Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
Good afternoon and welcome to three debates on three statutory instruments. I welcome the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, to her place for what I believe is her first appearance in Grand Committee. If there is a Division in the Chamber, we will adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes, but I am glad to say that is highly unlikely. We can therefore proceed accordingly.
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the Grand Committee do consider the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
Thank you very much. These draft regulations will be made under powers provided by the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022, also known as PSTI. The world-leading PSTI regulatory regime came into force on 29 April 2024. It better protects consumers, businesses and the wider economy from the harms associated with cyberattacks on consumer connectable products, such as mobiles, smart appliances and smart cameras.
The law does so by banning the use of universal default or easily guessable passwords, such as “admin123”, reducing one of the most commonly exploited vulnerabilities in connectable products. Manufacturers must also ensure that they are transparent about the minimum length of time for which they will provide the much-needed security updates that patch vulnerabilities. They must also publish information on how to report security vulnerabilities directly to them and provide status updates about the reported issues.
The PSTI Act was the world’s first legislation of its kind, but we are not alone in our commitment to improve the security of connected products. The UK advocates an industry-led, multi-stakeholder approach to standardisation, ensuring that technology and cyber standards are market driven, reflecting global best practices and delivering benefits for industry and citizens—contrasting with government-driven approaches, where standards are sometimes used to pursue political goals and ambitions.
Across the world, countries that share our values are taking action. Two such countries are Japan and Singapore. Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry launched the Japan cyber-security technical assessment requirements labelling scheme for IoT products—JC-STAR—in March 2025. Similarly, the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore launched its cybersecurity labelling scheme for consumer smart devices in March 2020. Both the Japanese and Singaporean labelling schemes require manufacturers to ensure that their products meet a set of baseline security requirements that are based on the global standards of the cybersecurity for consumer internet of things from the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, also known as ETSI EN 303 645. This is a standard that the UK developed in partnership with over 90 other countries and to which we aligned our own security requirements.
Officials have carefully reviewed the requirements of the schemes, and they both require unique passwords, vulnerability reporting and a period of product support. As such, products issued with a valid label under either scheme will therefore have an equivalent or greater level of cybersecurity than that required under the UK’s PSTI regime. There is, therefore, no security advantage in duplicating compliance processes for manufacturers that have already met these equivalent or higher security standards. Our focus is on removing undue burdens from businesses, reducing unnecessary costs and opening the door for UK businesses to succeed in markets around the world. Subject to the approval of this House, this draft instrument will establish two alternative routes for manufacturers of consumer connectable products to demonstrate compliance with the UK’s product security regime.
I shall move on to the amendments. Regulations 4 and 8 amend the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) Regulations 2023 to provide for deemed compliance with the requirement, under Section 9 of the 2022 Act, that relevant connectable products must be accompanied by a statement of compliance. Under new Regulation 4A of and new Schedule 2A to the 2023 regulations, a manufacturer will be deemed to have complied with this requirement where the relevant connectable product carries a valid label under Japan’s JC-STAR STAR-1 labelling scheme or a label under any level of the Singapore cybersecurity labelling scheme. Regulations 5 to 7 amend Schedule 2 to the 2023 regulations to provide for deemed compliance with the relevant security requirements set out in Schedule 1 to those regulations, where a manufacturer’s product carries either of these labels and where that label is valid. Regulation 3 inserts definitions of the Japan JC-STAR STAR-1 scheme and the Singapore cybersecurity labelling scheme into the 2023 regulations for the purposes of these deeming provisions.
The UK’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology signed MoUs on working towards co-operation on cybersecurity—including the possibility of mutual recognition of our respective consumer internet of things cybersecurity regimes—with Singapore and Japan, on 23 October and 5 November respectively. When both MoUs come into effect, UK businesses will benefit from streamlined access to the Japanese and Singaporean labelling schemes, boosting their product credibility and market appeal in those regions.
Cybersecurity is not just a technical issue; it is a strategic priority. By aligning with like-minded nations and reducing unnecessary barriers to trade, we are strengthening our digital resilience, supporting UK businesses and protecting consumers. The UK must continue to lead by example by championing the global adoption of cybersecurity standards and advancing mutual recognition, which are vital parts of establishing a trusted global supply chain of connected products.
This instrument will extend and apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and will have practical effect throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that the Committee will recognise the importance of these regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I have some sympathy for the Minister, with this being her first time going into something like this. This is not an area that I usually cover. Acronym hell may not be here, but you can see it from the edge of this debate.
Basically, we are talking about something that makes trade easier and compatible. The instrument talks about making sure that things are safer in the current digital age. That is all to the good, but I have a couple of questions. How are we doing ongoing equivalence and oversight? How are we looking to make sure that we stay in touch with the regimes? How much are foreign regimes being monitored to make sure that this is all ongoing and happening?
Also, what about the economic quantification? That is an important way of asking how practical it is, especially for smaller users and consumers in this field. Are we doing anything to make sure that it is practical and will work if you are an SME? That is very important because we may have made a wonderful thing that looks great on paper and in theory—probably on a computer screen, in this case—but how will it work in practice? How are we going to monitor that on the way through?
Of course, a degree of congratulation is in order to any Government who make trade easier. How will this measure be used to make trade easier? Can the Minister give an example of how trade will be done more easily? I am struggling for the right word, but how will we make our regime more compatible with other regimes? Our biggest trading partner is still the European Union. How will our regime be more compatible with the EU’s? These are just a few things I hope the Minister will clarify when she responds.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in welcoming the Minister to her first appearance in Grand Committee. What better example could she have of the way in which things can develop in this place where there is agreement on all sides? She may have felt on Monday that it was not possible to reach agreement on the matters before us then, when she played a prominent part. Although the House of Lords has expressed its views strongly, I still think there is room for agreement, which I very much hope will follow. Having said that, perhaps I may set an example of what can be done and say that I approach this statutory instrument in a constructive spirit because we support cybersecurity protections for consumers.
The UK consumer device security regime, which was introduced under the previous Government, set an important international benchmark. As more of our daily lives depend on connected devices, it is vital that products are secure by design and that consumers are protected from avoidable vulnerabilities. These regulations provide a practical amendment to the existing framework through recognising Singapore’s cybersecurity labelling scheme and Japan’s Japan JC-STAR STAR-1 as equivalent to our baseline. They remove unnecessary duplication for manufacturers, while at the same time maintaining consumer safety. Where trusted partners meet high standards—rooted, as the noble Baroness has just pointed out, in the same ETSI framework underpinning the UK regime—it is reasonable to avoid repeat testing and reduce barriers to trade. Therefore, we do not oppose the SI but, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I have a number of questions. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify a few points.
My first question is similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. How will the Government monitor ongoing equivalence? The Singaporean and Japanese schemes may evolve. If their requirements then diverge from the UK’s baseline, what mechanism will be used to reassess or revoke recognition? If they move too far in the wrong direction, what will we do? As the noble Lord pointed out, this is particularly important for small and medium-sized enterprises that need some certainty about the way in which these regulations will be enforced. Secondly, on enforcement, where a product enters the UK market with a foreign label, will our regulators have access to the evidence underpinning that certification? What steps will be taken if a certified product is later found to contain vulnerabilities? Finally, while the impact is assessed as below the threshold for a full assessment, can the Minister share any indicative estimates of the expected benefits to business, whether in reduced compliance costs or faster access to market?
In summary, international co-operation on cyber standards is vital and these regulations represent a sensible step in that direction. We support the intention to streamline compliance while upholding robust protections for UK consumers. However, continued oversight and clarity from the Government will be essential to ensure confidence in the system as it develops. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for the fact that we find ourselves in agreement on the fundamental principle underlying this SI: common cybersecurity standards that facilitate trade are a good step forward for the UK and for global cybersecurity.
I come to some of the questions raised. Regarding how this regime will be enforced, the Office for Product Safety and Standards is the regulator of the PSTI regime. It has a comprehensive set of enforcement powers and can act against any business found to be non-compliant. Only products with a valid, unexpired label, under either the Japanese or the Singaporean scheme, can be made available, and if a product is subsequently found to have a security risk, the enforcement body—the OPSS—can act in line with its published enforcement policy to ensure that consumers are protected from harm.
Equally, Japan and Singapore have regulators overseeing their regimes. The Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore are responsible for enforcing their respective labelling schemes. Although the mutual recognition pathway streamlines compliance, it does not remove accountability, and the OPSS will continue to monitor market activity and enforce if it sees any security failures. In addition, the Government will continue to engage with our international partners to ensure that the recognised schemes remain aligned with UK standards. That is part of this proposal.
In respect of the EU, ETSI EN 303 645 is the international standard for consumer devices, and EU members follow it. As noble Lords will know, the EU has the CRA, which covers more than the PSTI, some of which has not yet come into effect. We are considering how best to align with that regime, which is quite different in nature.
If the standards change fundamentally, both MoUs allow us to disengage, and the SI applies to these specific Japanese and Singaporean standards only. If they change too much, it would be invalid. That should provide some reassurance that these standards are equivalent, there are processes to ensure that they remain equivalent, and we can disengage if we need to.
On the question of business impact and how to make the most of it, it is true that the trade corridors for manufactured goods between us and Japan and Singapore are perhaps not the most active. However, the latest figures show that in 2024 approximately £183 million of exports to Japan and £442 million of imports were goods potentially within the scope of PSTI. For Singapore, those figures were £84 million of exports and £88 million of imports. We are keen to publicise and make it clear that these regimes will enable those businesses that can take advantage of them to do so, along with all our normal trade promotion activities. I hope that that addresses the questions raised by noble Lords.
To conclude: as we know, we have more connected products than ever. It is very rare to find a UK household that does not own a connected product, and this connectivity brings convenience but also risks. The cybersecurity regulatory landscape is evolving and countries around the world, such as Japan and Singapore, are introducing similar regimes. We are keen to keep our leadership in this space by co-operating with like-minded regimes.
The draft instrument we have considered today will ensure that the UK remains a global leader in product cybersecurity, while strengthening our position as an attractive destination for digital innovation and trade. We are reducing regulatory burdens and supporting UK businesses to bring compliant products to our market. This is a practical step forward in our mission to drive economic growth and build a more resilient digital economy. It complements efforts to harmonise security standards across other major economies in partnerships with, for example, Brunei, the UAE, Australia, Germany, Finland, South Korea, Canada, Japan, Singapore and Hungary via the global cybersecurity labelling initiative.
With forecasts suggesting that the global IoT market will grow to 24.1 billion devices by 2030, generating over £1 trillion of annual revenue, it is more essential than ever that we enhance the security of connected products on a global scale. This is a good step towards achieving this goal. I look forward to working further on this and commend the instrument to the Committee.
Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
That the Grand Committee do consider the Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 39th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to be speaking to these regulations, which were laid before the House in draft on 13 October 2025. I would like to thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for the scrutiny provided on this draft statutory instrument.
This Government have now fulfilled our promise by establishing the Independent Football Regulator, following the Football Governance Act 2025 achieving Royal Assent in July. The Act was born out of necessity; just look at what has happened at Sheffield Wednesday over recent months and years. Despite the global success of English football, we have seen too many clubs overshadowed by irresponsible owners, unsuitable financial models and inadequate regulations. Too often, fans have had to fight to protect their club’s very identity and existence.
Following the Act, the Independent Football Regulator was established with three key objectives: clubs’ financial soundness, systemic financial resilience and safeguarding club heritage. The regulator is the first of its kind and is designed to protect our cherished clubs, empower fans and keep clubs at the heart of their communities. By delivering the necessary stability and long-term viability required to stimulate future investment and growth, the regulator will safeguard the football pyramid.
The Act itself did not define which clubs and competitions would fall under the regulator’s scope—an issue much discussed in this place during the passage of the Bill. This approach mirrors other sporting legislation and ensures that the regime can adapt swiftly to any changes in the football pyramid. As noble Lords are aware, amending delegated powers is quicker and easier than amending primary legislation. Following extensive discussion during the Bill’s passage, the scope set out in this statutory instrument remains consistent with the recommendations in the fan-led review and the scope proposed by the previous Government.
This statutory instrument sets out the scope of the regulator as follows: the Premier League competition, organised and administered by the Football Association Premier League; the Championship, League One and League Two competitions, organised and administered by the English Football League; and the Premier Division of the National League competition, organised and administered by the National League. The critical issues in English football that warrant the regulator’s existence, identified in the excellent fan-led review led by Dame Tracey Crouch, are most starkly and prominently evident in the top five professional tiers of men’s English football. Extending the scope beyond the top five tiers would be disproportionate, in our view, as the burden on smaller clubs would outweigh the benefits of regulation.
The independent review of domestic women’s football, led by Karen Carney and published in July 2023, recommended that the women’s game should be given the opportunity to self-regulate. We support this position.
We acknowledge that football is constantly evolving and circumstances may change, which is why the review of the Act is scheduled to take place within five years of the licensing regime’s commencement and will again review the scope. Furthermore, the Secretary of State is empowered to carry out an assessment of the regulator’s scope at any time, consulting the regulator, the FA and other stakeholders as deemed appropriate. This statutory instrument represents another pivotal milestone in the establishment of the Independent Football Regulator for the good of our national game.
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.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the regulations in front of us. I strongly support the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, on the question of the inclusion of the women’s game. It is an argument that I have heard on a number of occasions. The fact that there is willingness and a desire on the part of women’s football to come under the aegis of the regulator is, I hope, something of which the Minister will take account.
I want to mention briefly one aspect of this instrument: its scope. As the Minister correctly said, it covers the Premier League, the three divisions of the Football League and the top level of the National League, which used to be called the Football Conference. It is quite appropriate for the line to be drawn at that, as the clubs below that level are not in need of the regulatory burden that I suspect the introduction of a regulator and its activities would impose, but there is one aspect of the relationship between the National League and the Football League that I would like her to take on board and, perhaps, discuss with the regulator when she next sees him.
Between the Premier League and the Championship, there is a promotion and relegation arrangement: three clubs go up and three clubs go down. Between the Championship and what is now the first division of the Football League, again, it is three up and three down. When you go down from the first division of the Championship to the second division, it is four up and four down. However, when you get to the second division of the Football League and the top level of the National League, it is only two up and two down; indeed, the introduction of a second place was awarded only as recently as 2003.
A very powerful campaign is under way in the non-league game, if one can call it that, to introduce three up and three down. If any of your Lordships attended a match in the National League or its feeder leagues last Saturday, they will have discovered that the kick-off was put back by three minutes in order to draw attention to this campaign. It is strongly supported by the Football Supporters’ Association. If there is to be fairness, as well as an opportunity for clubs below the Football League to thrive, it is very important that “three up” comes into being. I hope that the regulator will take account of that and will be prepared to consider it when it looks at the structure of the game. I would like my noble friend to be prepared to raise this with the regulator at the first opportunity.
I am sorry; I should have declared my interest as the honorary vice-president of the National League.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I first share in the felicitations that my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, sent to the Scottish team on their result last night. I send my best wishes to all the home nations for good results in the next World Cup.
The regulations before the Grand Committee define the statutory scope of the Independent Football Regulator created under the Football Governance Act 2025. The Government have chosen to include the top five professional leagues in English men’s football—116 clubs—on the basis that financial and governance risks are greatest at this level. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, there is no surprise here; this was the policy direction that was set out in the Explanatory Notes that accompanied the Bill that became that Act.
However, he was not quite right when he said that this is more or less what the Act says because, as the Minister alluded to in her remarks, the reason we are here making this law in a rather sparsely attended Grand Committee, rather than through primary legislation on the Floor of the House, is that making that clear in the Bill would have made it a hybrid Bill. As she said, that was much discussed during our debates on the Bill, so here we are.
Nobody disputes the need for clearer oversight of the beautiful game, but the question before the Committee today is whether the Government have brought forward a regime that is proportionate, workable and credible. On each of these tests, some doubts remain, and those doubts were only heightened by the unanswered questions in the exchanges we had yesterday on the leadership of the new regulator.
The Government say that the clubs at the five levels set out in the instrument before us can absorb the new compliance obligations, but the reality, as we heard across your Lordships’ House in our debates on the Bill and from the sector itself, is rather different. Premier League clubs have the structures to cope; many League Two and National League clubs do not. Some operate with only one or two staff; many others rely on volunteers. For them, these regulations are not a technical adjustment but a material burden. In her introductory remarks, the Minister spoke of the regulatory burden that the Government have decided would be too great for clubs in lower leagues, but I hope she will acknowledge that there will be burdens on many of the 116 clubs that we are proposing to designate today.
The Government have produced no clear assessment of this disparity. We think that is an omission. If regulation becomes too onerous, investment will dry up and the base of the pyramid—the foundations of our national game—will be weakened. The very system that this Act is seeking to protect could be undermined by the way that the new law is implemented.
The timing compounds the problem. These regulations come into force in less than a month, half way through the season, giving clubs minimal time to adjust. That is not proportionate regulation; it is regulatory pressure imposed without due preparation.
These concerns become even sharper in light of yesterday’s unanswered questions on the credibility and independence of the regulator’s leadership. These matters are directly relevant to this statutory instrument because the effectiveness of the regulatory regime is inseparable from trust in those enforcing it. As I set out in the House yesterday, this matters not because of what it means for trust in the present Government but because UEFA and others have been very clear that English teams’ continued participation in international tournaments depends on the demonstrable independence of the new football regulator.
In our exchanges yesterday, the Minister said that I asked a number of questions. In fact, I asked just two and she gave full answers to neither. Before we decide whether to allow this statutory instrument to pass, I hope that she will give some clearer answers to them.
When the Urgent Question that we repeated yesterday was taken in another place last week, the Secretary of State said that the appointment of David Kogan as the chairman of the new regulator was
“not a prime ministerial appointment”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/25; col. 170.]
If that is the case, why did the official read-out that the Secretary of State gave to the submission that she was sent by her department on 19 March, quoted at paragraph 27 of the report by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, say that her “preferred candidate” was Mr Kogan? I quote from the Secretary of State’s own words given in that report,
“subject to No. 10 giving the green light”.
Why did she send the Prime Minister a note asking for that green light? That is my first question.
Last week, the Prime Minister was forced to write to the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, Sir Laurie Magnus, because of the partial information given in another place during the debate on the Urgent Question. That letter said that in the light of the hospitality that the Prime Minister had received from football clubs and the Football Association, he had agreed with Sir Laurie last autumn that:
“I would recuse myself from decisions relating to the Football Governance Bill”.
Despite that recusal, the Prime Minister was not only sent a note asking for the green light on Mr Kogan’s appointment but responded in writing to confirm that he was supportive of it. The Prime Minister now says:
“This was an unfortunate error for which I express my sincere regret”.
This note was sent in April before it became public knowledge that, like the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister had received political donations from Mr Kogan for his Labour leadership campaign.
In the light of that revelation, the Prime Minister and Sir Laurie Magnus had another meeting in June this year and, as his letter of last week puts it, agreed that he should stay out of the appointment process for the new football regulator. My second question is: given these recusals, originally made in autumn last year and strengthened and repeated in June this year, how can the Prime Minister play a part in exonerating the Secretary of State for her breaches of the appointments code? How can he determine whether she has breached the Ministerial Code in this matter?
These are not peripheral matters. They go to the heart of whether Parliament and international sporting bodies can have confidence in the regime and the regulator, whose scope we are asked to approve today. Independence, transparency and good governance are not optional extras in regulation; they are prerequisites. I hope that we will get clearer answers to those questions today. Until the Government provide full and credible answers to them, this Committee cannot be confident that the framework underpinning this instrument is as robust, independent or transparent as it must be.
I look forward to the Minister’s answers on that, as well as to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Evans about the possible future inclusion of the women’s game.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an important and useful debate; I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to it. In line with the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, and other noble Lords, I congratulate Scotland on its impressive win last night. However, while we are congratulating home countries, I should like to note that Wales also won last night; I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in wishing that team well in its future efforts to qualify.
In relation to the SI before us, the implementation of this regime, which prioritises the protection of clubs from financial distress and protects the interests of fans nationally, remains a priority for the Government. That is why we are working at pace to deliver the next phase of the independent football regulator’s framework, for which the delineation of scope is a necessary step. Despite the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, we believe that the new regulator is proportionate and will not place unnecessary burdens on smaller, less affluent clubs. I am also clear that the scope of the regime has been appropriately defined.
A number of other points were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester—and repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—in relation to whether, when or how the women’s game or other leagues might be added to the scope. I want to make it clear that I would like nothing more than the women’s game being viewed as mature enough and financially independent enough to be considered to be included. I said several times during the debates on the independent football regulator in your Lordships’ House that I was not allowed to play football at school; it is of huge regret to me still, but I am delighted that my nieces have that opportunity.
The regulations that we are discussing can be updated to change the scope of the regulator’s remit. The Secretary of State must, in that instance, carry out an assessment of whether it would be appropriate to make changes, including consulting the regulator, the FA and any other stakeholders whom they consider relevant. On the process that the Secretary of State would need to go through, a report on her assessment would need to be laid before Parliament; the Secretary of State can then make regulations, if they so choose. We will continue to monitor the health of the game to ensure that the regime is regulating the right competitions. For this first use of the power, we have chosen, as was outlined during the course of the Bill, the top five leagues of men’s football. This is based on years of work, evidence and consultation, including the independent fan-led review.
My noble friend Lord Faulkner raised the issue currently being addressed by National League clubs in the 3UP campaign. The Independent Football Regulator will have a tightly defined scope, as set out in the Act, focused on ensuring the financial sustainability that will protect clubs for future generations of fans. The IFR will not legally be able to act outside of this tightly defined scope and so will not be able to intervene in matters such as the promotion and relegation model between leagues.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what she set out. We had 10 minutes yesterday for the Urgent Question; it was not quite the opportunity to set out things at length. I am grateful for the further information she has given. The Secretary of State said, when that Urgent Question was taken in another place, that this was not a prime ministerial appointment. Given that, was she wrong to have written, on the submission sent to her on 19 March, that her
“preferred candidate is Mr Kogan, subject to No. 10 giving the green light”?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I have not taken any part in the appointment process. This matter has been investigated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. We should let this matter rest and let David Kogan get on with the job.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
There has been an investigation by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Government announced Mr Kogan and confirmed him as their preferred candidate to be chairman before the commissioner had completed his inquiry or published his report. Does the Minister regret moving with that haste, given that the commissioner has now found that three material breaches of the Governance Code on Public Appointments were committed by her department? I am casting aspersions not on the character of Mr Kogan but on the conduct of DCMS in this appointment. The three material breaches imperil the impression of his independence, which is paramount for the future of the game.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
On the question about the green light from No. 10, officials sent questions about the process to the No. 10 appointments teams, but that was not formally sent to the PM for his approval.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Would the Minister be willing to let the note that was sent to the Prime Minister be published in the Libraries of both Houses? It would be helpful to see the note that was sent and what the Prime Minister wrote. He has said publicly in his letter to Sir Laurie Magnus that he regrets that having been seen and written. Therefore, it would be helpful if we could see it and determine for ourselves whether that was an official submission to the Prime Minister.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I appreciate that the noble Lord wishes to prolong this debate and obstruct the progress of the IFR going forward but, no, I am not going to make the commitment that he has asked for today.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
If it is acceptable, I hope that the Chair can express his congratulations to Scotland on their wonderful victory and on the wonderful goals that secured it; of course, like all noble Lords present, we wish all of the home nations every success in every sporting endeavour.
Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2025.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of these regulations is to simplify marine equipment legislation by consolidating and combining regulatory changes into one piece of legislation, providing greater clarity for industry. The regulations also bring the standards and requirements for ballast water management systems within scope, introduce a new “equivalents” provision and remove government ships from the scope of the legislative regime. Noble Lords will wish to know that the draft regulations have been scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee; no response has been received from either committee.
In line with international requirements for ships to carry safety and counterpollution equipment—collectively referred to as “marine equipment”—that has been approved by the ship’s flag administration, the UK implemented the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2016, which gave effect to the EU directive on marine equipment. Following the UK’s exit from the European Union, the 2016 regulations were amended in 2019 to ensure that they would continue to operate effectively. Amendments were also made by the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) (Amendment) (UK and US Mutual Recognition Agreement) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which gave effect to the UK-US mutual recognition agreement on marine equipment by providing for the mutual recognition of certificates of conformity for designated marine equipment, thus opening up the large US market to UK manufacturers.
These proposed regulations will revoke and replace the 2016 regulations and both sets of 2019 amending regulations. The proposed regulations, which are considered non-controversial, set out the United Kingdom conformity assessment system for marine equipment placed on ships registered in the United Kingdom.
Since the UK’s departure from the European Union, numerous engagements have been undertaken with stakeholders, including UK-approved bodies, which are responsible for the approval of marine equipment, manufacturers, other government departments and maritime trade organisations. These provided an opportunity to influence the direction that the policy has taken. Once the policy direction had been developed, a six-week public consultation was carried out, during which responders expressed support for the implementation of the proposed regulations. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency—the MCA—published a consultation report, including responses to comments received.
The proposed regulations also make other changes. First, they bring the approval of ballast water management systems into scope. In 2022, the UK implemented new International Maritime Organization requirements and standards for ballast water management systems through the Merchant Shipping (Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments) Regulations 2022. These regulations included the approval requirements for those systems. Bringing ballast water management systems within the scope of the proposed regulations will make it easier for industry to find and adhere to the relevant requirements. It will also prevent divergence in the approval processes between these systems and other items of marine equipment.
Secondly, the regulations introduce an equivalence provision to allow, subject to certain conditions, non-UK approved marine equipment to be placed on board UK vessels in situations where UK-approved items are unavailable or unsuitable. The conditions ensure that the equipment, when placed on board, will provide an equivalent level of safety.
Thirdly, the regulations will remove government ships from the scope of the marine equipment regime. This is due to the broader change in approach to government ships, triggered in part by the limited legislative powers available post our exit from the European Union. Following the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, and in the absence of appropriate powers in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, the existing instrument is being revoked using the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. This will facilitate the amendment of these regulations in future, if required.
In conclusion, I have set out the purpose and scope of these regulations, which consolidate and simplify the UK’s marine equipment regime, bringing clarity and confidence to the industry. The regulations reflect our continued commitment to uphold international standards while tailoring the legislative framework to the UK’s post-EU exit context. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting these measures. I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, as has been set out, this instrument aims to simplify marine equipment regulations and provide clarity for industry. I am grateful for the briefing from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency earlier this week. Conventions require ships to carry safety equipment and counter-pollution equipment, which will meet certain standards. As we have heard, through the 2016 regulations, which were amended in 2019 following our exit from the EU, this SI will consolidate those regulations into a single instrument, which we support. They also concern the removal of government ships—that was clarified to me earlier this week—which are covered by defence maritime regulations.
However, I will raise the process and the time taken to get to what we are considering today. Having read the comments of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee regarding the related Merchant Shipping (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which I am sure will be before the House soon, the timing of these regulations—on which the committee did not comment specifically—needs further explanation. Can the Minister confirm when the consultation on today’s regulations took place? Why have these two sets of regulations not come at the same time, given that they are both about consolidation and review? When can we expect the replacement fees regulations to be introduced?
Given that we were here only last week looking at the instrument on railway car parks, which seemed to take an awfully long time to get here—over five years had passed since the consultation on the matter—and the regulations before us today were last updated some six years ago, what assurance can the Minister provide that the department will start to work at pace through a lot of the administration around these regulations, to ensure more timely consideration by this Committee? I await the Minister’s response with interest.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for arranging a briefing for me by members of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Department for Transport, which was extremely helpful. The issues underlying this wholly uncontroversial instrument were debated in the other place, and the official Conservative view in support of the instrument was made clear there. It is very rare that one has the opportunity with any Government, least of all this one, to be able to say, “Well done. Carry on”, but that is my message.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am not going to say I am stunned, because the noble Lord is wholly reasonable. It is a pleasure to hear his words.
I should just say in response to the noble Baroness that the consultation took place in the first half of 2025. They are not together, because self-evidently they are not together, but the fees regulations will come within 12 to 18 months. All I can say is that a huge amount of work is going on in my department in respect of both maritime legislation, a lot of which is in statutory instruments as we have discussed, and aircraft safety, because both are related to international conventions, to get over the large volume of work created by the withdrawal from the European Union. She can be assured that work is going on at pace.
It is evident that the results of the consultation, which were wholly positive in this respect, are very helpful. I would be much more worried not by its speed but if the consequence was that the maritime industry felt short-changed or uncomfortable with what is being proposed. It is pretty clear that it is not.
I think I have answered all the points that were raised. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his absolute support, as I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for hers. It is vital to ensure that all UK-flagged ships carry safe marine equipment that has been approved by the flag state. Consolidating the 2016 regulations and amending regulations into a single instrument will provide clarity for stakeholders. I am very pleased that both noble Lords got such a comprehensive briefing from the maritime agency. Therefore, I hope they will agree that the objective of these regulations, which is to simplify marine equipment regulations while maintaining high safety and environmental protection standards for UK ships, is desirable. I commend this instrument to the Committee.