Lords Chamber
10:06
Legislation: Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill – third reading
-
Legislation: Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill – third reading
Third Third Reading Third Reading of Third Reading of the Third Reading of the Absent Third Reading of the Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill Lord Murphy of Torfaen. In order that this bill be read a third time. The question is that this bill be now read a third time, as many of that opinion, say 'content' contrary not content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that this this bill. Now I beg to move that that this bill do now pass.
The question is that this bill do now pass.
The question is that this bill do now pass.
10:07
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
My Lords, first of all, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. My Lords, this bill is most welcome. And can I thank Lord Murphy of Torfaen for bringing this forward. It makes the necessary provisions to ensure that where there is divergence has arisen across the whole of Great Britain, shared democratic values are brought into closer practical alignment. In doing so, it strengthens the unity of our democratic system while respecting the distinct identities of the devolved nations.
On these benches, we have always sought to bridge these gaps between the constituent communities that make our country so unique and vibrant. My Lords, it would be right to acknowledge that this Bill builds upon the work of the previous government, including the Elections Act 2022, which took important steps to reinforce the security and transparency of our democratic processes. That act introduced measures such as digital imprints on online campaign materials and enhanced security of political funding reforms that were both timely and necessary.
My Lords, it is therefore regrettable that legislative consent was not granted for those measures at the time. This bill now goes some way to mitigating the effect of those divisions. My Lords, I must also reiterate what my noble friend Baroness Scott said at the Second Reading. I urge the government to reconsider any proposals to dilute voter ID requirements. Today, we are legislating to make voting easier while maintaining appropriate safeguards. We must not, at the same time take steps to weaken the security of our elections.
Finally, my Lords, accessibility is vital, but so too is security. Protecting the integrity of our elections, guarding against fraud or interference is a core duty of any responsible government. In the other place, my hon. Friend Paul Holmes rightly called for ministers to take decisive and proactive steps to prevent malign influence, whether domestic or foreign, as we modernise and reform our systems. I modernise and reform our systems. I would therefore be grateful if the noble Baroness, the Minister, could use this opportunity to set out use this opportunity to set out what specific steps the government are taking to uphold that commitment.
commitment.
On these benches, we have always sought to bridge these gaps between the constituent communities that make our country so unique and vibrant. My Lords, it would be right to acknowledge that this Bill builds upon the work of the previous government, including the Elections Act 2022, which took important steps to reinforce the security and transparency of our democratic processes. That act introduced measures such as digital imprints on online campaign materials and enhanced security of political funding reforms that were both timely and necessary.
My Lords, it is therefore regrettable that legislative consent was not granted for those measures at the time. This bill now goes some way to mitigating the effect of those divisions. My Lords, I must also reiterate what my noble friend Baroness Scott said at the Second Reading. I urge the government to reconsider any proposals to dilute voter ID requirements. Today, we are legislating to make voting easier while maintaining appropriate safeguards. We must not, at the same time take steps to weaken the security of our elections.
Finally, my Lords, accessibility is vital, but so too is security. Protecting the integrity of our elections, guarding against fraud or interference is a core duty of any responsible government. In the other place, my hon. Friend Paul Holmes rightly called for ministers to take decisive and proactive steps to prevent malign influence, whether domestic or foreign, as we modernise and reform our systems. I modernise and reform our systems. I would therefore be grateful if the noble Baroness, the Minister, could use this opportunity to set out use this opportunity to set out what specific steps the government are taking to uphold that commitment.
commitment.
10:09
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his contribution and can I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and support to the Bill and to particularly to my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen, for his stewardship of the Bill through this House. Our democracy remains at the heart of our governments purpose and mission, and on the point that the noble Lord Jamieson made, the government will be bringing forward a number of changes in the forthcoming elections Bill, which will come before this House in due course.
And I think we'll have the opportunity to discuss matters further at that point. But can I thank the noble Lord Murphy for his excellent contribution to our democratic process here?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble Ladies. Because some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jameson, if the noble Lord, Lord Jameson, if not all of them, but he makes some good points about different gaps and problems within our election and problems within our election laws and in our Second Reading and committee stage debates. Many of us across the House spoke about the across the House spoke about the need to properly consolidate all election laws. We recognise the noble Lord. Lord Murphy is an noble Lord.
Lord Murphy is an extremely well in bringing forward this. I shall call perhaps a small tidying up measure, but it's still a very important principle that people in Scotland and Wales can apply online to vote as absentee voters. That should probably be done in 2022 without needing a done in 2022 without needing a Private Member's Bill. But frequently we get debates here where the expertise available in this House highlights the need, as the law commissions keep emphasising, for proper consolidation of election laws, consolidation of election laws, bringing together the legislation of 2000 and the legislation of the of 2000 and the legislation of the Representation of Peoples Act.
So could the noble Ladies perhaps just say a bit more about the government's intention towards
**** Possible New Speaker ****
government's intention towards consolidating election law in general? Yeah. I thank the noble Lord Rennard,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the noble Lord Rennard, and he's right to flag up that there is more work to be done in terms of elections. That's why, in response to the noble Lord Jamieson, I've referred to the forthcoming elections Bill. I'm sure that noble lords in this House, where there is indeed a great deal of expertise in election matters, will want to contribute to that bill as it comes forward, and I hope we'll be able to incorporate many of the matters that we've discussed over the years that have been missed out of the the elections process, or need further tightening because of current circumstances.
And I think that's what the noble Lord Jamieson was referring to as well. We've seen a significant change in the seen a significant change in the way things operate, and we need to make sure that election law keeps up with that. So that's our aim as up with that. So that's our aim as we bring forward the election bill, and I look forward to the contributions of all members of the House when we bring that bill forward.
And I think we'll have the opportunity to discuss matters further at that point. But can I thank the noble Lord Murphy for his excellent contribution to our democratic process here?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble Ladies. Because some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jameson, if the noble Lord, Lord Jameson, if not all of them, but he makes some good points about different gaps and problems within our election and problems within our election laws and in our Second Reading and committee stage debates. Many of us across the House spoke about the across the House spoke about the need to properly consolidate all election laws. We recognise the noble Lord. Lord Murphy is an noble Lord.
Lord Murphy is an extremely well in bringing forward this. I shall call perhaps a small tidying up measure, but it's still a very important principle that people in Scotland and Wales can apply online to vote as absentee voters. That should probably be done in 2022 without needing a done in 2022 without needing a Private Member's Bill. But frequently we get debates here where the expertise available in this House highlights the need, as the law commissions keep emphasising, for proper consolidation of election laws, consolidation of election laws, bringing together the legislation of 2000 and the legislation of the of 2000 and the legislation of the Representation of Peoples Act.
So could the noble Ladies perhaps just say a bit more about the government's intention towards
**** Possible New Speaker ****
government's intention towards consolidating election law in general? Yeah. I thank the noble Lord Rennard,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the noble Lord Rennard, and he's right to flag up that there is more work to be done in terms of elections. That's why, in response to the noble Lord Jamieson, I've referred to the forthcoming elections Bill. I'm sure that noble lords in this House, where there is indeed a great deal of expertise in election matters, will want to contribute to that bill as it comes forward, and I hope we'll be able to incorporate many of the matters that we've discussed over the years that have been missed out of the the elections process, or need further tightening because of current circumstances.
And I think that's what the noble Lord Jamieson was referring to as well. We've seen a significant change in the seen a significant change in the way things operate, and we need to make sure that election law keeps up with that. So that's our aim as up with that. So that's our aim as we bring forward the election bill, and I look forward to the contributions of all members of the House when we bring that bill forward.
10:12
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Labour)
-
-
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Labour)
My Lords, it's quite difficult for a Welsh Labour politician to talk about elections dispassionately this morning, but I will try to do that and to thank obviously all those who've been involved in this bill. My honourable friend Tracey Gilbert from the other place, and of course, all the officials and parliamentary officials who have pushed this bill through. Like to thank all members here too, who realise that this is a small but important step in the right direction, in the sense that now, at last, voters in Scotland and in Wales will be able to apply online for postal and proxy votes for both the Senate, the Scottish Parliament and for Scottish and Welsh local elections.
There is one point I want to emphasise before I, I sit down and I know the Minister is aware of this, is that now that this bill has gone through its parliamentary stages and will become law very soon, it is important because there are six months left before those important elections next year, that the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government now properly do look at these new arrangements and ensure that people can vote by proxy or by post at the next Senate election and next Scottish Parliament election.
As I said at Second election. As I said at Second Reading, I will continue to vote at Llantarnam Church Hall, my Lords, Llantarnam Church Hall, my Lords, this time properly, I beg to move that this bill do now pass. The question is that this. question is that this.
There is one point I want to emphasise before I, I sit down and I know the Minister is aware of this, is that now that this bill has gone through its parliamentary stages and will become law very soon, it is important because there are six months left before those important elections next year, that the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government now properly do look at these new arrangements and ensure that people can vote by proxy or by post at the next Senate election and next Scottish Parliament election.
As I said at Second election. As I said at Second Reading, I will continue to vote at Llantarnam Church Hall, my Lords, Llantarnam Church Hall, my Lords, this time properly, I beg to move that this bill do now pass. The question is that this. question is that this.
10:13
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Labour)
-
-
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Labour)
Bill do now.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The contents have it. Second Reading of the Licensing Hours
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading of the Licensing Hours Forest. My Lords, I. Beg to move that this bill be.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Beg to move that this bill be. Now read a second time, and my noble friend may have been hesitant to talk about elections this morning. The bill that I propose may allow him to drown his sorrows may allow him to drown his sorrows a little easier, and it's a genuine privilege to bring forward the Licensing Hours Extensions Bill, a Licensing Hours Extensions Bill, a small but meaningful reform that will make a tangible difference to hospitality businesses, local hospitality businesses, local communities, and the millions of people who gather in pubs across people who gather in pubs across England and Wales.
This Bill has travelled a steady, consensual path. It nearly reached this House before It nearly reached this House before the last general election. Under the stewardship of my colleague Emma Law, and I'm pleased to say this received cross-party support when both she and my honourable friend Andrew Ranger, the member for Wrexham, guided it through the Commons. It was supported by ministers in both governments and that breadth of agreement reflects something rare and precious a shared recognition of the cultural, social and economic importance of the great British pub so ably represented by the good people of the British Beer and Pub Association, known to all members of this House who also support this legislation.
This morning. This bill makes a straightforward amendment to the Licensing Act 2003. The legislation that sets out the framework for four licensable activities the sale and supply of alcohol, the provision of regulated entertainment, and the provision of late night refreshment. Under section 172 of that act, the Secretary of State has the power to make an order extending extending licensing hours across England and Wales to mark occasions of exceptional international, national or local significance. These national extensions allow all licensed premises to stay open for longer should they wish to do so, and over the past two decades the power has been used sparingly but effectively.
It has enabled communities to celebrate together during royal weddings in 2011 and 2018. Her Late Majesty The Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 2012, the Platinum Jubilee in 2022 and His Majesty The King's Coronation in 2023. More recently, it was used to mark the 80th anniversary of VE day earlier this year and on the occasion of four major on the occasion for major sporting events. Events like the men's England football team who reached the finals of the Euros in 2020, played in 2021, and again for the Euro 24, and more recently, licensing hours were extended when the Lionesses achieved their magnificent victory in securing a second European Championship title.
These nationally shared moments remind us that the role of the pub is not just commercial. Pubs are the beating hearts of our communities. They are the places where we come together at times of joy, pride and sometimes sorrow. They are where strangers become friends, where neighbours meet and where the shared story of our national life unfolds. Two thirds of adults believe their local pub plays a vital role in tackling loneliness and social isolation. Social isolation for many, especially in rural areas or small towns, it is the one place where the door is always open and where a conversation is never far away.
Economically too, this sector is a powerhouse. 45,000 pubs and nearly 2000 breweries support over a million jobs. They contribute £34 billion in gross value added to the economy, and generate 18 billion in tax revenue. Almost half the workforce is aged between 16 and 24, making pubs and hospitality one of the most significant sources of opportunity for young people entering the labour market. Pubs sustain high streets in every part of the country, from great cities to small coastal towns.
They sponsor local football teams, host community meetings and support charity events. They help our villages remain viable and our cities vibrant. And yet, despite their value to many, publicans face obstacles that make their work harder than it needs to be. Under the current system, when a moment of national significance arises whether a royal celebration, a major sporting final or a solemn occasion of mourning, pubs and hospitality venues often face unnecessary bureaucracy. They must either apply individually for a temporary event notice, which costs money and requires at least ten days notice, or they must wait for Parliament to approve a blanket extension through the affirmative procedure.
If Parliament is not sitting. That flexibility simply does not exist. We saw the consequences of that in August 2023, when the Lionesses meets the World Cup final. It was a huge moment of national pride, watched by millions. Yet thousands of venues were unable to open early and allow communities to come together. The government could not extend licensing hours across England and Wales because there was not time to secure approval in both houses. This bill seeks to correct that.
It replaces the affirmative procedure with the negative resolution procedure. In practice, that means the Home Secretary may grant a temporary national extension to licensing hours more swiftly, without requiring a debate in both houses, while preserving Parliament's right to object. I think this is a pragmatic change that makes the system flexible, responsive and fit for purpose. It removes red tape, saves businesses money, and ensures that we can respond in real time to moments that bring the nation together. There is also a practical economic benefit.
National licence extensions save every affected business. The cost and administrative burden of applying individually for a temporary event. Notice £21 per application, while also relieving local licensing authorities of the work involved in processing large numbers of requests in a short period of time. At the same time, it safeguards parliamentary scrutiny. If any member of either House objects to a proposed extension, they retain the right to pray against it, meaning the debate can still take place. The only difference is that such a debate would not be automatic.
This approach strikes the right balance between efficiency and accountability, and, as past experience shows, national extensions of this kind have been universally welcomed and have commanded broad consensus. It is difficult to imagine objection to extension marking a royal jubilee, a coronation or a major sporting event. Importantly, the bill does not alter the criteria for extensions. National orders will still be determined on a case by case basis by the Secretary of State, normally the Home Secretary, and will only be introduced for events that are, in the words of the act of exceptional international, national or local significance.
The process for temporary event notices remains unchanged. This bill, then, is both a modest and meaningful change. It is a technical adjustment, but one that will bring real benefits to business and communities alike. It recognises that pubs are more than places of trade, their spaces of togetherness and continuity. In an age when many of our shared rituals have frayed. It also acknowledges that our legislative processes must be nimble enough to keep pace with modern life. In a country where a football final, a royal commemoration or a moment of remembrance can unite millions.
It should not be impossible for our communities to celebrate or to reflect together, simply for procedural delay. The hospitality industry continues to recover from shocks of the pandemic and from sustained cost, sustained cost pressures. Many landlords and staff have had to show extraordinary resilience, removing unnecessary admitted burdens, burden barriers, even small ones. Sends an important signal of confidence and respect for their role in our national life. My Lords, this bill embodies a simple principle that government should trust communities and businesses to come together responsibly in moments that matter.
It removes friction without removing oversight. It tidies a process that has outlived its practicality, while preserving the checks and balances that Parliament rightly expects. It also reminds us of something beyond procedure. When the national anthem plays in a crowded pub, when glasses are raised in memory of a monarch, or in celebration of a local hero, when laughter and conversation spill out into the street after a match. We see the best of who we are neighbours, friends and citizens bound by shared experience.
This bill cannot solve every challenge facing our pubs and brewers, but it's a step in the right direction. It is proportionate, practical and unifying. It ensures that the Secretary of State can act swiftly when the nation wishes to come together, and that Parliament can still hold ministers to account if it so chooses. For all these reasons, I commend the Licensing Hours Extensions Bill to the House and invite your lordships Lordships to give it a Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The contents have it. Second Reading of the Licensing Hours
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading of the Licensing Hours Forest. My Lords, I. Beg to move that this bill be.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Beg to move that this bill be. Now read a second time, and my noble friend may have been hesitant to talk about elections this morning. The bill that I propose may allow him to drown his sorrows may allow him to drown his sorrows a little easier, and it's a genuine privilege to bring forward the Licensing Hours Extensions Bill, a Licensing Hours Extensions Bill, a small but meaningful reform that will make a tangible difference to hospitality businesses, local hospitality businesses, local communities, and the millions of people who gather in pubs across people who gather in pubs across England and Wales.
This Bill has travelled a steady, consensual path. It nearly reached this House before It nearly reached this House before the last general election. Under the stewardship of my colleague Emma Law, and I'm pleased to say this received cross-party support when both she and my honourable friend Andrew Ranger, the member for Wrexham, guided it through the Commons. It was supported by ministers in both governments and that breadth of agreement reflects something rare and precious a shared recognition of the cultural, social and economic importance of the great British pub so ably represented by the good people of the British Beer and Pub Association, known to all members of this House who also support this legislation.
This morning. This bill makes a straightforward amendment to the Licensing Act 2003. The legislation that sets out the framework for four licensable activities the sale and supply of alcohol, the provision of regulated entertainment, and the provision of late night refreshment. Under section 172 of that act, the Secretary of State has the power to make an order extending extending licensing hours across England and Wales to mark occasions of exceptional international, national or local significance. These national extensions allow all licensed premises to stay open for longer should they wish to do so, and over the past two decades the power has been used sparingly but effectively.
It has enabled communities to celebrate together during royal weddings in 2011 and 2018. Her Late Majesty The Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 2012, the Platinum Jubilee in 2022 and His Majesty The King's Coronation in 2023. More recently, it was used to mark the 80th anniversary of VE day earlier this year and on the occasion of four major on the occasion for major sporting events. Events like the men's England football team who reached the finals of the Euros in 2020, played in 2021, and again for the Euro 24, and more recently, licensing hours were extended when the Lionesses achieved their magnificent victory in securing a second European Championship title.
These nationally shared moments remind us that the role of the pub is not just commercial. Pubs are the beating hearts of our communities. They are the places where we come together at times of joy, pride and sometimes sorrow. They are where strangers become friends, where neighbours meet and where the shared story of our national life unfolds. Two thirds of adults believe their local pub plays a vital role in tackling loneliness and social isolation. Social isolation for many, especially in rural areas or small towns, it is the one place where the door is always open and where a conversation is never far away.
Economically too, this sector is a powerhouse. 45,000 pubs and nearly 2000 breweries support over a million jobs. They contribute £34 billion in gross value added to the economy, and generate 18 billion in tax revenue. Almost half the workforce is aged between 16 and 24, making pubs and hospitality one of the most significant sources of opportunity for young people entering the labour market. Pubs sustain high streets in every part of the country, from great cities to small coastal towns.
They sponsor local football teams, host community meetings and support charity events. They help our villages remain viable and our cities vibrant. And yet, despite their value to many, publicans face obstacles that make their work harder than it needs to be. Under the current system, when a moment of national significance arises whether a royal celebration, a major sporting final or a solemn occasion of mourning, pubs and hospitality venues often face unnecessary bureaucracy. They must either apply individually for a temporary event notice, which costs money and requires at least ten days notice, or they must wait for Parliament to approve a blanket extension through the affirmative procedure.
If Parliament is not sitting. That flexibility simply does not exist. We saw the consequences of that in August 2023, when the Lionesses meets the World Cup final. It was a huge moment of national pride, watched by millions. Yet thousands of venues were unable to open early and allow communities to come together. The government could not extend licensing hours across England and Wales because there was not time to secure approval in both houses. This bill seeks to correct that.
It replaces the affirmative procedure with the negative resolution procedure. In practice, that means the Home Secretary may grant a temporary national extension to licensing hours more swiftly, without requiring a debate in both houses, while preserving Parliament's right to object. I think this is a pragmatic change that makes the system flexible, responsive and fit for purpose. It removes red tape, saves businesses money, and ensures that we can respond in real time to moments that bring the nation together. There is also a practical economic benefit.
National licence extensions save every affected business. The cost and administrative burden of applying individually for a temporary event. Notice £21 per application, while also relieving local licensing authorities of the work involved in processing large numbers of requests in a short period of time. At the same time, it safeguards parliamentary scrutiny. If any member of either House objects to a proposed extension, they retain the right to pray against it, meaning the debate can still take place. The only difference is that such a debate would not be automatic.
This approach strikes the right balance between efficiency and accountability, and, as past experience shows, national extensions of this kind have been universally welcomed and have commanded broad consensus. It is difficult to imagine objection to extension marking a royal jubilee, a coronation or a major sporting event. Importantly, the bill does not alter the criteria for extensions. National orders will still be determined on a case by case basis by the Secretary of State, normally the Home Secretary, and will only be introduced for events that are, in the words of the act of exceptional international, national or local significance.
The process for temporary event notices remains unchanged. This bill, then, is both a modest and meaningful change. It is a technical adjustment, but one that will bring real benefits to business and communities alike. It recognises that pubs are more than places of trade, their spaces of togetherness and continuity. In an age when many of our shared rituals have frayed. It also acknowledges that our legislative processes must be nimble enough to keep pace with modern life. In a country where a football final, a royal commemoration or a moment of remembrance can unite millions.
It should not be impossible for our communities to celebrate or to reflect together, simply for procedural delay. The hospitality industry continues to recover from shocks of the pandemic and from sustained cost, sustained cost pressures. Many landlords and staff have had to show extraordinary resilience, removing unnecessary admitted burdens, burden barriers, even small ones. Sends an important signal of confidence and respect for their role in our national life. My Lords, this bill embodies a simple principle that government should trust communities and businesses to come together responsibly in moments that matter.
It removes friction without removing oversight. It tidies a process that has outlived its practicality, while preserving the checks and balances that Parliament rightly expects. It also reminds us of something beyond procedure. When the national anthem plays in a crowded pub, when glasses are raised in memory of a monarch, or in celebration of a local hero, when laughter and conversation spill out into the street after a match. We see the best of who we are neighbours, friends and citizens bound by shared experience.
This bill cannot solve every challenge facing our pubs and brewers, but it's a step in the right direction. It is proportionate, practical and unifying. It ensures that the Secretary of State can act swiftly when the nation wishes to come together, and that Parliament can still hold ministers to account if it so chooses. For all these reasons, I commend the Licensing Hours Extensions Bill to the House and invite your lordships Lordships to give it a Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move.
10:24
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Conservative)
Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be. Now read a second time. My Lords, I declare my interest as chair and founder of Team as chair and founder of Team Dominica. When I joined your lordships House, I vowed only to lordships House, I vowed only to speak about things that I knew about. So you might be surprised to see me standing on my feet for this see me standing on my feet for this licensing bill. However, in a few weeks time, my charity is opening a weeks time, my charity is opening a pub in Brighton.
This is required major investment for the acquisition, refurbishment and training facilities funded by a combination of donations and a combination of donations and a significant mortgage. It will give enhanced training opportunities for enhanced training opportunities for our candidates in addition to our existing cafes and coffee roastery. existing cafes and coffee roastery. When I asked Jeremy Clarkson for advice, his reply was succinct. Don't do it. And this was followed by a list of all the things that could and would go wrong.
But could and would go wrong. But before I go into that, I would like to start by saying that I have no to start by saying that I have no objection whatsoever to cutting the red tape and regulatory costs around opening hours, and acknowledge that this bill could only be a good thing for the industry. However, I have broader concerns. My team are currently recruiting staff at all levels for the pub, and they have been flabbergasted by the hundreds of applications that they have received for every single job that we have advertised.
And this in a city, Brighton, where hospitality is a major component of the economy. And as recently as two years ago, hospitality venues were really struggling to fill vacancies. The impact of last year's budget is huge and has been immediate, concentrated and socially regressive, according to data published by the office for National Statistics, 110,000 jobs have been lost in this sector between June 24th and July 25th. Hospitality now employs 2.1 million people, and 60% of them are under 25.
It is an entry level into work for young people, particularly those with no skills or qualifications. Those needing support into work and people like our candidates with learning disabilities for whom a job can be life transforming. But the new Nic threshold means an employer is paying tax on someone working 7 to 8 hours a week, rather than 16 to 18 previously. And this has had a negative impact on an industry which largely relies on part time workers and has caused pubs to slash jobs and decrease opening hours.
And I fear that the employee rights bill coming down the track will make employing this cohort even more challenging. And the benefits bill will therefore increase on its alarming upward curve. I think this government needs to start being serious about measures that will grow the economy and create jobs. It should reverse this threshold change and even taken higher than it was before the last budget. In fact, UK hospitality lobbied for such a raise in the threshold before the last budget to create jobs, and the government did the opposite without any consultation or impact assessment.
The Institute for Economic Affairs, on its recent report, said employment and vacancies are down. Working age inactivity remains an apparently intractable problem and unemployment continues its upward creep. Job losses are particularly noticeable in retail and hospitality. A third of all minimum wage workers work in shops, bars and restaurants. And this is this recent hike in employer National Insurance contributions, has brought many part time workers into the government's net, who were previously exempt. Alan Vallance, the CEO of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, said last week that the country faces a damaging cliff edge if the Chancellor decides to raise businesses again.
He said businesses trying to deliver growth are being held back. Firms are telling him it's too expensive to do business with confidence in freefall of a skyrocketing operating costs, high taxes and outdated business rates system and soaring energy bills. UK hospitality has put forward several ideas and can demonstrate in each case what the real benefits would be to the economy and public finances. Here are a few of them. The first thing they suggest is to lower business rates to revive the high streets.
Business rates are a sin tax on running community based businesses. Our high streets and hospitality venues are a vital and economic resource. Next, fix the Nic to boost jobs. Sectors like hospitality, which provide accessible careers, have been hit hardest, as I've just said. The impact on someone earning £25,000 a year was twice as bad as someone earning 150,000, and the largest number of job losses have been in hospitality. Exemptions should include those at the start of their careers and people returning to work from welfare.
And I would add to that list those with learning disabilities. This would support job creation and reduce the benefits bill. Third thing that they suggested was to cut VAT to drive investment. The EU average VAT rate on hospitality is between 10 and 13%. Last week, Ireland has just announced a cut to 9%. Yet in the UK, we still pay the full 20%, making it so much harder for people to support their local businesses. UK hospitality is calling for a cut on VAT to the EU average, which would pay for itself over the course of Parliament, with higher tax receipts.
As the noble Lord Lord Watson said, the social and community importance of bars and pubs cannot be overestimated. Pubs are the centre of our communities. Yet increasingly, people are drinking at home because they can no longer afford the price of a pint. As one person in the business said to me, one p of a pint was a very unfunny joke. Our duty on alcohol is the second highest in Europe, topped only by Finland. People need to meet face to face to feel a sense of belonging and connection.
And hospitality venues are not just in towns and cities, but in rural communities, and they are the heartbeat of these communities, as the noble Lord Lord Watson said. But frankly, they need resuscitation. The isolation that rural communities feel, particularly the farming communities who are under so much pressure at the moment, is a very real issue. And pubs in the country are closing at an alarming rate. So the government, I think, should now recognise the importance of this sector for economic growth, wealth creation, responsible consumption, social integration, community connection, cultural richness and throw their weight behind this industry.
The British Beer and Pub Association has estimated that 375 pubs were closed before the end of this year in England, Wales and Scotland. Our Prime Minister has said that he wants to bring the buzz back to Britain's boozers. He's got that the wrong way round. Bring the boozers back and perhaps the buzz will follow. As I said at the beginning, I am not in any way against this bill. But giving pubs the ability to trade later will not be any help.
With all the issues they face, many of them can no longer afford to open every day, let alone late at night. Let me end with an extract from Jeremy Clarkson's email. When you step into a pub that you're running, you immediately notice the broken light bulb and the wonky loo roll dispenser and the cockeyed picture. And as there's no money in hospitality these days, you can't afford to get someone in to put everything right. You must do it yourself. And then, while you are doing it, a food allergy enthusiast will claim they saw a potato which has made them go blind.
And then the guy who employed to clean the lavatories after the pub shuts will phone in sick. So you have to do it yourself. It is relentless. But he said, but there will come a time when everyone sits down after work and has a drink and a sausage roll, and all of a sudden it'll make sense and it'll especially make sense for you because you are doing it for a very good reason. And that very good reason is why I'm speaking on this subject today.
We have called our pub The North Star, as we guide our candidates into work and are constantly there for them when they embark on their journeys into employment. Meanwhile, I will fight as hard as I can to ensure that the hospitality business can thrive again, not just for our candidates and for their prospects, but for all of us in our communities. Pubs are a quintessential symbol of Britishness, and it is our patriotic duty to keep them open and affordable, both for those who run them and those who drop in for a drink, a meal and a conversation.
And above all, none of us want to hear for a final time that always unpopular phase phrase last orders, please.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be. Now read a second time. My Lords, I declare my interest as chair and founder of Team as chair and founder of Team Dominica. When I joined your lordships House, I vowed only to lordships House, I vowed only to speak about things that I knew about. So you might be surprised to see me standing on my feet for this see me standing on my feet for this licensing bill. However, in a few weeks time, my charity is opening a weeks time, my charity is opening a pub in Brighton.
This is required major investment for the acquisition, refurbishment and training facilities funded by a combination of donations and a combination of donations and a significant mortgage. It will give enhanced training opportunities for enhanced training opportunities for our candidates in addition to our existing cafes and coffee roastery. existing cafes and coffee roastery. When I asked Jeremy Clarkson for advice, his reply was succinct. Don't do it. And this was followed by a list of all the things that could and would go wrong.
But could and would go wrong. But before I go into that, I would like to start by saying that I have no to start by saying that I have no objection whatsoever to cutting the red tape and regulatory costs around opening hours, and acknowledge that this bill could only be a good thing for the industry. However, I have broader concerns. My team are currently recruiting staff at all levels for the pub, and they have been flabbergasted by the hundreds of applications that they have received for every single job that we have advertised.
And this in a city, Brighton, where hospitality is a major component of the economy. And as recently as two years ago, hospitality venues were really struggling to fill vacancies. The impact of last year's budget is huge and has been immediate, concentrated and socially regressive, according to data published by the office for National Statistics, 110,000 jobs have been lost in this sector between June 24th and July 25th. Hospitality now employs 2.1 million people, and 60% of them are under 25.
It is an entry level into work for young people, particularly those with no skills or qualifications. Those needing support into work and people like our candidates with learning disabilities for whom a job can be life transforming. But the new Nic threshold means an employer is paying tax on someone working 7 to 8 hours a week, rather than 16 to 18 previously. And this has had a negative impact on an industry which largely relies on part time workers and has caused pubs to slash jobs and decrease opening hours.
And I fear that the employee rights bill coming down the track will make employing this cohort even more challenging. And the benefits bill will therefore increase on its alarming upward curve. I think this government needs to start being serious about measures that will grow the economy and create jobs. It should reverse this threshold change and even taken higher than it was before the last budget. In fact, UK hospitality lobbied for such a raise in the threshold before the last budget to create jobs, and the government did the opposite without any consultation or impact assessment.
The Institute for Economic Affairs, on its recent report, said employment and vacancies are down. Working age inactivity remains an apparently intractable problem and unemployment continues its upward creep. Job losses are particularly noticeable in retail and hospitality. A third of all minimum wage workers work in shops, bars and restaurants. And this is this recent hike in employer National Insurance contributions, has brought many part time workers into the government's net, who were previously exempt. Alan Vallance, the CEO of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, said last week that the country faces a damaging cliff edge if the Chancellor decides to raise businesses again.
He said businesses trying to deliver growth are being held back. Firms are telling him it's too expensive to do business with confidence in freefall of a skyrocketing operating costs, high taxes and outdated business rates system and soaring energy bills. UK hospitality has put forward several ideas and can demonstrate in each case what the real benefits would be to the economy and public finances. Here are a few of them. The first thing they suggest is to lower business rates to revive the high streets.
Business rates are a sin tax on running community based businesses. Our high streets and hospitality venues are a vital and economic resource. Next, fix the Nic to boost jobs. Sectors like hospitality, which provide accessible careers, have been hit hardest, as I've just said. The impact on someone earning £25,000 a year was twice as bad as someone earning 150,000, and the largest number of job losses have been in hospitality. Exemptions should include those at the start of their careers and people returning to work from welfare.
And I would add to that list those with learning disabilities. This would support job creation and reduce the benefits bill. Third thing that they suggested was to cut VAT to drive investment. The EU average VAT rate on hospitality is between 10 and 13%. Last week, Ireland has just announced a cut to 9%. Yet in the UK, we still pay the full 20%, making it so much harder for people to support their local businesses. UK hospitality is calling for a cut on VAT to the EU average, which would pay for itself over the course of Parliament, with higher tax receipts.
As the noble Lord Lord Watson said, the social and community importance of bars and pubs cannot be overestimated. Pubs are the centre of our communities. Yet increasingly, people are drinking at home because they can no longer afford the price of a pint. As one person in the business said to me, one p of a pint was a very unfunny joke. Our duty on alcohol is the second highest in Europe, topped only by Finland. People need to meet face to face to feel a sense of belonging and connection.
And hospitality venues are not just in towns and cities, but in rural communities, and they are the heartbeat of these communities, as the noble Lord Lord Watson said. But frankly, they need resuscitation. The isolation that rural communities feel, particularly the farming communities who are under so much pressure at the moment, is a very real issue. And pubs in the country are closing at an alarming rate. So the government, I think, should now recognise the importance of this sector for economic growth, wealth creation, responsible consumption, social integration, community connection, cultural richness and throw their weight behind this industry.
The British Beer and Pub Association has estimated that 375 pubs were closed before the end of this year in England, Wales and Scotland. Our Prime Minister has said that he wants to bring the buzz back to Britain's boozers. He's got that the wrong way round. Bring the boozers back and perhaps the buzz will follow. As I said at the beginning, I am not in any way against this bill. But giving pubs the ability to trade later will not be any help.
With all the issues they face, many of them can no longer afford to open every day, let alone late at night. Let me end with an extract from Jeremy Clarkson's email. When you step into a pub that you're running, you immediately notice the broken light bulb and the wonky loo roll dispenser and the cockeyed picture. And as there's no money in hospitality these days, you can't afford to get someone in to put everything right. You must do it yourself. And then, while you are doing it, a food allergy enthusiast will claim they saw a potato which has made them go blind.
And then the guy who employed to clean the lavatories after the pub shuts will phone in sick. So you have to do it yourself. It is relentless. But he said, but there will come a time when everyone sits down after work and has a drink and a sausage roll, and all of a sudden it'll make sense and it'll especially make sense for you because you are doing it for a very good reason. And that very good reason is why I'm speaking on this subject today.
We have called our pub The North Star, as we guide our candidates into work and are constantly there for them when they embark on their journeys into employment. Meanwhile, I will fight as hard as I can to ensure that the hospitality business can thrive again, not just for our candidates and for their prospects, but for all of us in our communities. Pubs are a quintessential symbol of Britishness, and it is our patriotic duty to keep them open and affordable, both for those who run them and those who drop in for a drink, a meal and a conversation.
And above all, none of us want to hear for a final time that always unpopular phase phrase last orders, please.
10:34
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
May. Licensing Hours Extensions Bill. It is a sensible, straightforward change that will enable publics, the public, to support our hospitality sector with cross-party support. I hope it helps to mitigate against the unnecessary strain put upon local licensing authorities in preventing the current process of large numbers of applications being viewed at late notice, as well as giving certainty to businesses, the hospitality sector helps to bring people together. As the co-chair for the loneliness Appg, I believe it's vitally important to enable and support our young people to socialise.
The Covid 19 pandemic had an incredibly damaging impact on our young people's wellbeing, and with almost half of all parents reporting that their children social and emotional skills worsened as a result. Furthermore, the hospitality sector is intertwined with the arts, with a trip to the theatre likely to include a drink and a meal out. The music and performing and visual arts sectors aiding cultural enrichment, bringing in over 11 billion to the UK economy each year with our West End box office generating almost a 10th of that.
More broadly, hospitality brings in over 62 billion to the UK, providing 2.6 million jobs, making it the sixth largest UK industry in terms of employment. However, this government's track record does little to inspire confidence, actively undermining the sector since it came to office. Indeed, 100 111,000 jobs have been lost in the hospitality sector across the UK, with 30,000 jobs going here in London. It is hardly surprising that such a phenomenon is occurring when now it costs, on average, an extra 2500 to to add an additional member of staff even before wages.
And so in a nation that has a really high unemployment rate, surely we do not want to add more to this list. Like other businesses across the UK, the hospitality sector has faced significant additional challenges since the Labour government came to power. Each hospitality business has been expected to come up with an extra 30 to £80,000 in additional operating costs and into the night, according to the Night Time Association. Night Time Industries Association. That staggering figure is a combination of national insurance rates, contributions, increases and an increase in the living wage of 6.7%, not to mention a broader market instabilities and lack of confidence.
These government decisions do not make our night time more. Do not only make your night time trip out more expensive, but they make it less likely to happen at all. The night time economy sector has faced a 15.8% contraction over the summer. The times reported that a third of pubs, bars, restaurants and hotels are losing money and are at risk due to recent tax rises. Tax rises. These numbers reflect a growing, a growing understanding that a Labour government is not conducive to business.
This predicament is even worse in our in the in our in our capital. The Mayor of London appointed Amy Lamé as the night Tsar. He paid her a huge sum of money, and she oversaw a massive decline in London nightlife, which has yet to be put right. Economics aside, safety is a huge limiting factor, especially for women, for enjoying the hospitality sector. Two thirds of respondents said they would be more likely to stay out later and thus spend more money, if better night transportation was provided.
So I hope the government will encourage the Mayor of London and TfL to put more effort into rolling out Night Tube, for example, opening it up on Thursday, which has become the new Friday for many Londoners. Whilst I condemn this Bill and in its endeavours, I am deeply concerned by the challenges facing the hospitality sector due to uncertain economic environment overseen by this government. With business confidence falling to -74, the lowest reading since the survey began in 2016.
As Michael Kill, the CEO, the CEO of the Night Time Industry Association, put it, this past year has been a devastating chapter for the night time economy. The government must do more than this bill to help the night time economy grow and prosper. The government needs to provide a pro-business environment and agenda that will help this society rebuild not only the night time economy, not only the night time economy, but employment, particularly for young people. This is an area of our economy that gives many our economy that gives many unskilled young people their start on in, in employment, and without on in, in employment, and without this, their lives will be destroyed before they even begin.
The Covid 19 pandemic had an incredibly damaging impact on our young people's wellbeing, and with almost half of all parents reporting that their children social and emotional skills worsened as a result. Furthermore, the hospitality sector is intertwined with the arts, with a trip to the theatre likely to include a drink and a meal out. The music and performing and visual arts sectors aiding cultural enrichment, bringing in over 11 billion to the UK economy each year with our West End box office generating almost a 10th of that.
More broadly, hospitality brings in over 62 billion to the UK, providing 2.6 million jobs, making it the sixth largest UK industry in terms of employment. However, this government's track record does little to inspire confidence, actively undermining the sector since it came to office. Indeed, 100 111,000 jobs have been lost in the hospitality sector across the UK, with 30,000 jobs going here in London. It is hardly surprising that such a phenomenon is occurring when now it costs, on average, an extra 2500 to to add an additional member of staff even before wages.
And so in a nation that has a really high unemployment rate, surely we do not want to add more to this list. Like other businesses across the UK, the hospitality sector has faced significant additional challenges since the Labour government came to power. Each hospitality business has been expected to come up with an extra 30 to £80,000 in additional operating costs and into the night, according to the Night Time Association. Night Time Industries Association. That staggering figure is a combination of national insurance rates, contributions, increases and an increase in the living wage of 6.7%, not to mention a broader market instabilities and lack of confidence.
These government decisions do not make our night time more. Do not only make your night time trip out more expensive, but they make it less likely to happen at all. The night time economy sector has faced a 15.8% contraction over the summer. The times reported that a third of pubs, bars, restaurants and hotels are losing money and are at risk due to recent tax rises. Tax rises. These numbers reflect a growing, a growing understanding that a Labour government is not conducive to business.
This predicament is even worse in our in the in our in our capital. The Mayor of London appointed Amy Lamé as the night Tsar. He paid her a huge sum of money, and she oversaw a massive decline in London nightlife, which has yet to be put right. Economics aside, safety is a huge limiting factor, especially for women, for enjoying the hospitality sector. Two thirds of respondents said they would be more likely to stay out later and thus spend more money, if better night transportation was provided.
So I hope the government will encourage the Mayor of London and TfL to put more effort into rolling out Night Tube, for example, opening it up on Thursday, which has become the new Friday for many Londoners. Whilst I condemn this Bill and in its endeavours, I am deeply concerned by the challenges facing the hospitality sector due to uncertain economic environment overseen by this government. With business confidence falling to -74, the lowest reading since the survey began in 2016.
As Michael Kill, the CEO, the CEO of the Night Time Industry Association, put it, this past year has been a devastating chapter for the night time economy. The government must do more than this bill to help the night time economy grow and prosper. The government needs to provide a pro-business environment and agenda that will help this society rebuild not only the night time economy, not only the night time economy, but employment, particularly for young people. This is an area of our economy that gives many our economy that gives many unskilled young people their start on in, in employment, and without on in, in employment, and without this, their lives will be destroyed before they even begin.
10:39
Lord Hayward (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Hayward (Conservative)
My Lords thank you for the opportunity to speak in the gap. I'd like to make a few comments specifically in relation to this bill. I was previously chief executive of the Beer and Pub Association and spent many a happy hour or not preparing, negotiating and discussing this particular piece of legislation with the government at the time. And I also brought the court case, which resulted in the change in legislation, with the result that it was possible for people to drink at hours.
When the men's World Football World Cup was taking place in Japan and South Korea, as Lord Watson said, pubs are used on many occasions in many different circumstances. I remember only too well having a conversation with him about the merits and demerits of moving greets. Green and Lyng ward from one constituency in the Black Country to another. Boundaries may be resolved in some interesting places on occasions, but more seriously, this is an important deregulatory piece of legislation.
It's a small step which I think is absolutely necessary. The problems that we have seen in relation to the inability to bring forward changes in hours, because Parliament is not sitting, have Parliament is not sitting, have been highlighted on a number of occasions. This is a small deregulatory measure. It's deregulatory measure. It's necessary. It's welcome to the hospitality industry, and I wish hospitality industry, and I wish the bill fair for the next few stages and contributions.
When the men's World Football World Cup was taking place in Japan and South Korea, as Lord Watson said, pubs are used on many occasions in many different circumstances. I remember only too well having a conversation with him about the merits and demerits of moving greets. Green and Lyng ward from one constituency in the Black Country to another. Boundaries may be resolved in some interesting places on occasions, but more seriously, this is an important deregulatory piece of legislation.
It's a small step which I think is absolutely necessary. The problems that we have seen in relation to the inability to bring forward changes in hours, because Parliament is not sitting, have Parliament is not sitting, have been highlighted on a number of occasions. This is a small deregulatory measure. It's deregulatory measure. It's necessary. It's welcome to the hospitality industry, and I wish hospitality industry, and I wish the bill fair for the next few stages and contributions.
10:41
Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
My Lords, it's. Let me begin by thanking the noble Lord Lord Watson of Wyre Forest, who sponsored this bill and dedicated much time to ensure its smooth progress. I'm also grateful to all noble Lords who've contributed today. Lord Heywood and Lord Bailey of Paddington, who brought their experience of our hospitality sector, of local communities and the workings of our licensing regime. This sector needs all the help it can get. The government's misguided changes to National Insurance have caused needless damage to it.
My noble friend Lady Monckton of Darlington Forest, who spoke so eloquently on such a precious subject, is working to open a pub that will employ people with disabilities. This commendable endeavour is testament to her long standing support for the disabled. I hope the government will give a clear commitment to support pubs that may be affected by this legislation, particularly those that play an important role in empowering people with disabilities. This bill seeks to amend the Licensing Act 2003, in a modest but meaningful way, to move the statutory instrument under section 172, so that orders to relax licensing hours for significant occasions may be made under the negative resolution procedure, rather than the affirmative procedure.
Whilst there is no need to make this discussion political, I believe that at its heart this is a conservative minded proposal. It is about removing bureaucracy, supporting local businesses, empowering communities to celebrate together. The bill should have everyone's support. Our hospitality sector, as others have said, is indeed a vital part of local economies. Pubs, restaurants and other licensed premises are community hubs and meeting places. They anchor our high streets. They contribute to the social fabric of our towns and villages.
They provide important employment opportunities to people of all ages, from students to the retired. As one honourable member put it in the other place, constituents would welcome this relatively minor change so that they can come together, support their local hospitality spots, and mark those occasions. This bill will give businesses the flexibility they need to respond when our country comes together, whether that be a major sport or a local occasion or a royal occasion. By removing an unnecessary layer of parliamentary procedure, the bill will free up parliamentary time.
It will not alter the substantive provisions for when extensions may be granted. Rather, it streamlines the mechanism. This will give this House time to discuss other matters of national importance. So it's a double win. Finally, the bill promotes community celebration and social cohesion. Many of our treasured national monuments moments, such as royal celebrations in major finals, lead communities to gather together in pubs and other licensed premises. The current process sometimes delays suitable responses, for example when Parliament is in recess to enable licensing hours to be extended in a timely, practical manner for these events means we can better support our citizens who want to gather together.
It will help communities bond. Now, while we on these benches warmly supports the bill's principle and intend to lend it our backing. We recognise the need for proportionate safeguards and oversight. This. This Bill upholds and provides. The Bill does not change the core test of what is of, and I quote, exceptional significance. The Secretary of State must still judge whether an extension is justified. The bill still ensures democratic oversight through the prayer mechanism. It allows Parliament to object where necessary, but the government must still plan ahead and consult the police and local authorities.
As ministers have noted here and in the other place. Police have generally supported such extensions, and there has been no disproportionate rise in crime or disorder. Overall, this bill strikes a good balance. It supports business and community. It protects the importance of democratic oversight on our benches. We want to enable and encourage enterprise to bring to back our hospitality sector, to strengthen local communities, and to do so without unnecessary red tape. My Lords, this Bill is a timely and sensible measure, so we welcome it on these benches.
We support its passage. I look forward to this important step being taken so that when our nation comes together in celebration, local venues can do so too, in a safe manner and with the minimum of delay. And I lend my support. So may I end my speech today on a high note, with a quotation from the fine old song, the Beer Drinking Britain, which was written to a tune by Thomas Arne, the author of tune by Thomas Arne, the author of rule, Britannia! Let us sing our own treasures.
Old England's good own treasures. Old England's good cheer, the profits and pleasures of stout British beer. Thank you. stout British beer. Thank you.
My noble friend Lady Monckton of Darlington Forest, who spoke so eloquently on such a precious subject, is working to open a pub that will employ people with disabilities. This commendable endeavour is testament to her long standing support for the disabled. I hope the government will give a clear commitment to support pubs that may be affected by this legislation, particularly those that play an important role in empowering people with disabilities. This bill seeks to amend the Licensing Act 2003, in a modest but meaningful way, to move the statutory instrument under section 172, so that orders to relax licensing hours for significant occasions may be made under the negative resolution procedure, rather than the affirmative procedure.
Whilst there is no need to make this discussion political, I believe that at its heart this is a conservative minded proposal. It is about removing bureaucracy, supporting local businesses, empowering communities to celebrate together. The bill should have everyone's support. Our hospitality sector, as others have said, is indeed a vital part of local economies. Pubs, restaurants and other licensed premises are community hubs and meeting places. They anchor our high streets. They contribute to the social fabric of our towns and villages.
They provide important employment opportunities to people of all ages, from students to the retired. As one honourable member put it in the other place, constituents would welcome this relatively minor change so that they can come together, support their local hospitality spots, and mark those occasions. This bill will give businesses the flexibility they need to respond when our country comes together, whether that be a major sport or a local occasion or a royal occasion. By removing an unnecessary layer of parliamentary procedure, the bill will free up parliamentary time.
It will not alter the substantive provisions for when extensions may be granted. Rather, it streamlines the mechanism. This will give this House time to discuss other matters of national importance. So it's a double win. Finally, the bill promotes community celebration and social cohesion. Many of our treasured national monuments moments, such as royal celebrations in major finals, lead communities to gather together in pubs and other licensed premises. The current process sometimes delays suitable responses, for example when Parliament is in recess to enable licensing hours to be extended in a timely, practical manner for these events means we can better support our citizens who want to gather together.
It will help communities bond. Now, while we on these benches warmly supports the bill's principle and intend to lend it our backing. We recognise the need for proportionate safeguards and oversight. This. This Bill upholds and provides. The Bill does not change the core test of what is of, and I quote, exceptional significance. The Secretary of State must still judge whether an extension is justified. The bill still ensures democratic oversight through the prayer mechanism. It allows Parliament to object where necessary, but the government must still plan ahead and consult the police and local authorities.
As ministers have noted here and in the other place. Police have generally supported such extensions, and there has been no disproportionate rise in crime or disorder. Overall, this bill strikes a good balance. It supports business and community. It protects the importance of democratic oversight on our benches. We want to enable and encourage enterprise to bring to back our hospitality sector, to strengthen local communities, and to do so without unnecessary red tape. My Lords, this Bill is a timely and sensible measure, so we welcome it on these benches.
We support its passage. I look forward to this important step being taken so that when our nation comes together in celebration, local venues can do so too, in a safe manner and with the minimum of delay. And I lend my support. So may I end my speech today on a high note, with a quotation from the fine old song, the Beer Drinking Britain, which was written to a tune by Thomas Arne, the author of tune by Thomas Arne, the author of rule, Britannia! Let us sing our own treasures.
Old England's good own treasures. Old England's good cheer, the profits and pleasures of stout British beer. Thank you. stout British beer. Thank you.
10:47
Lord Lemos (Labour)
-
-
Lord Lemos (Labour)
Oh, my lord, the Lord Sandhurst. The noble Lord Sandhurst has presented me with a with a rhetorical challenge, which I shan't attempt to rise to. My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Watson for sponsoring this Bill, and I congratulate him on a wonderfully eloquent speech. And I also want to thank my hon. Friend, the member for Wrexham, who introduced it and helped secure its successful passage in the other place. The Bill has enjoyed cross-party consensus and it has the government's full support, and I'm delighted to hear the words of support from around your lordships House this morning.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for pointing our attention to the long history of this. Well, not too long, but nevertheless the history of this important deregulatory measure. Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to relax licensing hours in England and Wales for occasions, as the many noble Lords have referred to of exceptional international, national or local significance, and each case is considered on its merits and and any order specifies the relevant times and dates.
These orders bring practical benefits. As Noble Lords have noted, businesses can open longer, communities can celebrate together, and licensing authorities are spared the considerable administrative administrative burden of processing. Numerous individual applications. Importantly, no premises is obliged to extend its hours, but a blanket extension removes the need for temporary event notices, saving both considerable time and cost. The bill proposes a targeted procedural change to allow such orders to be made under the negative resolution procedure, rather than the current affirmative procedure, and as Noble Lords have noted, this is a modest but important form.
The power has been used sparingly and only for events of genuine significance. And my noble friend Lord Watson, identify the occasions on which we have used it, such as Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II's Platinum Jubilee, the Coronation of His Majesty the King, the 80th anniversary of VE day, and major sporting events like the UEFA European Championship. The proposed changes offer several advantages. Firstly, it reduces unnecessary and considerable administrative pressures. A single time limited relaxation removes the need for thousands of separate notices and the associated resource demands.
This is particularly valuable for the hospitality sector, and a number a number of noble lords in their speeches have referred to the importance of the of the hospitality sector. As of March 2025, the hospitality sector supported 2.6 million jobs, I think slightly more than the noble Baroness the Lady Monckton referred to, and 174,000 businesses across the UK. Earlier this year, the DB and HMT commissioned a taskforce to consider how the licensing regime could better support the hospitality sector.
And I want to draw Noble Lords attention to this because a number of noble Lords have asked what we are doing to support the hospitality sector, and since this bill relates to licensing reform, I do think I should put this on the record. The taskforce report, published in July this year, made ten recommendations and the majority of which the government supports. Earlier this month, a call for evidence was launched to seek further views on these recommended actions, and the call for evidence is due to close very soon on the 6th of November.
Proposals include National Licensing Policy framework, a review of outdated licence conditions and an increase in the permitted number of of temporary notices. I know that doesn't answer every consideration that Noble Lords have raised, but I hope it gives some reassurance that the government, as far as the licensing framework is, is taking it seriously and taking action. Can I congratulate the noble lady, the Lady Monckton, on what sounds like an absolutely wonderful project in in Brighton and the North Star sounds like absolutely the perfect name.
So I really do admire what you're doing there. But but I but you shouldn't expect me to comment on suggestions for the budget and I won't. It is above my pay grade. The second thing that I want to draw attention to, which is for me, the most important aspect of these reforms on which I've spoken in your lordships House before. These extensions serve a vital social purpose. They enable communities to come together and celebrate together, whether for royal milestones, sporting achievements or moments of rather more sombre national reflection within licensed, regulated environment.
This fosters civic pride, community cohesion and safer and more resilient communities. And as I've said, bringing communities together seems to me the most important benefit for of this measure, for my money. And that is something I really do want to emphasise. A number of noble lords have drawn attention to the problem we have at the moment of timeliness. Some occasions, especially short sporting violence, arise at short notice, giving rise to a great deal of expectancy among the nation about where we will end up.
But in 2021, when the England men's team reached the Euro 2020 final, an order was made within three days as the Lord Watson, my Noble friend, the Lord Watson and the noble Lord Lord Heywood mentioned. However, in 2023, as noted, when the England women's team reached the World Cup final, it was not possible to extend licensing hours because we were in recess. That doesn't seem to me a very good explanation. The negative procedure would allow orders to be made even when Parliament is not sitting, ensuring a swift and proportionate response.
Can I also thank the noble Lord, the Lord Bailey, for his important work on loneliness and to draw attention to, as he did, to the benefit that this order will will achieve with regard to loneliness. Concerns about reduced scrutiny, if any, were to be raised, are unfounded. Under the negative resolution procedure. Any order remains subject to annulment by either House, preserving Parliament's ability to scrutinise and challenge, as appropriate. The power in section 172 will continue to be used sparingly for occasions of exceptional and important significance.
Only the statutory guidance is clear. Regular special occasions should be anticipated in operating schedules, and the criteria for extensions will remain strictly applied. And as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst noted, there is no evidence that these extensions lead to problems of antisocial behaviour or disorder. Finally, to note, this bill applies only to England and Wales as licences. Licensing is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In summary, this Bill delivers a focussed procedural improvement with real world benefits, reducing bureaucracy, supporting community celebration and enabling timely action without diminishing action without diminishing Parliament parliamentary oversight.
The government fully supports the Bill and I know that noble Lords do Bill and I know that noble Lords do also. I'm afraid I can't end my speech quite so wonderfully as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, but I hope I conveyed even a boring, measure. measure.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for pointing our attention to the long history of this. Well, not too long, but nevertheless the history of this important deregulatory measure. Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to relax licensing hours in England and Wales for occasions, as the many noble Lords have referred to of exceptional international, national or local significance, and each case is considered on its merits and and any order specifies the relevant times and dates.
These orders bring practical benefits. As Noble Lords have noted, businesses can open longer, communities can celebrate together, and licensing authorities are spared the considerable administrative administrative burden of processing. Numerous individual applications. Importantly, no premises is obliged to extend its hours, but a blanket extension removes the need for temporary event notices, saving both considerable time and cost. The bill proposes a targeted procedural change to allow such orders to be made under the negative resolution procedure, rather than the current affirmative procedure, and as Noble Lords have noted, this is a modest but important form.
The power has been used sparingly and only for events of genuine significance. And my noble friend Lord Watson, identify the occasions on which we have used it, such as Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II's Platinum Jubilee, the Coronation of His Majesty the King, the 80th anniversary of VE day, and major sporting events like the UEFA European Championship. The proposed changes offer several advantages. Firstly, it reduces unnecessary and considerable administrative pressures. A single time limited relaxation removes the need for thousands of separate notices and the associated resource demands.
This is particularly valuable for the hospitality sector, and a number a number of noble lords in their speeches have referred to the importance of the of the hospitality sector. As of March 2025, the hospitality sector supported 2.6 million jobs, I think slightly more than the noble Baroness the Lady Monckton referred to, and 174,000 businesses across the UK. Earlier this year, the DB and HMT commissioned a taskforce to consider how the licensing regime could better support the hospitality sector.
And I want to draw Noble Lords attention to this because a number of noble Lords have asked what we are doing to support the hospitality sector, and since this bill relates to licensing reform, I do think I should put this on the record. The taskforce report, published in July this year, made ten recommendations and the majority of which the government supports. Earlier this month, a call for evidence was launched to seek further views on these recommended actions, and the call for evidence is due to close very soon on the 6th of November.
Proposals include National Licensing Policy framework, a review of outdated licence conditions and an increase in the permitted number of of temporary notices. I know that doesn't answer every consideration that Noble Lords have raised, but I hope it gives some reassurance that the government, as far as the licensing framework is, is taking it seriously and taking action. Can I congratulate the noble lady, the Lady Monckton, on what sounds like an absolutely wonderful project in in Brighton and the North Star sounds like absolutely the perfect name.
So I really do admire what you're doing there. But but I but you shouldn't expect me to comment on suggestions for the budget and I won't. It is above my pay grade. The second thing that I want to draw attention to, which is for me, the most important aspect of these reforms on which I've spoken in your lordships House before. These extensions serve a vital social purpose. They enable communities to come together and celebrate together, whether for royal milestones, sporting achievements or moments of rather more sombre national reflection within licensed, regulated environment.
This fosters civic pride, community cohesion and safer and more resilient communities. And as I've said, bringing communities together seems to me the most important benefit for of this measure, for my money. And that is something I really do want to emphasise. A number of noble lords have drawn attention to the problem we have at the moment of timeliness. Some occasions, especially short sporting violence, arise at short notice, giving rise to a great deal of expectancy among the nation about where we will end up.
But in 2021, when the England men's team reached the Euro 2020 final, an order was made within three days as the Lord Watson, my Noble friend, the Lord Watson and the noble Lord Lord Heywood mentioned. However, in 2023, as noted, when the England women's team reached the World Cup final, it was not possible to extend licensing hours because we were in recess. That doesn't seem to me a very good explanation. The negative procedure would allow orders to be made even when Parliament is not sitting, ensuring a swift and proportionate response.
Can I also thank the noble Lord, the Lord Bailey, for his important work on loneliness and to draw attention to, as he did, to the benefit that this order will will achieve with regard to loneliness. Concerns about reduced scrutiny, if any, were to be raised, are unfounded. Under the negative resolution procedure. Any order remains subject to annulment by either House, preserving Parliament's ability to scrutinise and challenge, as appropriate. The power in section 172 will continue to be used sparingly for occasions of exceptional and important significance.
Only the statutory guidance is clear. Regular special occasions should be anticipated in operating schedules, and the criteria for extensions will remain strictly applied. And as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst noted, there is no evidence that these extensions lead to problems of antisocial behaviour or disorder. Finally, to note, this bill applies only to England and Wales as licences. Licensing is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In summary, this Bill delivers a focussed procedural improvement with real world benefits, reducing bureaucracy, supporting community celebration and enabling timely action without diminishing action without diminishing Parliament parliamentary oversight.
The government fully supports the Bill and I know that noble Lords do Bill and I know that noble Lords do also. I'm afraid I can't end my speech quite so wonderfully as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, but I hope I conveyed even a boring, measure. measure.
10:56
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Labour)
-
-
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Labour)
Yes. natured, thoughtful and very convivial debate, and I am grateful for all contributions made today. If I could just refer to a few contributions made the noble Lady Baroness Darlington Baroness Monckton of Darlington Forest in Lord Bailey made very thoughtful contributions about wider policies that could be adopted to support the hospitality sector. And I'm sure the frontbench heard that and many of the contributions they made, they made, I hope, will be considered in the other place when it comes to the budget and policy ahead.
I have one small piece of advice to Baroness Monckton for the opening of a pub. With my limited experience of running bars and in clubs and festivals, and it's this of the 69 million people that live in this country, the last person she should take advice from on how to change a light bulb is Jeremy Clarkson. My Lords. I should also have known that the genesis of this bill started in the mind of Lord Heywood, because it is clear, proportionate and practical and I am grateful for his support today in a way that I wasn't grateful for the convincing arguments he made to the Electoral Commission for the removal of Greeks, Greene and Lingwood from my constituency.
The boundary matters, and that was a very important part of my life. But nonetheless, I am grateful, and I am also grateful to both frontbenchers. And so I beg to move. frontbenchers. And so I beg to move.
I have one small piece of advice to Baroness Monckton for the opening of a pub. With my limited experience of running bars and in clubs and festivals, and it's this of the 69 million people that live in this country, the last person she should take advice from on how to change a light bulb is Jeremy Clarkson. My Lords. I should also have known that the genesis of this bill started in the mind of Lord Heywood, because it is clear, proportionate and practical and I am grateful for his support today in a way that I wasn't grateful for the convincing arguments he made to the Electoral Commission for the removal of Greeks, Greene and Lingwood from my constituency.
The boundary matters, and that was a very important part of my life. But nonetheless, I am grateful, and I am also grateful to both frontbenchers. And so I beg to move. frontbenchers. And so I beg to move.
10:58
Lord Brennan of Canton (Labour)
-
-
Lord Brennan of Canton (Labour)
Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opinion will say, content, not content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that this bill be committed to a committee of the whole House. The question is.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That this bill be committed to a committee of the whole House, as many of that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Second Reading of contents have it. Second Reading of the unauthorised entry to football matches. Bill Lord Brennan of matches. Bill Lord Brennan of Canton. My Lords, I beg to move that this bill be read a second time, and at the outset of my remarks, I want to confess to your lordships that I have blatantly lordships that I have blatantly plagiarised the speech that I'm about to read out.
That is, if copying oneself can be categorised as plagiarism. And that's because I originally kicked off this bill in originally kicked off this bill in the House of Commons in 2024, albeit with one slight tweak from albeit with one slight tweak from its current incarnation. Now, my Lords, I'm aware that it's probably not unique for someone to introduce not unique for someone to introduce a bill in the House of Commons and get it through Second Reading. In fact, I think another member of of your lordships House is doing a similar thing right now, but I did introduce it in the House of Commons, got it through its Second Reading and its committee stages there, only for it to fall as a result of a walk in the rain taken by Rishi Sunak.
With the subsequent snap general election. So it's nice to be able to reintroduce it here in the House of Lords, but it's probably worthy of a mention that that is the case. I hope with your lordships support this time we can get it to the final whistle. Now, on Sunday the 11th of 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 English football team on that occasion, but in a tragic loss of life.
That was the finding of the independent review that was conducted by the noble Lady Baroness Casey of Blackstock into the events of that day, suggesting that we narrowly escaped a disaster that could have resulted in fatalities or irreversible injuries. Now, for everyone here, I'm sure 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 a profoundly unsettling thought.
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. Now, I admit I was, and I think I'm not the only one who was genuinely shocked to discover 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, that entering or attempting to enter a football match without a ticket is not a specific criminal offence, and that's why the committee acknowledged the need for the bill I introduced in a recommendation in its Safety at Major Sporting Events report, which was published in December 2023.
That demonstrates 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, with seats within its territorial scope, which is England and Wales, were named as co-sponsors. I introduced that bill in the other place after the 2024 general election. My Lords, the bill was picked up by Lindsay Farnsworth MP, who has done a sterling job in steering it skilfully through all its common stages and improving with a slight tweak on my original.
Now, the bill would bring into law recommendations that came out of the Select committee's findings, and Baroness Casey's review by amending the football open brackets offences. Close Brackets Act 1991 to introduce a new offence of unauthorised or attempted unauthorised entry to football matches. It's estimated that at the Euro 2020 final, somewhere between 3 and 5000 ticketless individuals were able to gain entry. Many people will have seen the disorder, the overcrowding and the safety hazards that resulted from those events.
Those are actions that not only compromised safety and security of stewards, police officers, spectators, players and officials, but greatly tarnished the reputation of the sport and of this country. And, you know, in speaking in terms of the security of stewards of the ground, I, I would have in a brief conversation before today's session with Lord Bailey of Paddington, who I see is still in his place. I've been spoken on the previous bill, who 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.
And I'm thank you, thankful for 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 an unauthorised entry into football matches a specific offence.
The aim is to deter to deter people from attempting to enter stadiums without a valid ticket. Back in 2024, I did an interview with, amongst others, Martin Keown, the former Arsenal footballer, on talkSPORT radio, and there was a clear agreement in our discussion and in some of the phone in that the deterrent effect is a significant part of this measure, a fine of up to £1,000 might be a deterrent, but also under this bill, a conviction for this offence could lead to a court imposed football banning order.
Under the Football Spectators Act 1989 and the football Open Brackets offences. Close Brackets Act 1991, which would prevent a person from attending football matches for a specific period of between 3 and 10 years. That would be an even greater deterrent. This 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, across the top tiers of domestic football.
We're not talking about Park Park matches here in your in your local area. The bill includes the Premier League, the Championship Leagues one and two, the National League, the Women's Super League and Championship and the Cymru Premier competition, as well as international matches in England and Wales. In fact, my local team, Cardiff City's stadium, hosts the games not just of Cardiff City Football Club but the Welsh national teams. And it would be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opinion will say, content, not content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that this bill be committed to a committee of the whole House. The question is.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That this bill be committed to a committee of the whole House, as many of that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Second Reading of contents have it. Second Reading of the unauthorised entry to football matches. Bill Lord Brennan of matches. Bill Lord Brennan of Canton. My Lords, I beg to move that this bill be read a second time, and at the outset of my remarks, I want to confess to your lordships that I have blatantly lordships that I have blatantly plagiarised the speech that I'm about to read out.
That is, if copying oneself can be categorised as plagiarism. And that's because I originally kicked off this bill in originally kicked off this bill in the House of Commons in 2024, albeit with one slight tweak from albeit with one slight tweak from its current incarnation. Now, my Lords, I'm aware that it's probably not unique for someone to introduce not unique for someone to introduce a bill in the House of Commons and get it through Second Reading. In fact, I think another member of of your lordships House is doing a similar thing right now, but I did introduce it in the House of Commons, got it through its Second Reading and its committee stages there, only for it to fall as a result of a walk in the rain taken by Rishi Sunak.
With the subsequent snap general election. So it's nice to be able to reintroduce it here in the House of Lords, but it's probably worthy of a mention that that is the case. I hope with your lordships support this time we can get it to the final whistle. Now, on Sunday the 11th of 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 English football team on that occasion, but in a tragic loss of life.
That was the finding of the independent review that was conducted by the noble Lady Baroness Casey of Blackstock into the events of that day, suggesting that we narrowly escaped a disaster that could have resulted in fatalities or irreversible injuries. Now, for everyone here, I'm sure 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 a profoundly unsettling thought.
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. Now, I admit I was, and I think I'm not the only one who was genuinely shocked to discover 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, that entering or attempting to enter a football match without a ticket is not a specific criminal offence, and that's why the committee acknowledged the need for the bill I introduced in a recommendation in its Safety at Major Sporting Events report, which was published in December 2023.
That demonstrates 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, with seats within its territorial scope, which is England and Wales, were named as co-sponsors. I introduced that bill in the other place after the 2024 general election. My Lords, the bill was picked up by Lindsay Farnsworth MP, who has done a sterling job in steering it skilfully through all its common stages and improving with a slight tweak on my original.
Now, the bill would bring into law recommendations that came out of the Select committee's findings, and Baroness Casey's review by amending the football open brackets offences. Close Brackets Act 1991 to introduce a new offence of unauthorised or attempted unauthorised entry to football matches. It's estimated that at the Euro 2020 final, somewhere between 3 and 5000 ticketless individuals were able to gain entry. Many people will have seen the disorder, the overcrowding and the safety hazards that resulted from those events.
Those are actions that not only compromised safety and security of stewards, police officers, spectators, players and officials, but greatly tarnished the reputation of the sport and of this country. And, you know, in speaking in terms of the security of stewards of the ground, I, I would have in a brief conversation before today's session with Lord Bailey of Paddington, who I see is still in his place. I've been spoken on the previous bill, who 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.
And I'm thank you, thankful for 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 an unauthorised entry into football matches a specific offence.
The aim is to deter to deter people from attempting to enter stadiums without a valid ticket. Back in 2024, I did an interview with, amongst others, Martin Keown, the former Arsenal footballer, on talkSPORT radio, and there was a clear agreement in our discussion and in some of the phone in that the deterrent effect is a significant part of this measure, a fine of up to £1,000 might be a deterrent, but also under this bill, a conviction for this offence could lead to a court imposed football banning order.
Under the Football Spectators Act 1989 and the football Open Brackets offences. Close Brackets Act 1991, which would prevent a person from attending football matches for a specific period of between 3 and 10 years. That would be an even greater deterrent. This 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, across the top tiers of domestic football.
We're not talking about Park Park matches here in your in your local area. The bill includes the Premier League, the Championship Leagues one and two, the National League, the Women's Super League and Championship and the Cymru Premier competition, as well as international matches in England and Wales. In fact, my local team, Cardiff City's stadium, hosts the games not just of Cardiff City Football Club but the Welsh national teams. And it would be
11:06
Legislation: Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill – third reading
-
Legislation: Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill – third reading
remiss of me not to mention the usually impeccable behaviour of Welsh football fans attending Welsh football fans attending matches there and the crackling atmosphere they create with their passionate renditions of songs such passionate renditions of songs such as Henry Handel and Waheed. But this bill is slightly different. this bill is slightly different. This bill is slightly different to the the one that I introduced previously. There's a small change previously. There's a small change in the wording of proposed new section one, subsection three of the 1991 act.
In this version of the 1991 act. In this version of the bill, the provision outlines proposed possible defences. proposed possible defences. Proposed new section one A Subclause three B. In this version of the Bill has been clarified so of the Bill has been clarified so that it covers cases in which a person reasonably believed that they had a ticket for the match, they had a ticket for the match, but in fact did not, and that's to ensure that a person who innocently ensure that a person who innocently buys a counterfeit ticket is not criminalised under this offence, which is specifically about fan which is specifically about fan safety and preventing overcrowding.
As before, the defence also applies As before, the defence also applies in relation to a person using a genuine ticket that they're not eligible to use. For example, an adult using a child's ticket. Again, adult using a child's ticket. Again, that's because they would already be a reserved seat in the stadium, and safety wouldn't be the 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's important, though, 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's a big part of our culture. In recent years, football has grown ever more important in has grown ever more important in the national culture of Wales, and it's always been a 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. safety and security of the majority. I be mindful in with this bill of the balance between enhancing the balance between enhancing security and maintaining the open and inclusive nature of football and inclusive nature of football matches. The intention is not to criminalise fans or create barriers to genuine supporters enjoying the to genuine supporters enjoying the game. Instead, the focus is on preventing those who would seek to cause disorder and harm from cause disorder and harm from entering stadiums, thus ensuring a safer environment for all.
By strengthening the legal framework, 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.
In this version of the 1991 act. In this version of the bill, the provision outlines proposed possible defences. proposed possible defences. Proposed new section one A Subclause three B. In this version of the Bill has been clarified so of the Bill has been clarified so that it covers cases in which a person reasonably believed that they had a ticket for the match, they had a ticket for the match, but in fact did not, and that's to ensure that a person who innocently ensure that a person who innocently buys a counterfeit ticket is not criminalised under this offence, which is specifically about fan which is specifically about fan safety and preventing overcrowding.
As before, the defence also applies As before, the defence also applies in relation to a person using a genuine ticket that they're not eligible to use. For example, an adult using a child's ticket. Again, adult using a child's ticket. Again, that's because they would already be a reserved seat in the stadium, and safety wouldn't be the 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's important, though, 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's a big part of our culture. In recent years, football has grown ever more important in has grown ever more important in the national culture of Wales, and it's always been a 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. safety and security of the majority. I be mindful in with this bill of the balance between enhancing the balance between enhancing security and maintaining the open and inclusive nature of football and inclusive nature of football matches. The intention is not to criminalise fans or create barriers to genuine supporters enjoying the to genuine supporters enjoying the game. Instead, the focus is on preventing those who would seek to cause disorder and harm from cause disorder and harm from entering stadiums, thus ensuring a safer environment for all.
By strengthening the legal framework, 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.
11:08
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
Question is that this bill be now read a second time.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This Bill and to congratulate Lindsay Farnsworth in another place Lindsay Farnsworth in another place on the initiative sheet she has taken, and particularly the work that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, has done on this bill, both in Another place and and indeed here Another place and and indeed here today. And I wish him well. And so all my comments will be in that context, because I think there may be some areas where we can seek to strengthen the bill and to consider some of the implications of it.
We share. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, a bit of past experience on this as well, because the Football Spectators Act 1989 was a bill which I piloted through the Commons as Minister for sport, the Commons as Minister for sport, and the subsequent bill which he relates to, which is the Football Offences Act in 1991, addresses Offences Act in 1991, addresses broader forms of football related disorder, allowing for the banning disorder, allowing for the banning orders. And and they do not make, as as rightly been pointed out, unauthorised entry itself a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This Bill and to congratulate Lindsay Farnsworth in another place Lindsay Farnsworth in another place on the initiative sheet she has taken, and particularly the work that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, has done on this bill, both in Another place and and indeed here Another place and and indeed here today. And I wish him well. And so all my comments will be in that context, because I think there may be some areas where we can seek to strengthen the bill and to consider some of the implications of it.
We share. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, a bit of past experience on this as well, because the Football Spectators Act 1989 was a bill which I piloted through the Commons as Minister for sport, the Commons as Minister for sport, and the subsequent bill which he relates to, which is the Football Offences Act in 1991, addresses Offences Act in 1991, addresses broader forms of football related disorder, allowing for the banning disorder, allowing for the banning orders. And and they do not make, as as rightly been pointed out, unauthorised entry itself a
11:09
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)
unauthorised entry itself a prosecutable offence. And I think it's important. And it may be helpful, especially when we get to committee to reflect on the conversations which took place at that time of the original bill, both during the Thatcher and major governments. 35 years on, some of these same arguments were raised by Katie Lamb in another place and echoed. And during the bill's proceedings. And no law my Lords can be effective unless you have the resources to bring the
11:09
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
perpetrators to justice, and the cost of policing will be substantial. And as Katie Lamb clearly stated, it is right that we give police and organisers the tools they need, not just to remove people in the moment, but to prevent repeat offences through banning orders. And whilst when the original legislation was first considered, the this proposal came up and there was expressed concern by the police by some of the clubs and politicians about how well the offences could be policed and how much additional policing costs and stewarding would follow.
Christopher Chope MP, who is notable for his interventions on private bills, Private Members' Bills in another place and he was also around at the time, back in the early 90s, stated in committee on this bill in another place, I fear that what will happen is that an individual will be picked on every now and again. But when there is a problem of mass trespass, we will not be able to do anything about it because nobody will be able to police it.
He went on to say, there is a danger that bringing the criminal law into these areas will result in disappointment and as a result, bring the law into disrepute. We put all these laws on the statute book, but we cannot actually do anything about them. And I have to say that this was a real concern when we first addressed the possibility of the proposal in the bill, and remains a concern now, but one I think we should address in committee today. However, the government does have the opportunity to say that it will ensure that the full costs associated with enforcement will be made available.
And, sadly, recent precedent in a related area will not be in their favour. It's interesting that the noble Lord, in introducing the bill, referred to the importance of adjusting the bill to make sure that somebody who went in with a counterfeit bill or illegal entry, unauthorised entry through the wrong ticket, would effectively be exempt. Because this was a very narrow bill, I would hope that actually it would be included. And I promise I'm not going to push this to votes, that committee.
But I do think it's something we need to look at very closely, because that's a classic example where the CMA have been given powers and those powers really have not been used effectively. Their resources have not been there to to make sure that
Christopher Chope MP, who is notable for his interventions on private bills, Private Members' Bills in another place and he was also around at the time, back in the early 90s, stated in committee on this bill in another place, I fear that what will happen is that an individual will be picked on every now and again. But when there is a problem of mass trespass, we will not be able to do anything about it because nobody will be able to police it.
He went on to say, there is a danger that bringing the criminal law into these areas will result in disappointment and as a result, bring the law into disrepute. We put all these laws on the statute book, but we cannot actually do anything about them. And I have to say that this was a real concern when we first addressed the possibility of the proposal in the bill, and remains a concern now, but one I think we should address in committee today. However, the government does have the opportunity to say that it will ensure that the full costs associated with enforcement will be made available.
And, sadly, recent precedent in a related area will not be in their favour. It's interesting that the noble Lord, in introducing the bill, referred to the importance of adjusting the bill to make sure that somebody who went in with a counterfeit bill or illegal entry, unauthorised entry through the wrong ticket, would effectively be exempt. Because this was a very narrow bill, I would hope that actually it would be included. And I promise I'm not going to push this to votes, that committee.
But I do think it's something we need to look at very closely, because that's a classic example where the CMA have been given powers and those powers really have not been used effectively. Their resources have not been there to to make sure that
11:13
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Labour)
-
-
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Labour)
this problem of modern day ticket touting has been addressed. There are literally thousands of people who go to football matches who go to football matches illegally. And I'll come to the laws that cover that with tickets laws that cover that with tickets that have been acquired through either bots or the secondary market, either bots or the secondary market, and many of whom are rejected on entry. But that in itself that unauthorised entry often causes unauthorised entry often causes problems because the individual concerned feels they've been unfairly treated.
So if we're going unfairly treated. So if we're going to achieve the praiseworthy goals set out in this bill, and if this bill is going to be worth more than bill is going to be worth more than the the paper it's written on, which I really believe it will be, then the government has to commit to ensure the funding is in place to ensure the funding is in place for all the relevant authorities, in particular the police, to be available on day one, whilst football clubs will need to invest football clubs will need to invest in training and stewarding, ticket systems and support staff.
And we knew this when considering this knew this when considering this offence and drafting the football bill back in 1991. We should also bill back in 1991. We should also be concerned about instances where fans are unfairly penalised due to miscommunication or misunderstanding about entry rights, leading to unwarranted legal consequences. Above all the political climate at the time. When we bought the first two bills. Now acts did not want going further than we had with onus, but ultimately successful legislation to tackle football related disorder.
And when we look at the Casey Review in detail, we must also address the central criticism she made about the loss of experienced stewards. Leaving quotes Wembley
So if we're going unfairly treated. So if we're going to achieve the praiseworthy goals set out in this bill, and if this bill is going to be worth more than bill is going to be worth more than the the paper it's written on, which I really believe it will be, then the government has to commit to ensure the funding is in place to ensure the funding is in place for all the relevant authorities, in particular the police, to be available on day one, whilst football clubs will need to invest football clubs will need to invest in training and stewarding, ticket systems and support staff.
And we knew this when considering this knew this when considering this offence and drafting the football bill back in 1991. We should also bill back in 1991. We should also be concerned about instances where fans are unfairly penalised due to miscommunication or misunderstanding about entry rights, leading to unwarranted legal consequences. Above all the political climate at the time. When we bought the first two bills. Now acts did not want going further than we had with onus, but ultimately successful legislation to tackle football related disorder.
And when we look at the Casey Review in detail, we must also address the central criticism she made about the loss of experienced stewards. Leaving quotes Wembley
11:15
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Labour)
-
-
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Labour)
call, not just to recognise there are people who are willing to risk unauthorised entry to football matches. What the noble Baroness Lady Casey called the quotes mindless thugs at Wembley that day, mindless thugs at Wembley that day, but also a wake up call for football clubs and venues such as Wembley, which host national and international matches to install international matches to install and modernise their entry systems and ensure their stewards are well trained, capable of strict trained, capable of strict enforcement of club FIFA, UEFA and FA rules that matches, and it is FA rules that matches, and it is important to recognise that a central and growing issue in the existence of stadium events and existence of stadium events and club employees are, regrettably, some bad apples willing to break the rules of the club and assist or the rules of the club and assist or facilitate entry with an invalid match day ticket, which adds to the match day ticket, which adds to the problem.
This bill seeks to address. My Lords. There's nothing in the legislation that deals with assisting or facilitating entry with an invalid match day ticket, and yet, this is a significant and yet, this is a significant problem that has been on the rise at some leading professional football clubs in recent years through a minority, but a very relevant minority of corrupt staff associated with turnstile entry last season alone for stewards at one club facilitated entry for people with facsimiles of tickets, and they benefited financially themselves.
Those small but relevant number of stewards, usually working with a tout outside the ground or on social media, provide a facsimile, a facsimile of a digital ticket to a purchaser for payment on the match day. The purchaser is made aware of what turnstile to go to with the facsimile and when. Which member of staff to speak to the purchaser feigns a problem with the ticket, and the corrupt steward then uses either a master access card or an override button on the turnstile to allow the purchaser entry into the stadium, and takes his payoff.
In one case, a highly respected investigator with extensive knowledge of this growing fraudulent activity recently saw 30 persons admitted to a stadium in this manner by one steward at one match. My Lords. This practice is regrettably becoming more prevalent and a simple clause, making it an offence to facilitate or assist a person to enter a ground with an invalid matchday ticket or matchday ticket that they were not eligible to use, would plug this loophole, which can cause problems at turnstiles and entry points to a match, which this bill seeks to address.
Some of Lords I intend to make put down an amendment to clause 1A1B, which I hope will address this and allow us to debate in committee an important change, meaning that persons could attempt entry with copies of genuine tickets, and if they did, there would be no offence committed under this legislation. Bad actors, particularly under clause 103, will simply tell customers that if they have any problem with a ticket, they should simply say that they purchased it in good faith and altercations where this is not accepted are rare, but causes many of the problems the proposals of the bill are seeking to avoid, and inserting a clause that the person should be able to produce a valid receipt for the purpose for the purchase of the invalid ticket could be inserted into the defence section as part of the criteria and discussions taken place with clubs and with the, the, the regulators and indeed fans, to make sure that this was both practical and enforceable, simply requiring anyone to have belief that they had purchased something genuinely.
The good intentions of the proposed legislation. My Lords I will, during committee, turn to the expensive and massive problem which many noble Lords have heard me speak about over the last ten years of ticketing fraud perpetrated by corrupt players in the extensive secondary ticket market in the UK. One secondary market tout, is known to have over 1000 memberships at a Premier League club. That business alone. The unauthorised and illegal use of the secondary market is estimated to cost between 100 and £200 million worth of illicit business per annum, nearly a billion during the passage of this Parliament, and just shows how important it is to make sure that the genuine football fan can gain access to a football match with a valid ticket, and that we tackle that problem.
It may not be the right bill to do that, but it certainly might Bill to talk about it in committee, particularly since in football, as opposed to other sports, it is already illegal to sell football tickets on the secondary market in the UK, unless you're authorised by the event organiser or club. That's what section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act back in 1994 was for it made it a criminal offence for any unauthorised person to sell tickets for designated football matches.
But it's not policed and the law is flouted. And again, it comes back to the resource of making sure that well-intentioned law is is properly policed and implemented. My Lords. These are just some of the issues which I hope we will be able to look at in detail, because I just conclude by saying that the bill is exceptionally well-intentioned, has been worked through very hard in committee and subsequent stages. I believe we can potentially look at making it even yet more effective and more valuable so that we protect the interests of true football fans, which is what all this is about keeping the thugs out of the the game, which they have no place in, and making sure that the true football fans enjoy it, whilst also addressing the growing and extensive criminal behaviour in the much abused secondary ticket market, which is one of the principal causes.
My Lords of unauthorised entry to football matches. And I do wish the noble Lord every success with the passage of this Bill, and I congratulate him on a lifetime commitment to sport, and also to to make sure that issues such as this minor in some ways not huge legislation, but important to the future of football, do find their way onto the statute book and do win widespread support both amongst the fans, the clubs and the wider community who want to see a truly legally binding and effective
**** Possible New Speaker ****
framework for football in this country. My Lords I also endorse the bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords I also endorse the bill and I endorse the principle of Lord Moynihan's amendment. I'll repeat Moynihan's amendment. I'll repeat nothing of his points. Merely make two additional observations to add two additional observations to add to them. One is, I think members of the House would be shocked at what the House would be shocked at what the kinds of prices for the average secondary market ticket in the secondary market ticket in the Premier League is today, and therefore the amount of cash available and profit available and available and profit available and profit able to be dispensed to others in precisely the way Lord others in precisely the way Lord Moynihan articulated is greatly underestimated.
And also the underestimated. And also the estimates of the number of tickets in the Premier League that are going through the secondary market going through the secondary market is also significantly underestimated. And this is very big business. One point Lord morning didn't make that needs adding is, of course, the majority adding is, of course, the majority of these tickets are being bought online electronically from abroad. online electronically from abroad. So Dublin is a huge centre of this as one example. But there are many more outside this country and that is the business model and the term used to me by the people I think are the most expertise in in this field is organised crime, this is organised crime.
This is not the old school of freelancers or interesting characters with a flat cap running a cash in hand business outside a stadium, who are, as some still are, recognisable on occasion at sporting events. They're a tiny bit of the problem. This is organised crime, this is big money and therefore I think that needs serious consideration. Another minor issue that needs serious consideration at committee, seeing that's where the FA Cup fixtures should be included, because of course you then have the potential of a range of other grounds that will suddenly have a huge fixture and the problems associated with it away from the norm.
There are many ingenious ways in which football fans will attempt to see fixtures when their fans at Oxford United last March I witnessed, or the police did intervene after ten minutes. The most ingenious of attempts where a a van was parked in a public car park adjoining the smallest stand, a ladder which was more like. A window cleaning device, was hired and in great comfort to fans, started to observe the fixture from on high.
Such was the angle of the ladder, they may well have technically been inside the stadium, and I use that as an illustration of the many ways in which the the the true fan. But one without a ticket may attempt to see a fixture. I put this question for consideration to Lord Brennan and the old scratching shed at Leeds United. Could be climbed from the outside whenever there was a fixture that was full and the gates
This bill seeks to address. My Lords. There's nothing in the legislation that deals with assisting or facilitating entry with an invalid match day ticket, and yet, this is a significant and yet, this is a significant problem that has been on the rise at some leading professional football clubs in recent years through a minority, but a very relevant minority of corrupt staff associated with turnstile entry last season alone for stewards at one club facilitated entry for people with facsimiles of tickets, and they benefited financially themselves.
Those small but relevant number of stewards, usually working with a tout outside the ground or on social media, provide a facsimile, a facsimile of a digital ticket to a purchaser for payment on the match day. The purchaser is made aware of what turnstile to go to with the facsimile and when. Which member of staff to speak to the purchaser feigns a problem with the ticket, and the corrupt steward then uses either a master access card or an override button on the turnstile to allow the purchaser entry into the stadium, and takes his payoff.
In one case, a highly respected investigator with extensive knowledge of this growing fraudulent activity recently saw 30 persons admitted to a stadium in this manner by one steward at one match. My Lords. This practice is regrettably becoming more prevalent and a simple clause, making it an offence to facilitate or assist a person to enter a ground with an invalid matchday ticket or matchday ticket that they were not eligible to use, would plug this loophole, which can cause problems at turnstiles and entry points to a match, which this bill seeks to address.
Some of Lords I intend to make put down an amendment to clause 1A1B, which I hope will address this and allow us to debate in committee an important change, meaning that persons could attempt entry with copies of genuine tickets, and if they did, there would be no offence committed under this legislation. Bad actors, particularly under clause 103, will simply tell customers that if they have any problem with a ticket, they should simply say that they purchased it in good faith and altercations where this is not accepted are rare, but causes many of the problems the proposals of the bill are seeking to avoid, and inserting a clause that the person should be able to produce a valid receipt for the purpose for the purchase of the invalid ticket could be inserted into the defence section as part of the criteria and discussions taken place with clubs and with the, the, the regulators and indeed fans, to make sure that this was both practical and enforceable, simply requiring anyone to have belief that they had purchased something genuinely.
The good intentions of the proposed legislation. My Lords I will, during committee, turn to the expensive and massive problem which many noble Lords have heard me speak about over the last ten years of ticketing fraud perpetrated by corrupt players in the extensive secondary ticket market in the UK. One secondary market tout, is known to have over 1000 memberships at a Premier League club. That business alone. The unauthorised and illegal use of the secondary market is estimated to cost between 100 and £200 million worth of illicit business per annum, nearly a billion during the passage of this Parliament, and just shows how important it is to make sure that the genuine football fan can gain access to a football match with a valid ticket, and that we tackle that problem.
It may not be the right bill to do that, but it certainly might Bill to talk about it in committee, particularly since in football, as opposed to other sports, it is already illegal to sell football tickets on the secondary market in the UK, unless you're authorised by the event organiser or club. That's what section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act back in 1994 was for it made it a criminal offence for any unauthorised person to sell tickets for designated football matches.
But it's not policed and the law is flouted. And again, it comes back to the resource of making sure that well-intentioned law is is properly policed and implemented. My Lords. These are just some of the issues which I hope we will be able to look at in detail, because I just conclude by saying that the bill is exceptionally well-intentioned, has been worked through very hard in committee and subsequent stages. I believe we can potentially look at making it even yet more effective and more valuable so that we protect the interests of true football fans, which is what all this is about keeping the thugs out of the the game, which they have no place in, and making sure that the true football fans enjoy it, whilst also addressing the growing and extensive criminal behaviour in the much abused secondary ticket market, which is one of the principal causes.
My Lords of unauthorised entry to football matches. And I do wish the noble Lord every success with the passage of this Bill, and I congratulate him on a lifetime commitment to sport, and also to to make sure that issues such as this minor in some ways not huge legislation, but important to the future of football, do find their way onto the statute book and do win widespread support both amongst the fans, the clubs and the wider community who want to see a truly legally binding and effective
**** Possible New Speaker ****
framework for football in this country. My Lords I also endorse the bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords I also endorse the bill and I endorse the principle of Lord Moynihan's amendment. I'll repeat Moynihan's amendment. I'll repeat nothing of his points. Merely make two additional observations to add two additional observations to add to them. One is, I think members of the House would be shocked at what the House would be shocked at what the kinds of prices for the average secondary market ticket in the secondary market ticket in the Premier League is today, and therefore the amount of cash available and profit available and available and profit available and profit able to be dispensed to others in precisely the way Lord others in precisely the way Lord Moynihan articulated is greatly underestimated.
And also the underestimated. And also the estimates of the number of tickets in the Premier League that are going through the secondary market going through the secondary market is also significantly underestimated. And this is very big business. One point Lord morning didn't make that needs adding is, of course, the majority adding is, of course, the majority of these tickets are being bought online electronically from abroad. online electronically from abroad. So Dublin is a huge centre of this as one example. But there are many more outside this country and that is the business model and the term used to me by the people I think are the most expertise in in this field is organised crime, this is organised crime.
This is not the old school of freelancers or interesting characters with a flat cap running a cash in hand business outside a stadium, who are, as some still are, recognisable on occasion at sporting events. They're a tiny bit of the problem. This is organised crime, this is big money and therefore I think that needs serious consideration. Another minor issue that needs serious consideration at committee, seeing that's where the FA Cup fixtures should be included, because of course you then have the potential of a range of other grounds that will suddenly have a huge fixture and the problems associated with it away from the norm.
There are many ingenious ways in which football fans will attempt to see fixtures when their fans at Oxford United last March I witnessed, or the police did intervene after ten minutes. The most ingenious of attempts where a a van was parked in a public car park adjoining the smallest stand, a ladder which was more like. A window cleaning device, was hired and in great comfort to fans, started to observe the fixture from on high.
Such was the angle of the ladder, they may well have technically been inside the stadium, and I use that as an illustration of the many ways in which the the the true fan. But one without a ticket may attempt to see a fixture. I put this question for consideration to Lord Brennan and the old scratching shed at Leeds United. Could be climbed from the outside whenever there was a fixture that was full and the gates
11:25
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Conservative)
were locked. Fans of all ages would climb onto the roof of the climb onto the roof of the scratching shed. Now, the stands these days would not facilitate that at the same stadium, but in the National League there are clubs promoted to the National League, where the similar concept would where the similar concept would apply. And I think the question of what is illegal entry is something what is illegal entry is something that does need a little bit of that does need a little bit of consideration because fans are ingenious and there are very many ways in which things can be done ways in which things can be done which may not totally fit with health and safety regulations.
health and safety regulations. Eccles when I first went to football, was getting for free, and football, was getting for free, and not by going through the turnstile, but by being lifted over the but by being lifted over the turnstile. And that is my point. On FA Cup fixtures, because turnstiles come in many different shapes and forms. But until school dinners forms. But until school dinners became particularly good with service treble massives, I was capable of being easily lifted at a very quite mature age, really over said turnstile.
And that guaranteed at the time free entry. So there is a an interesting question there. There's also another one I, I appreciate Scotland isn't included. My last visit to Stenhousemuir Football Club for a fixture of great interest, such great interest. It was unclear when the kick off time was. So I arrived early and the turnstiles were closed. The ticket office was closed so I walked into the stadium, through the gate and sat down to wait. The match had almost begun before the time I remembered having my memory having been jogged by a steward, that I might not have a ticket.
I had to leave the stadium, buy a ticket from a ticket office, then enter via the turnstile to get legal access in. But the point of what is defined with ingenious fans, or in that case, fans who didn't have a clue what time the Kick-Off was is, I think, an interesting one. But particularly in the National League.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I can't leave that particular intervention without recalling a story which I I hope I'm allowed to share. I'm in the spirit of this share. I'm in the spirit of this debate. When I had to introduce the football Bill back in the days when the house was completely packed and the house was completely packed and it was, I was winding up on that day, it was totally full. It was a major issue at the time, and there was that moment that always is before the Minister winds up, when the house goes silent.
And Dennis Skinner looked at me and said, it's all right for him. He can get in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
under the turnstile. It's still.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's still. Going. My my logic shows the ingenuity that doubtless may have been attempted and and and considering when that could be used considering when that could be used before this bill makes law to assist the noble Lord in accessing a certain match he's keen to watch. a certain match he's keen to watch. But there are there are three other quick points that need considering. Bye bye, bye bye Lord Brennan and Bye bye, bye bye Lord Brennan and by committee.
Facial recognition is coming in. I mean Syria are already coming in. I mean Syria are already has facial recognition. It's not widespread use, but it's required. The technology is required in Syria are in Italy. There are certainly two Premier League clubs who are bringing in facial recognition for part of their stadium at the moment. And so the interesting question of facial recognition, I don't say coincides but sits alongside this, the issue of political agitators who have attempted to get on to pitches for to get on the pitch, where the aim is to get on the pitch, and the question of player safety in relation to that is, of course, a factor.
I think the last recorded case was, I don't know if it was, it was an environmental protest of some kind getting on a pitch, but that is a serious issue in relation to player safety. And the issue of player safety has has been taken as a more important issue in recent times. And that would actually back Lord Brennan's crusade to have this legislation come into place. The I wanted to say something about policing issues. So the last time this was a major problem in English football wasn't the Euro final.
It was was on the 20th. It was on the 30th of November, 2023 at Villa Park, the home of Aston Villa, in a UEFA fixture, a club called Legia Warsaw from Poland were playing the the police and the Safety Advisory Group of Birmingham City Council had not banned the fans of Legia Warsaw. In fact, 1002 tickets were sold to them and they came to the fixture. The numbers had been restricted. Another thousand from Legia Warsaw came and attempted to force entry into the stadium, causing huge safety issues and immediate action by the match day commander from the police and Aston Villa Football Club that then closed those turnstiles and created other disorder outside as fans, both without tickets and fans with tickets, couldn't get entry.
Now that was identified by Legia Warsaw have had 35 fines from UEFA for fan behaviour, and anyone who wants to know about hooliganism in football, football hooligans put their stuff online. There are websites and social media sites openly available for everyone to see, so if anyone wants to know who causes the most problems, who are the worst, the nature of the problems when it's most likely to occur that is publicly available information and Legia Warsaw are known for being in the highest category of ultra fans in terms of the problems they cause.
They are significant group of of of hooligans as the term is used. And so this bill will, I think, complement there. There was no collusion by staff. This was an attempt at force breaking at a stadium. I note that there's discussion inaccurately in the media at the moment about that incident and about policing. I have a report in front of me, and I'd just like to quote a little bit of it, because it talks about another set of football supporters who in this official, this is an official police report, are characterised as fanatical.
This is expressed, amongst other things, in the lighting of flares. But according to UEFA and the police, there's no animosity between them and the supporters. And this is not a high. The support of the the team they were playing and this is not a high risk match. This is Maccabi Tel Aviv playing Ajax Amsterdam in November last year. The the report then goes on to say there is a special context because of the tensions and war in the Middle East, and also it was the fixture coincided with the national Kristallnacht commemoration in in Amsterdam, and there was a daily pro-Palestine demonstration at the railway station.
This is the official report. There were supporters from a third club present in the city at the time, Fenerbahce supporters from Alkmaar in the Netherlands. There were a couple of incidents and I want to quote, because this has been in the media wrongly, wrongly, factually, this is the statement of fact. It is the fight and relax. Something this Bill could consider should there be a statement of facts every time there's an incident? This is the official statement of facts of the Dutch chief prosecutor or equivalent, whatever the title is, and the chief of police of Amsterdam Police, this is their statement of facts and that is a requirement in the Netherlands to to have a statement of facts.
On midnight the night before the fixture on the street called Rokin, a Palestinian flag was, and I quote 15 Maccabi supporters pull on a Palestinian flag hanging on a facade. That flag was removed. The video footage of it is on hooligan websites. It was put on by Maccabi Ultra Fan. One of those 50. A taxi was attacked at the same time on the same street, and some other taxis damaged. That was the hooliganism then and that is an issue and a problem.
The following day the football match took place during the day. The match was on an evening. There was one arrest. One arrest for a disturbance of the public order by the police. There were no clashes between the fans. There were no clashes with local
health and safety regulations. Eccles when I first went to football, was getting for free, and football, was getting for free, and not by going through the turnstile, but by being lifted over the but by being lifted over the turnstile. And that is my point. On FA Cup fixtures, because turnstiles come in many different shapes and forms. But until school dinners forms. But until school dinners became particularly good with service treble massives, I was capable of being easily lifted at a very quite mature age, really over said turnstile.
And that guaranteed at the time free entry. So there is a an interesting question there. There's also another one I, I appreciate Scotland isn't included. My last visit to Stenhousemuir Football Club for a fixture of great interest, such great interest. It was unclear when the kick off time was. So I arrived early and the turnstiles were closed. The ticket office was closed so I walked into the stadium, through the gate and sat down to wait. The match had almost begun before the time I remembered having my memory having been jogged by a steward, that I might not have a ticket.
I had to leave the stadium, buy a ticket from a ticket office, then enter via the turnstile to get legal access in. But the point of what is defined with ingenious fans, or in that case, fans who didn't have a clue what time the Kick-Off was is, I think, an interesting one. But particularly in the National League.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I can't leave that particular intervention without recalling a story which I I hope I'm allowed to share. I'm in the spirit of this share. I'm in the spirit of this debate. When I had to introduce the football Bill back in the days when the house was completely packed and the house was completely packed and it was, I was winding up on that day, it was totally full. It was a major issue at the time, and there was that moment that always is before the Minister winds up, when the house goes silent.
And Dennis Skinner looked at me and said, it's all right for him. He can get in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
under the turnstile. It's still.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's still. Going. My my logic shows the ingenuity that doubtless may have been attempted and and and considering when that could be used considering when that could be used before this bill makes law to assist the noble Lord in accessing a certain match he's keen to watch. a certain match he's keen to watch. But there are there are three other quick points that need considering. Bye bye, bye bye Lord Brennan and Bye bye, bye bye Lord Brennan and by committee.
Facial recognition is coming in. I mean Syria are already coming in. I mean Syria are already has facial recognition. It's not widespread use, but it's required. The technology is required in Syria are in Italy. There are certainly two Premier League clubs who are bringing in facial recognition for part of their stadium at the moment. And so the interesting question of facial recognition, I don't say coincides but sits alongside this, the issue of political agitators who have attempted to get on to pitches for to get on the pitch, where the aim is to get on the pitch, and the question of player safety in relation to that is, of course, a factor.
I think the last recorded case was, I don't know if it was, it was an environmental protest of some kind getting on a pitch, but that is a serious issue in relation to player safety. And the issue of player safety has has been taken as a more important issue in recent times. And that would actually back Lord Brennan's crusade to have this legislation come into place. The I wanted to say something about policing issues. So the last time this was a major problem in English football wasn't the Euro final.
It was was on the 20th. It was on the 30th of November, 2023 at Villa Park, the home of Aston Villa, in a UEFA fixture, a club called Legia Warsaw from Poland were playing the the police and the Safety Advisory Group of Birmingham City Council had not banned the fans of Legia Warsaw. In fact, 1002 tickets were sold to them and they came to the fixture. The numbers had been restricted. Another thousand from Legia Warsaw came and attempted to force entry into the stadium, causing huge safety issues and immediate action by the match day commander from the police and Aston Villa Football Club that then closed those turnstiles and created other disorder outside as fans, both without tickets and fans with tickets, couldn't get entry.
Now that was identified by Legia Warsaw have had 35 fines from UEFA for fan behaviour, and anyone who wants to know about hooliganism in football, football hooligans put their stuff online. There are websites and social media sites openly available for everyone to see, so if anyone wants to know who causes the most problems, who are the worst, the nature of the problems when it's most likely to occur that is publicly available information and Legia Warsaw are known for being in the highest category of ultra fans in terms of the problems they cause.
They are significant group of of of hooligans as the term is used. And so this bill will, I think, complement there. There was no collusion by staff. This was an attempt at force breaking at a stadium. I note that there's discussion inaccurately in the media at the moment about that incident and about policing. I have a report in front of me, and I'd just like to quote a little bit of it, because it talks about another set of football supporters who in this official, this is an official police report, are characterised as fanatical.
This is expressed, amongst other things, in the lighting of flares. But according to UEFA and the police, there's no animosity between them and the supporters. And this is not a high. The support of the the team they were playing and this is not a high risk match. This is Maccabi Tel Aviv playing Ajax Amsterdam in November last year. The the report then goes on to say there is a special context because of the tensions and war in the Middle East, and also it was the fixture coincided with the national Kristallnacht commemoration in in Amsterdam, and there was a daily pro-Palestine demonstration at the railway station.
This is the official report. There were supporters from a third club present in the city at the time, Fenerbahce supporters from Alkmaar in the Netherlands. There were a couple of incidents and I want to quote, because this has been in the media wrongly, wrongly, factually, this is the statement of fact. It is the fight and relax. Something this Bill could consider should there be a statement of facts every time there's an incident? This is the official statement of facts of the Dutch chief prosecutor or equivalent, whatever the title is, and the chief of police of Amsterdam Police, this is their statement of facts and that is a requirement in the Netherlands to to have a statement of facts.
On midnight the night before the fixture on the street called Rokin, a Palestinian flag was, and I quote 15 Maccabi supporters pull on a Palestinian flag hanging on a facade. That flag was removed. The video footage of it is on hooligan websites. It was put on by Maccabi Ultra Fan. One of those 50. A taxi was attacked at the same time on the same street, and some other taxis damaged. That was the hooliganism then and that is an issue and a problem.
The following day the football match took place during the day. The match was on an evening. There was one arrest. One arrest for a disturbance of the public order by the police. There were no clashes between the fans. There were no clashes with local
11:35
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
people. The football match took place though there had been a problem. And I'm quoting the report, problem. And I'm quoting the report, because pro-Palestine demonstrators had attempted to go to a place called Anton de complain, a square in Amsterdam on arrival. Quote. in Amsterdam on arrival. Quote. This group splits up into small groups in search of confrontation groups in search of confrontation at the arena. That's the Amsterdam Arena, the football stadium of Ajax Arena, the football stadium of Ajax Amsterdam.
That's the specifics. And the police deployment was there. And the police deployment was there. Additionally saying in the next paragraph, social media messages confirming that there are groups confirming that there are groups looking for a confrontation with Maccabi supporters. The police throughout the day handled that. throughout the day handled that. Without such confrontations. However, the report goes on. After However, the report goes on. After midnight, the problem arose due to small groups of rioters spread through the city centre and adjacent neighbourhoods.
These groups commit violent hit and run groups commit violent hit and run actions targeting Israeli supporters and people going out. The incidents take place in various The incidents take place in various places in the city centre. It lists the 14th streets where it happens. The police follow up on all reports and the police patrol intervenes where threats are visible, and managed to keep rioters at a distance from Israelis. The police can prevent many incidents in this way. Nevertheless, manager rioters managed to commit serious assaults, resulting in injuries amongst Maccabi supporters.
It appears to be particularly difficult for police to take action against such flat point flash points. Rioters move in small groups on foot, by scooter or car, briefly attack Maccabi supporters and then disappear again. Loose groups of Maccabi supporters are gathered and basically the police say that this quickly dissipates over time as the number of rioters.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
May I just remind the noble Lord of the advisory speaking time in this debate, please?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this debate, please? And I shall be brief, because this is the last point I want to make from the report. Several make from the report. Several people were injured, five of whom were treated in hospital. Those five, I can confirm, were Israelis, 20 to 30 Israeli supporters with minor injuries were taken in by the minor injuries were taken in by the Jewish community. Now that's the report of the chief of police. It goes on to detail the people who were arrested and there, and who they were and where they were from.
They were all Dutch. There were 49 Dutch arrested. There were ten Israelis during that period. There were more Dutch arrested in the consequential days. Now, that's a consequential days. Now, that's a statement of fact from Rene de Buckley, chief prosecutor. And, Peter.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Peter. Can I remind the noble Lord he is now well over his time? Can he please bring his remarks to a close?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
please bring his remarks to a close? The relevance of this is the purpose of the bill is to ensure safety at football matches. The safety at football matches. The interaction between the Bill and the need for guidance and guidelines, including for the guidelines, including for the police, on how this bill is best used is fundamental to the success of it, because otherwise what happens is people will put things on social media suggesting they're the facts of what happens. And those facts are fundamentally inaccurate.
The Dutch system of a statement of facts is a potential
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment to this bill. That would make a big difference. So thank you. Very much.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very much. For allowing me to speak in the gap. I'm fully supportive of this gap. I'm fully supportive of this bill, and I'd like to congratulate my honourable friend Lord Brennan for this. The comments from Lord for this. The comments from Lord Moynihan and indeed my noble friend Lord mayor have been fascinating. I've got a slight interest to declare, because I consulted the Clerk that I'm the patron and former chairman of Manchester former chairman of Manchester United Supporters Trust.
That is certainly a ground that you wouldn't be able to use a ladder to wouldn't be able to use a ladder to look in. That is absolutely the case. What I'm particularly concerned about is the mechanics of concerned about is the mechanics of enforcement, because if you get 3500 people breaking into a ground, 3500 people breaking into a ground, how on earth do you even begin to do this? And what I would implore is that this one goes to committee, is that this one goes to committee, that this is actually considered as to how you how you deal with this tailgating, which is where you tailgating, which is where you follow in behind somebody, whether you do it above or below.
In the case of I would probably like a case of I would probably like a good self be under below is actually really quite important. actually really quite important. But tailgating is something we see all the time on a tube under the underground. I mean, I've seen it at Old Trafford. Usually the person doing it is ten times my size, so I'll let him get on with it. But the reality is that that could be caught by CCTV. What I'm ultimately concerned about is how we deal with enforcement and who is ultimately going to pay.
This is focusing on the football clubs themselves, and I suspect that they will want to bear. They want to, but they may find themselves having to bear the burden of this. So I would look forward to hearing what happens
**** Possible New Speaker ****
about enforcement. And I wish the bill well. And I congratulate my honourable friend again. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. It's this is a bill. If you look at it, actually, what it's doing,
That's the specifics. And the police deployment was there. And the police deployment was there. Additionally saying in the next paragraph, social media messages confirming that there are groups confirming that there are groups looking for a confrontation with Maccabi supporters. The police throughout the day handled that. throughout the day handled that. Without such confrontations. However, the report goes on. After However, the report goes on. After midnight, the problem arose due to small groups of rioters spread through the city centre and adjacent neighbourhoods.
These groups commit violent hit and run groups commit violent hit and run actions targeting Israeli supporters and people going out. The incidents take place in various The incidents take place in various places in the city centre. It lists the 14th streets where it happens. The police follow up on all reports and the police patrol intervenes where threats are visible, and managed to keep rioters at a distance from Israelis. The police can prevent many incidents in this way. Nevertheless, manager rioters managed to commit serious assaults, resulting in injuries amongst Maccabi supporters.
It appears to be particularly difficult for police to take action against such flat point flash points. Rioters move in small groups on foot, by scooter or car, briefly attack Maccabi supporters and then disappear again. Loose groups of Maccabi supporters are gathered and basically the police say that this quickly dissipates over time as the number of rioters.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
May I just remind the noble Lord of the advisory speaking time in this debate, please?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this debate, please? And I shall be brief, because this is the last point I want to make from the report. Several make from the report. Several people were injured, five of whom were treated in hospital. Those five, I can confirm, were Israelis, 20 to 30 Israeli supporters with minor injuries were taken in by the minor injuries were taken in by the Jewish community. Now that's the report of the chief of police. It goes on to detail the people who were arrested and there, and who they were and where they were from.
They were all Dutch. There were 49 Dutch arrested. There were ten Israelis during that period. There were more Dutch arrested in the consequential days. Now, that's a consequential days. Now, that's a statement of fact from Rene de Buckley, chief prosecutor. And, Peter.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Peter. Can I remind the noble Lord he is now well over his time? Can he please bring his remarks to a close?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
please bring his remarks to a close? The relevance of this is the purpose of the bill is to ensure safety at football matches. The safety at football matches. The interaction between the Bill and the need for guidance and guidelines, including for the guidelines, including for the police, on how this bill is best used is fundamental to the success of it, because otherwise what happens is people will put things on social media suggesting they're the facts of what happens. And those facts are fundamentally inaccurate.
The Dutch system of a statement of facts is a potential
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment to this bill. That would make a big difference. So thank you. Very much.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very much. For allowing me to speak in the gap. I'm fully supportive of this gap. I'm fully supportive of this bill, and I'd like to congratulate my honourable friend Lord Brennan for this. The comments from Lord for this. The comments from Lord Moynihan and indeed my noble friend Lord mayor have been fascinating. I've got a slight interest to declare, because I consulted the Clerk that I'm the patron and former chairman of Manchester former chairman of Manchester United Supporters Trust.
That is certainly a ground that you wouldn't be able to use a ladder to wouldn't be able to use a ladder to look in. That is absolutely the case. What I'm particularly concerned about is the mechanics of concerned about is the mechanics of enforcement, because if you get 3500 people breaking into a ground, 3500 people breaking into a ground, how on earth do you even begin to do this? And what I would implore is that this one goes to committee, is that this one goes to committee, that this is actually considered as to how you how you deal with this tailgating, which is where you tailgating, which is where you follow in behind somebody, whether you do it above or below.
In the case of I would probably like a case of I would probably like a good self be under below is actually really quite important. actually really quite important. But tailgating is something we see all the time on a tube under the underground. I mean, I've seen it at Old Trafford. Usually the person doing it is ten times my size, so I'll let him get on with it. But the reality is that that could be caught by CCTV. What I'm ultimately concerned about is how we deal with enforcement and who is ultimately going to pay.
This is focusing on the football clubs themselves, and I suspect that they will want to bear. They want to, but they may find themselves having to bear the burden of this. So I would look forward to hearing what happens
**** Possible New Speaker ****
about enforcement. And I wish the bill well. And I congratulate my honourable friend again. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. It's this is a bill. If you look at it, actually, what it's doing,
11:39
Lord Hayward (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Hayward (Conservative)
there is no real argument against it. Yeah. This is the fact that you're attempting to get into a ground should be an offence. I believe that was raised in another place down there and said, do we want to? Yes, because the attempt is where the disorder occurs. This is where the start to other offences are liable to happen. So yes, it should be there. And the banning order is probably an appropriate response along with the fine. However, before those with greater expertise than me in this field sort of thing, even I said but the enforcement, the enforcement, the enforcement.
Now, it may not be that this bill is designed to cover that, and it is understandable that it is not. And indeed, to get it, probably get it on. The statute book is probably the first step. But as has been mentioned before, if you get your intelligence wrong or you don't have the will to back it up, no piece of legislation means anything. There are lots of pieces of defunct legislation hanging around. You must follow it up. You must go through.
And indeed the I think the genesis of this, the disorder at the 1991 European finals was and I raised that in this house, was basically a breakdown of intelligence, a breakdown of intelligence and people not allowing, putting a sufficient resources into deal with the problem, and also the fact that the social media that was mentioned here, it became known that we were
Now, it may not be that this bill is designed to cover that, and it is understandable that it is not. And indeed, to get it, probably get it on. The statute book is probably the first step. But as has been mentioned before, if you get your intelligence wrong or you don't have the will to back it up, no piece of legislation means anything. There are lots of pieces of defunct legislation hanging around. You must follow it up. You must go through.
And indeed the I think the genesis of this, the disorder at the 1991 European finals was and I raised that in this house, was basically a breakdown of intelligence, a breakdown of intelligence and people not allowing, putting a sufficient resources into deal with the problem, and also the fact that the social media that was mentioned here, it became known that we were
11:42
Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
still spacing. There must be extra capacity in the stadium. Bang. People went. So we have got to look at this in the round and make sure we back it up. I don't think this bill is somewhere where we can correct everything, but as the noble Lord Moynihan said, I think noble Lord Moynihan said, I think that we can probably start to discuss and hopefully the minister when we come to these details, will when we come to these details, will give us a better idea about the understanding of the government and what we can do to go forward.
That, what we can do to go forward. That, I think, would be an appropriate use of the committee stage on this bill. But I'm not sure whether amending it would help or hinder. I suspect, actually, that there is suspect, actually, that there is only so much time, even in a session, which seems to be as elastic as this one, to get elastic as this one, to get something through. But I would look forward that we can at least forward that we can at least discuss that.
I once again, this bill, in what it says, is, I think, bill, in what it says, is, I think, good the enforcement capacity that is the gathering of intelligence, the will to act is something which is actually, you know, it's the elephant in the room, if you like. elephant in the room, if you like. It's the elephant which has now been disguised and talked about and put a howdah on in this debate. But we've got to make sure we do that. We've got to make sure we use everything that goes with it.
Because if you don't do that, you will get it could become meaningless. But and also the thing is about facial recognition, identifying people who have broken the law. Subsequently, all this stuff is probably there, but I don't know whether it comes in to this bill or could be. Noble Lord replies. He can let us know what the time frame is on this. And indeed the minister, when they reply, lets us know what the time frame is and we'll see what we can do there.
I think this is good, but it is certainly not the whole story. And there is certainly things which government can do to make sure that this is more effective and the policing of football is done more effectively. But I wish this measure well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords I'm extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for bringing giving the House the opportunity to debate this bill. I opportunity to debate this bill. I regret that we did not manage to pass this measures before, and due to the general election last year, to the general election last year, but I'm glad we're picking up where we left off. And following the we left off. And following the advice of Baroness cases 2021 report to legislate on tailgating and other forms of unauthorised entry at the earliest opportunity.
entry at the earliest opportunity. Tailgating and ticket Ford present both a financial blow and a great both a financial blow and a great unfairness to clubs and fans alike. The great success of football lies in its accessibility for players in its accessibility for players and fans of all ages and abilities. Clubs become the bedrock of communities because they give a people a shared purpose and a shared responsibility in the upkeep shared responsibility in the upkeep of their team. My Lords. This is undermined by those who breach entry.
These clubs lose out on revenue, and genuine fans pay the revenue, and genuine fans pay the price by being undercut. It is a wholly unjust practice, my Lords. There is also the danger that comes with the practice of unauthorised entry. Even lower and non-league clubs impose a maximum capacity for safety reasons, but the risk is exponentially heightened as the size of the stadium increases in big event in in in big events where capacity is reached, there is simply no room for extra supporters in the stadium.
When the capacity is breached, serious dangers arise as the noble Lord Lord Brennan, referred to in Baroness cases, report into Euro final, outlines risks of crowd collapses, door wedging, trampling and barrier collapses were very real possibilities that were narrowly avoided, but they were only made possibilities because of these. Those entering the stadium unauthorised those events and the more recent 2024 Champions League final, demonstrate why legislation to deter tailgating and other types of unauthorised entry, such as ticket fraud, are so important.
Those who are taught, those who are caught committing this infringement my Lords, as it stands, are likely to be thrown out of the stadium without further repercussions. Those who are caught before they invented are simply turned away to attempt re-entry at another turnstile. Considering the very real risks posed by this practice, notwithstanding the thorough unfairness that it represents, these measures have not proved sufficient. The conservatives agree with the attempt to deal with this in a proportionate way. As the noble Lord, Lord Brennan said, introducing a summary offence with a maximum fine of £1,000 and the likelihood that a conviction will lead to a court imposed football banning order, seems to provide the proportionate deterrent.
I hope, my Lords, that it will indeed, in practice, put an end to to this conduct once it is seen that attempting to unlawfully enter a stadium will bar those attempting it from far more than a single match in the future. My Lords. My two concerns lie with the drafting and implementation of this bill. On drafting, subsection three of clause one appears quite broadly drafted and may inadvertently allow those who have committed this offence knowingly to be successful in mounting a defence in the courts.
Could the noble Lord, the Minister, reassure me on this issue? On implementation? My Lords police numbers are down this year and forces are already stretched. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, we must ensure that we have the numbers needed to police this crime if we only manage to charge an unauthorised entry every now and again, it will not have the intended impact and we here will have been paying lip service to this issue and no more, as the noble Lord Lord said, I hope the government has a clear plan on implementation.
Can the Minister provide us with some detail on this provide us with some detail on this when he replies to the debate? My Lords, similarly, a deterrent is Lords, similarly, a deterrent is successful if it is seen to work immediately. This means demonstrating after this bill has passed, that its powers will be used swiftly and effectively. So I do hope that the government understands the importance of appearance, and has planned how it appearance, and has planned how it might immediately demonstrate the laws effectiveness.
My Lords, I wholeheartedly support this Bill wholeheartedly support this Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, on bringing it before the House.
That, what we can do to go forward. That, I think, would be an appropriate use of the committee stage on this bill. But I'm not sure whether amending it would help or hinder. I suspect, actually, that there is suspect, actually, that there is only so much time, even in a session, which seems to be as elastic as this one, to get elastic as this one, to get something through. But I would look forward that we can at least forward that we can at least discuss that.
I once again, this bill, in what it says, is, I think, bill, in what it says, is, I think, good the enforcement capacity that is the gathering of intelligence, the will to act is something which is actually, you know, it's the elephant in the room, if you like. elephant in the room, if you like. It's the elephant which has now been disguised and talked about and put a howdah on in this debate. But we've got to make sure we do that. We've got to make sure we use everything that goes with it.
Because if you don't do that, you will get it could become meaningless. But and also the thing is about facial recognition, identifying people who have broken the law. Subsequently, all this stuff is probably there, but I don't know whether it comes in to this bill or could be. Noble Lord replies. He can let us know what the time frame is on this. And indeed the minister, when they reply, lets us know what the time frame is and we'll see what we can do there.
I think this is good, but it is certainly not the whole story. And there is certainly things which government can do to make sure that this is more effective and the policing of football is done more effectively. But I wish this measure well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords I'm extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for bringing giving the House the opportunity to debate this bill. I opportunity to debate this bill. I regret that we did not manage to pass this measures before, and due to the general election last year, to the general election last year, but I'm glad we're picking up where we left off. And following the we left off. And following the advice of Baroness cases 2021 report to legislate on tailgating and other forms of unauthorised entry at the earliest opportunity.
entry at the earliest opportunity. Tailgating and ticket Ford present both a financial blow and a great both a financial blow and a great unfairness to clubs and fans alike. The great success of football lies in its accessibility for players in its accessibility for players and fans of all ages and abilities. Clubs become the bedrock of communities because they give a people a shared purpose and a shared responsibility in the upkeep shared responsibility in the upkeep of their team. My Lords. This is undermined by those who breach entry.
These clubs lose out on revenue, and genuine fans pay the revenue, and genuine fans pay the price by being undercut. It is a wholly unjust practice, my Lords. There is also the danger that comes with the practice of unauthorised entry. Even lower and non-league clubs impose a maximum capacity for safety reasons, but the risk is exponentially heightened as the size of the stadium increases in big event in in in big events where capacity is reached, there is simply no room for extra supporters in the stadium.
When the capacity is breached, serious dangers arise as the noble Lord Lord Brennan, referred to in Baroness cases, report into Euro final, outlines risks of crowd collapses, door wedging, trampling and barrier collapses were very real possibilities that were narrowly avoided, but they were only made possibilities because of these. Those entering the stadium unauthorised those events and the more recent 2024 Champions League final, demonstrate why legislation to deter tailgating and other types of unauthorised entry, such as ticket fraud, are so important.
Those who are taught, those who are caught committing this infringement my Lords, as it stands, are likely to be thrown out of the stadium without further repercussions. Those who are caught before they invented are simply turned away to attempt re-entry at another turnstile. Considering the very real risks posed by this practice, notwithstanding the thorough unfairness that it represents, these measures have not proved sufficient. The conservatives agree with the attempt to deal with this in a proportionate way. As the noble Lord, Lord Brennan said, introducing a summary offence with a maximum fine of £1,000 and the likelihood that a conviction will lead to a court imposed football banning order, seems to provide the proportionate deterrent.
I hope, my Lords, that it will indeed, in practice, put an end to to this conduct once it is seen that attempting to unlawfully enter a stadium will bar those attempting it from far more than a single match in the future. My Lords. My two concerns lie with the drafting and implementation of this bill. On drafting, subsection three of clause one appears quite broadly drafted and may inadvertently allow those who have committed this offence knowingly to be successful in mounting a defence in the courts.
Could the noble Lord, the Minister, reassure me on this issue? On implementation? My Lords police numbers are down this year and forces are already stretched. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, we must ensure that we have the numbers needed to police this crime if we only manage to charge an unauthorised entry every now and again, it will not have the intended impact and we here will have been paying lip service to this issue and no more, as the noble Lord Lord said, I hope the government has a clear plan on implementation.
Can the Minister provide us with some detail on this provide us with some detail on this when he replies to the debate? My Lords, similarly, a deterrent is Lords, similarly, a deterrent is successful if it is seen to work immediately. This means demonstrating after this bill has passed, that its powers will be used swiftly and effectively. So I do hope that the government understands the importance of appearance, and has planned how it appearance, and has planned how it might immediately demonstrate the laws effectiveness.
My Lords, I wholeheartedly support this Bill wholeheartedly support this Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, on bringing it before the House.
11:48
Lord Lemos (Labour)
-
-
Lord Lemos (Labour)
My Lords, I wish to thank. Begin by thanking all the noble Lords have spoken today in what has been a very important and interesting debate, and I am particularly grateful to my noble friend, Lord Brennan of Canton, for his work in sponsoring this bill, not just in your lordships House, but as he noted also in the other place. And I admire his determination and resolution to get the job done. This bill, as I think all noble Lords have noted, this bill addresses a clear and pressing issue the growing problem of unauthorised access to football matches, particularly at high profile fixtures, and it proposes a new football specific offence of unauthorised entry to designate matches to address this, capturing a broad range of behaviours from tailgating and forced entry to the use of forged documents and impersonation of match day staff.
And I want to emphasise how important, as other noble Lords have acknowledged, this new offence of unauthorised entry is, of course, the noble Lord, my noble friend, the Lord Mann and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, have referred to ingenious measures used in the past for entering football grounds. I would say to my noble friend Lord Mann, once he had his school dinners, he couldn't he couldn't be lifted over the turnstiles anymore. We have breakfast clubs now, so it will be even more difficult.
Crucially, this measure also enables courts to impose footballing banning orders on convictions for offences and this is really very important. These are civil orders and that that provide a strong deterrent and are a vital tool to prevent repeat offending and protecting public safety. And a number of noble lords have asked about what grounds we have for believing that these measures will be effective. And I want to reassure your lordships House that the evidence shows that football banning orders of the sort that we're discussing here are highly effective in transforming the behaviour.
The large majority of individuals whose orders have expired are assessed by police as no longer posing any significant threat at all football related violence or disorder. We know they are effective in deterring banned fans from attempting to enter. Stadiums, have strong rehabilitative impact and are regarded as serious consequence by those considering unlawful behaviour. A number of noble lords, including Lord Addington and Lord and my noble friend Lord Shamash, have have stressed the importance of enforcement. And of course I agree about that.
But they will know that that enforcement is a matter for local police forces on these matters. Can I also respond to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan's question about resources being available? The Home Office remains committed to exploring ways to support policing in recovering a greater share of special police service costs. This is an important issue and requires careful consideration to better understand the options and potential impact of any changes. We are conducting further engagement and analysis over the coming months, and are grateful for Policing's continued engagement on this.
It is. It is a matter that's very under under very active consideration. The Bill responds directly, as Noble Lords have noted, to the recommendations of Baroness Casey independent review into the serious disorder at the Euro 2020 final, and I'm sure noble Lords recall those events very vividly and understand, therefore, the importance of these measures. Finally, where the final sorry with thousands of ticketless individuals gained access to Wembley Stadium, many through massed forced entry or tailgating, and this is a problem that is reoccurring.
We saw further evidence of this at the 2024 UEFA Champions League Final, again at Wembley, where groups of ticketless fans made repeated attempts to breach security. Similar behaviour is also seen at Premier League matches, particularly where away allocations are limited. This is a wider pattern. This is not a one off event and therefore we must address it. Such behaviour is not only selfish and dishonest but also dangerous. It places enormous statement state strain on state stadium security, creates serious risks to public safety and undermines the experience of Lord law abiding fans, and can be very expensive for clubs.
This measure will help with that too. The government is clear this cannot be allowed to continue and that is why we are actively supporting this bill. Forced entry, tailgating and so-called gibbing are not victimless acts. Those involved are often aggressive, violent or threatening, and their actions can lead to overcrowding, blocked emergency exit and frightened conditions for innocent fans. In some cases, individuals have even attempted to bribe stewards or turnstile operators to gain access. This will also be captured by the new offence.
The offence or the offence will additionally apply to those who knowingly attempt to use the ticket, whether physical or digital, that's already been used. My Lords, this is not about criminalising honest mistakes or punishing fans who have been misled. The bill includes important safeguards to ensure that individuals with lawful authority, such as emergency workers or stadium staff, are not caught by the offence going about their business, nor will it apply to those who unwittingly purchase counterfeit tickets in good faith or breach the terms and conditions of a legitimate ticket.
Can I just clarify a couple of other matters which noble Lords raised while this on this on the subject of people who facilitate individuals who facilitate unlawful unauthorised entry. While this bill does not directly cover those who facilitate an unauthorised entry, this conduct would be covered under the Fraud Act 2006 or Theft Act 1968, depending on the facts of the case. And can I also note for the for my noble friend, the Lord Mann, political agitators, or anyone else entering the pitch without authorisation.
It is an offence under section four of the Football Offences Act 1991. So, my Lords, this is a proportionate, targeted and necessary measure. It reflects the unique public order challenges associated with football, which are not seen to the same extent in other sports or events. It is also consistent with the broader framework of the Football Offences Act. Can I just add, it was raised by my noble friend, the Lord Mann, just reaffirm comments made in the other place about the Maccabi Tel
And I want to emphasise how important, as other noble Lords have acknowledged, this new offence of unauthorised entry is, of course, the noble Lord, my noble friend, the Lord Mann and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, have referred to ingenious measures used in the past for entering football grounds. I would say to my noble friend Lord Mann, once he had his school dinners, he couldn't he couldn't be lifted over the turnstiles anymore. We have breakfast clubs now, so it will be even more difficult.
Crucially, this measure also enables courts to impose footballing banning orders on convictions for offences and this is really very important. These are civil orders and that that provide a strong deterrent and are a vital tool to prevent repeat offending and protecting public safety. And a number of noble lords have asked about what grounds we have for believing that these measures will be effective. And I want to reassure your lordships House that the evidence shows that football banning orders of the sort that we're discussing here are highly effective in transforming the behaviour.
The large majority of individuals whose orders have expired are assessed by police as no longer posing any significant threat at all football related violence or disorder. We know they are effective in deterring banned fans from attempting to enter. Stadiums, have strong rehabilitative impact and are regarded as serious consequence by those considering unlawful behaviour. A number of noble lords, including Lord Addington and Lord and my noble friend Lord Shamash, have have stressed the importance of enforcement. And of course I agree about that.
But they will know that that enforcement is a matter for local police forces on these matters. Can I also respond to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan's question about resources being available? The Home Office remains committed to exploring ways to support policing in recovering a greater share of special police service costs. This is an important issue and requires careful consideration to better understand the options and potential impact of any changes. We are conducting further engagement and analysis over the coming months, and are grateful for Policing's continued engagement on this.
It is. It is a matter that's very under under very active consideration. The Bill responds directly, as Noble Lords have noted, to the recommendations of Baroness Casey independent review into the serious disorder at the Euro 2020 final, and I'm sure noble Lords recall those events very vividly and understand, therefore, the importance of these measures. Finally, where the final sorry with thousands of ticketless individuals gained access to Wembley Stadium, many through massed forced entry or tailgating, and this is a problem that is reoccurring.
We saw further evidence of this at the 2024 UEFA Champions League Final, again at Wembley, where groups of ticketless fans made repeated attempts to breach security. Similar behaviour is also seen at Premier League matches, particularly where away allocations are limited. This is a wider pattern. This is not a one off event and therefore we must address it. Such behaviour is not only selfish and dishonest but also dangerous. It places enormous statement state strain on state stadium security, creates serious risks to public safety and undermines the experience of Lord law abiding fans, and can be very expensive for clubs.
This measure will help with that too. The government is clear this cannot be allowed to continue and that is why we are actively supporting this bill. Forced entry, tailgating and so-called gibbing are not victimless acts. Those involved are often aggressive, violent or threatening, and their actions can lead to overcrowding, blocked emergency exit and frightened conditions for innocent fans. In some cases, individuals have even attempted to bribe stewards or turnstile operators to gain access. This will also be captured by the new offence.
The offence or the offence will additionally apply to those who knowingly attempt to use the ticket, whether physical or digital, that's already been used. My Lords, this is not about criminalising honest mistakes or punishing fans who have been misled. The bill includes important safeguards to ensure that individuals with lawful authority, such as emergency workers or stadium staff, are not caught by the offence going about their business, nor will it apply to those who unwittingly purchase counterfeit tickets in good faith or breach the terms and conditions of a legitimate ticket.
Can I just clarify a couple of other matters which noble Lords raised while this on this on the subject of people who facilitate individuals who facilitate unlawful unauthorised entry. While this bill does not directly cover those who facilitate an unauthorised entry, this conduct would be covered under the Fraud Act 2006 or Theft Act 1968, depending on the facts of the case. And can I also note for the for my noble friend, the Lord Mann, political agitators, or anyone else entering the pitch without authorisation.
It is an offence under section four of the Football Offences Act 1991. So, my Lords, this is a proportionate, targeted and necessary measure. It reflects the unique public order challenges associated with football, which are not seen to the same extent in other sports or events. It is also consistent with the broader framework of the Football Offences Act. Can I just add, it was raised by my noble friend, the Lord Mann, just reaffirm comments made in the other place about the Maccabi Tel
11:57
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Labour)
-
-
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Labour)
Aviv game. As I think everyone knows from statements made in the knows from statements made in the other place, the government fought hard to ensure tickets would be made available for this game. However, Maccabi Tel Aviv ultimately took the difficult decision to reject the allocation, stating they could not guarantee stating they could not guarantee the safety of their supporters for the entire journey to the UK. Following the decision by Birmingham City Council last week, the government worked closely with the West Midlands Police and the West Midlands Police and Birmingham City Council to support them to consider all the options them to consider all the options available and to tell us what the resources would be needed to manage the risks.
The the Cultural secretary, the Home Secretary and the community secretary were all involved in these extension involved in these extension extensive discussions. And although the ultimate decision regarding the admittance of away fans is for the admittance of away fans is for the local authority to make, we were clear that resources should not be the determining factor in whether the determining factor in whether Maccabi Tel Aviv fans would be admitted, and we were disappointed admitted, and we were disappointed at the at that they were that they the allocation will not be taken up the allocation will not be taken up this Bill returning to this Bill.
My Lords, this Bill enjoyed cross-party support throughout its passage in the other place and rightly so. It has been welcomed by both the Football Association and the police as a timely and effective response to a growing problem. This is a fan friendly measure that protects the vast majority of decent supporters from the actions of a disruptive minority. It will help ensure that football remains a safe, welcoming environment for all and such an important part of our national life. And therefore, can I reiterate my my the government's support for this measure and thank the noble Lords for this important debate, which I'm sure will be continued as the Bill makes progress.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Well, my Lords, we've had, I think, a wide ranging Second think, a wide ranging Second Reading debate on this bill, which is perhaps strayed a little bit
The the Cultural secretary, the Home Secretary and the community secretary were all involved in these extension involved in these extension extensive discussions. And although the ultimate decision regarding the admittance of away fans is for the admittance of away fans is for the local authority to make, we were clear that resources should not be the determining factor in whether the determining factor in whether Maccabi Tel Aviv fans would be admitted, and we were disappointed admitted, and we were disappointed at the at that they were that they the allocation will not be taken up the allocation will not be taken up this Bill returning to this Bill.
My Lords, this Bill enjoyed cross-party support throughout its passage in the other place and rightly so. It has been welcomed by both the Football Association and the police as a timely and effective response to a growing problem. This is a fan friendly measure that protects the vast majority of decent supporters from the actions of a disruptive minority. It will help ensure that football remains a safe, welcoming environment for all and such an important part of our national life. And therefore, can I reiterate my my the government's support for this measure and thank the noble Lords for this important debate, which I'm sure will be continued as the Bill makes progress.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Well, my Lords, we've had, I think, a wide ranging Second think, a wide ranging Second Reading debate on this bill, which is perhaps strayed a little bit
11:59
Lord Brennan of Canton (Labour)
-
-
Lord Brennan of Canton (Labour)
one was offside in any of their remarks during the course of our debate. I apologise, but can I debate. I apologise, but can I first of all, thank everyone who has made a contribution to the debate. I think it's actually a really, really good debate and one that, yeah, absolutely is in the true spirit of scrutinising a legislation which is obviously the legislation which is obviously the raison d'etre of this House. And can I thank everyone individually who spoke the noble Lord Moynihan, who spoke the noble Lord Moynihan, who brought his vast experience to the debate and which was extremely welcome.
And I think his analysis welcome. And I think his analysis of some of the things we might want to explore further during the passage of this bill, during passage of this bill, during committee and at report and so on, I think was extremely useful in considering the best way forward considering the best way forward with the bill. Some of the issues, I think he acknowledged himself, may be beyond the scope of what we may be beyond the scope of what we can achieve in a limited Private Member's Bill within the time available and so on.
But I think lots of the things he brought were lots of the things he brought were very much worthy of debate. He brought up the issue of resources as others did, as always, is an as others did, as always, is an issue, obviously, in any law and order measure. And he also brought up the issue of what happens, as up the issue of what happens, as others did in relation to a situation where there is mass trespass. But I think two points I trespass.
But I think two points I would make briefly in response to that one is, of course, the purpose of this bill principally is to deter and and and if it is effective, then that deterrence obviously should be of great assistance in the issue of resources. But secondly, as others I think, have noted and hinted at, ultimately in a situation of mass trespass, it's very, very difficult for the police and for the authorities to deal with that matter. But that's not the end of it.
And if this bill introduces, as it does, the potential football banning orders, then further mass trespass in future might be, you know, helpfully dealt with by the fact that many of those will be under football banning orders if they participated previously in such a mass trespass. He also issued the. He also raised the issue of forged tickets, which again is a much wider issue beyond this bill as well. And I think he acknowledged that and also of the trend to lose experienced stewards.
And and there are lots of measures that could be taken in relation to that, not just in the public policies realm, but, but in, in amongst sporting clubs and institutions themselves to do that. And as I mentioned early on, one experienced steward was lost when he became a member of the House of Lords in in Lord Bailey of Paddington. So perhaps that sort of experience might be useful to our deliberations in future. The noble Lord man also contributed to the debate, and I'm not going to go beyond the remarks made by the my noble friend, the Minister, in relation to the Tel Aviv Maccabees match issue.
But he made some points about the practicalities involved in in 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 have recently gained entry to the Louvre museum in Paris. And so if the Louvre Museum in Paris can't keep people out and using a van and a cherry picker, then I'm not sure Oxford United will be able to do the same. But on the on the broader point, the bill speaks of premises.
That's the point I'd like to make. And premises goes beyond the simple environs of the stadium itself. It can be defined as it is indeed at Wembley Stadium, for example, you know, with an area that's quite wide ranging outside of the actual turnstiles themselves, and that can be the designated point at which tickets can be checked and where unauthorised entry might be triggered. So there's concerns about the scratching shed, I understand, but it is possible to extend that. And it doesn't sound to me from his description that the situation at Stenhousemuir is likely to result in overcrowding at any time in the near future.
And and I do remind you, well, we did acknowledge it, that that this Bill scope is England and Wales and doesn't extend as far north as Stenhousemuir can. I also thank Lord Addington again, has a huge expertise in sport and I thank him for his contribution as well and to the debate and quite rightly, his raising of the same issues about enforcement. And I make the same points about deterrence that I did earlier in relation to that. And also my Noble friend Lord as well, who also brought in that issue about 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. Can I thank my noble friend if he doesn't mind me calling him that? The Earl of Courtown, for his contribution and his wholehearted support for the Bill. And I'm 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's nice that there's some consistency in politics still in these days when it comes to this bill, at the very least.
And I'd also thank my noble friend, the minister, Lord Lemos, for his outlining the government's support for this bill and clarifying that the Fraud Act actually would come into play in relation to some of the concerns that were related by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. But at that, you know, with that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
juncture, I'd beg to move. That this bill be now read a second time as many resolve that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
second time as many resolve that opinion will say content. Tend not content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that this bill be committed to a committee of the whole House. The question is, does this bill be committed to a committee of the be committed to a committee of the whole House? As many as of that opinion will say content contrary, opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Second Reading of the Secure 16 to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
19 Academies Bill Lord Weir. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Can you tell? My Lords, I beg to move that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that this bill be. Now read a second time. This is a short two clause bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill. But an. Important one. Aimed at amending existing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Legislation underpinning new. Secure 16 to 19 academies,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
otherwise known. As secure schools. It comes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It comes. From the other place where. My honourable friend. Emma Goudie, a Member of Parliament for Cramlington and Killingworth, sponsored the bill. And in the other place it enjoyed the support of all parties, secure schools are a new form of custody for children and young people and the government. The last government has already agreed, has already acted to establish secure 16 to 19. Academies in legislation. This bill will make further necessary.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
2010. In order. To.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To. Make specific. Provisions in that act relevant to the establishment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to the establishment. Of new secure schools. A word about. The background.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The background. In 2016, Charlie Taylor published his review of the Youth
**** Possible New Speaker ****
published his review of the Youth Justice System. It was an important review. The report. Made a.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
recommendations. Including the. Need shared really. By all to. Reimagine how.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
By all to. Reimagine how. We care for. Children who commit serious. Enough offences. To warrant.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To warrant. Detaining them in custody. His proposal was to create a new type of custodial environment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of custodial environment. One which focussed on the delivery of education. And which offers. The opportunity to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The opportunity to. Gain the. Skills and. Qualifications necessary to prepare them.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
necessary to prepare them. community. The Taylor Review made a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Taylor Review made a compelling case for change. The need. To transform. The environments in which.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in which. We detain. And provide. Care. For these. Children is as necessary now.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As it was then. The police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Established secure schools.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
2022. Established secure schools. In legislation. As I as. Secure 16 to 19 academies.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Under the Academies. Act, 2010 as and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Act, 2010 as and. Also secure children's homes. Under the Children's Homes Under the Children's Homes (England) Regulations of 2015. This bill is now needed to make further.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill is now needed to make further. Amendments in the 2010 act. Relevant to secure.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Relevant to secure. 16 to 19 academies. The proposed. Changes cover. The termination.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The termination. Period in which government. school.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
school. Should there be. A need to end a. Funding agreement. As section
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Funding agreement. As section two of the Academies. Act 2010 says, for secure school into.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
into. Which it has entered. This bill will. Also amend. The duties placed. On providers
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that enter. Into funding. Agreements with the. Government prior. To opening.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A secure school. These changes. Will. Provide for better and more
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Provide for better and more integrated services. The bill, My Lords, will.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords, will. Consist of. Three measures. Firstly. The Bill. Will amend section two of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will amend section two of the 2010 act to reduce the notice period for termination of a funding
And I think his analysis welcome. And I think his analysis of some of the things we might want to explore further during the passage of this bill, during passage of this bill, during committee and at report and so on, I think was extremely useful in considering the best way forward considering the best way forward with the bill. Some of the issues, I think he acknowledged himself, may be beyond the scope of what we may be beyond the scope of what we can achieve in a limited Private Member's Bill within the time available and so on.
But I think lots of the things he brought were lots of the things he brought were very much worthy of debate. He brought up the issue of resources as others did, as always, is an as others did, as always, is an issue, obviously, in any law and order measure. And he also brought up the issue of what happens, as up the issue of what happens, as others did in relation to a situation where there is mass trespass. But I think two points I trespass.
But I think two points I would make briefly in response to that one is, of course, the purpose of this bill principally is to deter and and and if it is effective, then that deterrence obviously should be of great assistance in the issue of resources. But secondly, as others I think, have noted and hinted at, ultimately in a situation of mass trespass, it's very, very difficult for the police and for the authorities to deal with that matter. But that's not the end of it.
And if this bill introduces, as it does, the potential football banning orders, then further mass trespass in future might be, you know, helpfully dealt with by the fact that many of those will be under football banning orders if they participated previously in such a mass trespass. He also issued the. He also raised the issue of forged tickets, which again is a much wider issue beyond this bill as well. And I think he acknowledged that and also of the trend to lose experienced stewards.
And and there are lots of measures that could be taken in relation to that, not just in the public policies realm, but, but in, in amongst sporting clubs and institutions themselves to do that. And as I mentioned early on, one experienced steward was lost when he became a member of the House of Lords in in Lord Bailey of Paddington. So perhaps that sort of experience might be useful to our deliberations in future. The noble Lord man also contributed to the debate, and I'm not going to go beyond the remarks made by the my noble friend, the Minister, in relation to the Tel Aviv Maccabees match issue.
But he made some points about the practicalities involved in in 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 have recently gained entry to the Louvre museum in Paris. And so if the Louvre Museum in Paris can't keep people out and using a van and a cherry picker, then I'm not sure Oxford United will be able to do the same. But on the on the broader point, the bill speaks of premises.
That's the point I'd like to make. And premises goes beyond the simple environs of the stadium itself. It can be defined as it is indeed at Wembley Stadium, for example, you know, with an area that's quite wide ranging outside of the actual turnstiles themselves, and that can be the designated point at which tickets can be checked and where unauthorised entry might be triggered. So there's concerns about the scratching shed, I understand, but it is possible to extend that. And it doesn't sound to me from his description that the situation at Stenhousemuir is likely to result in overcrowding at any time in the near future.
And and I do remind you, well, we did acknowledge it, that that this Bill scope is England and Wales and doesn't extend as far north as Stenhousemuir can. I also thank Lord Addington again, has a huge expertise in sport and I thank him for his contribution as well and to the debate and quite rightly, his raising of the same issues about enforcement. And I make the same points about deterrence that I did earlier in relation to that. And also my Noble friend Lord as well, who also brought in that issue about 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. Can I thank my noble friend if he doesn't mind me calling him that? The Earl of Courtown, for his contribution and his wholehearted support for the Bill. And I'm 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's nice that there's some consistency in politics still in these days when it comes to this bill, at the very least.
And I'd also thank my noble friend, the minister, Lord Lemos, for his outlining the government's support for this bill and clarifying that the Fraud Act actually would come into play in relation to some of the concerns that were related by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. But at that, you know, with that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
juncture, I'd beg to move. That this bill be now read a second time as many resolve that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
second time as many resolve that opinion will say content. Tend not content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that this bill be committed to a committee of the whole House. The question is, does this bill be committed to a committee of the be committed to a committee of the whole House? As many as of that opinion will say content contrary, opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Second Reading of the Secure 16 to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
19 Academies Bill Lord Weir. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Can you tell? My Lords, I beg to move that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg to move that this bill be. Now read a second time. This is a short two clause bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill. But an. Important one. Aimed at amending existing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Legislation underpinning new. Secure 16 to 19 academies,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
otherwise known. As secure schools. It comes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It comes. From the other place where. My honourable friend. Emma Goudie, a Member of Parliament for Cramlington and Killingworth, sponsored the bill. And in the other place it enjoyed the support of all parties, secure schools are a new form of custody for children and young people and the government. The last government has already agreed, has already acted to establish secure 16 to 19. Academies in legislation. This bill will make further necessary.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
2010. In order. To.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To. Make specific. Provisions in that act relevant to the establishment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to the establishment. Of new secure schools. A word about. The background.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The background. In 2016, Charlie Taylor published his review of the Youth
**** Possible New Speaker ****
published his review of the Youth Justice System. It was an important review. The report. Made a.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
recommendations. Including the. Need shared really. By all to. Reimagine how.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
By all to. Reimagine how. We care for. Children who commit serious. Enough offences. To warrant.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To warrant. Detaining them in custody. His proposal was to create a new type of custodial environment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of custodial environment. One which focussed on the delivery of education. And which offers. The opportunity to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The opportunity to. Gain the. Skills and. Qualifications necessary to prepare them.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
necessary to prepare them. community. The Taylor Review made a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Taylor Review made a compelling case for change. The need. To transform. The environments in which.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in which. We detain. And provide. Care. For these. Children is as necessary now.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As it was then. The police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Established secure schools.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
2022. Established secure schools. In legislation. As I as. Secure 16 to 19 academies.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Under the Academies. Act, 2010 as and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Act, 2010 as and. Also secure children's homes. Under the Children's Homes Under the Children's Homes (England) Regulations of 2015. This bill is now needed to make further.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill is now needed to make further. Amendments in the 2010 act. Relevant to secure.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Relevant to secure. 16 to 19 academies. The proposed. Changes cover. The termination.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The termination. Period in which government. school.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
school. Should there be. A need to end a. Funding agreement. As section
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Funding agreement. As section two of the Academies. Act 2010 says, for secure school into.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
into. Which it has entered. This bill will. Also amend. The duties placed. On providers
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that enter. Into funding. Agreements with the. Government prior. To opening.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A secure school. These changes. Will. Provide for better and more
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Provide for better and more integrated services. The bill, My Lords, will.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords, will. Consist of. Three measures. Firstly. The Bill. Will amend section two of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will amend section two of the 2010 act to reduce the notice period for termination of a funding
12:08
Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
period for termination of a funding agreement under section 22. Of the. 2010 act. From 7 to 2 years.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
2010 act. From 7 to 2 years. For secure. 16 to 19 academies, a two year
**** Possible New Speaker ****
16 to 19 academies, a two year period will enable government to prioritise value for money for the prioritise value for money for the taxpayer and have more flexibility should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. Reducing this to two years in this case strikes a balance between avoiding a lengthy exit period in which government will be committed to continue funding the secure school longer than necessary, while also ensuring secure schools providers have the certainty of funding to avoid issues with recruiting and retaining the specialist staff required to work in this environment, the government remains able to terminate funding agreements with Secure schools providers in the event of poor performance.
Secondly, this bill will disapply section nine of the 2010 act for secure 16 to 19 academies. This requires that the Secretary of State considers the impact of entering into a new academy funding agreement on other educational establishments in the area. Whilst, of course it's important that secure schools are registered as academies in order to ensure they mirror best practices in the community, they are of course, fundamentally different as secure schools do not compete with
**** Possible New Speaker ****
other schools. Thirdly, the the bill will amend
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thirdly, the the bill will amend section ten of the 2010 act. Section ten currently requires that Section ten currently requires that an academy provider consults appropriate persons on whether or not a funding agreement should be entered into. We recognise the importance of considering the importance of considering the impact on local communities when opening any new school. This bill opening any new school. This bill will amend that section to require that the provider is required to that the provider is required to consult appropriate persons on how the secure schools should work with local partners, such as elected representatives or health and.
Education services. By supporting this bill. My Lords, the House has an opportunity to create better services and thus strengthen the impact of secure schools on the lives of those children within our lives of those children within our justice system. So I very much hope that colleagues across the House, that colleagues across the House, as they did in the other place, will give this bill their full
**** Possible New Speaker ****
support. My Lords, I beg to move. The question. Is that this bill be read a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
second time. thanking. Lord Beck for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Bringing forward this bill and presenting with characteristic clarity today he brings immense experience as a former minister, the Ministry of Justice and also as a Police and crime Commissioner. And the whole House recognises that expertise. There are. Several reasons to welcome this.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Bill and wish it a smooth passage through its. Legislative stage in your lordships House. This is an example
**** Possible New Speaker ****
lordships House. This is an example of legislative continuity and policy, which we need to see more. Of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of. Especially in the area of the criminal justice system where change takes time because of the change takes time because of the high risks of getting it wrong. The slow pace is evident in the fact that the bill, as has already been mentioned, and the policy of secure academies was first proposed by the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
academies was first proposed by the report. It pointed. Out the problem that it was
**** Possible New Speaker ****
seeking to address. That half. Of. 15 to 17 year olds entering
**** Possible New Speaker ****
15 to 17 year olds entering young offender institutions. Have literacy and numeracy. Levels expected for 7 to 11 year olds. In addition, 40% of under 18 year olds entering these institutions. Had not been in school since there were
**** Possible New Speaker ****
14. This was the. Problem in 2016 2017. In addition. To. That.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That. The Chief Inspector of Prisons, who inspects secure training. Centres and young offender. Institutions.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Institutions. Observed starkly in his annual report that there was not.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A. Single establishment. That we inspected in England and Wales in which it was safe to hold children and young people. The children and young people. The conclusion was. That education needed to be central to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
needed to be central to the response to youth offending. And it proposed secure. Academies.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Academies. Which would be more a school with. Security than a prison with with. Security than a prison with education. I am sure we will all support this focus on education, which is the surest path to improve which is the surest path to improve and transform young lives, to give them hope and a future, which is what we all want for them. We're what we all want for them. We're now in 2025 and so far there's only one academy which is open, and the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
one academy which is open, and the House of Lords library briefing for this debate tells us that. That academy has been.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That academy has been. security. Failings. Over locks and doors. This, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
should stress, is not a criticism of Oasis Restore who have an outstanding. Track record.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Track record. In. Education and who courageously stepped. Up to take on this challenging new type of school, this challenging new type of school, but rather a reflection of the slow but rather a reflection of the slow pace of change. It is also a lesson to successive governments that if we want change, we need to get we want change, we need to get faster and more efficient in delivering innovation, less risk averse, and be more patient in paying attention to results.
In paying attention to results. In 2022, the National Audit. Office produced a report on children in produced a report on children in custody. AC 1257. It estimated that custody. AC 1257. It estimated that the cost of converting the Medway Secure Training Centre into the new Secure Training Centre into the new Oasis Restore Secure Academy would be £4.9 million when it was proposed be £4.9 million when it was proposed in 2016. But by 2022 that cost had
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in 2016. But by 2022 that cost had risen to £36.5 million. That is.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That is. 745% over budget. Now, I don't know if 36.5% was the final figure. Perhaps the Minister can inform us when she comes to respond to this debate, but given that this was a new facility that was designed for around 40 people, that means that the capital cost per place was close to £1 million per person. The revenue cost for secure training centres is already £156,298 per person. That compares to a pupil funding premium of £5,995.
Per year in mainstream schools. And of course, in This Matters. I think that the point which I would say here is that these sums are very large and are not meant to be critical of this government because it is a policy of successive governments. And I don't think anyone would flinch for a moment if this investment meant that the broken and vulnerable lies in these establishments could be restored, and they could actually make a positive contribution to society in the future.
We live in a society where, rightly, we have judgement through which people are held to account for their actions, but we also need the society of the second chance, which holds out the possibility of redemption. We simply cannot write off the lives of children at the age of 12 and 13. Every life has potential, and this matters because these numbers matter. And my fear is that when officials and ministers look at the future of secure academies and the future of this policy and implementing this legislation for the future, they're going to be mindful of looking at the costs for the Medway Secure Training Centre and the experience of the Oasis Restore trust, and that could mean that actually we see less of these secure training centres in the future.
Officials, of course, implement policies, but ministers develop it and parliamentarians are supposed to scrutinise it. We've had over 11 Lord chancellors in the ten years since the Secure training, Secure Academy policy was introduced in 2016. Yet over that period. But there's reason for hope, because I think that the current Lord Chancellor, David Lammy, has immense experience and a real passion for this area, as was demonstrated by the Lammy Review, which was very influential in these areas. I'm also delighted to see the noble and learned Baroness Levitt in her place, because I know she brings immense experience and knowledge of the criminal justice system to this area, so there is indeed hope for the future.
But in concluding this wasn't actually the main focus that I want to say because in the process of reading up for this debate, I read a whole load of material on the youth justice system, and a number of things really surprised me. And I want to focus on a more positive message about young people. And I looked at this, and one of the numbers which leapt out was that the number of children in custody had reduced by 80% over the ten years from 2011 to 2021, it had reduced from a number of 2040.
In 2010 to around 430 now. Now, of course, people, particularly on this side of the house, who always used to draw a sort of correlation between the numbers of people in the prison establishment and the level of crime, might also be interested to hear as to what's happened to criminal offences proven to be committed by young people over that period, when the numbers have reduced so dramatically. Well, in 2010, the number of offences committed by children was 171,750.
In the year ending 2022, that had reduced to 38,518. Why don't we hear more about these figures? Even youth violence, which is prevalent everywhere that we look and see, we see that the number of violent offences proven to be committed by children and young people have reduced from 35,000 in 2011 to just about 12,000 now. These are remarkable statistics which we seldom hear according to the NHS. Last year we saw the lowest number of admissions to hospital for knife related assaults.
We don't hear this positive news. Fraser Nelson, the distinguished British journalist, wrote an essay for The Times published on the 8th of August of this year, titled violent, Lawless, Broken Britain Question Mark. The facts tell a different story. He's right. He points to the fact that most people, especially young people, get their news from social media, which often feeds on fear and exaggeration, and where bad news is amplified, drowning out the fact this matters. As the Violence Research Group at Cardiff University pointed out, serious
Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
period for termination of a funding agreement under section 22. Of the. 2010 act. From 7 to 2 years.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
2010 act. From 7 to 2 years. For secure. 16 to 19 academies, a two year
**** Possible New Speaker ****
16 to 19 academies, a two year period will enable government to prioritise value for money for the prioritise value for money for the taxpayer and have more flexibility should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. Reducing this to two years in this case strikes a balance between avoiding a lengthy exit period in which government will be committed to continue funding the secure school longer than necessary, while also ensuring secure schools providers have the certainty of funding to avoid issues with recruiting and retaining the specialist staff required to work in this environment, the government remains able to terminate funding agreements with Secure schools providers in the event of poor performance.
Secondly, this bill will disapply section nine of the 2010 act for secure 16 to 19 academies. This requires that the Secretary of State considers the impact of entering into a new academy funding agreement on other educational establishments in the area. Whilst, of course it's important that secure schools are registered as academies in order to ensure they mirror best practices in the community, they are of course, fundamentally different as secure schools do not compete with
**** Possible New Speaker ****
other schools. Thirdly, the the bill will amend
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thirdly, the the bill will amend section ten of the 2010 act. Section ten currently requires that Section ten currently requires that an academy provider consults appropriate persons on whether or not a funding agreement should be entered into. We recognise the importance of considering the importance of considering the impact on local communities when opening any new school. This bill opening any new school. This bill will amend that section to require that the provider is required to that the provider is required to consult appropriate persons on how the secure schools should work with local partners, such as elected representatives or health and.
Education services. By supporting this bill. My Lords, the House has an opportunity to create better services and thus strengthen the impact of secure schools on the lives of those children within our lives of those children within our justice system. So I very much hope that colleagues across the House, that colleagues across the House, as they did in the other place, will give this bill their full
**** Possible New Speaker ****
support. My Lords, I beg to move. The question. Is that this bill be read a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
second time. thanking. Lord Beck for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Bringing forward this bill and presenting with characteristic clarity today he brings immense experience as a former minister, the Ministry of Justice and also as a Police and crime Commissioner. And the whole House recognises that expertise. There are. Several reasons to welcome this.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Bill and wish it a smooth passage through its. Legislative stage in your lordships House. This is an example
**** Possible New Speaker ****
lordships House. This is an example of legislative continuity and policy, which we need to see more. Of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of. Especially in the area of the criminal justice system where change takes time because of the change takes time because of the high risks of getting it wrong. The slow pace is evident in the fact that the bill, as has already been mentioned, and the policy of secure academies was first proposed by the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
academies was first proposed by the report. It pointed. Out the problem that it was
**** Possible New Speaker ****
seeking to address. That half. Of. 15 to 17 year olds entering
**** Possible New Speaker ****
15 to 17 year olds entering young offender institutions. Have literacy and numeracy. Levels expected for 7 to 11 year olds. In addition, 40% of under 18 year olds entering these institutions. Had not been in school since there were
**** Possible New Speaker ****
14. This was the. Problem in 2016 2017. In addition. To. That.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That. The Chief Inspector of Prisons, who inspects secure training. Centres and young offender. Institutions.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Institutions. Observed starkly in his annual report that there was not.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A. Single establishment. That we inspected in England and Wales in which it was safe to hold children and young people. The children and young people. The conclusion was. That education needed to be central to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
needed to be central to the response to youth offending. And it proposed secure. Academies.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Academies. Which would be more a school with. Security than a prison with with. Security than a prison with education. I am sure we will all support this focus on education, which is the surest path to improve which is the surest path to improve and transform young lives, to give them hope and a future, which is what we all want for them. We're what we all want for them. We're now in 2025 and so far there's only one academy which is open, and the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
one academy which is open, and the House of Lords library briefing for this debate tells us that. That academy has been.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That academy has been. security. Failings. Over locks and doors. This, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
should stress, is not a criticism of Oasis Restore who have an outstanding. Track record.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Track record. In. Education and who courageously stepped. Up to take on this challenging new type of school, this challenging new type of school, but rather a reflection of the slow but rather a reflection of the slow pace of change. It is also a lesson to successive governments that if we want change, we need to get we want change, we need to get faster and more efficient in delivering innovation, less risk averse, and be more patient in paying attention to results.
In paying attention to results. In 2022, the National Audit. Office produced a report on children in produced a report on children in custody. AC 1257. It estimated that custody. AC 1257. It estimated that the cost of converting the Medway Secure Training Centre into the new Secure Training Centre into the new Oasis Restore Secure Academy would be £4.9 million when it was proposed be £4.9 million when it was proposed in 2016. But by 2022 that cost had
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in 2016. But by 2022 that cost had risen to £36.5 million. That is.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That is. 745% over budget. Now, I don't know if 36.5% was the final figure. Perhaps the Minister can inform us when she comes to respond to this debate, but given that this was a new facility that was designed for around 40 people, that means that the capital cost per place was close to £1 million per person. The revenue cost for secure training centres is already £156,298 per person. That compares to a pupil funding premium of £5,995.
Per year in mainstream schools. And of course, in This Matters. I think that the point which I would say here is that these sums are very large and are not meant to be critical of this government because it is a policy of successive governments. And I don't think anyone would flinch for a moment if this investment meant that the broken and vulnerable lies in these establishments could be restored, and they could actually make a positive contribution to society in the future.
We live in a society where, rightly, we have judgement through which people are held to account for their actions, but we also need the society of the second chance, which holds out the possibility of redemption. We simply cannot write off the lives of children at the age of 12 and 13. Every life has potential, and this matters because these numbers matter. And my fear is that when officials and ministers look at the future of secure academies and the future of this policy and implementing this legislation for the future, they're going to be mindful of looking at the costs for the Medway Secure Training Centre and the experience of the Oasis Restore trust, and that could mean that actually we see less of these secure training centres in the future.
Officials, of course, implement policies, but ministers develop it and parliamentarians are supposed to scrutinise it. We've had over 11 Lord chancellors in the ten years since the Secure training, Secure Academy policy was introduced in 2016. Yet over that period. But there's reason for hope, because I think that the current Lord Chancellor, David Lammy, has immense experience and a real passion for this area, as was demonstrated by the Lammy Review, which was very influential in these areas. I'm also delighted to see the noble and learned Baroness Levitt in her place, because I know she brings immense experience and knowledge of the criminal justice system to this area, so there is indeed hope for the future.
But in concluding this wasn't actually the main focus that I want to say because in the process of reading up for this debate, I read a whole load of material on the youth justice system, and a number of things really surprised me. And I want to focus on a more positive message about young people. And I looked at this, and one of the numbers which leapt out was that the number of children in custody had reduced by 80% over the ten years from 2011 to 2021, it had reduced from a number of 2040.
In 2010 to around 430 now. Now, of course, people, particularly on this side of the house, who always used to draw a sort of correlation between the numbers of people in the prison establishment and the level of crime, might also be interested to hear as to what's happened to criminal offences proven to be committed by young people over that period, when the numbers have reduced so dramatically. Well, in 2010, the number of offences committed by children was 171,750.
In the year ending 2022, that had reduced to 38,518. Why don't we hear more about these figures? Even youth violence, which is prevalent everywhere that we look and see, we see that the number of violent offences proven to be committed by children and young people have reduced from 35,000 in 2011 to just about 12,000 now. These are remarkable statistics which we seldom hear according to the NHS. Last year we saw the lowest number of admissions to hospital for knife related assaults.
We don't hear this positive news. Fraser Nelson, the distinguished British journalist, wrote an essay for The Times published on the 8th of August of this year, titled violent, Lawless, Broken Britain Question Mark. The facts tell a different story. He's right. He points to the fact that most people, especially young people, get their news from social media, which often feeds on fear and exaggeration, and where bad news is amplified, drowning out the fact this matters. As the Violence Research Group at Cardiff University pointed out, serious
12:21
Lord Mann (Labour)
-
-
Lord Mann (Labour)
violence in England and Wales has decreased substantially. This message needs to be better known, message needs to be better known, they said, not least because of the fear of violence and the corrosive fear of violence and the corrosive effect it has on individuals and communities. It makes children and communities. It makes children and young people feel less safe in our communities. To which I would add, it also erodes the intergenerational trust when the facts show that the current generation of children and young generation of children and young people are amongst the most law abiding since the 1970s.
Why do we abiding since the 1970s. Why do we hear this more? A report by Nacro, published in 2024, found that media published in 2024, found that media coverage of young people is likely is twice as likely to be negative rather than positive. Moreover, rather than positive. Moreover, young people were labelled lazy, weak, selfish and dangerous, according to the report, nothing could be further from the truth. could be further from the truth. Our current generation, I believe, is one of the most law abiding that we've ever seen, cares more for the we've ever seen, cares more for the planet, cares more for each other and for other people than any other generation in my living memory.
generation in my living memory. Perhaps if young people read more of these affirming messages, they would realise how valued they are in our society and they would be more positive about their future. And we might have even less need for these institutions in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
future to. My Lords I rise. To. Speak in. Support of this bill. At the encouragement of the Right Reverend.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
encouragement of the Right Reverend. Prelates, the Bishop of Derby. Who regrets. That she can't. Be in. Her. Place today. Noble Lords may.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble Lords may. Be aware that we on these. Benches have. A team of. Bishops the Right Reverend. Prelates, the Bishops.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of Derby, Gloucester. And Lichfield. Who regularly visit. Prisons across the nation, meeting with those in prison,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
meeting with those in prison, prison chaplains. Prison governors. Alike to hear. About ongoing challenges and successes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
challenges and successes. They in particular are. Pleased to see. support.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
support. And are heartened that so many noble Lords and colleagues in the other place. Share the. Conclusion that secure.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Conclusion that secure. Academies are a more promising alternative to children with a custodial sentence.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
custodial sentence. They are fundamentally. Educational establishments at the heart.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the heart. Of work to. Rehabilitate, not simply
**** Possible New Speaker ****
penalise, and ostracise children. We on these benches are. Also encouraged by the government's aim to tailor.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
government's aim to tailor. offer. For children to the needs of. Each child individually.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Each child individually. The teenage years are a crucial time. In the emotional. Mental and. Physical development of children.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If they. Become disengaged. From society. At this critical
**** Possible New Speaker ****
juncture, it has profound. And enduring impact on the rest. Of their lives. The bill makes an important.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The bill makes an important. Change to how consultation is carried out for secure academies. It does. Not.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not. However. Specify which are the appropriate.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Persons to be consulted. We on. These benches. Would suggest. That faith communities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That faith communities. And chaplains should play a role in these discussions, as they have a pastoral and spiritual
**** Possible New Speaker ****
responsibility to the young people they serve. I know. That the Right Reverend Prelates.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That the Right Reverend Prelates. The Bishop of Derby, is keen to. Follow progress. Regarding the. Temporary closure of Oasis Restore.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Restore. Secure School last month and. The potential second secure Service.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Service. Plans to open in the coming months. My Lords. I would conclude.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would conclude. By saying that any policy developed for children in custody must adhere to the principle that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
must adhere to the principle that criminal justice for children should not. Indeed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Cannot, simply follow a blueprint taken from the criminal
**** Possible New Speaker ****
justice system for adults. Children deserve their own separate care. And. Consideration. And I'm.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I'm. Pleased that this bill. Recognises that necessity.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Recognises that necessity. My Lords. First, I should say, I think this bill is perfectly, you think this bill is perfectly, you know, a decent addition to the. To the statute book, the principle the statute book, the principle thing being the two year recognition versus because your client base is only going to be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
there for a couple of years, as opposed to the seven years that will be expected if you. Were actually. Having an ordinary.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Having an ordinary. Academy. Makes sense. So I don't see any objection there. I would also like objection there. I would also like to follow the noble Lord Bates in pointing out what is historical fact and has been for many. Years fact and has been for many. Years that society is getting safer. I know it doesn't sell many red tops. know it doesn't sell many red tops. I know it doesn't make any nice reels on social media or programmes, reels on social media or programmes, but it's the fact and it has been going on.
I mean, I remember somebody once saying to me, why somebody once saying to me, why can't we be safe like we were in the time of Shakespeare? And you suddenly realised that the murder suddenly realised that the murder rate was about 20 times what it is now. There was no police force and most people went around with a bladed weapon. You know, it was de rigueur. So, you know, it's a it's a trend that's been going on a long time, but it is worth pointing it out.
And the fact that the fear of crime is actually probably a bigger problem now, and I totally, I totally endorse what he said. It is something that should be said more often and by more people, and the fact that the previous government does take some credit for actually lowering the rate of people being incarcerated. So congratulations. And please remind anyone, please make sure all your colleagues do point out that it is going down. That would be a really beneficial thing.
So one waits to see what if that has any effect in the next interview. On the dreadful state of youth crime in this country, my Lords, but also to look at the client base here now, everybody, I mean, it was said, I think no more Speaker the average person there has, you know, not been in school since at least 14. Most people I have spoken to have said the scholars were the ones who were there at 14. Most of all, it is earlier.
That was a direct quote from somebody involved in the thing. Secondary school seems to be the cut off going through also, my Lords, and it would be almost incredible if I didn't mention this with my background. In alternative provision, it is accepted that everybody in there has a special educational need. That is the planning basis. My question to government is what are we doing about making sure that we have a teaching staff in these institutions that can deal with the educational problems? My Lords, if you are struggling in school and experiencing failure, which does make you more vulnerable to actually getting involved in the criminal justice system, it's a proven link.
What are we doing to make sure you're getting through and actually addressing this, and making sure your education process is acceptable? Virtually all groups going down there. Dyslexia was the one I first met because of my own connection. But autism, either because they don't handle authority well or they're more commonly, they're more easily led. And these are just two of that I have come across recently, or anybody who fails consistently in the education system, can't get employment, can't work, can't work, handle authority, can't understand letters, messages, you name it going on.
It is a fairly proven pathway. Is are these schools going to make sure they can address and educate the people they're getting? This means a specialist and focussed workforce. Without that, it really won't make much difference because my Lords let's face it, if you have experienced failure in a classroom, being stuck in another classroom, another period of time is not going to improve your attitude to that institution you're in. It has to be more relevant. And indeed, I mean, going back to somebody I met in one of these institutions, he said, if I, you know, he recognised dyslexia.
He said, if I have to be told what, how to spell cat again by somebody who doesn't understand my brain just doesn't work like that. I think I am justified in wanting to kill them. I discouraged him from this attitude. But you can understand the frustration. I hope when the minister replies they will address this, or at least give us a chance to bring this out at another stage in this bill. But I wish it well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. Please let me thank all noble Lords for their valuable Lords for their valuable contributions on this important subject matter. As we have heard, secure 16 to 19 academies are a promising and innovative conceptual approach to improving the youth approach to improving the youth justice system. His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, 2016. Review Inspector of Prisons, 2016. Review of that system advocated for new of that system advocated for new institutions aimed at giving those who committed a custodial offence, I quote a bespoke and intensive I quote a bespoke and intensive programme of study and support in a therapeutic and well ordered therapeutic and well ordered environment.
Indeed, when in government, we agreed with the Chief Inspector of Prisons and set Chief Inspector of Prisons and set upon that task to introduce secure upon that task to introduce secure schools. As a result of that work, the first secure school, the Oasis Restore, was opened with the Restore, was opened with the intention of offering young people who have made poor choices in the who have made poor choices in the past the opportunity to receive rehabilitation support and rehabilitation support and education in order that they may acquire the skills and qualifications needed to both better their lives and to avoid the same mistakes in the future.
My Lords, these mainly young men and women deserve a second chance. As my noble friend Lord farmer, who strives relentlessly for positive prison reform and improving outcomes for offenders, would confirm with the right help and guidance, these youngsters can turn their lives around for the better. I believe all noble lords, regardless of political persuasion, would agree that it is in Parliament's power to facilitate institutions that will provide this, whilst at the same time being entirely realistic that it will be no easy task.
This bill is a further step towards that end, and His Majesty's Loyal Opposition fully supports it. The concept of secure schools presupposes institutions which are flexible, short term and have a high turnover. Young people are rehabilitated at a secure school and released back into society. If and when that happens, there is no guarantee of the demand for such schools, nor the tenure of their occupants. Giving these places of improvement the same treatment as if they were regular schools, or prescribing them with the same regulations and requirements is not practical.
It is, in fact, crystal clear that secure schools urgently require their own remit. Given what we know about the extremely regrettable situation of events at Oasis Restore, assaults and disorder were reportedly rife. A chaotic and often out of control atmosphere, this is a country mile away from the intent behind a secure school, and the fact that the pilot secure school is facing these early challenges is firm evidence that they must have a wider and more adaptable scope for action.
As will so eloquently put by the noble Lord. Lord back decreasing the notice period from seven years to two years allows for the current and any future secure schools to be as flexible as the context requires. In a similar vein, disapplying the requirement to conduct an impact assessment on local maintained schools is prudent. Secure schools are a wholly different type of institution to the average school. They are jointly custodial and educational establishments. They are not competing for the same intake of students as local maintained schools, and therefore comparing schools is both unnecessary and irrelevant, requiring further considerations creates an additional layer of administrative bureaucracy that slows down the process.
And it is that very process which we are trying to achieve with secure schools, namely the rehabilitation and further education of young people, which suffers as a result. We understand that future secure schools will be dependent on funding, as well as the future success of Oasis Restore. We would ask that the noble Baroness, the minister and the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, might consider diverting some resource from their respective departments to focus on making Oasis Restore a shining template for what can be achieved with the right strategy and know how, as my noble friend, Lord farmer and many noble lords across your lordships House agree, including the noble Lord, Lord Bates, it is entirely possible to save young people from re-offending and living a life of crime with all of the incremental negative consequences to society that go with it.
If the right provision is given as early as possible, it is on us to play a pivotal role in helping secure schools to succeed. And His Majesty's Loyal Opposition believes that this bill achieves part of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that. My Lords, I thank noble Lords
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the positive and constructive debate on this important subject, and I congratulate my noble friend and I congratulate my noble friend for bringing forward this bill. I have been particularly struck by have been particularly struck by the emphasis of all those who have spoken, including the noble Earl, the stress that's been placed on the fact that these are children, not just mini criminals. It's the sad reality, however, that a small sad reality, however, that a small number of children commit offences so serious that there is no option other than to deprive them of their other than to deprive them of their liberty in order to protect the public.
It is the government's responsibility to ensure that these responsibility to ensure that these children receive appropriate support in order to prepare them for their eventual release, and we want to go further and ensure that when they leave a custodial setting, when they leave a custodial setting, they are in a position to make a better life for themselves. Secure better life for themselves. Secure 16 to 19 academies, also known as secure schools, offer an opportunity to transform the experience of children who are experience of children who are detained by the state, having been sentenced or remanded into custody by the courts, giving them the opportunity to gain skills and qualifications which will enable them to return to the community and to lead successful and crime free lives, thus protecting the public from reoffending in the future.
This is part of the route for damaged children, damaged, usually through no fault of their own, to lead a better life, better for children, better for the public. Secure schools were already established. As noble Lords have observed by the Academies Act 2010, and the previous government deserves credit for that. This bill is necessary to ensure specific provisions in the act are relevant to these new custodial settings. The government supports this bill because these amendments will create better services and thus strengthen the impact of secure schools on the lives of those children within our justice system.
I turn briefly to why it is that we need secure schools. The good news is, as the noble Lord, Lord Bates, spoke about, that the number of children in custody under the age of 18 has fallen drastically in recent years. He said 80%. I wish I could agree with that. I think the
Why do we abiding since the 1970s. Why do we hear this more? A report by Nacro, published in 2024, found that media published in 2024, found that media coverage of young people is likely is twice as likely to be negative rather than positive. Moreover, rather than positive. Moreover, young people were labelled lazy, weak, selfish and dangerous, according to the report, nothing could be further from the truth. could be further from the truth. Our current generation, I believe, is one of the most law abiding that we've ever seen, cares more for the we've ever seen, cares more for the planet, cares more for each other and for other people than any other generation in my living memory.
generation in my living memory. Perhaps if young people read more of these affirming messages, they would realise how valued they are in our society and they would be more positive about their future. And we might have even less need for these institutions in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
future to. My Lords I rise. To. Speak in. Support of this bill. At the encouragement of the Right Reverend.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
encouragement of the Right Reverend. Prelates, the Bishop of Derby. Who regrets. That she can't. Be in. Her. Place today. Noble Lords may.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble Lords may. Be aware that we on these. Benches have. A team of. Bishops the Right Reverend. Prelates, the Bishops.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of Derby, Gloucester. And Lichfield. Who regularly visit. Prisons across the nation, meeting with those in prison,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
meeting with those in prison, prison chaplains. Prison governors. Alike to hear. About ongoing challenges and successes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
challenges and successes. They in particular are. Pleased to see. support.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
support. And are heartened that so many noble Lords and colleagues in the other place. Share the. Conclusion that secure.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Conclusion that secure. Academies are a more promising alternative to children with a custodial sentence.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
custodial sentence. They are fundamentally. Educational establishments at the heart.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the heart. Of work to. Rehabilitate, not simply
**** Possible New Speaker ****
penalise, and ostracise children. We on these benches are. Also encouraged by the government's aim to tailor.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
government's aim to tailor. offer. For children to the needs of. Each child individually.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Each child individually. The teenage years are a crucial time. In the emotional. Mental and. Physical development of children.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If they. Become disengaged. From society. At this critical
**** Possible New Speaker ****
juncture, it has profound. And enduring impact on the rest. Of their lives. The bill makes an important.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The bill makes an important. Change to how consultation is carried out for secure academies. It does. Not.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not. However. Specify which are the appropriate.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Persons to be consulted. We on. These benches. Would suggest. That faith communities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That faith communities. And chaplains should play a role in these discussions, as they have a pastoral and spiritual
**** Possible New Speaker ****
responsibility to the young people they serve. I know. That the Right Reverend Prelates.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That the Right Reverend Prelates. The Bishop of Derby, is keen to. Follow progress. Regarding the. Temporary closure of Oasis Restore.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Restore. Secure School last month and. The potential second secure Service.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Service. Plans to open in the coming months. My Lords. I would conclude.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I would conclude. By saying that any policy developed for children in custody must adhere to the principle that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
must adhere to the principle that criminal justice for children should not. Indeed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Cannot, simply follow a blueprint taken from the criminal
**** Possible New Speaker ****
justice system for adults. Children deserve their own separate care. And. Consideration. And I'm.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I'm. Pleased that this bill. Recognises that necessity.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Recognises that necessity. My Lords. First, I should say, I think this bill is perfectly, you think this bill is perfectly, you know, a decent addition to the. To the statute book, the principle the statute book, the principle thing being the two year recognition versus because your client base is only going to be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
there for a couple of years, as opposed to the seven years that will be expected if you. Were actually. Having an ordinary.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Having an ordinary. Academy. Makes sense. So I don't see any objection there. I would also like objection there. I would also like to follow the noble Lord Bates in pointing out what is historical fact and has been for many. Years fact and has been for many. Years that society is getting safer. I know it doesn't sell many red tops. know it doesn't sell many red tops. I know it doesn't make any nice reels on social media or programmes, reels on social media or programmes, but it's the fact and it has been going on.
I mean, I remember somebody once saying to me, why somebody once saying to me, why can't we be safe like we were in the time of Shakespeare? And you suddenly realised that the murder suddenly realised that the murder rate was about 20 times what it is now. There was no police force and most people went around with a bladed weapon. You know, it was de rigueur. So, you know, it's a it's a trend that's been going on a long time, but it is worth pointing it out.
And the fact that the fear of crime is actually probably a bigger problem now, and I totally, I totally endorse what he said. It is something that should be said more often and by more people, and the fact that the previous government does take some credit for actually lowering the rate of people being incarcerated. So congratulations. And please remind anyone, please make sure all your colleagues do point out that it is going down. That would be a really beneficial thing.
So one waits to see what if that has any effect in the next interview. On the dreadful state of youth crime in this country, my Lords, but also to look at the client base here now, everybody, I mean, it was said, I think no more Speaker the average person there has, you know, not been in school since at least 14. Most people I have spoken to have said the scholars were the ones who were there at 14. Most of all, it is earlier.
That was a direct quote from somebody involved in the thing. Secondary school seems to be the cut off going through also, my Lords, and it would be almost incredible if I didn't mention this with my background. In alternative provision, it is accepted that everybody in there has a special educational need. That is the planning basis. My question to government is what are we doing about making sure that we have a teaching staff in these institutions that can deal with the educational problems? My Lords, if you are struggling in school and experiencing failure, which does make you more vulnerable to actually getting involved in the criminal justice system, it's a proven link.
What are we doing to make sure you're getting through and actually addressing this, and making sure your education process is acceptable? Virtually all groups going down there. Dyslexia was the one I first met because of my own connection. But autism, either because they don't handle authority well or they're more commonly, they're more easily led. And these are just two of that I have come across recently, or anybody who fails consistently in the education system, can't get employment, can't work, can't work, handle authority, can't understand letters, messages, you name it going on.
It is a fairly proven pathway. Is are these schools going to make sure they can address and educate the people they're getting? This means a specialist and focussed workforce. Without that, it really won't make much difference because my Lords let's face it, if you have experienced failure in a classroom, being stuck in another classroom, another period of time is not going to improve your attitude to that institution you're in. It has to be more relevant. And indeed, I mean, going back to somebody I met in one of these institutions, he said, if I, you know, he recognised dyslexia.
He said, if I have to be told what, how to spell cat again by somebody who doesn't understand my brain just doesn't work like that. I think I am justified in wanting to kill them. I discouraged him from this attitude. But you can understand the frustration. I hope when the minister replies they will address this, or at least give us a chance to bring this out at another stage in this bill. But I wish it well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. Please let me thank all noble Lords for their valuable Lords for their valuable contributions on this important subject matter. As we have heard, secure 16 to 19 academies are a promising and innovative conceptual approach to improving the youth approach to improving the youth justice system. His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, 2016. Review Inspector of Prisons, 2016. Review of that system advocated for new of that system advocated for new institutions aimed at giving those who committed a custodial offence, I quote a bespoke and intensive I quote a bespoke and intensive programme of study and support in a therapeutic and well ordered therapeutic and well ordered environment.
Indeed, when in government, we agreed with the Chief Inspector of Prisons and set Chief Inspector of Prisons and set upon that task to introduce secure upon that task to introduce secure schools. As a result of that work, the first secure school, the Oasis Restore, was opened with the Restore, was opened with the intention of offering young people who have made poor choices in the who have made poor choices in the past the opportunity to receive rehabilitation support and rehabilitation support and education in order that they may acquire the skills and qualifications needed to both better their lives and to avoid the same mistakes in the future.
My Lords, these mainly young men and women deserve a second chance. As my noble friend Lord farmer, who strives relentlessly for positive prison reform and improving outcomes for offenders, would confirm with the right help and guidance, these youngsters can turn their lives around for the better. I believe all noble lords, regardless of political persuasion, would agree that it is in Parliament's power to facilitate institutions that will provide this, whilst at the same time being entirely realistic that it will be no easy task.
This bill is a further step towards that end, and His Majesty's Loyal Opposition fully supports it. The concept of secure schools presupposes institutions which are flexible, short term and have a high turnover. Young people are rehabilitated at a secure school and released back into society. If and when that happens, there is no guarantee of the demand for such schools, nor the tenure of their occupants. Giving these places of improvement the same treatment as if they were regular schools, or prescribing them with the same regulations and requirements is not practical.
It is, in fact, crystal clear that secure schools urgently require their own remit. Given what we know about the extremely regrettable situation of events at Oasis Restore, assaults and disorder were reportedly rife. A chaotic and often out of control atmosphere, this is a country mile away from the intent behind a secure school, and the fact that the pilot secure school is facing these early challenges is firm evidence that they must have a wider and more adaptable scope for action.
As will so eloquently put by the noble Lord. Lord back decreasing the notice period from seven years to two years allows for the current and any future secure schools to be as flexible as the context requires. In a similar vein, disapplying the requirement to conduct an impact assessment on local maintained schools is prudent. Secure schools are a wholly different type of institution to the average school. They are jointly custodial and educational establishments. They are not competing for the same intake of students as local maintained schools, and therefore comparing schools is both unnecessary and irrelevant, requiring further considerations creates an additional layer of administrative bureaucracy that slows down the process.
And it is that very process which we are trying to achieve with secure schools, namely the rehabilitation and further education of young people, which suffers as a result. We understand that future secure schools will be dependent on funding, as well as the future success of Oasis Restore. We would ask that the noble Baroness, the minister and the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, might consider diverting some resource from their respective departments to focus on making Oasis Restore a shining template for what can be achieved with the right strategy and know how, as my noble friend, Lord farmer and many noble lords across your lordships House agree, including the noble Lord, Lord Bates, it is entirely possible to save young people from re-offending and living a life of crime with all of the incremental negative consequences to society that go with it.
If the right provision is given as early as possible, it is on us to play a pivotal role in helping secure schools to succeed. And His Majesty's Loyal Opposition believes that this bill achieves part of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that. My Lords, I thank noble Lords
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the positive and constructive debate on this important subject, and I congratulate my noble friend and I congratulate my noble friend for bringing forward this bill. I have been particularly struck by have been particularly struck by the emphasis of all those who have spoken, including the noble Earl, the stress that's been placed on the fact that these are children, not just mini criminals. It's the sad reality, however, that a small sad reality, however, that a small number of children commit offences so serious that there is no option other than to deprive them of their other than to deprive them of their liberty in order to protect the public.
It is the government's responsibility to ensure that these responsibility to ensure that these children receive appropriate support in order to prepare them for their eventual release, and we want to go further and ensure that when they leave a custodial setting, when they leave a custodial setting, they are in a position to make a better life for themselves. Secure better life for themselves. Secure 16 to 19 academies, also known as secure schools, offer an opportunity to transform the experience of children who are experience of children who are detained by the state, having been sentenced or remanded into custody by the courts, giving them the opportunity to gain skills and qualifications which will enable them to return to the community and to lead successful and crime free lives, thus protecting the public from reoffending in the future.
This is part of the route for damaged children, damaged, usually through no fault of their own, to lead a better life, better for children, better for the public. Secure schools were already established. As noble Lords have observed by the Academies Act 2010, and the previous government deserves credit for that. This bill is necessary to ensure specific provisions in the act are relevant to these new custodial settings. The government supports this bill because these amendments will create better services and thus strengthen the impact of secure schools on the lives of those children within our justice system.
I turn briefly to why it is that we need secure schools. The good news is, as the noble Lord, Lord Bates, spoke about, that the number of children in custody under the age of 18 has fallen drastically in recent years. He said 80%. I wish I could agree with that. I think the
12:39
Lord Shamash (Labour)
-
-
Lord Shamash (Labour)
figure may be a little bit lower 60%, but the point is still an important one, perhaps 60% fewer children in custody than there were a decade ago. I say that's good news, because this government news, because this government agrees with the last that we should only deprive children of their liberty as a last resort. And this liberty as a last resort. And this decline in numbers has rightly been commended as a success of the youth justice system. However, for justice system.
However, for children that commit the most serious crimes, there is often no alternative but to protect the alternative but to protect the public by detaining them in custody. And these children now in custody are amongst the most complex and are amongst the most complex and vulnerable in society. They also present with very challenging behaviour. The majority have committed offences of violence and my Lords. It is a sad and depressing fact that children leaving custody have some of the highest re-offending rates in the highest re-offending rates in the justice system.
The latest statistics show that 66% of children released from custody go children released from custody go on to reoffend within a year. The children in custody are also much children in custody are also much more likely than their peers to have had a disrupted education. have had a disrupted education. Government analysis shows that around 90% of children sentenced to custody had a record of persistent absence, and this means that these children have lost out on months or years worth of learning. As the noble Lord, Lord Bates said, many of them have not been at school for the last years, and when they were required to be there, and therefore they've lost out on that, the evidence is clear about the importance of education as a factor preventing children from offending.
However, for children that commit the most serious crimes, there is often no alternative but to protect the alternative but to protect the public by detaining them in custody. And these children now in custody are amongst the most complex and are amongst the most complex and vulnerable in society. They also present with very challenging behaviour. The majority have committed offences of violence and my Lords. It is a sad and depressing fact that children leaving custody have some of the highest re-offending rates in the highest re-offending rates in the justice system.
The latest statistics show that 66% of children released from custody go children released from custody go on to reoffend within a year. The children in custody are also much children in custody are also much more likely than their peers to have had a disrupted education. have had a disrupted education. Government analysis shows that around 90% of children sentenced to custody had a record of persistent absence, and this means that these children have lost out on months or years worth of learning. As the noble Lord, Lord Bates said, many of them have not been at school for the last years, and when they were required to be there, and therefore they've lost out on that, the evidence is clear about the importance of education as a factor preventing children from offending.
12:40
Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
Secure schools offer an opportunity for these children to re-engage with education and to make the most of their potential. The secure school model has been developed in accordance with the best available evidence for what works in addressing the underlying causes of youth offending, and that is why youth offending, and that is why secure schools will offer children small environments as home like, as small environments as home like, as can be achieved with healthcare and education at their heart. So, as has already been said by others, has already been said by others, including the noble Lord, Lord Bates, these are not prisons with education.
They are primarily education. They are primarily schools, but within a secure environment. In them, children and young people will engage with integrated care, health and education services, which most education services, which most importantly will be tailored to their individual needs. Upon entry, each young person has a full assessment of their needs, and this will establish a baseline against which their progress will be which their progress will be measured and ensure that any hitherto unmet health and special educational needs are identified as the noble Lord.
Lord Addington has said. Many studies, including said. Many studies, including recent reports, have shown that children in the youth justice system have a disproportionate number of those with special educational needs and are neurodivergent amongst their number. So each child is going to receive a personalised programme to build on their strengths and develop their potential, with the use of evidence based interventions to help them build resilience and develop vital life and social skills to help them in the future. Education will take place in appropriate size groups, including 1 to 1 where needed.
Children in secure schools have the opportunity to make educational progress on a par with their peers in mainstream schools, but that will self-evidently have to be proportionate to the length of their sentence. Secure schools work closely with youth offending teams, education, health and other community service providers and with young people's families where appropriate, and planning for resettlement will start when a young person enters a secure school and be adapted to support transition to the adult estate where appropriate.
I now turn briefly to why the government supports this bill. Secure schools are a key reform in youth custody, which best fit the evidence of what works to reduce re-offending and ultimately protect the public by ensuring that there are fewer victims of youth crime. As noble Earl Lords have heard, the first secure school was opened in August 2024, and your Lordships' House and as the noble Lord, Lord Bates and the Right Reverend Prelate have alluded to, be aware that unfortunately, school is temporarily closed while repairs are being made to a number of doors within the site in order to ensure the children's safety.
We take this matter extremely seriously and officials are working as hard as possible so that the site can re-open in early 2026. I'm grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bates and the noble Earl for their acknowledgement that these early issues, these problems, do not invalidate the whole system, but they are things from which the government can and will learn in order to make sure that when this is rolled out further, there are the lesser. The problems that have arisen here will not be replicated.
These early operational issues don't detract from the need to ensure that we have the most effective legislative basis for secure schools to operate in the future, because by ensuring that secure schools function well with proportionate termination measures and efficient processes for opening
They are primarily education. They are primarily schools, but within a secure environment. In them, children and young people will engage with integrated care, health and education services, which most education services, which most importantly will be tailored to their individual needs. Upon entry, each young person has a full assessment of their needs, and this will establish a baseline against which their progress will be which their progress will be measured and ensure that any hitherto unmet health and special educational needs are identified as the noble Lord.
Lord Addington has said. Many studies, including said. Many studies, including recent reports, have shown that children in the youth justice system have a disproportionate number of those with special educational needs and are neurodivergent amongst their number. So each child is going to receive a personalised programme to build on their strengths and develop their potential, with the use of evidence based interventions to help them build resilience and develop vital life and social skills to help them in the future. Education will take place in appropriate size groups, including 1 to 1 where needed.
Children in secure schools have the opportunity to make educational progress on a par with their peers in mainstream schools, but that will self-evidently have to be proportionate to the length of their sentence. Secure schools work closely with youth offending teams, education, health and other community service providers and with young people's families where appropriate, and planning for resettlement will start when a young person enters a secure school and be adapted to support transition to the adult estate where appropriate.
I now turn briefly to why the government supports this bill. Secure schools are a key reform in youth custody, which best fit the evidence of what works to reduce re-offending and ultimately protect the public by ensuring that there are fewer victims of youth crime. As noble Earl Lords have heard, the first secure school was opened in August 2024, and your Lordships' House and as the noble Lord, Lord Bates and the Right Reverend Prelate have alluded to, be aware that unfortunately, school is temporarily closed while repairs are being made to a number of doors within the site in order to ensure the children's safety.
We take this matter extremely seriously and officials are working as hard as possible so that the site can re-open in early 2026. I'm grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bates and the noble Earl for their acknowledgement that these early issues, these problems, do not invalidate the whole system, but they are things from which the government can and will learn in order to make sure that when this is rolled out further, there are the lesser. The problems that have arisen here will not be replicated.
These early operational issues don't detract from the need to ensure that we have the most effective legislative basis for secure schools to operate in the future, because by ensuring that secure schools function well with proportionate termination measures and efficient processes for opening
12:44
The Earl of Courtown (Conservative)
-
-
The Earl of Courtown (Conservative)
new schools, we can achieve this goal. My Lords are, as my noble friend Lord Bach has said, through this Bill, we have an opportunity to enable government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer with having more flexibility, with having more flexibility, should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with the secure school provider? My Lord the secure school provider? My Lord says. Other noble Lords have pointed out engagement with local communities is a key part of the Ministry of Justice selection procedure for new custodial sites, and should there be a need to open and should there be a need to open new custodial sites, then that will be dealt with through the normal planning procedure.
Point about this is being able to talk about this is being able to talk about how the delivery is managed, rather than whether a site should be opened at all. I do take on board opened at all. I do take on board the Right Reverend Prelates observations about the importance of faith communities. This bill of faith communities. This bill will give the providers the opportunity to engage with their local community, ensuring a more local community, ensuring a more constructive consultation process that will seek to consult on how the secure school should work with the secure school should work with local partners.
The noble Lord, Lord Bates, asked about the costs of these. I'm afraid I don't have of these. I'm afraid I don't have the figures with me. I will, if I may write to him with those. So I reiterate my thanks to my noble friend Lord bath for bringing this bill before the House. I thank the noble Earl for his characteristic generosity and good humour. His response from the opposition benches. I confirm with great pleasure that the government is supporting this important Bill. I look forward to its passage through this House, and I urge colleagues across the House to give this bill their full support.
Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. Seldom have I heard
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. Seldom have I heard such unanimity in this House in any debate at any time over many, many years. And I'd like to warmly thank all those who've taken part in this. I called it important. I think it is an important debate, because this is such a crucial subject for our country and our future. I'd like to thank the Minister, particularly for her remarks and for the support of the government, for the support of the government, for this Private Member's Bill.
I for this Private Member's Bill. I want, because of the anonymity, to say, very little at this particular stage except to say thank you. I stage except to say thank you. I think there are a couple of points. I want to just make. One is agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Bates, whose speech I may say so. I was particularly impressed by the was particularly impressed by the amount of work that had gone into the research that he had done into this subject was very impressive.
this subject was very impressive. But the point about continuity in terms of criminal justice policy terms of criminal justice policy seems to me one that we've forgotten about for too long. Of forgotten about for too long. Of course, political parties must be free to discuss all issues around, all issues that affect people. But in the criminal justice field, it sometimes seems sometimes like a real barrier to progress, where there is automatic opposition from one side or another or another to progress.
And if we can act like we have this morning, at least in agreement, where all people of goodwill feel the same, then I think we should do so more, more often. The only other point I want to make is this. Obviously, schemes like this are expensive. They're bound to be expensive, and we should say that they that they are. But I think everyone in the House would agree that they are worth every penny. If we can change the lives of even one child, and hopefully many more than that, and give them every chance to lead good, happy and successful lives in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
future, my Lords, I beg to move. The question is this Bill be now read a second time As many as are of that opinion say, content not content. The contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords I beg to move that this bill be committed to a committee of the whole House. The question is that this bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this bill be committed to a committee of the whole House. As many as are of that opinion will say. Content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Content. Content, content. The contents have it my Lords, I beg. beg. adjourn.
Point about this is being able to talk about this is being able to talk about how the delivery is managed, rather than whether a site should be opened at all. I do take on board opened at all. I do take on board the Right Reverend Prelates observations about the importance of faith communities. This bill of faith communities. This bill will give the providers the opportunity to engage with their local community, ensuring a more local community, ensuring a more constructive consultation process that will seek to consult on how the secure school should work with the secure school should work with local partners.
The noble Lord, Lord Bates, asked about the costs of these. I'm afraid I don't have of these. I'm afraid I don't have the figures with me. I will, if I may write to him with those. So I reiterate my thanks to my noble friend Lord bath for bringing this bill before the House. I thank the noble Earl for his characteristic generosity and good humour. His response from the opposition benches. I confirm with great pleasure that the government is supporting this important Bill. I look forward to its passage through this House, and I urge colleagues across the House to give this bill their full support.
Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. Seldom have I heard
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. Seldom have I heard such unanimity in this House in any debate at any time over many, many years. And I'd like to warmly thank all those who've taken part in this. I called it important. I think it is an important debate, because this is such a crucial subject for our country and our future. I'd like to thank the Minister, particularly for her remarks and for the support of the government, for the support of the government, for this Private Member's Bill.
I for this Private Member's Bill. I want, because of the anonymity, to say, very little at this particular stage except to say thank you. I stage except to say thank you. I think there are a couple of points. I want to just make. One is agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Bates, whose speech I may say so. I was particularly impressed by the was particularly impressed by the amount of work that had gone into the research that he had done into this subject was very impressive.
this subject was very impressive. But the point about continuity in terms of criminal justice policy terms of criminal justice policy seems to me one that we've forgotten about for too long. Of forgotten about for too long. Of course, political parties must be free to discuss all issues around, all issues that affect people. But in the criminal justice field, it sometimes seems sometimes like a real barrier to progress, where there is automatic opposition from one side or another or another to progress.
And if we can act like we have this morning, at least in agreement, where all people of goodwill feel the same, then I think we should do so more, more often. The only other point I want to make is this. Obviously, schemes like this are expensive. They're bound to be expensive, and we should say that they that they are. But I think everyone in the House would agree that they are worth every penny. If we can change the lives of even one child, and hopefully many more than that, and give them every chance to lead good, happy and successful lives in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
future, my Lords, I beg to move. The question is this Bill be now read a second time As many as are of that opinion say, content not content. The contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords I beg to move that this bill be committed to a committee of the whole House. The question is that this bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this bill be committed to a committee of the whole House. As many as are of that opinion will say. Content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Content. Content, content. The contents have it my Lords, I beg. beg. adjourn.
12:49
12:54