Sporting Events Bill [HL]
Thursday 14th May 2026
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Sporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text
Sporting Events Bill [HL]
Wednesday 3rd June 2026
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Sporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, major sporting events matter. They matter to the fans who fill our stadiums and line our streets; they matter to the athletes who train for years for the chance to compete for our country on the world’s biggest stage; they matter to our communities, our local economies and our national story; and they matter because, at their best, they bring people together in a way that few other things can. These events play a unique role in fostering a shared sense of belonging. They generate moments of collective experience that contribute directly to social cohesion and national pride, uniting diverse communities and showcasing the best of our nation on a global stage.
Hosting these events here opens the country as a whole. They serve as a powerful platform to showcase the best of the UK, from sporting prowess to arts and culture, and even the diverse food that defines British cuisine. These world-class occasions become a unique shared celebration of belonging, demonstrating that the UK’s excellence is not confined to sport but encompasses its deep and varied cultural life.
I was privileged enough to be successful in the public ballot to get tickets for a couple of events at the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The excitement of my god-daughters and my niece and nephew in seeing elite sport for the first time and their pride in our country was infectious. It remains one of their strongest memories of their childhoods. The whole country embraced the Olympics. The Games lifted the mood of communities up and down the country and provided an economic boost. It remains one of the lasting legacies of my noble friend the late Baroness Jowell and the type of event we would like to see more of in the UK.
The UK’s record of hosting world-class, major sporting events is one we should all be proud of. Last summer alone, we smashed records, delivering the biggest ever Women’s Rugby World Cup, with unprecedented crowd numbers watching on as the Red Roses lifted the trophy as champions.
As we set out in our manifesto, this Government are committed to continuing to deliver international events like these with pride, seeking new opportunities where we can, to create a legacy to inspire the next generation of talent while promoting exercise and healthy living. We have already secured a fantastic pipeline of events over the coming years. This summer alone will see the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, the European Athletics Championships and the Women’s T20 Cricket World Cup. Next year brings the grand départ for the Tour de France and Tour de France Femmes, and then, together with Ireland, we host the UEFA European Championship in 2028. Last month, we announced that we have commissioned our expert arm’s-length body, UK Sport, to carry out an initial assessment to consider the feasibility of hosting a future Olympic and Paralympic Games in the north in the 2040s.
Major sporting events are an economic success story. They drive economic growth and job creation, acting as a catalyst for inward investment, improving transport connections, and playing a key role in the regeneration of world-class facilities for communities up and down the country to enjoy. For example, this Government are investing up to £557 million into hosting Euro 2028. This investment alone is predicted to deliver £3.2 billion of socioeconomic benefits across the UK, which is a nearly sixfold direct return on investment.
Such landmark occasions leave a lasting legacy, creating unparalleled pathways for people to engage in physical activity and find their own place in the sporting life of the UK. Impact ‘25, the Women’s Rugby World Cup legacy programme, has reached 850 clubs up and down the country since its inception in 2024, and 37,000 women and girls in the last year alone. It has trained more than 3,000 new female coaches and match officials.
The purpose of this Bill is therefore simple but important: to better equip the UK to attract and deliver the biggest international sporting events and ensure that we can continue to deliver these benefits in the years to come. The UK already has a global reputation for excellence in hosting major sporting events. This Bill will bolster that reputation and send a clear message: the UK is event-ready.
Global competition to host major sporting events is fierce and increasing. The UK is a strong player in this field but this Bill gives further confidence that we are ready to uphold our commitments and stay competitive. It will set in statute a framework that enables certain sporting events to benefit from the enhanced commercial protections needed to preserve the integrity of events and, importantly, offset cost to taxpayers. This Bill is built on our foundational principle of a UK-wide approach, co-designed with devolved partners to serve the entire union. Most immediately, these provisions underpin the successful delivery of Euro 2028 and, should the UK’s bid be successful—as I am sure all noble Lords hope it will be—the FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2035.
At its core, the Bill sets out a framework that allows a standard set of measures to be applied to sporting events that meet certain conditions. Ministers here or in each of the devolved Governments will consider which of the measures set out in the Bill are appropriate for any given qualifying event and apply them through regulations. These regulations will set out event-specific details, such as where and when the measures apply.
For an event to be in scope, it must meet three conditions: first, it must take place, at least in part, in the UK; secondly, it must not regularly be held here; and, thirdly, it must either be an event of significant international interest, with the potential to deliver social or economic benefits, or an event of strategic importance in facilitating other such events being held in the UK in the future. In practice, this means those one-off bids for major sporting events that move from host to host, such as the Euros, world cups or Olympic and Paralympic Games—events where enhanced commercial protections are needed to meet the conditions of hosting and where every effort should unashamedly be made to enhance the UK’s competitive advantage. The Bill provides a framework of time-limited provisions that can be applied by the UK and the devolved Governments to events meeting these criteria.
It will put fans first by criminalising the unauthorised resale of tickets for qualifying sporting events. This will help ensure that event organisers have greater control over the onward sale of tickets and that more tickets go directly to genuine supporters rather than to touts seeking to profit from events in the UK that are subsidised by the public purse. Your Lordships will be aware of the Government’s commitment and separate plans to introduce a price cap on the resale of tickets for live events more generally to prevent fans being ripped off by touts. Those measures will preserve a thriving resale market while cracking down on exploitative touts, so that fans do not feel forced into paying vastly inflated prices. I emphasise that we are fully committed to these wider and separate measures and will publish a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in this parliamentary Session.
To ensure that the wider secondary ticketing provisions operate effectively, we want to listen to the live events sector and fans before formally introducing them to Parliament. Doing so will ensure that the legislation is enforceable and future-proof. The tightly drawn ticketing provisions in the Bill are designed to deliver on the specific requirements of major sporting event owners when we are bidding for events that do not normally take place in the UK. These requirements are made clear during bidding processes and involve limiting the sale and resale of tickets to authorised bodies and platforms only.
The Bill also covers powers on advertising and trading. This second aspect will enable the prohibition of unauthorised advertising and trading around event locations by bringing forward time-limited criminal offences. In practice, this means that the Government will be able to put in place restricted advertising and trading zones around places such as competition venues, official fan zones, transport hubs and any areas surrounding them, provided these places are being used for or in connection with the sporting event in question. These provisions are designed to protect commercial investment while minimising the impact on existing businesses. They will also help support the safe movement of spectators.
Thirdly, the Bill will prohibit unauthorised association with a qualifying sporting event through a general prohibition enforceable through the civil courts. Sponsorship is a critical revenue stream for event organisers and owners. If sponsors believe their rights can or will be undermined by rival businesses creating an unauthorised association with the event, the commercial value of sponsoring UK-hosted events diminishes. This provision will help create an attractive offer for sponsors by protecting their investment and commercial rights, helping to shield the taxpayer from increased hosting costs.
Fourthly, the Bill includes provision to manage transport and traffic in relation to a sporting event in England. Effective transport and traffic management is essential to the safe and smooth operation of any major event, and the Bill will ensure that those arrangements can be properly supported.
Separate from these framework powers, the Bill will also create a bespoke funding power to enable the efficient and successful delivery of sporting events across England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This means, for the Secretary of State, a single, dedicated power for the future funding of sporting events in England. It will also provide Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland departments with the power to support sporting events in Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. Financial assistance provided through this provision will be subject to ministerial discretion, alongside the usual processes to ensure that it aligns with the general principles for managing public money. Sufficient funding powers already exist in Wales, so this provision will not apply there.
Taken together, these provisions will help ensure that the United Kingdom remains an attractive host for major sporting events and continues to build on its world-leading reputation in this field. If we get this right, the benefits will be felt far beyond the field of play. They will be felt not just in host towns and cities but across the country—in the businesses and communities that benefit from them, in the young people inspired by them and in our communities across the UK unified by them. I hope your Lordships’ House will welcome this Bill and I look forward to the debate. I beg to move.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to the Sporting Events Bill. My noble friend Lord Addington will be leading on this from our Benches and may occasionally hand me the baton. We welcome this Bill, which creates a legislative framework that will attract international sporting events to the UK, as the Minister said. It will provide the opportunity to inspire future generations of athletes, create unforgettable experiences, boost visitor numbers and the economy and exercise our soft power through sports. We on these Benches welcome and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on his role as ministerial adviser on soft power and major events. We look forward to working with him.
The legislative framework is useful and will assist with the organising of those events that we have already secured—the Minister mentioned Euro 2028. It will also help when bidding to host future events, but should there also be a clear bidding framework for putting together such bids, or at least a commitment to increase transparency surrounding bids? That would be a strong sign for the sports industry of more positive intentions from the Government.
This Bill can be useful not just for sporting events; I can also see it being utilised for cultural ones. The Edinburgh Festival could benefit, as well as all-year events such as the City of Culture. It is my understanding that the Government intend to set out a strategy for major events that will include culture. Can the Minister tell us the timeline for this?
As she mentioned, London hosted the wonderful 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, and I join her in paying tribute to the great Tessa Jowell. Alongside the Games was the Cultural Olympiad. Danny Boyle’s opening ceremony—a beautiful, brilliant spectacular— was a showcase for our great creative industries and ended memorably with our monarch meeting James Bond and then jumping out of a helicopter. It was not just about the Olympic arena. Across the nation, people got together to engage in cultural activities; in all, 621 productions and projects resulted in 13,000 performances and events at 1,270 venues across the UK. However, the legislation passed for those Games did not include their cultural element. For the sporting events that fall under this legislation, will the Minister consider including affiliated cultural events? There appears to be scope, and I think she was suggesting this in her opening remarks, but we would like to make this clearer in legislation.
Then there is the group A of listed sporting events, the crown jewels protected for free-to-air TV. This Bill has been created with sporting events of significant interest in mind—events that we believe should also be free to air. Group A should be expanded. There was joy, and of course sorrow, for those able to see the UEFA final last weekend. Should it not have been something that everyone could access to watch for free? What about the Glasgow Commonwealth Games happening this July? We on these Benches believe there should be no need for special pleading from the Prime Minister—just add this to the Bill.
Then there are infrastructure, transport and security. Some of these considerations have made it into the Bill, which is a positive step and again welcomed by these Benches. But built environment intervention seems to be missing: athletes’ accommodation, as well as facilities for visitors, restaurants, parks and access to accommodation at an appropriate price range. These would drive opportunities to boost the tourist economy and are needs that we think should be considered within the framework and the Bill.
We are glad to see consideration of advertising and branding. This is important for interconnected reasons: a good legal framework protects sports organisations from unauthorised branding and marketing, but also, as the Minister said, makes deals for official sponsors more appealing. It also limits the unauthorised use of marketing for activities, usually online, that could cause harm. My noble friend Lord Foster will elaborate on this topic and, noble Lords will not be surprised to hear, on gambling. There is also the matter of the use of trademarks—more on this from my noble friend Lord Addington.
Finally, and I think this has happened again today, some concern has been expressed in the House about having to wait for a draft ticketing Bill. Does this Bill not provide an opportunity to discuss how we can create a strong anti-touting ticket system across the board, with proper enforcement? Does the Minister not agree that we should seize this opportunity now, rather than have to wait another year for a different Bill? We look forward to working with the Government on this Bill.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships. I made it into the wrong end of the Chamber at the start of the debate and then sprinted around the outside, somewhat slower than I used to be able to.
I declare my interests: I am the chair of Sport Wales, a board member of UK Sport and a trustee of the Foundation of Light, and I sit on His Majesty’s Government’s Soft Power Council, particularly looking at sport. I was part of the bid team for the Manchester Olympic and Paralympic Games when we bid against Sydney. We had 100 years of rain data to show that there is more rain in Sydney at that time of year than Manchester, and they held up a picture of Bondi Beach. We learned from each of those experiences.
My noble friend in sport, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and I worked on much of the 2012 Games together. It is easy to forget that when we bid for those Games, we were bidding only for the Olympics; for the Paralympics there was a separate negotiation. Thanks to the amazing work of Tessa Jowell, she made that happen. On stage presenting to the IOC, she wanted to stand up and say that we were bidding for the 60 days of the Games. Unfortunately, at that time, we could not risk anything getting in the way of the IOC awarding the Games to us. Those Games raised the bar on the Olympics, the Paralympics and disability sport.
There is a lot to be said for avoiding bespoke legislation every time we want to bid for a Games. I support much of the Bill, but I think we could be just a little bolder. It is potentially a really exciting time to look at a possible bid for a Games in the north. I am Welsh but with a geographical designation of Eaglescliffe in the County of Durham, and there is a lot of local interest. I understand that it is probably too early for the Minister to say, but I would welcome a little more understanding of what the definition of the north is. I would prefer us to say the north of England. A lot of the UK is above where I live. People remember those magical times and understand what major sporting events can do for us.
We are looking for Welsh legislative consent, and the Long Title mentions Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. I wonder whether I am missing something, but I would like to understand why Wales is not there. What conversations and discussions have taken place with the new Government in Wales?
Next year, the Tour de France grand départ will go through Scotland, England and Wales. This is a really exciting time to re-emphasise the power that the UK has in international sport. I wonder what impact the Bill might have where sport is devolved, and where there is a crossover with major events. Will we still be able to use the Bill to bid for events such as that in the future? These are important things. UK Sport and the UK have a great deal of expertise in bidding for events.
It is important to note that our international reputation is also based on holding and hosting much smaller events. That shows our commitment to sport and it is something we are really good at. Recently the UK hosted the world team table tennis event, which was incredible. It also shows the international federations, which have an impact on our bids for major events, that we are committed to a variety of sports.
The Commonwealth Games is an important part of that. We are hugely thankful to Glasgow for stepping in. It is important to Wales and Welsh athletes as a potential stepping stone to GB. It connects local people to the athletes. For all the countries in the Commonwealth—Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but also the smaller countries—it means an awful lot, and we should be proud of that.
I am very interested in what the major sporting events strategy will look like. One of the things that UK Sport recognises and works very well at promoting when bidding for smaller events is that they sit across the four home countries. In Wales we had the AIG golf in Porthcawl and world para fencing in Cardiff. All those make an impact and do not need primary legislation, but they tie to our global aspiration.
One of the things that arose out of the recent Soft Power Council meeting was that more clarity was required on what is a major or mega sporting event. I wonder whether His Majesty’s Government intend to offer a definition of this, because it would be hugely beneficial for the sector. The sport sector in its entirety is huge and significant, and this would help in some of the future planning. A number of organisations that work with current UK events are asking for this clarity. You could argue that additional help is not needed if they are currently operating and successful, but it is important to understand the jigsaw that needs to exist in what we are trying to aspire to on the world stage.
You should never underestimate the impact that the UK has in promoting disability events, not just in starting the Paralympic Games and 2012 but in our ongoing role. One such example is wheelchair tennis; the LTA is one of the best governing bodies at promoting inclusion and is doing a really good job.
The world is changing, not least due to climate change. By the time we get to Brisbane 2032, there might be a very different Games—not just the type of events that are included, as there is a move to more street and urban games, but the impact on climate change. I would like to understand more about what consideration has been given to environmental sustainability, transport—we know that is going to be an issue in Los Angeles—and how we can further push for decarbonisation. A lot of sports are already looking at this. You could argue that the easiest way to help the environment is to have athletes not travel anywhere. The Games are going to be very different. We need to be fleet of foot in what we do in the UK to understand what bidding for future Games might look like.
The legacy of 2012 was amazing. I am always slightly uncomfortable when people say that the 2012 Paralympics changed the world for disabled people. It was the best eight weeks of my life, but we also have to be careful about overselling what sport can do unless we invest in legacy. Join In, the volunteering charity, was an incredible legacy of the 2012 Games. We need to think about how we build in social and community aspects at bid stage. It is cheaper and easier, and there is more chance of it working. There is always a spike in participation after the Games, but if we think about legacy at the very start, we have a real chance of making a difference.
The cost of bidding was raised. I remember, in 2005, talking to one of the planners for 2012 and them talking about the difficulty of predicting the cost of steel seven years into the future. This is something that other countries will be looking at as well, because you can sometimes spend millions on bidding for a Games. We have to be very smart in what we do.
I know this is outside the remit of the Bill, but this year the UK is hosting the summit for the International Working Group on Women and Sport. This started in 1994 as the Brighton declaration, and it is now the Brighton and Helsinki declaration. It has support from 600 organisations around the world. The summit in July will be an amazing opportunity to network, and I hope there will be a ministerial presence there. This is a situation where the eyes of the world will be on us. We have a chance to influence sport and international federations, but it is not a sporting event as we might think about it.
In Committee we will also need to look at the cost of policing and security. Sadly, it is a necessity. We are seeing that the cost of policing and security is making it unsustainable to hold some of the smaller events in the UK, which are part of the jigsaw for what we want to do in the future.
This is not quite in the Bill, but we have been talking in Grand Committee about the Care Quality Commission and its changing guidance. It would be great if we could join up the different threads of conversation to make sure that we are in the best possible shape to go forward. I thank the Sport and Recreation Alliance for its continued discussion in this space.
I support the Bill. We have an amazing opportunity. We could be a little bit braver. If I can steal a quote from the 2012 Games, we have a chance to inspire a generation.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise in strong support of the Bill and my noble friend’s excellent introduction to it. It is rather humbling and daunting to follow the legendary noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. She is an inspiration to us all, in both what she did as an athlete and what she has done since, and I congratulate her on her speech.
Major global sporting events are utterly transformative —economically, socially, reputationally and inspirationally. Listen to Emil Zátopek, star of London 1948, winner of golds in the 5,000 and 10,000 metres:
“It was a liberation of spirit to be there in London. After those dark days of the war … the revival of the Olympics was as if the sun had come out”.
Sport can do this. Four years later, he won three more gold medals in Helsinki.
As a 10 year-old boy, I saw England beat Mexico on the way to winning the World Cup in 1966. The inspiration has never left me. As a pro bono member of the FA’s performance advisory group since 2016, I declare an interest: I am hoping, as I do every four years, needless to say, that we might win the World Cup again this year. I wish Scotland well as well.
The inspirational Sebastian Coe and the blessed Tessa Jowell—several other noble Lords have referred to how much we miss her—brought us London 2012. Everybody has talked about what wonderful events the Olympics and Paralympics were—Britain at its best. Even the London cab drivers stopped moaning. Since then, in football alone, we have had the Women’s Euros, which transformed the legacy of football for women and girls, as the noble Baroness mentioned just now, and the men’s Euros final. We know that the UK and Ireland will co-host the men’s Euros in 2028, and I hope that in 2035 we will host the Women’s World Cup. Last year the brilliant Women’s Rugby World Cup was here. Each such event creates a massive opportunity for our country to promote our sport, hospitality, values, health and well-being.
As the chair of Somerset County Cricket Club until recently, I should mention too that, starting imminently, this country is hosting the Women’s T20 Cricket World Cup. In participation it will be by far the biggest event of its kind, with over a quarter of a million attendances and tickets already sold in 52 countries. More importantly, over 500,000 girls and women from diverse backgrounds will participate in related events; 236,000 schoolchildren already have. This is a huge step towards the ECB’s ambition for cricket to become the most diverse and inclusive sport in the country.
This, by the way, is just one aspect of the transformation of cricket, which may be the fastest-growing sport in the world, driven in part by becoming an Olympic sport in LA 2028. Extraordinary things are happening. Last week Nepal beat China at cricket. Recently, I was talking to a good county cricket bowler who was retiring. I asked, “What next?” He said, “I’ve just been interviewed for the role of fast bowling coach to the German women’s cricket team”. Imagine the headlines if we ever lose to Germany at cricket.
We the UK need to be ready and able to continue hosting these events in an increasingly sport-mad world where the competition to host them is becoming ever fiercer. No other country can boast our history of global sporting leadership—the Paralympics have been mentioned—but winning bids in the future will require many more world-class, accessible, environmentally sustainable venues, brilliant organisation and logistics, top facilities for athletes, fantastic media and sponsorship, outstanding travel and hospitality, socially inclusive promotion, ticketing and pricing—unlike for the forthcoming World Cup—and discreet, effective security for athletes, fans and spectators. If we get even one of these wrong, it will threaten not just that event but our ability to attract future events, which is one of the reasons why the Bill is so important. If we are to assure the owners of these events that we can host them better than anywhere else in the world, it is essential for the UK and its Government to stand four-square behind every single bid to assure it and actively support it in the various ways I have just mentioned.
On 3 September 2018, the cycling Tour of Britain came to my local town, Barnstaple, where I was able to introduce the young cyclists from our North Devon Wheelers club to Geraint Thomas, the brilliant Welsh cyclist and that year’s winner of the Tour de France. He is a wonderful man. Inspired by that moment and by their own talent and hard work, those young cyclists have gone on to cycling success in the years that followed—and the Tour de France is coming. The most profound impact of major sporting events is these moments: the memories made, the ambitions spurred, the potential unlocked, the legacy. This is why I hope we will see overwhelming support for the Bill.
To finish where I started, Emil Zátopek’s most succinct and memorable advice back then to his fellow athletes also applies to Governments when the going gets tough:
“When you can’t keep going, go faster”.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, although it is a pro bono position, I declare my interest as a board member of the London Marathon Foundation.
Sport, as the Government rightly recognise, has a unique power. It brings people together in a way that little else can. It inspires, unites and instils pride in our communities. When we host major sporting events, we do not just celebrate sport—we generate real economic benefit, create jobs and, as we have heard, inspire the next generation. The Bill is a step in the right direction, creating a common legislative framework that can be applied to support the successful delivery of future major sporting events. However, many in the sector regard it as a missed opportunity.
The Bill is, by design, narrowly drawn. It applies only to events that are
“of a kind that is not regularly held … in the United Kingdom”
and are
“likely to be of significant international interest”.
In practice, as we have heard, that means it is tailored to one-off international tournaments such as the Euros, the World Cup or the World Athletics Championships. Although the criteria are open to some interpretation and there are certainly questions to be asked about which other events may be included in the future, which I am sure we will discuss in Committee, what is clear—it was reiterated by the Minister in her opening—is that the current definition excludes the very events that define Britain’s global sporting identity: Wimbledon, the Open, the London Marathon and the British Grand Prix, to name but a few. As we well know, these are not occasional events. They happen year after year, and year after year they deliver precisely the benefits that Ministers rightly want to champion: economic growth, international prestige and community pride.
So for me the main question that arises in relation to the legislation we are discussing today is quite a simple one: why should one-off international events be given protections deemed necessary for their successful delivery, while those same protections are not to be offered to iconic homegrown events that have been a regular part of the UK’s cultural calendar for generations?
Ministers have said that the legislation will help make it easier for the UK to host major sporting events, creating jobs and investment, and that is extremely welcome. Yet the definition of the eligible events in the Bill as currently drafted is very restrictive and denies Ministers the flexibility to support the full breadth of the UK’s world-class sporting calendar. The skeleton nature of the Bill, setting out the framework but naturally leaving much of the detail to secondary legislation, means that regular UK events that are not covered by the provisions could become increasingly at a competitive disadvantage, particularly in relation to securing sponsorship over time, for instance.
These are not just abstract concerns—there will be practical consequences as a result. As Alex Kelham and Freya Davey of Lewis Silkin highlighted in a recent article, the Bill as it stands leaves a clear gap by its exclusion of regularly held UK events. They point out:
“These events collectively bring enormous economic value to the UK”
and are routinely impacted by a number of the challenges that the Bill seeks to address.
Take ambush marketing, for instance. At present, major events organisers are forced to rely on private legal remedies to tackle it—which are costly, complex, and often insufficient. In Schedule 4 the Bill introduces a stronger statutory protection against unauthorised commercial association, and that is very welcome. But why should those provisions and protections be reserved for one-off events? Why should an international tournament benefit from clear statutory rights while a world-renowned, regularly held UK event has to continue to rely on imperfect private law remedies?
The Bill itself already contains a flexible framework, allowing Ministers to decide how protections apply to different events currently within its scope. I do not believe that extending that flexibility to established, regular UK events would be radical—rather, it would be an entirely logical extension of the Bill’s provisions.
At a time when the sector is already under strain due to a variety of challenges, including rising policing costs, the implications of Martyn’s law, increased employment costs, regulatory pressures and higher business rates, the absence of the protections from the proposed sporting framework set out in the Bill to major UK-based events organisers which are excluded feels particularly acute.
We are told that a major events strategy is forthcoming; again, that is very welcome. However, without the legislative ambition to match, there is a risk that it will fall short of what the sector needs and is asking for. If this Bill acknowledges that protections such as those against ambush marketing are insufficient, the answer is surely not to apply them selectively but to strengthen them more widely—not just for the events we hope to host, but for those that already define us. The Government should and I hope will grasp the opportunity to expand the Bill and ensure that regularly held events can be as successful as possible.
I am sure we will discuss this in Committee, but I encourage the Minister to go further and extend the provisions in the Bill to include annual, nationally significant UK-based sporting events. When will the Government publish their major events strategy, and how does the Minister see this legislation fitting within a genuinely comprehensive approach that includes, rather than excludes, the UK’s iconic homegrown events?
Finally, there are powers in the Finance Act 2014 to exempt overseas competitors and officials accredited by the organisers from income tax for the period of major events—such as the upcoming Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, where regulations have recently been passed to do that. Given the desire to bring together the suite of powers to cover the respective events in this legislation, is the Minister confident that those existing provisions are sufficient to ensure a joined-up and responsive approach to major events being hosted in the UK?
Baroness Nye (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her clear and concise introduction to this debate, and I refer the House to my golf interest as listed in the register. It is a pleasure to speak at Second Reading and to welcome the Bill. I support its central purpose: to provide the UK with a clear, consistent and credible legislative framework for hosting major international sporting events. The Bill fulfils a clear manifesto commitment to strengthen Britain’s position as a world-leading host of global sporting events and to remove unnecessary uncertainty and delay. It replaces a piecemeal approach with a toolkit that does not need rebuilding every few years. That clarity matters, and this Bill sends the right signal at home and abroad.
As my noble friend has said, major sporting events are not simply moments of entertainment or national celebration; they are economic catalysts, generators of tourism, drivers of inward investment, and powerful platforms for projecting the UK’s values and reputation on the global stage. Sport brings people together like nothing else can, fostering pride, identity and community. Anyone watching the Arsenal parade in north London at the weekend could see that vividly in action, albeit it through a thick pink haze. Sporting events can also play a crucial role in national cohesion and local regeneration. Host cities and regions experience not only immediate economic uplift but longer-term legacy effects. In that sense, major events are more than spectacle; they leave a lasting mark.
Looking ahead, the UEFA Men’s European Championships in 2028, hosted by the UK and Ireland, and a potential FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2035, will again demonstrate what this country has to offer and will be an opportunity to build bonds with other nations by sharing a common human experience. In doing so, they will contribute directly to the UK’s soft power. The ability to convene the world—to host global audiences, athletes and institutions—reinforces our position not merely as a participant in international sport but as a trusted and capable partner. This is not just culturally valuable; it is strategically important. At a time when nations are consciously using sport to project influence and attract investment, the Government have recognised that the UK cannot afford to stand still.
As UK Sport has made clear, certainty and clarity in the legal and regulatory environment are now baseline requirements for international rights holders. The days of relying on ad hoc assurances are long gone. Organisers want to know that a country can move quickly, legislate coherently and deliver reliably. This Bill responds directly to that reality; that is why it has been welcomed by the sector. The British Olympic Association has also endorsed the shift away from bespoke event-by-event legislation, noting that a standing framework strengthens the UK’s competitiveness. I also welcome the Government’s commission of UK Sport to assess the potential for hosting the Olympic or Paralympic Games in the north of England in 2040.
I too welcome the appointment of my noble friend Lord McConnell as a ministerial adviser on soft power and major events; he will bring his long experience and endless enthusiasm to the task. Both are important steps in thinking strategically about the UK’s role as a host nation. That work sits alongside a broader opportunity for the United Kingdom to think more strategically about its events pipeline—how we identify, secure and deliver a balanced portfolio of major events that reflects not only economic opportunity but national priorities such as regional growth, inclusion and sustainability.
The Government are right to build a pipeline of future events that brings growth and inward investment. However, existing excellence should not be overlooked. Our established events are the foundation on which much of our reputation as a host nation rests. They demonstrate year after year that the UK can deliver complex, high-profile international events to the highest standard. It is therefore worth the Government reflecting on whether the framework can evolve, in this Bill or alongside it, to recognise that contribution more explicitly.
I speak with a particular interest as a member of the APPG on golf. Scotland is recognised internationally as the home of golf. In the UK, the Open Championship and the DP World Tour are not peripheral events but among the most economically significant and globally watched sporting occasions. For example, the 2024 Open Championship generated over £300 million in economic benefit, and a UK-hosted Ryder Cup would be comparable to a Rugby World Cup in visitor spend and international profile. While a Solheim Cup, one of the premier competitions in women’s sport, has yet to be hosted in England, that could be a Lioness moment to inspire a new generation of young girls and the entire golf ecosystem. I hope that the forthcoming major events strategy will take note of these opportunities.
Research supported by the R&A illustrates the wider contribution of golf to the UK economy and to society. In 2019, the sport generated over £5 billion in consumer spending, supported more than 60,000 jobs and contributed around £2.6 billion in economic value. Beyond that, golf delivers over £1 billion in social value each year through improvements to physical health, mental well-being and community engagement. That research also highlights health outcomes. Regular participation in golf contributes to the prevention and management of numerous chronic conditions, and golfers live, on average, longer than non-golfers— so get your clubs out. This is a reminder that sport delivers public health benefits as well as economic returns.
I know that the Government will want to reassure the sector that established events will not be inadvertently disadvantaged relative to those brought within the Bill’s framework. The forthcoming cross-sector major events strategy should explicitly address the needs of the regularly staged, nationally significant events.
Turning to enforcement, I welcome the provisions designed to put fans first, particularly those addressing ticket touting. However, given the scale and sophistication of secondary ticketing markets, I do wonder whether the £20,000 cap represents a sufficient deterrent for large-scale operators and whether this will be kept under review as markets evolve. Similarly, the provisions on ambush marketing are essential, given how prevalent this issue is across all sports events; it is not confined to one-off events, and affects commercially significant recurring events. There may therefore be merit in considering whether association rights could, in future, be extended—on a targeted basis or by regulation—to events of genuine national significance. The gap between one-off and recurring events could then be narrowed
I too emphasise the importance of legacy. The true test of this Bill will be not only the events it enables but the impact those events leave behind—in participation, in infrastructure, in economic opportunity and in community well-being. A strong framework is a start, but delivery will decide the outcome.
This is a welcome, timely and necessary Bill. It honours a manifesto commitment, reflects the Government’s ambition for the UK to remain a world-leading host of major sporting events and responds directly to the expectations of international organisers. I welcome the Bill and will support it as it progresses through the House.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Second Reading debate and in doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register—as adviser to the Crown Estate, Endava, and Simmons & Simmons.
I congratulate the Minister on the way she introduced the Bill. In its title we already have part of recent sporting heritage. If we always refer to the Sporting Events Bill by its acronym, “SEB”, that will give the right salute and respect to our colleague Lord Coe, who did so much in leading the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
I will focus on inclusion and innovation, which, sadly, the Bill is largely silent on, yet these are the golden threads that enable sporting events of the scale and success that we saw at London 2012. Far too much in this Bill is left to secondary legislation, most of it on the negative procedure.
But to take a step back for a moment, as other noble Lords have said, when we get it right, sport goes much further than the field of play. Think about the mottos for the 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games, “Amigos para siempre”; the Paralympic Games, “Sport Beyond Limits”; and, as my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson referred to, London 2012, “Inspire a Generation”—that is what sport can do at every level, not least at the major events and mega events.
That is what we looked to do when we started the planning journey for London 2012. We appreciated that the way to make good Games great Games was twofold: first, to have the athletes at the heart of every decision we made; secondly, to have access, diversity and inclusion hardwired into every decision right from the outset. To that end, does the Minister not agree that it would be helpful to have some of those principles set out in the Bill at this stage? It is about principles, which I do not believe would in any sense fetter the flexibility that is required when we come to the secondary legislation that goes into more of the operational detail.
There is much in the Bill on ticketing, but what of inclusive ticketing? At London 2012, we were clear: no free tickets. But we enabled hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren to experience world-class sport, often for the first time, by having the highest-priced tickets include a portion to fund those tickets that went to schoolchildren right across the United Kingdom. What about affordability, and having social and economic inclusion? What about accessibility within the ticket offer? Touting is critically important to address, but anti-touting measures in and of themselves say nothing to affordability and accessibility.
Similarly, when we planned the ticketing offering, we made sure that if you were a wheelchair user you could sit with your friends and family, which had never been possible at a sporting event before that. If you had a hearing impairment, you had a seat with direct line of sight to the video board. If you had a mobility impairment, you had a seat at the end of the row. There was an inclusive ticket offering right through the Games experience. Does the Minister not agree that there were principles there that we could see in the Bill?
On that first touchpoint, often with a major sporting event, when trying to get a ticket in the first place, so many tickets are now available only in digital form. What does the Minister think about the need for non-digital and analogue tickets, and other means for people to access tickets to these major sporting events? Does the Minister not agree that it would be helpful to incorporate all this by having an inclusive-by-design statutory objective right at the top of the Bill?
On innovation, AI and other technologies have the potential to play such a positive role when it comes to the organisation and delivery of these events—think about predictive crowd modelling, the operation of transportation, city operations, the last mile and almost every element of planning these events. Yet there is no overarching AI framework or strategy set out in the Bill. Without addressing this point, it is likely that the approaches to AI will be partial, have gaps and say nothing in terms of bias, transparency, privacy and understandability for those spectators, games organisers and people who will be participating in events that are potentially subject to AI without even knowing that AI is in the mix.
What about digital ID? It could play such an important and positive role for accessing these sporting events safely and securely. The Bill envisages the creation of a whole heap of new data, often of a personal nature. What about provisions around the storage and sharing of that data? What about interoperability provisions being set throughout many of the Bill’s provisions? Would it not make sense to have a technology future-proofing clause within the Bill that could catch all this? At the moment, understandably, the Bill is technology neutral, but it is not technology future-proofed.
Bringing inclusion and innovation together is just one example. Imagine what could be achieved through a truly inclusive personalised accessibility service for disabled people, older people, younger people and all people wanting to access these sporting events, all of whom—including all of us—will have particular needs that could be addressed through that alchemy of inclusion and innovation.
To conclude, sport has such power to inspire change—to change us as individuals, as communities, as cities and as a country. We saw it at London 2012. We see it in sport like in almost no other cultural experience in our human experience. What does that look like? To illustrate it, one example is the late, great Stephen Hawking speaking at the opening ceremony of the London 2012 Paralympics; not just talking about possibilities beyond ourselves but also talking about possibilities beyond our universe. What a way to blast into 11 days of gravity-defying, attitude-altering, opportunity-creating, world-class sport—world-class sport that changes us and that goes way beyond the stadia.
London 2012 changed us. Major events change us as a United Kingdom. Remember how we all felt in that summer of 2012? Do we not need just some of that change right now, today? Let major sporting events of the future across these shores continue to inspire future generations, and let the Sporting Events Bill play such a positive part in that change.
Baroness Davies of Devonport (Con)
My Lords, I travelled the world from the age of 11, competing or working at all major sporting events, and I was very proud to be part of the 2012 bid team. I am also very proud to say that my dad coached my noble friend Lord Holmes. I have seen the benefits that hosting a major Games brings to a host city and country, and the challenges that it poses. For example, compare the difference between my first Olympic Games in Montreal, which financially shackled the locals for decades, to the amazing success of 2012, which ended up being the exact opposite—uniting our country as I have never witnessed before. I am sure that those who attended the 1966 World Cup will also have that feeling.
Sport can do miraculous things. It can be uplifting, inspiring and hugely beneficial to regeneration and business. It can leave a legacy, raise community and national emotion, and bring cohesiveness. But we must get it right. At the sporting events I have been around within the last century, I have seen sport increasingly relegated to a level sometimes less important than the opening and closing ceremonies or events that take place around it. This can sometimes detract. More importantly, it makes events extremely expensive to host and to organise. There must be a balance. At present, we are getting it wrong, which is so many fewer countries are interested in hosting major events. We need to get back to centring the sport, with sensible budgets. I say this not to be boring and restrictive but to be practical.
It is the sport, with the human stories of triumph over adversity, that people remember, bringing the action into our living rooms, inspiring the champions of tomorrow, and, hopefully, also inspiring a healthier nation as people get back to old habits and try new ones. That is a massive part of hosting any event; it is what brings our communities together, how athletes can be used to bring good by changing behaviours, selling our country to the world, building trade and tourism by providing a shop window with economic benefits to hotels, restaurants, merchandise and transport —all the things that we all know and have talked about already.
Infrastructure and legacy are also extremely important. We built more 50-metre pools in the three years leading up to London 2012 than we built in the previous 30 here in the UK. As a young swimmer, I had to travel from Plymouth to London to be able to swim in an Olympic-sized pool. Australia has a policy of building one if they have a community over a certain size; it has 400 50-metre pools in their country, which has a population of 27 million. I do not know whether noble Lords would like to guess how many we have in the UK. It is not even 30. Australia says that residents should live within a 15-minute drive of a public aquatic centre. At the moment, we are closing pools at an alarming rate, and in the last few weeks we have seen at least 17 people die from drowning.
I have been presenting sport since the late 1980s. The BBC has not missed a major sporting event for decades, but recently there has been a huge decline in coverage. It did not do the world swimming championships last year. It is not doing the home Commonwealth Games this year, gallantly rescued by Glasgow, or the European championships that are on in Paris, not even that far away. Swimming, still one of the UK’s biggest participation sports, has not been on terrestrial television since the Paris Olympic Games. When we hold UK events, we must have them covered on the BBC, not just on the red button, radio or hidden online. If public money is being used to bring these events to our country, the public ought to be able to see them without them being behind a paywall.
I had a recent conversation with the BBC, which is not covering anywhere near the variety of sports that it once did, including swimming, rowing and triathlon this summer. I was informed last week that the BBC does not expect to cover swimming until the next Olympic Games in LA. That is four years in between showing swimming—one of our biggest participation sports and a sport that saves lives, so it is important to inspire people to want to swim—and that is not good enough. Nearly two-thirds of the BBC’s sports budget goes on football, while every other sport has to scrabble around to get any airtime whatever. Surely the job of the BBC is to be a national service doing a national job for the whole community.
Lots of points have been made today, but I have two final points that I would like to make. We must bid for fabulous, inspiring, growth-generating sporting events, but we must centre the sport using existing facilities, including university accommodation, reduce peripheral events, and make them affordable. Multisport events are hugely popular and the public love them. Secondly, our national broadcaster must cover all major international events that come to the UK, showing a broad stretch of sports, so that young people are not limited to just the big three. Certain sports are growing, but a lot of other sports are just disappearing. The disappointment the British swimmer community feels at being abandoned is tangible, and I know that other sports feel the same way. It makes it difficult for our hard-working athletes to get sponsorship to stay in their sport if they get no exposure. This does not happen in other countries. We are one of the worst countries in the world for showing a variety of sports on our terrestrial television. Kids cannot be what they do not see, and we desperately need our kids to be inspired.
My final thought—again, I do not mean to be depressing —is that the Commonwealth Games were rescued from Victoria by Glasgow because of cost. For the next two Olympic Games, there was actually no competition to have them because not enough countries bid. There was only one for each of the Games. So we have to be sensible in the way we place our bids.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I hope colleagues will forgive my rustiness today, because this is the first proper speech I have made since my long, enforced absence from the House: that is, apart from jumping up at Question Time, which I am tempted to do perhaps rather too often. I hope I will be able to contribute. I did not expect to be following an Olympic swimmer in this debate. I hope I will do half as well as my noble friend Lord Barber did, following the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I will try my best. I will also avoid saying anything about the nature of Scottish refereeing as a Hearts supporter, but I think all noble Lords know what I mean.
I strongly support this Bill, which was excellently introduced by my noble friend. I think that, together with the draft ticket touts Bill, it will help to protect fans from the exploitation that they have been experiencing. It is estimated that it will save £112 million annually, and that fans will save about £37 on the average ticket in the resale market, so it is a very important issue. It is sensible to legislate for a common set of provisions that can be applied to specific events by secondary legislation, saving time in this Parliament and, in particular, in the devolved Parliaments.
It is urgent because, as we prepare for the 2028 Euros, which, as the Minister said, are going to be held in the UK and Ireland, it is important that we have, as she indicated, a common set of provisions on transport planning, street trading restrictions and commercial exclusion zones. That is a very welcome development, because the Euros are now so much larger than the competition that I attended in Sweden in 1992—supporting Scotland, of course. Then, only eight countries participated, and it was very easy and cheap to get tickets. I found myself sitting next to the then president of the Scottish Football Association. That would not happen these days. It was much easier in those days. Nine stadia are being used in 2028. I fear that Hampden Park is going to be a bit of a letdown for visitors. I think it is one of the worst stadia in this United Kingdom in terms of toilet and catering facilities. It is a disgrace to Scotland that we have not been able to build a world-class stadium when we see them much better in developing countries around the world. I issue a plea today to the SFA to do something about it.
Another issue that has been drawn to my attention is the number of tickets that are allocated to corporate sponsors at these events. Apparently, this happened in Paris with the game between Paris Saint-Germain and Arsenal. Often, those tickets are not used, and fans find it difficult to get tickets. I hope that UEFA and other international organisations will look at that to see that, if tickets are not going to be taken up by corporate sponsors, they are allocated to fans.
Now I am going to agree, and this is most unusual, with the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park. I cannot remember the last time, if ever, I agreed with her. That shows what sportsmanship there is here on this Bill. I read the suggestion from Alex Kelham and Freya Davey that these events—not one-off events, but regular events—can be included. I hope the Minister and the Government will look at that. I think, looking across at the noble Baroness, that there will be scope for an all-party amendment when we get to Committee.
I now come to a wider issue. I wrote a report entitled Football Governance—Business and Values for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which it agreed, highlighting that the integrity of the world’s most popular sport is at risk. Since I wrote it a few years ago, the integrity of football has become even more at risk. It is urgent to protect football from rogue actors and commercial exploitation, including agents who are making billions of pounds, many of them based here in London, and from the football establishment itself. As we approach the start of the World Cup in the USA, Mexico and Canada, it has got worse rather than better. Was not the presentation of the so-called “FIFA Peace Prize” by Gianni Infantino to Donald Trump, of all people, appalling? So was the award of the 2034 competition to Saudi Arabia, without competition, in spite of its appalling human rights record. That shows how bad this has become. Money and greed have taken over. So I say to the Minister that I hope that, beyond what we are discussing today, beyond this Bill, our Government, the Government of the United Kingdom, will take the lead in condemning and counteracting this abuse of football at every opportunity, for the good name of the great game of football.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I agree with his highlighting of concerns about the greed and denial of principles that have been associated with too many major sporting events recently. That is something I will come back to. It is important that this Bill acknowledges those risks and dangers and considers what kind of events we will be hosting.
I start by saying what a pleasure it is to take part in what has already been a very rich and informed debate. Major international sporting events are important to so many individuals: for pure joy, for engagement in social activities, and for—we hope, at least—encouraging physical activity of their own. Of course, they are also important in providing communities with new facilities, infrastructure and opportunities.
However, we know that major events have not always lived up to their promises or the hopes people held. This Bill is a real opportunity to make sure that future events do just that. The Green Party and I broadly welcome the Bill. It is sensible not to have to keep creating a different piece of legislation for each individual event, and this is a practical measure that is clearly heading in broadly the right direction.
I want to associate myself with a number of points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, such as culture being included in the Bill—certainly cultural events associated with sporting events—but I think we could also ask broader questions. We have seen so much depletion of the cultural life of this country, driven by austerity, by Brexit, by educational suppression of creative subjects, and in some cases by a desire to discourage individual critical thinking. It is important that we look to international inspiration and international support to grow that.
I also share the noble Baroness’s concern that we are not going far enough on anti-ticket-touting or ensuring that events are protected for free-to-air TV. This is still important to so many people. Even though much of what people watch now is through the internet and social media, there are still a lot of people we cannot leave behind.
I very much agree and associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. An amendment to ensure that we build in “inclusive by design” is something we should see. I would further comment, reflecting on earlier debates in your Lordships’ House, that those who are attacking diversity, equity and inclusion measures for ideological reasons should listen to the noble Lord’s speech to understand how important it is that these measures continue.
I want to pick up on the immensely powerful and important speech—as we all expected—from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and her point about soft power. As she stressed, the nature of the event, how it turns out, and its outcomes for individuals, communities and society are important not only on their own terms but to how Britain is regarded around the world. In that context, the UK Soft Power Council has, unfortunately, not met for seven months. A recent PoliticsHome article described it as “drifting towards oblivion”. That is disturbing, and perhaps the Minister can comment on that.
I come now to some specific points concerning amendments that I may consider tabling to this Bill, depending on the Minister’s response. The first relates to Schedule 2, “Advertising provisions”. We have already ensured that we remove tobacco sponsorship from sport because of its impact on public health. Should we not also consider preventing fossil fuel companies advertising and sponsoring major sporting events? This has been called for by the UN Secretary-General, who has said there should indeed be restrictions similar to those applied to tobacco. Various countries have made progress in this area. France has already banned fossil fuel products advertising from 2022. The Hague has introduced a legally binding ban on fossil fuel advertising in public spaces from 2025. Of course, many local communities around these islands—including Edinburgh and Sheffield, to mention two that I know about—have already taken action on this.
We can look back to the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics for lessons that we might learn. Public health in the UK is so poor. Surely, if we are going to put significant public investment into these sporting events, as we inevitably will, we need to make sure they do not do significant damage to public health. There should surely be restrictions on the nature of the products being advertised or, indeed, forcibly sold at these venues.
I note that major sponsors at London 2012 were McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Cadbury and Heineken. That was subject at the time to criticism from a number of senior medical officials; indeed, the London Assembly passed a motion calling for a ban on junk food sponsors. We saw a real problem whereby food sellers were forced to prominently display Coca-Cola advertising and products, with very limited space for alternative products. This, of course, is a product linked to high blood pressure, heart disease and obesity. Surely, the Bill should be looking to address some of those issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, has already given us a sneak preview, and I will not go on at length as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Foster, will be discussing this, but the issue of gambling sponsorship and advertising has to be considered. This is, of course, a huge issue when it comes to football. I am afraid I am not going to celebrate the very modest measure whereby next season, there will be a voluntary ban on advertising on the front of shirts. That is what you might call the minimum possible we think we can get away with. The economic costs of gambling to the country are very well known and I am sure will be rehearsed later. I note that Italy, for example, banned most gambling advertising through a “Dignity Decree” in 2018.
My final point concerns sustainability standards. Again, London 2012 unfortunately did not live up to many of the promises made before the Games on waste reduction targets, resource use and use of renewable energy. Also, they failed to use locally grown food and fair trade products, in part, again, because of the influence of those sponsors and contracted suppliers.
Surely, we should be thinking back to the soft power point. We should be ensuring that we produce genuinely “world-leading” events—a phrase popular on both the Government and Opposition Benches in this place. Paris sought to host the lowest carbon Olympic Games ever; it did not always live up to this. Surely, we can do better than Paris in future events. Yes, international bodies are starting to mandate those standards, but we can surely demand that the events we cover under this Bill go further.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who made lots of very thought-provoking points about wider issues. It is also a pleasure to take part in a debate with so many people who have contributed so much to our great sporting legacy.
I too welcome this Bill. It provides an overarching framework, a one-stop shop if you like, for major sporting events. As many Lords have said, it is important because sport is so central to our culture and our economy. To make the point, I will share a couple of statistics, one of which is very strange. We are still among the handful of countries that are always at the top of the Global Sports Index, which measures the scale, reach and impact of sporting events around the world. Here is the strange statistic: just before Covid, the UK had the honour of being the only country in the world whose sporting annual attendance of professional events was greater than its entire population. A recent UK sports survey showed that 83% of the UK population expressed pride in hosting major sporting events. Getting 83% of the country to agree on anything is pretty extraordinary.
Having a framework approach is sensible, to provide efficient delivery, to reduce delay and uncertainty once bids have been successful, and to improve the bidding for events by meeting organising committee requirements in advance. I agree with a lot of what the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, said earlier. My understanding is that this is a package to enable bids for international events to be smoother, so I can see some logic in separating out some events from regularly held major events.
In particular, it is good to see action on deterring touts, protecting commercial rights, enabling co-ordinated transport planning and saving admittedly modest amounts of money—but still, saving money—in the legislative and administrative groundhog day that is involved in legislation for each new bid that is made.
It is important to note, as other noble Lords have done, that the Bill is accompanied by other initiatives that, taken together, look suspiciously like a co-ordinated strategy: a new cross-government programme with sporting bodies on priority infrastructure development; a new cross-sector major events strategy, which will be fed into by my noble friend Lord McConnell, as the new adviser on sporting events and soft power; and, as many noble Lords have said, the upcoming ticket touts Bill, more on which later. All this is very welcome.
I want to flag up four areas where I think there will be a lot of interest across the House in probing for more detail. The first is the definition of “events”, which is perhaps not a big issue in policy terms but is a tricky issue from an administrative point of view. Clause 3, as we have heard, specifies that the events within scope are those that are held in or partly in the UK of a kind that are not regularly held in the UK and that are likely to be of significant international interest. It is clear that UEFA and FIFA tournaments, Rugby World Cups and international cricket competitions fall in that scope, but what about events such as high-profile title bouts in boxing that are organised in an ad hoc way? What about the Ryder Cup, even? The Ryder Cup, as my noble friend Lady Nye knows very well, is held in Europe every four years, but it is no longer held in Britain every four years—it is held in different countries. Does that count as qualifying as an event that would be within scope? These are not deal-breaking issues, but it would be worth hearing what further guidance the Secretary of State will rely on when making decisions.
The second area is ticket touting. As many colleagues have said, the stated intent in the Bill is good, but there are three small issues in this area. The first is how exactly the steps on eliminating ticket touting in the Bill will dovetail with the wider treatment of ticket touting that is yet to come. As many have observed, the risk is that measures to deter or prohibit touting for major sporting events now, which take place in primary legislation, will perhaps be in tension with the broader reform of the resale market, which is in draft legislation and will proceed on a slower basis, and itself will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and so may change down the line. There is a question of how we are going to ensure—as a Parliament, let alone as a House—that these two pieces of legislation on such different timescales dovetail, rather than being in tension.
The second issue, and here I am going to join my noble friend Lord Foulkes in having a pop at FIFA, is that it is assumed in the Bill that the international sporting bodies will want reassurance about the host country’s commitment to eliminating ticket touting. However, if you follow what is happening with FIFA at the moment on ticket pricing in the upcoming men’s World Cup in the US, Mexico and Canada, you will know that there is a case of an organising body colluding with ticket resale platforms in its pricing policy. It is keeping its official prices ludicrously high— $11,000 face value for the final and $2,500 dollars for USA v Paraguay—knowing that the market clearing price is actually lower, and shifting unsold inventory of tickets through these third-party resale platforms. So there is a new problem here: legislation to deal not just with ticket touting inflating the price but with an organising committee that may be colluding with resale platforms. That is something that is, unfortunately, worth bearing in mind.
The last issue on ticket touting is that the Bill will have to have due care for official fan-to-fan exchange schemes—and those schemes are going to have to be restructured in response to this and the ticket touting legislation anyway. I have a gentle thought that the Government’s view on the steps needed to control resale mechanisms cannot trample on perfectly legitimate ticket-sharing mechanisms within clubs and within national sports organisations.
The third area is that there are a couple of issues regarding the reliance on secondary legislation, which the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, mentioned earlier. First, the House will want reassurance that if event-specific provisions are being triggered by secondary legislation then there will still be scope for proper scrutiny of issues that arise in the organisation of that event. There is no reason why there should not be. The second issue is that the understandable need for clarity on licensing and commercial association has to strike a balance between, on the one hand, protecting property rights and, on the other, continuing to be community friendly to local businesses, consumers and fans who enjoy and have economic activity around the event.
The fourth area is that, while the Bill covers excellent ground, as many, including the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, have mentioned, there are issues that are at least worth considering to be included in this framework legislation. The noble Lord mentioned inclusion and issues around technology, while the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned environmental sustainability issues. Another is safeguarding provisions. Should there be minimum safeguarding plans, particularly as some of these events may involve under-18 tournaments, and should there be dedicated welfare officers? It should be considered whether that should be baked in as part of the universal set of issues.
I look forward to engaging more in this debate. The Bill is excellent, it fulfils a manifesto commitment and it is going to be of value across our country and across sports. The last thing I urge is that we do not schedule any of the Committee days at times that clash with World Cup matches.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, like everyone else, I congratulate the Government and the Minister on bringing forward the Bill at this time. It seems extremely apposite, with the World Cup just in play. It is a privilege to take part in a debate that, as others have observed, features some of our Olympian and Paralympian heroes.
I cannot but make reference to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. It is good to see him back in his usual position, causing his usual amount of trouble. I reassure him that Hearts are now the second favourite team in Brighton.
I pay tribute to all the other speakers. I particularly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barber. I see that he is Lord Barber of Chittlehampton. Having heard what he said about cricket, and with my own particular love of the game, I think he should now be known as Lord Barber of Delivery—and I am more than happy to come out of my cricketing retirement to test his outside edge.
This is a simple set of measures, but it will, potentially, be of enormous long-term benefit to UK sport, tourism, hospitality and so on, making life easier for those who plan and manage large sporting events. The UK, as many have said, has an enviable reputation for the way in which it puts on a show whenever we bid and win major international events such as the Olympics, Paralympics and football competitions such as the Euros for both men and women. I am delighted that the Bill begins to address issues such as ticket touting, which many of us in the Chamber have, over the years, raised in different ways and under different guises.
It is right, too, that the Government are tackling unauthorised association issues and that they make transport planning for major events simpler and easier. It has always been a puzzle to me, like many, that, each time we stage something such as the Commonwealth Games, as they have in Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham and so on, or the Olympics, new legislation is required, leaving the planners with uncertainties until Parliament is finished with the Bill. It is pleasing to note that the Euro 2028 planning will be made simpler and more straightforward as a consequence of this legislation.
As the Minister set out, the Bill will make it easier to bid for future events, such as the FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2035. I do not need persuading of the economic benefits that hosting major sporting events can bring. I live in Brighton, and we are familiar with hosting such events. When I was council leader, we took the wise decision to host the Tour de France, and we were the first city to do so. We have since played host to the Rugby World Cup, the Women’s Euros in 2022 and the Women’s Rugby World Cup in 2025.
The boost to the local economy of all those events has been enormous. The single stage of the Tour de France alone was worth a net £10 million in 1994, not to mention the added value that it gave to the profile of the city as a desirable destination, with a value-added spend into local hospitality industries. More recently, it is estimated that the Birmingham Commonwealth Games brought roughly £1.2 billion of additional economic output and £80 million of social value. This, along with the soft power benefits that others have referred to and a sense of social cohesion, better trade, and a health and well-being legacy, brings enormous side benefits.
For that reason, I too welcome the recent announcement by the Government of a scoping and strategic assessment by UK Sport of the potential to host an Olympic and Paralympic Games in the north in the 2040s. As we found in 2012, the economic and social benefits far outweigh the costs. The regenerative potential of major sports is enormous, and the Government are to be congratulated on seeing this and putting in place the Bill and other measures to tap into that potential.
Unsurprisingly, for this reason the Bill has been widely welcomed. Its powers seem proportionate and will enable greater flexibility in the planning of major events. This is all a long way from the planning and preparation behind the 1966 World Cup. As I recall, a major competition event of this sort was done on a government grant of some £500,000 that Denis Howell, the Sports Minister, managed to extract from a reluctant Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. Howell’s only major obstacle was that games could not be played on Sundays because of the strict Sunday observance laws at the time. Surely Denis Howell would be rubbing his hands now if he had sight of this Bill.
I have a few minor gripes, and I hope the Minister can put my mind at rest on some points. Lawyers at Lewis Silkin have questioned why the Bill, while understandably focused on mega events that we compete for internationally, does not also cover large and regular events such as the London Marathon, the Six Nations, the Open and Wimbledon. I might add several other regional marathons, the London to Brighton cycle ride and other cycling competitions. The lawyers argue that it leaves a gap as these events collectively bring in enormous value to the UK and are regularly targeted by ambush marketeers. They have a point. They suggest that there is a case for adding provisions to cover the unauthorised association provisions that impact on regularly held, nationally significant competitions.
I also wonder whether, with a bit of tweaking to the Bill’s Long Title, it could cover music events too. UK Music’s Tom Kiehl has suggested that the ticket touting provisions, for example, could be extended to cover music venues. It does seem a bit odd taking measures to counter ticket touts at football and sporting events while leaving music events entirely unprotected. It is somewhat illogical. Why use a Bill to consult on these provisions for other issues such as music when provisions have already been published in an actual piece of legislation? Perhaps the Minister can explain this. On the face of it, the ticket touting offence seems pretty all-embracing, properly capturing ticket platforms and marketplaces. It also applies to businesses that operate from outside the UK but where the offence relates to people in the UK. These conditions seem entirely replicable to musical events.
I support the advertising, trading and unauthorised association measures in the Bill that target illicit commercial behaviour ripping off the sporting event by association with its brand. My only concern here will be how effectively the relevant offences will be policed, given the resources currently available to weights and measures authorities, the CMA and the other enforcement agencies. Perhaps the Minister can advise us whether additional money will be made available to carry out that work.
Finally, I think the transport measures should work. I presume they draw on the experience of the bespoke legislation that worked well for the Olympics, Paralympics and Commonwealth Games. I must say that such powers would have made Brighton hosting a Tour de France section back in 1994 much easier, the route passing as it did through multiple local authorities from Dover to Brighton. The Bill makes it clear who exactly has responsibility over transport issues, and this is most welcome.
Like others, I celebrate the introduction of this Bill and look forward to further constructive engagement on some of the areas that have been usefully raised this afternoon.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, nearly 100 years ago my grandfather was an Olympic athlete. In 1932, he asked for time off work to travel to New York and onwards to Los Angeles on the Olympic train alongside all the other European participants. He did not win a medal, but his performance was featured in the cover story of Track Stats magazine last March. Known as “Flying Fuller”, he was Britain’s fastest man. Back then, sport was the amateur game. When he was alive, he told me how Lord Burghley dropped the baton in the 4x100 relay. It was a shame, he told me, because they had practised the handover in the changing rooms beforehand. It was different times—the epoch of the gentleman amateur.
I mention all this because sport is grounded in people, community clubs, the fellowship of teams and the tension of individual competition. It is the great leveller, and we can be proud that Britain has codified many of the great global sports. I know why this Bill is here. It is because the promoters of the truly global events have lobbied for it. I know because I have spoken to some of them. They have their sports rights to defend. They have signed up the big global brands. There are pallet-loads of merchandise to shift. They have told the Government that unless they pass this Bill, we will never get another sporting event in our nation. It is nonsense. That is what I would say if I was them, but we have been suckered by that. Money often follows sport, but sport cannot and should not be only about the money. This Bill makes sport all about the money, by law.
It will be said that we have had similar Bills before for the Olympics. That is right, and a completely bespoke effort was needed and justified. But the Olympics in 2012 were the exception, not the rule, and this Bill will make the exception the rule, in an unwanted, unwarranted and unnecessary intrusion into our sporting and cultural life. Because each event is different, we will most likely need special purpose Bills for the crown jewel events anyway.
I am not against these Bills. I welcome the Euro 28 tournament. There will be circumstances and scope that will need to be negotiated, and if this Bill pertained to Euro 28 alone it would have my full support. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said earlier in this debate, we do not need legislation for many of these events. In providing an evergreen framework, perversely, all the Bill does is give away any and all negotiating leverage that we may otherwise have. As the noble Baroness, Lady Davies—who is not in her place—observed, we could end up bidding against ourselves. It prompts promoters to ask for even more, and counterintuitively it weakens our ability to land these events, because game theory tells you that.
It has been said that the Bill is just for a one-off such as the World Cup or the Euros, but that is not what the Bill provides for. As other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Wood—whose comments I associate myself with—said, it is all a bit woolly. The press notices talk about the big tournaments, but it could end up with international table tennis or where there is a fuzzy boundary between sport and entertainment; wrestling and boxing have been mentioned. These are all less lustrous than the crown jewels. If we pass the Bill unamended, the rugby internationals or the Ryder Cup mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Nye—who is not in her place either—will all clamour to be included. They are already asking; it is a slippery slope.
That is where I have my problem with this Bill, but also with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, who seeks to expand the scope still further. There is a mission creep here that trespasses on the grittiness, the sweat, the highs and lows, and the visceral untidiness of sport. I am concerned because there are powers to designate zones around stadiums, or other undefined places, where trading will be made illegal. I asked the promoter of one of these events how far that exclusion zone may extend. He said, “Well, certainly between the transport interchanges and the stadium”. That was his minimum expectation.
Consider that 10-minute walk from Twickenham station to the Allianz Stadium down Whitton Road in south-west London. Every type of food from around the world is available, from licensed food vans and stalls set up in front gardens where enterprising home owners have demolished their garden walls. There are old boys selling memorabilia and tat, the little guy with his roadside kebab van and the youth club with its pop-up gazebo frying chicken wings for a couple of hours before the game. That is part of the grittiness. It adds to the day’s pleasure. Yet it is going to be made illegal on pain of a £50,000 fine, even if they have a licence—yes, a fine for the burger flippers from the Cubs and Scouts raising money for the jamboree, or for the home owner who is going to be doubly burdened by the mansion tax. Under this legislation, only expensive cardboard burgers, plastic tat and gassy lager sold in soulless, overpriced stadium concourse concessions will be permitted.
There are other provisions in the Bill to prevent online trading by mobile phone or other internet devices at an event. It seems to me that this amounts to a ban on closing out a bet on a game in progress from your seat, in an affront to the fan who likes a flutter. As most apps are based in Gibraltar, I am not quite sure how it would be enforced anyway.
But it gets worse, and I associate my comments with those of the noble Lord, Lord Wood. It will be illegal to pass on a ticket to a friend if your plan changes—say your Mum has fallen over at home or whatever. We all want to avoid the bots but, frankly, the ticket sellers and organisers have not worked hard enough to stop the scammers hoovering up all the tickets. Rather than sorting this omission at source, the Government are going to go after the little guy. If the Bill is passed, where will be the incentive to fix this problem? Instead, the fan is going to be forced to surrender tickets to the organisers, who can then resell them for whatever they like, as we have heard of in the FIFA World Cup, and by outlawing peer-to-peer platforms such as StubHub along the way.
I have been told by an organiser of one of these crown jewels events that fans will be able to surrender their tickets as little as 30 minutes before the game. All that will do is encourage hopefuls to turn up at the turnstiles and then be disappointed when, 10 minutes before the game, there is no ticket to buy. You could not make it up. If organisers and ticket marketers tried harder on the initial ticketing, we would not need these provisions at all. I need to ask the fundamental question: what is so bad about
“exposing for sale an event ticket”,
in the words of the Bill, to your Facebook friends? How is that so bad that it justifies a £50,000 fine?
I also want to know how this legislation will dovetail into the Government’s consultation on banning zero-hours. In Committee, I plan to introduce a carve-out for sporting events, because there are no guaranteed hours in sport; Fergie time tells you that.
I am not going to go on about unauthorised association, but it is so loosely defined that it could affect a bed-and-breakfast operator who simply suggests that they are not far from the event, or the struggling pub running a tournament sweepstake.
This Bill will sanitise sport, restrict choice, increase costs and damage the enjoyment of the day. Why can we not see that this harms, not strengthens, our negotiating power? Why have we got it in for the Scouts and Guides raising money for the jamboree, the bloke who prefers a cheap kebab to an overpriced burger and the bucket hat rather than the baseball cap, the fan who fancies ale rather than lager, or the geezer who just wants to place an in-game bet from the comfort of his seat in the middle of the game? Why are we on the wrong side of our sporting life?
This Bill is unnecessary. Last week, the Financial Times asserted that the Premier League was a national asset. It was right, and it has become so without the unnecessary provisions in the Bill. It is a sledgehammer to miss a nut and will reduce the simple enjoyment of the small pleasures of going to the game.
Now, I know that part of sport is knowing when you are beaten and I can tell from the House this evening that I am not going to win this one—but I have made my point. We must guide against mission creep. We must get the balance between the private interest and the public good right because, if we fail to do so, the fans at Old Trafford, Anfield and other places will, like the fans of Saudi Arabian golf, tell you the unintended consequences of putting the money first and the fans second.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, the United Kingdom has a proud record of hosting major international sporting events, from the Olympic and Paralympic Games to European championships and world tournaments. These events have showcased our country on the global stage, inspired future generations and delivered significant economic and social benefits.
This Bill seeks to provide a more efficient and consistent framework for hosting such events in the future. Rather than requiring bespoke legislation each time the UK hosts a major international tournament, it establishes a framework that can be applied where appropriate. That is a sensible approach which should improve certainty for organisers, strengthen our international competitiveness when bidding for events and reduce unnecessary legislative duplication. With UEFA Euro 2028 on the horizon and future opportunities to host global tournaments, now is the right time to put in place a framework that allows the United Kingdom to move quickly and confidently when opportunities arise.
The Bill, at its heart, is a practical piece of legislation. In the past, Parliament has needed bespoke legislation for individual sporting events. By establishing a clear framework for future tournaments, the Bill reduces unnecessary barriers, streamlines the legislative process and provides greater certainty for organisers and host communities.
I welcome the measures to tackle ticket touting, protect commercial rights and support effective transport management. Ticket touting can leave genuine supporters priced out and unable to access events. Measures that help to ensure tickets reach genuine fans are therefore welcome. Sponsors and commercial partners provide significant investment that helps make major events possible, and appropriate protection can help safeguard that investment.
Effective transport management is equally important. The success of major sporting events depends not only on what happens inside the venue but on whether spectators, volunteers, workers and local residents can move around safely and efficiently. For many visitors, the transport network provides their first and last impression of a host city. Yet the value of major sporting events cannot be measured solely in economic terms; they also create memories that last a lifetime. They bring families, friends and communities together in shared experiences that become part of our personal and collective story.
For me, the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games remain a powerful example. My son still remembers our trips to watch the volleyball and the women’s football bronze medal match. Those memories remain with us today. The Games also touched my own family in other ways. My mother, who was retired at the time, took part in both the opening and closing ceremonies of the Paralympic Games. Like thousands of volunteers and performers, she became part of something larger than herself and carries those memories long afterwards. In different ways, three generations of my family were able to share in the experience of London 2012. That demonstrates the unique power of major sporting events not only to bring people together but to create memories that are passed from one generation to the next. It also serves as a reminder that major sporting events should be as accessible as possible.
The opportunity to attend, participate in or contribute to such events should be available to as many people as possible and not be limited by circumstances. This is particularly important for young people. For many, attending a major sporting event can be a life-changing experience that sparks a lifelong interest in sport, volunteering or physical activity. We should therefore seek to ensure that opportunities to attend such events are accessible and affordable, so that young people from all backgrounds can share in the inspiration they provide. Whether through fair access to tickets, accessible venues and transport, or opportunities for volunteering and participation, we should seek to ensure that the benefits of major sporting events can be enjoyed by people from all backgrounds and communities.
Seeing athletes perform at the highest level can encourage young people to become more active, participate in sport, volunteer in communities or simply believe that they too can achieve great things. Major international sporting events can generate economic benefits, support local businesses, inspire participation in sport and leave a lasting community legacy. I welcome the ambition of the UEFA Euro 2028 organisers to deliver the largest community programme ever associated with a UEFA European Championship; I believe that this should be an aspiration for all major international sporting events. Success should be measured not only by what happens inside the venue but by the benefits they leave behind for communities long after the event has concluded.
Good legislation should not simply make it easier to host events but make it easier for communities to benefit from them. The Bill will also strengthen the United Kingdom’s position as a destination for major international sporting events. In an increasingly competitive global environment, host nations are expected to provide confidence that the necessary legal and operational frameworks are in place. This legislation helps to provide that assurance.
As the Bill progresses, I would welcome further clarification from the Minister on several points. First, the Bill grants significant powers to Ministers through secondary legislation. Can the Minister explain what safeguards will ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny? Secondly, what steps will the Government take to maximise the long-term legacy of major sporting events, particularly for young people, including participation in sports, volunteering, skill development and pathways into employment? Finally, how will accessibility be embedded within future events planning to ensure that disabled and neurodivergent people can participate independently and with confidence?
The greatest sporting events are remembered not simply by who won or who lost; they are remembered because of the memories they create, the people they inspire and the legacy they leave behind for communities across our nation. By reducing barriers, streamlining processes and helping the United Kingdom to secure future world-class sporting events, the Bill will help to ensure those benefits are felt for years to come. I am pleased to support this Second Reading.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, having sat through the entire legislative process, minute by minute, of the Olympic Bill, along with the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath—there were not many of us there—I am slightly perplexed. I recall what we had to pass, which was certainly not easily transferable. Whether it was done by primary or secondary legislation, it was, frankly, tedious.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but I remind him that, during that long deliberation, I moved an amendment that changed the Title of the Bill to the Olympic and Paralympic Bill.
Lord Mann (Lab)
Which was agreed. The point, however, is this Bill’s purpose. Without amendments, it could end up being rather ineffective. What is a national sporting event? If we have another Olympics, the rules will have changed. In effect, the nation is ceded to the International Olympic Committee for Olympic and Paralympics, and for 60 days they rule. Those rules and the detail will change the next time.
The critical issue with the London Olympics and Paralympics was the location. Everything else needed to be sorted, but without having a location identified, nothing gets off the ground. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was quite right: if Scotland wants to host a major football tournament, whatever else it has to do, one thing is sorting out Hampden Park. The investment and forward planning are critical. That is not a criticism of this Bill but a question about what it is actually for.
It seems to me that the Bill should be not simply for major events but for events that have to be bid for. That is where the competitive advantage would be given. I will give an example: it looks like the Rugby League may be excluded under the definitions, and that is an absurdity. We are successful in winning bids for the Rugby League. But what we are not necessarily successful at, and which this Bill could assist with, is getting the deals with the locations and the venues that would allow an expanded Rugby League using different stadiums. The transport changes, for example, could revolutionise the possibilities of the locations. This would be hugely important for the sport and for the country. There will need to be a lot of detailed scrutiny on this.
I turn to ticket touting. What is ticket touting? Seat Unique uses dynamic pricing. The price for Everton v Leeds United last season was £99, while the price for Bournemouth v Leeds United was £564. It uses dynamic pricing and has a contract—I believe across the whole of the Premier League now, and with Wembley—and it is given large numbers of tickets to sell and it profits on dynamic pricing. What is the difference between ticket touting—for example, if I sell a ticket to a mate and charge him for the fuel to get down there—and what Seat Unique is doing? The danger is that, if we do not get the detail right, we are encouraging legitimised ticket touting. That is how organised crime is involved; it is not buying off individuals on street corners. Organised crime involves buying significant numbers of Premier League tickets internationally and dealing them. If you want to go to certain stadiums in London, it will cost you £800 but you can be guaranteed a ticket to any match, but you are going to be buying those tickets abroad. If you talk to the people who monitor this, including the police, this is serious organised crime. Getting the detail right, therefore, is absolutely essential.
On trading, what will happen to the person who writes the Square Ball fanzine and sells it at my club? It costs £1 or £2, prices vary, and they sell it on the street corner. Are they going to be restricted for certain fixtures? That is the danger of the mission creep that has been referred to. If we take a stadium like the Emirates, the local community makes money by entrepreneurship—by selling or by hiring out facilities to memorabilia salespeople. I know some of them around my club, and they are the real small businesses, the micro-businesses. They are not big commercial concerns; they never will be and they never want to be. Another example is the person making incredible food to sell, rather than the official food. Restricting this in any way would be catastrophic. Some of our big stadiums are located within communities which are not benefiting. We should be doing the opposite and encouraging that kind of sale. As Peter Lowy, who is developing the stadium at Leeds United, said to me when he arrived, “Why can’t you buy a kebab or a samosa outside the stadium?” It is because the small businesses are a slight distance away; they could be brought in. Facilitating this should be part of the Bill. There is a way of doing it by allowing the local communities, the fan groups and others to have a bigger say, if it is done well. That means, however, getting this legislation absolutely right. The restricted trading zones are, therefore, significant.
The transport zones provision, though, is absolutely right in how it is conceived. If there is going to be a major event, planning out in advance the transport system, the infrastructure and what is close by will give a competitive advantage. If we are proposing that we will use XYZ stadiums for some kind of international competition, and we have that in place already, then we have a competitive advantage.
My final point is that the world of sport is changing. I hear on the grapevine that Mr Musk is after buying a Premier League club. That may well change a few things. The World Cup championship may become a lot bigger: it may become annual or move around the world, a bit like the prime boxing bouts that have already been referred to. These are major sporting events. There are one-offs that are significant; we can build into this the planning for them, if we use our ingenuity.
It is a good Bill in principle, but if the detail is wrong it will be a bad Bill, and it is therefore quite an exciting one to be looking at. If we get it right, we build a competitive advantage, but that includes building in the community, building in the fan groups and building in the infrastructure investment demands, so that we begin to win on the big competitions.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill and the opportunity to debate this important legislation, which will apply to all four nations of our kingdom. In an era when our country is so divided on so many fronts, sport retains an almost unique ability to bring people together. The most memorable recent example of this was in 2012, when London played host to both the Olympic and Paralympic Games. For several weeks, many people, often without even a passing interest in sport in normal times, cheered for those in red, white and blue who made us all so proud.
Sport has always played a huge part in bridging divides in Northern Ireland, as all people from all communities rallied around our sporting heroes. Rory McIlroy, only the sixth man to complete the Grand Slam of all four major golf tournaments, is the current man of the moment and a source of huge cross-community pride. For such a small nation, the list of sporting greats from Northern Ireland over the years is remarkable. They include George Best, Dame Mary Peters, Joey Dunlop, Willie John McBride, Pat Jennings and Alex Higgins. I could go on and on, and I say with confidence that there are lots more to come.
However, Northern Ireland is being held back by a lack of world-class sporting facilities. The Bill before the House today is a sensible measure. As we know, it will create a common legislative framework that can be applied to major sporting events across the United Kingdom. This will include Euro 2028, with games taking place in England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland, but not Northern Ireland. As your Lordships might be aware, Northern Ireland was due to host five games but will no longer do so after His Majesty’s Government announced that they would not be pumping many millions of pounds into the redevelopment of Casement Park, a derelict GAA stadium. I will not go into the details and repeat the arguments around that decision, but I must express my disappointment at the failure of Ministers to advance the case for Northern Ireland’s National Football Stadium at Windsor Park to host these games instead, despite its limited capacity.
A huge opportunity has been wasted. As far as I can tell, those with the power and influence to stand up for Northern Ireland on this issue have swept this under the carpet, as other venues in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland gladly accepted the gifts that they were offered. Windsor Park proudly hosted the 2021 UEFA Super Cup. The cup is contested by the winners of the Champions League and the Europa League and is a huge game in the global football calendar. Why therefore is Windsor Park supposedly not capable of hosting games in Euro 2028?
In recent years, Northern Ireland has successfully hosted the start of the Giro d’Italia, one of the three biggest cycle races in the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Nye, mentioned golf in Scotland. We in Northern Ireland have some of the best golf courses in the kingdom. We hosted two Open Championships, with record crowds on every single day. We have also recently seen the annual North West 200 motorcycle race take place on the Triangle circuit between the towns of Coleraine, Portrush and Portstewart. Public funding was made available for all these, which was warmly welcomed, given the boost to the local economy that each provided. However, what links these events is that they all took place outdoors and the primary infrastructure around them was temporary, meaning that no legacy sporting facilities are left behind for local communities.
The Bill before us today, if enacted, will provide His Majesty’s Government and the devolved Administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast with powers to offer financial assistance to support major sporting events and related legacy or social impact initiatives. On the face of it, this is welcome. However, can the Minister elaborate on how the new powers will differ from those that already exist? Further, if additional finance is to be made available by devolved Administrations, is this money expected to come from their existing coffers, or is there potential for extra funding to be allocated from central government?
Last month, His Majesty’s Government committed to introducing a so-called stadium regeneration accelerator, through which they will work with sporting bodies on priority sports infrastructure development projects in England, such as stadiums, that can help deliver local regeneration and commercial growth. Given that the Bill before us today is UK-wide, why can this welcome initiative not also apply to all four nations of the kingdom?
Under the last Government, I did everything I could to support the development of a north-west regional stadium at the Coleraine Showgrounds by backing a deeply impressive application to the levelling up fund. All the indications were that it would be successful, given the absence of a modern stadium in that part of Northern Ireland, the cross-community benefits that the scheme would bring to a major catchment area, and the boost it would deliver to one of the most economically deprived parts of the United Kingdom. Sadly, the application was rejected, with the money instead funnelled off to marginal seats in England. Perhaps that wrong could be righted if Northern Ireland benefits from this new UK-wide legislation.
Finally, as many contributors have already mentioned, I welcome the provision in the Bill relating to ticket touting, which will apply across the United Kingdom—and not before time. This is an area that previous Governments have shied away from, for reasons that I fail to understand. Ticket prices for major sporting events are already bordering on astronomical, which makes it increasingly difficult for individuals and families to afford to attend them. Making sports tickets touting a criminal offence, backed by criminal and civil financial penalties, is certainly the right move. Like the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Mann, I hope that this initiative is swiftly followed by similarly robust provisions to clamp down on ticket touting for music and other live events, as Ministers have promised and the music industry has long called for.
Baroness Paul of Shepherd’s Bush (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak in today’s Second Reading debate and warmly welcome the Bill for not only its substance but its ambition. As others have noted, at its heart, this legislation gives us the ability to act with pace and confidence when opportunities arise to host the world’s most significant sporting events. It removes the need for repeated event-specific legislation and instead creates a standing framework that allows the United Kingdom to demonstrate bold and timely leadership when required. This may be a small Bill, but boy is it mighty.
I confess that I have not always been a natural sports fan. I am what you might call a fair-weather friend. Growing up in Shepherd’s Bush, I have at various times, and with varying degrees of conviction, claimed allegiance to QPR, Chelsea, Brentford, and Fulham, often depending on who was doing best at that time. But while my loyalties may have been somewhat flexible, my admiration for national sporting events has always been steadfast. T-shirts, bunting, flags— I am all in. I am an enormous believer in the power of such events not just to entertain but to bring people together, to inspire pride and to showcase the very best of our country. I am equally passionate about grass-roots sport, powered mostly by brilliant volunteers, because we all understand the completely symbiotic relationship between global and local sport, and the fact that brilliance at elite level fuels aspiration at community level.
The Bill provides the technical framework to help turn aspiration into delivery, ensuring that national successes translate into local opportunities and investments. Of course, enabling legislation rightly invites scrutiny. The Bill’s flexibility is its strength, but it must also be matched with clarity and appropriate oversight. As we take the Bill through Committee, we may want to consider how delegated powers are framed, how ministerial discretion is balanced with parliamentary accountability, and how commercial arrangements and security are applied proportionately. We must also ensure that local authorities are supported and not stretched by these arrangements, because their capacity will be central to successful delivery. None of these are objections to the Bill; they are questions that will help us to be ready for first-class delivery when we are called upon.
The Bill arrives at exactly the right moment. As many have mentioned, the UK and Ireland will co-host UEFA Euro 2028 and there is clear interest from international bodies in bringing future events, such as the Rugby World Cup, the Tour de France and further cricket world cups, back to this country. These opportunities require Government’s to have the ability to act quickly, and this Bill allows us to do precisely that, strengthening our ability to compete internationally, to put forward credible bids and to ensure that the benefits of hosting are felt across the whole country.
I now turn to those benefits, because this is about not just national and global prestige but local impact. I am proud to live in the London Borough of Merton, which has set out an ambitious vision to become London’s first borough of sport. Merton is, as all noble Lords will know, home to the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club at Wimbledon and host to the annual championships, the world’s most prestigious tennis tournament and a truly global event. The championships bring around half a million visitors to the borough in over two weeks and the tournament brings in about a £200 million boost to the London economy, with particularly strong benefits to the local hospitality sector.
Merton’s story is about not just global prestige but what sport can achieve in our communities, and nowhere is that more powerfully demonstrated than in the story of the mighty AFC Wimbledon—a community-based club whose supporters refused to leave the borough when Wimbledon FC was relocated to Milton Keynes in 2002. Instead, fans chose to start again from the very bottom. From borrowed boots and borrowed grounds, this fan-owned club has, in 24 years, risen nine football leagues, currently competing in League One with a continuous ambition to go higher. Its new stadium at Plough Lane is a symbol of community resilience and a driver of local economic activity, with match days bringing hundreds of thousands of pounds into the surrounding area. Its women’s team is one of the fastest-growing parts of the club in bringing in new audiences. I am a strong supporter of AFC Wimbledon— I have found my loyalty. It is deeply encouraging to see not only young girls but young boys supporting women’s sport with equal enthusiasm.
To build on this remarkable legacy, Merton Council has developed a powerful programme of grass-roots activity under the banner of the “Borough of Sport”. It has delivered 45 separate initiatives, open to residents of all ages and abilities, to improve the outcomes of people in their local communities. These events have ranged from a sports day that attracted 20,000 visitors, trying out 70 different sports, all demonstrated by enthusiastic grass-roots organisations, to free swimming every week for over-65s and under 16 year-olds in the school holidays, improved cricket pitches, new basketball courts and outdoor gyms, and a world-class BMX track that boasts an Olympic-standard Prostart gate that will make the track eligible to host national or international competitions—I hope the Minister is listening. There are also 27 sports equipment loan boxes, with footballs, rugby balls and tennis equipment available to borrow for free, as well as exercise classes in parks and libraries, and the incredible and hugely popular parkrun and junior parkrun have been brought to the borough.
These are real achievements and the impact has been tangible. Some 8,000 previously inactive residents are now taking part in sport and physical activity. That is not a statistic; that is a transformation. These people are physically healthier, their mental well-being has been improved and their sense of loneliness has decreased because of this activity. This has not come about by accident; it has come about under the leadership of the Labour leader of the council, Ross Garrod, and his team. On an election day that was quite tough for people on this side of the House, Merton was the only borough in the country where Labour made gains— I wonder whether there is a thread that runs through this. I applaud Merton for its efforts.
That is why the Bill matters. Major sporting events are not just ends in themselves but catalysts: they drive participation, support regeneration and generate economic growth. They inspire young people to get involved, to try something new and to see themselves as something better. They provide moments for national celebration and, sometimes, sadly, for commiseration. When we host well, we leave a legacy that is felt not just in stadiums but in parks, schools, leisure centres and community clubs. The Bill gives us the tools to do that more consistently, more confidently, more economically and more effectively. It ensures that, when the UK hosts world events, the benefits can be felt anywhere, from global centres such as Wimbledon tennis club to the grass-roots initiatives in communities such as mine in Merton. This is a Bill that enables ambition, strengthens capability and unlocks potential. I am very pleased to support it.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I too am a supporter of Queens Park Rangers, although perhaps a slightly more steadfast one than the previous speaker.
I want to raise an issue that at first blush does not appear to be within scope of this Bill but, for reasons I will set out, I believe is: namely, the overuse of football banning orders. Football banning orders were originally introduced by the Football Spectators Act 1989 for the purposes of preventing violence and disorder at football matches. This was a targeted measure intended to be used sparingly, since it imposes such wide-ranging restrictions on a person’s liberty, preventing them, as it does, attending football matches and using public transport on match days, drinking at pubs near football stadiums and even, in certain circumstances, travelling abroad. Breaches of these orders, which can be imposed for as long as 10 years, carry serious consequences, up to and including being sent to prison.
Predictably, subsequent Acts of Parliament have hugely extended the football banning order regime. The Football (Offences) Act 1991, the football spectators Act in 2000 and the Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Act 2026 have all added numerous offences to Schedule 1 to the 1989 Act, which sets out the criminal offences that can result in banning orders, with each edition lowering the threshold.
Recent statistics lay bare the direction of travel. As of 1 June 2025, there were 2,439 football banning orders in force in England and Wales—an increase of 12% on the previous 12 months. Those figures are taken from a recent article in the Law Society Gazette, which raised the alarm about the overuse of these orders:
“Behaviour that is fleeting, non-violent and often part of the charged, emotional atmosphere of live sport—momentary lapses of judgement, reactive shouting or ill-considered gestures—is being treated with a level of seriousness that risks losing all sense of proportion: individuals of good character with no previous convictions suddenly face a criminal record and permanent implications for employment, immigration status, travel and reputation. This trend uncomfortably blurs the line between maintaining public safety and over-policing the ordinary realities of live sport”.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I was the Minister who took the 2000 legislation through your Lordships’ House. That legislation was widely praised at the time as a way of tackling the outrageous behaviour of England fans travelling across Europe during the Euro 2000 competition. It changed for ever the attitude of football fans in this country and it helped to reverse the tide of racism that had been partly engendered by that. The noble Lord should think long and hard before he starts to seek to “liberalise”, as he might put it, that piece of legislation.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I would not dispute that there were serious problems that football banning orders were originally designed to address. My point is that they are now being used far more extensively than intended in the legislation that the noble Lord took through this House, for much more trivial misdemeanours —nothing like travelling abroad in order to cause violence and disorder at games overseas.
I declare an interest. The Free Speech Union, the organisation I run, is currently defending a young football fan who is being prosecuted for calling some Chelsea fans “rent boys” at a match earlier this season. This was in the context of an exchange of insults between rival fans, and none of the Chelsea fans complained. It is unlikely, to put it mildly, that any of them were caused harassment, alarm or distress, which is what he has been charged with.
Nevertheless, the prosecutor has informed the court that, if our member is convicted, she will be seeking a banning order. His hearing is not due to take place until September 2027 and, in the meantime, he has been banned from his team’s stadium for the duration of the 2026-27 season and told that, if he wants to keep his season ticket, he has to continue to pay for it, at over £1,000 a year, and cannot resell his seat or pass it on to a friend or family member. The club, meanwhile, which is a Premier League club, is allowed to resell his seat—and, to judge from the fact that it was occupied for the remainder of the last season, is already doing so.
This is a disproportionate punishment for behaviour which, to quote from the Law Gazette, was
“fleeting, non-violent …part of the charged, emotional atmosphere of live sport”,
and a “momentary lapse of judgement”. He has never been in trouble with the police before. Yet, in addition to not being able to watch his beloved team for the whole of next season, he faces the prospect of a five-year banning order if he is convicted. Even the noble Lord would not, I am sure, regard that as a proportionate penalty for a momentary lapse of judgment.
Why do I think that an amendment raising the banning order threshold is within scope of this Bill? For one, it is perfectly possible that the new criminal offences created by the Bill will be added to Schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1989. Could a street trader selling unauthorised merchandise outside a Wembley match, or a food vendor without a clean-zone licence, end up being banned from attending football matches?
Lord Fuller (Con)
The noble Lord made the point a moment ago that a trader without a licence could be banned. Under this Bill, even if you have a licence, you are still subject to a fine of up to £50,000. Having a licence is of no consequence in this Bill. You can follow all the rules and be licensed by the local council, but it counts for nothing. It is another infringement on trade.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. He makes the point that I was trying to make even more forcefully. Even those with licences, nevertheless being unauthorised to sell merchandise, food or drink outside a stadium, could find themselves being given football banning orders if they are convicted of one of these new criminal offences. Even if there is nothing in the Bill as drafted before our House today that says these offences could be added to Schedule 1, what guarantee do we have that they will not be added in Committee, which has happened as I have followed the passage of various Bills through this House numerous times before? Bills change a good deal, and I would not be at all surprised if those offences were added to Schedule 1, and anyone convicted of them could be subject to a football banning order.
Perhaps more importantly, there is nothing in law to prevent football banning orders being imposed on fans visiting from overseas. The purpose of this Bill, we have been told, is in part to prepare the country for the 2028 UEFA men’s football championship, which, as we have heard, will take place in England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland. An amendment limiting the circumstances in which banning orders can be imposed on fans, including those visiting from the continent, will make Great Britain a more attractive destination in 2028 for lovers of the beautiful game. For those reasons, I hope to table an amendment in Committee reversing the expansion of the authoritarian banning order regime.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I broadly welcome this Bill, but I shall focus on the things that particularly interest me. The Government have announced that they have
“commissioned … UK Sport to carry out an initial strategic assessment examining whether the UK could host an Olympic and Paralympic Games”,
and have said that the assessment will look at “potential cost”. The Government have said:
“Funding will not be used for the regeneration of these stadiums but the government will work with sports clubs and leagues to unlock opportunities for large-scale housing delivery, jobs, apprenticeships, transport improvement and community sports facilities”.
Those are really worthwhile objectives, which will benefit young people and communities as a whole.
The Local Government Association has called on the Government to join up their ambitions to be a world-leading host of major sporting events with their ambitions to tackle physical and economic activity, providing more funding for public leisure facilities. It said more investment was needed to develop and refurbish leisure facilities, which it said helped people be physically active, stay in work and contribute to the economy and provided the essential infrastructure for grass-roots sports.
There may be lots of disagreements with many other aspects of this Bill, but I would not have thought that anybody would disagree with those objectives of getting young people off their screens and on to the greens. Some of the things that are contained in this Bill are perhaps not some of the most major things that we have talked about, but I am sure that there is going to be a lot of exchanges and amendments.
The Bill also talks about financial assistance for sporting events. Clause 25 would give the Secretary of State the power to give financial assistance, such as loans, grants, guarantees or indemnities, to support a sporting event taking place in England
“for any other purpose connected to, or arising from, such an event”.
It refers to Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland departments having the same power for events taking place in Scotland or Northern Ireland respectively.
The Government have stated that allowing financial assistance to be given for purposes connected to the sporting event would ensure that it could be used for things such as legacy programmes and social impact initiatives, in addition to supporting the actual operational delivery of the sporting event. It seemed to me that, whatever else we may argue about in this Bill—and it is quite obvious that there are going to be significant differences of opinion—the Government’s intentions are sound and worthy, and they are obviously going to be developed as the Bill goes along. But for me, anything that gets young people involved in sport is worthy of support.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, today marks a critical milestone in the preservation and elevation of our country’s status as a leading host of major sporting events. We are embarking on a golden decade of sport, from the roar that will greet the 2028 UEFA European Football Championship to our ambitious bid for the 2035 FIFA Women’s World Cup, on to a potential 2040 Olympic bid for the north of England. This Government are readying the United Kingdom to show the world that we are the ultimate home of global sport.
For decades, this nation has welcomed global sporting fans with open arms, providing the stage for moments of historic athletic achievement that have inspired generations, promoted healthy living and driven economic growth into our local communities. This Sporting Events Bill also directly delivers on the Government’s manifesto promise to bring these high-profile international events to our shores. By creating a permanent streamlined framework, it signals to international sports bodies that the UK is permanently open for business, operationally secure and ready to build a legacy.
I warmly welcome the fact that the Bill explicitly puts fans first. If I may indulge your Lordships’ House, as I stand in this Chamber today, I am struck by a profound sense of personal history. I rise today, as I rose for the very first time in the European Parliament, back at the turn of the millennium, as a member of the Friends of Football group. More than a quarter of a century ago, I stood up in Brussels to sound the alarm about ordinary football fans losing out from attending matches because of opaque, predatory ticketing practices.
Because of that history, I am heartened to see the mechanisms within this Bill. Under Clause 1, the Secretary of State can designate qualifying events, unlocking the enforcement powers we desperately need. Most crucially, Clause 2 sets up a robust, UK-wide criminal offence targeting the unauthorised resale of tickets. This is an essential step forward. We have all seen the grotesque excesses of the secondary black market. During the 2022 Champions League final, standard category tickets with a face value of £60 were being resold online for over £9,000—a staggering one-hundred and fiftyfold mark-up that completely locks out genuine, ordinary supporters. Even in our domestic game, tickets for regular Premier League final-day fixtures routinely skyrocket by 1,000% on predatory secondary platforms within minutes of selling out. This is not a free market; it is extortion.
However, while I fully support the architecture of the Bill, it is the duty of this House to think creatively. If we are to successfully enforce Clause 2, we must back it up with total market transparency at the primary point of sale. If we truly want to protect fans, they must know exactly what they are paying for. I must therefore press the Minister on some fundamental questions about transparency that this text currently omits. Why does the Bill not explicitly mandate that the original, fixed face-value price be permanently, visibly and immutably displayed on the face of every single digital and physical ticket issued for qualifying events? How can a fan easily spot an illegal secondary mark-up under Clause 2 if the baseline price is obscured behind shifting digital platforms? How can consumers make informed choices when hidden platform fees, processing mark-ups and shifting price points are obscured from view until the very final click? Why have the Government omitted a ban on dynamic pricing—the corporate euphemism for legalised primary touting, as my noble friends Lord Mann and Lord Bassam so eloquently highlighted—whereby prices skyrocket mid-transaction simply because a fan is waiting in an online queue?
That brings me to a significant omission in the scope of this legislation. Although the Bill beautifully safeguards international tournaments, it is a great pity that its protections do not extend to our everyday domestic sporting fixtures or world-renowned live music events. A fan being ripped off for a cup final or a grass-roots local derby deserves the same statutory shield as an executive sitting watching a Euro 2028 match. Similarly, a young music lover trying to buy a ticket to see their favourite band at a local arena faces the exact same automated harvest bots and predatory pricing platforms. Live music and domestic sport are the lifeblood of British culture; leaving them exposed feels like a missed opportunity to create a truly comprehensive consumer protection standard.
Further, while Clause 5 provides necessary enforcement powers to local authorities and police to stamp out illicit trading, we must connect these grand international events back to the communities that host them. A major tournament should not be an island of corporate wealth. The financial success of these global events must directly feed down into our local youth clubs and grass-roots sports facilities, as stressed by my noble friends Lady Paul and Lady Dacres. Our local clubs are where the next generation of athletic talent is discovered. They are where healthy living is fostered and community cohesion is built. I want to ensure that the regulatory framework we are debating today explicitly guarantees that a percentage of tournament revenues is funnelled directly into sustaining these vital community assets.
This Bill has the potential to be historic legislation. It honours a vital commitment, cuts through needless red tape and guarantees our sporting future. I do not wish to delay this legislation, but I do urge the Minister to take another look at some of the specific areas I mentioned earlier. Let us work together to expand our horizons, think outside the box and use this opportunity to shine a light on pricing, protect the wider cultural economy and ensure that local fans and grass-roots communities remain the beating heart of British sport. I commend this Bill to the House.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, before I comment on the Bill, I will first make one or two observations on earlier speeches. First, I welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on behalf of the whole Chamber. We are all very pleased to see him delivering a speech in his normal style—I think that would be the best way to describe it. The noble Lord, Lord Wood, referred to the fact that nothing could make 80% of a nation taking one view or another. I think there are occasions when referees’ decisions could achieve far more than 80%—almost unanimity. I say that for those who are unaware that I was a rugby referee for many years. I also observe that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has probably introduced a new sport into the Olympic world, which is getting from one end of this Chamber to the other via a Division Lobby at a speed she said was nowhere near what she used to achieve. I can assure noble Lords that I was amazed: I watched her leave and, no sooner had she left than she returned almost immediately.
I welcome this Bill enormously because it is intended to enable organisations to come together to make bids for major sporting events. I do not intend to repeat the comments that many other people have made. We are proud of our sporting tradition. My noble friend Lord Young referred to a particular case. I am not in favour of woke policy and restricting people’s observations, but I merely observe that I am wearing this evening the tie of the world’s first gay rugby club. Atmospheres generated in crowds, in one form or another, reflect on a community. I find it completely unsurprising that there is not one professional footballer who is out and gay, because of much of what goes on in football stadiums, credited as general banter. I say that as somebody who is distinctly not woke.
Coming to the Bill in general, I said that I support it—as I think everybody does who has spoken—because it enables sporting organisations to be brought together. The noble Lord, Lord Barber, said that he was present at the England v Mexico match in 1966. I was also present at that game, along with two other young boys and my father. Sport is supposed to bring you together. We three boys persuaded my father to take us to the Mexico game. It achieved a great degree of unanimity among the four males who watched that match. The only problem was that, when we got home, we discovered that my father had forgotten that he was supposed to be hosting a dinner party with my mother. On that occasion, sport certainly did not bring certain parts of my family together.
Sport is an international operation. I recognise people’s loyalties in one form or another. The Bill is intended to clear certain barriers so that we can bid, but there is a serious risk, identified by speakers from different Benches, of overreach in this Bill. Fine, let us make it possible to have international events here, but international events are precisely that—they are international. Trying to set down terminology in this country’s legislation will achieve one thing, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, forcefully said: it will frighten people away and they will host events elsewhere. Do not try to do something such as banning touting because it sounds nice, when, as the noble Lord so ably identified, much of the problem of ticket resale is outside our shores. In the other direction, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, identified, trying to have blanket bans around stadia is a very risky process, because it has impacts on all sorts of small businesses there that operate very effectively every time there is a major event.
As far as I am concerned, the original objective of the legislation is clear. I support the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and others as to why music events are not covered on the same basis as sporting ones; it would make sense, and if it is not done now, I envisage that we will be here debating a piece of legislation that will drag those areas into the same piece of regulation in one form or another. But, please, do not try to overreach the legislation because it sounds good. It will not achieve what people want, because sporting events are international. They cannot be regulated into existence in this country. We need to do what we can to achieve the best in sporting occasions for this country, but not go beyond that and frighten people off—or say, “We’ve done this”, when actually we have not done anything at all because it is outside our capacity to regulate.
One noble Baroness will have identified that I have not gone into a sphere that I have a feeling she is just about to: the bid by Bolton for the Ryder Cup, to which I think there has been no reference whatever during this debate. I welcome the Bill, but there are very grave risks associated with it if we try to overreach in one direction or another.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I am tempted to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, was saying, but not quite in the way he suggested; I am tempted to follow up what he said about referees, particularly in the Scottish context, not least because my Scottish team of Motherwell bore the brunt of some of the difficult decisions that were made. He also mentioned the difficulty that footballers seem to have in coming out as gay. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Young, that one of the reasons why we need banning orders is that there has been so much homophobia, as well as many other problems, in football in recent years.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
Without wanting in any way to defend the remark that our member made, it was made in the heat of the moment and in the context of an exchange of insults with a rival group of fans. None of those other fans complained or said or showed in any way that they were upset or offended. There is also absolutely no evidence that they were gay—they were just Chelsea fans. Does the noble Baroness nevertheless think that, if he is convicted, a five-year banning order involving draconian restrictions on his liberty is an appropriate and proportionate punishment?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I know nothing of the detail of what was said, the circumstances or whatever, but, as someone who has attended football matches in many stadia over many years, I know that some very unpleasant things happen and we need the ability to have football banning orders where appropriate.
Virtually all noble Lords have welcomed the Bill, as I do. It is necessary that we have as much power as we can to make sure that events such as Euro 2028 go well. Many people have spoken about the importance of different sports and sport generally to the economy, society and the whole psyche of the country. When I think about sporting events, because of my particular interests I think about football. Noble Lords opposite are smiling, because they have heard me talk about this on many occasions. It is important to my family. During the football season, each of us looks at the football results and knows which of our colleagues will be smiling on Monday morning. It is a very good test. I am still smiling, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for mentioning this, but 10 days ago I was at Wembley with my family when Bolton Wanderers won promotion to the Championship. My noble friend Lady Morris and I were comparing notes on this just a little while ago.
Football is important. The preparations being made for Euro 2028 are important, but there are issues that colleagues have raised on the Bill that are worth emphasising. Although we all more or less support the Bill, it has aspects that could be tightened up or go a little further. Ticket touting has been mentioned by many others. I think there is an impression that it is a series of one-off events; in fact, it is a pretty big industry. My noble friend Lord Mann called it “organised crime”. It is right to take action, but is the Minister sure that the penalties are severe enough, given the nature of the people we are talking about? Like many others, I would like to see this apply to domestic competitions and non-sporting events as well. This Bill, as has been mentioned, applies just to international events, which means we cannot talk to or amend it in ways that we might want to so that it covers domestic situations. However, we can learn from some of the problems we have in domestic sporting events to try to make sure we get some of these things right.
Advertising has been mentioned. It is not a straightforward issue, nor one that is completely in the Government’s control, because there are international contracts. FIFA, UEFA and any other governing body will do its own deals on sponsorship and advertising, and then of course companies will spend a great deal of money and effort circumventing those restrictions. I acknowledge that it is a complex problem, but the Government are thinking along the right lines here. Over recent years, we have had lots of changes and dire warnings about what would happen if we banned certain types of sponsorship. I remember the discussions about football and tobacco, and the threats we were told existed when Formula 1 was forced to give up tobacco advertising. It was supposed to be the end of Formula 1—it was not. However, it is a really difficult issue because this is a changing picture and a very different, challenging situation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned that, next season in the Premier League, betting companies will not be allowed on the front of shirts. It is a welcome, small measure. It is probably because clubs feared something more draconian but, at the same time, some clubs now say that they will have betting companies on the front of their training shirts, which are also very visible and seen by many, and indeed replicas are bought.
I mention this not because it is covered by the Bill but because it illustrates the changing nature of the challenge we are facing. It is a moving target, and it is the same with gambling. We are soon to see prediction markets being regarded as products and the Gambling Commission in the UK has regarded prediction markets as a “betting intermediary”, so they would be covered. However, they are not classified as such in other countries, so, again, there is always going to be a problem with implementation, and a real challenge for the Government and those who monitor sporting events.
The other issue that I want to raise is transport. The Bill enables the Secretary of State to direct someone to prepare a transport plan in connection with a sporting event. This is very sensible and I welcome it, and I wish we had such plans for more sporting events, especially domestically. However, the Bill seems to concentrate on roads. We need plans for roads, but I am old enough to remember when there were “Cup Final Specials”: trains which went from the towns that were playing in the cup final. Now, almost every big event at Wembley is marked by train travel problems. Indeed, at the match that I was at 10 days ago, fans from Bolton had to be advised to make alternative arrangements because of the difficulty of getting to Wembley for 1 pm on that Sunday. The day before, when the Championship play-off was being held, there were no trains whatever from Middlesbrough to London. Again, there was no co-ordination, which made it difficult.
Lord Fuller (Con)
Will the noble Baroness give way? Do I understand that she is advocating, for the events that would fall within the ambit of this Bill, the prevention of strike action? It would be welcomed by many people to save the inconvenience she mentions and would do a lot to level the playing field.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
I think the noble Lord is barking up the wrong tree. On this occasion, there were no strikes involved in those disruptions.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Is she advocating for Great British Railways to unite the railway companies so that it is all under one umbrella?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
I have thought of raising this with our noble friend Lord Hendy, who seems to be on top of all those issues.
I will point out one other anomaly, despite the time. Literally the biggest game in English women’s football—the Women’s Cup Final—was held at Wembley last week and there was no service to Wembley on the Lioness Line. How ironic is that?
I welcome this Bill and its proposals. However, please can we learn some domestic lessons from this and have some domestic improvements, because there are many problems and challenges on the domestic, as well as the international, front?
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, until the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, spoke, I was beginning to feel incredibly isolated as a rugby fan in your Lordships’ Chamber. Only two of us have now mentioned rugby as a major sport.
I thank the Minister for her excellent introduction to this very important Bill and for the praise that she gave the important work of the late Tessa Jowell. It was through her that I was able to join the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, as a member of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic board. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said, long before 2012, a great deal of work had to be carried out to provide the necessary legislation. Had the event-agnostic common legislative framework that is proposed in this Bill already been in place, much time would have been saved.
While I want to propose a few additions, I fully support the Bill, as I do the proposal from my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter, that international cultural events be included alongside sporting ones. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Paul of Shepherd’s Bush, I very much hope that the secondary legislation that will follow will lead to measures that are proportionate, and not to situations such as the one in 2012 when a butcher had to dismantle his window display of strings of sausages in the shape of the Olympic rings.
The 2012 Games also made me realise the importance of tackling ticket touting. It is an issue I have progressed in other places at different times. Notwithstanding the important point about the international aspect of ticket touting, I am genuinely pleased that the Government are taking action on this, including within the Bill.
I want to raise two issues. The first, on gambling advertising, has been foreshadowed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the second is on sports rights. I declare my interest as chair of Peers for Gambling Reform and as a member of the all-party group on intellectual property. I believe that we should all be worried about living in a country in which 1.4 million people, including 80,000 children, suffer from gambling disorder, with individual lives destroyed, families and communities impacted and, tragically, far too many gambling-related suicides. The Minister is well aware of my concerns about gambling advertising and its ubiquitous presence within sport.
Time prevents me detailing all my concerns, not least those about the impact on children and young people, who are constantly being led to believe that the enjoyment of sport is closely linked to gambling on outcomes within sporting events. In this country, we have more research on the links between gambling advertising and gambling harm than almost any other country. That research shows that gambling advertising leads people to start gambling, existing gamblers to gamble more and those who have stopped gambling to start again. This is especially relevant during major sporting events, when the volume of gambling advertising, and illegal black market gambling advertising, grows massively, leading to increased gambling harm. On Monday, the Nationwide Building Society published research showing that 83% of 18 to 24-year old existing gamblers expect to gamble more during the World Cup, with a quarter of them saying that they will do so to hopefully get more money to pay essential bills.
What can be done? Section 8 of the Bill, which has already been referred to, enables the establishment of “restricted advertising zones” around designated sports events and the regulation of what advertising activity may take place within those areas. However, these provisions currently appear to be primarily intended to deal with ambush marketing, and to protect official sponsors and commercial rights holders. I believe they should go further. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, raised a concern about what other international bodies say about this. It is worth reflecting that the IOC has always maintained a strict “clean venue” policy that prohibits sports betting and gambling sponsorship associations with the Olympic and Paralympic Games. FIFA has a similar clean-venue policy for the men’s World Cup. Several other international sporting bodies have rules which allow domestic bans in host countries to supersede their own rules. I hope the Government will consider adopting a similar clean-venue policy in the Bill, so that no gambling advertising is allowed in the restricted advertising zones of the events covered by the Bill.
Additionally, if UK TV and radio coverage of such an event is by a commercial broadcaster, I hope the Government will also consider banning gambling ads during transmissions, or at least until the watershed. Many other countries, including Italy, Belgium and Australia, have adopted far more stringent safeguards where gambling advertising and sport intersect. I believe we should be doing the same.
I turn to the issue of sports rights. In addition to the many other benefits that have already been referred to, the sports sector is now a major economic powerhouse for the UK and, at a time when we need to promote growth, sport can support that in many ways, from tourism to event management, and so on. It is vital that this Bill ensures we have the best framework to support relevant sporting events.
The Bill includes measures to ensure that sports event organisers have the right to ensure that those seeking association with the event must have the correct permissions in place and, in many cases, pay for that association. In most cases, this is easy to arrange and police. For example, spectators, broadcasters and sponsors all have clear conditions and payment arrangements. However, despite the enormous profits that gambling companies make from bets on sporting events, with the exception of horseracing and its horserace betting levy there is no explicit statutory requirement for gambling companies to pay sports organisations for betting rights—an issue that I hope, separately from the Bill, the Government will consider.
To get around that, many sports organisations attempt to assert copyright and database rights over their fixtures and statistics, and gambling operators enter into voluntary commercial data agreements to purchase official data to ensure that they have fast and accurate betting markets. For example—I will use football rather than rugby, since that is what everybody is talking about—data from the English Premier League, the Scottish Premiership and the EFL is licensed through Football DataCo to Genius Sports, which then sells that data to other parties, including gambling companies. But unlike a specific sport’s rights, those are voluntary arrangements and are much less easy to enforce. Indeed, enforcement is even harder when sports data is often scraped by third parties and sold to betting companies without the permission of the sporting event, which has little or no means of redress.
The noble Lord, Lord Barber of Chittlehampton, told us that he has been the chairman of Somerset County Cricket Club. Speaking to me on Monday, he told me about the effort the club makes to prevent the activities of in-ground so-called data scouts, who feed micro-level match data, such as ball-by-ball outcomes, to whoever will pay them—whether gambling companies or betting syndicates. More sophisticated operations also exist—especially, as it happens, in horseracing—where people are using drones to capture data, which they then sell without the agreement of the organisers of the event. When this happens there are potential integrity issues, and certainly the sport event loses potential income. In relation to association measures, will the Minister ensure that this is addressed in the Bill by, first, ensuring that there are tough penalties for those who capture data without permission and, secondly, requiring gambling companies to use only data licensed to them by official sources? I hope that can be extended more widely. This is a very welcome Bill. I am delighted to support it.
Baroness Shah (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak on the Bill and to have listened to so many great contributions from noble Lords, including people I consider sporting legends.
I represent and live in Wembley—the home of football and, more recently, rugby, American football and the Olympics. It is a place that has, for over a century, sat at the intersection of sport, culture and community, which in that time has taught us everything we need to know about why legislation such as this matters and why getting it right is so important for the future of major sporting events in this country.
I begin with a confession. When you mention that you represent Wembley or Brent, people assume you spend your time watching England triumph gloriously in the stadium. The reality is somewhat different: you spend time explaining to visitors that the Jubilee line is, in fact, faster than driving and that, no, they cannot park outside your house. The chaos that ensues—the wonderful, maddening, economically significant chaos—is exactly what the Bill is designed to protect and nurture.
Before I turn to the economics and the legislation, I hope the House will permit me a moment of sentiment, because Wembley is not merely a stadium. It is a chapter of our national story, one that belongs proudly to the London Borough of Brent. It is precisely because of what Wembley represents to this country, to sport and to culture that the Bill matters so much. I am sure that noble Lords will have their own Wembley memories, including seeing Bolton elevated to the next league.
In Brent, we know what we have. We hold this treasure with enormous pride. Wembley is not just our local stadium; it is a global icon that happens to be in our neighbourhood. For a venue such as Wembley to continue attracting the events that have made these moments possible, the UK needs to be able to offer international governing bodies something that no amount of good will alone can provide. Legal certainty, commercial protection and a framework that works are what the Bill will deliver. That is why it matters.
In 2018, the Football Association commissioned Deloitte Sports Business Group to assess the economic impact of Wembley Stadium events. Its findings, presented to us at Brent Council, showed that the 58 events staged during the 2017-18 season resulted in a total economic impact to England of over £615 million and a direct economic impact to the borough itself of £150 million. These events supported over 1,800 full-time equivalent jobs in Brent and over 6,000 across England as a whole.
Multiply that across every major international event that the UK could host, and consider what is at stake if we fail to make ourselves competitive. Every event that goes to another country rather than ours is not just a missed occasion; it is missed jobs, investment and opportunities for communities like the one I call home. The Bill directly addresses that risk. For the first time, we will be able to say to FIFA, UEFA, the IOC and many others, “Come here. The framework is already in place. We are ready”.
In Brent, we have always been clear-eyed about this. We value the treasure that Wembley represents and, precisely because we value it, we recognise the responsibilities that come with it. A Bill that protects the commercial interests of major events must also speak to the communities that host them. I am glad that the provisions today create the foundations for exactly that. As a council, we understood from early on that Wembley’s importance demanded not just celebration but active stewardship. Brent developed deliberate, place-specific policy to manage the reality of hosting a global venue in the heart of a residential borough, and central to that was the establishment of an event day zone. The clean zone provisions in the Bill echo that approach at a national level, and that is to be welcomed.
The Bill creates important new tools, but tools require people to wield them. I agree with my noble friend Lady Paul that the provisions on clean zones, trading restrictions and ticketing enforcement all depend on local authorities having the capacity, powers and funding to act.
The benefits of Wembley are counted not only in pounds and jobs but in children lacing up their boots on a Saturday morning because they watched something extraordinary the night before. This is where the Bill’s importance extends beyond commerce, because it is events like these that protect the very events that inspire the next generation. Every major event at Wembley has a ripple effect through grass-roots football and sport in our borough: participation surges, girls’ teams form and schools request coaches. The fundamental aim of Wembley’s regeneration during my tenure as regeneration lead, and continuing today, was to deliver jobs, housing and community schemes, making Wembley a fantastic place to live and work for all its residents and visitors. That vision works only if the stadium and the community genuinely face each other: if outreach is real, if local young people see themselves in the sport that surrounds them, and if the high street on event days is a place of opportunity rather than disorder. In Brent, we worked hard to make that the case. The increased trade on local high streets on event days, when managed well, is meaningful for small businesses.
In July 2022, 87,000 people packed into Wembley to watch England’s Lionesses beat Germany in the Women’s Euros final. The noise that night could, I am reliably informed, be heard in Harrow, and possibly Milton Keynes—maybe even coming from our own household. In that moment they did not just win a trophy but transformed a sport, and the momentum continues to build, in participation, attendance and aspiration. Young girls who had never been offered a football now play in organised leagues across Brent and beyond.
The Women’s Euro 2022 final at Wembley was, by design, an accessible event. According to UEFA’s official ticketing announcement, the maximum face value for a final ticket was £50, with over half a million tickets across the tournament priced at £25 or less, and a family of four was able to attend for as little as £30. That was a deliberate, principled decision to make the Lionesses’ greatest moment reachable for ordinary families.
The UK has an extraordinary offer to make the world of sport: world-class venues, passionate fans, unmatched heritage, and communities such as the one I represented that have demonstrated for over a century what it means to host events of global significance with pride and professionalism. The Bill gives us the legal framework to match that offer. Wembley is many things. It is a global icon and it is a community asset. It is, on certain Saturdays, an extremely good reason to avoid the North Circular. Above all, across 100 years, in its original form and its current one, it is proof of what major sporting events can do for a place—economically, socially, culturally and in shaping aspirations. The Bill creates the framework that Wembley and every future host community deserve. It will help ensure that events of that magnitude keep coming to the UK, and that when they do they are protected and properly managed, and their benefits are truly shared.
For those reasons, and with the experience of Wembley behind me, I invite noble Lords to come and visit Wembley—not just during the championships, because Wembley’s regeneration is fantastic—and I commend the Bill to the House wholeheartedly.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when it comes to being part of the wind-up on a Bill like this, you are trying to look at some of the central themes. I think that, maybe with one or two exceptions, noble Lords are in favour of this Bill. Anybody who has done any of the many Acts we have talked about, such as those for the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games, will know that a great deal of what happens has to be repeated, at least in principle, every time. It might have been quite exciting to do it once, but that was probably enough for one lifetime. So the Bill is a good thing.
It is such a good thing that most of us are asking why it does not apply to a wee bit more. The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, will, undoubtedly, be up for the challenge, but it is quite important that, today, we ask why there is this limitation. Why does it not bring in cultural events? What about the big regular events?
Transport is the one that really gets me. I know the gritty fullness of the experience at Twickenham. Have you ever tried to get a late train out of London from there? I can tell you, some planning is needed there. And that is ignoring the burger I was once foolish enough to try to eat on the way in.
If we are going to look at this properly then we have to look at it in the round. The Bill is definitely written for the current world of big international sporting events. They are funded by big sponsorship deals. There is a little list in Clause 1(2), running from paragraphs (a) to (e). Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) are all about the preservation of rights and sponsorship, and what is going on. These are the things around which, when we did the Acts for the Commonwealth Games and the Olympics, we got absurdities.
My noble friend Lord Foster did his usual job of picking out a particularly good little absurdity about sausages being arranged in the shape of rings. You could have got quite creative, with the odd black or red pudding in there—you could have done quite a lot with that. I remember that, during the passage of the Olympics Bill, the Olympic kebab shop, operating somewhere down in the East End, objected to being removed. It was serving the staff from three scrapyards that were about to be destroyed, but that does not really matter. There were always these little things going on, and local communities always feel hard done by.
I hope that, at the very least, we can put something into the Bill that says that you have a duty to explain how this happens whenever you get to the affected group, or put greater emphasis on that, because it is an irritation that we can do without having to suffer again and again. If a little bit of compensation is required for one of these big sponsorship deals, then why not? Let us have a look at that.
We are talking about championships here. Championships are different from Games because the teams are not all based in the same place. The teams and the participating athletes for a Games should be, by design, in one place—a village. We do not have anything about infrastructure planning on that scale in the Bill. I say this with a degree of temerity because people who have experienced living in such villages are in this Chamber today. I am still breathing so I cannot have done too much wrong, but how do you put them together?
In this country we have excellent experience. We have a magnificent planning process. With the Olympic Games, half the bid was about getting that structure in place, planning for what might happen and doing it really well. That raised the bar. Disability access was brilliant. It was mainly the Lords which did this. We sat down and made sure that everything was as good as it could be. We had a Minister saying, “I can do no more, I have given you everything that you want”. That was in the Moses Room. I hope that we can look at what is required for that.
The other example was when Birmingham stepped in at the last minute and created a village out of student accommodation. It was refurbed for the Games and then went back to being student accommodation. We have done it both ways. Glasgow has not been involved in that. When you do not have a ready-made village, you cut down on the number of events. Rugby sevens is not in the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow this time because they cannot afford to accommodate the teams. Fortunately, they have kept the one team sport that really needs it—it is its big showcase—netball. I hope that we can look at putting in that infrastructure, which can be part of legacy, and ensure that it really does work.
We have had fun today with thorny things such as ticketing and ticket touting. We started at Oral Questions with the problems of America and its models for the current World Cup; it is facing legal challenge from its own internal states over this issue. So I hope that we do not get too enthusiastic about this model and that FIFA does learn. We need a process where people know what they are buying. In the States, what have they got out of this? They have empty hotels, because people cannot afford to get there, meaning that potentially some of the economic benefits will not be available. We must have a good long hard look at this and ensure that people know that when they are buying, they can spend on travel, on nights out, et cetera, and that it is not some sort of “I went there, slept in the airport and got back” hair-shirt event. If we do that, we will not get as many people going and the economic benefits to the community will be far fewer. Let us look at this in the round.
One of the things that we learned from London was that the one thing that we did not do was encourage more people to play sport. It was the big failure, albeit the only real failure. “People will be inspired by watching you”—no, people get used to watching very good sport on TV. You encourage people to play by creating events around it, getting people involved—especially young people. You create the habit of being involved in sport, particularly outside the educational establishment. That is how to keep people involved. We have proved it many times. I hope that we can look at where we can encourage that to happen through local organisations and sports clubs and take those to the events that are taking place and that people are watching. It goes with the education programme. We must involve and encourage. You do not do it just by flicking on a TV screen. We have proven that.
I think everything else has been covered by other noble Lords. There is a tendency when you have a little time left merely to go through all the points that were made and praise everybody, but that is the Minister’s job and not mine.
There is a great deal of enthusiasm for the basic principle, but there are a couple of big questions. The Minister said that this is the start of a process and that other things will happen in respect of culture. If we are not going to do it here, where are we going to do it? What is the framework for this? Let us be brave. Let us ask for a timescale that is not “soon” or “possibly in the near future”. The questions about cultural activity and what we are doing about domestic events—whether we will learn from this and take some of them on—really need to be asked.
Will we get a better definition? The noble Lord, Lord Mann, raised this. What is an international sporting event? Is it something we bid for? Another thing he raised was something I overheard one of his colleagues talking about in the House, and that I thought I should raise: the Rugby League World Cup. It happens fairly frequently here. Surely that is big enough, and with enough nations involved, to qualify. If not, we need to know, because if the benefit is very small and potentially never happening—you can get outbid on anything you bid for; we are in a strong position at the moment, but somebody else might get better at it—the question is, will that apply to everything we are doing here with an international element? We need to know these things.
Very few Bills in which I have been involved in this House have had this degree of a wind behind them. We wish it well, and we wish its aims well. But I hope the Government will be flexible enough and confident enough to accept constructive criticism for what it is. We want this Bill to work; let us see whether we can make it work just that little bit better.
Lord Markham (Con)
As others have said, it is a pleasure to speak after such an august gathering of former Olympians, sporting legends, relatives and “Flying Fullers”. Of course, it is a pleasure to have the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, back and making his points in his inimitable style. This really is the Lords at its best.
While I am talking about the Lords at its best, I have to add that we saw more sporting legend being created last night in the parliamentary tug of war: two noble Baronesses who are in the Chamber—my noble friend Lady Davies and the noble Baroness, Lady Shah —won against the House of Commons MPs. There has been much talk today about other sporting events that should be included. I think we saw another one last night that should be included in this legislation.
As many have said, sport has been central to our national story. Football, rugby, cricket, tennis, golf, squash, darts, snooker—the list goes on—were all invented in the UK. We built Wimbledon, Twickenham, Lord’s and Wembley: cathedrals of competition; places where the human spirit is tested and celebrated in equal measure. From Roger Bannister breaking the four-minute mile on a track in Oxford, to the golden summer of 2012 when London showed the world how to host the Games with grace and greatness, this nation has a sporting tradition that is the envy of the world. It is precisely because we cherish that tradition that we must get this legislation right. It is in that spirit that the Opposition will approach the Bill.
Like everyone in the Chamber today, we support the purpose of this Bill. We recognise that many of the provisions stem from requirements put in place by UEFA, FIFA, the IOC and other governing bodies, but while supporting the intention of the Bill, we, like the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and my noble friend Lord Hayward, have concerns about the chosen route to get to the final destination. The most fundamental concern is that this is skeleton legislation. I understand the intention behind having such a framework, but there are many things that we do not know.
As others have mentioned, the Bill does not tell us which sporting events will be designated. We have broad criteria, but we do not have the full details. We know the Government have at least two events in mind, the Euros in 2028 and the bid to host the FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2035, but we do not know which other events might be included in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned the men’s Rugby League World Cup. As a rugby supporter, I say to the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Hayward that the Rugby League World Cup has been hosted in the UK seven times. The Rugby World Cup has been hosted quite a few times and will be in the future. That is a frequently regularly occurring event that definitionally would be ruled out by this Bill. I think we would all say that we want these major events to be included in the Bill, and we want the UK to be bidding for them.
The Cricket World Cup is another example, even if it does expose us to being beaten by the Germans, as the noble Lord, Lord Barber, said. As my noble friend Lady Evans, the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, set out, there are also concerns about those sporting sectors and cultural events that will not be covered by the Bill: Wimbledon, the Open and the British Grand Prix, to name just a few. Why do the Government believe that they should not receive the protections that we have seen from ambush marketing, for example?
The Bill states that the event must be of significant international interest and gives a few examples, but it does not set out clearly how these tests will be applied in practice. How large will an event have to be to be considered? How many spectators and visitors will be required? How will the Government determine the scale and reputation of an event? These are all questions that need answering.
Nor do we have an idea about the length of time the regulations could be applied for, the scope and the size of possible event zones or the exceptions to advertising and trading offences. Many of these crucial details will be left entirely to Ministers, despite the concerns set out by many about the impact on local traders, as mentioned by my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Young among others.
A future Secretary of State could designate events that Parliament never contemplated when passing this legislation. We are writing a blank cheque and trusting future Governments of whatever complexion to fill in the amount responsibly. That may be an act of faith, but it is not an act of scrutiny, and, as we all know, scrutiny is what we, the Lords, do best.
The current approach is to pass bespoke legislation when needed, such as the London Olympic Games and Paralympics Games Act 2006, the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2020 and the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020. There are many benefits to this. It allows for greater specificity, with legislation that mirrors the unique requirements of the event and, crucially, it means that Parliament can better scrutinise the Government’s intentions. There is a risk that this vague framework will not be specific enough for individual events, meaning that additional provisions may very well—almost definitely—be needed to be made for those future events, but, as asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, when this happens, what scrutiny will be in place for them?
When it comes to Committee, we will be tabling amendments to probe and clarify the scope and scale of those powers. For example, the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2020 contained a specific exemption from the ticket touting offence for charitable auctions, recognising that legitimate charitable activity is categorically different from commercial touting for profit. Also, as my noble friend Lord Fuller and the noble Lord, Lord Wood, set out, there are legitimate fan-to-fan ticket exchanges that should be considered that add to the access available for spectators to go to see the game. This Bill contains no such provisions. Indeed, every exception is left to the Secretary of State to specify in regulations. That is an unsatisfactory arrangement. Parliament should not leave to regulations what it can and should write into the Bill. We will be pressing for possible exemptions, particularly a charitable exception to be included in the Bill. I was also taken very much by the points made by my noble friend Lady Davies about the importance of free-to-air TV coverage of these events.
There is a notable absence of any time limit on the duration of regulations implementing this framework. Once a designation is made and regulations are laid, Ministers may keep them in place for as long as they see fit. This is novel. Section 16 of the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act stated that the trading offences could begin only 21 days before the Games began and must end five days after the Games ended. The Euro 2020 Act stated that the provisions could be in force only from 1 June to 12 July.
We suggest that the Government consider a maximum time limit for the regulations to be in effect, to ensure that the restrictions put in place are not in place unnecessarily. Many noble Lords have mentioned that the richness of the event is about seeing local traders. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Shah, that I had the privilege—Chelsea lost, so the dubious privilege—of going to the FA Cup final the other day. I thoroughly enjoyed drowning my sorrows with my family afterwards in many of the fine establishments around the area. That added to the richness of the experience for me. We need to think carefully about making sure that this richness can be included or, if it is ruled out, that it is for the minimum time necessary to fit the requirements of the IOC or other bodies.
We must be cognisant of the impact of large sporting events on local communities. Of course they bring enormous benefits, but there are also costs. Competition organisers and local authorities should be duty bound to ensure that full clean-up responsibilities are put in place when major sporting events are held. We will explore this when the Bill comes to Committee.
We cannot consider legislation designed to attract and support major international sporting events without addressing the economic backdrop against which it arrives. As set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, the Government ask us to believe that Britain remains an irresistible destination for the world’s greatest sporting occasions—and so it should be. But the organisers of international events make choices, and they make them based on costs. High levels of taxation, an Employment Rights Act that has imposed new and significant burdens on employers, a national insurance increase that functions as a direct tax on jobs, and a substantial increase in the minimum wage—these are real costs that have to be borne by businesses. These businesses include the events companies, the hospitality sector, the security firms and the thousands of workers in the supply chains that make a major sporting event function. Britain’s attraction as a host depends not only on our sporting heritage and our infrastructure but on the commercial viability of operating here.
The Government cannot simultaneously proclaim this Bill as a statement of ambition for British sport and pursue policies that make Britain a more expensive and more regulated place to do business. The two are in tension, and Ministers have to explain how they intend to resolve it.
Finally, as many noble Lords have mentioned, we must address the question of scrutiny. Regulations implementing this framework will use the affirmative procedure, but only the first time. Any subsequent regulations amending or extending the regime will use the negative procedure. In other words, Parliament will scrutinise the framework once; after that, Ministers can modify it with no requirement for approval. Your Lordships will know that this is a significantly weaker arrangement than that provided for in the Olympic Games Act in 2006, which required the affirmative procedure for all such regulations. There is no principled reason why the standard should be lower for this Bill than it was for that previous legislation. If regulations are significant enough to require parliamentary approval once, they remain significant enough to require it subsequently.
At its heart, the Bill is about protecting fans, maintaining the integrity of access to events and giving our country the best chance of winning the right to hold those competitions. On these aims, the Opposition are united with the Government. But good intentions do not excuse the need for proper scrutiny. We owe it to the fans in the stands, the charities seeking to raise funds and the businesses that make these great occasions possible to get the details right. We will work constructively in Committee to improve the Bill. I look forward to the debates ahead.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords for sharing such well-considered views. I agree with my noble friend Lord Wood of Anfield that it is an honour to speak in a debate with so many sporting stars, a point made by several others. Today’s debate has shown the knowledge and passion in your Lordships’ House for hosting major sporting events in the UK and recognising the many benefits they bring, not least including my noble friend Lady Shah, who spoke passionately about Wembley and the benefits it brings to Brent and the surrounding area. These can be transformative, as my noble friend Lord Barker—sorry, I cannot read my own writing.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Yes. Thank you. Huge apologies. They can be transformative, as my noble friend Lord Barber of Chittlehampton said, although, unlike him, I was not alive to see England in the World Cup in 1966. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, mentioned that he was there as well.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said, sport can and does bridge divides. As my noble friend Lady Paul of Shepherd’s Bush said, this is a small but mighty Bill that will establish a framework that enables certain sporting events—I will give a bit more definition on that in due course—to benefit from the enhanced commercial protections needed to preserve the integrity of events and, importantly, offset costs to taxpayers. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, having a framework is a good thing. As noble Lords will be aware, we have taken a UK-wide approach, working closely with the devolved Governments.
I will respond to as many of the questions and points raised as I can, and, where I cannot, I will write to noble Lords and place a copy in the Library. I am also happy to meet noble Lords with an interest in the Bill.
Today’s debate has been far wider than the scope of the Bill. I want to recap on the scope of the Bill and remind noble Lords that an event must meet each of the three conditions set out in it. This legislation is designed to enhance our ability to track one-off bids for sporting events that move from host to host, such as the Euros, the Olympics, the Paralympic Games and—to the delight of my noble friend Lady Nye; I think there were other golf fans as well—the Ryder Cup.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, asked about the impact the Bill could have on events, such as the Tour de France, that cross borders. The legislation has been specifically designed to enhance our ability to attract one-off bids for sporting events that move from host to host. That includes those that cross borders as well as those held wholly or partly in the UK.
Without wanting to pre-empt the outcome of the initial assessment being carried out by UK Sport, which is at an early stage of consideration, in response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on what is meant by “the north”, I reassure her and the House that UK Sport is engaging across the north of England in particular.
A number of the UK’s competitor nations, such as Australia, New Zealand and France, have comparable legislation—I hope that gives some reassurance to noble Lords who doubt the value of a framework such as this—and have seen considerable success in securing hosting rights recently. For example, France secured and hosted the men’s Rugby World Cup in 2023 and the Olympics in 2024.
In defence of the framework approach, which I think was questioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, we are clear that this is the right approach. It is a forward-looking framework designed to attract the best sporting events for years to come. We do not know in advance the relevant event-specific details such as dates and places, or what exceptions might be proportionate for that event, so those event-specific operational details will be set out in the regulations and provisions relating to the event. Our guiding principle has always been to fix as much policy detail in the Bill as possible and to limit secondary legislation to adding event-specific details.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Bonham-Carter, asked about the definition of major and mega events and bid transparency. On the question of what is a major or mega sporting event, the Gold Framework, which is a joint DCMS and UK Sport document, already sets out how we work jointly to support the feasibility assessment process for the bidding for and staging of major and mega sporting events at a UK level, and it provides definitions of mega and major events. I can make sure that a link to that document is sent through to the relevant noble Lords.
Delegated powers—and how they are going to be applied and whether they are justified and proportionate —were raised by, among others, my noble friends Lady Paul, Lady Dacres and Lord Wood of Anfield. The noble Lord, Lord Markham, also raised concerns. The delegated powers in the Bill are tightly drafted. As I said, we fix as much policy as possible on the face of the Bill. Secondary legislation will be limited to applying the provisions to events and overlaying the event-specific operational details required. The affirmative procedure will apply to the first use of the powers by each Government in relation to an event, providing appropriate opportunity for scrutiny, particularly over the types of events to which the provisions are being applied. I have no doubt that we will come back to that in Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, made a clear point about the role of culture alongside major sporting events. London 2012 clearly showed the UK at its best, both in terms of sporting events and the wider cultural offer. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, also highlighted that. I will not go through my detailed glowing comments about the events, because I think those were covered. In relation to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, about whether cultural events which are part of a major sporting event, such as the 2012 Cultural Olympiad, will be within the scope of the Bill, the Bill does not define a sporting event but does make it clear that this includes any opening or closing ceremony. Regulations applying the Bill’s provisions to a sporting event can specify events which should be treated as forming part of the event where they are held in connection with it. That would bring in scope cultural events officially connected to a sporting event, such as the 2012 Cultural Olympiad.
I thank a number of noble Lords, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for their track record over many years of working to support the UK’s efforts to win bids. The noble Baroness raised the important point of legacy programmes. We work closely with our partners to maximise the potential of these sporting events, leaving behind positive legacies, inspiring the next generation of talent while promoting exercise and healthy living. I had not noticed the acronym drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, but I agree that it is probably appropriate.
So many noble Lords mentioned secondary ticketing that I will not list all those concerned, but it is clear that, understandably, this is of great interest to your Lordships’ House. I reassure noble Lords that this Government are fully committed to addressing ticket touting and issues with the secondary ticketing market which prevent so many people attending events. My noble friend Lady Gill said—and I agree—that “predatory” is an appropriate term. My noble friends Lord Mann and Lady Taylor mentioned that this often involves organised crime. However, this is not the right legislative vehicle for all wider secondary ticketing reforms. The time-limited ticketing measures will ensure that tickets can be resold only with authorisation from the event owner or organiser, satisfying the requirements of event owners.
In response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, we do not intend for the offences in the Bill to be ones for which football banning orders can be imposed. Our wider plans will preserve a robust ticket resale market by directly targeting the operating model of ticket touts. They will ensure that genuine fans can resell their tickets safely and securely and recoup their costs when they can no longer attend a live event. This Government are committed to ensuring that the UK is an excellent host and partner. The noble Lord, Lord Markham, portrayed the UK as quite an unattractive destination for sporting events. I do not recognise that. We will meet our commitments while protecting the interests of fans. We are a country that is open for business and for sporting events.
Going back to the point about the transfer of tickets to friends and families, I reassure noble Lords that we are not criminalising the private transfer of tickets between friends, family and associates at face value. I will now—
Lord Mann (Lab)
The Bill as worded does do that, because it requires the permission of the initial seller to do so. If the initial seller refuses to allow that to happen and requires the tickets to be returned to them, which is an increasing trend, then, as currently worded, the Bill does do that. That perhaps should be looked at.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Maybe we can come back to that in Committee, as we do not think it does. It is more like the normal practice of people reselling them through, which I have done. I will not mention the brand of theatre, but I regularly end up not being able to attend theatres—I do not know whether the Chief Whip has anything to do with that. It is possible to resell tickets through a variety of means without being prohibited by that, but we will come back to this.
The topic of recurrent sporting events is also something we are going to need to come back to. I am happy to talk to people about it individually. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, and my noble friend Lord Foulkes raised this—like others, I am delighted to see him back in his place—as did my noble friend Lord Bassam and the noble Lord, Lord Markham. The time-limited provisions in the Bill are designed to attract specific, one-off events which require the Government to make commitments to event owners during the bidding process. We do not think that regular events have the same requirements as events which hold competitive international bid processes. I reassure noble Lords that, as the Bill was developed, we worked with some of the biggest recurrent sporting events to understand whether there was a demand for such provisions, and that included the London Marathon.
There was some interest, understandably, in the advertising and trading provisions. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, about some of the issues faced by people on ambush marketing, but we did not find a clear or consistent evidence base for their inclusion, and there was insufficient appetite from the sector to fund the enforcement action required of local authorities. We are clear that, if we are establishing criminal offences, enforcement by any organisation other than a public body would not be appropriate or proportionate. However, I am very happy to meet the noble Baroness to discuss that further and I will ask my office to sort that out.
We will continue to support our domestic sport sector and the UK sporting calendar, building on pre-existing relationships and frameworks. The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, noted the work being done on a UK-wide major events strategy, as I think did a couple of other noble Lords. My department intends to publish it within the next 12 months—apologies, but I am not able to give a more precise timeline for that. This will set out our priorities for major events taking place across the UK, covering major events in all sectors, including cultural, sporting and business. Like others, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord McConnell will be working with DCMS on this area.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, raised a really helpful point on inclusivity. He is absolutely right about the need to ensure that our major events remain inclusive. We intend the major events strategy to support this work but, again, I am happy to talk to the noble Lord in more detail about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, talked about something in his contribution which I find really sad: that gay male footballers do not feel able to be honest and open about that. I also welcome his observation about whether young gay men would feel able to play professional football. We welcome the great strides in the environment on inclusiveness at football matches over many years, but we acknowledge that we cannot be complacent in ensuring that our national game is for everyone.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, made a point about the Soft Power Council. It has met multiple times, and its working groups have actively contributed to activity across a range of areas. We look forward to this continuing over the years and months to come. On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, we recognise that the financial landscape for delivering major events across the country can be challenging and we are committed to working with stakeholders from every sector to ensure that events are safe, secure, sustainable and attractive.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is right about our need to ensure that our major events are inclusive and affordable. I have already made that point, but I do not think we have covered affordability, which was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Davies, and by my noble friend Lady Dacres. We anticipate that this too will be included in the major events strategy. We are not clear, however, that we need legislate on that point in this Bill. I look forward, however, to further discussion as the Bill progresses.
There is clearly a range of views across your Lordships’ House on gambling as it relates to sport. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, we do not think that this will prevent customers cashing out on bets on gambling mobile apps while they are in restricted trading zones. I appreciate that my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, raised wider concerns about having a less permissive tone on gambling. Outside this Bill, there are existing measures to limit gambling advertising at sporting venues. We have also announced our intention to consult this year on the banning of sports sponsorship by unlicensed gambling operators. I do not share the scepticism of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the front-of-shirt ban. I think it is significant although, in response to my noble friend Lady Taylor’s point, I do not think it is a panacea. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, is already aware, the Government do not intend to ban gambling advertising at this time. As ever, I would be happy to discuss this topic further with the noble Lord and with any other interested noble Lords from across the House.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Fuller and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, raised the issue of how these provisions will affect small businesses and street traders. The Government will always look to ensure that the Bill’s provisions are implemented proportionately, with a view to minimising disruption to existing businesses, in particular street traders. We also fully recognise that people need support in understanding whether they are impacted by the advertising trading provisions and, if that is the case, what options are available to them. In response to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on making sure that people understand the measures, regulations under the Bill must ensure that guidance is made available on the application of the advertising and trading provisions, and we will be able to require that this is shared with those most likely to be affected, such as street traders.
The prohibition on unauthorised associations is not intended to crack down on local businesses—the example of a B&B was given—showing their support for major events. It applies only to activity that is likely to suggest to the public that there is an official association with an event. By this, we mean that there is a realistic chance that everyday members of the public will consider that such an association exists.
I am coming to the end. I want to talk about proportionate enforcement, because noble Lords are concerned about it. The Bill’s focus is on activity that undermines the integrity of a sporting event and the interests of its commercial partners, or that could disrupt the safe movement of spectators. As with the Birmingham Commonwealth Games, we will work with event organisers and local authorities to ensure that enforcement action is proportionate. The enforcement powers in the Bill will provide a sufficient deterrent while ensuring that effective action can be taken when needed.
I will write to my noble friend Lady Nye and others on the way in which we could increase the fine, and I will also write to my noble friend Lady Taylor and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the transport plan. I will definitely write to the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, on the Finance Act, because I do not have that detail to hand, and I will need to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on her point about sponsorship and fossil fuels.
The provisions in this Bill will further reinforce our world-leading reputation for hosting major sporting events. With it, we are sending a clear message that the UK is not just a home for sport but a prepared, professional and fan-focused host, ready to both host and take on the world. In response to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Wood, on Committee timings, such matters are dealt with through the usual channels, but he can always talk to the Chief Whip. I am grateful to all noble Lords for a varied and interesting debate, and I urge them to support the Bill.
Baroness Twycross
That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 7, Schedule 1, Clauses 8 to 10, Schedule 2, Clauses 11 to 13, Schedule 3, Clauses 14 to 16, Schedule 4, Clause 17, Schedule 5, Clause 18, Schedule 6, Clauses 19 to 30, Title.
Sporting Events Bill [HL]
Monday 22nd June 2026
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Sporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 3-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (19 Jun 2026)
“(ca) Schedule (Industrial action provisions) (“the industrial action provisions”),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts industrial action provisions, which would ban strikes by certain workers, including transport workers, when the sporting events framework is applied to a sporting event.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this first group of amendments in our debates in Committee on the Bill, not least because I was unable to speak at Second Reading. I was physically present but mentally less so, as I had just arrived back on a red-eye flight from the United States—in part, visiting Miami—which was preparing for a major sporting event of its own. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Markham, who spoke for these Benches at Second Reading. I am grateful to the Minister too for the discussions we have had about the Bill, including when I was overseas.
It is a pleasure to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger, to her place. She has joined your Lordships’ House since Second Reading. We look forward to her maiden speech in due course and to her adding her expertise to our scrutiny of sporting measures and much more.
I draw your Lordships’ attention to my register of interests, particularly the hospitality I have received attending sporting events over the past year.
In moving Amendment 1, I will also speak to Amendments 7, 54 and 57, which are also in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Markham. Taken together, these amendments seek to establish provisions relating to industrial action as a core part of the sporting events framework that the Bill ushers in, with the intent of preventing strikes taking place during a sporting event to which the framework conditions have been applied.
Amendment 1 is, very simply, an enabling amendment that would introduce the industrial action provisions. Amendment 7 would ensure that wherever an appropriate national authority applies one or more parts of the framework to a particular event by regulations made under Clause 2, it must at the same time apply the industrial action provisions. It is not an optional extra or something to be applied to some events and not others; rather, it is a mandatory part of the framework itself.
Amendment 54 would insert a new clause requiring that any such regulations specify a period during which these provisions should apply and that this period should be no shorter than the span of the sporting events framework for that particular event. That is to say, it must run from the day that any one of the framework provisions first takes effect to the day that the last provision ceases to have effect.
Amendment 57 would insert the substantive new schedule itself, creating offences for transport workers—covering airports, buses, light rail and passenger railway services—and relevant local authority workers who take strike action during the specified period, alongside offences for organising, permitting or inducing such action. The schedule would create an alternative civil route, allowing the appropriate national authority to impose a financial penalty rather than pursue a prosecution through the courts.
The Committee might ask why all this is necessary. The Government are seeking in the Bill to build a permanent framework so that the United Kingdom does not have to improvise, event by event, each time we play host to a major sporting event and welcome people from across the globe to these shores.
The Bill provides for the protection of ticketing arrangements, advertising rights, trading around venues and commercial rights against unauthorised association, but it does not at present provide protection against one of the most visible and damaging risks to any major event: the disruption caused by industrial action. Noble Lords will recall that the build-up to the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games was repeatedly shadowed by the threat of strike action from the then general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey. Even the then leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, said:
“This is a celebration for the whole country and must not be disrupted”.
In 2022, when Birmingham hosted the Commonwealth Games, ASLEF and the RMT deliberately targeted those hoping to attend by announcing walkouts on the railways either side of the Games. In May this year, staff at Edinburgh and Glasgow airports similarly voted in favour of walking out during the Commonwealth Games, which are due to take place next month. We hope that that has been averted now by a hastily agreed pay deal but, as the unions involved well knew, such a walkout would have had a significant disruptive effect on the operation and commercial viability of those Games.
These are not abstract risks; they are, sadly, recurring features of recent experience under Governments of different compositions, both in the UK and in Scotland. A Bill which seeks to create a comprehensive framework for hosting major events, with a reduced role for Parliament in scrutinising them, simply cannot leave this to chance.
Some noble Lords might think the penalties suggested in our amendments too severe. There are fines without an upper limit on summary conviction in England and Wales, a maximum fine of £50,000 in Northern Ireland and of £20,000 on summary conviction in Scotland, and financial penalties of up to £20,000 under the civil route. I want to highlight that directly, because these are not arbitrary figures. These penalties have been deliberately aligned with those the Government have suggested for the ticket touting offence and the advertising and trading offences elsewhere in the Bill. If the Committee accepts that conduct which threatens the commercial integrity of a major sporting event merits fines of this order then I hope it will also agree that we should not treat conduct which threatens to close down the event entirely any less seriously.
I also draw the Committee’s attention to the safeguards built into Amendment 57. This is not a blanket or indefinite restriction on the right to strike. The prohibition applies only for the specified period tied to the duration of the new framework for a particular sporting event. It applies to transport workers nationally since they are, by definition, mobile, but to local authority workers only in the area where the event is being held. Of course, the ban applies only where the national authority has chosen to apply the sporting events framework at all. The schedule also provides a full enforcement code, notice of intention, the right to make representations, a final notice with reasons, and a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, the sheriff or the county court, as appropriate, mirroring the safeguards attached to the ticket touting provisions already in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Fuller has raised a very important issue about the ability of event organisers to staff these major events effectively. I have added my name to his amendment and look forward to hearing him outline it. I may return with further comments in winding up.
As we heard at Second Reading, this country competes hard and successfully for the privilege of hosting some of the world’s greatest sporting events. Having secured that privilege, we owe it to the athletes, spectators and the millions who tune in to ensure that the events can run smoothly and as planned. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, the premise behind this Bill is that we need to help the organisers of the really big events put on a really good show and ensure that the country itself sweeps away those showstoppers. It recognises that putting on these events requires a national effort. My amendment seeks to ensure that the organisers can be assured of an adequate supply of labour and human capital to make the games, or relevant tournament, a success in the few weeks every decade that the circus rolls into town.
I am reminded that sport is a game of chance. That is why we like it. The uncertainty makes it so alluring. Your favourite does not always win and often there is an upset. That is the whole point. Especially in tournament play, a team’s life can be measured in terms of hours, in the case of a stage 1 knock-out, or weeks if they make it all the way to the final. There are no guarantees in this game.
Back in 2012, one of the key resources for the Olympics was labour. There were 70,000 Games makers. The Minister for Sport at the time, Hugh Robertson, said:
“The 70,000 Games Makers made such a big contribution to London 2012 and the country as a whole. They helped showcase a modern, diverse and fun Britain and warmly welcomed visitors from all over the world”.
Quite.
It was not just the unpaid volunteers and their 8 million hours of effort that made the Games so memorable. On top of that was an army of others who contributed to that success—paid employees involved in broadcasting, catering, cleaning, merchandising, ticketing, security, bar work, selling ice cream and so forth. Shall we say that about 150,000 people in total were engaged to make that event a success over a staggered month, once the Paralympics are taken into account? It might even have been more. We celebrate that and, indeed, without their efforts, there would not have been a celebration at all. People worked around their normal lives to give what time they could, and it worked.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, to intervene for the first time in Committee on this group of amendments is rather an odd one. I had not looked at it when we started out. I also feel that, if you are bringing a games into a country, you are going into an existing framework of laws and rights. If you bring something into a structure and you are going to bid for it, you should take into account whether you can deal with industrial relations. We have done it a couple of times.
As to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I suggest that you know when you will be working at a games or a championship because you have a schedule of events. It is not a randomised thing. You might have extra time in a championship in one of the big team games, but it is a finite amount of time. We do not play until sudden death. With weather like this and rugby union at the moment, it probably would be death if we played too long.
These amendments are a good probe to get a feel of what is happening, but if you are taking on a project you are taking it on with the risk of industrial relations. Trade unions will flex their muscles, but do they have a right to flex their muscles? Do we have a right to say no? I suggest that there is a real question here. Although it is a valid question to ask, I suspect the answer is that you have to take a few knocks when you are doing this and accept a few uncertainties to get it. If you cannot take some action or make something that will accommodate this, you really are not fit to hold a games.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Fuller, for these amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for speaking to this group. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger, to your Lordships’ House; I look forward to future conversations with her on this Bill and other related matters.
The amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, would have the combined effect of introducing a framework to prevent transport and local authority workers engaging in industrial action during specified periods linked to sporting events. This would include creating offences relating to participation in, and the organisation or inducement of, such action. In their manifesto, the Government committed to repeal the minimum service level legislation and other restrictions on the right to strike, and we did this in the Employment Rights Act 2025—so, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made clear, we have existing laws relating to industrial action.
These amendments seek to reintroduce significant restrictions on the ability of workers to take industrial action. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 demonstrated, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. Instead of banning strike action, the Government want to bring in a new era of industrial relations that is built on collaboration and co-operation across parties. We are committed to establishing a new model for industrial relations fit for the 21st century, including an industrial relations framework that establishes firm expectations on how workers and employers should conduct themselves. This includes engaging with one another and working together in the interests of the workforce, the economy and the wider public. Our industrial relations framework will build on our legislative agenda and provide guidance on how employers, workers and unions can work together to deliver positive and effective industrial relations, including during periods of industrial action.
Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, would mean that the right to guaranteed hours, the right to reasonable notice and the right to payments for shifts moved, cancelled or curtailed at short notice do not apply at major sporting events to which the provisions of the Bill have been applied. The flexibility offered by zero-hours contracts and contracts with a minimum number of hours can benefit both workers and employers, but it is our view that without appropriate safeguards this flexibility can become one-sided. The zero-hours measures in the Employment Rights Act 2025 aim to end one-sided flexibility by ensuring that all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability.
I do not think the noble Lord will be surprised to hear that I disagree with him on this being an appropriate amendment. Any exclusions or exemptions at this stage would pre-empt the Government’s consultation on reforms relating to zero-hours and similar contracts, which is currently open. In this consultation, the Government seek to gather insight through the input of stakeholders, including on potential exclusions and exemptions. We need to ensure that the views of all stakeholders are first taken into account before any decisions on exclusions and exemptions are made. We intend to ensure that all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability so that workers can better plan their lives and finances. We would be keen for sporting event stakeholders to participate in the consultation on reforms relating to zero-hours and similar contracts to inform the development of the policy. On the basis of the points I have made, I hope the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Fuller, will not press their amendments.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their comments. As the noble Lord said, there is an element of risk here, but, as we know, this is a proven risk. In 2012, 2022 and earlier this year, we saw the deliberate targeting of major sporting events by trade unions to exert some political pressure, and I was sorry not to hear criticism from the other two Benches about their doing so. We agree that trade unions have the right to make their protest, but I would hope that noble Lords reflect that targeting games such as these, which try to rise above politics—at a geopolitical level as well—should not be targeted in the way that we have seen in the past.
The risk balance has shifted a bit because of some of the changes the Minister outlined. The changes brought in by the Employment Rights Act 2025 do cause problems, which your Lordships’ House scrutinised well and highlighted as that legislation went through. I see that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, is in his place; he made very strong points from the Cross Benches about some of the perverse effects that Act of Parliament may have. However, even if one accepts the argument the Government were making there, sporting events of this nature are very different. These are temporary, one-off events where people are able to work, as my noble friend Lord Fuller said, in a life-changing way for an event that comes and goes, for which the employment is not there any more.
If we do not make the sort of changes to the Bill we have suggested, we worry that the practical effect will be perverse. Rather than offering more secure work, organisers will simply offer less work and circumvent the guaranteed-hours duty by relying on short fixed-term contracts and outsourced or overseas suppliers, or on asking more of unpaid volunteers, rather than the flexible part-time and casual staff who have made the delivery of previous games such a success. We might return to this in some form on Report. I hope we can keep the discussions on this point going, but for now I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Lord Foster of Bath
“(f) Schedule (Sports rights provisions) (“the sports rights provisions”).”
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, in addition to moving Amendment 2, I will speak to the 11 other amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Addington. I declare my interests as the chair of Peers for Gambling Reform and of Action on Gambling.
Together, my 12 amendments cover just two issues. The first is illegal gambling relating to events covered by the Bill, and the second is ensuring that venues hosting events covered by the Bill are free of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship. The Minister has been taking a very keen and welcome interest in tackling the gambling black market. My first group of amendments, relating to sports data, is, in fact, going to help her, because data is the new gold in sport. While still dwarfed by TV rights, the use and sale of data is increasing dramatically. It is currently estimated to be worth $5 billion globally—an estimate that is expected to increase threefold by 2031.
This data is used in a number of remarkably different ways—from sports teams wanting to understand their players’ performances to event organisers providing fans with knowledge to help them create and choose their fantasy football team, for instance. Crucially, however, it is also used by betting companies to help them manage their risk but also to provide their customers with in-game gambling options using real-time data—data that can, because of latency issues, arrive sooner than from a TV feed. This becomes increasingly important with the rise of gambling on the so-called prediction markets. Therefore, to monetise this value, organisers of events covered by the Bill already sell global data rights to organisations known as aggregators, which gather the data and then sell licences for it. They use things like AI camera systems in the gathering of that data. In the current World Cup, Stats Perform serves as FIFA’s first ever official and exclusive world betting data distributor.
These licences are voluntary and are difficult to enforce. At Second Reading I explained, for example, how relatively easy it is for data scouts to go into stadia where events are taking place, collect data and send it on without having permission. This leads to an economic loss to the sport and to those who have licensed the data to then sell on to betting companies, but it also has significant integrity implications. If data can be manipulated by unscrupulous data suppliers, so can the betting markets themselves. In the other licensing agreements such as broadcasting rights, we are used to understanding how and why we need to protect them and have introduced new legislation over the years to help reduce piracy, but this is less true of data piracy.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, if no one else wants to follow the noble Lord, I will add my support to the case that he is making. Like him, I raised this at Second Reading, and I agree with every word he has said, so I do not want my noble friend the Minister to think that this a one-man show of someone who has specific views on gambling. We have to be aware of the significant pressure felt by those who get caught up in gambling. Predictive events and things of this kind are difficult to keep on top of, and it is hard to know what the next challenge might be. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord have a deal of validity, whether or not they are exactly what we should be doing, and I hope that the Minister can respond constructively to a genuine concern.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I wanted to allow some time to raise and discuss the important issue of gambling advertising—I was hoping for more discussion of it. I note that I support Amendments 37, 41 and 44. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, has already made the case on gambling very strongly, and it was something I raised at Second Reading, so I will speak chiefly to my Amendments 42, 45, 49 and 52, which are about fossil fuel advertising. They seek to ensure that sporting events covered by the Bill are free from advertising and sponsorship by fossil fuel companies. We could hardly have picked a better day to be debating these amendments, given the heatwave that the UK is currently facing. One significant impact of that heatwave will be on many sporting events. Many people’s intention to do all sorts of physical activity will be, for very good reason, curtailed in the coming week.
In the Bill, we are talking about highly valued, important events, and they should not be used as platforms to boost the reputation of damaging industries whose products are driving the events that we are currently experiencing. Sponsorship is not philanthropy. Companies invest in sport because they know their association with trusted institutions improves their public image and strengthens their social licence. With this Bill, we have the opportunity to ensure that the biggest events in this country that we host do not become a vehicle for greenwashing. We note that young people are a significant part of the audience of many of these events, and that they are the people who will have to bear the consequences for the longest time.
As I raised at Second Reading—and it became very much a basis for these amendments—this is not something we are dreaming up. Britain would not be able to claim to be world-leading should the Minister say, “Yes, I entirely agree with you” and adopt all my amendments. France became the first European country to ban advertising for fossil fuel products in 2022. The Hague has introduced a legally binding ban on fossil fuel advertising in public spaces. As I said at Second Reading, a number of councils have already shown leadership. Today, we are seeing leadership arriving in Westminster from the rest of the country; this is a place where we could find some more leadership on that. The UN Secretary-General has called for restrictions on fossil fuel advertising similar to those applied to tobacco.
I move to my next set of amendments, which are related but different. Amendments 43, 46, 50 and 53 are about the advertising of less healthy food. There is a huge and similar kind of contradiction of promoting sport as a route to health and well-being while simultaneously allowing sponsorship from products that undermine those outcomes. These and other amendments seek to ensure that sporting events covered by the Bill are free from advertising and sponsorship for less healthy food and drinks. We are talking here about the major ultra-processed food and fast food brands, which are, sadly, major suppliers of the British diet; we are all paying the price for that.
The gap is that Ofcom does not regulate sports sponsorship deals; we have regulations about junk food advertising, but not about sponsorship. Therefore, Ofcom cannot do anything about watching a sporting event and being bombarded with advertising for McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Budweiser and so-called sports drinks like Powerade. Those brands appear everywhere. We do not see adverts for tap water, though it would be quite nice if we did—let us put that down as a thought. This creates a health halo effect: products are conceived and often advertised as compatible with a healthy, active lifestyle when their nutritional profile is anything but.
Public health bodies and parliamentary research have consistently identified marketing as a key driver of childhood obesity. The Government already have policies on direct advertising to act in this area, and historically we saw the bans of cigarette advertising that had to be continually strengthened. We need to see the same thing for ultra-processed and other unhealthy foods. We have an accepted principle that the marketing of less healthy food to children is a legitimate public policy concern. These amendments address an inconsistency in public policy. Sport should be used to inspire healthy lives, not as a platform to promote the consumption of foods we know will shorten people’s lives and make them less healthy.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, in relation to these proposed amendments, I have sympathy with a number of points, particularly as they relate to gaming. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, made very clear the logic behind what he is asking for in these amendments.
Unfortunately, on the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, while I am extremely sympathetic to the issue of climate change, and I will not buy all sorts of things in plastic or plastic bottles and the like, I worry because we are talking about adding things to an ever-extending list; every time we get to a major sporting event, we will look at whether we should add on other things that operate in other countries.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, just spoke about an established principle, and I think that is a far better route by which we should operate in terms of these international sporting events. In other words, our established principles of advertising as they operate in this country should be the principles by which the major sporting events should operate. We cannot spend our time trying to run ahead of policies we have, whether in relation to age-related matters or food and drink-related products.
I have spoken critically on a number of occasions in this Chamber about Coca-Cola and its sponsorship of major sporting events. However, it is a very difficult road we will go down if we start adding on one thing after another—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
To make it clear, when I was talking about an established principle, I was talking about the fact that we have restricted advertising of these products—particularly to children. Therefore, it is a question of how far that restriction goes; it is not about doing something new.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her clarification; I was not absolutely clear on whether she was talking about the established principles or extending the limits in some form or another.
I want to make an observation on a comment the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, made on the last group of amendments. I think I heard him refer to sporting events as ones of “chance” on two occasions. There are a fair number of medallists in this Chamber today who may think, “Well, it wasn’t chance that got me a gold, silver or bronze medal”. Equally, when I refereed rugby, it was very rarely viewed as chance that one team or the other won—though there was the odd chance that the referee might have made an error at the time.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, that I did not mean chance as in random, because I accept that in sport the harder you work, the luckier you get.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend is a doughty warrior when it comes to showing us the harms of gambling—and not only the harms but some of the gambling which is, let us face it, a threat to the integrity of sport if it is not regulated very carefully. Nothing destroys a sporting event like not having faith that the outcome is a fair one. Let us remember that.
In the digital world the harms done to individuals by gambling reach further. This is something we cannot forget when we talk about this. I am pretty sure the Minister will not have done. Indeed, if her officials tried, I should imagine they would not last very long. We have to try to get to a situation where we have some understanding of what is happening here, and the difference that makes to the events themselves, even if we are looking only the sporting value.
The use of data in sport is a fascinating story unto itself, but gathering that data and using it is something that we are only just starting. Most of us are discovering a world that is developing, and then this comes up and we say, “Really? That is how you have done it?” Indeed, those with heavy training schedules, especially in the recent past, undoubtedly had a great deal of data controlling what they ate, how long they were out, and what they were doing. I can dimly remember somebody talking about it, and us ignoring it, but there we are—the world moves on.
I hope that when the Minister responds to these amendments, she gives us a full view of what the Government seek to do generally in this field, as well as specifically in this Bill. We have a series of considerations here. With advertising, smoking is the obvious case: it was an accepted part of advertising and it has been removed. How are we working that in? How are we going forward? Is it a general principle we are talking about or specifics? What are the limitations as we move forward? Let us face it: if you have the Olympics at moment, you have Coca-Cola. It is not a health product, I think anybody would agree. It might be much less damaging in some of its forms than others, but it is not a health product and nor are the other soft drinks that go with it.
I hope the Minister will give us some idea of what the Government’s thinking is and where they are going. They may save themselves a little time if they can say which other legislation will affect this. This is a big subject we are touching on with this Bill. An idea of what the overall picture is, and where the Government think they are going, would be an important thing to take away from all this.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this boils down to a question of balance and proportion. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their amendments and for sparking this debate. I know they are sincere and consistent in raising concerns about each of the areas that they have highlighted through their amendments, but I think some of the remedies they are suggesting are disproportionate and too strict.
Not everyone feels the way that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness do about gambling, for instance. Indeed, many people find, without having any gambling problems, that it enhances their enjoyment of sporting events. Many people in this country gamble without developing gambling harms, and it is right that we have protections in place to maintain that. As the Gambling Commission found with its recent advertising campaign advising people on the dangers of a workplace sweepstake—which came across as a bit po-faced to many sports fans—that question of balance always has to be carefully looked at and struck, while maintaining the protections for more vulnerable people.
I veer more towards what my noble friend Lord Hayward outlined: looking for established principles, rather than a list that we would continue to add to as times and tastes change. I suppose this is one of the problems with a framework Bill, where we are trying to anticipate social mores and debates that might come. Previously, in generations past, we have been able to have these debates each time we have been lucky enough to host a major sporting event, and have had these discussions in the context of the social and political views across the country at the time. So it is a useful debate, but we are not attracted to the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, have tabled in this group.
As we look at these issues, we would like to see greater attention paid to the illegal unlicensed market in gambling, which is a real and growing threat. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, touched on this. Staking with illegal operators is now estimated at £16.6 billion, more than three times its level in 2019 and roughly double what it was just two years ago. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that His Majesty’s Treasury could lose up to £500 million if recent tax changes push more consumers towards unlicensed sites. One in six gamblers—some 2.8 million people—says they are already aware of at least one unregulated brand. Among the under-25s, one in five has used an illegal site already and as many as 420,000 schoolchildren may be engaging with the illegal betting market. Advertising spending by unregulated operators is forecast to exceed £1 billion by 2028—more than half of all gambling advertising expenditure in this country and up from just 16% in 2019.
While we do not agree with all the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, has tabled, we would like to see greater action from the Government on this growing problem in the country. They have recognised this; in February, the Secretary of State announced plans to stop unlicensed operators sponsoring Premier League football clubs and to establish a cross-industry illegal gambling taskforce. The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, who is the Gambling Minister, said at the time:
“We will not hesitate to act where we see people being put at risk”.
Since February, we have still not seen that consultation launched. The industry—including operators, which are asking for tougher action against their unlicensed rivals—is still waiting with bated breath. Can the Minister update us on the important work being done in connection with the major sporting events across the world that we will see this summer as well as for future sporting events that we are lucky enough to host here in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling these amendments. I also thank the noble Lords who spoke to them.
Amendments 2, 5, 6, 61, 65 and 67, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Addington, seek to regulate sports rights provisions. Sporting bodies are free to enter into their own sponsorship and broadcast arrangements. In recent years, through these arrangements, the gambling sector has made a significant financial contribution to sports including football, rugby, horseracing and snooker. Of course, I recognise the strength of feeling in this area, which my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton spoke to and clearly shares. However, I hope noble Lords can appreciate the Government’s desire to balance the sport sector’s commercial freedom with our ongoing efforts to reduce both gambling harm and the shift towards illegal gambling highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I agree with him that any action we take in this area should be proportionate.
We take the relationship between gambling and sport very seriously, particularly given its potential impact on children, young people and the vulnerable. I will come on to soft drinks later but, in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on what this Government are doing on gambling harm, since 2024 we have made a number of significant reforms to gambling regulation with a view to tackling gambling harm, building on the White Paper developed and published by the previous Government. We have introduced a statutory gambling levy, which will provide for the first time independent and sustainable funding for research into and the prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms. This has more than doubled the money from the previous voluntary levy. Each year, 20% of funding will be spent on research to strengthen the evidence base on gambling-related harms, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Foster, is aware. This includes a research fellow within DCMS to look specifically at gambling advertising, bringing together the evidence to see what appropriate steps might be taken. Currently, as the noble Lord is aware, we have no plans to limit gambling advertising further than it is already—clearly, it is already regulated.
We have also introduced online slot stake limits and reforms to marketing rules and we will continue to press operators to improve their self-exclusion schemes. In relation to sport and advertising particularly, we welcome publication of sponsorship codes of conduct from all major sports, as well as the Premier League’s ban on front-of-shirt sponsorship from the start of the 2026-27 season. We have further confirmed that we will consult as soon as possible on the banning of unlicensed sponsorship within sports: in response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I am very keen, as the Minister, for this to start as soon as possible. I will write to him if we can give further detail on when that will come.
The Government are committed to tackling gambling harm and clear that we must be evidence-led in our policy-making. We will consider next steps to further raise standards in consideration of the evolving evidence base.
In the same vein, moving to limit these commercial partnerships without considering the potential significant impact on the sports and broadcast sector would in our view be inappropriate. The existing regulatory framework for gambling advertising and sponsorship is robust. All operators advertising in Great Britain must hold a Gambling Commission licence and abide by advertising codes enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority. Operators found to be in breach of these codes can be referred to the Gambling Commission for further enforcement action, which may include licence reviews or fines. The Commission has taken a range of enforcement actions on the back of referrals from the ASA, including ones resulting in fines for a range of issues where the ASA has found that the behaviour was particularly egregious.
In relation to the point on the prediction market made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, in order to operate in Britain, any prediction market requires a licence from the Gambling Commission. We monitor potential impacts of prediction markets carefully. I do not have a response on the extensive points that the noble Lord made on data, but I am happy to meet him to go through that. Therefore, with full respect for this important subject, I do not believe this amendment is necessary, or that this is the right vehicle for changes to gambling legislation. This is a narrowly defined Bill, aimed at attracting and delivering major sporting events.
I turn now to Amendment 37, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Addington, and the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which deals with the important issue of shielding children and vulnerable people from harmful or age-restricted advertising. This is a priority for this Government. Event owners will have to comply with existing legislation and other regulatory requirements in relation to advertising. While there is no specific definition of advertising that is harmful to children in the existing advertising codes, the codes require that children be protected from advertisements that could cause physical, mental or moral harm. The codes also set out the responsibilities of advertisers in relation to age-restricted advertising such as gambling and alcohol advertising. Both through work related to the statutory gambling levy and wider government efforts, my department will continue to work with a wide range of stakeholders to examine the evidence base on the impacts of young people’s exposure to age-restricted advertising such as alcohol and gambling advertising, taking into account the impact on the advertising, media and sports sectors.
Returning to the advertising provisions in the Bill, the advertising offence is designed primarily to protect event owners’ commercial rights by preventing businesses carrying out unauthorised advertising in a restricted zone. However, any activity by event sponsors must be in accordance with existing legislation and other regulatory requirements, including those regarding protection from harms.
I move on to amendments 41, 44, 47, 48 and 51, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. They would make it an offence to carry out gambling advertising activity in a restricted advertising zone created by regulations under the Bill. These amendments require a court to share certain information with the Gambling Commission following the conviction of a person who committed an offence under the Bill by carrying out gambling advertising activity. They would also prevent any authorisation under the Bill being granted in respect of gambling advertising.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for her support for my remarks. I neither accuse her nor imply anything about who her support will be for the next leader of her party. I merely point out that almost everything she said is word for word what Mr Andy Burnham, now MP, said only two weeks ago.
I am also grateful to others who have spoken. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, subsequently by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and then picked up by the Minister, that we should be basing our decisions on principles: I entirely agree with that remark. But it seems to me there is one principle that we have accepted in this country for a very long time: that public health issues need to be dealt with at public level. The Government have accepted issues around unhealthy food, to put it like that, as a public health issue. They have also accepted, as the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, that gambling has to be treated as a public health issue. Therefore, I genuinely believe that we have got a principle that all noble Lords on all sides could get behind in relation to these amendments.
I genuinely accept that the Minister is keen to keep the Bill as narrow as possible, but she pointed out in her remarks that the Bill is about protecting the rights of the event organisers—her very words. I therefore do not understand why we are placing measures in the Bill to protect rights in terms of ticketing, advertising and so on, yet she is not prepared to put a similar protection for the rights of event organisers in relation to their sports data. It seems that there is an absolute equivalence with all the other rights that we are protecting. Failing to do that in the way I am proposing means that there is a real opportunity for the growth of the black market, which she is keen to prevent. I ask her to look again in detail at this particular issue. It has been very carefully thought through. A lot of people have been engaged in work on this, and I hope that we come back to it at a later stage in our deliberations.
On the black market, we need to be very careful to be alert to the fact that a lot of the growth in the black market is coming from people who have withdrawn themselves from gambling using a programme called GAMSTOP, and suddenly, because of all the advertising for a big event, they want to gamble again. They are not allowed to on the legal market, so they end up going to the black market, which is why we now have advertisements that say “not on GAMSTOP”. It is wrong to allow that to happen. I hope that the Minister will look at that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Markham
“(f) Schedule (Delivery authority provisions) (“the delivery authority provisions”).”
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring that, further to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Hayward, if I was ever to win anything significant, it would definitely be by a massive stroke of luck.
The Government’s clearly stated intention for the Bill is to create an event-agnostic framework that can be applied to certain future sporting events without requiring new primary legislation. The Government have been very open in their belief that the Bill will cover all those possible scenarios. Our amendments seek to probe to see whether this is the case. The amendments are made in the spirit of helpfulness, as I know are the other amendments made by my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter.
By way of an example, say we wish to bid for one of the major and very large events, such as the Olympics or the World Cup. The delivery of those events requires significant cross-sector effort, bringing together national governing and representative bodies for the sports, such as the British Olympic Association or the Football Association; local government, including the host cities; and central government departments. We might need to construct new stadia or event spaces, purchase land and improve public transport links, for example.
Hosting such an event would potentially require the creation of a specific body to co-ordinate and oversee the event’s organisation. This is the approach that we are all very familiar with and something that we had to do with the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, with which we created the Olympic Delivery Authority to work alongside the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The ODA was responsible for the redevelopment of the Stratford area, the construction of the sporting ventures, and the infrastructure and transport planning—all things I was very familiar with as a previous chair of the London and Continental Railways, which developed a lot of that work.
The Bill, however, does not provide a mechanism for the Government to create a delivery authority for a sporting event, should it become necessary. If Ministers needed to establish such a body for future events they would require primary legislation. Of course, this is an outcome that we all wish to avoid and it is the Government’s stated intention. If it transpires that bespoke primary legislation is indeed required for a future sporting event, what is the purpose of the Bill that we are trying to pass?
Amendments 2A, 6A, 58A, 58B and 61A, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Parkinson, seek to rectify this shortcoming by creating a mechanism for the Secretary of State to establish a delivery authority if they believe it necessary. In drafting these amendments, I have taken inspiration from the provisions in the 2006 Act, which established the Olympic Delivery Authority, and amended them so that they can be applied generally to any event to which the framework applies. Amendments 58A and 58B seek to allow the Secretary of State to establish transfer schemes to the delivery authority and for the authority to be dissolved by order.
Amendment 61A seeks to insert a new schedule into the Bill. The first part of this proposed new schedule would provide for the establishment of a delivery authority and sets out the authority’s general functions. Those are to
“prepare for the sporting event … make arrangements in preparation for or in connection with the use or management … of premises and other facilities acquired, constructed or adapted in preparation for the sporting event … ensure that adequate arrangements are made for the provision, management and control of facilities for transport in connection with the sporting event, and … ensure the safety of individuals participating in or attending the … event”.
Part 2 of the proposed new Schedule sets out the constitution of a delivery authority, including membership of between seven and 11 people, the appointment of a chair and chief executive, and the procedure for removing members. Part 3 would provide procedural rules of delegation by the authority and seeks for the Secretary of State to require the authority to submit a report on the authority’s progress, which must be laid before Parliament. Part 4 would allow the Secretary of State to provide the authority with financial assistance, if necessary, subject to the affirmative resolution of the Bill.
I am aware that other provisions may be needed in secondary legislation. I will not pretend that we have all the detail behind this right, but we are trying to set out likely scenarios in which we would have to set up such a delivery authority and the things that would need to be considered. We are trying to build those into the framework. We ask the Government to come back more thoroughly on the schedules that would be needed, but we hope these are helpful by way of example.
I hope that the Minister understands the point that I am trying to make. If the Government believe that this Bill, when passed, will never need further primary legislation then it needs to cover all the possible requirements for future events. If we hope to host some major sporting events in the future then we may well need a delivery authority to support such an event. These amendments would allow the Government to do just that. I beg to move.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, my amendment covers a slightly different area. It seeks to ensure that cultural events affiliated with a sporting event are part of the Bill’s scope. We on these Benches support the Bill’s aim to create a legislative framework. However, past experience has shown that cultural events such as the Cultural Olympiad were hard to include and very much seen as an afterthought. Those of us who witnessed and participated in the events in 2012 will argue that they were far from that; they were integral and magnificent—the opening and closing ceremonies, and the cultural coming together across the UK.
The Bill’s current wording refers to events “sporting or otherwise” and
“held in connection with the sporting event”.
This is a probing amendment that seeks assurance from the Minister that this is the case and asks her to consider making the reference to cultural events more explicit.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 3 and 4 are in my name. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Although it is a pro bono position, I declare my interest as a board member of the London Marathon Foundation.
The purpose of these amendments is very simple. They seek to give the appropriate national authorities, rather than just the Secretary of State, the power to apply the unauthorised association provisions and all the transport provisions that are included in this Bill. Appropriate national authorities, as defined in the Bill, are the Secretary of State or the devolved Administrations. These amendments would widen the scope to designate the five parts of the sporting events framework set out. Their aim is simply to future-proof the Bill so that powers can be conferred by the appropriate authority if there is a reasonable case to do so.
For example, if greater powers were devolved in relation to transport provision then the legislation would enable devolved authorities to apply these powers without needing to change primary legislation again. There simply is nothing more behind them than that. These amendments are part of a package of amendments that I have tabled or signed that seek to extend the scope of the Bill to include major, regular, UK-based events and to ensure greater flexibility in the potential use of the framework provisions. I will explain in more detail my arguments for doing this when we discuss group 6.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on starting with a question that should be asked. When we have done the big games in the past, there were infrastructure measures that had to happen, but they do not seem to be in the Bill. So how do they fit in? It is that simple. I probably should have had my name down somewhere—my fault, sorry. But it is one of the things that we really must get out about how the Bill is going to work. Is it something we tag on to this, or is it something we expect to be smaller secondary legislation, or is it part of the whole that we are doing here?
As I said, we have always had to discuss this before—well, we have done it twice here; the other times, it was Scottish legislation. If we need a proper planning structure to build stuff, how is that fitting in? It does not seem to be that obvious. If the Government have a scheme coming, let us hear about it, because it is one of the things that has been of great benefit. In Birmingham, we learnt how to do it quickly; in London we learned how to do it well with lots of planning. Where do those two structures fit into what is going on here? It is a very reasonable series of questions that have been asked, and I hope the Minister has a very reasonable set of answers.
Most people who are taking part in this wish the project well. There is a lot of nodding going on here, so if we have got that going on, let us find out how that happens. If there are further questions, let us find out what inspires them, and let us see what we can do. This is something which might be very good. Let us confirm it is, or at least that it sounds like it is.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I apologise. I did not get in to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I did not want to interrupt.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
I remind the Chamber of my interests. I am chair of Sport Wales, and I am also part of the Laureus World Sports Academy, which is a group of ex-athletes who come together to raise money to put back into sport.
I have my name on Amendments 3 and 4 but support others in this group. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, I think the Bill is too tightly defined. If we are going to bid for major games in the future, it would be useful to have in this Bill everything that we might possibly need. We have huge experience from various national bodies and organisations in this country—I have previously been a board member of the London Marathon, so I have seen that—and it would make sense to use the expertise that they have.
The noble Lord, Lord Markham, talked about transport. One of the massive successes of the 2012 Games was the transport. It was an incredible experience for disabled people. A huge number of staff were available at various train stations and interchanges. The planning for that started years ahead of the Games, thanks in no small part to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the work he did when he was commissioner at TfL. These are the things that we have to get right. The world of bidding is going to change. If we get the Bill right, it sends a strong message to the international community that we take bidding for major games really seriously and it is something that we want to do.
I joined your Lordships’ Chamber in 2010 when we were considering the then London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill. Although there was a lot of support for it at the time, that Bill was tidying up things that had happened earlier. It makes sense that if we could just slightly widen the scope and think about other measures that are needed, it would save us a lot of hassle and stress in the meantime, and it would make sure that the world knew that we are ready to bid for the biggest sporting events.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. As it is the first time I have spoken in Committee, I declare my technology interests as adviser to the Crown Estate, Endava plc and Simmons and Simmons LLP, and as non-executive director at Avalanche BVI Inc and the Avalanche Foundation. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, it seems that I am too slow to compete with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who never moved that quick on a rugby field. Nevertheless, he still has some pace when it comes to putting down amendments.
Before I speak to my Amendments 90, 92 and 93 in this group, I commend the remarks of other noble Lords. If this Bill’s purpose is to have a situation where we are well set when we come to bids for mega events such as the Olympic and Paralympic Games, the FIFA men’s and women’s World Cup, and so on, we need to ensure that the Bill includes everything that we can know at this stage. If we take a principles-based approach throughout, that gives us the best opportunity. As my noble friend Lord Parkinson pointed out in the form of my noble friend Lord Markham, we know now that gaps exist because we understand from 2006 the need to put in place an ODA, as it was then. As my noble friend Lord Markham said, these amendments may not be word-for-word perfect, but the principle behind them is sound. We are either doing this Bill to have everything that we know at this stage covered to put us in that pole position to host these events, or we are not. There needs to be a distinction when we are going through the Bill between adding provisions—baubling as the Government might call it—and enabling it to be full to its stated purpose. I believe that much of the debate in this group of amendments goes to that second critical point: to make the Bill as fulsome as it can be to achieve its objectives.
Amendment 90 is very much in that vein. It would exclude registered charities from the provisions of the Bill when they are acting under the restrictions of their charitable status. The amendment clearly sets out that if a charity is engaged in a commercial activity or for commercial reasons has a connection with a third party, that obviously would not be included. It also sets out the potential for government to consider a limit. If it is a mega charity, perhaps the provisions of the Bill should apply. This was an issue which we faced very clearly when we were doing the London Olympic and Paralympic Games. It is a cardinal principle when you are involved with these mega events. You have to protect and defend the rights of the marketing partners without whose funding, support and value in kind these events could not happen. It is in no sense trespassing one centimetre on the right of charitable organisations, of which we have such a flourishing community across the UK, particularly local charities, to pursue their charitable objectives without transgressing the provisions of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that point.
Similarly, Amendment 92 looks to a social value assessment. This is not extending the provisions of the Bill; it is merely intensifying the impact that these events can have. Again, at London 2012, we looked at everything through a social, economic, environmental and cultural lens. The provisions I have set out in proposed Amendment 92 give some illustrations of social value, but they are in no means an exhaustive list. In reality, it does not impose greater restrictions on an event; it enables it to state its value, through commercial and sporting, into that wider social, environmental and inclusion potential—all positive for the games themselves. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my three amendments.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Holmes of Richmond, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury and Lady Grey-Thompson, for these amendments. Amendments 2A, 6A, 58A, 58B and 61A, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, would allow for the establishment of a delivery authority to prepare for and manage the delivery of a sporting event. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, this is question that is worth asking. I am grateful for the opportunity to reply, and I hope I can give the noble Lord some reassurance on this point.
Although we recognise the intent of these amendments, we do not believe they are necessary. The nature and scope of delivery models for major sporting events are determined based on what is appropriate and proportionate to the needs and requirements of each specific event, including funding and the set-up of governance to support oversight. Establishing a delivery authority is one way to do this. Indeed, it is a method that the UK has relied on before, including, as a number of noble Lords noted, for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
However, setting up a delivery authority with the proposed powers has typically been the exception, not the rule, when it comes to delivering the major sporting events that are likely to fall within the scope of the Bill. Similarly, it is rarely necessary for delivery models to be established on a statutory basis. For example, for Euro 2028, a special purpose incorporated company was established by the five relevant football associations to deliver the event—a proportionate approach, not least because Euro 2028 is relying overwhelmingly on existing stadia and infrastructure without the need for bespoke statutory powers.
However, where a different form of oversight is rightly required, the Government can establish an appropriate delivery body subject to appropriate additional parliamentary scrutiny, as the Olympic Delivery Authority regularly was. In the case of London 2012, the delivery authority was created to take on certain powers as a result of a specific set of requirements that it had to deliver. The hosting of those Games required dedicated oversight with powers to co-ordinate different authorities, given the scale of public expenditure required, including significant investment in the construction of infrastructure such as new venues. I understand that we have seen a shift in what the IOC requires. For example, it now encourages hosts to use existing infrastructure.
In the Government’s view, these amendments are not necessary given the very limited eventualities. The requisite ability to establish delivery bodies already exists to a sufficient degree.
Amendments 3 and 4, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Evans of Bowes Park and Lady Grey-Thompson, would enable the devolved Governments to apply the unauthorised association and transport provisions in the Bill. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that we need to get it right. However, I assure your Lordships’ Committee that we have worked closely with the devolved Governments on the provisions in the Bill. Where the provisions are within their devolved competence, we have ensured that they can be applied unilaterally, as is the case with the ticket touting, advertising and trading provisions.
The unauthorised association provisions are reserved and are not within the devolved Governments’ legislative competence. However, they extend UK-wide. The Secretary of State will be able to apply them to events taking place anywhere in the UK, including where no part of the event is taking place in England.
The transport provisions in the Bill relate specifically to transport in England and can be exercised only by the Secretary of State. Transport is devolved, with each Government responsible within their jurisdiction. We explored whether devolved Governments wished to apply the transport provisions in their jurisdictions, and it was confirmed that they were not required.
In England, the provisions are necessary to facilitate the co-ordinated delivery of certain large-scale sporting events that require integrated planning, clear responsibilities and co-ordinated action across boundaries. For UK-wide events, transport planning is co-ordinated through established intergovernmental and operational mechanisms.
Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would insert into the Bill a definition of “sporting event” to include associated events such as qualifying rounds, ceremonies, fan zones, official viewing areas and cultural events. I completely agree with the spirit of this amendment in that major sporting events are often about much more than what happens on the field of play. I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for meeting to discuss this.
Lord Markham (Con)
I am grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords and thank the Minister for her comments. I welcome the general support from noble Lords. I hope the Minister can see that this is all brought with the constructive view of making sure that this framework legislation can be comprehensive enough to work.
I must admit that I remain to be convinced. The points raised by my noble friends Lady Evans and Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, are quite serious and need to be covered. At the same time, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, for widening it to include cultural events, which was done very successfully in the Commonwealth Games by Andy Street. It is definitely worth while trying to bring that into this.
I would like to challenge the Minister further, if I may. She said it was not required because it is possible that these delivery bodies will not be required and there are only two examples where they were. However, her very admission of the fact there have been two occasions where they have been required surely makes the point. Why would we not want to put it into enabling legislation? Why would we not have it in place so that it is possible? It is no problem; if you do not need it, you do not need it, so you ignore those bits. However, if we are in the circumstance, which has happened twice before, where you need a delivery body, all of a sudden you need primary legislation. That begs the question: what is the point of having this framework legislation at all?
The whole point is that we are trying to have enabling legislation to cover all those eventualities. Noble Lords must admit that these are very real eventualities as it has happened twice already. I would hope that, unless the Minister can say with absolute 100% certainty that we would not need such delivery bodies in the future, she will reflect on those points before Report and think about embracing such amendments. For now, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Moynihan
“(2A) Before making regulations under this section, the appropriate national authority must take all necessary steps to comply with any relevant host contract.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the appropriate national authority will comply with a host city contract or a host nation contract before making regulations applying the sporting events framework.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, a former chairman of the British Olympic Association from 2005 through 2012, and, throughout those seven years, a member of the International Olympic Committee, which had oversight of the Games. I was very sorry not to be present at Second Reading. I was not a Member of your Lordships’ House at the time, but I am delighted and honoured to be back in a different capacity. I read the Second Reading debate with interest, as well as the Bill and the Explanatory Notes.
Let me say from the outset that I share with the Government the view that every possible assistance should be offered to bring major international sporting events to the United Kingdom, and this Bill can and will send a signal that we are keen to encourage international sporting events to come to the United Kingdom. However, this Bill is event-agnostic. It is seeking to provide a common legislative framework to assist that process, but it is very unclear which events are covered by that process: an issue that I know my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park will address in future amendments.
I support the comments made by my noble friends during the debate on the earlier group of amendments and I contend that there will be a need for primary legislation. Because there will definitely be a need for primary legislation, should we ever bid for the Olympic and Paralympic Games to come to the United Kingdom, or hold a FIFA World Cup here, it is incumbent on the Government at least to accept the principle that there will need to be primary legislation at that time.
I will start with a very important point. There seems to be an underlying theme to the Bill: that it is for the Government to decide whether we host international events. Let us take the Olympic Games. It is for the British Olympic Association, as an independent organisation, to decide whether we will bid for the Olympic Games. On many occasions in the past, the association has held a competition between different cities to encourage one or a number to come forward before choosing the preferred city. Once the association has identified the city, it then sits down with the mayor, as it did with Ken Livingstone in the early years of this century.
There was a major debate about whether the Olympic Games should be in the West End or the East End of London. It was wisely decided—not least because Ken Livingstone urged this point and said it was conditional on his support—that the regeneration of the East End of London could be achieved by hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012. That regeneration, which would have happened anyway at some stage in the future, was accelerated to 2012, because it had to be done by that date. At that point, there was a discussion with the then Government. With the Government’s support, those involved, particularly those from the British Olympic Association, were able to table a request to the International Olympic Committee to host the Games in London in 2012.
The first and most important point is that it should be recognised that the role of the Government in hosting international Olympic events, or international sporting events, is one of support for the bidders for those events. In tabling my amendments, I am reinforcing that point. This is a simple enabling measure. It provides a route for government support to be channelled through secondary legislation. I simply say to the Minister that if, when we host the Olympic Games in the future, the idea is that it is going to be debated on the Floor of your Lordships’ House for one hour, covering all the detail that will be required for what was, in 2012 figures, north of £10 billion of investment, it is inconceivable that Parliament would not sit back and accept that.
At the moment, I just remind the Minister that it would require a statutory instrument as per this Bill to be debated on a regret Motion, and that regret Motion would be limited, as it is at the present time, to an hour in your Lordships’ House. Therefore, if we are going to put all the framework in this Bill into regulations, I really do not believe that that is sufficient time for Parliament to consider all the many issues that will be required if we were to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games in the future.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I think in the excitement of thinking we might have another Olympics and Paralympics, it is easy to forget the huge amount of work in—the reality of—bidding for these Games. For me, 2012 was the best eight weeks of my life, but it is easy to forget that the process of even getting to bidding was a massive risk. A lot of people put their careers on the line in saying that we should bid. Most of the way through bidding for 2012, we were told that there was no point in bothering because it was Paris’s turn; amazingly, we were able to turn that on its head.
When you go to Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, it is easy to forget that legacy at that point was not defined as we look at it now. If a handout amendment is actually a real thing, I think one of the successes of Olympic Park was in looking at it as a mayoral development corporation—I had an amendment to the Localism Bill—and about having the foresight to see what was required and what the park would look like 10, 20 or 50 years beyond the Games. That is why we need to be quite bold with some of the things that we are doing in this Bill. We are way beyond sport for sport’s sake. Certainly, Amendment 20, where the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, would change “is likely to bring” to “will bring”, is really important, because we can do so much through the power of sport.
Back in 2000 Nelson Mandela said:
“Sport has the power to change the world”—
that is quoted everywhere. The bit that gets forgotten is what he said afterwards: that sport inspires, unites the youth and breaks down racial and societal barriers—better than Governments, he said. We should not underestimate the power of sport. We should be thinking about legacy. If we are bidding for anything, we need to build in legacy right at the very beginning, when we are talking about bidding for the Games, because the value for money and the return you can get on it is significant. We should be thinking about schools programmes, which 2012 did brilliantly—coaching, clubs and facilities. An increase in participation is such a tiny part of what we are trying to do. We should be bold and say, “Yes, actually, we demand that there is a really strong legacy as part of anything that we bid for”, so that we stop having these spikes when everyone loves football for a bit or rugby for a bit, and it actually genuinely changes the way we participate.
This group of amendments covers this, with the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, in terms of who we are trying to get to, to be physically active. We should look at these amendments and maybe think of a slightly different form of wording but be really bold in what we want for the United Kingdom and beyond.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and to support all the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan. It is such a pleasure to have him back in your Lordships’ House. The boat is now being steered again. He made so many points that were completely on point. It is worth reiterating that there is only one city on the planet which has hosted the Olympic Games three times in the modern era, from 1896, and that is London. Another city will equal us in two years’ time, and that is similarly impressive. There will be a need to consider future bids, be they in London or in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The points that my noble friend makes are exactly right. The scale of the funding, never mind all the other issues he raised, will be of parliamentary interest, to say the least. He cites some excellent examples from other parts of the world, and he is right to celebrate the sporting ambassador who has stridden across the world for decades: John Coates, who has done so much for sport, not just for Australian sport but for world sport. My noble friend’s points to that end were very well made.
Lord Addington (LD)
I managed to avoid false starting the two Paralympians this time. We are back to asking whether the Bill is wide enough to enable itself to do what it has to do within the known requirements of hosting an Olympic Games. It probably looks about right for a championship that is using existing infrastructure. Even if the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games want us to use that where we can, you may well have to construct something new and possibly something temporary. All these elements have been in both of those things and at very different scales. But if this is going to be something new, in the case of the Olympics particularly, it seems to change what it wants over time, because it is an evolving thing.
The London Olympics changed the expectation of how much change and benefit you could bring. It actually has been a solid thing, and that was based on many, many hours in Committee—I know because I was there—when the Government of the day said, “Let’s get this right, or at least get a framework, or at least ask, even, as a training exercise, what it would look like”. I think half the time the Government did not expect to have to implement it, but that is merely the observation of somebody who sat there through Committee. So there will have to be something new, and where in the current thinking does it fit in, if we have to do that?
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, enjoyed his little sabbatical, but it is better to have him back. I say that as one who dodged that. But where are we going to get that little bit of interaction? If it is needed, where is the space for it? You cannot know. You can hope and you can prepare the ground, but if we have to do something different, where is the flexibility? I think there would be, shall we say, around the House, a degree of sympathy if you had to change the Bill to bring a little bit of flexibility in here, if it was needed. I do not think too many people would object.
In this debate we are trying to find out whether we need to do something else. If the Olympics change, if the Commonwealth Games change or even if the World Cup changes and we want something else in there and still think it is worth doing, how do we accommodate that? In this Bill, where do the Government say that there is the flexibility to say that this bit will not apply and that we have to do something else? To future-proof the Bill, to an extent, we will have to do that. We got some of the answer to that in a previous debate, but I look forward to hearing how much more thought the Government have put into doing this. It is a real question that we need an answer for, and the Bill probably has to have a degree of flexibility put in at its heart. We want this to succeed. The Bill will have completely failed if we have to go back and redraft something else. We do not want to do that. What is the Minister doing to prevent that?
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, what an honour it is to follow such distinguished experts in this field: my noble friend Lord Moynihan—like other noble Lords, I am delighted to have him back—my noble friend Lord Holmes and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It is yet another example, if ever we need it, of how lucky we are to have such a range of expertise in this Chamber.
The points in this debate are very similar to many of the points made on the last groupings. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, while we want this framework agreement to work, is it possible to make it wide enough to cater for all the eventualities that we are talking about? As my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned, there is new technology coming along. They were mentioning AI in the Paris bid—think how much it has moved on from then. There are new rights that need to be taken on board, whether LGBT rights as it was last time or some new rights going forward. There are new funding arrangements that are very likely to be put in place.
I struggle to see how we can set this all up in an all-encompassing framework Bill, and I think I speak for all noble Lords when I say that an hour’s debate on some sort of secondary legislation will not be able to cut it in these instances. I do not believe I can add very much to the expertise that we have heard already but, as others have said, this must leave a sports legacy, so I am thoroughly behind the points that have been made. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s points, because there is a lot to consider here.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for tabling these amendments. I am grateful to him for taking an interest in the Bill, and it is genuinely good to see the noble Lord back and elevated to the Opposition Front Bench, albeit in another department. How could the noble Lord go to another department? The contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, have been noted by a number of speakers today. We are privileged to have the expertise of the noble Lords and the noble Baroness, who have taken part in the process and been part of that work to define the vision required to win bids.
I hope I can give all noble Lords reassurance that legacy matters to this Government and, as a former London Assembly member, I am clear on the physical legacy that this city received from the 2012 Games. On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, as to whether it is wide enough as a framework, we believe that it is and I will go through the amendments in turn. I hope I can give noble Lords some reassurance.
Amendments 8 and 13 seek to ensure that the appropriate national authority will comply with a host city contract or a host nation contract before regulations applying the sporting events framework can be made. There are numerous agreements and contracts to which this could apply and, in our view, it would not be appropriate or necessary to make the time that regulations would be made and brought into force contingent on compliance with them all. The framework is designed to bring into effect commitments made by national Governments at the point of bidding for an event. The regulations applying the sporting events framework are therefore the closest equivalent to complying with a host nation contract, in so far as one exists; they provide the means for Governments to meet their guarantees to event owners.
Compliance with a host nation contract and the creation of regulations to apply the framework are the same stage of the process, so one cannot come before the other. Host city contracts are made by a combination of local authorities and event delivery companies directly with event owners. These relate to local event needs and are signed in advance of the event. It would not be appropriate to make a national authority a signatory of that agreement, when the provisions contained within it are for local delivery and the national authority is not responsible for delivering them.
In some cases, the appropriate national authority may extend provisions in the framework to enable a local authority to fulfil its hosting agreement—for example, to enable the local authority to take enforcement action against unauthorised advertising and trading in a restricted zone. But, as with the host nation contract, any host city contract that relies on this framework would be complied with only at the point when the regulations are made, thereby making this amendment redundant.
On Amendments 18, 20 and 21, I understand that their intent is to further narrow the conditions for applying the framework, requiring an event to be of significant international interest, to bring economic but not social benefits and to have a sporting legacy in the United Kingdom. However, the Government do not agree with this approach. While major sporting events generate international interest and build the UK’s standing around the globe, they also deliver other significant and wide-ranging benefits, as was widely acknowledged during Second Reading. These are not restricted only to economic benefits, nor the sporting legacy of such events, although I agree that that is significant. They bring sport to different communities and demographics; they improve opportunities to increase participation in sport and physical activity; and they generate moments of collective experience that contribute directly to social cohesion and advance our national story.
The Bill is drafted to ensure that these kinds of major sporting events can still be captured by the Bill and that while international interest is one important factor, it is not the only factor on which an event could access these provisions. International interest is a broad category and may be shaped by many factors, including global and regional politics, changing media trends and the diplomatic ambitions of the Government. This amendment would need a highly specific definition of international interest for it to be required as applicable. Those thresholds would be entirely arbitrary, set at a point in time and potentially irrelevant or outdated soon after. What is deemed significant international interest can vary significantly. For instance, particular events may generate extremely high interest in certain parts of the world and relatively little in others. The test of international interest as currently framed provides flexibility to consider a range of factors on a case-by-case basis.
I am happy to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and other noble Lords further on the points raised in this debate. I know and appreciate that all noble Lords taking part in the debate want the Bill to deliver what we intend. However, for the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has participated in the debate, particularly my noble friends in sport, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. I did not live up to their expectations; I was first of the losers, getting only a silver medal at the Olympic Games while they had many gold medals to their names—albeit that I got a silver medal by 0.6 of a second behind the East German eight, who subsequently sued for the damage that the drugs they took during that event had done to them. But that did not prevent them retaining their gold medal. To be honest, all sports men and women know that it is the event on the day and the memory of that event that matter most.
“(5A) Regulations made by an appropriate national authority under this section may not have effect for a period that is longer than the specified period.(5B) In subsection (5A), the “specified period” means a period of time that must—(a) begin no earlier than the beginning of the period of 21 days ending immediately before the day on which the sporting event begins, and(b) end no later than the end of the period of 5 days beginning with the day after the day on which the sporting event ends.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would establish a maximum period in which the sporting events framework can be implemented in relation to a particular event.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 9 and in doing so, I also speak to Amendments 10, 11 and 12, which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Markham. These four amendments address two related but distinct concerns about the regulation-making powers conferred by Clause 2 of the Bill: first, how long those regulations can remain in force in relation to any particular sporting event; and, secondly, the parliamentary scrutiny to which all such regulations should be subject.
Clause 2 allows an appropriate national authority to make regulations to implement the sporting events framework for a particular event. What it does not do is place any limit on the period for which those regulations may be in effect. We believe that is a clear omission. The framework is designed to apply to specific and time-limited events, so it would be strange and, we submit, improper if regulations made for a particular event remained on the statute book indefinitely or for a period bearing no relation to the duration of the event.
Amendment 9 seeks to address this issue by applying the same temporal limit that Parliament has already judged appropriate in comparable legislation. The approach we have taken mirrors precisely the time periods used in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 and the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2020. That is a pre-event period beginning no earlier than 21 days before the event starts, and a post-event tail of no more than 5 days after it ends. Parliament has already, therefore, debated and endorsed this model; it is tried and tested, and I see no reason why we should not adopt it here today. I hope the Minister will agree.
Amendment 10 is a probing amendment to be looked at alongside Amendment 9. It proposes a single flat period of 50 days as an alternative limit. We have tabled this to invite the Committee to discuss whether a straightforward numerical limit would be a preferable way of proceeding. We think 50 days is a generous period; the London Olympic and Paralympic Games, between them, spanned 45 days, the UEFA European Championship runs for approximately one calendar month, and the FIFA World Cup takes 39 days from the first match to the final whistle. A limit of 50 days would therefore give Ministers considerably more time than any of these events actually require in practice; it gives a generous margin, while providing Parliament and the public with the reassurance that exceptional powers do not quietly become permanent fixtures of our regulatory landscape.
I imagine the Minister will cite the need for flexibility in her response, and I understand that this framework needs to be flexible for different types of events. If the sporting event framework cannot be applied, administered and wound down within 50 days, however, I would be interested in hearing what event she has in mind that might require a longer period than this. If flexibility is the key, then Amendment 9 provides the perfect solution.
Amendments 11 and 12 address parliamentary scrutiny of these regulations. As currently drafted, the Bill applies the affirmative procedure only to the first set of regulations which apply to the framework of a given event. Subsequent regulations that may amend, extend or otherwise modify the framework as applied are subject only to the negative procedure. Amendments 11 and 12 would remove that distinction and require all regulations made under Clause 2 to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
The rationale for this is straightforward: the regulations we are discussing will implement a framework which represents a quite significant infringement on the rights and obligations of businesses, organisers, local authorities and members of the public in connection with major sporting events—as my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned in the previous group in relation to the Olympic Games in Paris, where they took in expansive issues such as AI and facial recognition. Parliament should have the opportunity to properly debate and approve all such regulations, not merely the first wave of them. I hope by the time we get there, this experiment with time-limited guillotines on secondary legislation will not still be in place.
The delegated powers memorandum, published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, justifies the limited use of the affirmative procedure because it is assumed that subsequent regulations will
“contain operational or technical detail or provide for unforeseen changes in how an event is to be delivered. To ensure there is an efficient mechanism to apply or amend such provisions at a later stage of programme delivery, the government considers that the negative procedure is appropriate”.
However, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House has pointed out, there is no limitation placed on the scope of subsequent regulations. The first set of regulations may apply only one aspect of the sporting event framework to an event, but the Government may change their mind; the second set may simply apply the rest of the provisions. Given this, there is no logic in inviting Parliament to agree to the initial regulations applying the framework, while allowing the subsequent and potentially very significant modifications to pass without scrutiny.
If the Government’s argument here is simply one of administrative convenience, I gently suggest that that is not an adequate reason for reducing parliamentary oversight of powers of this nature. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, once again, if it comes to sporting events, I have a bit of reminiscing to do. I can remember a very good little row we had on the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill about changing local taxation; it was a bedroom tax that some people saw as a way of solving local government finance problems in Birmingham. It was then pointed out that there were only two weeks allowed for this process. I think it would have been quite a high surcharge that would have benefited the hoteliers of Wolverhampton and Coventry if it had been brought in.
If we get an idea about timescale, it becomes very important that it is adequately placed, and that is in the tradition of what we have done. Making sure that that continues to apply means we are taking a new piece of legislation and applying it to a tradition of what we have done in legislation: there are shorter periods needed for things, and these are exceptional circumstances. If we are going to do that, we are fine. Not allowing these things to become permanent is a fair point here, because they are very unusual things. Indeed, the entire premise of the Bill is that we are doing stuff for extraordinary circumstances.
I hope that the Government will give a reply that reassures the noble Lord that his amendment is not necessary, but I think it probably was worth while to give us the idea of the aim of it. These are short-term measures.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for introducing this group of amendments, seconded by the noble Lord, Lord Markham. I express my gratitude to all noble Lords taking part today, and say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that I would have been very distraught if such an avid Leeds United supporter had been lost to the Chamber—to be continued, I am sure.
These amendments—which I think are probing, especially Amendments 9 and 10—relate to the maximum period that the framework provisions in the Bill can be applied to a sports event. Amendment 10 would limit to 50 days the maximum period that any regulations applying the framework provisions in the Bill could be in effect. Amendment 9 limits provisions in the Bill to being in effect no more than 21 days before an event begins and five days after an event concludes. We do not consider, as the noble Lord probably predicted, such a blanket approach to be workable in the context of an event-neutral Bill.
Application of the provisions must be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the requirements of each event. These will inevitably have varying geographical and temporal application. The advertising and trading offences are heavily localised and will apply only to places which are used for, or in connection with, a sporting event, and the surrounding areas. The timing of these provisions will correspond with how and when venues are used during the competition period. None the less, where it is practicable to build in time limits—as these amendments seek to do, albeit in a less targeted way—we believe we have already done so. That is why, for example, the Bill already sets clear time limitations on the periods that the advertising and trading offences can be applied. These time limitations build on lessons learned from previous events. The advertising and trading offences in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 could apply for no more than 21 days before the event’s opening ceremony. Under Clauses 8(6) and 11(6), the advertising and trading offences under this Bill can be in place for no more than 10 days before the beginning of a sporting event and end no later than five days after the event concludes. For the majority of locations, we expect the offences will come into effect a day before a place is used for, or in connection with, an event and end on the day that any activity associated with that place finishes.
When it comes to the period during which the ticket touting offence or prohibition on unauthorised association can be applied, the Government do not consider it is appropriate in the context of a framework Bill to limit or prescribe this on the face of the Bill. This could mean that we are unable to deliver on our commitments to event owners and apply the provisions when they are genuinely required. For instance, application of the ticketing offence for each event will be driven predominantly by when tickets to the event are first expected to go on sale or be made available to the public. For some events, this is likely to be over a year in advance of the event taking place—I hope this specifically answers the point that the noble Lord made. As a principle, the Government expect provisions to be in place no longer than is necessary to protect commercial rights and the interests of fans. On top of that, we want to ensure that there is appropriate time to raise awareness of the offence before the event and be clear with the public about what it means for the sale and resale of tickets. The Government expect any prohibition on unauthorised association to be in place no longer than is necessary to prevent the commercial exploitation of an event. We expect this period would correspond with the awarding of host rights and delivery of the event but would be considered on a case-by-case basis in consultation with event owners taking into account lessons learned from previous events.
Finally, any temporary traffic regulation order made under Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for the purposes set out in paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 5 to the Bill can be in place for no more than 28 days before the beginning of a sporting event and end no later than five days after the event concludes. Any temporary traffic regulation notices may remain in effect only for a maximum period of 21 days.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response, particularly the reassurances she has given and the explanation about ticketing powers, transport restrictions and so on. As she rightly said, these are probing amendments, but they are probing with a purpose. The Bill seeks to take some quite sweeping powers, in some cases restricting people’s liberties, the operation of commercial businesses and much more. We want to make sure that where those powers are taken, they are not on the statute book for longer than they need to be. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, these are exceptional measures for extraordinary circumstances. That is important to get right, so we will take another look at the Bill in light of what the Minister has said and make sure we are satisfied that that is the case. We think we are being generous with a 50-day limit; if the Olympic and Paralympic Games can take place within that window, it is hard to envisage a major sporting event that might need longer. We will take that away and look at it further.
On Amendments 11 and 12 and the point about secondary legislation, I am grateful for what the Minister said about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I look forward to hearing what the Government say in detail, ahead of Report, on its concerns about the Bill here. I am not sure I quite agree that Parliament will have the opportunity for a full debate; at the moment, secondary legislation is limited to an hour, and we have heard repeatedly, even today, of the significant issues that need to be looked at each time we are legislating for the hosting of a major sporting event. So, we have some concerns there.
We certainly would be concerned if there was a two-tier structure of the first set of regulations and the subsequent ones, which could be very significant. I hope the Government will continue to look at that ahead of Report, because I am pretty sure we will return to that, certainly given the criticisms of the committee. With that, I thank the Minister for her reply, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 9.
Lord Addington
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment, and others in the name of Lord Addington, seek to challenge the Government’s exclusion of certain sporting events, specifically those events which are regularly held in the UK, but may benefit from the provisions in this Bill.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, we have a series of amendments here seeking to challenge the Government’s exclusion of certain sporting events at home from some of the benefits of this Bill. There are some good things here. We saw that they were beneficial—the traffic arrangements and other special things—but why not extend them to events happening only within the country, such as Wimbledon, if we want to make those changes, or to things that happen regularly? Six Nations rugby is an example where we are coping, but we would need new frameworks and structures for anything that would expand it. We also have half an eye on what happens with big cultural events.
We are taking short-term measures for short-term functions which could be expanded and could help. That is the essence of these amendments—trying to push a good idea a little further. The Government have got a good idea here. Let us do something more with it. Let us make sure that every big sporting event—and every cultural event, why not?—has access to the governmental changes that could help it be run better. I could expand on this for a long time, but I would end up repeating myself. It is a good idea. Let us make sure it touches more of the world. I beg to move.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 17, 19 and 22 to 25 in my name, on which I am again grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and support Amendments 14 and 16 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to which I have added my name. These amendments share a simple purpose: to correct what I believe is a significant gap in the Bill. They seek to widen the definition of events to which the framework provisions may apply so that major, regular, UK-based sporting events—those woven into the fabric of our national life—are not excluded from their potential benefits.
That is the problem before us. As drafted, the Bill risks overlooking the very events that define Britain as a global sporting nation and deliver exactly what Ministers say they want this legislation to achieve: economic growth, international prestige and community pride. As I set out at Second Reading, Wimbledon, the Open, the London Marathon and the British Grand Prix are among the most recognisable sporting events in the world, and they are ours. Yet, as things stand, they fall outside the Bill’s scope and the greater protections that it is looking to afford. This is not just surprising; it is a missed opportunity.
I am grateful to many of the major sports organisers across the sector, from cricket to golf and motor racing to tennis and running, that have engaged with me and other noble Lords on this issue and provided clear and compelling arguments as to why regular, established, UK-based events of national and international importance should not be placed at a competitive disadvantage or overlooked by what is supposed to be a framework piece of legislation designed to support the UK’s sports sector. Their message is consistent: while the Bill is welcome, its current scope is too narrow. My amendments attempt to address that gap carefully and proportionately. This is not about opening the floodgates. The extension I propose is explicitly limited to events that are large, regular, UK-based and, crucially, likely to be of “international or national interest” and
“likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or a part of it”.
Following my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s observations, perhaps “likely to” is not the right drafting, but I nevertheless believe they would be a sensible and targeted refinement.
Amendment 25 proposes a further criterion that the Government may wish to consider, recognising something equally important that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, touched on: the role of major UK events in driving participation and sporting legacy. It would require the Government to consider how an event contributes to increasing physical activity, particularly among underrepresented groups—women and girls, disabled people and ethnic minorities. That is not an add-on; it goes to the heart of what sport can and should achieve.
To be clear, these amendments would not place a specific obligation on the Government automatically to extend the provisions in the Bill. They would not create automatic entitlements. What they would do is provide the power to act through the framework set out for iconic homegrown major events where there is a public and agreed interest to do so. That is what future-proofing this Bill should look like.
Let me illustrate the case with one example: the British Grand Prix, which will take place in just a couple of weeks. It is the largest weekend sporting event in the United Kingdom, expected to attract around 570,000 spectators this year. It is the largest Grand Prix on the international calendar and, in 2025, generated £167 million in economic value over a weekend. By any reasonable measure, this is an event of national sporting significance. But we do not have guaranteed long-term security for it. We cannot and must not assume that we will retain this iconic race and all the wider economic benefits it brings. Silverstone has to work hard year after year to ensure it remains on the racing calendar. We must not forget that there have been moments when the British Grand Prix’s future at Silverstone has been in doubt. If that were to happen again, it would rightly be a matter of national concern—or certainly in my house.
The question is whether we equip the Government with the tools through the framework provisions set out in this Bill to act early or wait until the event is potentially lost and only then consider how we might be able to bring it back. As the Bill stands, I fear the position is closer to the latter. My amendments are strongly focused on allowing the former. I suggest that is the more prudent course.
We see similar issues elsewhere. This summer, we are staging the ICC Women’s T20 Cricket World Cup. We have already seen examples of ambush marketing and breaches of intellectual property and commercial rights for the ICC and its venues. These are not abstract concerns. They have real financial consequences and a real material impact on the current and future value of commercial rights, at the very time when the ECB is working hard to secure greater reinvestment and growth in the women’s game. Again, this is precisely the kind of challenge that the framework is designed to address, but it cannot do so effectively if key UK-based events fall outside its reach.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister and her officials for the constructive discussion we have had since Second Reading, and I welcome the continued engagement that I know they are having with the sector. I hope that, between now and Report, we can continue to work together to ensure that the Bill fully reflects the needs and realities of modern sport in this country. The underlying point is simple: our great homegrown sporting events are not just spectacles but strategic national assets. They contribute to our economy, our global standing and our shared sense of identity. This Bill gives us an opportunity to support them more effectively, but to do so we must ensure that they are not inadvertently left behind. These amendments offer a modest, proportionate and practical way to achieve that. I very much hope the Government will take that opportunity.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 19 and 22 to 25 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, to which I have attached my name, and I thank the Minister for sparing time to discuss these. I said when we met that there are a number of sports organisations that are feeling a bit unloved at the moment. These are events that have a global reach and help cement our standing on the world stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, mentioned the London Marathon. I think I competed in 17 of them—it is quite hard to remember when you get to that many. I know I did one more than my husband. I also commentate on the wheelchair race for the BBC. The marathon is not just the race itself. Anyone who walks up the Embankment at 6.30 pm on the Sunday will see people valiantly keeping going, to try to make it to the finish line. On Westminster Bridge the next morning, you also see the hundreds of people who have competed standing there with their medals, wanting to take a photo in front of Big Ben.
Beyond that, the impact is quite significant. It puts London on the map as a city, and it brings a huge amount of tourism. People stay in London for days afterwards, thanks to the many good deals that the marathon has negotiated with various restaurants and different companies around the city. We need to think about this in a slightly different way. That is positive chemistry and association that you cannot buy. It is because people feel amazingly good about putting themselves through 26.2 miles around the city.
I will speak briefly to Amendment 25, because it is really important. Mostly, athletes will mention something they saw at another event that inspired them to do sport. That is probably because they are asked about it a lot. But we cannot underestimate this—it is not just about people seeing these moments in time and doing sport. They will do lots of other things, and 2012 was a brilliant example of that, such as people who have gone into the creative industries because of what they saw.
The Minister talked about wanting to change the health of our nation, which is incredibly important. To quote a bunch of statistics, Women in Sport has said that 80% of women in the UK are not fit enough to be healthy. That has a massive impact on jobs, pensions, life—everything. It means hitting frailty at an earlier age. ukactive has said that we have a generation of children who are more likely to die before their parents because of inactivity. This is really worrying, and we have to do something quite radical.
It is not necessarily the Bill’s responsibility to do that; we need some joined-up government. We need to look at physical literacy in primary schools and progression steps. We also need to look at the cost of the pathway for athletes who aspire to compete at the highest level. SportsAid data, which is probably a little bit out of date now, shows the average cost of the pathway for a teenage athlete is £10,000 a year. I imagine that is significantly higher now. There are a lot of families who cannot afford that, but what we can do is broaden the base of participation.
I am particularly interested in Amendment 25 and what we can do to encourage more disabled people to be active. Activity Alliance has said that disabled people not only find it hard to be physically active but that they are actually quite worried about how it is perceived if they are physically active, so we need to look at this in a different way. I was not a product of special education—thank goodness, because it meant I actually received an education, when a lot of children who went through special ed did not. As much as the world has moved on in many ways, that was actually really good for enabling disabled children to be physically active. Mainstreaming, which is much better for education, has actually made some of those things much harder. I receive emails at least monthly, often weekly, about how disabled children in schools are not able to take part in PE.
That is not a problem for this Bill—it is an issue for the Department for Education. But unless we are more explicit about what we are trying to do and how we are trying to change some of these stubborn inequalities, we are never going to move it on. In Wales we are incredibly lucky that we have the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act, which gives us a very useful framing for what we are trying to do to encourage young people to be active. The Sport England campaign, This Girl Can, was ground-breaking. For the first time, it showed real women doing sport—as opposed to Olympians or Paralympians, who look slightly different. But we cannot expect just an advertising campaign to radically change what we do, so any way we can think differently about developing a fit and healthy nation that truly stays engaged in physical activity is really worth exploring in more detail.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I echo the comments of my colleagues across the Chamber in relation to this set of amendments, although I tend to disagree—or will clarify—in relation to one of the amendments. This is an enabling Bill. Surely, therefore, it should provide the opportunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has said, for major sporting events which wish to make use of the Bill—whether it is the RFU, the LTA or whoever—to be able to come forward and say to a Government, “We wish to use this Bill for the following reasons”. Surely that is the objective of this legislation.
The point has been made a number of times already that sporting frameworks change, and we cannot guarantee that the Olympic Games, European Championships, et cetera, will be the same in 15 or 20 years’ time, or whenever it may happen to be. Structures of international competition change. If ever there was an example of one—and I am surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, did not refer to it—it is the announcement in the last few days that the London Marathon is going to move from one day to two, with the objective of having 100,000 participants.
It is about the level of attraction from around the world. Most people look at the London Marathon and say, “Oh, it’s just the London Marathon”. It is not; it is part of an international body of marathons, a set group of them. If there are 100,000 participants next year, we are going to have many hundreds of thousands of visitors. There are transport and all sorts of other implications. Surely, if this legislation is anything, it should be available to that sort of sporting evolution, because it is so positive both for this nation and for fitness in general.
I wish to make a brief observation in relation to the amendments, where they cite certain categories of people. I just ask, for reasons most people in this Chamber would recognise and which I identified at Second Reading, that where there is specific identification of women, girls, the disabled and ethnic minorities, we either use the classifications of the Equality Act or just stop at
“removing barriers to physical activity”.
I speak, as I identified on previous occasions, as the founder chairman of the world’s first gay rugby club, a structure that now has 100 clubs around the world and an international structure where we compete on a regular basis. Certainly, I know only too well the difficulties and the challenges associated with bidding and with organising international competitions, with people coming from other parts of the world.
We had the European championships in Birmingham less than a year after the Commonwealth Games. The competition, the Union Cup, was the largest sporting competition in the Midlands after the Commonwealth Games over the following 12 months. There are international competitions all the way down—they restructure and they reorganise. But I ask that we remove barriers to physical activity for underrepresented groups and stop at that point, rather than trying to cite specific examples, because we risk excluding some groups or others, and I know that is not the intention of those who have proposed these amendments.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hayward. Were I to imagine myself—as I never would—on the Bishops’ Bench, in approaching this set of amendments I would be very much reminded of the parable of the prodigal son.
The Bill rightly sets out a whole raft of provisions for mega sporting events that come to the United Kingdom on occasion. Events already listed by my noble friend Lady Evans, such as Wimbledon, the British Grand Prix, and so on, do their thing year in, year out, staging world-class events which are far greater than sporting celebrations and competitions, with economic, social and cultural benefit which goes far beyond, for example, Wimbledon, SW19.
In asserting the principles in the Bill that have to be in place when it comes to international bids, it seems odd that at least some of these provisions would not be available to those extraordinarily impactful sporting events that are the very fabric not only of our sporting nation but of our culture. I ask the Minister to consider, if not implementing these amendments, the essence behind them and to how it could be threaded into the Bill. Further to my noble friend Lord Hayward’s comments on frameworks, why would the Government not want that to be available to the sporting events that wish to avail themselves of some parts of it? Ambush marketing is ambush marketing, whether it is targeted at the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games or the Wimbledon Championships every year.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Evans and I have a lot in common—we both support Norwich City Football Club, and we show our allegiance to it—but I disagree with her in her amendments. I did not contribute to the last debate, but it is safe to say that it confirmed what I think we all know: that, while this may be an enabling Bill, if we actually capture one of these global events, we will need to have specific legislation anyway. If that is the case, we will not be doing any more than virtue signalling in the Bill. The conclusion that all the noble Lords have made is that the Bill is incomplete and half-full. I will not say that it is half-baked, but there is plenty more work to be done on it.
However, if the Bill is incomplete, I do not think that it is the right thing at all to extend it in scope to other events, because the mission creep brings politics into sport. Of course, it is very difficult to keep it there, but it brings politics into sport by law. It will prevent somebody who is interested in public discourse from having an opinion and gives them leverage over the event. It will sanitise so much of the activity that goes on around the game. It will make unlawful things that are part and parcel of what we do—certain trade, advertisements and things such as that; it stops innovation—for Wimbledon, the rugby union, the rugby league, the Grand Prix, the Open, the Test match, Premier League and, if we listen to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, cultural events such as the Proms and Taylor Swift. Where does this end?
I am concerned that, however well-intentioned it is, it could backfire. My noble friend Lady Evans talked about a gap to be filled. I see it a different way; I see this creating a chasm between the fans and the men in blazers, who want this for their own narrow purposes. We have grown the well-trusted and well-organised events of global repute that we host without the benefits of the Bill. While it is an enabling Bill and has very important new rules for traffic wardens, I am not sure that having more traffic wardens is enough in and of itself.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank my noble friend for giving way, but just for clarification, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, my noble friend Lady Evans, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and I made absolutely clear that it is not a case of the Bill encompassing these competitions; it is the sporting authorities asking that they might make use of some of the facilities of the Bill.
Lord Fuller (Con)
We are ending up in a mission creep by introducing new offences for individuals—we will talk about ticketing later on.
I realise I have a minority view, but I want to express it, and I should do. There is a misdirection with all these amendments that by putting them on a list, the Government can keep them here. I just do not think that is a reasonable assertion. The organising bodies, such as the British Automobile Racing Club, the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club at Wimbledon have to work hard, need to live off their wits and need to want to keep these events here. By putting them on a list and bringing them within scope, it will potentially upset the events that we know and love by bringing them into the political space. I just think that that is the wrong thing to do.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, maybe I can set my noble friend Lord Fuller’s mind to rest. Along with colleagues in the shadow DCMS team, I have spoken to a number of the major sporting bodies, which are keen, as some of our noble friends said, to avail themselves of some of the opportunities of the Bill if the scope could be broadened to allow them to do so. That is the key test: where they wish to do so. My noble friends are right, as we have been throughout the Bill, to talk about some of the restrictions and burdens that come with it, but it is very clear that there is an appetite in the sporting world beyond the one-off events—such as the Olympic, Paralympic or Commonwealth Games, which we host from time to time—for some of our major sporting events that happen on a more regular basis to be included in the framework and for us not to be playing second fiddle.
At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, challenged us to be a bit bolder in the Bill, and this has been a very good group of amendments and debate that have encouraged us to do that. We heard a huge number of examples of the major sporting events, which bring delight to people across this country and across the world on a regular basis. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and particularly my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park, for bringing their amendments, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to see if we can be bolder and give those advantages to many other sporting organisations as well. My noble friend Lady Evans described these events as the ones that that define Britain as a major sporting power. It would be unthinkable to imagine some of them disappearing from our calendars.
I pay tribute to my noble friend’s work with the London Marathon Foundation. As my noble friend Lord Hayward noted, it is marvellous to see that the London Marathon will extend to two days next year, including many more people. Of course, it is competing with so many other marathons around the world. People come to these shores because they want to run on the streets of London and because it is such a well-organised marathon, but we are competing constantly with the potential for people to go to other cities and parts of the world.
There would be consternation in my house if Formula 1 did not include a race in the United Kingdom. The UK is one of only two nations to have hosted a Grand Prix every year since Formula 1 began in 1950, and for that not to be the case is unthinkable. I am glad that Silverstone is secure through its current contract until at least 2034, but that requires hard work by the organisers. There is constant competition. This is a sport whose global popularity is increasing. We have to keep on our toes and make sure that we continue to deliver the brilliant events that people are expecting. As my noble friend said, the British Grand Prix attracts more than 500,000 people annually, generates £100 million in local economic impact each year and contributes to a wider Formula 1 ecosystem in the UK that is worth over £12 billion annually. When one thinks of how many of the teams are based in the United Kingdom, the supply chains and R&D that ripples from that, just to take one sport for as an example, we can see the benefits. The key question is how we can broaden the Bill, if possible, to allow those that wish to do so to take advantage of some of that boldness—
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I anticipate that the Minister may say that it is quite difficult to broaden this without being specific. I have one thought, having listened to this debate and been very supportive of what has been said. If, for example, the R&A for the Open golf wanted to avail itself of the benefits of the sporting events framework that we are putting into legislation, would it not be possible to distinguish between the international federations that recognise these events as international events on their calendars?
Take Wimbledon, the marathon or golf’s Open Championship. All are recognised by the relevant international federations and placed on their calendars. If we are looking for a way to put this into legislation, it might be worth considering defining it along those lines, overtly avoiding the problem that everybody might be able to apply for their own event. That would rule out, for example, the Boat Race. I can see significant problems with the transport provisions of the Bill if they were applied to the Boat Race and the whole west of London on Boat Race day. I give that as an example and a helpful contribution that I hope the Minister can take away and consider.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank my noble friend, who has rowed in the Boat Race, for his constructive and very good challenge. We are looking for a way of broadening the Bill in a rational way. He is right to draw the distinction with events that are internationally renowned. As my noble friend Lady Evans says, these are the ones that define our well-earned sporting reputation for being able to host such major events on the global stage. Whether it is done through that or another metric, this is well worth looking at in greater detail as we head to Report.
My noble friend Lord Fuller asked where this all ends, but the question really is: where does this begin? We are promised a major events strategy from DCMS. I understand that the Government have taken the legislative slot that is available and proceeded with the Bill now. They are right to do so, but it is a shame that we did not have that strategy in advance of this Bill. It would have informed some of the debates here and answered some of the questions that noble Lords have raised on cultural events, music events and ticketing provisions that apply there as well. Perhaps the Minister can say a bit more about when we might see that major events strategy, how it is designed to feed into this framework and the thinking that has gone on in her department in drawing up this Bill in advance of that strategy. It is slightly unfortunate that we are discussing it this way around because of the legislative time available.
I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group. If we can work constructively, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan and others suggest, we can take the opportunity to be a bit bolder and help the organisers of major sporting events—which do so much to enhance the soft power and renown of this country—to do so even better in the future.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Lady Evans of Bowes Park and Lady Grey-Thompson, for these amendments and for their time to discuss an important topic. Regarding the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I genuinely appreciate the spirit in which he and others have tabled these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, gave a remarkable list of recurring events that we have in this country and highlighted the value—including the economic value—of events such as Silverstone.
I assure your Lordships’ Committee that the Government are committed to supporting our domestic sports sector and the UK’s sporting calendar, building on the strong partnerships and existing frameworks already in place. This work will be underpinned by the UK-wide major events strategy, which—in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—my department intends to publish within the next 12 months. This will set out our priorities for major events taking place across the UK, covering major events in all sectors—cultural, sporting and business. I hope that the process of undertaking this strategy makes some of those sporting organisations that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, says feel unloved now feel that this puts them front and centre of our minds and priorities at DCMS.
The time-limited provisions in the Bill are designed to attract specific one-off events that require the Government to make commitments to event owners during the bidding process. It is not possible to secure the hosting rights for these events without making such commitments. Global competition to secure these events is only increasing. For the UK to remain competitive against this global competition for the biggest international events, we need to show that we are event ready to meet event owner requirements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, made a point around the Cricket World Cup. The nature of the framework means that we expect particular events to be considered on a case-by-case basis. However, the ICC Cricket World Cup is the type of event that could meet the conditions, depending on the exact circumstances of the event. In contrast, events that are hosted on a recurrent basis in the UK do not generally have the same externally set mandatory requirements as events that hold competitive international bid processes.
As the Bill was developed, we worked closely with some of the biggest recurrent sporting events to understand the demand for these provisions. While there was some interest in the advertising and trading provisions, we found that there was no clear or consistent evidence base on the negative economic impact of the status quo for the inclusion of a breadth of successfully recurring domestic events. Where interest was expressed, we also found that there was insufficient appetite from the sector to fund the enforcement action that would be required of local authorities should these provisions be extended to them. We are continuing the discussions with relevant bodies that have taken place since Second Reading.
No assessment was provided during the discussions prior to Second Reading of the likely enforcement burden. Given that these are criminal offences, enforcement by any organisation other than a public body would not be appropriate or proportionate. None the less, I am genuinely grateful for the constructive ways in which noble Lords have raised points regarding the potential for us going further and for highlighting the importance of recurrent sporting events. They have a significant, cherished and valuable role for the nation.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, about the London Marathon potentially having 100,000 athletes and accompanying visitors—I will not be taking part and am more likely to be an accompanying visitor—shows the scale of these domestic events. I would welcome further discussion with noble Lords on this matter and will continue to listen to views from the sports sector. Upon reviewing any new evidence, I will consider carefully what steps would be appropriate and practical.
On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, around better facilities for women and girls, the Government’s £400 million investment into grass-roots facilities will continue to support increased participation for women and girls through a place-based approach across the UK over the next four years. We will more than double priority access to grass-roots football pitches for women and girls in England as part of plans to honour the Lionesses’ victory at UEFA Women’s Euro 2025, as well as dedicating flagship sites to the Lionesses. The Football Foundation has also launched the Lionesses HERe to Play fund, providing small grants to create welcoming, safe and accessible facilities for women and girls.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and others also highlighted provision and access for people with disabilities or other protected characteristics, which I look forward to debating in a future group in Committee on Wednesday. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his suggestion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised the point about how we encourage physical activity and, critically, make sure that we do not just have elites and then the rest who are not fit and healthy. The development of grass-roots sport outside school and how we encourage physical activity is critical for this Government. This year, we are already investing £85 million through the multisport grass-roots facility programme to build and upgrade high-quality grass-roots sports pitches and facilities in the communities across the UK that need them most. This is part of a total package of at least £400 million that will be invested in new and upgraded grass-roots sports facilities in communities right across the country.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it just goes to show that, if you are speaking on a lot of amendments, you should try to get your mind on the right one. I thank everybody who has taken part. This has actually been a very good debate in terms of the policy going forward, with possibly one exception, but I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is getting to know his colleagues very well. We have established a consensus that there are a lot of good things proposed in the Bill, such as the idea you must preserve certain things because they are a good unto themselves economically, culturally and socially. I wish I had tried to match the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, with a list of events, because hers was pretty impressive—I have a few in there as well.
There are some very good ideas here, although possibly not the whole list. Certain things about traffic on a regular basis probably going through might be extremely useful. An event structure, if it comes up and if we eventually get round to it—and who knows what is coming in the next 12 months—might be an interesting thing to bring in. As the noble Baroness said, people are not saying this is a bad Bill. They are saying it is a good Bill and asking, “Can we actually take some of its benefits and push them out to somewhere else?”
The traffic issue is one that really catches my mind, getting people to and from events, and if you have traffic controls, making sure that there is something in place before the big events happen. This is probably happening in other ways, but this is a nice regular way of doing it. If the Government are prepared to engage on that, even on a long-term basis, and say they will use some of the capacity, that would be something which would make people’s lives easier, you would get more out of it and you would ensure economic potential. That is rough; there are variations.
The idea is that some sporting legacy and encouragement should go through. That is the thing the Olympics got wrong. We had a wonderful event but we had no physical sporting legacy, certainly not towards grass-roots level. There are a couple of veterans here of the committee that looked at it. It is the thing we failed to do. With all that success, this is what we failed to do, because we know it does not happen by osmosis. You have to have some actual involvement. I hope we will go back to this later on in the Bill. But that is one of the things that we have got wrong that we know about. I hope that the Minister, in further discussions on the Bill and going forward in this area, takes on board what has been said, because there is much here that we would like to expand on.
Irritating a Government by saying “Yes, we agree with you and can we have a bit more please?” is actually one of the nicer ways of irritating a Government. Every now and then, we manage to do it to all Governments—may this Government have more of it. This is something we are engaging in to get the best out of. Generally speaking, it has been a very positive debate, and I will withdraw my amendment. I hope we will address this again at a later stage, with more information. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment, and others in the name of Baroness Bonham-Carter, adds a condition for Sporting Events to be covered by this Bill, to make the sporting event free to air.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
In moving Amendment 15 I shall speak also to Amendments 26 and 79. We on these Benches think that we should consider events that are in scope of this Bill as part of the free-to-air listed events regime for audiences in the UK, so that those who wish to follow a sporting event but cannot obtain a ticket due to cost or availability can still follow the event without incurring extra costs and potentially having to pay for a subscription; and, secondly and really importantly, because it will encourage and expand the audience for such events. Watching a sport you do not know can spark interest and participation. There are more chances that this will happen if the event is not behind a paywall.
The Minister mentioned the Lionesses. Thanks to the BBC championing and broadcasting women’s football free to air, enabling the public to watch the Lionesses’ triumphant journey in both European and world tournaments, there are new audiences in stadiums, as well as on screens; and, most importantly, it has inspired women and girls to take up the sport. Similarly, there is the legacy of Channel 4 and the Paralympics, and I refer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said earlier about encouraging and enabling disabled kids to get involved in sport.
It is in the power of the DCMS to review listed events—the “crown jewels”, as they are known. The amendment I am proposing would create an opportunity to revise the list, and this follows a concerning trend where fans’ rights to enjoy events on free-to-air television have been gradually eroded. For the first time, the finals of the Champions League—football is the sport of the day—Europa League and Conference League were all behind a paywall. If the Government intend to host such great sporting events in the UK, as we have been discussing today, the British public deserve the right to be able to watch them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to follow the Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, who is very much the leader of your Lordships’ House in this space. I am here having signed Amendments 15 and 26 to show cross-party support, so I will be brief.
As the noble Baroness set out, we have seen a gradual erosion of people’s access. We often discuss access to the right to participate in sport, but there is also the access to being part of the whole sporting experience and to view major events live. Free-to-air broadcast is what keeps major sporting events genuinely public, rather than turning them into elite viewing that is available only to those who can afford subscription television or other sources. If access depends on payment, watching sport becomes unevenly distributed, with lower-income households at a clear disadvantage. In practice, that particularly excludes, or risks excluding, many children and young people from the shared experience of watching major sporting events with their peers and their communities. Free-to-air coverage ensures that money is not a barrier to participation in what is a common cultural space, where sport is experienced collectively rather than privately. That broad access is something that gives sport extra public value, and that is why it is important to protect it as something that belongs to everyone, not just those who can pay.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I disagree with the proposed amendments for a number of different reasons; first, because the terminology “free to air” is a complete misdescription. You have to pay £180 for your TV licence. It therefore is not free—that is, for the 88% of the population who choose to pay for their TV licence. The number of people who choose not to pay for a TV licence has been rising for many years. I say 88% because the latest figures published say that 12.5% of all viewers do not pay for a television licence.
Secondly, there is the question of competition. The essence of sport is competition. It is a very odd state of affairs whereby one says that broadcasters can compete but, by the way, we will restrict the competition in certain fields. We were debating in the previous set of amendments the question of assisting people who face disadvantages in society. Again, it is a very odd state of affairs whereby one broadcaster might be willing to pay much larger sums to broadcast a particular event, and in that process guarantee substantial funds to the underrepresented groups, but they are not allowed to because the event concerned is a crown jewel. So not only do you lose out because the broadcasting may be inferior; the funding might be inferior as well.
Thirdly, my concern is that the crown jewels were a product of a different technological era. Sport is now broadcast on a whole range of different platforms, and none of us in this Chamber knows what the platforms are going to be in five or 10 years’ time. Therefore, to decree in this piece of legislation that you can have certain sporting events, and I noticed that it suggested that they might be extended only on—I will use the jargon although I have indicated that I do not agree with it—a free-to-air basis, when multiple levels of platforms will probably be available in a few years’ time does not recognise the changing technological world in which we live and which the sporting world will have to adapt to.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 26. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, makes an interesting reference to free-to-air. As well as not knowing what platforms are going to be available, we do not know even what events there are going to be. The Olympics and Paralympics are going to change radically in the next few cycles, not least because of the impact of global warming. In quite good timing, there was an article this morning online on the Broadcast Sport website which talked about the changing world of events. Rights holders have more choices about where to go to put their events on, and they can ask for more money. It has been estimated that FIFA is going to make about £3 billion from organising the World Cup. Where is that money going to go? If you look at something closer to home such as Wimbledon, it puts a considerable amount of money back into the grass roots, which is incredible.
How people watch is going to change as well. The same article on Broadcast Sport was saying that even if you are watching a live event, you are probably checking your phone at least 10 times during that event to see what else is going on and what other comments are being made. We should be looking at how we make available these major sporting events. A number of people are disappointed that the Commonwealth Games is not going to be readily available, certainly on BBC TV. Everything that Team Wales does is going to be shown on S4C. There will be two hours’ live coverage a day, which is amazing—in Welsh, which is really important in terms of continuing to develop the Welsh language. I am sure there will be lots of other home country athletes competing who will be seen within those time slots. I do not think we can underestimate the importance of being able to watch the Games.
If we look back through history—we have been talking about this today—when the BBC covered the Sydney Paralympics in 2000, one of the decisions behind putting the Games on at teatime was so that schoolchildren could watch the Games. That developed a much better understanding of disability and the Paralympics. It got an age group of children watching sport that they probably would not have been able to see before. Whether it is free to air or however we define that, it is important that the public in the widest possible sense are able to watch these events in real time without spending some quite significant sums sometimes on monthly fees.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Broadcasting is such a critical part of the sporting experience. For most people broadcast is the sporting experience. When Andy Murray was performing so fabulously on Centre Court at Wimbledon, I believe there were 15,000 seats available, yet millions could enjoy and experience that extraordinary event from the edge of their sofa. This is another area where the Bill is unfortunately silent when it comes to innovation. I believe there are solutions which can offer new paths forward to enable spectators to enjoy their favourite sport and these events through various media.
I will give two examples. I declare a previous interest in that I was deputy chair of Channel 4 Television at the time. When Emma Raducanu went all the way through to the final and won the US Open, we were able to do a deal at 24 hours’ notice with Amazon, which was the rights holder at the time, to have the US Open on Channel 4 free to air. But it is not free to air, as my noble friend Lord Hayward points out. It is a domestic UK broadcaster which was not a rights holder, but because of thinking differently, getting into discussions and a broader relationship with Amazon, it was able to secure those rights without in any sense cannibalising the rights that Amazon had paid for. A similar deal was done with England men’s cricket when it was in India that winter. I give just those two examples because they illustrate that there has to be flexibility and innovation in terms of both the deals that can potentially be done and the various media by which spectators are able to enjoy and support these tremendous events.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, after so many events going on, free-to-air means not hidden behind a paywall. It is something you do not have to make a very big payment to. Okay, there is the licence fee. To the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I say, “Yes, touché. Well done, good point”. But the fact of the matter is that if you do not have to specifically pay to see them, people can get to these great sporting events and, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has just pointed out, you create a national memory of them, something which you can refer back to. It is the water-cooler moment that does not go away. It is a point of bonding which you do not get anywhere else.
I hope that when the Minister responds she will give us some idea about how we are going to carry on with this, because it is a changing world. The first time I discussed this, we knew it was going to be on X number of channels, and Sky was only just starting to come into it. But we have been able to watch, at least in the form of highlights. What is the defence? It is a big deal. We must make sure, for these huge events, especially when national teams or the big games come up, that we respond across the board so that people can come down. I hope the Minister can say something reassuring on this because, let us face it, it is one of the reasons why it is worth bidding in the first place. It is now beyond those who go and buy tickets and has been for a long time.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hayward issued a useful corrective. Just as there is no such thing as government money but only taxpayers’ money, there is no such thing as free-to-air broadcasting; we pay for it through some means or another. It is a timely reminder in a year when we look again at the BBC’s royal charter and the licence fee model, which pays not just for the BBC but is required for viewing any of our public service broadcasters.
We are in many senses overdue a debate about the listed events regime by which we try to pick those crown jewels of sporting events. We would have had one during the passage of what became the Media Act 2024, but because that was taken in wash-up, we did not have the debate that perhaps was needed then. I hope that as we look at the royal charter for the BBC, we can look at this in some detail. Maybe the Minister can say a bit about that either now or at subsequent stages on the Bill.
This was looked at at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Davies of Devonport, who spoke powerfully about the fact that if public money—taxpayers’ money—is spent on hosting major sporting events, we want as many of those taxpayers as possible to be able to see, benefit and be inspired by them. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, was right about the importance of visibility and prominence, particularly of the Paralympic Games, which has done so much to change people’s perceptions of those with disabilities and brought so many broadcasters and commentators with disabilities on to our screens when so many people are watching with great pride and excitement.
Like the noble Baroness, I share some sadness that the Commonwealth Games will not be broadcast on the BBC this year, for the first time since the Games began in 1950. The live rights have gone to TNT Sports and only highlights will be available on a public service broadcaster—Channel 5. One thinks of seminal moments such as Roger Bannister’s “miracle mile” and the people who will not be able to be inspired by moments such as that.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. It links very much to the debates we need to have over the BBC’s royal charter and paying for our public service broadcasters. Again, this hits at the problem we have in the Bill. We are trying to set up a framework anticipating what the world will look like many years hence in many different ways that have a knock-on effect for sporting life in this country.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their amendments. Amendments 15 and 26 seek to add a further condition to the Bill’s framework, requiring any qualifying sporting event to make live coverage free of charge to the UK public. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, about the importance of having, for example, the Lionesses on the BBC and the Channel 4 coverage of the Paralympics.
I and the Government recognise the intent behind these amendments and are committed to ensuring that major sporting events are as accessible as possible to people across the UK, including where broadcasting is concerned. Indeed, during the debate on the football regulator, one of the discussions we had was about what made a spectator and what made a fan. For most people, it is not watching it live but instead watching it largely on television.
However, unfortunately, these amendments are not ones that the Government can support. The central issue is that they would make the application of this framework dependent on broadcasting arrangements having already been secured on free-to-air—I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, which was repeated by the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Parkinson, that it is not free-to-air but rather it is free-to-air once you have paid your licence fee or an equivalent free-access basis.
Decisions relating to the broadcast coverage of sporting events are commercial matters for broadcasters, event organisers and the holders of broadcasting rights. Those organisations are operationally independent of government, and rightly so. Broadcasting rights provide essential income for national governing bodies and sport broadcasting rights holders, which enables them to invest in their sports, future events and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, grass-roots sports. She cited the example of Wimbledon, but there are other examples from across the piece. This amendment would place tighter controls over their ability to generate much-needed broadcasting revenue for an indefinite period.
There is also a practical concern. The timelines for agreeing broadcasting rights will not always align with the bidding processes and other requirements that this framework is intended to support. Making the framework conditional on those agreements already being in place could therefore create delay, uncertainty and unnecessary rigidity. Other bidding nations may not be subject to such restrictions, potentially making the UK less competitive.
The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that there is a breadth of free-to-air coverage of sporting events for licence fee payers. I agree with all noble Lords who stressed the importance of people seeing sport. The current listed events regime is designed to ensure that sporting events of national significance are available to as wide an audience as possible by prohibiting exclusive broadcasting of the event without prior consent from Ofcom.
In response to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made about people being potentially excluded by dint of their economic circumstances, the listing of events ensures that broadcast rights to that event, if offered, must be made available on fair and reasonable terms to the free-to-air channels received by 95% of the population.
The Government believe that the current listed events regime works well and strikes a perfect balance between encouraging free-to-air access to a number of sporting events for audiences and allowing sports to maximise broadcasting revenue to invest in the growth and development of those sports. I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the ability to talk about having seen major sporting events is a bonding event, which can exclude people who are not able to take part in that. In any event, we would expect broadcasters and sporting rights holders for specific events to think carefully about the balance between generating much-needed revenue and ensuring access to sports coverage for viewers, ensuring the growth and development of the sport.
Amendment 79 seeks to ensure that where the Secretary of State gives financial assistance under Clause 25 in respect of a sporting event, she must require the recipient to take all reasonable steps to ensure that live coverage of that event is made available free of charge, either directly or on a platform accessible without subscription in the United Kingdom. The Government fully recognise the importance of broadcasting certain sporting events to attract significant audience interest and make events as accessible as possible. We appreciate the sentiment that, where public support is involved, sporting events should be as widely available to the public as possible. However, again, this amendment is not one that the Government can accept.
The first reason is one of principle. Clause 25 is a funding power, intended to support the effective delivery of sporting events. It is not a broadcasting regulation power, nor is it intended to be used to direct or shape the outcome of commercial negotiations over media rights. Broadcasting arrangements for sporting events are matters for broadcasters, event organisers or the holders of the broadcasting rights, all of whom are operationally independent of government. It would not be appropriate to use the Bill or this funding power to intervene in those negotiations indirectly through grant conditions.
Secondly, funding decisions, event planning and broadcast rights negotiations do not always proceed to the same timetable. As a result, the amendment could create delay, complication and uncertainty in the use of Clause 25 support.
Thirdly, there is a risk to workability. If organisers or recipients cannot be confident about satisfying such a condition at the relevant point in time, it may make financial assistance harder to administer and could reduce the flexibility that Clause 25 is designed to provide.
For those reasons, I respectfully ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, not to press their amendments.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
I thank everyone for taking part in this debate—except possibly the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, who is making me have to think of a different way of saying “free to air”. I am, of course, disappointed but actually not surprised by the Minister’s response. She has given me valuable time but I hope we can explore this further.
To pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, the crown jewels debate got cut off at the knees. We have charter renewal coming up. I totally respect what everyone says about the future and things changing every day, but we need to discuss this because it is important that we share these things. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, that the paywall is the paywall and means that things become niche rather than shared; that is the thing we are really trying to overcome here. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, it may seem surprising that I oppose Clause 5 standing part of this Bill, given the fact that I have argued many times in your Lordships’ House for taking tough action against the abuse of the secondary market in ticketing. The reason I do is that I think this is in the wrong Bill. Going back to 19 November, just last year, the Government announced that they would introduce new rules to prohibit tickets for concerts, theatre, comedy, sports and other live events being resold for more than their original cost. They made a significant policy announcement that the British Government would introduce new rules to ban ticket touting. They then said they would introduce a Bill in this Session. They did not. They introduced a draft Bill that would make it illegal to resell a ticket at more than its original cost, cap service fees, make it illegal to resell more tickets than you are entitled to buy, place obligations on resale platforms, and empower the Competition and Markets Authority to impose tough fines. Whether we get the legislative timetable for that is yet to be seen.
In this Bill, for potentially three or four events in the next 10 years, there is very tough action, which I support in principle but it should apply to all sports, cultural, arts and music events, and it should be in primary legislation, as promised by the Government. It is simply inconsistent to put some extremely tough and onerous measures—which I fully support—in this Bill for three or four major sporting events that might take place over the next 10 or 15 years and not fulfil their clear obligation to the country to introduce primary legislation as soon as possible to cover this in detail.
We are in danger of having a series of different restrictions on secondary market sales. The original one covered football and was brought in for a completely different reason—it was about segregation of football fans. More recently, we have had further legislation in an excellent Private Member’s Bill, which was introduced in the last Session. There is no reference in this legislation as to how that would be implemented with major international events that we are trying to attract to this country.
Then there is the London 2012 Act, which had the full support of the House at the time. It looked specifically at relevant legislation for hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in this country and criminalised the abuse that we saw in the secondary market for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. I am in no doubt at all that the technology that will be used in ticket touting in years to come will change rapidly. By the time we next host the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, we will need to consider in detail legislation that will be very different from this Bill.
It is inconsistent not to introduce primary legislation to cover this in detail for cultural events, music events and festivals, as well as the overwhelming majority of sporting events that are not covered by this Bill, but just for the three or four international events that we are trying to attract to this country over the next 10, 15 or 20 years. It is that inconsistency which concerns me most of all and is why I object to Clause 5 standing part of the Bill.
Very briefly, and less relevantly, because it would be appropriate for me to put my arguments forward on the significant abuse of the secondary market another time, it is sad that the CMA is the nominated enforcement agency here. I recommend that the Government seriously consider removing it. It has prosecuted no one. It has done very little. It has looked into all sorts of cases and achieved far less than National Trading Standards, whose work has led to people being jailed. National Trading Standards is on a £13 million budget—a very small budget—but has been particularly effective. It has taken down social websites and been really effective in this area. I regret that the Government feel that the CMA will be more appropriate.
Next, if we are talking about specific international events then I am concerned about FIFA. When it came to the World Cup that we are enjoying at present, FIFA decided not to take specific measures in the host nation contract with the US, Canada and Mexico, partially, no doubt, because of the interests of President Trump, who has no appetite to ban touting in the US. But at the same time, FIFA has now set up its own retail site and is taking 15% off the seller and 15% from the buyer. How that fits with this legislation is an interesting question, particularly if it changes its approach to ticket touting in the future. I have no doubt whatever that FIFA will want to protect that source of income post the current World Cup.
It is important that DCMS is seen to be very even-handed in considering this important issue. It is taking very tough action in this Bill but, as I have mentioned, for potentially three or four events and not for the world of sports and the world of music. Those involved in those industries are desperately keen to see tough action taken, as the Government promised, but there is little evidence that they are going to pursue that. Yet Eric Baker, CEO of StubHub and Viagogo, has been publicly professing how happy he is that he has kicked the can down the road and educated the Government, which is why the Bill is not currently before Parliament. I hope that is incorrect. I hope there is no evidence to that effect and that what he is saying publicly is erroneous. As I understand it, he has had five meetings with the department, yet there have been no meetings for those who, quite rightly and understandably, feel very strongly that very tough action should be taken against the abuse of the secondary market, which is what I am focused on here.
Finally, we should make sure that football is included in this. It is an Olympic sport and would need to be covered by this legislation, clearly. There could not be separate legislation for football if we were trying to attract an international sporting event, either a FIFA or IOC event. We should also be very cautious about how it applies to debentures and hospitality. Unpicking that for touting will be a significant challenge.
I want to state on record that I am absolutely in favour of the direction that the Government have taken in this Bill, but I think it is in the wrong place. It is in the wrong Bill at the wrong time, and it should be more appropriately introduced before Parliament as the Government promised. Parliament should be allowed to determine what that should look like, and then the decision of Parliament should be implemented in the context of this legislation moving forward.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 31. I wish to associate myself with the words of my noble friend Lord Moynihan. This is an unnecessary provision in the wrong Bill. At Second Reading, I posed the question: what is so bad about somebody who has bought a ticket to the match but suddenly finds they cannot go and offers it for sale to friends on Facebook that justifies a 50 grand fine?
You have a spare ticket. Perhaps mum has fallen over at home so you cannot go. Perhaps the girlfriend you had planned to go with is now seeing somebody else. Perhaps you have gone down with some sort of food poisoning or perhaps even gramps, who you had planned to sit next to, has died. It happens. In all those circumstances, there are draconian penalties for moving on that ticket. The ticketing activities are enumerated in Schedule 1: selling an event ticket, offering for sale an event ticket, exposing for sale an event ticket or advertising that the ticket is available for purchase.
The £50,000 fine is a level of punishment that outweighs the typical criminal penalties for shoplifting, burglary and serious breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. I am not sure there is an equivalence between passing on a ticket and negligently permitting an employee to fall to his death from height. How have we found ourselves in a situation where the state ranks the desire to cut your losses as worse than all these crimes? It is two-tier justice.
Why are we compounding the sadness of the girl whose boyfriend does not want to go to the game with her any more? We are going after the wrong people. Can we not just get a sense of perspective and materiality here and recognise that somebody who buys six tickets for them and their rellies is not a member of a crime family? My amendment would limit it to six tickets for an event and provide a carve-out to the penalties in the Bill—the abuses that my noble friend has referred to.
At Second Reading, I explained that the organisers and selected ticket agents have not done enough to stop the bots and their industrial hoovering up of the tickets. We all want to ensure that real fans get a fair shot at going to the game; that is common ground. The truth is that the sellers have not tried hard enough to stop this. The truth, as my noble friend has just alluded to, is that the status quo suits them just fine. They can carry on as they are, clutching pearls, pretending to be concerned by the bots while trousering all the cash and filling the cash box on day one. This Bill, if passed, means that they do not even have to try to fix this problem. We are letting them off the hook by law.
There are all sorts of technical ways of matching claimants to people. If we cannot authenticate individuals, the economic basis of society—whether for banking, passport applications or driving licences—cannot proceed. This is a problem that has been solved. Indeed, if it had not been, the hated ID card scheme would be even more dead in the water than it is today.
I went to a wedding last weekend, and a lady I met—I was with my wife, but there was another lady—told me that she had been banned from Tinder for having two profiles, an A one and a B one. She was banned for life. If Tinder can see through multiple personalities, it should not be so difficult for Ticketmaster. If Tinder can suss out the dupes and the fakes, why can agencies such Ticketmaster—others are available—not do so? It is a simple question and one that needs to be answered by the Government before they go after the jilted girlfriend or the grieving son.
My approach would be to ensure that the organisers go the extra mile to authenticate ticket purchasers in the secondary market. The Government’s solution is victim blaming, going after the little guy—the buyer whose mum fell over at home and has a black eye. The Bill has this the wrong way around. Why should we go to the millions of fans when the organisers have the tools to sort it out, if only they could be bothered? Instead, we are being asked to give them the legal cover not to bother to fix this scourge at source. It is just not good enough.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 28A. The Bill usefully sets out that regulations in relation to ticket touting will be brought in for sporting events. But a number of organisations, including UK Music, are understandably asking the Government to completely fulfil their manifesto commitment. In this sense, I am coming to the issue from a similar place to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, although I disagree with his remedy. It is right that we should do this because we need to end exploitative ticket touting across all types of events. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and I have been on the same side on this for many years.
Like many on these Benches, I am delighted at the progress that has been made on ticket touting for sports events, but I am puzzled about the wait for legislation covering music and other events. What makes it more puzzling is that music and sports events often take place in the same venues. This week, my wife will go to listen to Harry Styles; a few weeks ago, I could have gone to the same Wembley venue to watch the cup final. So I am sure that the Minister will understand why there is a measure of disappointment, particularly among music fans, event organisers and performers, none of whom derive any benefit from the current situation.
According to YouGov research commissioned by O2, online ticket touts are costing UK music fans at least £145 million a year. For some time, UK Music has been calling for legislation that includes a resale price cap to prohibit someone from reselling a ticket for more than the original ticket value, service fee limits to ensure that price caps cannot be undermined by inflated fees or hidden charges placed on consumers, and volume limits to make it unlawful to buy more tickets for an event than one individual is permitted to buy on the primary market. Taken together, those measures would create transparency for ticket purchasers and create a more level playing field for consumers.
My amendment 28A would simply require the Secretary of State to review the ticket touting provisions in Clauses 5 and 6 within 12 months of the Act coming into force and report to Parliament on their effectiveness. This review would provide an important opportunity to assess whether similar protections should be extended to the music sector and music events. I am conscious that a draft Bill is to be published in this Session, but I am also conscious that these things have a habit of slipping and falling foul of other priorities. We have yet to see the terms of the wider legislation, so can we better understand why sport has come forward first, and what makes the challenges of policing this area different or more complex for music?
Music fans face many of the same challenges as sports fans: tickets being acquired in bulk and resold at inflated prices, and genuine fans being priced out of events. The draft Bill, announced in the King’s Speech, means that music fans will continue to face inflated resale prices and unfair ticketing practices while they wait for reform. If the ticket touting provisions prove effective in the sporting context, the review should urgently consider whether comparable measures should be applied to music events, ensuring greater fairness and consumer confidence in protections. I have tabled this amendment to try to achieve a speedier route to having equity across all sporting, cultural and music events, because those who support those events—music fans, sports fans, or whatever—deserve that equality of consideration.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and to take part in this group. I am physically and actually right behind my noble friend Lord Moynihan on these issues: it is a good provision, but it is the wrong position. It offers a solution that is fine for those critically important but few events that it will cover, but, for the vast majority, it is a tantalisingly close yet elusive solution across the rest of sport, music, culture, et cetera.
“World in Motion”, 1990; “Football’s Coming Home”, Euro 96: music and sport have always been inextricably linked, yet the Bill has not only missed the opportunity to bind these together with effective ticket touting provisions, it has also unfortunately set out a solution for the very few—which, understandably, is extraordinarily frustrating for the many. The provision is also unfortunate because it is very analogue and does not seem to speak to ticketing, touting and abuse as they are today—never mind how they will be in five, 10, 15 or 20 years’ time, when thinking about an Olympic Games and Paralympic Games bid in the 2040s.
I will speak to Amendments 27, 89, and all the amendments in my name in this group. I will start with Amendment 89, which proposes an accessible ticketing duty on all these events. For this, I use “accessible” in the broadest sense of the word. This goes to discussions that we have had in earlier groups around ensuring that we get the right principles threaded into this legislation. When we were putting together the ticketing strategy for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, all the weight of history was on us: all the rules, structures and expectations of what had gone before at all the previous 29 Olympic Games. Of course, there was a lot of good and a lot to follow in that, but, equally, we were the first people to be delivering an Olympic Games and a Paralympic Games in London in 2012. We not only took that incredibly seriously but took it for what it was: a once-in-a-generation opportunity. So we should seek to test, stretch and develop those principles that have been set out in all the documentation and history from previous Games.
Ticketing was a clear example of this, and it is one that I brought out in my amendment. We wanted hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren to have the opportunity to come to the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and not pay a penny for their tickets, but we were also fundamentally committed to the value of the Games, the sports and the event. So we had a key principle: no free tickets. That is completely the way to structure these things. You do not drive engagement, fans and greater inclusion by thinking that you just need to give away free tickets. The way to structure it is to have tickets available to schoolchildren, as was the case in London 2012.
My amendment is broader. It would make tickets available to local organisations, to disabled people and to other groups—the list is not exhaustive—and have the face-value price of those tickets paid out of a portion of the most expensive tickets for those events. It worked effectively and inclusively at London 2012, and those people who were paying for the highest-priced tickets were delighted that part of what they were paying for was to enable hundreds of thousands of young people to come and experience Olympic and Paralympic sport, often for the first time in their lives, and certainly for the first time in their lives at London 2012. Taking a principle developed there, it would make sense to thread an accessible ticketing duty into this Bill.
On the tickets themselves, as I say, this is currently an extraordinarily analogue Bill at a time when tickets have become extraordinarily complex, more enabling and potentially exclusive in digital token form on digital ledger technologies. We have the ability to do so much more with tickets. First, we can drive out fraud and touting through having the tickets in an immutable form. Secondly, we can attach whatever we choose to that ticket. Say that somebody has particular access needs, food allergies or whatever it might be—you can put that in as part of the digital token representation of their ticket. We can make the ticket so much more powerful, inclusive and connected to the event. It could potentially drive fan engagement: tokens, merch, exclusive benefits, interviews with the players or interviews with the competitors. Whatever you choose, that is all available with ticketing technology that exists today, yet the Bill is silent on this.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I tried to add my name to Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, but I was slightly too late for the printing of the Marshalled List. I think there is something important in this amendment in terms of thinking about who is able to have access to major games.
If you look at the 2012 programme, there was a massive commitment right from the start to no free tickets—the sponsors paid for them. It was not just the joy on the children’s faces when they got to go and experience the events, but it was something that they will remember for the rest of their lives. It was also tied into the school programmes that were being run at the same time. As I have said before, 2012 was also the only time that I have ever been able to go and watch a sporting event where I was able to sit with more than one member of my family. With the ticketing, if someone could not sit in a high stand or needed to be at the end of a row, they also thought about how they linked that up to accessible toilets; those are all really important things. I think Wembley Stadium is the only place I have ever visited that actually understood some of those issues as well. I think there are 147 accessible toilets at Wembley Stadium, which other venues should definitely aspire to. Other things that you could do include “Pay your age”, which 2012 did really well.
As a spectator who is a disabled person—the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, mentioned smarter ticketing—you are constantly having to explain what you need, where you want to sit and who you want to sit with or check whether you actually have a guaranteed accessible seat. Again, it is about showing the world what we do and what we care about. We should be looking at ticket touting wider than this, because it is an issue not just for the events that this Bill may cover.
Another issue in this group of amendments, which I also mentioned in my meeting with the noble Baroness the Minister, relates to thinking about disabled people not just as spectators. I was commentating on a major event in a new-build venue, and it turned out that the commentator’s position was not wheelchair accessible, so I was not able to do my job properly. I spent half the time commentating in a completely different position. As a commentator, it helps if you can have some interaction with the other people that you are commentating with, so we had to move to a venue quite a considerable distance away to be able to do the last event that I was commentating on. There should be something in here about a guarantee of what accessibility means—perhaps not necessarily on the face of the Bill but just an understanding that we can do so much better. If we are going to be building new venues, whether it is for the Olympics, the Paralympics or more football clubs, we should make sure that disabled people have the ability to access events in a fair and equitable way.
I support the other amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. He has more experience on this than anyone else in the Chamber from his work at LOCOG and beyond, and we should be listening to the things that he is asking for.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I have four amendments in this group, but the main thing about the amendments on ticket touting is that everybody agrees that something should be done. There is one principal disagreement going on here. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is basically saying, “Do not do it here; do it properly somewhere else” and lots of the rest of us are saying, “No, do it here, get it done and carry it on”. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, agreed with that. From my Benches, we tried to get an amendment down that included this and we did not actually hit the target; we were told that we were out of scope of the Bill, so I salute his drafting—I take it that it is his; if it is not, he can just take the compliment.
However, when we go through this, we have got a lot of other issues here, such as disability accessibility. I do not know how many dozen times I have discussed that, and we still do not have it right. I hope the Minister will be able to say something reassuring about an ongoing process for that.
Just to refer back to my amendments, I said to myself, “Oh yes, that was it—National Trading Standards, yes, good idea, I thought I had an original point there, but the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, used it in his first sentence”. We have something here that says, “It isn’t working. Can we know what will be done?” The small series of options that we have in this Bill is actually managing to annoy people, oddly, because they are not big enough and they are not going far enough, and we do not have anything else that is immediately coming. We have a pocket of legislation around this Bill, which we have not seen even in draft, and that is one of the problems here. I hope that the Minister can start a process that could be finished by Report, when we get an idea of what we are going to get on ticket touting and where it is going to come in, if we are not going to do it here—and this would have been an opportunity to bring in everything under this Bill, so we had something that would actually work.
There are some other smaller amendments. A charity auction for a ticket is not ticket touting—yes, I would hope that that would be the case. But to have some clarity around some of the issues that we have raised, is the maximum penalty enough? One of the amendments in my name suggests
“leave out ‘£20,000’ and insert ‘an amount not exceeding 10% of the person’s annual global turnover’”.
Some of these organisations are so big that £20,000 would basically be the cost of doing business.
Could we have an idea of the whole picture? At the moment, the Government by doing a nice thing in this Bill are annoying everyone, oddly. I do not envy the Minister in her response. The Government may well have good intentions, but the old cliché that this might well be the thing that paves the road to hell might well be true with this.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan for introducing this group and thank noble Lords for their contributions. This whole debate shows that it is a complicated area and begs the question whether this is the right Bill for it to be in. At the very least, we need another Bill very quickly to cover all the complications that it brought up and apply it to music and cultural events as well as those brought up here.
The point about FIFA was a very good example, with the US World Cup. It shows how difficult it is to try to create a catch-all Bill when we know how fast the environment is moving, and that FIFA might change its rules, as it has done for this World Cup—let alone when you come to some of the technological advances that my noble friend Lord Holmes brings up, and trying to cater for those today in a Bill when we know just how quickly AI and other technological advances are going.
My own amendments are modest in nature, in terms of trying to enable the charitable resale of tickets. At the same time, I think that they introduce an interesting conundrum. If we are saying that we are very happy for a charity auction to get a good price—and generally we want it to get as good a price as possible—we are saying that we do not mind profiteering in principle as long as it is for a good cause. Again, that brings some interesting complications into this matter.
On our amendments around a genuine resale market, as our amendment tries to show and as that of my noble friend Lord Fuller tries to show, there are genuine and legitimate reasons to want to resell your ticket, and the legitimate platforms have a good role there. It should be legitimate that they charge a reasonable service fee—I think that the 10% mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is probably a reasonable indicator there. But there is a proper function that they can play, and we would much rather that they played those roles rather than driving it under cover to the ticket touts, where you can get the real price gouging, for want of a better word.
Probably what this debate shows, like many of the others tonight, is that it is a very complicated area. To try to get it all into one catch-all Bill becomes more and more complicated. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government are going to cater for this issue and for many of the others.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Addington, and my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lady Keeley for their amendments. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for giving notice of his intention to oppose the question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill. I count myself as among those who were slightly surprised at this, but I appreciate having heard the noble Lord that this is because of his consistent opposition to the many ills associated with the secondary ticket market. However, I do not accept that it is not appropriate for these measures to be in the Bill—but I shall go on to that later.
Amendments 27 and 89 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, would require the Secretary of State to introduce an accessible ticketing quota in regulations, and that related information must be included in a register held by authorised ticket sellers. We are determined that when the UK hosts major events, we lead by example in ensuring they are inclusive and accessible to the widest possible audience. That is why we have worked with UEFA on its approach for Euro 2028, which seeks to put fans first with transparent and accessible ticketing principles. It was interesting to hear the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on accessible ticketing. Noble Lords may be aware of another example, which is in my speaking notes, of UEFA’s track record in this regard for Euro 2024. UEFA partnered with the Kaizen Foundation in Germany for the 10,000 Smiles project, which provided free tickets through sponsorship to children in host cities from underprivileged backgrounds and for children and adults with disabilities up to 21 years old.
Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Markham, introduces an exception to the ticket touting offence for a person selling an event ticket as part of an auction provided that the proceeds go to charity. While I recognise the spirit, the framework approach calls for proportionality to be reconciled with the requirements of event owners and the guarantees provided by Governments. We will do this through introducing appropriate exceptions to the ticket touting offence in regulations on a case-by-case basis. It may not be appropriate to do so where an event has an official charity partner with an exclusive right to raise proceeds through the auction of event tickets. Where this is the case, charities looking to raise money for themselves would be able to apply for authorisation to auction tickets. This request would be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Amendment 28A, tabled by my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton, Lady Keeley and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, would require a review of the impact and effectiveness of the ticket touting provisions within 12 months of Royal Assent. The first use of these provisions will be for Euro 2028, with tickets expected to go on sale after the final tournament draw in December 2027. We are committed to an evaluation of the application of provisions in the Bill within 12 to 18 months of Euro 2028. We therefore do not believe that this amendment is workable or necessary.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her quite extensive, albeit rapid-fire response. Many of us will read it in greater detail and come back with any questions after we have had that opportunity. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that, while we might have disagreed on my recommendation that we oppose Clause 5 becoming part of the Bill, he at least recognises that it is effectively a probing amendment. The reason I put it down in those terms was that there were many good amendments that were already tabled on this subject. I wanted to highlight a really important point: by simply placing it on the face of this Bill, given the Government’s commitments, we lacked consistency across the country.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
That is my point exactly, and that is why this is an important debate to have had this evening. I congratulate the noble Lord on his observations and comments.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I am grateful for that intervention: I echo everything he said: everything he said, in terms of detail, is to be supported.
The second point is this: we have to be incredibly careful, in discussing this subject, about the autonomy of world sport. We are looking at major sporting events and we are seeking to encourage UEFA, FIFA or the IOC to award the right to host those events in this country. We are not telling UEFA, the IOC or FIFA what to do; that is not the way world sport works. I hear in the response from the Minister, “We expect them to do this”, “We expect them to do that” and “We expect them to do otherwise”. We can expect as much as we want: it is UEFA, or the event organiser, that decides.
What I was pleased to hear, in that context, was that this is clearly drafted with the agreement of UEFA for the Euros 2028, in the same way that there was unique legislation introduced for London 2012 to reflect what the IOC wanted. That is why the contribution from my noble friend Lord Holmes was so valid. The IOC listened carefully to what LOCOG—the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games—had discussed in great detail. They had discussed the need to criminalise the secondary market from selling tickets, to criminalise touting, so they could totally control the ticketing operation for London 2012, which they did highly successfully, not least because it allowed them to make tickets available to schools as my noble friend Lord Holmes said. They looked holistically at the overall ticketing for that event, unlike FIFA for the World Cup in the United States at the present time.
It is incredibly important to recognise that, when we are talking about appropriate arrangements for ticketing in the Bill, we are talking about sitting down and listening to what the organisers of these major international events want, in association with the organising committee, and putting in place appropriate legislation for that. It would be very different if we hosted the Olympic Games in the future. We would need to come back with event-specific legislation—a point I keep making. It can be easily remedied on the face of the Bill, and all these issues could be put to one side if the Government recognised that, in addition to this framework, they will require, possibly, event-specific legislation to host major international events here—as I desperately hope they will—in the future.
My concern was that we are being tough on touting on the face of this Bill for a small number of events that the Bill relates to. We may have found a way, in government, to talk tough and do nothing for the vast majority of people who are really concerned in this country about the abuse of the secondary market, and about the need for the Government to legislate. To bring forward a draft Bill, having said they were definitely going to legislate, with no commitment to implement legislation in a future session of this Parliament is not what the arts world, the music world, the sporting world, and the likes of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and myself—
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I would not normally intervene. However, I was clear that we are going to introduce a draft Bill and will introduce legislation in due course, so I feel the noble Lord is going slightly beyond my response. I am happy to sit down and talk to any noble Lord about the ticket touting measures coming up, but I cannot accept that we are not taking it seriously, as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
That is an extremely important and welcome intervention, but the Minister said “in due course”. Can she commit that that means during this Parliament?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I cannot commit to a timescale, but I have offered to have a meeting where we can discuss that in further detail.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
To fail to commit for the whole of this Parliament, when we have years to run, is disappointing, given the strength of the comments made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers in recent months. It is vital that the Government indicate by the time we get to Report whether they will legislate during this Parliament.
The public have longed to get legislation on to the statute book to protect people from being ripped off and turning up at many concerts, having paid a lot of money to bring their kids down from wherever they live, to find out that they have a forged ticket. That must be stopped. We must have tough legislation. That is why I share with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, the need to legislate on this and why we were so pleased that the Government were willing to come forward with legislation that Parliament could consider. To know that this might not happen in the current Parliament would be deeply disappointing.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My noble friend emphasises the importance of tackling touts in a broad piece of legislation that does not cover just these events. Could he also emphasise, as my noble friend Lord Fuller raised, ensuring the obligation of those selling the tickets to maximise the controls to avoid touting?
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I absolutely endorse that comment. As my noble friend, who has sat with me on this subject many times over the past five years, will know, ever since the Waterson report and many others, I have sought to table and introduce legislation—sometimes successfully—to give far greater clarity and visibility on tickets and to make sure that when people sell tickets, they follow the conditions that the organiser of the event has brought forward. If the organiser has set the condition that it should not be sold on the secondary market, it should not be. We have needed legislation to be introduced in order to achieve that.
I am absolutely tough on this subject, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, knows. I have the privilege of co-chairing the All-Party Group on Ticket Abuse. We have to take action on this. I really hope that, following the Minister’s response, she will be able to go away and consider before Report an absolute commitment that this Government will honour their word and introduce legislation not during this Session but during this Parliament.
Lord Addington
“(5) Where the regulations designate a person to grant advertising authorisations in relation to a sporting event, the regulations must require that person, in determining whether to grant an authorisation, to have regard to—(a) the impact of any proposed exclusive authorisation on small and medium-sized enterprises trading in or near the restricted advertising zone,(b) the desirability of ensuring that local and small businesses have a reasonable opportunity to benefit from the sporting event,(c) whether any proposed exclusive arrangement is proportionate to the legitimate commercial interests of the event organiser, and(d) whether there has been reasonable and proportionate communication with small and medium-sized enterprises trading in or near the restricted advertising zones, of any exclusive authorisations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that, in the case of exclusive advertising rights for a certain sporting event, small and medium-sized companies are not unfairly harmed.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is really a probing amendment to try to get at some of the hardy perennials, shall we say, when dealing with Bills that take on big sporting events. That is, when you have a big sporting event, you have a big advertising structure and restrictions being imposed on the local traders, which the local traders think are not fair. It sometimes gets slightly absurd. I cannot help but remember—but I am trying to forget—the Olympic kebab van that operated in the East End of London and which was restricted by the Olympic Games. It became a case of why they did not know and why there was not some smaller operation to lessen the impact on their business.
In the rest of the group, we have amendments dealing charitable situations. The situation here is about how we are going to make it a little easier for small and medium-sized businesses to operate properly within these structures. What are the duties on those organising the big events to let them know what is going to happen and mitigate any harms to them?
This amendment is a way of trying to find out the Government’s thinking on this, because it is one of those things that comes back and niggles again and again when you have a big event. I hope we can at least find out what the Government’s thinking is about how we are going to make sure that we make life a little bit easier for these small units, which should be beneficiaries, so that they actually get some benefit from this. That is all I am trying to do here. I beg to move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on this group of amendments. I will speak to the two amendments in my name. The first, Amendment 39, is incredibly straightforward and simply seeks to exclude charities from the restricted advertisement zone, as set out in the Bill. It replicates the wording from the London 2012 Act of 2006. I am very interested in the Minister’s response to that wording.
My second amendment in this group, Amendment 63, seeks a retrospective on the enforcement action to assure it from an equality and inclusion perspective. It simply sets out equality enforcement assessments so that the data is there and can be reviewed, s actions can be taken where there are disparities, and there can be learnings in real time for that event and for other events that will be hosted across the country. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether I could briefly help out the noble Lord, Lord Addington. There was also a case in 2012 when a lady decided to do knitting patterns of the mascots and made a Games maker. It is incredibly important that the rights and brand of these major events are protected. I think I am right in saying that they issued her a warning for knitting one and trying to sell it at her local church. They then recognised the importance of stepping back from that, because they became hugely popular, were a lot of fun and did not impact anybody.
However, a line has to be drawn between what we are seeing quite a lot with FIFA in terms of ambush marketing versus somebody just doing something that is quite nice. There is some merit in these amendments to make sure that local businesses are protected and are able to carry out their day-to-day work without threat of legal action.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 56 in the group. The Bill unashamedly tries to snare and capture the large global events that can make a national impact in our country, but national impact and national scale also have local effects. One of the purposes of hosting these big events is to transform the local economies, drive investments and spread love and enjoyment in the local communities that act as hosts. It is naive to think that this is front and centre of the organisers’ minds. The promoters of the global events line up their sponsors, sports rights and big global brands, and there are pallet loads of merchandise to shift. We know that money follows sport, and the Bill makes sport all about the money by law. I am concerned about the powers to designate zones around stadiums or other undefined places—which might be fan zones, I suppose—where local trading will be made illegal.
At Second Reading, I gave the example—and it was on “Yesterday in Parliament” actually, which I was very pleased about; that was my first time—I gave the example of the 10-minute walk from Twickenham station to the Allianz Stadium down Whitton Road, where every type of food is available, from licensed food vans to stalls set up in front gardens, where the enterprising home owners have demolished their garden walls. There is not just food; there are old boys selling tat, and there is the little guy with his roadside kebab van and the youth club, with its pop-up gazebo, frying chicken wings. It is all part of the grittiness, but all these places have a licence. The way in which the Bill bans this trading means that little of the money will be assimilated in the local economy. That is not right, because the people who are hosting these events should have a right to expect that some of the benefits will be retained locally.
I accept there needs to be some sort of control, so that it does not become a scrum—Twickenham to one side—and we need to have minimum hygiene standards and sensible limits, so we do not get overwhelmed. That is why, over decades, a series of local licensing decisions by the local authority has evolved. It is tried and tested, it has public safety and hygiene at its heart and it has allowed an ecosystem of local traders to flourish. The Bill casts all that aside. Even if you have licence, you will be excluded from participating in a whole-community effort to host a big event. The local little doers will be cast to the wilderness. How does this help the local economy? Why have we got it in for the Cubs and Scouts who are trying to raise money for the jamboree?
My amendment is simple. It would protect the ability of the local council to ensure that at least some of the benefits of hosting an event are retained locally and are not outsourced to national firms or multinational burger corporates. I want to ensure that local flavours are part of the mix and that fans are not just force-fed cardboard burgers and gassy lager served in soulless stadium concourses. Under my proposal, it would be up to the council to strike the right balance between the local needs and the rights holders in exchange for issuing licences. In a local territory, the council will hold some of the cards. The Bill gives the organisers all the cards, and that is no good. It is an affront to the bloke who prefers a cheap kebab to an overpriced burger or a bucket hat to a baseball cap, or the fan who fancies ale rather than lager. If the council gets it wrong, there are elections to sort that out.
At Second Reading, I was grateful that the thoughtful noble Lord, Lord Mann—who is not in his place—supported the principle of locals being able to get in on the act. He was on the side of the working man, the local charity, the youth group and its pop-up gazebo. I say: let us empower them all. They collectively, over decades, have created so many different rituals and traditions associated with going to the game, more so than the game itself. Families, groups of fans, clubs and societies work with the community in a sort of foreplay that heightens the pleasure of the big event itself. I know that the Minister would not want to deny fans their pleasure, so I ask her to accept my amendment, so that everybody gets to enjoy themselves in the way that they want to, but, most importantly, so that some of the benefits are retained in the community, which is potentially so inconvenienced by the disruptions of hosting it. The economic benefits must be retained locally.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lord Fuller in his expression of concern about the impact on small businesses. Sadly, many noble Lords will know me as a statistician who spends all his time looking at opinion polls and numbers in one direction or another and then commenting on them. I have spent inadequate time looking at the impact assessment, to which no reference has been made yet in these debates. Despite my apparent facility for statistics, all I can say about the impact assessment is that my head hurts. I found it incredibly difficult to comprehend page after page of low-impact, central-impact and high-impact estimates.
I will comment on one section. I could comment on others, but I address my comments overall. I find it very difficult to understand the impact that each of the different events would have in terms of positives and negatives, because they are aggregated in a very odd way. Page 41 of the impact assessment refers to the impact on street traders. It says:
“The low estimate reflects that 50% of traders will be able to continue to trade due to potential mitigations”.
Therefore, 50% of the traders will not be able to continue trading—and that is the low estimate. It goes on to say:
“The central estimate reflects the likelihood that 75% of traders in the affected area will be unable to trade while the provisions are in place. The high estimate serves as an upper bound where all traders operating in areas where prohibitions apply are unable to trade”.
We are therefore talking about a very substantial impact on businesses. We debated earlier the duration under which these provisions would apply, but we are talking about potentially every single street trader in those relevant areas. There are pages identifying the numbers of traders affected, whether it be at the Everton stadium, the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, at Hampden Park in Glasgow or wherever you choose to name. There are numbers and numbers of street traders. That is their livelihood. If these events are running for several weeks, which is likely to be the case, they are losing their livelihood for that period.
I therefore share my noble friend Lord Fuller’s concerns about the impact that is identified—but identified in such a complex way that it is incredibly difficult to understand what we are talking about.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My noble friend has painted a picture and enumerated it with examples of sports stadiums. Under the Bill, there is to be a zone cast around the stadium where trading will be banned. But there are other provisions that have other events; for example, fan zones. Has my noble friend considered that fan zones could be in town centres? Town centres could be sterilised from trading. Has he considered that the net may be cast much further than just street traders, to other organisations too?
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that intervention and for identifying other areas. I tried to make it clear that I had taken only one element of one page of an impact assessment. It was on page 41. The impact assessment is over 90 pages long, with central, low and high estimates in all sorts of different categorisations There is no overall assessment of cost potential for any small or large business or the impact on the economy.
There is lots of explanation that tells us how wonderful it is going to be week in, week out, because of the benefits of sport. That is right—we have all recognised that—but there is an indistinct identification of the potential costs to some small and very small businesses, and we really should recognise the potential implications for all concerned.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, in many senses, we have outperformed a World Cup football squad tonight, because we have hit the target ahead of schedule for this first day in Committee, and we have done it without a hydration break.
Let me begin with the two amendments I have tabled in this group. It is an important group on which to end our debate, because it deals with the significant impact of the Bill on the restrictions on commercial interests, small as well as big, a point that my noble friends have rightly accentuated. My Amendment 40 seeks to create an exemption for charities from the advertising offences in the Bill, applying only where a charity is advertising wholly or partly for the purpose of promoting itself or a specified list of charitable services. I hope the Minister will be attracted to it. It is word for word taken from the provisions in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games (Advertising and Trading) Regulations 2021. If it was suitable then, why not for the new framework that we are seeking to set out?
Amendment 55 similarly relates to charitable exemptions. Paragraph 1(2)(d) of Schedule 3 to the Bill states that a “Trading activity” includes
“appealing for money or other property (whether for charitable or other purposes), with the exception of begging”.
That means that the offence of trading in a restricted trading zone applies to charitable fundraising but not to people who are begging. I wonder if the noble Baroness can explain why it has been drawn up in that way. Surely we do not want to restrict people from collecting for good causes where that can be done in a way that is consistent with the sporting event, particularly when we consider that charities historically have been exempted from the advertising offences when we have hosted sporting events of this nature in the past.
I have tried in doing that to follow the example that my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond has taken with his Amendment 39. As he said, that mirrors the approach taken in the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, which provided carve-outs for community and educational uses, and I congratulate him on the way he set that one out.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, undersold his Amendment 38 a little. It concerns the impact of exclusive advertising authorisations on small and medium-sized enterprises and, as my noble friend Lord Hayward has done, it is worth drawing the Committee’s attention to what the Government’s own impact assessment says about this, because it is rather revealing. The final stage impact assessment, published by the department, acknowledges candidly that the provisions most likely to affect small and micro-businesses are the trading provisions of this Bill, which could prevent established street and market traders operating as usual in and around restricted zones. It recognises that there may be
“small disproportionate impacts on local traders relative to the broader business community”.
Therefore, it acknowledges that the greatest potential impact will fall on street traders in affected areas—as my noble friend Lord Fuller said, the people who add to and enhance the enjoyment of many people going to sporting events. The impact assessment promises that
“careful consideration will be given to how best to mitigate these impacts when making regulations on a case-by-case basis”.
That is a candid admission, but candour in an impact assessment is not the same as a legal safeguard in the Bill. Amendment 38 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, seeks to translate the Government’s own stated intentions from the impact assessment into an enforceable obligation. I think that one is worth the Minister looking at carefully in her response this evening but perhaps also as we consider all the issues we have looked at today between now and Report. I am grateful to noble Lords for all their amendments in this group.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Addington, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham, Lord Fuller and Lord Holmes of Richmond, for their amendments.
Amendment 38, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would require a designated person to have regard to additional factors related to small and medium or local enterprises when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation. We share the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that such businesses are not unfairly impacted and that they are able to benefit from the sporting event where appropriate.
In the interest of proportionality, we intend to minimise the impacts of the advertising provisions on existing businesses by introducing exceptions to the offences in regulations. These exceptions would be based on existing advertising controls to allow usual advertising on business premises. Businesses within a restricted zone wishing to display advertising that is not subject to an exception may be able to seek authorisation to do so—for example, from the event organiser or local authority. Where an authorisations process is in place and the proposed activity does not undermine commercial sponsors, businesses with an existing licence to advertise should be given precedence.
Before making regulations, the Secretary of State or devolved authority must consult with the relevant authority and any other persons. This could include local businesses. Guidance setting out the advertising restrictions that will be in place must also be made available.
Amendment 39, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, would create an exception to the advertising offence for certain non-commercial entities. We recognise the vital work each of these does for local communities. In most cases, they will not be affected by the advertising provisions in the Bill. I will say more on charities shortly, but I stress that the advertising offence will capture charities and other non-commercial entities only if they are advertising a business, product or service in a restricted zone. Where such entities could be affected, we will look to provide an appropriate exception in regulations. This will ensure that the interest of any charity partner in an event, if there is one, can be taken into account where necessary. Generally, this means providing exceptions in regulations on a case-by-case basis to ensure that they are proportionate, workable and event-specific. Again, guidance will be made available, making clear how non-commercial entities could be affected and the options available to them.
Amendment 40 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, creates an exception to the advertising offence for promoting charities and certain charitable services. We share the spirit of this amendment. However, as this is a UK-wide framework, exceptions must be workable across the four nations. These separate jurisdictions have differing laws defining and regulating charities. To ensure that exceptions related to charities can be applied effectively, these will need to be brought forward in regulations drafted in accordance with local laws, taking into account the interests of any charity partners. Charities will be captured by the offence only where they are promoting a product, business or service. As I stated in relation to a previous group, exceptions will always be provided for advertising certain charitable services—for example, crisis mental health support services such as a hotline. To highlight our intention in this area, the Bill explicitly states that exceptions to the advertising offence could be made for the purpose of promoting charities or services provided by charities.
Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, would remove appealing for money or other property from the definition of “trading activity”. I believe it was this amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, spoke to when she talked about knitted items and proportionality in relation to that. That was a good example and the type of example I have been putting to the Bill team to test. I understand that this amendment is looking to probe why charitable fundraising is within the scope of the trading offence. The trading offence is designed to regulate activity that could disrupt the easy and free movement of spectators and provide a mechanism to control the number of traders, including charity collectors, operating within a restricted zone. For this reason, a number of local authorities already regulate charity collections in public places. Although I am sympathetic to the spirit of this amendment, a blanket exception for charitable fundraising could undermine these objectives. For example, an event may have an official charity partner which may need to be given priority over a fundraising activity in a restricted trading zone.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it is nice to end on something like agreement. I thank the Minister for her reply. It seems to me that we are accepting that there is a potential problem here and just about finding a solution. I must admit that the impact assessment is the sort of document I look at, cower, then drop. So, I will possibly take the sage-like advice of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and buy him a beer to get a good interpretation of it next time.
There has been a problem here. I see that the Government are trying to move towards dealing with it. But it is also a case of trying to make sure that those people who are going to be affected by it know, so that they can start to take mitigating measures themselves. I am not absolutely sure whether the Minister covered that well enough in her reply. Okay, this is the start of a process, not the end, but I think that we should have a look at this, because it is an irritant: it is a bit of grit that is not producing pearls.
We should try to get rid of it and do the best we can. We have enough information and experience now to be able to do something better than what we have at the moment. Let us have a look and see how we can get round to it.
I look forward to having further discussions with the Minister on this in future because I think we can make something better than we have at the moment. With that caveat, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Sporting Events Bill [HL]
Wednesday 24th June 2026
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Sporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 3–II Second marshalled list for Committee - (23 Jun 2026)
Lord Addington
“(5A) The provisions of sub-paragraph (1) are not breached by the use of a representation by the holder of a premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003, Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 and the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 if—(a) the representation is used solely for the purpose of indicating to members of the public that the licensed premises will be screening or broadcasting the sporting event,(b) the use of the representation does not suggest, expressly or by implication, that the licensed premises is an official sponsor of, or otherwise commercially associated with, the sporting event or its organiser, or(c) the representation has previously been used for a continued amount of time, independently of the sporting event taking place.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that, in the case of a sporting event being hosted in an area where a small or medium-sized enterprise’s (SME) pre-existing advertising may conflict with an advertising provision as laid out in this Bill, that SME is protected proportionately.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee—I had not quite got myself in the right position to start proceedings. This is a probing amendment that looks at some of the minor problems that arise when a big Bill such as this comes out. The amendment probably refers more than it should to licensed premises, but it is a way of finding out how the Government perceive we should proceed. For those small firms that are making a living and are affected by this, what happens next if we take on the structures in the Bill? This has been one of the small niggles we have had about these Bills and processes. Let us see if we can get it right or at least give certainty to those affected. I beg to move.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, at Second Reading, I raised the example of the butcher in Weymouth who, during the 2012 Paralympics and Olympics, was threatened with a £20,000 fine because he displayed in his shop window five strings of sausages in the shape of the five Olympic rings. He eventually got around this by changing the circles into squares, but it was a rather ludicrous example of the extremes to which some of the arrangements can go.
We are in a bit of difficulty, because before us we have a framework Bill which refers to lots of regulations to come, but we do not know what they will be. Yet at the same time, we all want to ensure that particularly SMEs can share in the benefit of hosting the sorts of events covered by the Bill. We therefore need to ensure that the regulations on association are flexible enough to protect the sponsors, who have paid a lot of money, but not be overly zealous in how we treat our small businesses, particularly those where the event is taking place.
Although my noble friend’s amendment relates to licensed premises, it could equally apply to all others. I want to test with the Minister a couple of questions. I am genuinely delighted that the impact assessment and Explanatory Memorandum, on pages 19 and 20, already give many exceptions that the Government are planning to introduce and which presumably will be picked up in the regulations. However, there are one or two areas where they do not go as far as many of the major sporting bodies have already gone. In 2012, many of our athletes were upset at not being allowed in any way, shape or form to thank the various people who had sponsored them over many years—an example could be one of my noble friend’s licensed premises supporting a particular athlete. They were not allowed to do so because of the tight restrictions: there was no way there could be any link between that unofficial sponsor and the individual athlete.
Equally, there were very strong regulations concerning what words could and could not be used. There was a whole list: you could not use “champion”; you could not even mention “London”, let alone “2012”. I am delighted that the IOC has, through changes to rule 40, made significant relaxations that now allow, for example, under certain circumstances, an athlete to thank their unofficial sponsor and the unofficial sponsor to refer to the athlete they have supported. There are various conditions around that.
However, there have also been changes to the language. The butcher I referred to earlier would now be allowed, under the IOC rules, to say “champion banger” or “gold medal sausage”. So, significant changes have taken place. Will the Minister ensure that relaxations and flexibilities such as those already introduced by the IOC for the Olympic and Paralympic Games will be covered by the regulations that will follow for each of the events covered by the Bill?
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the observations made by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Foster. This follows the line of the issues I raised on Monday concerning the impact assessment and the various impacts on small businesses. This amendment is clearly a probing amendment, but it is intended to establish protections for small businesses that may by chance get picked up in one way or another. We must ensure that we do not damage those businesses. As many of us said on Monday, mission creep ends up negatively impacting small businesses, often by chance.
I welcome the broad principle of this amendment, and I hope that further discussions will ensure that those protections, whether they be for individuals or businesses, are pursued.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and other noble Lords for their gold medal contributions today—if I am allowed to say that, at this stage at least. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and my noble friend Lord Hayward set out, there are quite often unintended consequences, the sausage being a perfect example of what we would all agree is a disproportionate response. I think all we are talking about here are common-sense provisions in all of this, which I know are very difficult to draft into any sort of amendment, but which at the same time I think we would all agree would be sensible. With that, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for tabling Amendment 58, which would introduce an exception to prohibition on unauthorised association. I understand that this amendment seeks to ensure that a licensed premises’ use of representations in pre-existing advertising material will not breach the prohibition, providing that the use does not suggest that the premises is an official sponsor of, or otherwise commercially associated with, a sporting event to which the unauthorised association provisions have been applied.
I can assure the Committee that a licensed premises’ use, or indeed any wider business use, of pre-existing advertising materials in this way will not breach the prohibition on unauthorised association. That is because the prohibition on unauthorised association applies only where a business uses a representation in a way that is likely to suggest to the public that it has an official association with the event. It is for event owners to agree with athletes and their individual sponsors—in response to the noble Lord, Lord Foster—the types of promotional activity that are to be permitted during an event. That is not for legislation.
I can also provide assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the Bill expressly provides that a business will not breach the prohibition on unauthorised association by providing factual information about the services it provides. The intention of this exception in paragraph 3(4)(b) of Schedule 4 is to enable businesses to factually describe goods sold and services they provide in the course of their normal business, where this is done in accordance with honest business practice. For example, a pub will be able to state that it is screening Euro 2028 matches without breaching the unauthorised association prohibition, provided it does not imply that it has an official association with Euro 2028. A B&B will also be able to state that it is within walking distance of a venue for Euro 2028 without breaching the prohibition.
We want to ensure that local businesses can show their support for major sporting events and we will work with event organisers to ensure that this is the case. The prohibition applies only to activity that would suggest to the public an official association with an event, meaning that there was a realistic chance that everyday members of the public would consider that such an association existed. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, cited the case of Olympic sausages; the example I have been asking officials about as I have gone through it is whether it is likely or unlikely that this Bill would prevent a local bakery selling football-themed cupcakes in support of Euro 2028, and I have been assured that it is not likely that that would happen. So, for the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply. Yes, I think the idea is that everybody is saying, can we avoid what we can only describe as the cock-up school of history? That is when something goes wrong that is unintended and gets in the way of the enjoyment here. I will take away what the noble Baroness has said, speak to people and see whether it is enough, because we might want to have a go again if it is seen that there is still some danger and we need some more clarity. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and hope that we do not have to return to it—but if we do, we do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(2A) A plan prepared under this Schedule must—(a) have regard to sustainable modes of transport, including public transport, walking and cycling,(b) aim to minimise greenhouse gas emissions associated with travel to and from sporting events, and(c) include arrangements for admission tickets to a sporting event to confer entitlement to travel on specified public transport services serving the event.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that transport plans for sporting events promote public transport and other sustainable modes of travel and seek to minimise transport-related emissions, and include integrated ticketing arrangements allowing spectators to travel on public transport using their event tickets.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Thank you. I am so sorry I was not at Second Reading. This is very much the sort of thing that I feel very strongly about. My three amendments in this group are on three different topics. One is transport, one is sustainability reporting and the third is on climate duty, all of which I feel very strongly about. I am going to find it hard not to bring these back if there is not progress.
It is extraordinary that this week, the hottest June day ever for the UK has been measured in Surrey. We are hotter here than California’s Death Valley, and that is saying something. We really are not weatherproofed and we are not heat-proofed. We are very lucky in this Chamber. I sat in Portcullis House at 9 am this morning: it was baking. We stewed in there. Of course, a lot of people do not have the advantage of air conditioning like this in their offices and in their public places.
I find it extraordinary that, in a week where parts of Britain have once again seen record temperatures, when red warnings have been issued because of extreme heat, and when climate change is impossible to ignore, we are debating a Bill that contains detailed provisions on transport planning for major sporting events but does not mention climate impact once.
Schedule 5 goes into considerable detail about transport plans. It tells organisers what they should consider, how they should co-ordinate and what arrangements should be put in place. Yet there is absolutely nothing about the environmental impact of those transport arrangements. For major sporting events, transport is often the biggest source of emissions. At the Birmingham Commonwealth Games, spectator travel accounted for more than half of the event’s carbon footprint. At Euro 2024, fan travel accounted for almost 80% of emissions. We need to be serious about reducing the environmental impact of major sporting events, and transport is the obvious place to start.
This amendment has two components. The first is that transport plans should have regard to sustainable travel options,
“including public transport, walking and cycling”,
and should seek to “minimise greenhouse gas emissions”. I am sure the Minister is well aware of all the work that happened in Ken Livingstone’s period at the London Assembly: we achieved a lot. The Government already tell us that rail is one of the greenest ways to travel. The Government’s own active travel investment strategy tells us that walking and cycling help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So we need to tell event organisers to take account of what the Government already recognise to be the lower-carbon options. Parliament has gone much further before, such as in the London Olympics, the majority of which was planned in the period of Ken Livingstone in London, and I am suggesting that we can do that in my later Amendment 88.
The second element concerns integrated ticketing. If we want people to leave their cars at home, we need to make the alternative the easy option for them. Again, we have a very recent and very successful example. Every match ticket for Euro 2024 came with a 36-hour public transport pass built into the ticket price. The result was a success, because more than 80% of fans travelled to venues by public transport and fewer than 5% travelled by car, and hundreds of thousands of rail journeys were made between host cities. This was achieved by making the sustainable choice the convenient choice. Integrated ticketing also benefits spectators. It is easier, cuts costs, and helps avoid congestion around venues. It improves the experience of fans while reducing emissions.
That seems a rare example of a policy that is good for the climate, organisers and the public. If there were ever an example of why we need to be adding in these amendments and preparing for climate resilience travel, it is today, when trains are cancelled due to heat and people are being asked not to travel. The Climate Change Committee has warned that climate risk will increasingly affect the operation of major events. When tens of thousands of people are trying to reach a venue within a narrow timeframe, those risks become particularly acute. What would it look like if we had today’s weather on the day of the Euro 2028 final?
Asking those preparing transport plans to think about sustainability and resilience is absolutely vital. The Government’s own impact assessment argues that legislation is necessary because voluntary arrangements alone do not provide sufficient certainty and consistency. If legislation is needed to ensure transport plans work effectively, why should climate impacts and climate resilience be left entirely to chance? Given the climate challenges we face and the examples of best practice we have already seen across Europe, that seems the very least we can expect.
On Amendment 87, on sustainability reporting, we hear the same language every time a major sporting event is bid for, such as world-leading sustainability, greenest games ever and low-carbon legacy, and it all sounds incredibly impressive at the time. But I get a bit fed up with the gap between the promises made and what actually happens. The Paris Olympics, for example, set itself up as the lowest-carbon games yet. In some respects, it did better than previous Olympics: emissions were lower than London or Rio, largely because they reused venues, cut down on new construction and made some sensible choices about energy and materials. But when you look a bit closer, the picture gets more complicated. Transport still dominated emissions; international travel still drove a huge carbon footprint; and, in the end, we are talking about millions of tonnes of CO2. Yes, there was progress, but it also showed something else very clearly: without proper reporting, it becomes very hard to know what was genuinely achieved, what was just assumed and what was simply good marketing.
That is the point of this amendment. We should not be relying on glossy bid documents and press releases to tell us whether promises have been kept. If we are serious about sustainability being part of these events, then we need to be just as serious about checking afterwards whether it actually happened. Right now, too often, the pattern is this: big promises at the bidding stage; celebration at the event; and very little scrutiny afterwards. This amendment says that, if you make environmental commitments before the event, you report on them afterwards—accurately, obviously—so that we can see what was delivered and was not.
Of course, there are already sustainability requirements for major sporting events, but they are patchy and inconsistent. Some bids are strong, while others are vague; some report properly, while others barely report at all. That makes it very hard to know what is actually being delivered. We need something more uniform: clear expectations that commitments are measured properly and reported before and after the event. Without that consistency, we are not tracking progress; we are just collecting promises—and, quite frankly, people are getting tired of empty promises.
Amendment 88 is on climate duty. We have had this kind of duty at past events—for example, in the London Olympics framework, where sustainability and wider environmental considerations were explicitly built into delivery. What we are seeing here in the Bill is a step backwards from that approach, just at the point when climate risks are more immediate, not less. We are told, including in the Government’s forthcoming major events strategy, that major events will continue to drive economic growth, enhance the UK’s soft power across the globe and strengthen social cohesion. Of course, they can do those things, but they cannot only be about that, and they certainly cannot deliver those benefits at the expense of our climate and environmental responsibility.
At the moment, the Bill is built around delivery, organisation and facilitation, but it is silent on sustainability. We need to put in place something that should already be clear here: a clear duty that, when exercising functions under the Bill, we must have regard to greenhouse gas emissions, sustainable transport, waste reduction and the UK’s climate and environmental targets. We can continue with a system where climate is assumed to be somebody else’s problem, or we can put in place a basic duty that ensures it is properly considered every time decisions are made on these events. I beg to move.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 91 seeks to insert a duty to clear up waste after a sporting event. This is a probing amendment that puts a clear, time-bound duty on the relevant local authority to keep event areas clear of litter and refuse during the event and to clean them at its conclusion. It extends explicitly to the public processions and assemblies connected with the event—the parades, fan zones and crowds—not only the stadium.
Why is this needed? I speak from lived experience and may incur the ire of the noble Baroness sat near me. Three weeks ago, as an Islington resident, I saw exactly what happens when no one is clearly responsible. On the morning after Arsenal’s title parade, the residential streets around me were strewn with broken glass, vomit, bottles, cans and bins overflowing. In its own guidance before the event, the council said, “We’re not putting any additional Portaloos out, so you’ll just have to find a pub or cafe to go in”. I pity people who live in the area who have a garden.
It is just crazy. Arsenal is not a poor club. It has just won the league. It is known to be a very financially successful club. Either Islington Council did not charge it enough money for the clean-up or the council funnelled the money that it got into another expense. Either way, it was unacceptable, especially considering the extortionate amount of council tax that I pay.
It stayed that way for the better part of 48 hours. There was no overnight clean-up. I had to steer my child around broken glass on the way to nursery drop-off. It is completely unacceptable. I am not a party pooper, I think the parade should absolutely have gone ahead, but residents already had to live through the parade; the least that could be expected is that it would be cleaned up properly afterwards.
For an example of how it can be done differently, turn your mind to Kensington and Chelsea and another big multi-day event that happens—with millions of people, so we are talking about exactly the same kind of scale. I know it has its fans and detractors, but Notting Hill Carnival happens over two days and by the Tuesday it is absolutely spotless on those streets. That is because the council gets a grip of the situation. I dare say Arsenal Football Club has a lot more money and funds available than the organisers of Notting Hill Carnival. So, there is something to be looked at there.
Why does this matter for the Bill? This is the framework for the events that we want to host the most: the Euros, the World Cup and the Olympics. They bring processions and assemblies across many host boroughs, over weeks rather than hours. If a single club parade can leave one London borough looking like it did for two days, picture a multi-week tournament with no clean-up duty written into the framework at all. The Bill covers ticketing, advertising, trading and transport, but the most basic civic question is absent: who keeps the streets clean and clears them afterwards?
My amendment would make the duty event specific, time-bound and explicit about processions and assemblies. It would close the gap that residents fall through. I am not wedded to the drafting. I am seeking a commitment in principle. Will the Government ensure that the framework does not leave host communities living with the aftermath and that host authorities are properly resourced to meet this duty, whether funded centrally or recovered from organisers?
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, which follow up the remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in that we ought to write into the Bill the requirement for the sports industry to recognise the effects of climate change and the need to adjust sporting facilities, materials and stadia to the fact that over the next few years we will see significant changes.
There is already a problem. Those of us who have been following the football in America have seen different stadia and different degrees of comfort for players and spectators. I think we need, at least for major events, to look at ways in which we can anticipate this and get the sporting industry to make its contribution towards the modification of climate change in this country and to adaptation to climate change.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I am in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on these amendments. I think she was very wise to bring this before the Committee, because this is a case where many of the international governing bodies and federations— the IOC in particular—have taken a lead. Without this legislation reflecting that, we would be seen to be behind what are important international obligations set by organisations such as the IOC. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, so there is cross-party support for his amendments. Whether the wording is right and sufficiently enabling is a matter for the Government to consider. I declare my interests. As the Minister knows, in 2012 I was chairman of the British Olympic Association, a member of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games and a member of the Olympic Board.
I will develop my argument and the reasons why. The International Olympic Committee has what it calls sustainability essentials, and any city bidding to host the Games has to meet those sustainability essentials when it bids. It then has a sustainability strategy, which it expects governing bodies around the world and all the national Olympic committees associated with the IOC to follow. When it comes to bidding for major events such as the ones we are talking about this afternoon in the context of this Bill, those who are bidding have to meet exceptionally high standards of sustainability and environmental protection, and it is right that they do.
I declare the fact that I sat on two commissions of the International Olympic Committee considering bids from other cities and then advising the members of the International Olympic Committee on the merits of those bids. One of the critical aspects of that was sustainability and the environment. If a city failed to meet those standards, it was very unlikely to succeed. For that reason, in the very early days of working closely with Ken Livingstone, the British Olympic Association sought to place sustainability right at the heart of the London bid that was judged in 2005. When I complete my remarks I will come on to the exceptionally important point that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made about judging the environmental legacy.
All credit should be given in this Committee for the work of Sir John Armitt and the Olympic Delivery Authority. Sir John Armitt is one of the most outstanding men of his generation when it comes to engineering and the work he did as chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority—the body that organised the building of the venues, facilities and infrastructure for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games—and the key environmental measures he implemented over several strategic areas, including waste management. He diverted 100% of operational waste away from landfill. An impressive 99% of waste generated from venue construction and decommissioning was reused or recycled.
On energy and emissions—an important point for the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on every occasion that he contributes to a debate such as this—it was incumbent on the ODA to cut carbon dioxide emissions by at least 20% compared with standard practices, so even where it was expected that we would see reductions, we had to go 20% further. The Olympic park energy centre utilised a combined cooling, heating and power system alongside biomass boilers burning sustainable fuels—far more sustainable than at Drax, I might add. Then there was the sustainable construction. The Olympic Stadium was built to be the most sustainable in Olympic history, repurposing old gas pipes and reducing materials.
Water conservation was important. Water was a serious challenge to the organisers of the Games in 2012, because the quality of the water that we had to achieve was tough to meet. For the organisers of the Games, it took many days of discussions with Thames Water at the time to meet the standards that the International Olympic Committee required in its contract with London to host the Games.
On the biodiversity side, the ODA implemented an Olympic biodiversity action plan to restore local rivers. Everyone knows what the East End of London looked like before the work started to bring the Games to London. They planted over 300,000 wetland plants and installed hundreds of bat and bird boxes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked about public transport. It was a requirement that, when it came to hosting in London, we had to design a public transport Games that banned spectator parking at venues and instead relied entirely on public transit, walking and cycling networks to manage emissions.
I mention those as examples, but there are many more. Many committees were put in place to implement one of the most impressive sustainability Games there has ever been. That was made even more difficult at the time because the transformation of the Lower Lea Valley into the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park required the most comprehensive environmental enabling works ever undertaken in the United Kingdom. Before 2007, when the work started, the 246-hectare site was nicknamed “London’s scrapyard”, serving a neglected, heavily polluted brownfield site packed with light industry, active landfills, a soap factory, gasworks and overhead power pylons. A great deal of work was done on site clearance and deconstruction. Over 98% of all demolition materials were recycled and directly reused in the new infrastructure. Workers removed 52 massive overhead electricity pylons and buried 13 kilometres of power cables in deep underground tunnels.
Then there was the green cleaning up: the soil washing. The soil was choked with a century of industrial toxins, including oil, tar, arsenic, lead and cyanide. Soil hospitals were created. The Olympic Delivery Authority, again under Sir John Armitt, set up onsite laboratories and five industrial soil-washing machines. A huge amount of work was done, and I would be very happy to talk at length about it because I am proud of the work that we did in London 2012. The reason for mentioning a number of these examples is to reinforce how import it is that, with legislation of this kind, when we are sending a signal to the world of sport that we want these major events to come, and they are going to pick up this Act, as hopefully it will then be, and look at it, if they do not see a real commitment to environmental sustainability on the face of the measure, they will question why, especially since we cover so many other aspects.
We need to find the right words that make it enabling. We must not be too prescriptive, because the prescription may be even tougher when it comes to the International Olympic Committee, FIFA or an international federation. But there is merit in looking at this seriously and I hope the Minister will respond positively. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has done a service to the Committee by tabling these amendments, as have the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and my noble friend. If we can attempt to find a framework to add to the Bill along the lines that they have suggested, the Bill will be significantly improved.
Lord Mawson (CB)
I was not going to speak on this, but I thought I might follow the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, because we both spent many years of our lives grappling with the London Olympics.
I first became involved in the London Olympics in 1999. The first meeting on day 1 was with someone called Richard Sumray, someone called Paul Brickell and myself. We met at the Bromley by Bow Centre over coffee and began to wonder, first, what would it be like to take on Paris in 2012 when it was the next city on the list? And where on earth was there enough land to do such a project?
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I just want to make a few comments on this. The idea that we would not have some sort of ongoing environmental impact built into one of these assessments is unthinkable, to be perfectly honest. The exact wording used in any of these might not be the one that has come through, but there should be something in there. There has been in previous projects and should continue to be. I hope the Minister will stand up and say, “Yes, it’s here, it will go in, here is the assurance”, because without it we have missed a trick and gone backwards on ourselves.
I remember the arguments about the roof. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, might think I was being flippant because, as someone who was consistently raising this, I stood up and said, “If you’re that bothered, I’ll have your ticket”. We can go on about such things, but let us remember that it was about the Games. It should be in here, but we need make sure it is the norm, because if it is exceptional then we are going backwards. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us that assurance when she speaks.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for leading the debate on this series of amendments. As she says, it is unavoidably in our minds today in the current heatwave. I am sure that noble Lords are particularly grateful to all the organisers of major sporting events who are working to adapt and tailor their events to the extreme temperatures that we are experiencing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is right to point to the importance of public and sustainable transport options. She is also right that they enhance the experience of people who are attending sporting events, both large and small. I have declared my interest in Formula 1 and my interest in the register of attending the British Grand Prix weekend last year. I did so by train and on the shuttle bus that the organisers at the Silverstone Circuit have been working so hard to make available, so that people can travel there in a sustainable manner. This was part of the broader commitment by Formula 1 to be net zero by 2030. Sports organisations, governing bodies and international bodies are all doing a great deal in order to provide the leadership and the changes that people rightly expect.
Major sporting events can be important focal points and rallying cries. As outlined in the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, they can be catalysts for important change in this area. He and my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke about the experience of the work done in the run-up to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned water quality. I thought, too, about the extensive debates in Paris about the quality of the water in the River Seine. When hosting these events, there is an important opportunity to bring focus to those discussions. Towards the end of his contribution, my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned ensuring that anything we do here is enabling and not too prescriptive, that it gets the balance right and acknowledges the leadership that many sporting bodies are already providing to try to achieve this. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, are right to raise this: there is merit in looking at what we can do with this legislation to drive that change in a positive way. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Amendment 95, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, refers to the major events strategy. Again, this is an area where it would be helpful to hear some of the Government’s thinking and whether there will there be a section on the environment and sustainability when it comes out.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harlech. Like my noble friend Lord Moynihan, he was unable to be here at Second Reading for constitutional reasons, but I am very glad to have him back in his place in your Lordships’ House. He has provided a strong example of the benefit of having a young, working parent on our Benches, taking part in debates such as this. On behalf of the residents of Islington and north London, he powerfully set out the impact of the celebrations that took place. Sadly, these were not dealt with and cleared up by Islington Council in the manner people would have expected—and certainly the manner that those who pay the large council tax in that borough would want.
I congratulate my noble friend on not reigniting the row that he had with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—who is a staunch Arsenal fan—during the debates on the Football Governance Bill. He has raised a very serious matter in this debate, and he clearly explained the impact that these things have. I hope the Minister will take seriously the concerns that he raised and make sure that the impact of major sporting events, and celebrations such as that, do not cause such hazards, inconvenience and dangers to local residents who are affected.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and my noble friend Lord Whitty for their amendments. As highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, there was clearly considerable consensus during the debate. I will, I hope, add to that a little, but I will probably not go as far as noble Lords would like.
This Government fully agree that environmental sustainability should be, and is, at the heart of planning and delivering the major sporting events that we host, not least—as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out—as we experience the extreme heat of this week. I, for one, am delighted to be in your Lordships’ Committee this afternoon, rather than outside in the extreme temperatures.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her work on the London Assembly and as deputy mayor for the environment and on sustainable travel. It was fascinating to hear from noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Mawson, about their work relating to London 2012. It was a reminder of the true expertise and experience in your Lordships’ House, which the ministerial team in DCMS is keen to make use of. This should not be seen as an issue that is not cross-party. It is our desire, and it is in all our interests, to make sure that we use the expertise and experience in your Lordships’ House. I will set in motion the setting up of a ministerial meeting with people who have been involved in previous bids. Why would the Government not want to benefit from the considerable knowledge that we have?
On the approach taken in the Bill, and to give just one example, we are proud of last year’s Women’s Rugby World Cup, which introduced a dedicated environmental sustainability programme across all eight host venues in England. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, we need to learn from current practice to get the balance right. The sector is already doing a lot.
Amendment 59 relates to sustainable transport. This Government recognise the importance of sustainable travel and are committed to supporting effective transport planning that helps spectators reach major sporting events safely, efficiently and, where possible, by lower-carbon modes of transport. This issue is not about the desirability of those modes of transport in principle but whether these detailed requirements should be mandated in primary legislation.
The Government’s view is that the plans prepared under Schedule 5 retain sufficient flexibility to reflect different venues, events and local transport networks. For those reasons, we do not consider it appropriate to prescribe this level of operational detail in the Bill. Major sporting events already vary significantly in scale, location, venue layout, spectator profile and local transport provision. Requiring admission tickets to confer entitlements to travel on specific public transport services would not always be within the gift of an event organiser or designated body. It may depend on commercial agreements between multiple transport operators, as well as on existing ticketing systems, service capacity and local network coverage.
It could cause unintended consequences for people using trains to commute in a sustainable way. As someone who lives on a train line that covers Wembley, I regularly share trains with people travelling to events. Most recently, when travelling while the Harry Styles concerts were taking place, I felt very underdressed— I lacked the sequins that seemed to be a requirement. In this Government’s view, sustainable transport is better secured through proportionate, locally appropriate event planning, rather than through potentially inflexible statutory requirements, but we agree that using sustainable transport is the aim.
I turn to Amendments 87 and 88, which would require organisers of events to which the Bill’s framework has been applied to publish reports on the environmental impacts associated with the event, and require the Secretary of State and event organises to have regard to climate and environmental objectives when exercising their functions under the Bill. Again, we agree with the spirit of these amendments. This is why the Bill explicitly stipulates that a sporting event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or a part of it in order for the framework to be applied. Social benefit here encompasses environmental and climate impact.
Lord Mawson (CB)
I thank the Minister for raising the point about us maybe sharing some of the knowledge we gained through the Olympics. I certainly would be really willing to do that, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, would as well. Some of us are concerned that, under successive Governments, lessons are not being learned from some of these projects. Some of us care a lot about the future of east London, and I worry that just a mile down the road, at the Royal Docks, we are not learning the lessons and are in danger of building the next phase of poverty in the East End of London, with developments literally with weeds between them. With the Olympic park, we were clear that we were building a mixed community that would connect housing, jobs and skills, health, and a whole range of enterprise and sport together in an integrated development.
I share with the Minister the thought that we need to get better at learning lessons. This Government rightly want to do some major regeneration programmes, which is correct, but I worry that the dots are not being joined here. I worry that if we do not do that then what we are seeing on the Royals will start to happen in lots of other communities across the country. I suspect that a conversation needs to happen—particularly with a new party leader, who may or may not know some of these things about place-making—about how there is an opportunity here that I fear will be missed unless we grab hold of it.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
To confirm, I will set up a meeting with people who have been involved in setting up previous major events. I would not have said that I would without checking with colleagues in the department, so I will try to set that in motion as soon as possible. I thank the noble Lord very much for his offer.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke. On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, I am an Arsenal supporter but I do not take responsibility for every single Arsenal supporter. It is appalling that there was so much waste. I thought he showed great discretion in not mentioning that Islington Council is a Labour council—that was very kind and sweet of him. Sadly, the Greens are only in opposition there, so perhaps by 2028 we might have more sway.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, tabled his Amendment 95 after the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, tabled hers. Had I seen his, I would probably have just supported it, but this has contributed to a debate, so it has been quite useful in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made some very kind comments. After his tabling that regret amendment yesterday on the Climate Change Act, and winning the vote, I really thought I would never speak to him again. But obviously, his kind comments have completely changed my mind. It is a pleasure to agree.
On the difference between the two Mayors of London, Ken Livingstone and Boris, I would just like to say that Ken did all the back-breaking work for the planning and in carrying it through. As for Boris Johnson, to cut any further emissions he put potted plants along the major roads, which was a fairly inadequate way of dealing with carbon emissions. But, you know—that was Boris.
It was fascinating to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, about these different things that happened during the Olympics. I felt quite heavily involved, but I had completely forgotten about the water situation, and all the pre-planning as well, which I did not know anything about. That was all fascinating.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I hope the Conservative Opposition are going to be really heartened by the fact that there was so much support for putting climate change issues into the Bill. Given that we have had support from all around the Chamber, I hope we can do something much more progressive.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that really, this is an obvious thing to do. The Minister knows I have huge respect for her and for her work here, but also at the London Assembly. But the Government have a problem here. With so much unanimity on this issue, the Government have to give way a little bit on this—a bit more than they perhaps want to.
Quite honestly, something that annoys me again and again with this Labour Government is that they talk about climate change, but they just do not get it. They do not see how to apply climate change measures to all the legislation they are putting through. The fact that it was completely left out, especially the transport sustainability issues, I just find astonishing. So, I will be pushing on this. The Government have to be seen to be aware not only of climate change but of the measures we can bring in to improve it.
I do not want to overstate the case, but we are responsible for future generations here. This really matters. I would love to be included in the discussions—although the Minister might not want me there. But if I can be, that would be great. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“(9) A plan under sub-paragraph (1) where the event is expected to attract 50,000 or more attendees on a single day must include—(a) a digital simulation model of anticipated crowd and traffic flows, validated against comparable event data,(b) accessible route modelling specifying the routing available to attendees with mobility impairments,(c) a real-time adaptation protocol that enables the relevant authority to implement AI-assisted adjustments to transport operations during the event, and(d) a post-event data-sharing obligation requiring anonymised crowd and transport flow data to be provided to relevant local authorities within six months of the event's conclusion for legacy infrastructure planning purposes.”Member's explanatory statement
The amendment requires digital twin modelling, which is now standard practice in infrastructure planning and was used, for example, in preparatory work for Euro 2024 in Germany.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to move Amendment 60 and to speak to Amendment 96 in my name. I look forward to the other amendments in this group.
This amendment continues a theme that I began on day one of our Committee debate on the Bill: the singular lack of anything in the Bill to take advantage of all the technologies, if human-led, that have such an incredible impact for the betterment of these major and mega sporting events when we bid and bring them to the United Kingdom.
Amendment 60 in essence just seeks to put in the Bill a digital twin to be part of the transport planning for major events involving 50,000 or more spectators. This would enable a variety of technologies to be deployed to drive a far better experience for spectators, all those involved with the event, and, equally importantly, all those who are not involved but are in the locality.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I support my noble friend Lord Holmes’s amendment. Just over a year ago, Jarrod Bleijie, who is the Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development in Queensland, came to visit this House and listened intently to a debate on sport. One of the aspects that he focused on was that Brisbane was actively integrating digital twin modelling into the preparations for the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The technology is being utilised across several phases of development, including urban planning, venue design and, as my noble friend mentioned in particular, transport optimisation. The points that my noble friend made are very relevant, because the Queensland Government’s SEQ—South East Queensland —digital twin initiative is leveraging predictive analytics to model traffic congestion, crowd movement and transit scheduling. This was exactly the point that my noble friend made about modelling in the locality. On the construction side, foundational projects such as Cross River Rail have built immersive replicas to test structural functionality and simulate passenger flows prior to their completion. There is no doubt that the importance of digital twin modelling in all major spectator sports events is now both understood and implemented.
My noble friend is right to alert the Government to embracing within the Bill, in some form, in the right terms and with the right phraseology, the challenges of integrating digital twin modelling as it stands. It will unquestionably morph into more sophisticated forms in the future. It would send a signal to potential bidders that we are very much on top of this technology and legislation.
Amendment 96 is focused on a cyber resilience plan. I do not want to be pedantic, but we really need a cyber security strategy, because that would provide the framework for what I think my noble friend seeks to achieve. We absolutely need to redouble our efforts to prepare for and prevent cyber threats. Everybody involved in major spectator sports events around the world now is completely focused on this important factor. There are too many bad actors out there looking to disrupt major events. Unfortunately, the major events that command global television coverage are targets for them, as was seen in the many cyber threats on the Paris Olympics. This will only increase.
The more we highlight the importance of these issues by placing them in the legislation in a suitable way to indicate that we are very cognisant of the importance of this as a part of preparing for any bid and, indeed, for the delivery of games that could face these threats in the future, the more we will be well-received internationally. The whole purpose of the legislation is to send a signal to the international federations—the IOC, FIFA and others—that we are not only prepared but aware of the major challenges that we face and that we are responding to them as a country. With those very few remarks, I absolutely support my noble friend’s intent.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, the point about cyber is really important. At Second Reading I referred to my involvement in the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Prior to the Games I had the opportunity of visiting the transport management hub, a group that, among other things, had put gizmos in all the traffic lights throughout London so that they could change the lights at a moment’s notice to enable traffic to move through. A cyber attack on that would have brought the whole of London to a standstill.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, raised this as an important issue, but he did not point out that this is a reality for sports organisations already. The latest research shows that 84% of the major sporting bodies around the world report that they have had at least one cyber attack recently, and 57% say they have had more than one. This is a very real issue. I look forward to the Minister’s response. It is vital that we have it included, ideally on the face of the Bill.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly run through the amendments in my name. One of the things about the Bill that we do not really like is the fact that there is nothing on infrastructure. It may be implied. My Amendment 78 is trying to put some infrastructure in there.
Amendment 77 is about the accommodation. Much of what we are talking about and much of the reference in the last debate about the legacy from London has been to do with accommodation of athletes, et cetera. If we do not get that in a games bid, suddenly it loses one of the big attractions when it comes to renovation, especially on the model of the London Games. I hope we get some reference in there. Championships may be different. They are different things with different structures. In Birmingham we had a thing about repurposing and borrowing the accommodation that was used, and in London we created new stuff. I hope we get a few thoughts on that.
The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter are about having a strategy towards a bidding process and making sure we have the capacity to intervene and get on with it. Even if it is seen that we have the capacity here, you have to organise it and bring it together. What are the Government thinking about to bring that latent capacity together and make sure it is always there? There are opportunities here. In most of the discussion on the Bill, I have not heard, “Oh no, we don’t want to bid; it’s a horrible inconvenience that will ruin my day”. I remember certain protests about the 2012 bid down in Greenwich being the best ones.
If we are assuming that it is going to be a good thing, where is the capacity? What are we doing to draw it together? There is a series of suggestions here, to be treated as probing amendments at the moment, about how we can do this and about infrastructure. Please can we have some thoughts on this? It is a very important part of this process going forward. If we do not bring it in, I think this is a Bill for a championship as opposed to a games. It fits better for a championship, when you are using sites and moving around the country, as opposed to a games. I hope the Government can say that I have got it all horribly wrong and missed something here. I wait to be informed.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in relation to his amendments. My concern is about creep. I referred earlier to ensuring that we do not have creep that affects small businesses. Here I am concerned about setting up an organisation that has to be maintained when there is nothing relevant to do. The noble Lord used the phrase “always there”. I do not think that is the intention he is aiming for, but if you put it in the Bill you are saying to government, “You have to have a group of people who are working on this all the time”. It is surely far better for government to have the capacity to respond at the right time as quickly as possible, rather than having an “always there” structure.
Associated with that, on the accommodation to which the noble Lord refers, it is my understanding— I am looking at those who were involved in 2012 and in other major sporting events—that when it comes to the Olympics, UEFA and FIFA, the accommodation strategy is decided by those bodies. They will enter into negotiations with worldwide hotel chains and say, “What are you going to do if we come to Manchester, London or wherever it may happen to be?” This is not a responsibility of government. In fact, most of those international organisations would regard it as an intrusion if they were being told, “We’ve already got a strategy and this is how we operate”, because it may well conflict with what is intended by the major sporting organisations.
I cited international gay rugby tournaments when I spoke on Monday, and next year there is the gay EuroGames in Cardiff. With these smaller competitions, you go to those major cities and seek assistance on accommodation. Cardiff is expecting 5,000 or 6,000 competitors and a fair number of spectators next year. Any major authority will maintain a process by which it can deal with those sorts of approaches, but on a much smaller basis. I do not want to see this legislation set up a government structure that is required on an ongoing basis or a belief that the Government should intrude on matters such as accommodation when the major sporting organisations do it themselves because that is how they want to operate.
Lord Mawson (CB)
The noble Lord is correct on that point. It was the IOC that had the view on what should happen with the accommodation on the Olympic park. For example, it did not put kitchens in, for very good reasons—the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will know more about this than I do. They wanted people eating not in that accommodation but in a special place, because if you are an Olympic athlete, eat the wrong foods and then have tests, there are implications. As a legacy company, we had the job afterwards of putting in the kitchens and a whole range of stuff to make all that work in its legacy format.
What you do want is close working relationships between that international body and those on the ground who are responsible for creating that legacy. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, may well agree that we learned on the go as we went on this journey together. It would be good if that kind of conversation about these close working relationships was happening between government and the international bodies on day one, so that we do not have to spend £323 million on a roof that does not quite work in legacy. Those connections really matter.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that helpful and affirmative intervention in relation to the points I am trying to make.
In broad terms, I do not want to see a structure that is required by government. One needs the capacity to respond quickly, in the right way, at the right time. That is how cities operate when they are trying to attract smaller international competitions of one form or another.
Lord Addington (LD)
That would be a perfectly acceptable response: that there is a capacity, that they will make sure they have the capacity to look at this and that there will be a strategy going forward. This is about clarification and finding out what happens here. As I read it, the Bill works perfectly well for a championship—it does not read so well for something for which you have to do a lot of construction work. I am trying to find out the Government’s thinking.
To back up the original point from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, here we must pay attention to the cyber and online world, as it is becoming an increasing part of it. His first amendment is a good tool—use it, because you will be expected to in future. The snappy video is being replaced by the plan. We are trying to get out of this important group of amendments what the Government are going to do, the limitations of the Bill—we have found some today—and what will be set down to the bidding structure that currently exists. Where the two overlap, we should find out what does not have to be done and what does.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification, which is important for understanding the directions in which this Bill should go, and what we believe it should achieve.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes, and all other noble Lords, for what I hope people will see as a good debate and a helpful contribution. We hope to make sure the UK is best placed for the best planned events, so I hope this will be taken in the spirit of helpfulness. As ever, my noble friend Lord Holmes brought us to the cutting edge of technology in the need for digital twins, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan set out the perfect example of Queensland for what is happening on that. He was absolutely right to remind us of the dangers from cyber attacks. With my other brief in my science and technology role, I am all too aware of that; it was brought out very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, with his traffic light gizmo example. I would quite like to have one of those for my way home.
What the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was getting to on the infrastructure and accommodation points was in some ways similar to the point we tried to make in our amendments on Monday to enable an Olympic development-type agency. As he said, it is not a championship-type event; it is a much bigger scale. These are all coming at the Bill from different angles to make sure that if this is to be enabling legislation, it is broad enough that when bodies of that scale are needed, this framework legislation is able to do it. I very much take my noble friend Lord Hayward’s point that we need to make sure we do not build overbearing full-time bureaucracies here.
The amendments in my name, and that of my noble friend Lord Parkinson, are trying to make sure that the UK is the best place possible to host these events. That is why we are asking the Secretary of State to make a report within six months on some of the impacts on and barriers to that. Noble Lords are only too aware that the recent changes to employer NI increases the cost of a worker by about £900 per year, and the minimum wage changes add another £1,000 per year to the cost of each worker. These are exactly the type of people needed to man these events and make them happen. Unfortunately, these recent changes and tax increases will have a disproportionate impact.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
When it comes to further consideration of the importance of Amendment 76, to which my noble friend is speaking at the moment, the noble Lords, Lord Mawson and Lord Addington, may well agree that we possibly need to expand on this so that we have the opportunity, not just within six months but within a year, five years and 10 years, to see that there has been an appropriate sporting, social and economic legacy, and indeed a sustainability and environmental legacy. It is really important, because so many commitments are given at the time of hosting a major sporting event. Admirable as it is to have a review after six months, for legacy this is vital. By working together we can learn a lot of lessons that can benefit other host cities around the world for major sporting events. I put that to my noble friend. Does he agree that we can at least look at that before we come to Report?
Lord Mawson (CB)
It is a rich conversation, and it is really important that we learn this lesson. One of the things we did not achieve with the London 2012 Games—and it is no one’s fault—was to have someone caring about the legacy and really worrying away on day one when we won those Games.
When we first had that meeting in Bromley-by-Bow in 1999 to worry about all this, we were blue-sky thinking and thought, “How on earth do you make movement on a thing that’s going to be impossible? Paris is going to win—they’re the next one on the list and the IOC has decided already”. Fortunately, through a good friend of mine, Ian Hargreaves, at that time the deputy editor of the Financial Times, I was taken one Saturday morning to meet the architect Richard Rogers at his house in Royal Avenue. I had never met Richard before. We had a conversation to check whether we were mad in pushing this kind of idea. When I shared the thought, he was quiet for about 10 seconds, and I thought, “He thinks we are mad”. But Richard was actually a great risk-taker and had built some amazing things. He said that he thought building a mixed community was the right idea, and that he would like to join us, with his mate Mike Davies, who was just finishing the Millennium Dome at that point. At our second meeting, we began to worry about not only where the venues might go on those 248 hectares but the detail of, for example, the press and broadcast centre. None of us had ever done this before, and we had a conversation about how many journalists there would be; we thought maybe 100 or 200. Richard said he would go away and find out. He had an interesting idea of putting the press centre under the stadium, in a way that only Richard Rogers could have thought of. He came to the next meeting and I asked, “How many is it?” He said, “Andrew, it’s about 100,000”. The press and broadcast centre was a building bigger than Canary Wharf.
During the journey, because no one was at that point owning the legacy, into that building went a massive cable that all the press could use—fantastic value despite its cost—that was then going to be removed in legacy, along with that massive building, at the taxpayer’s expense. Unless a few us—including Gavin Poole who built the Here East development, now a fantastic innovation hub in the middle of the East End of London generating jobs, skills and university investments —had owned that issue of legacy, and the significance of that cable coming into that building, it would all have been lost. My thought to government is this: how do we ensure that on these big events some individual is owning those questions from day one? When Governments put millions of pounds into these things, they need to have longer legs than just six weeks.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their interventions, and it shows the richness of this discussion. I agree with my noble friend Lord Moynihan on review timeframes that should be not just six months but longer terms. To the point on legacy from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, I will add my own small contribution. I was chair of London and Continental Railways around 2019 and 2020. For those noble Lords who are not aware, that was the body responsible for all the regeneration around the Stratford area, as an arm of the Department for Transport. We were developing housing on from that accommodation, and it has been a very successful site for affordable housing. One of the legacies is that on the housing and regeneration front it was massively successful.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Addington, Lord Holmes of Richmond, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Markham, and—although she is not in her place today—the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, for their amendments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Markham, that this has been a really helpful debate, in series of helpful debates on this Bill.
Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, would require digital modelling to be used in planning for certain sporting events, which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also spoke to in the example he gave of Queensland. Although the Government recognise the potential for digital tools to support transport planning for major sporting events, we do not agree that their use should be mandated through primary legislation.
Planning for such events must remain proportionate, flexible and responsive to local circumstances. Existing planning processes already allow event organisers, local authorities, transport operators and safety advisory groups to use digital modelling where that is helpful and appropriate. A city centre venue with established transport links may require a very different planning approach from a temporary venue or one in a less well-connected location.
We should also be cautious about placing specific technologies or methodologies in the Bill. Digital simulation, AI-assisted adaptation and related tools may be valuable, but technology, as noble Lords will be aware, evolves quickly and legislation should not risk becoming outdated. In addition, the proposed data-sharing requirement may raise practical questions around data governance, consistency, ownership, privacy and commercial sensitivity, even where anonymisation is envisaged. More broadly, effective transport planning for major events depends on local knowledge, venue design, crowd profile, policing, security, weather and wider network conditions. Those matters are best addressed through flexible operational planning supported by the transport measures in the Bill as needed, rather than by imposing a rigid statutory template.
On Amendment 76, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, hosting major sporting events is a highly competitive global market, with a number of rival nations investing heavily to attract and secure events. The sector continues to face challenges in delivering these events, with costs rising and consumer expectations continuing to grow. However, we disagree with a requirement to publish a report assessing the impact of the Government’s economic policies on the UK’s ability to attract and host major sporting events. We do not think that is required.
The Government remain committed to continuing to engage across the major events industry—not just sporting events—to better understand how we can support their growth, tackle these challenges, share learnings and support collaboration. Moreover, the UK’s competitive advantage is based not solely on the funding it provides or its wider economic landscape but on the strength of our overall offer. The UK is a proven, innovative and experienced host nation. We provide a stable and trusted environment, strong delivery partners, leading experts and world-class facilities. We have a world-leading reputation for excellence in event delivery because we stage complex events to the highest standards. We should be proud of this and the Bill seeks to build on this reputation. Our future pipeline of sporting events is a strong indicator of that reputation. The Bill is intended to increase regulatory certainty, further enhancing our credibility with event owners.
In June 2025, the Government committed more than £500 million to support the delivery of major sporting events hosted in the UK, including the Grand Départ for the Tour de France, the Tour de France Femmes in 2027 and UEFA Euro 2028, as well as a commitment to support the UK’s bids to host the 2029 World Athletics and World Para Athletics Championships, and the 2035 FIFA Women’s World Cup. I also want to highlight that UK Sport already evaluates the economic impact of major sporting events hosted in the UK, which naturally takes into consideration wider government policies. We will continue to work with UK Sport and partners on how we can maintain and strengthen the United Kingdom’s position globally.
Amendments 77 and 78, on accommodation and infrastructure respectively, were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I would never say the noble Lord has got it “horribly wrong”; however, I would probably say that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, got it right in his analysis.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I do not have favourites, but the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, wins that today. I used the words of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, so my apologies to him as well. The Government do not believe that these amendments are necessary, although I recognise that the concerns the noble Lord raises are to ensure that arrangements and infrastructure are adequate to serve major events, including, as he said, accommodation for athletes, whether that is purpose-built or repurposed. The example from London 2012 given by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, was helpful to illustrate this.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank the Minister for her kind comments. I ask her to encourage some of her colleagues on the ministerial Benches to acknowledge that, on occasions, there are good ideas from the Opposition Benches as well.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I would say there are on occasion. There is so much expertise in your Lordships’ House with regard to sporting events. I have always felt that where there is a good idea, we should not be partisan, so I would not disagree with the noble Lord.
However, the measures the amendments cover are exactly the type of technical requirements that are already set out in contractual hosting agreements and specified by the event owner. This means that there is a dialogue throughout the bidding process between prospective hosts and the event owner about existing capacity and infrastructure, what is required and where improvements would need to be made. Through this, prospective hosts provide the necessary assurances to the event owner that there is or will be sufficient capacity and infrastructure in place to deliver a successful event. Ahead of this, we would also expect the national governing body to work in collaboration with the relevant local authority that is ultimately responsible for delivering these key elements. As these are already accounted for in the bidding processes, these amendments could potentially place onerous or duplicative requirements on key delivery partners. I am happy to discuss that further with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, should he wish.
Amendments 80, 81 and 82 were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but are also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. We recognise the important intent behind them; taken together, they aim to ensure that the UK maintains its ability to bid for major international events. We also recognise that the amendments aim to increase transparency around the prioritisation of and bidding for sporting events to provide more certainty to the sector. However, in our view, it is not necessary to set this requirement in statute. I reassure your Lordships that the Government are committed to ensuring that the UK continues to build on its already world-leading reputation in this field. At the risk of agreeing too often in one debate with the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I agreed with many of the points he raised in this part of the debate.
There is a pre-existing process which sits behind those events the UK chooses to bid for, which is set out in the Gold Framework, as I have referenced previously. This also sets out the criteria against which events are assessed and prioritised. UK Sport undertakes a horizon-scanning of all the available hosting opportunities, and it undertakes feasibility work alongside formal engagement with the UK event co-ordination group, national governing bodies and local authorities twice a year to develop and agree the UK’s longlist of potential future major sporting event targets.
This hosting target list is also endorsed by DCMS. It is published online and is shared annually with the sector, as well as with cities, regions and nations across the UK, to facilitate event-hosting partnerships. This ensures transparency about our potential targets. It also aims to ensure that there is an ongoing 10-year major event strategic programming list in this regard. There is a balance to be struck, in our view, in ensuring that the UK does not hinder our competitive advantage by giving detailed insights to our potential competitors. UK Sport has also published Making Live Sport Matter, which sets out a series of guiding principles and key objectives for event hosting as the basis of a strategic framework for maintaining the country’s reputation as a world-leading host nation.
On noble Lords’ points around resourcing, UK Sport exists for exactly this purpose: to provide expertise. This includes conducting feasibility studies, including on alternative and sustainable delivery models, and evaluating the annual value of events. It also provides a range of strategic guidance and technical support to the sector. This includes a knowledge transfer programme to enhance and develop the sector’s expertise and develop collaborative and sustainable networks. We also believe it is important to retain the ability to be responsive and effective with public resources, as the requirements of bidding for and delivering major sporting events will change over time.
Amendment 96, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, would create a power for the Secretary of State to
“direct a qualifying person to maintain and share a cyber resilience plan … for a sporting event to which this Act applies”.
The noble Lord gave some powerful examples of the impact that cyber attacks might have, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that it is some bad actors who create the threat, which was also illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Foster. As he says, this is potentially a very real issue. The noble Lord talked about the gizmos in traffic lights and the advantage these may give to getting home. There were those of us at the London Assembly at the time who suspected that Boris already also had that in mind—but I move swiftly on from that.
This amendment would introduce a new statutory power, together with detailed requirements about the content, maintenance and review of cyber resilience plans. The National Cyber Security Centre guidance on cyber security for major events, to which this amendment refers, recognises that cyber security arrangements and requirements will differ according to the scale, location, systems and threat environment of the event in question. Such a legally binding list may not be relevant to every major sporting event.
Finally, there is also a practical challenge of monitoring compliance here. Details of cyber security plans are typically necessarily restricted to event organisers and do not generally involve government oversight. For those reasons, I ask that the noble Lord withdraw his amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Ultimately, sport is about winning, and it seems pretty clear that, in this group of amendments, my noble friend Lord Hayward won without even having an amendment in the group. That is, perhaps, how sport can go sometimes, as anybody who has played or spectated will very much appreciate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have commented on my amendments, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, who brought up gizmos—you can tell he is a scientist.
I say to the Minister that the wording may not be quite right in the amendments, but I ask her to reflect on the principles, strategies and criteria that any technology, while being technology neutral, would have to meet to achieve these objectives. Would that not be worth considering in a Bill of this type as we put it together at this stage? If we take the point of criteria, for example, you can effectively be technology neutral and largely technology future-proof because you focused on criteria and principles. It will be worth reflecting on whether some of that might be of value in the Bill.
Again, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part, and, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another to Clause 25 in the name of Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay would require Parliamentary consent before financial assistance can be granted.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 68, I will also speak to Amendments 72 and 73, all of which are much shorter than my previous amendment, which was just dispatched with.
The amendments in this group, which my noble friend Lord Markham has signed as well, are intended to prevent the financial assistance provisions in Clause 25 of the Bill becoming a blank cheque that successive Governments could fill out as they see fit. To do this, our amendments require that, before the appropriate national authority grants financial assistance in connection with a sporting event, the appropriate legislature must approve that assistance by resolution. This means in practice that, if the Secretary of State wants to help fund a particular event, the House of Commons must agree to any financial commitment. When the appropriate national authority is the Scottish Ministers, the Scottish Parliament must approve the funding, and where it is a Northern Ireland department, the Northern Ireland Assembly must give its consent.
It is a long-established principle that financial measures must be subject to approval by Parliament. Erskine May says in paragraph 33.2 that the “basic constitutional principle” of financial procedure is that
“the Crown requests money, the Commons grant it, and the Lords assent to the grant”.
It continues:
“In more modern terms, the Government presents to the House of Commons its detailed requirements for the financing of the public services; it is for the Commons, acting on the sole initiative of Ministers … to authorise the relevant expenditure”.
That is the crucial point: the Government must come to Parliament, specifically another place, with proposals for the sums to be spent on each object of expenditure, and those must be detailed requirements.
Of course, there are many Bills presented to Parliament which grant the Crown a more open-ended authorisation of expenditure, but, when those Bills are considered, Members of both Houses usually pass them knowing the object of the expenditure for which they are authorising, and the sums they are authorising. The impact assessment or a briefing or explanatory note from the Government would contain the Government’s estimate of how much the measures in that Bill would be likely to cost the public purse.
The Bill before us is not a usual piece of legislation, in the sense that it seeks to create a framework for future sporting events. We do not know to exactly which events the Bill will be applied in future, nor how much financial assistance the Government of the day might wish to grant those events. Clause 25 is an open-ended financial commitment, which potentially spans many decades into the future.
It is possible, without necessarily even looking many decades into the future, to envisage a Prime Minister who is fiscally less disciplined than others. I want to make sure that we are future-proofing the Bill for all eventualities.
Of course, the Bill is not accompanied by a detailed assessment of how much money the Government propose to spend as a result of Clause 25. That is not surprising. In fact, it is perfectly understandable. The very nature of an open-ended framework Bill such as this means that it is unknowable. But, if the Government are not able to tell us how much the Bill will cost in the long term, it is not just reasonable but a clear requirement to ensure that legislative consent is required for each instance of financial assistance granted under it. That will help us to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of each measure and, I hope, guarantee that fiscal probity is baked into the legislation.
All that our amendments seek to do is apply a very sound constitutional principle that the appropriation of public money should be agreed to by the House of Commons, elected by the people. I hope that the Minister and other noble Lords will agree. I beg to move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and to agree with everything that he said. I will build on his blank cheque, which was perfectly positioned phraseology. My Amendment 71 seeks to build on that in order to get the most from the moolah. If we are going to put financial assistance in place, as we do and will, it is only right and proper to make the most of that funding, to not restrict the funding and to not put issues around it that would make it less likely for us to win these major and mega sporting events. But we need to put in conditionality that will benefit the bid itself, the event and local communities and other organisations, not just at the event time but, if correctly put in place, for years and perhaps decades to come.
In no sense am I suggesting that the wording I have set out is exhaustive or covers all the issues at hand. I seek to demonstrate a sense of the threads of E, S and G running through this funding. It has to be right that local communities benefit directly from these events, because for mega events such as the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, they put up with a lot: the bid process, the extensive build process, Games time and a significant deconstruct of all the overlay and temporary venues. They deserve, and must have, an upside during that process, at the event time and, indeed, post event. It is not just the sport that should benefit. The local community is hosting these events as well and must be included in the upside and benefits that come from that.
In my other proposed subsections, I quite rightly set out to put everything around pay gap reporting, minimum wage, procurement and supply chain in the Bill. There is so much positive impact that can be driven through the procurement and supply chain process. It is worth, at least at a principles-based level, having something in the Bill to send out the signals as to what kinds of events we want to stage in this nation: not to limit the bid, not to control and not to affect the flexibility that one needs when a governing body is bidding, but rather to enhance, sharpen and add to the bid, and to the Games and the championships experience, and to have a sense that the stadia, community, part of a city and part of our country can look forward, post Games and post event—not looking back at something that has happened in the past but taking things forward that would not have happened and would not be part of that local community were it not for the staging of that event or that Games.
It is right that we seek to get the maximum and think about what we want to say about the funding put into these events. Criteria and principles seem a perfectly acceptable way of doing this. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. But, when you have spent many years at the other end of the telescope of these large events and have responsibilities for building the kit, enabling it all to work and making sure that it integrates in those communities, the detail really matters. One of the things we managed to achieve with the London Olympics—which was in no small part to do with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, Lord Coe and others—was to get cross-party support for this very big event, which we knew would probably go through different Governments and Mayors of London, and actually I think we achieved that. It was a very big and long event—and, by the way, we are still building out the Olympic Park today, so it was a big thing.
It is really important that, while there needs to be responsibility for large amounts of taxpayers’ money— I absolutely get that—if we are serious about these events, there also needs to be responsibility among our political parties to get cross-party agreement very early on.
That needs to happen not only at a national level. One or two of our colleagues in east London who were involved in the Labour councils there—I mention in particular my colleague Paul Brickell, who was a Labour councillor in Newham and ended up playing the lead role in regeneration as executive director—spent a lot of time building working relationships with the five Labour boroughs surrounding the Olympic Park, which when we began had a long history of being at war with each other. There was a lot of detailed work over cups of tea to build the relationships that support events such as this.
So, although I am in favour of being very careful about the money and get all of that, if we are serious about going for these events, there is a responsibility across our political parties to build working relationships early on and come to an agreement, so that those of us on the leading edge with day-to-day responsibility to make fast decisions tomorrow will not be held up by politics being played out on them somewhere else.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments that I assumed would not be needed. I assumed that we would have a series of debates about this. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, did a forensic job on the basic principles of where taxation comes from and how money is raised, going through. If the amendments are not needed, can the Minister tell us when she expects the interaction between the public system and Parliament on where the money comes from? That is a fairly reasonable question. If they have a structure behind what we are debating, we should know. I hope this is just a classic probing amendment, because that is what you should have at this point. We should know where we are going.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, that unless you get a commitment that everybody is prepared to buy into, there is no point doing anything, because it all needs a long-term plan. That is absolutely true, and if you start messing about with that, we just will not have any of these events, because no organising body in its right mind will come within a mile of us.
We have to have a degree of long-term planning. To get the benefits from events, we have to accept that even if Government A do something in a way that Government B do not particularly like when they come along, they will have to accept it and go along with it. Do not let your version of excellence be the enemy of the good on this.
I hope that, when the Minister responds, she will tell us exactly when these debates are to take place, what the structure will be going forward and what the spirit behind them is. The point is reasonable. I hope that there is an equally reasonable answer.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Parkinson. It comes to the heart of this Bill. This is, in effect, an enabling measure. It is agnostic about the events, but it is clear that it is about the major spectator sporting events of the future. It can provide a framework that will help to convince international federations, the IOC or FIFA that we are prepared, willing and ready to host one of those events. It is a pity it is agnostic because, as we heard on the first day in Committee, there are many events that would like to be included in this and, at present, we are unsure whether Wimbledon, the Open Championship et cetera could be covered.
Since the focus is on major events, such as a potential Olympic bid in 15 or 20 years’ time, it is concerning that what appears to have happened here is that we have enabling legislation that will come back to Parliament in the future through statutory instruments. When it comes to spending £10 billion at 2012 prices, that is simply not going to be acceptable to Parliament. We will require primary legislation. We will require a money Bill in order to consider whether that significant public spend is appropriate—even more so when you take the 2012 example, where the original bid was costed at £3.4 billion and it ended up at more than double that, and that is before accounting for the excellent work of the country’s intelligence and security services. I was present at a major debate about whether you included the security services’ work and costed it or you accepted that the security services would be working on something else at the time, so there was no additional cost as they simply switched across to the protection of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Leaving that aside, the important point is we had circa £10 billion-worth of public funding, and there is no way that secondary legislation on a regret Motion in your Lordships’ House is going to be sufficient for parliamentarians to come to a conclusion on that.
That brings me to the second point about the way that international sport is run under fiercely protected autonomy. To take the example of the Olympics, the bid committee is not initially set up by government to bid. The bid committee is the National Olympic Committee, and for us that is the British Olympic Association. The bid committee comes forward with the proposal for a city and it is responsible for preparing the bid documentation, which is known as the candidature file. That is formed by the city that is bidding, in the case of the Olympics, and the Olympic association of the host country. They go to their Government.
On the financing of a major event such as the Olympic Games, the role of the Government is to provide legally binding guarantees regarding, above all, funding. That is what is looked for from the Government: a legally binding guarantee regarding funding, taxation, customs and immigration. I shall take a few minutes to demonstrate this point and bring it to life in the context of what happened in London 2012. The guarantee that the Government provided in support of London 2012 was,
“to provide all necessary financial support to the Games”.
That was clearly made as a commitment by the providers of the public funding package for the Games. It was absolutely right that Parliament questioned that and asked what that guarantee meant.
The applicability of the guarantee in the context of London was confirmed by the Government in three concrete cases, where third parties requested additional assurance in respect of obligations undertaken by the organising committee. The first was Ticketmaster. The arrangement with Ticketmaster required assumption of responsibility for the refund of ticket purchases should the event be cancelled. The Government needed to step in to provide that security. Ticket revenues were a significant element of the organising committee’s budget and its cash flow. In lieu of requiring either that funds be held in escrow against potential refund claims or the provision of a costly letter of credit to support LOCOG’s undertaking to refund, Ticketmaster agreed to provide LOCOG with ticketing funds as received and recognised its obligation to refund as a binding and enforceable contractual obligation. The guarantee from the Government established the Government as the ultimate guarantor of any such shortfall. It is incumbent on a Government to let Parliament know that that is a potential financial requirement and to allow Parliament to decide whether that sort of decision can be taken by the Treasury, in the absence of coming back to Parliament, or by the relevant Minister—in the case of London, the Minister for the Olympic Games.
Another interesting point concerned the London Borough of Greenwich. One of the conditions specified in the grant of planning permission for the use of Greenwich Park required the organising committee to put in place arrangements to provide financial assistance so that the reinstatement of the park after the Games was funded and completed as envisaged in the planning applications. Again, to make sure that everybody was happy in that context, the Government provided the funding support.
In the IOC broadcast refund share agreement pursuant to the host city contract, the IOC made advance payments to LOCOG from the fees paid to the IOC by broadcast rightsholders, but, importantly, if the Games were cancelled fee rebates were due to the broadcasters. These were subject to a written assurance from the Government as the back guarantor.
I mention those three cases because I think they are important. They are significant, given the exposure of the Government and their support for that international event—in this case the Olympic Games. It is essential that, in providing that sort of support for a major international event, where the public are particularly interested in all aspects of it, the Government come back to Parliament and put into a finance measure or primary legislation the requirements that the Government are being asked to make by the International Olympic Committee, which owns the rights to the Games.
I hope the Minister will stand up and say that she accepts my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s request. He put it admirably. I have tried to add colour to it and to explain what it would mean in the practical reality of a major event. I very much hope that, if the Minister cannot accept the wording that my noble friend Lord Parkinson has put into his amendment, we can revisit this. It is of such importance for parliamentary accountability that issues of this nature should be considered in primary legislation or in debates in both Houses, rather than simply in a one-hour debate on a regret Motion.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Holmes of Richmond, for tabling the amendments in this group. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington. We do not believe the amendments are required either.
Amendments 68, 72 and 73, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, are intended to require parliamentary approval before financial assistance under Clause 25 can be given in relation to sporting events. This Government completely agree that scrutiny and transparency when it comes to public spending are vital. However, we do not believe that these amendments are necessary. First, for the avoidance of doubt, the funding power is not intended to lead to spending above and beyond what would have been provided anyway. Rather, it is a legal mechanism intended to ensure that any funding provided to sporting events has a clear statutory underpinning. This is in line with the principles set out in Managing Public Money.
Secondly, I want to be clear that this funding power is in line with established precedent for similar funding powers. Parliament already has responsibility to authorise government expenditure in this area through the supply estimates process, such as allocations for bidding for and staging major sporting events and legacy programmes.
These amendments, however, would go much further, effectively requiring the Government or devolved authorities to seek the approval of the relevant legislature every time they rely on this funding power, be it to fund a smaller-scale, grass-roots event or arts and culture programmes affiliated to sporting events. This has the potential to require parliamentary approval numerous times over the course of each year. To put this in perspective, over the past decade alone the UK secured and delivered almost 150 major sporting events, many with the support of government investment, and that is even before you count related activities. Once we add funding for domestic sporting events to the mix, the potential number of funding cases within scope goes up significantly.
I hope noble Lords understand therefore why the Government’s view is that these amendments are disproportionate and would place an unsustainable burden on Parliament. However, I assure noble Lords that, where financial assistance is provided by relying on this power, it will rightly remain subject to the same existing processes and ministerial accountability as any other spending of public money. Departments are required to produce robust business cases when spending public funds, in line with public Treasury guidance. Where funding needs are significant, this will also require a departmental spending review bid to His Majesty’s Treasury to be subject to even further scrutiny. There are a number of existing mechanisms which provide Parliament with additional ability to scrutinise such funding, including the Public Accounts Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, as well as committees in your Lordships’ House.
Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, would require organisers of major sporting events to publish, and commit to comply with, an environmental, social and governance impact compliance plan before funding can be provided where it exceeds £1 million in aggregate to a single recipient. As I hope I have already made clear, the Government are in full agreement with the point being made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes that, where public money is given in support of a major sporting event, it should be used responsibly, secure value for money for the public purse, and ensure that benefits are shared with local communities. This is something the Government will be thinking about even before we consider funding a major sporting event.
As already noted, the Gold Framework is clear that, where event organisers are seeking government investment, they must demonstrate the social value of these events, including with regard to many of the criteria the noble Lord sets out. Among other expectations, it outlines that event organisers must have meaningful plans in place to generate this positive social impact even before the event has started. Where the Government do decide to support a major sporting event, this requires a robust business case proportionate to the expenditure, in alignment with Green Book and Managing Public Money guidance. These frameworks expect departments to consider environmental, social and distributional impacts, including those set out by the noble Lord, such as through the public sector equality duty and environmental principles policy statement assessments.
Finally, as has already been made clear, Clause 25 already sets out that event funding can be given where needed, subject to conditions. This could absolutely include conditions related to all these areas, where warranted. Furthermore, international federations and event owners often specify their own expectations and requirements with regard to the social and environmental impacts that prospective bidders would be required to meet. For instance, UK bids for World Athletics events are required to comprehensively integrate sustainability to align with the governing body’s mandatory Athletics for a Better World standard, with the Glasgow 2024 World Indoor Athletics Championships having secured a platinum rating, which is the highest rating possible under the standard. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her response and to all noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendments. It was a useful discussion and I will look carefully at what the noble Baroness said as we move to the next stage of the Bill. As I said in opening, this is not an ordinary Bill. It is not normal for Parliament to be presented with a piece of legislation that permits completely open-ended financial commitments, so this is an important area for us to look at carefully.
For instance, when Parliament was considering what became the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, the Mayor of London and the Government had already by that point entered into a memorandum of understanding, setting out how the Games would be funded were we to win the bid. Parliament, therefore, was aware of both the event for which it was legislating and approximately what the financial liability would be. My noble friend Lord Moynihan set out in great detail—adding, as he says, colour and practical reality—the complexities of the agreements and guarantees that are required when we host events of this scale.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, that cross-party support is so important. That is why we are broadly supportive of this legislation and of the Government’s ambitions in this area. But having a proper debate in Parliament, where all the parties can get their concerns off their chest and reach a resolution, is an important part of securing that cross-party agreement. My noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond in his Amendment 71 sets out just some of the many areas that Members of Parliament in both Houses will rightly want to raise when we look at these things.
At one point in her response, the Minister talked about making a departmental funding bid to the Treasury. That is fine, but it is an internal scrutiny in Government, not a role for the elected House. This was a probing amendment, as everything is in Committee, but it is probing a very important matter, so I think we ought to look at this in more detail on Report. But, with gratitude to the Minister and all those who have spoken, for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Addington
“(1A) The appropriate national authority may, in connection with a sporting event, set expectations as to the investment to be made by relevant organisations in—(a) grassroots sporting venues or organisations, and(b) participation in sport at grassroots level, including community sporting projects and facilities.(1B) Financial assistance under subsection (1) may, in particular, be given subject to conditions requiring the recipient to make, or to secure that another person makes, investment of a kind mentioned in subsection (1A).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in Lord Addington’s name, enables the appropriate national authority to set expectations on event organisers and others who benefit commercially from a sporting event to invest in grassroots sport and community participation, and to make financial assistance under Clause 25 conditional on such investment.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I feel rather sorry for the Minister, because this amendment is once again going back to lessons learned from previous sporting events, particularly from the London Olympics. Although it was a success in many ways, one thing it did not do was encourage more people to play sport. This is universally accepted. When the committee on which I served, as did the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan —he might have led it, I cannot remember: it is a long time ago now—looked at this to find out what happened, the idea that it is just a straightforward inspiration for sport does not work. You have to do a bit more to encourage people to play sport.
There are good examples in world championships for rugby union and netball: there is argument about who devised the model first. You have a great spike in interest, but you must prepare the grass-roots clubs for people turning up who have not played. This is one of the cases when I found out just how old I am. Advertising for the Rugby World Cup totally missed me, because it was aimed at those aged 18 to 25. It was encouraging those with recent skills to get back to being involved in the game. But you had to make sure the clubs were ready for them. You have to have the grass roots ready to receive and you have to help them to do it. Big gestures from the boys at the top do not help with participation unless you have somewhere coming through where you can do it.
As has been said, these are probing amendments, but the Government need ideas. What are we actually going to do? We have this big sporting event, and we can use the models that the sports themselves have devised and take them further. That might help. I am not saying how it should be done—it may be greater capacity for playing facilities, training or coaching—but we have to make sure that we get people playing the sports. That is what this is about. This is an accepted failure from something which, other than that, was a success. We just did not do that one thing.
There is no point in someone watching something happen on television and saying, “Isn’t it marvellous?”, if we do not find out whether we have the capacity to do it, or even to start that process. We have to get them out and playing. That is what I would like, and it is what I am trying to get at: what is the Government’s thinking about getting a proper sporting legacy at grass-roots level that will give us the capacity to start finding champions? Unless we go down the route of testing everyone at the age of 14 to see who our champions are and saying, “The rest of you, just sit down and watch. There’s a box here. You press a button and watch other people”, because that is not what it is about, or it should not be.
Amendments 74 and 75 merely follow on from the spirit of Amendment 69. Can the Government tell us their thinking about encouraging people to correct the one big failure of something that has changed our whole debate about this issue—that is, the Olympics—by getting people playing sport? I beg to move.
Amendment 70 (to Amendment 69)
“(c) measures to improve the resilience of sporting infrastructure against the impacts of climate change, including flooding, extreme weather and heat.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds climate resilience to the list of considerations to be made by national authorities providing financial assistance to sporting events.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I fully support Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Obviously, major sporting events generate significant commercial benefits, but we have to ask what their legacy will be or could be. Too often we celebrate the spectacle, the television audiences and the economic boost, but the local clubs, pitches and volunteers, which sustain sport every week of the year, may see little benefit.
Amendment 69 seeks to address that by creating an expectation that those who benefit from major sporting events should also invest in grass-roots sport, community facilities and participation. After all, elite sport does not emerge from nowhere. Every international player and every Olympian starts somewhere. They start on local pitches, in community halls, in amateur clubs and in local swimming pools, with volunteer coaches giving up evenings and weekends. In many places, the local sports club is one of the few remaining community institutions where people of different ages and backgrounds come together regularly. So I warmly support the principle that grass-roots foundations, on which all sport ultimately depends, should be strengthened.
My Amendment 70 takes that further to add that the climate resilience for grass-roots sport should be included too. This is a month when I was locked out of my office because of potential flooding and, of course, we now have this incredible heatwave, so I argue that this amendment seems particularly relevant.
When we talk about investing in grass-roots facilities, we must also talk about protecting them. Across the country, grass-roots sport is already experiencing the effects of climate change. Football matches are cancelled because pitches are waterlogged, clubs face increasing repair costs after flooding and storms, and facilities are damaged by extreme weather. Heatwaves are clearly creating new challenges for us all, and these are real present-day problems for sports up and down the country.
Estimates suggest that between 120,000 and 150,000 grass-roots football matches are cancelled each season because pitches are unplayable due to rain and flooding. In parts of the country, pitches are already losing weeks of playable time every year because of changing weather patterns, and every cancelled match means lost revenue for clubs, disruption for volunteers and fewer opportunities for participation. Over time, of course, it threatens the viability of facilities that communities depend on.
The irony is that we can spend money improving a clubhouse, upgrading a pitch or expanding facilities only to find that those investments are increasingly vulnerable if resilience is not built in from the start. If public money or event-related investment is helping to support a community sports facility then surely it makes sense to ensure that the facility remains usable for years to come.
Lord Doyle (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to build on what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said in one specific regard. He is obviously right in what he says about London 2012, but I want to reflect that there was an initiative that attempted to deal with this—which I know very well because I worked for it at the time—called Join In Local Sport. Indeed, Members of this House kindly got involved in events that we held.
I shall focus on what we knew was a core challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Coe, spoke to us about this at the start of our initiative: after the 1984 Olympics, on going back to his sports club, he saw that there were queues of young people there who suddenly wanted to participate, but the key resource that they were missing was volunteers. We do not speak enough about the role of volunteers or the barriers that there are for people who want to be coaches and to support teams. Parents often get involved when it is their own child who wants to participate, but we need to keep them around and supported as volunteers for longer. As we look at participation in sport, I urge the Government to make sure that one of our key focuses is the pathways, incentives and encouragement that we can give to get more people to feel valued as volunteers within sport.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure the Government are going to accept these amendments as drafted, although I very much hope they will. For the record, it was the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, who chaired the parliamentary Select Committee that looked at the sports legacy from London 2012. We suggested in an earlier amendment that there should be frequent reviews—maybe after one year, after five years and after 10 years—of the sports legacy, the urban regeneration legacy and the social legacy of the significant investment that is put behind major sports events that are covered by the Bill.
It is wise and helpful to end my few remarks by saying that I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Doyle. We lost the opportunity after London 2012 to continue to encourage the many outstanding and wonderful volunteers who made the Games. It was the volunteers who made the Games, and they could so easily have been captivated by the atmosphere of a great sporting legacy and gone down to their clubs or initiatives such as the noble Lord’s excellent initiative and continued to be involved, but we lost those people.
I shall quote from the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, when we reported to the House on the sadness that the sports legacy had really not been delivered while so many other legacies had. The regeneration of the East End of London was outstanding, for example, and the Games themselves were historically wonderful in everyone’s memory, particularly the Paralympic Games, as well as the Olympic Games—they matched each other. This is what he said:
“How is it possible that the UK is world-leading in elite and professional sports, that 3 billion people across the world watch our Premier League matches in over 187 different countries and that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has consistently said, at Olympics after Olympics we are near the top of the league in terms of our elite activities, yet for decades we have failed at grass-roots level to get more people from more diverse backgrounds to be more active, despite all the investment that successive Governments have made?”
The point that he was really emphasising was that this was successive Governments; it was not a party-political point. He concluded:
“With one-third of the adult population at the moment getting less than 150 minutes of moderate activity each week; with schoolchildren doing consistently less activity both at school and at home; with PE marginalised in the school curriculum and no longer inspected by Ofsted while, as we heard in our evidence, many primary school teachers get less than three hours’ training in a three-year degree course, which is shameful, so physical literacy in most of our primary schools means nothing, frankly, because it does not appear on the league tables; with access to facilities ever more difficult; with local authorities closing swimming pools and leisure centres to save resources; and with transport non-existent for large parts of the day for large swathes of the community, we have become one of the most lazy, inactive nations in the … world. Those sections of the population with the poorest diets and the worst levels of deprivation are, not surprisingly, the least active, too, and of course the pandemic has disproportionately affected all the target groups”.—[Official Report, 4/2/22; col. 1208.]
That is the concern that many people on all sides of this Committee feel has been underestimated by successive Governments, and it is why the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has brought forward his amendment. The spirit of his amendment, and what he intends to do to remind us of these important facts, are vital. I welcome his work in that context. I hope the Minister is in a position to respond positively.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I was not involved in this aspect of the Games, but I was aware of the conversations going on about it at the time in east London. The Government might benefit from talking to Sir Robin Wales, the then Labour Mayor of Newham, who was deeply concerned about all this, and Tessa Sanderson, who tried to engage with this area. I suggest that the problem is seeing projects such as this as being about structures rather than people. If you really want this stuff to happen, you have to get interested in the Tessas and others of this world, on the ground, who want to do something about it, and back them. If my memory serves me correctly, they felt very unsupported and doubted whether the various large structures around them would do anything consistent long term. There are lessons to be learned here. Maybe if we have a conversation with some of these people, we can learn some of those lessons.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, I want to add to this briefly. I have been sitting and listening to what has been said, and the one thing I have not heard about is working and liaising with local government. At the end of the day, it is at the forefront of providing the facilities noble Lords are talking about. Over the years, underfunding has meant that swimming pools have been closed and other sports events have not been able to function. There needs to be recognition that we in this Committee and those higher up can say what we would like to see, but we have to work with local government because it has the routes into the community and the grass-roots organisations. Those volunteers—the parents noble Lords are talking about—have the reach and their first port of call is local government.
I just wanted to add that to the debate so we can bear that in mind. We cannot do this in isolation. We must involve local government.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this very helpful debate has, in many senses, continued the discussion we had thanks to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Moynihan, on day one in Committee, about the huge importance of leaving a legacy when we host a major sporting event. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, spoke very powerfully about that on Monday as well. The huge importance of our grass-roots sports organisations is clear once again. They do so much—not just when we are hosting these major events but particularly when the spotlight is shone on them—to get young people and people of all ages more active and more physically fit, helping improve their health and helping the pipeline of elite sports people for the future.
The Saturday morning football teams, the local cricket clubs and the swimming squads that meet in leisure centres up and down the land are the real heartbeat of the sporting culture in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, is absolutely right: three-quarters of grass-roots sports clubs depend on affordable, local, publicly funded leisure facilities to provide opportunities for people to get involved, try new sports and get more active. They certainly deserve our support. That is why it is sad to see the Government, in other departments, looking at watering down the role for Sport England in the planning system in protecting grass pitches and sports facilities. I do not know whether the Minister, when she comes to respond, can say a bit more about this review of the planning system and the role of Sport England. It has drawn concern from the Lioness, Jill Scott, and organisations such as Fields in Trust, and I hope their words of warning will be heeded.
Noble Lords are right to mention the sadness, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan put it, quoting the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, about that aspect of the last time this country hosted the Olympic and Paralympic Games. That summer of 2012 was one of the highlights of this century for this country, but that was a part of the process that we did not get as right or make as successful as we all wanted, in spite of great initiatives such as the Sport England’s Places People Play programme and the initiative the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, mentioned, with which he was associated at the time. There is a real opportunity when we host future major sporting events to make sure that we are driving forward that grass-roots legacy and driving the improvements we all want to see for future generations. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a real privilege to be part of the debate today and, with my own background, I have really enjoyed the rich contributions from around the Chamber. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the other noble Lords who have supported these amendments, especially referencing the importance they rightly attach to grass-roots sport, community participation and the legacy of major sporting events.
Taken together, these four amendments seek to enable expectations to be set around investment in grass-roots sport, including community projects and facilities, as well as in climate resilience, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has raised again. I know we had opportunities to discuss this earlier, and I probably will not dwell as much on that aspect as a result with these amendments. The amendments would also ensure that any funding under Clause 25 could be made conditional on such investment.
I said I was particularly pleased to be involved because, as a former local government leader, I recognise and completely understand the comments about the importance of local partnerships. As my noble friend Lady Dacres rightly stressed, we need to make sure that local government is at the centre of these plans. That runs throughout the Government’s approach in this regard. I emphasise that the Government are fully committed to maximising the positive legacy of major sporting events and, of course, this includes protecting and upgrading world-class facilities. But they are not just for elite athletes; they have to be accessible to local communities afterwards, and I think we have heard a great deal about that.
Picking up on the points that were made, DCMS, I am very pleased to say, is developing a national plan for physical activity that will demonstrate commitment to place-based working, embedding physical activity into local systems to strengthen the ties. We cannot look at this in isolation: it is leisure, health, civil society—all the benefits coming together. Of course, I have discussed this a great deal with the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, who emphasised detail. Details matter, particularly in the setting up of local partnerships.
We have clear principles in place to do this. The Gold Framework outlines that when seeking investment from the Government, event organisers must “have “meaningful plans” in place to generate a positive “social impact” even before the event has started. This includes considering how the event could lead to improvements in sporting facilities and infrastructure, as well as helping to tackle environmental issues. Critically, the Gold Framework is clear that the best legacy programmes are developed through engagement with the communities that they are meant to support. Picking up on the well-made points from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, this is what enables us to target funding where it is truly needed.
Participation, obviously, is the key thread running through all these principles. For example, we are investing £23 million into delivering legacy initiatives for the UEFA Euro 2028, which this Bill will help us to deliver, featuring the largest-ever community programme for a Euros tournament. It is obviously a multi-city hosting model; this also means that it is committed to supporting locally led legacy programmes, directly engaging diverse communities in design and delivery. The plans will be delivered by local stakeholders in both England and Ireland—the two host countries—to harness the power of sport and culture, bringing communities together and inspiring positive change. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, we talk a lot about the issue of volunteers, and why we are not attracting as many as before. This is all part of the strategy that the Government are bringing forward.
The current system works: it recognises that one size does not fit all, and provides flexibility that these amendments, in our view, would not. We need to continue to be able to be guided by evidence in any provision of public funding, as we have been doing, to allow us to maximise the benefits of our world-leading sporting events for the diverse communities we serve throughout the UK—of course, sport is a devolved matter for Wales and Scotland. The Sporting Events Bill will increase the UK’s prospects of hosting even more events, and with it the potential to generate more lasting socio- economic benefits for athletes and communities across the UK.
Where needed, Clause 25 of the Bill already sets out that event funding can be given subject to conditions: these could include conditions relating to supporting these important areas where warranted. The Government are already doing what we can regardless: for example, we are investing £400 million across the next four years into new and upgraded grass-roots sports facilities, promoting health, well-being and community cohesion. Some of that money has been used to upgrade clubhouses and pitches, but reducing our carbon footprint and improving overall durability is also absolutely fundamental. We are funding the Sports Grounds Safety Authority, providing evidence-based guidance to help ensure that both physical structures and fan welfare are protected during volatile climate events.
I just want to reference—because I am very proud of it—the bringing of the Grand Départ to Yorkshire. It was one of the proudest things that I have been involved in, and legacy was a thread running through it. I live on the edge of Leeds, and I know that it was scouts going round schools who found Lizzie Armitstead, who was not a cyclist then but a runner. The scouts went to the school and discovered her talent in cycling. That was first-hand, real experience of how this can work. Most important was the parallel event running alongside the Grand Départ, with thousands of people volunteering. They kept the route open for all the amateurs to go along afterwards for the whole day. Those events, and indeed all cycling events in Yorkshire, are now flooded with participants. It can be done.
There are many other examples of positive models. I have referred just to one that I am familiar with and am very proud of, but there are examples all over the country. We need to look at those examples with great positivity and recognise the incredible benefits they bring to a wide selection of communities, and the pride from families seeing their kids participating. There is a huge amount to be positive about in the approach that the Government are taking.
I hope, with the comments I have made, that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will feel able to withdraw his amendment at this point in the proceedings.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when we have these debates we tend to follow this pattern: we talk about great things and wonderful events; we talk about the volunteers coming in and helping out and how wonderful it all was. But this amendment was not about that. It was about the second teams: it was about getting participation up and getting people to turn up. It is about making sure you have people playing the sport. Local government has its role, but it is all about facilitating people to do their own stuff. The Government have lots of initiatives, but we are not as good at this as we used to be, and there has been a cultural shift.
Many of our own sports have added to this. Rugby union turned pro, and great, famous clubs got rebranded and lost eight teams on a Saturday. Just think what that did to the local sporting economy. The Government have to get back to grass-roots sports, because that is where the infrastructure is to expand from: namely, from the volunteers. One can do all sorts of things, like redo a clubhouse, but unless we take advantage of that, and encourage them, we are going to miss.
There have been lots of examples about good volunteers, and we could have another amendment about that, because we know that volunteers quite like to do a finite, one-off project, and then they stop and have a rest. Somebody running a small club is a different type of volunteer: they turn up, as part of a lifetime’s commitment almost, to make sure that every new generation of children or junior players get coached properly, that somebody fills out the forms and that there is a secretary and a treasurer—that all that stuff happens.
With this amendment, I was trying to ensure that this goes down through sports, and maybe it needs to be done on a sport-by-sport basis, and some sports will be doing it anyway. When we talk about great examples, we miss the point. It is about making sure that we have something that goes down to the people who are already there—a little shot in the arm to help them carry on—because we are missing this. Parliament tends to do that. We forget about this when we talk about sport. We think about big, exciting events; most sport is not big and exciting. I know because I have played in it.
I understand the Minister’s answer, which could have come from anyone else, because they do not quite get what we are talking about. The noble Lord, Lord Doyle, started saying, “Yeah, we tried: it was all big and exciting, but we didn’t manage it”. This is because we do not go to where the actual volunteers are. The idea was to make sure we got some support, some structure, some help going down to the volunteers. Until we do that, we will continue to struggle, and then local government will say, “Oh, well, you’re not using that facility, so we can shut it down”—that is the negative side—and a few people will determinedly fight it, but they will always have the argument coming against them.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I mention local government because they are part of that grass-roots nexus for local people. They are the ones to whom our local grass-roots organisations will turn in order to try to get that extra money, that extra funding, so that they can run a boxing club, for example, or facilitate other groups. They are at the core. These are the volunteers, to whom the noble Lord referred, with a lifelong commitment to helping young people. This is why we need to remember how important local government is to ensure that we can funnel those extra funds, and ensure that they reach the right people, the right groups and the underprivileged young people who really want to take part in those sports.
In addition, local authorities are closer to what local young people want to do and see. That is why, for example, you will see skateboarding parks, because that is now an Olympic sport, and BMXing is another great, accessible Olympic sport. That is why it is important to remember local government, because it reaches the people in local areas who give their lives to make sure that they are engaging and encouraging young people to take part in these sports that the noble Lord is referring to.
Lord Addington (LD)
I do not disagree with any of that. I would just say that it is not a core activity, so it tends to become a secondary choice and there is pressure on local government. If you come through and give a boost, local government might be able to deliver. Local governments provide pitches for some sports, whereas they do not get involved with other sports. It is about culture, and it is a very varied picture. It can be important: many people play football on local government pitches, but rugby union and cricket clubs tend to own their own grounds or have long-term leases. There is a cultural mix that goes down there. So, local government is important, but we need to go down to the grass-roots club that, for example, runs four teams. As I once suggested to one of our governing bodies, you must remember to write to local government and tell it what you want; that will improve the relationship. There is a struggle there, but we are getting off the topic.
I think we should have another look at this, because we are still not making sure that we engage with those people on the ground. I hope that the Government will, shall we say, have a little bit more robustness in their answer. The Minister can only read out what is in front of her, but we are going down here to get the Government to give us a better answer on this one. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)
Before the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment, we need to give the noble Baroness the opportunity to indicate what she wants to do with her amendment to his amendment.
Lord Markham
“Limitation of football banning ordersAfter section 14J of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (offences) insert—“14K Banning orders: protection of freedom of expressionIn relation to sporting events to which the Sporting Events Act 2026 applies, or banning orders that result from offences under the Sporting Events Act 2026, nothing in this Act shall be read, or given effect, in a way which prohibits or restricts expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse that do not incite violence or disorder.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure that behaviour at sporting events which is fleeting, non-violent and part of the charged, emotional atmosphere of live sport does not lead to the imposition of football banning orders.
Lord Markham (Con)
Noble Lords will notice that I am not my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, who, unfortunately, cannot be here this evening. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lady Davies is also not able to be here. But I would be grateful if the Minister is able to reply to their amendments.
It is my pleasure to introduce this last group: the last lap of the race, which, while not a 100-metre sprint and definitely not a marathon, I think we would all agree has been a well-honed and fast-paced middle-distance 1,500-metre race. It has been a blue-ribbon debate on making sure that we get the best opportunities to bid for the Olympics and the World Cup.
I will move and speak to Amendment 86, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Sater. I know this is an area of great concern. Grass-roots sports participation has been a running theme through all this. Unfortunately, the CQC’s proposed regulations to make all medics at events CQC registered, at a cost of £1,000 and a lengthy registration process, are in danger of destroying a lot of grass-roots sports. We will freely admit—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)
Just to be clear, the noble Lord is moving Amendment 83. Amendment 86 is in this group, and the noble Lord is free to speak to it, but he is moving Amendment 83.
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, I am moving Amendment 83 and speaking to Amendment 86 from my noble friend Lady Sater.
As I was saying, there is real concern about the impact of the CQC regulations on these grass-roots sports. If my noble friend Lady Sater was here, she would freely admit that this has been somewhat shoehorned into this debate, but I know that the Minister will understand that, as she participated in the debate on the secondary legislation from the Department of Health and Social Care. There is a real concern that, if volunteers have to spend all this money, they simply will not turn up to events. They will not do them, and that will mean that we will lose a lot of youth football events, rugby tournaments, point-to-point racing and athletics. You name it—we will probably lose it in all this.
We have talked many times about the importance of creating a sporting legacy; that means making sure that these grass-roots events can run. That is why this amendment would require that, within one month of the Bill’s passage, the Secretary of State makes a statement on the impact of these proposals. Clearly, we are not expecting the Secretary of State to do this. This is a probing amendment, but one very much designed to keep this at the top of the agenda. Again, I know that the Minister absolutely understands that, because she participated in the earlier debate, but I am afraid that we—I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—have been fairly disappointed about the CQC’s response to date, and I know that that is true of many of the sports organisations. This amendment is therefore designed to make sure that this is kept at the top of the agenda, because, if you speak to lots of sporting bodies, there is a concern that we are going to lose a lot of grass-roots events through the CQC’s actions.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. While I have not been able to speak to the amendments from my noble friends Lord Young and Lady Davies, and while they are not able to do so either, I am sure that they will be grateful if the Minister could include those amendments in her reply.
Lord Doyle (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 83. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Markham, is not responsible for its content, but since he moved it, I feel obliged to put my objections to it, in the debate that we are having on this group, on record. I object not just to the specifics; this amendment goes against a core value of sport and the sporting events that we have been discussing very positively over the last couple of days of Committee: the power of sport to bring people together. It cannot be right, therefore, that the language of Amendment 83 states that it is only concerned with insults and abuse that “incite violence or disorder”. Surely that is not the bar that we want to set or the culture that we want sport to promote. After all, in recent years we have seen significant progress on the status of, and pay in, both women’s and disability sport. We have seen initiatives such as Kick It Out in football do great work to tackle discrimination in all forms. We now have a situation where there are more than 50 LGBT supporters’ groups within football through the Pride in Football network.
I mention football because, as in all sports, there is much more to do. However, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton—I am sorry that he is not here to hear me say this—quoted some homophobic language on Second Reading that he thought we should all be relaxed about and not be concerned by, in the way that authorities are, or the way in which banning orders are a necessary tool within sport.
I simply urge the noble Lord to reflect on the real-world impact of chants from the stands or language down the pub. Why is it that in football, which was the example he cited, in the men’s game we have no out gay players and yet in the women’s game we do? Hosting events surely is about coming together, showcasing not just the best of sport but the best of us as a country, where nobody is intimidated out of taking part and all our citizens can enjoy watching it.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 86 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sater. I am very grateful to her for tabling it and to the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for speaking to it, because I think this is very helpful to keep the discussion on the CQC live. I understand where we have got to with the new guidance that is coming out on the back of the Manchester bombings. It is completely understandable. It has elicited very strong views in the sector. I thank the CQC for the meeting, but I think many of us have probably come away from that more confused than we were at the start. A better explanation of the plan would have helped.
As the noble Lord, Lord Markham, said, on what is an individual, what would happen when a parent steps in at an event? I think of a local rugby event; if there is a doctor there and they are asked to step in, they may not be covered by insurance. It has set a lot of hares running within the sector, which I do not think necessarily needed to happen. I also realise that the consultation is ongoing. The big events—I spoke to the London Marathon—will be fine, because they are already set up to deal with this, but I am thinking of the smaller events. I know there is a cut-off or a line at 200 people, but lots of very local events would have more than 200 people taking part. Yes, they are run under the auspices of a national governing body, but unless we get this absolutely right there is a real risk that volunteers will not continue to step up to run these events.
Yes, there will be risk assessments, but they might not have access to threat assessments. You could end up in an unforeseen circumstance and end up in court for something you have done. While we are waiting for case law, which could take several years, there could be a very big detrimental effect of volunteers stepping back, so understanding the impact is very important. I certainly think it is important to keep this discussion going, and more clarity on this would be really helpful as we go forward.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, on Amendment 83. As I said earlier, this amendment is just basically wrong—end of.
On Amendment 86, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It conforms with my experience that you have to be flexible; you have to understand about local events, and you have to keep the structure going. Clarity is required here about what is wanted, so I hope we step towards that clarity or at least find out when it is coming. That is one thing about Bills in Parliament: you do get a chance to pin a Minister down for a worthwhile answer. I hope we have assurances on both of these.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I will be equally brief, but let me preface my remarks by saying that I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, is contributing to this debate. We both have a long history in Lewisham, and Lewisham East in particular. It is a very sporting constituency, as it happens, with Chris Chataway being the first Conservative Member of Parliament for that seat. I was nothing like as eminent as he was when he was a fairly impressive pacemaker in the historic 1954 Bannister run, when he broke the four-minute mile. The noble Baroness is a much-loved mayor in Lewisham, very hard working and very respected, so it is great to see her contribute to a sports debate.
Equally, when the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, acting as Minister at the time just now, spoke of talent transfer, it is important to recognise the outstanding work that the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger, has done in that context in UK sport. Talent transfer has been an absolute pillar of the success of many of our sports in recent years, since we really professionalised elite sport. My friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger, was critically important in that work, and it is a great delight to see her in your Lordships’ House.
I support the comments made about Amendment 86 in the name of my noble friend Lady Sater. It is very important indeed that these CQC regulations remain on the agenda, and I hope the Minister is going to give us some comfort today and say that they should be looked at again in the context of the smaller events, the ones that local authorities run. The noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, was completely right in what she said about the role of local authorities in grass-roots sport. These CQC regulations are really quite critical now to the cost of running those smaller events that are so important in the development of sport. I hope they can be kept under review and looked at again by the Government. My noble friend Lady Sater’s amendment, and the comments made in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, just underline how important it is to be reviewed now so that it does not do irreparable damage to many of the sporting events that we are talking about.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for introducing and speaking to the amendments on behalf of the noble Baronesses, Lady Davies of Devonport and Lady Sater, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton.
Amendment 83, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, would carve out a broad category of criminal conduct from the preventive football banning order regime by seeking to exclude behaviour framed as “expression”, even where that conduct has crossed the threshold into criminality. This carve-out is intended to include conduct at sporting events to which the Bill applies, or banning orders resulting from offences under the Bill. On the latter, to be clear, the offences under the Bill will not be added to the football banning regime. On the former, football banning orders may be imposed only by a court and are a very serious measure. They arise either following conviction for a relevant offence listed in Schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1989 or where the court is satisfied that the individual poses an ongoing risk of involvement in football-related violence or disorder. As the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, said, this amendment is not the bar we want to set. Sport should indeed, as the noble Lord said, be the best of us. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, echoed that sentiment.
Your Lordships’ Committee will recall the disgraceful racist abuse directed at Black England players following the Euro 2020 final. The noble Lord, Lord Doyle, rightly pointed out the lack of out gay male footballers in the sport. That behaviour at Euro 2020 was rightly condemned across your Lordships’ House, and it underpins why the banning order regime was strengthened to include communications offences to ensure that those who engage in such hateful, harmful conduct can be excluded from the game. It would therefore be inappropriate to carve out a category of criminal behaviour from the football banning order regime simply because it is described as “expression”. Parliament has already determined that such conduct can meet the criminal threshold. Weakening that framework risks undermining the ability of courts and police to deal effectively with those who jeopardise safety and enjoyment for the vast majority of decent fans, and indeed for sportspeople.
Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Davies of Devonport—who is not able to be in her place today—proposes, in the context of events to which the framework provisions are applied, a duty to ensure provision of single-sex competitions and facilities. It also sets out that where the rules of a sporting competition are framed by reference to the gender or sex of the participants, that reference must be to biological sex. Any events to which the Bill’s framework will apply must comply with existing legislation and guidance. In the UK, the Supreme Court ruling provides clarity around the definition of sex within the Equality Act on the basis of biological sex. The EHRC’s updated statutory code of practice has been laid before Parliament, providing essential legal clarity for sports providers, national governing bodies and participants around the country. National governing bodies of sport, local authorities and sports organisations also have guidance and policies in place. We will continue to engage closely with our arm’s-length bodies, Sport England and UK Sport, and the wider sporting sector as Parliament considers the updated EHRC guidance.
Amendment 86 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, and introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Markham. I accept the spirit in which this amendment was laid, and I noted the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who also spoke to this amendment, as did the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. This amendment requires a review of the impact of recent regulatory changes that allow the Care Quality Commission to regulate the treatment of disease, disorder and injury—TDDI—at sporting and cultural events. These regulatory changes bring sporting and cultural events in line with other settings where the treatment of TDDI is regulated, such as within hospitals and care homes.
The change means that TDDI health provision at sporting and cultural events will be delivered by professionals with the right set of skills, training and equipment so that the audience and participants receive the right type of help when they need it. It means it will be easier for organisers to pick skilled and safe providers, as they will be listed on the CQC website. As noble Lords are aware, the changes were made following the recommendations by the Manchester Arena inquiry.
During its parliamentary passage, it was clear that Members of both Houses were concerned that this change may have unintended impacts. Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Care have undertaken to work with stakeholders to consider options to mitigate any unintended consequences. The concerns included the impact on events staffed by volunteers, or on specific groups such as search and rescue teams and athletes. Noble Lords who spoke to this also spoke about volunteers, which was a theme in the debate in the Grand Committee I was present at.
This work is ongoing. The Care Quality Commission has met with a broad range of representatives as part of its consultation on this change. DHSC officials are due to meet with chief medical officers from a range of sporting and cultural bodies to discuss this matter further, and I will attempt to clarify when those meetings will take place. Department of Health and Social Care Ministers are in the process of convening a round table with the Peers who spoke during the debate on the statutory instrument on the CQC regulation amendment on 15 April, and I will ask my noble friend Lady Merron to make sure that those who spoke today but were not present at that meeting will be invited. I will also make my noble friend aware of this debate. In the meantime, I ask that the noble Lord withdraw the amendment.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lords for their contribution to this debate. As I believe I get almost the last word of the whole Committee stage, I thank everyone. We have had some expert contributions over the two days. We have had Olympic medallists, Games organisers, local government leaders and some keen, if not very able, sports participants: me, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and others.
We have heard it all. We have heard about Olympic sausages, we have heard about gizmos and we have had the gold medal performance, to say the least, of the Minister agreeing with my noble friend Lord Hayward on a few matters. But there has been a large degree of consensus in this whole debate and a lot of passion and enthusiasm, which has been great to see—particularly in the Leeds contribution. It was honestly really heartwarming to see all our enthusiasm in the Chamber for wanting to make sure that Britain is the winner in all this and in sports events. That is absolutely the spirit of all this.
On the specific CQC point, I know the Minister gets it and hears our concern about the real impact this has. We know that these are well-intentioned CQC changes, but they could have a lot of unintended consequences for grass-roots events. So we would be grateful if, as she said, she can keep us informed and keep this at the top of the agenda. With that, I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.