Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

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.

Sentencing Bill

Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Report stage
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, during our various deliberations throughout the passage of the Bill, I have on a number of occasions expressed great support for many of the measures within the proposed legislation but, at the same time, a concern that we may not have the means to deliver the ends—in particular, the concern that we would not have the right number of sufficiently and adequately trained staff within the Prison and Probation Service. I have suggested on previous occasions, therefore, that it would be appropriate that we look at, for example, not only the number of prisoners and prison places but at the same time the number of staff in the Prison and Probation Service. That is particularly important because, if many of the measures in this legislation go ahead, they will increase demands on both those services. For instance, there will be more tagging having to be taken up and, of course, more people—hopefully—engaging in a wider range of activities in our prisons and in non-custodial sentences to reduce reoffending.

The two amendments in my name, therefore, simply propose adding those two issues—staffing in the Probation Service and Prison Service—to the amendment that has now been proposed by the Minister. However, I am reasonably confident, in light of the comments that the Minister has made, not only about the assurance that there will be a continuation of the quarterly reports but that there will be a bringing together of the data from that and the annual report that we are going to get as a result of the amendment, that we have probably got to the point where we will have the relevant information in a very transparent way. I am grateful to the Minister for the discussions we have had on this particular issue.

So I will not press my amendments to a vote, and I am grateful to the Minister for going as far as he has. I just say to him that it is slightly difficult to understand why simply adding in the wording I propose has not been done, but I know that the Minister really wants to make this work. I believe he is going to achieve that—I hope he will—and so I shall not be pressing these amendments to a vote.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I have tabled Amendment 97A, which is again about probation capacity. I know that the Minister has done his best to convince us, and I completely understand that, with his business drive and determination, he is going to do the absolute best possible for this problem. But I remain unconvinced that the concerns raised by Peers in Committee and by probation staff themselves have been properly addressed.

It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, is not going to push his amendments to a vote, and I certainly will not push this to a vote. However, in Committee, the Government charged that this amendment would risk duplicating existing reports and delaying reform, but I do not see that, because this amendment is not about producing more data for its own sake; it is about independent assurance at arm’s length from Ministers and operational management that the Probation Service has the capacity to safely absorb the additional demands that the Bill will place on it. Quarterly staffing statistics published by the Probation Service are not the same thing as a system- wide assessment that the Probation Service has that capacity.

In addition, the amendment balances investment plans. The Minister referred in Committee to the recruitment of trainee probation officers, to digital innovation and to welcome investment over the spending review period. We heard about those issues from the Minister himself at a briefing yesterday. All of that is positive, but none of it guarantees that the capacity is adequate at the point of commencement of the new statutory duties. The organisation Justice also says that the number of new probation officers set to be recruited would be inadequate. I would be very grateful if the Minister could tackle that problem of the inadequacy of numbers because, of course, recruitment takes time. Trainees take time to qualify. Technology takes time to embed and to get right. In the meantime, probation officers are working under extraordinary pressure, managing high-risk individuals and with case loads that are already too high.

The argument that this amendment would delay reforms misunderstands its purpose. If it delays reform, it is necessary, because it means that the reforms are not enough. Carrying on with huge changes regardless of capacity does not strengthen probation; it weakens it and increases risks to staff. Parliament is being asked to legislate for significant new demands on the Probation Service without this independent assurance by HMPPS that it has actually happened and that it is going to work and it is going to fit. I would have supported the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, but I will, of course, not move mine. I just hope that the Minister feels he has the backing of the House for everything he is trying to do. If we are raising concerns, it is only from a point of view of wanting to make it perfect.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I want to talk briefly about the granularity of data, the choice of data and its use, and the need for independent assessment and evaluation of the use of that data in judging the success or otherwise of attempts to level up. On Monday, I raised the need for granularity of data, particularly in relation to my concern about the disparities between urban and rural areas. I am very pleased to see that Amendment 10—I support my noble friend, and my name is on the amendment—proposes that the granularity could be done perhaps at local authority level and even, where possible, at postcode level. The noble Baroness’s Amendment 58 talks about data collection at the level of

“regions, counties, councils and council wards”.

We should all be thankful to the Minister, because she has already very helpfully responded to many of these concerns in a response on Monday to my request for granularity. She agreed with the sentiments but then went on to provide rather more detail, which she said was very complicated. I promised to go away and put a wet towel on my head and look at it in detail afterwards, as she promised she would—I suspect we both now have. It is very interesting to read. She told us what is happening within government to better identify geographical disparities, and talked about

“data visualisation and experimentation techniques”

and

“a transformative data analysis strategy at subnational level.”

I still do not really know what that all is, which is the point of what I want to say, but crucially, the Minister said that:

“The spatial data unit will also consider the differences between geographical areas, such as regions, counties, councils, and even down to council wards, according to the needs and objectives of specific missions or policy areas.”—[Official Report, 20/2/23; col. 1482.]


We should be enormously grateful that that is on the record.

However, the problem is that we also have to be very clear about how the data is going to be used. We might collect it at a granular level but I hope we will also be able to have more detail about how the data is going to be used. Why? Because, sadly, there have been examples where this Government claim to have collected and used data but that does not really seem to follow.

I note, for example, that the current Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced a tranche of the levelling-up fund allocations. In the press conference that followed, when he was asked how this money had been allocated, he said it was

“based on an index of economic need which is transparently published”.

However, when people went to look for this transparently published documentation, they could not find any. The Treasury had to come up with a statement afterwards to say that the information was coming “shortly” but was unable to say when that would be. When at a later stage people questioned how this all worked, the Treasury spokesman, in explaining the bandings which had apparently been used to allocate how the money was spent, went on to say:

“The bandings do not represent eligibility criteria—and money will be allocated to the areas most in need. Further technical details will be published by the government in due course.”


When, in due course, it eventually came out, and there were queries about all this, the Treasury announced that the factors used included

“strategic alignment with government priorities”,

whatever that may mean.

My point is that it is really good that we are going to have granular data, and I think we should specify in the Bill how that is going to be done. But we also need openness and honesty about how the data is going to be used. That is why the other amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, is so important, talking as it does about the independent body that will analyse this information.

My final point is simply that I absolutely accept what the Minister says about her concern about putting all the missions on the face of the Bill. But it seems to me that the public have a right to know the key areas of concern that we will use to judge whether levelling up between the various areas of the country has taken place or not. My noble friend on the Front Bench used a very good phrase: she said we should have it in “headline form”. That is really what my noble friend’s Amendment 10 does. It makes a suggestion; I am sure he would accept it is a starter for ten. Other issues have been raised; I could raise, for instance, the issue of home insulation, which is a hobby-horse of mine. In any case, we have time, as my noble friend said, between now and Report to actually get consensus across the House on what the key headline issues are that we are keen to tackle. We can then have separate debates elsewhere about the details. So I think all three amendments in this group cover these three crucial areas of having granularity of data, having a clear understanding of how the data is going to be used and independently evaluated, and what the data is actually going to cover: what are the key issues of concern that we have in the whole effort to level up?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am beginning to think that eight days is not enough for Committee. I am sorry about that, but it is such an exciting Bill and we all have so much to say. The point about which data to collect is interesting, because, of course, there is data that is extremely negative and it would be difficult, perhaps, to find a category for it. For example, so far, a huge amount of money has been wasted by the levelling-up funds, because local authorities have often used a lot of time and energy putting together bids that have failed. Are the Government going to collect the data on that waste of money, which obviously —in these days of 13 years of underinvestment in councils and the loss of EU structural funds—means a lot to councils and will affect the service that they can give to their residents? There has been a failure of levelling up already and perhaps we are not measuring everything we should be measuring.

There are a couple of dozen local authorities run by Greens as part of the administration. Many Green councillors have expressed their dismay to me at the level of waste in the levelling-up fund, and it very much concerns me. Instead of taking a long-term view of what is needed, the Government sought quick wins, quite understandably; I can entirely support that idea. However, they demanded submission of “shovel-ready projects”, combined with tight deadlines for submissions, so local authorities had to quickly piece together bids, rather than taking the time to develop what they might have thought were the most impactful and valuable project proposals for their areas. Personally, I see this as a continuation of Boris Johnson’s natural urge—which I saw quite a lot of when he was Mayor of London—to splash money around on grand ideas that grabbed headlines but often failed to come to any sort of fruition.

So far, I do not think the levelling-up fund has been value for money, and it has not been targeted at areas that need it most. There has been a lot of political decision-making about where the funds go, and it is alleged that they have disproportionately benefited Conservative-voting areas. The Government now need to give local authorities a long-term view of what is needed and let them put together long-term proposals. They need capital funds that will be made available over a period of years and support them to dig deep into what would benefit their own areas, because they will know best. I can see a lot of late nights in my future with this Bill, and I do hope that the Government will listen to what we are saying.

Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, the various amendments in this grouping are largely about monitoring, reviewing and assessing. I am very supportive of all of them, particularly the requirement in the first amendment from my noble friend on the Front Bench that there be an assessment of the sufficiency or otherwise of social housing stock in this country. I place on record how much I agree with her about the way in which such properties are built. We should ensure that many of them are built in such a way that gives an opportunity for people to live longer in their homes. There are some very simple issues that could be taken on board, such as ensuring a reasonably thick wall going up staircases so that stairlifts can subsequently be attached to them, which is rarely done at present.

Having said that, my Amendment 12 in this group concerns a somewhat niche but important issue relating to safety within social housing. It is an issue I have raised on a number of occasions, and I now have an opportunity to praise the Government for doing nearly everything that I want. My amendment seeks to persuade them to go that final bit further to achieve everything that I hoped to achieve.

During the passage of the then Building Safety Bill I drew attention to the large number of property fires caused by faulty electrical installations or appliances, some with devastating consequences. I pointed out that in the privately rented sector it is already mandatory to have safety checks on electrical installations every five years, but that there is currently no similar requirement in the socially rented sector, despite the social housing charter specifically stating:

“Safety measures in the social sector should be in line with the legal protections afforded to private sector tenants.”


I moved an amendment to that Bill to try to rectify this but, sadly, it was rejected by the Government on the grounds that it would lead to an added burden on the new safety regulator and would

“distract it and hinder its success.”—[Official Report, 29/3/22; col. 1403.]

However, I am delighted that, in a very short space of time, there has been a welcome change of heart by the Government following their own working group concluding that five-yearly checks on installations in social housing should take place. That is reflected in Clause 10 of this Bill, which amends Section 122 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to extend it to all landlords, thus including social landlords. It is a measure that I applaud. A consultation, which ended just a few days ago, has already taken place to consider the details of how such measures should be introduced. I welcome that.

The great thing is that the Government have even gone one stage further. They have clearly now decided that five-yearly checks will definitely go ahead in the socially rented sector, because paragraph 81 of the call for evidence of that consultation says:

“The government acknowledges the support of the Working Group for this proposal and agrees with the proposal to mandate five-yearly checks of electrical installations.”


It is now clear that the Government will go ahead and it is merely the details of how the scheme will work that have to be finalised.

Even at Second Reading I was pleased with all this, although the consultation had not taken place at that time, nor had we had that final statement that we would be going ahead. However, I pointed out that

“a careful study of Clause 10’s proposed way of achieving”

the five-yearly checks

“by amending Section 122 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016—reveals that the Secretary of State does not have to make any changes; merely that he may do so.”

I asked the then Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh —to give me an assurance that

“following the consultation, the Government will commit to ensuring that ‘may’ becomes ‘must’ so that the pledge to ensure the parity of social tenants with private tenants is honoured”.—[Official Report, 27/6/22; col. 459.]

Very sadly, although I was told that the Government

“would not be putting those powers in the Bill if we were not very serious in our intention to level up between private and public housing”,

he nevertheless declined to accept my proposal to change “may” to “must” and said:

“I know that he, in exhorting me to move from ‘may’ to ‘must’, recognises that we do not want to pre-empt the consultation on electrical safety measures for social housing.”—[Official Report, 27/6/22; col. 468.]


The consultation has now made it clear that the Government will go ahead but will be guided on the details of how they do so as a result of the consultation. Therefore, I now have a new amendment, Amendment 12, to deal with concerns about pre-emption by saying that the Government would have one year after the consultation before they must bring forward the required regulations. It no longer pre-empts the consultation. It would enable the Government to develop regulations to cover the details around implementation over the coming year. At the same time, it would ensure that the legislation required the much-needed and, as I am sure the consultation responses already show, widely supported introduction of mandatory five-yearly checks on electrical installations to take place in the socially rented sector. We nearly got there; on this occasion, I hope that we will have the Minister’s support for this amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Very quickly, I will speak to Amendment 5, but I support others. I am a big fan of social housing. I grew up in a council house in the 1950s and 1960s and my parents thought they were the luckiest people alive to have a new council house. It was a very happy home. These days, social housing is in very short supply, partly as a result of all sorts of population changes but also because of the Government’s very badly thought through right-to-buy policies. Somehow, we have to mop this up.

The Green Party’s 2019 manifesto committed to fund councils to deliver more than 100,000 new social houses per year

“through sustainable construction, renovation and conversion”.

That is the scale of the solution needed to make local communities much more secure in their social housing. The Government have to remove the barriers that local authorities and social landlords face.

I will touch very briefly on freezing or limiting social rent increases. I very much feel that these rent increases need to be kept as low as possible—or frozen. The Government have to backfill the large gaps that this would leave in the funding for social housing. I also suggest a ban on evictions at the moment, because life is getting harder and harder. It seems downright unfair if the Government are going to pay energy companies £0.25 trillion to cap energy prices but, at the same time, pay nothing to social landlords to cap rents.