Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Goddard of Stockport and Lord Pannick

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, since the noble Lords, Lord Black and Lord Blencathra, have said that this is not an easy subject, I remind the Committee of what happened when Section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 on sex with animals was debated in this House in Committee on 1 April 2003. I draw attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said on that occasion:

“I hope that this matter is not something that most noble Lords come across. As we rarely have the opportunity to talk about such subjects, it seems right to ensure that any possible imperfections in the wording are covered, however difficult it may be to talk about them”.—[Official Report, 1/4/03; col. 1186.]


That wise advice applies today.

The prohibition of sex with animals has a long history. It was proscribed in Leviticus, chapter 18, verse 23. Coke’s 17th-century Institutes of the Lawes of England, volume 3, page 59, refer to the criminal offence by a “great Lady” who

“committed Buggery with a Baboon, and conceived by it”.

As the noble Lord, Lord Black, has explained, the limits of Section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act, like its predecessors, are that it covers only some sexual activity—penile penetration of the vagina or anus of the animal or of a human being by an animal—and does not apply to sexual activity with a dead animal. The exclusion of sex with a dead animal is particularly odd, as the next section of the 2003 Act, Section 70, does make it a criminal offence to engage in penetrative sex with a human corpse. The amendment would extend the scope of the offence to cover all “sexual activity” with an animal or using an animal for sexual gratification.

The noble Lord, Lord Black, has sought to define sexual activity in this context with a degree of precision in proposed new subsection (2), but has also left room for debate by stating that sexual activity “includes” what is specified. Of course, sexual activity is as broad as the human imagination. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Black, that it would be preferable for an amendment to the law not to attempt a legislative Kama Sutra of possibilities but rather to adopt the approach seen in other sections of the 2003 Act.

The 2003 Act already uses the concept of “sexual activity”, for example in Section 4, and Section 78 provides a general definition of sexual activity. Sexual activity, says Section 78, means what a reasonable person would regard as sexual in nature, irrespective of the defendant’s purpose in relation to it. There is a slightly different definition in Section 71 relating to sexual activity in a lavatory, and I confess that I have not fully understood why Parliament in 2003 used a slightly different definition in that context. However, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Black, that it would be better to have a portmanteau phrase, “sexual activity”, so defined, which is already the approach that the 2003 Act takes in Sections 4 and 78.

I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, will not pursue his original wish to substitute the term “bestiality”. My understanding is that, as a matter of law, bestiality is confined to penile penetration of the vagina or anus, which is contrary to the admirable intention of the noble Lord, Lord Black, to broaden the scope of the legislation.

It may also be helpful to include a definition of an “animal” in the new clause by cross-reference to other statutory definitions. As the Committee will know, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 provides by Section 1 that it applies to vertebrates other than man, but there is a power by regulations to extend the protection to cover classes of invertebrates. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 covers, in addition to non-human vertebrates, molluscs and crustaceans. I doubt—the noble Lord, Lord Black, may have broader knowledge than me —whether sexual activity with a mollusc or a crustacean is a mischief which the Bill needs to address.

I have one final point. As was mentioned, this amendment would increase the maximum sentence of imprisonment for the Section 69 offence from two years to five years. I am doubtful about that. I would expect that defendants who are found guilty of the sexual abuse of animals nowadays are, as they always were, sad, pathetic individuals who need help rather than a lengthy prison sentence of more than two years. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister whether in any of the cases under the current Section 69 in the last few years any defendant has received a sentence of two years, or whether any judge has complained that the current sentencing powers of a maximum of two years are inadequate.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 316 from the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just taken my entire speech away from me, so I will not quote Coke’s. I thank him for what he has said. He is a lawyer and he has tried to help with this.

On the point of this amendment—I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the APPG on Cats—the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, has our support on animal welfare, and indeed he has been driving this for a number of years via a number of APPGs. So the essence of what he is trying to do is right. The comments that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made are helpful: perhaps when we get to another place, we will have a better-worded amendment that carries more support.

For me, the reason I am supporting this is because of the animal side, but there is evidence that the abuse of animals leads to abuse of children. That link is clear, and there is evidence from everywhere that that is where it starts, but it ends with children and young people.

That is why this amendment, difficult as it is to speak about, is vital. When the evidence is there of a cause leading to a different cause that is worse, the amendment should get the support of this House and the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is right; he is trying to right a wrong and he understands the points of law. His principle is right: this does need resolving, and it is an important issue to animal lovers. Lots of animal lovers in this country have no idea that this is going on around them. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, may be right, in that some of the people in question are poor people who are not part of society; but there are also those who kill animals for videos and live feeds, to be watched for money. That is going on all around the world; it is not just an English problem.

There is a bigger picture. This is not just about an unfortunate person abusing an animal; like everything else in today’s debate, it is a wider society problem. I hope that people approach this with the gravitas it deserves. Animal abuse is one thing; but transferring that to children and young people is equally important. That is why I support the amendment.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Goddard of Stockport and Lord Pannick

Report stage
Monday 17th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 55 and 56. I received a satisfactory reply on the four amendments from the previous group, which I submitted to the Government and the Minister. I also submitted Amendments 55 and 56, but I did not quite get such a full support for them, so I think it is worth explaining to the House what they are—plus a slight history lesson.

The Minister’s statement in the debate on 16 December 2024 set down the clear intent that the regulator should have primacy ahead of all competition organisers:

“I want also to stress that the regulator will not stop the leagues imposing their own competition rules so long as they do not conflict with the regulator’s regime”.—[Official Report, 16/12/24; col. 40.]


The then Government’s consultation response document noted:

“The Regulator will set the legal baseline for regulation in areas within its remit. There may be scope for industry bodies to layer on top, but the Regulator would coordinate with these bodies to ensure that any additional rules were supportive of the regulatory approach and objectives. This means that industry bodies will need to be receptive to working with the Regulator to potentially streamline and adapt their existing rules, to allow for a coherent regulatory landscape that minimises burdens on clubs”.


However, this is not reflected in Clause 55(6), which requires only that the competition organisers “consult” with the regulator. That is not what was previously said.

Through discussions on the Bill, we have seen that the level of co-operation of competition organisers has varied, so it is not satisfactory to rely on their good will to resolve regulatory conflicts. Indeed, recent Premier League consultations have resulted in a legal spat with the Professional Footballers’ Association, the EFL, the Government and FIFA, and various disputes with the Premier League executive. The proposed amendments aim to ensure that the regulatory system is clear and coherent and avoids the confusing overregulation of rules. The IFR can act as an important safeguard.

We have seen a number of recent legal cases that have demonstrated deep flaws in some of the competition organisers’ approach. For example, the Premier League lost a case to Leicester City, where Leicester was held to be a member of neither the Premier League nor the EFL, due to poor and contradictory drafting of Premier League rules. That was a report from the Appeal Board.

Of even greater concern, the Premier League rules on associated party transactions were found to have been illegally introduced to advantage one set of clubs over another, and to have abused a dominant market position. As a result, three years of those rules were held to be void, as though they never existed, and there are more damages claims to come. These rules came about because of rushed processes. The panel noted that they had not been subject to proper analysis or examination before introduction:

“There does not appear to have been any discussion or analysis as to how such an exclusion would affect the effectiveness of the PSR, and the principle of sustainability of club finance which underlies the PSR”—


the profit and sustainability rules in competitions. That was from a judgment in favour of Manchester City, which additionally found that:

“Nor was there any evidence that the PL had in fact carried out any analysis as to the impact of the shareholder exclusion on different clubs and to seek to justify such an exclusion”.


Many of these difficulties have come about because of the inherent conflict in the regulated entities—the clubs—being the ones that set the rules. Clearly, the independent regulator will be able to act on that. It will act effectively to regulate the financial sustainability of English football and undermine its entitlement.

The proposed amendment is targeted at financial and business regulations; it leaves sporting regulations completely untouched. It is of no benefit to anyone in the game for there to be rushed, ill thought-through or illegal market regulations, from whatever source. It will benefit all to ensure that the IFR can act with quality checks on future attempts by competition organisers when they attempt economic market regulation. The Premier League has clearly demonstrated that it is not good at economic market regulation; in doing so, it has ended up costing the Premier League and its constituent clubs tens of millions of pounds in legal fees and dislocated activities.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Markham, in relation to Amendment 52 on consultation. As noble Lords will know, Clause 54 requires the regulator to consult persons including all regulated clubs before making, amending or replacing levy rules, and consultation is a vital component of fairness. However, Clause 54(2) says that this obligation

“does not apply in relation to amendments to or replacements of levy rules if the IFR considers the changes to be minor”.

The noble Lord, Lord Markham, is absolutely right: it is not for the regulator to determine whether changes are minor; it is for those who are potentially adversely affected. Consultation on matters that the regulator may consider to be minor is no great impediment. If the changes are in truth minor, as perceived by the regulated clubs, the consultation will not take very long and will not involve any great effort by the regulator. I hope that the Government will accept Amendment 52 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Goddard of Stockport and Lord Pannick

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, eloquently explains why the Secretary of State and the IFR must seek to avoid conflict with UEFA and FIFA regulations. They are the governing bodies, despite the lunacy of some of their decisions, most recently the FIFA proposals to expand the World Cup to 64 teams and to extend half-time so that there can be a concert while players seek to maintain warmth and fitness. Notwithstanding that, they are the governing bodies, and the structure of English football recognises this.

It does so because both UEFA and FIFA impose in their rules and regulations an obligation on member associations—the FA, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, says—to comply with UEFA and FIFA regulations, and to ensure that clubs and leagues also comply with UEFA and FIFA regulations. The FA imposes a similar obligation on member leagues and the Premier League—its rule B14. It imposes a contractual commitment on clubs and the Premier League to comply with the statutes and regulations of FIFA and UEFA.

Notwithstanding all this, I am, with great respect, doubtful as to the wisdom of Amendment 4 from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Do we really wish to incorporate into English law, so that it is a matter that can be raised in the High Court, the statutes and regulations of UEFA and FIFA? Is it really our wish to allow those who are concerned by a decision of the Secretary of State or of the IFR to go to court and say that the decision is a breach of a UEFA or FIFA regulation? It would be welcomed enormously by sports lawyers such as me. The opportunities for litigation are endless because, regrettably, the UEFA and FIFA regulations are not always drafted with the precision and clarity—I put it modestly—that we expect and see from the parliamentary draftsmen in this country.

I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, could address this point when he comes to reply. There will be a further enormous expanse of litigation in football, and we will find that decisions are even more regularly open to litigation—to challenge in the courts—if his amendment is accepted.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I almost expected the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to withdraw these two amendments following the meeting we had yesterday with the FA. I am absolutely certain that his shoulders dropped when we asked a question of the FA regarding FIFA and UEFA, and the FA confirmed to the people there—I was there, as were the noble Lords, Lord Birt, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington —that it had had letters and emails from FIFA and UEFA supporting the regulator. Their only concern was—choose the words you want—state creep, scope creep or mission creep. Providing that those things do not happen, they are content that we have a regulator.

The threat from UEFA and FIFA was discussed time and again in Committee. I think that fox was completely shot yesterday because the FA openly and honestly said, “We have had letters and emails saying they have no problem with the regulator, providing there is no state creep, scope creep or mission creep”, which I believe there will not be.