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

Lord Scriven Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 23rd October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth; his calm, measured tones are always difficult to follow. I also welcome the introduction of the Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. She was very clear and put forward a very powerful argument for why the consultation is needed.

Noble Lords will notice I am slightly croaky today—I am not the noble Lord croaker—but I will endeavour to get through this. It was also great to hear the interjection by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. The noble Lord and I have known each other through Sheffield politics for well over 20 years. I have been rather worried recently because we have agreed more than we have disagreed, but I am now going back to our normal knocking 10 bells out of each other, as we do in Sheffield politically.

I should own up: I am on the traditional liberal wing of the Liberal Democrats, and we have been waiting for rather a long time for this kind of debate and for reform of the House of Lords. It was the Parliament Act 1911 that promised a second Chamber on a popular, rather than hereditary, basis. That was 115 years ago. I would guess it is probably the longest-running temporary arrangement in British public life. I welcome the progress so far in this Parliament: the hereditaries have gone, but some have returned quite rightly on their own merit, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, will be speaking later.

However, that is only tinkering. We have swapped the accident of birth for the accident of who you know and left the Prime Minister’s patronage exactly where it was. A promise to consult without a date attached is the constitutional equivalent of “The cheque is in the post”. The Liberal Democrat position is long-standing: a fully elected second Chamber, chosen by proportional representation, speaking for the nations and regions of the United Kingdom; the primacy of the Commons will be preserved. But this Bill asks only for a consultation. After 115 years, that is hardly a leap in the dark.

Why an elected Chamber? As a matter of principle in a democracy, I believe the right to make law comes from the people. Not one of the Members of this House, no matter how eminent or detailed we are in legislation, has been chosen by the public to sit here. Not one of us can be held to account or removed by them. That is why this House defers to the elected Commons. It knows it has no mandate. An elected second Chamber would be stronger, not weaker, and it would scrutinise with authority and not, as sometimes we do, with an apology.

I am from Sheffield, like the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. When the Electoral Reform Society last analysed this House by region, just under 6% of Peers lived in Yorkshire and the Humber, whereas 24% lived in London and 21% in the south-east. For the poor north-east, it was 3%; for Wales it was 4%, Scotland 7% and Northern Ireland 2.5%. A Chamber meant to speak for the whole country looks more like a London dinner party, and Yorkshire rarely gets invited.

I want to be fair, though, to the Cross-Benchers. Their Members are recommended by the House of Lords Appointments Commission through an open, merit-based process and many are people of real distinction who add to your Lordships’ House. But look how thin this safeguard is: the commission is asked to find just two non-party Peers a year, it has no veto and no say over numbers, and the Prime Minister can still nominate Cross-Benchers directly. In 2020, the Prime Minister overruled the commission’s advice. In other democracies, expertise advises; it does not hold a lifelong right to legislate.

On the party Benches, it is starker. The commission checks propriety, not merit, and suitability is left to the party. In July, with the previous Prime Minister preparing to leave, 26 new life Peers were announced in one of his final acts. Five of these places went to my own party, so we claim no clean hands, but while this system exists every party uses it, and that is exactly why it must go. A panel that can improve patronage is not one that can supply a mandate. We elect our councillors, our mayors and our devolved Parliaments as a matter of principle. Only at the top of the system do we hand out seats by appointment, which is unusual in any other bicameral system in the world, bar one.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, I will skip along now to the Bishops’ Benches; people would be very surprised if I did not. In 26 cases, some of our Members are here by job title. Again, they contribute to the work of the House, but, as a matter of principle, nobody voted for these 26 Bishops. They are here because of the posts they hold in the only institution in the whole country that is guaranteed places in Parliament. The 2021 census found that 46% of people in England and Wales described themselves as Christian and over 30% said they had no religion at all. The Church’s own figures put average Sunday attendance in 2024 at just under 1% of the population of England, so 1% attend the Church, but 26 seats are guaranteed automatically in the UK Parliament.

We are told that the Bishops speak for the nation, as they do on many important issues, and not just for the Church. But the record shows they also speak for the Church: during the passage of the equal marriage Bill, the previous Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed the Church of England’s quadruple lock on marriage and argued to protect it. In 2023, eight Bishops, including one who then sat in this House, signed a submission asking the Government to exempt the confessional from mandatory reporting. Again, that issue has been raised recently.

We have seen a number of occasions when the Bishops have stood up and asked for special privileges in VAT concessions on reforming and doing up churches. When the hereditary Peers Bill came before us, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, who I admire greatly, spoke against the amendments to reduce the number of Lords spiritual. Turkeys, I am told, do not vote for Christmas, and it seems that Bishops do not vote for fewer Bishops. This is no criticism of the faith or the individuals, but nobody should sit in our legislature by virtue of a job in one church.

I support the Bill and urge the Government to give us a firm date for consulting, rather than a vague nod to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, on securing the Second Reading of her Bill. The noble Baroness has spoken passionately and eloquently in previous debates about reforming your Lordships’ House and today is no different. As a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Pack, pointed out, it is the second debate in two days on constitutional reform. Both debates have been fascinating, and today there has been a considerable range of views about the way forward on reform and, with a couple of exceptions, significant agreement on the need for reform. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, made clear in his speech, we recognise the many calls for reform across the parties, including in the Labour Party.

Speakers including the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and my noble friends Lady Bolton and Lord Stansgate have also highlighted the many strengths of your Lordships’ House, not least in holding the Executive to account in relation to scrutiny of legislation. The strengths do not negate the need for reform, however. The relationship between your Lordships’ House and the other place has also been highlighted, including in a particularly thought-provoking way by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, in his winding-up remarks.

As we have heard, the Bill before us would require the Government to consult on an alternative second Chamber, with the consultation period beginning within six months of the Act being passed. If passed, the consultation would run for at least 12 weeks. The Secretary of State would be required to publish a summary of responses and a statement detailing the Government’s response within six months of the consultation closing.

The Government have significant sympathy with the central principle behind the Bill. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway made clear in her remarks, the Government have made clear commitments in our manifesto on the reform of the House of Lords. This includes a manifesto commitment to consult on proposals to replace the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations.

Although we understand the motivation of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in putting the Bill forward, the Government wish to express their reservations about the legislation. The Bill would, in our view, constrain the Government’s ability in how we approach the delivery of our manifesto commitment by prematurely imposing a duty on the Government to consult.

As noble Lords will know, the Government have taken a staged approach to reform of your Lordships’ House. I dispute the noble Baroness’s view that we have not acted or that we are hesitant. We have already made a significant change to your Lordships’ House. As the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, said, we have removed the hereditary rights of Peers to sit in the House of Lords. Most recently, through the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act, we removed the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House on the basis of hereditary right. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, might call that piecemeal; we think this fulfils a long-held commitment on the part of the Labour Party to do so.

A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Blunkett and Lady Taylor of Bolton, spoke to the work that the Retirement and Participation Committee undertook on reform, under the leadership of my noble friend Lady Taylor. We are really grateful for the committee’s work and for the report published in July. The Government are carefully considering the committee’s recommendations, alongside thoughtful and considered remarks from across the House during the debate on the report in September. The Government will respond to the committee’s recommendations substantively later this year.

The noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, spoke about the proposals for HOLAC gaining a statutory footing. This proposal was also referred to by my noble friend Lord Stansgate. We have strengthened transparency in the appointments system by introducing a requirement for nominating parties to provide a public citation for appointments. Putting HOLAC on a statutory footing is a matter that this House has considered many times and, as the Leader of the House of Lords has said, this is not the right path to take at this time.

To return the Bill before the House, while we agree with the broad sentiment behind it, the Government’s view is that passing this legislation would require the Government to prematurely consult on an alternative second Chamber. A meaningful consultation on such an important issue demands a careful and thought-through plan. The noble Lords, Lord Burns, Lord Wigley and Lord Scriven, and my noble friend Lady Taylor, among others, raised important points around regional and national representation. This Government also want to see a second Chamber that better represents the regions and nations, and I am pleased to note this was a manifesto commitment. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, shares that vision. There are many ways of achieving this goal and we owe it to the public to get any consultation and any changes right.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, noted the number of previous pieces of work undertaken on House of Lords reform—for example, the royal commission and the number of White Papers that have been produced, including under the previous Labour Government. The coalition Government also attempted—unsuccessfully—to bring about substantial reform, despite the introduction of a Bill. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, chaired the Speaker’s Committee, which made an important contribution to the ongoing debate on reform of the House of Lords.

In response to the contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, we recognise that the manner in which and the context of how the Government engage the public on these issues are almost as important as the content of the proposals themselves. The Government are open to different methods of getting input from the public.

To conclude, I thank the noble Baroness once more for leading a very thought-provoking discussion on an alternative second Chamber and how we get there. The Government remain committed to fundamental reform of your Lordships’ House. The Government’s priority is politics that works for all people in all places, not some people in some places. My noble friend Lady O’Grady stressed how vital it is that we restore trust in politics. The Prime Minister set out in his first speech the importance of putting the right values and standards at the heart of government to do so. To achieve this, we have begun the biggest redistribution of power this country has seen.

The Government welcome feedback and continued discussion on the next steps on constitutional reform, and we will consider a range of views and evidence. It is right that the Government decide how to deliver our manifesto commitment and consult on proposals for an alternative second Chamber. Although the Bill is well intentioned, in our view it would pre-empt that process. The Government’s ultimate focus is on outcomes rather than process, and our overarching objective is to see a House that is more representative, including of the nations and regions. I believe that this goal is broadly shared across the House, but there are, of course, many different ways of achieving it. Rushing into a consultation for its own sake will not bring us any closer to fulfilling our objectives.

Ultimately, the Government have reservations about this Bill so, unfortunately, I cannot support it on their behalf. However, we look forward to the ongoing conversation both inside and outside this Chamber about how we may bring about lasting reform to your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, she said that this Bill would restrict the right of the Government on when and how to consult. As there is a manifesto commitment, what she did not give from the Dispatch Box was a commitment that the Government will start, or even end, the consultation before the general election. Is that the Government’s aim?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It was a manifesto commitment. I cannot say now exactly when it would start. What we do not want is to be bounced into a 12-week consultation from the point at which this Bill would become law.

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology: Abolition

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We have a huge amount of work going on across government to make sure that we use AI to its potential, from the Department of Health and Social Care looking at how it will use it in a cutting-edge AI trial to transform cancer care—albeit that that is within the health service. We are confident that AI will improve public services and boost productivity, from identifying fraud and potential fraud to making sure that we have automated policy analysts and AI tutoring tools. We are rolling out AI tools that will save time and money to get the most effective Civil Service for the public.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, headcount is irrelevant. The real issue is the outcomes and outputs that the department delivers. In closing the department down, what will now be able to be done more efficiently, for those in industry and for the country?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am going to repeat myself, with apologies to your Lordships’ House. Not just the UK but the whole world is at such a critical juncture in relation to the rapid increase and developments in AI science and technology. I understand on one level why people think “Well, we’ll put it all in one department and one box”, but putting it across government and making sure somebody is driving that progress across government is critical to making sure that this is embedded and part of everybody’s work across every department, rather than it sitting in DSIT.

Places of Worship Renewal Fund

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. I enjoyed his contribution, although I have a nagging feeling that what I am about to say may make him wish that he had been scheduled to speak after me rather than before.

I may be a minority of one in this debate, with these views, but I am definitely not a minority of one in the House nor in the country. We are living in an increasingly secular Britain, where less than half the population identifies with any religious faith and a mere fraction regularly attends services. Yet this capital fund ring-fences millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money a year for the exclusive benefit of active religious buildings across the country. This is not a natural exercise in heritage conservation. It is an exercise in state patronage, filtering public tax revenue from citizens of all beliefs and none to subsidise the operational footprints of religious institutions.

Look at the gross unfairness baked into the eligibility criteria: the historic grade 2 listed village hall, an old miners’ welfare hall or an independent community theatre facing structural collapse cannot touch a single penny of this fund. They are forced to battle for oversubscribed general grants. The irony is that religious organisations are fully entitled to apply for some of these pots too, but an active place of worship now receives a dedicated, exclusive, multimillion-pound safety net.

Crucially, the Government have confirmed that the financial assets of religious bodies are not routinely considered when determining how this new support will be distributed. Why? Let us look, for example, at the Church of England. The Church Commissioners manage a massive, diversified endowment fund that is now valued at an astonishing £11.6 billion. They hold vast stakes in global equities and, despite scaling back their retail exposure, they retain a 10% stake in the Metrocentre in Gateshead, which is now being put up for sale for an estimated £500 million. This demonstrates just how highly commercialised these holdings are.

Nowhere is the commercial wealth clearer than in the heart of London, where the Church owns the prestigious 90-acre Hyde Park Estate. The estate consists of 2,300 high-end properties, luxury residential lets and the boutique commercial quarter of Connaught Village. It raises a staggering £45 million to £60 million in rental income annually for the fund. Let us be clear about what is missing from this premier estate: despite the Church’s public rhetoric on housing, there is virtually no social nor affordable housing on this site. It is treated explicitly as a high-yield cash generator.

We will no doubt hear the argument that the £11.6 billion fund cannot legally be used to maintain local parish churches because its statutory duty is restricted to pensions and clergy salaries. Although restructuring the endowment fund to local church properties might be difficult, it is not impossible if the leadership of the Church of England decides it wishes to do so. It is a question of choice. Instead, this cash-rich institution hoards its wealth centrally and does not use it for the upkeep of private religious buildings.

The Church of England spent £35 million on school evangelism projects alone last year. At a time when it can devote more money in a single year to school mission than the total annual budget of this entire new tax-funded building fund, why should taxpayers be expected to meet the cost of repairs that the Church is entirely capable of funding from its own vast resources?

Furthermore, we must scrutinise the strict mandate that these buildings must remain in active religious use to qualify. This goes far beyond preserving architecture. If this were purely a rescue mission for historic bricks and mortar then the theological utility of the building would be completely irrelevant. By tying public millions to active worship, the state is directly intervening to support religious practice itself. By funding active worship, the taxpayer is being forced to bankroll institutions that frequently hold exclusionary positions. Many of the religious bodies owning these buildings discriminate in their hiring practices, refuse to perform same-sex marriages or bar women from leadership roles. Why should an LGBT+, atheist or woman taxpayer see their hard-earned money used to prop up the roof of an establishment that rejects their rights?

If we are to spend £92 million of public capital on heritage, let us do so through a strictly neutral secular framework, which these buildings and institutions can bid against. Let us build an exclusive fund for public space, not fund the structural fabric of private faith. I urge the Government to rethink this fund and use it to deliver and protect truly secular and inclusive buildings for a 2026 Britain.

In-game Purchases: Protections for Children

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, pointed out that voluntary industry regulation was not working, and evidence now exists that that is the case. Are the Government satisfied with continuing with industry-led regulation, or do they see that change is required to keep children safe from these loot boxes?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

This is exactly the matter being dealt with in the research that the Government have commissioned, which will be published in the near future, along with the Government’s response. I am happy to invite noble Lords who have raised concerns about this into the department to be briefed on the research and the Government’s response in due course.

Covid-19 Pandemic: Commemoration

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a really important point. A number of noble Lords will be aware that I had the privilege to work on the response in London. People who I was working with, at the same time as they were leading that response, also lost loved ones. For example, when I went to the wall a couple of weeks ago, I looked for the heart remembering Diana Walker, who was the mother of the woman who was my researcher during that dreadful period. How do you get over a loss of that kind? We are aiming to work with a range of organisations, including bereavement organisations, to make sure that we get it right. We need to get it right so that we commemorate what happened, but also so that, as a Government, we recognise that for so many people the pandemic and the devastating impact it had on people’s lives are still very much part of their present.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, we too send our remembrance to all those who have died and their families. We send our thanks to so many people across the country who went beyond the call of duty to keep people safe and alive and to keep the country running during the pandemic. The commission’s report talks about preparedness. I ask about one specific issue. What extra help and provision will be given to local public health departments across the country, because they are the ones who have the data and the resources of shoes on the ground and can make a big difference in such problems to do with pandemic or local emergencies?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss this issue on a national level. I appreciate that he was asking about public health officials at a local level, but we have been conducting a pandemic preparedness exercise at a national level: Exercise Pegasus. Clearly, a huge amount is delivered locally, but I am happy to set up a meeting for the noble Lord with either me or the relevant officials, so that he gets that level of detail that I unfortunately do not have before me today.

Human Rights: Sportswashing

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Scriven]

That this House takes note of countries that use sporting events to “sportswash” their human rights record, and the role of sporting bodies in aiding this practice.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to open this debate on a very important yet often overlooked issue: sportswashing. We all know the positive power that sport has in bringing people together, the pride and enthusiasm, self-development, building resilience, fostering team spirit and promoting the best of what it is to be human. But beyond all this is a practice that operates in the shadows—sportswashing.

In framing this debate, I wish to be clear about what my focus on sportswashing is. It is a political decision by some Governments to use sports events, teams or individuals to divert attention from their controversial actions, human rights abuses or political agendas. Essentially, it is a form of reputation laundering through the world of sport.

How is this practice employed? One of the most common tactics is for countries with tarnished images to build for then host major sporting events. These events attract global attention, providing an opportunity for Governments to present positive imaging while diverting attention away from issues such as political repression, corruption or human rights abuses. Government bodies also invest heavily in high-profile sports clubs to enhance the investor’s global image; we see that with Saudi Arabia and Newcastle United, and also with McLaren and the Bahrain sovereign fund. It is a real concern for some in football and F1 that foreign states could be investing in and using UK-based sporting teams to sportswash their human rights record at home. Another strategy involves signing athletes to promote a positive image; we all remember seeing David Beckham at the Qatar World Cup.

There is nothing new about this; we can trace sportswashing back, although the term came about in 2015. One only has to look at fascist Italy’s 1934 World Cup and the Nazis’ 1936 Olympic Games to see sportswashing in practice. Recently, we have seen sportswashing Olympics held in China and Russia; Gulf states, such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, hosting F1 races; and Qatar holding the recent World Cup.

It has gained much more prominence recently. The dilution of news outlets has made it harder to get one unified and consistent message out to large worldwide audiences but major international sporting events still grab attention and get global focus in a way that few other platforms can. States run by autocrats or royal dynasties, which have poor human rights records or lack respect for normal democratic values, are the ones that have proved themselves the best practitioners. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain have become famous for it.

For example, Saudi Arabia’s total investment since 2021 in trying to improve its image via sport is around £4.9 billion, which is almost the equivalent of the GDP of Barbados. The Bahraini authorities have reportedly signed a new deal with F1, running through to 2036, which costs £41 million each year to stage F1 races there. Most, if not all, of this money is handed over to sporting ruling bodies, such as FIFA and F1, which are private bodies and rely on these massive sums, and make the individuals who run them very wealthy.

Some say it is important to allow these countries to host such sporting events as it brings about change. The last time we heard that was from Gary Neville, who was paid to be a TV pundit at the Qatar World Cup. Did sustainable and real change from the FIFA World Cup come to LGBT+ people in Qatar? No, the money was paid over to FIFA and sportswashing happened. There was no improvement in human rights for the LGBT community there. It is clear that sustainable change does not happen when sporting events are held in states such as Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar. In fact, things get worse when controlling sporting bodies, autocrats and ruling royal families refuse to accept that human rights abuses even happen, some linked to the sporting events themselves. I am sure that many noble Lords will remember FIFA banning the OneLove armband in Qatar.

Others argue that sport is sport and politics should not be brought into sport. Many agree, but let us be clear why sport and politics are colliding. It is not because of those who are pointing out that sportswashing exists. It is because political decisions are being made by autocrats and ruling royal families to invest in sport events to turn the spotlight away from their record on human rights and democratic abuses. The investment in sportswashing is a political act, so those who say “No politics in sport” should support calls to deal with this political practice of sportswashing through tighter rules and regulations for sporting bodies, teams and clubs.

I turn to one in-depth example of sportswashing: F1 racing in Bahrain, an issue that I have seen close up since 2018. I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the APPG on Democracy and Human Rights in the Gulf. I got involved when the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, which I thank for its helpful briefings for today’s debate, brought to my attention the case of Najah Yusuf, who in 2017 was arrested, sexually assaulted, tortured and falsely sentenced to three years in prison after she made a stand on social media against sportswashing and the 2017 Bahrain F1 race. The interesting fact about Najah’s case is that, in the court ruling, the court referenced the F1 race and her activism against it on social media as one of the reasons for her sentence—a direct link between F1 racing in Bahrain and the sentencing of an individual standing up for human rights and against sportswashing. Due to international pressure, she was released early. I have since met Najah. She told me of the soul-destroying, continuing abuses that she and her family have received from the Bahraini authorities for standing up to F1 sportswashing in her country. This includes, but is not restricted to, her losing her civil service job and the police continually harassing her family.

Last year four individuals were arrested, threatened, verbally abused and forced to sign a plea restricting their right to protest in future after they held a protest near the Bahrain International Circuit during the F1 race. This was despite F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali’s assurances that

“individuals should be allowed to protest against and criticise our event without intimidation or reprisals”.

When asked about the arrests, F1 reiterated a false statement by the Bahraini Government denying their occurrence. It still failed to acknowledge that these arrests took place and to correct the record on F1’s website, even when confronted with evidence to the contrary after the Bahraini authorities were forced to concede that these events had indeed taken place.

These four Bahraini citizens were subject to further reprisal and harassment this year, ahead of the F1 race. Two of the protesters, Hajer Mansoor and Muneer Mushaima, had their family houses raided. The other two, Najah Yusuf and Ali Muhana, received police summonses. Hajer Mansoor’s son has been arrested without a warrant. This 20 year-old young man, Sayed Hashim AlWadaei, was arrested after a house raid last month and has subsequently been tortured and interrogated while blindfolded, without the presence of his lawyer, on allegations of participating in unauthorised protest. It is clear that his arrest was strategically timed to coincide with the F1 testing, and that his detention was extended in the lead-up to the race for political reasons—namely, to silence all protest surrounding the Bahrain Grand Prix.

I have made repeated requests over the last few years to engage with Mr Domenicali, the CEO of F1, to discuss potential human rights issues linked to his races, and the lack of due diligence carried out by F1 on where they race. In the last month I have personally reached out to him on two occasions to ask him to intervene, due to the nature and timing of Mr AlWadaei’s arrest, as it appears to be linked and timed to deter F1 protests in Bahrain. Unfortunately, a familiar pattern has emerged: Mr Domenicali has not even acknowledged my letters and emails, and has refused any discussion or engagement with me or any other organisation with expertise in human rights abuses in Bahrain when these abuses, and a potential link between these events and F1, have been brought to his attention.

Mr Domenicali’s arrogance, lack of professionalism and non-engagement left me with no alternative but to seek this debate, and to seek further regulation of the practices of F1 and other such sporting bodies based here in the UK. His leadership of F1 is damaging the reputation of his sport, as he refuses to engage with the issues around F1 and human rights. He thinks he can just receive the reported £574 million from the Bahrain authorities up to 2036 that makes him and his organisation richer, while having nothing to do with the real issues that his sport is helping to cloak in Bahrain.

As I said, this is a pattern of the senior leadership in F1, based here in London. Since 2018 I have brought attention to individual and systematic cases of human rights abuses linked to F1 races in the Gulf. F1 has never acknowledged the link—even in the case of Najah. When the court specifically linked her sentence to the criticism of the F1 race in Bahrain, F1 said that no link existed. I was granted a meeting with F1’s senior leaders back in 2018, but they have allowed no further direct contact and I have seen fellow parliamentarians ignored when they have raised potential issues around F1 racing and human rights abuses. On one occasion there was an outright refusal to meet me over F1’s human rights policy. Thank goodness for drivers such as Sir Lewis Hamilton, who has had the courage to say that human rights issues are around and that he is not convinced that F1 going to countries such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia helps change happen.

My recent contact, via a letter to Mr Domenicali on 14 February and a reminder on 11 March, was an attempt to collaboratively explore with him his comments that F1 is “a force for good” in these countries and can bring about a slow and quiet change. I asked him to show me the evidence, the due diligence done, the results from these investigations and the expert human rights organisations that F1 meets. Again, I did not get an acknowledgment of these letters. It is as though he fears the evidence coming before the public. What is the F1 leadership hiding? What do the evidence and due diligence show, if indeed they are being done at all?

What was even more galling was to see the British ambassador to Bahrain, Mr Long—while I was seeking reassurance on due diligence around human rights issues— posting on social media, helping to promote the Bahrain Grand Prix and endorsing Mr Domenicali’s approach, without acknowledging the issues of human rights abuses potentially linked to F1 races there.

I have four questions for the Minister. First, what is the Government’s view of sportswashing, does his department have a working definition of it and does it plan to adopt the policy of the Government on the issue? Secondly, will the Government make representations regarding the arrest of the 20 year-old Bahraini, Sayed Hashim AlWadaei, during F1 testing this year, and will they try to make a determination about the links of his arrest to F1?

Thirdly, will the new Bill on football regulation that is in front of Parliament include rules and obligations around foreign state ownership of clubs and teams here in the UK, as the Government have just agreed to do around press ownership? If so, will these rules and regulations be extended to UK foreign-supporting companies and bodies, such as Formula 1, to ensure that they carry out proper due diligence, including engaging on issues related to human rights violations?

Fourthly, despite repeated concerns raised directly with the UK Government and the ambassador in Bahrain about the use of sportswashing and abuses linked to F1, including by many Members of Parliament and rights groups, why has the UK ambassador to Bahrain chosen actively to facilitate a race that has links to human rights abuses? What steps will the Government take to ensure that British diplomats take seriously concerns raised about human rights violations and are seen not to potentially aid sportswashing?

I look forward to listening to the contributions of other noble Lords, and I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what can only be described as a rich and informative debate underpinned by some values of sport—a respectful debate that brings people together regardless of differences of views and where we start. That was very important.

It was interesting that we started to go down the cul-de-sac of boycotts and bans. That was not the aim of this debate; I specifically did not use the terms in my opening remarks. The thrust of the debate I wanted, and most people got on to, was not just the role of the athletes and the events but the roles of the sporting management bodies and what happens when they do not take on those roles, and how the Government therefore deal with the issues we have spoken about today, such as human rights abuses.

I am not going to go through all noble Lords’ speeches, but the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, raised a really important issue to do with sponsorship. Interestingly, in F1, because of the lack of action by the sporting body even to engage, those of us who are concerned are looking at targeting Rolex, Heineken, DHL and Qatar Airways among other sponsors, because they have a moral duty, and the consumers of those products need to be aware of what they are contributing to.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said that sport cannot change the world. I think we all agree with that: sport cannot change the world, and there is a broader, more complex issue that sport has to engage with. But sports bodies can change their parts of the world and do things around human rights abuses in their contractual arrangements, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said.

I was slightly disappointed with the Minister. I am not going to give him a hard time on human rights in Bahrain. We could say we were shadow-boxing; I realise that he is not from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. But some of the answers were disappointing with regards to the lack of action the Government are prepared to take when sporting bodies based in the UK are not meeting their international obligations. It does not fit together that the Government say they are not going to get involved in foreign entities owning sporting bodies in the UK when only a couple of days ago they agreed to do exactly the same with the press. I think there is an issue about why these foreign entities want to use sporting bodies in the UK. They are not investing millions of pounds in these bodies purely for the sake of sport—they understand what it brings to their countries’ reputations.

This has been a historic debate, because it is the first time that the UK Parliament has ever debated the concept of, and phrase, “sportswashing”—so we have taken part in an historic as well as an informative and rich debate. To come back to the football issue and the independent regulator, I think that we are getting to the point where amendments will be put with regard to foreign state ownership of clubs, if that is not being done for the right reason.

I will finish with the words of somebody who has been part of abuse in a country and who has tried to stand up for human rights when one of these sportswashing events was held. They said, “These events come and they go, and our country is seen in a light that the regime wants the rest of the world to see us. But our plight is ignored or dismissed by the sporting bodies as they get richer. Yet once they have gone, or sometimes once they are here, doing their sport, our freedoms don’t change and our rights can be crushed. Something isn’t working and something has to change.”

I hope that this debate has said that something has to change, and I look forward to keeping the pressure on the Government, along with other noble Lords, to make sure that bodies or clubs in this country are better regulated and that, if they do not carry out these issues and people continue having issues like this, further action will be taken.

Motion agreed.

Clearview AI Inc

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The noble Viscount rightly points to an emerging area of concern. Last year, the Government published a national AI strategy and committed to a White Paper setting out our approach to regulating artificial intelligence. We will publish that White Paper later this year, setting out how we intend to address the opportunities as well as the risks that arise from AI in a proportionate and nimble way.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the Clearview AI service was used on a free trial basis by several UK law enforcement agencies. Do the Government now accept the Ryder review’s recommendation that new statutory regulations are required to stop the police using facial recognition technology in such a cavalier fashion?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

We are looking at Mr Ryder’s report and recommendations. We have yet to assess them as they came out only recently but we think that the current framework offers strong protections.

Racism in Cricket

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Yes, absolutely. I am mindful of the Question yesterday on inclusion in sport. That is at the centre of the Government’s strategy Sporting Future. It is critical when confronting the disease of racism that all of us speak out and call it out. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, which is why we want to see the report in full so that everybody can play their part in tackling this.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the issue goes much wider than cricket bodies. Clearly, cricket is funded by big money and sponsors also have a role, not in calling out individuals, but in dealing with institutional racism of an organisation. Would the Minister like to give any advice to sponsors such as NIC Group, which has refused, like other sponsors, to take a stance against institutional racism, by sitting on the fence and not doing what those like Anchor butter did instantly in withdrawing their funds and standing up to racism?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

It has been very powerful to see the response of sponsors in focusing the minds of people at Yorkshire County Cricket Club on the very concerning allegations that have been made and the way they have been dealt with. I am sure the other sponsors will have heard the noble Lord’s call for action, but I also hope they will be reassured by the work the club is now finally taking.

Events Research Programme

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Obviously, the scenes that were broadcast of people singing in pubs around the events outside the scope of the pilot events are governed by step 3 of the road map, which is absolutely clear that such behaviour is not permitted.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, thanks to Politico this morning, we now know that the events research programme has internal polling which shows that, if face masks were to continue after 19 July, 28% of people will be less likely to attend an event; a ban on food and drink would mean that 43% of people would be less likely to attend an event; and only with mandatory Covid testing would 15% would be more likely to attend. In light of that data, what are the long-term implications for testing at such events?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. One of the things that we are seeking to understand better in the third phase of the events research pilots will be the use of testing and certification and how that may or may not be applied in future, although I stress that no decision has been taken on that.

European Football Championships: Travel

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

As the noble Lord knows, the fan-led review is separate from today’s topic of discussion. With regard to support for traders, the Government’s generous cross-economy package continues through to September, as he is also aware.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, on 18 June the Prime Minister said, in regard to this issue, that protecting public health was his priority. What public health data, therefore, do the Government have that indicates that up to 2,500 UEFA officials are less likely to catch and spread Covid-19 than ordinary football fans, who will have to quarantine?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The noble Lord knows that the health status of those officials is unlikely to be different from that of anyone else. What is different is that those officials are exempted to enter the UK only as part of an elite sport bubble, unlike others.