English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Brennan of Canton Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, I respect the views that have already been expressed. I also respect the views of the elected House on this matter, which have been expressed to us quite clearly on a number of occasions. This is an improved amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has put before us this evening.

I will simply say this. At some point it will become necessary to put this on a statutory basis, even if the Government do not seem ready to do so at this point. As part of the fan-led review, which I was commissioned to lead by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the House of Commons, I visited every corner of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. One of the places where we held a round table was the Sub Club in Glasgow, which has benefited from the statutory provision of the agent of change principle in that residential flats have been built nearby in recent years and without any question the developers had to provide the mitigating measures that were necessary if they were going to be opening up residential properties next to an existing music venue with the existing noise—not noise nuisance but existing noise that was already generated by that valuable cultural institution in Glasgow.

As I have expressed clearly before, I think the right way forward would be to put this on a statutory basis. If the Government are not ready to do that and if this amendment is not successful—I appreciate that my report was published only last week and the Government will have to respond to it when the committee submits it to them for response—at the very least I hope that they will undertake a review of how these systems operate in Scotland, look at the recommendations in my report, and report back in due course to Parliament on their conclusions as to how the system is working in England in comparison with Scotland. It is my view that any dispassionate examination of that will find that putting these provisions on a statutory basis would be a better way forward.

However, I appreciate that the Government have accepted that the current system under guidance has not worked in an ideal way and want the opportunity to strengthen it and to prove that it can work in that way. If they undertake to review that and report back in due course, that would be an important step forward. On that basis, I very much welcome the comments from noble Lords and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Brennan of Canton Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, under Motion G1: Amendments 94B and 94C, on the agent of change. I do so with particular reference to music venues. I also thank the Minister for the meeting we had this week.

The principle of the agent of change is not an issue in itself; that is supported on all sides of the House. The question is very much how best it can practically be enabled, and it is clear that the guidance by itself has not worked. The experience of the Music Venue Trust in terms of cases is hugely informing, and points clearly to the distinction made between the Scottish system as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which is statutory, and the English experience based on guidance. MVT says that the reason why the Scottish system works is that developers know applications will be rejected if they do not abide by agent of change. Response is, therefore, twofold: either applications abide by agent of change first time, which immediately speeds up the process, or if applications do not abide, the council has clear legislation to which to refer when declining the application. This means that organisations such as the Music Venue Trust do not enter a time-consuming back and forth of repeatedly objecting with the council and the developer.

Of the 300 music venues that have closed since 2015, the Music Venue Trust has documented 125 cases of venue closures where planning has been a direct cause of closure, rising to over 175 cases that include that as a contributory factor. But closure itself is not the only factor; as the MVT says, the absence of a clear statutory requirement means that every planning application near a music venue involves protracted negotiation over whether and how agent of change is applied. Venues spend months, sometimes years, in a process that a statutory requirement would resolve at the point of application. Moreover, as the MVT says, with only guidance in place, every time a developer seeks to circumvent the principle, a venue and its supporters must fund the legal and professional costs of enforcement through the planning process—costs that run to approximately £20,000 per case on average, rising to over £50,000 in more complex cases, which are not sustainable for the industry. A statutory provision would avoid this, but it is clear that the statutory solution has much wider support than in the industry itself.

In the just published and excellent Fan-led Review of Live and Electronic Music from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton, a report for the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the fans’ charter states:

“The UK Government should embed the ‘agent of change’ principle in planning legislation in England. Following Scotland’s example, we would like to see the principle strengthened in law across the whole of the UK”.


The Government are saying that they will strengthen the guidance. There is no guarantee that this will work, and at the end of the day guidance is still guidance. We have the luxury of a ready-made template of the Scottish statutory system, proven over seven years to work smoothly, quickly and with minimal dispute. There is really no reason why the Government should not accept this amendment, based on that law, inclusive of that law, other than their aversion to a statutory solution.

I fully support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. If she divides the House, I will support her in the Lobby.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak for the first time on this Bill, and I apologise to the House for doing so rather late in the day. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has just explained why I have not been participating actively before: for the last year or so I have been undertaking a review of live electronic music, commissioned by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in the House of Commons. He referred to one of the 50 recommendations in that excellent report, which I commend to noble Lords to study carefully. It is exactly as the noble Earl has just said: that the UK Government should embed the agent of change principle in planning legislation in England, following Scotland’s example. That is a key part of it.

I will just say the following on the Government’s Motion G and the amendment to it in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I pay tribute to my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, who originally introduced the successful Private Member’s Bill many years ago in the House of Commons, which got the ball rolling, shall we say, on the whole agent of change issue around music venues and got it strengthened in guidance. That was a welcome step forward. However, even at the time I remember him saying to me, “This will not be enough; we will need a statutory provision eventually”.

I therefore very much welcome the engagement there has been from my noble friend the Minister, and the fact that the Government have acknowledged that this is not currently working effectively in practice and that it needs strengthening, and made clear commitments to do that within the National Planning Policy Framework. That is an extremely welcome move. However, I still have the view—I would not have said so in the review—that putting the agent of change principle around music venues in the Bill and making it a statutory provision will ultimately need to happen. Without that, there will always be the issues which the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, so effectively outlined for those people operating music venues.

Having said that, I would have preferred any amendment that was put down—I mentioned this to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—to replicate the Scottish position, which is specifically about noise nuisance caused by music venues. It is not about church bells, cockerels in the morning or living next door to a pig farm; it is about a specific problem that really needs to be dealt with, where an existing music venue produces noise but is operating legally, and a developer decides to move in next door and then expects that existing business to pick up the mitigating costs for any nuisance that might be caused to residents moving into the flats, houses or whatever they are. There is a danger, if you draw this too wide, that that principle will be diluted.

I am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to the debate. It remains my view that this should be a statutory provision, but I am very pleased that the Government are acknowledging that there is a problem, because this is not working currently, and that they have already committed to responding in due course to all the recommendations in my report.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I too support Motion G1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I thank the Minister for meeting us this week and for meeting the Music Venue Trust yesterday.

The Minister in the other place told us that the agent of change principle is “already firmly embedded” in national planning policy since 2018, yet the Music Venue Trust intervened in 200 cases in 2024 alone, at a cost of up to £50,000 each, to save grass-roots music venues from closure. If that is what “firmly embedded” looks like, one shudders to think what neglect would produce.

The Minister’s answer is more guidance—updated, strengthened, consistent. But that is precisely what was promised when the principle entered the NPPF in 2018, and again in every consultation since. The guidance says the right thing—it always has. The problem is that guidance is only guidance. Developers know it. They test it, challenge it and too often circumvent it, because they do not have to comply. No amount of strengthened wording changes that; only statute changes that calculus.

The Minister speaks of flexibility for local decision-makers, but flexibility cuts both ways. It means inconsistency: one authority holds the line while another folds under developer pressure. It means venues exhausting their reserves on legal fees to enforce what policy already supposedly guarantees, and it means that venues without access to specialist support do not achieve a remarkable success rate. They simply close—quietly, invisibly and without appearing in any dataset as a planning casualty.

Even the Government’s own Back-Benchers in the other place were unconvinced. Lewis Atkinson, Member of Parliament for Sunderland Central, cited his constituency, where flats remain unbuilt precisely because developers lack the clarity that only statute can provide. The Minister offered him a meeting. One can only hope that the music venue at risk survives long enough to hold it.

Scotland did not offer meetings or updated guidance; Scotland legislated. Disputes there are vanishingly rare because the law is unambiguous and developers comply from the outset. There is no costly negotiation, no charitable fundraising to protect venues, and no protracted back and forth with planning authorities. The Government have had seven years to make guidance work; it has not worked. This amendment does not invent a new principle—the Government themselves have endorsed that principle repeatedly—it simply gives it the legal force it has always lacked so that decision-makers have a firm statutory footing, and developers cannot treat compliance as optional. I support Motion G1.

Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Lord Brennan of Canton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Brennan of Canton]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, I confess to your Lordships that I have blatantly plagiarised this speech, if copying oneself can be categorised as plagiarism. I kicked off this Bill in the House of Commons in 2024, albeit with one slight tweak from its current incarnation. It is not unique for someone to introduce a Bill in the House of Commons and get it through Second Reading. Another Member is doing a similar thing right now. In the House of Commons I got it through Second Reading and Committee, only for it to fall as a result of a walk in the rain taken by Rishi Sunak and the subsequent snap general election. It is nice to be able to reintroduce it here in the House of Lords. I hope that with your Lordships’ support, this time we can get it to the final whistle.

On Sunday 11 July 2021, the final of the men’s Euros football tournament at Wembley Stadium could have resulted not just in the sad loss for the England football team on that occasion but in a tragic loss of life. That was the finding of the independent review conducted by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, into the events of that day. It suggested that we narrowly escaped a disaster that could have resulted in fatalities or irreversible injuries.

For everyone here, I am sure that the mere thought that such a catastrophe is still possible in this country at a football match in the 21st century, after the tragedies of the latter part of the last century, is profoundly unsettling. Those present at the Euro 2020 final, which took place in 2021 because of Covid, witnessed at first hand the reckless behaviour of some people seeking to enter the stadium without a ticket. When the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, of which I was a member at the time, undertook an inquiry following the Euros, I admit that I was genuinely shocked—I think that I was not the only one—to discover that entering, or attempting to enter, a football match without a ticket is not a specific criminal offence.

That is why the committee acknowledged the need for the Bill, which I introduced, in a recommendation in its Safety at major sporting events report, published in December 2023. It demonstrated the broad cross-party recognition of this problem and the consensus on the need for legislative action to put it right. All the members of the Select Committee at that time who held seats within its territorial scope—England and Wales—were named as co-sponsors when I introduced the Bill in the other place. After the 2024 general election, the Bill was picked up by Linsey Farnsworth MP, who has done a sterling job in steering it skilfully through all its Commons stages and improving, with a slight tweak, on my original.

The Bill would bring into law recommendations that came out of the Select Committee’s findings and the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, by amending the Football (Offences) Act 1991 to introduce a new offence of unauthorised or attempted unauthorised entry to football matches. It is estimated that, at the Euro 2020 final, somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 ticketless individuals were able to gain entry. Many people will have seen the disorder, overcrowding and safety hazards that resulted from those events. Those actions not only compromised the safety and security of stewards, police officers, spectators, players and officials, but greatly tarnished the reputation of the sport and of this country. On the security of stewards at the ground, I had a brief conversation before today’s session with the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, who I see is still in his place having spoken on the previous Bill. He confirmed to me that in a past life he was a security guard at Wembley Stadium and frequently witnessed this kind of behaviour and dangerous activity going on. I thank him for his support of my Bill.

The current legal framework does not address the problem. Those caught entering a stadium without authorisation face no legal repercussions. Those attempting to enter are simply moved on and often try to gain entry multiple times. There are no consequences for their selfish actions, which risk jeopardising matches and could recklessly endanger the safety and lives of others. The Bill is intended to respond directly to those challenges by making unauthorised entry into football matches a specific offence. The aim is to deter people from attempting to enter stadiums without a valid ticket.

Back in 2024, I did an interview with, among others, Martin Keown, the former Arsenal footballer, on talkSPORT radio, and there was clear agreement in our discussion and some of the phone-ins that the deterrent effect is a significant part of this measure. A fine of up to £1,000 might be a deterrent but, under the Bill a conviction for this offence could lead to a court-imposed football banning order under the Football Spectators Act 1989 and Football (Offences) Act 1991, which would prevent a person attending football matches for a specific period of between three and 10 years. That would be an even greater deterrent. The Bill seeks to address all forms of unauthorised entry, recognising the broad spectrum of tactics that can be employed to gain illicit access to stadiums.

The scope of the Bill, as I said earlier, extends across England and Wales and across the top tiers of domestic football. We are not talking about park matches in your local area here. The Bill includes the Premier League, the Championship, League One, League Two, the National League, the Women’s Super League, the Women’s Super Leage 2 and Cymru Premier, as well as international matches in England and Wales.

My local team Cardiff City’s stadium hosts the games not just of Cardiff City Football Club but the Welsh national teams. It would be remiss of me not to mention the usually impeccable behaviour of Welsh football fans attending matches there and the crackling atmosphere they create with their passionate renditions of songs such as “Hen Wlad fy Nhadau” and “Yma o Hyd”.

The Bill is slightly from the one that I introduced previously. There is a small change in the wording of proposed new Section 1A(3) of the 1991 Act in this version of the Bill. The provision outlines proposed possible defences and proposed new Section 1A(3)(b) has been clarified so that it covers cases in which a person “reasonably believed” that they had a ticket for the match but in fact did not. That is to ensure that a person who innocently buys a counterfeit ticket is not criminalised under this offence, which is specifically about fan safety and preventing overcrowding. As before, the defence also applies in relation to a person using a genuine ticket that they are not eligible to use—for example, an adult using a child’s ticket. That is because there would already be a reserved seat in the stadium and safety would not be an issue with respect to overcrowding.

The vast majority of football fans across the country, supporting clubs such as my team, Cardiff City, or any others, do so in the right spirit. It is important that they feel safe and secure when supporting their football teams. I make it clear that the intention of the Bill is to support real football fans and to keep them safe and secure while they are enjoying the spectacle of supporting their team. Football is a big part of our culture. In recent years, football has grown ever more important in the national culture of Wales, and it has always been of huge importance across the rest of the UK, bringing together individuals from all walks of life in shared support of their teams. The actions of a few should not be allowed to compromise the safety and security of the majority.

I have been mindful with the Bill of the balance between enhancing security and maintaining the open and inclusive nature of football matches. The intention is not to criminalise fans or create barriers to genuine supporters enjoying the game. Instead, the focus is on preventing those who would seek to cause disorder and harm entering stadiums, thus ensuring a safer environment for all. By strengthening the legal framework, we can deter unauthorised entry, reduce the risk of disorder and violence, and ensure that football continues to be a source of joy and community for everyone. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging Second Reading debate. It has perhaps strayed a little into extra time, but I think VAR would determine that no one was offside in any of their remarks.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

I apologise.

I thank everyone who contributed to the debate, which was really good and absolutely in the true spirit of scrutinising legislation, which is obviously the raison d’être of this House. I will thank everyone who spoke individually. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, brought his vast experience to the debate, which was extremely welcome. His analysis of some of the things we might want to explore further in Committee, on Report and so on was extremely useful in considering the best way forward with the Bill. As he acknowledged, some of the issues may be beyond the scope of what we can achieve in a limited Private Member’s Bill within the time available.

Lots of the things the noble Lord brought up were very worthy of debate. He and others brought up resources, which are always an issue in any law and order measure. He and others also brought up what happens in situations of mass trespass. I will briefly make two points in response. First, the purpose of this Bill is principally to deter. If it is effective, that deterrence should be of great assistance with the issue of resources. Secondly, as others noted and hinted at, a situation of mass trespass is ultimately very difficult for the police and the authorities to deal with. But that is not the end of it: as this Bill introduces the potential football banning orders, further mass trespass in future might be helpfully dealt with by the fact that many of those individuals will be under football banning orders if they previously participated in such a mass trespass.

The noble Lord also raised the issue of forged tickets, which again is a wider issue beyond this Bill— I think he acknowledged that—and the trend of losing experienced stewards. There are lots of measures that could be taken in relation to that, not just in the public policy sphere but in sporting clubs and institutions themselves. As I mentioned, one experienced steward was lost when he became a Member of the House of Lords as the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington. Perhaps that sort of experience might be useful to our deliberations in future.

The noble Lord, Lord Mann, also contributed to the debate. I will not go beyond the remarks made by my noble friend the Minister in relation to the Maccabi Tel Aviv match issue, but he made some points about the practicalities involved in the Bill. His description of how people gained entry to Oxford United rather reminded me of the descriptions that have been given of how thieves recently gained entry to the Louvre museum in Paris. If the Louvre museum cannot keep out people using a van and a cherry-picker, I am not sure that Oxford United will be able to.

On the broader point, the Bill speaks of premises, which goes beyond the simple environs of the stadium itself. It can be defined, as it is at Wembley Stadium, for example, as quite a wide-ranging area outside the actual turnstiles. That can be the designated point at which tickets can be checked and where unauthorised entry might be triggered. I understand his concerns about the scratching shed, but it is possible to extend that—and it does not sound to me from his description that the situation at Stenhousemuir is likely to result in overcrowding at any time in the near future. I remind him—although he did acknowledge it—that the scope of the Bill is England and Wales and does not extend as far north as Stenhousemuir.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has a huge expertise in sport. I thank him for his contribution to the debate and the fact that he rightly raised the same issues about enforcement, and I make the same points about deterrence as I did earlier in relation to that. I also thank my noble friend Lord Shamash, who also mentioned enforcement, which I think is something we can discuss further—but many of those issues are beyond the scope of this quite limited Private Member’s Bill. I thank my noble friend Lord Courtown, if he does not mind me calling him that, for his contribution and his wholehearted support for the Bill. I am glad that His Majesty’s Official Opposition are still in support of this Bill, as they were when they were in government prior to the general election. It is nice that there is still some consistency in politics these days, at least when it comes to this Bill. I also thank my noble friend Lord Lemos for outlining the Government’s support for the Bill and clarifying that the Fraud Act would come into play in relation to some of the concerns spoken about by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Political Parties and Elections Act 2009

Lord Brennan of Canton Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I share the concern about making sure that our democracy is fit for purpose in the modern world. There is a huge challenge ahead, which is why we will address in the round the whole issue of electoral reform. I will write to the noble Lord on the specific example that he mentioned.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Government’s review of donations include looking at the whole issue of people making donations using cryptocurrency, given the potential for abuse and of hiding the true source of those donations?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend alludes to an important theme in terms of donations. The rules around political donations must be abided by, regardless of the type of donation made, including donations made using cryptocurrency. Those who receive donations must assess the value of the donation when they receive it and, if it is over the reporting threshold, they must report it to the Electoral Commission. Parties and other campaigners must also check that donations come from a permissible source and are prohibited from accepting donations that are not from a permissible or identifiable donor.

Climate Change: Wildfire Strategy and Action Plan

Lord Brennan of Canton Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government understand this issue. Officials have undertaken extensive consultation with stakeholders to consider current challenges and policy options, host workshops on prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, and produce a comprehensive policy scoping report to inform Ministers of the next steps on this important issue. Since the transfer of functions on 1 April, the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Local Growth has been working hard to meet key partners and understand the challenges facing the fire sector, including wildfire. I know he is committed to leading this work and continues to support our fire and rescue services to provide the best possible service to help keep our communities safe.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, could my noble friend take this opportunity to praise the work of our brave fire and rescue service operatives, who have to deal with these sorts of fires on a daily basis? Does this topic not emphasise the fact that, despite the great reduction in domestic fires in recent years, we still need a fully effective, well-staffed and well-trained fire and rescue service to deal with the modern challenges we face?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend. I praise all those brave people for serving our country by dealing with fire and rescue. I will make a particular point about resourcing: overall, fire and rescue authorities will receive around £2.87 billion in 2024-25, and stand-alone fire and rescue authorities will see an increase in core spending power of up to £65.5 million in 2025-26, which includes the national insurance contributions grant. This is an increase of 3.6% in cash terms compared with 2024-25. Decisions on how their resources are best deployed to meet their core functions are a matter for each fire and rescue authority. We will continue to work closely with stakeholders across the sector to ensure that fire and rescue services have the resources they need to protect communities.