Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Evans of Bowes Park and Lord Addington

Report stage
Wednesday 15th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for reading out the list of groups that have backed these amendments; I was always terrified that I was going to miss one or two of them. We will take it as read that the noble Lord got it right. I congratulate Ulysse Abbate in my Whips’ Office for helping me with the drafting of these amendments. He helped me to put down the smallest number of words I have ever put in, to the best effect.

Basically, the Government have a very good idea here. Expand it to fit in a few more events that are part of our sporting and cultural heritage. They have done something good here. Enjoy it. You do not often get this much support for a government idea to do something. If they cannot embrace this, they should have a little generosity of spirit and say, “Yes, it’s good”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, has put the cherry on the cake with her amendment, which says that events will be included but only if they ask for it. That is reasonable. One or two may want to stay out; I imagine that most will not, but allowing them that is good.

All of us, even those who do not regard the beautiful game as their most beautiful game—I am afraid that is me—wish England well tonight. I could expand on this at considerable length, but I would like to leave this Chamber with as many friends as I came in with, so I will sit down.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 13 is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Foulkes. I will also speak in support of Amendments 10 to 12, to which I have added my name. Although it is an unpaid position, I declare my interest as a board member of the London Marathon Foundation.

As we have heard, these amendments have a simple aim: to address what many of us in this House believe is a significant gap in the Bill, which we have covered in our previous debates. Taken together, they seek to widen the definition of events to which the framework provisions may apply so that major established UK sporting events—events woven into the fabric of our national life—are not excluded from the potential benefits that the framework can provide. My amendment seeks to address this gap in a proportionate way by allowing a sporting event organiser to request that the Secretary of State apply provisions—maybe one or maybe a number—from the sporting events framework to their event. This amendment is deliberately modest. It would place no obligation on the Government to extend the framework automatically, and it would create no automatic entitlement. In other words, these amendments would simply create an opportunity, not an obligation.

I am grateful for the support of the co-signatories of my amendment and those of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I am afraid I will repeat the list of sporting organisations that supported our amendments, because it shows how they are wanted across the sector. We are grateful for the support expressed by the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, the ECB, the FA, the London Marathon, Silverstone, the R&A, the Rugby Football League, the Rugby Football Union, the Sport and Recreation Alliance and UK Athletics, all of which have written in support of our amendments.

As they state, the Bill “establishes enabling legislation”. Any use of the provisions in the sporting framework would still require the agreement of the Secretary of State following a request from the relevant body, and that decision would then be subject to affirmative approval in Parliament. Opportunities for primary legislation in this area do not arise often, so we truly believe it is sensible to include these powers now so that, if a compelling case were made in future, Governments would be able to act quickly and effectively. As the sporting organisations themselves have made clear:

“We envisage that any request submitted by a sporting event would be accompanied by supporting evidence explaining both the challenges faced and the benefits that would result from the provisions being applied”.


I thank the Minister and her officials for their engagement on this issue. I know that they have also had constructive discussions across the sector. I recognise that the Government are sympathetic to the arguments for extending the framework to major regular UK sporting events that are likely to be of international interest and to bring significant social and economic benefits to the United Kingdom or part of it. For that reason, we had hoped with fingers crossed that the Government might have been in a position to bring forward their own amendment at this stage, but unfortunately that has not proved possible.

I believe this gap must be addressed before the Bill leaves the House. I hope the Government will be able to accept these amendments or commit to bringing forward their own at Third Reading. If not, I will support the noble Lord, Lord Addington, if he calls a Division. I am grateful that the Government, as my noble friend said, have agreed that my Amendment 13 is complementary, so that this debate can continue in the Commons.

This is ultimately a question of future-proofing the Bill. These amendments would not guarantee support for any event or require the Government to exercise these powers. They would simply ensure that Ministers can respond where there is a demonstrable public interest in doing so. Our world-class regular UK sporting events generate billions for the economy, attract international audiences, showcase the best of us and inspire participation across the country. This Bill provides an opportunity to support those events more effectively, but to do so we must ensure that they are not left outside the framework it creates. These amendments offer a modest, proportionate and practical means of achieving that objective, and I hope that, along with an England win tonight, the Government feel able to accept them.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Evans of Bowes Park and Lord Addington

Committee stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, we have a series of amendments here seeking to challenge the Government’s exclusion of certain sporting events at home from some of the benefits of this Bill. There are some good things here. We saw that they were beneficial—the traffic arrangements and other special things—but why not extend them to events happening only within the country, such as Wimbledon, if we want to make those changes, or to things that happen regularly? Six Nations rugby is an example where we are coping, but we would need new frameworks and structures for anything that would expand it. We also have half an eye on what happens with big cultural events.

We are taking short-term measures for short-term functions which could be expanded and could help. That is the essence of these amendments—trying to push a good idea a little further. The Government have got a good idea here. Let us do something more with it. Let us make sure that every big sporting event—and every cultural event, why not?—has access to the governmental changes that could help it be run better. I could expand on this for a long time, but I would end up repeating myself. It is a good idea. Let us make sure it touches more of the world. I beg to move.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 17, 19 and 22 to 25 in my name, on which I am again grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and support Amendments 14 and 16 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to which I have added my name. These amendments share a simple purpose: to correct what I believe is a significant gap in the Bill. They seek to widen the definition of events to which the framework provisions may apply so that major, regular, UK-based sporting events—those woven into the fabric of our national life—are not excluded from their potential benefits.

That is the problem before us. As drafted, the Bill risks overlooking the very events that define Britain as a global sporting nation and deliver exactly what Ministers say they want this legislation to achieve: economic growth, international prestige and community pride. As I set out at Second Reading, Wimbledon, the Open, the London Marathon and the British Grand Prix are among the most recognisable sporting events in the world, and they are ours. Yet, as things stand, they fall outside the Bill’s scope and the greater protections that it is looking to afford. This is not just surprising; it is a missed opportunity.

I am grateful to many of the major sports organisers across the sector, from cricket to golf and motor racing to tennis and running, that have engaged with me and other noble Lords on this issue and provided clear and compelling arguments as to why regular, established, UK-based events of national and international importance should not be placed at a competitive disadvantage or overlooked by what is supposed to be a framework piece of legislation designed to support the UK’s sports sector. Their message is consistent: while the Bill is welcome, its current scope is too narrow. My amendments attempt to address that gap carefully and proportionately. This is not about opening the floodgates. The extension I propose is explicitly limited to events that are large, regular, UK-based and, crucially, likely to be of “international or national interest” and

“likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or a part of it”.

Following my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s observations, perhaps “likely to” is not the right drafting, but I nevertheless believe they would be a sensible and targeted refinement.

Amendment 25 proposes a further criterion that the Government may wish to consider, recognising something equally important that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, touched on: the role of major UK events in driving participation and sporting legacy. It would require the Government to consider how an event contributes to increasing physical activity, particularly among underrepresented groups—women and girls, disabled people and ethnic minorities. That is not an add-on; it goes to the heart of what sport can and should achieve.

To be clear, these amendments would not place a specific obligation on the Government automatically to extend the provisions in the Bill. They would not create automatic entitlements. What they would do is provide the power to act through the framework set out for iconic homegrown major events where there is a public and agreed interest to do so. That is what future-proofing this Bill should look like.

Let me illustrate the case with one example: the British Grand Prix, which will take place in just a couple of weeks. It is the largest weekend sporting event in the United Kingdom, expected to attract around 570,000 spectators this year. It is the largest Grand Prix on the international calendar and, in 2025, generated £167 million in economic value over a weekend. By any reasonable measure, this is an event of national sporting significance. But we do not have guaranteed long-term security for it. We cannot and must not assume that we will retain this iconic race and all the wider economic benefits it brings. Silverstone has to work hard year after year to ensure it remains on the racing calendar. We must not forget that there have been moments when the British Grand Prix’s future at Silverstone has been in doubt. If that were to happen again, it would rightly be a matter of national concern—or certainly in my house.

The question is whether we equip the Government with the tools through the framework provisions set out in this Bill to act early or wait until the event is potentially lost and only then consider how we might be able to bring it back. As the Bill stands, I fear the position is closer to the latter. My amendments are strongly focused on allowing the former. I suggest that is the more prudent course.

We see similar issues elsewhere. This summer, we are staging the ICC Women’s T20 Cricket World Cup. We have already seen examples of ambush marketing and breaches of intellectual property and commercial rights for the ICC and its venues. These are not abstract concerns. They have real financial consequences and a real material impact on the current and future value of commercial rights, at the very time when the ECB is working hard to secure greater reinvestment and growth in the women’s game. Again, this is precisely the kind of challenge that the framework is designed to address, but it cannot do so effectively if key UK-based events fall outside its reach.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister and her officials for the constructive discussion we have had since Second Reading, and I welcome the continued engagement that I know they are having with the sector. I hope that, between now and Report, we can continue to work together to ensure that the Bill fully reflects the needs and realities of modern sport in this country. The underlying point is simple: our great homegrown sporting events are not just spectacles but strategic national assets. They contribute to our economy, our global standing and our shared sense of identity. This Bill gives us an opportunity to support them more effectively, but to do so we must ensure that they are not inadvertently left behind. These amendments offer a modest, proportionate and practical way to achieve that. I very much hope the Government will take that opportunity.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Baroness Evans of Bowes Park and Lord Addington

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I shall very briefly add my support to Amendment 243C and, in doing so, declare my interest as a member of the board of the London Marathon Foundation. As we have heard, schools play a crucial role in the formation of lifelong activity habits, but they need to be properly supported, both to provide more opportunities within school and to ensure that what they offer meets the needs of the various interests of young people and children, to make sure that they fully engage with physical education. A national strategy would give schools the structure they need to guarantee consistently high-quality physical education, as well as help them build partnerships with community sports organisations, creating pathways that link school-based activity with accessible opportunities outside school.

In its recent submission to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee’s inquiry into community and school sport, London Marathon stressed the pressing need for national and local government, schools, governing bodies and charitable and commercial organisations to align behind tangible shared objectives to get children and young people active and, most importantly, keep them active. By mandating the publication of a national strategy for physical education and sports in schools, this amendment will be an important step to delivering just that.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I shall make a couple of brief comments on the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, introduced so well. I draw the House’s attention to proposed new subsection (2)(k). If you take part in physical activity only in educational establishments, you generally stop doing it when you leave, so getting in outside bodies to say that playing in a team at the weekend or in the evening is a reasonably normal thing to do means that you are much more likely to do it once you are outside that environment. It is something we have consistently found. It probably applies to other areas as well, but, if we are talking about a coherent sports strategy, that is one thing that the Government really must give more time and thought to.

Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025

Debate between Baroness Evans of Bowes Park and Lord Addington

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I know we are talking about English football in this debate, but I want to put on record my congratulations to the Scottish team for their epic victory last night and their qualification for the World Cup. Well done to them.

I have a brief question for the Minister about what a future process for expanding the remit of the regulator might be. During the passage of the Bill, she set out the Government’s reasons—she reiterated them just now—for not including the women’s game in the scope of the regulatory regime at this stage. Hence, it is not covered in the SI we are discussing. She mentioned the five-year review but say that in 18 months’ time, those involved in running women’s football and the clubs approach the regulator and say they would like the women’s game to be included within the regulator’s remit? If the regulator agrees with that request, what will the process be to take that forward?

Will the Government simply agree and table a revised SI to be debated again, to include the women’s game within the scope of the regime, or will Ministers and DCMS officials be more actively engaged in the process if they believe the status quo that they have argued for until now remains a sensible position? Or will they say they have to wait for five years? It would be useful to know whether the Government have given any thought to what process might be able to take place if something happens before the review.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, these regulations do not surprise anybody. They are more or less what the Act said, so congratulations on bringing clarity. The question about the women’s game is reasonable; I was going to ask something similar. It is an ongoing question. If the women’s game, which is expanding at a phenomenal rate, has any of the problems that the men’s game had—hopefully, the warning shock from this might help—it is a decent thing to ask how it is to be brought in.

It is good to get the regulator functioning at the moment. We put a great deal of time into it. It was one occasion when I agreed with Governments led by three Conservative Prime Ministers and one Labour Prime Minister. We needed this, we should have it, and we should have it operational.

The review is the most important bit of this Act, as it stands. Will the Minister like to expand a little more on the scope and how it could be expanded? What do the Government envisage? We are doing something new. We are pretty sure the existing system has failed a lot of fans and communities by threatening their clubs, Sheffield Wednesday being only the last example. We could go on for ever, and the number of near misses is great, but we should not be going through the near miss of losing your club on a periodic basis. Only a few have gone, but it is almost wondrous that there have not been more casualties.

Having said that, we wish this instrument well; after all the hours we spent debating it, we can do nothing else. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an idea of the ongoing process because this is a first step, and a pretty bold first step. It certainly was not welcomed with open arms by the top tier of professional football. How is it going to develop? Also, the question about the women’s game is a genuine one; I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, on asking it.

Before I sit down, let me, as a rugby fan who cheers for Scotland, say well done to those who kick the round ball; thank God they did not follow the example of their union colleagues.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Baroness Evans of Bowes Park and Lord Addington

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I add my support to Amendments 436ZA and 436ZB in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I declare my interest as honorary president of COBIS which, as the noble Lord said, is a member of the British International Schools Safeguarding Coalition.

As the noble Lord set out, these amendments would close an important safeguarding loophole by extending the jurisdiction of the Teaching Regulation Agency to accept referrals of misconduct committed by UK-qualified teachers working overseas, and strengthening prohibition checks to ensure that individuals cannot exploit name changes to evade detection.

Prohibition checks are essential to identify individuals banned from teaching due to misconduct, safeguarding concerns or professional incompetence, and yet none of these misdemeanours committed at international schools overseas can be referred to the TRA. Indeed, as the noble Lord stressed, the current system does not even provide an option for them to report such concerns to the TRA online, creating a clear gap in the information that it holds. The loopholes in the current system mean that a teacher who is returning to the UK, for instance, and should have been referred to the TRA due to potentially serious child welfare issues committed overseas cannot be reported and so no prohibition order can be made. As a result, the individual would pass the statutory check, which schools rely on as evidence that an individual is safe to work with children. In practice, that could mean a teacher dismissed for misconduct abroad would have a clear result on their prohibition check and could subsequently be hired by a school in England that had no idea of their previous behaviour and allow the teacher to resume teaching.

I am sure the Minister agrees that this situation is clearly unsatisfactory and should be addressed. I hope she is able to accept these sensible amendments, which are supported by the Safeguarding Alliance and six UK Government-recognised British school associations and would undoubtedly help further strengthen the UK’s reputation as a global leader in safeguarding.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I say, briefly, that these seem to be incredibly sensible amendments, and I hope the Minister can accept them.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Baroness Evans of Bowes Park and Lord Addington

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I, instead, speak in support of Amendment 6. As we have heard, reunification is the most common way for children to leave care but, sadly, the number of children who re-enter the system remains far too high, as many reunifications break down due to lack of support. There is currently no strategy by which to support reunifying families, and 78% of local authorities admit that the support that they provide is inadequate.

A breakdown in reunification not only is tragic for the children and families involved but costs the Government around £320 million annually. Action for Children estimates that the cost of providing family decision-making support to meet the costs of all reunifying families across England would result in significant cost savings of a potential £250 million.

On the basis that this is accepted and viewed as a positive step among professionals, should be in the best interests of care for children leaving school and, finally, has the potential to provide cost savings to the Government, which could be recycled into the system, I hope that the Minister will look favourably on including in the Bill a duty to offer family group decision-making during reunification.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this was a very reasonable sounding amendment, then the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, took a sledgehammer to it. Will the Minister give us a little guidance on the Government’s thinking on this? When people with experience on both sides are talking it is best that we hear the whole thing, but I will be very interested in what the Government say because if the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—probably our biggest expert in the Chamber—says there is something wrong, I would be very inclined to listen to her. But, as I said, it was a reasonable sounding discussion that brought it forward.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Evans of Bowes Park and Lord Addington

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I want briefly to support my noble friend’s comments and amendment. We have already set out our concerns about UEFA and FIFA’s objections. The Minister has suggested that our concerns are somewhat misplaced. Given the comments that have just been made, our concerns have unfortunately not been allayed. The fundamental issue is that, rightly or wrongly, the letter from UEFA and FIFA was in the papers; we have seen concerns that were raised.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the Minister has not been able to fully explain to the Committee exactly what has been said. She said that constructive conversations have happened. That is great news and we are all pleased to hear it but, up to this point, she has not been able to give us any detail to match the concerns that we have seen in this letter. Does she feel able today to give us a bit more detail and some categorical examples of where FIFA and UEFA have said that they are now happy with the Government’s position and happy with the Bill as it is? We could balance that with what we have seen in the papers and the press from the letter, and what we have heard in some—I am sure—well-intentioned comments from the Minister about what has been said, but with nothing tangible to back it up.

Does she have any correspondence with UEFA or FIFA, or any more tangible evidence that she can give us, to help us with the words she has been saying, which, I am sure, reflect conversations she may have had in meetings? This would give us some more tangible evidence that the issues that my noble friend has raised will not come to pass. Until we have that, we will have to return to this and, I am afraid, press the Minister for any more information she can give us.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness just said, could we have the answer tonight as to what the state of play actually is? If we get some assurance that, “Providing we do not do X and Y, which we hope is not the intention of the Bill, we are fine”, then this will get put to bed. If the Minister can see some way of assuring us, even if it had to be on Chatham House terms or something, that would help, because we do not want there to be a problem. If we can get that assurance out there, this issue will go away. Let us face facts: it just would not exist.

We want there to be a competition. Presumably, Europe wants the Premier League there. The reason why we have this Bill is about Europe. It was because of fans protesting that they were going to lose their competition and their traditions to Europe, and politicians saying, “We’ll intervene”, which most people agreed with. If we can get an assurance that there is something solid that means we would have to do something radically different to turn this bad scenario into a living nightmare, that is fine. We cannot guarantee the future; we can deal only with the Bill in front of us. If the Minister can give us those assurances she will have my full support.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Evans of Bowes Park and Lord Addington

Committee stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of these amendments, which would enhance the regulator’s approach. I particularly support Amendments 51 and 52, in the name of my noble friend Lord Maude. The language change may appear subtle—to replace “protect and promote” with

“monitor and where necessary intervene to safeguard”—

in the IFR’s objectives, but the implications for the regulator’s behaviour would be important.

The Minister has said several times in our previous debates that she believes the regulator’s approach should be proportionate. That is welcome, but I am concerned that the current wording of the objectives does not fully support that intention. We have discussed overregulation at length, and the potential for it is clear, particularly as we do not have a counterbalancing growth or success duty to guard against such an approach.

It is important to remember that most clubs, at all levels of the game, are well run. There is no justification for an overly risk-averse set of financial rules that can dampen investment and threaten our hard-won global leadership position, or for infrastructure investments that drive long-term value to be second-guessed. We can guard against such unnecessary interference and regulatory creep. My noble friend Lord Maude’s suggested wording could provide an underpinning for a more proportionate approach. It would recognise that most clubs manage their affairs responsibly and that football’s existing structures in the main work effectively, but would allow for targeted regulatory intervention for genuine issues that have been identified and where it becomes very clear that IFR action is necessary.

The systemic resilience objective requires particularly careful consideration, as we must set an appropriately high bar for macro-level interventions that may fundamentally change how football works. Changing this objective to one to intervene where resilience is “substantially threatened” would properly frame the backstop power as a true emergency brake. As the Minister herself said, it should not be a routine tool.

This matters hugely. As we have heard already in discussions in Committee, the football pyramid depends hugely on the Premier League’s commercial success. Constant intervention risk in a readily available backstop would create exactly the kind of uncertainty we do not want to see that could damage long-term investment. We must make sure that the backstop power genuinely is an “in case of emergency only” tool.

The commercial confidentiality provisions tabled by my noble friend on the Front Bench are equally important. As we know, football clubs compete internationally for players, commercial partnerships and broadcast value. Forcing the detailed disclosure of business strategies or commercially sensitive information could damage clubs’ ability to operate effectively in these markets.

This group of amendments is about ensuring that the regulator enhances rather than inhibits what makes English football successful: genuine competition, where well-run clubs can thrive through strong management, innovation and calculated ambition. Once again, we are talking about a set of changes that could provide the regulator with a lighter-touch, proportionate model of regulation. I hope the Minister will give them some serious consideration.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it might be convenient if I say a few words now. I remind the Committee that many of the people taking part today do not like regulation. I have heard that—a lot. I have a bad short-term memory because I am dyslexic, and I have got the message very clearly, so can we just leave it there?

The aim of the Bill is to create a sound framework for football. Even if you do not think those at the top are in trouble, everybody is agreed that, periodically, the other bits look as though they are going to collapse and fall away, or will have to be replaced, as well as all the little local dramas going on. That has been going on for decades, and we have all heard it.

We are going to have a regulator. The worst type of regulator is one that stands back and does not intervene until it is too late, and has to go in with a heavy hand. We want a regulator that we know will intervene and, as I put it at Second Reading, bite hard enough to leave a scar; a body that will actually do something and let people know that there will be consequences for not complying with the regulation. That is what the Bill is about—and what it has been about since the first version. I hope that we can progress on the line that we are trying to make the regulator work properly, and that we do not have too much repetition of points that have already been made.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Evans of Bowes Park and Lord Addington

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 35 in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran, to which I have added my support. Although we have only just started this debate, the range of reporting requirements set out in amendments in the group and mentioned in the speeches we have already heard is because we are all concerned about the lack of detail and statutory underpinning for Skills England currently in the Bill. We share concern that there needs to be greater clarity and purpose for the organisation in the legislation. It is certainly that lack of detail about the way the Government will decide their strategic priorities and create new technical qualifications, where IfATE has previously acted independently and consulted with employers and businesses, that is the rationale behind the amendment I am speaking to now.

The amendment is an attempt to understand how the Government will make these decisions and mandate Skills England to publish the process it intends to follow. I hope that, in her reply, the Minister can provide some further detail and reassurance to the many in the sector who are rightly concerned by the uncertainty that the Bill is creating—about the lack of detail, in particular, on what were previously established and well-understood processes. In order for Skills England to have the effect that we all hope, the decision-making process it undertakes and uses to decide which sectors will receive new technical education qualifications needs to be transparent, robust and retain the confidence of employers, training providers and, of course, the students themselves.

I hope that, in addition to Amendment 35, the Minister will give careful consideration to Amendments 23, 31 and 36 in this group, which, if adopted as a whole, would bring some much needed further clarification and credibility to the work of Skills England from the outset and, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, just said, provide a suitable opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of its work.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it might be an appropriate time to mention my Amendment 22. There seems to be an unwritten law in Parliament that, if the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is taking part in an education debate, he has to mention special educational needs. Yet again, I remind the Committee of my interests in that area.

The opportunity for the cock-up school of history to strike has been pointed out here on numerous occasions. If you do not have an opportunity to write it in, it gets ignored and left behind. I am sure that a lawyer would be rubbing his hands at that, saying, “Yes, we have legislation that will mean you can get into it”, but, as we know, at the moment, special educational needs is an area that is a little too rich with lawyers and court cases. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that, in future, the Government will make sure that there is a clear and definable duty—and, indeed, limitations—for where special educational needs and disabilities have to be covered in getting qualifications, and that, where there are practical difficulties, we would find out what is going on.

The technology is moving on all the time. I thought the stuff that I was using for my day-to-day activity was cutting-edge 10 years ago and discovered that it is not, and that I should have an upgrade, often using stuff that is built into computers now. There is a need to address this. Exams are now so much easier to take by means other than pen and paper—indeed, it is the norm—but only if you make sure that the system works and is compatible with what is required out there, which means monitoring.

I hope the Minister will be able to give me an answer that means I can stop worrying, and that we can take the Pepper v Hart reference and use it in any future disputes. Unless we get somebody who is on the ball and being told they have to do it, history says that the aforementioned cock-up school of history will come in and we will make other lawyers happy and certain candidates unhappy.