Lords Chamber

Tuesday 2nd December 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:47
None Portrait Oral questions: Adults with learning and communication difficulties: online communications for access to public services Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)
-

Second oral question Lord Cashman my Lords, I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)
-
-
Well, I think everybody agrees that it would be a positive step, but I we do have a special representative in Syria and snow, and as I say, we we continue because like he says, there is huge humanitarian need still in Syria. And very many Syrians living in in Jordan recently speaking to Syrian refugees who would like to return home, but they want to feel that there would be safe and secure, that education would be available for their children, healthcare would be available.

And in too many parts of Syria, still, that is not the situation. So there is a huge amount of work to do, and we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue to play our full part in rebuilding Syria. Lord Singh can I ask my noble friend, the Minister, does the government have concern about the seeming resurgence of ISIL and what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is actually being done about that? Yeah. One of the we of course, and we we take our counter-terrorism work in Syria and elsewhere incredibly seriously. One of the best things that we can do for Syria and for that we can do for Syria and for the wider region is to do everything we can to make sure that everything we can to make sure that Syria has a stable government with inclusive politics and that the, inclusive politics and that the, the, the improvements that we're seeing continue.

This is the best chance we've had for Syria in a very, very long time. And the the threats that he refers to, I think we need to work collaboratively with our partners and allies, as he would expect. But vital to this is maintaining a secure and stable government in Syria.
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:09
None Portrait Oral questions: Timeframe for reassessing overpayments of Carer’s Allowance in line with the recommendations of the Independent Review of Carer’s Allowance Overpayments. Baroness Pitkeathley (Labour)
-

Fourth oral question. the Order Paper and acknowledge the government's positive response to the recommendations in the independent review.
15:09
15:10
15:10
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock (Labour)
-
-
I thank my noble friend for that question and for her work. I want to pay tribute to the millions of unpaid carers across this country. The government values them and the work they do greatly. Carers are also fortunate to have some excellent advocates, including many members of this House, and I think probably we would all acknowledge supreme among the my noble friend who's work in this area has for so very long been been recognised by all of us. My Lords, it Carer's Allowance provides support to around a million people and for most of those who receive it, the experience is positive and the rules are clear.

But my noble friend is right. When we came into government, it became clear that there were far too many cases where working carers have been left with large overpayments to be repaid. That's why we commissioned an independent review of earnings related overpayments. We're very grateful to Liz Sayce for her recommendations, but also to her advisory panel and especially the unpaid carers who shared their experiences. To make that right, we have accepted or partially accepted 38 of the 40 recommendations in the report. We have begun working on many of them already and will set out the details in the new year.

But we will be very clear and transparent. Many of the recommendations referred regard reviewing how we write to people, how we make things clear, how transparent we are. But above all, when the government makes mistakes, it should acknowledge them and put it should acknowledge them and put them right. That's what we're doing.
15:11
15:12
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, what I said last time is absolutely the government's position, which is that for the reasons I explained last time we discussed, I won't get back into them again. Carer's allowance is traditionally not a classic means tested benefit, and so we do want to find ways to tackle this. It will take time, because everything about the system has been built in ways which were designed, not it being a simple non-means-tested benefit, however, we've already done significant things to make a difference. One of the most important of those was to raise the level at which people could earn by by the largest cash amounts since the benefit was created.

Which means if you earn less than 16 hours a week at the National Living Wage, then there's no problem at all. We've also gone through to make sure that most of the ways in which people have fallen foul of the system can be corrected. So, for example, we have taken action on guidance, on communications. We're now checking automatically all of the data that comes in directly from HMRC. And so we're doing all the things that can be done in the short term. However he has the my noble, the noble Lord.

Much as I, I do not want to say it would have to be patient, because in order to be able to remove a cliff edge, the first requirement is to automate earnings coming from HMRC. That can't be done overnight. We've already begun the work. We are looking for all possible workarounds in the short term, but could I finally say this problem has been around for a long time and no one has paid any attention. We spotted it. We take action and we will sort it.
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:37
Lord Whitehead Portrait Lord Whitehead (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill Lord Whitehead. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. My Lords, it is a great honour to address your Lordships' House for the first time, and particularly on a subject that has particularly on a subject that has been close to my heart for as long as I can remember, namely, the health and welfare of our planet and how we can protect and repair and how we can protect and repair our oceans, which will be greatly enhanced by the Bill. The enhanced by the Bill.

The Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill that I am moving today, I would like to commence my remarks by thanking all those who have welcomed me to your Lordships' House so warmly, and have assisted with my introduction to it, to Garter King of Arms, to the clerks, to the House, to Black Rod, and to the esteemed, of course, doorkeepers of our house, and indeed to my marvellous supporters, my introduction, the noble Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble Lady Baroness Blake of Leeds, both former council leaders in their cities.

As I was for a number of years in Southampton, the city I've lived in all my adult life, and which I had the honour to represent as one of its members of Parliament for some 27 years. Much of that time I have spent in Parliament promoting, advocating for and supporting action to fight climate change, particularly through the establishment of low carbon energy. And I hope to be able to continue that advocacy in my time in this place. I've taken the title of Baron Whitehead of Saint Mary's in the city of Southampton, as my thanks to the place that has nurtured me and given me all my life chances, and to which I am hopelessly devoted.

Saint Mary's is the parish in the centre of Southampton and remarkably, contains two institutions of national and international repute the Saint Mary's Stadium, the Southampton Football Club and the National Oceanography Centre. The former is probably of national repute, mainly in the minds of its supporters, one of which, alas, I am, but the latter really is a centre of international repute and has already played a huge role in monitoring and promoting the health and welfare of our oceans, and will continue to play a key role in the UK's approach to the matter, following what I hope will be the adoption of the bill in front of us today.

My Lords, this is a bill of ambition and global significance. It will, alongside associated secondary legislation, enable the United Kingdom to implement its obligations in the agreement under the UN convention on the law of the sea, on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of marine Biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. The BBNJ agreement, and to allow us to take the essential steps required for the UK's ratification. Now, this is a landmark agreement. It represents the culmination of nearly two decades of international negotiation and determined scientific advocacy, and it concerns nothing less than the future of the two thirds of the world's oceans that lie beyond the jurisdiction of any single nation.

These vast areas of ocean remote, largely unexplored but fundamental to life on Earth, regulate our climate. Sustained fisheries, support communities and host ecosystems of staggering complexity and beauty. Yet they are increasingly vulnerable, vulnerable to overexploitation, to pollution, to the cumulative pressures of climate change. The BBNJ agreement is the world's collective answer to this challenge. The bill before us gives the United Kingdom the means to play its full part in that shared endeavour.

My Lords, the United Kingdom was among the first countries to sign the BBNJ agreement when it opened for signature at the UN in 2023. We did so because we recognised that the two thirds of the ocean, in areas beyond national jurisdiction must be governed responsibly and transparently, and with a shared sense of stewardship. This bill provides the domestic legislative framework to implement the three core pillars of the BBNJ agreement relating to marine genetic resources area based management tools, including marine protected areas and environmental impact assessments.

It also provides for regulation making powers, allowing us to implement future decisions taken by the BBNJ conference of the parties, ensuring that the United Kingdom can remain at the forefront of global ocean governance governance in the years ahead. Now, the bill is divided into five parts, with part two, three and four aligning directly with the three substantive sections of the BBNJA agreement. My Lords, part two introduces obligations around the collection, storage, use and reporting of marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction and of digital sequence information on those resources.

UK researchers operating from UK craft, for example, our Royal Research ships will be required to notify a national focal point within the FCDO before and after collecting marine genetic resources, including digital sequence information on those resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction, repositories and institutions holding marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction will be required to provide access to samples under reasonable conditions. This will apply to bodies like the Natural History Museum, of course, the National Oceanography Centre and UK universities.

Similarly, UK databases containing digital sequence information on such resources will need to ensure public access. Those who make use of such material, and whether for academic research or commercial innovation, will be required to notify the national focal point once the results of their research are available, including when those results take the form of published papers or granted patents. The FCDO FCDO will send these notifications to the BBNJ Clearinghouse Mechanism, an open access platform enabling parties to the agreement to understand what is being collected, where and how it is being utilised.

This transparency is the foundation of the BBNJ agreement and benefit sharing regime. It also ensures that researchers in developing states have access to the same scientific information as their counterparts in developed economies. My Lords, marine genetic resources may be the source of tomorrow's medicines and may be the source of new sustainable materials of novel enzymes and breakthroughs we cannot yet imagine. And the UK is proud to be home to world leading institutions such as the Natural History Museum.

And here it is again, the National Oceanography Centre and our many outstanding universities. The bill ensures that they can continue to operate at the cutting edge of marine science, while contributing to a fair and inclusive global framework. Part three of the bill gives the UK the necessary powers to implement internationally agreed measures relating to marine protected areas and other area based management tools established under the BBNJ agreement, and these measures will be agreed at future meetings of the BBNJ conference of the parties, and may include restrictions or management measures that apply to activities taking place in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

This part also enables the UK to implement emergency measures, for example in response to a sudden environmental disaster requiring urgent international action. In essence, part three ensures that when the international community collectively agrees to take measures to protect a vulnerable ecosystem in areas beyond national jurisdiction, the United Kingdom has the means to act accordingly. Turning to part four of the bill. The bill updates the UK's domestic marine licensing regime to incorporate the environmental impact assessment requirements of the agreement.

This applies to Licensable marine activities taking place in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The bill grants powers to update domestic legislation, as new standards and guidelines are developed by the conference to the parties. The ocean economy is evolving rapidly and new technologies, new industries and new pressures. This part ensures that the UK's regulatory framework remains modern, agile and aligned with international best practice, my Lords, put simply, these measures future proof. Our environmental assessment process for activities on the high seas.

Now, in addition to this primary legislation, a small number of Statutory Instruments will be required before the United Kingdom can complete its ratification. These relate in particular to environmental impact assessments and the definition of digital sequence information, and will be laid after Royal Assent once that secondary legislation is in place, the UK will be in a position to deposit its instrument of ratification with the United Nations. As noble Lords may know, the BBNJ agreement will enter into force on the 17th of January, 2026, having now reached the crucial threshold of 60 ratifications.

The inaugural conference of the parties is expected later that year. Now, importantly, the UK can only attend that conference as a state party if we have ratified at least 30 days beforehand. That is why, my Lords, timely passage of this bill is of genuine importance. My Lords, this Bill may appear narrowly scoped and targeted, but its implications are profound. It supports the United Kingdom's commitment to protect 30% of the world's oceans by 2030. It reinforces our belief in multilateralism and a rules based international system at a time when both face increasing strain and it allows us to address global challenges, climate change, biodiversity loss and food security not in isolation, but in partnership with allies and developing states alike.

The UK's leadership in the early BBNJ negotiations was informed by the extraordinary expertise of our marine scientists, our legal scholars and environmental advocates. Many of them have waited a long time for this moment, and their passion and persistence have been instrumental in bringing this agreement to fruition. Now, allow me, my Lords, to recognise the considerable contributions made by noble Lords from across the chamber, by civil society organisations and by our research community, all of whom have shaped the UK's approach to the BBNJ agreement.

And in the spirit of cross-party relations, I would also like to pay tribute to the Ministers in the last government, in particular the noble Lady Baroness Coffey and the noble Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who were part of the team who signed the treaty on behalf of the UK government in 2023. And I would also like to thank my noble friend, the Minister for International Development, for the opportunity to open the debate today. So, my Lords, to conclude, the health of our oceans is inseparable from the health of our planet.

And although we may not know. Not often see these ecosystems with our own eyes. The responsibility to protect them falls on all of us. The BBNJ Bill is our opportunity to rise to that responsibility, to safeguard fragile ecosystems, to support sustainable development, and to ensure that the benefits of ocean science are shared fairly and responsibly. The United Kingdom has always played a leading role in advancing global ocean governments. With this bill, we have the chance to continue that leadership.

The ocean cannot wait, and nor should we. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
15:51
Lord Grantchester Portrait Lord Grantchester (Labour)
-
-
The question is this bill be now. Read a second time. I rise to speak first after the Minister's opening speech from the government benches. And it is my honour today to welcome my noble friend, Lord Whitehead of Saint Mary's to the Dispatch Box and congratulate him on his brilliant maiden speech. I pay tribute to him joining the esteemed ranks of those who have made their maiden speech on the Dispatch Box. He has had a distinguished career from being leader of Southampton City Council.

He championed innovative energy projects and was the first MP to have solar panels. And I even believe a wind turbine installed on his constituency home roof. His private member's bill on climate change may well have been talked out in in his early days, but much of it made it and was incorporated into Labour's world leading Climate Change Act 2008. Climate change that affects so much of the planet's precious biodiversity, especially in the marine environment. The subject of today's bill.

His constituency has within it Saint Mary's Stadium, once home of Southampton FC, where my noble friend is a prominent member of the Saints Trust. Southampton is one of three further stadiums to visit from Everton FC, but I well remember happy visits, especially when Dave Jones, a dependable right back that used to play for us, was Southampton manager, so Southampton was the last team to visit Goodison Park last season and I look forward to welcoming that team and his support at our new Everton Stadium as soon as they can soon resume their rightful place in the Premier League.

While in the Commons, my noble friend was number one in the parliamentary football team, that being the position of goalkeeper and was part of the famous team to play in the Portuguese Parliament in 2006, as part of the 2006 FIFA World Cup curtain raiser. I didn't meet my noble friend on the football pitch, but in the front bench on Statutory Instruments committees. He from the Commons, myself and the Lords on many energy orders. Where to change sporting analogies.

I like to call us the tag team Partners on Energy Matters. I'm very glad to welcome him to your Lordships' House and look forward to his many innovative approaches on energy, not least on fuel poverty matters where there is now the opportunity to utilise DMCC smart metre network to improve identification and tailored intervention for fuel poor households, increasing the use of timely, accurate and cost effective cost effective interventions such as direct to the metre credit and the development of a social tariff.

I'll be looking forward to his many further contributions to our debates and leadership of energy policy developments. My Lords, it could be no better bill in which to make your maiden speech than today's Second Reading of the. Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdictions Bill one, which, like the Climate Change Act, will be universally acclaimed and world leading in supporting one of the greatest challenges in protecting the high seas outside national jurisdictions. These areas of no recognised national authority cover half the surface of the planet are already threatened, not least from claims in the Arctic for valuable minerals and in other areas from overfishing, pollution from abandoned fishing nets, plastics, and the impacts of climate warming.

Sea temperatures, 90% of heat from greenhouse gas emissions are absorbed by the oceans. 30% of CO2 emissions are absorbed by the oceans, 90% of global trade is transported through these oceans, yet only 1.2% of the oceans are currently protected. Species such as whales have constantly been under attack and a threat of ever deeper sea mining and excavations only increases. It is imperative that the UN, through its convention on the law of the seas, has provided this framework for international maritime law and defines the high seas as international waters where all nations may fish, navigate and conduct research under shared principles.

From the UK's accession to the convention in 1997, the UN General Assembly has developed focus on the sustained use of marine biodiversity in those areas, including the oceans and the seabed. The 2022 Cop15 Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework established targets and culminated in 2023 a formal adoption of binding agreements established and developed by consensus. This framework established the 30 by 30 biodiversity targets, 30% of conservation protection of sites by 2030, to which the UK is committed.

This BBNJ bill is drawn up to align UK law with this international agreement and consensus on biodiversity. I welcome the Bill. It sets out the requirements for UK based activity and affiliated projects, vessels and equipment processes, collecting and researching marine resources from international waters. It includes advance notification, post activity reporting and public access to reports and information. Aside from two clauses relating specifically to Scottish law and Ministers, the Bill would apply to the whole of the UK and could be extended to any British Overseas Territories by Orders in Council.

This is very promising. It establishes a system of support to undertake cooperative arrangements among projects, teams, countries and alliances through capacity building and technology sharing. It also establishes an ability to create emergency protected areas in any disaster scenario. It has, as an example, the workings of the Antarctic Treaty System, which already operates as a framework for international management of the Antarctic for conservation. The Other place has welcomed the bill. The government has already adopted the 30 by 30 approach, as it refers to the domestic natural national jurisdictions on land and sea up to 200 nautical miles off the shore, and established a network of 297 marine protected areas covering some 210,000km, representing 23% of the UK's domestic waters.

Here I declare my interest as serving on your Lordships Environment and Climate Change Committee that reported on 30 by 30 in July 2023. This report found that even in the domestic front, there is a long way to go beyond declarations and drawing areas on a map on land. What sites will count towards 30 by 30, when only perhaps less than 10% of England is covered by designations such as Triple S's Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protected Areas, and rampart sites.

The report found a widespread lack of clarity about the level of nature conservation and protection. There is a poor level of monitoring data, which limits understanding of current conditions on land. Only 22% of sites have been monitored in the last six years. On UK waters, the position is even more precarious and unknown, where MPAs are still at the rudimentary stage. From this domestic background, the challenge of the high seas seems daunting. Can the noble Lady, my noble friend, the lady, the Minister in her replies, confirm that at least the signatories to the BBNJ agreement are approaching the situation with the precautionary principle in mind, can she give any indication how conservations about the treaty and how it will work in practice, are developing the practicalities of taking the work forward from this bill would seem extremely daunting.

From the approaches towards the latest COP in Brazil, from the Trump administration and others, towards climate change in general, and deep sea mining in particular, will the government develop a strategy behind the bill regarding how it will undertake its approach, how it will develop a baseline of data from the UK's MPAs into consistency with data on international waters, how it will develop monitoring plans around the world, how it will encourage cooperation and support from the overseas territories. All this presents a costly challenge when budgets may find it difficult to maintain the required level of expenditure, while welcoming the aspirations and imperatives of this bill.

I would like to encourage my noble friend to define the practicalities of how the UK can set priorities and develop expertise of approach to achieve best outcomes. In this, I would like to welcome confirmation of extensive public engagement that could be undertaken to encourage the proper accountabilities and reports that this bill is being taken seriously. Alongside climate change, the UK government can be encouraged to take up this challenge from this endorsement on the shared stewardship of the planet into the future, with the world leading sonography site in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Southampton. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it's a great pleasure to open for the Official Opposition on this important bill. Before I
16:02
Earl of Courtown Portrait The Earl of Courtown (Conservative)
-
-
on this important bill. Before I speak to the bill, I would like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to his place on the front bench and congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. He served many years in the other place. I know he will bring that wealth of experience to his new role in your Lordships' House. My Lords are oceans are home to over 260,000 different species, and their health is essential to health of our planet. Unlike biodiversity within our borders, every nation has a responsibility to protect the high seas.

Two thirds of the world's oceans lie beyond the jurisdiction of any single nation. They are wonderfully biodiverse, but we know they are threatened by a whole host of harms, the most challenging of which includes overfishing, man made pollution and the impact of climate change. It is the duty of all of us to take the responsible action needed to safeguard marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdictions. My Lords, for many years Britain has led the way on protecting our oceans. In our domestic waters, we have established a network of 296 marine protection areas, protecting over 200,000km² of sea.

Even more significantly, we established the Blue Belt programme, supporting our UK overseas territories to assist them in creating and maintaining healthy and productive marine ecosystems. My Lords, that programme shows how committed we are to tackling the serious global problems of overfishing, species extinction and climate change. As noble Lords will be aware, the UK overseas territories are estimated to be home to up to 90% of known endemic UK biodiversity, hosting a huge range of unique and endangered species.

Consequently, we have a unique responsibility to protect that biodiversity through the Blue Belt programme. The UK and our overseas territories have created over four point 4,000,000km² of marine protected areas from the South Atlantic and the Pacific to the Indian Ocean. Can the noble Baroness May Minister provide an update on work the United Kingdom government is doing with our overseas territories to continue their excellent programme as part of the government's manifesto commitment to our overseas territories during the debates.

In the other place, serious concerns were raised about the impact of the UK Mauritius Agreement concerning the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia on the protection of marine biodiversity around the Chagos Archipelago. I know the noble Baroness Miller Minister may feel this issue is not directly concerned with the bill, but we will be seeking to explore the impact of that agreement on marine biodiversity during the debates on this bill. It is only right that noble Lords on this side of the House should be given the opportunity to probe the issue of marine biodiversity in the area around the archipelago at Committee stage.

Turning back to the bill itself, we are firmly supportive of the government's ambition to boost protections for our global marine diversity. We signed the treaty in 2023 as mentioned by the noble Lord, the Minister under the previous government, and we are unwavering in our commitment to biodiversity. That said, as a reasonable opposition, we will scrutinise the Bill in detail to ensure Parliament has had the opportunity to hear. Ministers intend to use the wide ranging regulations making powers contained in the Bill.

We will also seek to understand more fully how the government expects our involvement in the BBNJ conference of the parties to be managed. My Lords, we are also interested to know whether the first marine protected areas under the agreement will be located. I wonder if the noble Baroness, the Minister, can give us an update on that matter on the conference of the parties. The agreement has now been ratified by 60 signatories, which means it will come into force in 2026. Once this bill is passed, does the government have a target date for ratification so we can play a full role from the moment the treaty comes into effect? As many noble Lords will know, our UK fishing industry is struggling.

The government have already capitulated on EU access to our fishing waters. So what impact does the government expect the new marine protected areas to have on our domestic fishing fleet, and what steps will be taken to monitor this over time? My Lords, we are clear that the United Kingdom must uphold its obligations under this landmark treaty. But we must also keep our own domestic interests in mind at all times. Where MPAs do include prohibitions on fishing, what representations will the fishing industry in both the UK and other affected nations be able to make to the conference of the parties, so the full impact of those prohibitions can be considered before an MPA is implemented.

My Lords, we will also seek to probe the UK's rights should we wish to leave the treaty. We do not expect to find ourselves in that position, but it is only right that we consider how we could practically manage an exit from the treaty, should a future government decide, it's expedient for us to do so. What thoughts have Ministers given to that? And can the noble Baroness Minister outline her expectations of how that process might be managed? To the situation arise? In conclusion, my Lords, we are firmly supportive of this Bill's intentions.

The government is right to press ahead with legislation that will allow the treaty to be ratified, and we are proud to have made the UK a signatory of this landmark treaty. When we were in government. Marine biodiversity matters and it is right that we should play our part in protecting it. But that does not mean that we should step back from our duty to do the work of a revising chamber, to scrutinise the Bill in detail and propose improvements when necessary.

We will do that. Work thoroughly and carefully to ensure that this is the best bill it can be when it goes on to become law. I look forward to the response. The noble Baroness, the Minister.
16:09
Lord Krebs Portrait Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord. I join others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to the front bench and congratulating him on his excellent maiden speech. And I was particularly glad that he gave several marketing plugs for the National Oceanography Centre, which I was responsible for setting up when I was the chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council. I'd also like to thank the noble Baroness Baroness Chapman of Darlington for her helpful briefing session on the bill last week. My Lords, I fully support the government's intention to ratify the High Seas Treaty by mid-January 2026, and I can see no good reason for preventing this.

As the legal adviser to the Alliance of Small Island States said before the treaty, the high seas were known as the wild, wild, wet. They are a classic example of the tragedy of the Commons. Against this background, I'd like to ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, three questions. First, what are we talking about when we refer to marine biodiversity? Second, what are the main threats to marine biodiversity? Third, how will the treaty be enforced? My Lords, the treaty aims to protect marine biodiversity in the high seas outside economic exclusion zones.

But, my Lords, no one knows how many species there are in the oceans. According to the World Register of Marine Species, there are about a quarter of a million known marine species, and new species are being discovered at a rate of nearly 2500 a year. Most of these new species are microscopic benthic crustaceans, molluscs, and annelids. It's estimated there are probably between 1 and 2 million species still to be discovered. In other words, about 90% of marine biodiversity is unknown, and if we include bacteria and other microorganisms, the number remains to be discovered will be much greater.

In short, we don't know what it is that this treaty aims to protect. My Lords, I would therefore like to ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, whether she can assure us that the government will support research efforts in our universities, museums and research institutes to fully document marine biodiversity so that we have a better idea of what it is we are protecting. My Lords, my second question concerns the threats to marine biodiversity. There's widespread agreement that human activity is causing the extinction of many species, both in the oceans and on land.

The Marine Conservation Society lists overfishing, bycatch, climate change, pollution and other human activities such as deep sea mining. Among the major causes of loss of marine species. Nearly 38% of the world's stocks are overfished, and an estimated 9 million tonnes a year of fish and other marine organisms are thrown away dead as bycatch, according to the latest figures from DEFRA, 54% of the fish stocks in UK waters are currently overfished. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, therefore assure us that the government will press for sustainable management of fisheries in the high seas and reductions in bycatch, and at the same time set a leadership example by managing our own fish stocks sustainably.

Can she also tell us whether deep sea marine mining will be included in the treaty? Flora and Fauna International point out that the hotspots for marine biodiversity are often associated with deposits of rare minerals, such as cobalt and manganese. These hotspots include the hydrothermal vents where tectonic plates meet on our home, to extraordinary creatures able to survive in near boiling water full of highly toxic chemicals. My Lords, I now turn to my third question enforcement. The Marine Biological Association says, and I quote, if we have learned anything about marine protected areas within national jurisdiction, designating marine protected areas does not mean effective protection.

As I understand it, my Lords, the current regime for enforcement of the law of the sea is based on flag state responsibility. Countries are expected to create offences under national laws and prosecute if there is a violation. The difficulty is that under this regime, vessels can opt for flags with countries that have poor regulation and poor records of prosecution. Could the noble Baroness, the Minister, therefore tell us how the government envisages that the treaty will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

effectively enforced? My Lords, I stand to speak in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I stand to speak in favour of the Bill before your Lordships' House at Second Reading. But first, may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, on his maiden speech. And my first recollection, really, of recollection, really, of Southampton, was visiting the royal research ship Bransfield before it research ship Bransfield before it departed for the Antarctic, and as a ten year old, that was such an
16:14
Lord Bishop of Norwich Portrait The Lord Bishop of Norwich (Bishops)
-
-
exciting visit to go and explore that ship before it travelled to some of the most harshest high seas that we know on the planet. The world's oceans support biodiversity, regulate climate, store carbon, sustain global food webs and provide critical genetic and biological resources. Protecting them is vital not only for ocean health, but for the stability and the wellbeing of the entire planet. Thus, I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for bringing this bill together with the noble Baroness, the Minister, and seeking for its speedy but well scrutinised passage, so that the UK can have a seat at the first conference of the parties of the UN.

BBNJ. May I start my observations with some medieval manuscripts? Many of the cathedral libraries of this nation contain wonderful collections, and over the years I've been struck by the amount of graffiti in the margins of such documents. Doodles by monks and scholars down through the centuries, which quite frequently are little drawings of scary sea monsters. The Leviathans jump out at you as you turn the vellum. These sea monsters and the mysteries of the recesses of the deep captured the imagination of our forebears.

The flood and no other. Parting of the Red sea. The exploits of Jonah in the belly of the whale. The trials of job when he is asked, have you entered into the springs of the sea, or walked in the recesses of the deep? The sea journeys of Saint Paul with his dramatic shipwreck and the Book of Revelations, glassy sea, have all been analysed and interpreted? Yes, and doodled. My Lord's long has been the respect for the sea, for the oceans.

This place of chaos beyond our taming, this place of mystery. With depths beyond human reach, with the glimpses of its wonders reported back by adventurous travellers. Indeed, 32 of the 150 psalms refer to the sea. For example, the psalmist speaks of how some went down to the sea in ships doing business on the mighty waters. They saw the deeds of the Lord, his wondrous works in the deep. My Lords, those wondrous works in the deep are under threat.

We have lost a respectfulness for the high seas in favour of an exploitative attitude. Deep sea mining, overfishing, pollution, ocean acidification, oil and gas extraction are all threats that have faced our oceans provide diverse ecosystems, including hydrothermal vents and cold seeps, with many endemic species within a small area. Our oceans act as the largest carbon sinks on the planet, storing carbon in deep sea sediments, reducing atmospheric CO2 and slowing global warming. Our oceans are nursery grounds for commercially important species and play an important role in the life cycle of many others, including creatures great and small, known and yet unknown as the noble Lord.

Lord Krebs has outlined, our oceans recycle nutrients that eventually resurface and support marine food webs. Our oceans are genetic and biological resources. Reserves of such resources, including those species with such unique adaptations that they can live in extreme pressure, in darkness, in toxic chemical environments, all of which are valuable potentially in biotechnology, medicine and industry. And the list goes on. My Lords, in ratifying the BBNJA agreement, we do need, though, to ensure that our own waters, and particularly the biodiversity of our marine protected areas, are conserved and well managed.

That is why I urge His Majesty's Government to publish its response to the consultation on bottom trawling in marine protected areas. I would also ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, to update your lordships on progress towards a complete ban of this seabed damaging activity in these areas, as advised by the Environmental Audit Committee. My Lords, protecting our oceans is vital not only for ocean health but for the stability of the entire planet and the flourishing of humanity. That's why the government is right to bring forward the ratification of the High Seas

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Treaty, and I fully support them. I Lord Dear the adoption of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I Lord Dear the adoption of the High Seas Treaty in 2023, Mark, one of the most significant achievements in international environmental governance in decades. And the treaty fills a crucial gap in ocean regulation by establishing this comprehensive framework to conserve and sustainably use marine biodiversity in areas beyond biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. That area actually makes up nearly two thirds actually makes up nearly two thirds of the world's ocean, and I'm proud that the United Kingdom played a decisive role in securing this agreement, with the UK government agreement, with the UK government helping to push the negotiations towards a successful conclusion.

And grateful to the Minister for giving me some credits and that of my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon. But I think also it's worth crediting my noble friends Lord Goldsmith and Lord Benyon on their role in the negotiations, even if I did mostly play a part in myself, but also that of Boris Johnson, who really drove a lot of this environmental work in the last government. Now, my Lords, it's also a huge pleasure. I regret, actually, the five minute advisory speech.

It seems to be a habit nowadays of the government to try and curtail when so few people have put in to speak on this very important bill. But nevertheless, what I don't regret is actually seeing the new Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, in his place. A member of Parliament for over 25 years, a shadow energy Minister for over nine years. It is great to see him finally, not for the first time being Minister, but to be an energy Minister in this administration.

And I do know from the work I enjoyed with him in when I was in the Commons as well, is how thoughtful and considerate and how competent this new Minister truly is, and I look forward to working with him on many other issues affecting our planet. In terms of one of the aspects that I think is important to consider while I'm conscious here, the Minister mentioned about timely passage being important, I would be churlish by saying, well, it's taken over a year to get the bill to this stage.

However, one of the things that I will want to ask the Minister, the noble Baroness, what why it is in this bill that we've got a situation where we have to do further regulations to bring this into effect. While I had hoped that we would not need any amendments, I suppose I'm giving due warning that I will be tabled an amendment to try and remove that, because from my perspective, it seems entirely
16:21
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
redundant, especially when we know that the treaty in effect will come into force, not just next year. into force, not just next year. Next month, as more than 60 countries have already ratified. So I think it's important that, having I think it's important that, having been at the leading edge of making sure that we got this treaty with much many negotiations that were much many negotiations that were frankly pretty tough at times. But it's important that we continue to make sure we have a seat at the table when the COP first resumes.

Indeed, one of the things that's Indeed, one of the things that's been important in getting to this point has been demonstrating by our point has been demonstrating by our domestic leadership what we were able to do without threatening our economy, but indeed being fully mindful that whereas the ocean has given so much to us, we haven't recognised that until recently, and it's absolutely vital recognising that a lot of how can I put it? We have taken advantage of the ocean more or less for free.

We now need to repay that and actually give the ocean a rest. But also, critically, the importance of biodiversity in our oceans. Now that's going to be taking quite a lot of the relationships that we have developed over many years. But one of the questions I want to also ask the Minister was, as my noble friend Earl Courtown referred to, the blue belt has been one of the most important elements of UK government policy, working with overseas territories in trying to enhance biodiversity in our oceans.

But I've noticed in this particular bill only no specific overseas territories currently included. I'm conscious that while an order in council can make that happen, one of the things in the UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy, which has published within the last week only one overseas territory made any reference to BBNJ, and that was Bermuda. In thinking and particularly referencing the Sargasso Sea. So I'm very keen to understand what discussions the Minister has had with overseas territories in regards to this because, candidly, if we cannot get the overseas territories fully engaged and by the way, that may mean us coughing up some cash and not adverse to that.

We certainly did plenty of that, never mind through the Blue Belt Fund, but also through a variety of other mechanisms, as my noble friend also referred to earlier regarding the Commonwealth Charter, it is vital that we have them fully engaged in something which is so precious to our planet going forward, in terms of thinking through some of the other aspects of the bill. I'm not going to digress actually into other issues which the noble Lord Lord Krebs has referred to, like deep sea mining and the like.

I appreciate that isn't the role of this specific treaty. And certainly in this bill, we're referring to elements of the legislation to which need to be adapted. But I did want to clarify in clause eight why this does not apply to the Antarctic. I'm conscious that there is already an Antarctic Act, already a treaty. But Ccamlr is appreciate. It's quite how can I put it? Precarious. Not precarious. That's not the right word in conscious that it can be quite challenging considering the role of the Antarctic.

But I would have thought this area of the world would actually lend itself massively to being having a BBNJ kind of MPA designation in terms of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other aspects of BBNJ. No Baroness Sugg comment earlier about the speaking advisory time,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about the speaking advisory time, but I'd be grateful if she could bring things, to. Be grateful for the advice, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be grateful for the advice, but I will carry on with a few things on this in terms of because we we get criticised, I think, noble Lord get criticised, I think, noble Lord say in in committee for doing Second Reading speeches when we're trying to understand the passage of trying to understand the passage of the bill at this key point. So in terms of one of the other aspects, it's already been mentioned, where it's already been mentioned, where could it be? It had widely been expected the first BBNJ would be waters between Galapagos Islands and Ecuador.

But I think there's a golden opportunity to consider between Tristan da Cunha and the Commonwealth country, Namibia. I'm conscious of what the of what the whip has just said, but I do think we need to explore why some of the other clauses are in here. I look at other parts of clause 25. I wonder if the Minister could explain subsection three of clause 25. Indeed, we've got the classic 25, subsection two. She seems to be the classic. In case we've forgotten something, we'll shove this in here.

But part of the bill, I wouldn't like to think that's what we need to do with this treaty. But for that, and I'm sure that we will explore sadly at Committee stage, because I had hoped we wouldn't need amendments. But I do want this bill to go through as quickly as possible. But I think we need to remove some of the barriers that are currently in the way, making sure that Queen part of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

first COP in 2026. Yeah. My Lords, I to welcome the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead of Saint Mary to his seat in your Lordships' to his seat in your Lordships' House and also to the Dispatch Box. And it was wonderful to hear such a green minded speech, which over the green minded speech, which over the past few years has become more common here, but is still very welcome. I particularly liked his welcome. I particularly liked his commenting on protect and repair our ocean, our high seas. I think our ocean, our high seas.

I think that's absolutely crucial that we have to understand how much damage we've done already, and that we do
16:27
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
we've done already, and that we do have to try our best to recover it if we can. Now, the UK was one of the first countries to sign up to the UN agreement on the law of the sea, and we have been active in shaping the treaty. So it makes sense to pass this bill as soon as possible. I want to flag up some reasons why this agreement is a good idea, but also what protections Ministers should be seeking next. Now, the good things are.

It's good for UK science. Our very own National Oceanography Centre is one of the world leaders in ocean scientific research, and this bill will ensure that marine science and technology can develop to further understand and meet the demands of a changing climate. It's good for marine life and ecosystems. Our oceans are full of beautiful things, and protecting our oceans ensures that beauty survives. We are far too careless about such a very precious complex of ecosystems that we barely know anything about.

It's also good for UK food security. A thriving sea is full of life, and some of that life can help to sustain our lives and our economy. We must regulate and manage the competition for the marine genetic resources, which can be used to support development of new drugs, cosmetics, food and industrial processes. But currently, our oceans are collapsing under the strains of plastic pollution, bottom trawling, massive mining projects, toxic dumping and climate change. And it's this combined assault on ecosystems that will collapse life in the seas.

And these problems make international treaties crucial and urgent. The scale of this agreement is huge. It will help to protect two thirds of the world's ocean. It has the kind of vision that will help us deal with the rapidly developing impacts of climate change. However, as is usual with this, government and the last Ministers are trying to grab additional powers via secondary legislation, it would make sense to increase parliamentary scrutiny of secondary powers. Good policy requires accountability, and we need to ensure that our government is listening to a range of experts, not just those people with loads of cash, who can use money and personal contacts to gain access to the detailed discussions.

So my biggest concerns are monitoring and enforcement. I simply don't understand how those two things will happen in any sort of efficient way. I would like us to become a world leader in pushing for the establishment of marine protected areas. In places beyond national jurisdiction. We should be aiming to protect 30% of the world's marine areas by 2030. But I do mean protect. For example, Greenpeace has found that 90% of our marine protected areas aren't really protected at all.

There's no meaningful site wide regulation on the most destructive fishing activity, Greenpeace says of our MPA protection. This is rhetoric over reality, and I think this treaty could be the same. Being a world leader means enforcing the strictest regulation of the existing marine protection areas in UK territorial waters, with an end to bottom trawling and devastating mining operations. And I do hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will help us to do that in a timely well, in a very fast way.

So far, the Trump administration has not ratified the treaty and has actually pursued issuing deep sea deep ocean mining licences, unilaterally ignoring the UN backed International Seabed Authority, and the demand for mining materials is rising. When we barely know anything about our deep seabed, we must also end the public subsidy of pollution within freeports, as we saw up in Teesside when the dredging of industrial chemicals that had been buried for decades allegedly led to the mass deaths of crabs and lobsters along the northeast coast of England, more deregulation of freeports will mean more environmental problems and more taxpayer money spent on cleaning up the mess at a future date.

So while I'm sure most here would like this bill to pass so that we can sign up to the international law 30 days before the ratification, I would say it does not go far enough to protect our ocean. Can the noble Lady, the Minister, tell me how this how strongly this government will live up to the rhetoric?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I declare my environmental interests in the register and and join with other register and and join with other noble Lords in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to our house Lord, Lord Whitehead, to our house and an environmentalist to the FCDO wonderful, wonderful. Can I also wonderful, wonderful. Can I also welcome this bill, as many noble Lords have said, help protect two thirds of the world's oceans, but thirds of the world's oceans, but it also will be a big UK contribution to supporting the 30 by 30 commitment made as part of by 30 commitment made as part of the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and I hope it will also be a positive it will also be a positive statement about the UK's leadership contribution on climate and biodiversity.

That would have been more convincing, perhaps, if we had shown similar leadership on future forests at the recent climate COP at Belgium. But while thanking, I think I've just thanked the government. Can I do an Oliver Twist act and ask for more? I've got five minutes and I've got five. Asks as the Minister and other noble Lords already stressed, can we keep the pressure up to get this bill under secondary legislation through so that we can ensure a place at the first conference of the parties next year? Secondly, can my noble friend, the Minister, ensure that UK actions at home and abroad reflect the values of the treaty? Two examples where we should be showing an example to demonstrate our commitment to the values.

One has already been mentioned, which is progress so far in ending bottom trawling in all our marine protected areas here in the UK. What is being proposed at the moment is inadequate and we need to do better than that. Can my noble friend, the Minister also tell the House what further progress has been made in ensuring that under the Chagos deal, which is a cause close to my heart because it has the largest and one of the most wonderful and important marine protected areas involved.

Can the Minister tell the House what further progress has been made around this deal? To make sure that the the MPA around the Chagos Archipelago is properly safeguarded with the transfer to Mauritius? My third ask is can the Minister reaffirm the UK's position on the moratorium on deep sea mining and licensing that's already been referenced? Now that President Trump is going ahead and ignoring the International Seabed Authority? My fourth is can the Minister urge her colleagues to produce a strategy for overfishing beyond 2026? At the end of the current commitments for the UK, the Fisheries Act simply is not working.

Quotas are not based on evidence and I was convinced that the noble Lord Lord Krebs was going. He's not in his place. I was going to mount a sturdy, evidence based statement about that. But he didn't, and I hadn't done the research in order to back that up. But he would have if he had thought about it. 27% of commercial fish stocks are critically low, and a further 25% on top of that are suffering from overexploitation. More than half of UK fishing opportunities are being allocated in excess of scientific advice, which noble Lord Lord Krebs would have spoken about, and that's leading to heavy declines, but not only in key stocks but undermining the sustainability of fishing livelihoods.

It's impossible to deliver economic growth within fishing if we continue to deplete the asset on which the sector depends, and the combination of declining stocks and increasing concentration of quota in the hands of a very few, mostly foreign owned vessels means that the inshore fleet is now on its knees. This is causing job losses and hardship in coastal towns that are very important electorally. Now I say to my party, so will the government commit to a full review of the Fisheries Act? My last call is is, of course, one that's been already referred to.

And that's last but not least, 145 countries have signed the Global Ocean Treaty, 73 have now formally ratified it. My noble friend, the Minister update the House on what steps the government is taking to persuade those nations who have not yet formally ratified to do so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Our Lords, I should begin by congratulating the noble Lord, the congratulating the noble Lord, the Minister Lord Whitehead, on his opening speech, his maiden speech
16:36
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Portrait Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)
-
-
opening speech, his maiden speech opening his scoring in this House, and may his subsequent contributions be as good as this one. It'll be a fine record. But the bill to which we're giving a Second Reading today, the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill, has a complex and difficult to understand title and an equally complex content. But it is nevertheless, I would argue, a necessary and a desirable major step towards implementing some of the obligations the UK assumed when it signed two other important international treaties the law of the Sea Convention, known as UNCLOS, and the Biodiversity Convention, both of which we signed more than 30 years ago and which we subsequently ratified.

I should perhaps admit that I was a Britain's Permanent Representative to the United Nations when the negotiations of those two founding treaties were concluded, and both were concluded under a conservative government, whose Prime Minister was John Major, who picked up the baton first held by the late noble Lady Baroness Thatcher, who came to realise that collective global action was a necessity of the challenges of global warming and loss of biodiversity were to be reversed, or at least mitigated.

So I would suggest at the outset that this implementing measure deserves to be treated on a non-party basis. Whether it will be so is for others to decide. The urgency of the legislation we are discussing has been spoken to by several noble Lords. We. It is to enable the UK to participate from the outset in the governance procedures of this convention, protecting the biodiversity of those sea areas which fall outside national jurisdictions. What's often known as the open seas.

But those seas are open to to abuse, amounting to plunder and thus requiring protection. And Britain's record justifies and requires its presence on these governance procedures, which, whatever we decide, will enter into force at the beginning of 2026. The historical record of those who fish in and otherwise exploit the resources of these waters is not, let us face it, a good one. Modern technology has facilitated overfishing of stocks, some of them to extinction and the enlargement of the areas where exploitation can take place is an inevitable result of global warming, particularly in the Arctic, making the problem more extensive and the need for protective regulation, such as this convention provides the basis for more urgent that regulation cannot be successfully achieved on a national, rather than an international basis, as the provisions of this bill eloquently demonstrate.

We often hear in this House about the need to defend the rules based international order. That catch all phrase probably confuses as much as it persuades, but there can be little doubt that that order is under serious threat on issues relating to international peace and security, on world trading rules and on the environment. Here is an opportunity not just to circle the wagons around existing rules, but to extend their scope, which it is in general terms, the government's policy and that of the official opposition.

We need to take it up. This debate would not be complete without a reference to one notable and substantial absentee the United States of America. The US Congress has declined to ratify the law of the Sea Convention UNCLOS, despite its provisions being so valuable to their strategic interests, for example, in the South China Sea that the US actually recognises UNCLOS as customary international law, it declined to sign the Biodiversity Convention in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and ever since it has sustained that refusal on the erroneous grounds that it would damage the US's biotechnology industries.

When the main failing of the Biodiversity Convention is that it is too weak, and not that it is too strong. America, of course, will decide for itself what is in its interest. But I do hope that the noble Lord lady, the Minister, will confirm when she winds up this debate that we will continue to urge the US to join these conventions, and that we will continue to hold the door open for them should they have a change of heart.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, let me begin by congratulating Lord Whitehead on congratulating Lord Whitehead on joining this House. He and I worked together in the 1997 Labour government when he was an enormous support to me, and I know he will make a huge contribution to the make a huge contribution to the House. I was a member of the International Relations and Defence Select Committee when it wrote a Select Committee when it wrote a report in 1922 on UNCLOS, the law
16:42
Baroness Blackstone Portrait Baroness Blackstone (Labour)
-
-
of the sea in the 21st century, underlining its recommendations was the committee's view that as a major maritime power, the UK has a strong role to play in the development and maintenance of the law of the sea. As such, it must meet 21st century challenges to ensure a usefulness and relevance of UNCLOS. Many of its recommendations related to issues which are not the direct subject of this bill. But can I ask whether the government will make a progress report on its more recent work covering these matters? They include human rights and labour protections at sea.

There are shocking examples of human rights law being broken with forced labour and appalling working conditions, and they include breaches of maritime security, including piracy and armed robbery at sea. Many such crimes take place partly because of the failure of regulation resulting from the system of flags of convenience, which cries out for reform. There is a need for for an ocean strategy, which was requested by Sarah Champion and MP in the in another place. And I wonder if the Minister can respond on that.

Turning to the central purpose of this bill, the Select Committee also identified the importance of protecting biodiversity, the temperature of the. In the context, sorry, in the context of climate change and dangerous increases in the temperature of the ocean. In doing so, it pointed out the huge role the oceans play in absorbing carbon dioxide released since industrialisation. It also took evidence on the damage land based pollution causes to the marine environment, such as ocean acidification and changes to ocean circulation, which in turn can destroy marine species and the vital environments such as coral reefs and mangrove forests.

Forests that support them. Therefore, I welcome this Bill and congratulate the government for introducing it and ask that it complete its enactment in time for the ratification of the treaty. The Minister has explained already the urgent need to put it into domestic law protections which apply to international rather than domestic waters. The bill is largely technical. However, the section on marine genetic resources strikes me as particularly important. Valuable scientific projects on the high seas are being carried out by British teams, often in international collaborations.

I support new regulatory requirements extending reporting to the Secretary of State, and I do not believe that responsible scientists should see this as overintensive regulation. I also support the area of board management tools set out in part three of the bill. I have two questions for the Minister. First, will UK regulations. Regulatory bodies such as the Marine Management Organisation, with their new powers to act in international waters, need to abide by principles set out in the environmental, the Environment Act of 1921, such as the polluter pays and the precautionary principle.

Second, how does the government intend to work with Non-signatories? And here I follow up on what Lord Hannay has just said, in particular the US, which did sign up originally but will not ratify the treaty. It is surely vital that we try to persuade them to take into account the issues that it raises. I said I end by welcoming what the Minister said in another place on UK support for a moratorium on deep sea mining. I also welcome her statement that the UK will lead the world in the vital protection of our shared oceans, which was endorsed just just now by my noble friend, the new Minister.

Opening the debate today, and I'm sure the Minister in winding will want to say the same.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord, the Minister to his place, and express my admiration that his his maiden
16:46
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
admiration that his his maiden speech has been proposing such an important debate. Now we know that the areas outside the territorial limits, which we know is the high seas, belong to us all, and nobody would sensibly talk against the sensible proposals to protect the deep blue lungs of the world, and the natural fauna and flora that live there. Now I've sailed across the Atlantic in a tall ship. I've sailed atop a dinghy in the Sargasso Sea, mentioned by my noble friend, the Baroness.

And? And it's made me one of the few members of your Lordships' House to have been as close to the briny as I have. And last night, last week, rather, I was in Trinidad highlighting a deep shipping bringing 50,000 tons deadweight tankers via ocean trade to the United Kingdom. They are my bona fides. So in my remarks, I want to focus on two themes. Firstly, that the deep ocean supports shipping fibre optics, pipelines and the connectors that sustain a global economy.

This can't just be about the turtles as important as they are. And secondly, to point out that amongst all the mutual backslapping and self-congratulation in this room, there is a proverbial elephant in the room, or should I say the blue whale, blue whale. And I'm referring to the risks of the uninsured dark fleet, which is the Wild West and which operates outside the conventions and the rules of the sea. And by omitting to mention these two items, the bill is deficient.

And this Second Reading provides an opportunity for the government to repair that defect, because the natural environment must be shared with the commercial environment, which is the medium across which ships pass between countries in pursuit of global trade. That brings 90% of goods to our nation. So I'm disappointed that the bill doesn't realise. The reality is that London is the place where global shipping meets, trades and agrees rules and contracts. That's a missed opportunity and it ignores the global expertise on our doorstep.

So I depart from my noble friend, the Baroness Coffey, in saying this bill should not be amended, because I think it should be because I'm concerned that part three and clause 11 in particular, as the Secretary of State, to make proposals for the inclusion of certain areas and in clause 12 provides for enforcement. But neither in this part nor in the bill more widely are the economy or the London stakeholders mentioned or referred to. Because I've read the treaty and it makes passing reference to the IMO, but I would have expected the bill documentation to have made reference not just to the IMO, which is based in London, but Lloyd's Marine Insurers, publishers of Lloyd's List based in London.

The global nightclubs, the regulatory syndicates which are administered, which are hosted in Leadenhall Street in London, and Clarkson and Braemar, the world's leading shipbrokers, just round the corner in Trafalgar Square in London, Baltic Exchange in London. And I haven't even mentioned the whole panoply of other professionals in lawyers and contracts. I mean, people like Clyde's, for example, Clyde and Co, who are the specialist shipping lawyers. In essence, we don't own ships anymore, but the ships play by London's rules.

But you'd never guess it from this bill and we should rectify that deficiency. So. Now so where are the statutory tests that will require the Secretary of State in pursuance of the powers to consider the important balance between the economy, between shipping, between our interests and our regulatory interest, based in London, because failure to balance the reach, the appropriate balance could end up with the equivalent of another £100 million Banbridge or another useless £700 million fish disco. That's the jeopardy we face.

So I said that London the shipping world plays by London's rules and for the most part it does. But we are missing the reference to The Dark Fleet because which is a network of ships, often poorly maintained, transporting illicit cargoes obscured ownership, lack of insurance, deceptive tactics, going dark, flag hopping, bilge cleaning at sea and and full of hostile actors. And we had a debate last week on that narrow point. I'm mentioning it because the Dark Fleet poses significant risks, not only for maritime safety, but also for the environmental damage this bill is seeking to remedy and silence on our approach to the Dark Fleet and other hostile actors diminishes the effectiveness of this bill.

Now, I know the noble Lord the Minister is making outing, but I know you've got a huge amount of experience, having been a member of Parliament in the other place for Southampton. So I respectfully ask him, how can we spend precious parliamentary time on only half the benefit without considering those modern pirates of the high seas? If we're sincere about protecting our fragile ecosystems, then we need to ensure that all ships, not just ships of the compliant nations, recognise the objectives of this bill.

And whilst we slap each other on the back, we need to recognise that London, and in its widest sense, the economy, is balanced between these well-meaning and important biodiversity objectives. But without a strong economy, we won't be able to enforce the environment in the way that we want to in a world that's full of bad actors.
16:52
Lord Stevens of Birmingham Portrait Lord Stevens of Birmingham (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I too welcome Lord Whitehead as the new Minister, and I'm particularly. Agree with his comment on the excellence of the National Oceanographic Centre in Southampton. There is another important maritime organisation also based in Southampton, namely the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and I declare my interest as the chair of the NCAA, the regulator of the maritime sector in shipping and also as Honorary Officer in the Royal Navy. And I'm therefore prompted immediately to respond to some of the some of the important points that Lord Fuller has just made.

I totally agree with his paean of praise for the importance of the maritime sector in the UK, although in fairness, I do think we have to accept that the scope of this bill is restricted specifically to the implementation of the BBNJ treaty, and therefore I interpret his speech as a call for a broader piece of maritime legislation in a future King's speech, which would enable us to tackle many of the vital points

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that he's just raised. Yes, I. Know the member give way. I think it's important because I've think it's important because I've read the treaty, and the treaty says nothing in this agreement shall prevent a party ourselves shall prevent a party ourselves from adopting more stringent measures with respect to its nationals and vessels, with regard to activities under its jurisdiction and control, in addition to those adopted under this part, in accordance with the international law and in support of the objectives of the agreement.

So I hear what you say about the scope, I hear what you say about the scope, but we have the power in front of us to extend that scope, and I think we should do, because London think we should do, because London is the heart of the global of global shipping. People look to London to set the lead and we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an opportunity to do so. But this bill does not. You're going to come on and discuss that very point, because I discuss that very point, because I think he's referring to article 25 of the treaty, and it is something it would be worth testing more with, it would be worth testing more with, with with the government. But before getting to that, I just wanted to start by saying that like wanted to start by saying that like like other noble Lords, I think we have to recognise this BBNJ treaty is actually an important evolutionary moment in evolutionary moment in international maritime law, really sort of going back to the debate that kicked off in the early 1700s that kicked off in the early 1700s between Grotius and Selden about open seas and closed seas.

And here we have the common heritage of the we have the common heritage of the oceans and a practical mechanism for making at least incremental progress. But we perhaps shouldn't get too carried away with the optimism, because, frankly, the scale and the urgency of the challenge as to what's happening in our oceans, our life support system demands, at the very least, the measures set out in this bill, and probably more so, I think the question that we'll be wanting to test is how, as this bill and the treaty more generally is implemented, will it actually have practical impact? And there are just several areas I might raise with the Minister.

The first is the question about the exemptions for intellectual property around marine genetic resources. And look, there's a reasonable balance to be struck here. I think the Minister, Seema malhotra, in a Commons, has said that the government will not notify for data that is protectable under IP provisions, but it would be useful to hear more from Ministers as to how they think the IP regime will work in juxtaposition to the kind of broader public goals of the treaty itself.

Secondly, there are obviously, as a number of noble Lords have talked about, links between this bill and other maritime legal regimes, in particular the International Seabed Authority and the area does not correspond to the high seas as we know. And I totally endorse the point Lord Krebs made, which is that the mining, even if it's under the exploratory category through the Isa, clearly will have consequences for marine biology and diversity. And so understanding from the government what sort of influence and force field can continue to be placed around the Isa to ensure that, for example, they adopt the more rigorous environmental assessment standards implied by the BBNJ treaty? Hearing more about how in practice, I think that will work will be of great importance.

And then finally, on the enforcement point, the reality is that under UNCLOS, as we've heard from other noble Lords, IUU fishing, overexploitation in coastal MPAs, but certainly the high seas is continuing. Flag hopping flags are convenient fake flags. All of these are stand in the way of the goals that are set out in the treaty. And so, coming back to Lord Fellowes point, my question relates to article 25 of the treaty, where it says at 25 for the parties can adopt measures over and above the flagging measure that is set out in our domestic bill here to support the implementation of the decisions and recommendations of the conference of the parties.

Does that mean, for example, an enhanced role for constabulary or fisheries protection type interventions in the high seas, where they are designated area based management zones or MPAs? And an early test case for this might be the opportunity to develop an MPA covering the so-called Blue Hole north of the Falklands on the border. The ease with Argentina, where this is precisely the sort of mechanism that could correspond to a long standing problem, and if we saw action there, we would begin to believe that this bill, this act

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has teeth. The speakers. Are. As a. Member, replacing Lord Grantchester. On the Environment and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Climate Change Committee. And as a resident of the North Shields Fish Quay on the mouth of the time, right.
16:58
Lord Lennie Portrait Lord Lennie (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

right. Which is. Currently celebrating 800 years since its foundation. Well worth a visit for anyone who's got a day or visit for anyone who's got a day or two to spare. Now, I've never considered the Lord Ahmed noble Lord Ahmed to have been such an eco warrior because but fair play to him. It was he who was one of the early signatories of 145 signatories representing nations to this agreement, which gives rise to this piece of legislation. So credit was credited due.

Without that signatory, we wouldn't be where we are today. And also credit to Baroness Coffey for her role in that too. I'd also like to welcome the return to Parliament of Labour's own green energy warrior, the noble Lord Alan Whitehead, who spoke with great authority, experience and expertise when making his impassioned maiden speech for which he is to be truly congratulated, now, among others, celebrating the regulation that we are about to pass with the deep blue seas will be the sharks, whales, turtles and other marine life who can be assured that the nations recognise the need to exercise control over their own activities and crafts.

Sailing in the high seas. This is excellent news and the government are also to be congratulated for committing to this legislation. It is unfortunate, as Lord Hannay pointed out, that some countries haven't yet signed, but the door remains open for that to happen. Now, our failure to pass this legislation, and I notice Lord Fuller has some objections to it, would have a seriously detrimental effect upon the UK's ability to influence the wider community and presents a risk of reputational damage to our position as one of the leaders in achieving global biodiversity targets.

The Bill will achieve a number of important things. MPAs will be established on the high seas, meaning they should benefit from protections just as our own waters do. Fair and shared access to the benefits of research and discovery, which will make benefit, which will benefit the health and wellbeing of all signatory nations, meaning the smaller nations, the less economically powerful nations will not be disadvantaged as breakthroughs are made in medicine, agricultural fields, and it will strengthen our environmental impact assessments in order to determine whether potential gains outweigh the risk of marine exploration, it will increase and improve capacity in building and technology.

Transfer is making for a sustainable and inclusive ocean economy and overcoming the unlicensed approach. I just have one question for the Minister. How big of a deal is the absence of nations such as the United States from early signatory of this agreement?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for allowing me to
17:01
Baroness Redfern Portrait Baroness Redfern (Conservative)
-
-
speak to the bill in the gap and to congratulate the Minister, Lord Whitehead, for his excellent maiden speech. And as he said, this bill is about ambition, this important piece of legislation is to protect two thirds of the world's oceans with the jurisdiction of a single nation, the home of precious inhabitants, and the ecosystems which provide delicate health needed in providing and including marine protected areas for generations to come. As we all know, our world's oceans are under significant threat.

This bill incorporates protecting and improving the marine environment in the UK as well as internationally, to meet the global commitment of protecting 30% of the world's oceans by 2030. Oceans need action now from international communities to help forge international relationships to ensure exploitation is curtailed. Bottom trawl fishing, too, is highly destructive and damages the seabed is still permitted. So I really hope this practice can and will be halted. The UK's attention to is drawn to hidden overfishing, to the extent illegal discards or by cast are unaccounted for in our fishing quotas.

As we continue to overfish and pollute our oceans. So action again is very much needed into the equation. Two is plastic production and waste doubled in the last 15 to 20 years? To the extent we now see plastic floating in our oceans, that too has to be taken to task in order to breathe back life to protect our vital marine corridors for our endangered marine mammals and birds. Oceans matter. They are host to almost 80% of all life forms of biodiversity, which transcends our national borders.

It is pleasing to note 60 countries have already ratified the treaty, reached in September 25th, when Morocco and Sierra Leone deposited this 60th and 61st instruments of ratification, and this will come into force next month, January 26th. A huge step forward from the oceans to the Chagos Islands, which include vast marine protected areas around the islands, provides a safe corridor for migratory species. So if we are to hand over the islands, can I ask what assurances have been given by Mauritius for marine protection with ensured future funding? This bill, my Lords, will play a significant, significant part enabling protecting our shared blue belt from further irreversible harm to enable healthy oceans for a healthy planet.

And I support UK to meet its international commitments and reinforce its leadership in global ocean governance and support sustainable marine resource use. My Lords, I look forward to the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady, the Minister, for her replies. My Lord sir. I absolutely welcome the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely welcome the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to the opposition to the government from opposition to the government from the opposition, where I used to work with him very closely and I absolutely guarantee to him, if we absolutely guarantee to him, if we can continue the cooperation that we had in trying to achieve the areas in climate change and energy that we often discussed, then these that we often discussed, then these benches will be absolutely behind you. I know I said to you that when you said you were going to resign from your seat at the next general election, I was very sure that you would rebound back into this House.

And here we are. So our congratulations from these ventures and I, the Liberal Democrats and these benches really welcome this bill and indeed the treaty quite clearly. And of course, it's always great to speak in the House when all sides of the House are pretty well in one. I just have a slight trepidation in that the Lord Callanan, who is following me, is has a reputation for being quite competitive in this House, and I'll be interested to see what he has to say.

So I'm still in some trepidation as to the unanimity of the House, but we will see. The Earl of Courtown sounded positive.
17:05
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
So that's something I think the measure that, or the way that we really judge it from these benches really judge it from these benches in terms of the government and I've said this to the Ministers before, is that of how ambitious is the is that of how ambitious is the United Kingdom, not just in ratifying this treaty, but actually ratifying this treaty, but actually making it work, do something and add to global biodiversity and the health of our planet. And I was very pleased that the noble Lord, the Minister, was very positive in the Minister, was very positive in that way.

But I have to say, like the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I also read the Overseas Territory Biodiversity Strategy, which was released last week. And there is that one mention of the BBNJ in there. As the noble Baroness pointed out very well, only mentioning some 120 pages, which was Bermuda and the Sargasso Sea, I would still be very interested to hear from the Minister when she responds to this debate. What other specific areas? I particularly like the Falklands, particularly in terms of the Argentinian connection as well.

I think that's an excellent suggestion, but let's have an agenda there that that actually that actually works. One of the areas, ironically, that is not really covered by the biodiversity treaty. We have to remember the major frustration is we can't actually amend the treaty. We can only amend the legislation. So it's there, we like it. We would have all liked it, I'm sure, to be stronger, but we can't change that. But in terms of one of the areas it really leaves out, it is actually fisheries, which is the biggest threat to biodiversity, I would say, and has been over time, apart maybe from climate change and acidification, that others have mentioned that the the threat has been fisheries.

Now we are a member of five so-called regional fisheries management organisations which span those high seas to tuna ones, one in the Indian Ocean, a salmon Atlantic one and two the north east Atlantic and Northwest Atlantic fishing organisations and my those organisations, because of the enforcement problems that we know that we have have great intentions, are important, but are not as strong as they they need to be. And my question is to the Minister, do we have an agenda? Do we have a wish? Do we have a determination? Apart from just ratifying this treaty, to actually make those regional fisheries management organisations work better and to be a more effective too, if you like, surf the wave further towards helping bio biodiversity.

The other side I want to come on and I was delighted that Baroness Blackstone mentioned this because I was on the same committee as her, the international relations. When we looked at the UNCLOS treaty, which in a way is the what would we call the Achilles heel of this treaty, because it's fundamental status is saying from way back in history, outside territorial waters and certainly outside Eezs on the high seas, you cannot intervene on other flagged vessels without going through a very long, long process.

And that is a particular problem because of the way that flag states operate. And as noble Lords, I'm sure will know, the major nations that have the biggest fleets and tonnage are Liberia, Panama and the Marshall Islands. And the UK is number 2720 seventh on that list. We have 1000 vessels over 100 tons. Panama has eight times that number. But when it comes to tonnage, we only have 1/25 of the tonnage that Panama has. And that is because operators, states, companies, they choose their own flag of convenience, and often they are not able to respond in the way that they do.

So I think absolutely fundamental. And as Baroness Blackstone pointed out, in order to make enforceability and effectiveness of this treaty much better, we have to try to tighten up on that, that situation. Now, that report that we referred to asked the government to look again at the 1986 UN Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships. Now, that's some time ago, and indeed there have only been some 17 ratifications. It needs 40 to come into force. But I would love for the United for the United Kingdom to re-energise that treaty and try to get it implemented.

I think it would make a huge difference in terms of of enforceability for this, for this bill, if we move on to the genetic and digital sequence side, we've mentioned the United States of America, which did sign under the Biden administration, this treaty, but is absolutely not ever over the next during the Trump administration going to sign it. It just isn't. We might talk and strongly to the United States, but there's no way they're going to sign this treaty.

And in fact, when it comes to the International Marine Organisation that we talked about really important works over the the other side of the Thames, America, what, two months ago, actually, through intimidation, stopped the an international agreement that was about to be signed and made around carbon emissions of vessels on the high seas. That treaty was sunk literally by the United States through very aggressive activity. So there is no chance whatsoever of the United States signing this one.

My question, though, to the Minister is what stops? If you like the excellent data sharing and sharing of scientific information for for genetic, marine, genetic, genetic, material and digital sequence information. If British companies or British people wish to do that, what is to stop them then offshoring that activity to the United States and carrying it out there without having to comply with this treaty? And now that's a difficult one. I'd be interested to understand whether the government's thought about that and what it might do.

My last point is that, and here's the thing internationally, we need to look in the mirror as well. And a number of noble Lords have said this. We are not perfect ourselves in terms of looking after our biodiversity within our own waters and our own EEZ, and the recent draft Defra strategic look at at Fisheries and Biodiversity pointed out, as pointed out, that the Northeast Atlantic is one of the worst in terms of depletion of fisheries and biodiversity.

So we have that in our own backyard. We need to get this right. And Lord Krebs and I have often called for remote electronic monitoring, not just of our own fleet, but anybody that comes in our own EEZ. The government has a consultation out on that. It is trying one of two trials which had very little reaction from the fisheries industry, and I believe this would be good for them as well as for us. So let's do that. My Lords, these benches really welcome this treaty.

We want to get it through quickly. We want it ratified. We want the United Kingdom to be positive and implementer. And one of the nations that make sure that this treaty difficult, though it is, is a real success for the high seas.
17:14
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. Well, firstly, let me start by joining with others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to his place on the opposition front bench. When I was a Minister in DESNZ and he was shadow Energy Minister in the other place, we often appeared on panels and seminars together, actually very rarely disagreed on most of the issues. So I know he understands the energy brief extremely well, and I'm sure he'll be a great success in his ministerial position, and I look forward to seeing how he progresses.

I'm sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but we actually support this important bill implementing a landmark agreement which we actually signed when we were in government. As my noble friend Baroness Coffey and my noble friend to the Earl of Courtown reminded us, biodiversity is important both here and abroad, and the government is right to continue our work to protect marine diversity, both at home and on our high seas. As my noble friend Earl of Courtown said in his opening speech, we had in government a strong record on biodiversity beyond beyond signing the UN Agreement on marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction.

Even more of a mouthful than this treaty. We implemented our world leading Blue Belt programs. We supported our overseas territories in delivering protection for endemic marine biodiversity. Meanwhile, we ensured that around 40% of the UK's domestic waters are protected by appropriate marine protected areas. These efforts, which are a continuation of the policy started by the previous government, put the UK at the forefront of the global effort to protect 30% of global seas by 2030. Ministers will have our support as they work to protect the world's oceans from the harms of overfishing, pollution and climate change.

But of course, we do need to get the details right and we will be monitoring the government's approach to ensure that they really are doing the best that we can to protect both marine biodiversity and our home waters, as well as playing a full role in our worldwide efforts to protect our oceans. As we have already heard from a number of speakers in today's debate, the UK is doing a great deal already to protect marine biodiversity, but protecting our oceans, as a number of noble Lords have reminded us, of course, cannot be achieved unilaterally.

So could the noble Baroness. The Minister, when she replies, provide the House with an update on the work that her department and others in government are doing to ensure that our partners across the world are doing their part in also protecting our oceans. What processes, for example, exist under this treaty to ensure that signatories fulfil their obligations? And what consequences would there be for a nation that is a signatory to the treaty, who fails to fulfil those obligations? Without a firm commitment from all signatories, we will struggle to achieve the benefits for marine biodiversity.

So it is essential that the UK continues to play a full role in encouraging other global partners to step up to the demands of this treaty. Could the Minister also confirm whether the UK will support other signatories where they lack the necessary administrative or scientific expertise, for example, to fulfil to fulfil their obligations under the treaty? And if so, what form would that support take and how would it be funded? The location of the new marine protected areas, as my noble friend said in his speech, is important.

Any clarity that Ministers can provide on that would, I'm sure, be helpful to the House as we consider this treaty. It has also been noted already that it will come into effect in early 2026. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that, and any other timelines which go along with the secondary legislation, I think would also be helpful to the House. And how many of those MPAs will include prohibitions on fishing when they are introduced. We on these benches are proud to back the UK fishing industry, so of course we need to get the balance right between MPAs that rightly prohibited overfishing while continuing to protect the sustainability of our fishing industry.

And I will not repeat the point on EU fishing rights in UK waters, but we are disappointed with the government's approach on this. We will hold. We will continue to hold the government to account on. It is essential to get the balance right for our fishing communities who have been, in our view, badly treated by the agreements that this government has made. My noble friend, the Earl of Courtown, I think, summed up our approach to this bill very well at the beginning of this debate.

We will not seek to delay or undermine this important piece of legislation, and we want to support the government in getting the bill, which is necessary for ratification, onto the statute books in good time, not least to allow ratification to happen before the treaty comes into effect early next year. That said, we will, of course, look at the bill in detail as it progresses through its stages. In the other place, we sought to amend the regulation making powers to improve parliamentary accountability.

A number of members have referred to that. We also sought to require Ministers to report to Parliament on the use of those powers under this act and the enforcement of the treaty, and we will return to the issues of accountability and reporting at Committee stage, as well as looking at the impact of the treaty on UK based businesses, particularly, as I mentioned, the sustainability of our fishing fleet. A number of noble Lords Baroness Young of Old Scone my friend Baroness Redfern mentioned the important issue of the UK's approach to the Chagos Archipelago.

We debated this extensively during the recent treaty legislation, and the noble Baroness knows well that we are extremely concerned about the government's political decision to hand over the islands to Mauritius. This means that the UK will no longer be able to play a full role, as we would have played previously in protecting the rich marine biodiversity around those islands. Mauritius is also a signatory to the UN Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, and the UK's treaty with Mauritius establishes a marine protected area around the islands.

Although we are extremely concerned with their ability to actually enforce it, so could the noble Baroness, the Minister please take the opportunity to set out what levers and mechanisms the UK will retain to be able to use under the UN agreement to ensure that Mauritius does fulfil its obligations on marine biodiversity. So, my Lords, we will not waver in our support for global collaboration on marine biodiversity. Healthy oceans are essential and this treaty is, in our view, a real step forward in the fight against the harms of overfishing, pollution and climate change.

Ministers are right to continue the excellent work that we started in this area, but of course, we reserve the right to perhaps disagree with some of the details and to scrutinise this Bill in detail when it progresses to its next legislative stage.
17:21
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. congratulating, as others have, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, on his excellent maiden speech. He brings to this House a wealth of experience from his distinguished career in energy and environmental policy. And I know that both the House and the government in particular, will benefit greatly from his insight in the months and years ahead. And I speak personally as well. I know that he brings great insight, experience, but also an incredibly dry sense of humour and behind the sort of very serious demeanour.

He has an incredible wit and has had me in absolute stitches on many occasions, so. But I'll leave everybody else to look forward to those moments ahead. I'm also grateful to all noble Lords who've contributed to today's debate. I think it's been thoughtful, constructive and rigorous, and we've heard this afternoon that I think many of the views reflect the House when it is at its best. It's been particularly encouraging to hear broad support across all benches for this important piece of legislation.

I think Lord Stevenson, though, did make a very important point that I expect I'll be making on repeat as we move forward with the bill, which is that, yes, there are many things that we might wish to see done around fishing, around bottom trawling, around protection, around marine protected areas, all of these things. But this particular bill is about implementing a treaty. And the trouble with international treaties is they have to be negotiated. The process is long. It can be fraught.

There are trade offs. It is never a treaty that you could. That would be only what we would wish to see. There are inevitably compromises. This is about implementing the outcome of that process. It's good. It's not perfect. There is a long, long way to go. Not everything we may wish to do is in this implementing legislation, but it is still the right thing. And it's an important that the UK is a signatory to this. And as Baroness Young of Old Scone says, that we get on with this and that we're able to take our place at the Conference of Parties early next year.

And she wants assurances that we'll do that. And without wanting to ratchet the pressure on noble Lords, that is kind of down to us, because the UK cannot ratify any treaty until we have our own legislative house in order. And that's what this bill is designed to do. And I think many noble Lords actually encouraged us to try and persuade others who've not yet decided to sign up to, to to take part. And Lord Hannay I know did this Baroness Blackstone Lord Lennie I'm sure others did as well.

I think we should do that. We intend to do that. Our position, our ability to persuade others to become signatories, I would say, is greatly enhanced once we have done our implementing legislation ourselves and we are signatories to the treaty. My Lords, allow me to just return to first principles and to remind the House why this Bill and the BBNJ agreement are vital. The agreement represents a landmark step forward in the stewardship of our shared ocean. It provides the international framework needed to protect the two thirds of the global ocean that lie beyond the jurisdiction of any single state, areas that contain some of the most biodiverse, fragile and least understood ecosystems on the planet.

The agreement will help deliver the ambitions of the coming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, including the global target to effectively conserve and manage at least 30% of the ocean by 2030. These ambitions are not merely environmental aspirations, they are economic necessities. This agreement also advances the UK's wider climate and nature agenda. It reinforces our commitment to multilateral cooperation and strengthens the rule of international law. In doing so, it reaffirms the UN convention on the law of the sea as the cornerstone of global ocean governance.

The bill also positions the United Kingdom to take full advantage of the opportunities presented by this new international regime, and I think this is something that Lord Stevens and my noble friend Lord Whitehead got at in their contributions as well. We are home to one of the world's leading marine science communities, the National Oceanography Centre, the Marine Biological Association and our world class university departments are at the cutting edge of global marine science provisions in the agreement promoting transparency, open data, capacity building and the equitable sharing of benefits from marine genetic resources will help ensure that this scientific excellence continues to flourish.

These reforms will foster collaboration, support innovation, and deepen global understanding of the high seas while keeping the UK at the forefront of ocean research and discovery. So I will just answer a couple of things that noble Lords raised that weren't in the bill, because I know they are of profound interest to many noble Lords and with the House will just indulge me in doing this. But Lord Krebs and I think some other noble Lords as well. Asked about the issue of deep sea mining, just to make it clear, the UK supports a moratorium on deep sea mining until robust environmental safeguards and appropriate regulations in place.

This means that the UK will not sponsor or support the issuing of exploitation contracts by the International Seabed Authority until there is, or unless there is sufficient scientific evidence to assess the potential impact of deep sea mining activities on marine ecosystems and strong, enforceable environmental regulation, standards and guidelines that have been developed and adopted by the International Seabed Authority and noble Lords can take their own view on how likely that is to happen any time soon.

Similarly not included in this bill because it's not part of the agreement, but it is nevertheless important to many noble Lords. Is this issue issue of bottom trawling, which was raised by the Bishop of Norwich and Baroness Redfern as well, and the Marine Management Organisation has consulted on restricting bottom towed gear fishing in 41 offshore marine protected areas, covering around 30,000km² of English waters. The consultation closed on the 29th of September and responses are now being analysed, and this forms part of the government's ambitious programme to protect all English marine protected areas from harmful activity where needed to meet national and international commitments.

But I think the points that they made were they were well made and the government does take them on board, even though it's not, strictly speaking, part of this bill. On enforcement. Many noble Lords are understandably interested in this, not least Lord Krebs, Baroness Jay, Lord Stevens and Lord Callanan. And the BBNJ agreement establishes an Implementation and Compliance Committee to facilitate and consider the implementation of and promote compliance with the provisions of the agreement. Part nine of the BBNJ agreement contains provisions on the settlement of disputes.

As far as domestic plans go, enforcement plans here differ within each specific measure in the bill for Marine genetic resource measures. Clause nine of the bill includes a power to make provision about the enforcement of requirements in respect of marine genetic resource obligations, which allows for the imposition of civil sanctions, including monetary penalties, stop notices, and compliance notices for area based management tools. Regulations made under clause 11th May include provision about enforcement. The nature of enforcement provisions may differ depending on the regulations made, and I will say something about regulations in a minute and the activities that they are regulating.

However, enforcement could include civil or criminal sanctions or powers to detain craft on ratification. We're making the necessary domestic legislative changes in this bill, as I've said, and the relevant secondary legislation, to ensure that we're able to fully implement our obligations under the agreement before ratifying very soon. Once this bill and associated legislation is passed, the UK can proceed to ratify the agreement by depositing the instrument of ratification at the United Nations. This issue of delegated powers, I mean, it really would be the end of days to get through a bill like this without having a long discussion about powers, and I be very sure that we will return to this in committee.

But noble Lord will court down Baroness Coffey Baroness Jay, and I think several others referred to this. I'm going to read out what I have here, and then we will return to this next time we meet. But delegated powers have been taken to ensure that the UK can continue to comply with its international obligations under the BBNJ agreement, the powers will in many cases be exercised following future decisions or determinations taken by the conference of the parties to the BBNJ agreement.

Following the passage of the Bill and relevant secondary legislation and subsequent ratification of the agreement, the UK will be a party to the agreement and will have the opportunity to shape future decisions taken at the conference of the parties meetings. What I think this means is that we need the flexibility in order to implement future decisions, but we can discuss the appropriate process that should be taken and the need for parliamentary involvement and oversight of those things. And I'm sure, I'm sure that we will do that thoroughly.

Baroness Blackstone referred to scientists and researchers and and our impact assessments of the for the BBNJ bill haven't identified any significant costs for scientists and researchers. For example, the pre and post cruise notification requirements mirror, to a large extent, the information that researchers are already required to provide as part of an application for consent to conduct research within the territorial sea or EEZ of a state. The BBNJ is not expected to have a significant or disproportionate impact on small or micro businesses.

The number of UK linked small or medium sized businesses operating in the affected sectors is not expected to be high, and the agreement does offer important opportunities for the UK, which is one of the world's leading marine scientific research communities, and on the cost of implementation. My noble friend Lord Grantchester asked about this. It's I suppose at this stage it is difficult to say what the final institutional size and structure of the BBNJ will look like. It's realistic to look at something like the Convention on Biological Diversity, which is based in Montreal.

Using that as a model. The UK thinks that its contribution, including both the standard assessed contribution and the institutional budget and the 50% top up, could total around £1 million annually. On the issue of. Overseas territories, noble Lord, Lord Courtown Baroness Coffey Lord Teverson I recall mentioning overseas territories, I think it's really important that we're clear about the extent of this. There are no immediate plans for the UK to extend the BBNJ agreement to the Overseas Territories or Crown dependencies, but if any of the overseas territories were to decide that in future that they wished for the BBNJ agreement to be extended to them, then they would have they would need to have appropriate domestic legislation in place before doing so.

And that's why a permissive extent clause is included in the bill, which would enable part or all of this bill to be extended to any of the British Overseas Territories or the Isle of Man in future, if they wished, as part of their domestic implementation of the BBNJ agreement. And this clause has been included following relevant engagement with the Overseas Territories and the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and the bailiwick of Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey, nobody asked about devolution, but I feel I should say anyway, that we're working closely with the devolved administrations, including the Scottish Government, Northern Ireland Executive, to ensure legislative consent for the Bill.

These discussions are ongoing and we hope to have legislative consent motion secured from each legislature by the time of the Lords Report stage of the bill. Baroness Coffey asked about Antarctica and the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica, as she knows, is governed by the Antarctic Treaty System, which has placed the question of territorial sovereignty over the continent in abeyance. Article five, part two of the BBNJ agreement states that it shall be applied in a manner that does not undermine other legal frameworks, and the UK made a declaration on signature of the agreement, stating that the Antarctic Treaty System comprehensively addresses the legal, political and environmental considerations unique to that region and provides a comprehensive framework for the international management of the Antarctic.

So, as such, the measures in this bill with respect to marine genetic resource won't apply to marine genetic resource activities carried out in Antarctica as defined in the Antarctic Act 1994, or to Marine Genetic resources and digital sequence information on these resources from Antarctica. It's for the Antarctic Treaty System to regulate these activities, and the Lord Courtown asked about the impact on UK fishing. The BBNJ does not contain any provision in respect of UK fishers conducting commercial fishing activities, and I appreciate noble Lords.

Lords have many views on this and this is a great opportunity to express them. But this bill doesn't have those provisions within it because this is these activities are governed under the Fisheries Act, 2020. The fishing and fishing related activities are exempt from the requirements of the BBNJ agreement relating to Marine Genetic Resources. As such, the BBNJ Bill excludes UK fishers conducting commercial fishing activities from the application of its provisions on marine genetic resources requirements to conduct environmental impact assessments in relation to fishing are managed through existing legal frameworks and global and regional fisheries bodies.

As a party to the agreement, the UK will be involved in the decision making process for area based management tools and will carefully consider any proposals to understand any potential impacts on UK fishing. And that's why it's important that we are able to ratify so we can take our seat at the first conference of the parties and make sure that we have a say in these sorts of issues. Lord Stevens and Lord Stevenson asked specific questions on marine genetic resource. Article ten, part two of the BBNJ agreement is clear that the marine genetic resource collection provisions do not apply to fishing and fishing related activities.

Clause eight, part one A and B of the bill implement this exception, and I'm sure we can come back in more detail to these issues when we get to committee. But but I, noble Lords, I do thank members from across the House for their thoughtful and constructive contributions to this debate. I've tried to address as many of the points raised as I can, but anything I've missed, I'm sure we can come back to when we meet very shortly. This is a landmark piece of legislation.

It ensures that the UK can ratify and take full part in the international BBNJ work at the United Nations. The measures it contains will not only safeguard marine ecosystems and strengthen our environmental security, but they'll also deliver real benefits for the UK's research and innovation community. The bill represents the UK taking decisive action, protecting the ocean that sustains us all while empowering the scientists, innovators and institutions that are shaping its future. And I commend this bill to the House here.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be now read a second time. As many be now read a second time. As many as of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Going to committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee. Committee, Committee. Oh yeah. Okay.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Okay. So I beg to move that the bill be considered in grand committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be considered in grand committee. Committee now. Got it. The question is that this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be committed to a grand committee as members of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it before I call the next business. It might be a good time for noble Lords involved Motion to resolve not to approve the draft statutory guidance presented to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Parliament pursuant to the Football Governance Act 2025. Lord Moynihan. My Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. Am I. To move my amendment? I've initiated this debate because the initiated this debate because the question of who is captured as a person of significant influence or person of significant influence or control under the act inextricably links to the regulatory regime they will have to follow, and that will
17:41
17:42
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
another place on October the 27th, when she stated that the purpose of the statutory guidance on the the statutory guidance on the meaning of significant influence or control under section one of the act was, and I quote, to ensure act was, and I quote, to ensure that fans can identify the real persons exercising control of their persons exercising control of their clubs, notwithstanding any opaque or complex ownership structures, this will give fans the much needed this will give fans the much needed transparency they deserve.

She added. Just one further observation this delivers the government's this delivers the government's election promises to combat poor governance and financial mismanagement of football clubs in this country. Unfortunately, my Lords has drafted. It does no such thing as the noble Baroness Minister helpfully contributed during the passage of the bill. The concrete benefits to fans are a few statutory protections of mainly heritage items, typically club names, crests courtesy of my noble friend Lord Parkinson, home colours and home ground and consultation, which already exists in most of the professional clubs in this country.

There were no fan veto powers. What it does do is to create far tougher owners and directors test than exist anywhere in the world, and it overlaps with UEFA and the Premier League and the efl's requisite regulation. And there's no clear definition in the guidance about the meaning of integrity or competence, or indeed source of funds. In fact, the stated objective of the regulator is to go further than the Premier League does at the moment, requiring each and every club to list in the personnel statement those of and.

I quote, significant influence and control, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the final rules on guidance and regulation will come before the personal statements of requested from clubs. My Lords, most Premier League clubs sit inside a multi-club organisation and most of the owners live in jurisdictions abroad, while identifying those with significant influence or control is exceptionally difficult to determine. To say, the ownership of a professional football in this country is complex is an understatement.

In the Premier League, there were only two clubs who have a solitary shareholder the state. The staggering complexity of the challenge for clubs is clear. When you realise that ownership of Premier League football clubs is primarily international. As of the summer of this year, American ownership is 40% Chinese, 5% Saudi Arabian, 4% Swiss, 4% Egyptian, 2% national international institutions and others, 2% Greece, 5%, the UAE 4%, Uruguay 2% and the Czech Republic 1%. UK ownership stands at 22%.

Yet clarity is everything. So let me ask the Minister about just one club and I've chosen the noble Baroness, Lady Blake's club and mine. Since we're both avid supporters of Leeds United now, as reported in The Athletic in August this year, Leeds are now 100% owned by 49 Enterprise Global Football LLC, a business registered in the US state of Delaware. The makeup of 40 Niners Enterprises is fairly opaque. All it is really known is that the current Leeds chairman and Jed York, principal owner and CEO of the San Francisco 40 Niners, each own greater than 10%, but less than 25% of 40 niners.

Enterprise partners, which wholly owns 49%. 40 niners. Global football unravelling the rest is close to impossible, but some names of other minority shareholders in 40 Niners Enterprises are known. Australian businessman Peter Lowy, of the global retail property company Westfield Group, sits on the club board and has a shareholding. Red bull, the energy drinks giant, acquired a little under 10% in 2024 alongside a sponsorship deal with the club. 40 Niners Enterprises is split into general partners and limited partners.

The former is a smaller group fighting most of the funding, the latter a large group of unknown quantity contributing smaller amounts to the cause. Mort, York and Lowy all comprise general partners, but beneath them there's a huge cost of supporting characters who have influence. The full list isn't known, but those with small holdings in the group, and thus in Leeds United include Russell Crowe, Michael Phelps, Jordan Spieth, Justin Thomas, Russell Westbrook, TJ McConnell, Larry Nance Jr, Jim Messina and as of May last year, the comedian Will fell.

Now they can certainly exercise influence, but would they be included in the personnel statement and be subject to detailed scrutiny? How about the partners in 40 Niners enterprises who meet regularly and have an influence over their investment? Would they be included in the personnel statement? Indeed, from the minister's reading of the dwarf statutory guidance, who amongst those I have listed all incidentally already known to those to fans of Leeds United, would not require listing on the personnel statement, since under clause 1.6 they would.

Does she believe they are all de facto owners? They have, under paragraph 110 of the guidance, the rights to exercise or actually exercise significant influence. They all meet clause 113 the master clause of intentionally opaque drafting, which reads. There may be other ways an individual actually exercises or has the right to exercise significant influence or control over a club, but they're not mentioned. There is no definition of that. And if you don't have clarity and if you have opaqueness, you are basically providing a field day for lawyers and Lord Pannick will be in lawyers Paradise on reading on this guidance.

In fact, I would suggest that the government rather rapidly sign him up for the Premier League or the EFL do for, not surprisingly, for the fans or rather for surprisingly for the fans of Leeds United, the board of directors who most fans focus on and see their games when they're there virtually every matchday and are under the club's spotlight, fall into the list of exceptions as officers of the club, the managing director, the sole director, non-executive executive director, even a non-executive chairman such as Tottenham Hotspur have who may have a casting vote is on the list of accepted people in this guidance.

This is because, and I quote, although being an officer of a club necessarily involves having a degree of control and influence over its activities, the guidance says it would be exceptional for an officer to have significant influence or control. And I asked the Minister what determines the difference between a chairman being on the board with clear fiduciary responsibilities in this country being exempted from the guidance because they do not have the defined concept of significant influence? They are not my Lord's puppets of the owners.

Some of them have casting rights in terms of final votes on key issues facing the future of the club, and I surely does make no sense to me why the chairman and non-executive directors of the club may be exempted from this, whereas people right down the food chain of ownership that I've mentioned are covered. And when we've sorted out this maze of uncertainty, my Lords, what are the implications for those of significant influence or control? My Lords, with 100 pages plus of legal backing, the football regulator has in his very first conference, called for yet more powers.

In the case of Sheffield Wednesday. And I asked the Minister whether she knows what these additional powers that he has requested are. My Lords, this guidance has a lack of clarity. Its opaque wording and what concerns me as much for an EFL club or Premier League club, is that we must not rock confidence in a highly competitive global market for investment dollars in professional football. And if you lack clarity in the regulation, that is precisely what will happen. And the answer is much made, my Lords, of the similarity of the football regulator with the FCA.

Does the Minister recognise that the FCA is a mature regulator, not just starting out, and that it employs 700 staff dedicated to authorisations with decades of operational precedent and, critically, a stop the clock mechanism in the process, strict completeness criteria, working day calculations and withdrawal mechanisms will all those present in the regulatory regime. And does the Minister accept that many consortium structures with multiple shareholders cross border arrangements, necessitating coordination with overseas authorities? Information from the HMRC, the National Crime Agency, competition organisers and overseas regulatory bodies will make it incredibly difficult to determine who has the significant influence or control.

Not unreasonably, many owners are going to be nervous about putting their names forward and will they have the time to withdraw from the personnel statements and sell out or move their interests to someone in the accepted group? On page ten, between the publication of the regulatory detail and the request for personnel statements, would the Minister advise the Saudi Crown Prince to continue to invest in Newcastle through the PIF? Under such an opaque regime, especially since automatic failure would be accompanied with immediate publication and no procedural safeguards to create unique reputational risk or recourse.

Is it true that every failure will be immediately publicised, as indicated under clause one six? And if so, football clubs, whatever league they're in, will suffer? And could the Minister satisfy the House that all of the key elements, critical flexibilities stop the clock completeness, gates, working days and watering working notices, warning notices coupled with encouraging withdrawals are necessary to enhance inward investment, which is what we all want, and growth and growth of the professional football and if so, why they are not published before the guidance.

Does she agree that they are absolutely essential to the success of EFL and the Premier League? My Lords, in summary, the guidance challenges the competitiveness of English football clubs and creates adverse outcomes to the sporting competitiveness and growth of football by being significantly more prescriptive than the current owners and directors. Tests. The risks of leaks to the press regarding the processing of owners, directors and senior executive positions will deter investment and lead to serious implications of reputation for the IFR.

Whether the confidentiality clauses in this document, in fact the contrary, is the case as clubs will have to publish lists of all their relevant owners, directors and managers subject to significant influence or control tests, and the fans and the press will be able to challenge the IFR decision in each case. Under section one six, the process was meant to apply to new and not incumbent owners. Yet an assessment of an incumbent say the Crown Prince could be triggered if the IFR is in possession of information.

That gives my quotes grounds for concern. What grounds for concern? They are not identified or defined anywhere in the guidance. Anyone can make submissions to the IFR. There is nothing to stop this highly confidential and potentially defamatory information being made public. Yet the overwhelming commitment we see in the United Kingdom from current owners and directors, and particularly relevant to this act in England to run their clubs as custodians on behalf of their players, fans and communities is successful.

The existing governance structures and the ongoing ability to attract interest and investment. Costa pyramid, but particularly within the Premier League, which benefits all EFL clubs, has resulted in very few isolated cases of concern. The subjectivity, my Lords, of the Oat test in this draft statutory guidance is deeply concerning and should be concerning to everybody in the House case by case assessment, the IFR using quotes, judgement and incumbents being investigated. If the IFR has evidence of grounds for concern, are all vague, subjective and damaging to investment and growth.

They are, my Lords, a playground for lawyers. The IFR must be able to demonstrate consistent decisions. Transparency and consistency will be key to avoid reputational risk and potential legal challenge. That, my Lords, is what we need to consider carefully in this debate. And that is the reason I brought it before the House. I think that the key concluding comment I would make is this to have really effective regulation, as I found out when we introduced the water regulator originally back in the early 1990s, and as Minister, part of that team to do so with clarity and consistency and transparency.

All three are missing, sadly, from this statutory guidance, and I just hope the government will take away that point and focus very carefully on changing it in the interests of investors into football, while still achieving all the objectives that they have rightly set out that they want to achieve in order to have an effective regulator. And with those concluding comments, I beg to move my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to. Football Paradise, but.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Football Paradise, but. Not for the reason that Lord Moynihan mentioned. It's because. My team, Arsenal, I declare my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My team, Arsenal, I declare my interest is top of the Premier League and top of the Champions League and top of the Champions League group. As all noble Lords will know, I also declare my interest as counsel to Manchester interest as counsel to Manchester City Football Club in ongoing, long ongoing disciplinary proceedings
17:57
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
ongoing disciplinary proceedings brought by the Premier League. Can I make three points on Lord Moynihan motion? The first is that the Football Governance Act imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish guidance about the meaning of this phrase, significant influence or control that schedule one, paragraph 15 one. Read with paragraph two. Subparagraph one. The Secretary of State has no choice. She has to produce guidance. The second point is that this is what in football terms, is a hospital pass.

Significant influence or control is one of many legal concepts which are amorphous. They depend essentially on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. I can give many examples reasonable care, driving without due care and attention, indecency, obscenity. None of these concepts can be defined with the precision that Lord Moynihan seeks. There's a famous case in the US Supreme Court in the 1960s when Mr. Justice Potter Stewart said in an obscenity case he couldn't define it, but he certainly knew it when he saw it.

And Parliament uses a phrase such as significant influence or control and fails to define it here and in other contexts where that same phrase is used, such as the company's act. Precisely because Parliament wants to ensure sufficient flexibility to cover such cases and circumstances as may arise from time to time which fall within the general mischief at which the act is aimed. That's the whole point of having a phrase such as this and Parliament us not defining it in the legislation.

I very much hope that when the Minister comes to respond to Lord Lord Moynihan that she will not rise, she will not rise to the challenge of attempting to pronounce on the floor of the House how significant influence or control applies to the people that Lord Moynihan mentioned. It would, if I may respectfully say so, not be appropriate for a Minister to attempt to prejudge how this concept applies to particular persons. And my third point I want to make my conclusion is that Lord Moynihan wish to see clarity, to see precision, to see predictability greater than is offered by this guidance is wholly admirable, but it is, with great respect, completely unrealistic.

I always admire Lord Moynihan skill and his effort, but I have to say on this occasion he is quite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clearly offside. Lord Dobbs I'm. Also in football. Paradise because my club, Birmingham City because my club, Birmingham City after 30 years, has actually got very decent owners and seeing Lord very decent owners and seeing Lord Pannick there does remind me that Birmingham beat Arsenal in the League Cup in 2011, which he may League Cup in 2011, which he may well recall. I simply wanted to ask Lord Moynihan this. I know he's Lord Moynihan this. I know he's raised an important issue about essentially definitions, but why a fatal motion? Does he really think?
18:01
18:02
Baroness Debbonaire Portrait Baroness Debbonaire (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I. Wish to speak very briefly. My interest in this matter is actually interest in this matter is actually in the Football Governance Act itself, less in football. I have no football club interest to declare whatsoever. I just want to ask the noble Lord what is he trying to achieve here? Because it feels terribly as though there are all sorts of people in both houses who seem terribly keen to stop the football regulator from getting on with what they're supposed to be getting on with.

This is a bill which originated in the Tory party prior to the general election. It was picked up willingly by the Labour Party while we were in opposition. I was the leader of that team at the time and and I pushed for it to be in our manifesto, and I'm absolutely delighted that it's there. There is an excellent regulator, chair of the regulator in David Kogan, who has the respect of all sides of football, who really is uniquely well qualified in his knowledge of both broadcasting and of football.

And really, all we need here is for them to be allowed to get on with their job. It is my understanding that they are doing so at a great speed in the interests of football club. And when he refers to specifics, I would just ask him. Surely he wants those football clubs to survive and thrive, and that's what this regulator is about. And that's what this party wants to see, is the game of football surviving and thriving up and down all quarters, all parts of the country.

And that's what the football regulator was set up to do. I really hope that he isn't trying to stand in the way of progress. to stand in the way of progress.
18:03
Lord Watson of Invergowrie Portrait Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-
-
Okay. Thank you. fact she she she said that the the bill had originated as a Tory proposal when she was a shadow Minister. I do not think she had joined your Lordships' House when we were a year ago when we were going through this bill, and we had the marvellous sight of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who had moved the Bill for the Tory party prior to the election, turning handstands to say why the Bill was not suitable and we really did not need it at all.

And there was all sorts of. Changes that had to be introduced before it could make any progress. The text for we don't really want to make any progress at all, and I understand that was not always personal. On the behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, but they were forced from, shall we say, behind him. In many cases, those influenced by connection with Premier League football clubs. And I say to the noble Lord Lord Moynihan a huge respect, particularly in sporting matters, and loath to even question his his motives.

But I wonder why he's doing this, is it not rerunning some of the debates we had a year ago when there was opposition to the bill, per se? And that is why I think he's trying to make sure I'm not suggesting he's acting on behalf of anyone else. Well, capable of speaking for himself. But it seems to me that when he when he took the Leeds United example, that was personal. But when he began to unpick the layers, almost like an onion of who controls the club, I can understand why there was those questions there, but that seems to be more an issue about Leeds United rather than is about the Bill and this guidance.

If we look at the guidance and I can't understand why he thinks it's unclear, if we look at the guidance on 2.7, it talks about significant influence control, for example, absolute decision or veto rights relating to. And there are eight examples. It is quite clear, I think we can look too closely at what significant influence or control actually means. I think it is usually quite clear, and those people involved themselves know whether they have that. No. Lord Lord Moynihan talked about effectively.

Turning people away from football because of the, the, the test that they will have to meet. Well, I would suggest, if people are not prepared to be open and transparent about what they're doing and perhaps why they're doing it, then they won't be any loss to football, because there's more to that than just the the financial, the financial terms. The last point I wanted to make was he did quote his own football club, which I think I'm right in saying, was not a Premier League club at this time last year when the bill was going through.

But it seemed to me that the main thrust is about Premier League clubs rather than EFL clubs. If we're declaring our interests then I'm a proud part. Owner and season ticket holder at AFC Wimbledon. Further down the the the pyramid. But he talked about getting rid. He said I think I'm quoting and he said we didn't think the bill was going to be about the guidance was about existing owners. It was about new owners hoping to come into the game. Well, I didn't get that impression when we had the discussions a year, a year ago.

And look at look at the supporters of clubs at, I think level two reading, Cardiff City, Sheffield Wednesday, who we mentioned, who could not get rid of owners, that they were really dragging those clubs down. It's not just about the Premier League, it's about clubs at a lower level who may have aspirations to get to the Premier League. But there are more, shall we say, mundane examples than the high flyers who hope to be the arsenal's of this world. So I would just say that again, like my noble friend Lord hunt said as well, I'm not sure what Lord Moynihan is seeking to achieve other than to undermine the force of the bill itself, the act itself.
18:07
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
When I saw that we were actually were going to pray against the bill, I thought, oh, this interesting because I know the Lord Lord Moynihan well, he's he's good at this, isn't he? And he casts the fly across the water and drags it out to see if we'll rise and bite. Well, this trout is biting, but not at the fly at the line. My Lords, you've got a situation here where the bill is going through, and we have we will have president and we will have case law very quickly about how this is operating.

We will actually have to let the regulator get on with it. And there was one point I do agree with him on. It's incredibly complicated. The ownership of these national bodies. And though the Lord Watson has just mentioned it, if you think this complicated look down the chain. These are institutions, many of which origins go back to the Victorian period they've been through. Many, shall we say, evolutions or changes or indeed some, some traumatic experiences along the way wrapped around them.

There is a great mess about these institutions as you look at them. That's why they get into so much trouble. That's why we need the regulator. You will have to have a series of general terms, which will be defined by experience and case law, and by the attitude of the regulators. I hope the current regulators are success. Let's face it, he hasn't exactly arrived with a to universal fanfare, but I hope it's a success. And we set a precedent for how this should be done, because we need that.

It is too complicated to get the definitions and clarity you are the noble Lord is seeking for here. I know he opposed the regulation of this sport. He's worried about other bits. I happen to disagree with him on this, may agree with him on something else tomorrow, but on this I disagree with him. We should let the regulator get on with it and observe. We have other things coming in the state of the game report, and the fact that government cannot look away from this.

We have got to make sure it happens independently. I would hope that we just get them, get on with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it, because let's face it, we've talked about it enough. Lords, I apologise for going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, I apologise for going to stand up at Lord Addington jumped up far too fast, so I apologise that the front bench have started that the front bench have started speaking. I think when it comes to football, I want to use the phrase the letter. Bishop of Southwark, the letter. Bishop of Southwark, Roy Williamson, applied to me because we've been working hard to get the Church of Holy Trinity get the Church of Holy Trinity restored in a very poor congregation.

Fundraising was really very, very difficult, but we managed to do it. So he came to open this amazing refurbished place. Organ returned to its great glory. The church is full and he said, your vicars, John Sentamu, are can we? Almost compared to a Yorkshire terrier, never letting go, but only doing so in order to get a firmer grip? That's what I see, our Lord Moylan and ours. He's really, when it comes to football, like a Yorkshire terrier. He does it not of wanting either to control or do anything.

He just loves football and he knows a lot about football, so I just want to pay to him honest attitudes while he's doing this. I don't think he's doing it in order to prevent regulations and all that's happening, but because he's like a terrier, I think this is the moment he needs to let go. Just let go because this stands on 3A3 legged stool, the first in terms of what we passed here in this your Lordships' House, there is an act, an act of Parliament that is really the primary legislation.

You got to go there and you're going to discover that the Secretary of State has power to do what is just done. So he's not doing it out of any other reason other than the act we passed. Give him that power. Lord Pannick said exactly the same thing. Secondly is the regulator the regulator has powers, and they were given to him again by an Act of Parliament. And I think the third leg is guidance. But I always look at guidance not as the key driver of things.

And that's why it cannot be very clearly defined on every occasion. Because, again, as Lord Pannick said, guidance always has got to be understood in terms of context. You just can't simply say what happens to my little club, which is not in Paradise. Your York City football club is climbing up slowly, but still it lost. Being in
18:12
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
Division two long, long time ago. So you can't actually say to the So you can't actually say to the people of York City that section 1.6 should not apply to them. 1.6 should not apply to them. Regulated football clubs will be required to submit and publish a personal statement identifying all personal statement identifying all owners. The definition of ownership, including the concept of significant influence or control, significant influence or control, will ensure the statement publicly identifies the correct persons as owners, providing transparency to funds and the wider public.

That funds and the wider public. That also will apply to my little club of York City Football Club and therefore I don't, I don't I don't actually see those phrases needing to be more precise. So this legged stool of the act of the regulator, the guidance provided by the Secretary of State, I'm sure, will make even my little club of York City feel emboldened that they actually know who really is owning and who are these people. And I actually think this is a good thing.

actually think this is a good thing. So may I beseech my highly admired, really Lord Moynihan that this is a time to drop the motion and continue to be so keen on football, but this is not the time. Otherwise you're going to play a game that is not going to take you anywhere.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my Lords, I for one, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan for giving us the opportunity to consider these regulations in full and for acting. regulations in full and for acting. If I follow the metaphors correctly, like a trout fishing terrier who loves football too much but didn't loves football too much but didn't read the Tory manifesto with enough diligence, but I think we should,
18:14
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
diligence, but I think we should, of course, had my noble friend not brought this motion, I doubt we would have had quite as many people, or quite as many speeches, or spent such as such a long time looking at the regulations that are before your Lordships' House. And I'm glad that we have, because much has changed even since the debates that we had on the bill when before it left your Lordships' House and went to another place, for instance, we saw just yesterday the sanctions that the EFL have handed to Sheffield Wednesday following multiple breaches of their own regulations relating to payment obligations.

The EFL have given that club a six point deduction and banned its former owner from owning any club in the English Football League for three years now. Had we known that example at the time of the bill, we might have taken it into consideration when discussing the amendments we did on allowing some of the regulation to be delegated to the leagues themselves. But that debate has passed. We're also able to meet this evening after the Commissioner for Public Appointments has appeared before a select committee in another place, where the appointment of the chairman of the Independent Football Regulator was likened to a mafia appointment in Sicily at some point in the 1950s.

Well, that was the the the comments of the chairman of the select committee in another another place, but rather more pertinently the the comments not by a politician but by the Commissioner, Sir William Shawcross himself, who has spent the morning giving evidence to a select committee of Parliament and said that he had never seen an appointment with as many breaches of the governance code for public appointments as he has this one. He said that it is not easy to set those breaches aside and called that very disappointing, and I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sure we would all agree. It has been a very disappointing process. Well, Lord, the Minister, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, Lord, the Minister, the shadow Minister for giving way. Aren't we somewhat straying from the subject of this motion? We the subject of this motion? We appear to be now discussing the football regulator and some very flowery language used by the chair flowery language used by the chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee this morning, which was wholly unfair and wholly unreasonable when we're actually

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supposed to be discussing the guidance, are we not just using a political opportunity to have a go? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. This is this is guidance. And this is a bill which is to be enforced by a new independent regulator. We didn't know the name regulator. We didn't know the name of the government's preferred candidate for the regulator when the bill went through. Regrettably, we do know now who is entrusted with applying this new regime. And we know that the Commissioner for Public Standards has criticised not just the government, but this morning criticised Mr. Cogan himself for a lack of transparency.

So I don't know whether it is straying from the, the regulations, but I wonder whether the noble Baroness, the Minister, when she rises, will have anything to say about the comments made by the Commissioner for public appointments today. But the noble Lady Baroness Debbonaire is right. The the focus for our debate this evening is the regulations that are before us. And on these two, my noble friend Lord Moynihan has raised a number of pertinent questions, some of which we touched on during our scrutiny of the bill and some of which are raised by the guidance which has now been published under particular consideration today is what is an issue we spent considerable time on when we were looking at the bill in your lordships scrutiny, we were provided with rather scant information about what significance, influence or significant influence or control would mean in practice.

We now have draft guidance. But as my noble friend Lord Moynihan says, that appears to raise rather more questions than it answers. And as my noble friend pointed out during our scrutiny on the bill, there is no requirement in the legislation to consult before publishing the guidance which has now been published. I, I think that's regrettable, and I see that from some of the comments that there has been informal consultation with some in football, but maybe the noble Baroness, the Minister can can set out in a bit more detail the consultation and discussions that were had, which led to the drawing up and publication of this draft guidance, a second and rather more serious point of contention regarding the new owners test, again raised by my noble friend in his speech and his motion today, is the significant departure from the current concepts of ownership employed by the Premier League, the EFL, UEFA and others in football.

Now the noble Lord Lord Pannick made some remarks about obscenity, not obscene remarks. I write that carefully, drawing attention to other areas of law, both in this country and in the United States, where different tests are made, but in within a football context alone, the Premier League's handbook uses the notion of control and control only, whereas here in the guidance we see the new concept of significant influence or control. So this is introducing some new thoughts into the the particular sphere of football regulation.

The draft guidance states that the right to exercise significant influence or control over a club may result in that person being considered an owner for the purpose of the act, regardless of whether or not they actually exercise that right. Surely the combination of this broader interpretation of the meaning of owner, and the fact that one doesn't, under the act, actually have to do anything to be considered as such, means that this guidance would capture a far greater number of people than one might initially anticipate.

Similarly, as.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course, the guidance goes further than addressing ownership, and that's because the legislation which Parliament enacted requires attention to significant influence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

attention to significant influence or control. That's the whole point. Listen to the Minister is from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Listen to the Minister is from that. Will that capture more people than one one, one? One might imagine. I think the layperson imagine. I think the layperson looking at this imagines a single owner of a club. But as in the legislation that Parliament has legislation that Parliament has passed, a number of people can be considered an owner and be considered to have significant considered to have significant influence or control. And I'll come on to a few more examples of that.

For instance, in at page seven of the guidance, paragraph 2.11 states that a person might exercise significant influence or control if their recommendations or instructions are always or almost always followed by other owners and or officers. Due to the financial relationship of the person to the club. What does that mean? For instance, for a club sponsor, they have a clear financial relationship to the club and they might make recommendations to the club, which are often followed by the officers of the club.

Does that mean under these regulations and the act that we've passed, that they could be considered to have significant influence or control? Would a sponsor, in any circumstance count as an owner under these regulations?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't like to interrupt interrupting him because always. One of the facts.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One of the facts. That he wants to put them. But please, if you look at 1.6, the question you asked Lord Pannick question you asked Lord Pannick read catch everybody. Yes. If they read catch everybody. Yes. If they are regulated football clubs, 1.6 regulated football clubs will be required. So it will catch every to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do what 1.6 says. But my point was a broader one about whether under the definitions in the regulation that were in paragraph 2.11, a club sponsor could be considered to have significant influence or control. It seems to me, on the reading of the regulations that they might, but I look forward to the Minister's response. It certainly seems that this is quite an expansive list of people that the regulations might apply to. Paragraph 2.12 states that a former owner who sold his or her shares to a close friend could still be considered an owner if he or she makes recommendations on how to vote to the person to whom he or she sold those shares.

So, under the guidance, a person with no current financial stake in the club whatsoever could actually count as as an owner. Be grateful for confirmation of that. From from from from the Minister. I see her nodding, but we look forward to her confirmation. My noble friend Lord Moynihan set out through the history of Leeds United. The complicated arrangements by which football clubs are owned. Another example might be Bournemouth in 2022. Turquoise Bidco Limited obtained 100% of shares in Bournemouth Football Club.

Turquoise was then renamed to Black Knight Football Club UK limited, which is a UK based holding company wholly owned by Black Knight Football Club US based in Nevada. That American entity is in turn owned by Kaneohe Holdings Incorporated, according to the US Securities Exchange Commission, can I owned 43 44.3% of Black Knight, but can I is in turn owned by institutional investors including Blackrock and the Vanguard Group, and an American businessman. Bill Foley owns 7.7% of Cannae, meaning his beneficial ownership of Bournemouth is 3.4%.

But a filing in April this year disclosed that his economic interest in Black Knight is 28%. That example again adds to the example of Leeds, given by noble friend Lord Moynihan about the complexity of even the most straightforward football clubs and the difficulty that will be involved here in setting out all of those people that might need to be regulated, investigated and brought before the regulator. And I will conclude by echoing the question that my noble friend asked as the noble Lady the Minister will expect me to, given my roots in Tyneside, a question of great interest to my friends and family, there will be the one that my noble friend posed.

Whether she would advise the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to continue to invest in Newcastle United through the Saudi Public Investment Fund. Given what this might mean for for them and for the club, that is just one of many questions of great interest to football fans, which is not made clear through this guidance and for the opportunity to probe those in a rather fuller house than I think we would have had in Grand Committee. I'm very grateful to my noble friend for giving us the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opportunity. May. My Lords, my life would be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my life would be boring without the chance to talk about football in your Lordships' House. So I'm very pleased to have House. So I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to provide clarity. I hope I will provide clarity to your Lordships' House on the draft statutory guidance on the meaning of significant influence or control in the context of the Football in the context of the Football Governance Act 2025 guidance that was laid before both Houses of Parliament on the 27th of October Parliament on the 27th of October 2025.

I would like to thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for the scrutiny provided on this draft statutory guidance. The Committee did not, my Lords, draw the guidance especial attention of the House and no objections have been raised in the other place. It is always a pleasure to debate issues relating to football regulation with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. However, I cannot help but share my surprise and regret that the noble Lord felt the need to do this by tabling a fatal motion against the guidance.

I have to agree with my noble friend Lord hunt that this feels a disproportionate approach. I am also tempted to agree with my noble friend, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, that he is attempting to rerun the debates we held over a year ago, and over the course of the past year. This is not least as I sent the draft guidance to the noble Lord myself and offered to meet to discuss the guidance. In a letter sent to him in a number of other peers with a known interest over a month ago, an opportunity I also offer to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson.

Notwithstanding this, and notwithstanding the fact that noble Lord Lord Moynihan has raised no concerns directly to me or my team before this evening's debate, not when he received my letter, nor even when the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reported on guidance on the 13th of November. I'm a little bit confused about the noble Lords quote from the Minister for sport. Beyond as beyond her written ministerial statement. This hasn't been discussed or had concerns raised about it. In the other place, I am grateful for the opportunity to stress how vital this legislation is in delivering for fans.

However, my Lords, the implementation of this regime which prioritises the protection of clubs from unsuitable owners, financial distress and interests of fans nationally is a priority for this government. That is why during our lengthy discussions and scrutiny whilst passing the primary legislation, the government committed to producing this guidance before clubs are required to identify their owners in the personnel statement. I don't agree with my noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that this guidance doesn't add clarity. The government is pleased to delivered on this commitment and to provide clarity regarding the concept of significance, influence or control.

I am sorry the noble Lord Lord Moynihan did not find it clear. I read it twice and I did think it was clear. And if I understand it as somebody who isn't a regulator, I do believe that it is relatively clear this guidance plays a key role in the regulators regime, with the unexpected motion disrupting the progress and preventing David Kogan and his team from getting on with their important job. As my noble friend Baroness Debbonaire made clear, the regulator now has an excellent
18:28
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
experience and well respected chairing post. He has wasted no time meeting clubs and stakeholders from across football, including across the top five English leagues consulting industry on new rules and building up the executive team with regulatory experts. I would hope that noble Lords across the hope that noble Lords across the House agree the regulator needs to be able to make progress on these priorities without delay. As the priorities without delay. As the noble Lord Lord adding said we need to let him get on with his job.

As someone who has a terrier, I might someone who has a terrier, I might not agree with the phrasing of the noble Lord Lord Sentamu, but I agree with the sentiment of his agree with the sentiment of his interventions. We just need to look at the plight of Sheffield Wednesday to understand the urgency of giving the regulator the tools to get to work with regards to concerns raised by noble Lords today. It is important to note that this guidance has been drafted collaboratively. I would like to make absolutely clear that officials have worked with both industry and non-industry experts to ensure it is clear, useful and user friendly.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, asked specifically about consultation. I would like to give the noble Lord assurance that this has been extensive. Officials have spoken to UEFA test examples of all the competition organisers, a wide range of clubs throughout the different leagues, and with Dot officials about their comparable Companies Act guidance in developing the draft. We have drawn on the approach used in the Companies Act. Persons with significant control regime to ensure we are aligned with current precedent. Building on the Companies Act guidance, introduce industry specific examples which have been tested with the football industry makes these concepts more tangible for those who will have to interpret the guidance, especially clubs, and ensures this guidance is suited to the regulated industry in relation.

Again, to the point, on the point in relation to the point, again on consultation by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. Crucially, the guidance has also been tested with the regulator itself to ensure that the concepts are clear and that the non-exhaustive examples are helpful. David Kogan and his team have confirmed that this guidance provides them with the product they need to undertake their important work. What I am keen to highlight is the intent of who will be in scope under the guidance. As highlighted previously by noble Lords during the Report stage of the Football Governance Bill, it is important to understand the breadth of the guidance reach.

Our intention is not to create an unhelpfully broad definition. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, suggested I give clarity on specific club ownership. This, this, my, my Lords, is up to the regulator. This is why we have created the regulator. And we should allow the regulator to do that, not attempt across your Lordships' House to come up with our definitions ourselves we don't want. However, a large proportion of the club staff, senior leadership, ordinary minority shareholders or investors to be considered owners or to unduly burden clubs with identifying and notifying these persons to the IFR.

Rather, the intention is to ensure all key persons that can or do act as de facto owners of a football club can be considered as such by the IFR, regardless of their ostensible role, title, shareholding or rights. That is why we are confident that the guidance laid delivers the policy intent to give the regulator the tools to identify relevant individuals, regardless of any opaque ownership models. In practice, this guidance will be most important in cases where the complex ownership structures helping the regulator and clubs to identify de facto owners, the regulator must be able to identify owners who can or do shape the key decisions and activities of a club, like an owner typically can or does, even if they do not obviously hold control or influence through their share ownership or voting rights.

In relation to Lord Moynihan's grants for concerns and comments about stopping the clock and completeness criteria, the noble Lord has made many points of detail which are for the IFR set out in their rules and guidance. They have recently concluded a public consultation on rules and guidance and will publish their response shortly. A number of the questions from the noble Lord on this point specifically are out of scope of the specific regulations. To summarise, we believe a well regulated industry with transparent ownership structures and expectations will encourage investment and support the growth of the industry.

And above all, the guidance will finally provide transparency for fans as to who actually owns their clubs. I'm going to now turn to a number of points raised during the debate. The noble Lord Lloyd Lord Moynihan, raised concerns that the guidance might be seen as vague. While I understand that he may believe this guidance is too broad, in our view, it should not be overly prescriptive. Significant influence or control are not binary concepts. The noble Lord Lord Pannick outlined better than I can.

Why an element of judgement might be required were the guidance to include numerous exhaustive examples. In our view, it would fetter the regulator's discretion. This is why we provide broad concepts of significant influence or control alongside football specific examples, mirroring the approach taken in the Companies Act guidance. It would be impossible, my Lords, to capture every single scenario, which is why it has been drafted in this way. The noble Lord Lord Moynihan and others also raised questions about specific clubs and whether current owners are specific.

Clubs will be tested under this guidance. It is not for the government to prejudge the regulator's assessment of who meets the definition of an owner, simply because an incumbent individual meets the definition, including if they exert significant influence or control, does not mean the regulator is required to test them. It may test an incumbent owner if the grants were concerned about the suitability, but it would be inappropriate for the government to prejudge this. I'm also not going to give investment advice.

I'm not an investment adviser, so with respect, I'm not going to venture into who should or shouldn't invest in football clubs, other than to note that people that do quite often end up putting quite a lot of money currently into clubs without an awful lot of return on their investment. So they do it for love. But we are hoping that the independent football regulator's regime will stabilise some of the financial uncertainties around this. The noble Lord Lord Moynihan also asked about growth.

My Lords, we believe that the act protects investment. The Football Governance Act will support the growth of the game, especially through ensuring football attracts the right continued investment and has suitable owners and directors. We are confident that the regulatory landscape will attract investors with a more long term, prudent approach to continue to grow the game as a global success story. Ultimately, ultimately, a more sustainable game is a more investable game. By adding financial growth to the regulator secondary duties, it will ensure that the regulator avoids having adverse effects on English football's growth while exercising its duties.

And I note that's the point that we debated at some length during the passage of the bill through the House before it became an act the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, raised what my noble friend Baroness Debbonaire described as flowery language used in a committee hearing this morning. My Lords, the circumstances around the IFR chair appointment has been discussed at length previously. The Commission has evidence today does not change anything regarding the report he published a month ago. We will not be rerunning the process.

I have nothing further to add beyond reiterating that it is clear that David Kogan is the outstanding candidate for this role, and I know he also has the support of noble Lords from across Europe. Lordships' House. He has a wealth of experience from the sport and media industries, and it is beyond time we let the IFR get on with the job. With David Kogan as chair, the plight of clubs, including Sheffield Wednesday, shows why the government was right to establish the regulator.

For too long my Lords fans have had to suffer seeing their football clubs mismanaged and their views disregarded. The guidance being debated today. Today, sorry. It plays a key role in giving the regulator the tools to tackle unsuitable custodians. The sooner the regulator can get started, the sooner the regime as a whole will work to improve the financial stability of the game and make the English game an even better proposition for investment. Let us not delay this process any further, and let us allow the government to take decisive action to protect and preserve our national game.

I do hope that this reassures the House and the noble Lord, and that in light of these assurances, the motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm very grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, for answering the questions that were posed. There was one final one. My posed. There was one final one. My apologies if I missed it. Does she accept that under the paragraph accept that under the paragraph 2.11, it might be possible for a sponsor of a club to be considered as part of the new owners and as part of the new owners and directors test, if that? The sponsors recommendations are usually followed by the club.

That's the test. That paragraph That's the test. That paragraph 2.11 shows.
18:37
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

2.11 shows. I'll have to defer to the box on that point, but I have happy to pick that up with the noble Lord afterwards.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

afterwards. Can I can I begin by saying thank you to the Minister for her response? And I will pick up on some of the points that she's made, and try and answer all the other interventions. That also came from a from packed benches on the government side, which I'm delighted to see for this debate. I have rarely been called a trout fishing terrier. I love trout fishing and I also love terriers, so I take those both as compliments. I'm also, and I should say this to Baroness Debbonaire.

I'm passionately committed to football, both amateur and professional. I always have been for years involved in sport, and I don't think there's anybody who would regard my intervention on this subject as, as from any other position than being passionate about sport, passionate about football. I also believe that this bill is or the Act and is, is detrimental to the future of professional football. It's a view that I spoke about a great deal in committee, and this evening I particularly never addressed any of those points.

I focussed exclusively on the guidance. Can I just say to the Minister and to others, this debate this evening does not stop the regulator. One day the statutory guidance is laid before both houses until December the 5th, and there's the opportunity to debate it in either house until that point. It's not delaying tactic. It doesn't delay the regulator getting on with their job. That to say that and to imply that is just fundamentally wrong. We cannot do anything about this until both houses have had the opportunity to consider it until December the 5th.

We've had the opportunity in advance of that to have a debate. I say to both Lord Hanson and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt and Lord Wilson, who I I'm possibly not the greatest compliment that they would take from me, but it's meant to be a compliment to the very highest level, because they're both passionate about sport and they're both highly knowledgeable about football. The reason why I tabled this motion was because if we have secondary legislation, we have the opportunity to review it in the normal way.

If we have draft statutory guidance on this basis, the only way we can get to debating is by tabling a fatal motion. I have no intention of moving it to a vote, but I did have an absolute intention to make sure that what we looked at during the passage of the bill, which was the decision to bring forward statutory guidance on this so that this House, in fact, the whole Parliament could consider it was given due consideration. And when I read it, I made it very clear to the House this evening that I was concerned that it was too closely along the lines of what Lord Pannick said was inevitably an of importance in terms of drafting, that is, to keep it vague, purposely vague, precisely vague.

To use the phrase, I was a little bit nervous at the. The Minister in responding was to try to do exactly what Lord Pannick had encouraged her not to do, to provide clarity and precision, which she couldn't because, quite understandably, it is vague and intentionally vague. So my comment to the Minister is that, yes, I do believe that this can be far better written. I do believe genuinely that to take it away and to write it with great clarity would be important, because there's a balance that needs to be struck in this guidance.

On the one hand, the need for the regulator to look into the significant interest or control. On the other hand, we have to think about investors. We have to think about what is in the best interest of every club. And if you go too closely down the road of being precisely vague, then that would deter investors. That is my firm belief and my belief that because it is so vague and so wide ranging, that this could have the danger of deterring investors into professional football.

And that is why I felt it important to have this debate. As I say in closing, it doesn't delay the regulator at all. It does give the opportunity for this House to consider something which it requested when it came to the consideration of the bill in committee and was granted by the government. It was been very well attended debate this evening. I'm exceptionally grateful to those who've contributed. I did avoid completely going down the line that Baroness Debbonaire thought I might, by focusing exclusively on reading this and going into detail on it.

I hope that by placing it on the record, both the regulator and the world of football will be able to go away and consider whether or not there are ways to improve the statutory guidance, and also to make sure that when it comes to sitting down with the football clubs, we avoid overlapping with the regulatory frameworks of of UEFA and the EFL and the Premier League, which is also vitally important and avoided here. And with those comments, and with my gratitude to the Minister for sitting through another debate on football and for the very helpful contributions that have been made, particularly from, as I said, the noble Lord Lord Hutton, Lord Watts and Lord Sentamu, and recognition that when Lord Addington said that we will see this in case law, I fear he's absolutely right.

But with those comments and with repeating a point that I've made before, which may help Baroness Debbonaire, I was absolutely opposed to this legislation all the way through, and I thought that this was going to be bad law. I believe it is bad law. I thought that Boris Johnson, on his knee jerk reaction on the Monday after the Saturday announcement of the Super League to go to legislation, was wrong. I don't think that's the right way for sport, for professional sport in this country.

I didn't go down that road this evening. I was focussed on this because I want to make it as good as possible, because I passionately want this act. Now it is on statute to succeed in the interests of football, in the interests of investors as well as regulation. And I wish the regulator every success with this, and I hope it gets it right. And I hope he has the opportunity to reflect on what's been said on both sides of this House. And with that, I withdraw my amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

This motion be withdrawn. The motion is by leave, withdrawn. My motion is by leave, withdrawn. My Lord, shall we take a moment to allow people to come and go before Repeat Repeat of Repeat of a Repeat of a statement Repeat of a statement made Repeat of a statement made in Repeat of a statement made in the House of Commons today. Criminal court reform Baroness Levitt.
18:45
None Portrait Statement: Criminal Court reform
-

My Lords, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on criminal court reform. As the House is aware, the first part of the Independent Review of Criminal Courts was published in July. I am grateful to its chair, Sir Brian Leveson, one of the foremost judges of his generation, and to his expert advisers, Professor David Ormerod, Chris Mayer and Sean McNally. In this review, Sir Brian has produced a blueprint for once in a generation court reform that is desperately needed because government inherited an emergency in our courts, a record and rising backlog currently standing at 78 78,000 cases.

And victims face agonising delays, with some trials not listed for years. All the while, defendants bide their time. The guilty plea rate has decreased every year since the year 2000. In the year to June, 11,000 cases were dropped after a charge because victims no longer supported or felt they could support the case. Behind the statistics are real people. Katie was repeatedly abused by her partner. She reported him to the police in 2017, but then had an unbearable six year wait for justice.

During that time, she lost a job because her mental health deteriorated. She became increasingly isolated, lived in fear and lost faith in the court system. That is not isolated. It is systemic. We are all proud of our justice system rooted in Magna Carta, but we must never forget that. It implores us not to deny or delay right or justice. When victims are left waiting for years, justice is effectively denied to them. That is a betrayal of our legal heritage and of victims themselves.

Some will ask why we do not simply increase funding. This government has already invested heavily in the courts, including nearly £150 million to make them fit for purpose a commitment of £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitors and funding for a record number of sitting days in our Crown courts. 5000 more than those funded last year by the previous government. Today I can
18:47
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
announce up to £34 million per year in additional funding for criminal in additional funding for criminal legal aid advocates to recognise the vital support that they give to those navigating the system. I will those navigating the system. I will also accept Sir Brian's recommendation to match fund a number of pupillages in criminal number of pupillages in criminal law, to open a career at the criminal bar to more young people criminal bar to more young people from across society. I will also negotiate sitting days with the senior judiciary through the usual concordat process, aiming to give an unprecedented three year certainty to the system.

I am clear certainty to the system. I am clear that sitting days in the Crown and Magistrates courts must continue to rise, and my ambition is to continue breaking records by the end of this Parliament. However, as Sir Brian has made clear, investment is not enough. The caseload is projected to reach 100,000 cases by 2028, and without fundamental change it could keep rising, meaning that justice will be denied to more victims and trust in the system will collapse.

To avoid that disaster, I will follow Sir Brian's bold blueprint for change. First, I will create new swift courts within the Crown Court, with a judge alone deciding verdicts in tribal. Either way, cases with a likely sentence of three years or less. As Sir Brian recommends, Sir Brian estimates that they will deliver justice at least 20% faster than jury trials. While jury deliberations remain confidential. Judges will provide reasoning for their verdicts in open court, so this will hardwire transparency into our new approach.

Sir Brian also proposes restricting defendants right to elect for jury trials, a practice not found widely in other common law jurisdictions. And let us be honest, it is a peculiar way to run a public service. Our world leading judges should hear the most serious cases, and I agree that they and the magistracy should decide where a case is heard. That will prevent defendants from gaming the system, choosing whichever court they think gives the best chance of success, and drawing out the process, hoping that victims will give up.

I will limit appeals from the Magistrates Court so that they are only allowed on points of law to prevent justice from being delayed further. Alongside those changes, we will increase magistrates courts sentencing powers to 18 months so that they can take on a greater proportion of lower level offending and relieve pressure on the Crown Court. I will also take a power to extend that to two years, should it become necessary to relieve further pressure. When it comes to exceptionally technical and lengthy fraud and financial trials.

Judges will be able to sit without a jury where appropriate. While these cases are small in number. They place undue pressure on jurors to sit for months a significant interference with their personal and professional lives. These reforms are bold, but they are necessary. I am clear that jury trials will continue to be the cornerstone of the system. For the most serious offences, those likely to receive a sentence of over three years and all indictable only offences, amongst others that will include rape, murder, manslaughter, causing grievous bodily harm, robbery and arson with intent to kill.

I would like to clear up some misconceptions that colleagues unfamiliar with this area might hold. In England and Wales, magistrates have long done the vast majority of criminal cases. That was true in the Victorian era, right through to Winston Churchill's time. And today, magistrates hear about 90% of criminal cases. In fact, only 3% of trial cases in England and Wales will ever go before a jury, and almost three quarters of all trials going to the Crown Court will continue to be heard by one under our changes.

Conservative members talk about the Crown Court as if it were an ancient institution. I should remind them that it was established in 1971, the year before I was born, to replace a patchwork of part time courts unable to cope with a rising caseload. Parliament acted because the country needed a more efficient system that could command public confidence. We now face an emergency in the courts, and we must act. As Lord Chancellor, my responsibility is to ground reform in the rule of law and the right to a fair trial.

We will ensure cases are dealt with at the right level, proportionate to their severity, and deliver the swifter justice victims deserve. I am also clear that we must future proof our approach. Technology is changing almost every aspect of our lives and the courts can be no exception. That means we must modernise. We have asked Sir Brian to write a second report, focussed on efficiency, and how we can make much better use of technology to deliver the modern and effective courts the public rightly expect.

We will also continue to support victims to make sure they have the confidence to come forward and see justice through to its conclusion. I announce this week that I will provide multiyear funding for victim support services, including specialist, emotional and practical support for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, and increased budgets to reflect rising costs. That will give providers the certainty to plan for the next three years. It amounts to a total record investment in victim support services of £550 million, more than half a billion.

I want those victims to stay the course. Finally, we must also be honest that this is a problem that has taken years to build up, so it will take years to fix. The changes I am proposing will require legislation which will take time to implement. Our investment will also need time to have an effect, but we are pulling every possible lever to move in a positive direction. And my ambition for the backlog to start coming down by the end of this Parliament remains.

I commend this statement to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lady, the Minister, for noble Lady, the Minister, for repeating the statement from the other place, and I thank the Secretary of State for justice for Secretary of State for justice for his statement on jury trial. Although I do wonder whether he
18:54
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
Although I do wonder whether he understood many of its implications before delivering it to the press and then to Parliament. The government's troubling habit of engaging in legislation by leakage, of which the recent budget is another precedent, should, however, not distract us from the content of this statement. In 2017, while leading the review of racial bias in the criminal justice system, the now Secretary of State for justice declared that juries were the only stage of the criminal justice system without racial bias.

In 2020, he declared that jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement. Now, the Secretary of State for justice declares that in order to preserve jury trials, he must abolish most jury trials. This, my Lords, has echoes of the logic of the lunatic asylum. Herod declares that to preserve the family unit, he must strike down the firstborn. Well, more recently, Gordon Brown's decision to preserve Britain's wealth by selling off half of our gold reserves at near the bottom of the market.

That decision left the country poorer. This decision will leave the justice system weaker. This is the government dismantling the institutions they claim to defend, and then insisting that destruction is somehow salvation. A judge sitting alone in a Crown Court trial will have to provide not just a verdict, but reasons for the verdict. There's a noble Lady, the Minister agree such reasoning is bound to be the subject of scrutiny and then potential appeal. If so, is the government planning to abolish such a right of appeal on the merits of the decision? In that event, parties with no right of appeal may have recourse to judicial review.

Or does the government also plan to abolish the right to judicial review in such circumstances? Just how deep does the government plan to cut into the body of the justice system? And do they actually believe that our system of criminal justice can survive such radical surgery? The Secretary of State for justice tells us that this radical surgery is required to deal with the enormous backlog of cases in the Crown Court, estimated at almost 80,000 cases. So will the noble Lady, the Minister tell us, is this proposed legislation going to be retrospective? That would be an unprecedented and unconscionable attack on an accused rights if in in each way case, for example, an accused has already decided upon trial by jury and is now preparing for an awaiting that jury trial.

Is the government going to retrospectively remove that fundamental right? If so, could the noble Lady, the Minister set a precedent for such retrospective changes to our system of criminal law? But if these changes are not to be retrospective, then the tens of thousands of cases which the Secretary of State for justice refers to as justification for this exceptional measure remain untouched. The backlog will not be cut. Victims and accused will be no closer to justice. In stripping away centuries old right.

The government will sacrifice principle but fail to fix the problem. To significantly dismantle the right to trial by jury and gain virtually no benefit is not just an exercise in incompetence, but an act of constitutional vandalism. My Lords, we're being reminded of a problem, but we are not being presented with a solution. Yes, sir. My Lords, at a solution. Yes, sir. My Lords, at the heart of this.
18:58
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Statement is a wholesale attack on the jury system. The government intends first doing away with jury trials in all but indictable only offences, or offences where the likely sentence is three years or less, and secondly, doing away with the defendant's right to elect for jury trial altogether. On the first, the radical restriction of jury trials does the government accept that they propose going far further than the Leveson report suggested, both on which cases would be tried by a jury and on the make up of the new courts? Two fundamental questions arise importantly, since, apart from robbery and some other offences, generally involving violence, offences under the Theft Act are not indictable only.

Wouldn't all but the most serious cases of dishonesty by be triable by judge alone? Then does the government really think that the likely length of a prison sentence is the only true measure of severity? Isn't that a fundamental mistake? Well, let's take the horizon. Scandal. Almost no postmasters received a sentence of more than three years. Harjinder Butoy received the longest sentence three and a quarter years, only to be released after 18 months when his conviction was overturned, leaving his life in ruins.

Most sentences were between 6 and 18 months. Yet those cases destroyed hundreds of lives, driving many to break down or suicide. And those defendants would have no right to a jury trial. And what about the public servant or the professional who stands to lose career income, reputation and family when charged with minor shoplifting? And who wants a defence of honest mistake or absent mindedness determined by a jury, or the teacher or health worker charged with indecent exposure who will never work with children again if convicted.

But who is denied the right to a jury trial to decide on a defence of false identity? Then the proposal is for judges or magistrates to decide on the likely length of sentence and the mode of trial, apparently to prevent the defendants from gaming the system. In the statement, the word gaming is in bold. Does that give a clue to the Lord Chancellor's thinking? But it's an absurd preconception. Don't many defendants elect jury trial precisely because they want a trial by their peers with no preconceptions or predetermination of their guilt? The public believe that jury trials are fairer.

They recognise that 12 heads are better than one. They know instinctively, as advocates know from experience, that judges vary one from another in their prejudices and in their judgement. Does the noble Lady not agree? So the public trust juries and public trust in the fairness of our justice system is severely threatened by these proposals anyway? How is a judge or magistrate to assess the likely sentence before a case has even started, or any evidence been heard? Does the noble Lady think that would be either possible or foul? At the very least, should defendants not be entitled to a proper hearing to put their arguments for having a jury trial before the court? And shouldn't these measures be temporary or provisional until waiting lists are reduced? In the Commons, Kim Johnson, a Labour MP, suggested a sunset clause, but the Lord Chancellor rejected that My Lords jury trial has been a fundamental right of citizens in this country for more than 800 years.

Lord Devlin described it as the lamp that shows that freedom lives. The statement mentions Magna Carta. It prioritises ending delays over jury trials. But Magna Carta doesn't do that. King John wasn't asked to take his pick between article 39 on jury trials and article 40 on justice, delayed or denied, the Barons insisted on the right to receive both jury trial and timely justice. My Lords, we should do that now. Will the government not take further steps to reduce delays? Many more court sitting days repairing our decrepit courts, more efficient listening, more and smarter use of technology? These and other steps could and should be taken.

Does the government really insist that the delays couldn't be cut over time, with greater investment, possibly in some long technical fraud trials where the points taken a genuinely not jury point, such as dishonest intent or who knew what and when, the mode of trial might be changed. But more generally, does the government really want to sacrifice the right to jury trial because it admits defeat on cutting delays? My Lords, I have one final but entirely unrelated question on the statement.

The Lord Chancellor said that £550 million extra was to be spent over three years on victim support services, but said not a word on how it was to be spent. Can the noble Lady give us more detail now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or in writing later? Yeah. I thank the noble and learned

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen of Elie and the noble Lord Lord Marks for the points that they've made on these reforms. And I, of course, have a great deal of respect for the insight that both of them bring and insight that both of them bring and their observations about it. But may I begin with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen? Many people may think that it's a Many people may think that it's a bit rich of the party opposite to complain about this, when everybody knows that this is a situation created by them, by the consistent cuts in the criminal justice system over many, many years.

The victims are now reaping what they sowed. We are in a position where we have to try and put this right. Many, many matters were raised by the noble Lord Lord Marks, and I hope you will forgive me if I don't respond to all of them in this short response now, but there are answers to almost all of them. For example, the question about how you go about estimating the likely sentence. It's done using the sentencing guidelines. Done all the time.

At the moment, magistrates do it day in, day out, in the magistrates court when they're deciding on where someone should be. Someone should be tried at the moment. So it is a task that can be undertaken. But my Lords, one of the things that I want to say here is this I have changed my mind. I am a criminal barrister, have been for many decades, and when I practised as a criminal barrister, I too felt that any attempt to touch what happens with jury trial was fundamentally wrong.

But then I became a judge in the Crown Court, and I saw what was actually happening. And every judge in the Crown Court, up and down this country will have had the experience of sitting with other judges at lunchtime and saying, I cannot believe that this case, that they're trying there and then is actually in the Crown Court, it shouldn't be here. This is not the case that we are sacrificing jury trial. Of course we're not. It's never been that every criminal case was tried by a jury.

90% of them are currently tried in the
19:06
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
magistrates court. The question is where you draw the line. And that where you draw the line. And that is why this government asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct an independent review. And we are accepting his conclusions. It, my Lords, would be frankly Lords, would be frankly irresponsible not to do so. We cannot ignore what he is saying and we are not going far further. As we are not going far further. As the noble Lord Lord Marks suggests, we're doing exactly what he suggested, which is to have a Crown suggested, which is to have a Crown Court bench division in order to deal with cases where the likely sentence is three years or less.

sentence is three years or less. But my Lords, this is a package to deal with the problems that we face in relation to the criminal justice system. It's not about cutting jury trials. There are three limbs to it. The first is investment, and there is record investment being placed in the criminal justice system in terms of sitting days and in terms of the legal aid payments to the criminal bar and to the criminal solicitors, again, whose fees went down for ages.

The second thing is the structural reform, which is what we are talking about at the moment, which is the the removal of the right to elect reform of appeals in the Magistrates Court, the Crown Court Bench Division, some reforms to fraud trials. And then the third element is going to be efficiency. And it is that that Sir Bryan is considering in part two of his report, as far as gaming the system is concerned, it is a real problem, I'm afraid there are some rumours out there.

There are some people who are less than scrupulous once they get arrested by the police, and there are some people who know that the delays as such in the Crown Court, that if they elect trial by jury and then they decide to just sit around and wait, particularly if they're on bail, they will have not just one Christmas at home, but two Christmases at home, maybe three Christmases at home. And probably they'll be tagged so that when they come back to the Crown Court, when their trial date finally arrives, many of them plead guilty there and then.

The time they spent on the tag then has to be taken into account and offset against any available sentence, so they walk away with time served that I have seen. That is gaming the system. We cannot have it. It cannot be right that victims of serious offences wait for years for their cases to be heard, possibly dropping out in order that unscrupulous defendants can do that. These are real people's real lives, and if tradition is going to survive, it has got to adapt.

Timeliness is an essential ingredient of fairness. Sir Brian estimates that Juryless trials would be at least 20% faster than those conducted with a jury. And it makes sense. Of course it does. You don't have to swear in a jury all those kinds of things that take time. My Lords, governments must make sure that public services are able to meet the demands of the day to deliver for the public and for the most vulnerable. And this means that every generation may well face the prospect of significant reform in order to make things better.

One of the things that the Crown Court is having to contend with is that actually, trials have got more complicated. There's good news. The police are arresting more people. More of them are coming through the courts. That's what we want to see. But things like advances in science like DNA, advances in techniques such as the prevalence of CCTV evidence, social media, all of those things make proving a case. And indeed defending a case much more complicated than it was. And that is why we simply have to move the line to a slightly different place for the courts.

There is no single thing government can do to resolve this crisis that wouldn't require the system to deal with some change, and the delays to justice faced by thousands of victims across the country are unacceptable. They cannot be allowed to grow unchecked. There is no quick fix. The changes we are proposing to make will require legislation, and we are intending to fix the system so that it is good for the next generation. And that's why we're not intending to impose a sunset clause here, because these are meant to be lasting reforms, not an unstable system where nobody's quite sure what's happening.

These are lasting reforms to make the system fit for purpose.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sits down. Would you kindly ask? Answer the question, is it intended Answer the question, is it intended that these proposals will be retrospective? And if not, how on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

retrospective? And if not, how on earth is it going to impact upon the present backlog present? There are no plans to make them

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are no plans to make them retrospective, but that is why it's going to take time. That is why it will take time to work its way will take time to work its way through. But if we don't do this, then not only will we not be
19:11
19:13
19:13
Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On having the courage to confront what is a really difficult confront what is a really difficult issue. The status quo is quite unacceptable. I would rather hope that this House and Parliament in that this House and Parliament in general could treat this on a non-party political basis. There are a lot of reasons why there were are a lot of reasons why there were delays. Some of them are Covid, which is a non party political issue. But I have long thought that issue.

But I have long thought that fraud trials, for example, are very often wholly unsuitable for juries. And I'm glad the government acknowledges that. As to the question of judges and reasons, I question of judges and reasons, I just have two questions I'd like to ask the noble Lady the Minister judges. When they do determine these things I would have thought might well give reasons, and that would be consistent with article six of the European Convention on Human Rights, and would a considerable advantage to potential appellants, because they would know the reasons why they had been convicted, were at the moment with jury verdicts.

You have the bawled verdict of guilty or not guilty. You don't know whether they've taken into consideration relevant considerations or irrelevant considerations. The only question I would also ask is this at the top of page five of the statement, it reads, our world leading judges should hear the most serious cases standing back. Doesn't it occur to the House and indeed to the noble Lady, the Minister? It is slightly odd that the 90% or so of the trivial offences are tried by those with professional experience, and yet the most serious cases we give to 12 conscientious but random people taken off the street.

people taken off the street.
19:15
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
Well, I thank the noble Lord for his observations as far as reasons are concerned. Yes, absolutely. Judges try sitting alone will give reasons. And that is not only useful for appellants to know why, they say, but actually can be useful for witnesses as well. One of the things that one often hears from victims who have been through the system is that if the case results in an acquittal, they said that was bad enough, but not knowing why they were acquitted is really hard for them.

Transparency is important in the criminal justice system as it is in all systems. And that's again one of the reasons why we are going to make the Magistrates Court now a court of record, so that all proceedings in the Magistrates Court will be tape recorded, and we're going to use artificial intelligence to provide transcripts so that people can get transcripts much more often of what's happened, so that they can follow and read at their leisure. As far as the point about serious cases are concerned, I have been very careful not to talk about seriousness, but to talk about length of sentence.

Every case is serious to those involved in it, particularly to the victims, and it would be wrong to try and downplay that. But it is important to note also that the Magistrates Court consists of not just lay justices, which is justice by your peers, but also professional magistrates, known as district judges these days. So it's a matters. matters.
19:17
19:17
19:18
19:18
19:19
19:19
Baroness Foster of Oxton Portrait Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)
-
-
trained, highly trained in things like diversity. They will do a good like diversity. They will do a good job. The justice Secretary repeatedly emphasised the lengthy repeatedly emphasised the lengthy waiting times in bringing cases to court. Now I'm not a lawyer. I'm one of the non-lawyers, I suppose, one of the non-lawyers, I suppose, in in the room today. But what I was disappointed about that this statement did not acknowledge the statement did not acknowledge the difficulties that had been brought about by the lockdowns of code for about by the lockdowns of code for between 2 and 3 years, and that should actually be acknowledged.

Notwithstanding that, I think the Notwithstanding that, I think the noble Baroness did point out that the collection of evidence these days, with social media and all of the evidence now that has to be collected for any trial, is taking an inordinate amount of time to collate. Nevertheless, when it comes to unnecessarily lengthy waiting times, this is pure hypocrisy. When the same justice secretary supports bringing former British soldiers who served in Northern Ireland 50 years ago to court. In addition, we they've certainly found time recently to bring to court people who had maybe put not very, very nice posts on social media, but they've managed to get them to court pretty quickly.

So neither the public nor I think many in the judiciary actually support the steps that the government wishes to take, certainly from my hearing. And I therefore would urge the noble Baroness, the Minister, to reconsider this, I think, ill judged proposal and defer from bringing it forward. Well, I thank. bringing it forward. Well, I thank.
19:21
19:22
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, my Lords, I'd like to thank my noble friend for repeating the statement. Of course I recommend I I'm very I welcome almost everything in the statement. I wanted to raise one point which I which I am, I'm I'm less happy about. Brian Leveson recommended for the Crown Court bench division that it should be a judge and two magistrates, and the statement said it would be a judge sitting alone. And Brian Leveson in his review, was very clear why he thought magistrates should be involved in the Crown Court Bench Division.

Firstly, it retains an element of community involvement and the judgement of one peers by the lay magistrates sitting with the judge. And of course, as there are, one could argue that three heads are better than one. Secondly, there's greater diversity within the magistrate cohort than there is within the judge cohort. So that would go some way to, to to creating some diversity. Within that, the three people sitting making those judgements. And the third point which Brian Leveson made was on the safety of the judge sitting alone.

It's safer if there are three people making that decision because there's not a single identified decision maker. And since we are all concerned about the safety of judges, it was a factor in in keeping the decision making for three individuals in the new Crown Court Bench Division. So I asked my noble friend whether she will keep an open mind about adopting the recommendations of adopting the recommendations of Lord Leveson.
19:24
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
I thank my noble friend very much for the question. He raises a very important point, and I'm sure the rest of your lordships would want to pay tribute to my noble friend for the work that he did when standing where I now am, but also for his long service as a magistrate, and he speaks from great experience. There are two reasons why the Crown Court Bench Division will not include lay justices. The first one is we actually don't have enough for staff that at the moment, as my noble friend will know, we have enough justices in order to run the magistrates court and make sure that we don't then end up with a lot of backlogs in the magistrates court there, and we are running a recruitment program.

We're hoping to recruit 2000 more, but at present we don't have sufficient. The second reason is actually about speed and speeding up the process. Any judge who has sat on an appeal from the magistrates court always sits with two justices. It takes a lot longer because of the fact that consultation is required, of course, whereas the point here is to make things faster and quicker. So for those reasons, we are not going to adopt that recommendation and that principled reasons, as far as the perfectly proper point about diversity is made, the judiciary is becoming more diverse.

It's it's not where we want it to be, but it is getting there. But what it does have is training and extensive training in matters to do with issues of diversity and fairness, and disproportionate impact on particular sectors of the population. Don't actually really know what it is that juries think about these things because they don't have that kind of training. But we're satisfied that those issues can be dealt with within what's proposed.
19:26
19:27
19:27
19:28
19:29
19:30
19:30
19:32
19:32
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)
-

The time for backbench questions is complete. I'll just give the is complete. I'll just give the
19:33
None Portrait Orders and regulations: Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) (No. 2) Regulations 2025
-

Enterprise Enterprise act Enterprise act 2002. Enterprise act 2002. Mergers involving newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) (No. 2) Regulations 2025 Baroness Wilcox.
19:34
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The House approves the Enterprise Act 2002. Mergers involving newspaper enterprises and involving newspaper enterprises and foreign powers. Number two Regulations 2025. The foreign state Regulations 2025. The foreign state influence regime is designed to prevent foreign states controlling, influencing or owning our influencing or owning our newspapers and news magazines. It is essential we safeguard our free press and pluralistic media press and pluralistic media landscape for the sake of our democracy. Newspapers remain a vital, trusted news source. The vital, trusted news source.

The Ofcom News Consumption Survey 2025 reported that 23% of regular news users consider newspapers trustworthy, which is more than any other media I know. Noble Lords are aware of the considerable challenges faced by the news media industry. However, newspapers require investment to grow and thrive, and balancing this need for investment with protecting news from the influence of a foreign state is at the heart of the foreign state influence regime. This is what underpinned the three Statutory Instruments we made in July.

We made regulations to amend the foreign state influence regime to allow 15% of shares or voting rights in the newspaper or news magazine to be held by a state owned investor, provided that they are investors with no right or ability to control, direct or influence newspapers policies. The 15% threshold is below the level where the Competition and Markets Authority typically considers material influence may arise. The foreign state influence regime rightly has a low bar for intervention. The Secretary of State is given no discretion.

She must intervene if she has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a foreign power may hold the ability to influence or control the policy of a UK newspaper enterprise as a result of a merger. This is regardless of whether there is an intention to influence. When we introduce a previous regulations earlier in the year, colleagues in your Lordships' House and the Other place challenged us on whether we they had the unintentional consequence of permitting multiple foreign powers investing through state owned investment vehicles to each invest 15%.

The argument was made that it would be possible for the majority of the newspaper enterprise to be owned by state owned investors, albeit passively. We were clear that this is a remote risk. However, we understood the concerns of your Lordships' House. The government committed to bring forward an additional Statutory Instrument to put the matter beyond doubt. That is why we are here today, following our consultation in the summer and the response published on the 30th of October, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lady Baroness Stowell of Beeston for her invaluable engagement on this matter and recognise the excellent role your Lordships' House so regularly plays in scrutinising and improving legislation.

Noble Lords may find it helpful for me to set out the detailed effect of the regulations before us today. Firstly, these regulations ensure that a 15% cap applies to the percentage of shares or voting rights which may be held in a newspaper by state owned investors acting on behalf of the foreign powers of different countries or territories. This means we're now putting it in statute that multiple state owned investors, acting on behalf of different states, will not be each be able to hold up to 15% in one newspaper.

The 15% will apply to the combined total of direct and indirect holdings of shares or voting rights. We're introducing a specific and narrow exception for stakes of 5% or below in quoted companies. The exception affects the calculation of whether the 15% cap has been reached. In cases where multiple state owned investors from different countries or territories all have investments in the same newspaper, the exception only catches small shareholdings, and its purpose is to avoid a chilling effect on investment.

Secondly, we are also using this opportunity to impose new transparency requirements on state owned investors that invest in UK newspapers and news magazines. If a state owned investor acquires a direct holding of more than 5% in a newspaper, they must notify the sector state before the end of a period of 14 days after the relevant transaction is made. State owned investors, which are required to notify the Secretary of State, must also publish these details within the same time frame. This will enable the Secretary of State to report to Parliament We intend fo to be every six months on the published.

This will benefit both public and parliamentary confidence by increasing transparency around state owned investment in newspapers. If a state owned investor, which acquires a direct holding of more than 5% of shares or voting rights, fails to comply with the notification of publication requirements, the transaction will be a foreign state newspaper merger situation, and the Secretary of State will be under a duty to issue a foreign state intervention. Notice and refer the case to the Competition and Markets Authority. I want to reassure noble Lords about the nature of the 5% quoted company exception.

It only applies to a limited type of investment by state owned investors as defined in the legislation. Additionally, the intention behind it is to avoid state owned investors having to take account of holdings by state owned investors from other countries, which newspaper groups are unable to track holdings in companies with publicly traded shares are only disclosable if they cross certain thresholds. These thresholds differ in different markets, but 5% is a common benchmark. If crossed, the investor must declare the interest to the company and the wider market.

The provision prevents the regulations having a chilling effect on investment. It removes the need for state owned investors to establish whether state owned investors from other countries have existing, undisclosed small investments in the same newspaper, which would affect whether their intended investment would or could exceed the 15% cap. Ultimately, these regulations address what the government believes is a remote risk that multiple state owned investors from different states could each invest 15% in a single newspaper. This cements the measures that can be taken against foreign state influence in UK newspapers and news magazines.

These regulations also further improve transparency around investment, thereby helping to protect a thriving plural press essential to our democracy. I hope your Lordships' House will support these important steps.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to. My Lords, as this is the noble Baroness, the Minister's second Statutory Instrument debate
19:41
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Portrait Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)
-
-
second Statutory Instrument debate today, I commend her stamina, and indeed I commend my noble friend on the on my own front bench for his two. My Lords, I welcome this Statutory Instrument which meets the commitment she gave in July to close what was a gaping regulatory loophole that would have allowed multiple foreign states, each to own up to 15% of a British newspaper. And all the risks that flow from that. I'm also grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for their thorough examination and report on these two regulations.

And I'm pleased, too, that the government Chief whip scheduled this debate on the floor of the House and not in the Moses room. But of course, all of us could have been spared this additional work if the government had done what I and others advised some months ago, once the so-called multiples loophole was spotted, and that was to withdraw, amend and lay a consolidated set of regulations, rather than us having to handle this piecemeal approach. Now, I'm not going to get sidetracked.

But as I've said before, the government's unwillingness to take the straightforward route raises questions about who or what has been prioritised when dealing with this matter. But we are where we are, as they say, and I am pleased that these regulations do now ensure that the 15% limit for investment from state owned investment funds is a single aggregate cap. My Lords, since it became apparent two years ago that our legal framework could not prevent foreign governments owning, controlling or influencing British newspapers and news magazines, it's been clear that the future of our free press isn't just about protecting editorial independence, it is also about ensuring their financial sustainability, the pace of technological change, and the economic challenges facing the news industry continue to worsen, making investment urgent and consolidation within the industry increasingly likely.

So while I respect those who maintain their position that even as an aggregate at 15%, the cap has been set too high, my own view, as I said in July, is that restricted to passive investment only and with additional reporting safeguards, which I'll come onto in a minute and aggregate 15% Cap is for state owned investors, is acceptable and still supports the principle of press freedom. That said, the government's decision to tackle this in a piecemeal way means that these regulations are not the easiest to follow.

So I am grateful to the excellent senior DCMS officials for their patience in responding to my questions. Seeking clarification over the past few weeks, and I'm grateful also for the Minister's explanation of these regulations. In her opening remarks, other noble Lords may still have questions about how the cap works with the carve out for small holdings of 5% and below for listed media companies. But I'm satisfied that what is proposed is a reasonable approach. Indeed, I am conscious that we must not make this regime even more complex, and doing so could deter legitimate investment or prevent our news industry accessing much needed investment capital.

What I believe is important once these this regime is fully in place is vigilance, which is why I'm pleased that the government has extended the reporting requirements now beyond notifying the Secretary of State, state owned investors who take a stake of more than 5% within the aggregate cap will be required to publish the information online, which in turn allows the Secretary of State to report this information to Parliament. Clearly, it would be better if the regulations themselves require the Secretary of State to inform Parliament every six months of such investment activity, but without the necessary power in the Enterprise Act to create such a regulatory requirement on her, we have to rely on the Secretary of State's commitment to do so, as outlined in her written statement to Parliament of 30th of October.

Now, as much as that's a firm commitment we can hold her to. I do think we should keep open the possibility of amending the Enterprise Act to hardwire this into this this requirement on the Secretary of State as soon as an opportunity in primary legislation allows. But I'm grateful for the innovative approach that has been taken by the Department to ensure that the fundamental requirement that I made in July, that the Secretary of State reports to Parliament on this has been met within the powers available to them.

Could the Minister, though, confirm when the first report to Parliament will occur? And will that first report provide the starting position for state owned investments? Over 5% in newspapers and news magazines, not just any transactions in the preceding six months. It would be quite helpful to see what the starting position is. My Lord, whilst I am content with these regulations, I do want to raise two other matters that are not covered by this instrument but are related. The first is debt financing.

I'd like to ask the Minister if she could explain how this works with the 15% cap. I know that it has long been the government's position, and indeed, I think the same is true of the previous government, that it is not necessary to add specific legislative provisions to exempt debt financing from the regime. And in a letter to me, the Minister explained that this position is on the basis that and I'm quoting from her letter now, the Secretary of State will need to consider the specific facts of the case when considering any acquisition under the foreign state influence regime, including whether the loan agreement would enable the lender to exert influence on the policy of the newspaper enterprise, and a given case involving debt instruments.

Now, I can understand the reasons for this case by case approach, especially if we are to avoid trying to legislate for every eventuality and in the process deter legitimate investment. But I would like some reassurance about how this works in practice nonetheless. And of course, in raising this, I have in mind, Redbird Armey's reported poison pill because I don't understand why Redbird thought they could transfer this to the Telegraph, even though they've since said they would not. So could I ask the Minister if she could be clearer than she was when I raised this during oral questions on 19th November, and confirmed that the law would prevent such a poison pill, and therefore the control and influence of the paper that such a situation would create.

That's that's the critical bit I would just like some clarity on. But more generally, if the 15% cap was already utilised by one or more state owned investors, would it also be possible for debt financing to be provided by an SOI, whether at the time of acquisition or at a later date? Now, I've I've had a briefing from officials, which I found reassuring, but it would be helpful for the Minister to give that clarity on the record. Finally, I would like to turn to future ownership of the Telegraph.

Of course, since the Minister last answered questions, the Daily Mail and General Trust have announced their intention to acquire Telegraph Media Group and are now in a period of exclusivity with Redbird IMI to finalise the bid. In her written statement of 24th November, the Secretary of State gave Dmgt and Redbird IMI three weeks to complete the necessary work prior to making a submission to her for the transaction to proceed, which by my reckoning, would take us to the 15th of December.

This deadline is welcome, but can the Minister tell us what will happen if that deadline is not met? Now, I, for one, hope very much that the Dmgt and Redbird IMI transaction can be completed. But if we get to 15th December and a deal has not been achieved, will the Secretary of State use her powers to take control of the situation? Now? Of course, her doing so is not ideal, not least because it would involve a lengthy regulatory process, but it would put ownership of the telegraph on a more certain pathway to resolution than it has been for the last two years.

In the absence of Redbird. I mean, Dmgt meeting that deadline because it would lead eventually to the CMA holding an open auction without any reserve price, because, my Lords, this situation cannot keep dragging on. And on what basis would it be justifiable to keep giving Redbird IMI more time? So could the Minister confirm that the department is preparing to take the necessary steps swiftly? If the Secretary of State's deadline is not met, because the economic conditions facing the industry make resolving ownership urgent? If we are to protect the future of a great stable of national newspapers.

My Lords, protecting the principle of a free press whilst ensuring its financial sustainability is not easy. But it is vital because democracy doesn't just require our news organisations to be editorially independent, it needs them to survive the path to this legal framework that prevents foreign powers owning, controlling or influencing our news industry has been longer than it should have been, should have been, but I am pleased that the final piece will soon be in place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Bray.
19:51
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Bray. Okay, my Lords, where we are now is, I think, not where the Minister is, I think, not where the Minister expected to be when the Statutory Instrument, the previous Statutory Instrument, was first introduced. So how did we get to this point? Well, with great haste and I would say possibly fuelled by intense pressure from beyond these shores, the government tabled the secondary legislation that allowed, as we've heard, an unlimited number of 15% stakes to be taken by funds that, to all intents and purposes, have an element of foreign control or control by foreign governments.

The FOI then in late July, when I tabled a fatal motion, the Minister agreed to at least deal with the multiple stake issue, which is what we have here, and I would like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness Stowell who, who, who managed to explain to me the convoluted nature of of of this FSI having herself presumably had some, some coaching from the department. It's clear that this is not an easy piece of of statutory legislation. And her her suggestion regarding future changes to the Enterprise Act is something that I do think the government should consider.

So although the Minister agreed to deal with the multiple stake issue, the Minister did not agree with the strong yet minority view of the House that even 115% stake was one too many. And that's because at the time, in my view, this regulation was designed to achieve just one thing. And that was the sale of the Telegraph group to Redbird IMI, which of course included the 15% stake from Abu Dhabi. My Lords, this is moving into the realms of dangerous dog approach to legislation, the dangerous dog Bill approach to legislation.

But actually it's bespoke regulation for a discerning billionaire. And then, just as that flawed see had been rushed through, the Redbird bid back backed out, leaving us today with handmade regulation. But actually no obvious client at the moment. Now have the Conservative Party with obvious honourable exceptions, not back the government and and voted through the last sir, I would have suggested we don't need this one at all, but this at least deals with the multiple stakes issue.

Whilst of course, in my view, leaving the substantive elephant in the room and the other pachyderm. Of course lurking behind this Statutory Instrument is, of course, as the noble Baroness broached, the future of the Telegraph group, as your lordships will be well aware, and as as was outlined, the Daily Mail Group has tabled an offer for 500 million to acquire it, and this has apparently been agreed by Redbird, with detailed negotiations proceeding now, of course, I don't expect the Minister to offer judgement as to whether this should succeed, as she will correctly cite quasi judicial qualms in this.

In this area, what I would welcome is an overview of process going forward and some element of timescales. And of course, because I'm not a quasi judge, I am happy to offer your your lordship some thoughts and point to some key issues that I would hope the Minister would be able to elaborate on first. And here I very much agree with the noble Baroness Stowell the continued involvement of Redbird IMI in the sale process is almost certainly counter to the long term interests of the Telegraph and its readers.

This situation currently means that the UAE, through the back door, is currently deciding who will own the telegraph in the future, while the Minister can. Will the Minister give assurances that there will be full transparency if a deal is done on the funding and structure of any deal? My Lords, the Secretary of State has given the mail a very short time. Again, as the Baroness pointed out, to demonstrate it could it can go through with this acquisition and should the deal not be ready by the deadline contained in the Secretary of State's statement of the 24th of November, or if the proposed deal fails? The tests also contained in that statement, can the Minister outline what steps the Secretary of State will take to ensure the timely sale of the Telegraph in the public interest? Excuse me? Second, there are not many modern precedents, but the Murdoch News acquisition of the Times newspaper is perhaps a helpful example.

Until the intervention of Nadine Dorries in 2022, the Times and the Sunday Times had been subject to legally required independent directors on their parent company's board. Since Rupert Murdoch's News International acquired them in 1981, specifically to safeguard editorial independence and the takeover. After the takeover, these arrangements created and later updated an independent board that approved key editorial appointments and was designed to prevent undue interference. I'm sure this was far from perfect solution, and I'm also sure that Lord Rothermere is a different sort of owner compared to Mr.

Murdoch. But I would ask the Minister to take on board this as an option going forward. Should the Daily Mail bid succeed? Third, the public interest on plurality grounds needs to be assessed, particularly given that both the Telegraph Group and the Daily Mail occupy similar political spaces. This almost certainly creates a concentration of ownership. Ofcom is the place to make this determination, and this bid should be referred accordingly. I welcome I would welcome the Minister's response in general on these three points.

To close. My Lords, this is a piece of secondary legislation that seeks to correct an earlier piece of mis drafted secondary legislation, regulation that we don't know now need and many of us didn't want in the first place. It is a living example as to how the folly of pandering to specific interests that are themselves mercurial and subject to summary change based on self-interest is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the wrong way to legislate for. I'm grateful to the Minister who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the Minister who opened this, the second part of our foreign investment regulatory double bill this evening, and thank her for the remarks that she made in outlining these regulations. in outlining these regulations. Like the other noble Lords who've spoken, I broadly welcome these regulations which the government regulations which the government committed to when we were discussing the number one set of regulations before the summer recess. The reason that we are here today is thanks to careful scrutiny, today is thanks to careful scrutiny, not least by my noble friend Lady Stoll of Beeston, who should be congratulated for helping us get to this point.

As she says, we could have perhaps got here through a different route and rather more elegantly, but I'm glad that she welcomes the the closing of the, the, the loophole that she and others identified. When we looked
19:59
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
at the previous set of regulations earlier this year. Unlike the earlier this year. Unlike the previous set of regulations on football governance, which we were discussing earlier, these ones have discussing earlier, these ones have been drawn to the special attention of the House by your Lordships Secondary Legislation and Scrutiny Committee. And like others, I thank the members of that committee for their careful consideration and for their careful consideration and for the report that draws our attention to the points that they they've raised.

The most serious question. raised. The most serious question. They raise concerns that the 5% carve out, as we've heard, and they carve out, as we've heard, and they quote the correspondents they've had with the noble Baroness Department about that carve out and the the way it will be used saying that in the words of DCMS, our judgement is that the possibility of the carve out being misused is remote. And I can understand that the this is a sort of even the scenario we looked at initially of multiple countries getting together and each seeking to acquire a 15% stake, whilst perhaps far fetched, was not entirely implausible.

It's right that we have acted to make sure the government closes that loophole. I can see that this approach they're taking carving out holdings of 5% or less in quoted companies, reduces the risk further. But perhaps the noble Baroness, the Minister, can say just a little bit more about the work that's been done by the government to make sure that even the very remote possibility of foreign state investors seeking to circumvent these rules has been ruled out to the extent it can be.

But as my noble friend Lady Stella Beeston says, the path has been rather longer than any of us expected or would have wished to get to this point. And delay does have a price for investors and vendors, as well as for readers and journalists of our newspapers. And my noble friend Lord Sewell Lord Stone has taken the opportunity to ask some questions about whether and when we might expect a conclusion to this. For the sake of the Daily Telegraph and, more broadly, whether the government will look again at the Enterprise Act regime to make sure that future scenarios do not have to play out at such length.

I was struck reading the obituaries of Sir Andreas Whittam Smith, who died recently, that it is. It underlines the difficulty of newspaper ownership and finance, not just during the years of his career, but today, in 1986, he and others set out to do something on uncharted by setting up a newspaper, The Independent, trying to free it from Proprietorial control and setting up a new management structure. That is easier said than done, as they found out within a decade that newspaper did have to restructure financially and is now indeed owned by the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev and a Saudi businessman, Sultan Mohammed Abuljadayel.

That in a process which itself was subject to a public interest intervention notice. But it does underline the need for investment in our newspapers if they are to continue to flourish, to perform the job that they do, which is so vital for our public discourse and our democracy. And that's why we all want to make sure not just that we're getting the rules right now and the regulations currently before the House, but to make sure that we've got the regulatory regime which balances the need for protection of this vital part of our democracy, whilst also allowing space for investment to continue so that these newspapers and press organisations can continue to flourish for many years to come.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare an interest as a Telegraph contributor and as the Telegraph contributor and as the director of the Free Speech Union, which defends freedom of the press, amongst other freedoms. First of amongst other freedoms. First of all, can I thank the Secretary of State for bringing forward these
20:03
Lord Young of Acton Portrait Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)
-
-
State for bringing forward these regulations? I was one of around 50 peers to write to her, pointing to the shortcomings of the first set of regulations, which we've already heard quite a bit about, whereby it wasn't clear whether the 15% ceiling on the percentage of shares in a British newspaper a foreign state could own, applied to those states, both individually and collectively or just individually, leaving open the possibility that a number of foreign states could each take a 15% stake and collectively end up with a controlling stake.

In our letter, we urged her to bring forward a second set of regulations, making it clear that the ceiling applied to foreign states individually and collectively. So I am grateful the Secretary of State has done so. Although a good deal of the credit for the closure of this loophole should go to my noble friend Baroness Stowell. My Lords, the Telegraph Group has now been in a state of protracted uncertainty. Those are the Secretary of State's words for nearly two years. In that period, senior executives and senior members of the editorial staff had been unable to make strategic decisions, which they need to do given the profound upheaval in the newspaper business caused by AI, it's vital that the group has sold to a reputable owner as quickly as possible so it can adapt to the rapidly changing business environment and attract the investment it urgently needs to grow in order to end the prolonged period of uncertainty.

I share. My noble friend Baroness Stolz, hope that the bid by the Daily Mail and General Trust is successful. As I understand it, the Secretary of State has given ntg until Monday week to submit a bid, and she is then at liberty to approve the sale, provided no flags are raised by the Competition and Markets Authority or Ofcom. Alternatively, she can refer the bid to the CMA and should that prove necessary, could I urge her to impress upon the regulator how important it is to complete its scrutiny process as quickly as possible, and make a decision about whether to approve or reject the bid? Should ABMTs bid be rejected and it becomes necessary to invite other bidders to submit offers, it would be highly improper if Redbird IMI is still the entity holding the gavel, as it were.

The reason it's selling the Telegraph group is because the United Arab Emirates owns a controlling stake in the company. My Lords, if it's a breach of the regulations for a company that's controlled by a foreign state to own a British newspaper, how can it be appropriate for a company controlled by a foreign state to decide who to sell a British newspaper to? I'm not alone. I don't think in being prepared to overlook this anomaly in the current circumstances, given the need for an expedited sale.

But should Dmg's bid prove unsuccessful, or if it fails to materialise, the course of action the Secretary of State must take is clear. And I share my noble friend Baroness Stowell disappointment that she didn't set out what she'd do in the event of Dmg's bid not materialising, or it being rejected. In her written ministerial statement at the beginning of last week. To my mind, the Secretary of State's course of conduct is clear. She must immediately refer Redbird Imi's ownership of the Telegraph Group to the CMA.

The CML will, I imagine, quickly declare that the arrangements fall foul of the foreign state influence regulations, as it must, and should then use its powers to order the independent directors of the Telegraph group to hold an auction with no floor price, in which the bidders are transparent about the origin of the money they've raised for the acquisition. My Lords, those last two points are crucial. Should Redbird IMI retain its grip on the gavel, not only would that be improper, but it would be reluctant to accept bids of less than 500 million given that's how much it paid in light of the tumult unleashed in the newspaper business by AI in the past two years, not to mention higher interest rates, economic tariffs and a soft ad market.

Few if any bidders, with the possible exception of DMG, will be willing to meet that price. So to insist on a reserve price of 500 million might very well condemn the Telegraph group to remain in limbo for the for the foreseeable future, with disastrous consequences. And should the bidders not be transparent about the financing of the deal, there's a risk the new owners will also fall foul of the regulations and will be back here again. Rinse, wash, repeat. Meanwhile, a great British newspaper shrinks and shrinks until it becomes invisible.

In short, if the DMG bid is viable, the Secretary of State must use her powers to ensure the deal is completed as quickly as possible, and if it is not, she needs to move equally quickly to a transparent auction process overseen by the company's independent directors. My Lords, to govern is to decide, and the Secretary of State must start

**** Possible New Speaker ****

making some decisions. I don't want to detain your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't want to detain your Lordships' House, and I think the speech is already made by several noble Lords, are very much to the
20:09
20:09
20:09
Lord Moore of Etchingham Portrait Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-affiliated)
-
-
attention of the noble Baroness to Minister to what it's like for a newspaper not to know who's owning newspaper not to know who's owning it for such a very long time. The greatest power of bureaucracy, it seems to me, is delay. And that seems to me, is delay. And that increases the power of bureaucracy with every moment. And that is that is, it's it's appalling leverage on everything else. But business, and particularly journalism, has the particularly journalism, has the opposite desire it needs to get on.

And the word journalism, of course, comes from the French word about comes from the French word about the day. It's the thing that happens every day and every day. Lost is a disaster for us, and in certain respects we have been losing day after day. We've been losing roughly half the length of the Second World War. When we haven't, we haven't known who who's really going to own us. And I would like to draw the and I make no distinction really here between the governments of either party because both of them, it seemed to me, were guilty of a similar failure.

I'd like to draw the noble Lady the minister's attention to the fact that there's a strong contrast between the quasi judicial role, which, quite rightly, DCMS operates, and which is necessary in these cases. And all the moving around and manoeuvring and use of time and use of delay in order to try to satisfy, as the noble Lord Lord Fox a noble Lord, Lord young has pointed out, to try to satisfy the needs of a foreign state, which to which the British government seems to be over.

Overzealous in courting, and. This is a very bad piece of politics. And. Not not party politics. But it's a bad piece of politics, and it put us all in play. And if we were to write the history of this, I think we would have to see that it fell to the journalists of the Daily Telegraph twice to start making a noise before anything could prevent very bad things happening. That seems to be nothing to do with quasi judicial process, and I hope that the fact that there is a very sharp deadline of the 15th of December is, in fact tacit acknowledgement, acknowledgement by the government of the damage done by delay, and that therefore it's something is more drastic, is being done now in another place.

My Lords, the the Justice Secretary, when trying to do something about jury trials, has made the point that justice delayed is justice denied. But we we at the Telegraph have had justice delayed for a very long time and and therefore denied. I think that it really is an end by this point that the noble Baroness lady stole very clear on it, and the other the other noble Lords, too, that there it has to be acknowledged that a process of this sort should never go on again, and that there's a big lesson here, and that if the for whatever reason, the Daily Mail bid does fail or it gets called into question, then there has to be a process which is open and swift and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fair. My Lords, this has been an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this has been an important and useful debate and I'm very grateful. Noble Lords who have
20:13
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
very grateful. Noble Lords who have contributed contributed to it. I'm particularly grateful to the noble Lord Baroness Stowell of Beeston for her engagement over many months with DCMS. I do think we have a better position as a result of your engagement and persistence on this matter, and I know that the Secretary of State is also grateful for the time you've taken to help us refine this, frustrating as it must have been for the noble Lady, at times, this regime is about safeguarding a very specific industry that has a unique, essential role in the health of our democracy.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, made it really clear that this is an important part of democracy, and I think that is beyond doubt within your Lordships' House. I don't recognise, and I do think I do need to put on the record that I don't recognise the scenario outlined by the noble Lord Lord Fox or noble Lord Lord Moore of Etchingham, in terms of the genesis of of these Sayce. But I do hope all noble Lords feel that we've listened and addressed concerns raised within your Lordships' House, and have got to a better place as a result.

I would like to address the points made by noble Lords during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, raised concerns about the 5% exceptions potential for misuse. I would like to stress that this is a narrow exception, applying in limited circumstances, it intends to remove any potential chilling effect by providing that a state owned investor, or SOI from one country or territory may ignore smaller holdings, which are, in effect, too small to confer influence in their own right.

In quoted companies by SOIs from other countries which are not visible to them. I'd like to give a hypothetical example of the limited circumstances in which the carve out is, in our view, necessary to avoid a chilling effect. If a state owned investor wanted to invest 15% in the publicly listed newspaper owner, they would have to be sure that no other state owned investors from any other states or territories already held shares in the same newspaper owner. Without a carve out, they could potentially not be sure that their 15% investment would comply with the limit.

The state owned investor's options would be to invest and take the risk that their own investment might exceed the limit because of an investment from another country that is below the disclosure requirements, or on the side of caution, and either not invest or invest in much smaller amounts to require state owned investors to bear the risk of their being small. Undisclosed holdings in other countries could be likely to discourage investment. It would also be undesirable to be in a situation of frequently requiring state owned investors to divest their investment because they had unknowingly breached the cap.

The noble Lady Baroness Stowell raised questions about the position of debt in the regime. This was considered in the consultation, which ran from May to July 2025. Ordinarily, debt made at arm's length would not result in control or influence over newspaper. When the Secretary of State is considering whether a foreign state newspaper merger situation has arisen in a case involving debt instruments, she will need to consider the facts of the case, specifically whether the loan agreement enables the lender to exert influence over the newspaper enterprise's policy.

We will comprehensively, comprehensively cover the position of debt in the foreign state influence regime in our updated media murder regime guidance, which is due to be published in spring 2026. So I'm looking forward to future debates on on those regarding the noble Ladies, questions about what criteria will be used to establish whether the loan agreement enables the lender to exert the requisite degree of influence on the newspaper enterprise. The legislation sets out the circumstances in which there is a foreign state newspaper merger situation, and in which a foreign power is able to control or to influence the policy of a newspaper enterprise.

These are the criteria by which the Secretary of State considers whether there is or could be foreign state influence as a result of a merger, based on the facts of each case, facts about any merger involving debt instruments will be specific to a given case, so I can't outline here all possible scenarios and approaches, but I would remind noble Lords of the regimes low bar for intervention. The Secretary of State must intervene if she has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a foreign power may hold the ability to influence or control the policy of UK newspaper enterprise as a result of a merger involving the new newspaper enterprise.

Regardless of intention, the noble Lady Baroness Stowell also raised the treatment of debt in relation to press reporting in recent weeks of the so-called poison pill of debt reportedly being transferred to the Telegraph, and how the law applies in such a context, I am sure the noble Lady will understand. I can't go into detail on this commercially sensitive live case. The parties have, however, given public assurances that this is not how the deal has been structured, and I am not privy to information about this which is not in the public domain.

I do hope, however, my answer has given the noble Lady reassurance on these points. My more Lords moving on. I'd like to address the points made around the new transparency requirements. The noble Lady Baroness Stowell set out that she would like to see the reporting requirements revisited when an appropriate vehicle emerges to clarify how they operate in law. The delegated powers within the Enterprise Act do not allow these regulations to introduce a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on notifications received.

I am grateful to the noble Lady for engagement on this matter. Whilst there are no specific vehicles on the horizon that I am aware of, we will of course keep all our policies under review to assess their effectiveness. And I'll pass a suggestion on to the Minister in the other place who's responsible for these regulations. The noble Lady Baroness Stowell has also asked me to confirm when the first report to Parliament will be made. I expect it to be made in July next year, which is six months after the notification of publication requirement comes into force.

The noble Lady also asked whether we would report on existing state owned investments in newspapers without the notification requirement. News organisations are not under any obligation to report this, but I take a point and we will consider this further in advance of next year's report. In relation to the future of the Telegraph, which was raised, I think, by all contributors to the debate. With regards to concerns raised about the sale, I recognise that noble Lords are keen to see the matter resolved, as is the Secretary of State and as am I.

The Telegraph is a worldwide known brand. We want the Telegraph to have a a future as a media group and as a newspaper, just as it's had a really a really glorious sort of past. I mean, it's one of the biggest brand names in the country in relation to Lord Moore of Etchingham point, I really felt for the noble Lord and his colleagues, and I think I just want to give him some reassurance. I hope that neither the Secretary of State or myself or or DCMS underestimates the pressure on staff and is point around the journalism and the potential impact on, on, on that and on staff was very well made.

The Secretary of State set out her priorities with regard to the prospective New Deal. In a written statement on Monday, the 24th of November, which I which was repeated in this House, the Secretary of State will review any new acquisition of the Telegraph, guided by the powers and duties set out in the Enterprise Act 2002, as well as by the principle of protecting the editorial independence of the telegraph business. The noble Lady Baroness Stowell raised a timeline which the Secretary of State set out, which was also mentioned by other noble Lords, that is, that she expects to receive a derogation request within three weeks.

And what noble Lords and noble Lords raised what they think should happen if this is not met? I'm not privy to the Secretary of State's thinking on this as it is. As has been noted during the debate, a quasi judicial process for her alone to decide. She is aware of this debate, however, and I will highlight the point made by noble Lords to the Secretary of State. But what I can do is provide assurances that she will continue to monitor developments very closely and consider any new acquisition in line with the three principles she set out in her written ministerial statement.

She will update Parliament on this matter as appropriate at the earliest opportunity. Before concluding, I wanted to say that my ministerial colleagues and I have greatly appreciated the time that noble Lords have given to share their views on this important matter. I do think that we have got to a better place. I did apologise when we debated these in the summer, for it not necessarily being quite as neat as noble Lords would have liked. I don't disagree with some of those points.

What I would observe is that it is clear that there is a deeply held commitment across all sides of your Lordships' House to the future of the UK press, and that is a commitment this government shares. I beg to move. The question is that this motion be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
14:00
None Portrait Royal Assent: Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025; Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025; Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025; Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025
-

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 2 House of Lords - 2 December
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page