House of Lords (Alternative Second Chamber) Bill [HL]

Lord Burns Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 23rd October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for the opportunity to discuss House of Lords reform again. I enjoyed her introductory remarks and agree that this is a very good opportunity to begin to discuss some issues that go beyond the particulars that some of the committees have looked at.

Over the past decade, I have consistently made the case for reform. I have argued for a limit on the size of the House, a balance of new party appointments which reflect the most recent general elections and 15-year term limits for new Peers. Sadly, we have seen no progress on these proposals. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, there has been a shortage of action. Despite the removal of the hereditary Peers, the House is roughly the same size as it was 10 years ago, when we started work on the Lord Speaker’s committee. The Prime Minister of the day continues to determine the total number of appointments and their allocation by party. New Peers are being appointed at an age that could see them being Members of this House for 40 years, even with a retirement age of 80. No one outside Westminster can begin to understand how these arrangements make sense for a legislative Chamber.

I understand the complexity of the issue, but I am disappointed that successive Prime Ministers have shown little interest in reform of these elements of our system. Instead, the Government have a manifesto commitment to replace the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions. They have said that they will consult on proposals, and, rather cleverly, today the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has taken on that job for them and brought forward this commitment to a consultation in her Bill. Personally, I remain committed to the proposals from the Lord Speaker’s committee and hope they will be considered, among other options.

The requirement that the House should be more representative of the regions and nations could be added fairly simply. The responsibility for meeting them should be placed on each of the party groups and HOLAC. On its own, this does not require major reform. However, when we looked at this, I was astonished to discover how difficult it is to determine where people come from. Is it where they were born? Is it where they now live? Is it where they were educated? Is it somewhere between all these areas? Nevertheless, it does not require major reform and does not seem to me, on its own, to be an argument for fundamental reform, compared to some of the other issues that we have discussed.

In any consultation with the public about reform—despite what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said about his interaction with students—I am confident that the most popular option would be some form of appointment by election. There might be debate about the details, but my reading of public opinion is that it clearly favours the legitimacy of election-based appointments.

Under the terms of the manifesto commitment and this Bill, the Government must publish a document setting out alternatives for consultation. In my remaining remarks, I will suggest some factors that I hope the Government will consider if they get round to setting out these alternatives. First, in any consultation, it is hugely important that the Government should be cautious about any change to the powers and purposes of this House. Experience shows that the Commons is very wary that increased legitimacy for this House could undermine its own primacy. The safest approach is to accept that the present powers and purposes of this House are appropriate and to place emphasis on the experience and independence of Members. Any consultation should clearly state that the primary role of the second Chamber is legislative scrutiny and encouraging the Government to think again on certain issues. Earlier this week, there was a debate in the House of Commons about House of Lords reform and the issue about the primacy of the House of Commons surfaced from a number of the contributors.

My second point is that if elections for Members are included, the system should be as different as possible from the Commons system. Therefore, for a second Chamber, my view is that a proportional representation would be most suitable. I say this in tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith: the recent Welsh Senedd system offers such a model for a limited proportional representation system. It involves regional constituencies with multiple Members where voters choose between the parties and determine the number of seats that each party wins. These seats are then allocated by the parties from a closed list of candidates. Like the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, I am not a fan of closed lists, but essentially this seems to me to be a hybrid system of election and appointment, which may be suitable for this House. The overall numbers would be determined by election rather than by the Prime Minister, but leaving the selection of individuals effectively in the hands of the parties. This would also address the Government’s concern about underrepresented regions and nations in the second Chamber.

The next question is whether separate elections for the two Houses are necessary, or whether they should be held together. I favour simultaneous elections for both Houses because it would be very difficult to generate much interest among the electorate in separate elections for a Chamber with relatively limited powers.

The third major issue that keeps cropping up for me is the mechanism for Members leaving. In an elected system, of course, this would involve term lengths. The straightforward approach would be to have the same term length as the Commons. During a general election, all party members would leave and stand for re-election or retire. However, as the scrutiny role emphasises experience, options could also include longer terms for Members of the second Chamber. Members could serve for two Parliaments, say, with half of the House standing for re-election at each general election. A third option would be to serve for three Parliaments, with a third of the House standing for re-election. The third option is, broadly speaking, my own choice, and would—this is no coincidence—over time deliver a result very close to the proposals of the Lord Speaker’s Committee for the political parties, but with the democratic element.

The fourth major issue is the role and handling of the Cross-Bench Members. I will leave the detail of this for another day, but noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I hope the Cross-Bench Members remain a significant proportion of the House under any option, with appointments generally being made by HOLAC. I agree with the criticism of what has happened in recent years in the way that Prime Ministers have limited the role of HOLAC and the number of appointments it is allowed to make, taking on the job of making appointments to the Cross Benches themselves.

The focus of my contribution on Lords reform over the past decade has been to try to make the existing arrangements work more effectively, avoiding the relentless underlying increase in the size of the House, and I have not given up hope that we could see significant changes yet. However, if there is no change to the Prime Minister’s power to make appointments and there are no term limits, it will become increasingly likely that more fundamental reform is going to take place.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Burns Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving this Motion I will also speak to Amendments 2 to 62.

I tried very hard to avoid the overuse of football metaphors or puns at the earlier stages of the Bill but, despite the Bill having left your Lordships’ House previously, I think we can say that we did think it was all over, and I sincerely hope, with your Lordships’ agreement, it almost is now.

Over the course of the passage of the Bill, we have heard concerns about the risk posed by the distributions mechanism outlined in the Bill. I thought that the original model had its merits. However, as I committed to do on Report and at Third Reading in your Lordships’ House, the Government have taken another look at the mechanism and in response have made a series of important amendments in the other place.

The Government are grateful for the careful and considered scrutiny from noble Lords across this House, which was invaluable in the development of this new model. I take this opportunity to again put on record my particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for his extensive and thoughtful work in providing such scrutiny. I know that he was sorry not to be able to be here in person today, but I also know that he will be well represented by his Cross-Bench colleagues. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for the expertise they have provided over the last few weeks.

The amendments we have made alter the distributions model through changes to Part 6, alongside supporting amendments to other clauses. These are primarily designed to change the mechanism from the previous binary choice mechanism to a new “staged regulator determination” model. This new model is designed to give more certainty to parties while ensuring that the backstop is designed to reach the best solution possible for all of football.

I will briefly explain how the amendments achieve this goal. First, the amendments introduce two new clauses. Clause 61 has been replaced with a completely redesigned proposal process. We have been clear that our strong preference is for the leagues to reach an independent distributions solution without the need for the backstop to be triggered.

Since the Bill was last before this House, the Government have announced David Kogan as our preferred candidate to chair the regulator. I know that David Kogan shares this view that the backstop should be triggered only as an absolute last resort, and our new proposal stage has been designed to incentivise that. If the backstop process is ever triggered, the regulator would invite the leagues to submit proposals detailing their solutions to the questions for resolution. The leagues would then submit their proposals to both the regulator and to each other. This will allow for more constructive negotiations, as the leagues will be more informed regarding each other’s position on core issues.

The leagues would also be able to submit revised proposals, ensuring both sides have the best chance possible to outline their position to the regulator, and, in turn, allowing the regulator the opportunity to request additional relevant information. This structure will ensure that the regulator is in the position to make the best possible evidence-based decision, while incentivising the leagues to make their own agreement.

We have replaced Clause 62 to introduce more flexibility for the regulator. Our new clause removes the binary choice for the regulator. Instead, it sets out how the regulator can create its own distribution order if, after all previous stages have concluded, the leagues still cannot strike a deal.

In the creation of this order, it can choose all of a league’s proposal or part of either or both proposals, or can propose unique solutions based on the evidence. The regulator would first have 60 days to create a provisional order. The regulator would share this provisional order with the leagues and invite representations, which it must consider before finalising the order. Any finalised order that it produces would have to take into account any relevant issues raised by the “state of the game” report, the evidence the regulator has gathered throughout the process, its engagement with the leagues and any proposals that they have submitted. Finally, under the new model, the regulator would be required to consult the FA before setting the questions for resolution, ensuring that the national governing body can now raise any views about the scope of the backstop process.

We are confident that the regulator, with its clear objective to promote sustainability and its duties to avoid adverse effects on growth and sporting competitiveness, would come to a balanced solution. I know that there is probably a slight variance with models that noble Lords view as ideal. However, I am confident that this new model is the right one, and I hope that noble Lords will support it as being substantially better than the original model that we debated earlier in the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House.

In addition to the changes to the backstop, we have also made some minor and technical changes to other parts of the Bill to aid the implementation and effectiveness of the regulatory regime and reduce the burden on the industry. I am happy to answer any questions noble Lords have on these changes. I hope that noble Lords understand and can support the changes that we have made in the other place. They have been arrived at after much careful consideration and conversation with noble Lords and the industry, and will ensure that the regulator can best deliver for fans. We believe the changes strengthen the Bill and will strengthen the regulatory model.

This Government promised in our manifesto to safeguard the future of our national game. In fact, as all noble Lords will be aware, the commitment to establish an independent football regulator was in the manifestos of all three main parties at the election a year ago. I hope that noble Lords will support this much- needed piece of legislation, which delivers on that commitment by protecting and promoting the sustainability of English football in the interests of fans and the local communities that football clubs serve. I beg to move.

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for introducing these amendments and for setting out the reasons behind them. On Report in March, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, introduced a series of amendments. These were aimed at addressing what he regarded as some weaknesses in the role of the independent football regulator in the distribution of funds between the various football bodies. I supported the amendments, along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

Unfortunately, neither the noble Lord, Lord Birt, nor the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, can be here this evening, and I have been asked to respond jointly for our little group, in place of the noble Lord, Lord Birt. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is in his place, I am pleased to say, and I hope that we will hear from him in due course.

Throughout debate on this Bill, we have emphasised the uniqueness of this situation. Under the proposed legislation, a regulator could potentially make decisions to transfer income from one regulated body to another. Moreover, both bodies are part of the same football family and they must coexist. Many clubs could find themselves moving between the Premier League and the English Football League. We argued that the arrangements should take these factors into account, including the objective of the overall success of the football pyramid.

We are very grateful to the Minister for the time that she has spent on this since then. Subsequently, the Government have brought forward their own amendments, which were agreed by the Commons and now come to this House today. I think I can say that as a group we support these amendments. While they are not entirely as we hoped, they address many of the concerns we had with the original Bill and go some way towards meeting the tests that are involved.

The most significant change is the fundamental re-engineering of the backstop process. This removes the Russian roulette binary mechanism, where an expert panel would have chosen between the final offers of the two parties, without the option of finding middle ground. Instead, the regulator now has the driving seat in both the negotiation and the determination process. The amendments strengthen the role of the “state of the game” report and modify the principles and criteria to explicitly refer to the regulator’s duties as well as its objectives. While it does not go as far as we hoped, it is an improvement and it means that, if the regulator is called on to decide, it will consider domestic and international competitiveness, growth and investment in the industry. I think that is a significant step forward.

We are confident that David Kogan, the preferred candidate to be chair of the IFR, will be able to make these arrangements work. He has exceptional football knowledge and expertise. Following the publication of the “state of the game” report, we hope that the regulator will set out its views about the most significant challenges that are faced by the leagues covered by this process. At the same time, we hope that the regulator will set out the criteria that it will apply in determining the appropriate funds flow down the pyramid. Overall, I am satisfied that this leaves us in a much better position than when we last discussed the Bill, and we support the amendments.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my football interests: I remain a season ticket holder at Arsenal Football Club and counsel to Manchester City Football Club in the continuing disciplinary and regulatory proceedings involving the Premier League. In respect of both those interests, I very much look forward to next season.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for setting out with such clarity why the team captained by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, of which I am proud to be a member, welcomes the Commons amendments, in particular to remove the binary mechanism which would have fettered the power of the regulator. I welcome these government amendments because they seem to further what I hope that the Minister will confirm are the three key goals of this Bill.