Lords Scrutinise PATHWAYS Trial, Sporting Events Bill Reported Unamended

High-Level Summary

The House of Lords held oral questions on a statutory close season for hares, devolved social security funding to Scotland, NHS pathways for resistant hypertension, and the response to anti‑Muslim attacks in Edinburgh. Peers also questioned Ministers on the acute risk of further atrocities in Sudan’s Darfur region. A Commons Statement on the PATHWAYS puberty‑suppression trial was repeated, setting out strengthened safeguards and an evidence‑led rationale for proceeding. The Sporting Events Bill completed its second Committee day, with probing debates on advertising, sustainability, technology and cyber planning, funding scrutiny, and grassroots legacy; most amendments were withdrawn and the Bill was reported without amendment. The House agreed procedural business and directed that the Clergy Conduct Measure be presented for Royal Assent, following revisions to presume public hearings and strengthen safeguarding alignment.

Detailed Summary

Hares: Close Season (Oral Question)

Baroness Hayman of Ullock said England is among the few European countries without a close season during breeding and reiterated the Government’s commitment to “consider how to … introduce a close season for hares”, noting this “will require a suitable primary legislative vehicle”. She said legislative time is tight but that Defra is seeking a slot this Parliament.

Peers distinguished the proposal from illegal hare‑coursing. The Minister stated: “Hare-coursing is an illegal activity. It should not be taking place”, outlined a preferred window “from the beginning of February through to the autumn”, and confirmed control can continue “where appropriate … not to stop control of hares absolutely”. On legislative routes, she expressed disappointment that a Private Member’s Bill was not picked up and said lawyers advise primary legislation is required.

Scottish Government: Social Security Benefits (Oral Question)

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Livermore, said welfare block grant adjustments transferred “£5.8 billion” to the Scottish Government in the most recent financial year. He stressed that further spending choices are for Scottish Ministers: “Any additional spending on benefits is a choice for the Scottish Government and must come from within their own budget”.

Peers raised varying disability rates, operational deductions for claimants on both Social Security Scotland and DWP systems, and public understanding of UK contributions. The Minister agreed to take communication and deduction concerns back to DWP colleagues and restated that the fiscal framework links funding to equivalent UK benefits while giving Scotland policy responsibility.

Resistant Hypertension (Oral Question)

Baroness Merron said the NHS is improving detection and management of hypertension; renal denervation remains available for some patients but “is currently not widely commissioned … in line with NICE guidance”. She confirmed “NHS England is currently reviewing the clinical evidence for the commissioning of renal denervation treatment, and recommendations are expected next year”.

Peers pressed on prevention, explicit focus on resistant hypertension in the forthcoming cardiovascular modern service framework, access disparities, and specialist care. The Minister highlighted lifestyle prevention, early diagnosis, and medical therapy; said the framework will refer to resistant hypertension; acknowledged reassessment of renal denervation amid postcode concerns; and confirmed referral to specialist hospital services for resistant cases. She pointed to improving data flows from pharmacies to GPs and progress towards a single patient record.

Edinburgh Anti‑Muslim Attacks (Topical Question)

Faith Minister Lord Lemos said the Government is “deeply concerned” and confirmed “a suspect has been arrested and charged”. He outlined measures to tackle anti‑Muslim hostility, including protective security funding—“a record £40 million”—a definition of anti‑Muslim hostility, appointment of a special representative, and a £4 million fund.

Peers queried political leadership, policing and cohesion. The Minister noted statements from UK and Scottish leaders: “There has been a statement from both the Prime Minister and the First Minister of Scotland”, and stressed even‑handed protection: “we do not want two-tier protection for any individual community”.

Darfur: Atrocities (Private Notice Question)

Baroness Chapman said the risk of grave atrocities in El Obeid is “acute”, with the Foreign Secretary mobilising action “through the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council”. Peers cited the warning that “El Obeid is on the precipice of an atrocity”.

The Minister said she has sought renewed advice on the duty to prevent genocide, described deployments to address conflict‑related sexual violence and evidence gathering, and accepted the limits of statements—“The truth is, not often enough”. She argued the conflict is prolonged by external arms supplies, including drones, said the UK is pushing for a complete arms embargo, supports the Quad process and a civilian track, and is addressing illicit “blood gold”, including consumer‑facing efforts.

National Security (State Threats) Bill – Motion on Standing Orders

The House agreed to dispense with Standing Order 44 so the Bill’s remaining stages could be taken on one day, and that in accordance with Standing Order 47, amendments would not be moved on Third Reading.

PATHWAYS Study: Puberty Suppression (Statement)

A Commons Statement set out the rationale for proceeding with the PATHWAYS clinical trial on puberty‑suppressing hormones for a very small, tightly defined cohort, with safety paramount: the aim is to “protect the safety and well-being of children and young people” and to “follow expert clinical advice and to take an evidence-led approach”. Citing the Cass Review’s finding of “an area of remarkably weak evidence”, the trial will study benefits and risks. Eligibility includes: diagnosis for at least two years; prior NHS psychosocial support; stable physical and mental health; no safeguarding concerns; informed understanding by child and parent/guardian; multidisciplinary approval; and current access to NHS gender services.

Following MHRA scrutiny, updated protocols add objective withdrawal criteria and frequent monitoring across mental and physical domains. The Secretary of State concluded that “proceeding with the trial is, on balance, the most appropriate way forward”, while acknowledging discomfort. In the Lords, Ministers emphasised strengthened safeguards, dual consent (parent/guardian and child), and age criteria agreed with the MHRA; explained why the trial is needed alongside data linkage work; and noted an indefinite ban on private prescriptions from January 2025.

Sporting Events Bill [HL] – Committee (2nd Day): Advertising and Small Business Impacts

On Amendment 58 (unauthorised association), peers sought clarity to protect SMEs and licensed premises using pre‑existing materials or factual notices. The Government assured that such use would not breach the prohibition where no official association is implied, and confirmed that factual statements are permitted—e.g., “a pub will be able to state that it is screening Euro 2028 matches”. The amendment was withdrawn.

Sporting Events Bill [HL] – Committee (2nd Day): Sustainable Transport, Climate and Clean‑up

Amendment 59 proposed mandating sustainable transport planning and integrated ticketing; proponents cited Euro 2024, where “more than 80% of fans travelled to venues by public transport and fewer than 5% travelled by car”. Ministers supported the goals but resisted prescribing methods in primary legislation, noting variation between events and that integrated ticketing “would not always be within the gift of an event organiser”.

On Amendment 91 (post‑event clean‑up), the Government pointed to existing local authority duties under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and statutory guidance, plus powers such as community protection notices. Wider amendments on environmental reporting and duties were addressed by referring to the Gold Framework’s requirement that bids demonstrate environmental sustainability, post‑event evaluations (e.g., Birmingham 2022), and UK Sport/Sport England strategies, with a cross‑sector major events strategy due “within the next 12 months”.

Sporting Events Bill [HL] – Committee (2nd Day): Technology, Cyber, Infrastructure and Economic Context

Amendment 60 sought mandatory digital‑twin modelling for large events; Amendment 96 proposed a statutory cyber‑resilience plan. Ministers agreed digital tools can assist but declined to mandate specific technologies, citing the need for flexibility and concerns about data governance and technological obsolescence. They argued a prescriptive cyber plan may not suit every event and raised compliance and oversight issues.

Proposals to codify accommodation and infrastructure duties were rejected as duplicative of hosting agreements and local planning between event owners and authorities. A call for a report on the impact of wider economic policies on event hosting was also resisted; the Minister highlighted existing strengths and recent commitments of “more than £500 million” to major events, including UEFA Euro 2028 and the Tour de France Femmes. Numerous amendments were withdrawn or not moved; the Bill completed Committee and was reported without amendment.

Sporting Events Bill [HL] – Committee (2nd Day): Funding Powers and Parliamentary Scrutiny

Amendments 68, 72 and 73 (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay/Lord Markham) would require legislature approval before financial assistance is granted under Clause 25, to avoid a “blank cheque” given the open‑ended framework. Sponsors argued the Bill potentially spans “many decades” with unknowable future costs.

Ministers replied that Clause 25 provides statutory underpinning for spending that will still go through supply estimates and business‑case scrutiny, warning case‑by‑case approval would be “disproportionate” and burdensome. On a related amendment (71), the Government noted funding can already be conditional and bids must show social and environmental value under the Gold Framework. The amendments were withdrawn, with an indication they may return at Report.

Sporting Events Bill [HL] – Committee (2nd Day): Grassroots Investment and Legacy

Amendment 69 sought to link public support for events to investment in grassroots facilities and participation. The Government pointed to existing mechanisms: bids must include “meaningful plans” for social impact under the Gold Framework, a £23 million legacy programme for Euro 2028, and capital support of “£400 million across the next four years” for grassroots facilities. The amendment was withdrawn.

Sporting Events Bill [HL] – Committee (2nd Day): Banning Orders and Medical Regulation at Events

Amendment 83 proposed limiting football banning orders by excluding some abusive expressions. Ministers rejected any carve‑out for criminal conduct, noting offences in the Bill will not be added to the regime and that orders arise only after conviction for a listed offence or where there is an ongoing risk.

On Amendment 86 (impact of Care Quality Commission regulation of treatment of disease, disorder and injury at events), the Government said the change implements Manchester Arena Inquiry recommendations to ensure qualified provision, and committed to further engagement with stakeholders and Peers, including a roundtable with those who debated the SI. The amendments were withdrawn.

Clergy Conduct Measure – Motion to Direct

The Bishop of Manchester said the Measure reforms clergy discipline on a proportional basis with three tracks—grievance, misconduct, serious misconduct—quicker processes, and closer safeguarding integration, including abolishing the one‑year limit for serious misconduct and reintroducing deposition from holy orders. Following Ecclesiastical Committee scrutiny, hearings will now generally be public: “the presumption is now that hearings will take place in public”.

Baroness Butler‑Sloss explained the committee had initially found the draft inexpedient due to private hearings but welcomed the revision: “the committee is absolutely delighted with the current wording … and is happy to find it expedient”. Oversight will come via a clergy conduct commission reporting to Synod, with rules laid before Parliament; sensitive cases or parts may still be heard in private. The House directed that the Measure be presented for Royal Assent.