Wednesday 3rd June 2026
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberSporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Sporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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 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.
Monday 22nd June 2026
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberSporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 3-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (19 Jun 2026)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Sporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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 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)
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
Wednesday 24th June 2026
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberSporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 3–II Second marshalled list for Committee - (23 Jun 2026)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Sporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Wednesday 15th July 2026
(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberSporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 3–R–I Marshalled list for Report - (13 Jul 2026)
16:41 - Division on Amendment 10 - Ayes: 212 / Noes: 171 - Amendment 10 agreed.
17:37 - Division on Amendment 17 - Ayes: 57 / Noes: 154 - Amendment 17 disagreed.
18:06 - Division on Amendment 46 - Ayes: 129 / Noes: 188 - Amendment 46 disagreed.
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Sporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, recognising the significant national event taking place this evening, I will also endeavour to keep my remarks brief and I have no intention of taking this Report into extra time. However, as we commence today’s debate on the Sporting Events Bill, it is only fitting that we acknowledge this momentous occasion and the commendable efforts of the England team. I join the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and your entire Lordships’ House in wishing our national team the very best of luck this evening, wherever the players might have been born.
Amendments 2, 3, 4, 23 to 28, 36, 39 and 40, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, seek to regulate sports’ rights provisions and gambling advertising. I thank the noble Lord for coming to the department to discuss his position in more detail. While it is not appropriate for the Government to intervene in commercial sponsorship and advertising arrangements, we will not hesitate to take steps where necessary to ensure that these arrangements are socially responsible. As the noble Lord noted, FIFA and the Olympics and Paralympics have their own restrictions. The Government have already implemented a number of reforms in this space. Just today, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, we launched our consultation on banning unlicensed sponsorship within sports and other sectors. This Government are also committed to tackling illegal gambling through the Gambling Commission and our Illegal Gambling Taskforce, with our most recent task force meeting taking place yesterday.
Regarding the sharing of sports data with unlicensed operators, this Government have no reason to believe that it is currently a significant issue. However, if needed, we will not hesitate to consider this further through our task force. I would be happy to continue discussing this with the noble Lord, Lord Foster, including on the additional information he gave today.
Amendment 20 would require regard to be given to the protection of children and vulnerable persons from harmful or age-restricted advertising when applying the advertising provisions to an event. The advertising offence in the Bill is designed to protect event owners’ commercial rights by preventing unauthorised advertising in a restricted zone. The Advertising Standards Authority has many rules to help protect children from harmful or age-restricted advertising. Advertisers should ensure that adverts do not include anything likely to result in physical, mental or moral harm to children, or anything that encourages unsafe practices. On top of that, products such as alcohol and gambling should not be promoted irresponsibly; they should always be promoted responsibly. Adverts must not, for example, link them to social success nor encourage recklessness.
Amendment 21 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would require advertising in a restricted zone to comply with local authority policies, including those related to the climate and the environment. The noble Baroness gave some powerful examples of the impact of climate change on current sporting events. I assure the noble Baroness that any advertising activity undertaken in a restricted zone will have to be in accordance with existing legislation and other regulatory requirements, including local authority policies. Advertisers will also need to consider the Committee of Advertising Practice and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice codes’ rules on environmental claims. With these points in mind, I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, and I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his contribution. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I find it strange, given that the IOC always requires a sustainability requirement in its plans, that this is not included in the Bill before us today.
There is no question that I desperately hope the England team will do infinitely better tonight than I have done. Despite all my training and my workup before this performance, the Minister has just provided a stonewall to me, and I have lost at this stage. But there are always other rounds, and I look forward to those. With that, I wish the team the very best of luck. I will enjoy watching it tonight, hopefully in an arena that has no advertisements, no marketing and no advertising. I hope that they do better than I did. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I support all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 13, in the name of my noble friend Lady Evans. She made an eloquent speech but, really, she covered the issue in three words: opportunity, not obligation.
“It’s coming home”, my Lords. These events are already here, year in, year out, delivering sporting, economic, social and place-based growth, one might say. The very definition of a framework and enabling legislation is opportunity, not obligation.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, on Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Markham, I am sure that your Lordships’ House will be pleased to hear that the Bill already goes further than the amendment proposed. Within the provisions in the Bill, advertising and trading provisions can be in place for no more than 10 days before the beginning of an event and no later than five days after the event concludes. I hope that these clear limitations in the Bill will reassure noble Lords.
Amendments 7, 50 and 51, tabled in my name, seek to ensure that all regulations applying the framework provisions are subject to the affirmative procedure, except in urgent cases in which the “made affirmative” resolution procedure would be used. In bringing forward these government amendments, we have listened to the concerns of the House, noting Amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, and the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. These amendments ensure that Parliament can debate regulations, while preserving flexibility to accommodate unforeseen and last-minute changes. I hope the amendments tabled in my name reassure noble Lords of the importance we place on ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, while providing some flexibility to accommodate unforeseen changes.
Amendments 10, 11, 12 and 13 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and the noble Baronesses, Lady Evans of Bowes Park and Lady Grey-Thompson. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, summed it up when he said that we have a huge number of events in this country already. However, this Government recognise there is more we can do to support the whole major events sector. I can confirm today the Government’s intention for the major events strategy to be published by the spring.
Throughout the Bill’s passage, a number of noble Lords have raised the question of whether the remit of the Sporting Events Bill could be extended to include recurrent major events in the UK. I am hugely grateful for the time noble Lords have taken to talk me through the rationale of how this could support our fabulous events, from Wimbledon to the British Grand Prix at Silverstone and the London Marathon. As the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, indicated, these discussions have been hugely constructive. I have also heard directly from event organisers who are keen to explore this further, and we are continuing discussions between event organisers, officials and Ministers over the summer.
I recognise the strength of feeling on this. It is not always the case that a Government Minister is told to expand the scope of a Bill, and we recognise that the sentiment behind this is one of support for events in this country. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the Government see merit in exploring the idea further. As my noble friend Lord Foulkes said, we are committed to continuing the conversation over the summer with noble Lords and event organisers. However, I regret that, at this point, I cannot commit to a specific outcome for these discussions. There are a number of considerations we need to work through carefully, particularly around how proportionate it would be to potentially restrict fair competition for small businesses on an ongoing basis and, for instance, who would enforce regulations.
I understand there is concern that events such as the Rugby League World Cup or the Women’s T20 World Cup would be out of scope. Noble Lords will appreciate that the nature of the framework means that we expect particular events to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I reassure your Lordships’ House that we expect both cricket and Rugby League World Cups to be exactly the type of events that could meet the conditions. I recognise noble Lords’ good intent in relation to this matter, but I am keen that we get this right and make sure that any potential unintended consequences are considered before we make a decision in this regard.
On Amendments 41 and 42, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, the Government fully agree that, when it comes to public funds, transparency and accountability are non-negotiable. However, these amendments are unnecessary. There are already robust mechanisms in place. The supply and appropriation legislation enables Parliament to debate and approve spending plans, including allocations for major sporting events. As an accounting officer, the DCMS Permanent Secretary is accountable to Parliament to ensure departmental spending on major sporting events meets the Managing Public Money principles of regularity, propriety, value for money and feasibility.
Over the past decade, the United Kingdom has secured and delivered almost 150 major sporting events, many with the support of government investment. Therefore, requiring such scrutiny could place a disproportionate burden on parliamentary resources and risk delaying the provision of urgent financial assistance. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that response and for the time she has made available to noble Lords from across the House on the other amendments we have discussed, including with many of the sporting bodies that are involved. It is for the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Evans to decide what to do on their amendment.
For my part, we would be inclined in normal circumstances to take the Minister’s word for it, for she is a woman of her word who has worked hard on this. However, we find ourselves in unusual circumstances where she, the Secretary of State and the Sports Minister in another place may be in different positions by the time the Bill heads to the Commons. So, your Lordships’ House would be well advised to put something in the Bill to reflect the cross-party, cross-House support we have had on this issue and the strength of feeling, and to leave that as a work in progress. I will leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but reiterate that we will support him if he chooses to divide on this important issue. I thank the Minister for her answers to the amendments I moved and beg leave to withdraw Amendment 6.
Baroness Twycross
“(6) Regulations under this section are subject to—(a) the affirmative resolution procedure, or(b) the made affirmative resolution procedure, if the regulations contain a statement by the appropriate national authority making them that the authority considers it necessary for the regulations to be made urgently.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendments to clause 27, provide for regulations under clause 2 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure except in urgent cases where such regulations will instead be subject to the made affirmative resolution procedure.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I, too, am very glad that my noble friend Lord Harlech has returned to this issue on Report. He cannot be the only Islington resident who was dismayed by the aftermath of the parade he mentioned, but I am sure he has given it far greater thought from a legal and legislative perspective than any other resident, and I am sure all other residents of the borough will be grateful to him for returning to this in such a dogged and forensic manner. I hope the Minister will take that on board and will be able to give him some further thoughts today and in the meeting that he seeks.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, it is a question of what is appropriate for this Bill. While I appreciate the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, as we heard in Committee, many international federations and event organisers now expect very high environmental commitments from those bidding to host major sporting events. If our national associations want to apply for such events, they will have to comply with these ever more ambitious sustainability and environmental requirements. I am still not convinced that this Bill is the right place to write them in, but I agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of public transport from an environmental aspect as well as from an accessibility point of view in making it easier for more people to get to these sporting events.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I turn first to Amendments 14 and 48 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Boycott, and my noble friend Lord Whitty. The Government fully agree that environmental sustainability should be considered at every stage in the planning and delivery of our major sporting events. I note the example shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. We genuinely recognise that there is an issue that needs to be dealt with, and this debate is clearly in the context of an extended heatwave.
The Bill explicitly provides that, for the framework to be applied, a sporting event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or to a part of it. Your Lordships’ House may be pleased to know that social benefit here encompasses consideration of environmental and climate impacts where relevant. I will, of course, be delighted to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others to discuss this further.
I have shared throughout the Bill’s passage the important measures in place to integrate sustainability into our major sporting events from the outset: from the Gold Framework guiding organisers bidding for government funding to non-negotiable requirements in our spending processes. However, I have heard the strong concerns and valuable insights raised across the House and recognise that there is always room to do more, especially on matters as important as our environment.
That is why I am pleased to be able to give a firm commitment today that, as noted by my noble friend Lord Whitty, the environment will be a clear and stated consideration as the Government develop a major events strategy—not only for major sporting events but for all major events hosted across the country. Should the evidence gathered suggest that we can do more when it comes to major sporting events, we will be guided by that data to reflect on how and where we go further. In the meantime, I am happy to confirm that sustainability will be a key consideration in the community programme for Euro 2028, the first event that this Bill will support.
As well as taking steps to reduce the event’s impact on the environment, the Euros’ community programme will actively seek opportunities to build climate resilience into its broader ambition to support communities. I appreciate noble Lords’ interest in the adaptation reporting power. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has recently consulted on how best to target these powers, and is in touch with all relevant departments, although we are clear that the decision to apply it should remain at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
I turn now to Amendment 35, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Major sporting events vary significantly in scale, location, venue layout, spectator profile and the transport networks serving them. An appropriate requirement in one case may be unnecessary, disproportionate or impractical in another. We believe that the most effective approach to tackling transport concerns would be through collaborative, integrated planning and delivery tailored to the specific needs of each event.
On Amendment 47, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, there is no doubt that the cleanliness of the environments in which we hold our major sporting events is vital. I will be very happy to meet with the noble Lord; I met with a number of noble Lords who took up the offer that was made in the Chamber and in my all-Peers letter. I am sorry that the noble Lord and I have not yet met up, but I will make sure that my office gets in touch with him so that we can meet before Third Reading.
Going back to the cleanliness point raised today and in Committee by the noble Lord, this is why, as set out in Committee, local authorities have a duty to support this under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That is in addition to measures such as the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse statutory guidance. Also, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 confers powers to help them tackle persistent, unreasonable behaviour negatively affecting communities. Adding to those duties would require local authorities to substantively alter their operational approach; as set out in the new burdens doctrine, this requires proper assessment given the potential for significant additional costs, ultimately borne by the taxpayer. We believe that a holistic approach is more appropriate.
In light of these reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Twycross
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is to make clear that more than one person may be designated to grant ticketing authorisations.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak first to Amendments 15, 22, 29 and 34 tabled in my name. These are minor and technical and make it clear that, where appropriate, more than one person may be designated in regulations to grant ticketing, advertising, trading and unauthorised association authorisations under the Bill. This would ensure the necessary flexibility to enable, for example, both the event owner and the local organising committee to grant authorisations if required.
Amendments 16, 37 and 38, also tabled in my name, make it clear that the power to create exceptions to the ticket-touting offence could apply to activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes. The amendments also clarify the definition of a charity as applied to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and they provide that charitable purposes are defined in accordance with the relevant legislation. We are listening to the concerns raised by your Lordships’ House about the potential impact on charities. However, in our view a blanket exception could undermine the objectives of the framework or create unintended loopholes. These amendments signal our clear intention to make exceptions, in regulations, to the ticket-touting offence for charities, where appropriate.
Amendment 32, also in my name, seeks to address concerns about the impact of the trading offence on those with an existing licence to trade in a restricted zone—noting Amendment 31 in this group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. We agree that the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly street traders holding a licence from the local authority, should be mitigated. While we need to be able to control trading activity in areas of high spectator footfall, it is right that we introduce additional protections for existing traders in those areas. This amendment means a designated authorising person, such as an event organiser or local authority, must take into account whether a person has any existing trading licences when determining whether or not to grant a trading authorisation. If an existing trader cannot be accommodated in their usual spot, we will work with organisers and local authorities to consider alternative trading arrangements in that limited period. We must be able to meet our commitments to event owners. That is why it would not be appropriate to introduce a blanket exception for all licensed traders, as the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to provide.
I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured by the changes we have made to address the concerns raised. I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 17 in this group, but before I speak to it, I thank the Government for many of their amendments. They have clearly listened to the problems raised. Generally speaking, this has been a Bill of good relationships. We had a meeting on Amendment 17 and the Minister brought officials in, but I made it clear that we think more should be done about ticket touting. Ticket touting is when somebody gets in between the person who provides an event and the person who buys the ticket. They put extra costs in, and they take the money away. The person providing the event does not get anything out of it and the person going to the event gets extra costs.
The amendment here is to put limitations on how much you can take out. It may be a difficult thing and there may be big players involved, saying, “But we’re providing a service”. They are not, actually. They are just giving the ticket out, and there are cheaper ways of doing it. I hope the Minister can give us something more here. We have Third Reading, and I hope we can get a little more out of it. I think we should get something more solid in the Bill; it is a major opportunity. Unless we start saying that we are going to do something about ticket touting, we will be involved in consultation for ever. For a long time it has been just a bit more consultation and, oh, they are providing a service. Is it a real service? I am not sure it is. I hope the Minister will have had some damascene conversion and will accept my amendments or give me something like them. If not, I am afraid I will have to call a vote.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I welcome the movement the Government have shown on these issues, particularly in tabling Amendments 16, 37 and 38, which respond to amendments that my noble friend Lord Markham and I tabled in Committee, attempting to put exemptions for charities from a number of offences into the Bill. While I might have preferred to go about it that way, I welcome that the Government have specified that charities can be exempted from the ticket touting offence. My noble friend Lord Holmes is absolutely right about the profound benefits that charities bring in so many ways.
It is also very welcome that the Government have tabled Amendment 32 in response to concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Fuller about businesses carrying out trading activities in accordance with existing trading licences. That is an important consideration to ensure that the application of the trading provisions is fair and proportionate.
I wonder whether the Minister and her officials in the department have spoken to the Advertising Association. It has been in touch with me since Committee about some concerns that advertising firms still have, particularly about the way the Bill does not explain sufficiently—to them, at least—how the new framework will work in practice for existing advertisers and media owners. If the department has not been in contact with the Advertising Association, it would certainly be a very good idea to do so, as the Bill heads to another place, because advertisers do such an important job in sustaining the climate for sporting events big and small across these islands.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I will first speak to Amendments 15, 22, 29 and 34 tabled in my name. These are minor and technical and make clear that, where appropriate, more than one person may be designated in regulations to grant ticketing, advertising, trading and unauthorised association authorisations under the Bill. This would ensure the necessary flexibility to enable, for example, both event owner and local organising committee to grant authorisations if needed.
I am very grateful to noble Lords including the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson, Lord Holmes and Lord Addington, among others, for acknowledging the changes we have made to improve the Bill based on direct discussions and discussions during earlier stages of the Bill. On the specific question relating to the Advertising Association raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, officials did speak to it ahead of the Bill’s introduction. I will ask them to engage again with the organisation concerned to make sure we are hearing its concerns directly.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Okay, I will carry on. With apologies to your Lordships’ House, I just had a moment where I asked myself, “Honestly, am I reading the right bit of paper?” I am pleased to have the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, confirm, in the spirit of the debate so far, that it appears I am not reading the wrong speech. It is a big group.
We must be able both to read our speeches coherently and to meet our commitments to event owners. That is why it would not be appropriate, in this Government’s view, to introduce a blanket exception for all licensed traders, as the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, seeks to provide. I hope that he will be reassured by the changes we have made to address the concerns raised and I commend the amendments in my name to the House.
On Amendments 17 and 19, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the ticketing offence in the Bill ensures that tickets can be publicly sold or resold only with authorisation from an event owner or organiser. This means that tickets will be available only on official channels. As I noted in Committee, we are determined that major sporting events hosted in the UK are inclusive and accessible to the widest possible audience. That includes developing ticketing strategies that put fans, fairness and transparency first. We have worked closely with UEFA to ensure that these principles are at the heart of the approach to Euro 2028. Tickets for the event will go on sale after the final tournament draw in December 2027.
The noble Lord’s Amendment 17 would require a report on the effectiveness of the provisions before they have been applied to regulations, and before tickets have gone on sale. We have, however, committed to evaluate the application of the Bill’s provisions within 12 to 18 months of Euro 2028. We have also committed to bring forward a price cap on the resale of tickets for all live events, including on the level of service fee that can be charged, and limits on the number of tickets that individuals can resell.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, noted, I hosted a briefing session yesterday to update noble Lords on this work and I look forward to providing a further update in the autumn. In response to the noble Lord, I stress and underline that the Government really want to address the considerable issues in the secondary ticketing market. I hope that noble Lords attending that meeting were reassured by the session that the Government are committed to ensuring that we have strong measures in place, at the very earliest opportunity, to tackle the secondary ticketing market. This is a clear manifesto commitment and, as set out in the King’s Speech, we intend to publish the draft Bill in this second Session for pre-legislative scrutiny.
Work to prepare this legislation is happening now and I ask noble Lords to have confidence that we intend publication to be absolutely as soon as possible, within what remains of this second Session. For example, had the noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked me whether I would anticipate that it will be early in the new year, I would say that I cannot commit to this, but hope it will be the case.
Amendment 18, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, unfortunately defeats the aim of preventing unauthorised resale and profiteering. It would create a significant gap in protections and leave us unable to meet commitments to major sporting event owners. The noble Lord suggested that the Bill was criminalising people who wanted to give away tickets or sell them at face value to friends and family. This is not the intention, and it is not the intention within the Bill to criminalise the private transfer of tickets at face value between friends, family and associates. That is why the offence applies only to activity that is carried out in a public place in the course of business, or with a view to making profit.
I turn to Amendment 31, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. As I previously outlined, we are committed to mitigating the impact on SMEs but are clear that we must be able to meet our commitments to event owners. That is why it would not be appropriate to introduce a blanket exception for all licensed traders, as the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to do. We believe that my Amendment 32 strikes the appropriate balance. I hope that I have provided the necessary assurances to noble Lords, and that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Baroness Twycross
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that ticket touting regulations may provide for activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes to be exempt from the ticket touting offence.
Baroness Twycross
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to make clear that more than one person may be designated to grant advertising authorisations.
Baroness Twycross
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to make clear that more than one person may be designated to grant trading authorisations.
Baroness Twycross
“(4) In determining whether or not to grant an authorisation under this paragraph, a designated authorising person—(a) must have regard to any existing trading licences, and(b) may have regard to—(i) any agreements entered into (whether by the appropriate national authority or another person) for the purposes of the sporting event, and(ii) any other matters that the person considers relevant.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to require existing trading licences to be taken into account by a designated authorising person when determining whether to grant a trading authorisation.
Baroness Twycross
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to make clear that more than one person may be designated to grant association authorisations.
Baroness Twycross
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a drafting refinement.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on this trio of amendments, which reflect the important discussions we had in Committee on sporting legacy. Those debates were enriched by the considerable number of Olympian and Paralympian Members of your Lordships’ House. Supporting grass-roots sports and sporting legacy is one of the most important lessons from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
My Amendment 49 and the consequential Amendments 52 and 53 in this group attempt to press the Government on when they will publish their major events strategy. Because of the purposes of this Bill, the amendment reflects sporting events, but this is something eagerly awaited by a number of sectors: sports, culture, arts and many more that host, or seek to host, major events. The Government have said that they will publish the strategy but have not given a clear indication of when, which has slightly affected some of our debates. I do not know whether the Minister is able to say any more on this.
I particularly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, says in Amendment 45. It is a particular shame that the Commonwealth Games to be held soon will not be broadcast and readily available for people on the BBC, for the first time since 1954. I hope the Government will consider how such an impact can be avoided for future sporting events.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 43, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which concerns the infrastructure for major sporting events. As I set out in Committee in more detail, I reassure your Lordships’ House that this is exactly the type of technical requirement already set out in contractual hosting agreements and specified by event owners. As part of the bidding process, prospective hosts will have to provide the necessary assurances to event owners that there will be sufficient capacity and infrastructure in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked whether there were sufficient powers if further infrastructure is required to host an event. In the case of London 2012, a delivery authority was established with significant powers as a result of a very specific set of requirements, including significant investment in the construction of infrastructure such as new venues. In the Government’s view, this is not going to be required for every major sporting event. We therefore do not believe it is necessary or proportionate to include prescriptive requirements in relation to infrastructure and accommodation in the Bill.
I assure the noble Lord that we will consider event requirements on a case-by-case basis. We recognise that, when the Government are required to make commitments which go beyond the common requirements set out in the Bill, or in circumstances such as the establishment of a delivery authority, it may require further primary legislation to support event delivery.
On Amendment 44, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the Bill explicitly provides that, for the framework to be applied, a sporting event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or part of it. This would encompass supporting community participation and the growth of grass-roots sport. I am pleased to confirm that the first event this Bill will support, UEFA Euro 2028, will prioritise grass-roots participation as part of the Government-backed community programme, catalysing the growth of a more inclusive game, boosting pride and fostering togetherness across the country. In any case, the Bill already allows us to set funding conditions which could, of course, support grass-roots investment where warranted.
On Amendment 45, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, accessibility and inclusion already underpin major sporting events’ funding. It is a core objective of the Gold Framework and a non-negotiable criterion within our public funding processes. While we are committed to doing more to improve accessibility, we also need to strike a balance between protecting the independence of our media and ensuring that broadcasting revenue can be invested back into the growth of our sports. There is also a matter of practicality: event planning and broadcasting rights negotiations do not always proceed on the same timetable.
Finally, on Amendments 49, 52, and 53, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, as I set out earlier, we are committed to publishing a major events strategy that spans events in all sectors, not just sport. I am pleased to confirm that this will be published by spring next year. It is right that we commit time to fully work this through, in collaboration with those in the industry, to ensure it accurately reflects the opportunities and challenges they face. Of course, it is also right that there continue to be specific strategies for particular issues such as the Gold Framework that underpin our strategy for major sporting events. 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 her reply and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his amendment. I should have commented on it, because it is a sensible suggestion.
We are at the start of a positive dialogue about building. The Government had a good idea on which they should have been bolder. These are all things that would have strengthened the Bill if there were in it but are probably not essential. Having heard what the Minister said, and liking the thinking if not all the words, I have no hesitation in withdrawing my amendment.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, I do not think a worker on a special event should have any fewer rights than a worker on any other occasion.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, as we reach the final moments of play on Report, I am pleased to turn to Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. It is clear that, in some circumstances, zero-hours contracts and contracts guaranteeing a minimum number of hours can benefit both employers and workers. However, without the appropriate safeguards, the flexibility they provide can operate disproportionately in favour of employers, leaving workers with greater uncertainty over their working patterns and income.
Any exclusions or exemptions introduced at this stage risk pre-empting the outcome of the Government’s ongoing consultation on reforms to zero-hours and similar contracts. Through this consultation, the Government are seeking evidence and views from stakeholders on reforms to zero-hours and similar contracts, including whether any exclusions or exemptions may be appropriate. It is important that the views of all stakeholders are fully considered before any decisions are taken on potential exclusions or exemptions.
The Government’s objective is to ensure that all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability, enabling workers to better plan their lives and finances. We encourage stakeholders from the sporting events sector to engage with the consultation and help inform the development of the policy.
I also note, in response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that nobody would have believed she would have encouraged the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, to speak longer than necessary, given the circumstances.
With that, I will blow the final whistle on my remarks but I look forward to continuing commentary and debate, both on the Bill and on tonight’s match. I know all noble Lords wish the England team the best of luck and hope, indeed, that football is coming home. On the basis of the points I have made, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I regret to say that the VAR review has said that we may need to go to extra time on this. This is a serious matter which gets to the heart of how serious we are about hosting these events. We need to encourage participation by individuals and everybody else to give opportunity to millions. I am really sorry, but I am not satisfied with the answers that have been given. I intend to divide the House and then we can all go and watch the game. Come on, England.
Baroness Twycross
“(7A) Where regulations under this Act are “subject to the made affirmative resolution procedure”—(a) if the regulations are made by the Secretary of State— (i) the statutory instrument containing them must be laid before Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after being made, and(ii) the regulations cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament;(b) if the regulations are made by the Welsh Ministers—(i) they are subject to the Senedd confirmation procedure (see section 37D of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019), and(ii) they cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the regulations are made unless, during that period, the regulations are confirmed by a resolution of the Senedd;(c) if the regulations are made by the Scottish Ministers—(i) section 30 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 does not apply to the regulations,(ii) the Scottish statutory instrument containing them must be laid before the Scottish Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after being made, and(iii) the regulations cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of the Scottish Parliament;(d) if the regulations are made by a Northern Ireland department—(i) they must be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly as soon as reasonably practicable after being made, and(ii) they cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which they are made unless, during that period, the regulations are approved by a resolution of the Assembly.(7B) In calculating the period of 40 days—(a) in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State, no account is to be taken of any time during which—(i) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or (ii) either House of Parliament is adjourned for more than four days;(b) in the case of regulations made by the Welsh Ministers, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Senedd is—(i) dissolved, or(ii) in recess for more than four days;(c) in the case of regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Scottish Parliament is—(i) dissolved, or(ii) in recess for more than four days;(d) in the case of regulations made by a Northern Ireland department, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Northern Ireland Assembly is—(i) dissolved,(ii) in recess for more than 4 days, or(iii) adjourned for more than 6 days.(7C) If regulations cease to have effect as a result of subsection (7A) that does not—(a) affect the validity of anything previously done under the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to clause 2.
Tuesday 21st July 2026
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberSporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 3–R–I Marshalled list for Report - (13 Jul 2026)
This text is a record of ministerial contributions to a debate held as part of the Sporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 passage through Parliament.
In 1993, the House of Lords Pepper vs. Hart decision provided that statements made by Government Ministers may be taken as illustrative of legislative intent as to the interpretation of law.
This extract highlights statements made by Government Ministers along with contextual remarks by other members. The full debate can be read here
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Sporting Events Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, before the formal Third Reading of the Sporting Events Bill, I will now make a short statement on the position regarding legislative consent. As noble Lords will know, the Bill affects the whole of the United Kingdom. We are seeking consent from each of the devolved legislatures and have been engaging constructively with the devolved Governments throughout the Bill’s passage. We will continue to work alongside the devolved Governments to ensure that final positions are reached in relation to legislative consent before the final amending stage in the second House. We will have more to say in the other place, and we will of course keep noble Lords updated on this. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, this Bill seeks to establish a framework that enables certain sporting events to benefit from the enhanced commercial protections needed to preserve the integrity of events and, importantly, offset costs to taxpayers. 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.
On Report, I committed to further engagement with noble Lords and our outstanding recurrent sporting events sector over the summer. I understand the views of your Lordships’ House on this matter and am committed to properly assessing all the considerations and possible unintended consequences before determining appropriate next steps. I reiterate that the environment will be a clear consideration as this Government develop a major events strategy to be published in the spring.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed during highly constructive debates and, through their time and expertise, have sought to strengthen the Bill. Specifically, I thank the Opposition and Liberal Democrat Front Benches, as well as the noble Baronesses, Lady Evans of Bowes Park and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for their constructive approach and engagement. I also thank my officials for their considerable support and patience during the Bill’s passage. I am grateful for the engagement with the Bill and its broad support across your Lordships’ House. As I have said before, if we get this right, the benefits will be felt far beyond the field of play. I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this was a Bill where the only disagreement we had was that we did not think the Government were brave enough with their own ideas. It does not often happen that we actually get through to a position, and I think we did. Just to remind ourselves, we did it by those on this side of the House working together in a constructive manner. I hope we can remember that in future and make sure that when we have some agreement, bringing it forth in a coherent manner means we get something better. I hear what the Government have said on this. I take heart from it, but I ask them to remember that they can be braver when they have a good idea. I am not often going to say this, but on this occasion I am.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, the more astute among your Lordships will have realised that this is the first time I have taken part on this Bill. I do so because, unfortunately, my noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, who led from these Benches on the Bill, cannot be here today. They both send their apologies. It therefore falls upon me to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Official Opposition today.
We have broadly welcomed this legislation while highlighting a few areas where we have concerns and others where we have seen room for improvement. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said at Second Reading that she wished the Government would be bolder, as noted just now by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, with the scope of the sporting events framework. While the Government have not yet fully taken her advice, it is welcome that your Lordships’ House has done so by adopting the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. The changes we made here last week strengthen the Bill and will, if the Government follow through on their promise to continue the debates we have had about them in good faith, enable many of the most well-loved sporting events in this country to benefit from this legislation. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place, the new Government will agree with the amendments made here or, if they wish to make some modest changes to them, will keep them in both spirit and substance.
I want to record our thanks to a number of noble Lords who have made this such a constructive process. My noble friends Lady Evans of Bowes Park, Lord Moynihan and Lord Fuller, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, brought their considerable experience and expertise to the Bill’s proceedings. I also thank the Minister, all the officials and the Bill team who have supported her for their willingness to meet noble Lords across your Lordships’ House throughout the passage of the Bill. I know that noble Lords found their discussions genuinely useful, and I am grateful that some of the concerns raised by the Opposition and others were listened to. This is a Bill that we hope will boost the ability of the United Kingdom to host major sporting events. It leaves this House in a better state than when it was introduced, and I hope it moves through another place in the same spirit.