English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Report stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, like others, I commend the Government for their Amendment 2. We had a good debate about this in Committee, with significant support from across your Lordships’ House for the Government to expand the list of strategic competences in this way. As I hope the Minister can hear, we are very glad that she has done so. As she can see from the other amendments tabled in this group, however, there remains enthusiasm for ensuring that we do not just look at culture but think of culture, heritage and the contribution that our creative industries can make across the board.

In Committee, the Minister argued that this was implicit in many of the other strategic competences. Indeed, when one looks down the list, one sees immediately the huge role that culture and heritage can play in skills and employment support, housing and strategic planning, economic development and regeneration, the environment and climate change and health and well-being. She was right to argue that culture and heritage should play a part in the work of the new authorities in tackling these, but I am very glad that there is further encouragement, because we know that not all local authorities have been as enlightened or have taken advantage of the opportunities that culture and heritage can bring.

As I said in Committee, when I had the pleasure of being the Arts and Heritage Minister, I was critical of local authorities—of all parties and at every tier—that were cutting their spending on culture and therefore missing out on savings in their health and well-being budgets, for instance, and missing out on opportunities for economic development. When one sees what is going on in some of the coastal towns around the Kent and Sussex coasts, such as Margate and Eastbourne, and when one looks at the rippling effect down the Tyne and up the north-east coast in towns such as Whitley Bay, one can see the huge value that arts, culture and heritage can play in delivering the priorities of local authorities, so I am glad that this nudge is being put in. However, I am curious to hear from the Minister why the Government have chosen their minimalist description of just “culture”, rather than some of the alternatives that we looked at in Committee and that other noble Lords have proposed.

I echo the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. Often, when people think about culture or heritage, they think of it solely as a subsidised sector. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, is right to talk about the importance of that: this is where the new, the experimental, the avant-garde, and the works that we will come to love in years to come can first be tried. However, most theatres in this country are commercial rather than subsidised, and most of the live music venues that are struggling but surviving in our counties are small businesses. It is important to stress the commercial element of culture and heritage, and the symbiosis between the two. Most people going to the theatre do not know whether they are going to a subsidised theatre or a commercial theatre; they are just glad that there is one there that is putting on things that attract people and boost tourism.

While there is enthusiasm for the opportunities presented by the visitor levy that the Government are embracing, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and others, there is concern that this could be spent on fixing potholes rather than fixing the deficits in cultural and heritage spending that we see in some local authorities. If the Minister has some comments to make on that at the end of this group, I know that would be welcomed. I commend the Minister for government Amendment 2, and I hope that, even at this late stage, she will look at some of the alternative wordings and have some words of reassurance for your Lordships.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I was happy to co-sign the government’s amendment, which adds “culture” to the Bill, for one very good reason: I have always thought of myself as a practical politician. I declare an interest that I chair Brighton & Hove’s Seafront Development Board. For our purposes, regenerating our seafront is all about culture, heritage and the arts; these things come together. My understanding of the definition of “culture” in the context of the Bill is that it brings all those things together. We should thank the Government for having come up with this simple, effective and modest amendment, for which many of us have campaigned for a very long time. I do not want to anger the Whip by talking for very long, but it is important that we acknowledge the big step forward that the Government have made.

In the context of my own county of Sussex, it was a delight that the House approved the statutory instrument earlier today. For our purposes, one of the fastest areas of growth, particularly in the south, will be arts, culture, heritage and hospitality—it is the fastest growth sector in the country. This is therefore a very fortuitous moment. With the creation of the combined mayoral authorities and the move towards unitaries, this is a major shot in the arm for local economies.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I said Bristol.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to speak to the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I became leader of Brighton council in 1987. One of the first things that we did was triple our spending on the Brighton Festival. At the time it seemed like a fairly minor thing, but it triggered a lot of inward investment through leverage. It demonstrated to me the importance and the value of public sector investment in the arts. Since then, the Brighton Festival has grown; it is now one of the largest arts festivals in the country. But you have to make that important statement to attract extra funding and inward investment.

I currently chair a seafront regeneration board for Brighton and Hove City Council. One of the things I am quite determined to do is to bring a new major art gallery to our city, because it is one of the missing elements. Those things have a long-term strategic benefit and that is why I think adding this as an area of competence to strategic authorities is very important.

After all, it is one of the Government’s missions. We often talk about the £128 billion value to the UK economy of the arts. If we can embed that statutorily, we can grow and develop our reputation. We are one of the arts growth leaders in the world economy. It would greatly help our growth mission and our economic and industrial mission if we were to place this as an important strategic responsibility.

Without that, as others have said, it is not there—it is voluntary and it is very much up to the localities to determine, as they rightly should, what their priorities are. But it is an encouragement, and that long-term commitment and encouragement will make a very significant difference to the development of arts and cultural services across the UK.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, there is an absurdity and a very serious point at the heart of this debate. We have talked a lot about a letter that we have not seen and which, in answer to a Freedom of Information Act request, the department says it cannot find within three and a half days, and within £600, even though the Minister referred to it from the Dispatch Box during our debates in Committee.

This letter is assuming an almost mythical status, which is unhelpful to this debate; that is reflected in the frustrations that have been expressed today and were expressed in Committee. We would be helped enormously if we could see it. We know that UEFA had expressed concerns about the Bill in the letter that has not been shared. Noble Lords rightly want to ensure that those concerns have been allayed, because of the very serious ramifications they would have for English teams competing in international competitions.

I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lady Brady—with their great experience from their own involvement in football—as a former Sports Minister who understands the byzantine world of international sports regulation better than most Members of your Lordships’ House in pursuing this point.

I take on board what noble Lords have said about the private briefing that they were able to attend yesterday and the assurances that were given by the FA on behalf of UEFA, but it would be awfully nice to hear this from the horse’s mouth. We know that UEFA wrote expressing concerns about the Bill earlier in its passage, and it has not said anything further. I find its silence deafening. We are asked to accept reassurances passed through an intermediary to a private meeting of your Lordships. It seems to me that this matter could be settled either if the noble Baroness was able to reveal the letter that we are all searching around and shaking a bucket to collect £600 to allow the department to find under the Freedom of Information Act, or if she could say a bit more, or if UEFA would say this to us directly, or if—in the absence of that, and in the face of the deafening silence—we could put in the Bill what seems to be a reflection of the Government’s own position. I take what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, says—

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords—

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I will give way in a minute. I take what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, says about the income generation that this will provide to sports lawyers, but I think he would accept that there is plenty in this Bill for sports lawyers to get involved with in the new regulatory regime that it ushers in, and I suspect that they will find plenty to occupy them, with or without this amendment. I give way.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I ask the noble Lord whether he would have been in the habit when he was a Minister of revealing the contents of private correspondence?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I was always in the habit of complying with the Freedom of Information Act and, in this instance, my advice to the noble Baroness would be to give us as much as she can about UEFA’s concerns. It is very clearly a matter of concern here in your Lordships’ House. I hope the matter can be settled. Maybe the noble Baroness can say a bit more about the correspondence that she has had with UEFA but, if not, I hope that my noble friend Lord Moynihan will continue to pursue this important issue.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will try to put the noble Lord’s mind at rest. Most regulators are financed by the industries that they regulate, and the noble Lord knows that; he knows a lot about regulation. Given that there may be, from time to time, a need to strengthen the capacity of clubs lower down in the pyramid to operate, comply with regulations and all the rest of it, it is not unreasonable for the IFR to have the ability and capacity to exercise a levy.

The Premier League is generating considerably large sums of money and, although the distribution down the pyramid looks extremely generous in raw number terms, it is worth being reminded that some 92% of the revenue generated ends up being maintained by the Premier League and those five clubs in the Championship that receive parachute payments and the rest. There is a lot of money here, and we need to make sure that the regulator has the capacity to intervene in a way that is entirely fair. Later amendments deal with some of this issue, but we should have that at the front of our minds when we consider this.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, we look forward to hearing what the Minister says about the amendments in this group, although I think, as my friend Lord Maude of Horsham pointed out, we are all listening with different hopes and expectations about what she may say.

Briefly, my Amendment 256 in this group specifies that the regulator must consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than His Majesty’s Treasury in the abstract. It seeks to ensure a clearer line of accountability and strengthen the governance structure for decisions relating to the levy. The Chancellor might well delegate this responsibility, but she should be accountable in law and the Bill ought to point to her as the Minister at the head of that department and not anyone else at the Treasury. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s responses to the amendments in this group.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am sorry to hear that from the Minister; it does not give us much more than we had in the debate on Monday. I thank her for restating it, but I do not think it has engaged with the point that my amendment seeks to provide, which is allowing that flexibility to answer all the policy questions that she has set out, but also giving the clarity in law to the leagues that will be regulated by the Bill. As far I can see, the only material difference between accepting my Amendment 19 and proceeding in the way she wants to is that it would allow those leagues to petition Parliament and make their voices heard more clearly. That would be a good way of hearing from those who will be affected by this law.

I was struck by the sage advice from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, who is acting as referee on this matter. This is something we will have to return to, and I am grateful to the clerks who alerted me to it. We will have to think about the question of hybridity and the right of football clubs and leagues to make their views known on this legislation, as the Minister and I have both just come to understand. The Committee has, through the course of this and Monday night’s debate, been able to begin considering it, and we should continue to consider it between—

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

If the noble Lord insisted on this being included in the Bill, what would his response then be to further proceedings on the Bill?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am interested in making sure that the Bill passes. I have been very clear from Second Reading onwards that we want to see it pass, that we want a regulator to be set up and that we want football to be protected and well governed. However, we want it to be done in a way that is not unduly burdensome, is proportionate and genuinely protects what is a hugely enjoyed pastime, a vital export and a group of hugely successful businesses for this country.

Thanks to the noble Lord’s Amendment 21 and my Amendment 19, we are given the opportunity to pause and consider whether we can have deeper and more fruitful conversations with those leagues and clubs to make sure that we get this legislation right. That is a question worth pondering with greater patience than I think we have seen from the Government Benches so far. I will certainly continue to consider it, and I hope that other noble Lords will do so too. For today, and in the interest of making further progress with our Committee deliberations, I beg leave to withdraw.