Sporting Events Bill [Lords]
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
13:35 - The House divided: - Ayes: 62 / Noes: 286 - Question accordingly negatived.
13:48 - The House divided: - Ayes: 91 / Noes: 298 - Question accordingly negatived.
14:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 93 / Noes: 287 - Question accordingly negatived.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Strategy for bidding for the FIFA World Cup—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, publish a feasibility study and bidding plan for the United Kingdom to bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2042.
(2) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed and each subsequent year until the 2042 FIFA World Cup is allocated, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before Parliament to update on the progress of the bidding plan.”
This new clause creates a duty on the Government to prepare a UK bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2042.
New clause 3—Prohibition on fee-gouging and surge pricing—
“(1) In relation to any sporting event designated under this Act, no person may—
(a) charge, through a ticket resale platform, a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;
(b) charge a purchaser in the primary market a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;
(c) engage in surge pricing.
(2) In this section—
“primary market” refers to ticketing activities with an authorisation granted under Schedule 1, paragraph 3; and
“surge pricing” is ”dynamic pricing”; when prices are adjusted rapidly and frequently in response to changing demand.”
This new clause caps transaction fees for primary sales and secondary resale platforms at 10% and bans surge pricing for every sporting event designated under the Act.
New clause 4—Prohibition of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship—
“(1) A person must not, in connection with a relevant sporting event—
(a) carry out, arrange, or permit advertising or marketing for a gambling business, facility, or brand, or
(b) enter into, give effect to, or display any sponsorship arrangement involving a gambling business.
(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the advertising provisions in Schedule 2 have been applied to the event under paragraph (2)(1).
(3) In this section—
“gambling business” means a business providing facilities for gambling within the meaning of section 5 of the Gambling Act 2005 (and includes a gambling brand); and
“relevant sporting event” means a sporting event in relation to which any part of the sporting events framework applies under section (2).”
This new clause prevents gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship at sporting events covered by this Bill.
New clause 6—Assessment of framework conditions—
“(1) Before making regulations under section 2 in relation to a domestic sporting event, the appropriate national authority must consult—
(a) the Competition and Markets Authority;
(b) persons who appear to the appropriate national authority to represent the interests of consumers who may wish to attend the sporting event;
(c) persons who appear to the appropriate national authority to represent businesses that would be affected by the application of the sporting events framework, including operators of secondary ticketing platforms;
(d) such other persons as the appropriate national authority considers appropriate.
(2) As part of the consultation under subsection (1), the appropriate national authority must—
(a) identify the parts of the sporting events framework proposed to be applied and explain why their application is considered appropriate;
(b) explain the basis on which it considers that each condition in section 3 applicable to the sporting event is met;
(c) set out the evidence, criteria or metrics relied upon;
(d) assess the likely effects of the proposed regulations on consumers, affected businesses and competition; and
(e) invite views on the matters set out in paragraphs (a) to (d).”
This new clause would require the appropriate national authority to consult the Competition and Markets Authority, consumers and affected businesses, and assess the potential impacts on competition and consumer choice before applying the sporting events framework to a domestic sporting event.
New clause 7—Industrial action regulations—
“(1) This section applies in relation to regulations under section 2 which apply the industrial action provisions.
(2) The regulations must specify the period during which the industrial action provisions apply.
(3) The period in subsection (2) must not be shorter than the minimum period.
(4) In subsection (2), the “minimum period” means the period—
(a) beginning on the day on which any part of the sporting events framework is applied and has effect in relation to a sporting event, and
(b) ends on the day on which all provisions of the sporting events framework cease to apply to the sporting event.”
This new clause defines the minimum period in which the appropriate national authority must apply the industrial action provisions.
New clause 8—Exception for charitable auctions—
“(1) The ticket touting offence does not apply in relation to the sale of an event ticket in an auction conducted—
(a) by a charity, or
(b) by a person other than a charity, provided that the proceeds of the event ticket’s sale are given to a charity.
(2) In subsection (1), “charity” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Charities Act 2011.”
New clause 9—Review of Government’s economic policies on the hosting of major sporting events—
“Within the period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament, a report assessing the impact of His Majesty’s Government’s economic policies on the ability of the United Kingdom to attract and host major sporting events.”
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(da) Schedule 4A (“the sports rights provisions”).”
Amendment 6, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(f) Schedule 6 (“the industrial action provisions”)”.
This amendment inserts industrial action provisions, which would ban strikes by certain workers, including transport workers, when the sporting events framework is applied to a sporting event.
Amendment 8, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(f) Schedule 6 (“the single sex protections provisions”).”
Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(c) the sports rights provisions.”
Amendment 9, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(c) the single sex protections provisions.”
Amendment 7, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) Where an appropriate national authority applies one or more of the parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event by regulations under this section, the appropriate national authority must also apply the industrial action provisions.”
This amendment requires the appropriate national authority to apply the industrial action provisions when they apply one or more other parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event.
Amendment 1, in clause 3, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
“(6A) The fourth condition is that the live coverage of the sporting event is made available—
(a) free of charge to all persons in the United Kingdom with access to a television or internet-connected device, or
(b) on a platform licensed by Ofcom which is accessible without subscription to members of the public in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment adds a condition for Sporting Events to be covered by this Bill, to include making the sporting event free to air.
Amendment 10, in clause 7, page 5, line 2, at end insert—
“(c) section (Exception for charitable auctions)”
Amendment 13, in clause 26, page 21, line 17, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (4A),”
Amendment 2, page 21, line 19, leave out from “event” to end of line 20 and insert —
“(i) that takes place wholly or partly in a relevant part of the United Kingdom, and
(ii) the live coverage of which is made available—
(A) free of charge to all persons in the United Kingdom with access to a television or internet-connected device, or
(B) on a platform licensed by Ofcom which is accessible without subscription to members of the public in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would require that any event receiving financial support from the UK Government must be broadcast free to air as a condition of that support.
Amendment 14, page 21, line 36, at end insert—
“(4A) The power under subsection (1) may only be exercised if the appropriate national legislature has approved the financial assistance by resolution.”
Amendment 15, page 21, line 41, at end insert—
“the appropriate national legislature” means—
(a) in relation to England, the House of Commons;
(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Parliament;
(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Northern Irish Assembly.”
New schedule 1—Industrial Action Provisions—
“Part 1
Offences
Industrial action transport offences
1 (1) It is an offence for a transport worker to engage in any industrial action at any time during the specified period.
(2) It is an offence for any person to—
(a) arrange for any industrial action to be carried out by a transport worker,
(b) permit the carrying out of such action, or
(c) induce a transport worker to engage in industrial action, at any time during the specified period.
(3) In this paragraph, a “transport worker” means an employee of a transport service anywhere in the United Kingdom.
(4) The following are to be considered as transport services for the purposes of this paragraph—
(a) airport operation services;
(b) bus services;
(c) light rail services;
(d) passenger railway services.
(5) In this paragraph—
“airport operation services” has the same meaning as in section 88 of the Civil Aviation Act 2012;
“bus services” has the same meaning as in section 162 of the Transport Act 2000;
“light rail services” means passenger railway services provided on or in respect of any of the following light rail systems known at the time this Act comes into force as—
(a) Blackpool Tramway;
(b) Docklands Light Railway;
(c) Edinburgh Trams;
(d) Glasgow Subway;
(e) London Trams;
(f) London Underground;
(g) Manchester Metrolink;
(h) Nottingham Express Transit;
(i) Sheffield Supertram;
(j) Tyne & Wear Metro;
(k) West Midlands Metro;
“passenger railway services” means—
(a) services for the carriage of passengers by railway by a person providing services—
(i) under a franchise agreement within the meaning of section 23(3) of the Railways Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”),
(ii) under, or secured under, the duty in section 30(1) of the 1993 Act,
(iii) under an agreement to which one of the persons listed in section 24A(4)(a) of the 1993 Act is a party, or
(iv) under, or secured under, section 173(1) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, or
(b) the refuelling of any locomotive or other rolling stock used for the services mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) by the person providing those services.
(6) Services relating to the following are not passenger railway services for the purposes of this paragraph—
(a) a train operation service using a railway which the Office of Rail and Road determines in accordance with regulation 2A(1) of the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 is a heritage, museum or tourist railway that operates on its own network;
(b) a train operation service that starts or terminates outside Great Britain.
(7) In this paragraph—
“services for the carriage of passengers by railway” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the 1993 Act (see section 82(2) of that Act);
“locomotive” , “network”, “rolling stock”, “station”, “track” and “train” have the meanings given by section 83(1) of the 1993 Act, but in applying the definitions in that subsection, references to “railway” in the definitions are to be treated as having the meaning given in sub-paragraph;
“railway” has the meaning given by section 67(1) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 but includes a “tramway” within the meaning of that section.
Industrial action local authority offences
2 (1) It is an offence for a relevant local authority worker to engage in any industrial action at any time during the specified period.
(2) It is an offence for any person to—
(a) arrange for any industrial action to be carried out in a relevant local authority area, or
(b) permit the carrying out of such action, at any time during the specified period.
(3) In this paragraph—
“relevant local authority worker” means an employee of a relevant local authority;
“relevant local authority” means any local authority which has responsibility for the provision of one or more services in an area in which a specified sporting event, or an event that is part of the sporting event, is to be held;
“relevant local authority area” means the geographical area in which a relevant local authority has jurisdiction;
Part 2
Enforcement
Penalties on conviction
3 (1) A person guilty of an offence under this Schedule is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;
(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding £50,000.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this Schedule in Scotland is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20,000;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.
Power to impose financial penalties
4 (1) The appropriate national authority may impose a financial penalty on a person if the appropriate national authority is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has committed an offence under this Schedule in relation to the sporting event.
(2) The amount of the penalty is to be decided by the appropriate national authority, but must not be more than £20,000.
(3) Only one financial penalty may be imposed in respect of the same conduct.
(4) No financial penalty may be imposed in respect of any conduct if—
(a) the person has been convicted of an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct,
(b) criminal proceedings for an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct have been instituted against the person and the proceedings have not been concluded, or
(c) criminal proceedings for an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct have been concluded and the person has not been convicted.
(5) A person may not be convicted of an offence under this Schedule if a financial penalty has been imposed under this paragraph in respect of the same conduct.
Notice of intention to impose financial penalty
5 (1) Before imposing a financial penalty on a person under paragraph 4, an appropriate national authority must give the person a notice (a “notice of intention”) stating that the authority proposes to do so.
(2) The notice of intention must be given before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the first day on which the authority has sufficient evidence that the person has committed an offence under part 1 of this Schedule.
(3) The notice of intention must set out—
(a) the amount of the proposed financial penalty,
(b) the reasons for proposing to impose the financial penalty, and
(c) information about the right to make representations under paragraph 6.
Right to make representations
6 (1) A person who is given a notice of intention may make written representations to the appropriate national authority which gave the notice about the proposal to impose a financial penalty.
(2) Any representations must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice of intention was given to the person.
Final notice
7 (1) After the end of the period mentioned in paragraph 6(2) the appropriate national authority must—
(a) decide whether to impose a financial penalty on the person, and
(b) if it decides to do so, decide the amount of the penalty.
(2) If the authority decides to impose a financial penalty on the person, it must give a notice to the person (a “final notice”) imposing that penalty.
(3) The final notice must require the penalty to be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was given.
(4) The final notice must set out—
(a) the amount of the financial penalty (which may be less than the amount specified in the notice of intention, but cannot be more),
(b) the reasons for imposing the penalty,
(c) information about how to pay the penalty,
(d) the period for payment of the penalty
(e) information about rights of appeal, and
(f) the consequences of failure to comply with the notice.
Withdrawal or amendment of notice
8 (1) The appropriate national authority may at any time—
(a) withdraw a notice of intention or final notice, or
(b) reduce an amount specified in a notice of intention or final notice.
(2) The power in sub-paragraph (1) is to be exercised by giving notice to the person on whom the notice was given.
Appeals
9 (1) A person to whom a final notice is given may appeal against—
(a) the decision to impose the penalty;
(b) the amount of the penalty.
(2) The appeal may be made—
(a) in England and Wales, to the First-tier Tribunal;
(b) in Scotland, to the sheriff;
(c) in Northern Ireland, to a county court.
(3) An appeal under this paragraph must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the final notice is given to the person.
(4) If a person appeals under this paragraph, the final notice is suspended until the appeal is finally determined, withdrawn or abandoned.
(5) An appeal under this paragraph—
(a) is to be a re-hearing of the appropriate national authority’s decision, but
(b) may be determined having regard to matters of which the authority was unaware.
(6) On an appeal under this paragraph the First-tier Tribunal or the court may quash, confirm or vary the final notice.
(7) The final notice may not be varied under sub-paragraph (6) so as to make it impose a financial penalty of a greater amount than the appropriate national authority could have imposed.
Recovery of financial penalty
10 (1) This paragraph applies if a person fails to pay the whole or any part of a financial penalty which has been imposed on a person in accordance with this Schedule.
(2) In England and Wales the appropriate national authority which imposed the penalty may recover the penalty or part on the order of the county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.
(3) In Scotland the penalty may be enforced in the same manner as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff of any sheriffdom in Scotland.
(4) In Northern Ireland the authority which imposed the financial penalty may recover the penalty or part on the order of a county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.
(5) In any proceedings relating to a financial penalty, a certificate that—
(a) purports to be signed by or on behalf of the person with responsibility for the financial affairs of the authority which imposed the penalty, and
(b) states that payment of the financial penalty was, or was not, received by a date specified in the certificate, is evidence of the facts stated.
Proceeds of financial penalties
11 Where a relevant enforcement authority imposes a financial penalty under paragraph 4, it may use the proceeds for the purposes of any of its functions.
No protection if union induces industrial action
12 Where industrial action is prohibited during a specified period under this Schedule, an act done by a trade union to induce or attempt to induce a person to engage in industrial action is not protected from any proceedings in tort.
Part 3
Interpretation
13 In this Schedule—
“industrial action” means action taken by workers against their employer in furtherance of a trade dispute;
“specified period” means the “minimum period" specified in the regulations as required by section [Industrial action regulations];
“strike” means any concerted stoppage of work;
“trade dispute” has the meaning given by section 244 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.”
This new Schedule establishes the industrial action provisions, referred to in Amendments 6,7 and NC7, and sets out penalties for breaching them.
New schedule 2—The single sex protection provisions—
“Protections for participants in major sporting events
1 (1) Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (2), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of a sporting event will—
(a) provide that all competitors in the single-sex sporting event compete against those of the same biological sex in the interests of fairness and safety;
(b) provide that all competitors and officials in the sporting event are able to use—
(i) single sex accommodation based on their biological sex;
(ii) single sex changing and washing facilities based on their biological sex;
(iii) single sex toilets based on their biological sex.
Protections for spectators of major sporting events
2 (1) Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (2), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of a sporting event will—
(a) make facilities available onsite, so that all spectators and staff, or any person attending the sporting event are able to use—
(i) single sex toilets based on their biological sex;
(ii) single sex changing and washing facilities where necessary based on their biological sex.
(2) In this section, "onsite" means a place specified or described in the regulations as required by section 11(2)(a).
Accessible facilities
3 (1) Nothing in paragraphs 1 or 2 requires that self-contained toilet, changing or washing facilities to be restricted to persons of one sex only.
(2) Self-contained facilities may be used by persons of either sex, together with any carer or assistant, provided that appropriate arrangements are made to ensure the privacy and dignity of users.
Financial Assistance
4 Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (26), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of the sporting event and the organisers of associated legacy programmes and social impact initiatives comply with regulations under paragraphs (1), (2) and (3).
Interpretation
5 In the application of this Schedule to a sporting event by regulations under section (2), references to “single sex” means sex as defined in the Equality Act 2010.”
This new Schedule, with Amendments 8 and 9, add single-sex protection provisions to the framework to ensure the provision of single-sex competitions and facilities at major sporting events, as well as at associated events. Provides for an exemption for self-contained facilities, including for disabled people. It would also prevent relevant authorities providing funding for events that do not comply with single sex protections as defined in the Equality Act 2010.
Amendment 11, in schedule 1, page 26, line 20, at end insert—
“(4A) It is not an offence under this paragraph for a person (“A”) to advertise that an event ticket is available for purchase from another person (“B”) unless A knows, or ought to know, that B is touting an event ticket.”
This amendment mirrors a defence in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 to ensure that the offence of advertising that an event ticket is available for purchase does not apply strict liability.
Amendment 12, page 28, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) An authorisation under this paragraph must include a secondary ticketing condition.
(2B) A “secondary ticketing condition” is a condition that requires a person granted a ticketing authorisation under this paragraph to have and maintain a mechanism through which an event ticket can be transferred or sold to another person.”
Amendment 5, in schedule 4, page 45, line 20, at end insert—
“Schedule 4A
SPORTS RIGHTS PROVISIONS
1 (1) A sporting event betting licence is a licence issued by a sporting event controlling body which allows a gambling business to make use of information or data derived from or relating to a specified sporting event in the places, at the times and for the purposes specified in the licence.
(2) A sporting event betting licence must—
(a) provide for the sharing of information between the sporting event controlling body and the gambling business for the purpose of protecting and supporting integrity in sports and betting services; and
(b) state any fee payable by the gambling business to the sporting event controlling body in respect of the facilities for gambling in relation to the sporting event.
(3) A sporting event betting licence may prohibit betting on a particular contingency or class of contingencies in relation to a sporting event if the sporting event controlling body considers that betting on the contingency may expose the relevant sporting event or class of sporting event to unmanageable integrity risks.
(4) A sporting event betting licence takes effect, and may be terminated, in accordance with its terms.
2 (1) It is an offence for a gambling business to offer facilities for gambling in relation to a sporting event unless it is licensed to do so by the relevant sporting event controlling body through a sporting event betting licence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;
(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding £50,000.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph in Scotland is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20,000;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.
(4) Where a gambling business has been found guilty of an offence under this paragraph in England and Wales, the offence may also be investigated and the gambling business prosecuted by the Gambling Commission under section 28 of the Gambling Act 2005 as if the offence were an offence under that Act.
(5) Where a gambling business has been found guilty of an offence under this paragraph, the conduct constituting the offence is actionable by the relevant sporting event controlling body, which may seek—
(a) an injunction, or in Scotland an interdict, requiring the provision of those facilities to cease;
(b) damages.”
Anna Sabine
As we have said before, the Liberal Democrats welcome this Bill. We recognise that the Euros, the world cup and the Olympics have huge positive implications, such as boosting our economy and bringing people together. Making these events easier for the UK to deliver is therefore the right thing to do.
On Second Reading, I emphasised my disappointment that the Bill did not include cultural or music events—industries that also bring billions into the UK’s economy, and events that encounter many of the same problems as sporting events. I have met Ministers, and I understand their position that cultural events are not within the scope of the Bill. However, I did not want to let debate on the Bill close without emphasising again that this is a missed opportunity to support cultural and music events.
There are other areas in which the Bill could be stronger, the first of which is free-to-air sports. This year, for the first time since the champions league began in 1992, supporters could not watch the final without paying. This is the latest in a long line of events that have gone behind a paywall. Meanwhile, the BBC’s coverage of the Lionesses has inspired a generation of girls to pick up a football, and Channel 4’s Paralympics coverage has shown disabled children what is possible. Free-to-air coverage works, and amendments 1 and 2 would ensure that any event covered by this Bill or backed by public money would be available to all. As well as that, new clause 2 proposes a bidding framework to bring football home, making sure that the Government can host the 2042 world cup. The Liberal Democrats have also long argued that gambling advertising has no place in sport. New clause 4 would ban gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship from the events that are covered by this legislation.
All those amendments matter to sport, which is why I have continued to push for them during the passage of the Bill. However, the amendment I wish to push to a Division today deals with ticket touting. The Labour party manifesto says:
“Access to music, drama and sport has become difficult and expensive because of ticket touting. Labour will put fans back at the heart of events by introducing new consumer protections on ticket resales.”
That is a pledge to act, in black and white. Elsewhere, the Government have pledged to bring forward legislation that will ban ticket resales at above face value. The commitment is clear, but this Bill contains a framework for implementing all of those promises, and the Government have chosen not to act this time.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I am sure the hon. Lady agrees that it is really good that the scope of this Bill was extended to include more major events, not just one big-ticket item. However, it now creates a two-tier ticketing system; it places restrictions on the sale of tickets to only a few sporting events, while music events and other cultural events are waiting for a solution that has been promised but not come. Does the hon. Lady agree that that puts in stark perspective the urgent need for the ticket touting Bill to come forward as quickly as possible?
Anna Sabine
It would be very unwise to disagree with the hon. Member on any issue relating to this area; yes, I totally agree with her. The issue of ticket sales really needs clarification.
Every year, fans lose £145 million from tickets being resold at eye-watering prices. Every time the Government delay reforming ticket sales, more and more money is lost and—more importantly—another eager fan misses out on watching their team play. The Government keep promising further legislation down the line, but the Liberal Democrats are calling for action to be taken now, which is why we have tabled new clause 1. This new clause does what the Government have promised and what this Bill fails to do: it stops tickets being resold at above face value. It would mean that no more fans are priced out by an algorithm and no more touts profit at the expense of the people who love sport, and also live music and theatre. The Government say that they back reform; today, they can prove it. I hope this House will vote to support new clause 1.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think we are seeing a first in this House—a debate in which the Member for Harlow is called first. I welcome it. You are in a good mood, Mr Speaker, because it is Lancashire Day today.
Chris Vince
Well, as a sort of adopted Yorkshireman, I look forward to celebrating it with you.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am a keen football supporter, and although the fortunes of both Harlow Town and Leeds United have been somewhat inconsistent in recent years—I know that the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), who is sitting opposite me, is looking forward to a positive Farke-led revolution—I feel an immense sense of pride when the country hosts sporting events. I think not only of the 2012 Olympics; I am old enough to remember Euro ’96, when football came home, but perhaps not in all the ways we hoped it would.
I also pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), for her commitment and dedication to sport in this country. Whether it is grassroots football teams such as the league-winning Roydon FC or our Ballon d’Or winning England captain Harry Kane—
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Or Wigan Warriors!
Chris Vince
I know that sport, and indeed the fantastic rugby league players who I know, Mr Speaker, you regularly cheer on—
Chris Vince
Maybe between us, we can change that. [Interruption.] I feel like I have started an argument between Mr Speaker and the Secretary of State that the Secretary of State is not going to win, so I will move on quickly.
Sport has the opportunity not only to improve people’s lives, but to change people’s lives. I have formed friendships by standing at Harlow Town football club week in, week out, and I am forever grateful for having had that opportunity. This Bill will strengthen the UK’s position as a world-leading host of major sporting events by establishing a legal framework that makes it easier to host international competitions, and strengthen our advantage when bidding for future tournaments.
I welcome some of the suggestions made by the Liberal Democrats in their amendments, but I believe that the Bill in its current form already addresses unauthorised ticket touting. We need to see the back of that menace. We want real sports fans to have the opportunity to go to these sporting events.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
Having served as the Sports Minister overseeing the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games, I know at first hand the incredible opportunities and challenges that come with hosting major international sporting events. For that reason I broadly welcome the Bill and the framework it seeks to establish. The case for hosting major sporting events is clear: they generate significant economic activity, support jobs, inspire participation in sport and leave lasting legacies in communities across the country.
Sport contributes more than £53 billion annually to the UK economy. Major events play an important role in supporting growth across sectors such as tourism and hospitality. The Birmingham Commonwealth games alone generated an additional £1.2 billion in economic value added, as well as leaving a legacy of improved or new facilities in and around Birmingham. As we look ahead to Euro 2028, and as we pursue our ambition to host the 2035 women’s world cup—and a future Olympic games—it is vital that we have a modern and effective legislative framework in place. Historically, Parliament has had to legislate separately for each major event, and that approach is neither efficient nor sustainable.
The Bill’s strength is that it creates a standing framework through which future events can be delivered more effectively, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy while ensuring the UK remains an attractive place, if not the best in the world, to host major sporting competitions. For those reasons, I support the broad aims of the Bill.
Although the Government have already accepted some amendments, including incorporating a limited number of recurring annual events, the Opposition Front Bench have tabled a few further amendments and enhancements that I would like the Government to consider supporting. First, the success of a major sporting event depends not only on athletes and organisers but on the transport networks and public services that allow spectators, volunteers and competitors to participate. When that infrastructure is disrupted by industrial action, as we have seen, local businesses lose trade, visitors face uncertainty and the reputation of the host nation can suffer. Many will remember the strikes planned to coincide with the opening of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games, which were a deliberate attempt to disrupt a major national event, while the country was recovering from the pandemic, with the intent of causing maximum disruption. Furthermore, the Government had to dip into contingencies—taxpayer’s money—to the tune of £4 million to provide alternative transport options for sporting fans. Any opportunity to limit such damage would be welcome.
Secondly, a major sporting event should not only showcase excellence on the field of play but command the confidence of athletes, spectators and governing bodies alike. For many people, maintaining fairness in women’s sporting competition and preserving appropriate single-sex spaces form an important part of that confidence. The Opposition’s amendments would incorporate single-sex protections into the sporting events framework, ensuring that where it is applied, major sporting events and associated activities provide single-sex competitions and facilities in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. The proposals also provide sensible exemptions for self-contained facilities, including those designed for disabled people, recognising that accessibility, dignity and practicality must sit alongside privacy and fairness.
There are also several proposals and amendments relating to ticketing and ticket touting, in particular the secondary ticket market. We need to be careful in this area. There is cross-party support for ensuring that we do not have rip-off ticketing in sporting and many other events. We also need to ensure a valid, perfectly legitimate secondary ticket market can thrive, because that can be good for consumers, and competition can help keep prices low. There have been circumstances where a monopoly has been created in sporting events. That may have been well intended, but it has led to organisers charging considerable amounts in, for example, fees. We saw that during the FIFA world cup, where the official resale platform charged a 15% fee to buyers and sellers. That demonstrates how easily costs can be passed on to supporters when limited competition and no alternative marketplace is available. I therefore ask the Government to consider what further evidence may be required when looking at this challenging marketplace.
I stress again that I support the overall purpose of the Bill and the framework it establishes, but if we are serious about maximising the benefits of hosting major sporting events, we should also be prepared to strengthen the legislation where necessary. The amendments would do exactly that, so I hope the Minister will consider them carefully.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Ind)
I welcome this Bill, because I know from experience how important it is. Before becoming the Member of Parliament for Southend East and Rochford, I was fortunate enough to be involved in the London 2012 Olympic games, the Euro 2020 football championships and the 2022 FIFA world cup. I have seen at first hand what it takes to make a major sporting event a success and the benefits it can have for the wider community. These events have taught me that while venues, organisation and promotion are all important, the most crucial factor is support from Government and local authorities. Unfortunately, that support is not consistent across the country. While some areas have the relationships, expertise and capacity to help sporting events thrive, others start from scratch each and every time. That is why the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has called for a national strategy for major events, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to publish one.
The Committee has also called for responsibility for major events to be moved from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to the Department for Business and Trade. That move would highlight the role of events in driving investment, tourism and growth. The importance of major sporting events is not just their financial contribution, but their ability to create and celebrate community. We also see that in grassroots events, such as Rochford Hundred’s Remembrance Day fixture, which recently brought the community together in an extraordinary way. That event was not a global spectacle, but it showed the true power of sport in building community. I commend the club’s president, Ray Stephenson, and its chairman, Steve Maguire, who made that match happen.
I finish by encouraging colleagues to think back to the successful sporting events of the past few decades, and specifically their ability to make the whole country feel united. In these times, we all know how important it is to stay united. This Bill strengthens our ability to deliver those moments and ensures that the benefits reach every community in the country.
Nigel Huddleston
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, please forgive me for the omission, but I neglected to refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests when I gave my speech some moments ago.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Thank you, Mr Huddleston. That has most definitely been put on the record.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I also point Members to my declaration in the register. Major sporting events bring significant economic and social benefits, from hospitality and tourism to grassroots participation and improved facilities. I am very proud that next summer, the Utilita Bowl in Eastleigh will host its first men’s Ashes test, which is expected to generate millions a day for the local economy. However, those benefits depend on fans being treated fairly, and that starts with ticket pricing.
The Bill makes it a criminal offence to tout tickets for an event covered by the framework, in the relevant area during a specified period. Fans have waited too long for touting to be tackled and the unlimited fines send the right signal. However, while the Bill criminalises unauthorised resale, even at or below face value, it sets no price limit on authorised resale, leaving fans exposed. That is why I welcome new clauses 1 and 3. New clause 1 would stop tickets being resold above their original cost and cap resale platform fees, while new clause 3 would cap transaction fees at 10% and ban surge pricing. This means the most a fan could ever be charged for a ticket they can no longer use is the price they paid. The Government have committed to capping resale prices on the same basis as new clause 1, but have promised only a draft Bill: the new clauses would protect fans sooner.
Too many fans are now priced out of watching the sport they love, not just in stadiums but at home. Amendment 1 would make free-to-air coverage a condition for any event covered by this Bill. As many of us remember, in 2022, 17.4 million people watched the Lionesses win the Euros on BBC One. In the season that followed, the FA estimated there was a 140% increase in girls under 16 playing football, including in my constituency, with 2.3 million more women and girls playing the game than the year before. I will not lean on the old line that girls cannot be what they cannot see and I would not claim that free-to-air coverage is the only reason for that growth, but it is part of the story. As I mentioned, next year’s fourth Ashes Test will be played in Eastleigh, but no home Ashes series has been shown live on free-to-air television since 2005. Where public money is given to an event, fans who cannot get a ticket should not then be shut out by the cost of a subscription as well.
The Bill will create restricted advertising zones around events, where unauthorised advertising will become a criminal offence. However, that protects commercial rights, not the content of what is advertised, leaving the door open for gambling companies to remain official sponsors. The Liberal Democrats have long called for stronger protections, and new clause 4 would deliver them by prohibiting gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship at every event covered by the Bill. The Government’s impact assessment estimates that hundreds of street traders will be affected by trading restrictions, but the Bill includes no statutory duty to consult them before a restricted trading zone is created.
In my constituency, West End has a compact high street close to the Utilita Bowl. Depending on how a zone is drawn, it could cover much of the village’s commercial centre. Can the Minister explain what those restrictions would mean in practice for businesses like those in West End? New clause 6 would require consultation with those representing affected businesses, but would not guarantee that the traders themselves or councils are given a say over how a zone is drawn. I ask the Minister to consider requiring a brief impact assessment for nearby small businesses, with local authorities given a statutory right to comment before a zone is confirmed. If the Bill is to work for sport, it must work for local businesses and fans too.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendments 8 and 6, on industrial action and single sex protections respectively. The point I wish to raise goes further than this specific Bill, because I think it is a perfect case study of the purpose of the Chamber. We have a Bill that, as the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) articulated, has broad support across the House and is not a controversial Bill. Colleagues on both sides of the House love sport and want our country to attract major sporting events to our shores, and they see sport as a force for good in unifying communities—I very much agreed with his sentiments on that point.
The Opposition have tabled two modest, reasonable and sensible amendments, one of which would simply build on the existing law and provide that if we are to use taxpayers’ money on events in the UK, they should surely comply with UK law. That is the very essence of a modest amendment. We have a consensual Bill, and the amendment simply restates the existing law and how it would apply to an international competition held in this country.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak today on behalf of the official Opposition, and I refer Members to my entry in the Members’ Register of Financial Interests.
As I made clear at Second Reading, Britain has a world-class sporting heritage and a renowned reputation for hosting major events. From the Olympics and the Paralympics to Wimbledon, the Open and the British grand prix, these occasions bring pride to our country, support jobs and inspire future generations. That is why the Opposition support a permanent legislative framework to help Britain host such events, and why we have sought to work constructively with the Government on maximising the opportunity.
The result of that can be seen in the Bill before us today. It has benefited considerably from scrutiny, particularly the work of Lord Parkinson, Lord Markham and Baroness Evans in the other place. One of their most significant achievements was extending the framework to major recurring sporting events. Under the Bill as originally drafted, international tournaments visiting Britain could benefit, whereas established fixtures such as Wimbledon and the London marathon could not. Thanks to Conservative peers working alongside Lord Addington and others, the Lords voted to remove that exclusion. I welcome the Government’s subsequent acceptance of the principle, albeit with additional conditions introduced.
Several of our other amendments address practical concerns raised in Committee. New clause 8 and amendment 10 would give genuine charitable ticket auctions the protection they deserve. A charity auctioning donated tickets for a good cause should not be treated in the same way as a professional ticket tout, and neither should it have to depend on exemptions that Ministers might grant later. We have also proposed safeguards for ordinary supporters who need to resell tickets, stronger parliamentary scrutiny of financial assistance, and an assessment of how the Government’s economic policies affect Britain’s ability to attract major sporting events.
Those are important issues, and I hope the Government will give them proper consideration, but today I want to focus on our proposals for two major improvements to the Bill. The first concerns industrial action and is set out in amendment 6, alongside amendment 7, new clause 7 and new schedule 1. Taken together, these provisions would establish new protections against industrial action disrupting major sporting events. As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) explained in Committee, there is little point putting elaborate protections in place for ticketing, advertising, trading and commercial rights if an event can nevertheless be brought to a standstill by industrial action.
We saw the risk of disruption to the Birmingham Commonwealth games in 2022, when rail strikes were announced around the period of the games. More recently, threatened action at Scottish airports raised concerns ahead of the Glasgow Commonwealth games. We should remember the enormous economic consequences of transport disruption. Last year’s London underground strikes cost Transport for London an estimated £20 million to £25 million in lost fares alone, with the wider economic impact estimated at £230 million.
Major sporting events take years to secure and organise. Spectators travel from across the world, businesses invest in preparation, and our international reputation depends on delivering what we have promised, yet all of that can be jeopardised by industrial action at precisely the wrong moment. Our amendments would make restrictions on industrial action by specified transport and local authority workers a mandatory part of the framework during the relevant period. These protections should not be an optional extra applied to some events but not others. The Government rejected similar proposals in Committee, citing workers’ rights, but surely we must also consider the rights of spectators, athletes and businesses who have invested their time and money in such events. The Minister has yet to explain how the Government intend to protect major sporting events from this very real risk, and I hope she will do so today.
I will move on to our second substantial proposal, which concerns fairness, safety and the protection of women’s sport. This is advanced through amendment 8, supported by amendment 9 and new schedule 2. Given its importance, I want to devote the remainder of my contribution to these provisions.
At the Paris Olympics in 2024, something shocking happened. It was in a women’s boxing match between Angela Carini of Italy and Imane Khelif of Algeria. After taking heavy blows to the face, Angela signalled for the referee to stop the fight. Just 46 seconds after the contest began, Khelif was declared the winner. Angela fell to her knees in tears, her Olympic dreams shattered, but this was not a fair fight—it was not a fair competition. Angela was fighting a man, and it was obvious to anyone with eyes, yet arguably even more shocking than the fight itself was the response. There was more criticism and ridicule of Angela for not shaking his hand in the ring, and for crying, than of a man punching a woman in the face repeatedly. As often happens, the feelings of a man were being prioritised over fairness and the safety of a woman.
What I observed was cowardice on a huge scale. Even Members of this House disgustingly celebrated this televised male violence against a woman, which cheated her out of the competition. Sport is played with our bodies. Men, on average, are much stronger and faster—biology matters. Angela and many other women who have been forced to compete against men have been put at risk of harm. This should never happen again in a sporting event anywhere. Our amendments would at least help to ensure that it cannot happen on British soil.
Thankfully, there has been some progress. In March this year the International Olympic Committee announced that, from the Los Angeles Olympics in 2028, eligibility for women’s competition will be determined through a one-time, non-invasive genetic test via a cheek swab. This will apply across Olympic sports, with the IOC explicitly recognising the importance of fairness and safety. Following the controversies of Paris, this is a welcome step towards restoring confidence in women’s sport.
In this country, we do not accept cheating, we do not accept women being treated as second-class citizens and we respect the law, which is very clear on this matter. That is so important, because sporting organisations, even after the For Women Scotland case, are still failing to ensure that the women’s category does not include males. They continue to turn a blind eye or come up with spurious reasons why they can sidestep the law.
Take table tennis and squash here in England. Both governing bodies now recognise the importance of biological sex in determining eligibility for women’s competitions, but both operate a two-tier system. Table Tennis England restricts its women’s category at nationally ranked competitions to female players, yet allows males to compete in women’s categories at local level. England Squash similarly excludes males from its female category in regulated competitions but permits their participation in recreational competitions. Both organisations accept the need for fairness at higher levels while sacrificing the integrity of the female category further down, but surely fairness matters to women at the grassroots just as much as it does to elite athletes. Why should a woman playing in her local league be entitled to any less consideration than a national champion? Do these organisations not realise that cheating a young girl out of her rightful podium place at grassroots level means that she is more likely to give up any dreams of progressing further?
Consider FIFA, which governs the women’s world cup. Its gender verification regulations date back to 2011, place responsibility largely on national football associations and expressly rule out routine testing. FIFA announced a review of the rules years ago, yet we are still waiting for a clear, updated approach. The consequences of these differing standards are already apparent. Zambia’s Barbra Banda was withdrawn from the 2022 women’s Africa cup of nations on gender eligibility grounds, yet subsequently competed at the 2023 women’s world cup and was named the BBC’s women’s footballer of the year in 2024. A once-in-a-lifetime sex screen would ensure that no male competes in such events.
Take the most recent announcement by the London marathon, which is considering allowing male pacemakers into the elite women’s race next year. The organisers say that it is to help women shatter the world record, but is it? In the words of the famed Olympian, Baroness Davies of Devonport:
“So do they have cheetahs to pace make for men’s races? Or just other men maybe?”
Even if the London marathon’s intentions are entirely honourable, the organisers will be changing a single-sex race into a mixed-sex one, thereby opening the door for male competitors to participate and win. It is exactly this type of thing that our amendments would prevent for such major sporting events.
What would the protections in our new schedule 2 actually do? First, it would require the Secretary of State, before applying the sporting events framework, to be satisfied that organisers will ensure that competitors in single-sex events compete against those of the same biological sex. It would also require single-sex accommodation, changing and washing facilities, and toilets for competitors and officials. These protections would extend to spectators and staff, ensuring access to appropriate single-sex toilets, changing and washing facilities. New schedule 2 also seeks to prevent financial assistance from being provided to sporting events, or to associated legacy and social impact programmes, where the required protections are not observed.
The Opposition do not believe that any male should be competing in women’s sport, and we do not support any sporting organisation benefiting from the Bill or getting taxpayer support if they do not respect the law. The Minister may once again tell us that existing legislation is sufficient. We have already heard that argument in Committee, and we remain unconvinced. I suspect the female athletes losing podium places to biological men feel the same.
I know many sensible Labour Members entirely agree with us on this, and there may even be a couple of Lib Dems who do, but none of the Greens do. Today, I am asking those Members and the Government more broadly to be brave and do the right thing. Backing amendment 8 and the single-sex protections that it would help establish would ensure that women’s sport was protected at these sporting events, and that only females could compete. If Members are still feeling a bit yellow about it, they should do it for their daughters, their wives and their mums. This is about ensuring that female athletes can compete fairly, that sportswomen have access to appropriate facilities, and that the sporting organisations benefiting from this framework are held to the highest standards.
This Bill offers a rare opportunity to strengthen Britain’s position as a leading host of major sporting events. We support that ambition and welcome the improvements made during the Bill’s passage, and we have put forward a number of reasonable amendments, but we can and must go further. After all, what is the point of putting on a world-class competition if no one can get to it, and if the games are rigged from the start?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
Today’s debate has broadly shown cross-party recognition of the importance of major sporting events and their ability to showcase the very best of our country. The UK is a world leader when it comes to hosting major sporting events; this Bill will make sure that we continue to attract the world’s biggest sporting moments, and to welcome the social and economic benefits they bring.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise for not being here at the very beginning of the debate, as I know I am meant to be. Running any sporting event, be it the Commonwealth games or a football tournament, is almost impossible for one city to do on its own because of the financial cost, but it may be possible for a number of UK cities to hold it together. Will the Government commit to ensuring that, if we hold a showpiece football tournament or the Commonwealth games, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England can all be part of it?
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. Indeed, we are working together on Euro 2028, which is the first tournament to which this Bill will apply.
This is a framework Bill that covers ticketing, transport, advertising, trading and unauthorised association. Proportionality is now embedded in these powers—I gave that commitment on Second Reading—so that everyone, particularly small and micro-sized businesses, can benefit when the world comes to visit us. After valuable discussions in this House and the other place, we are pleased that the Bill will also extend to our world-class recurrent events, so that those internationally acclaimed events can apply for and benefit from the powers in this Bill.
I am grateful for the contributions from across the House.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I am grateful to the Minister for appearing before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee during our inquiry on major events earlier in the year. We asked her what more she could do to demonstrate that the Government were gripping this issue, so the extension of the Bill to more events other than one-offs is really good. As I mentioned, however, we risk creating a two-tier ticketing system, because these rules relate to sporting events, but music and other cultural events are left waiting for a solution—a solution that was promised in the manifesto, but has not yet come. Can she give any update on when we might expect the ticket touting Bill that will set out the restrictions on who can operate in the secondary market, and how that can be more legislatively fair?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the Select Committee, and indeed the hon. Member, for their work. I really appreciated their work on major events, and I listened to most of the evidence that her Committee took. We are absolutely committed to getting that Bill on the statute book, and I will come on to that in a moment.
I am grateful to the former Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), for all his work, and for his speech. I believe he asked why transport is not included for recurrent events. We have had a conversation about this with stakeholders, and we are confident that recurrent events already have robust transport provisions in place. This issue was raised in detail in Committee, and I have written to the relevant Transport Minister about those concerns.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for their support. Their speeches highlighted that major events contribute to communities across our country. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) asked about small businesses. We draw the zone much more tightly for events such as Euro 2028 than for recurrent events, but I am happy to speak to the hon. Member about this.
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am going to have to take a moment—
Chris Vince
Does the Minister agree with me that it is hugely important to celebrate all levels of sport, from grassroots football clubs such as Roydon FC to the mighty Harlow Town and, of course, Leeds United?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a really important point, and I am grateful to the House for its understanding.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) deal with ticketing. As I said to the Chair of the Select Committee, we are committed to tackling industrial-scale touting, but this Bill is not the place to do so. Our upcoming ticket tout ban Bill will do that.
Jim Shannon
We are very appreciative of all the work the Minister does in the Department, and we very much respect her enthusiasm and energy. We understand that she will be bringing forward legislative change that we wish to see, and we welcome that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I believe the Minister is just about to conclude—final word.
Stephanie Peacock
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think the hon. Gentleman makes a really important point.
We have had a very good debate on this issue, particularly in Committee, and I am grateful for the support of the whole House. We are a world leader in major events, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Minister has done a fantastic job.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Voting in today’s deferred Divisions will now reopen in the No Lobby and continue for 25 minutes.
Third Reading
King’s and Prince of Wales’s consent signified.
Lisa Nandy
The UK has a proud record of hosting the world’s greatest sporting events, including in Glasgow and Birmingham this summer, and who can forget the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games in London, delivered by the late and great Tessa Jowell, who is still much missed by all of us in the House? I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), who oversaw an extraordinarily successful Commonwealth games in Birmingham that really showed what this country is capable of.
In a world where too many things divide us, sport has the remarkable capacity to unite—to bring communities together and show the best of our country to the world. Perhaps its greatest power is what it can do for the next generation. I was privileged to be at the Red Roses’ historic win at the 2025 women’s rugby world cup and to see Twickenham packed to the rafters cheering them on. What made me prouder still was seeing what followed—thousands of girls taking their first steps into rugby, signing up to their local clubs and discovering what they were capable of. This is what we should always strive for.
We have some extraordinary opportunities ahead of us. When the two Tour de France grand départs come to Great Britain next summer, they will create the most accessible major sporting event our country has ever hosted. Millions of people will have the chance to get up close to some of the greatest competitors in the world, and hopefully it will inspire a new generation into cycling.
The UEFA European championship in 2028 will give us a summer of extraordinary football. We are determined that its legacy will be about much more than what happens in the stadiums across the whole of the United Kingdom. That must, of course, include great benefits for Northern Ireland.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
It is a slightly technical point, but with mega-events such as those the Secretary of State is talking about, unauthorised car parking can cause major problems to the event organisers—I have been one myself—requiring traffic management systems and other measures. Do you agree that it might be appropriate to have exclusion zones around stadiums and other sporting venues? Far be it from me to deter such entrepreneurial spirit, but do you also agree that any landowner who wishes to operate an unauthorised car park should work together with the event organiser so that they can better organise those traffic management plans?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I remind Back Benchers that it is not appropriate to say “you” and “yours” in the Chamber.
Lisa Nandy
I very much took the concern as being directed as me, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise it, because it can be a significant problem. Transport provisions are already in scope of the Bill, but we would be happy to work with him and others who share our concerns about making sure that events are successful if there are particular issues that arise subsequently.
The UEFA European championship in 2028 is going to be an incredible moment for our country. It is projected to deliver a sixfold return on public investment, and we are going to use this opportunity to get more people playing football, strengthen our grassroots clubs and open up opportunities right across the country. Members will also know that we have bid for the FIFA 2035 women’s world cup and the 2029 world para athletics championships. This Government are also committed to seeing the Ryder and Solheim cups hosted here.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced last week, we have committed £7 million to a detailed feasibility study for a potential bid to host the Olympic and Paralympic games in the north of England in the 2040s. This is personal for me: I grew up in the north of England, in Manchester, and I watched as we unsuccessfully bid for the Olympic games many years ago. Many people across the country told us that it could not be done—Manchester could not host major sporting events. Then, only a few years later, we went on to host a really successful Commonwealth games and show the world how it was done. Every part of this country deserves the chance to contribute to our incredibly rich legacy of major sporting events. We believe that the north of England has so much to offer, and we are determined to make sure that the rest of the world gets the chance to see that.
Underpinning all this is a belief that the benefits of hosting major events should not be confined to the host city or to those fortunate enough to secure a ticket. The benefits should be felt in towns and cities and in our schools, sports clubs and communities across all four nations of the UK. The events should inspire a generation of young people to go on and live the richer, larger lives that they deserve.
The Bill allows us to stand ready to host the biggest events in the world, to protect the integrity of those events to ensure that people can enjoy them, and to make certain that the benefits reach as far as possible. I am grateful to Members across the House who have engaged so constructively and thoughtfully with us during the passage of the Bill to improve it. I thank those who have supported our provisions, which we believe will improve the way that we host major sporting events.
I would like to thank in particular our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), for her sterling work on this Bill. Our Whips are often unsung heroes in this place. Without them, the major benefits that we deliver to the people of this country would simply not happen.
In particular, the improvements that hon. Members have helped us to make have broadened the framework’s scope so that some of our world-class recurrent events can also benefit from its provisions. We have heard loud and clear the importance of getting the balance right to provide effective protections for major sporting events, while ensuring that the framework operates fairly and proportionately for businesses and communities. I am pleased that the safeguards are now strengthened in the Bill.
I want to address a few of the concerns that we have heard today head-on, in particular the questions about biological sex and the need to protect sporting events. I say to the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) that I have heard her points, and I know that she feels passionately about this issue, but I want to be clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, that participation in all events within the scope of the Bill is already based on biological sex. I do not want Members to misunderstand what we are doing through this Bill.
There were concerns raised by a few hon. Members about the prospect of sporting events being derailed by strike action. I have to say, and I hope Members will take this in the right spirit, that I could not disagree more with their proposals. It is notable that no Member could point to a single instance when a major sporting event has been derailed by strike action. When I was serving as parliamentary private secretary to Tessa Jowell, many Conservative Members raised concerns that the 2012 Olympics would be derailed by strike action. In the event, the only major disruption was when a private company, G4S, failed to deliver on its contract and the Army had to be drafted in to support. I gently say to those on the Opposition Benches that if they want to avoid strike action, the best way is to treat the workforce of this country as partners in our national endeavour and to treat them properly.
I recognise the concerns about ticketing raised by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) and echoed by the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). I recognise the intention behind the Liberal Democrat amendment, but I want to be clear: the Government rejected the amendment not because we are anything but committed to bringing in the strongest protection for fans, whether at music, sport or other live events, but because it would have, in effect, created a two-tier system where sporting events were covered but music events were not. That dilutes a comprehensive package that we are putting forward to the House to clamp down on ticket touts and to call time on the rip off that has been allowed to go on in plain sight for too long, in order to give music, sports and other live events back to their fans. I also gently say that in 14 years of Tory Government, and in five years of coalition, no action was taken on this issue. A Labour Government will deliver it.
I pay particular tribute to our devolved partners. From the outset, we have been clear that this must be legislation for the whole of the United Kingdom. We have worked closely together to ensure that the Bill reflects that commitment and that the opportunities and rewards from hosting these events are shared across all four nations. When the world comes to our countries, it should be able to see and experience the very best of every part of our United Kingdom, of which we are so immensely proud.
Finally, I thank all of the individuals across Government who have worked hard to get us to this point. Major sporting events give us moments we remember for a lifetime, but their real value lies in what they leave behind: the communities they strengthen; the opportunities they create; the young people they inspire; and the pride that they help us share with the world. Through the Bill we stand ready to seize those opportunities and to make sure that when those moments come, the benefits belong to us all. I commend the Bill to the House.
Rebecca Paul
The Opposition will not seek to divide the House on Third Reading. We support the fundamental purpose of the Bill and believe Britain should be the best place in the world to host major sporting events. A permanent legislative framework will help us achieve that ambition. The great tragedy of this process, however, is that the Bill we have before us could have been so much more. Thanks to the work of Conservative peers, alongside others in the other place, the Bill was significantly improved before reaching this House. Yet, despite the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) in Committee and the arguments we have put forward during the Bill’s subsequent passage, the Government have failed to grasp the opportunity to go further.
In this Bill, we had an opportunity to establish clear statutory safeguards for female athletes, to protect the integrity of single-sex competition and to ensure that sporting organisations benefiting from the privileges conferred by the Bill respect the rights and safety of women and girls. Is that not what female athletes deserve? Is that not what all women deserve?
I have to say that I am shocked at the result of the vote on amendment 8. Ninety-three Members in this place voted to protect the women’s category, almost all of those Conservatives, and no Liberal Democrats voted in favour of the amendment. [Interruption.] I have huge respect for the Culture Secretary, but we do not believe this matter is covered. We know that in practice males are able to participate in competitions. As I said in my speech on Report, we know that the London marathon is considering including male pacemakers, yet the London marathon is meant to be covered by the Bill. We also have the numerous issues at FIFA level. Therefore, with respect, I do not believe that the issue is covered. It is gut-wrenching that a rare chance to address those concerns has been squandered by those on the Government Front Bench, many of whom still struggle to articulate what a woman even is. It will now fall to a future Conservative Government to do what is necessary to protect the fairness and integrity of women’s sport—and the House should make no mistake, we will do it.
For now, we can add sport to Labour’s long list of safeguarding failures for women and girls. It has refused to move the dangerous men unlawfully held in women’s prisons, dragged its feet on the grooming gang inquiry, stood by as nurses are harassed by the NHS for not wanting to undress in front of males, and refused to stop the PATHWAYS puberty blocker trial, which would cause irreversible harm to hundreds of children. Yet Labour has the gall to say that reducing violence against women and girls is one of its priorities. I am afraid that actions speak louder than words. Time and again, the Government have the chance to do the right thing, and time and again they do not. For them, party will always come before country.
Equally disappointing has been the Government’s refusal to address properly the threat of industrial action disrupting major sporting events. I struggle to see the logic in legislating to protect ticketing arrangements, commercial interests and advertising rights, but stubbornly refusing to take action on the strikes that could bring those same events to a standstill. What good are all the commercial protections if spectators cannot reach the stadium and an event that has taken years to organise is thrown into chaos by union bosses looking for their next bit of leverage? We all know why the Government will not support that: they cannot upset their union paymasters. I hope they all declared their interests today while they do their paymasters’ bidding.
With all that said, we will not stand in the way of the Bill becoming law. We recognise the benefits it will bring and the considerable work that has gone into improving it. However, the Government will know deep down that this was a missed opportunity to deliver something considerably more meaningful. The Bill will almost certainly make Britain better equipped to host major sporting events, but sadly, it does not make Britain a better place for a female athlete to compete, and that is a terrible shame.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.