25 of the Bill already sets out that event funding can be given subject to conditions: these could include conditions relating to supporting these important areas where warranted. The Government are already doing what we can regardless: for example, we are investing £400 million across the next four years into new and upgraded grass-roots sports facilities, promoting health, well-being and community cohesion. Some of that money has been used to upgrade clubhouses and pitches, but reducing our carbon footprint and improving overall durability is also absolutely fundamental. We are funding the Sports Grounds Safety Authority, providing evidence-based guidance to help ensure that both physical structures and fan welfare are protected during volatile climate events.
I just want to reference—because I am very proud of it—the bringing of the Grand Départ to Yorkshire. It was one of the proudest things that I have been involved in, and legacy was a thread running through it. I live on the edge of Leeds, and I know that it was scouts going round schools who found Lizzie Armitstead, who was not a cyclist then but a runner. The scouts went to the school and discovered her talent in cycling. That was first-hand, real experience of how this can work. Most important was the parallel event running alongside the Grand Départ, with thousands of people volunteering. They kept the route open for all the amateurs to go along afterwards for the whole day. Those events, and indeed all cycling events in Yorkshire, are now flooded with participants. It can be done.
There are many other examples of positive models. I have referred just to one that I am familiar with and am very proud of, but there are examples all over the country. We need to look at those examples with great positivity and recognise the incredible benefits they bring to a wide selection of communities, and the pride from families seeing their kids participating. There is a huge amount to be positive about in the approach that the Government are taking.
I hope, with the comments I have made, that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will feel able to withdraw his amendment at this point in the proceedings.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when we have these debates we tend to follow this pattern: we talk about great things and wonderful events; we talk about the volunteers coming in and helping out and how wonderful it all was. But this amendment was not about that. It was about the second teams: it was about getting participation up and getting people to turn up. It is about making sure you have people playing the sport. Local government has its role, but it is all about facilitating people to do their own stuff. The Government have lots of initiatives, but we are not as good at this as we used to be, and there has been a cultural shift.
Many of our own sports have added to this. Rugby union turned pro, and great, famous clubs got rebranded and lost eight teams on a Saturday. Just think what that did to the local sporting economy. The Government have to get back to grass-roots sports, because that is where the infrastructure is to expand from: namely, from the volunteers. One can do all sorts of things, like redo a clubhouse, but unless we take advantage of that, and encourage them, we are going to miss.
There have been lots of examples about good volunteers, and we could have another amendment about that, because we know that volunteers quite like to do a finite, one-off project, and then they stop and have a rest. Somebody running a small club is a different type of volunteer: they turn up, as part of a lifetime’s commitment almost, to make sure that every new generation of children or junior players get coached properly, that somebody fills out the forms and that there is a secretary and a treasurer—that all that stuff happens.
With this amendment, I was trying to ensure that this goes down through sports, and maybe it needs to be done on a sport-by-sport basis, and some sports will be doing it anyway. When we talk about great examples, we miss the point. It is about making sure that we have something that goes down to the people who are already there—a little shot in the arm to help them carry on—because we are missing this. Parliament tends to do that. We forget about this when we talk about sport. We think about big, exciting events; most sport is not big and exciting. I know because I have played in it.
I understand the Minister’s answer, which could have come from anyone else, because they do not quite get what we are talking about. The noble Lord, Lord Doyle, started saying, “Yeah, we tried: it was all big and exciting, but we didn’t manage it”. This is because we do not go to where the actual volunteers are. The idea was to make sure we got some support, some structure, some help going down to the volunteers. Until we do that, we will continue to struggle, and then local government will say, “Oh, well, you’re not using that facility, so we can shut it down”—that is the negative side—and a few people will determinedly fight it, but they will always have the argument coming against them.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I mention local government because they are part of that grass-roots nexus for local people. They are the ones to whom our local grass-roots organisations will turn in order to try to get that extra money, that extra funding, so that they can run a boxing club, for example, or facilitate other groups. They are at the core. These are the volunteers, to whom the noble Lord referred, with a lifelong commitment to helping young people. This is why we need to remember how important local government is to ensure that we can funnel those extra funds, and ensure that they reach the right people, the right groups and the underprivileged young people who really want to take part in those sports.
In addition, local authorities are closer to what local young people want to do and see. That is why, for example, you will see skateboarding parks, because that is now an Olympic sport, and BMXing is another great, accessible Olympic sport. That is why it is important to remember local government, because it reaches the people in local areas who give their lives to make sure that they are engaging and encouraging young people to take part in these sports that the noble Lord is referring to.
Lord Addington (LD)
I do not disagree with any of that. I would just say that it is not a core activity, so it tends to become a secondary choice and there is pressure on local government. If you come through and give a boost, local government might be able to deliver. Local governments provide pitches for some sports, whereas they do not get involved with other sports. It is about culture, and it is a very varied picture. It can be important: many people play football on local government pitches, but rugby union and cricket clubs tend to own their own grounds or have long-term leases. There is a cultural mix that goes down there. So, local government is important, but we need to go down to the grass-roots club that, for example, runs four teams. As I once suggested to one of our governing bodies, you must remember to write to local government and tell it what you want; that will improve the relationship. There is a struggle there, but we are getting off the topic.
I think we should have another look at this, because we are still not making sure that we engage with those people on the ground. I hope that the Government will, shall we say, have a little bit more robustness in their answer. The Minister can only read out what is in front of her, but we are going down here to get the Government to give us a better answer on this one. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)
Before the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment, we need to give the noble Baroness the opportunity to indicate what she wants to do with her amendment to his amendment.
Lord Markham
“Limitation of football banning ordersAfter section 14J of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (offences) insert—“14K Banning orders: protection of freedom of expressionIn relation to sporting events to which the Sporting Events Act 2026 applies, or banning orders that result from offences under the Sporting Events Act 2026, nothing in this Act shall be read, or given effect, in a way which prohibits or restricts expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse that do not incite violence or disorder.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure that behaviour at sporting events which is fleeting, non-violent and part of the charged, emotional atmosphere of live sport does not lead to the imposition of football banning orders.
Lord Markham (Con)
Noble Lords will notice that I am not my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, who, unfortunately, cannot be here this evening. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lady Davies is also not able to be here. But I would be grateful if the Minister is able to reply to their amendments.
It is my pleasure to introduce this last group: the last lap of the race, which, while not a 100-metre sprint and definitely not a marathon, I think we would all agree has been a well-honed and fast-paced middle-distance 1,500-metre race. It has been a blue-ribbon debate on making sure that we get the best opportunities to bid for the Olympics and the World Cup.
I will move and speak to Amendment 86, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Sater. I know this is an area of great concern. Grass-roots sports participation has been a running theme through all this. Unfortunately, the CQC’s proposed regulations to make all medics at events CQC registered, at a cost of £1,000 and a lengthy registration process, are in danger of destroying a lot of grass-roots sports. We will freely admit—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)
Just to be clear, the noble Lord is moving Amendment 83. Amendment 86 is in this group, and the noble Lord is free to speak to it, but he is moving Amendment 83.
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, I am moving Amendment 83 and speaking to Amendment 86 from my noble friend Lady Sater.
As I was saying, there is real concern about the impact of the CQC regulations on these grass-roots sports. If my noble friend Lady Sater was here, she would freely admit that this has been somewhat shoehorned into this debate, but I know that the Minister will understand that, as she participated in the debate on the secondary legislation from the Department of Health and Social Care. There is a real concern that, if volunteers have to spend all this money, they simply will not turn up to events. They will not do them, and that will mean that we will lose a lot of youth football events, rugby tournaments, point-to-point racing and athletics. You name it—we will probably lose it in all this.
We have talked many times about the importance of creating a sporting legacy; that means making sure that these grass-roots events can run. That is why this amendment would require that, within one month of the Bill’s passage, the Secretary of State makes a statement on the impact of these proposals. Clearly, we are not expecting the Secretary of State to do this. This is a probing amendment, but one very much designed to keep this at the top of the agenda. Again, I know that the Minister absolutely understands that, because she participated in the earlier debate, but I am afraid that we—I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—have been fairly disappointed about the CQC’s response to date, and I know that that is true of many of the sports organisations. This amendment is therefore designed to make sure that this is kept at the top of the agenda, because, if you speak to lots of sporting bodies, there is a concern that we are going to lose a lot of grass-roots events through the CQC’s actions.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. While I have not been able to speak to the amendments from my noble friends Lord Young and Lady Davies, and while they are not able to do so either, I am sure that they will be grateful if the Minister could include those amendments in her reply.
Lord Doyle (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 83. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Markham, is not responsible for its content, but since he moved it, I feel obliged to put my objections to it, in the debate that we are having on this group, on record. I object not just to the specifics; this amendment goes against a core value of sport and the sporting events that we have been discussing very positively over the last couple of days of Committee: the power of sport to bring people together. It cannot be right, therefore, that the language of Amendment 83 states that it is only concerned with insults and abuse that “incite violence or disorder”. Surely that is not the bar that we want to set or the culture that we want sport to promote. After all, in recent years we have seen significant progress on the status of, and pay in, both women’s and disability sport. We have seen initiatives such as Kick It Out in football do great work to tackle discrimination in all forms. We now have a situation where there are more than 50 LGBT supporters’ groups within football through the Pride in Football network.
I mention football because, as in all sports, there is much more to do. However, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton—I am sorry that he is not here to hear me say this—quoted some homophobic language on Second Reading that he thought we should all be relaxed about and not be concerned by, in the way that authorities are, or the way in which banning orders are a necessary tool within sport.
I simply urge the noble Lord to reflect on the real-world impact of chants from the stands or language down the pub. Why is it that in football, which was the example he cited, in the men’s game we have no out gay players and yet in the women’s game we do? Hosting events surely is about coming together, showcasing not just the best of sport but the best of us as a country, where nobody is intimidated out of taking part and all our citizens can enjoy watching it.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 86 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sater. I am very grateful to her for tabling it and to the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for speaking to it, because I think this is very helpful to keep the discussion on the CQC live. I understand where we have got to with the new guidance that is coming out on the back of the Manchester bombings. It is completely understandable. It has elicited very strong views in the sector. I thank the CQC for the meeting, but I think many of us have probably come away from that more confused than we were at the start. A better explanation of the plan would have helped.
As the noble Lord, Lord Markham, said, on what is an individual, what would happen when a parent steps in at an event? I think of a local rugby event; if there is a doctor there and they are asked to step in, they may not be covered by insurance. It has set a lot of hares running within the sector, which I do not think necessarily needed to happen. I also realise that the consultation is ongoing. The big events—I spoke to the London Marathon—will be fine, because they are already set up to deal with this, but I am thinking of the smaller events. I know there is a cut-off or a line at 200 people, but lots of very local events would have more than 200 people taking part. Yes, they are run under the auspices of a national governing body, but unless we get this absolutely right there is a real risk that volunteers will not continue to step up to run these events.
Yes, there will be risk assessments, but they might not have access to threat assessments. You could end up in an unforeseen circumstance and end up in court for something you have done. While we are waiting for case law, which could take several years, there could be a very big detrimental effect of volunteers stepping back, so understanding the impact is very important. I certainly think it is important to keep this discussion going, and more clarity on this would be really helpful as we go forward.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, on Amendment 83. As I said earlier, this amendment is just basically wrong—end of.
On Amendment 86, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It conforms with my experience that you have to be flexible; you have to understand about local events, and you have to keep the structure going. Clarity is required here about what is wanted, so I hope we step towards that clarity or at least find out when it is coming. That is one thing about Bills in Parliament: you do get a chance to pin a Minister down for a worthwhile answer. I hope we have assurances on both of these.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I will be equally brief, but let me preface my remarks by saying that I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, is contributing to this debate. We both have a long history in Lewisham, and Lewisham East in particular. It is a very sporting constituency, as it happens, with Chris Chataway being the first Conservative Member of Parliament for that seat. I was nothing like as eminent as he was when he was a fairly impressive pacemaker in the historic 1954 Bannister run, when he broke the four-minute mile. The noble Baroness is a much-loved mayor in Lewisham, very hard working and very respected, so it is great to see her contribute to a sports debate.
Equally, when the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, acting as Minister at the time just now, spoke of talent transfer, it is important to recognise the outstanding work that the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger, has done in that context in UK sport. Talent transfer has been an absolute pillar of the success of many of our sports in recent years, since we really professionalised elite sport. My friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger, was critically important in that work, and it is a great delight to see her in your Lordships’ House.
I support the comments made about Amendment 86 in the name of my noble friend Lady Sater. It is very important indeed that these CQC regulations remain on the agenda, and I hope the Minister is going to give us some comfort today and say that they should be looked at again in the context of the smaller events, the ones that local authorities run. The noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, was completely right in what she said about the role of local authorities in grass-roots sport. These CQC regulations are really quite critical now to the cost of running those smaller events that are so important in the development of sport. I hope they can be kept under review and looked at again by the Government. My noble friend Lady Sater’s amendment, and the comments made in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, just underline how important it is to be reviewed now so that it does not do irreparable damage to many of the sporting events that we are talking about.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for introducing and speaking to the amendments on behalf of the noble Baronesses, Lady Davies of Devonport and Lady Sater, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton.
Amendment 83, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, would carve out a broad category of criminal conduct from the preventive football banning order regime by seeking to exclude behaviour framed as “expression”, even where that conduct has crossed the threshold into criminality. This carve-out is intended to include conduct at sporting events to which the Bill applies, or banning orders resulting from offences under the Bill. On the latter, to be clear, the offences under the Bill will not be added to the football banning regime. On the former, football banning orders may be imposed only by a court and are a very serious measure. They arise either following conviction for a relevant offence listed in Schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1989 or where the court is satisfied that the individual poses an ongoing risk of involvement in football-related violence or disorder. As the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, said, this amendment is not the bar we want to set. Sport should indeed, as the noble Lord said, be the best of us. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, echoed that sentiment.
Your Lordships’ Committee will recall the disgraceful racist abuse directed at Black England players following the Euro 2020 final. The noble Lord, Lord Doyle, rightly pointed out the lack of out gay male footballers in the sport. That behaviour at Euro 2020 was rightly condemned across your Lordships’ House, and it underpins why the banning order regime was strengthened to include communications offences to ensure that those who engage in such hateful, harmful conduct can be excluded from the game. It would therefore be inappropriate to carve out a category of criminal behaviour from the football banning order regime simply because it is described as “expression”. Parliament has already determined that such conduct can meet the criminal threshold. Weakening that framework risks undermining the ability of courts and police to deal effectively with those who jeopardise safety and enjoyment for the vast majority of decent fans, and indeed for sportspeople.
Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Davies of Devonport—who is not able to be in her place today—proposes, in the context of events to which the framework provisions are applied, a duty to ensure provision of single-sex competitions and facilities. It also sets out that where the rules of a sporting competition are framed by reference to the gender or sex of the participants, that reference must be to biological sex. Any events to which the Bill’s framework will apply must comply with existing legislation and guidance. In the UK, the Supreme Court ruling provides clarity around the definition of sex within the Equality Act on the basis of biological sex. The EHRC’s updated statutory code of practice has been laid before Parliament, providing essential legal clarity for sports providers, national governing bodies and participants around the country. National governing bodies of sport, local authorities and sports organisations also have guidance and policies in place. We will continue to engage closely with our arm’s-length bodies, Sport England and UK Sport, and the wider sporting sector as Parliament considers the updated EHRC guidance.
Amendment 86 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, and introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Markham. I accept the spirit in which this amendment was laid, and I noted the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who also spoke to this amendment, as did the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. This amendment requires a review of the impact of recent regulatory changes that allow the Care Quality Commission to regulate the treatment of disease, disorder and injury—TDDI—at sporting and cultural events. These regulatory changes bring sporting and cultural events in line with other settings where the treatment of TDDI is regulated, such as within hospitals and care homes.
The change means that TDDI health provision at sporting and cultural events will be delivered by professionals with the right set of skills, training and equipment so that the audience and participants receive the right type of help when they need it. It means it will be easier for organisers to pick skilled and safe providers, as they will be listed on the CQC website. As noble Lords are aware, the changes were made following the recommendations by the Manchester Arena inquiry.
During its parliamentary passage, it was clear that Members of both Houses were concerned that this change may have unintended impacts. Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Care have undertaken to work with stakeholders to consider options to mitigate any unintended consequences. The concerns included the impact on events staffed by volunteers, or on specific groups such as search and rescue teams and athletes. Noble Lords who spoke to this also spoke about volunteers, which was a theme in the debate in the Grand Committee I was present at.
This work is ongoing. The Care Quality Commission has met with a broad range of representatives as part of its consultation on this change. DHSC officials are due to meet with chief medical officers from a range of sporting and cultural bodies to discuss this matter further, and I will attempt to clarify when those meetings will take place. Department of Health and Social Care Ministers are in the process of convening a round table with the Peers who spoke during the debate on the statutory instrument on the CQC regulation amendment on 15 April, and I will ask my noble friend Lady Merron to make sure that those who spoke today but were not present at that meeting will be invited. I will also make my noble friend aware of this debate. In the meantime, I ask that the noble Lord withdraw the amendment.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lords for their contribution to this debate. As I believe I get almost the last word of the whole Committee stage, I thank everyone. We have had some expert contributions over the two days. We have had Olympic medallists, Games organisers, local government leaders and some keen, if not very able, sports participants: me, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and others.
We have heard it all. We have heard about Olympic sausages, we have heard about gizmos and we have had the gold medal performance, to say the least, of the Minister agreeing with my noble friend Lord Hayward on a few matters. But there has been a large degree of consensus in this whole debate and a lot of passion and enthusiasm, which has been great to see—particularly in the Leeds contribution. It was honestly really heartwarming to see all our enthusiasm in the Chamber for wanting to make sure that Britain is the winner in all this and in sports events. That is absolutely the spirit of all this.
On the specific CQC point, I know the Minister gets it and hears our concern about the real impact this has. We know that these are well-intentioned CQC changes, but they could have a lot of unintended consequences for grass-roots events. So we would be grateful if, as she said, she can keep us informed and keep this at the top of the agenda. With that, I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Clergy Conduct Measure
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Clergy Conduct Measure be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Clergy Conduct Measure, has consented to place his interest, as far as affected by the Measure, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Measure.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, the Clergy Conduct Measure is a vital part of the Church of England’s ongoing reform of clergy discipline and safeguarding. During the passage of this Measure through the General Synod, the Church has acknowledged that the current clergy discipline system does not always serve complainants well. Too often, they have found the process opaque and painfully slow. Equally, it has not served clergy well, leaving many in a state of prolonged anxiety and limbo, worried they will lose house and job.
This new Measure is the result of six years of detailed work to address that situation. The key principle at its heart is proportionality. The system introduces three different tracks that complaints will be allocated to: as a grievance, as misconduct or as serious misconduct. Each of those tracks has its own independent procedure for the investigation and resolution of the complaint. So, by triaging cases effectively from the outset, the Measure seeks to ensure that every complaint is handled appropriately and at the right level of seriousness. Crucially, this will, we believe, lead to a much quicker process.
The Measure makes vital strides in aligning safeguarding and discipline processes. The one-year limitation period is abolished for allegations of serious misconduct, meaning that somebody who has been seriously harmed will be able to bring a complaint, regardless of when the alleged conduct took place, without having to seek special permission. In cases involving children or vulnerable adults, safeguarding professionals will automatically become a party to the complaint, providing critical input into the decision-making process. This alignment will be significantly better for both complainants and respondents. It ensures that safeguarding is treated not as some sort of separate silo but as absolutely central to and integrated within the disciplinary framework.
Alongside this, new statutory duties are to be placed on bishops to implement support for all those who are affected by a complaint. There are also significant protections for clergy: the introduction of restraint orders against those who persistently bring vexatious complaints—and we have them. For the most serious cases, where the cleric is prohibited from ministry for life, we have reintroduced deposition from holy orders: what used to be called being “defrocked”. That disappeared with the last clergy discipline Measure, but one thing that came out of the IICSA inquiry was the need often for victims and survivors to know that this person is no longer even legally a member of the clergy, whether or not they are allowed to function as a member of the clergy.
The Measure will be supplemented by rules made under secondary legislation. That will be considered by the General Synod next month and then laid before Parliament. I have been part of the committee drafting those rules, and I can assure noble Lords that they provide further safeguards, including robust case management powers for tribunal judges, greater protection for vulnerable witnesses by way of special measures when giving evidence, the power to appoint litigation friends for children and those with a disability or who lack capacity, and prohibitions on harmful cross-examination during hearings, unless an advocate has been appointed. These provisions basically mirror the best practice nowadays in the secular courts.
During the passage of the Measure to the General Synod, a very wide consultation took place. I am very pleased that the Church of England employee and clergy advocates, who are part of the faith workers’ branch of Unite and represent over 2,500 clergy and employees, have this week confirmed to me their support for the Measure being passed by your Lordships. I will leave it to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler- Sloss, to take us through this in a little more detail in a few minutes’ time but, as noble Lords will be aware, when we first took this to the Ecclesiastical Committee, it found it “not expedient”. That had not happened since the early 2000s, but it is scrutinising us with great assiduity at the moment, which we appreciate.
The principal concern was that the original draft of Section 31(3) provided that disciplinary hearings would be held in private. The committee asked the Church to look again at that, and we did. The Measure was reintroduced to the General Synod in February and that section was amended, so that the presumption is now that hearings will take place in public—although not always, and I may say more on that later if noble Lords are interested. The Church is very grateful for the work of the Ecclesiastical Committee and, indeed, your Lordships’ House in scrutinising our Measures. We have better legislation because of it, just as the nation has better legislation in secular law. The revised Measure obtained overwhelming support on final approval in the General Synod. There were no votes against, which, considering the wide range of people on the General Synod of the Church of England, is quite something.
The Church is very aware that there remains further work to be done on our safeguarding structures. That work is continuing. It will come to the General Synod and to Parliament in due course, as will the rules for this Measure. The Measure is not a silver bullet—it does not resolve all past safeguarding issues in the Church—but it is a necessary and important step forward in how discipline is administered, and one that will be a benefit to all those who take part, both those who have proper complaints or grievances and those who are respondents to those matters. The road to reform has been a long one and I know there are many well beyond this Chamber who, according to your Lordships’ pleasure, would wish to see this Measure now obtain Royal Assent. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest that one of my sons is a priest in the Church of England.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for introducing the Measure to your Lordships’ House today, and the Ecclesiastical Committee for its helpful report on the revised Clergy Conduct Measure, published earlier this month, both of which have been very helpful. I also thank those people who have provided briefings and comments ahead of this debate.
My Front-Bench portfolio—victims and vulnerable people—means that I have a particular interest in formal processes to investigate and remedy complaints, whether minor or very serious. I should also add that, as president of the Lib Dems between 2015 and 2019, I was a witness at the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse regarding historical sexual abuse by a senior Liberal Party MP. As president, I was involved with changes to our own party’s disciplinary process and worked with the Committee on Standards in Public Life, as well as my opposite numbers in other parties at that time. Some of my questions today reflect my experience of those processes a few years down the line.
Assessing how process works in practice is where I want to start. The statement of purpose for the CCM currently speaks of preserving
“the collective good standing of clergy”.
If viewed from the Church of England’s perspective, this is logical. A new Measure should work so well that it will root out established poor behaviour through a transparent process in which all participants feel heard, even if one party disagrees with the outcome. That would certainly speak to the continuing of the collective good standing of the clergy.
However, those with experience of past complaints under previous Measures that were unsatisfactory might be concerned that this would repeat the old practice, where the good standing of the clergy was there to protect the Church of England, regardless of the claimant and the cleric. That, of course, would be a failure, so it is good to hear the Bishop explain to your Lordships’ House how this system will work.
My first question is: what review and reporting structures will there be to ensure that it is the former and not the latter outcome? Which bodies in the Church will see annual general reports on how the system is working? If minor changes need to be made in practice, is there capacity to do this without starting all over again through synod and then Parliament?
I move on to the details of the process. The division into four categories of complaint is helpful, as is the flexibility for the assessor and/or the bishop to change or reallocate the complaint, in the words of the Measure, if further evidence surfaced so that it needed to move into a different category. I am pleased to see a formal process for vexatious complaints and litigants. It is a sad part of the tribalisation of our society that far too many people move straight to complaints and use the law repeatedly, rather than all parties being more considered and discussing things earlier on in the process —where that is appropriate, of course. It is clearly not in some of the more serious cases that are likely to appear.
The changes in process to reflect the IICSA recommendations are also clear and helpful, and it is right that the penalty by consent, where a penalty was agreed with a bishop entirely in private, has been abolished. The previous arrangement would inevitably lead complainants to believe that deals were being done behind the scenes. That is never good, so it is good that it has gone.
I also want to examine the boundaries between safeguarding and the complaints procedure, because the safeguarding procedure and the complaints procedure are separate but interlinked. IICSA’s full report demonstrated the failures of a number of organisations in our society that at best ignored warnings about abuse and at worst hid appalling long-term abuse by people involved. How will the Church judge the very different needs of a safeguarding service and a conduct process? It is vital that they are not separated but that they are different.
Finally, I note that the Ecclesiastical Committee report expresses concern that it was disappointed that its comments in a previous report about meeting in public were not taken into account, so it was good to hear from the right reverend Prelate that this has now been accepted. Accountability and safeguarding must be at the heart of any process like this, and transparency is also vital. As long as synod and other relevant bodies regularly see the annual data on complaints, including those unfounded or vexatious complaints and allegations of sexual behaviour, then the Church has the mechanism to monitor the type of cases and the judgments in those cases over time. Only that way will the Church get a clear idea of whether it has a fully functioning process. That is because the Church must be firm on dealing with those who are perpetrators of abuse, but also clear when vexatious claims are made to undermine clergy. That is a hard task, but I believe this Measure and its process appears to have the capability to do so. I wish it well.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to the report that I seek leave to present to the House, as chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I will leave the answers to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to the right reverend Prelate, although I will make just one or two comments.
I chair the Ecclesiastical Committee, which was created in 1919 as a statutory committee, oddly, and not a Select Committee, which means we do not have parliamentary privilege—which every now again I need to remind the 15 MPs and 15 Peers who are its members. Our entire duty is to scrutinise the Measures of General Synod before they reach both Houses of Parliament. The right reverend Prelate gave the exact date, 2003, when there was last a finding by a previous committee of a Measure being inexpedient. Since then, every Measure passed has been accepted by the committee that I now chair.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for introducing the Measure and to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for setting out the work that the committee that she chairs and that Members, from your Lordships’ House and another place, have done as part of the scrutiny.
As the right reverend Prelate says, the Measure has been a long time in the making. It was first proposed in 2020 and originally approved by General Synod in 2025, but one can go back even further, because, as he and others have said, it implements the recommendations that were made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead set up when she was the Home Secretary, in 2014, when I had the privilege of working for her as a special adviser.
Like many noble Lords, I was moved and impressed to hear the discussion between my noble friend and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who took part in the “Today” programme—my noble friend guest edited it over the Christmas period—talking about the extensive work that the Church has been doing to make sure that it is delivering for victims and survivors of abuse and speeding up the processes that it has to investigate questions of conduct. It is to be commended for that and for the attitude reflected by the comments of the right reverend Prelate that this is still ongoing work and that there is always more to do to make sure that the processes are working for victims and survivors. Our first thoughts must be with all of them today, as they have been in the debates throughout this Measure.
As we heard, slightly unusually, the Measure was first declared not expedient by the Ecclesiastical Committee. The dialogue between the two parliamentary bodies is a good one when looking at important Measures such as this. I welcome the engagement of the Church on that.
I have a few questions that relate to the changes that have been made to Section 31(3) and the central question of whether the court and tribunal hearings will now happen in public. I completely agree with what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said about the importance of transparency and accountability, and can understand why that change has been made, but these are complex issues that we are dealing with, and the Church is not a regular employer and this is not a regular type of job; this is a vocation and much broader. We ask a lot of our clergy; it is not a nine-to-five job or a Monday-to-Friday job either.
As the Measure sets out in Section 3(1)(d), the meaning of misconduct can include
“conduct which fails to meet the standards required of a clerk in Holy Orders”,
which is a broad term. As the Measure later sets out, supporting a particular political party or even voicing that support can be drawn into it. If a clerk in Holy Orders is divorced, they must tell their bishop within 28 days. Of course, some clergy are not permitted to marry: if you are a gay cleric, you are allowed to form a civil partnership, but it must be a celibate one. These are sensitive issues that do not apply to regular workplaces.
Can the right reverend Prelate say a little about whether allegations of previous relationships that clergy might have had would be covered by the hearing in public or by the new provisions of Section 31(3)(b)? These allow future rules to set out circumstances where, in sensitive cases, they can be heard without some of the prurient details of people’s private lives being brought into it. That would be useful to hear.
The Living Ministry study has found that, of clergy surveyed, 40% feel isolated in their ministry, 41% feel demoralised and 35% have shown signs of mild or clinical depression. Speeding up the system is good for those who are accused, as well as for those who bring complaints. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I welcome the provisions on vexatious complaints. I agree with her about not being speedy in our litigiousness and sorting things out in a human way, as well as having these proper and formal structures to investigate more serious complaints.
We all appreciate that this is a deeply sensitive and complex area. We are appreciative of the work that has gone into this, in the General Synod and the Ecclesiastical Committee here. I note in the report that the committee is picking up the point about the Henry VIII powers. We are strict with Governments in this House on that and, seeing as it is to Henry VIII that we owe the existence of the Church of England, we will be no more sparing in our criticism of secondary powers with the Lords spiritual.
If the right reverend Prelate can say a bit about that, we would welcome it. I thank him and colleagues for the work that they have done and look forward to this new Measure delivering speedier justice for victims and those accused alike.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and for the questions that have been raised. I particularly thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for the scrutiny that she and her committee have given to this matter. I would be grateful if she could pass that on to the committee when it is next in session.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to IICSA. I was another person who gave evidence in person at IICSA. I was the expert on Anglican religious monastic communities before IICSA. It was a gruelling experience to hear some of the horrific things that had been done by people who were claiming that this was an expression of monastic life when it was far from it. The noble Baroness asked about review and reporting structures. Under the existing Clergy Discipline Measure, there is a clergy discipline commission. Similarly, there will be a clergy conduct commission as part of the new Measure, which will constantly review how the Measure is working and whether it needs tweaking here or there. It will produce regular reports to the General Synod, as its predecessor has done. That will allow us to keep the Measure under review at all times.
This raises the question, as the noble Baroness said, of how you make minor changes. We hope that minor changes will largely be made to the rules or to the code. The rules will be laid before Parliament under the negative procedure, if I recollect correctly, so there will be an opportunity for Parliament to comment if there are issues with them. Minor changes that way can be dealt with fairly quickly. I expect that at some time in its life the Measure will need more substantial amendments: that has been the case with the existing Measure. It was produced in 2003, but a number of amendments have been made to it in the years since—particularly in areas around safeguarding, not least so that in safeguarding cases the one-year rule of timing out complaints did not apply. We are extending that in the new Measure to all things that fall at the serious misconduct level, rather than just those that are about safeguarding abuse.
Safeguarding is well integrated. We are going through a process, diocese by diocese and cathedral by cathedral, of independent audits by the INEQE organisation. Manchester gets its turn in May of next year. I have been struck by how positive many of those reports have been as they have come out. They have shown a very different picture of safeguarding in the Church of England today from what it clearly was sometimes in the past. While we are not complacent and those reports are providing us with further areas of work to do, we are conscious that significant progress has been made. That external scrutiny by an organisation that has nothing to do with the Church of England I am sure will continue on a regular basis. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that there will be that kind of auditing of what is going on, and not the Church marking its own homework.
Again on safeguarding, earlier this year your Lordships’ House approved the safeguarding redress Measure. I was the vice-chair of the committee that produced that Measure. Once it is completed, the legal processes will offer a means of redress that is far beyond anything that has been possible before. It picks up much of what was in the IICSA report. IICSA did suggest that government might want to have some sort of redress scheme. We have not seen that yet from Governments of either party, but we have seen that from the Church of England.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, reminded us that having the hearings in public is one way of giving the public confidence in how matters are being dealt with. But the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, rightly asks what we do about matters where the interest might be prurience, or where details are discussed where a member of the clergy has a failing in some respect that is not necessarily appropriate for airing in public. Under the existing Measure it is done in private, and I have not yet seen a complaint of that nature ever brought to me in the many complaints I have had to deal with over more than 25 years as a bishop. There will be provision under the new system, and the rules will specify in greater detail that cases, or parts of cases dealing with such details, can be heard in private. That will allow sensitive details to be handled, for matters that should not be coming into the public domain. I hope the noble Lord will accept my assurances on that.
If this was a nine-to-five job, I would have gone home quite a while ago. It is not, but it is one I owe to King Henry VIII, because I sit in this House and indeed in my see by virtue of powers appropriated by the Crown that previously to Henry VIII belonged to the papacy. I have much for which to be grateful to the late King. I hope that with those comments, your Lordships will feel it right to let this go through.