Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

I welcome that Defra is going to produce a policy on access, which will come after the publication of the next environmental improvement plan, but by that time the legislative opportunity will have passed, so I think we need really to put the requirement for green and blue space in the Bill.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 107 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Before speaking to it, I have just two brief comments. First, in declaring my interest as chairman of the British Olympic Association from 2005 through to the London Olympic Games in 2012 and being a member of the London Organising Committee for those Olympic and Paralympic Games, I have to say that what the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has said today is absolutely right. The work that she did at the time was exemplary and really important for the success of those Games, and the emphasis on environmental protection and the environmental work that went on in green spaces and the gardens were commendable. I hope that that is taken very much into consideration by the Minister when she comes to reply to that amendment.

I also want to offer the apologies of my noble friend Lady Sater who was two minutes late in arriving for this set of amendments and came from another important meeting. She is passionate about this subject, and has just whispered in my ear that she was strongly supportive of what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said in her speech, as well as what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said in speaking to Amendment 107, and if he moves that to a vote I am sure she will be supporting him as strongly as I will.

In Committee—and here I take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson—we concentrated on a number of facts, which are not worthy of repetition because they were so well-made at the time. We looked at the importance of playing fields as crucial for children and young people, and we recognised that, once the playing field is lost to development, it is generally lost for ever. We also looked at the active communities that were supported by playing fields, which can reduce healthcare costs.

To my brief contributions there, I just want to add to the points that were made about Sport England a number of facts which were not before the Committee at that stage, which I hope are taken into consideration by the Minister in her response. The Bill before us threatens to weaken the statutory protection for playing fields by potentially removing Sport England’s role as a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting these spaces.

These changes would reduce independent oversight. Independent oversight is vitally important regarding these playing fields. The change would reduce independent oversight and advocacy for safeguarding playing fields, increasing the risk of their loss to development, especially in areas already underserved for sports provision. If removed, local authorities would not be required to consult Sport England when considering planning applications that affect playing fields, removing a critical safeguard that has protected over 1,000 playing fields in the past year alone. Statements from the chief executive of Sport England emphasise that removing this statutory role would leave a huge hole in the protection system, as Sport England’s involvement in planning has led to improved or safeguarded conditions in 90% of recent cases.

School playing fields are particularly vulnerable. Over half of UK playing fields are within school grounds. The Bill introduces more flexibility for local authorities to sell such land for capital generation. Concerns remain that weakening Sport England’s oversight could make these disposals more likely, and it is for that reason that I support Amendment 107.

Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I support the Bill. I congratulate Linsey Farnsworth in another place on the initiative she has taken and, particularly, the work that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, has done on the Bill, both in another place and indeed here today. I wish him well—all my comments will be in that context, because I think there may be some areas where we can seek to strengthen the Bill and consider some of its implications.

I too will share with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, a bit of past experience on this. The Football Spectators Act 1989 was a Bill that I piloted through the Commons as Minister for Sport. The subsequent Act that he referred to, the Football (Offences) Act 1991, addresses broader forms of football-related disorder, allowing for the banning orders, which do not make, as has rightly been pointed out, unauthorised entry itself a prosecutable offence. It is important and may be helpful, especially when we get to Committee, to reflect on the conversations that took place at the time of the original Bill, during the Thatcher and the Major Governments. Thirty-five years on, some of those same arguments were raised by Katie Lam in another place and echoed during the Bill’s proceedings.

No law can be effective unless you have the resources to bring the perpetrators to justice, and the cost of policing will be substantial. As Katie Lam clearly stated:

“It is … right that we give police and organisers the tools that they need, not just to remove people in the moment, but to prevent repeat offences through banning orders”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/25; col. 1253.]


When the original legislation was first considered, this proposal came up, and concern was expressed by the police, some of the clubs and politicians about how well the offences could be policed and how much additional policing costs and stewarding would follow.

Christopher Chope MP, who is notable for his interventions on Private Members’ Bills who and was also around at the time, back in the early 1990s, stated in Committee on this Bill in another place:

“I fear that what will happen is that an individual will be picked on every now and again, but when there is a problem of mass trespass, we will not be able to do anything about it because nobody will be able to police it ... there is a danger that bringing the criminal law into these areas will result in disappointment and, as a result, bring the law into disrepute; we put all these laws on the statute book, but we cannot actually do anything about them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/25; col. 1251.]


This was a real concern when we first addressed the possibility of the proposal in the Bill and it remains a concern now, but one I think we should address in Committee. Today, however, the Government have the opportunity to say that they will ensure that the full costs associated with enforcement will be made available. Sadly, recent precedent in a related area will not be in their favour.

It is interesting that, in introducing the Bill, the noble Lord referred to the importance of adjusting it to make sure that somebody who went in with a counterfeit ticket or the wrong ticket would effectively be exempt because this is a very narrow Bill. I hope that that would be included. I promise I am not going to push this to votes in Committee, but I think it is something that we need to look at very closely. It is a classic example of where the CMA has been given powers and those powers have not been used effectively; the resources have not been there to make sure that this problem of modern-day ticket-touting has been addressed.

There are literally thousands of people who go to football matches illegally—I will come to the laws that cover that—with tickets that have been acquired through bots or the secondary market. Many are rejected on entry. That unauthorised entry in itself often causes a fracas or problems because the individuals concerned feel that they have been unfairly treated.

So if we are going to achieve the praiseworthy goals set out in this Bill, and if this Bill is going to be worth more than the paper it is written on, which I believe it will be, the Government have to commit to ensure that the funding is in place for all the relevant authorities—in particular, for the police to be available on day one, while football clubs will need to invest in training, stewarding ticket systems and support staff. We knew this when considering this offence and drafting the Football (Offences) Bill back in 1991.

We should also be concerned about instances where fans are unfairly penalised due to miscommunication or misunderstanding about entry rights leading to unwarranted legal consequences. Above all, the political climate at the time when we bought the first two Bills, now Acts, did not warrant going further than we had with onerous but ultimately successful legislation to tackle football-related disorder.

In looking at the Casey review in detail, we must also address the central criticism she made about the loss of experienced stewards, leaving, “Wembley’s stewarding operation vulnerable” and her recommendations for stricter enforcement within the stadium, which can be read across into clubs as a whole. I think this was a clarion call to recognise that there are people who are willing to risk unauthorised entry to football matches—who the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, called the “mindless thugs” at Wembley that day—and a wake-up call for football clubs and venues, such as Wembley, that host national and international matches, to install and modernise their entry systems and ensure that their stewards are well trained and capable of strict enforcement of club, FIFA, UEFA and FA rules at matches.

It is important to recognise that a central and growing issue is the existence of some stadium, event and club employees who are, regrettably, bad apples willing to break the rules of the club and assist or facilitate entry with an invalid matchday ticket, which adds to the problem that the Bill seeks to address. There is nothing in the proposed legislation that deals with assisting or facilitating entry with an invalid matchday ticket, yet this is a significant problem that has been on the rise at some leading professional football clubs in recent years through a minority, but a very relevant minority, of corrupt staff associated with turnstile entry.

Last season alone, four stewards at one club facilitated entry for people with facsimile tickets, and they benefited financially. That small but relevant number of corrupt stewards, usually working with a tout outside the ground or on social media, provide a facsimile of a digital ticket to a purchaser for payment. On matchday, the purchaser is made aware of which turnstile to go to with the facsimile and which member of staff to speak to. The purchaser feigns a problem with the ticket; the corrupt steward then uses either a master access card or an override button on the turnstile to allow the purchaser entry into the stadium and takes his payoff. In one recent case, a highly respected investigator with extensive knowledge of this growing fraudulent activity saw 30 persons admitted to a stadium in this manner by one steward at one match.

This practice is, regrettably, becoming more prevalent. A simple clause making it an offence to facilitate or assist a person to enter a ground with an invalid matchday ticket or a matchday ticket that they were not eligible to use would plug this loophole that can cause problems at turnstiles and entry points to a match, which this Bill seeks to address.

I intend to put down an amendment to new Clause 1A(1)(b) which I hope will address this and allow us to debate in Committee an important change meaning that persons could attempt entry with copies of genuine tickets, and if they did there would be no offence committed. Under this legislation, bad actors, particularly under new Clause 1A(3), will simply tell customers that, if they have any problem with a ticket, they should simply say that they purchased it in good faith. Altercations where this is not accepted are rare, but cause many of the problems that the proposers of the Bill are seeking to avoid. A clause such that the person should be able to produce a valid receipt for the purchase of the invalid ticket could be inserted into the defence section as part of the criteria, and discussions could take place with clubs, regulators and, indeed, fans to make sure that this is practical and enforceable. Simply requiring anyone to believe that they had purchased something generally wrecks the good intentions of the proposed legislation.

In Committee, I will turn to the expensive and massive problem, which many noble Lords have heard me speak about over the past 10 years, of ticketing fraud perpetrated by corrupt players in the extensive secondary ticket market in the UK. One secondary market tout is known to have more than 1,000 memberships at a Premier League club. It is estimated that that business alone—the unauthorised and illegal use of the secondary market—costs between £100 million and £200 million of illicit business per annum, which is nearly £1 billion during this Parliament. It just shows how important it is to make sure that a genuine football fan can gain access to a football match with a valid ticket and that we tackle that problem.

This may not be the right Bill to do that, but it is certainly the right Bill to talk about it, in Committee, particularly since in football, as opposed to other sports, it is already illegal to sell tickets on the secondary market in the UK unless you are authorised by the event, organiser or club. That is what Section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was for—it made it a criminal offence for any unauthorised person to sell tickets for designated football matches—but it is not policed and the law is flouted. Again, it comes back to the resource of making sure that a well-intentioned law is properly policed and implemented.

These are just some of the issues that I hope we will be able to look at in detail. The Bill is exceptionally well-intentioned and has been worked through very hard. In Committee and subsequent stages, I believe we could look at making it even more effective and more valuable so that we protect the interests of true football fans, which is what all this is about, keep thugs out of the game in which they have no place and make sure that true football fans enjoy it, while also addressing the growing and extensive criminal behaviour in the much-abused secondary ticket market, which is one of the principal causes of unauthorised entry to football matches.

I wish the noble Lord every success with the passage of the Bill. I congratulate him on a lifetime commitment to sport and on making sure that issues such as this—minor in some ways, not huge legislation, but important to the future of football—find their way on to the statute book and win widespread support among the fans, the clubs and the wider community who want to see a truly legally binding and effective framework for football in this country.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, I endorse the Bill and the principle of the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I will repeat nothing of his points but merely make observations to add to them.

I think Members of the House would be shocked at the prices for the average secondary market ticket for the Premier League today. The amount of cash and profit that can be dispensed to others in precisely the way the noble Lord articulated is greatly underestimated, as are estimates of the number of tickets in the Premier League going through the secondary market. This is very big business.

One point that the noble Lord did not make but that needs adding is that the majority of these tickets are being bought online electronically from abroad. Dublin is a huge centre for that but there are many more outside this country. That is the business model. The term used to me by the people with the most expertise in this field is organised crime, and that is what this is. It is not the old school of freelancers or interesting characters with a flat cap running a cash-in-hand business outside a stadium, who are still recognisable on occasion at sporting events. They are only a tiny bit of the problem. This is organised crime, big money, and that needs serious consideration. Another minor issue that needs serious consideration in Committee is whether FA Cup fixtures should be included, because then you have the potential of a range of other grounds that will suddenly have a huge fixture, and the problems associated with it, away from the norm.

There are many ingenious ways in which football fans will attempt to see fixtures. At Oxford United last March, I witnessed—although the police intervened after 10 minutes—the most ingenious of attempts. A van was parked in a public car park adjoining the smallest stand. A ladder, which was more like a window-cleaning device, was raised and, in great comfort, two fans started to observe the fixture from on high. Such was the angle of the ladder that they may well have technically been inside the stadium. I use that as an illustration of the many ways in which the true fan—but one without a ticket—may attempt to see a fixture.

I put this question for consideration to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan: the old Scratching Shed at Leeds United could be climbed from the outside. Whenever a fixture was full and the gates were locked, fans of all ages would climb on to its roof. The stands at the same stadium these days would not facilitate that, but there are clubs promoted to the National League where a similar concept would apply. The question, “What is illegal entry?”, needs a bit of consideration, because fans are ingenious and there are many ways in which things can be done that may not totally fit with health and safety regulations.

When I first went to football, I was getting in for free, not by going through the turnstile but by being lifted over it. That is my point regarding FA Cup fixtures because turnstiles come in many different shapes and forms. Until school dinners became particularly good, with treble massive servings, I was capable of being easily lifted—at a quite mature age really—over said turnstile, and at the time that guaranteed free entry. So that is an interesting question.

I appreciate that Scotland is not included in this, but on my last visit to Stenhousemuir Football Club, for a fixture of great interest, it was unclear when kick-off time was. I arrived early, when the turnstiles and ticket office were closed, walked into the stadium through the gate and sat down to wait. The match had almost begun by the time I remembered, my memory having been jogged by a steward, that I might not have a ticket. I had to leave the stadium, buy a ticket from a ticket office and then enter via the turnstile to get legal access. The point about the definition regarding ingenious fans—or, in that case, fans who did not have a clue what time kick-off was—is an interesting one, particularly in the National League.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I cannot leave that anecdote without recalling a story that I hope I am allowed to share, in the spirit of this debate. I had to introduce the football Bill back in the days when the House was completely packed. On the day when I was winding up, the House was totally full because the Bill was a major issue at the time. There was that moment before the Minister winds up when the House goes silent, and Dennis Skinner looked at me and said, “It’s all right for him. He can get in under the turnstile”.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, that shows the ingenuity that doubtless may have been attempted. I am considering when that could be used, before the Bill becomes law, to assist the noble Lord in accessing a certain match that he is keen to watch.

There are other points that need considering by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and the Committee. First, facial recognition is coming in. Serie A already has facial recognition; it is not in widespread use, but the technology is required in Italy. There are certainly two Premier League clubs that are bringing in facial recognition for part of their stadium at the moment. I do not say that the interesting question of facial recognition “coincides”, but it sits alongside this.

Secondly, there is the issue of political agitators, whose aim is to get on the pitch—they have attempted to do so—and the question of players’ safety in relation to that is a factor. I think the last recorded case was an environmental protester of some kind getting on a pitch, but that is a serious issue in relation to player safety, which has rightly been taken as more important in recent times. That would actually back up the crusade of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, to have this legislation come into place.

Thirdly, on policing issues, the last time this was a major problem in English football was not the Euro final. It was on 30 November 2023 at Villa Park, the home of Aston Villa. In a UEFA fixture, a club called Legia Warsaw from Poland were playing. The police and the safety advisory group of Birmingham City Council had not banned Legia Warsaw fans; in fact, 1,002 tickets had been sold to them, and they came to the fixture. Their numbers had been restricted, but another 1,000 came and attempted to force entry into the stadium, causing huge safety issues and immediate action by the matchday commander from the police and Aston Villa Football Club, who then closed the turnstiles and created other disorder outside as fans, both with and without tickets, could not get entry. That issue was identifiable; Legia Warsaw has had 35 fines from UEFA for fan behaviour.

For anyone who wants to know about hooliganism in football, hooligans put their stuff online. There are now websites and social media that are openly available for everyone to see. If anyone wants to know who causes the most problems, who are the worst, the nature of those problems and when they are most likely to occur, there is publicly available information. Legia Warsaw is known for being in the highest category of ultra-fans, given the problems they cause. They are a significant group of hooligans, as that term is used. This Bill will complement that. There was no collusion with staff there. It was an attempt at a forced break-in at a stadium.

I note that there is inaccurate discussion in the media at the moment of that incident and about policing. I have a report in front of me, an official police report, which I would like to quote from a little, because it is about another set of football supporters who are characterised in it as fanatical. The report says:

“This is expressed, among other things, in the lighting of flares”,

but,

“according to UEFA … and our police, there is no animosity between”

them and the supporters of the team they were playing, and this was not a high-risk match. This was Maccabi Tel Aviv playing Ajax in Amsterdam in November last year.

The report goes on to say that there was

“a special context, because of the war in the Middle East”.

The fixture also coincided with the national Kristallnacht commemoration in Amsterdam. There was “a daily pro-Palestine demonstration” at the railway station. This is from the official report, and there were supporters from a third club present in the city at the time: Fenerbahçe supporters, from Alkmaar in the Netherlands.

I want to quote regarding a couple of incidents, because this has been put in the media wrongly, not factually. This is the official statement of facts—the feitenrelaas—from the Dutch chief crown prosecutor, or whatever the equivalent title is, and the chief of police for Amsterdam. It is something that could be considered in this Bill. Should there be a statement of facts every time there is an incident? It is a requirement in the Netherlands to have a statement of facts. The night before the fixture, on a street called the Rokin, the report says that

“Around midnight … 50 Maccabi supporters pull on a Palestine flag hanging on a facade”.

That flag was removed and the video footage of it is on hooligan websites. It was put on by a Maccabi ultra-fan, one of those 50. A taxi was attacked at the same time on the same street, and other taxis were damaged. The hooliganism then was an issue and a problem.

The following day, the football match took place. During the day—the match was on an evening—there was one arrest by the police for a disturbance of the public order. There were no clashes between the fans or with local people. The football match took place, though there had been a problem because pro-Palestine demonstrators had attempted to go to a square in Amsterdam called Anton de Komplein. The report says:

“Upon arrival, this group splits up into small groups in search of the confrontation at the Arena”.


That is the Amsterdam arena: the football stadium of Ajax. Those are the specifics and the police deployment was there.

Additionally, it says in the next paragraph that there were

“social media messages confirming that there are groups … looking for a confrontation with Maccabi supporters”.

The police handled that throughout the day without such confrontations. However, the report goes on:

“After midnight, the problems arise due to small groups of rioters spread through the city centre and adjacent neighbourhoods. These groups commit violent hit and run actions, targeting Israeli supporters and people going out. These incidents take place in various places in the city centre”,


and it lists the 14 streets where that happened. It says:

“The police follow up on all reports”,


and the police patrol intervenes,

“where threats are visible and manage to keep rioters at a distance from Israelis. The police can prevent many incidents in this way. Nevertheless, rioters manage to commit serious assaults, resulting in injuries among Maccabi supporters. It appears to be particularly difficult for the police to take action against such flashpoints. Rioters move in small groups, on foot, by scooter or car, briefly attack Maccabi supporters and then disappear again … Loose groups of Maccabi supporters are gathered”,

and the police basically say that this quickly dissipates over time as the number of rioters disappears.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

I hope that we hear broad support from this amendment around the House, as we heard in the Commons. I hope that the Minister will take this seriously and will be prepared to have a meeting with noble Lords who are interested and with Play England, to see whether this can be taken forward as a constructive, practical step. We need to provide a foundation of health and well-being for our young people. This is a way of giving local authorities the responsibility to do that. As we were discussing in the last group, we may have local authorities with different political groups in power and with different perspectives. But giving our young people a healthy environment is surely something that the Government here in Westminster have a responsibility to deliver for all the children in England.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I fully agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has said about the importance of play, and with her imaginative approach to putting a play-sufficiency duty in this legislation. I hope that she pursues it further. She can be assured of good support from across the House, and certainly from me.

I will concentrate on the amendment from my noble friend in sport, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the protection of playing fields. This is of vital importance for numerous social, health, educational and environmental reasons. These outdoor spaces serve as essential community areas, fostering physical activity, social interaction and mental well-being among people of all ages. As urban development accelerates and land becomes increasingly valuable, safeguarding these playing fields ensures that they remain accessible and functional for future generations.

The noble Lord made the point that playing fields provide crucial opportunities for physical activity, which is fundamental for maintaining good health. The health perspective is important. Regular exercise helps prevent chronic illnesses such as obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. For children and teenagers, playing fields offer a safe environment for sports, games and recreational activities that promote healthy growth and development. The availability of quality playing fields encourages active lifestyles, reduces sedentary behaviours and contributes to the overall well-being of communities. We should be increasing the number of playing fields for these reasons alone, not building over them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised another important environmental point. These spaces provide significant social benefits. Playing fields serve as communal hubs where people can come together to engage in team sports, recreational activities and play, or simply socialise. They foster community spirit, inclusivity and teamwork and are vital for social cohesion. Playing fields often host local events and tournaments, strengthening community bonds and promoting a sense of pride and ownership among residents. There are also educational benefits. Access to playing fields supports schools and youth organisations in delivering physical education and extracurricular activities. Physical education is a key component of a well-rounded curriculum, contributing to students’ physical and mental development.

My noble friend Lord Deben would agree that, from an environmental perspective, playing fields contribute positively to urban ecosystems. They help combat air pollution and support biodiversity by providing habitats for various flora and fauna. The loss of playing fields can have detrimental long-term effects. Where green spaces are developed for housing or commercial use, communities lose critical, recreational and health assets. This land use change often leads to increased traffic, pollution and social inequalities, especially for residents who rely on local sports facilities for leisure and health. That is why legal protections and strategic planning are vital in safeguarding these spaces.

What is the trend? A report by Fields in Trust in 2016 highlighted that, between 2000 and 2015, approximately 3,574 outdoor sports pitches and playing fields were lost across England alone. When considering the entire UK, the total loss is estimated to be over 4,000. That trend started in the mid-1990s and continues to this day. Thousands of playing fields have been lost in the UK in recent decades, underscoring the urgent need for continued protection and strategic land use planning.

My final point is that it is essential that Sport England continue as a statutory consultee for planning applications as they affect playing fields. Sport England objects to proposals that would result in a net loss of sports provision and works to safeguard and enhance playing fields across England, with over 1,000 playing fields protected by Sport England in the year to March 2023.

Earlier this year, the Government made it clear that Sport England’s role as a statutory consultee is under threat. Sport England continues to play a key role in safeguarding sports facilities, including playing fields, by advising planning authorities and working to protect and enhance sports infrastructure across the country. If the Government cannot give a commitment that Sports England will continue in this role, I believe we should consider placing this in the Bill on Report.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I will speak to Amendment 165, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for bringing forward this amendment, which addresses the important issue of preserving our playing fields and pitches from potential changes to the planning process.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything that has been said, and which does not need repeating. The startling statistics mentioned speak for themselves. I just want to add a few comments, some of which are from organisations on the front line. As someone who has been involved in the youth justice and sport sectors for many years, and who is presently a co-chair of both the APPG for Sport and Physical Activity and the APPG for Sport and Physical Activity in the Criminal Justice System, I have seen and heard first-hand how access to playing fields and green spaces can transform lives. They are more than just open spaces; they are gateways to better health and stronger communities.

Sport and physical activity have a huge impact on the nation’s health and well-being, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan just mentioned, not to mention all the positives that children and young people receive from an active and regular sports lifestyle, which many will carry into their adult lives. Protecting our playing fields and facilities is therefore crucial, because once they are lost, they are gone for ever.

We have heard of the many risks involved in the recent announcement of the withdrawal of Sport England’s role as a statutory consultee on planning applications. It has an impressive record of protecting more than 1,000 playing fields across the country between 2022 and 2023 alone. Removing Sports England from the planning process will leave a huge hole.

Earlier this year, Alex Welsh, the CEO of the London Playing Fields Foundation, eloquently explained that making such a move would be a huge loss. He said that:

“When a local group are worried about losing the field at the end of the road … They call us and we start by saying, ‘Do Sport England know?’”


He also stated that:

“Over the past five years, out of 398 concluded planning applications, 90% have resulted in improved or safeguarded conditions because of Sport England. What we can’t quantify is how many people are put off from blatant building on fields because they are in that role. Who will be doing it when they are gone?”


Railroading through planning will certainly see many of our sports fields vanish. Fields in Trust, which my noble friend Lord Moynihan also mentioned, is an organisation that protects 3,000 local parks, playgrounds, playing fields and green spaces across the country. It is constantly being contacted by local community groups and individuals who are concerned about the potential loss of their park or playing field and who are having to navigate a complex planning system to make their concerns heard.

We have also learned from recent research published by the journal Cities & Health, which found that planners were prioritising the approval of new homes ahead of outdoor play spaces due to a combination of policy misalignment, financial constraints and pressures stemming from a lack of housing. We can have both; it should not be one or the other.

When I was chair of StreetGames, a national charity delivering sport into disadvantaged neighbourhoods, we saw how important it is to have local and community-based facilities that are accessible for all. If we want to tackle inequalities, making access to facilities more challenging will make it more difficult for everyone to be active and healthy, which will only be compounded for those with less.

The noble Lords and Baronesses here today who are involved in sport feel very passionately about ensuring that we protect our precious sports fields and pitches, so I hope their protection can be preserved in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for this debate on an issue that the Government take seriously. Amendments 165 and 179 are in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I am very grateful to them for raising these issues. There is nothing in the Bill that removes the strong protection for playing fields, especially the commitments in the NPPF. Play spaces are vital for supporting the health and well-being of local communities and as such are already considered through existing planning policy and guidance which collectively protect their provision. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that development plans should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. This includes places for children’s play, both formal and informal, including playing fields. Development plans then use those assessments to determine what provision of recreational space is required for local communities.

In December last year, the Government updated planning policy to make specific reference to safeguarding formal play spaces in the National Planning Policy Framework, enhancing the protection of those spaces where they may be threatened by other development types. The framework is clear that play spaces can be lost only if the facility is no longer of community need or there is a justified alternative somewhere else. Having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework when preparing a local or strategic plan or making a planning decision is a legal requirement.  

 In recognition of the importance of play space provision for communities, we are also considering what more we can say about this important area as we prepare a new set of national planning policies for decision-making, on which we intend to consult this year. Further considerations on play spaces are set out in national design guidance that encourages the provision of such spaces and sets out how they can be integrated into new development.  As an aside, I am not sure whether the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are aware that there is now an APPG on play, which was established by Tom Hayes MP.

The Government are in the process of updating that guidance. A new version is expected to be published later this year and play spaces have been reviewed as part of the update. Play spaces can be funded by developer contribution, secured through Section 106 planning obligations and the community infrastructure levy, the CIL, which play an important role in helping to deliver the infrastructure required to support new development and mitigate its impacts. That is why the Government are committed to strengthening this system.

The Government have established the parks working group, with local authorities and industry specialists, to find solutions to the issues facing parks and green spaces, including improving the number of playgrounds. Our £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods will help deliver funding to enable new neighbourhood boards across the country to develop local regeneration plans in conjunction with local authorities. Upgrading play areas is a possible scheme that such funding will be used for, enabling the enhanced provision of public areas of play for many communities.

The Government also believe that the amendments may limit a local authority’s ability to respond to its community’s needs around play spaces by setting an overly rigid framework of assessments and legislative requirements.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, once more, and reiterate my acknowledgment of how important play spaces are for local communities and the role that our planning system plays in enabling and protecting them.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive response. Do the Government recognise the role of Sport England in the context of the protection of playing fields as effective and as an important consultee in statutory consultation over the future protection of playing fields? Do they respect the fact that Sport England has done an enormous amount of good work in this context and should continue to have the opportunity to do so?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

The Government have committed to consult on the impact of removing Sport England as a statutory consultee. We will do that shortly and see what the result is, and I suggest that the noble Lord takes part in that consultation as well.

As I have set out, we have robust processes in place to support and protect spaces for play and recreation, and we will consider this issue further as we update our planning policies. These matters are best addressed through our policy and funding. I therefore hope that noble Lords will not press these amendments.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce this group of related amendments, which are all concerned with how planning in general and housing in particular can play a positive role in promoting mental, physical and social health and well-being, building what I would describe as a healthy and health-creating society.

The Minister will recognise some of the amendments in this group, which are very similar to ones that the now Government supported so effectively in opposition when I tabled them during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I believe we even won a vote. While I hope she will support them, I suspect that she will not, and I understand that the Government have to choose. However, I hope that this debate will provide the Minister with more ammunition to argue for change within government. There are very good and powerful arguments behind the amendments in this group that I know will be set out by noble Lords. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew for adding their names to my amendments. I also thank Hugh Ellis and Rosalie Callway of the TCPA for their invaluable advice and support.

Before turning to my own amendments, I add my support to the amendments on sport and physical activity from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. They powerfully make the point about the importance of both. It is not just the activity involved that is important for health and well-being, but the social aspects it embodies.

Two of the amendments in this group, Amendment 132 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and Amendment 185D from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, set out definitions of the purpose of planning. It is very important that we remember what this is all about: why planning is necessary. Both these definitions of planning surely include ensuring the health and well-being of the population and not damaging it. I am also delighted to support Amendment 185SA from the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, on a code of practice for design. This, as will be apparent in what I go on to say, is very important.

There are two overlapping arguments for my amendments. I will not repeat what I said at Second Reading, but I will touch on some of the points: the evidence from health research—the straightforward health arguments, if you like—and what I will call the evidence of experience, the salutary tales from recent history. Poorly planned neighbourhoods with poor amenities and badly designed homes with little or no access to nature, inadequate insulation of heat or against noise, and that are not secure or well-heated in winter or cool enough in summer, are a recipe for personal and societal stress and can be directly linked to risks of mental and physical illness and disease. Stress itself is implicated in increased inflammation and linked to many long-term conditions, from heart disease and diabetes to depression and anxiety. It is also very clear that the Minister’s colleagues in the Department of Health understand this very well. In the new NHS plan, there is reference to the importance of healthy neighbourhoods, and that is what all these amendments are designed to achieve.

Turning to the evidence from experience, the current housing system is too often failing to promote people’s physical, mental and social health, especially in the most deprived areas. Poor housing costs wider society at least £18.5 billion a year through poor educational achievement, loss of productivity and on-costs to health and care services, including £1.4 billion a year to the NHS.

Across the country, too many homes are being built that are poor quality, poorly located and unaffordable. A recent survey showed that a third of people across all sectors described their new homes as poor quality. Permitted development rights have only made that worse.

I have said all the problems, but it is also very clear, on the positive side, that well-designed safe homes with access to facilities provide part of the foundation for successful and prosperous lives. Prosperity and the ambition for sustainable growth go hand in hand with healthy, safe environments. Existing guidance and advice have not ensured the development of good housing and health-promoting neighbourhoods. There is no evidence that other non-mandatory guidance will help. That is, of course, why I am promoting these amendments.

Anyone who has played any role in government will know that, when setting out these sorts of regulations or guidance to authorities, some of them follow it very well and some do not. If this is all to be contained in what is in essence guidance, as the Minister has already mentioned, how will the Government deal with the people who do not follow the guidance in place? I entirely recognise that we need more homes, and I would also have referred to the 159,000 children that the Minister referred to as living in temporary accommodation at the moment, which is an appalling situation.

Amendment 123 says that any national or local plan or strategy for development must be designed to improve the physical, mental and social health and well-being of people. This reunites planning and health— the two were once inseparable in government and policy—and it takes account of the vital role that planning has in improving health and well-being.

Amendment 185SF, according to the Member’s explanatory statement,

“is based on Clause 43 of the Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill which places a duty on strategic authorities on health promotion and health inequalities. It uses the same language but replaces strategic authorities with local planning authorities. The effect of this amendment is to place a duty on planning authorities to promote health improvement and health inequalities”.

The obvious question—and I am particularly interested in the answer—is: if it is appropriate for the top-tier authority to have regard to that, why is it not for the planning authority? Is the higher-level authority simply irrelevant, and are the words in the other Bill just words without any follow-through into planning itself?

My Amendments 189, 191 and 193 place similar duties on development corporations. They already have, in this Bill, duties on sustainable development and climate change and, I would add, the positive promotion of the physical, mental and social health of the residents in their areas by ensuring the creation of healthy homes and neighbourhoods. These three elements —sustainable development, climate change and health improvement—fit very naturally together, as earlier debates today have shown, and actions to address one tend to reinforce the others.

My final two amendments, which are very familiar, are about healthy homes and neighbourhoods. Amendment 226 places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote a comprehensive regulatory framework for planning and the built environment designed to secure the health and well-being of the people in England and healthy homes and neighbourhoods. Amendment 351 provides a schedule describing that. This means dealing with all the health issues that I mentioned earlier on this group of amendments.

The current arrangements have not worked, and if not this regulatory framework—which I am not wedded to the detail of—what are the Government going to put in place? If the Government have the ambition to create decent homes and developments, which I think they do, they need some levers in place. It is as simple as that. I beg to move.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to three amendments in my name, but first I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for his generous comments with regard to the amendments that I tabled. I completely echo what he said in reverse: I am fully supportive of what he has just put before the Committee.

During the last sitting of the Committee, I spoke to a series of amendments on the importance of physical activity and well-being in the context of planning law, and I now rise to speak to Amendments 138A, 185SC and 185SD. In so doing I thank ukactive, a not-for-profit profit organisation that represents and supports the UK’s physical activity sector. I thank it for its consistent high-quality work on the subject in the interests of its members and the wider world of sport, recreation and physical activity, for which it is widely renowned.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 99AA in my name is the first of a number of amendments we will be considering over the coming weeks on the importance of sport and recreational provision being an essential priority for planning policy in this country. At a time when playing fields are under threat, swimming pools are being closed and obesity is a growing reality among the population, especially young people, the need for a national plan for physical activity, recreation and well-being is vital if we are going to turn the tide and deliver a legacy for a country that rightly still celebrates the outstanding Olympic and Paralympic Games of London 2012. I declare an interest as a member of the Olympic committee which had oversight of the Games from 2005 until 2012, a board member of the London organising committee of the Games, and then chair of the British Olympic Association responsible for Team GB and the 29 gold medals that our Olympic athletes delivered.

Although we had a wonderful Olympic and Paralympic Games, which left a legacy of regenerating the East End of London well ahead of the projected schedule—in fact, 10 years earlier than would otherwise have been the case—we failed to deliver a lasting sports and physical activity legacy for our country. Today, this amendment provides the opportunity for the Government to deliver that long-overdue legacy and demonstrate to the country a true commitment to sport and recreation.

The reason is unequivocally clear. The planning system provides the building blocks for the provision of open spaces, play areas, sport and recreational facilities and the well-being of the nation. As with the East End of London in the run-up to London 2012, every single facility under the leadership of Sir John Armitt, the inspirational leader of the Olympic Delivery Authority, was built with legacy use for the community in mind. Nothing failed to be considered in that context.

I want to take that experience of the Olympic Games in London nationwide. That is why my amendment would place in law a requirement that:

“Training for all members of local planning authorities must include an emphasis on healthy placemaking, which includes planning adequate provision of sport and physical activity spaces and facilities to meet communities’ needs”.


It is for not just some members of planning authorities but all.

In the planning for London 2012, we learned a great deal from Australia and the success of the superb Sydney Olympic Games in 2000. Today, seven years in advance of the Games, the Minister from Queensland responsible for the Games in Brisbane is here to listen to and learn from our debate in person. He is the hard-working Deputy Premier, Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning and Minister for Industrial Relations in the Government of Queensland, Jarrod Bleijie. He is an outstanding politician, responsible for the delivery of his vision of a lasting legacy for the 2032 Games in Brisbane—for the people of Queensland, well beyond the closing ceremony. We wish him well. I briefly place on record that the relationship between Britain and Australia in sport is defined by a deep and historically significant, though always contentious, rivalry, which is second to none. Yet, although that rivalry is often intense, it also involves a strong sense of mutual respect and a shared sporting heritage that continues to evolve.

So, to reflect that close relationship, what can the Government do today? They can accept this amendment. Why? Because, as the Schools’ Enterprise Association stated, 500 swimming pools have been lost since 2010, totalling a massive 34,859 square metres of water space lost to the public. Of all the pools lost in that time, almost half—42%—have been lost since 2020, and this continued into the last year. With increasing financial pressures, ageing facilities and rising operational costs, many more pools and leisure centres are at risk of closure. Of the 10 local authorities that have seen the biggest decline in pool space, 70% have higher-than-average indices of multiple deprivation, risking exacerbating already-stark health inequalities.

By the end of Committee on this and the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, I aim, with my colleagues from across the Committee, to set out the building blocks for a national recovery plan for physical activity. This amendment, and others that ukactive and colleagues across the political divide, both in the House and in this Committee, are promoting, necessitate the integration of sport and physical activity facilities into planning law. We want to ensure that this is given weighting in priority that is equal to other facilities and services. It is essential that sport and physical activity are understood as the bedrock of health and well-being within a community and that there is adequate provision of facilities on this basis.

By accepting this amendment, the Government would take a small but necessary step to meet residents’ needs and provide the necessary training for all members of local planning authorities to understand the importance of adequate provision of sport and physical activity spaces and facilities to meet community needs and the health and well-being of the nation.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on his amendment. I entirely agree with everything he says. Not that long ago, a lido not far from where my daughter lives in east London was ripped down and turned into, of all things, a car park, which seems an ultimately depressing sanction on today. I can tell him right now that, if he chooses to divide the House on that subject in the future, I will walk behind him through the Lobby. I thank him.

On my Amendments 100, 101 and 102, I am very grateful to be supported by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on all three and by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on Amendment 100. They are in addition to Clause 50, and they are about training to do with climate change, biodiversity and ecological surveying. This does not just hold up planning distinctions—it is a question not just of newts, bats and different kinds of badgers but of people not knowing what they are talking about. Therefore, a lot of decisions are not only delayed but end up going to appeal.

My Amendment 100 would mean that the training would be mandatory in the overall planning that is to be provided in general under Clause 50. Amendment 102 provides that the training must be provided not only to elected members of the planning committees but also to local authority planning officers responsible for making any planning decisions. Amendment 101 includes the highways, with the list of authorities to which the training provisions apply. That is obviously crucial and often gets left out, because roads, after all, cut through animal corridors, divide woods, divide fields and separate areas where nature is trying to talk to itself and be together.

These skills and resourcing gaps with planning authorities have been identified very generally across the board as a key blocker. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment for the Bill states:

“There is very limited data on how environmental obligations affect development”,


yet there is clear and mounting evidence, including from the OEP, that ecological capacity and skills within the planning system is a key reason for the environmental assessment not functioning effectively.

The OEP goes on to say that

“without Government commitment to providing those public bodies responsible for assessments with the skills”

and

“expertise … needed … now or in future”,

they

“will not deliver as they should to support positive environmental outcomes”.

It advised that the Government should now develop a strategy for this resourcing and for securing the expertise by the public bodies.

A survey undertaken by the Association of Local Government Ecologists of its planning authorities found that only 53% of survey respondents said that their LPA has limited access to an ecologist for planning work, and only 5% of respondents said that their system is adequate. Any noble Lord who was in the House on Monday listening to the Science Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance of Balham, answer a question about AI and training would have found it interesting to hear him say that a report from MIT last week on the use of AI across companies

“noted that 95% of companies got very little benefit and 5% got massively disproportionate benefit”.—[Official Report, 1/9/25; col. 511.]

The reason was that they had been properly trained. Whether we are talking about training to build sports grounds or training to protect wildlife, the training is needed.

The excellent charity Plantlife has highlighted that these gaps are even more acute for, say, botany and mycology. Botany was once compulsory, I guess, when most of us took GCSE biology. I certainly did it, and I did at A-level too. Research shows, however, that it is now practically non-existent. That is why, again, it is crucial that the amendment includes botanical and mycological survey.

Much has been made here of the cost. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, mentioned this as well, but I always feel that I am trying to plead amendments that put more and more emphasis on local authorities doing more and more. I expect that many Members remember the extraordinary Dasgupta report that came out from the Treasury under the Tory Government and looked at the costs of nature. I had the privilege of spending much of last night interviewing Professor Dasgupta. We were talking about many specific things, one of which was that the real way to rebuild our shattered biodiversity and our ecological strength is, generally, through a community, but there is a very strong financial aspect here. Our GDP, at the moment, is an incentive to depreciate all natural assets. The system for measuring the state of public finances discourages all investment in maintaining the UK’s stock of natural capital. Shockingly, the Bank of England mandates do not recognise that value.

It would make a lot of sense for the Government to revisit some of these local-looking economics and say, “Yes, we can afford to train people properly; in fact, we can’t afford not to train them properly”. Well-trained councillors and well-trained planning leaders will also add to people’s enjoyment and, as with building sports facilities, the joy they take in nature, being out in the countryside and thinking it is something in which they have a vested interest to protect. Unless we all start doing that, we will all be poorer, regardless of what we do.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register.

There are situations where both tenants and landlords would benefit from a fixed-term tenancy, as the amendments with numerous exemptions set out. Examples include families seeking stability in a school catchment area or workers on long-term contracts. If all parties agree, there should be a legal provision for such tenancies, providing clarity and peace of mind.

This is not about fixed-term tenancies for their own sake; it is about maintaining a legitimate contract that reflects openness and flexibility. Enabling the mobility of working-age adults across the length and breadth of the nation is essential for economic growth. A modern, dynamic workforce needs the freedom to move, to adapt and to pursue opportunities wherever they may arise. Scrapping mutually agreed fixed-term tenancies will hinder that mobility, as has been acknowledged right across your Lordships’ House.

In this amendment, I seek to demonstrate that police officers often need to move right across the country and, like those in many other occupations, would benefit from a fixed-term tenancy. Relocation can provide officers the chance to expand their skills. I was speaking earlier to my noble friend Lady Manzoor, who pointed out that junior doctors and nurses, for example, rotate for specialist training. In respect of police officers, sometimes officers are moved to work on high-profile cases—if they possess particular qualifications, for example. Specialist skills are needed right across the country and need to remain fluid. Officers move to new roles to expand their own personal experience, and we need this mobility. This should apply to police officers of all ranks, of course. I am thinking particularly of provincial officers who come to London, for example, to work on the national units that are based here, such as counterterrorism. I ask the Minister to give due consideration to this amendment, which is vital if we are to maintain a flexible, experienced and, indeed, rounded police service. On that basis, I beg to move.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 11 in my name would allow fixed-term tenancies for professional sports athletes to continue. The Minister who has come in to take the Statement knows well that I view all proposed legislation through the lens of somebody passionate about sport and promoting the best interests of sport and recreation. I declare my interests as a former Minister for Sport in another place, as chairman of the British Olympic Association during the run-up to London 2012 and during 2012 and, possibly most importantly, as a Leeds supporter still celebrating the success yesterday of our promotion back into the Premier League.

Mention of Leeds is relevant, because the many professional sports men and women to whom my amendment refers include our professional footballers. They include professional rugby union players, many of whom are on contracts that run, in effect, from July through to the following June, so their housing is critical in that context. Professional athletes and their coaches, and people on the contracts that I mention in my amendment, are concerned about the ending of fixed-term tenancies, due to the potential for disruption and uncertainty in their professional and personal lives. Disruption and uncertainty, to all of us who are keen on sport, are the enemies of performance, and one thing that we really need to do and concentrate on in promoting our professional sports men and women and their interests is to ensure that that is not the case in their domestic arrangements and in their housing.

Fixed-term tenancies provide a degree of stability. They give the mobility often required by sporting careers. Ending these fixed terms, particularly with shorter notice periods, will be challenging for athletes and professional coaches who need to adjust quickly to new locations and potentially face difficulties in finding suitable housing, impacting their overall well-being and their performance. This applies not just to footballers, rugby union players or rugby league players, but to all professional sportsmen, all professional coaches and their entourages. The theory of marginal gains comes to mind: it is very relevant in this context. This is where you get small yet very significant improvements which can lead to substantial results, and one of the key points in that is to have a stable arrangement, a fixed-term tenancy, for housing that lasts throughout that contract; namely, in this case, a year.

In summary, my concerns are, first, about mobility and career. Professional sport is often characterised by frequent moves, and fixed-term tenancies provide a framework for a predictable schedule, allowing athletes and coaches to establish roots and plan their lives in a stable environment. Secondly, there is the uncertainty and disruption. The prospect of ending fixed-term tenancies, especially with potentially shorter notice periods, will create uncertainty and disruption for professional sportsmen, and this can be particularly challenging for athletes and coaches who need to adjust quickly to new locations, potentially facing difficulties finding suitable housing. Thirdly, there are the financial implications. While a fixed-term tenancy may provide a degree of stability, the costs of moving and finding new accommodation can be significant, and the uncertainty of ending fixed-term tenancies could also impact financial planning. Finally, there is the impact on performance, which I have mentioned, where the stress and disruption associated with moving can affect an athlete’s or a coach’s performance. Finding suitable housing, especially in new areas, can require time and effort, potentially impacting training and preparation.

There are clearly benefits from periodic contracts, but in professional sport, such a move can and will be disruptive. I argue that we must protect the unique needs of professional sports men and women. These are the reasons why I have tabled this amendment, which I hope will have the support of the Committee and the Government.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill)

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. I have not taken part in any of the debates around independent schools in your Lordships’ House, and, for the record, I am entirely the product of the state education system in the east of Leeds. However, I have been prompted to get to my feet today on the back of the very sad news that was announced yesterday of the closure of Fulneck School, in Pudsey, Leeds. It was established in 1753, during the reign of King George II, and will now close its doors for the final time in July.

Fulneck, for those who do not know, is famous for educating, among others, the great Liberal Prime Minister Herbert Asquith and the late great Dame Diana Rigg—otherwise known to some as Mrs Peel—along with a very close friend of mine, who was absolutely devastated to hear the news this morning. Fulneck is part of a Moravian settlement in Pudsey, which includes a grade 1 listed church and many other listed buildings. It is a unique part of the heritage of Leeds and the broader West Riding of Yorkshire, a large part of which will now be lost for ever.

I will not argue that the imposition of VAT is the only reason for the closure of the school; in fact, the school’s own statement refers to problems of falling numbers in recent years. However, the statement points to significantly rising administrative costs. Surely the broader point here is that, for a large number of small, independent schools across the country that have been struggling to keep their heads above water in recent years, the imposition of VAT and increases in employer national insurance are policies that will sink them.

As a result of the closure, 300 or so students will now have to be educated elsewhere within the locality; most, presumably, will have to find places within the state sector. I note that the school lies within the parliamentary constituency of Leeds West and Pudsey, which is represented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I support my noble friend.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in sport as set out in the register.

I have spoken in Committee and on Report about the damage that retaining Clause 5 will do to the sporting success of many talented young people in the UK who gained admission to independent schools from the state sector through sports bursaries and scholarships. The reason for this was that, in response to parental demand, many independent schools have invested in state-of-the-art sports facilities, top-level coaches, and the sports psychologists, nutritionists, physios and support staff whose presence in many of our independent schools have delivered success at international and national level, while offering those facilities, out of hours and during the holidays, to local communities through their dual-use policies.

The costs imposed by VAT on school fees, increased by higher national insurance contributions and now by business rates, means that to balance the books those schools which survive will have to reduce the many sports scholarships and bursaries currently available to talented young people. Talented young people from a wide range of backgrounds in the maintained sector would otherwise never have access to facilities and coaching expertise of this type.

To demonstrate the scale of the support, I previously drew the Minister’s attention to 14 athletes on Team GB at the Paris Olympic Games who came from Millfield School, 13 of whom came through its means-tested financial support mechanism. Those athletes brought home seven Olympic medals and one Paralympic medal—four gold, three silver and one bronze. The career path for our talented athletes has provided opportunities for thousands of young sports men and women who could not afford to go to independent schools and benefit from their sporting facilities without the bursaries and scholarships on offer. At the Paris Olympics in 2024, 33% of Team GB’s medallists had been given the chance to attend independent schools, many of whom had their fees paid in part or in whole through means-tested bursaries and scholarships.

The statistics prove the point. I would not be worried if facilities in the state sector were a substitute; that they are not is not a party-political point. Sports facilities at local authority level and state school level have been in decline for years. We had a magnificent Olympic and Paralympic Games in London in 2012. The regeneration of the East End of London was a resounding success, but we did not leave a sports legacy to London or to the country. Playing fields continue to be sold; public swimming pools are closed. Even Sport England has this month lost its statutory ability—which has had a great effect in keeping playing fields open—to appeal against the loss of sports facilities removed as part of the proposed planning reforms.

I see no evidence that these arguments were addressed in another place yesterday. By raising them today, I urge colleagues from across the House to vote for this amendment and protect the opportunities afforded to many of our aspiring young Olympians and Paralympians. I ask noble Lords not to deny those young people the same number of bursaries and scholarships that independent schools have been able to make over many years. I hope that every Member of your Lordships’ House will bear these arguments in mind when they consider whether to vote to retain Clause 5 in its current form.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I have not to date spoken on this Bill, but there are couple of matters which need to be aired regarding the history of charity. I am a director of a charity, and my daughter attends a private school—let us get those on the record.

The history of charity in this country goes back a very long way, with a particular flourishing during Elizabethan times. The charities of that era were often health related, certainly education related and often to do with hospice and almshouse care—of course, this Government have decided to raise a jobs tax on hospices, which we have been discussing this week. The concept of charity was founded very much on education.

Through the latter end of my illness, my wife would drive me home at weekends for home visits. We found all manner of routes through south-east London to avoid the worst of some of Mayor Khan’s blockages that have been created through London—it did not stop us from paying the ULEZ, of course. On one of the small roads, I came across a charity called the Portuguese speakers community centre. I thought, “Well, well, well, there is such a thing”. I am sure that it does the most amazing work. On most high streets, we see a variety of charities. Lots are to do with animal support—the PDSA, Cats Protection and all manner of other charities. They all do very good work. However, they were not envisaged as the charities of the day when the big flowering of charities came to pass in Elizabethan times, but education most certainly was.

So, for the first time in the history of this nation, we are deciding to have a two-tier charitable system. Whereas that charity route of old—education—is no longer deemed of charitable-worthy status, the Portuguese community centre, for instance, which I am sure does good work, is. It is a strange day that we pass through with this legislation—it is a very sad day. The amendments in Motion Q1 will at least give the Secretary of State pause for thought and an easy way out in the future. I almost guarantee that those thoughts on raising lots of revenue will never be realised. Schools will close and, because of the VAT increase, children will move to the state sector and be a cost to the state in their education. Let us note this day and heed what is being told to the Government: “You will rue this decision”.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 26, in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran, to which I have added my name. I support all the amendments in this group, especially Amendment 25 from my noble friend Lord Lexden, who put his case so powerfully. It is shameful that the Government refuse to recognise the extraordinary role that independent schools play in the care of those with special educational needs. If, even at this late stage, they do not agree to the modest suggestions put forward by my noble friend, they will stand charged with putting the interests of party dogma ahead of the needs of some of the most vulnerable in our society.

I declare my interest as chairman of governors at Brentwood School, president of the Boarding Schools’ Association and Institute of Boarding, and, for this group, chairman of the Royal College of Music.

When I spoke in Committee on the issue of gifted arts students, I made one simple point: in an economy that is flatlining, the creative economy is one of the few areas of sustained economic growth with unlimited potential to expand even further. It provides hundreds of thousands of jobs, is part of a huge export market and contributes billions in revenue. We should nurture it, not attack it. Music, as well as being a huge British success story in its own right, powers it by supporting so much of its rich tapestry, including film, television, computer games, drama, advertising and so on. In turn, its future depends absolutely on first-class music education in schools, conservatoires and universities, providing a pipeline of talent into the sector. Without that continuing education, and new musicians and new teachers entering the profession, music dies. It is as simple as that: no pipeline, no music.

But music education—where it all starts—is in real crisis. I acknowledge that this began under the last Government, but we have yet to see any signs of change, despite the new Government having been in office nearly 10 months. From primary schools right the way through to the end of full-time education, music remains under threat as never before.

With music education already in such crisis, why on earth would the Government want to make matters even worse by jeopardising the very real achievement of specialist music, dance, choral and drama teaching in independent schools? The amendment from my noble friend reflects the success and importance of the Music and Dance Scheme schools and their unique contribution, and that of our leading choir schools, to artistic life in this country. Nearly 1,500 pupils—the stars of tomorrow—receive means-tested bursary support to attend renowned specialist performing arts schools which are the envy of the world. Their position is already under threat because most parents are now charged VAT on their fee contributions, with only a small number receiving increased funding to offset it. That is bad enough, and we should not pour fuel on the fire.

This amendment is based on a proposition that is very simple for even the most dogmatic of minds to understand. The future of these schools, which are already facing such pressure, and their continuing ability to provide world-class teaching can be made more secure if they are protected from full business rates. The Government say that their entire agenda is focused on growth, yet here we have a policy that is absolutely anti-growth. Even on the number one item on their agenda for this Parliament, their opposition to independent education is so all-consuming that they are prepared to jeopardise it on the altar of ideology. I hope that even now the Government will see the strength of these arguments and accept my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 27 and 29 in my name, and I declare my interests in sport as set out in the register. I thank the Minister for his sympathetic response to my amendments in Committee, our subsequent conversation and the clear personal priority that he attaches to sport, particularly for disadvantaged communities, and the way it can bring them hope and opportunity in life.

There was a time when this Chamber had many contributors to any debate that impacted the world of sports policy. One notable absentee, who retired from the House three years ago, is my noble friend Lord Coe, and I am sure that the whole House will want to take this opportunity to wish him well as he seeks election on Thursday to become the first British president of the International Olympic Committee.

I made my case for these amendments in Committee. Both amendments highlight the lifeline received by many of our top sports men and women who have benefited from the sports bursaries and scholarship policies of independent schools. Today I also make the case for the widespread community use of the many outstanding sports facilities of independent schools, the expertise of their coaches, their support staff and the groundsmen and groundswomen who coach and support their pupils and offer their facilities and services to local communities through dual-use campaigns. Amendments 27 and 29 would provide protection for schools where 10% or more of students receive sports scholarships or bursaries and separately would discount all sports facilities from schools’ business rates.

These proposals reflect the commitment of independent schools to spreading opportunities in sport through fee assistance schemes and public benefit partnerships, including sharing facilities and coaching staff. Sporting opportunities are a key focus for some independent schools, and sports awards form part of the £1 billion in fee assistance delivered by independent schools in the last academic year. What is really important is that more than half the money is means tested, ensuring that support is targeted where it is most helpful, yet the imposition of VAT and the increase in the minimum wage and national insurance contributions are now compounded by the proposed imposition of business rates. Schools will inevitably have to cut back to balance their budgets, and the casualties will be the opportunities for sport and recreational activity for many dual-use local community clubs after school hours.

In moving the first of my two amendments, I drew the Committee’s attention to the contribution that independent schools make to elite sport as well. At the Olympic Games in Paris last year, 33% of Team GB’s medallists attended independent schools. At Tokyo in 2021, 40% of Team GB’s medallists attended independent schools. At Rio in 2016, it was 31%. At London 2012, it was 36%. Yet only 7% of our children go to independent schools, so top Olympians and Paralympians are more than four times more likely to have been privately educated than the UK population overall because of the bursary and scholarship policies on offer.

Let me give the specific example of Millfield, which delivered 13 of the 14 Millfield-educated and trained British athletes on Team GB through its means-tested financial support mechanism. The school funded 13 of the 14 Millfield-educated and trained British athletes on Team GB for the Paris Olympic Games, who between them brought home seven Olympic medals and one Paralympic medal: four gold, three silver and one bronze. All received means-tested financial support from the school during their time at Millfield, but how can that continue? Where will the money come from when the Government themselves predict a significant fall in children going to independent schools and urge those independent schools to make major cuts to their budgets? Where will the scholarships and bursaries be paid from?

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th February 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Moynihan]

67: Clause 5, page 5, line 40, at end insert—
“(5A) An institution is not to be considered a private school for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) if 10% of students are in receipt of bursaries or scholarships for sporting excellence.”

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 67 I will also speak to Amendment 69 in my name. Both highlight the importance to this country of the contribution made by the sports facilities of independent schools and the expertise of their coaches, support staff, groundsmen and groundswomen in the independent sector. Both amendments seek to find ways of protecting and promoting opportunities for young people in sport. Both reflect the deeply damaging effect that the combination of the imposition of VAT and rates, and the increase in national insurance contributions, will have on the future success of British sport at all levels.

I declare my interests in sport, which are set out in the register. I will today draw on my time as a former Minister for Sport, chair of the British Olympic Association during London 2012 and, more recently, my three years as chair of governors at Haberdashers’ Monmouth School and now as sports ambassador for that school, which is in support of the outstanding leadership work undertaken by the great Welsh rugby international, Richie Rees, director of the Haberdashers’ Monmouth School sports academy, who pilots the school’s successful sports programme.

In speaking to these amendments, I contend that the Government should encourage state school sport wherever possible and do everything they can to encourage the independent sector to promote opportunities for sport in its schools, and, most importantly, for school sport with the local clubs and communities that use their facilities. The strength that these programmes generate at the base of the pyramid is what, at its apex, delivers our world-class, leading sportsmen and sportswomen. I appreciate that in doing so, I need to justify the importance of sport in schools. That is not difficult. We live in a time of growing obesity. School sport promotes physical health improvements, develops social skills, encourages teamwork and is central to learning how to win and how to manage losing. Sport boosts self-esteem and confidence; it teaches discipline and resilience; it is a major mitigating factor against absenteeism in schools; it promotes optimism, generates pride and positively impacts on academic performance by enhancing focus and concentration.

The phrase “Mens sana in corpore sano” is as relevant today as it was when Juvenal wrote it. Our young people should be encouraged to be not only physically fit and well but mentally sound and balanced, and sport provides the framework for a healthy mind in a healthy body. It teaches resilience, yet the state sector in this country lags close to the bottom of the global league for engagement in sport, adequately trained PE teachers and sports facilities, many of which have aged beyond their life expectancy. This is not a party- political point; a steady decline applies to all Governments over the past 20 years. Local authorities have consistently fallen behind in the provision of, for example, swimming pools, sports facilities and open spaces. Sports is a discretionary line item spend in local authorities and, inevitably, has taken the first hit in budget savings.

I emphasise to the Committee that the independent sector needs government support, not state-imposed business rates as in Clause 5. I draw the Committee’s attention to the contribution that independent schools make to sport. At the Olympic Games in Paris in 2024, 33% of Team GB’s medallists attended independent schools. In Tokyo in 2021, 40% of Team GB’s medallists attended independent schools. In Rio in 2016, it was 31% and, in London in 2012, 36%. Yet only 7% of our children go to independent schools, so top Olympians are over four times more likely to have been privately educated than the UK population overall. For me—and, I am sure, for the Minister—the tragedy behind those figures is the reality that there are so many talented young people in our state schools who are capable of representing this country at national and international level, but whose talent in never recognised nor developed, who have no access to sports facilities and good coaching and who miss the opportunities that every country from New Zealand to Poland, from France to Germany and from China to the US provides.

As my friend the Minister—he is a friend in sport—knows, in Burnley, the provision of and opportunities for sports takes young kids off the escalator to crime. It is relevant to the work of every department of state, from prison management to foreign policy, from health to education. Yet a majority of state pupils aged 14 to 16 —over 50%—are now doing only an hour of sport a week in school. The figure is worse still if you take into account the time it takes for many pupils to reach the lesson and get changed. A third of our children cannot swim. British school sport is in crisis.

Sadly, this is not a growth section of the Bill, but another example of where we drive yet another nail into the delivery of sport in independent schools. The reason that is so important is that independent schools have, rightly, had to make sure that their facilities are open to local communities and that the local population can come to use those facilities in their catchment areas. For all the independent schools now faced with the costs of VAT and rates, they will have to cut costs and reduce sports bursaries and scholarships to meet the savings demanded by government.

This will negatively impact on the delivery of sport in the UK. It will have a major impact on our sporting success, not just in terms of medals and national representation, but in the development of sports coaches, pupils and support staff who move out into the community—into the fields of participation—and on the development of excellence in a sector that has seen a steady decline in participation and growing obesity in society. To level the playing field more resources must be invested, both in state schools and though support for the work that independent schools do with communities. The solution is not to jeopardise the success of our young, up-and-coming students who benefit from sport and facilities in the independent sector.

We must reflect on the fact that many children are failing to meet the UK Chief Medical Officer’s guidelines for sport and physical activity. It is recommended that children participate in an average of 60 minutes of sport and activity every day, either in school or outside, but 50% of them are missing the target, while 29.6% are not even averaging 30 minutes of activity per day. The total hours of PE taught in English state schools annually has dropped by 41,000 hours since the 2012 Olympics—a decrease of 12%. There has been a 7% reduction in PE teachers in England in the same period.

This Bill will, I contend, worsen the situation since support for sport bursaries, free access for local communities to many independent schools’ sports facilities and the dual use of such facilities will have to be cut in order to balance the books after the imposition of Clause 5 and VAT on school fees. This will impact all independent schools.

Let me give the Minister the well-known example of Millfield School, which delivered 13 out of the 14 Millfield-educated and trained British athletes on Team GB through its means-tested financial support mechanism. The school funded 13 out of 14 of the Millfield-educated and trained British athletes on Team GB for the Paris Olympic Games who brought home between them seven Olympic medals and one Paralympic medal: four gold, three silver and one bronze. All received means-tested financial support from the school during their time at Millfield, but how can that continue? Where will the money come from when the Government themselves predict a significant fall in children going to independent schools and urge those independent schools to make major cuts to their budgets?

It would be fine if, when we looked at the country as a whole, the Government could stand up and say, “Don’t worry, the state sector is doing fantastically well in the provision of school sport”. Sadly, the reality is that that is not the case. As I say, this is not a party-political point. It is a tragedy that more than half of children aged between 16 and 18 are now estimated to be doing no school sport. Swimming is in crisis. Last year, Sport England found that 30% of children cannot swim 25 metres unaided when they leave primary school, a 7% increase on 2017-18. More than 400 public swimming pools have closed since 2010. One-third of primary schools now deliver 10 or fewer swimming lessons to pupils before they leave. The many children who have accessed independent school facilities, at the cost of those independent schools, will now find that those independent schools have to make significant savings. I agree with Sir Keir Starmer, who bemoaned that children were being locked out of emulating their heroes last year due to the lack of PE provision. The dual use of independent schools’ sports facilities is critical to addressing that issue but it is under threat, which will make matters worse.

People who are not physically active as children are, in turn, far less likely to be active in later life. The crisis in school sport is contributing to the long-term obesity epidemic. By the age of 11, 22% of children are already obese, which increases to 26% among adults. This measure, coupled with VAT on school fees, will make the outcome worse. Inactive children become inactive adults, who then become inactive parents. We need to reset children’s lifestyles if we want to change the nation’s health. If we did that, we would save far more than the VAT, rates and national insurance contributions proposed by the Government. This is not a problem that has emerged over the past six months; I fully recognise that. The London Olympic Games saw an unprecedented urban regeneration legacy in the East End of London and a great Paralympic Games, but it saw little to no sports legacy, which I have consistently argued for both inside and outside the House.

These two amendments seek to stem the tide of dual use in independent schools and to move away from that tide going out by increasingly looking to a solution that ensures that we can protect and support school sport in independent schools, especially where it reaches out to local communities, local clubs and state schools, which come in to use those facilities. The Government are telling all independent schools to cut costs, make savings, and put up fees to balance their books. Would the Minister be prepared either to sit down and think through finding a way of supporting British sporting success by accepting one of these amendments or to take them away to see what can be done to support British success in sport in independent schools and, through dual use, in communities that desperately need to rely on such schools for the use of their facilities in future and that reach out, as many independent schools have had to do, to the benefit of young children in the community who simply do not have access to sports facilities except in independent schools?

Dual use has been a magnificent development in independent schools over the past 10 to 20 years. It is now firmly embedded, but it is under threat because it is so costly for schools to continue to have that dual use, free in many cases. I was recently at Tonbridge School and noticed that it has a new running track put down every four years. The reason it is every four years is because it has double the number of people using it because the local community come to use it. Now, it says it may have to make savings by resetting it every eight years and reducing the number of people who use it.

If we took one of these amendments or worked hard together to resolve examples like this, it would be to the benefit of sport in this country, in the independent sector and, just as importantly, in the state sector as well. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

It has been a pleasure to have an exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Khan. I congratulate him on his love of and belief in cricket. I must say that one of the great heroes of Burnley, the noble Lord’s hometown, is Jimmy Anderson, and he, at his best, would have been very useful yesterday, when we were getting beaten by Afghanistan. He was no doubt inspired by Jimmy Anderson. Just for the record, the Minister very kindly mentioned the silver medal I got, but, although I may be looking old, I actually got it eight years later—not in Munich but in Moscow. It takes its toll, this place, after 20 years. I wish him well with Burnley’s promotion prospects. He is sitting alongside a very fine, assiduous Whip, who has heard quite a lot of football in the last couple of months. I wish him well but please, go easy on Leeds, because that is my club and we want to make sure that we get there first.

On a serious note, I appreciate the Minister’s comments about the importance of public benefit and charitable status and that he is seeking to continue to expect that to be delivered by independent schools. It is incredibly difficult for independent schools that now face up to 25%, if you put together the VAT, the cost of national insurance and the impact of this Bill. It would be difficult if you were to slap 25% on the costs of any business. Many parents find it exceptionally difficult to pay the fees to go to an independent school and get the benefit. It is difficult for the Government to turn around and say, “We are going to increase those fees by 25% by state diktat”, and still expect schools to do everything they are doing with the local community, at their cost. So, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will have a conversation, take this away and just see if there is something we can do, particularly where independent schools work effectively with local communities and provide opportunities for local children to use the facilities and often benefit from coaching expertise. We need to continue to support that and it is very difficult to see how we can support it at the moment, when around 25%, on average, will be lost to the balance sheet of those schools.

I look forward to meeting the Minister on that subject but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 67 withdrawn.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, today’s Committee consideration is about fees, not about the merits of permitted development rights. It is about whether local authorities receive an income commensurate with the need to encourage and ensure that the relevant properties are developed. On the basis of the evidence of the consultation exercise undertaken, I believe that the Government have struck the right balance, although I note that there may be dissenting voices, particularly to the effect that £96 might be too low a figure for a local authority to provide this service.

As the Minister said, these draft regulations will allow councils to collect fees for prior approval applications in relation to new permitted development rights, allowing class E commercial to residential conversions, the addition of extra storeys on top of existing buildings and, most significantly, for PDRs related to universities. I had expected the principal concern to be whether the £96 for universities fully reflects the possible developments, which could be considerably more complex and far-reaching than the limited addition of extra storeys on top of existing buildings. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister could explain the Government’s thinking on this and the basis of the charge for universities for prior approval for a university building.

Of course, these regulations are part of the changes to local plan-making and methods of making developers and houseowners contribute to the infrastructure that supports their schemes, and can thus be seen in the context of the forthcoming planning Bill. The question whether these are reasonable sums to cover the proper resource for local authorities and planning departments has been well made and answered by my noble friend the Minister.

Permitted development rights since 2013 have had far-reaching benefits. Costs should naturally fall on the owner or developer, not the council tax payer. It is right that these categories of development should not have to go through the whole planning application system, and I only wish that, when I was Planning Minister, PDRs had been a key tool in the planning system armoury at that time.

The new planning Bill is intended to ensure that local plans provide more certainty over the type, scale and design of development permitted on different categories of land, and will no doubt have an impact on the charges made here. Fee structures will no doubt need to be further reviewed as part of the changes to planning policy. However, I ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm that these charges do not impact on or change local planning oversight and local authority responsibilities and powers as applicable to PD rights. For example, can he confirm for the record that the powers that local authorities retain to intervene about the aspect of the building, the effect on traffic, flooding and impact over, for example, an aerodrome within two kilometres—to name but a few—remain untouched by this measure? The rights to intervene are critical, not least in town centres, and with these rights continuing in place I hope the Committee will join my noble friend the Minister and approve these regulations.

Finally, on a related yet—I totally appreciate—separate issue, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could also update the Committee on the Government’s intention to introduce map-based and interactive local plans based on data standards and digital principles. At the start of this month, the Government announced funding of £1.1 million for a pathfinder programme involving 10 local authorities and council partnerships testing digital tools and data standards in a local plan preparation before more formal proposals are brought forward. I would be grateful for any further update that the Minister can provide, although I fully appreciate that this question goes beyond the scope of the regulations before us, which I support. In this context, I would therefore be happy if the Minister could write to me on the subject.