Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Vaux of Harrowden) (CB)
My Lords, 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.
Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the Grand Committee do consider the Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for the scrutiny of this instrument they have provided. I believe that they were satisfied with it. The draft regulations were laid in Parliament on 18 May 2026. These regulations are the first of three pieces of secondary legislation needed to implement the lifelong learning entitlement—LLE. They establish a new system of tuition fee limits for higher education courses and modules that begin on or after 1 January 2027.
The LLE is one of the most significant reforms to student finance in a generation. For the first time, it creates a single flexible funding system for study at levels 4 to 6, spanning both further and higher education—one that supports people to learn, upskill and retrain across their working lives. The LLE was a central element within the Government’s Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper, supporting the growth and skills missions as well as the industrial strategy.
The case for the LLE is clear. Over a third of job vacancies are unfilled because of skills shortages and at least 80% of the workforce of 2030 are already in work today, yet our current system was designed largely with younger, full-time learners in mind. It does not offer the flexibility for someone who is older, who wants to study part-time, take a short course or module, or retrain mid-career. The principle of a single lifelong learning entitlement was a central recommendation of Sir Philip Augar’s 2019 review. Parliament then established the framework for this through the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 and the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Act 2023. These regulations now continue the serious work of implementation.
The LLE will broaden access to high-quality, flexible education and training. It will support learner mobility and help our colleges, universities and other providers respond more effectively to the skills needs of learners, employers and the wider economy. In doing this, it will support the Prime Minister’s ambition for two-thirds of young people to access higher-level learning by the age of 25 and help to increase participation in high-quality technical education. This Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and driving economic growth, and the LLE is a central part of that mission. These regulations set out the details of the LLE tuition fee limit system. A tuition fee limit is the maximum amount that a provider in England can charge per year if they are subject to a fee cap. Currently this limit is up to £9,790 for a standard full-time course in 2026-27.
At present, fee limits are set as a fixed cash amount for each academic year, regardless of how much learning that year contains. That works for a traditional three-year degree but it cannot price a single module or a short course effectively. These regulations replace this with a credit-based approach. Credits are units widely used to signify the amount of learning a student would ordinarily be expected to undertake to complete a particular course or part of a course. Across the further and higher education sectors, definitions are consistent. One credit equals about 10 hours of student learning, so to give a straightforward example for a typical higher education course, the standard higher fee limit amount for the academic year 2026-27 is £9,790 and a standard full-time year contains 120 credits. The LLE per-credit fee limit as described by these regulations represents that £9,790 divided by 120. The result is therefore a tuition fee limit of close to £82 per credit, or £81.58 to be precise. These regulations mean that tuition fee limits can be apportioned in line with the credit size of any given course.
The new system established by these regulations does not change the overall tuition fee limit, as debated by the House earlier this year. The vast majority of students will see no change in the fees they are charged. What changes is the application of the tuition fee limits that have been set. For the first time, fee limits will apply fairly to short periods of study, as well as to traditional longer courses; that is because they will be based on the amount of learning in a course or module. Students will therefore know that their tuition fees reflect the volume of learning they are undertaking. The regulations provide protection for students and taxpayers. There are limits on the credits for which a provider can charge: 360 credits for a typical three-year degree and 180 credits within any one year.
Subject to Parliament’s approval of these regulations, it is my intention to make and lay two further instruments, which are necessary to establish the LLE. The two instruments, on student support and on repayments, have already been published in draft so that the House has full sight of the suite of legislation proposed and the sector can make appropriate preparations for the introduction of the LLE system. These two instruments will both be subject to the negative procedure. Given their dependency on the regulations before us today, they will be made only if both Houses approve these regulations.
These regulations represent a significant step in fulfilling this Government’s commitment to deliver the lifelong learning entitlement. They establish the fee limit system needed to support a more flexible approach to student finance—one that works better for young people and adults alike. By doing so, they will help learners study in a way that fits their lives, help providers respond to changing skills needs and support people across the country to access the education and training they need to succeed. I beg to move.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, I welcome these regulations and, obviously, support the objective of the lifelong learning entitlement. As the Minister said, it originated in the Augar review a few years ago, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, played an important part. I am glad that this Government are continuing the work initiated by previous Governments in this respect.
These regulations are really important because they put in place the funding architecture for the LLE, without which it cannot become a reality. However, the real test will be whether, in reality, the architecture translates into substantially greater participation in lifelong learning, which has always been one of the missing pieces of our educational landscape in England. That will become all the more important in the world we are moving into—that of artificial intelligence. As Ministers and others have noted, we will need to enable the retraining of people many times over the course of their working lives. So I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the LLE is intended to operate alongside employer-funded retraining through the growth and skills levy.
It is important that we have clarity on the boundaries between these two important funding schemes, and how they relate to one another, so that we eliminate any policy confusion that might inadvertently depress demand for lifelong learning, which, as I said, is already pretty low. If a worker needs to retrain because AI has transformed their role, how should they go about it? How will they know whether the expectation from government is that their employer will fund that training or whether they should fund it themselves through loans via the lifelong learning entitlement? I would really welcome some thoughts from the Minister on those questions.
I also have broader questions about the future of this policy. These regulations are a great start and it is better that we are starting down this journey towards more modular study where possible, but I think the Minister has admitted in the past that this is not the end point or final destination. I would like to probe a little further where she sees this policy area going. In particular, when will the LLE be extended to master’s level study—level 7—given the increasing demand for postgraduate-level reskilling in areas such as AI, digital technologies and advanced professional practice? Many adults who need to retrain in the coming decade will already hold a bachelor’s degree, given current levels of tertiary enrolment, and will need to acquire higher-level skills rather than simply further study at undergraduate level or sub-degree level, which is the current area of focus of the LLE.
Secondly, what is the Government’s thinking on eligibility for funding for courses not drawn from existing qualifications? The stipulations in the policy are very clear at the moment: funding will be made available only for modules that are drawn from existing qualifications. I have said on a few occasions that this risks us stifling innovation in what is on offer, meaning that we, in effect, provide access only to more of the same but in smaller pieces. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on how we can meet demand from employers for shorter, more agile programmes that respond to rapidly changing labour market needs but do not necessarily fit within traditional qualification structures. If lifelong learning is genuinely to become a normal feature of working life, it seems likely that the funding system will ultimately need to accommodate that greater flexibility.
In her remarks, the Minister referred to two further regulations that are going to be laid, one of which is on student support. As she thinks about the future direction of this policy area, could she say whether the Government might soften their stance on student support for online, distance-learning qualifications? It stands to reason—and this is the whole intent of the Government’s policy—that the smaller the unit of study, the more likely it is to be studied at distance and online, given that students will not want to incur the frictional costs of upping sticks and moving to study at another institution in person. None the less, they will still need to incur maintenance costs, which the current regulations do not provide for. As we move into a more modular landscape, it is likely that we will need to rethink that, so I would like to understand the Government’s intentions in that respect.
Finally, what does success look like in this policy area? How are we measuring it? What level of adult participation do the Government want this entitlement to achieve over the next three to five years in shifting the market share away from this category-killing three-year bachelor’s degree towards other more flexible forms of study? Where does the Minister want us to end up in changing the way higher education is consumed and delivered over a horizon of three to five years and by what measures will the Government judge whether further reform is needed? All those points are not to detract from the importance of these regulations: they are a really important beginning. I wish the Minister every success in getting them through Parliament.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
I also welcome these regulations. They seem to have taken a while, and it is really good to see them. As the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, pointed out, this policy was the number one recommendation of the Augar review, of which I was fortunate enough to be a member. The cross-party support for that has been really gratifying, because we all recognise the importance both of continuing education and training and of greater flexibility.
I thought it might be worth putting on the record some of the things that we were most concerned about, because they lead into the question of how we know whether it is working or whether anything else needs doing. First, we were not particularly looking forward to modular study as such; it was much more about creating a comprehensive change in the student funding system that would build in far greater flexibility.
The thing that we were most concerned about was the rigidity of the equivalent level qualification regulations, which had been brought in by previous Governments. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, will probably be able to elaborate. The idea was that you should have people going up and up in levels all the time. We felt that that was deeply misconceived and that one of the things you had to do—for everybody, not just for a few additional people—was to make it clear that what was important was what you were learning, not the level at which that took place.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we have also long supported the principle of lifelong learning. Because of the rapidly changing economy, where technology, artificial intelligence and the transition to a greener economy are reshaping jobs, people need the opportunity to retrain and upskill throughout their lives. Education should not be something that ends in your early 20s; it should be available for people whenever they need it. I say that as someone who went into higher education in their late 20s.
These regulations are important and part of implementing the lifelong learning entitlement by introducing a credit-based fee system for modular studies. Rather than relying solely on annual fee caps designed for traditional three-year degrees, providers will be able to charge fees proportionate to the number of credits studied. This is a sensible and necessary technical reform if modular learning is to work in practice.
However, as my Lib Dem colleague Ian Sollom argued in the House of Commons, changing the mechanism for charging fees is only one piece of the puzzle. If the Government genuinely want lifelong learning to succeed, they must also address the barriers that prevent adults from returning to education in the first place, because many adults are balancing work, caring responsibilities and the rising cost of living. Flexible courses alone will not encourage participation if learners cannot afford to take time away from work, arrange childcare and access maintenance support. The danger is that we create a system that is technically more flexible but remains financially out of reach for many of those who would benefit the most.
There are also legitimate concerns from universities and colleges about the implementation. Higher education institutions are already operating under severe financial pressure. They are being asked to redesign courses, develop modular provision and invest in new admin systems, while maintaining significant financial uncertainty. If the Government want us to embrace these reforms, they must ensure that the funding and regulatory framework give institutions the confidence to innovate rather than simply observe additional costs.
The Lib Dems believe that lifelong learning should also be driven by the needs of the learner and the employer together. Skills shortages continue across sectors, including engineering, construction, digital industries, health and education. The lifelong learning entitlement should help adults to access high-quality qualifications that respond to those workforce needs, while also giving individuals the freedom to pursue learning and personal development and career progression.
While we welcome the direction of travel represented by these regulations, they cannot be viewed in isolation. Success will depend on a wider package of student support, employer engagement, higher-quality careers advice and sustainable funding for universities and further education colleges. Therefore, I ask the Minister three simple questions. First, what assessment has been made of the likely impact of these regulations on participation by mature and disadvantaged learners? Secondly, what support will be available to help providers to implement modular delivery successfully? Finally, how will the Government ensure that the lifelong learning entitlement genuinely widens participation, rather than simply changing the way the fees are calculated?
As I said, the Lib Dems support the ambitions of making learning available throughout life, but ambitions must be matched by opportunity, affordability and proper investment. Only then will this important reform deliver what it promises.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. Lifelong access to high-quality education is a key component for a successful society. Access to resources that improve the skills and capabilities of the workforce goes hand in hand with a more dynamic economy and a more independent public. It provides individuals with the freedom to engage in subjects that are their passion and to strive for careers in the industries that they desire. This is largely the raison d’être of universities in our country. Undergraduate courses provide a leg-up into the workforce, while postgraduate and part-time courses allow for further specialisation and reorientation.
That is indeed a reasonable model, but while the structure of post-18 education is sound, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition believe that the incentives can be improved. Undergraduate course tuition fees are capped and thus allow for a broad uptake; conversely, modular and short courses are not. Therefore, there is a rational financial barrier to further higher education. Particularly in the current, fast-changing labour market, which will only accelerate, there is an eminently reasonable case for changing this current model. People will need to be able to retrain and reorient themselves, bolder and faster. Skilled education will become all the more important. That is why His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support these regulations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, played an integral part in the Augar review. The previous Conservative Government welcomed the recommendations of that independent review into post-18 education and funding and introduced the primary legislation that makes a lifelong learning entitlement possible. We are therefore grateful that the Government have now taken the steps to make this a reality.
Largely underpinning these regulations is the concept of proportionality. Using credits as the standard unit of learning time is the best way in which to achieve this uniformly. Limiting the number of credits that can be charged per course time and per activity is a start to ensuring that courses are rightly valued. But proportionality of credits does not necessarily equal proportionality of quality and we have many times highlighted the extent of less valuable courses currently within the market. This remains a concern.
It would be fair and reasonable to ask how the Government will ensure that the quality of education matches the cost of the degree past simply looking at credit numbers. This is of particular concern with part-time courses. Flexibility of education is of course a good thing, but it cannot be used to justify students enrolling in modular courses and not having face-to-face time with a teacher. How does the Minister propose to ensure that the highest possible in-person education is taking place face to face, involving engaging with each other and truly gaining from the experience?
In a similar line of thought to that of my noble friend Lord Johnson, we ask more generally what the feedback mechanisms are for this measure. How will its implementation and success be monitored both for providers and students, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed? It was surprising that the Minister in the other place did not answer this question. How will the providers who will naturally incur an administrative cost in implementing this new system be supported in the transition?
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, in summary, these regulations should be viewed as positive and we hope that they are effective.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I genuinely thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It is always refreshing to debate something with people who were there at the beginning and who were part of the very important Augar review that led to this work in the first place. I appreciate the points made in the debate and I will endeavour to respond to them as well as possible.
Before turning to the specific questions, I will restate why these regulations matter. They are a critical and indispensable step in delivering the lifelong learning entitlement. To respond to some of the points made, that reform is not just about how we deliver modular courses, important though those will be as an opportunity, but how we will, for example, bring further and higher education closer together, open up more flexible and modular study, and give people a real choice in how and when they learn and make it easy for them to return to learning throughout their lives.
As we have said, these regulations set the tuition fee limits that apply to higher education courses and modules that are funded by the lifelong learning entitlement and that begin on or after 1 January 2027. They are not designed to overhaul the entire student finance system, in terms of some of the controversies that we have seen recently. They address a central weakness in that the current system is too rigid and too focused on traditional full-time study and it does not work well enough for adults who want to retrain or upskill across their working lives.
The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, is right that the test for this policy is whether or not this translates into greater participation and whether or not the flexibility enables there to be more opportunities for a wider range of people to upskill and return to learning, at different stages in their working lives. The AI example that the noble Lord used is interesting, and he has previously, and quite rightly, challenged us about the relationship between the growth and skills levy reforms—the apprenticeship levy, in essence—their links to the lifelong learning entitlement and how we ensure that employers have a role in developing the flexible courses that the LLE enables. A key part of our reform and the direction of travel for higher education is to emphasise its role in growth and the relationships it needs to build with employers, which is why they are an integral part of the HE learning and skills partnerships now.
However, this does not necessarily mean that the only way to be upskilled in AI, for example, would be through the LLE. It depends on how you want to learn. As part of our reform of the growth and skills levy, we have introduced short courses that can be funded through the levy for those who are employed, and AI is one of the first areas in which we have developed those. So it may be appropriate for employers to enable those in employment to take one of those short courses using the growth and skills levy. If you want to do something more fundamental, which requires a course of at least 30 credits, the lifelong learning entitlement would be more appropriate to use, so that you can go back to a broader higher education course.
On the point about scale, we have been careful to introduce the LLE incrementally, in a way that recognises some of the risks that we have seen in the higher education system recently of uncontrolled expansion and a failure to focus on the quality of what is being offered. That is why we have taken a relatively tightly controlled approach to the first providers of modular courses from January 2027. They will not simply, as I think was suggested, be more of the same but chunked up a bit. For example, the opportunity for further education to provide these courses and for students to be funded through the LLE is quite a significant change and an important development. But we are being careful about the way that we introduce these courses. We will want to expand this in the future, although I am not in a position to say when, at this point. Nevertheless, this is the start of something that will be more radical.
The noble Lord also raised the levels at which the LLE will fund. It is right that the LLE is currently focused on modular and flexible learning at levels 4 to 6, where the greatest need for retraining and upskilling has been identified. The postgraduate master’s loan and postgraduate doctoral loan remain available to help with course fees and living costs, and they provide flexibility to the student.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
I thank the Minister very much for her comments in response to my remarks. I make just two observations. In relation to the Minister’s point on the master’s loan, it is, I think, still the case that the master’s loan is not available in a modular, flexible form; it is still for a year’s worth of funding. So the flexible goals of the regulations will not apply at level 7, even through the master’s loan.
On the Minister’s point about maintenance funding, I think that it is probably a mistake to think that, just because someone is studying online or at distance, they do not need support. Even if they are not incurring the same living costs as someone who has physically moved to study a higher education course, they are none the less incurring the opportunity cost of not earning. That is the principal loss of income to them, which the maintenance loan is traditionally supposed to meet.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is of course the case that, even for distance learning, if you had a disability, for example, you would have access to the disabled students’ allowance. However, with limited resource, we have to make decisions about where we want to focus maintenance support. I do not think that it is inappropriate to focus it on those who find it much more difficult to earn alongside their learning. I understand the point that the noble Lord is making—anybody who has done an OU course understands precisely how much time it takes to do that—but the Government have focused in the way that I have described.
The next set of issues, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, relate to what we see as success, where we see the future of this measure and how radical we think it should be. It is important to say that this is not a short-term fix; it is a bold long-term investment to support the creation of a student finance system that is fit for the challenges of the future. We have made a deliberate decision to phase in the delivery of the LLE, placing quality and learner outcomes ahead of an immediate large-scale rollout, but we want to see education providers using the LLE to innovate, driving deeper collaboration between further and higher education institutions and supporting smoother learner transitions across levels.
The student finance system must also meet labour market needs, which is why we are calling on employers to be active partners. We want employers to see the LLE as an essential part of their workforce strategies, helping them to attract new talent, develop skills and retain employees. We expect more FE and HE providers to work with employers and representative bodies to co-design flexible provision, helping create coherent learner pathways into the workforce.
I reiterate, as others in this Committee have, my thanks to and respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. She has a long record in this area and is, in fact, one of only two people in this Room who turned up to my briefing session on the LLE.
Lord Willetts (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am clearly one of the guilty people who did not turn up to the briefing sessions, but I am sure my question will be answered. There is a view that success will look like more people moving in and out of higher education—doing a course for a time and, through the more modular structure, withdrawing and then doing some more. On the other hand, as she well knows, there are a lot of measures of quality by the OfS that focus on so-called drop-outs, non-completions and B3 requirements, which all assume that leaving a course is a bad thing. How will the modular agenda and this wider B3 agenda be reconciled?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, asked how we change regulation to support what we want to see here. It is a fair point that the regulation at the moment is designed around that traditional three-year course. Part of how we expand the opportunities through the LLE will include looking with the OfS at that regulation, to make sure that it does not act against the more flexible way of learning that the LLE can support. Linked to that, to return to another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, I reiterate that we believe that the way we are approaching this builds in flexibility. It is not simply an add-on of modular courses. The shift from only—
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
Just to clarify, I know that that is the case, but there seem to be a lot of people out there who have not quite grasped that. That is the only point I was trying to make.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
To be fair to them, that might be because I am frequently banging on about the opportunities of modularity and different ways of providers being able to offer courses. The noble Baroness also raised an important point about the proposed consultation on break points that we will bring forward. We have to develop a system where you can gain credit for learning short of having done a full three-year degree. The Prime Minister’s target for two-thirds of young people getting a level 4 or above qualification obviously puts an emphasis on qualifications at level 4 and level 5 in a way that the student finance system has perhaps not supported previously.
The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, made a point about maintenance support. I note that the LLE provisions will expand maintenance support for those in part-time learning. Maintenance loans will become available for all courses and modules that require in-person attendance, including part-time and technical study below degree level that does not qualify today, on top of other actions that the Government are taking to upgrade maintenance loans and to introduce maintenance grants. This demonstrates our commitment to broadening access to and participation in higher education.
On implementation, several noble Lords asked what support will be given to providers to develop modules. There will be some upfront costs in setting up modular study, but these costs are voluntary: there will be no regulatory requirement to offer a greater provision of shorter programmes. However, I think that providers—with their business hat on, if you like, thinking about the strategic opportunities for their institutions of what the LLE will enable their students to do—will see the real potential profitability of these sorts of courses. I hope that will be a reason why they might want to shift some resource into and help develop those courses. This is happening at a time when we have committed—although it is not part of these regulations—to an index-linked increase in the tuition fee limits that will be funding the provision that is being made in higher education.
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, made an important point about quality. I reiterate the announcements that we made relatively recently about the additional work that we will do to focus on quality in higher education. Of course, we have already said that we will link any increase in tuition fees to the developments in the teaching evaluation framework that the Office for Students is working on. We will look at ways in which to limit the growth of poor-quality courses and are taking action on the source of a lot of the concerns around quality: that is the big expansion in franchise provision, with the introduction of regulation of such provision with more than 300 students in it.
I hope that I have been able to respond to the key points that noble Lords have made. I accept the point—this is part of the excitement of the LLE—that not all the answers are currently available because this is the start of something that has real potential to open up and change the way in which higher education is offered and funded for students throughout their lives. This is an important start and a foundation on which we can build that much more flexible higher education system with greater work with further education, greater opportunities to learn throughout your life and greater capacity to respond to some of the skills needs that we have in the economy. I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) (No. 2) Regulations 2026
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) (No. 2) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 8 June and, in case noble Lords think we are suffering from a small dose of déjà vu, similar regulations, which we debated at the time, were laid months ago for reasons that I will come to in a moment. Further regulations were laid concerning Northern Ireland a little while after that.
As the background to this SI, the Government acted in the Autumn Budget to reduce electricity costs to the benefit of all households with a domestic electricity meter by scrapping the energy company obligation— ECO—scheme and moving 75% of the domestic costs of the renewables obligation to the Exchequer. We have been able to provide immediate savings for households in kind. These actions also mean that the energy price cap grew by less than it would otherwise have done on 1 July this year.
On 27 May, Ofgem announced that the price cap level for the period from 1 July to 30 September would be set at £1,862—an increase of £221 from April. The changes that we made at the Autumn Budget are still factored into bills and, without that action, the price cap would be significantly higher.
This concerns the transfer of 75% of the levies on the renewables obligation scheme to the Exchequer. The renewables obligation scheme exists to incentivise UK renewable electricity generation through a system of tradeable certificates. Of course, it is not a current scheme—it closed to new applications in 2017—but existing sites will continue to receive support until the scheme ends in 2037. The scheme has been instrumental in taking a nascent renewable energy sector to where it is today, with the scheme supporting around 30% of total UK electricity generation.
The core of the renewables obligation scheme is a process in which electricity suppliers purchase certificates from renewables generators. This process continues unchanged. However, previously, suppliers ultimately recovered the costs of complying with their renewables obligations from consumers via electricity bills. Ofgem considered these costs when setting the quarterly price cap for domestic consumers in Great Britain.
From 1 April, the Government have instead been providing grant funding to electricity suppliers to cover 75% of the cost of these obligations attributable to domestic energy supply in GB. We have given a legal direction to electricity suppliers requiring them to pass these savings on to domestic consumers. Translated into the typical dual-fuel bill used by Ofgem, and accounting for other changes, our intervention delivered a reduction of £117 in the price cap on 1 April. Although the price cap on 1 July increased by £221 as a direct consequence of events in the Middle East, it would have been considerably higher still without the ongoing effect of moving the renewables obligation to the Exchequer, which continues to suppress bills.
I come to the vehicle through which those changes could be placed in legislation. The legislative basis for the grant funding that enables the energy bill reductions was originally due to expire in April; that is because the Energy Prices Act 2022 contained provisions that have been used, for the purpose of this legislation on these reductions, to sunset the possibility of those reductions being undertaken. As I mentioned, we debated the Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) Regulations 2026 in the Chamber this year. They came into force in April and extended the power so that it is now set to expire on 25 October. The regulations before us extend this time limit once more to ensure that the removal of costs from energy bills can continue.
I should say at this point by way of a confession that, when I was the shadow Energy Minister in opposition and took part in our consideration of the then Energy Prices Bill in 2022, I did state that I was rather concerned that some other Government might come along and use the provisions in that Bill for something else entirely. I was a little mollified by the fact that a sunset clause was placed in the Bill, but I consider that the changes that have been put into legislation here have a rather similar purpose to that of the Bill in 2022—at least as far as the clauses at that time are concerned; they aimed to provide additional assistance for people who had very high energy bills as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the volatility that resulted from that.
What we are looking at today is a further extension of those sunset clauses to cope with the next phase of that transfer of responsibility from energy bills to the Exchequer. The arrangements in the settlements were for three years to 2029 so, as things stand, these regulations will have to be extended repeatedly during the time that those savings on customers’ energy bills are in place.
This extension to the regulations is only until 25 April 2027. It says in my brief: “I therefore expect to return to the House by February to seek a further extension”, but that should read, “Whoever happens to be there at the time will come to the House to seek a further extension”. However, I can assure noble Lords that the department is working hard on some primary legislation, at the moment, which will provide a more permanent solution to be taken forward when parliamentary time allows. Your Lordships would therefore not be in a position of having to return every six months to take this matter forward.
I emphasise to noble Lords that the position is slightly different in Northern Ireland, as I think we know because we have debated it separately. Energy costs are a transferred matter for the Executive, and the Northern Ireland renewables obligation forms a smaller cost on electricity bills. The department has been supporting colleagues in Northern Ireland as they develop a comparable offer to the policy in Great Britain. Following a request from the Minister for the Economy in Northern Ireland, separate regulations were laid on 20 June, as I mentioned, to enable the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy to deliver a comparable offer. Those regulations have since been signed and have entered into force.
These regulations are a straightforward extension of an existing time-limited power, but they ensure that the Government can continue to deliver the bill reductions announced at the Budget while work progresses on a longer-term legislative solution. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank the Minister for presenting the regulations before us. I express the hope that he stays in his position, as indeed does the Whip. We do not like changes in the House of Lords.
I will make a couple of comments. Eons ago, I served as the shadow Environment Minister on an energy Bill in 2006 or 2007, I think it was, so plus ça change, plus—or rather, the more things change, the more they stay the same. I do not know how Hansard will cope with a French quotation so I will not say it.
What the Minister has put before us just confirms that this is smoke and mirrors. We are all playing for what is, in effect, a subsidy, and this has been the case since the mid-2000s, when his Government introduced this type of policy. Instead of me, as a householder, paying my household electricity bill, I am now paying it as a taxpayer, through my general taxation. I just hope the Minister and the department will step back from saying that this is a reimbursement or a return to me of £117, because that is not the case.
Where the department and the Minister could make a difference is by reducing the standing charge, as Martin Lewis, the money-saving expert, has said on many occasions. I know it has been outside the remit and the purport of the statutory instrument, but I just make a plea to the Minister, who has now disappeared behind the Dispatch Box—I cannot see him any more. I think he is still there.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I think that, in fact, our government lectern is higher than the opposition lectern.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
As we are all about the same height at this end, we do not need it. We should not worry about that.
Can the noble Lord write to me—I have asked this on more than one occasion—to tell me whether he, the department and the Government are inclined to look into this? From the point of view of household energy bills, that would make a real difference. If we could move away from renewables so that the application for the BESS in Knaresborough and Scotton is not approved next week, that would make the world a safer place, because my niece has been told that she will have to evacuate in the event of a fire. Knowing how highly combustible and flammable these things are, the world would be a safer place. However, with those few remarks, obviously I approve the SI before us this afternoon.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced these regulations. It is almost like double déjà vu because we have considered the Northern Ireland regulations and we considered these ones very recently. We had a good debate on them last time, so I will be incredibly brief on these. I sincerely hope that the Minister stays in post, because I enjoy working opposite him.
On the regulations, the Government need go on seeking these six-month extensions so that they can continue to deliver these savings, which are important at the moment. We have renewed hostility in the Middle East and increased pressures on the cost of energy, so we absolutely recognise the need for this to be done, and these regulations would extend those provisions from 25 October 2026 until 25 April 2027. I therefore recognise that, in the absence of other primary legislation, there is a need continuously to come back with the six-month extensions.
I welcome that the noble Lord said that his department was working on bringing forward a permanent legislative solution so that we do not need to continue doing this. Can we expect that in the energy independence Bill, or is the expectation that it would need to be a stand-alone piece of legislation?
I made all the broader points I need to make on this SI when we debated it previously, so I will not rehearse those again. The Minister knows where I stand on a need to reduce energy costs, and on some of the ideas that I believe in and which my party has put forward. I wanted to ask about the situation in Northern Ireland, on which the Minister kindly updated us. I welcome that his department has been working with the Northern Ireland Executive, and I hear what he says: that has been enabled and has entered into force. If there is anything else on the Northern Ireland situation that the Minister might choose to add, that would be welcome. Other than that, we support these regulations, we will not stand in their way, and I thank the noble Lord.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of both Amey and of Acteon subsea engineering company, which works on offshore wind and oil and gas around the world, and as chairman of Buckthorn Partners, all of which are involved with energy transition.
I am very grateful to the Minister for the introduction of what is, I hope, the last SI before the Recess. I echo the comments made by my colleagues about the way he always handles the Committee with respect and responds to as many questions as he can in the time available.
I hope that the Government will not continue to keep propping up the renewables obligation to the Exchequer with secondary legislation. The point has been made that it is also important that we have proper scrutiny of it through the introduction of primary legislation. I say to my good friend, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is the Liberal Democrat spokesman, that I have no doubt that there will be plenty of room to handle this matter in the so-called energy independence Bill. It is fast becoming a Christmas tree Bill. I would not want to be on that Bill Committee; it must be the worst job in DESNZ at the moment, because it is being written and rewritten. I hope that the clauses about banning licensing in the North Sea have now been removed, in advance of the new government leadership—we will see shortly—but this would be a good opportunity for this specific point to be remedied in primary legislation.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for the interruption due to the vote. I was simply going to give the Committee one example of the consequences of overreliance on renewables.
On 23 June this year, NESO, the National Energy System Operator, faced severe supply constraints caused by high electricity demand for cooling during an extreme heatwave, combined with—this is important—low wind generation at the time, unplanned gas plant outages and network constraints. These factors cause the grid frequency to fall below the normal operating limits. It should have been reported to Ofgem immediately. I ask the Minister: why was it not reported to Ofgem on the day or early the following morning?
Many other important aspects related to this matter are outside the scope of this SI, so I will either write to the Minister with specific questions or potentially table them in a Written Question. This was an exceptionally important moment for the grid, and it appears that there were many problems associated with it: control room engineers being forced to take emergency action without it being reported; allegations from whistleblowers that the grid came closer to blackouts than was reported; and senior corporate staff instructing control room engineers to avoid making or preserving permanent paper trails of their operational decisions. All of that would be wholly unacceptable; I know that the Minister will share in my condemnation of those working practices.
In closing, I revert to the point that I made at the outset. I sincerely thank the Minister for always being so gracious, receptive, polite and engaging. I wish him a good break. I hope that he will still be in his place when he comes back from the Recess, because I anticipate that the energy Bill will take up a good deal of our time in the next 12 months, and I hope that he will be a renewed voice of influence in the U-turns that Andy Burnham will be making to energy policy. I am very grateful to him for everything that he has done and the courtesy that he has shown me throughout. I attribute those comments also to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, because he has always been similarly engaging in these debates during the current Session. These have been an interesting and appreciated six months back in the job. I look forward to the following year and working with the Minister.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their constructive contributions and hope they will forgive me if I do not tarry too long in my closing speech and try to give a detailed response to everything that has been put forward. They are all very valid points but, among other things, we have a vote in about 20 minutes. I will certainly write to noble Lords on those points.
In particular, I am happy to write to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on standing charges. I have thought about this a great deal, but the issue is fraught with practical difficulties in how you do it. As the noble Lord pointed out, everyone has to pay for something somewhere. The question is what sort of equity you put in place if you are removing standing charges. A standing charge that goes on people’s bills as a block might be more properly allocated in terms of who pays for what and where. It is not a question of just taking standing charges away but of making sure that people are properly remunerated for network costs, distributed costs and all those sorts of things in a different way. That will be part of the content of my letter.
The noble Baroness is also sort of right to say that this measure is having the effect of taking charges off bills and putting them on to the general taxpayer. I would not exactly call it smoke and mirrors, but a charge will continue to be levied. However, there is one important point in this change that I hope noble Lords will consider. This changeover has an effect on the energy price cap each time round; changing billing from the levy to the general taxpayer means that the energy price cap is lower than it would otherwise be, which really is a saving for energy customers. As we can see, that is what has transpired as a result of these changes.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the situation in Northern Ireland. I am grateful to him for being brief, as I know he has concerns in a number of other areas. If he has any further concerns, I am sure we can take those up. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, my understanding is that everything is now complete. We have had the legislation through to enable the Northern Ireland Executive to put their own scheme in place, which they are now doing. The net benefit is going to be less, about £30 per customer, because of the different circumstances in Northern Ireland, but there are now no impediments in the way of that scheme being fully funded by the Treasury and fully operational under the aegis of the Northern Ireland Executive. That process is completed.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that the costs of operating this will be very small. It involves small administrative changes and no large costs will be outstanding from them. He mentioned NESO, the frequency response and the margin call that was made recently. I can assure him that, as far as the narrow version of events is concerned, there are active inquiries under way as to what happened on that occasion which NESO is undertaking as we speak.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
In the interests of transparency, will the Minister write to us with the outcome of that report, so that this Committee, and indeed the House, are fully apprised of what happened that day and the actions being taken?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Yes, I am very happy to do that, but I anticipate—I do not know whether the noble Lord has this actively in mind—that we may have an Urgent Question coming on this, so we may be able to start talking about it at that point.
On the wider question of frequency response, it is true that, as far as having a substantially renewables-based system is concerned, the possibility of wider perturbations in frequency is something that one has to consider. That is why, among other things, as he will know, there have been regular auction calls for frequency response mechanisms which can be brought to bear to make sure that those perturbations are very rapidly brought under control, because it is a question of more than 50 megahertz on either side of the 400 barrier. When it goes down too low, you have to intervene. Those frequency response mechanisms can do that very efficiently and have done it very efficiently. Therefore, there was no question that we were beyond the buffer as far as that margin call was concerned. That may be something that I add to my correspondence with the noble Lord.
Tackling affordability is the Government’s number one priority, and we acted at last year’s Budget by taking, on average, £150 of costs off energy bills, with those decisions now factored into bills for three years to come, as I have said. The recent price cap announced by Ofgem will be deeply concerning news for families. We understand that developments in the Middle East are concerning, and we will continue to monitor that situation ahead of winter and plan for contingencies. Should there be any further action relating to what is happening in the Middle East, it may well be that the Energy Prices Act 2022 comes to the rescue, as far as any of those measures are concerned. We will keep that under close review, and let us hope that things work out in a good way, but the Government will certainly keep a close eye on it should things not work out as well as we hope.
House of Lords
Message from the King
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to deliver to your Lordships a message signed with his own hand.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, the message is as follows:
“His Majesty, being desirous that the provision made by Parliament for the financial support of the Royal Household should be considered, asks the Lords Spiritual and Temporal to concur in the adoption of such measures as the House of Commons may propose as suitable”.
Royal Assent
Wednesday 15th July 2026
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 22–R–I(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (7 Jul 2026)
Social Security: Child Poverty
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the role of social security in achieving their aim of reducing child poverty.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, social security provides a safety net to support families when they need it most. This is why we have removed the two-child limit, lifting 450,000 children out of poverty, and delivered the first ever sustained rise in the standard allowance of universal credit. While important, our ambition on child poverty goes beyond social security. We are taking substantive action on the drivers of poverty by cutting the cost of essentials and making work pay.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the child poverty strategy demonstrates, as has my noble friend, the importance of social security, described recently by Minister Johnson as
“the bedrock of our welfare state”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/26; col. 875.]
Yet political debate is dominated by the negative false narrative of ballooning wasteful spending. Can my noble friend therefore say what the Government might do to combat this narrative and highlight the value of social security as a vital public service that invests in our society and the security of its people?
Lord Katz (Lab)
My noble friend is right. We want to make sure that the social security system is there to support all families when they need it, while taking action to make sure that work pays. Our ambition is that social security provides a safety net where needed and that it supports families to increase income through work where possible. At the same time, the Government are committed to ensuring that welfare spending remains on a sustainable path. We set a new welfare cap at the Autumn Budget 2024 to ensure that welfare spending remains under control over the course of this Parliament. Overall, forecast welfare spending is virtually unchanged from the last OBR assessment, increasing by only 0.1% in 2029-30. Tackling child poverty requires investment, including in our social security system. The cost of failing to tackle poverty is too high, both for children and for the country. This Government are investing up front to avoid those costs of failure.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, what role will work play in alleviating poverty in this country, given that work has benefits beyond the financial difference it makes to a family household?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Lord is right. We want to see everyone who can work working. That is why we have taken a number of actions to fix our broken social security system and to get people into work, particularly when it comes to targeting the over 1 million NEETs—young people not in education, employment or training—and giving them a start. For instance, the new youth jobs grant incentivises employers to take on young people who have been on universal credit for over 18 months, giving them jobs, with a £3,000 grant.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, it is hugely welcome that all children in families receiving universal credit will be eligible for free school meals from September, but we know that many who are already eligible do not receive their free school meal for a whole host of reasons, including stigma. Will the Government consider adopting auto-enrolment to ensure that no child who needs this meal misses their chance of receiving it?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right about the impact of free school meals. The unprecedented expansion of free school meals that this Government are implementing will lift 100,000 children out of poverty by the final year of this Parliament, which is equivalent to increasing each family’s income by £500 a year. On auto-enrolment, extending free school meals to all households in receipt of universal credit will make it easier for parents to understand their entitlement. We are updating the eligibility checking system, which will make it easier for local authorities and schools to check whether children are eligible. We are closely monitoring this and will consider further action if necessary.
Lord Bird (CB)
Are the Government aware that about 25% of those who fall into the NEET category are people who have been to university and have had further education or training?
Lord Katz (Lab)
That is absolutely the case. Alan Milburn’s interim report set out starkly the real stickiness there. When young people do not go into work or finish a course of education or training, there is a stickiness that we need to combat. We are determined to stop failing our young people, our communities and our economy. That is why we commissioned the Milburn report and we await his final report and recommendations.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s scrapping of the two-child limit will see half a million children lifted out of poverty. As 40% of the attainment gap is created before children start school and is driven by poverty, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the lifting of the two-child limit will raise attainment and hugely improve the life chances of children born into poor families?
Lord Katz (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely on the button. This is about not just improving the lives of children in poverty but future-proofing our country, our economy and our society. We have taken the decision to pull the single biggest lever that we could to tackle child poverty. By this move alone, as my noble friend said, we will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. Our child poverty strategy not only deals with the two-child limit but shows how we can boost families’ income through employment, drive down the cost of essentials so that parents can meet their children’s fundamental needs and give them the best start in life, and strengthen local support so that families can access vital services.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I have spoken before in this House about the poverty-shame nexus: the deep relationship between financial hardship and the psychological and social experience of shame. Can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to address not only material financial hardship through social security but the psychological and social aspects?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate touches on a really important point: the shame and stigma of being in poverty. That is why we are taking steps such as removing the two-child limit and extending free school meals so that, when children go to school, they have a hunger to learn rather than a hunger in their bellies. It is important that we are lifting people out of poverty, but the best thing we can do is to make work pay and put people into good, decent jobs, so that young children in those families understand that the way to success is through education, employment and training.
Lord Hintze (Con)
My Lords, alleviating need is of critical importance. Protecting the vulnerable in society is a critical piece of what we do. Can the Minister help me understand how the Government define poverty? I speak from personal experience.
Lord Katz (Lab)
The rather esoteric answer is in the recent baseline report, which sets out how we are going to monitor the child poverty strategy. We follow two headline metrics: relative low income, which understands the breadth of the problem, and deep material poverty, which understands that, in some cases, it is about how the basic items needed for survival cannot be accessed because of poverty. By using those two metrics, alongside a number of contextual indicators which look at household employment, debt and costs, we will be able to properly understand poverty in the round.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, the main role of social security in reducing child poverty is to act as a cash lifeline. It supplements or replaces earnings so that children can have a more stable standard of living. Can the Minister elaborate on what he said before, as to how it could work in practice when combined with decent wages, affordable housing and childcare? Benefits alone cannot solve every cause of poverty.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am pleased to say that I agree entirely with the noble Lord. We are taking a cross-government, holistic approach to sorting out this problem. That goes as far as our £39 billion 10-year programme for more social and affordable housing, so that we can tackle some of the outrageous things we have seen around the use of temporary accommodation and make sure that people have access to a good standard of living.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, one small but significant way of contributing to the life chances of young people would be the automatic release of unclaimed child trust funds. What consideration are the Government giving to doing that?
Lord Katz (Lab)
It is always a delight to hear from those in the party opposite on this, because of their childlike wonder and astonishment as they discover new features and issues in a system that they designed and have overseen for quite some time. I am happy to write to the noble Earl with more details on that scenario. We are considering all the ways to ensure that we have an affordable welfare bill, including making sure that we have efficiencies across the board.
National Shipbuilding Strategy
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beamish
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards implementing the National Shipbuilding Strategy.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are working hard to deliver for the UK shipbuilding sector. Since 2024, 1,000 jobs have been saved at Harland & Wolff’s yards in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, a £10 billion frigate deal was agreed with Norway—the largest of its kind in UK history—and millions have been invested in critical infrastructure, all delivered through close collaboration between government and industry. The National Shipbuilding Office plans to publish a new shipbuilding and maritime technology action plan this year, going beyond the national shipbuilding strategy to set out our bold vision for the sector and to maximise its high-growth potential.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
Sir John Parker produced his report on national shipbuilding policy in 2017. It was adapted by the then Government, reviewed in 2022 and adopted by the incoming Labour Government. The Minister’s own department has made some progress towards ensuring that there is a throughput of work in UK shipyards. What more can be done to ensure that departments such as the Department for Transport, which is currently looking at providing ships for Trinity House to be put abroad, and the Home Office, which is considering putting its Border Force cutters abroad, do not use only shipyards subsidised by the national Governments in those countries that farm out sub- contracted work to the Far East?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As always, the points that my noble friend raises on these matters are incredibly important. He will know, from his vast experience and the work he does, that we must have cultural change to rebuild the British shipbuilding industry and re-establish the sovereign capability. He will know from the region he represented with distinction for many years in Parliament, and now as a Member of this House still living in that area, the importance of the north-east for shipbuilding. We must have a situation in which buying British is first choice and our shipyards are first preference for the building of our ships, including for our Navy. My noble friend also makes the point that we need other departments to consider that as fully as they can.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the central role that Harland & Wolff is intended to play in delivering the national shipping strategy, supported by significant investment from Navantia UK, which will create many hundreds of new highly skilled, well-paid jobs in Belfast. What support if any can His Majesty’s Government provide to ensure that the Northern Ireland skills base is ready to supply enough properly qualified workers to fill these vital roles?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord will know as well as I do that if you went to Belfast a few years ago, as I did many times, you saw a derelict shipyard with nothing there. Now, you see investment going into Harland & Wolff and orders being placed there for the building of ships. It is a great credit to the people of Northern Ireland and the people of Belfast that this is happening. The Government are investing in shipbuilding.
On skills, which the noble Lord mentioned, he will know that Northern Ireland was given a growth deal, which can be used for skills. He will also know that just a couple of days ago, Queen’s University Belfast became part of the Defence Universities Alliance, which will also help with that. The blunt reality is that we need to invest money in our shipyards across the UK. We are doing that in Belfast, as well as other areas in the country.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, we have more ships tied up than at sea. That was witnessed by the lack of a ship in the Med at the start of this recent conflict and the delay in mobilising HMS “Dragon”. Where is the urgency in covering that gap? Also, with no replacement for our destroyers, how are we going to protect ourselves against the growing threat of ballistic missiles?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
One of the things we are doing was announced yesterday by my colleague from the other place in Faslane: £26 billion of investment over the next 10 years into naval bases across the whole UK, so that we can improve the availability of our ships. We also need investment in our shipyards, which is taking place. That is one of the ways we are seeking to do this. We will improve availability, but it will take some time. On the Type 45 destroyers and their replacement, we are looking to the Navy of the future, which will have air defence and ways of dealing with the threats we face—but in a different way from simply replacing our existing warships.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, Sir John Parker’s core message was absolutely clear: the British shipyards need a steady drum beat of orders, and the MoD must give a direction of travel. Shipbuilding now faces a yawning uncertainty, exacerbated by the defence investment plan. As has been mentioned, the Type 83 destroyers and the Type 32 frigates have been cancelled, leaving us susceptible to ballistic missile attack, and the Type 26 frigates currently under construction in Glasgow are being delayed. Now, all we have for the future is this vague concept of a common combat vessel, as yet undesigned, with no timelines at all. Why have the Government rejected the core proposition of the national shipbuilding strategy?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We have not rejected the core conclusions of that report. The noble Earl is absolutely right that we need investment, and the Government have announced huge amounts of it. I cannot read them all out, but on pages 35 and 36 he will see sums of money, labelled against numerous types of ship, that will be invested in the shipyards. He is quite right that we need a steady drum beat of orders. As a proud Scotsman—with his Scottish noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, sitting behind him—he will no doubt be as pleased as I am that 13 ships are to be built on the Clyde over the next few years. He will also know that only yesterday we announced with the Netherlands eight amphibious transport ships, all to be built in the UK. It is not a bad start.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, for too long we have had feast and famine within our warship shipbuilding industry. Part of the reason for the dreadful situation we are in today is that orders took too long to make and there was no drum beat. We will very shortly have four frigates—the great Royal Navy will have four frigates. It is almost unbelievable to say it. That is because we have not had a drum beat. Even now, looking to the future, with the 26s and the 31s, the Government have to commit to saying that they will build and drum-beat thereafter.
If you want 25 hulls, we all know that with a 25-year life you need one ship being built every year. If you want 30, which the Government have said they want, you need 1.3 being built every year. That is not happening, and we will not be getting the first of the new ships for another three years. It is extremely worrying. We must commit to a steady drum beat of orders that lets industry spend money, builds up the shipyards and gets the SMEs going. Then we can get back to having a Navy that can really do what it needs to do.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with the points that my noble friend makes. As I said in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that is what we are doing. We are steadily improving the drum beat that my noble friend talks about. We also need to ensure that we have the Navy that we need in the future. It will be a different type of Navy. Of course we will need warships and platforms; that is the point about the common combat vessel. Of course we will need such vessels, but they will launch from them uncrewed vessels above, on the surface of and below the water. When they are integrated on the digital platforms that we will have, they will give us huge capability to defend ourselves, our allies and our partners across the world.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I was born and brought up very close to the River Tyne, and my family did well from the shipping that went on there. As I grew up, the shipyards were closing. We do not have the capacity in this country that we used to, but we have engineers, maritime designers and electricians, all those who understand the designs that are necessary for maritime security. Does the Minister agree that even if we cannot physically build the ships, we have talents and abilities here that can be sold throughout the world to develop the maritime industry?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with the point about the brilliance of our engineers and technicians and our ability to build ships. It would be great to see them supporting shipyards around the world and the building of ships, but I think this House wants to see the re-establishment of our own sovereign capability and that of our own shipyards around the UK to build the ships that we need. That is what the Government are seeking to do, whether in the north-east, Scotland, Wales or England. Only yesterday I met a shipbuilder who is chief executive of a company that is starting to build ships on the Isle of Wight, OCEA. That is the sort of small or medium-sized business that we need to support alongside the big prime contractors. The intention of this Government is to re-establish the UK shipbuilding industry. I think that is an endeavour we can all get behind.
Sudan: Operational Restrictions on Humanitarian Actors
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Brown of Silvertown
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of increasing registration requirements and operational restrictions on humanitarian actors by parties to the conflict in Sudan.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, we are deeply alarmed by both the RSF’s and the SAF’s attempts to restrict life-saving aid from reaching Sudanese civilians. We are lobbying the RSF to rescind the directives imposed by its humanitarian agency, NAHA, requiring humanitarian organisations to register their presence or face expulsion. We are continuing to call on the SAF to show restraint and remove all impediments preventing essential supplies and personnel accessing areas of greatest need, such as El Obeid. As the rainy season approaches and needs increase across Sudan, all parties must facilitate safe, unimpeded humanitarian access in line with their obligations under international humanitarian law.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. As we are all painfully aware, the conflict in Sudan has created a catastrophic humanitarian crisis. Atrocities loom in El Obeid as they did in El Fasher and external actors continue to fuel this war. It is appalling that parties to the conflict are imposing increasing restrictions and threatening that vital emergency assistance. Will the Government please redouble their efforts to ensure that aid reaches those in need and maximise efforts to end this war—not least holding to account the external actors enabling this conflict?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Yes, and I thank my noble friend for putting it quite so strongly. She is right to do so, and she is a long-standing advocate for this cause. It is outrageous that humanitarian agencies are required to register as they are. We are redoubling the amount that we are spending on local agencies—which are able to work in a different way and be more flexible—some of which are not registered as humanitarian bodies and are able to work around this. But it is wrong and should not be happening, and nobody should impede access that is needed to provide humanitarian support and to protect civilians.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, we are hearing deeply concerning reports of continued assaults in El Obeid, and I welcome the recent statement from the UK and like-minded partners on that. Given these reports and the strategic importance of El Obeid as a humanitarian hub and as a gateway to Kordofan and Darfur, what assessment have the Government made of the humanitarian situation in El Obeid and what further steps can they take to make sure aid safely reaches civilians there?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is incredibly precarious. We see increasing gathering of troops around El Obeid, and we see more civilians moving into the city because they are being displaced from surrounding villages and are seeking refuge. This is an incredibly dangerous situation. We are monitoring it very closely, bearing in mind the limitations on our ability to be present on the ground there. I can assure the noble Baroness, because I know she cares deeply about this, that we are talking to our counterparts at Head of State level, and we are all speaking to our counterparts wherever we can, because I think we all understand the way that this stops is for the backers of both the armed groups we are talking about to insist that it stops. They need to stop funding, stop arming, and enable peace to be secured and negotiated.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an adviser to DAI. I welcome what the Minister has said about UK government action, but, as she will know, at an event I hosted recently in this House, we heard how local actors were delivering humanitarian aid on the ground where international agencies could not get. I am glad the Government are supporting those, but will they do more to support the emergency response rooms in Sudan? In some cases, they are the only agencies delivering to the people, and it is worth taking the risk of giving them a bit more money.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord. I have met them, and I think they are fantastic. They are not required to meet the registration requirements of the RSF, so they are able to operate more flexibly. We have increased our funding to them for that reason.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, those of us who have loved and visited Sudan are devastated. I really welcome this Question from my noble friend Lady Brown. What actions are the Government taking through the United Nations and other international platforms to improve accountability for attacks on humanitarian workers in Sudan, and what is being done to ensure that women are not continually raped as a weapon of war?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We increased our funding to victims of sexual violence, which we announced some months ago. That was the right thing to do, and we may need to do more. As for what we are doing multilaterally, we are the penholder at the UN. We have used our role at the Security Council, and noble Lords will know the difficulties with that at the moment. We have been more successful at the Human Rights Council and secured unanimous support for statements there. We have also had to create our own multilateral entities such as the coalition for atrocity prevention and justice to really keep a focus on this and to be more agile and outspoken where perhaps UN processes have proved difficult. We will continue to do this. One thing that may help us avoid seeing a repeat of what happened in El Fasher is a relentless focus on what is happening in Sudan and really holding those responsible—for committing those atrocities but also for supporting them—to account.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, for bringing this up, and I could not agree more with everything she has said. The essential thing is to get the aid flowing—to remove the impediments to the flow of aid to these people. We must have an end to the conflict in the first place. The noble Baroness mentioned the United Nations; there are other groups such as the African Union and the League of Arab States. What influence can His Majesty’s Government use with those groups to try to sort out this problem and to enable aid to reach those who actually need it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I was at the African Union meetings earlier this year and we have frequent conversations with it. We are actively supporting the US-led quad process. We will continue to do those things. The noble Earl is right that there are issues we face today with humanitarian support, but, in the long run, this will be resolved by a cessation of the conflict. We must use all the mechanisms—there are several available to us—to bring that about.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, in the skies above El Obeid as we speak are reconnaissance drones identifying women civilians as potential targets. There is the technology to ensure that there are no-drone zones to prevent humanitarian atrocities. This is authorised under a United Nations Security Council resolution. The UK, as the penholder for Sudan, is operating under that resolution. Why is there not prevention of drones targeting civilians in these areas?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The last time I answered a Question on this, I indicated that I would ask for advice on our duty to protect. I have had that advice and have asked for further advice specifically on that responsibility. I understand completely what the noble Lord is saying. I receive regular updates on the number of drones and attacks and the amassing of troops. All I can say for now is please be assured that there is a very strong desire from me, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to make sure that the United Kingdom does everything it can to protect people in Sudan.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her answers and the work she is doing on this appalling situation. It is clear from her answers that the obstruction of humanitarian aid accessing the country and being distributed is happening on a tremendous scale. This is clearly a crime. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that, sooner or later, those responsible face sanctions or, even better, judicial action?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am not going to say anything about sanctions that we may implement imminently, because that would reduce their impact, but we look at these things in a way that my noble friend would agree with. We have supported the fact-finding mission as well. We are working with our partners, including international NGOs and local partners, to find ways to support the delivery of the aid that is needed, despite the restrictions imposed by the RSF.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, there are children in danger and children dying. Save the Children UK has got into doing gimmicks. What does the Minister say to it? Why is it not saving children, as it says in its title?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
For those who do not know what the noble Lord is getting at, and I agree with him, there has been an unfortunate use of social media by Save the Children which is divisive, provocative and factually inaccurate. I am happy to debate with any charity, NGO or anybody else the decisions that this Government have made regarding any conflict at any time. What this country does not need right now are contributions that exacerbate divisions on topics that are incredibly divisive and sensitive. We should all conduct ourselves in a way that is respectful and grounded in substance. I encourage every campaigning organisation to do that.
Maximum Temperature for Indoor Workplaces
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sikka
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce legislation or issue guidance to specify a maximum temperature for all indoor workplaces.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, we recognised in our manifesto and our Make Work Pay plan concerns about high workplace temperatures in certain sectors causing serious health and safety concerns. We are committed to modernising health and safety guidance with reference to extreme temperatures. The HSE has committed to consult on the workplace health, safety and welfare approved code of practice later this year. Meanwhile, employers must protect the health and safety of their workforce and assess and manage workplace risks, including those from extreme temperatures.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, but let me outline the urgency. There were 1,311 heat-related deaths in 2024, 1,504 in 2025 and 2,700 in the last two months alone. Research shows that high workplace temperature damages health and is a safety hazard. Countries such as Spain and Belgium protect workers through laws specifying the maximum temperature for indoor workplaces, so what we need are enforceable laws, which I hope the Minister can provide us with, and not voluntary codes, which do not give anyone enforceable rights.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
First, I would say that the figures that the noble Lord cites about excess deaths from heat are obviously very worrying. Not all of those, clearly, would be related to workplaces. It is not true to say that there is no law or no ability to take enforcement against employers who do not act appropriately on keeping their workers safe, including with respect to excessive heat. The fact that the HSE is developing new guidance does not mean that this is not something where employers nevertheless have a responsibility to act and would be held to account by the HSE for that action.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Why do the Government think that this country has such a low level of air conditioning systems installed, and will they look again at their rather negative guidance on their acquisition?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I suspect, without being an expert on this, that one reason is that for most of the year we do not need to use them. Therefore, I think it is not unreasonable of government, certainly with respect to public buildings, to take a proportionate approach to the changes that should be made in those buildings—the adaptations which certainly will be needed in homes, schools, hospitals and elsewhere—and to provide sensible and proportionate advice, alongside considerable capital investment in order to enable that to happen.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we are on our third heatwave this year, so I very much welcome this Question. I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer and I recognise that numerous consultations are under way. What consideration have the Government given to the deployment of wearable tech, particularly to protect workers who work outside, who are particularly vulnerable to heat exhaustion and heat stroke from our warming climate?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Obviously, the responsibility for ensuring the safety of their workforce rests directly with employers. The HSE provides important guidance about how to ensure that that happens. I do not believe it covers the point about wearable tech that the noble Earl made—I will take that back to the HSE—but it expects employers to think about a whole range of different ways in which workers can be protected, whether inside or, as he says, outside.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, currently it seems impossible to buy air cooling systems—there are a variety—for love nor money. Can my noble friend guarantee that any new rules on maximum temperatures will give plenty of time and notice for employers to introduce those adaptations to the workplace, and guarantee the workforce some relief from unbearable temperatures next summer?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I know that this is something that my noble friend has raised on numerous occasions, quite rightly. That is the reason why the Health and Safety Executive is and will be engaged in a consultation on improving guidance. Guidance, of course, already exists for employers on how they should be taking action with respect to excessive heat. It is important, on the wide range of different things that employers could do to support their workforce, that the additional guidance that the Health and Safety Executive produces is done in consultation with the representatives of both workers and employers, so that these are practical and proportionate ways in which we can achieve the objective that I think we all share, which is that people are able to go to work, be productive and be safe even when temperatures are excessive.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, under the boiler upgrade scheme, air-to-water heat pumps are eligible for a £7,500 discount. Air-to-air heat pumps, which can be used for cooling as well as heating, are eligible for only £2,500. Why the difference?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Having learned more than I thought I was going to know about workplaces and excessive heat, I am afraid that that was not one of the bits of revision: so, if it is okay, I will write to the noble Lord on that question.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, there is a huge increase in people now working from home. Will the Minister also look at guidance for local councils, in particular with the review of the National Planning Policy Framework, to make it easier for people to cool their homes, particularly given that in some council buildings, councils are making it very difficult to install outside fans and to drill into external walls.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I know that my colleagues in the MHCLG are concerned about this issue. They understand that, as climate risks intensify, integrating adaptation into home upgrade policy is essential to mitigate overheating and other climate-related impacts. The Warm Homes Plan sets out our approach to retrofitting and climate adaptation. Over the course of this Parliament, we intend to introduce the most appropriate and cost-effective passive cooling measures into our capital-funded schemes, focused on improving the homes particularly of low-income consumers and those living in social housing, and we will prioritise higher-impact, lower-cost and lower-regret measures to ensure best value for money. The Government are also exploring how to set stronger objectives for climate adaptation to improve preparedness for the impacts of climate change.
Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answers. I declare an interest as chair of the Building Safety Regulator. I am fairly sure that the Minister is aware that, alongside active measures to cool homes, there is much that can be done in building design. We see that on the continent and in very hot environments. Is now the time to prioritise a long, hard look at Part O of the building regulations, so that we future-proof commercial and domestic premises to ensure some sort of longevity as we face what is by many objective measures a climate crisis?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
After this question, I will take a long, hard look at Part O of the building safety regulations. My noble friend, who is enormously knowledgeable in this area, makes an important point. Not only do we need to take the adaptation measures that I mentioned in the previous answer and put in place investment in our public buildings to enable suitable adaptation and to recognise the impacts of climate change, but I am sure he is right that we also need to look at how our building regulations take into consideration the impacts of the sorts of heatwaves that we have had this year as well.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister has said, the workplace regulations already require employers to make sure that workplace temperatures are reasonable, which is a pragmatic and flexible approach, given the different conditions and circumstances of different workplaces. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will not impose further prescriptive regulations and that, if they do act, they will do so by helping employers address serious concerns, for example by making it less difficult and less expensive to install and run modern technologies for heating and cooling, such as we enjoy in this Chamber?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is already the case that the Health and Safety Executive provides a wide range of options for how employers can fulfil their responsibility to ensure that the people whom they employ are able to work in reasonable conditions, even in heatwaves. I have already made it clear that the Government think that this approach, potentially looking at the thresholds of action that might be necessary as workplaces get to different levels of heat but nevertheless not mandating specific action related to a specific temperature, is the most appropriate way to go forward.
Mini-tender Offers: Protection for Shareholders
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Altmann
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect shareholders in major British firms from being targeted by mini-tender offers which seek to enable unauthorised overseas firms from buying shares from vulnerable share- holders below their market value.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and HM Treasury (Lord Stockwood) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to promoting the culture of retail investment. We are concerned by reports of shareholders being targeted by unsolicited offers to sell their shares below market value. Share- holders should exercise caution and carefully consider any such offer. The law is also clear: communications relating to the buying and selling of shares must be fair, clear and not misleading. We will continue to work with the FCA to monitor risk and ensure that investors remain appropriately protected.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, but there is no way that the offer can be considered fair. It cannot be justified as being in the shareholders’ interests. It does not mention that Aviva has its own small shareholder dealing service, for example. The gaps in shareholder protection that are allowing this cynical exploitation of vulnerable elderly people, who often received shares in the 1980s and 1990s demutualisations and denationalisations, seem to be a real loophole that we need to close. I would be grateful if the Minister would meet me while the Financial Services and Markets Bill is going through the House to see whether we can offer better protection. The courts have not protected, the data protection laws have not protected, and the FCA is merely looking at whether the law is broken. If not, we need to change that protection.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My Lords, I will of course be happy to meet the noble Baroness. As I hope we are showing through the process on that Bill, we are trying to rightsize our regulation to ensure that it is appropriate.
I will not comment too much on this particular case. The CEO of the FCA is committed to doing a thorough assessment. We have to be careful about what is regarded as a fair market price for products. The market assessment and the ability to make an offer, and making sure that those financial promotions are appropriate, should be absolutely clear and within the remit of the FCA. An under market price could sometimes be appropriate if there is no liquidity in that market, but I agree with the noble Baroness: we need to look at this specific instance to make sure that there is no wrongdoing. We believe that the FCA has the right process to be able to do that.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, mini-tenders, even by firms otherwise authorised by the FCA, fall below the FCA’s regulatory threshold. In the future, can the Financial Ombudsman require remedy for an investor caught in a mini-tender bait and switch, or do the clauses in the new financial services Bill requiring the FOS to conform to FCA rules in effect permit the mis-selling?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
The noble Baroness is correct, of course. Mini-tenders are not a distinct regulatory category. However, we believe that the activities associated with them currently fall within in the existing regulatory framework, including financial promotion rules and market abuse legislation. Where those communications are misleading, the regulator absolutely has to act. Again, we remain open-minded. It is only right that the FCA does this assessment, then we will take it in to see whether regulation is appropriate.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, given that these mini-tender offers succeed precisely because some shareholders may not recognise that the price they are being offered is well below market value, and because the offer may well be put to them using high-pressure sales techniques, can my noble friend the Minister give further consideration to assessing the levels of financial literacy among such shareholders, with a view to ensuring that those most at risk of exploitation are most clearly warned about these predatory practices?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
My noble friend raises an important point about financial education and financial literacy more generally. Again, I am happy to write to him. There are a number of initiatives across government. We believe that this is an important issue. Shareholders benefit from strong protections under the law and the regulations that already exist. They have rights to information, voting and participation in company decision-making. However, the Digitisation Taskforce recommendations that have just come out appropriately highlight where information asymmetry exists and where we need to get better at protecting some of our less sophisticated investors. It has some specific recommendations around less sophisticated investors. Again, we remain open as a Government. The FCA, the regulator, takes this seriously. We need to use this example as a way to tighten up and make sure that those protections and that education are both appropriate.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
Can the Minister tell us what the Treasury is doing to collect the stamp duty that should be chargeable on transactions where there is documentation executed in the United Kingdom, and whether looking at that might represent some method of providing a toolkit to defeat these bad practices?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
The Digitisation Taskforce and the access to data have many benefits, not only on promotions but for the issuers of shares to understand where exactly the shareholders are on their cap tables. We hope that that increased awareness of where shareholders and those transactions are will be covered by the current taskforce’s recommendations.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has identified one category of vulnerable small shareholders. There is an increasing problem of scams, to which smaller shareholders are most at risk. What cyber security is being extended to that category of risk?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Scams: fraudulent activity where people masquerade as a company wanting to buy back the shares—impersonation. Online shareholding accounts are particularly vulnerable to this type of activity.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
Part of the FCA’s consumer duty is to ensure that consumers are well informed and protected. The Home Office has issued another policy on protection from particular scams. I am happy to write to the noble Baroness with the specific duties. The FCA has a consumer duty overall and that would fall within that somewhat.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister on the importance of financial literacy, as he knows, but we must ensure that the UK remains a global hub for private investment and capital. Can he confirm that the new Prime Minister will create a climate that helps and keeps businesses in Britain, encourages people to invest and list on the UK stock market, and reverses the damaging brain drain of entrepreneurs and skilled professionals moving overseas?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I have become well aware of the noble Baroness’s interest in this issue. I am certainly not going to speak for a Prime Minister before he is appointed next week, but this really matters to this Government. My belief is that there will be a continuation of the strategy to ensure that we protect entrepreneurs’ interests, make the economy grow and make the UK increasingly attractive, particularly relative to our global competitors for investment. That is the job I do day to day, and I hope to continue to be doing it next Monday.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I have one further question. There are at least two issues at stake. First, the data protection legislation forced Aviva to send all the names and addresses of its shareholders on its register, even though this company wished to write to only a very small subsection of them. That is surely an issue for data protection legislation. Secondly, it is very difficult to understand how the courts could justify a 20% discount to the share price of a major firm, where there is no problem with trading and it has a small shareholder scheme, as being bona fide business interests.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises important points. There are two distinct answers to the question. On access to data, the courts have declared that a regulated entity, which any financial promotion has to go through, has to approve that offer and say whether it is for proper business or proper promotion. What we are talking about is an assessment of whether the offer is appropriate, which would be an assessment made by the FCA itself. Companies can apply to the courts to refuse access where they believe that the use of that data is not for a proper purpose. That is what happened in this case. Whether access should be granted is ultimately a matter for the courts. Shareholder registers and the ability to access them are also important for the issuers of those shares. Whether it is for a proper use has to be approved by a regulated entity.
As to whether it is below market price, we have to be careful about what a fair assessment of a market price is, depending on the liquidity of that asset. We need to assess this case to see whether it is an outlier or something specific to our market details, but I believe it is correct for the courts to decide whether it is for a proper commercial purpose.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
To broaden the issue slightly to investors getting advice from AI apps, such as Gemini, ChatGPT and Claude, do these apps owe the client consumer duty?
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I hope my noble friend saw the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech last night— I imagine everyone was glued to it at 9 pm, as I was. Very much part of what this Government and the FCA are trying to do is to ensure that we have the rightsized regulation for a progressive and world-leading market, which the UK is. It is really important that we do not constrain our financial system so significantly that we miss out on the opportunity that technology will provide for us. The Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England talked last night about the importance of making sure that we have the right regulation for AI while not rushing into overregulation so that we miss out on the opportunity that technology will create for this country. Regulation has to be rightsized and appropriate but, in an emerging field such as AI, we have to be careful not to strangle that opportunity at the same time.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2026
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Order laid before the House on 10 June be approved.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 14 July.
Sporting Events Bill [HL]
Wednesday 15th July 2026
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Sporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Sporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 3–R–I Marshalled list for Report - (13 Jul 2026)
16:41 - Division on Amendment 10 - Ayes: 212 / Noes: 171 - Amendment 10 agreed.
17:37 - Division on Amendment 17 - Ayes: 57 / Noes: 154 - Amendment 17 disagreed.
18:06 - Division on Amendment 46 - Ayes: 129 / Noes: 188 - Amendment 46 disagreed.
Lord Foster of Bath
“(f) Schedule (Sports rights provisions) (“the sports rights provisions”).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Foster, seeks to create a new “Sports Rights Provision” to the Bill, which relates to the rights of sporting companies with regards to gambling activities.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, the amendments standing in my name in this group are ones I have tabled before and, in tabling them again, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, showing that I am the chairman of both Peers for Gambling Reform and the charity Action on Gambling.
I have brought these two groups of amendments back today because I had a very useful meeting with the Minister, for which I am grateful, and I was able to explain in a little more detail their purpose. This is an opportunity to see if the Minister has decided whether the Government may, in one form or another, be rather more supportive of those amendments.
As I say, I have two groups of amendments. One relates to the need, I believe, to ensure that all sporting venues where the activities covered by this Bill take place are clear of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship. I will not rehearse all the arguments I have used before; suffice it to say that many major international sporting bodies believe it is the right thing to do. That is what is happening currently with the World Cup, as FIFA does not allow advertising in its stadia. The same is true for the Olympics, the Paralympics and many others. The organisations firmly believe that, among many other reasons, it would be wrong in particular to allow children to grow up believing that the only way you can enjoy a sporting event is by participating in betting on it.
I genuinely believe this is something we should be adopting for all sporting activities in this country, and certainly for international sporting events, on which a lot of gambling ends up taking place. Even though FIFA does not have advertising in the various venues, worldwide, gambling on the games currently taking place is believed to total half a trillion dollars—and that is just the World Cup. Gambling is very big business and it causes a great deal of harm to children and many other people. Tomorrow, the Gambling Commission will be publishing statistics, and we will be able to see how big that problem is in this country.
The second group of amendments relates to the unlicensed use of sports data. Sports data is increasingly valuable. Sports clubs use it to help with their training practices and so on, but it is also very useful for gambling organisations and, indeed, gambling syndicates that are trying to get money off the gambling companies. At the moment, sporting bodies enter into voluntary agreements with various companies that choose to do this work, allow those companies to collect the data and then, through licences, sell it on to other bodies, including gambling companies. That brings them in quite a lot of money. Unfortunately, those licences are currently very difficult to police, and there are all sorts of difficulties with taking action against people who act illegally or use unlicensed data.
This is a very big issue. I have in front of me a printout of a gambling website called LSports. LSports is not licensed to use data from this country, and yet it does. Indeed, it claims to cover 100 different sports, 3 million different fixtures in 15,000 leagues and 2,500 markets around the world. These people illegally—or at least, without a licence—use data which they claim in their advertisements is used by companies in this country such as Sky Bet and Betfred. I am deeply worried that these organisations are scraping data—denying money coming into sports organisations in this country—to feed into gambling companies that use it for all sort of purposes. Even more worrying is that in all their feeds, they include advertisements for illegal gambling websites: ones in this country and others that can be accessed around the world. This includes the largest illegal website in the world, 1XBET, which is supported by the Putin regime and helps fund it. We should not be supporting opportunities like that.
I turn to something even worse, and which is deeply worrying. I have another set of printouts, concerning a company that provides livestreams of major sporting events, including the current World Cup. The live feeds it provides to people, who choose for a variety of reason to get coverage of those events on its feeds, are absolutely full of illegal gambling websites.
The Minister is rightly desperately keen to do something about illegal gambling. I want to do so too, but I also want to do something about the harm that gambling in this country causes. The solution is very simple, and that is what my amendment effectively provides. It says that we should make it illegal for anybody to use the data from companies if they do not have a licence; it is a very simple solution that would make it much easier to bring prosecutions against people who do not have one.
So, I have two groups of amendments: one would make venues gambling advertisement free, and the second would stop people being able to use sports data without a licence. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I thought those were very interesting amendments. I am sorry that I had not read them, but they are interesting and worth considering by the Government.
I want to speak to Amendment 21. I begin by thanking Freddie Daley, whose work with Cool Down and Badvertising has helped to shape this amendment. His research has highlighted the growing tension between local fossil-fuel advertising bans and major sporting events. I know that the Government are not proposing a national ban on fossil-fuel advertising, even though I think they ought to. However, that argument was rejected in Committee and I am not trying to reopen that debate.
This amendment takes a different approach. It is saying that, where a host city or local authority has adopted climate, environmental or advertising policies that restrict fossil-fuel advertising, major sporting events should respect those policies. After all, the Bill is about creating a framework for hosting major sporting events. It should not become a way to bypass decisions that have already been made by local authorities.
We have a very useful example. In 2027, Edinburgh will host the Grand Départ of the Tour de France. Edinburgh City Council has already voted to ban high-carbon advertising, including fossil-fuel advertising, across council-owned spaces. Sheffield has adopted a similar policy, and other local authorities have done the same or are considering doing so. Athletes should not become moving adverts for fossil-fuel companies as they race past Edinburgh Castle and through the city’s streets. These councils have made democratic decisions about the kind of places they want to be. If they have decided that fossil-fuel advertising has no place on their streets and public spaces, why should an international sporting event be treated any differently?
I do not need to repeat the reasons we brought in Committee on why this matters. This year’s Tour de France has already had to shorten a stage because of extreme heat, for the first time. Here in the UK, running races have been cancelled this week and other sporting events and transport are affected. Climate change is already changing how major sporting events are organised, yet sports, including cycling, continue to provide a valuable advertising platform for fossil-fuel companies, and these adverts are no accident. Fossil-fuel companies do not sponsor cycling because they sell bikes; they do it because it allows them to associate their brands with healthy lifestyles, beautiful places and active travel, rather than with the filthy emissions that are driving our climate emergency.
Sports such as football and cycling were once full of tobacco sponsorship. As the evidence of harm grew, public attitudes changed; the rules changed and the sport adapted. Today, that relationship feels completely out of step with the values that sport represents. I believe we are beginning to see the same shift in attitudes towards fossil-fuel advertising. If sporting events are allowed to sidestep local advertising bans, they risk becoming one of the last remaining routes for fossil-fuel companies to advertise in cities that have deliberately chosen to restrict that advertising. We should not be asking cities to choose between hosting world-class sporting events and sticking to their climate commitments. This amendment would make sure that they do not have to.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as this is my first opportunity, I am sure that we all want to send our best wishes for good luck to the England football team in their major sporting event this evening—particularly to the midfielder Elliot Anderson who, like all the best people, comes from Whitley Bay.
Although I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I made clear my views in Committee that the amendments we considered then and have looked at again today do not meet the test of proportionality that is important here. My view remains unchanged on that. I completely understand the concerns the noble Lord set out, but we must of course set that against the fact that many sporting events rely on sponsorship from gambling companies, a perfectly legal activity in this country. We must consider carefully how further restrictions on gambling sponsorship could affect British sport: for instance, the English Football League, whose title partner is SkyBet, or the England and Wales Cricket Board, which has been forced to relax its own restrictions this very month because of a paucity of other commercial sponsors. We need to look at this carefully and with a cool head.
In Committee, I expressed my concern, however, at the scale of illegal and unlicensed gambling. This is much more likely to lead to societal problems because the companies involved do not incorporate the necessary protections and safeguards, and have far less care for their consumers. In Committee, I pressed the Minister on the consultation, which the Government announced earlier this year, on banning unlicensed gambling sponsorship and advertising. This very morning, I was pleased therefore to see that she has published a Written Ministerial Statement announcing that consultation, and I look forward to hearing the views of those connected to it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, recognising the significant national event taking place this evening, I will also endeavour to keep my remarks brief and I have no intention of taking this Report into extra time. However, as we commence today’s debate on the Sporting Events Bill, it is only fitting that we acknowledge this momentous occasion and the commendable efforts of the England team. I join the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and your entire Lordships’ House in wishing our national team the very best of luck this evening, wherever the players might have been born.
Amendments 2, 3, 4, 23 to 28, 36, 39 and 40, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, seek to regulate sports’ rights provisions and gambling advertising. I thank the noble Lord for coming to the department to discuss his position in more detail. While it is not appropriate for the Government to intervene in commercial sponsorship and advertising arrangements, we will not hesitate to take steps where necessary to ensure that these arrangements are socially responsible. As the noble Lord noted, FIFA and the Olympics and Paralympics have their own restrictions. The Government have already implemented a number of reforms in this space. Just today, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, we launched our consultation on banning unlicensed sponsorship within sports and other sectors. This Government are also committed to tackling illegal gambling through the Gambling Commission and our Illegal Gambling Taskforce, with our most recent task force meeting taking place yesterday.
Regarding the sharing of sports data with unlicensed operators, this Government have no reason to believe that it is currently a significant issue. However, if needed, we will not hesitate to consider this further through our task force. I would be happy to continue discussing this with the noble Lord, Lord Foster, including on the additional information he gave today.
Amendment 20 would require regard to be given to the protection of children and vulnerable persons from harmful or age-restricted advertising when applying the advertising provisions to an event. The advertising offence in the Bill is designed to protect event owners’ commercial rights by preventing unauthorised advertising in a restricted zone. The Advertising Standards Authority has many rules to help protect children from harmful or age-restricted advertising. Advertisers should ensure that adverts do not include anything likely to result in physical, mental or moral harm to children, or anything that encourages unsafe practices. On top of that, products such as alcohol and gambling should not be promoted irresponsibly; they should always be promoted responsibly. Adverts must not, for example, link them to social success nor encourage recklessness.
Amendment 21 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would require advertising in a restricted zone to comply with local authority policies, including those related to the climate and the environment. The noble Baroness gave some powerful examples of the impact of climate change on current sporting events. I assure the noble Baroness that any advertising activity undertaken in a restricted zone will have to be in accordance with existing legislation and other regulatory requirements, including local authority policies. Advertisers will also need to consider the Committee of Advertising Practice and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice codes’ rules on environmental claims. With these points in mind, I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, and I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his contribution. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I find it strange, given that the IOC always requires a sustainability requirement in its plans, that this is not included in the Bill before us today.
There is no question that I desperately hope the England team will do infinitely better tonight than I have done. Despite all my training and my workup before this performance, the Minister has just provided a stonewall to me, and I have lost at this stage. But there are always other rounds, and I look forward to those. With that, I wish the team the very best of luck. I will enjoy watching it tonight, hopefully in an arena that has no advertisements, no marketing and no advertising. I hope that they do better than I did. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(5A) Regulations made by an appropriate national authority under this section may not apply the advertising provisions and the trading provisions for a period that is longer than the specified period.(5B) In subsection (5A), the “specified period” means a period of time that must—(a) begin no earlier than the beginning of the period of 21 days ending immediately before the day on which the sporting event begins, and(b) end no later than the end of the period of 5 days beginning with the day after the day on which the sporting event ends.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would establish a maximum period in which the advertising and trading provisions of the sporting events framework can be implemented in relation to a particular event. This is consistent with the approach taken in Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 and the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2020.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I have retabled Amendments 6, 8, 9, 41 and 42 to press the Government a little further on how parliamentary accountability will be guaranteed in the application of the new framework. Amendment 6 would introduce a maximum period for which the framework can be applied. Amendments 8 and 9 would ensure that all regulations applying the framework, or modifying the application of it, are subject to the affirmative procedure. I am grateful to the Minister, in tabling her Amendment 7, for taking on board the points that I and others made in Committee, and the criticisms of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House.
Amendments 41 and 42 are consequential and would ensure that financial assistance can be provided by an appropriate national authority only if the corresponding legislature has approved that financial assistance by positive resolution. In Committee I cited Erskine May to highlight the importance of this matter, and those words still stand. If the Minister is not willing to accept these amendments today, this is something the Government should continue to consider when the Bill heads to another place.
The most important amendments in this group are Amendments 10 to 13 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock—a full house of political and non-political Benches. The amendments have also attracted cross-sector support from sporting bodies: the Sport and Recreation Alliance, the Lawn Tennis Association, the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club for Wimbledon, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Football Association, the R&A for the Open Championship, the Rugby Football League and the Rugby Football Union. I am pleased to see my noble friend Lord Caine sitting behind me; he was a non-exec and a board member for the Rugby League World Cup in 2021. These bodies have been joined by UK Athletics, the London Marathon and Silverstone—the host of the British Grand Prix.
I draw your Lordships’ attention to my register of interests. I was one of more than 570,000 people who attended the Formula 1 events at Silverstone just a few days ago—the largest ever event in Formula 1. Unlike so many other host nations that hold Grands Prix, Silverstone does so without state funding. All those sporting bodies do a tremendous job delivering huge sporting events that bring great delight to those who watch them, inspire people to become more active and involved in sport, and contribute so much to our economy here in the UK. So I hope the Minister will accept the amendments that noble Lords have put forward, and I look forward to hearing them speaking for their amendments.
These amendments may not be perfectly drafted, but if we can put them in the Bill they could be improved in another place. It would be very important to broaden the Bill—as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, said at Second Reading, that would make the Bill a bit bolder in a very important way. If the Government are not minded to support these amendments, these Benches certainly will. I understand that the Government see Amendments 10 to 13 as a connected package. I look forward to the debate, and I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for reading out the list of groups that have backed these amendments; I was always terrified that I was going to miss one or two of them. We will take it as read that the noble Lord got it right. I congratulate Ulysse Abbate in my Whips’ Office for helping me with the drafting of these amendments. He helped me to put down the smallest number of words I have ever put in, to the best effect.
Basically, the Government have a very good idea here. Expand it to fit in a few more events that are part of our sporting and cultural heritage. They have done something good here. Enjoy it. You do not often get this much support for a government idea to do something. If they cannot embrace this, they should have a little generosity of spirit and say, “Yes, it’s good”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, has put the cherry on the cake with her amendment, which says that events will be included but only if they ask for it. That is reasonable. One or two may want to stay out; I imagine that most will not, but allowing them that is good.
All of us, even those who do not regard the beautiful game as their most beautiful game—I am afraid that is me—wish England well tonight. I could expand on this at considerable length, but I would like to leave this Chamber with as many friends as I came in with, so I will sit down.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 13 is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Foulkes. I will also speak in support of Amendments 10 to 12, to which I have added my name. Although it is an unpaid position, I declare my interest as a board member of the London Marathon Foundation.
As we have heard, these amendments have a simple aim: to address what many of us in this House believe is a significant gap in the Bill, which we have covered in our previous debates. Taken together, they seek to widen the definition of events to which the framework provisions may apply so that major established UK sporting events—events woven into the fabric of our national life—are not excluded from the potential benefits that the framework can provide. My amendment seeks to address this gap in a proportionate way by allowing a sporting event organiser to request that the Secretary of State apply provisions—maybe one or maybe a number—from the sporting events framework to their event. This amendment is deliberately modest. It would place no obligation on the Government to extend the framework automatically, and it would create no automatic entitlement. In other words, these amendments would simply create an opportunity, not an obligation.
I am grateful for the support of the co-signatories of my amendment and those of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I am afraid I will repeat the list of sporting organisations that supported our amendments, because it shows how they are wanted across the sector. We are grateful for the support expressed by the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, the ECB, the FA, the London Marathon, Silverstone, the R&A, the Rugby Football League, the Rugby Football Union, the Sport and Recreation Alliance and UK Athletics, all of which have written in support of our amendments.
As they state, the Bill “establishes enabling legislation”. Any use of the provisions in the sporting framework would still require the agreement of the Secretary of State following a request from the relevant body, and that decision would then be subject to affirmative approval in Parliament. Opportunities for primary legislation in this area do not arise often, so we truly believe it is sensible to include these powers now so that, if a compelling case were made in future, Governments would be able to act quickly and effectively. As the sporting organisations themselves have made clear:
“We envisage that any request submitted by a sporting event would be accompanied by supporting evidence explaining both the challenges faced and the benefits that would result from the provisions being applied”.
I thank the Minister and her officials for their engagement on this issue. I know that they have also had constructive discussions across the sector. I recognise that the Government are sympathetic to the arguments for extending the framework to major regular UK sporting events that are likely to be of international interest and to bring significant social and economic benefits to the United Kingdom or part of it. For that reason, we had hoped with fingers crossed that the Government might have been in a position to bring forward their own amendment at this stage, but unfortunately that has not proved possible.
I believe this gap must be addressed before the Bill leaves the House. I hope the Government will be able to accept these amendments or commit to bringing forward their own at Third Reading. If not, I will support the noble Lord, Lord Addington, if he calls a Division. I am grateful that the Government, as my noble friend said, have agreed that my Amendment 13 is complementary, so that this debate can continue in the Commons.
This is ultimately a question of future-proofing the Bill. These amendments would not guarantee support for any event or require the Government to exercise these powers. They would simply ensure that Ministers can respond where there is a demonstrable public interest in doing so. Our world-class regular UK sporting events generate billions for the economy, attract international audiences, showcase the best of us and inspire participation across the country. This Bill provides an opportunity to support those events more effectively, but to do so we must ensure that they are not left outside the framework it creates. These amendments offer a modest, proportionate and practical means of achieving that objective, and I hope that, along with an England win tonight, the Government feel able to accept them.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendments 11 and 13. I remind noble Lords of my registered interests: I am chair of Sport Wales and, with that, I sit on the board for UK Sport.
We have a rich history of organising sports events in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, is absolutely right. We do not get much of an opportunity to discuss sport, but what we need with this Bill is some flexibility around what we are trying to do.
The world of major sports events bidding has changed quite a lot. For many cycles of bidding for the Olympics and Paralympics, we bid seven years out, but that changed when the international landscape changed, and the IOC has moved to announcing several Games in one go. We can look at what happened with the Commonwealth Games, when Australia pulled out and then Canada ultimately pulled out of one of the Games. We have to be fleet of foot if we want to bid for these events.
As someone who has worked in and been in sport for a very long time, I do not think that we should underestimate the power of these governing bodies coming together. They are wide-ranging and work on quite different events, but the fact that they all agree that these amendments are needed is important. We should listen to them. These amendments are important for what we are doing, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, let me first say that, like all sensible Scotsmen, I will be supporting England tonight. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that soccer is my main interest, as a former chairman of Heart of Midlothian Football Club, so I have a particular interest this evening.
I support this amendment for all the reasons I gave at Second Reading and for the excellent reasons put by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, in her speech. However, I have had an opportunity over the last few days to discuss this issue with my noble friend the Minister. She has assured me that this will be looked at over the Recess and sympathetic consideration given to the points in this amendment. Accordingly, I hope that we will not divide the House this evening, because we want to look forward to finishing before the witching hour, as we all know.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I support all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 13, in the name of my noble friend Lady Evans. She made an eloquent speech but, really, she covered the issue in three words: opportunity, not obligation.
“It’s coming home”, my Lords. These events are already here, year in, year out, delivering sporting, economic, social and place-based growth, one might say. The very definition of a framework and enabling legislation is opportunity, not obligation.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, on Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Markham, I am sure that your Lordships’ House will be pleased to hear that the Bill already goes further than the amendment proposed. Within the provisions in the Bill, advertising and trading provisions can be in place for no more than 10 days before the beginning of an event and no later than five days after the event concludes. I hope that these clear limitations in the Bill will reassure noble Lords.
Amendments 7, 50 and 51, tabled in my name, seek to ensure that all regulations applying the framework provisions are subject to the affirmative procedure, except in urgent cases in which the “made affirmative” resolution procedure would be used. In bringing forward these government amendments, we have listened to the concerns of the House, noting Amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, and the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. These amendments ensure that Parliament can debate regulations, while preserving flexibility to accommodate unforeseen and last-minute changes. I hope the amendments tabled in my name reassure noble Lords of the importance we place on ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, while providing some flexibility to accommodate unforeseen changes.
Amendments 10, 11, 12 and 13 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and the noble Baronesses, Lady Evans of Bowes Park and Lady Grey-Thompson. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, summed it up when he said that we have a huge number of events in this country already. However, this Government recognise there is more we can do to support the whole major events sector. I can confirm today the Government’s intention for the major events strategy to be published by the spring.
Throughout the Bill’s passage, a number of noble Lords have raised the question of whether the remit of the Sporting Events Bill could be extended to include recurrent major events in the UK. I am hugely grateful for the time noble Lords have taken to talk me through the rationale of how this could support our fabulous events, from Wimbledon to the British Grand Prix at Silverstone and the London Marathon. As the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, indicated, these discussions have been hugely constructive. I have also heard directly from event organisers who are keen to explore this further, and we are continuing discussions between event organisers, officials and Ministers over the summer.
I recognise the strength of feeling on this. It is not always the case that a Government Minister is told to expand the scope of a Bill, and we recognise that the sentiment behind this is one of support for events in this country. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the Government see merit in exploring the idea further. As my noble friend Lord Foulkes said, we are committed to continuing the conversation over the summer with noble Lords and event organisers. However, I regret that, at this point, I cannot commit to a specific outcome for these discussions. There are a number of considerations we need to work through carefully, particularly around how proportionate it would be to potentially restrict fair competition for small businesses on an ongoing basis and, for instance, who would enforce regulations.
I understand there is concern that events such as the Rugby League World Cup or the Women’s T20 World Cup would be out of scope. Noble Lords will appreciate that the nature of the framework means that we expect particular events to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I reassure your Lordships’ House that we expect both cricket and Rugby League World Cups to be exactly the type of events that could meet the conditions. I recognise noble Lords’ good intent in relation to this matter, but I am keen that we get this right and make sure that any potential unintended consequences are considered before we make a decision in this regard.
On Amendments 41 and 42, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, the Government fully agree that, when it comes to public funds, transparency and accountability are non-negotiable. However, these amendments are unnecessary. There are already robust mechanisms in place. The supply and appropriation legislation enables Parliament to debate and approve spending plans, including allocations for major sporting events. As an accounting officer, the DCMS Permanent Secretary is accountable to Parliament to ensure departmental spending on major sporting events meets the Managing Public Money principles of regularity, propriety, value for money and feasibility.
Over the past decade, the United Kingdom has secured and delivered almost 150 major sporting events, many with the support of government investment. Therefore, requiring such scrutiny could place a disproportionate burden on parliamentary resources and risk delaying the provision of urgent financial assistance. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that response and for the time she has made available to noble Lords from across the House on the other amendments we have discussed, including with many of the sporting bodies that are involved. It is for the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Evans to decide what to do on their amendment.
For my part, we would be inclined in normal circumstances to take the Minister’s word for it, for she is a woman of her word who has worked hard on this. However, we find ourselves in unusual circumstances where she, the Secretary of State and the Sports Minister in another place may be in different positions by the time the Bill heads to the Commons. So, your Lordships’ House would be well advised to put something in the Bill to reflect the cross-party, cross-House support we have had on this issue and the strength of feeling, and to leave that as a work in progress. I will leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but reiterate that we will support him if he chooses to divide on this important issue. I thank the Minister for her answers to the amendments I moved and beg leave to withdraw Amendment 6.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede)
My Lords, if Amendment 7 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 8 or 9 because of pre-emption.
Amendment 7
Baroness Twycross
“(6) Regulations under this section are subject to—(a) the affirmative resolution procedure, or(b) the made affirmative resolution procedure, if the regulations contain a statement by the appropriate national authority making them that the authority considers it necessary for the regulations to be made urgently.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendments to clause 27, provide for regulations under clause 2 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure except in urgent cases where such regulations will instead be subject to the made affirmative resolution procedure.
Lord Addington
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Addington, would remove the requirement for events covered by the Sporting Events Framework to not be regularly hosted in the UK.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has clearly been reading over my shoulder at some point. I am afraid that, if we knew we were dealing with the same team, with the same leadership, maybe we would have considered not voting. I feel a little churlish—but only a little. We have got other amendments here which agree the affirmative procedure, which is welcome—I should have said that earlier. But we need something in the Bill. If something were to come back at Third Reading, I would not be pressing this to a vote. But we have not received that assurance, so I am afraid I must beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I believe Amendments 11 to 13 are consequential amendments.
Amendments 11 and 12
Lord Addington
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Addington, would remove the requirement for events covered by the Sporting Events Framework to not be regularly hosted in the UK.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Addington, would remove the requirement for events covered by the Sporting Events Framework to not be regularly hosted in the UK.
(aa) that the sporting event organiser has asked for the sporting events framework to be applied,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and one in the name of Lord Addington change the sporting events framework conditions to include more regularly held events of both national and international interest and to require a request from the sporting event organiser.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I want first to congratulate the Minister on the speed at which she is going through her responses to us. It is absolutely admirable. I will try to be brief. I have two amendments in this group and have seconded Amendment 48 from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which I will mention briefly while not trying to upstage him.
On Amendment 14, when we debated climate duty amendments in Committee, the Minister said that there was no need to mention the environment or climate in the Bill because those were already captured by the term “social … benefits” in Clause 3. I have to admit that I find this rather difficult to follow. If the Government agree that environmental and climate impacts are important, and the Minister said that they agreed with the spirit of the amendments, I simply do not see why they cannot be named explicitly in the Bill. It seems quite a leap to suggest that climate and environmental considerations are somehow covered by “social”. These are significant issues in their own right. They deserve to be recognised as such and not left to this implication, which even I think is vague.
We have heard that sporting events can have a considerable environmental footprint, but they also have the opportunity to leave a positive legacy through cleaner transport, more sustainable infrastructure and better environmental standards. If, as the Minister suggested in Committee, environmental and climate benefits are already intended to form part of these decisions, I really hope that the Government will see no difficulty in making that clear in the Bill. I ask them, “Please, please. Just do it, please”—they have been so conciliatory to other Peers.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Was that begging too much? I am trying to get progress here.
On Amendment 35, on transport plans, this is from Fran James, founder of the Football and Climate Change Newsletter:
“I welcome that at Committee stage the Minister was clear that the Government support the principle of sustainable transport and want spectators to reach major sporting events safely, efficiently and, where possible, by lower-carbon modes of transport … With that agreement, the question before us is whether that principle should be reflected on the face of the Bill. I believe that it should … This amendment recognises that every event, venue and transport network will be different … It ensures that environmental sustainability, climate mitigation and climate resilience are considered when transport plans are drawn up … We know that spectator travel is one of the biggest environmental impacts of major sporting events. At the Birmingham Commonwealth Games, spectator travel accounted for more than half of the event’s carbon footprint. At EURO 2024, fan travel made up an even larger proportion of emissions … But we also know that this can be done successfully. EURO 2024 demonstrated what effective low-carbon transport planning can achieve. Around 81% of fans travelled to venues by public transport, hundreds of thousands of additional rail journeys were made possible through inter-venue travel arrangements, and fewer than 5% of fans travelled by car … Climate change is already affecting transport infrastructure. The Government’s own transport adaptation strategy acknowledges that extreme heat, flooding and other climate impacts are creating risks for our networks … A major sporting event concentrates thousands of people into particular places at particular times, meaning that a single climate-related disruption can quickly become a major problem … This is why resilience needs to be considered at the planning stage … It’s not new either. FIFA’s hosting requirements for the Women’s World Cup 2031 and 2035 require hosts to encourage low-carbon transport infrastructure. A key indicator in the Paris 2024 sustainability strategy was the proportion of venues accessible by active travel or public transport. UEFA delivered EURO 2024 under its Environmental, Social and Governance strategy … This amendment aims to give the UK a clear statutory basis for the standards that major sporting bodies already expect … The Climate Change Committee’s latest assessment of UK climate risk highlights that flooding, subsidence, wind and heat are increasing threats to the transport system, and that climate change impacts will increasingly pose risks to the operation of major events … Requiring the person preparing a transport plan to have regard to resilience is a practical way to address that risk, without losing the flexibility planners need … The climate crisis is shaping the future of sport whether we acknowledge it or not. Our transport plans need to reflect that reality”.
That is the amendment that I really would have liked to divide the House on, but in view of the pressure on us all to finish the Bill as quickly and efficiently as possible, I will not do so. But I bitterly resent that it has not yet been taken up by the Government, because it is so important and obvious that I do not understand why they do not accept it.
On Amendment 48, from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, we already know that climate change is changing sport. The extreme heat this summer has disrupted major sporting events and there are always concerns for athletes and spectators. Ignoring those realities does not make them disappear. It really is time for the Government’s strategy to catch up. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I agree pretty much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has already said. As somebody who was present 60 years ago at every England match in the World Cup, including the final and the somewhat controversial Argentina game, I do not want to hold up the House for very long, but, as she said, I have tabled Amendment 48. I have engaged with the Minister, and I thank her for what she has said and for the meeting that she and her staff held with me yesterday.
It was not quite the explicit endorsement of what Amendment 48 requires that I was hoping for, but I think I can reasonably deduce that the Minister is saying that, when the major events strategy emerges, it will be clear that environmental sustainability, including explicitly climate change mitigation and adaptation, will be referred to there, and that the work the Government are already doing will appear in their approach to major sporting events. I do not know why that cannot be made explicit in the Bill and, as one who very much supported the Climate Change Act’s provisions at the time, I am assuming that I can stretch the Minister’s words to say that what they are doing will, in effect, be what is required by the Climate Change Act.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendment 47 in my name, which would place a clear time-bound duty on the relevant local authority to keep the areas around a sporting event clean during the event and to clear them within a fixed period afterwards.
I will not detain the House with the full catalogue I set out in Committee. Noble Lords will recall my description of the morning after Arsenal’s title parade, with residential streets strewn with broken glass, bottles and cans, and with bins overflowing and left in that state for the best part of two days. The parade itself was a joy; the aftermath was a disgrace and it was avoidable. In Committee, the Minister was courteous and, I think, sympathetic. However, sadly, I did not get any of the follow-up meetings that other noble Lords did. The Minister agreed with me about the rapid clean-up after the Notting Hill Carnival, so these things can be achieved with the right resource and planning, and I am grateful for that. However, when I asked how the Bill would guarantee it, the Minister offered me three existing powers, and I want to explain very briefly why none of them answers the case.
The duty in Section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act binds only so far as is practicable, and the code beneath it grants authorities a recovery window in which the street may lawfully remain filthy. It is this very regime that allowed my neighbourhood to stay as it was. The Minister pointed next to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provisions, but those are available only for conduct of a persistent or continuing nature and only after a written warning, and they are appealable. To deal with a parade of tens or hundreds of thousands, the Government basically offer a power designed for the neighbour who will not clear up their front garden.
Lastly, the Minister pointed to the litter conditions that may be attached to traders’ authorisations, but those reach the litter of a licensed stall, not the crowd, and that is the whole problem. The Minister’s best example was Brent Council, which cleans diligently around Wembley. But Brent chooses to do that. Islington chose not to. That contrast is the entire argument for a statutory floor. My amendment is for the residents who do not happen to live in a borough that chooses to do the right thing.
I have redrafted my amendment to meet every point the Minister made. It applies in addition to Section 89, so it duplicates nothing. It writes in the timescale the code omits: clean within 12 hours, and broken glass within three. It covers processions and assemblies on the public highway and it answers the resourcing question the Minister rightly raised by allowing the cost to be met centrally or recovered from the organiser. I should like a commitment in principle and a meeting before Third Reading to discuss it in more detail before I consider whether to divide the House.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I shall be brief. I have signed Amendment 48, which it seems to me should be in the Bill, especially as we are living through what we are living through right now. A UK government report in 2025 exploring the financial implications of climate change on grass-roots sports estimated that climate-related disruptions already cost grass-roots sport in the UK £320 million annually. Some £200 million of that goes in repairs and maintenance, and £120 million goes in lost revenue from cancelled matches. Every age group is affected. On 19 July 2022, when the temperature soared to 37 degrees, a 23 year-old playing cricket in Durham ended up in an ice bath in hospital because he was hit by the heat. We suffer from heat in this country just as much as people in hotter countries because we are not used to it.
What is important now is to use sport. The FIFA World Cup is the most watched event in history. At the moment, 14 of the stadiums face climate risks. By 2050, 90% of host stadiums could face dangerous heat and 11 host stadiums could face completely unplayable conditions. It is a real risk, but football itself is starting to adapt. We are seeing cooling breaks, heat protocols and schedule changes. The reality is that this hits the highest levels down to the grass roots. Pitches are damaged, seasons are disrupted, water scarcity affects maintenance and community clubs face rising costs from climate-related damage. This is about the future of the entire football system, not to mention other sports, because it is local parks, schools, amateur clubs, academies and national leagues. It is the all the things we want to foster in a country that prides itself on community groups and, especially, on football.
Sport has a unique role to play in helping to drive climate action, because it can, on a practical level, do all sorts of things. Emotionally, sport, particularly football, is one of our most powerful storytelling platforms. Already, 86% of fans of the big clubs say they want clubs to speak out on climate action, and 91% say they would feel even prouder of their clubs if they took proper action.
We know what to do. We just need to move fast. We need investment in sports grounds. We need to protect people from future climate change. We need public information, shade and trees. This is stuff we know. This will improve the quality of life for everybody, and sport is a brilliant way through. Quite honestly, if sport does not give that kind of message, what kind of message does it give? It is meant to represent the health and the best of this country. Everyone will be watching this football match. We need to act on this, because it tells the right story that our Government ought to be telling.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is an interesting set of amendments. I think the most appealing one in the context of the Bill is from the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. There is a general principle that might be better addressed in other legislation that goes further. I will be interested to hear what the Government have to say, but I think this is the start of the process, not the end of it. We shall see.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I, too, am very glad that my noble friend Lord Harlech has returned to this issue on Report. He cannot be the only Islington resident who was dismayed by the aftermath of the parade he mentioned, but I am sure he has given it far greater thought from a legal and legislative perspective than any other resident, and I am sure all other residents of the borough will be grateful to him for returning to this in such a dogged and forensic manner. I hope the Minister will take that on board and will be able to give him some further thoughts today and in the meeting that he seeks.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, it is a question of what is appropriate for this Bill. While I appreciate the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, as we heard in Committee, many international federations and event organisers now expect very high environmental commitments from those bidding to host major sporting events. If our national associations want to apply for such events, they will have to comply with these ever more ambitious sustainability and environmental requirements. I am still not convinced that this Bill is the right place to write them in, but I agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of public transport from an environmental aspect as well as from an accessibility point of view in making it easier for more people to get to these sporting events.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I turn first to Amendments 14 and 48 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Boycott, and my noble friend Lord Whitty. The Government fully agree that environmental sustainability should be considered at every stage in the planning and delivery of our major sporting events. I note the example shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. We genuinely recognise that there is an issue that needs to be dealt with, and this debate is clearly in the context of an extended heatwave.
The Bill explicitly provides that, for the framework to be applied, a sporting event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or to a part of it. Your Lordships’ House may be pleased to know that social benefit here encompasses consideration of environmental and climate impacts where relevant. I will, of course, be delighted to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others to discuss this further.
I have shared throughout the Bill’s passage the important measures in place to integrate sustainability into our major sporting events from the outset: from the Gold Framework guiding organisers bidding for government funding to non-negotiable requirements in our spending processes. However, I have heard the strong concerns and valuable insights raised across the House and recognise that there is always room to do more, especially on matters as important as our environment.
That is why I am pleased to be able to give a firm commitment today that, as noted by my noble friend Lord Whitty, the environment will be a clear and stated consideration as the Government develop a major events strategy—not only for major sporting events but for all major events hosted across the country. Should the evidence gathered suggest that we can do more when it comes to major sporting events, we will be guided by that data to reflect on how and where we go further. In the meantime, I am happy to confirm that sustainability will be a key consideration in the community programme for Euro 2028, the first event that this Bill will support.
As well as taking steps to reduce the event’s impact on the environment, the Euros’ community programme will actively seek opportunities to build climate resilience into its broader ambition to support communities. I appreciate noble Lords’ interest in the adaptation reporting power. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has recently consulted on how best to target these powers, and is in touch with all relevant departments, although we are clear that the decision to apply it should remain at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
I turn now to Amendment 35, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Major sporting events vary significantly in scale, location, venue layout, spectator profile and the transport networks serving them. An appropriate requirement in one case may be unnecessary, disproportionate or impractical in another. We believe that the most effective approach to tackling transport concerns would be through collaborative, integrated planning and delivery tailored to the specific needs of each event.
On Amendment 47, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, there is no doubt that the cleanliness of the environments in which we hold our major sporting events is vital. I will be very happy to meet with the noble Lord; I met with a number of noble Lords who took up the offer that was made in the Chamber and in my all-Peers letter. I am sorry that the noble Lord and I have not yet met up, but I will make sure that my office gets in touch with him so that we can meet before Third Reading.
Going back to the cleanliness point raised today and in Committee by the noble Lord, this is why, as set out in Committee, local authorities have a duty to support this under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That is in addition to measures such as the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse statutory guidance. Also, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 confers powers to help them tackle persistent, unreasonable behaviour negatively affecting communities. Adding to those duties would require local authorities to substantively alter their operational approach; as set out in the new burdens doctrine, this requires proper assessment given the potential for significant additional costs, ultimately borne by the taxpayer. We believe that a holistic approach is more appropriate.
In light of these reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this group. I accept that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, is a very sensible one, and every council ought to think along those lines. However, I am incredibly disappointed at the lack of support for environmental and climate change measures from this side of the Chamber. It is very disturbing, given that we have so many pieces of information that we can slot together now to say that we are in danger. The Government often talk about climate change, but somehow it does not percolate through. It is a sort of amorphous mass that they talk about, but they do not see how it interacts with everyday events. Luckily, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, understand that. I do not understand why the Government do not. I would be very happy to meet with the Minister to discuss this, because I have been ranting this week and last week—stop nodding—on this issue. I cannot see why the Labour Government are so oblivious to the danger we are in. This needs to be in everything; it is not explicit enough to say it is part of social benefits. I absolutely despair, but I do withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Twycross
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is to make clear that more than one person may be designated to grant ticketing authorisations.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak first to Amendments 15, 22, 29 and 34 tabled in my name. These are minor and technical and make it clear that, where appropriate, more than one person may be designated in regulations to grant ticketing, advertising, trading and unauthorised association authorisations under the Bill. This would ensure the necessary flexibility to enable, for example, both the event owner and the local organising committee to grant authorisations if required.
Amendments 16, 37 and 38, also tabled in my name, make it clear that the power to create exceptions to the ticket-touting offence could apply to activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes. The amendments also clarify the definition of a charity as applied to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and they provide that charitable purposes are defined in accordance with the relevant legislation. We are listening to the concerns raised by your Lordships’ House about the potential impact on charities. However, in our view a blanket exception could undermine the objectives of the framework or create unintended loopholes. These amendments signal our clear intention to make exceptions, in regulations, to the ticket-touting offence for charities, where appropriate.
Amendment 32, also in my name, seeks to address concerns about the impact of the trading offence on those with an existing licence to trade in a restricted zone—noting Amendment 31 in this group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. We agree that the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly street traders holding a licence from the local authority, should be mitigated. While we need to be able to control trading activity in areas of high spectator footfall, it is right that we introduce additional protections for existing traders in those areas. This amendment means a designated authorising person, such as an event organiser or local authority, must take into account whether a person has any existing trading licences when determining whether or not to grant a trading authorisation. If an existing trader cannot be accommodated in their usual spot, we will work with organisers and local authorities to consider alternative trading arrangements in that limited period. We must be able to meet our commitments to event owners. That is why it would not be appropriate to introduce a blanket exception for all licensed traders, as the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to provide.
I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured by the changes we have made to address the concerns raised. I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 17 in this group, but before I speak to it, I thank the Government for many of their amendments. They have clearly listened to the problems raised. Generally speaking, this has been a Bill of good relationships. We had a meeting on Amendment 17 and the Minister brought officials in, but I made it clear that we think more should be done about ticket touting. Ticket touting is when somebody gets in between the person who provides an event and the person who buys the ticket. They put extra costs in, and they take the money away. The person providing the event does not get anything out of it and the person going to the event gets extra costs.
The amendment here is to put limitations on how much you can take out. It may be a difficult thing and there may be big players involved, saying, “But we’re providing a service”. They are not, actually. They are just giving the ticket out, and there are cheaper ways of doing it. I hope the Minister can give us something more here. We have Third Reading, and I hope we can get a little more out of it. I think we should get something more solid in the Bill; it is a major opportunity. Unless we start saying that we are going to do something about ticket touting, we will be involved in consultation for ever. For a long time it has been just a bit more consultation and, oh, they are providing a service. Is it a real service? I am not sure it is. I hope the Minister will have had some damascene conversion and will accept my amendments or give me something like them. If not, I am afraid I will have to call a vote.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 18 on ticketing before alighting briefly on Amendment 31 on trading. Previously I have highlighted the iniquity of not being able to trade a ticket with a Facebook friend if you have been jilted by the person you planned to go with or if in the months between buying the tickets for yourself and Grandpa, he has died. It happens. Not only preventing that sale but fining someone £50,000 for trying it is two-tier justice. You get less for burglary.
If you have bought half a dozen tickets or fewer for a game, you get to go with your family. It does not make you part of a crime family, yet this is what the Government are saying. The Bill purports to support the fan but it criminalises those whose plans have changed while failing to go after the organisers who could do so much more to sort out ticket abuse. This part of the Bill is stuck in the past in that it fails to consider the modern ways in which fans can be protected from scammers with new techniques such as proving identity and interoperability, which automatically validates and authenticates tickets. That prevents ghost ticketing and facilitates a regulated exchange between consenting adults.
The organisers of these events have not tried hard enough to stop the bots because it suits them to carry on just as they are. They can sell out and bank the cash on day one. We all want to ensure that the fans get a fair shot at going to the game—that is common ground—but rather than sorting the problem of the bots that stand in the way of the fans at source and ensuring that multiple bunches of tickets cannot be hoovered up, this Bill gives the organisers a free pass to do what they like. It is the ultimate unintended consequence.
I have previously given the example of the FIFA World Cup ticketing fiasco—outrageous prices, empty stadiums, ghost ticketing, the 15% resale fees from a monopoly supplier and no regulated secondary market. It encourages fans to hang around the turnstiles, which is a recipe for disaster and not in the best interests of fans. If the Bill is enacted, it would aid and abet these activities and prevent the Government intervening. We would be giving FIFA the legal right to do what it wants. Let us remind ourselves: this is the organisation that rescinded a red card under pressure from President Trump, who did not think it was a foul when he did not even watch the game. These are the people being given carte blanche. It is wrong.
Nobody wants the Olympics or the World Cup more than I do, so why are the peer-to-peer sites such as StubHub or your Facebook friends to be banned instead of encouraged to participate in regulated secondary markets? Why are we handing the organisers a monopoly for their favourite chums? Why cannot anyone get their story straight on how the mechanics of ticket surrender will work?
I ask the Minister, who I know has her lines, to concede that my previous warnings about FIFA and the World Cup ticketing have proved me right. Life has not worked out as she expected because the organisers are not the good chaps she thought; they are just in it for themselves. I invite the Minister to agree and to accept my proposal in Amendment 18 to focus more on the organisers who sell the tickets rather than the innocent families who want to go to the game and buy six tickets or fewer.
I move briefly on to trading in my Amendment 31 in this group. The whole purpose of these big events is to transform local economies. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and I made the strong case in the public interest for local traders and businesses to have some sort of economic benefit. At that stage our pleas fell on stony ground, but I am pleased now with the government amendment that says that local licensed traders will be given priority. At last, the Government have agreed with me that fans should be given the choice of consuming good local food and beer in local streets, served by local people, rather than being force-fed dismal cardboard burgers, gassy lager and overpriced tat in stadium concourses. We are agreed. We got there and, on that basis, I am happy not to move my Amendment 31.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend. I think we would all agree that he has brought some of the more colourful illustrations to his amendments during the passage of the Bill. Perhaps, like me, noble Lords are disappointed that the kebab did not make an appearance today, but in the dying moments the cardboard burger did. That is something to reflect upon.
I will speak to government Amendment 16 and the related charity amendments that have been brought forward on Report. When we began this process, the Bill was deficient when it came to the operations and thus the impact of charities up and down the country. The charitable sector makes such a contribution—socially, of course; psychologically, certainly; and economically, in so many ways, to the general well-being of this nation.
The London Olympics Act of 2006 contained charitable provisions, as did the Commonwealth Games Act of 2020. We have made some good progress. I thank the Minister and all her officials for their detailed discussion between Committee and Report, resulting in these amendments, which set out significant provisions and a real commitment to what could be included in subsequent regulations. It puts charities in a far clearer, far better position. It does not just benefit charities and charitable activity up and down the country; it makes sporting events and this Bill better.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I welcome the movement the Government have shown on these issues, particularly in tabling Amendments 16, 37 and 38, which respond to amendments that my noble friend Lord Markham and I tabled in Committee, attempting to put exemptions for charities from a number of offences into the Bill. While I might have preferred to go about it that way, I welcome that the Government have specified that charities can be exempted from the ticket touting offence. My noble friend Lord Holmes is absolutely right about the profound benefits that charities bring in so many ways.
It is also very welcome that the Government have tabled Amendment 32 in response to concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Fuller about businesses carrying out trading activities in accordance with existing trading licences. That is an important consideration to ensure that the application of the trading provisions is fair and proportionate.
I wonder whether the Minister and her officials in the department have spoken to the Advertising Association. It has been in touch with me since Committee about some concerns that advertising firms still have, particularly about the way the Bill does not explain sufficiently—to them, at least—how the new framework will work in practice for existing advertisers and media owners. If the department has not been in contact with the Advertising Association, it would certainly be a very good idea to do so, as the Bill heads to another place, because advertisers do such an important job in sustaining the climate for sporting events big and small across these islands.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I will first speak to Amendments 15, 22, 29 and 34 tabled in my name. These are minor and technical and make clear that, where appropriate, more than one person may be designated in regulations to grant ticketing, advertising, trading and unauthorised association authorisations under the Bill. This would ensure the necessary flexibility to enable, for example, both event owner and local organising committee to grant authorisations if needed.
I am very grateful to noble Lords including the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson, Lord Holmes and Lord Addington, among others, for acknowledging the changes we have made to improve the Bill based on direct discussions and discussions during earlier stages of the Bill. On the specific question relating to the Advertising Association raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, officials did speak to it ahead of the Bill’s introduction. I will ask them to engage again with the organisation concerned to make sure we are hearing its concerns directly.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Okay, I will carry on. With apologies to your Lordships’ House, I just had a moment where I asked myself, “Honestly, am I reading the right bit of paper?” I am pleased to have the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, confirm, in the spirit of the debate so far, that it appears I am not reading the wrong speech. It is a big group.
We must be able both to read our speeches coherently and to meet our commitments to event owners. That is why it would not be appropriate, in this Government’s view, to introduce a blanket exception for all licensed traders, as the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, seeks to provide. I hope that he will be reassured by the changes we have made to address the concerns raised and I commend the amendments in my name to the House.
On Amendments 17 and 19, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the ticketing offence in the Bill ensures that tickets can be publicly sold or resold only with authorisation from an event owner or organiser. This means that tickets will be available only on official channels. As I noted in Committee, we are determined that major sporting events hosted in the UK are inclusive and accessible to the widest possible audience. That includes developing ticketing strategies that put fans, fairness and transparency first. We have worked closely with UEFA to ensure that these principles are at the heart of the approach to Euro 2028. Tickets for the event will go on sale after the final tournament draw in December 2027.
The noble Lord’s Amendment 17 would require a report on the effectiveness of the provisions before they have been applied to regulations, and before tickets have gone on sale. We have, however, committed to evaluate the application of the Bill’s provisions within 12 to 18 months of Euro 2028. We have also committed to bring forward a price cap on the resale of tickets for all live events, including on the level of service fee that can be charged, and limits on the number of tickets that individuals can resell.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, noted, I hosted a briefing session yesterday to update noble Lords on this work and I look forward to providing a further update in the autumn. In response to the noble Lord, I stress and underline that the Government really want to address the considerable issues in the secondary ticketing market. I hope that noble Lords attending that meeting were reassured by the session that the Government are committed to ensuring that we have strong measures in place, at the very earliest opportunity, to tackle the secondary ticketing market. This is a clear manifesto commitment and, as set out in the King’s Speech, we intend to publish the draft Bill in this second Session for pre-legislative scrutiny.
Work to prepare this legislation is happening now and I ask noble Lords to have confidence that we intend publication to be absolutely as soon as possible, within what remains of this second Session. For example, had the noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked me whether I would anticipate that it will be early in the new year, I would say that I cannot commit to this, but hope it will be the case.
Amendment 18, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, unfortunately defeats the aim of preventing unauthorised resale and profiteering. It would create a significant gap in protections and leave us unable to meet commitments to major sporting event owners. The noble Lord suggested that the Bill was criminalising people who wanted to give away tickets or sell them at face value to friends and family. This is not the intention, and it is not the intention within the Bill to criminalise the private transfer of tickets at face value between friends, family and associates. That is why the offence applies only to activity that is carried out in a public place in the course of business, or with a view to making profit.
I turn to Amendment 31, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. As I previously outlined, we are committed to mitigating the impact on SMEs but are clear that we must be able to meet our commitments to event owners. That is why it would not be appropriate to introduce a blanket exception for all licensed traders, as the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to do. We believe that my Amendment 32 strikes the appropriate balance. I hope that I have provided the necessary assurances to noble Lords, and that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Baroness Twycross
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that ticket touting regulations may provide for activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes to be exempt from the ticket touting offence.
Lord Addington
“Duty to bring forward proposals on unauthorised ticketing activity(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must carry out and lay before Parliament a review on—(a) the operation and effectiveness of the ticket touting provisions in this Act, in particular the operation of Schedule 1, and(b) the integrity, affordability and availability of ticketing at sporting events to which this Act applies.(2) The review under subsection (1) should in particular consider whether the ticket touting provisions in this Act have prevented persons from—(a) reselling, or offering to resell, an event ticket at a price exceeding its face value amount;(b) reselling, or offering to resell, more event tickets than the person was entitled to purchase in the primary sale;(c) charging, through a ticket resale platform, a buyer a service fee, or a seller a combined commission and service fee, exceeding 10% of the face value amount;(d) charging a purchaser in the primary market a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;(e) engaging in surge pricing;(f) operating a ticket resale platform that displays incorrect material information about an event ticket, or that fails to take reasonable steps—(i) to verify that a listed ticket exists,(ii) to prevent listings above face value or in excess of a seller’s entitlement, or(iii) to remove non-compliant listings. (3) Within six months of the day on which the review under subsection (1) is laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must publish draft legislation setting out proposals to improve the ticket touting provisions in this Act, including provision to remedy any deficiencies and shortcomings found in the relation to the points mentioned in subsection (2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a review of the ticket touting provisions in this Act and publish draft legislation to remedy any shortcomings in the effectiveness of the ticket touting provisions in this Act.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I appreciate that the Government think that they are doing something, but we have been waiting too long. I think we need something in the Bill to encourage this. I beg to move.
Baroness Twycross
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to make clear that more than one person may be designated to grant advertising authorisations.
Baroness Twycross
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to make clear that more than one person may be designated to grant trading authorisations.
Baroness Twycross
“(4) In determining whether or not to grant an authorisation under this paragraph, a designated authorising person—(a) must have regard to any existing trading licences, and(b) may have regard to—(i) any agreements entered into (whether by the appropriate national authority or another person) for the purposes of the sporting event, and(ii) any other matters that the person considers relevant.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to require existing trading licences to be taken into account by a designated authorising person when determining whether to grant a trading authorisation.
Baroness Twycross
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to make clear that more than one person may be designated to grant association authorisations.
Baroness Twycross
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a drafting refinement.
and, in relation to such a charity, body or institution, “charitable purpose” has the meaning given in the relevant Act”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the definition of “charity”, in relation to Northern Ireland, includes an institution treated as a charity by virtue of the Charities Act 2008 (Transitional Provision) Order (Northern Ireland) 2013. It is also defines “charitable purpose” (see the explanatory statement to my amendment to clause 7).
Lord Addington
“Infrastructure strategy for major sporting events(1) Regulations under section 2 which apply the sporting events framework to a sporting event may require the appropriate national authority to publish, or require another person to publish, an infrastructure strategy for the sporting event. (2) An infrastructure strategy is a document setting out—(a) an assessment of the infrastructure needs of persons attending or participating in the sporting event,(b) the steps to be taken to ensure that sufficient infrastructure is available to meet those needs at a range of price points, and(c) any measures proposed to prevent excessive pricing of infrastructure in connection with the sporting event. (3) In this part, reference to infrastructure includes—(a) accommodation;(b) internet services;(c) energy infrastructure;(d) water infrastructure;(e) waste services;(f) health services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to ascertain how the Government will make proper provision of various infrastructure forms when hosting the major sporting event.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, we come to a little triumvirate of amendments standing in my name. To take them in order, we start with the infrastructure requirements for providing any games or championship. I will not go over old ground, but I would like some assurance from the Minister about what process the Government expect to follow to make sure we get the infrastructure right. There are certain models, such as the London Olympic Games, when a great deal of infrastructure was put in; but then, with the Birmingham and Glasgow Commonwealth Games, we did not have to do much. If building has to be done, what is the process for getting assurances on it?
Then we come to what I think is my favourite of the three amendments: on getting some benefit down to grass-roots sports. This is inspired by our experience during the London Olympics, because the one thing we did not do was encourage people to play sport. We learned how to build lovely things and how to watch sport, but we did not get people to play. We thought that just watching and having a good example would be enough—it is not. There are other examples where we have been more successful, such as in championships. There is a great deal of competition between netball and rugby union regarding which has been most successful in encouraging back people who had had some training but fell out of the sport. Basically, it needs a targeted approach. What are we doing to make sure that grass-roots sports benefit directly from this activity? That is the question we are raising here.
Then we come to the thorny question of broadcasting. What are we doing to make sure that people can actually watch an event, particularly if it is one of ours, and particularly if the Government have put in money, time and energy. What are we doing to make sure that people who cannot get tickets can still watch? I could have used the term “free to air”, but I would be pulled up on it: “Ah, but you need to pay the licence fee to get it on the BBC”. I am referring to something that is not hiding behind a paywall. Are we making sure that people notice these events and can feel included, even if they are not actually there, and can obtain some benefit from them?
I hope that the Minister will have positive, reassuring answers on these amendments, so that we can take them forward for future events. I doubt very much that she will inspire me to vote again, but I hope I will get positive answers. I look forward to her reply.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on this trio of amendments, which reflect the important discussions we had in Committee on sporting legacy. Those debates were enriched by the considerable number of Olympian and Paralympian Members of your Lordships’ House. Supporting grass-roots sports and sporting legacy is one of the most important lessons from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
My Amendment 49 and the consequential Amendments 52 and 53 in this group attempt to press the Government on when they will publish their major events strategy. Because of the purposes of this Bill, the amendment reflects sporting events, but this is something eagerly awaited by a number of sectors: sports, culture, arts and many more that host, or seek to host, major events. The Government have said that they will publish the strategy but have not given a clear indication of when, which has slightly affected some of our debates. I do not know whether the Minister is able to say any more on this.
I particularly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, says in Amendment 45. It is a particular shame that the Commonwealth Games to be held soon will not be broadcast and readily available for people on the BBC, for the first time since 1954. I hope the Government will consider how such an impact can be avoided for future sporting events.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 43, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which concerns the infrastructure for major sporting events. As I set out in Committee in more detail, I reassure your Lordships’ House that this is exactly the type of technical requirement already set out in contractual hosting agreements and specified by event owners. As part of the bidding process, prospective hosts will have to provide the necessary assurances to event owners that there will be sufficient capacity and infrastructure in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked whether there were sufficient powers if further infrastructure is required to host an event. In the case of London 2012, a delivery authority was established with significant powers as a result of a very specific set of requirements, including significant investment in the construction of infrastructure such as new venues. In the Government’s view, this is not going to be required for every major sporting event. We therefore do not believe it is necessary or proportionate to include prescriptive requirements in relation to infrastructure and accommodation in the Bill.
I assure the noble Lord that we will consider event requirements on a case-by-case basis. We recognise that, when the Government are required to make commitments which go beyond the common requirements set out in the Bill, or in circumstances such as the establishment of a delivery authority, it may require further primary legislation to support event delivery.
On Amendment 44, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the Bill explicitly provides that, for the framework to be applied, a sporting event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or part of it. This would encompass supporting community participation and the growth of grass-roots sport. I am pleased to confirm that the first event this Bill will support, UEFA Euro 2028, will prioritise grass-roots participation as part of the Government-backed community programme, catalysing the growth of a more inclusive game, boosting pride and fostering togetherness across the country. In any case, the Bill already allows us to set funding conditions which could, of course, support grass-roots investment where warranted.
On Amendment 45, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, accessibility and inclusion already underpin major sporting events’ funding. It is a core objective of the Gold Framework and a non-negotiable criterion within our public funding processes. While we are committed to doing more to improve accessibility, we also need to strike a balance between protecting the independence of our media and ensuring that broadcasting revenue can be invested back into the growth of our sports. There is also a matter of practicality: event planning and broadcasting rights negotiations do not always proceed on the same timetable.
Finally, on Amendments 49, 52, and 53, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, as I set out earlier, we are committed to publishing a major events strategy that spans events in all sectors, not just sport. I am pleased to confirm that this will be published by spring next year. It is right that we commit time to fully work this through, in collaboration with those in the industry, to ensure it accurately reflects the opportunities and challenges they face. Of course, it is also right that there continue to be specific strategies for particular issues such as the Gold Framework that underpin our strategy for major sporting events. 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 her reply and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his amendment. I should have commented on it, because it is a sensible suggestion.
We are at the start of a positive dialogue about building. The Government had a good idea on which they should have been bolder. These are all things that would have strengthened the Bill if there were in it but are probably not essential. Having heard what the Minister said, and liking the thinking if not all the words, I have no hesitation in withdrawing my amendment.
Lord Fuller
“Disapplication of guaranteed hours provisions for sporting events(1) This section applies where the appropriate national authority has applied one or more parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event.(2) Where this section applies, the provisions mentioned in subsection (3) do not apply in relation to an employer who employs a worker at an event that is to be treated as forming a part of the sporting event.(3) The provisions are— (a) the following provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996—(i) sections 27BA to 27BZ, and(ii) Schedule A1;(b) Schedule 2 to the Employment Rights Act 2025.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment disapplies the provisions of the Employment Rights Act 2025 which require an employee to give a worker on a zero hours contract guaranteed hours when a worker is working at a sporting event to which the sporting events framework has been applied.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 46, which seeks to ensure that the organisers of the big events can be assured of an adequate supply of flexible labour and human capital to make the tournament a success in the few weeks every decade that the circus rolls into town. As we have seen with the World Cup this week and the Olympics in 2012, a month-long tournament can unite a nation. My grandfather ran in the 1932 Olympics; he was Britain’s fastest man. At that time, the Olympics helped dig America out of its great depression. Sport can do these things; it is why we want these events.
In sport, the favourite does not always win. You sort of have to feel sorry for the French. They had booked their tickets all the way through to Sunday and now they are flying home. There are no guarantees.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
If the noble Lord’s grandfather was the fastest man, can he speed up his peroration so that we can get to the World Cup match?
Lord Fuller (Con)
I am reminded by the Deputy Speaker on the Bench to the left of me that I have 15 minutes, although I do not intend to take that amount.
So there are no guarantees—not in this game. In 2012, there were 70,000 Games makers who contributed 8 million hours. There were many other employees involved in broadcasting, catering, cleaning, merchandising, ticketing, security, bar work and selling ice cream, all the way from Stratford to Portland Bill. Let us say it was 150,000 people in total. We celebrate that because, without those 150,000 people, the Games would not have been a celebration at all.
The problem is that these are temporary events and mobilising that sort of temporary labour is now illegal. The Employment Rights Act means that the ad hoc work that these tournaments need cannot be offered to people without a guarantee. That is incompatible with a Games of uncertainty, which depends on personal performance, individual events and knockout stages.
The only conclusion I can form is that the Government expect the organisers and contractors to underwrite these guarantees to the people selling beer, ice cream, et cetera. But who would sign up to such open-ended liabilities? The Government say they want to sweep away the uncertainty and risk of big events being in this country, but let us be clear: the Employment Rights Act provisions, in so far as labour is concerned, add high costs and regulatory risks that exist nowhere else in the world.
My amendment is intended to be helpful. These events happen only once every decade and they are obviously temporary. We know that the hours cannot be guaranteed, because that is the way they work, so my amendment carves out the ad hoc employment from the Employment Rights Act, but only in so far as events that fall within the Sporting Events Bill, because I want people to take part to support the delivery of the tournament, put their shoulder to the wheel, grow as individuals and make the Games a success.
The Government either want to host these events or they do not. Nobody wants them to host these events more than me, so let us empower our negotiators and give them every chance of success, not hobble them with additional rules and regulations that do not apply elsewhere, potentially damaging the enjoyment and pleasure of going to the game and giving us the agony, once more, of coming second in that penalty shoot-out or tiebreak against other more enterprising nations who will beat us to the podium for the hosting rights. I beg to move.
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, I just inform the House that although I did advise my noble friend that he had 15 minutes, I also advised him that I did not think he would be very popular if he availed himself of the full 15.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his points, which we supported in Committee and support still. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and my noble friend Lady Morris for their refereeing and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, I do not think a worker on a special event should have any fewer rights than a worker on any other occasion.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, as we reach the final moments of play on Report, I am pleased to turn to Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. It is clear that, in some circumstances, zero-hours contracts and contracts guaranteeing a minimum number of hours can benefit both employers and workers. However, without the appropriate safeguards, the flexibility they provide can operate disproportionately in favour of employers, leaving workers with greater uncertainty over their working patterns and income.
Any exclusions or exemptions introduced at this stage risk pre-empting the outcome of the Government’s ongoing consultation on reforms to zero-hours and similar contracts. Through this consultation, the Government are seeking evidence and views from stakeholders on reforms to zero-hours and similar contracts, including whether any exclusions or exemptions may be appropriate. It is important that the views of all stakeholders are fully considered before any decisions are taken on potential exclusions or exemptions.
The Government’s objective is to ensure that all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability, enabling workers to better plan their lives and finances. We encourage stakeholders from the sporting events sector to engage with the consultation and help inform the development of the policy.
I also note, in response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that nobody would have believed she would have encouraged the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, to speak longer than necessary, given the circumstances.
With that, I will blow the final whistle on my remarks but I look forward to continuing commentary and debate, both on the Bill and on tonight’s match. I know all noble Lords wish the England team the best of luck and hope, indeed, that football is coming home. On the basis of the points I have made, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I regret to say that the VAR review has said that we may need to go to extra time on this. This is a serious matter which gets to the heart of how serious we are about hosting these events. We need to encourage participation by individuals and everybody else to give opportunity to millions. I am really sorry, but I am not satisfied with the answers that have been given. I intend to divide the House and then we can all go and watch the game. Come on, England.
Baroness Twycross
“(7A) Where regulations under this Act are “subject to the made affirmative resolution procedure”—(a) if the regulations are made by the Secretary of State— (i) the statutory instrument containing them must be laid before Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after being made, and(ii) the regulations cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament;(b) if the regulations are made by the Welsh Ministers—(i) they are subject to the Senedd confirmation procedure (see section 37D of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019), and(ii) they cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the regulations are made unless, during that period, the regulations are confirmed by a resolution of the Senedd;(c) if the regulations are made by the Scottish Ministers—(i) section 30 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 does not apply to the regulations,(ii) the Scottish statutory instrument containing them must be laid before the Scottish Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after being made, and(iii) the regulations cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of the Scottish Parliament;(d) if the regulations are made by a Northern Ireland department—(i) they must be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly as soon as reasonably practicable after being made, and(ii) they cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which they are made unless, during that period, the regulations are approved by a resolution of the Assembly.(7B) In calculating the period of 40 days—(a) in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State, no account is to be taken of any time during which—(i) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or (ii) either House of Parliament is adjourned for more than four days;(b) in the case of regulations made by the Welsh Ministers, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Senedd is—(i) dissolved, or(ii) in recess for more than four days;(c) in the case of regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Scottish Parliament is—(i) dissolved, or(ii) in recess for more than four days;(d) in the case of regulations made by a Northern Ireland department, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Northern Ireland Assembly is—(i) dissolved,(ii) in recess for more than 4 days, or(iii) adjourned for more than 6 days.(7C) If regulations cease to have effect as a result of subsection (7A) that does not—(a) affect the validity of anything previously done under the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to clause 2.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to clause 2.