���˿���

Again, that is one of the concerns that has been expressed by some of the bodies that would potentially be subject to those investigations. We would have a carrot-and-stick approach, with bodies being subject to on-going investigations. Given the costs of responding to an investigation, the bureaucracy around that and the time that it would take, that would place a burden on public bodies. We do not know how many investigations there would be, and they could be quite wide ranging. Those concerns have been expressed by many of the public bodies, and we sympathise with them.

Again, that goes to the heart of what I have been describing so far. Many of the organisations that are already active in this area and which are subject to the duty on public bodies in existing legislation are expressing concerns about duplication and confusing overlap if a commissioner were to be created. We have to take those concerns seriously, notwithstanding the other issues around costs and Parliament’s view that we should avoid creating new commissioners and should do so only as a last resort. Parliament has endorsed that approach, so our view is that, although the intentions are wholly commendable, creating a new commissioner is not the way to fulfil them.

We are happy to hear your views. The issue is very close to your heart, and we commend the work that you are doing on it. Clearly, as I have discussed today, we have some concerns about going down a legislative route and about some of the bill’s proposals, such as the creation of a commissioner and other issues. However, that is what the current exercise is all about.

The Government has dealt with a lot of issues over the past few years—the pandemic, Brexit and everything else. We should have perhaps found more time to look at the issue, but we always have to balance priorities as a Government. We recognise the issue and are now taking action, because we have to listen to the concerns and ensure that the NPF is now reformed. It is 19 years, give or take, since it was created, so it is time to look at it again and make it better.

There are a lot of different debates on that. I will try to give an overview. Some Governments look to legislate to provide definitions of “sustainable development” and “wellbeing”, while others do not. The likes of Canada, the Netherlands and Finland have well-regarded frameworks but have not taken a legislative route—they do not need legislation and do not define those terms. That is the route that we prefer, but others might take a different view.

There is a whole debate around whether “sustainable development” should be defined in legislation, because it is such a broad term that means different things in different contexts. For example, it could be argued that, over the past decade, sustainable development in the context of reducing carbon emissions has been a much bigger issue than it was in the previous decade. Each organisation that is working on the issue will look at sustainable development depending on the context that it finds itself in, and there is a whole debate around whether “sustainable development” should be defined in legislation because of that.

There are concerns about the inclusion in the bill of definitions of “wellbeing” and “sustainable development”, because that could lead to the commissioner having very wide-ranging powers. The commissioner’s office might have to be quite large to cope with such a massive remit, which would create a whole new machine. At a time when our public bodies want to remain focused on their existing obligations, the prospect of suddenly having lots of investigations and activity over and above the national performance framework is causing some concern. I am sure that you will have seen the concerns that organisations such as Carnegie UK have been quoted as expressing about that.

If there were to be an option that saved costs and was more efficient, that would clearly be a more sensible way forward. It would not take away the wider concerns that Parliament has already endorsed, such as that creating new commissioners for advocacy roles should be absolutely the last resort.

As the financial memorandum for the bill outlines, and as others have said, significant and unknown costs would be associated with the proposed creation of a new commissioner. The total, even for the factors that we know about, could run into millions of pounds. If the definitions of “wellbeing” and “sustainable development” were as wide as the current proposal envisages, it would mean that investigations into all kinds of things could be launched. Again, those are all concerns that we would express.

Because we are speaking about UEFA tickets. Therefore, the lawyers and the bill team looked at who needed to be exempted to ensure that we covered all bases. That is why the provision is included.

Touting is selling a ticket for a profit. There is one organisation that will definitely be selling tickets for a profit for this event, and that is UEFA. Therefore, for clarity and for legal purposes, it is important to make sure that UEFA is exempt.

Yes. I was about to say that there are exemptions for the likes of protests. Clearly, those are protected and subject to normal legislation—they are not covered by the bill. There is a particular exemption in the bill with regard to protests.

First, Northern Ireland is not a host nation now—