Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

14: Clause 3, page 3, line 8, leave out “or economic” and insert “, economic, environmental and climate”

[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.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

59: Schedule 5, page 42, line 3, at end insert—
“(2A) A plan prepared under this Schedule must—(a) have regard to sustainable modes of transport, including public transport, walking and cycling,(b) aim to minimise greenhouse gas emissions associated with travel to and from sporting events, and(c) include arrangements for admission tickets to a sporting event to confer entitlement to travel on specified public transport services serving the event.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that transport plans for sporting events promote public transport and other sustainable modes of travel and seek to minimise transport-related emissions, and include integrated ticketing arrangements allowing spectators to travel on public transport using their event tickets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Thank you. I am so sorry I was not at Second Reading. This is very much the sort of thing that I feel very strongly about. My three amendments in this group are on three different topics. One is transport, one is sustainability reporting and the third is on climate duty, all of which I feel very strongly about. I am going to find it hard not to bring these back if there is not progress.

It is extraordinary that this week, the hottest June day ever for the UK has been measured in Surrey. We are hotter here than California’s Death Valley, and that is saying something. We really are not weatherproofed and we are not heat-proofed. We are very lucky in this Chamber. I sat in Portcullis House at 9 am this morning: it was baking. We stewed in there. Of course, a lot of people do not have the advantage of air conditioning like this in their offices and in their public places.

I find it extraordinary that, in a week where parts of Britain have once again seen record temperatures, when red warnings have been issued because of extreme heat, and when climate change is impossible to ignore, we are debating a Bill that contains detailed provisions on transport planning for major sporting events but does not mention climate impact once.

Schedule 5 goes into considerable detail about transport plans. It tells organisers what they should consider, how they should co-ordinate and what arrangements should be put in place. Yet there is absolutely nothing about the environmental impact of those transport arrangements. For major sporting events, transport is often the biggest source of emissions. At the Birmingham Commonwealth Games, spectator travel accounted for more than half of the event’s carbon footprint. At Euro 2024, fan travel accounted for almost 80% of emissions. We need to be serious about reducing the environmental impact of major sporting events, and transport is the obvious place to start.

This amendment has two components. The first is that transport plans should have regard to sustainable travel options,

“including public transport, walking and cycling”,

and should seek to “minimise greenhouse gas emissions”. I am sure the Minister is well aware of all the work that happened in Ken Livingstone’s period at the London Assembly: we achieved a lot. The Government already tell us that rail is one of the greenest ways to travel. The Government’s own active travel investment strategy tells us that walking and cycling help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So we need to tell event organisers to take account of what the Government already recognise to be the lower-carbon options. Parliament has gone much further before, such as in the London Olympics, the majority of which was planned in the period of Ken Livingstone in London, and I am suggesting that we can do that in my later Amendment 88.

The second element concerns integrated ticketing. If we want people to leave their cars at home, we need to make the alternative the easy option for them. Again, we have a very recent and very successful example. Every match ticket for Euro 2024 came with a 36-hour public transport pass built into the ticket price. The result was a success, because more than 80% of fans travelled to venues by public transport and fewer than 5% travelled by car, and hundreds of thousands of rail journeys were made between host cities. This was achieved by making the sustainable choice the convenient choice. Integrated ticketing also benefits spectators. It is easier, cuts costs, and helps avoid congestion around venues. It improves the experience of fans while reducing emissions.

That seems a rare example of a policy that is good for the climate, organisers and the public. If there were ever an example of why we need to be adding in these amendments and preparing for climate resilience travel, it is today, when trains are cancelled due to heat and people are being asked not to travel. The Climate Change Committee has warned that climate risk will increasingly affect the operation of major events. When tens of thousands of people are trying to reach a venue within a narrow timeframe, those risks become particularly acute. What would it look like if we had today’s weather on the day of the Euro 2028 final?

Asking those preparing transport plans to think about sustainability and resilience is absolutely vital. The Government’s own impact assessment argues that legislation is necessary because voluntary arrangements alone do not provide sufficient certainty and consistency. If legislation is needed to ensure transport plans work effectively, why should climate impacts and climate resilience be left entirely to chance? Given the climate challenges we face and the examples of best practice we have already seen across Europe, that seems the very least we can expect.

On Amendment 87, on sustainability reporting, we hear the same language every time a major sporting event is bid for, such as world-leading sustainability, greenest games ever and low-carbon legacy, and it all sounds incredibly impressive at the time. But I get a bit fed up with the gap between the promises made and what actually happens. The Paris Olympics, for example, set itself up as the lowest-carbon games yet. In some respects, it did better than previous Olympics: emissions were lower than London or Rio, largely because they reused venues, cut down on new construction and made some sensible choices about energy and materials. But when you look a bit closer, the picture gets more complicated. Transport still dominated emissions; international travel still drove a huge carbon footprint; and, in the end, we are talking about millions of tonnes of CO₂. Yes, there was progress, but it also showed something else very clearly: without proper reporting, it becomes very hard to know what was genuinely achieved, what was just assumed and what was simply good marketing.

That is the point of this amendment. We should not be relying on glossy bid documents and press releases to tell us whether promises have been kept. If we are serious about sustainability being part of these events, then we need to be just as serious about checking afterwards whether it actually happened. Right now, too often, the pattern is this: big promises at the bidding stage; celebration at the event; and very little scrutiny afterwards. This amendment says that, if you make environmental commitments before the event, you report on them afterwards—accurately, obviously—so that we can see what was delivered and was not.

Of course, there are already sustainability requirements for major sporting events, but they are patchy and inconsistent. Some bids are strong, while others are vague; some report properly, while others barely report at all. That makes it very hard to know what is actually being delivered. We need something more uniform: clear expectations that commitments are measured properly and reported before and after the event. Without that consistency, we are not tracking progress; we are just collecting promises—and, quite frankly, people are getting tired of empty promises.

Amendment 88 is on climate duty. We have had this kind of duty at past events—for example, in the London Olympics framework, where sustainability and wider environmental considerations were explicitly built into delivery. What we are seeing here in the Bill is a step backwards from that approach, just at the point when climate risks are more immediate, not less. We are told, including in the Government’s forthcoming major events strategy, that major events will continue to drive economic growth, enhance the UK’s soft power across the globe and strengthen social cohesion. Of course, they can do those things, but they cannot only be about that, and they certainly cannot deliver those benefits at the expense of our climate and environmental responsibility.

At the moment, the Bill is built around delivery, organisation and facilitation, but it is silent on sustainability. We need to put in place something that should already be clear here: a clear duty that, when exercising functions under the Bill, we must have regard to greenhouse gas emissions, sustainable transport, waste reduction and the UK’s climate and environmental targets. We can continue with a system where climate is assumed to be somebody else’s problem, or we can put in place a basic duty that ensures it is properly considered every time decisions are made on these events. I beg to move.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 91 seeks to insert a duty to clear up waste after a sporting event. This is a probing amendment that puts a clear, time-bound duty on the relevant local authority to keep event areas clear of litter and refuse during the event and to clean them at its conclusion. It extends explicitly to the public processions and assemblies connected with the event—the parades, fan zones and crowds—not only the stadium.

Why is this needed? I speak from lived experience and may incur the ire of the noble Baroness sat near me. Three weeks ago, as an Islington resident, I saw exactly what happens when no one is clearly responsible. On the morning after Arsenal’s title parade, the residential streets around me were strewn with broken glass, vomit, bottles, cans and bins overflowing. In its own guidance before the event, the council said, “We’re not putting any additional Portaloos out, so you’ll just have to find a pub or cafe to go in”. I pity people who live in the area who have a garden.

It is just crazy. Arsenal is not a poor club. It has just won the league. It is known to be a very financially successful club. Either Islington Council did not charge it enough money for the clean-up or the council funnelled the money that it got into another expense. Either way, it was unacceptable, especially considering the extortionate amount of council tax that I pay.

It stayed that way for the better part of 48 hours. There was no overnight clean-up. I had to steer my child around broken glass on the way to nursery drop-off. It is completely unacceptable. I am not a party pooper, I think the parade should absolutely have gone ahead, but residents already had to live through the parade; the least that could be expected is that it would be cleaned up properly afterwards.

For an example of how it can be done differently, turn your mind to Kensington and Chelsea and another big multi-day event that happens—with millions of people, so we are talking about exactly the same kind of scale. I know it has its fans and detractors, but Notting Hill Carnival happens over two days and by the Tuesday it is absolutely spotless on those streets. That is because the council gets a grip of the situation. I dare say Arsenal Football Club has a lot more money and funds available than the organisers of Notting Hill Carnival. So, there is something to be looked at there.

Why does this matter for the Bill? This is the framework for the events that we want to host the most: the Euros, the World Cup and the Olympics. They bring processions and assemblies across many host boroughs, over weeks rather than hours. If a single club parade can leave one London borough looking like it did for two days, picture a multi-week tournament with no clean-up duty written into the framework at all. The Bill covers ticketing, advertising, trading and transport, but the most basic civic question is absent: who keeps the streets clean and clears them afterwards?

My amendment would make the duty event specific, time-bound and explicit about processions and assemblies. It would close the gap that residents fall through. I am not wedded to the drafting. I am seeking a commitment in principle. Will the Government ensure that the framework does not leave host communities living with the aftermath and that host authorities are properly resourced to meet this duty, whether funded centrally or recovered from organisers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

To confirm, I will set up a meeting with people who have been involved in setting up previous major events. I would not have said that I would without checking with colleagues in the department, so I will try to set that in motion as soon as possible. I thank the noble Lord very much for his offer.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke. On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, I am an Arsenal supporter but I do not take responsibility for every single Arsenal supporter. It is appalling that there was so much waste. I thought he showed great discretion in not mentioning that Islington Council is a Labour council—that was very kind and sweet of him. Sadly, the Greens are only in opposition there, so perhaps by 2028 we might have more sway.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, tabled his Amendment 95 after the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, tabled hers. Had I seen his, I would probably have just supported it, but this has contributed to a debate, so it has been quite useful in that way.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made some very kind comments. After his tabling that regret amendment yesterday on the Climate Change Act, and winning the vote, I really thought I would never speak to him again. But obviously, his kind comments have completely changed my mind. It is a pleasure to agree.

On the difference between the two Mayors of London, Ken Livingstone and Boris, I would just like to say that Ken did all the back-breaking work for the planning and in carrying it through. As for Boris Johnson, to cut any further emissions he put potted plants along the major roads, which was a fairly inadequate way of dealing with carbon emissions. But, you know—that was Boris.

It was fascinating to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, about these different things that happened during the Olympics. I felt quite heavily involved, but I had completely forgotten about the water situation, and all the pre-planning as well, which I did not know anything about. That was all fascinating.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I hope the Conservative Opposition are going to be really heartened by the fact that there was so much support for putting climate change issues into the Bill. Given that we have had support from all around the Chamber, I hope we can do something much more progressive.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that really, this is an obvious thing to do. The Minister knows I have huge respect for her and for her work here, but also at the London Assembly. But the Government have a problem here. With so much unanimity on this issue, the Government have to give way a little bit on this—a bit more than they perhaps want to.

Quite honestly, something that annoys me again and again with this Labour Government is that they talk about climate change, but they just do not get it. They do not see how to apply climate change measures to all the legislation they are putting through. The fact that it was completely left out, especially the transport sustainability issues, I just find astonishing. So, I will be pushing on this. The Government have to be seen to be aware not only of climate change but of the measures we can bring in to improve it.

I do not want to overstate the case, but we are responsible for future generations here. This really matters. I would love to be included in the discussions—although the Minister might not want me there. But if I can be, that would be great. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

70: After subsection (1A)(b) insert—
“(c) measures to improve the resilience of sporting infrastructure against the impacts of climate change, including flooding, extreme weather and heat.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds climate resilience to the list of considerations to be made by national authorities providing financial assistance to sporting events.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I fully support Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Obviously, major sporting events generate significant commercial benefits, but we have to ask what their legacy will be or could be. Too often we celebrate the spectacle, the television audiences and the economic boost, but the local clubs, pitches and volunteers, which sustain sport every week of the year, may see little benefit.

Amendment 69 seeks to address that by creating an expectation that those who benefit from major sporting events should also invest in grass-roots sport, community facilities and participation. After all, elite sport does not emerge from nowhere. Every international player and every Olympian starts somewhere. They start on local pitches, in community halls, in amateur clubs and in local swimming pools, with volunteer coaches giving up evenings and weekends. In many places, the local sports club is one of the few remaining community institutions where people of different ages and backgrounds come together regularly. So I warmly support the principle that grass-roots foundations, on which all sport ultimately depends, should be strengthened.

My Amendment 70 takes that further to add that the climate resilience for grass-roots sport should be included too. This is a month when I was locked out of my office because of potential flooding and, of course, we now have this incredible heatwave, so I argue that this amendment seems particularly relevant.

When we talk about investing in grass-roots facilities, we must also talk about protecting them. Across the country, grass-roots sport is already experiencing the effects of climate change. Football matches are cancelled because pitches are waterlogged, clubs face increasing repair costs after flooding and storms, and facilities are damaged by extreme weather. Heatwaves are clearly creating new challenges for us all, and these are real present-day problems for sports up and down the country.

Estimates suggest that between 120,000 and 150,000 grass-roots football matches are cancelled each season because pitches are unplayable due to rain and flooding. In parts of the country, pitches are already losing weeks of playable time every year because of changing weather patterns, and every cancelled match means lost revenue for clubs, disruption for volunteers and fewer opportunities for participation. Over time, of course, it threatens the viability of facilities that communities depend on.

The irony is that we can spend money improving a clubhouse, upgrading a pitch or expanding facilities only to find that those investments are increasingly vulnerable if resilience is not built in from the start. If public money or event-related investment is helping to support a community sports facility then surely it makes sense to ensure that the facility remains usable for years to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)]

Before the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment, we need to give the noble Baroness the opportunity to indicate what she wants to do with her amendment to his amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 70 (to Amendment 69) withdrawn.

TV Licence Non-payment: Women

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The Simple Payment Plan does help people pay the television licence fee at present. As I say, we are looking at all the ways in which the BBC might receive its funding in the future, taking into account the declining number of people paying for a licence, but looking at all options to make sure that it has the revenue it needs to continue doing the work for which it is much admired.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the Government have known for some time about this injustice of the prosecution of a majority of women rather than men. Why are they not doing something about it faster, and when will the BBC review actually report?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The Government consulted on decriminalisation of TV licence evasion in 2020, and we published our response in 2021. The appropriate time to make this decision is as part of the BBC funding model review, when we can look at the way we can get the sustainable funding for the corporation that everyone wants to see.

Young Female Racing Drivers

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

Can I encourage my noble friend not to get too involved in trying to run Formula 1 but instead to concentrate on drivers in London—ordinary Londoners who want to drive their kids to school in the morning, who want to drive their teenage sons and daughters to sports fields in the evening and who perhaps want to drive their elderly parents to the doctor or a hospital—by knocking on the head the bonkers plan of the Mayor of London to penalise everybody who wants to drive on any street in London?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Nonsense!

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My noble friend’s point will, I am sure, have been heard on the Benches opposite, and I am sure that they will pass on to the Mayor of London the strong views in this House and from drivers across the capital about his policies.

Repatriation of Cultural Objects

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, many museums do that; it is the job of museums to explain the context of items. In my experience, museums are very keen to continue filling in that, in all its complexity. In the case of the Benin bronzes, which were taken in a raid in February 1897, it points out the role of the British Empire at the time. I should also point out that that raid brought about the end of slavery in Benin, showing the full complexity of matters in the past.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, as an ex-archaeologist, I would like to point out that we do not own the Elgin marbles. I thought that Lord Elgin paid for them, but apparently there is no proof of that, so they are looted. It is a national embarrassment. I was in Greece this summer and saw the Parthenon and there is a vast gap where the marbles should be. It is time to send them back.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, as I have said in response to previous questions on the matter, the Acropolis Museum is a marvellous museum where you are able to see the Parthenon in the background. However, more people see the Parthenon sculptures in the British Museum annually within a great sweep of human civilisation. They were legally acquired by the museum in 1801 and the trustees are right in their assertion of that fact.

Freedom of Speech

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Friday 10th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for tabling this debate. He gave an excellent speech and, in spite of being an atheist, I agreed with almost every word; I was very impressed.

This debate comes after a few years of increasing suppression of civil liberties and human rights here in the UK. Freedom of speech is about engaging with all sorts of ideas, biases and creeds to make up the public discourse. As a Green, I am well aware of how important it is to talk and try to convince people about the environmental crisis—especially those in power who can actually do something about it, however little. I might regard this Government as political enemies, and as arrogant and repressive, but I think it is worth engaging and very much hope they feel it is worth engaging with Greens.

I like the way people in society at the moment are questioning whether schools named after slave owners ought to change their names, or whether country houses need to explain to their visitors the dark side of their history by putting front and centre how their owners made their fortunes. All that is part of robust debate; if some people feel uncomfortable, perhaps they should be.

There are things I do not like. I do not like Russian bots on Twitter and the made-up Facebook profiles that distorted the discussion about Brexit and still seek to destabilise our democracy. I do not like the way social media gives the impression of free and equal debate, but has in fact allowed dark money to contaminate that debate and to give those with money the ability to divide and rule. Nor do I like the way some social media platforms created algorithms that promote rage and division. Social media should give us the chance to share information, reach out and engage, but instead it is often designed to reinforce the bubble culture of people finding others they can agree with. I definitely do not like the way some women have been silenced and de-platformed for raising concerns about what they see as an erosion of their rights. I also do not like discourse that is rude and threatening, because that is another way of silencing people who are just trying to be who they are inside.

In the UK at the moment there is a huge gap between respecting our political enemies and the sort of legislation this Government are introducing, which attempts to crush dissent. The assault on our democracy by this Government is the biggest threat to freedom of speech and even freedom of expression. That is the threat that deserves most of our attention, because each bit of legislation we pass here is making that threat grow. This Government are silencing campaigners and turning dissent into a crime while rewarding the lobbyists and money men. They are removing democratic safeguards on ministerial power while setting up a special unit to filter freedom of information requests that might reveal something damaging to them.

Things were far from perfect in the past, but the last decade has seen a vast extension of the repressive state. The old normal was undercover police spying on campaigns for justice, such as those of Doreen Lawrence—now the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence—and a thousand other non-violent campaign groups. The new normal is giving those undercover police legal immunity for any crimes—this came through your Lordships’ House. The old normal was D notices that stopped the public finding out national secrets like the bunkers that sheltered the rich and powerful in the event of nuclear war, but the new normal is referring school kids to Prevent for supporting the eco-warriors of Greenpeace.

The old normal was the Special Branch holding files on Labour Ministers. The new normal is putting tens of thousands of people on databases as domestic extremists. I am proud to say that I was on that police database for domestic extremists while a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, fighting, at the time, for the traffic police to get more resources to deal with road crime. Caroline Lucas, at the other end, was labelled a domestic extremist, as was a local Green Party councillor and thousands of others. We were elected to give a voice to hundreds of thousands of people who voted Green, yet we were watched and monitored by the police.

While I welcome this debate on freedom of speech, I feel that we in your Lordships’ House actually can and should do more: we should be a watchdog by protecting the right to effective protest and stopping the worst excesses of state power. That starts with rejecting the draconian powers in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which we are currently dealing with and which will be with us next year as well. That rejection of those measures would be a defence of free speech.

Finally, I was in your Lordships’ House yesterday and wanted to take part in a debate. The Labour Benches were quite full, so I sat on the Bishops’ Bench. When I tried to speak, I was told that I could not speak from there. I tweeted about it, and someone tweeted back:

“Ridiculous they can stop you speaking the truth from the wrong seat but in the other house they can’t stop you from lying from the dispatch box.”

Racism in Sport

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Surely the Government can see that when senior politicians, such as our Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Home Office, make dog-whistle comments and do not slap down racism, the Cabinet and Government themselves have a problem.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I do not accept what the noble Baroness says. I have quoted twice now what the Prime Minister has said, which has been crystal clear on this subject. The Home Secretary has also been clear that there is no place for racism in this country, and she knows very well from her own experience.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 53A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell. In doing so, I wish to make two specific points that follow on from his speech today. First, the amendment crucially recognises the importance of measuring what we as a nation are doing with data of significance before we take important, industrially strategic decisions on how we make the most of this vital national resource.

The noble Lord and others have made the analogy of data as the new oil. That analogy works particularly well for personal data as, like oil, it is potentially as toxic as it is valuable, and it must be carefully handled and not allowed to be released into the environment without due care. If we are to best manage, protect and distil it, we must first learn where and how it is being moved, used and commercialised. Can we as a nation easily answer the question that we are asking of Facebook or the former Cambridge Analytica: how much data are we commercialising at home and abroad, and to whom? If not, why not? Progressive and young, emerging nations are reviewing how they use their national data for national advantage, and we must make a concerted effort to do the same.

My second point is how the amendment therefore recognises that this measurement should be done centrally, not burdening already stretched government departments with developing their own approaches. While these departments must remain involved to provide domain insight into certain data types—for example, health and social care—the National Audit Office or other bodies should take charge of a cross-departmental process for measuring and tracking these flows of significant and valuable data. In this way we should be able to develop a consistent, coherent view of how we are handling our data reserves, which will give us the best possible evidence upon which to base our decisions on a secure approach to maximising their impact for our future national good. I therefore hope the Minister will be able to shed some light today on how this process is being thought through.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 53A and 53B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell.

I must express my general frustration at the Bill. There is so much information, so much data of national significance that, it is clear, will be abused by the Government, whether or not they know that they are doing so. The Windrush scandal showed just how badly the Home Office gets things wrong, and the Bill’s provisions allow the sharing of people’s data which would further the “hostile environment” policy. I am very disappointed that the Government have not tabled amendments to curtail the broad powers in the Bill that will allow for such abuse.

There are so many cases of people who are victims of serious crime—of rape, violence and people trafficking—who are being reported by the police to the Home Office and then being arrested, detained and deported. At least 27 police forces have admitted that they do this. Ministers cannot possibly claim to be learning from those instances, just as they appear not to have learned from Windrush, while they continue to include such cruel and intrusive powers in the Bill. The fact that the Government can get things so horribly wrong is why the amendment should be included.

We have heard that data is more valuable than oil. It is more valuable than oil or gold. It is the boom industry of our times, and the temptation for government to allow its exploitation by the commercial sector—the predatory big tech organisations to which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, referred—will be overwhelming, especially in this age of austerity when money appears to be so short.

This is not just an issue of exploitation in a negative sense: there are lots of opportunities for government data to be used to empower communities. We can do things such as monitor air pollution and hold the Government to account by using this data. I am excited by those opportunities, but they need proper regulatory oversight to ensure that data is used for good. The control and processing of nationally important data must be properly overseen by the Information Commissioner and the National Audit Office. The Government recognised this in the Bill as drafted, and I do not understand why that has been removed—perhaps the Minister could explain.

I really hope that the Minister will support the amendments, but I rather suspect he will not.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches, we are very sympathetic to Amendments 53A and 53B. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, we find it difficult to understand why it has been impossible to come to some sort of agreement. I hear what the Minister said: that he is sympathetic, but not so sympathetic that he agrees with the amendments. This disagreement about whether a statutory code, guidance or whatever is the right way forward seems to be dancing on the head of a pin.

I pray in aid the intervening report of the AI Select Committee on precisely this matter, which supports the contentions of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell. In our report, we stated:

“Increasingly, public sector data has value. It is important that public organisations are aware of the commercial potential of such data. We recommend that the Information Commissioner’s Office work closely with the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation in the establishment of data trusts, and help to prepare advice and guidance for data controllers in the public sector to enable them to estimate the value of the data they hold, in order to make best use of it and negotiate fair and evidence-based agreements with private-sector partners”.


That seems fair and square along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell.

In the course of our inquiry, we also looked carefully at the sorts of arrangements made by DeepMind—not only the benefits, which he very fairly outlined, but the issues with how sharing that data was organised, which of course led to an investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office. Of course, NHS data is particularly important in this context. In our report, we stated:

“The data held by the NHS could be considered a unique source of value for the nation. It should not be shared lightly, but when it is, it should be done in a manner which allows for that value to be recouped”.


So, fair and square, we are with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell.

It would be somewhat ironic if the Secretary of State, in his response to our Select Committee in three or four weeks, said, “Yes, we agree: there should be something along these lines”, but we had missed the opportunity in this Bill.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Lords Chamber

What is the Government’s answer to the lack of anything in the Bill that reflects that sentence as regards automated decision-making? Clause 13 as amended is intended to fill that gap and I very much hope that the Minister will see it as an attractive and practical way of improving the Bill. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 34 and will speak to Amendments 35, 93, 100, 101 and 102. I retabled these amendments because I think I did not make myself clear in Committee and some of the Ministers’ replies seemed confused. It was pacifying to be soothed in that way but I still have a problem. The noble Lord, Lord Ashton, said:

“All decisions relating to the processing of personal data engage an individual’s human rights, so it would not be appropriate to exclude automated decisions on this basis”.—[Official Report, 13/11/17; col. 1871.]


My point was that there is confusion between the gathering of evidence, the processing and decision-making. My amendments do nothing to inhibit automated data processing or seek to move us back to handwritten records. Automated data processing is unaffected by my amendments, which focus on decisions based on data, however the data is processed. Data could be gathered, processed and analysed completely automatically with no human involvement—a computer could even generate a recommended decision—but where human rights are engaged, the final decision must be made by a human being.

There was similar confusion in the replies of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in regard to law enforcement and intelligence service decisions. She said that,

“the unintended consequences of this could be very damaging. For example, any intelligence work by the intelligence services relating to an individual would almost certainly engage the right to respect for private life. The effect of the amendment on Part 4 would therefore prevent the intelligence services taking any further action based on automated processing, even if that further action was necessary, proportionate, authorised under the law and fully compliant with the Human Rights Act”.—[Official Report, 15/11/17; col. 2073.]

Again, there is confusion between the processing, gathering of data and making the decision where human rights are engaged.

I repeat that my amendments allow for data to be processed automatically: they do not allow for a computer to make a decision contrary to someone’s human rights. Decision-makers can be supported by automated processing but the ultimate decisions must be made by a human being. We have to have this vital safeguard for human rights. After all the automated processing has been carried out, a human has to decide whether or not it is a reasonable decision to proceed. In this way we know where the decision lay and where the responsibility lies. No one can ever say, “We messed up your human rights. We interfered with your human rights and it is the computer’s fault”.

I am grateful to Liberty for drafting the amendments I have tabled and I hope that I have explained them fully and rather better than in Committee. I look forward to the Ministers’ replies. I feel strongly about this issue. These words have to be in the Bill so that it is absolutely clear that human rights are protected.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments. The points that he made apply almost entirely to Amendments 91, 92 and 94, which relate to later parts of the Bill, including particularly the phraseology “solely” and in Amendment 94 “solely” or “partially”.

I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, decided to retable her amendments. What she said can be summed up as, “Human rights, so human decision”. Human beings will ensure transparency and accountability in a way that machines simply do not. The Minister smiled when the noble Baroness said that she was not sure whether she was clear on the last occasion. I rather wish that I could ask her to give us the reassurances and concessions that that smile might have indicated, but I do not know.

These issues are extremely important. I was thinking about them over the weekend and, although it sounds patronising, the Government are entirely correct to ensure that human rights are engaged in these subjects. Given how central human rights are, they cannot be thought of as an occasional peripheral, particularly not as regards law enforcement and security issues. I have come full circle to thinking that the protection of human rights should be spelled out at the start of the Bill, which would take us back to our debate on Monday about an introductory clause covering the protection of a subject where the right is not absolute because of the criteria of necessity and proportionality. I think that that should be made clear in the Bill and it would put what the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve in her amendments in the right context. I support her in this.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 184. The Minister will have noticed that Amendment 185 would simply import the same provisions into applied GDPR for this purpose. The rationale, which has been very well put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is precisely the same.

I do not know whether the Minister was choking over his breakfast this morning, but if he was reading the Daily Telegraph—he shakes his head. I am encouraged that he was not reading the Daily Telegraph, but he would have seen that a letter was written to his right honourable friend Matt Hancock, the Digital Minister, demanding that the legislation can and should contain the second limb that is contained in the GDPR but is not brought into the Bill. The letter was signed by Which?, Age UK, Privacy International and the Open Rights Group for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, put forward. The noble Lord mentioned a number of data breach cases, but the Uber breach came to light only last night. It was particularly egregious because Uber did not tell anybody about it for months and, as far as one can make out from the press reports, it was a pay-off. There is a very important role for such organisations to play on behalf of vulnerable consumers.

The Which? survey was particularly important in that respect because it showed that consumers have little understanding of the kind of redress that they may have following a data breach. A recent survey shows that almost one in five consumers say that they would not know how to claim redress for a data breach, and the same proportion do not know who would be responsible for helping them when data is lost. Therefore the equivalent of a super-complaint in these circumstances is very important. To add to that point, young people are often the target of advertising and analysis using their personal data. I think they would benefit particularly from having this kind of super-complaint process for a data breach.

I hope very much that the Government, who I believe are conducting some kind of review, although it is not entirely clear, will think about this again because it is definitely something we will need to bring back on Report.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 184. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, the GDPR does allow not-for-profit organisations to lodge complaints about suspected breaches of data protection without needing the authorisation of the individuals concerned. I really do not understand why this has been taken out; it is such an important piece of legislation that gives teeth to data protection. Most people do not have the time or the inclination to lodge complaints against data controllers. So many organisations are now holding data about us that it is ridiculous to suggest that individuals can become data detectives responsible for finding out who holds data on them and trying to work out whether that data is being processed in accordance with data protection rules.

I went through the hassle of getting my own subject access request from the Met police. It took a lot of form filling and cost me £10, which was absolutely not money well spent because the file, when I got it, was so redacted. I did ask for my money back but was not given it. That shows me that most of us will not know that data about us is being held—so the amendment is extremely valid.

Despite my opposition to some provisions in the Bill, I accept that it is very important. However, it is equally important that we get it right and that we do not have all these derogations which mean that it has less authority and power. Personally, I think that the amendment strengthens the data protection regime without any hassle for consumers. I hope that the Government will include it in the next iteration of the Bill.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I, too, support the amendment. One thing that we can all agree on is that data regulations is a complex and highly technical area of the law. As the Bill stands, it asks members of the public to become experts on the subject, which actually creates a significant barrier to its successful implementation. My particular and declared interest in the Bill is the rights of children. It is a pervasive myth in the digital environment that all users are equal. That is a category error, because if all users are equal, children are treated in the digital environment as adults and their long-established rights and privileges do not then apply. So it is on behalf of that demographic that I want to say specifically that this amendment is very important.

Without the amendment, a child would be expected to take on the very adult responsibility of being a named complainant in a regulatory or judicial complaint for a breach of data law. In the case of a child, such a complaint is very likely to be made against a multimillion or indeed multibillion dollar corporation. That cannot be, in anybody’s mind, a fair fight. While the noble Lord’s amendment and indeed the GDPR are designed to benefit all users, I point out that the amendment usefully aligns with the recommendation made by the Children’s Commissioner and the House of Lords Communications Committee that children urgently need champions in the digital environment.

We have seen special provision being made in the Bill for libraries, archivists, the insurance industry, security and intelligence, and possibly even for journalists this evening. Given that, I am waiting for the Government to concede that, like all these other special needs groups, children are data subjects with specific needs. One of those needs is to have an informed advocate if they have a complaint. So, although I do not think that the amendment would adequately fulfil that role, because I would like to see something more formal, it would at least go some way to providing support for children should they have a complaint.