Russian Shadow Fleet Vessel Leruo

Debate between Lord Wood of Anfield and Lord Addington

Monday 26th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right to point out that it is a consistent policy, and I am proud to say a world-leading policy, of support for Ukraine across different Governments—the last Conservative Government, the previous Labour Prime Minister and the current Labour Prime Minister. It is a consistent policy that we should both maintain and be proud of. The noble Baroness is also absolutely right that strength is important, and I am slightly surprised that she suggested the UK, in her view, has a reputation for weakness. Friend and foe alike acknowledge the UK to be world-leading in the breadth, strength and seriousness of the support it offers.

Since 2024 we have challenged more than 700 suspected shadow fleet vessels. The “Smyrtos” is currently detained by the Secretary of State for Transport under transport sanctions powers. It is easy to look at an individual case and ask why we do not repeat it. I can assure the noble Baroness and the House that serious legal, operational, diplomatic and other concerns go into the decision about interdiction and interception. But the idea that the UK is not leading with a broad-ranging, credible and strong policy on sanctions and not cracking down on shadow fleet vessels is not true.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, when we are dealing with this situation, we are surely talking about making sure that we affect Russia’s capacity to keep waging this war. Can the Government give us some assurance that their attitude towards the shadow fleet, and possibly inspection and boarding, actually works? Can the Minister tell us exactly how he sees that happening now?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that the real test of the serious action taken is whether it changes the calculus and makes an impact. Western sanctions have clearly denied Russia access to an estimated $500 billion since February 2022. Russia’s economy is stagnating: it slashed its economic growth forecast this year from 1.3% to 0.4%, it halved its forecast for 2027 and it is estimated to be paying something like a 40% to 60% premium for imports of sanctioned goods. Obviously, sanctions have been going on much longer than the regime for cracking down on the shadow fleet. But we are galvanising a group of countries that are taking this part of the sanctions action very seriously, and there is strong evidence, as I say, that it is actually having an impact on Russia’s capacity to wage war.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Wood of Anfield and Lord Addington

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief, partly because dinner is fast approaching and partly because this is an amendment to probe the Minister’s response to a good existing clause, Clause 48. This clause is about preventing home matches being relocated. The amendment is to probe whether the provision is sufficient to meet widespread fan concerns about possible exceptions.

There is increasing discussion about domestic football games being moved overseas. We have seen statements from the chairman of my own team, Liverpool, and broadcasters such as NBC are talking about relocating Premier League games abroad. The FIFA working group is reviewing its policies to allow this. There are all sorts of stories, rumours and plans afoot to possibly allow Latin American domestic games to be played in the United States. There is historical evidence showing that the Premier League once proposed an additional 39th game to the season, which would not be played at the ground of a Premier League club. We also see countries such as Saudia Arabia that have intervened—let us put it that way—in sports properties, buying them and moving them around, for golf and boxing. There is reason to think that this is not a very remote possibility.

The Bill sets out to prevent clubs relocating matches away from home stadia without the approval of the regulator. I hope that enjoys widespread support; it is welcome and important. The point of my amendment is to probe the idea that the clause is not quite as watertight as it should be. The concern is that the current wording is based on the relocation of matches which are already designated as home matches. What happens if the competition organiser allocates games directly, before the season’s fixtures are issued, to Riyadh, Los Angeles, Singapore, Paris or wherever? They could claim that no home game is being relocated and say, for example, that weeks 10 and 20 are weeks in which games are played elsewhere. What if the 39th game proposal, so widely reviled by fans, is revived? That is not about the relocation of a home game; it is an extra game.

The new clause addresses this by placing a requirement on the regulated competition organisers to seek approval from the regulator before moving a domestic game overseas. That way, there is no longer a need to define what a home game is to bring it in scope, and it ensures that as part of the assessment of this request to relocate a game, the regulator must specifically consult UK-based fans of the clubs involved in the relocation. Importantly, this does not rule out the relocation of a game; it requires any additional fixture that is part of a competition to be subject to consultation in the way specified in the Bill.

I would welcome the Minister’s observations on this amendment and her assessment of two questions. First, what happens if the competition organiser allocates games directly to an overseas location? How will the existing clause protect against that? Secondly, what happens if the competition organiser creates a new format, such as another 39th game that cannot easily be defined as a home game? The amendment tries to cover those extra, niche cases. With that in mind, I beg to move.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I am assuming that this is a probing amendment. Other sports—not British sports—do this, such as American football. Is it the Government’s intention that the regulator will make sure that such games are played at home? If the Minister can say that that is the intention, we are all comparatively happy; if not, we have a real problem.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Lord Wood of Anfield and Lord Addington

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 29th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wood of Anfield]

My Lords, I shall focus briefly on the principles shared by the amendments proposed by noble Lords and those suggested by the Government. They take a long-standing commitment to ensure accessibility and update the relevant rules for an age in which on-demand services are becoming more essential to viewers. It is an approach we can all endorse, and I am sure the Government will be keen to take these principles forward when it comes to other issues, such as ensuring PSB prominence in on-demand services, which is in the next group.

I turn to another element of this group, which is the Government’s concession on listed events, Amendments 33ZH and 36. This is another example of taking a long-standing commitment to ensuring access and taking steps to update regulations to respond to changing viewing habits. We are delighted that the Government have responded to the concerns we and other noble Lords raised in Committee. Lowering the threshold for qualification for screening listed events below the current standard is crucial if we are to prevent the development of the extraordinary situation forecast by all PSB broadcasters of not one channel qualifying on existing criteria in the listed events regime by the end of this Parliament. Giving the Secretary of State power to respond seems a very sensible move to allow the Government to respond in the light of the evidence in a quick and minimally disruptive way.

Without being churlish, I hope the Government will bear two considerations in mind as they think further about how to develop the new criteria for the existing regime. First, we need to bear in mind that the threshold must be lowered enough to enable channels to continue to qualify, but not so much as to threaten the idea that events that bring the country together should be available to as wide an audience as possible. Secondly, I hope the Government remain open to the idea discussed extensively in Committee that alternative measures of reach and access may be appropriate in an age in which increasing numbers of viewers access programmes online. Having an open mind about regulatory flexibility in this area, as in other areas, is crucial to achieve the purpose of the listed events rules, which are supported by us all.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I shall be very brief. I thank the Government about listed events. They are important for sporting culture and sharing sport. Taking that on board and making sure that we maintain the link in a manageable way is important, not only because it builds a sense of community but because it is an important link with the casual observer of sport, which helps in encouraging people to take part, mass participation and all those things. It is an important link in that chain, and if we lose it, we will damage part of our sporting culture.