Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Twycross and Lord Scriven

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

There is a specific issue with the Gulf states. If people are potentially put to death for being gay in a state, would that debar a state entity or an individual in that Government from owning an English club? It is a clear question.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am going to come on to state ownership later in my speech, if the noble Lord would be happy to wait.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

No, I would like an answer to this specific question, because the Minister gave a specific commitment with regard to what is in the Bill. I put a specific question based on what could happen, and on the laws of the land of a Gulf state. I wish to know: if that takes place, would someone who is related to that state through a state entity not be able to own a Premier League club in this country?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I would be grateful if the noble Lord allowed me to take away that specific example. I will write to him and to the Committee and place a letter in the Library, so that they have a detailed response on that point.

These are all issues that the regulator will take very seriously. Where the amendments before us today go further than existing drafting, this introduces elements that we do not believe are necessarily relevant to an owner’s suitability. They would require the regulator to make a subjective and potentially speculative judgment on whether the individual has engaged in any activity that would risk bringing the game into disrepute. Where a potential dispute relates to things like criminal history, the regulator will already have to consider these things. But “disrepute” is a vague term; could it arise through an owner’s conduct in their personal life, or their political views? In the Government’s view, it would put the regulator in quite a difficult position, making a value judgment on what constitutes disrepute, which would undermine the principle of a reasoned, evidence-based test.

Turning to Amendment 199 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the test is supported by the regulator’s information-gathering powers to ensure its determination is evidence-based. These powers will help the regulator tackle unco-operative individuals or organisations that do not provide the information. However, let me be clear: if the regulator does not have enough evidence to make its determination, the individual will be found unsuitable.

I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns about restrictions on an owner’s funds. I want to reassure her that the test requires an owner to submit financial plans and demonstrate sufficient financial resources to run the club. As part of this, we expect that the regulator will consider things such as the liquidity of those resources and their availability to actually be used to fund the club. The regulator will also need to be satisfied that the owner does not have wealth connected to illicit finance. To do this, it can conduct enhanced due diligence on the owner’s source of wealth. This would identify any links to criminality, corruption and money-laundering. We believe, therefore, that the intent of the noble Baroness’s amendment is delivered in the current drafting of the Bill. I hope she takes reassurance from this, but I am happy to meet her to discuss this if my explanation has not satisfied her.

I turn to amendment 200 from my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also spoke to. This Government are not making a judgment on different forms of ownership. We recognise that good ownership can take many forms, and it is investment from responsible owners that has been a driving factor in the success of English football. Banning any one particular kind of ownership would not, in our view, be in keeping with the flexible and proportionate approach to regulation we are proposing. I believe that this approach has broad support across the Committee. Prospective owners with state backing will be assessed against the same set of criteria as any other prospective owner, on a case-by-case basis. I hope that answers the question about Newcastle from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson.

Public Procurement: Data Offshoring

Debate between Baroness Twycross and Lord Scriven

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I think the security piece and the development piece can and should go in tandem, otherwise neither is sustainable. Three in every four people in England have already downloaded the app. This Government want to establish adoption through improved patient experience and system benefits, and to expand the services offer. This is part of making sure that more people can access the services they require.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, Microsoft gave a view to the Scottish Government in June this year that it could not guarantee that data held by public services on its Microsoft 365 and Azure hyperscale cloud infrastructure will remain in the UK. What mitigations are the Government looking at in the light of this statement by Microsoft?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I refer back to my initial Answer, which is that each contracting authority should carefully consider, and make risk-based decisions on, whether and where data can be offshored. We can get really hung up on offshoring, onshoring or where the data is stored, but we have to make sure that all data and cybersecurity are central to how we move forward with this type of procurement. This is why the Government are introducing a cybersecurity and resilience Bill, which will help ensure our cybersecurity for the future.

Infected Blood Inquiry

Debate between Baroness Twycross and Lord Scriven

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to her place and wish her well in the role she is undertaking. We on these Benches also welcome this Statement and commit to a collaborative cross-party approach to this very important issue.

Victims of the infected blood scandal and their families have been waiting for decades to see justice. Tragically, as we know, thousands have died without ever having received compensation. The report of the inquiry into the scandal, chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff, laid bare the suffering inflicted, the cover-ups and the systematic failures of individuals and of the British state as a whole. Not only did individuals and the state fail to help these victims, but in many cases people were lied to, treated with contempt and dismissed outright. It is good to hear updates on progress, but victims have waited far too long and there are still some gaps.

I want to follow up on the comments by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the treatment and some dismissive approaches by the NHS. Rather than just having a card, now that patient records are electronic would it be possible to put an automatic flag in them so that the onus is on the service and not the individual to make sure that timely treatment is given by the NHS?

An infected blood compensation authority will be set up, but what framework is being set for a light-touch approach to those seeking compensation? We have seen that compensation schemes, such as for Horizon, can be complex and difficult for those who have been affected to navigate. What framework are the Minister and the Government asking the compensation authority to undertake that will make it as light-touch as possible but with appropriate probity in place?

Another problem with the Government’s proposals for compensation is that only infected victims and bereaved partners are entitled to the autonomy award. This is being used as a catch-all to cover, for example, clinical trials and the loss of the right to have children. Affected parents cannot claim this £50,000 award, but it is the only measure that looks to compensate for the financial outlay of supporting the child or children of the deceased and their partners over many years.

Another issue with the autonomy award is that it does not recognise infected and affected partners whose pregnancies have been terminated as a result of links to their blood infection. Does the Minister not agree that there is a good case for the autonomy award to be extended to specific affected individuals who can prove injury? I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for their contributions and thoughtful responses. The noble Earl has spoken many times from these Benches with great sensitivity and consideration, and I hope that we can work closely together on this issue as we move forward.

I also pay tribute to the work of many noble Lords across your Lordships’ House, including my noble friends Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lady Thornton. They worked closely with the noble Earl and the then Government throughout the passage of what is now the Victims and Prisoners Act to put in place the legislation required to provide the necessary legal framework to establish the arm’s-length body and to pay compensation with any further undue delays. It would be remiss of me not to mention the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, Lady Featherstone, Lady Meacher, and Lady Finlay, as well as all other noble Lords for their many years’ work on this matter in order to reach this point.

The work of Sir Brian Langstaff should also be recognised. As the chair of the infected blood inquiry, he has worked comprehensively for the past seven years, not least for the victims and families of the infected blood scan who for far too long were not given a voice. It is critical that we in your Lordships’ House continue to speak about this important issue.

The infected blood inquiry’s report brought to light the enormity of the scandal, the lives that had been shattered and the voices that had been ignored for decades. The inquiry described the infected blood scandal as a collective failing and provided a clear and powerful depiction of its subtle, pervasive and chilling aspects, which must not be forgotten. I pledge that this Government are committed to action and to ensuring that we work across your Lordships’ House to ensure that those who have endured unspeakable injustices finally receive the justice they deserve.

I turn to specific points and questions that noble Lords have raised. I apologise if I do not manage to cover them all. If it is not possible to do so, I will write in detail to noble Lords. The Government recognise that no amount of money will make right the wrongdoings of the infected blood scandal, but they feel that the compensation scheme is a step towards providing recognition for those infected and affected by this tragedy. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that this should not be a complicated process, and I will feed this back after this debate on the Statement.

As noted by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, Sir Robert Francis KC recently concluded an engagement exercise on the previous Government’s proposals for the infected blood compensation scheme. The Minister for the Cabinet Office has been engaging with Sir Robert to hear his advice, following his meetings with members of the infected blood community. The Minister is considering this with a view to publishing Sir Robert’s report, and the Government’s position on it, before 24 August.

During the summer, the made affirmative procedure will be followed, and there will be a full debate in your Lordships’ House in due course; I understand that it will take place in September.

In relation to interim payments, it is important that, as well as providing sufficient time to review Sir Robert Francis’s findings, we do not forget that speed, as well as simplicity, is of the essence. More than £1 billion have been paid so far in interim compensation. I am pleased that, last Friday, the Minister for the Cabinet Office announced that applications for interim payments of £100,000 to the estates of the deceased people infected by contaminated blood or blood products and who have not yet been recognised will open in October. The Government will set out further details in due course.

The proposed tariffs for the compensation scheme have been developed using the work of the infected blood inquiry response expert group, which included clinical and legal advisers assisted by social care specialists, and with reference to judicial guidelines. In line with the inquiry’s recommendations, the Government have not been constrained by the practice of the courts in setting compensation rates.

There will be no immediate changes to the infected blood support scheme. Under the current proposals, payments will continue to be made at the same level until 31 March 2025. They will not be deducted from any compensation awards. From 1 April 2025, people who receive infected blood support scheme payments will continue to receive them until such time as their case is assessed by the infected blood compensation authority under the new scheme.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about support for estates payments. I can reassure him that we are working across government and with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the process for applicants to obtain probate or confirmation is as smooth as possible for them.

The noble Earl rightly raised concerns about making sure that the duty of candour is properly rolled out. The Government will bring forward legislation to place a duty of candour on public servants and authorities to make sure that this kind of behaviour cannot happen again. This will be done through the Hillsborough Bill, which will be a means of putting measures in place to ensure that those working in the public sector will be rightly held to a high standard of candour. Cultures and behaviours also need to change. It is not just about legislation, but this Bill will support this change by bringing about consequences for those who fall short of standards.

I have taken on board what the noble Earl said about how consultations should include those affected, and I will feed this back. I do not have the details of that yet, but I will write to the noble Earl at the earliest opportunity.

I can assure the noble Earl, in response to his specific question, that no one will be worse off. The Cabinet Office is working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and other relevant departments and organisations to give recommendations for consideration, and I am happy to pick that up at ministerial level as well.

I have already covered the regulation process and the “made affirmative” procedure. I will be brief, because I am mindful of time and the need to move on to Back- Bench questions. The committees and subcommittees will include members of the community. In a recent newsletter, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority announced that it was recruiting a permanent user consultant to help shape its work. This role will be open only to those with lived experience of the infected blood scandal. Finally, I reassure the noble Earl that the NHS support is now in place in England.

I assure noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships’ House that I want to work together closely as we progress this work, as has been the case in recent years—the noble Earl himself worked very closely on this. It is essential that we do this on a cross-party basis, which is the only way that we can face up to the failures of the past and make sure that tragedies on this scale never happen again. This will take leadership and a change of culture to move away from what Sir Brian Langstaff understandably described as “institutional defensiveness”. Moving away from that is absolutely critical.

Global IT Outage

Debate between Baroness Twycross and Lord Scriven

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question, which packed a lot in. I agree that the dominance of any particular software company or IT system is a risk to resilience, as government has known for some time. But we need to look at this as a whole and—I do not want to sound like a broken record—this will be covered by the cybersecurity and resilience Bill as it proceeds through the House.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, one of the public services specifically hit was the NHS, so why are systematic back-up systems not in place in the NHS for primary care and pharmacy? Who has been asked to take this forward to ensure that such systems are in place as a matter of urgency for those who are ill?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

All relevant departments will take part in the review, and I will feed back the specific points made to the Cabinet Office and colleagues in the Department of Health. Going back to the previous point about the widespread use of specific software systems, this needs to be taken seriously as we move forward with the proposed legislation.