Lords Chamber

Wednesday 3rd June 2026

(began 1 week ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
None Portrait Oral questions: Cabinet Manual: guidelines for government formation in the event of no Commons majority for a single party Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-

has committed to updating the Cabinet Manual to ensure it remains an authoritative guide to our
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:49
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:50
15:51
None Portrait Business of the House
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords. First reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First reading. Of a private member's Bill Lord Dodds of Duncairn Lord Dodds of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Duncairn. Thank you, my Lords. I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision introduce a Bill to make provision to modify the effect on domestic law of arrangements relating to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and for connected purposes. I beg to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that this bill be now read at first time. Yes. The question the question is this bill be now read a first is this bill be now read a first time, as many as are of that opinion will say content and not opinion will say content and not content. The contents have it, my Lords, first reading of another Lords, first reading of another private member's Bill Baroness Smith of Llanfaes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish a framework for the Secretary of State to consult stakeholders on the replacement of the House of Lords with an alternative second Chamber. I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move that this bill be now read a first time. Yeah. The question is that this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be now read a first time, as many as are of that opinion will say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. My Lords, the companion is clear that first readings are agreed that first readings are agreed without dissent. Therefore, I say the contents have it. My Lords, questions on a statement made in the House of Commons on Monday, the 1st of June, on the Equality Act 2010 Draft Code of Practice.
15:53
None Portrait Statement: The Equality Act 2010 Draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations
-

15:54
Baroness Stedman-Scott Portrait Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the statement on the Draft Equality Act 2010 Code of Practice. The publication of the draft code is publication of the draft code is welcome, and I was pleased to see greater protections for breastfeeding women and greater clarity for people with disabilities. Those are important improvements. The Conservative Party has always been clear on this issue. Vulnerable women and girls must be protected. We welcome the judgement of the Supreme Court, and we will always stand up for single sex spaces to be protected in line with the law.

That is the right approach, no matter what pressure they may be under from their friends in the unions and the Liberal Democrats, the government must do the right thing and protect women and girls. However, public bodies, employers, schools, service providers and women across the country have been waiting many months for clarity following the Supreme Court's judgement, and I cannot understand why they have had to wait so long. Before I speak to the detail of the code. Can the noble Lord, the Minister, please explain why the government took so long to bring it forward? We understand that the EHR first submitted its draft to Ministers in September of last year, and during that period, organisations for.

Responsible for implementing the law were left without the clarity they needed, despite the Supreme Court having already provided legal certainty on the meaning of sex within the Equality Act in particular, we know many NHS settings have failed to comply with the Supreme Court judgement. While waiting for the updated code of practice. Does the noble Lord, the Minister, recognise that this unacceptable delay has caused material harm to women who should have had their own spaces protected much sooner? And it is not just the NHS many other organisations have spent the past year attempting to navigate their responsibilities without the updated code of practice.

Does the noble Lord, the Minister, accept that this delay has contributed to confusion for service providers and uncertainty for those seeking to access services? Ministers have said the delay was a result of changes to the Code of Practice being required. As noble Lords will know well. Section 14, subsection seven of the Equality Act 2006 allows for the Secretary of State state to approve the draft Code of practice or reject it with written reasons. It does not provide for the Secretary of State to withhold approval pending changes.

So can the noble Lord. The Minister, explain what happened in this case? What legal basis exist for the Secretary of State to put the approval of the Code of Practice on hold, while the EHR makes changes to the Code of Practice? Would the noble Lord, the Minister, agree that what happened in this case runs contrary to the process conceived by Parliament when the act was put into law? But whatever the legal basis of that decision, transparency would certainly help build trust in the way Ministers have approached this issue.

So can the noble Lord. The Minister set out what changes, if any, the government requested to the original draft before laying it before Parliament. Will the government publish details of any substantive amendments that were made and the reason for them? And can the noble Lord, the Minister, say whether any changes to the original draft demanded by the Secretary of State were not reflected in the final draft that was laid before the House before recess? The Supreme Court has provided legal clarity and now organisations, organisations require operational clarity.

Can the noble Lord, the Minister, assure the House that government departments, bodies and public authorities will now move swiftly to review and update their own guidance, policies and procedures so that they are fully consistent with both the judgement and the code. What process will Ministers follow to ensure compliance, and will the noble Lord, the Minister, commit to updating the House on the progress, public bodies, and in particular the NHS, are making towards full compliance of the Code of Practice.

While Parliament has a duty to uphold the rights of women and girls and the lawful provision of single sex spaces, it is equally important that everybody is treated with dignity and respect. Can the noble Lord, the Minister, outline what practical support will be provided to schools, hospitals, local authorities, charities and businesses to assist them in implementing the code consistently and lawfully. And finally, my Lords, the draft Code of Practice contains an inaccuracy. It states, and I quote, information about sex is likely to constitute special category data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 2018, DPA and the UK General Data Protection Regulations, GDPR Special Category Personal Data is described under article nine of the UK.

GDPR, the category of sex is not included as such data. Will the noble Lord the Minister, look into this and ensure that a correction is made to the code of practice? I look forward to the Minister's response.
16:00
Lord Scriven Portrait Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Well said. >> My Lords, I thank the Minister for this statement on profoundly important yet sensitive matter. When we debate the updated code of When we debate the updated code of practice, we must remember that at the heart of this issue, our fellow citizens. If we listen closely, we find that people affected by this code are driven by exactly the same fundamental human needs respect, dignity, and the desire to leave. With a peace of mind, we hear the deeply held convictions of some women who look to single sex spaces for privacy, companionship and dignity for them, preserving the integrity of these spaces is not an abstract legal concept.

It is a practical requirement for their dignity. We also hear the equally profound anxieties of some trans transgender individuals, that they fear that the new guidance will effectively lock them out of public life, strip away their dignity and subject them to humiliation or hostility when simply trying to access basic services. Both views are valid and we must not ignore either. As a house, our duty as parliamentarians is to look objectively at the governance, economics and practical workability of this draft code in light of the laws of the land in place.

Following the laying of this draft code, the final stage impact assessment reveals a start a striking economic reality. The central estimate is annualised costs sits at £81.7 million, with an overwhelming 82% of this financial burden falling squarely on the private sector. Furthermore, 60% of the entire ten year cost profile is frontloaded in the first 24 months. Yet the assessment itself admits an extraordinary level of uncertainty, and it contains no independent verification from the Regulatory Policy Committee.

Crucially, the document explicitly acknowledges that due to severe data limitations, the government has been entirely unable to assess the specific impact on small and micro businesses. The government are effectively flying blind, passing a statutory framework that could heavily penalise local businesses without any hard evidence of baseline data on how smaller enterprises are supposed to absorb these costs. We must look also at how this code will work on a Wednesday afternoon on a local charity or small independent business.

Right now, the draft code creates significant contradictions that lead that leave them exposed to litigation. So to that end, I wish to press the Minister on four specific critical issues regarding implementation. Firstly, what practical or financial support will be provided to small businesses that simply lack the physical space or capital to build the self-contained, gender neutral facilities recommended in the impact assessment? Secondly, what operational guidance do the government intend to issue to public facing service providers regarding the precise mechanism by which frontline staff can lawfully and proportionately verify an individual's sex recorded at birth without breaching article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, or GDPR rules on Special Category Data, or section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act, 2004.

Thirdly, what assessment have the government made of the potential legal conflict for service providers between the provision of the draft code that a single sex service loses its statutory service if reassignment characteristic, and the ongoing statutory requirement under the Equality Act 2010 to demonstrate that exclusion of that same individual constitutes a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. And fourthly, the code passes by negative procedure unless Parliament acts within 40 days. Given the concerns about the uncertainty and cost it creates, will the government consider supporting a joint committee of both houses to give these questions? The ruling and subsequent code raises and the parliamentary scrutiny that it has yet not fully received? My Lords, if we want a society that is fair, we cannot.

We cannot just pass down ambiguous guidance that forces business owners, charities and low wage front line staff to act as constitutional lawyers, risking risking complicated and legal litigation. The need for clarity, the sorry. They need clarity. They need a code of practice that is operationally and economically viable. And above all, we all need an approach that treats all individuals and those trying to run services for them with the certainty and dignity they deserve. I look forward to the minister's response.
16:05
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Lords Spokesperson (Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
Can I thank. >> Can I thank. >> Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their questions and contributions? Can I just start and contributions? Can I just start by perhaps just picking up that point by the noble Lord Lord Scriven and and actually addressing Baroness Stedman-Scott about the general principle, because I think we forget to repeat what the Supreme Court said itself in its judgement, which is, of course, in the statement. And I think it's worth repeating.

The court warned against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. That is why this government will always treat these issues sensitively and will not use any group as a political football. The government has been clear that we will protect single sex spaces based on biological sex where they are needed, such as women's refuges. We have been clear that everyone, including trans people, should have the right to access the services they need in a way that is respectful, protects dignity and privacy, and ensures adequate provision.

That's where everyone in this house should be focussed. Can I just say, and the noble Lady knows this because she has participated in a number of oral questions about the timing of this code, and we have repeatedly said that it is important that the code gets it right. You know, it would lead to further legal challenges. So I've also, I would say to Baroness Stedman-Scott that I've seen the letter from the shadow Minister for equalities on the issue about delay and changes.

I've seen that letter, and it is for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to answer those specific sets of questions. However, our focus, as I've repeatedly said, has been to make sure that organisations have the guidance they need and that is clear and practical. Therefore, we've made sure to do so through a thorough job, ensuring that the duty bearers have the guidance they needed to comply with the Equality Act. And the HRC has been clear that they've made a decision to amend the draft code following feedback, consultation responses and legal advice.

That's where we are now. Can I just say that I think, you know, one of the key elements of this is, of course, ensuring proportionality. And the noble Lord Lord Scriven has raised a very valuable point, and particularly about costs. And of course, the Commission has been very clear that service providers might comply with the law in different ways due to different factors such as physical building constraints. And there's no blanket requirement for particular approach. Duty bearers should take a proportionate approach.

For example, a small cafe might only have one individual lockable toilet for all customers, but there are lots of examples like that. Can I also say that the estimated costs that the Ehrc have provided have been spread across different parts of the economy, not just one individual sector of business across a ten year period. Many of those costs will be one off rather than ongoing. And this is about complying with the law. The draft code provides guidance in support of organisations to do so.

Can I also come to the issue that has been raised before? And that's you know, I've been very clear and my noble friend Baroness Miller, has been very clear that, you know, the Supreme Court judgement was clear. It must be complied with, and all government departments must comply with that. And that is what we've been very clear about. Now, the Cabinet Office have have updated civil service model policy and departments will work to implement the changes as soon as possible.

The policy changes, but compliance with the law is absolutely clear. We will continue to keep our guidance updated to ensure it takes account of the latest case law and any future updates by the ear of the Code of Practice on Employment. And can I also say to Baroness Stedman-Scott, she's absolutely right that there are other changes in the code that's brought it up to date, particularly with breastfeeding mothers and also people with disabilities? She's absolutely right. So we should see it in that context.

But there will be no doubt periods where we need to do that. And of course, she raised the question of the NHS two. And I think that is really the NHS is for everyone. The Secretary of State for health is clear that NHS services should protect single sex spaces based on biological sex, while at the same time protecting the rights, dignity and safety of trans people. The government has been. The government has taken action by publishing the draft code, and NHS England will be publishing guidance to bring this into effect in due course.

I have said before that in the past, when we have debated this issue, the debate has been incredibly toxic and I think everyone in this House wants to ensure that we can move forward respectfully and compassionately and understands the needs of all of our communities. Baroness Stedman-Scott knows I've been part of a situation where government has decided that a category of people in our community are not safe to work with children. That was section 28. We should not forget that.

And the consequences of that, and I am absolutely determined that we should protect everyone's interests, including women and safe spaces. And of course, the single sex spaces as committed by the Supreme Court. But we must not forget that trans people deserve respect, too. And that's what we will continue to do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, my Lord, may I remind all noble Lords we are now moving all noble Lords we are now moving on to up to 20 minutes of questions. I mean questions from backbench

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mean questions from backbench members. Baroness Thornton. All right. Thank you. Can I say how much I welcome the last part of my noble welcome the last part of my noble Lord, my noble friend statement. I'd like clarification on two
16:12
16:13
16:14
16:15
16:15
16:16
16:17
16:18
16:19
16:20
16:20
16:22
16:23
16:23
16:24
16:25
16:25
16:27
16:28
16:29
16:30
16:31
16:32
16:32
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this is an appalling and tragic case. The brutal murder of Henry Nowak, the lies told by Vickrum Digwa and the behaviour of the police officers involved have made it all the more sickening. This was a young man, a university student, who was stabbed before being handcuffed by police. As he lay dying and crying out, I can't breathe my Lords, I have been a police officer. I was an officer for 32 years, policing some of the most challenging parts of London.

I cannot fathom acting in the way those officers acted. The first course of action I would have taken is to prioritise the person who has been injured. Yet in this case, when met with a person shouting I've been stabbed. The response was one of the officers of the scene was, I don't think you have made. I have said it before and I will say it again at this Dispatch Box at the root of the problem with modern policing are two things training and operational discretion.

Officers are being trained to tick boxes rather than exercise their discretion and common sense. I think we need less national guidance and bureaucratic requirements, and more focus on training officers to utilise their judgement. But what has also become blatantly clear from this is how police today will prioritise accusations of racism over murder. There is a wholly unacceptable symptom of the corruption of the once widely accepted concept of equality before the law. This is not only evident in the statements and general attitudes of senior police officers and politicians, but also enshrined in policing policy documents.

In March 2025, the National Police Chiefs Council and the College of Policing produced the document entitled police Anti-Racism commitment. In that document, it states that the police commitment to racial equality means, and I quote, producing equality of policing outcomes for people from different ethnic groups by responding to individuals and communities according to their specific needs, circumstances and experiences, with understanding that these will be racialised, end of quote. It also states that this is the worst part, that racial equality does not mean treating everyone the same or being colour-blind.

That is an explicit statement of policy that the police should not treat all ethnicities the same. It encourages police forces to artificially engineer arrests and crime statistics so that they are equalised for all ethnic groups, regardless of offending rates. That is not equality. That is blatantly two tier policing. It states that police should be treated differently and that people should be treated differently by the police based on the colour of their skin. And we should be clear eyed about the insidious nature of this approach.

It is completely divisive. It promotes sectarianism and the ideology of separatism. Much of the of this arose out of the Black Lives Matter movement after the murder of George Floyd in the United States, when George Floyd was murdered by police on another continent, politicians and campaigners in this country rallied behind Black Lives Matter. Senior police officers responded by calling it a pivotal moment for policing in the UK, even though it happened 4000 miles away in a very different policing environment. There were numerous protests, with many becoming violent and leading to riotous clashes with police.

And yet, with the murder of Henry Nowak and the dehumanising treatment he endured from the police. Where are those same voices calling for change? Almost every person who is currently saying we should not politicise the death of Henry Nowak was more than happy to politicise the death of George Floyd. Those who criticise the violent protests in Southampton didn't bat an eyelid when Black Lives Matter were attacking police officers and tearing down statues. We were told constantly that Black Lives matter and to say that all lives matter is somehow unacceptable.

I think there has been a blatantly hypocritical approach to these two cases. Well, I am very clear, my Lords, all disorder, rioting and violent protest is totally unacceptable. No one's death should be politicised. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely correct. When she said, I don't want to hear about Black Lives Matter. I don't want to hear about White Lives Matter. All lives matter because there are two sides. They are two sides of the same coin. This is identity politics.

It is a poisonous ideology that divides people by placing them into different groups with supposedly opposing interests. This is not how we foster cultural and social unity and cohesion as a nation. All instances of identity politics must be consigned to the dustbin of history. The police treatment of Henry Nowak clearly exposes that. So will the government commit very clearly to scrapping the police anti-racism commitment and all similar ideology motivated equality, diversity and inclusion policies during the proceedings of the Crime and Policing Bill in your Lordships' House, I tabled an amendment to exclude the police from the Public Sector Equality duty in the Equality Act 2010.

I argue, then, that this duty created a perverse incentive for the police to prioritise equality practices over their one true duty protecting the public. Preventing crime and arresting criminals. Unfortunately, the Labour and Liberal Democratic benches voted it down. But does this case not just clearly demonstrate the folly of the equality duty? This is exactly why we brought forward the amendment to get the police back on track in doing their actual jobs. Now, I appreciate the tone and content of the statement from the Home Secretary, but unless the government takes immediate action to sweep away identitarian politics from the police, then her words will never be more than empty platitudes.
16:38
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Hear, hear. David. >> My Lords. >> In the face of an unimaginable tragedy, the Nowak family have tragedy, the Nowak family have shown a level of moral leadership that puts many in the political sphere to shame. While others have rushed to use the death of their 18 year old son to stoke the fires of a culture war, the family's plea has been, for one thing, justice. Without division. Henry was a young man with a life of promise ahead of him, and we owe it to his memory to honour his family's request for unity, rather than allow his death to be weaponised by those seeking to tear our social fabric apart.

However, my Lords, the details that have so far emerged of the police response at the scene raise deeply troubling questions. While we see footage of a dying teenager being handcuffed and told he's under arrest while his killers lies are taken at face value, we are actually seeing the consequences of a system that has lost its focus on the victim. This strikes at the very heart of public trust. We must ask how the basic instinct to preserve life was so catastrophically overridden by a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

false narrative provided at the scene. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But we also must confront the two tier policing narrative being peddled by opportunistic voices. peddled by opportunistic voices. This rhetoric is not just false, it's dangerous. It ignores the fact it's dangerous. It ignores the fact that the perpetrators actions were condemned by his own community, and that the weapon used was not a protected religious item. Our response must be rooted in fact and liberal values, not only reactionary populism that seeks to label entire communities for the crimes of one individual.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. Does he agree that this investigation must consider not only the actions of individual officers, but also examine whether there were systemic failures in training and guidance, particularly in the management of complex and fast moving incidents in much of Europe. Initial police training lasts years in England and Wales. The classroom based foundation is typically 18 to 22 weeks. So can I once again repeat our calls for an independent review of police training, which has not taken place since 2018.

The Hampshire Police have referred themselves to the Iopc. Will the Minister commit to updating the House promptly once that investigation concludes, and to ensuring that its findings are published in full following the trial? There have been reports from Sikh organisations of a significant increase in anti-Sikh hate crime. What steps is the government taking to support community cohesion and protect minority communities from being targeted in the aftermath of this case? Can the Minister confirm that the weapon used in this case was not a ceremonial kirpan, but a different, larger knife, and that the government's focus remains on tackling knife crime in all its forms, rather than restricting lawful religious practice.

And finally, does the Minister agree that rebuilding public confidence depends on effective neighbourhood policing, with officers properly embedded in their communities and, crucially, backed by sustained investment, including in youth services which have been decimated in recent years?
16:43
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Yeah yeah yeah yeah. >> Can I begin by. >> Saying that this murder was appalling, that the murder is the appalling, that the murder is the responsibility of Vickrum Digwa, who has been facing now a life sentence with a minimum of 21 years in jail. That it was all more despicable due to the lies that the perpetrator made about the dying boy, Henry, and that that was a life snuffed out. And we should have consideration for both his life and for his family at this time.

I think it's important that we do reflect upon the issues that have been made. And as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in her statement to the House of Commons yesterday, there will be an IOPC investigation. I don't wish to prejudge that investigation. We have all seen the body worn camera footage, and we have all seen the concerns that that body worn camera footage has raised. But I do think it's important that the IOPC has an opportunity to reflect upon that.

And in response to the noble Baroness Doocey, we will obviously update both Houses of Parliament when such a report is produced, and I welcome her comments on that issue. I think it's important also that we do recognise that the National Police Chiefs Council, who are independent of government, rightly so, have indicated that they will review the guidance that they issued in 2025 to ensure that there is no ambiguity in the wording and statements in that guidance.

And again, I note the comments of the noble Lord Davies of Gower, but I would ask him again to reflect on the fact that that guidance will be reviewed. And again, I will report back to the House in due course on that issue. And again, going back to the noble Baroness, Lady Ducie's comments on training and on the lessons learned from this incident, I think both the guidance and the Iopc report will help us reflect on what needs to be done to examine those issues in slower time, because it is important that we that we do that.

I say also that with regard to the scrapping and arguments about the guidance, everyone should be equal under the law. That is a first principle of policing. The National Police Chiefs Council is reviewing the wording to ensure there's no ambiguity, but we also have a police race action plan published under the previous conservative government, which includes the issues of equality, diversity and an acknowledgement of challenges with race. And I can't accept, I'm afraid, the House.

The suggestion from the noble Lord Davies of Gower that this House and the House of Commons scrap and throw away that legislation and those guidance. We will review them. But it's important for a whole range of reasons that police understand the challenges that are faced in circumstances where equality, diversity and the importance of policing for all the community. But understanding the challenges within it are based as a whole. I also say, if I may, that I am concerned about the disorder that has arisen as a result.

And like the noble Lord Davies of Gower, I hope that people who have a view on any issue do so in a peaceful way and make any protest in a peaceful way. 11 police officers were injured in yesterday's events in Southampton. A police dog was injured in yesterday's events in Southampton. The police will examine have already made some arrests and will potentially make further arrests because it is not acceptable either last night or at any other time, to express a view on a contentious, difficult, challenging issue in a way that actually increases violence, increases tensions and increases potential aggression in our community.

And I go back again to the point that the noble Lady Doocey mentioned that this individual was who committed the murder. The perpetrator of this murder was carrying a knife that was not in in order with the religious exemptions that were in place. And even if there were religious exemptions in place at the moment that knife is used for a murder, then that is the crime for which the individual concerned has been put before the courts has been found guilty, and indeed, others around him have also been found guilty for their actions.

In response to the initial lies that were made about the purposes of the calling of the police in the first place. I think it's important that we also take on board and this is. An extremely brave statement for the family to make. It's one I'm not sure I could make if one of my children was involved in this murder. But the family said yesterday, we do not want his death as in Henry's death, to be used to create further division, hatred or tension.

Those are wise words from people in the middle of grief whose child has been murdered, who's just witnessed someone going to prison for a life sentence for that murder. At a time when there is an important need for the community to come together. As the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey has said, they quoted also the family the words of the prosecuting lawyer, who said this echoes again. I think the noble Lady Baroness Doocey tone. This case, and I quote this case, is not about Sikhism.

This case is not about racism. This is a case about murder. And we need to remember that today. And I put an appeal to all members of this House, but also to the people outside who have concerns over this. Let the IOPC do their job. Let them report. Let the Police Chiefs Council review its guidance. Let the parents grieve. And if I may say so, let Henry Nowak rest in peace and lessons will be learned from his murder.

Undoubtedly. But I say to the House as a whole, this is a time for calm heads, wise counsel, and not for action on the streets.
16:50
16:52
16:53
16:54
16:54
Lord Bishop of Leicester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Leicester (Bishops)
-
-
My Lord, my Lord. >> My Lords, I too want to say that my thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of Henry Nowak in their grief and their Nowak in their grief and their suffering. And like many others, I want to echo the courageous words of Henry's father in his powerful call that his son's death should not be used to create further division and hatred or tension. Sadly, there's been a lot of misinformation spread around this appalling crime.

Some have not heeded the call from Henry's father, something which I see as incredibly disrespectful and something that I'm sure all noble Lords would want to call on people to respect and to work for peace in their local communities. I'm also deeply saddened that some have targeted Sikh communities as a result of this terrible crime, and I and my fellow Lords spiritual, want to stand firmly with Sikh leaders who have made it very clear that whatever the words used by the murderer and whatever the words used by his lawyers, faith was not a factor in this crime.

I refer noble Lords to the words of professor Jagbir Singh Johal, an expert in Sikh theology, who stated clearly that the knife used in this crime was categorically not a kirpan. As others have said, he was carrying a much larger knife. Therefore, my hope is that we will focus on the societal problem of knife crime, and I ask the Minister if he will reaffirm the government's commitment both to tackling knife crime, but also to tackling misinformation about faith communities.
16:56
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Well, the Right Reverend prelate >> Well, the Right Reverend prelate is absolutely right, and I very much welcome his support for the much welcome his support for the Sikh community and for the way in which he's expressed it. And I also, again, as I mentioned in my initial opening comments, very much respect the words of the family. And I think the words of the family are ones that all should respect today and those who've called for action, or who've called for rage, or who've called for other issues as a result of that, should reflect very carefully on what the family has said.

A murder by a knife is a 100% murder for the individual and for their family, but the government is continuing to look at what we can do to halve knife crime. And we've put 66 million into the violence reduction unit, £26 million into knife crime concentration funds. We're supporting money to tackle county lines, and we're strengthening, as we have done through the Police and Crime Act legislation. On the possession of offensive weapons as a whole. And I just say to the right Reverend prelate into the House, that recorded knife crime in the past 18 months has fallen by 10%.

Knife enabled assaults have decreased by 10%. Knife homicides, although, as I've said, is 100% for the family and individual are down overall by 27%, the lowest figure in a decade. And hospital admissions for stabbings have fallen by 13%. That doesn't take away the pain of yesterday's verdict, but what it does do is show that the government is trying to address this issue, and the trend is thankfully, downwards.
16:58
17:00
17:00
17:02
17:03
17:04
17:05
17:06
17:07
17:08
17:09
17:10
17:11
None Portrait Legislation: Sporting Events Bill - second reading
-

I move to, to.
17:12
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading, Second Reading, my Second Reading, my Lords Second Reading, my Lords Second Reading of the Sporting Events Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reading of the Sporting Events Bill Baroness Twycross. I beg to move that this bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that this bill be now read a second time, my Lords, major sporting events matter. They 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 goddaughters, 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. My Lords, 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 World Rugby World Cup. Sorry. With unprecedented crowd numbers watching on as the Red roses lifted the trophy as champions. And as we set out in our manifesto, this government is 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, European Athletics Championships and Women's T20 Cricket World Cup. Next years year brings the Grand Départ for the tour de France and the tour de France fam, and then, together with Ireland, we host the UEFA European Championships in 2028 and last month we announced that we've 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, my Lords. 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 local communities up and down the country to enjoy, for example, this country, this government is investing up to 557 million in hosting Euro 2028. This investment alone is predicted to deliver £3.2 billion of socio economic benefits across the UK. That is a nearly six fold direct return on investment.

Such landmark occasions also 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 2025, 2024. Sorry and 37,000 women and girls in the last year alone. It is also trained more than 3000 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 we can continue to deliver these benefits in years to come.

The UK already has a global reputation for excellence in hosting major sporting events. This bill will both bolster that reputation and send a clear message that 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 standard due to 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.

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, and I am sure all noble Lords wish it will be the FIFA Women's World Cup in 2035. My Lords, 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. Firstly, it must take place, at least in part in the UK. Secondly, it must not regularly be held here. Thirdly, it must either be an event of significant international interest with the potential to deliver socio 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, which move from host to host, such as the Euros, World Cup 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 devolved governments to events meeting these criteria. First, it will put fans first by criminalising the unauthorised resale of tickets for qualifying sporting events.

This will help ensure 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 which are subsidised by the public purse, your Lordships will also 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 fans don't feel forced into paying vastly inflated prices.

We are, and I emphasise this, fully committed to these wider and separate measures, and we will publish a draft Bill for free legislative scrutiny in this parliamentary session to ensure the wider secondary ticketing provisions operate effectively. We want to listen to the live event sector and fans before formally introducing them to Parliament. Doing so will, in our view, ensure the legislation is enforceable and future proof. The tightly drawn ticketing provisions in this bill are designed to deliver on the specific requirements of major sporting event owners.

When we are bidding for events which 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. My Lords, the Bill also covers powers on advertising and trading. This second aspect of the Bill 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 and transport hubs, and any areas surrounding them, provided these places are being used for or in connection with 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 sponsor for UK hosted events diminishes.

This provision helps to 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 sporting events in England. Effective transport and traffic management are essential to the safe and smooth operation of any major event, and the bill ensures that those arrangements can be properly supported. My Lord, separate from these framework power powers, the Bill also creates 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 also provides Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland departments with the power to support sporting events in Scotland or in Northern Ireland respectively. Financial assistance provided through this provision will be subject to ministerial discretion, alongside the usual processes to ensure ensure it aligns with the general principles for managing public money. My Lord, 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'll 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 my Lords, our communities across the UK unified by them.

I hope that your Lordships House will welcome this bill and look forward

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the debate. I beg to move. The question is that this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be now read a second time. Lords. I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her
17:23
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Portrait Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
introduction to the Sporting Events Bill. My noble friend Lord Addington will be >> Reading on this from our benches,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reading on this from our benches, and Will may occasionally hand me the battle. We welcome the bill, which creates a legislative framework that will attract international sporting events sustainable. Minister has already said to the UK it will provide the opportunity to inspire future generations of athletes, create unforgettable experiences, boost visitors numbers and the economy, and exercise our soft power through sports. And can we on these benches, welcome and congratulate Lord McConnell to his role as ministerial Adviser on soft power and major events.

We look forward to working with him. The legislative framework itself is a useful one and will assist with the organising of those events that we have already secured. The noble Baroness Cass mentioned Euro 2028. It will also help when bidding to host future events, but should there be a framework for putting such bids together as well, a clear bidding framework, or at least a commitment to increase transparency, transparency surrounding bids? That would be a strong sign of positive intention, more positive intentions from the government for the sports industry, and this bill can be useful not not just for sporting events.

I can also see it being utilised for cultural cultural ones. The Edinburgh Festival could benefit and all year events such as the City of Culture. It is my understanding that the government intends to set out a strategy for major events, which include culture. Can the noble Baroness Minister tell us what the timeline for this is? As she mentioned, London hosted the wonderful 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, and here can I join her and pay tribute to the great Tessa Jowell.

Alongside the games, of course, was the Cultural Olympiad. Danny Boyle's opening ceremony, a beautiful, brilliant, spectacular, spectacular. That was a showcase for our creative, our great creative industries and ended memorably with our our monarch meeting James Bond and then jumping out of a helicopter. But it wasn't just about the Olympic arena. Across the nation, people got together to engage in cultural activities. In all, 621 productions and projects projects resulted in 13,000 performances and events at 1270 venues across the UK.

However, the legislation passed for those games did not include its cultural element, but for the sporting events that fall under this legislation. With the noble Baroness Limb Minister, consider including affiliated cultural events. There appears to be scope, and I think she was suggesting this in her opening remarks, but we would like to make this clearer in legislation. Then there are the Group A of listed sporting events, the Crown jewels protected for free to air TV. This bill has been created with sporting events of significant interest in mind.

Events that we believe, we believe should also be free to air. Group A should be expanded. There was joy and of course, sorrow for those able to see the UEFA final last weekend. Shouldn't it have been something that everyone could access to watch for free? And what about the Glasgow Commonwealth Games happening this July? We on these benches believe there should be no more, no need any more for special pleading from the Prime Minister. Just add this to the bill.

Then there is infrastructure, transport and security. Some of these considerations have made it into this bill, which is a positive step and welcomed again by these ventures. But what does seem to be missing is built in environment intervention, athletes accommodation, as well as facilities for visitors, restaurants and parks, and access to accommodation at an appropriate price range. These would drive opportunities to boost the tourist economy and a need that we think should be considered within the framework and the bill.

We are glad to see consideration of advertising and branding. This is important for interconnected reasons. A good legal framework protects sports organisations from unauthorised branding and marketing, but also, as the noble Baroness, the Minister said, makes deals for official sponsors more appealing. It also limits the unauthorised use of marketing for activities, usually online, that could cause harm. My noble friend Lord foster will elaborate more on this topic, and you will not be surprised to hear on gambling. There is also the matter of the use of trademarks.

More on this from the noble Lord Addington. Finally, and I think this happened again today, there has been some concern expressed in this House about having to wait for a draft ticketing bill. My Lords, this bill, does this bill not provide an opportunity to discuss how we can create a strong anti touting ticket system across the board with proper enforcement and doesn't enable, Baroness, the Minister agree that we should seize this opportunity now, rather than have to wait another year for a different bill.

I end by saying we look forward to working with the government on this bill.
17:30
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, can I start by apologising to your Lordships chamber? I made it into the wrong end of the chamber at the start of end of the chamber at the start of the debate and then sprinted around the outside, somewhat slower than I used to be able to do. But I declare an interest. Sport Wales. I'm a board member of UK sport. I'm a trustee of the Foundation of Light, and I sit on His Majesty's Government's Soft Power Council, particularly looking at sport. I've been part of the bid team for the Manchester Olympic and Paralympic Games.

When we bid against Sydney, where we had 100 years of rain data to show there's more rain in Sydney at that time of year, the. Manchester and they held up a picture of Bondi Beach, but we learnt from each of those experiences and I worked, like I say, my noble friend in sport, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes worked on much of the 2012 games together. It's easy to forget that when we bid for those games, we were only bidding for the Olympics, and the Paralympics was a separate negotiation.

And thanks to the amazing work of Tessa Jowell, she made that happen on stage. Presenting to the AOC. She wanted to stand up and say that we were bidding for the 60 days of the games, and unfortunately, at that time, we couldn't risk anything getting in the way of the IOC awarding the games to us. But those games raised the bar on both the Olympics and Paralympics and also disability sport. There's a lot to be said for avoiding bespoke legislation. Every time we want to bid for games, and I support much of this bill, but I do think we could be just a little more bold, and I think it's a potentially really exciting time.

Looking at possible bid for games in the North, but being Welsh, but with a geographical designation of Eaglescliffe in the County of Durham, there's a lot of local interest and I understand it's probably too early for the Minister to say, but I'd welcome a little bit more understanding of what the definition of the North is. I'd probably prefer us to say the North of England. There's a lot of the UK above where I live, but I think people remember those really magical times and understand actually what major sporting events can do for us.

I understand we're looking for the Welsh legislative consent and the long title mentioned Scotland, England and Northern Ireland and I'm wondering if I'm missing something, but we'd like to understand why Wales is not there and what conversations and discussion has taken place with the new government in Wales. Next year we have the tour de France Grand Park going through Scotland, England and Wales. This is a really exciting time for, you know, Re-emphasising the power that the UK has in international sport, but I wonder what impact the Bill might have where sport is devolved, where there's a crossover with major events, whether we'd still be able to use this bill to bid for events like that in the future, because these are really important things, because UK sport and the UK has a great deal of expertise in bidding for events, and I think it's really important to note that our international reputation is also based on holding and hosting much smaller events that show our commitment to sport, to show it's something we're actually really good at.

Recently, the UK hosted the World Team Table Tennis event, which was incredible. But it also shows the International Federations who have an impact on our bidding for major events, that we are committed to a variety of different sports, and the Commonwealth Games is a really important part of that. We're hugely thankful to Glasgow for stepping in. It's really important to Wales and to Welsh athletes as a stepping stone to potentially to GB, but actually it connects local people to the athletes and for all the countries in the Commonwealth, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, but also the smaller countries, it really means an awful lot and we should be proud of that.

I'm very interested in what the major sporting event strategy will look like, and one of the things UK sport recognises very well and works very well at At promoting is making sure that we're bidding for smaller events. It does sit across the four home countries and in terms of what's been done in Wales, we have the AIG Golf in Porthcawl, World, para fencing in Cardiff. All those make an impact and they don't need primary legislation, but they tie to our global aspiration.

One of the things that arose out of the recent Soft Power Council meeting was that more clarity was required on what is a major Omega sporting event, and I was wondering whether His Majesty's Government intend to offer a definition of this, because I think it would be hugely beneficial for the sector. The sports sector in its entirety is huge and significant, and this would help in terms of the future planning. A number of organisations that work with current UK events asking for this clarity.

And you could argue that if they're currently operating in a successful, then additional help is not But I think it's really important to understand the jigsaw that needs to exist in terms of what we're trying to aspire to on a world stage, and I don't think you can ever underestimate the impact that we have as the UK in terms of not the history of just starting the Paralympic Games in 2012, but the ongoing role that the UK has in promoting disability events.

One such example is wheelchair tennis, and the LTA is one of the best governing bodies at promoting inclusion and is doing a really good job. The world is changing, not least due to climate change. By the time we get to Brisbane 2030, there might be a very different games, not just the type of events that are included. There's a move to much more street and urban games, but the impact on climate change, and I'd like to understand more about what consideration has been given to environmental sustainability.

Thinking about transport, we know that that's going to be an issue in Los Angeles, and looking at how we can further push the decarbonisation. A lot of sports are already looking at this. You could argue the easiest way to help the environment is to not have athletes travel anywhere, but the games as they exist, are going to be very different, and we need to be fleet of foot in terms of what we do in the UK to understand what bidding for future games might look like.

The legacy of 2012 was amazing. I'm always slightly uncomfortable when people say the 2012 Paralympics changed the world for the disabled people. It was the best eight weeks of my life, but I think we also have to be careful about overselling what sport can do unless we invest in legacy. And, you know, Join In was an incredible legacy of the 2012 games, the volunteering charity. We need to think about how we build in social and community aspects at bid stage. It's cheaper, it's easier, you've got more chance of it working.

There's always a spike in participation after the games, but if we think about legacy at the very start, we have a real chance of making a difference. Other issues that have been raised is the cost of bidding. I remember in 25th, sorry, 2005, talking to one of the planners for 2012, and I'm saying the difficulty of predicting the cost of steel seven years into the future. But also I think this is something that other countries are going to be looking at as well, because you can spend sometimes millions in terms of bidding for a games.

And I think we have to just be very smart in terms of thinking what we do. And I know this is outside the remit of this bill, but this year the UK is hosting the summit for the International Working Group on Women and Sport. This started in 1994 as the Brighton Declaration. It's now the Brighton Helsinki Declaration. It's got support from 600 organisations around the world. The summit's going to be in July and it would be an amazing opportunity to network, and I do hope there'll be a ministerial presence there.

This is a situation where the eyes of the world are on us. We have a chance to influence sport and international federations, but it's actually not a sporting event, as we might think about it. I think within committee we also need to look at the cost of policing and security. Sadly, it's a necessity. But what we're seeing in some smaller events in the UK is the cost of police and insecurity is making it unsustainable to to hold some of the smaller events which are part of the jigsaw for what we want to do in the future.

Again, not quite in this bill, but we've been talking in grand Committee about the Care Quality Commission, and they're changing guidance. And I think this is something where it would be great if we could join up these different threads of conversation and discussion to make sure that we're in the best possible shape to go forward. And I'd like to thank Sport and Recreation Alliance for their continued discussion in this space. My Lords, I support this bill. We have an amazing opportunity.

We could be a little bit more brave. And if I can steal a quote from the 2012 games, we have a chance to inspire a generation.
17:39
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton Portrait Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Labour)
-
-
Lord. >> Today in strong support. >> Of this bill. And my noble friend's excellent introduction to it. It's a rather humbling and it. It's a rather humbling and daunting to follow. The legendary Baroness Tony Grey Thompson. She's Baroness Tony Grey Thompson. She's an inspiration to all of us, both in what she did as an athlete and what she's done since, and I congratulate her on her speech here. Major sporting events, major global sporting events are utterly transformative economically, socially, reputationally and inspirationally.

Listen to Emil Zatopek, star of London 1948, winner of golds in the 5000 and 10,000m. This is what he said. It was a liberation of the spirit to be there in London after the dark days of the war. The revival of the Olympics was as if the sun had come out. Sport can do this. Four years later, he won three more gold medals in Helsinki. As a ten year old boy, I saw England beat Mexico on the way to winning the World Cup in 1966.

The inspiration has never left me as a pro bono member of the FAS Performance Advisory Group since 2016. I declare an interest. I'm hoping, as I do every four years. Needless to say, we might win the World Cup again this year. I wish Scotland well as well. Thank you. The inspirational Lord Sebastian Coe and the blessed Baroness Tessa Jowell. Several others have referred to how we miss her, but they brought us London 2012. Everybody's talked about what a wonderful event that was.

The Olympics and the Paralympics Paralympics, Britain at its best. Even the London cab drivers stopped moaning. Since then, in football alone, we've had the Womens Euros, which transformed football for women and girls legacy. As the Baroness mentioned just now, and the men's Euro final, we know the UK and Ireland will co-host the men's euros in 2028 and hopefully in 2035 we will host the Women's World Cup and last year the brilliant Women's Rugby World Cup was here. Each such event has a massive.

It creates a massive opportunity for our country to promote our sport, our hospitality, our values, our health and wellbeing. As the chair of Somerset County Cricket club until recently, I should mention, too, that starting imminently, imminently, this country is hosting the women's T20 Cricket World Cup in participation. It will be by far the biggest event of its kind, with over a quarter of a million attendances and tickets already sold in 52 countries. More importantly, over 500 girls. 500,000 girls and women from diverse backgrounds will participate in related events.

236,000 schoolchildren children already have. This is a huge step towards the ECB's ambition for cricket to become the most diverse and inclusive sport in the country. This, by the way, is just one aspect of the transformation of cricket, which may be the fastest growing sport in the world, driven in part by becoming an Olympic sport in LA 2028. Extraordinary things are happening. Last week, Nepal beat China at cricket. Recently I was talking to a good county cricket cricket bowler who was a good county cricket bowler who was retiring.

I said, what next? He said, I've just been interviewed for the role of fast bowling coach to the German women's cricket team. Wow. Imagine the headlines if we ever lose to Germany at cricket. We, the UK, need to be ready and able to continue hosting these events in an increasingly sport mad world, where the competition to host them is becoming ever more fierce. No other country can mention our history of global sporting leadership. The Paralympics have been mentioned, but winning bids in the future will require much more world class, accessible and environmentally sustainable venues.

Brilliant organisation and logistics, top facilities for athletes, fantastic media and sponsorship. Outstanding travel and hospitality. Socially inclusive promotion, ticketing and pricing. Unlike the forthcoming World Cup and discreet, effective security for athletes, fans and spectators, if we get even one of these wrong, it would threaten not just that event but our ability to attract future events, which is one of the reasons this bill is so important. If we're to assure the owners of these events that we can host them better than anywhere else in the world, then it's essential for the UK government, UK and its government to stand foursquare behind every single bid to assure it and actively support it in various ways.

I've just mentioned on the 3rd of September 2018, the cycling tour of Britain came to my local town, Barnstaple, where I was able to introduce the young cyclists from our North Devon Wheelers Club to Geraint Thomas, the brilliant Welsh cyclist, and that he is a winner of the tour de France. He's a wonderful man, inspired by that moment and by their own talent and hard work. Those young cyclists have gone on to cycling success in the years that followed and the tour de France is coming.

The most profound impact of major sporting events is these moments. The memories made, the ambition spurred, the potential unlocked the legacy. This is why I hope we will see overwhelming support for this bill and to finish where I started. Emil Zatopek most succinct and memorable advice back then to his fellow athletes also applies to governments. When the going gets tough. If you can't go on anymore, go faster. I commend this bill to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, while it's a pro bono position, I declare my interest as a board member of the London a board member of the London Marathon Foundation. Sport, as the government rightly recognises, has a unique power. It brings people together in a way that little else can. It inspires, unites and instils pride in our communities, and when we host major sporting events, we don't just celebrate sport, we generate real economic
17:45
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Portrait Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Conservative)
-
-
benefits, create jobs and, as we've heard, inspire the next generation. My Lords, this bill is a step in the right direction in creating a common legislative framework that can be applied to support the successful delivery of future major sporting events. However, many in the sector regard it as a missed opportunity. The bill is by design, narrowly drawn. It applies only to events that are of a kind that is not regularly held in the United Kingdom and is likely to be, or likely to be of significant international interest in practice if we.

As we've heard, that means it's really tailored to one off international tournaments like the Euros World Cup or World Athletics Championships. And although the criteria are open to some interpretation, and there are certainly questions to be asked about which other events may be included in the future, which I'm sure we'll discuss in committee what is clear and was reiterated by the noble Baroness, the Minister, in her opening, is that the current definition excludes the very events that define Britain's global sporting identity.

Wimbledon, the open, the London Marathon, the British Grand Prix to name but a few. My Lords, as we well know, these are not occasional events. They happen year after year and year after year. They deliver precisely the benefits Ministers rightly want to champion economic growth, international prestige and community pride. So the main question for me that arises in relation to the legislation we are discussing today is a quite simple one. Why should one off international events be given protections deemed necessary for their successful delivery, while those same protections are not going to be offered to iconic home grown events that have been a regular part of the UK's cultural calendar for generations, Ministers will help make it easier for the UK to host major sporting events, creating jobs and investments, and that is extremely welcome.

Yet the definition of the eligible events as currently drafted in the Bill is very restrictive and denies Ministers the flexibility to support the full breadth of the UK's world class sporting calendar and the skeleton nature of the Bill setting out the framework, but naturally leaving much of the detail to secondary legislation, means that regular UK events are not covered by the. That aren't covered by the provisions could become increasingly at a competitive advantage, particularly in relation to securing sponsorship over time, for instance.

And these aren't just abstract concerns. There will be practical consequences as a result. As Alex Kelman and Freya Davey of Lewis Silkin highlighted in a recent article, the bill, as it stands, does leave a clear gap by exclusion of regularly held UK events. They point out that these events collectively bring enormous economic value to the UK, and are routinely impacted by a number of the challenges that this bill seeks to address. Take ambush marketing, for instance. At present, major events organisers are forced to rely on private legal remedies to tackle it remedies that are costly, complex and often insufficient.

This bill in schedule four introduces a stronger statutory protection against unauthorised commercial association, and that's very welcome. But why should those provisions and protections be reserved only for one off events? Why should an international tournament benefit from clear statutory rights? While a world renowned, regularly held UK event might continue or has to continue to rely on imperfect private law remedies, the Bill itself already contains a flexible framework, allowing Ministers to decide how protections apply to different events currently within its scope, extending that flexibility to established regular UK events I don't believe would be radical.

It would rather be, in my view, a logical extension of the bill's provisions and at a time when the sector is already under strain due to a variety of challenges, including rising police costs, the implications of Martyn's law, increased employment costs, regulatory pressures and high business rates, the absence of the protections from the proposed sporting framework set out in the Bill to UK major based events organisers who are excluded does feel particularly acute. We're told that a major event strategy is forthcoming.

Again, very welcome, but without the legislative ambition to match, there is a risk that it will fall short of what the sector needs and indeed is asking for. My Lords, if this Bill acknowledges that protections such as those against ambush marketing are currently insufficient, then surely the answer is not to apply them selectively, but to strengthen them more widely, not just for the events that we hope to host, but for the events that already define us and the government. I believe with this bill in front of us, should be, and I hope, will grasp the opportunity to ensure to expand this bill and ensure that those regularly held events can be as successful as possible.

So I would encourage the Minister, and I'm sure we will discuss this in committee, to go further and extend the provisions in the Bill to include such regular, annual, nationally significant UK based sporting events. A number of noble Lords have already. Racist. But could I also ask the Minister when the government will publish its major event strategy, and how she sees this legislation fitting within a genuinely comprehensive approach that includes, rather than excludes, the UK's iconic home grown events? Finally, there are currently powers in the Finance Act 2014 to exempt overseas competitors or officials accredited by the organisers from income tax for the period of major events, such as the upcoming Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, where regulations have recently been passed.

To do that, given the desire to bring together a suite of powers to cover the respective events in this legislation, is the Minister confident those provisions are sufficient to ensure a joined up and responsive approach to major

**** Possible New Speaker ****

events being hosted in the UK? My Lords, I thank my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her clear, concise introduction to this debate and I refer the House to my golf and I refer the House to my golf interest in the Register. It's a pleasure to speak at Second Reading to welcome this bill. I support its central purpose to provide the UK central purpose to provide the UK with a clear, consistent and credible legislative framework for hosting major international hosting major international sporting events. The Bill fulfils a clear manifesto commitment to strengthen Britain's position, as
17:52
Baroness Nye Portrait Baroness Nye (Labour)
-
-
well as a world leading host of global sporting events, and to remove unnecessary uncertainty and remove unnecessary uncertainty and delay. It replaces a piecemeal approach with a toolkit that doesn't need rebuilding every few doesn't need rebuilding every few years. That clarity matters, and this bill sends the right signal at home and abroad. As my noble friend has said, major sporting events are has said, major sporting events are not simply moments of entertainment or national celebration. They are or national celebration. They are economic catalysts, generators of tourism, drivers of inward investment and powerful platforms for projecting the UK's values and reputations on the global stage.

Sport brings people together like nothing else can, fostering pride, identity and community. Anyone watching the Arsenal parade in north London at the weekend could see that vividly in action, albeit through a thick pink haze. Sporting events can also play a crucial role in national cohesion and local regeneration. Host cities and regions experience not only immediate economic uplift, but also longer term legacy effects. In that sense, major events are more than spectacle. They leave a lasting mark. Looking ahead, the UEFA Men's European Championships in 2028, hosted by the UK and Ireland, and a potential FIFA World Women's World Cup in 2035, will again demonstrate what this country has to offer and will be an opportunity to build bonds with other nations by sharing a common human experience.

In doing so, they contribute directly to the UK's soft power the ability to convene the world to host global audiences, athletes and institutions reinforces our position not merely as a participant in international sport, but as a trusted and capable partner. This is not just culturally valuable, it is strategically important at a time when nations are consciously using sport to project, influence and attract investment. The government has recognised that the UK cannot afford to stand still, as UK sport has made clear, certainty and clarity in the legal and regulatory environment are now baseline requirements for international rights holders.

The delays, the days of relying on ad hoc assurances are long gone. Organisers want to know that a country can move quickly, legislate coherently and deliver reliably. This bill responds directly to that reality. That is why it has been welcomed by the sector. The British Olympic Association has also endorsed the shift away from bespoke event by event legislation, noting that a standing framework strengthens the UK's competitiveness. And I also welcome the Government's Commission of UK sport to assess the potential for hosting an Olympic or Paralympic Games in the North of England in 2040.

I, too, also welcome the appointment of my noble friend, Lord McConnell, as a ministerial adviser on soft power and major events. He will, I know, bring his long experience and endless enthusiasm to the task. Both are important steps in thinking strategically about the UK's role as a host nation. That work sits alongside a broader opportunity for the United Kingdom to think more strategically about its events pipeline how we identify, secure and deliver a balanced portfolio of major events that reflect not only economic opportunity but national priorities, including regional growth, inclusion and sustainability.

The government is absolutely right to build a pipeline of future events that bring growth and inward investment, but existing excellence should not be overlooked either. Our established events are the foundation on which much of our reputation as a host nation rests. They demonstrate year after year that the UK can deliver complex, high profile international events to the highest standard. It's therefore worth the government maybe reflecting whether the framework can evolve, either in this Bill or alongside it, to recognise that contribution more explicitly, I speak with a particular interest.

As a member of the APPG on Golf Scotland is recognised internationally as the home of golf and in the UK, the Open Championship and the DP World Tour are not peripheral events, but among the most economically significant and globally watched sporting occasions. For example, the 2024 Open Championship generated over £300 million in economic benefit and a UK hosted Ryder Cup would be comparable to a Rugby World Cup in visitor spend and international profile, while a Solheim Cup, one of the premier competitions in women's sport, has yet to be hosted in England, that could be a lioness moment to inspire a new generation of young girls and the entire golf ecosystem, and I would hope the forthcoming major events strategy will take note of these opportunities, because research supported by the RNA illustrates the wider contribution of golf to the UK economy and society.

In 2019, the sport generated over 5 billion in consumer spending, supported more than 60,000 jobs, and contributed around £2.6 billion in economic value. Beyond that, golf delivers over 1 billion in social value each year through improvements to physical health, mental wellbeing and community engagement. That research also highlights health outcomes. Regular participation in golf contributes to the prevention and management of numerous chronic conditions, and suggests that golfers live on average longer than non-golfers. So get your clubs out. This is a reminder that sport delivers public health benefits as well as economic returns.

I know that the government will want to reassure the sector that established events will not be inadvertently disadvantaged relative to those brought within the bill's framework, and that the forthcoming cross-party, cross-sector major events strategy should explicitly address the needs of the regularly staged, nationally significant events. Turning to enforcement, I welcome the provisions designed to put fans first, particularly those addressing ticket touting. Given the scale and sophistication of secondary ticketing markets, I do wonder, though, whether the 200 £0 cap represents a sufficient deterrent for large scale operators, and whether this is going to be kept under review as markets evolve.

Similarly, the provisions on ambush marketing are essential given how prevalent this is. This issue is across all sports events. That issue is not confined to one off events, and it also affects commercially significant recurring events. There may therefore be merit in considering whether association rights could in future be extended, maybe on a targeted basis, perhaps by regulation, to events of genuine national significance, so that the gap between one off and recurring events could be narrowed. Finally, I too would want to briefly emphasise the importance of legacy.

The true test of this bill will not only be at the events it enables, but the impact those events leave behind in participation in infrastructure, in economic opportunity and in community wellbeing. A strong framework is a start, but delivery will decide the outcome. My Lords, this is a welcome, timely and necessary bill it honours. The manifesto commitment reflects the government's ambition for the UK to remain a world leading host of major sporting events, and responds directly to the expectations of international organisers.

I welcome the Bill and will support it as it progresses through the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear. The pledge to take part in this Second Reading debate. In doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register, variously as adviser to the Crown variously as adviser to the Crown Estate, Endava plc and Simmons and Simmons LLP. Can I congratulate the Minister on the way she introduced Minister on the way she introduced the bill as well? I think in its title, we have already part of title, we have already part of recent sporting heritage.

If we now always refer the Sporting Events Bill as its acronym SIB, I think that gives the right salute and respect to our colleague Lord Coe, who did so much in leading London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. I'd like to focus on inclusion and innovation, which, sadly, the Bill
18:00
Lord Holmes of Richmond Portrait Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-
-
is largely silent upon. And yet these are the golden threads that I these are the golden threads that I believe enable sporting events to be on the scale. And the success that we saw at London 2012. There's that we saw at London 2012. There's far too much in this bill which is left to secondary legislation. Most left to secondary legislation. Most of it on the negative procedure. But to take a step back for a moment, as other noble Lords have said, sport goes much further than the field of play.

When we get it right. Think about the mottos for the 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games. Amigo para siempre. The Paralympic Games sport beyond limits. And as my noble friend Baroness Grey-Thompson has already referred, London 2012 inspire a generation. That what sport can do at every level, not least at the major and mega events stage. And that's what we were looking to do when we started the planning journey for London 2012. We appreciated that the way to make good games, great games was twofold.

Firstly, to have the athletes at the heart of every decision we made. Secondly, to have access, diversity and inclusion hardwired into every decision right from the outset. And to that end, would the Minister not agree that it would be helpful to have some of those principles set out on the face of the bill? At this stage, it's about principles, which I don't believe in any sense would fetter the flexibility that's required when we come to that secondary legislation, which goes into more of the operational detail.

Turning to ticketing, there's much in the bill around this, but what of inclusive ticketing? A London 2012, we were clear no free tickets, but we enabled hundreds of thousands of school children to experience world class sport, often for the first time, by having. The highest priced tickets include a portion to fund those tickets that went to schoolchildren right across the United Kingdom. What about affordability? Having socio and economic inclusion. And what about accessibility within the ticket offer? Touting is critically important to address, but anti touting measures of themselves say nothing to affordability and accessibility.

Similarly when we plan the ticketing offering, we made sure that if you're a wheelchair user, you could sit with your friends and family. Never been possible at a sporting event before that if you had a hearing impairment, you had a seat with direct line of sight to the video board. Mobility impairment. A seat at the end of the row. So an inclusive ticket offering right through the games experience. Would the Minister not agree? There are principles here that we could see on the face of the Bill.

And to that first touch point, often with a major sporting event trying to get a ticket in the first place, with so much now only being available through digital form, what does the Minister think in terms of the need for non-digital, analogue and other means for people to access tickets to these major sporting events? Will the Minister not agree that it would be helpful to incorporate all of this by having an inclusive by design, statutory objective right at the top of this bill? Turning to innovation, AI and other technologies have the potential to play such a positive role when it comes to the organisation and delivery of these events.

Think about predictive crowd modelling, the operation of transportation, city operations, the last mile. Almost every element of planning these events. And yet there's no overarching AI framework or strategy set out within the bill. Without addressing this point, it's likely that the approaches to AI will be partial, will have gaps, will say nothing in terms of bias, transparency, privacy, and understandability. For those spectators, games organisers and people who will be participating in those events potentially subject to AI without even knowing that AI is in the mix.

What about digital ID? It could play such an important role and a positive role when it comes to accessing safely and securely these sporting events. The bill envisages the creation of a whole heap of new data, often of a personal nature. What about provisions around the storage and the sharing of that data? What about interoperability provisions set throughout many of the provisions of the bill? Would it not make sense to have a technology future proofing clause within the bill which could catch all of this? Because at the moment, the bill, understandably, is technology neutral, but it is not technology future proofed.

Just one example bringing inclusion and innovation together. Imagine what could be achieved for a truly inclusive, personalised accessibility service. Yes. For disabled people, yes. For older people, yes for younger people, but for all people wanting to access these sporting events, all of whom all of us will have particular needs that could be addressed through that alchemy of inclusion and innovation. To conclude, sport has such a power to inspire change, to change us as individuals, as communities, as cities and as a country.

We saw it at London 2012. We see in sport, unlike almost any other cultural experience in our human experience. What does this look like? Well, perhaps just one example to illustrate. Stephen Hawking, the late, great Stephen Hawking, speaking at the opening ceremony of the London 2012 Paralympics. Not just talking about possibilities beyond ourselves, talking about possibilities beyond our universe. What a way to blast into 11 days of gravity defying, attitude altering, opportunity creating, world class sport, world class sport that changes us.

World class sport that goes way beyond the stadia. London 2012 changed US, major events change us as a United Kingdom. Remember how we all felt in that summer of 2012? Don't we need just some of that change right now? Today, let major sporting events of the future across these shores continue to inspire future generations, and let this sporting events bill play such a positive part in that change.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I've travelled the world from age 11, competing or working at all major sporting events, and I was very proud to be part of the 2012 Bid team. I'm also very proud to say that my dad very proud to say that my dad coached Lord Jones as well. I've seen the benefits and the seen the benefits and the challenges that bringing a major games brings to a city and the countries that host them. For example, the difference in my first example, the difference in my first Olympic Games in Montreal, which financially shackled the locals for decades to the amazing success of 2012, which ended up being the exact opposite, uniting our country
18:07
Baroness Davies of Devonport Portrait Baroness Davies of Devonport (Conservative)
-
-
as I've never witnessed before. I'm sure those that attended the 1966 World Cup will also have that feeling. Sport can do miraculous things. It can be uplifting, things. It can be uplifting, inspiring, hugely beneficial to regeneration and business, leaving a legacy, raising community and a legacy, raising community and national emotion and cohesiveness. But we must get it right. Over the last century that I've been around last century that I've been around major sporting events, I've seen the sport increasingly becoming relegated as less important sometimes than the opening and closing ceremonies or the events that take place around it.

This can sometimes detract, but more importantly, it makes these events extremely expensive to host and to organise. There must be a balance. We are presently getting it wrong. It's why so many less countries are interested in hosting major events. We need to get back to centring the sport with sensible budgets. I say this not to be boring and restrictive, but to be practical. It is the sport with the human stories of triumph over adversity that people remember. Bringing the action into our living rooms, inspiring the champions of tomorrow, but hopefully also inspiring a healthier nature as people get back to old habits and try new ones.

This is a massive part of hosting any event. What brings our communities together? How the athletes can be used to bring good by changing behaviours and selling our country to the world. Building trade and tourism. A shop window with economic benefits to hotels, restaurants, merchandise and transport. All the things that we all know and that we've talked about already. Infrastructure and legacy, though, are also extremely important. We built more 50 metre pools in the three years leading up to London 2012 than we built in the previous 30.

Here in the UK, as a young swimmer, I had to travel from Plymouth to London to be able to swim in Olympic sized pool. Australia has a policy of building one. If they have a community over a certain size, they have 450 metre pools in their country, a population of 27 million. I don't know if you'd like to guess how many we have in the UK. It's not even 30. Australia says that residents should live within 15 minutes drive of a public aquatic centre.

We're closing pools at the moment at an alarming rate, and in the last few weeks we've seen at least 17 people die from drowning. I been presenting sport now since the late 80s. The BBC hasn't missed a major sporting event for decades, but recently there has been a huge decline in coverage. They didn't do the World Swimming Championships last year. They are not doing the home Commonwealth Games this year. Gallantly rescued by by Glasgow. All the European Championships which are on over in Paris.

Not even that In fact, swimming still one of the UK's biggest participation hasn't been on terrestrial television since the Paris Olympic Games. My point is, we hold UK events. We must have it covered on the BBC and not just on red button radio or hidden online. If public money is being used to bring these events to our country, then the public ought to be able to see it without it being behind a paywall. We had it recently. I had a recent conversation with the BBC, and they aren't covering anywhere near the variety of sports that they once did, including swimming, rowing and triathlon this summer.

I was informed last week that the BBC don't expect to cover swimming until the next Olympic Games in LA. That's four years in between showing swimming one of our biggest participation sports and a sport that saves lives. So it's important to inspire people to want to swim. That's not good enough. Nearly two thirds of their budget goes on football, whilst every other sport has to scramble around to get any airtime whatsoever. Surely the job of the BBC is a national service.

Doing a national job for the whole community. So just to finish, I have two final points and there's been lots of points made today, but these are the two that that I would like to make. We must bid for fabulous, inspiring, growth generating sporting events, but we must centre the sport using existing facilities. Good university accommodation, reduced peripheral events and make them affordable. Multi-Sports events are hugely popular. The public love them and secondly, our national broadcaster must cover all major international events that come to the UK, showing a broad stretch on the sport so that young people aren't limited to just the big three.

Certain sports are growing, but a lot of the other sports are just disappearing. The disappointment the British summer community feels for being abandoned is tangible. I know other sports feel exactly the same way. It makes it really difficult for our hard working athletes to get sponsorship to stay in the sport if they get no exposure. This doesn't happen in other countries. We are one of the worst countries in the world for showing variety of sport on our terrestrial television. Kids can't be what they don't see, and we desperately need our kids to be inspired.

My final thought, and again, I don't mean to be depressing, but the Commonwealth Games were rescued from Victoria by by Glasgow because of cost. And in the next two Olympic Games, there wasn't actually a competition to have them because there wasn't enough countries that bid. There was only one for each one of those games. So we just have to be sensible with the way that we place

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our bids. My Lord, I hope colleagues will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I hope colleagues will forgive my rustiness today because this is the first proper speech this is the first proper speech that I've made since my long enforced absence from the House. That is, apart from jumping up at Question Time, which I'm tempted to do, perhaps rather too often, but I do, perhaps rather too often, but I hope I'll be able to contribute. And also, I didn't expect to be following an Olympic swimmer in this debate. I hope I'll do half as good as my noble friend Lord Barber did following Baroness Teddy Thompson.

I'll try my best. I'll also try and avoid. I will avoid saying anything about the nature of Scottish refereeing. As a heart supporter, but I think you all know what I mean. But can I say I
18:14
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Portrait Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour)
-
-
support this, strongly support this bill and the excellent introduction bill and the excellent introduction by my noble friend. And I think this bill, together with the draft this bill, together with the draft ticket touts Bill, is going to help to protect fans from the exploitation that they've been experiencing. It's estimated it will save £112 million annually, will save £112 million annually, and that the average ticket price that fans will save is about £37 in the resale market. So it's a very important issue and it is very sensible to legislate for a common set of provisions that can be applied to specific events by secondary legislation.

Saving time in this Parliament and also particularly in the devolved parliaments. But it is urgent because as we prepare for the 228 going to be held in, as the Minister said, in the UK and Ireland, it's very important that we have, as the Minister indicated, a common set of provisions on transport planning, on street trading restrictions and commercial exclusion zones. And I think that is a very welcome development because the euros now are so much larger than the competition that I attended in Sweden in 1992, supporting Scotland, of course.

And then it was only eight countries participating and it was very easy and cheap to get tickets. I actually found myself sitting next to the then president of the Scottish Football Association. That wouldn't happen these days. It was much easier in those days. However, the nine stadia that are being used in 2028 among them I fear that Hampden Park is going to be a bit of a let down for visitors. Hampden Park unfortunately, as I think one of the worst stadia in this United Kingdom in terms of toilet facilities, catering facilities and it is a disgrace to Scotland that we haven't been able to build a world class stadium.

When you see them much, much better in developing countries all around the world, and I would urge a plea issue, a plea today to the SFA to do something about it. One other issue that's been drawn to my attention is the number of tickets that are allocated to corporate sponsors at these events. Apparently this happened in Paris between with the game between Paris Saint-Germain and and Arsenal. And often those tickets are not used and fans don't find it difficult to get tickets.

And I hope that UEFA and other international organisations will look at that to see that if tickets are not going to be taken up by corporate sponsors, they are allocated to fans. And now I am going to agree, and this is most unusual with Baroness Evans of Bowes Park. I can't remember the last time, if ever I agreed with her, but it's nice to me. It's shows you what sporting sportsmanship that is here in this bill because I agree, I read the the the suggestion from Alex Kelham and Freya Davey that these events, not one off events, but regular events can also be included.

And I hope the Minister and the government will look at that. And I think looking across at Baroness Hayman, that sounds like scope for an all party amendment. When we get to the Committee stage. Can I now come to a wider issue? I wrote a report on football governance, business and values for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and they agreed that highlighting the integrity that the integrity of the world's most popular sport is at risk. And since I wrote it a few years ago, it's got even more at risk.

The integrity of football. It's urgent to protect football from rogue actors and commercial exploitation, including agents who are making billions of pounds, some of them based here in London, many of them based here in London and also from the football establishment itself. As we approach the start of the World Cup in the USA, Mexico and Canada, it's got worse rather than better. Wasn't that appalling? The presentation of the so-called FIFA Peace Prize by Gianni Infantino to Donald Trump, of all people, and also the award of the 2034 competition to Saudi Arabia without competition, in spite of their appalling human rights record that showed how bad this has become, money and the greed has taken over.

So I hope and I say to my noble friend the Minister, that beyond what we're discussing today, beyond this bill, our government, the government of the United Kingdom, will take the lead in condemning and counteracting this abuse in of football at every opportunity for the good name of the great game of football.
18:19
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords. >> The noble Lord Lord Foulkes. And to agree with his highlighting. >> Of concerns.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of concerns. About the greed. And the denial of principles that's been associated with too many major sporting events recently. And that's something I will come back to. I think it's important that this bill acknowledges those risks and those dangers, and thinks about what kind of events we're actually going to be hosting. But I want to start by saying what a pleasure it is to take part in what's already been a very rich and informed debate. Major sport, international sporting events are so important to so many individuals for pure joy, for engagement in social activities, for, we hope at least encouragement to physical activity of their own.

And of course, it's so important to communities to provide new facilities, new infrastructure, and new opportunities. But we know in the past that activity that major events have not always lived up to their promises and not always lived up to the hopes that people have held. And this bill is a real opportunity to try and make sure that future events actually do that. I, I, and the Green Party broadly welcome this bill. It's sensible not to have to keep doing a different piece of legislation for each individual event.

And this is a practical measure that's clearly heading broadly in the right direction. But I want to associate myself, particularly with the number of points made by the noble Lady Baroness Bonham-Carter. I thought her point about culture being included in this bill, certainly cultural events associated with sporting events, but I think we could also ask the questions about broader. We have seen so much depletion of the cultural life of this austerity driven by cultural, cultural life of this country, driven by austerity, driven by Brexit, driven by educational suppression of creative subjects, and indeed, in some cases, by a desire to discourage individual and critical thinking that it's really important.

We look to international

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inspiration, International. Support to really grow that area. I also share the noble Ladies I also share the noble Ladies concern about that. We're not going far enough on an anti ticket touting us and the issues about touting us and the issues about ensuring that events are protected for free to air TV. This is still so important to so many people, even though so much of what people watch now is through the internet, watch now is through the internet, through social media.

There's still a lot of people who we cannot leave behind here. I also very much want to agree with an associate myself with the comments of the Labour Lord Low Lord Holmes of Richmond, and I think an amendment that seeks to ensure that we build in inclusive by design is something that really we should be seeing. And I further have to comment that reflecting on earlier debates in your Lordships House, those who were attacking diversity, equity and inclusion measures for ideological reasons really should listen to the noble Lords speech to understand how important it is that these measures actually continue.

I finally want to, in terms of referring to other speeches, particularly pick up the, as we all expected, immensely powerful and important speech from the noble Lady Baroness Grey-Thompson and her point about a soft power. It's. And to stress that the nature of the event, how it turns out and its outcomes for individuals, communities and society are actually really important to how Britain is regarded around the world. This is not. This is important in its own terms, obviously, but it's also important for how the world sees us.

And I note in that context that the the UK Soft Power Council has unfortunately not met, I believe, for seven months. And a recent Politics Home article described it as drifting towards oblivion. And I think that's disturbing. And I'm not sure if the noble Lady, the Minister can comment on that, but I come now to some specific points which may reflect amendments that I may consider putting down to this bill, depending on the Minister's response. First of all, schedule two, the advertising provisions.

Now, we've already ensured that we remove tobacco sponsorship from sport because of its impact on public health. Should we not also be considering that fossil fuel companies should not be able to advertise and sponsor major sporting events? This is something that has been called for by the UN Secretary general, who said there should indeed be restrictions similar to those applied to tobacco, and various countries have made progress in this area. France has already banned fossil fuel products advertising from 2022.

The Hague has introduced a legally binding ban on fossil fuel advertising in public spaces from 2025. And of course, this is something that many local communities around these islands, including Edinburgh and Sheffield, just to mention two that I know about, have already taken action on. Furthermore, and this is where we can look back to the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics to really look at some lessons that we might learn from those. The public health in the UK is so poor.

Surely we. If we're going to be putting significant public investment, which inevitably will be into these sporting events, we need to make sure they are not doing significant damage to public health. There should surely be restrictions on the nature of products being advertised, or indeed forcibly sold at these venues. And referring back to London, I note that major sponsors were McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Cadbury and Heineken. That was a subject at the time to the criticism from a number of senior medical officials and the London Assembly indeed passed a motion calling for a ban on junk food sponsors.

We saw a real problem where food sellers were forced to prominently display Coca-Cola advertising and products with very limited space for alternative products. This, of course, a product linked to high blood pressure, heart disease and obesity. Now, surely this bill should be looking to address some of those issues. Now, the noble Lady Baroness Bonham-Carter has already given us a sneak preview, and I'm not going to go at length, because I'm sure the noble Lord, Lord foster, will be discussing this more.

But the issue of gambling, sponsorship and advertising has to be considered. And this is, of course, a huge issue when it comes to football, and I'm afraid I'm not going to celebrate the very, very modest measure that next season. There's going to be a voluntary ban on the front of shirts for advertising, which is what you might call the minimum possible we think we can get away with. And the economic costs of gambling to the country are very well known, and I'm sure we'll be rehearsed later.

And I note that Italy, for example, has banned most gambling advertising through a dignity degree in 2028. And the final point I want to get to is the issue of sustainability standards. And again, here, London, unfortunately, 2012 did not live up to many of the promises that were made before the games on waste reduction targets, on resource use and on use of renewable energy. And again, in the area of food, they failed to use locally grown food and fair trade products, in part, again, because of the influence of those sponsors and contracted suppliers.

So surely we should be thinking again. Back to that soft power point. Surely we should be ensuring that we produce genuinely world leading a phrase popular on both beaches of government and opposition on the. In this place we saw that Paris sought to become the lowest carbon Olympic Games ever. Didn't always lived up to it. Surely we can do better with Paris in future events, and surely we should acknowledge that those standards are. Yes, international bodies are starting to mandate those standards, but we can surely demand that events that we cover

**** Possible New Speaker ****

under this bill go further. My Lords, it's a pleasure to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow Baroness Bennett, who made lots of very thought provoking points about wider issues here. points about wider issues here. It's also a pleasure to take part in a debate with so many people who've contributed so much to our who've contributed so much to our great sporting legacy. I welcome this bill, too. It provides an overarching framework a one stop overarching framework a one stop shop, if you like, for major sporting events. And it's important, as many noble Lords have said, because sport is so central to our culture and our economy.

Here's a couple of stats, one of which is very strange to us, to the point we are still in the handful of countries that's always at the top of the global Sports Index, which measures the scale, reach and impact of sporting events around the world. Here's the strange stat just before Covid, the UK had the honour of being the only country in the world whose sporting annual attendance of professional events is greater than its entire population, and a recent UK sports survey showed that 83% of the UK population expressed pride in hosting major sporting events, getting 83% of the countries agree on anything is pretty extraordinary.

So having a framework approach I think is sensible to provide efficient delivery, to reduce delay and uncertainty once bids have been successful, and to improve the bidding for events by meeting organising committee requirements in advance. And I think although a lot of what my noble Baroness Bowles said earlier on, I agree with. I think my understanding is that this is a package to enable bids for international events to be smoother, so I can see some logic in separating out some events from regularly held major events.

And in particular, it's good to see action on deterring touts, protecting commercial rights, enabling coordinated transport planning and saving admittedly modest amounts of money, but still saving money in the legislative and administrative Groundhog Day that is in involved currently in bidding in legislation for each new bid that's made. It's also important to note, as other noble Lords have have done, that this bill is accompanied by other initiatives that, taken together, look suspiciously like a coordinated strategy, a new cross-government programme with sporting bodies on priority infrastructure development, a new cross-sector major event strategy which will be led, which will be fed into by my noble friend Lord McConnell as the new adviser on sporting events.

As soft power and as many noble Lords have said, the upcoming ticket touts Bill more on which later. All of this is very welcome. I just want to flag up for issues where I think there will be, I think, a lot of interest across the House in probing for more detail. The first is the definition of events, which is not a big issue in policy terms, perhaps, but is a tricky issue from an administrative point of view. Clause three is, as we've heard, specifies that the events within scope are those that are held, held in or partly in the UK of a kind that are not regularly held in the UK and likely to be a significant international interest.

Now it's clear that UEFA, FIFA tournaments, Rugby World Cups, international cricket competitions fall in that scope. But what about events such as high profile title bouts in boxing that are organised in an ad hoc way? What about even the Ryder Cup now? The Ryder Cup is my noble friend. Baroness Nye knows very well is is held in Europe every four years, but it's no longer held in Britain every four years it's held in different countries. Does that count as qualifying, as a as an event that would be within scope or not? These are not deal breaking issues, but I think it would be worth hearing what further guidance the Secretary of State will rely on when making decisions.

Second issue is ticket touting, and as many colleagues have said, stated intent in the bill is very good. But three small issues. One is how exactly will the steps on eliminating ticket touting in this bill dovetail with the wider treatment of ticket touting? That is yet to come. As many have observed, the risk is that measures to deter or prohibit touting for major sporting events now, which takes place in primary legislation, will perhaps be in tension with the broader reform of the resale market, which is in draft legislation and will proceed on a slower basis, and itself will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny.

So may change down the line. So there's I think there's a question of how we're going to ensure, as a Parliament, that alone, as a House, that these two pieces of legislation on such different timescales dovetail rather than our intention. Secondly, and here I'm going to join my noble friend Lord Foulkes in having a pop at FIFA.
18:33
Lord Wood of Anfield Portrait Lord Wood of Anfield (Labour)
-
-
It's assumed in this bill that international sporting bodies will want reassurance about the host want reassurance about the host country's commitment to eliminating ticket touting. But if you follow what's happening with FIFA at the what's happening with FIFA at the moment on ticket pricing in the upcoming men's World Cup in the US, Mexico and Canada, there you've got Mexico and Canada, there you've got a case of organising body that is colluding with ticket resale platforms in its pricing policy. They're keeping their official prices ludicrously high $11,000 face value for a final 2500 dollars for USA v Paraguay.

Knowing that the market clearing price is actually lower and shifting unsold inventory of tickets through these third party resale platforms. So there's a new problem here, which is how organising legislation doesn't just deal with ticket touting, inflating the price, but an organising committee that may be colluding with resale platforms. And I think that's something that's worth bearing in mind, unfortunately. And lastly, on ticket touting, I think the bill will have to have due care for official fan to fan exchange schemes and those schemes, which are going to have to be restructured in response to this and the ticket touting legislation.

Anyway. Again, it's just a gentle thought that the government's view on the steps needed to control resale mechanisms can't trample on perfectly legitimate ticket sharing mechanisms within clubs and within national sports organisations. Thirdly, there are a couple of issues around the reliance on secondary legislation, which I Lord Jones mentioned earlier on as well. I think the House will want reassurance that if event specific provisions are being triggered by secondary legislation, that there will still be scope for proper scrutiny in issues that arise in the organisation, that events.

There's no reason why there shouldn't be, of course. And secondly, the understandable need for clarity on licensing and Commercial association has to strike a balance between, on the one hand, protecting property rights, but also continuing to be community friendly to local businesses, consumers and fans who enjoy and have economic activity around the event. And lastly, fourth issue, the. The bill covers excellent ground, but as many, including. Again Lord Jones mentioned, there are issues which are at least worth thinking about as other issues that should be included in this framework legislation.

He mentioned the issue of inclusion and issues around technology, and Baroness Bennett earlier on mentioned environmental sustainability issues. Another is safeguarding provisions. There's an issue. There's an issue about whether there should be minimum safeguarding plans, particularly as some of these tournaments may involve under 18 tournaments. For example, the issue of whether there should be dedicated welfare officers. I think there's an issue to be considered about whether that should be baked in as part of the universal set of issues. Anyway, I look forward to engaging more in this debate.

It's an excellent bill. It fulfils a manifesto commitment. It's going to be a value across our country and across sports. And my last thing I would urge is that we do not schedule any of the committee stages at times that clash with World Cup. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, like everybody else, I want to congratulate the government and the Minister in bringing and the Minister in bringing forward this bill at this particular time. It seems extremely particular time. It seems extremely appetite a World Cup just in play. And it's a privilege to to take part in it. As others have observed, part in it. As others have observed, featuring some of our Olympian and Paralympian heroes. And I can't but Paralympian heroes. And I can't but also make a reference to the noble Lord Foulkes.

It's very good to see him back in his usual position, causing his usual amount of trouble, and can I just reassure the noble Lord that hearts are now the second favourite team in Brighton?
18:36
Lord Bassam of Brighton Portrait Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour)
-
-
Yes. >> And I'd like to pay tribute to to all of the other speakers, but I particularly have enjoyed the noble particularly have enjoyed the noble Lord Lord Barber and his speech. He's labelled Lord Barber of Chittlehampton. Well, having heard Chittlehampton. Well, having heard what he said about cricket and with my own particular love of cricket, I think he should now be known as Lord Barber of delivery. And I'm more than happy to come out of my cricketing retirement to test these outside eggs.

My Lords, this is a simple set of measures, but it will potentially be an enormous long term benefit to UK sports, tourism, hospitality etc. making life easier for those who plan and manage large sporting events. The UK, as many have said, has an enviable reputation for the way in which it puts on a show. Whenever we bid and win major international events like the Olympics, Paralympics, football competitions like the euros for both men and women. I am also delighted that the bill begins to address issues like ticket touting, which many of us in the chamber have over the years raised in different ways and under different guises.

It is right, too, that the government is tackling unauthorised association issues, and that it makes transport planning for major events simpler and easier. Like many, it has always been a puzzle to me that each time we stage something like the Commonwealth Games, as they have in Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham, etc. all the Olympics, new legislation is required, leaving the planners with the uncertainties until Parliament is finished with the Bill. It's pleasing to note that the Euro 2028 planning will be made simpler and more straightforward as a consequence of this legislation.

As the Minister set out, this bill will make it easier to bid for future events like the FIFA Women's World Cup in 2035. But I don't need persuading of the economic benefits that hosting major events sporting events can bring. Living in Brighton, we are familiar with hosting such events. We. When I was Council leader, took the wise decision to host the tour de France. We were the first city to do so and we have since played host to Rugby World Cup Women's Euros in 2022 and also the Women's Rugby Cup in 2025.

The boost to the local economy of all of these events has been enormous. The single stage of the tour de France alone was worth a net 10,000,000 in 1994, not to mention the added value it gave to the profile of the city as a desirable destination, with a value added spend into local hospitality industries. More recently, it's estimated that the Birmingham Commonwealth Games brought a rough 1.2 billion additional economic output and 80 million of social value. This, along with the soft power benefits that others have referred to and the sense of social cohesion, better trade and health and wellbeing.

Legacy brings enormous benefits. For that reason, I too welcome the recent announcement by the government of a Scoping and Strategic assessment of by UK sport of the potential to host an Olympic and Paralympic Games in the North in the 2040s. As we found in 2012, the economic and social benefits far outweigh the costs. The regenerative potential of major sports is enormous and the government is to congratulate, to be congratulated for seeing this and putting in place this bill and other measures to tap into the potential.

Unsurprisingly, for this reason, the bill has been widely welcomed. His powers seem proportionate and will enable greater flexibility in the planning of major events. But this is all a long way from the planning and preparation behind the 1966 World Cup. As I recall, a major competition event of this sort was done on a government grant of some £500,000. But Denis Howell, the sports Minister, managed to extract from a reluctant Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, Harold's only major obstacle was that games could not be played on Sundays because of the strict Sunday observance laws at the time.

Surely Denis Harold would be rubbing his hands now if he had sight of this bill. But I do have a few minor gripes, and I hope the Minister can put my mind at rest on some points. Your lawyers at Lewis Silkin have questioned why the book. Why the bill, while understandably focussed on mega events we compete for internationally, doesn't also cover large and regular events such as the London Marathon, the Six Nations Tournament, the Open and Wimbledon, I might add, several other regional marathons, the London to Brighton Cycle Ride and other cycling competitions.

They argue it leaves a gap in these events collectively bring bringing enormous value to the UK and are regularly targeted by ambush marketeers. They have a point. They suggest that there is a case for adding provisions to cover the unauthorised association provisions, and that impact on regularly held, nationally significant competitions. I also wonder if there isn't a bit of tweaking to the bill's long title, so that it can cover music events to UK music's Tom Kiehl has suggested that the ticket touting provisions, for example, could be extended to cover music venues, and it does seem a bit odd taking measures to counter ticket touts at football and sporting events, while living music events entirely unprotected.

It is somewhat illogical. And why use a bill to consult on these provisions for other, other issues, like music, when you've already published provisions in an actual piece of legislation, perhaps the Minister can explain why this is the ticket touting offence seems, on the face of it, pretty all embracing and properly capturing ticket platforms and marketplaces. The offence also applies to businesses that operate from outside the UK, where the offence relates to people in the UK, and these conditions seem entirely applicable to musical events.

I support the advertising, trading and unauthorised association measures in the Bill which target illicit commercial behaviour, ripping off the sporting event while association with this brand. My only concern here would be how effectively the relevant offences will be policed, given the resources currently available to weights and Measures authorities, the CMA on the other enforcement agencies. Perhaps the Minister can advise this if additional money will be made available to carry out that work. Finally, I'm turning to the transport measures. I think these should work.

I presume that they draw on the experience of the bespoke legislation that worked well for the Olympics, horror Olympics and Commonwealth Games. Powers like these would have made, I must say, a Brighton hosting tour de France section back in 1994. Much easier, the route passing as it did through multiple local authorities from Dover to Brighton. The Bill makes it clear who exactly has responsibility over transport issues and this is most welcome. My Lords. Like others, I celebrate the introduction of this bill and look forward to further constructive engagement on some of the areas that have been raised this afternoon.
18:44
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> Nearly 100 years ago, my grandfather was an Olympic athlete. In 1932, he asked for time off work to travel to New York and onwards to travel to New York and onwards to Los Angeles on the Olympic train, alongside all the other European participants. He didn't win a medal, but his performance was featured in the cover story of Track Stats magazine last March. Known as Flying Fuller, he was Britain's fastest man now. Back then, sport was the amateur game.

When he was alive, he told me how the noble Lord, Lord Burghley, dropped the baton in the four by 100 relay. It was a shame because he told me they'd practised the handover in the changing rooms beforehand. It was different times. The epoch of the. The gentleman amateur and I mention all of this because sport is grounded in people in community clubs, the fellowship of teams, the tension of individual competition. It's the great leveller. And we can be proud that Britain has codified many of the great global sports.

So I know why this bill is here. The bill's here because the promoters of the truly global events have lobbied for it. I know because I've spoken to some of them. They have their sports rights to defend. They have signed up the big global brands. They're a pallet, loads of merchandise to shift, and they've told the government that unless they pass this bill, we'll never get another sporting event in our nation. It's nonsense. And that's what I would say if I was them.

But we've been suckered by that because money often follows sport. But sport cannot be and should not be only about the money. Because what this bill does is make sport all about the money by law. Now, it will be said that we've had similar bills before and in the Olympics, and you'd be right in a completely bespoke effort was needed and justified. But the Olympics in 2012 was the exception, not the rule. And this bill will make the exception the rule in an unwanted and unwarranted, unnecessary intrusion into our sporting and cultural life.

And because each event is different, will most likely need special purpose bills for the Crown Jewels events. Anyway. Now I'm not against these bills. I welcome the Euro 28 tournament. There will be circumstances and scope which will need to be negotiated. And if this bill pertained to Euro 28 alone, I would have my full support. And as Barry Baroness Grey-Thompson said earlier in this debate, we don't need legislation for many of these events, but providing an evergreen framework.

Perversely, all this bill does is give away any and all negotiating leverage that we may otherwise have. And especially as Baroness Davis, who isn't in her place, has observed, we could end up bidding against ourselves. It prompts promoters to ask for even more. And counterintuitively, it weakens our ability to land these events because game theory tells you that. Now, it's been said that this bill is just a one off, like the World Cup or the euros, and that's not what the bill provides for.

Because as other laws, including the noble Lord, Lord wood, whose comments I'd like to associate myself with, says it's all a bit woolly. The press notices talk about the big tournaments, but it could end up to the international table tennis, or where there's a fuzzy boundary between sport and entertainment and wrestling and boxing has been mentioned. All of these are less lustrous than the crown jewels. If we pass this bill unamended, then the rugby internationals or the Ryder Cup that Baroness Nye who's not in her place either, they will all clamour to be included.

They're already asking. It's a slippery slope, and that's where I have my problem with this bill, but also with the comments made by Baroness Evans, who seeks to expand the scope still further because there's a mission creep here that trespasses on the grittiness, the sweat, the highs and lows and the visceral untidiness of sport. I'm concerned because there are powers to designate zones around stadiums or other undefined places where trading will be made illegal. So I ask the promoter of one of these events how far that exclusion zone may extend.

And he said, well, certainly between the transport interchanges and the stadium, that was his minimum expectation. So, my Lords, just consider that ten minute walk from Twickenham Station to the Alliance Stadium down Witham Road in southwest London. Every type of food from around the world is available, from licensed food vans and stalls set up in front gardens, where enterprising homeowners have demolished their garden walls. Old boys selling memorabilia in tat, the little guy with his roadside kebab van or the youth club with their pop up gazebo chicken wings for a couple of hours before the game.

That's part of the grittiness. Part of it adds to the day's pleasure, and yet it is going to be made illegal upon pain of a 500 £0 fine, even if they have a licence. Yes, a fine for the burger flippers from the Cubs and scouts raising money for the jamboree, or for the home owner who's going to be doubly burdened by the mansion tax. You see, under this legislation, only expensive cardboard burgers, plastic tat and gassy lager sold in soulless, overpriced stadium concourse concessions will be permitted.

There are other provisions in this bill to prevent online trading by mobile phone or other internet device at an event. It seems to me that this amounts to a ban on closing out a bet on a game in progress from your seat in an affront to the flag. The fan who likes a flutter as most apps are based on Gibraltar. I'm not quite sure how it would be enforced anyway, but it gets worse and I associate my comments with Lord Wood.

It will be illegal to pass on a ticket to a friend if your plan changes. Say mum's fallen over at home or whatever. We all want to avoid the bots and. But frankly, the ticket sellers and the organisers haven't worked hard enough to stop the scammers moving hoovering up all the tickets. So rather than solving this omission at source, the government is going to go after the little guy. If this bill is passed, where will be the incentive to fix this problem? Instead, the.

Instead, the fan is going to be forced to surrender tickets to the organisers, who can then resell them for whatever they like. And indeed, we've heard in the in the in the FIFA World Cup and by outlawing peer to peer platforms like StubHub along the way, I've been told by one of the organisers of one of these Crown Jewels events that fans will be able to surrender their tickets as little as 30 minutes before the game. All that's going to do is encourage hopefuls to turn up at the turnstiles and then be disappointed when, ten minutes before the game, there isn't a ticket to buy, you couldn't make it up.

If organisers and ticket marketers tried harder on the initial ticketing, we wouldn't need these provisions at all. And I need to ask the fundamental question what's so bad about exposing for sale an event ticket? The words in the bill to your Facebook friends. What's so bad that that justifies a 500 £0 fine? I also want to know how this legislation will dovetail into the government's consultation on banning zero hours in committee. I plan to introduce a carve out for sporting events, because there are no guaranteed hours in sport.

And Fergie time tells you that. Now, look, I'm not going to go on about unauthorised association, but it's so loosely defined. You know, it could affect a bed and breakfast operator simply suggesting they're not far from the event or the struggling pub running a tournament sweepstake. This bill will sanitise sport, restrict choice, increase costs and damage the enjoyment of the day. Why can't we see the heart? This harms not strengthens our negotiating power. And why have we got it in for the scouts and guides raising money for the jamboree? The bloke who prefers a cheap kebab to an overpriced burger, the bucket hat rather than the baseball cap.

The fan who fancies ale rather than lager, or the geezer who just wants to play an in game bet from the comfort of his seat in the middle of the game. Why are we on the wrong side of our sporting life? This bill is unnecessary. Last week, the Financial Times asserted that the Premier League is a national asset. And they're right. And it's become so without the unnecessary provisions from this bill. It's a sledgehammer to miss a nut, and it's going to reduce the simple enjoyment of the small pleasures of going to the game.

Now, I know that part of sport is knowing where you're beaten, and I can tell from the House this evening, I'm not going to win this one, but I've made my point. We must guide against mission creep. We must get the balance between the private interest and the public good, right? Because if we fail to do so, then the fans at Old Trafford, at Anfield and those other places where like south, south Saudi Arabia and Gulf will tell you the unintended consequences of putting the money first and the fans second.
18:53
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham Portrait Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, United. >> A proud record of hosting major international sporting events, from the Olympics and Paralympic Games the Olympics and Paralympic Games to European Championships and world tournaments. These events have showcased our country on the global stage, inspired future generations and delivered significant economic and social benefits. This bill seeks to provide a more efficient and consistent framework for hosting such events in the future, rather than requiring bespoke legislation each time the UK hosts a major international tournament, it establishes a framework that can be applied where appropriate.

That is a sensible approach which should improve certainty for organisers, strengthen our international competitiveness when bidding for events and reduce unnecessary legislative legislative duplication. With UEFA Euro 2028 on the horizon and future opportunities to host global tournaments, now is the right time to put in place a framework that allows the United Kingdom to move quickly and confidently when opportunities arise. This bill, at its heart, is a practical piece of legislation. In the past, Parliament has needed to needed bespoke legislation for individual sporting events by establishing a clear framework for future tournaments.

The bill reduces unnecessary barriers, streamlines the legislative process and provides greater certainty for organisers and host communities. I welcome the measures to tackle ticket touting, protect commercial rights and support effective transport management. Ticket touting can leave genuine supporters priced out of and unable to access events. Measures that help to ensure tickets reach genuine fans are therefore welcomed. Sponsors and commercial partners provide significant investments, helping to make major events possible, and appropriate protection can help safeguard that investment.

Effective transport management is equally important. The success of major sporting events depends not only on what happens inside the venue, but on whether spectators, volunteers, workers and local residents can move around safely and efficiently. For many visitors, the transport network provides their first and last impression of a host city. Yet the value of major sporting events cannot be measured solely in economic terms. They also create memories that last a lifetime. They bring families, friends and communities together in shared experiences that become part of our personal and collective story.

For me, the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games remains a powerful example. My son still remembers our trips to watch the volleyball and the women's football bronze medal match. Those are memories that remain with us today. The games also touched on my own family in other ways. My mother, who was retired at the time, took part in both the opening and closing ceremonies of the Paralympic Games. Like thousands of volunteers and performers, she became part of something larger than herself and carries those memories long afterwards in different ways.

Three generations of my family were able to share in an experience of the London 2012. That demonstrates the unique power of major sporting events, not only to bring people together, but to create memories that are then passed on from one generation to the next. It also serves as a reminder that major sporting events should be as accessible as possible. The opportunity to attend, participate in, or contribute to such events should be available to as many people as possible and should not be limited to by circumstances.

This is particularly important for young people. For many attending major sporting events, it can be a life changing experience that sparks a lifelong interest in a sport, volunteering or physical activity. We should therefore seek to ensure that opportunities to attend such events are accessible and affordable, so that young people from all backgrounds can share in inspiration the inspiration they provide, whether through fair access to tickets, accessible venues and transport, or opportunities for volunteering and participation.

We should seek to ensure that the benefits of major sporting events can be enjoyed by people from all backgrounds and communities. Seeing athletes perform at the highest level can encourage young people to become more active. Participate in sports, volunteering communities or simply believe that they too can achieve great things. Major international sporting events can generate economic benefits, support local businesses, inspire participation in sports, and leave a lasting community legacy. I welcome the ambition of the UEFA Euro 28 organisers to deliver the largest community programme ever associated with UEFA European Championship, and I believe that this should be an aspiration for all major international sporting events.

Success should be measured not only by what happens inside the venue, but by the benefits they leave behind for communities long after the event has concluded. Good legislation should not simply make it easier to host events. It should make it easier for communities to benefit from them. The bill will also strengthen the United Kingdom's position as a destination for major international sporting events in an increasingly competitive global environment. Host nations are expected to provide confidence that the necessary legal and operational frameworks are in place.

This legislation helps to provide that assurance as the bill progresses. I would welcome further clarification from the Minister on several points. First, the bill grants significant powers to Ministers through secondary legislation. Can the Minister explain what safeguards will ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny? Secondly, what steps will the government take to maximise long term legacy of major sporting events, particularly for young people, including participation in sports volunteering, skill development and pathways into employment? Finally, how will accessibility be embedded within future events planning to ensure disabled and neurodivergent people can participate independently and with confidence? My Lords, the greatest sporting events are remembered not simply by who won or who lost their remembered because the memories they create, the people they inspire, the legacy they leave behind.

For communities across our nation by reducing barriers, streamlining processes, and helping the United Kingdom secure future world class sporting events. The bill will help ensure those benefits are felt for years to come,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I am pleased to support this Second Reading. Yeah. I'm slightly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm slightly. Perplexed. Having sat. Through the entirety.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Along with Lord Foster of Bath, of the entire legislative process. of the entire legislative process. Minute by minute, there weren't many of us there for the Olympic many of us there for the Olympic bill and recalling what we had to pass, that's certainly not transferable easily. And whether it's done by secondary legislation or by by primary legislation, frankly, it was sufficiently tedious.
19:02
Lord Mann Portrait Lord Mann (Labour)
-
-
But I'm grateful to not. deliberation, I moved an amendment which changed the title of the bill to the Olympic and Paralympic bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The which was agreed. The the the point of it is, though, what is the point of it is, though, what is the purpose of the bill? And without some amendment, I think this bill could end up being rather ineffective. What is a national ineffective. What is a national sporting event if there's another Olympics, the Olympic rules change. Olympics, the Olympic rules change. In essence, you seed your nation to the International Olympic Committee for Olympic and Paralympic 60 days, and they rule those rules.

And the detail will change the next time. The critical issue with the London Olympics and Paralympics was the location. That was the key issue. Everything else needed to be sorted, but without having a location identified, nothing gets off the ground and Lord Foulkes was quite right. Scotland wants to host a major football tournament. Wherever else it has to do. One thing it has to do that can be planned for now is sort out Hampden Park, the investment and the forward planning are critical.

So that's not a criticism of this bill, but it's a question of what is it actually for. It seems to me it should be not for simply major events, but events that have to be bidded for that's where the competitive advantage is given. I'll give an example. It looks looks to me like rugby league may be excluded under the definitions there. Well, that's an absurdity. It screwed me because we're successful in winning bids for rugby league. But what we're not successful for that this bid, this bill could assist with is getting the deals with the locations, the venues that would allow an expanded rugby league using different stadiums with the transport changes, for example, that could revolutionise the possibilities of where the locations would be.

And that would be hugely important for the sport, hugely important for the country. So there's going to need to be a lot of detailed scrutiny there in terms of ticket touting. What is ticket touting? See unique uses, dynamic pricing, the price for Everton versus Leeds United last season this year was £99. The price for Bournemouth versus Leeds United was £564. They're using dynamic pricing. They have a contract, I think, across the whole of the Premier League now and with Wembley, they're given large numbers of tickets to sell and they're profiting on dynamic pricing.

Now. What is the difference between ticket touting me selling a ticket to a mate and charging him for the fuel to get down there, or what seat unique are doing? And the danger with the detail is if we don't get it right, we're actually encouraging legitimised ticket touting. And that's how organised crime is getting into it. Organised crime is not buying off individuals on street corners. Organised crime is buying significant numbers of Premier League tickets at that level internationally and dealing with them.

If you want to go to certain stadiums in London, it'll cost you £800. You can be guaranteed a ticket to any match, but you're going to be buying those tickets abroad. That's already there. And you talk to the people who monitor this, including the police. This is serious organised crime. Therefore, getting the detail right is going to be absolutely phenomenal on trading. What about the the person who at my club writes the Square Ball fanzine and sells it pound £2.

Prices vary on the street corner. Are they going to be restricted for certain fixtures because of that? That's the danger of the mission creep that's been referred to. And if we take a stadium like the Emirates, where the local community makes money by entrepreneurship, by selling either by hiring out facility to memorabilia salespeople, and I know those around my club, they're the real small businesses, the micro businesses. They're not big commercial concerns. They never will be. They never want to be.

Or the person who's making the incredible food rather than the official food, restricting that in any way would be catastrophic. Some of our big stadiums are in communities who aren't benefiting. We should be doing the opposite and encouraging that kind of sale. As Peter Lowy, developing the stadium at Leeds United Football Club, said to me when he arrived, why can't you buy a kebab or a samosa outside the stadium? Well, that's because the small businesses there are slightly a distance away.

If they were brought in, this should be part of the bill of facilitating that. There is a way of doing this, of allowing the local communities, the fan groups, etc. to actually have a bigger say if it's done well. But that means getting this legislation absolutely right. And so the restricted trading zones are significant. The transport zones, though, that is to me absolutely right in how that's conceived, planning out if there's going to be a major event, what the transport system should be and the infrastructure and what's closed and having that planned in advance will give a competitive advantage.

If we're proposing, we're going to use X, Y, and Z stadiums for some kind of international competition, and we've got that in place already. Then we have a competitive advantage. And my final point is the world of sport is changing. I hear on the grapevine, Mr. Musk is, after buying a Premier League club, may well change a few things. The World Club Championship may become a lot bigger, may become annual, may move around the world a bit like the prime boxing bouts that have been already referred to.

These are major sporting events. There are one offs that are significant. We can build into this the planning for them. If we use our ingenuity. And so it's a good bill in principle. But get the detail wrong. It will be a bad bill and therefore quite an exciting bill to be going into, because if we get it right, we do build a competitive advantage. But that includes building in the community, building in the fan groups and building in the infrastructure investment demands so that we begin to win on the big competitions.
19:10
Lord Rogan Portrait Lord Rogan (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
I welcome. debate this important legislation, which will apply to all four nations of our kingdom. My Lord, in an era when our country is so divided on so many fronts, sport retains an almost unique ability to bring people together. The most memorable recent example of this was in 2012, when London played host to both the Olympic and Paralympic Games. For several weeks, many people, often without even a passing interest in sport in normal times, cheered for those in red, white and blue who made us all so proud.

My Lords, sport has always played a huge part in bridging divides in Northern Ireland, as all people from all communities rallied around our sporting heroes. Rory McIlroy, only the sixth man to complete the Grand Slam of all four major golf tournaments. As the current man of the moment and a source of huge cross-community pride. And over the years, the list of sporting greats from Northern Ireland is remarkable for such a small nation. They include George Best, Dear Mary Peters, Joe Lord Dunlop, Willie John McBride, Pat Jennings, Alex Hastings.

I could go on and on and I say with confidence that there are lots more to come. However, Northern Ireland is being held back by a lack of world class sporting facilities. The Bill before the House today is a sensible measure and, as we know, will create a common legislative framework that can be applied to major sporting events across the United Kingdom. This will include the Euro 2028, with games taking place in England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland, but not Northern Ireland.

As your Lordships might be aware, Northern Ireland was due to host five games but will no longer do so after His Majesty's Government announced it would not be pumping many millions of pounds into the redevelopment of Casement Park, a derelict GA stadium. My Lord, I am not going into the details to repeat the arguments around this decision, but I must express my disappointment at the failure of Ministers to advance the case for Northern Ireland's National Stadium at Windsor Park to host these games instead.

Despite its limited capacity. My Lords, a huge opportunity has been wasted and as far as I can tell, those with power and influence to sign up for Northern Ireland on this issue have swept this under the carpet as other venues in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland gladly accepted the gifts they were offered. Windsor Park proudly hosted the 2021 UEFA Sport Cup, contested by the winners of the Champions League and Europa League, a huge game in the global football calendar.

So, my Lords, why is it supposedly not capable of hosting games in Euro 2028? The Lords In recent years, Northern Ireland has successfully hosted the start of the Arterial Italia, one of the three biggest cycle races in the world. And as Baroness May mentioned, golf in Scotland. We in Northern Ireland with some of the best golf courses in the. In the Kingdom, hosted two open golf championships with record crowds in every single day of the event. We have also recently seen their annual North West 200 motorcycle race take place in the triangle circuit between the towns of Coleraine, Portrush and Portstewart.

Public funding was made available for all of these, which is warmly welcomed. Given the boost to the local economy, each of them provided. However, my Lord, what links these events is that they all took place outdoors and the primary infrastructure around them was temporary, meaning no legacy sporting facilities are left behind for local communities. The bill before us today, if enacted, will provide His Majesty's Government and the devolved administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast with powers to offer financial assistance to support major sporting events and related legacy or social impact initiatives.

On the face of it, this is welcome. However, can the noble Lady, the Minister, perhaps elaborate on how the new powers will differ from those that already exist? Also? In addition, if additional finance is to be made available by devolved administration, is this money expected to come to their existing coffers, or is that a potential for extra funding to allocate it from central government? Last month, His Majesty's Government committed to introducing a so called stadium regeneration acceleration through which it would work with sporting bodies on primary sports infrastructure.

Developed projects in England, such as stadiums that can help deliver local regeneration with commercial growth. Given that the bill before us today is UK wide, why can this Welcome Nation initiative not also apply to all four nations of the Kingdom? My Lord, under the last government, I did everything I could to support the development of a North West regional stadium at the Coleraine Showgrounds by backing a deeply impressive application to the Levelling Up Fund. All the indications were that it would be successful given the absence of a modern stadium and not part of Northern Ireland.

The cross community benefits the scheme would bring to a major catchment area, and the boost that would deliver for one of the most economically deprived parts of the United Kingdom. Sadly, the application was rejected, with the money instead funnelled off to marginal seats in England. Perhaps that wrong could be righted if Northern Ireland benefits from this new UK wide legislation. And finally, my Lords, as many contributors have already mentioned, I want to welcome the provision in the Bill we are debating today relating to ticket penalties is certainly the right move.

And my Lord, as my Lord, the like Lord Martin the Lord Mann. I hope this initiative is swiftly followed by similarly robust provisions to clamp down and take a turning for music and other live events, as Ministers have promised, and the music industry has long called for.
19:17
Baroness Paul of Shepherd's Bush Portrait Baroness Paul of Shepherd's Bush (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm delighted to be >> My Lords, I'm delighted to be speaking in today's Second Reading debate, and I warmly welcome this bill not only for its substance but bill not only for its substance but for its ambition. As others have noted, at its heart, this legislation gives us the ability to act with pace and confidence when opportunities arise to host the world's most significant sporting events, it removes the need for repeated, event specific legislation and instead creates a standing framework that allows the United Kingdom to demonstrate bold and timely leadership when required.

This may be a small bill, but boy is it mighty. Now, I should confess that I've not always been a natural sports fan. I am what you might call a fair weather friend. Growing up in Shepherd's Bush, I have at various times and with varying degrees of conviction, claimed allegiance to QPR, Chelsea, Brentford and Fulham, often depending on who was doing best at that time. But while my loyalties may have been somewhat flexible, my admiration for sporting international sporting events has always been steadfast.

T shirts, bunting, flags. I'm all in because I am an enormous believer in their power, not just to entertain, but to bring people together, to inspire pride and to showcase the very best of our country. And I'm equally passionate about grassroots sport, mostly powered by brilliant volunteers, because we all understand the completely symbiotic relationship between global and local sport, and that brilliance at elite level fuels aspiration at community level. This bill provides the technical framework to help turn aspiration into delivery, ensuring that national successes translate into local opportunities and investments.

And of course, my Lords, enabling legislation rightly invites scrutiny. The flexibility that this bill is its strength, but it must also be matched with clarity and appropriate oversight. And as we take this bill through committee, we may want to consider how delegated powers are framed, how ministerial discretion is balanced with parliamentary accountability, and how commercial arrangements and security are applied proportionately. We must also ensure that local authorities are supported, not stretched, by these arrangements, because their capacity will be central to the successful delivery.

None of these are objections to the bill. They are questions that will help us to be ready for first class delivery when we are called upon. And, my Lord, this bill arrives at exactly the right moment. As many have already mentioned, the UK and Ireland will co-host the UEFA Euro 2028, and there is a clear interest from international bodies in bringing future events such as Rugby World Cup, the tour de France and further Cricket World Cups back to this country. These opportunities require governments ability to act quickly, and this bill allows us to do precisely that, strengthening our ability to compete internationally, to put forward credible bids and to ensure that the benefits of hosting are felt across the whole of the country.

And it is those benefits that I want to turn to now, because this is not just about national and global prestige, it's about local impact. And I am proud to live in the London borough of Merton, which has set out an ambitious vision to become London's first borough of sport. Merton is, of course, as you all will know, home to the All England Lawn Tennis Club at Wimbledon and host to the annual Championships, the world's most prestigious tennis tournament and a truly global event.

The Championships bring around half a million visitors to the borough in over two weeks, and the tournament brings in about 200 million boost to the London economy and with particular strong benefits to the local hospitality sector. But Merton's story is not just about global prestige, it's also about what sport can achieve in our communities. And nowhere is that more powerfully demonstrated than in the story of the mighty AFC Wimbledon, a community based club whose supporters refuse to leave the borough.

When Wimbledon FC was relocated to Milton Keynes in 2002. Instead, fans chose to start again from the very bottom, from borrowed boots and borrowed grounds. This fan owned club has in 24 years risen nine football leagues currently competing in League One. With a continuous ambition to go higher. Its new stadium in Plough Lane is a symbol of community resilience but also a driver of local economic activity, with match days bringing hundreds of thousands of pounds into the surrounding area. Its women's team is one of the fastest growing parts of the club in bringing in new audiences, and I do now am a very strong supporter of AFC Wimbledon.

I have found my loyalty and it is deeply encouraging to see not only young girls, but young boys supporting women's sport with equal enthusiasm. Building on this legacy, which I just think is remarkable, Merton Council has developed a powerful programme of grassroot activity under the banner of the Borough of Sport. It has delivered 45 separate initiatives, open to residents of all ages and abilities, to improve the outcomes of people in their local communities, and these events have ranged from a sports day that attracted 2000 visitors, trying out 70 different sports, all demonstrated by enthusiastic grassroots organisations.

Free swimming every week for over 65 seconds and under 16 year olds in the school holidays, improved cricket pitches, new basketball courts and outdoor gyms. A world class BMX track which boasts an Olympic standard pro start gate which will make the track eligible to host national or international competitions. I hope the Minister is listening. 27 sports equipment, loan boxes with footballs, rugby, rugby balls and tennis equipment available to borrow to borrow for free exercise classes in parks and libraries, and bringing the incredible and hugely popular parkrun and junior parkrun to the borough.

These are real achievements and the impact has been tangible. 8000 previously inactive residents are now taking part in sport and physical activity. That's not a statistic, that's a transformation. This is people who are physically healthier and whose mental wellbeing has been improved, and their sense of loneliness has been decreased because of this activity. I just want to say this hasn't come about by accident, but it's come about under the leadership of the Labour leader of the council, Ros Garrard, and his team.

And I also want to say on an election day, which was quite tough for 11 games. And I wonder if there's a thread that runs through this. And I applaud them for their efforts. My Lord, this is why the bills matter. Because major sporting events are not just ends in themselves. They are catalysts. They drive participation, support regeneration and generate economic growth. They inspire young people to get involved, to try something new and to see themselves as something better. They provide moments for national celebration and sometimes, sadly, for commiseration.

When we host well, we leave a legacy that is felt not just in stadiums but in parks, schools, leisure centres and community clubs. This bill gives us the tools to do that more consistently, more confidently, more economically and more effectively, and ensures that when the UK hosts the world events, the benefits can be felt anywhere from global centres like Wimbledon Tennis Club to the grassroot initiatives and communities like mine in Merton. My Lords, this is a bill that enables ambition, strengthens capability and unlocks potential and I am very, very pleased to support it.
19:25
Lord Young of Acton Portrait Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I too am a supporter of Queens Park Rangers, though of Queens Park Rangers, though perhaps a slightly more steadfast one than the previous speaker. I want to raise an issue that, at want to raise an issue that, at first blush, doesn't appear to be within scope of this bill, but for reasons I'll set out, I believe it is. Namely, the overuse of football banning orders, football banning orders were originally introduced by the Football Spectators Act 1989 for the purposes of preventing violence and disorder at football matches.

It was a targeted measure intended to be used sparingly, since it imposes such wide ranging restrictions on a person's liberty, not just preventing them from attending football matches, but from using public transport on match days, drinking at pubs near football stadiums even in certain circumstances travelling abroad. Breaches of these orders, which can be imposed for as long as ten years, carry serious consequences up to and including being sent to prison. Predictably, subsequent acts of Parliament have hugely extended the Football Banning order regime.

The Football Offences Act 1991, the Football Spectators Act 2000. The Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Act 2026 have all added numerous offences to schedule one of the 1989 act, which sets out the criminal offences that can result in banning orders. With each addition lowering the threshold, recent statistics lay bare the direction of travel. As of the 1st of June 2025, there were 2439 football banning orders in force in England and Wales, an increase of 12% on the previous 12 months.

Those figures are taken from a recent article in the Law Society Gazette, which raised the alarm about the overuse of these orders. Quote, behaviour that is fleeting, non-violent and often part of the charged emotional atmosphere of live sport. Momentary lapse of judgement, reactive shouting or ill considered gestures is being treated with a level of seriousness that risks losing all sense of proportion. Individuals of good character with no previous convictions suddenly face a criminal record and permanent implications for employment, immigration status, travel and reputation.

This trend uncomfortably blurs the line between maintaining public safety and overpolicing, the ordinary realities of live sport.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister, who took the 2000 legislation through your Lordships legislation through your Lordships House. That legislation was widely praised at the time as a way of tackling the outrageous behaviour tackling the outrageous behaviour of England fans travelling across Europe in the Euro 2000 competition. Europe in the Euro 2000 competition. It changed forever the attitude of football fans in this country, and it also helped to reverse the tide of racism that had been partly engendered by that. And I think the noble Lord should think long and hard before he starts to seek liberalising, as he might put it, that piece of legislation.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I wouldn't dispute intervention. I wouldn't dispute that there were serious problems, that football banning orders were that football banning orders were originally designed to address. My point is that they're now being used far more extensively than were used far more extensively than were intended in the legislation. You took through this House for much took through this House for much more trivial misdemeanours. Nothing like travelling abroad in order to cause violence and disorder at games overseas.

My Lords, I should declare an interest. The Free Speech Union, the organisation I run, is currently defending a young football fan who's being prosecuted for calling some Chelsea fans rent boys at a match earlier this season. This was in the context of an exchange of insults between rival fans, and none of the Chelsea fans complained, and it's unlikely, to put it mildly, that any of them were caused harassment, alarm or distress, which is what he's being charged with. Nevertheless, the prosecutor has informed the court that if our member is convicted, she'll be seeking a banning order.

His hearing isn't due to take place until September 2027, and in the meantime, he's been banned from his team's stadium for the duration of the 2020 627 season and told that if he wants to keep his season ticket, he has to continue to pay for it over £1,000 a year and cannot resell his seat or pass it on to a friend or family member. The club, meanwhile, to Premier League club, is allowed to resell his seat and judging from the fact that it was occupied for the remainder of the last season, is already doing so.

My Lords, this is a disproportionate punishment for behaviour which, to quote from the Law Gazette, was fleeting, non-violent, part of the charged emotional atmosphere of live sport. A momentary lapse of judgement. He has never been in trouble with the police before. Yet, in addition to not being able to watch his beloved team for the whole of next season, he faces the prospect of a five year banning order if he's convicted, even the noble Lord would not, I'm sure, regard that as a proportionate penalty for a momentary lapse of judgement.

So why do I think an amendment raising the banning order threshold is within scope of this bill? For one, my Lords, it's perfectly possible that the new criminal offences created by this Bill will be added to schedule one of the Football Supporters Act, 1989. Could a street trader selling unauthorised merchandise outside a Wembley match or a food vendor without a clean zone licence, end up being banned from attending football matches? And can the noble Baroness, the Minister, sure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You made the point just momentarily ago that a trader with momentarily ago that a trader with a licence or without a licence rather could could be banned. On the face of this bill, even if you have a licence, you are still have a licence, you are still subject to a fine up to £50,000. So having a licence is of no consequence in this bill. You can consequence in this bill. You can follow all the rules. You can be licensed by the local council but it counts for nothing.

It's another infringement upon trade.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the member. For that intervention. He makes the point I was trying to make even more forcefully. So even those with licences. Nevertheless, being unauthorised to sell merchandise or food or drink outside a stadium could find themselves being given football banning orders if they're convicted of one of these new criminal offences. And even if there's nothing on the face of the bill as drafted before our House today that says these offences could be added to schedule one, what guarantee do we have that they won't be added during Committee stage? As has happened as I've followed the passage of various bills through this House numerous times before the bill's change a good deal.

I would not be at all surprised if those offences were added to schedule one, and anyone convicted of them could be subject to a football banning order. Perhaps more importantly, there's nothing in law to prevent football banning orders being imposed on fans visiting from overseas. The purpose of this bill, we've been told, is in part to prepare the country for the 2028 UEFA Men's Football Championship, which, as we've heard, will take place in England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland. An amendment limiting the circumstances in which banning orders can be imposed on fans, including those visiting from the continent, will make Great Britain a more attractive destination in 2028.

For lovers of the beautiful game. For those reasons, I hope to table an amendment at committee, reversing the expansion of the authoritarian

**** Possible New Speaker ****

banning order regime. Well, sir. I broadly welcome this bill, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I broadly welcome this bill, but I've got to focus on the things that particularly interests me. So that particularly interests me. So when I look at the when I look at the bill, it says the government the bill, it says the government announced it commissioned UK sport to carry out an initial strategic assessment of whether the UK could assessment of whether the UK could host an Olympic and Paralympic Games. Assessment will look at potential costs and. The government said funding would not be used for regenerating stadiums, but the government would work with sports clubs and leagues to unlock opportunities for large scale housing delivery jobs, apprenticeships, transport improvements and community sports facilities.

And I think those are really worthwhile objectives which will benefit young people, benefit the community as a whole and further on in the in in the bill, it it says that the Local Government Association called on the government to join up its ambitions to be a world leading host of major sporting events, with its ambitions to tackle physical and economic activity, providing more funding for public leisure facilities. It said more investment was needed to develop and refurbish leisure facilities, which it said
19:35
Lord Young of Norwood Green Portrait Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
-
-
helped people be physically active. Stay in work, contributed to the economy and provided the essential infrastructure for grassroots sports. Now, there might be lots of disagreements with many other aspects of this bill, but I wouldn't have thought that anybody would disagree with those of objectives in terms of, well, what I would say is getting young people I would say is getting young people off the off their screens and onto the and onto the and onto the greens. So for me, some of the things that that are contained in this bill, which are not some of the most major things that we've perhaps have been talked about, well, I'm sure there's going to be a lot of exchanges and, and, and, and amendments, but it, it, it also talks about financial assistance for sporting events.

Clause 25 would give the Secretary of State the power to give financial assistance such as loans, grants, guarantees or indemnities to support a sporting event taking place in England for any purpose connected to or arising from such an event, and refers to Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland departments have the same power for events taking place in Scotland or Northern Ireland respectively. The government has stated that allowing financial assistance to be given for purposes connected to the sporting event would ensure it could be used for things such as legacy programmes, social impact initiatives, in addition to supporting the actual operational delivery of the sporting event.

And it seemed to me that whatever else we may argue about in this bill, and that is quite obvious, that there's going to be significant differences of opinion. I think the government's intention, quite frankly, are sound and and worthy. They're obviously going to be developed as the bill goes along. But for me, anything that gets young people involved in sport is is worthy of support.
19:37
Baroness Gill Portrait Baroness Gill (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, today marks a critical milestone in the preservation and elevation of our country's status elevation of our country's status as a leading host of major sporting events. We're embarking on a golden decade of sport, from the roar that will greet UEFA Euro 28 football championships to our ambitious bid for the 2035 FIFA Women's World Cup, and on to a potential 2040 bid for the North of England. This government is readying the United Kingdom to show the world that we are ultimate home of global sport.

For decades, this nation has welcomed global sporting fans with open arms, providing the stage for moments of historic athletic achievement that inspired generations. Promote healthy living and drive economic growth into our local communities. This Sporting Events Bill also directly delivers on the government's manifesto promise to bring these high profile international events to our shores by creating a permanent, streamlined framework. It signals to international sports bodies that the UK is permanently open for business, operationally secure and ready to build a legacy.

I warmly welcome that this bill explicitly puts fans first. If I may indulge your Lordships House, as I stand in this chamber today, I am struck by a profound sense of personal history. I rise today as I rose for the very first time in the European Parliament, back at the turn of the millennium, as a member of the Friends of Football Group. More than a quarter of a century ago, I stood up in Brussels to sound the alarm about ordinary football fans losing out from attending matches because of the opaque, predatory ticketing practices.

Because of that history, I'm heartened to see the mechanisms within this bill. Under clause one, the Secretary of State can designate qualifying events, unlocking the enforcement powers we desperately need. Most crucially, clause two sets up a robust UK wide criminal offense targeting the unauthorised resale of tickets. This is an essential step forward. We have all seen the grotesque excesses of the secondary black market during the 2022 Champions League final. Standard category tickets with a face value of £60 were being resold online for over £9,000.

A staggering 150 fold markup that completely locks out genuine and ordinary supporters. Even in our domestic games, tickets for regular Premier League final day fixtures routinely skyrocket by 1,000% on predatory secondary platforms within minutes of selling out. This is not a free market, it is an extortion. However, while I fully support the architecture of this bill, it is the duty in this House to think creatively and if we are to successfully enforce clause two, we must back it up with total market transparency.

At the primary point of sale. If we truly want to protect fans, they must know exactly what they are paying for. I must therefore press the Minister on some fundamental questions about transparency that this text currently omits. Why does this bill not explicitly mandate the original fixed face value price be permanently visible and immutably displayed on the face of every single digital and physical ticket issues for qualifying events? How can a fan easily spot an illegal secondary markup under clause two? If the baseline price is obscured behind a shifting digital platforms? And how can consumers make an informed choices when hidden platform fees, processing markups and shifting price points are obscured from view until the very final click? Why has the government admitted a ban on dynamic pricing, the corporate euphemism for legalised primary touting? As Lords, Mann and Basham have eloquently highlighted where prices skyrocket mid-transaction simply because a fan is waiting in an online queue.

My Lords, that brings me to a significant omission in the scope of this legislation. While it beautifully. Safeguards international tournament. It is a great pity that this bill does not extend its protections to our everyday domestic sporting fixtures or world renowned live music events. A fan being ripped off for a cup final or grassroots local derby deserves the same statutory shield as an executive sitting at Euro 2028 match. Similarly, a young music lover trying to buy a ticket to see their favourite band at local arena faces the exact same automated harvest bots and predatory pricing platforms, live music and domestic sport are the lifeblood of British culture, and leaving them exposed feels like a missed opportunity to create a truly comprehensive consumer protection standard.

So furthermore, while clause five provides necessary enforcement powers to local authorities and police to stamp out illicit trading, we must also connect these grand international events back to the communities that host them. A major tournament should not be an island of corporate wealth. The financial successes of these global events must directly feed down into our local youth clubs and grassroots sports facilities. As stressed by Baroness Paul and Dacres. I think our local clubs are where the next generation of athletic talent are discovered.

That is where healthy living is fostered and where community cohesion is built. I want to ensure that the regulatory framework we are debating today explicitly guarantees that a percentage of tournament revenues are funnelled directly into sustaining these vital community assets. My Lords, this bill has the potential to be a historic piece of legislation. It honours a vital commitment, cuts through needless red tape and guarantees our supporting future. I do not wish to delay this legislation, but I do want to urge the Minister to take another look at some of the specific areas that I mentioned earlier.

Let us work together to expand our horizons, think outside the box, and use this opportunity to shine a light on pricing transparency, protect the wider cultural economy, and ensure that local fans and grassroots communities remain the beating heart of British sport. I commend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this bill to the House. Before I make my comments in relation to the Bill. Can I firstly make 1 or 2 observations in relation to speeches that have been made earlier this evening? Firstly, I'd like to welcome back Lord I'd like to welcome back Lord Foulkes on behalf of the whole chamber. I think we are all very pleased to see him delivering a pleased to see him delivering a speech in his normal style, I think would be the best way to describe
19:46
Lord Hayward Portrait Lord Hayward (Conservative)
-
-
it. And I think Lord Lord would made reference to the fact that nothing could create 80% of a nation taking one view or another. I think there are occasions when referees decisions could achieve far more than 80% union, almost unanimity in relation to things. And I say that for those who are unaware of the fact that I was myself a rugby referee for many years. Can I also make the observation that Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson has probably introduced a new sport into the Olympic world, which is getting from one end of this chamber to the other via a division lobby, at a speed she said wasn't anywhere near what she used to achieve.

But I can assure you I was amazed because I watched her leave and then I. No sooner had she seemed to leave, but she returned almost immediately at the other end. I welcome this bill enormously because it is intended to enable people, organisations to come together to make bids for major sporting events, and I don't intend to repeat my comments that repeat comments that so many other people have made. We are proud of our sporting tradition. My noble friend Lord young made a comment in relation to a particular case, and I'm not in favour of woke policy and restricting people's observations.

I would merely make the observation that I am wearing the tie to make this evening of the world's first gay rugby club, and atmospheres generated in crowds in one form or another, reflect on a community, and I find it completely unsurprising that there is not one professional footballer who is out and gay because of much of what goes on in football stadium, credited as general banter. And I say that as somebody who is distinctly not woke coming to the the bill in general, I said that I support the bill, as do, I think everybody who has spoken, because it enables sporting events to be brought together.

Lord Barber made reference to the fact that he was present at the England Mexico match in 1966. I was also present at that game, along with two other young boys with my father. Sport is supposed to bring you together. The three boys persuaded my father to take us to the Mexico Games. It achieved a great degree of unanimity amongst the four males that watched that match. The only problem was that when we got home, we discovered that my father had forgotten that he was supposed to be hosting with my mother a dinner party on that occasion, sports certainly did not bring certain parts of my family together.

Sport is an international operation. I recognise people's loyalties in one form or another. The Bill is intended to clear certain barriers so that we can bid, but there is a serious risk in this bill, which has been identified by speakers from a number of from different benches in the chamber about overstretch, overreach will. Yes. OK, fine. Let's do this. Let's make it possible to have international events here. But international events are precisely that. They are indoors national and start trying to set down terminology in our legislation in this country achieves one thing.

And Lord, man made the point very, very forcibly. It frightens people away and they go and host events elsewhere. Don't try and do something because it sounds nice to ban touting when actually, as Lord man so ably identified much of the problem with ticket resale, for example, is actually outside our shores and exactly the same on the other direction as Lord Fuller's identified. And that is if you have blanket bans around stadia, it's a very risky process because it impacts on all sorts of small businesses who are there and operate very effectively.

Every time there is a major event. So as far as I'm concerned, the original objective of the legislation is absolutely clear. I support the questions that have been raised by Lord Basham and others as to why music events are not covered on the same basis as sporting events, because it makes sense, and I envisage that if it isn't done now, we'll be here debating a piece of legislation which will drag those areas into the same piece of regulation in some form or another.

But please do not try and overreach the piece of legislation because it sounds good, because it won't achieve what people want, because sporting events are international, they cannot be regulated into existence in this country. We need to do what we can to achieve the best for this country in terms of sporting occasions, but not go beyond that and frighten people off or say, well, we've done this and think that actually we haven't done anything at all because it's outside our capacity to regulate.

And one noble Baroness will have identified that I've not gone into one sphere, which I have a feeling that she's just about to. And that is the bid by Bolton, elsewhere for the Ryder Cup at a later stage, by which I don't think there's been any reference whatsoever during this debate, so I welcome the bill. But there are very grave risks associated with this, with the bill. If we try and overreach in one direction or another.
19:53
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Portrait Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I am tempted to follow what Lord was saying, but not quite what Lord was saying, but not quite in the way that he suggested. And I was tempted to follow up on what was tempted to follow up on what he'd said about referees, particularly in the Scottish context, not least because it was my Scottish team, Motherwell, that actually bore the brunt of some of the difficult decisions that were made. But I would just refer to the other point that Lord Hayward mentioned about the difficulty that footballers seem to have in coming out as gay, and I would suggest to Lord young that that is one of the reasons why we need banning orders, because there has been so much homophobia, as well as many other problems within football in recent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

years. Turning to the. Without wanting to defend in any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Without wanting to defend in any way the remark that our member made made in the heat of the moment, in made in the heat of the moment, in the context of an exchange of insults with a rival group of fans insults with a rival group of fans in which none of those other fans complained, none of them said or showed in any way that they were showed in any way that they were upset or offended by the remarks, absolutely no evidence that they were, in fact, gay.

They were just Chelsea fans. Do you nevertheless think, does the noble Lady nevertheless think that a five year banning order if he's convicted, involving draconian restrictions on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his liberty, is an appropriate, proportionate punishment? I know nothing of the detail of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know nothing of the detail of what was said, the circumstances or whatever, but I would say, who atten matches in many states have done matches in many states have done over many years, there are some very unpleasant things that happen. And we do need to have the ability And we do need to have the ability to have football banning orders where appropriate. Turning to the bill. Virtually everybody has welcomed it, and I do as well. I think it's necessary that we have as much power as we can to make sure that events such as Euro 2028 go well.

Many people have spoken about the importance of different sports sports generally to the economy, to societies, to the whole psyche of the country. And when I think about sporting events, because of my particular interest, I do, of course, think of football. Colleague members opposite are smiling because they've heard me talk about this on many occasions. It is important to my family and during the football season, I think that each of us looks at the football results and know which of our colleagues are going to be smiling on a Monday morning.

It's a very good test. I have to say that I am still smiling and I apologise to Lord Stoddart for mentioning this, but ten days ago I was at Wembley with my family when Bolton Wanderers won promotion to the Championship, and Baroness Morris and myself were comparing notes on this. Just a little while ago. Football is important and the preparations that are being made for Euro 28 are important. But there are some issues within this bill that other colleagues have raised that I think are worth just emphasising, because although we I think more or less all support the bill, there are aspects to it that we think perhaps could be tightened up and go a little further.

I will mention ticket touting, which has been mentioned by many others. I think there's been an impression that ticket touting is a serious series of one off events, whereas in fact it is actually an industry and a pretty big one. And my noble friend Lord Mount called it organised crime. So I think it's right to take action. I would ask the Minister if she is sure that the penalties are actually severe enough, given the nature of the people that we are talking about.

And like many others, I would like to see this applied to domestic competitions and to non-sporting events as well. This bill has been mentioned just as apply to international events. It means that we can't talk or amend it in ways that we might want to, to cover domestic situations, but I do think that we can learn from some of the problems that we have in domestic sporting events to try to make sure we get some of these things right.

And I do want to say a word about advertising, which has been mentioned. Advertising is not a straightforward issue, and it's not one that's completely in control of the government, because there are international contracts. FIFA, UEFA, any governing body will do their own deals on sponsorship and advertising. And then, of course, companies will spend a great deal of money and effort circumventing those restrictions. I do acknowledge that it's a complex problem, but I think that the government are actually thinking along the right lines here.

Over the recent years, we've had lots of changes and lots of dire warnings. What about what would happen if we ban certain types of sponsorship? I remember the discussions about football and tobacco, and I remember the threats that we were told existed when Formula One was forced to give up tobacco advertising. It was supposed to be the end of Formula One. It wasn't. But it is a really difficult issue because it is a very changing picture and a very different and challenging situation.

Baroness Bennett mentioned that next season in the Premier League there will it will not be allowed to have betting companies on the front of shirts. It's welcome. It's a small measure. It's probably because they feared something more draconian. But at the same time, some clubs are now saying, well, we'll have betting companies on the front of our training shirts, which are also very visible and seen by many people. And indeed, replicas are bought. And I mentioned that because not because it's covered by the bill, but it does illustrate the kind of changing nature of the challenge that is facing where, you know, it is a moving target.

And it's the same with gambling. We are soon to see prediction markets being regarded as products. And the Gambling Commission here in the UK has regarded prediction market as a betting intermediary. So it would be covered, but it's not classified as such in other countries. So again there is always going to be a problem on implementation. And the real challenge for the government and those who monitor sporting events. Now, the other issue that I want to raise is transport.

The bill enables the Secretary of State to direct someone to prepare a transport plan in connection with the sporting event. Very sensible. I welcome this and I wish we had it had such plans for more sporting events, especially domestically. But the Bill does seem to concentrate on roads. And, you know, we do need plans for roads, I'm sure, but I'm old enough to remember when there were cup final specials, trains which went from the towns that were playing in the Cup final.

Now, almost every big event at Wembley is marked by train travel problems. And indeed the match that I was at ten days ago, fans from Bolton had to be advised to make alternative arrangements because of the difficulty of getting to Wembley for one 1:00 on that particular Sunday, the day before, when the Championship play off was being held. There were no trains whatsoever from Middlesbrough to London, so therefore, again, no coordination, making it difficult.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understand, please, advocating. For the events that would fall within the ambit of this bill for a prevention of strike action, because I think that would be because I think that would be welcomed by many people to save the inconvenience that she mentions, and would actually do a lot to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and would actually do a lot to level the playing field. I think the noble member is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the noble member is barking up the wrong tree on this occasion. There were no strikes involved in those disruptions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for giving me, my lady. I was wondering whether you was advocating for Greater British

**** Possible New Speaker ****

advocating for Greater British Railway to unite the the railway umbrella? Well, I had.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I had. Thought of raising this issue with our noble friend Lord Hendy, who seems to be on top of all of who seems to be on top of all of those issues. I would just point out one other anomaly, despite the out one other anomaly, despite the time, if I may, because literally the biggest game in English women's football was held last week at Wembley, the Women's Cup final, and there was no service to Wembley on the line s line.

How ironic is that? So I, I welcome this Bill. I welcome its proposals. But please, can we have some domestic lessons that are learnt from this as well, and some domestic improvements, because there are many problems that are challenges them on the domestic front, as well as on the international.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, until the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, spoke, I was beginning to feel incredibly isolated in your Lordships chamber as a rugby fan. Only two of us have as a rugby fan. Only two of us have now mentioned rugby as a major sport. Can I begin by thanking the noble Lady, the Minister, for her excellent introduction to this very important Bill and for the praise
20:04
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
important Bill and for the praise that she gave to the important work of the late Tessa Jowell. It was, in fact, through her that I was able to join the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, as a member of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Board and as a noble Lord. Lord, man said long before 2012, a great deal of work had to be carried out to provide the necessary legislation, and so had we had the event agnostic common legislative framework that is proposed in this Bill already in place, much time would have been saved.

So while I want to propose a few additions, I fully support the bill as I do the proposal from my noble friend Baroness Bonham-Carter that international cultural events be included alongside sporting events and, like the noble Lady, Baroness Paul of Shepherd's Bush, I very much hope that the secondary legislation that will follow will lead to measures that are proportionate and so won't lead to situations like the 1 in 2012, when a butcher had to dismantle his window display with strings of sausages in the shape of the Olympic rings.

And 2012 also made me realise the vital importance of tackling ticket touting. It's an issue I've progressed in other places at different times and notwithstanding the important point about the international aspect of ticket touting, I'm genuinely pleased that the government is taking action on this, including within the bill. Now, I want to raise, if I may, just two issues, one that's been foreshadowed by the noble Lady, Baroness Bennett, on gambling, advertising and the other on sports rights, and I declare my interest as the chair of Peers for Gambling Reform and as a member of the all party group on Intellectual Property.

Now, my Lords, I genuinely believe that we should all be worried about living in a country with 1.4 million people, including 80,000 children, suffering suffering gambling disorder with individual lives destroyed, families and communities impacted and tragically, far too many gambling related suicides. And the noble Lady, the Minister is well aware of my concerns about gambling, advertising and its ubiquitous presence within sport. Time doesn't prevent me to detail all of my concerns, not least those about the impact on children and young people who are constantly being led to believe that the enjoyment of sport is closely linked to gambling on outcomes within sporting events.

Now, in this country, we have more research on the links between gambling, advertising and gambling harm than almost any other country, and that research shows gambling advertising leads people to start gambling, existing gamblers to gamble more, and those who stop gambling to start again. And this is especially relevant during major sporting events, when the volume of gambling, advertising and illegal black market gambling advertising grows massively, leading to increased gambling harm. And just this Monday, the Nationwide Building Society published research showing that 83% of 18 to 24 year old existing gamblers expect to gamble more during the World Cup, a quarter of them saying that they will do so to hopefully get more money to pay essential bills.

So what can be done? Section eight of the bill, which has been referred to already, enables the establishment of restricted advertising zones around designated sports events and regulation of what advertising activity may take place within those areas. But these provisions currently appear to primarily be intended to deal with ambush marketing and to protect official sponsors and commercial rights holders, but I believe this should go further. The noble Lady, Baroness Taylor, raises a concern about what the other international bodies say about this.

And of course, it's worth reflecting that the IOC has always maintained a strict clean venue policy that prohibits sports betting and gambling sponsorship associations with the Olympic and Paralympic Games. FIFA also has a similar clean venue policy for the men's World Cup and several other international sporting bodies have rules which allow domestic bans in host countries to supersede their own rules. So I hope the government will consider adopting a similar clean venue policy in the Bill so that no gambling advertising is allowed in the restricted advertising zones of the events covered by the Bill.

And additionally, if UK TV and radio coverage of such an event is by a commercial broadcaster, I hope the government will also consider banning gambling ads during transmissions, or at least until the watershed and many other countries Italy, Belgium, Australia, many others have adopted far more stringent safeguards where gambling, advertising and sport intersects, and I genuinely believe we should be doing the same. And if I can turn to the other issue of sports rights, in addition to the many other benefits that have already been referred to, the sports sector is now a major economic powerhouse for the UK.

And at a time when we need to promote growth, sports can help support that in many ways, from tourism to event management and so on. So it is vital that this bill ensures we have the best framework to support relevant sporting events. Now. The bill includes measures to ensure sports event organisers have the right to ensure that those seeking association with the event must have the correct permissions in place, and, in many cases, pay for that association. In most cases, this is easy to arrange and police, for example, spectators, broadcasters and sponsors all have clear conditions and payment arrangements.

However, despite the enormous profits that gambling companies make from bets on sporting events, with the exception of horse racing with its horse race betting levy, there is no explicit statutory requirement for gambling companies to pay sports organisations for betting rights, an issue that I hope separately from this bill, the government will consider to get round that many sports organisations do attempt to assert copyright and database rights over their fixtures and statistics, and gambling operators enter into voluntary commercial data agreements to purchase official data to ensure they have fast and accurate betting markets.

So, for example, data and I'll use football rather than rugby, since that's what everybody's talking about. Data from the English and Scottish Premier Leagues and the EFL is licensed through Football Data Co to Genius Sport, who then sell that data to other parties, including gambling companies. But unlike a specific sport, right, these are voluntary organised arrangements and they're much less easy to enforce. And indeed, enforcement is even harder when sports data is often scraped by third parties and sold to betting companies without the permission of the sporting event, who have little or no means of redress.

Now, the noble Lord Barber of Chittlehampton told us earlier that he's been the chairman of Somerset County Cricket club and speaking to me only on Monday, he told me about the efforts the club makes to prevent the activities of. In ground so-called data scouts who feed micro-level match data such as ball to ball outcomes to whoever will pay them, whether gambling companies or betting syndicates. More sophisticated operations also exist, especially as it happens in horse racing, where people are using drones to capture data, which they then sell without agreement from the organisers of the event.

Now, when this happens, there are potential integrity issues and certainly the sport event loses potential income. So in relation to association measures, will the noble Lady, the Minister, ensure that this is addressed in the Bill by firstly ensuring tough penalties to those who capture data without permission, and secondly, by requiring gambling companies to only use data licensed to them by official sources. I hope that can be extended more widely as well. This is a very welcome Bill. I'm delighted to support it.
20:13
Baroness Shah Portrait Baroness Shah (Labour)
-
-
My Lord, it's a pleasure to rise to speak today on this bill and listening to so many great contributions from noble Lords, including people I consider sporting legends. And I rise to sporting legends. And I rise to speak also, as someone who represents Wembley and live in Wembley, the home of football and more recently, rugby, American football and the Olympics, a place has been for over a century, sat at the intersection of sport, culture and community, which has been in that time which in that time has taught us everything we need to know about why legislation like this matters, and why getting it right is so important for the future of major sporting events in this country.

Now, let me begin with a confession. When you mention you represent Wembley or Brent, people assume you spend your time watching England triumph gloriously in the stadium. The reality is somewhat different. You spend time explaining to visitors that the Jubilee Line is in fact faster than driving, and that, no, they cannot park outside your house. But here's the thing that chaos that ensues, that wonderful, maddening, economically significant chaos, is exactly what this bill is designed to protect and nurture.

My Lords, before I turn to the economics and legislation, I hope the House will permit me a moment of sentiment. Because Wembley is not merely a stadium, it is the chapter of our national story, a chapter that belongs and proudly to the London borough of Brent. And it's precisely why. Of what Wembley represents to this country, to sport, to culture, that this Bill matters so much. And I'm sure everyone sitting here, our noble, noble Lords, will have their own Wembley memories, including going to Bolton and seeing them elevated up to the next league up in Brent.

We know what we have. We hold this treasure with enormous pride. Wembley is not just our local stadium, it is a global icon that happens to be in our neighbourhood. For a venue like Wembley to continue attracting the events that has made these moments popular, the UK needs to be able to offer international governing bodies something no amount of goodwill can alone. Alone can provide legal certainty, commercial protection and a framework that works. This is what this bill will deliver and why it matters.

In 2018, the Football Association commissioned Deloitte's Sports Business Group to assess the economic impact of Wembley Stadium events. Their findings, presented to us at Brent Council, show that the 58 events staged during the 20 1718 season resulted in a total economic impact to England over to of over £650 million and a direct economic impact to the borough itself of £150 million. These events supported over 8800 full time equivalent jobs in Brent and over 6000 across England as a whole.

Now multiply that across every every major international event in the UK that the UK could host and consider what is at stake if we fail to make ourselves competitive. Every event and that goes to another country rather than ours, is not just a mistake. It is missed jobs, missed investment, missed opportunities for communities like the one I call home. The bill before us today directly addresses that risk. For the first time, we should be able to say to FIFA, UEFA, the IOC and many others come here and the framework is already in place.

We are ready. But my Lords, in Brent, we've always been clear eyed about this. We value the treasure that Wembley represents and precisely because we value it, we recognise the responsibilities that come with it. A bill that protects the commercial interests of major, major events must also speak to the communities that host them. And I'm glad that provisions today help us create the foundations of exactly that. As a council. We understood that from early on, Wembley's importance demanded not just celebration, but active stewardship.

Brent developed deliberate, play specific policy to manage the reality of hosting global, a global venue in the heart of a residential borough. And central to that was the establishment of an event day zone. The clean zone provisions in this bill echo that approach at a national level, and that is to be welcomed. This bill creates important new tools, but tools require people to wield them. And I agree with my my my noble friend Baroness Paul, the provisions on clean zones, on trading restrictions and ticketing enforcement, all these depend on local authorities having the capacity and the powers and the funding to act.

The benefits of Wembley, though not not are not only counted in pounds and jobs, they are counted in children lacing up boots on a Saturday morning because they watched something extraordinary the night before. And this is where the bill's importance extends beyond commerce, because it is events like these that protect the very events that inspire the next generation. Every major event at Wembley has a ripple effect through grassroots football and sport. In our borough, participation surges. Girls teams form schools request coaches.

The fundamental aim of Wembley's regeneration during my tenure as regeneration lead, and which continues today, is to deliver jobs, housing and community schemes, making Wembley a fantastic place to live work for all its residents and visitors. That vision not only only works if the stadium and community genuinely face each other. If outreach is real, if local young people see themselves in the sport that surrounds them, and if the high street on event days is a place of opportunity rather than disorder.

In Brent, we worked hard to make that case. The increased trade on local high streets on event days, when managed well, is meaningful for small business. My Lords, in July 2022, 87,000 people packed into Wembley to watch England's Lionesses beat Germany in the world in the women's Euro finals. That note that noise that night could unreliably inform be heard in Harrow, possibly Milton Keynes and maybe even coming from our own household, that moment did not just win a trophy, it transformed a sport and the momentum continues to build in participation in attendance and aspiration.

Young girls who've never been offered a football. Now playing organised leagues across Brent and beyond. The women's Euro 2020 final 2022 final at Wembley was, by design, an accessible event, according to UEFA's official ticketing ticketing announcement. Maximum face value for final ticket was £50, with over half a million tickets across the tournament priced at £25 or less, and a family of four were able to attend as little as £30. This was a deliberate, principled decision to make the Lionesses greatest moment reachable for ordinary families.

The UK has an extraordinary offer to make the world of sport world class venues, passionate fans, unmarked and unmatched heritage and community like the one I represent represented they have demonstrated for over a century what it means to host events of global significance with pride and professionalism. This bill gives us a legal framework to match that offer. Wembley is many things. It is a global icon. It is a community asset. It is uncertain. Saturdays an extremely good reason to avoid the North Circular.

But above all, across 100 years in its original form and its current one, it is proof of what making sport. What

**** Possible New Speaker ****

major sporting events can do for a place economically, socially, Culturally. And in shaping aspirations. This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And in shaping aspirations. This bill creates a framework that Wembley and every future host community deserves. It will ensure community deserves. It will ensure that events of that magnitude keep coming to the UK for when they for when they do, they're protected and properly managed that their benefits are truly shared. For those reasons, and with the experience of Wembley behind me, experience of Wembley behind me, not only do I invite noble Lords to come and visit Wembley, and not just during championships, because Wembley's regeneration is fantastic, I commend this Bill to the House wholeheartedly.
20:21
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, when it comes to being part of the wind up on a bill like part of the wind up on a bill like this, you're trying to look at some of the central themes and the fact I think it was with one, maybe two exceptions, people are in favour of this bill because anybody who did many of these bills, we've talked about the Olympics when they are, or the Commonwealth Games bills, there's a great deal of what happens there that has to be repeated, at least in principle every time.

It may mean quite exciting to do it once, but I can. That's probably enough for one lifetime. So we're going through. So it is a good thing. It is such a good thing that most of us are looking at it and saying, why doesn't it apply to a wee bit more? Now the government, the Baroness, will probably undoubtedly be up for this challenge, but saying, why is this limitation? It's quite an important thing that has to happen today.

Why are we doing here? Why aren't we bringing cultural events? Why aren't any of the big regular events used? Transport is the one that really gets me, and I don't know if it's about the gritty fullness of the experience at Twickenham. If you've ever tried to get out on a late train out of London from there, I can tell you they need some planning on that place. I'll ignore the burger. I was once foolish enough to try to eat in the weigh in.

Now, my Lords, if we are going through going to look at this properly, we have to look at it in the round. And this bill is definitely one that's written for the current world of big international sporting events. They are funded by big sponsorship deals and many of the provisions. We've got a little list in and it's partly clause one, subsection two. It runs down A, B, C, D, E, B, C, and D are all about the preservation of rights sponsorship.

What's going on now? These are the things when we did those bills for the Commonwealth Games and for the Olympics, where we got the absurdities, my noble friend Lord foster did with his usual thing of picking out a particularly good one, a little absurdity about sausages being thrown and rings, and you'd have got quite creative with the odd pudding in there, black or red and things like that. You could have done quite a lot with that. But I remember when we did actually look at the Olympics bill, I think it was it was the Olympic kebab shop that was operating somewhere down in the East End that was objecting to being removed.

I think it was servicing about the staff from three scrapyards that were about to get destroyed. But anyway, it doesn't really matter. But there were always these little things going on, and little local communities always feel hard done by. I would hope at the very least, we can put in something into this bill that says, you have a duty to explain how this happens whenever you get to the to the affected group, or great or put greater emphasis on that because it is an irritation, one that we can probably do without having again and again.

And if a little bit of compensation is required for one of these big sponsorship deals, I can't see why not. So let's have a look at that. And the next thing that comes up we're talking about championships here. Championships are different from games because your teams aren't all based in the same place, and your teams and your participating athletes for a games are going to be by by design should be in one place, a village. We don't have anything about infrastructure planning on that scale here in this bill.

And then one half of all the all the half of the organisations. I say this with a degree of temerity, because I realise the people who have experienced living in villages are in this chamber today, and I'm still breathing, so I can't have done too much wrong. But how do you put them together? And the thing is, in this country, we have an excellent experience of it. We have the magnificent planning process. I always feel that for the Olympic Games, which was something I think half the bid was about getting that structure in place and planning for what might happen and doing it really well.

That raised the bar. I remember disability access was brilliant because I think it was mainly in the Lords. We did this, we sat down, we made sure everything was as good as it could be. Indeed, we had a Minister saying, I can do no more. I've given you everything you want. That was in the Moses room. I hope that we can actually look at what is required for that. And then we have the other example, which was probably Birmingham stepping over the last minute when they actually created a village out of student accommodation, which was refurbished for the day and then went back to being student accommodation.

We've done it both ways. There's examples of Glasgow haven't been involved in that, but when you have a village and when you don't have the village, the cutting down on the number of events that goes on already made village, for instance, rugby sevens isn't in the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow this time because you can't afford the teams. Fortunately, they've kept the one team team that sport that really needs it as its big showcase and that's netball. But I hope that we can actually have a look at putting something to give you that infrastructure, which actually can be part of legacy we go through.

I hope we look at it to make sure this really does work. Now, when it comes to the thorny side of things like ticketing and ticket touting, which we are having a great deal of fun with today. Indeed, we started out at at oral questions today on the subject about the problems of America and its models for the current World Cup, which is relying in legal challenge from their own internal states over this. So I hope we don't get too enthusiastic about this model.

I hope that FIFA actually does learn. I hope that we can make sure we have a process that means that people know what they're buying. Because remember in the States, what have we got out of this? We've got empty hotels because people can't afford it to get their. This means that some of the benefits from the economic benefits aren't going to be available to those potentially. So I hope we have a good, long, hard look at this and make sure that we actually get something.

That means when people know they can buy it, they can spend it, or they can spend, they can spend on travel on on, on nights out, etc. and it's not some sort of hairshirt event. I went there, spent, slept in the airport and got back because if we do that one, you won't get as many people going to the economic benefits to the community are in are going to be far less. So let's make sure and have a look at this and look at it in the round.

Also, my Lords, one of the things that we learnt from London was the one thing we didn't do there was encourage more people to play sport. It was the big failure. It was the only real failure, but it was the one that we had. People were be inspired by watching, you know, people get used to watching very good sport on TV. You do that, you encourage people to play by creating events around it, getting people involved, especially young people creating the habit of being involved in sport, particularly sport outside the educational establishment.

That is the way to keep people involved. We have we have many times we've proven, I would hope, that we can look at where we encourage that to happen, and we encourage it to happen through local organisations, to the local sports clubs, to the events that are taking place and or people where they're watching it. It is a something which goes with the education programme and going on here, but we look at it and we make sure we involve and encourage.

You don't do it just by flicking on a TV screen. We've proven that. So. Looking down at the other things I was going to have a look at, I think everything has been covered by everybody else, and there is always a tendency here. When you get down, you've got a little bit more time. You merely go through all the points that were made and praise everybody. But that's the minister's job and not mine. So, my Lords, I will finish by saying this.

There is a great deal of enthusiasm for the basic principle, but there are a couple of big questions that come here, and the Minister has referred to the fact that we're going to do this is a part start of a process, and other things are going to happen. And culture, if we're not going to do it here, where are we going to do it? What is the framework for this indeed? Let's let's be brave. Let's ask for a timescale that isn't soon or possibly in the near future, because the questions that are coming down here about the cultural activity, what are we doing about domestic events? Are we going to learn from this? Are we going to take some of them on really need to happen? And also, my Lords, will we get a better definition? I think the noble Lord man raises sorry about this, about what is an international sporting event? Is it something we bid for? Because he did raise one thing that I had actually overheard another one of his colleagues talking about in the House and said, I must raise that rugby league World Cup.

It happens fairly frequently here, but hope. But surely that is something which is big enough and has enough nations getting involved to be involved in. If it's not, we need to know. Because if the benefit is very small and very, shall we say, potentially never happening, because you can get outbid for anything you can bid for. We're in a strong position at the moment. Somebody else might get better at it, but will it apply to everything we're doing here that has an international element in it? If it's not going to be the regular happening events, we need to know about these things.

But the very few bills I have been involved in this House have had this degree of a wind behind them to actually achieve. We wish this well. We wish the aims well, but I hope the government will be flexible enough and confident enough to accept constructive criticism for what it is. We want this to work. Let's see if we can make it a little better and make it work just that little bit better as well.
20:32
Lord Markham Portrait Lord Markham (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. >> So as others have said, it's also a privilege for me to get up and speak after such a August and speak after such a August gathering of former Olympians, sporting legends, relatives, flying Fuller's and of course, a pleasure to have Lord Foulkes back in making his points in his indomitable style. It really is the Lords at its best, and well, we talk about the Lords at the best. I have to add that we saw more sporting legends being created last night in the the parliamentary tug of war where.

Where two Baronesses in the chamber today, Baroness Davis and Shaw were winners against the. The House of Commons MPs. So if ever there was a bid and it's been talked much talked today about other sporting events should be included. I think we saw another one last night that should be included in this in this legislation, my Lords, as as many have said, sport has been central to our national story football, rugby, cricket, tennis, golf, squash, darts, snooker, the list goes on.

These were all invented in the UK. We built Wimbledon, Twickenham, Lord's and Wembley. Cathedrals of competition, places where human spirit is tested and celebrated in equal measure. From Roger Bannister breaking the four minute mile on a track in Oxford to the golden summer of 2012 and London showed the world how to host the games with grace and greatness. This nation has a sporting tradition that is the envy of the world. It is precisely because we cherish that tradition that we must get this legislation right, and it is in this spirit that the opposition will approach the bill like everyone else in, in in the House and the chamber today.

We also support the purpose of this bill. We recognise that many of the provisions stem from requirements put in place by UEFA, FIFA, the IOC and other governing bodies. But while supporting the. The intention of the Bill, the final destination, like others like Lord man like Lord Hayward, we do have concerns about the chosen route to get there. My Lords, the most fundamental concern is that this is a skeleton legislation and I understand the intention behind having such a framework.

But there are many questions that we don't know as as others have mentioned, there are. The bill does not tell us which sporting events will be designated. We have broad criteria, but we don't have the full details. We know the government has at least two events in mind the euros in 28 and the bid to host the FIFA Women's World Cup in 2035, but we do not know which other events might be included in the future. As Lord Addington mentioned, the Men's Rugby League World Cup and I will say as a rugby supporter as well to Lord Foster and Howard and of course, Lord Addington, you know, the the Rugby League Cup World Cup has been hosted seven times in the UK.

The the Rugby Union World Cup has been hosted quite a few times and will be in the future. That is a frequent, regularly occurring event which Definitionally would be ruled out by by by this. But I think we would all say these are major events that we want to be included in this, and we want the UK to be bidding for Cricket World Cups. Another example, even if it does expose us to be being being beaten by the Germans, as Lord Barber said as as Baroness Evans, Baroness Nye, Lord wood, Lord Addington set out.

There are also concerns about those sporting sectors and cultural events that will not be covered by the bill. Wimbledon, the open, the British Grand Prix, to name just a few. Why does the government not believe that they should not receive the. The protections that we've seen from ambush marketing. For example, the bill states that the event must be of significant international interest and gives a few examples, but it does not set out clearly how these tests will be applied in practice.

How large will an event have to be to be considered? How many spectators and visitors will be required, or how will the government determine the scale and reputation of an event? These are all questions that need answering. Nor do we have an idea about the length of time the regulations could be applied for, and the scope and the size of possible event zones, or the exceptions to the advertising and trading offences. Much of these crucial details will be left entirely to Ministers.

Despite the concerns set out by many on the impact to local traders. As mentioned by Lord Fowler and Lord young, amongst others, a future Secretary of State could designate events that Parliament never contemplated when passing this legislation. We are writing a blank cheque and trusting future governments of whatever complexion to fill in the. To fill the amount responsibly. That may be an act of faith, but is not an act of scrutiny. And as we all know, scrutiny is what we Lords do best.

The current approach is to pass bespoke legislation when needed, such as the London Olympic Games and Paralympics Act in 2006, UEFA European Championship and Scotland at the Birmingham Commonwealth Games. There are many benefits to this. It allows for greater specificity legislation that mirrors the unique requirements of the event and, crucially, means the Parliament can better scrutinise the government's intentions. There is a risk that this phrase vague framework will not be specific enough for individual events, meaning that additional provisions may very well or almost definitely be needed to be made for those future events.

But as explained by Lord Mann, when when this happens, what scrutiny will be in place in those. So we will be when it comes to committee, we will be tabling amendments to probe and clarify the scope and scale of those powers. For example, the UEFA European Championship Act 2020 contained a specific exemption from the ticketing talc talc offence for charitable auctions, recognising that legitimate charitable activity is categorically, categorically different from commercial touting for profit. Also, again, as Lord Fuller and Lord wood set out, there are legitimate fan to fan ticket exchanges that should be considered and actually add to the access available for spectators to go and see the game.

This bill contains no such provisions. Indeed, every exception is left to the Secretary of State to specify in regulations that is an unsatisfactory arrangement. Parliament should not leave to regulations where it can and should right into the Bill itself. We will be pressing for the possible exemptions, particularly a charitable exception to be included on the face of the bill. But I was also taken very much by Baroness Davis's points about the importance of free to air TV coverage in in these events as well.

Also, my Lords, there is a notable absence of any time limit on the duration of regulations implementing this framework. Once a designation is made and regulations are laid, Ministers may keep them in place for as long as they see fit. This is novel. Section 16 of the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act states that trading offences could only begin 21 days before the games began, and must then, five days after the games ended, the Euro 2020 act stated the provisions could only be enforced from the 1st of June to the 12th of July.

So we would suggest that the government considers a maximum time limit for the regulations to be effective, to ensure that this restrictions put in place are not in place unnecessarily. Many Lords have mentioned actually the richness of the event. When you go and see it, about seeing a lot of the local traders. To Baroness Shea, I had well, I say the privilege, but Chelsea lost. But I had the dubious privilege of going to the FA Cup final the other day and thoroughly enjoyed drowning my sorrows afterwards with my family in many of the fine establishments around the area.

That added to the richness of the experience for me. So we need to think carefully about making sure that that richness can be can be included, or if it is ruled out, it's for the minimum amount of time really necessary to fit in with the requirements. The IOC and other bodies. My Lords, we must also be cognisant of the impact of large sporting events on local communities. Of course, they bring enormous benefits, but there are also costs. Competition organisers and local authorities should only be duty bound to ensure full clean up responsibilities are put in place when major sporting events are held.

We will also explore that when it comes to committee. Also, we cannot consider legislation designed to attract and support major international sporting events without addressing the economic background, the backdrop against which arise, as set out by Baroness Evans, the government asks us to believe that Britain remains an irresistible destination for the world's greatest sporting occasions, and so it should be. But the organisation's organisers of international events make choices and they make them based on costs high levels of taxation, employment Rights Act that has imposed new and significant burdens on employers and national insurance increase that functions as a direct tax on jobs and a substantial increase in the minimum wage are real costs that have to be borne by businesses, including the event companies, the hospitality sector, the security firms and the thousands of workers in the supply chain that make major sporting event function.

Britain's attraction as a host depends not only on our sporting heritage and our infrastructure, but on the commercial viability of operating here. The government cannot simultaneously proclaim that this bill as a statement of ambition for British sport and pursue policies that make Britain a more expensive and more regulated place to do business. These two are in tension, and the Ministers have to explain how they intend to resolve it. And finally, as as many law noble Lords have mentioned, we must address the question of scrutiny regulations.

Implementing this framework will use the affirmative procedure, but only for the first time. Any subsequent regulations amending or extending the regime will use the negative procedures. In other words, Parliament will scrutinise the framework once and after that, Ministers can modify it with no requirement for approval. Your Lordships will know that this is significantly weaker arrangement than was provided for the Olympic Games Act in 2006, which required the affirmative procedure for all such regulations. There is no principle reason why the standard should be lower for this bill than it was for that previous legislation.

If regulations are significant enough to require parliamentary approval, once they remain significant enough to require a. Subsequently. My Lords, this Bill, at its heart is about protecting fans, maintaining the integrity of access to the events and giving our country the best chance of winning those rights to hold those competitions. On these aims. The opposition is united with the government, but good intentions do not excuse the need for proper scrutiny. We owe it to the fans in the stands.

The charity is seeking to raise funds and the businesses that make these great occasions possible. To get the details right, we will work constructively in committee to improve the bill. I look forward to the debates ahead.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to all noble Lords for sharing such well considered views. I agree with my noble friend views. I agree with my noble friend Lord Wood of Anfield that it's an honour to speak in a debate with so many sporting stars, a point made many sporting stars, a point made by several others, today's debate has shown the knowledge and passion in your Lordships House for hosting in your Lordships House for hosting major sporting events in the UK, and recognising the many benefits and recognising the many benefits they bring, not least including my noble friend Baroness Sha, who spoke passionately about Wembley and the benefits that brings to Brent and the surrounding area.

These can be transformative, as my noble friend Lord Barker. Barker sorry, I can't even read my own writing. Barber yes, thank you, as I know that doesn't really look that huge. Apologies of Chittlehampton said, albeit unlike
20:45
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
him, I wasn't alive to see England in the World Cup in 1966, and I think noble Lord, Lord Heywood mentioned he was there as well as the noble Lord. Lord Rogan said sport can and does bridge divides. And as my noble friend Baroness And as my noble friend Baroness Paula Shepherd's Bush said, it's not a small. It is a small but mighty bill which will establish a mighty bill which will establish a framework that enables certain sporting events. And I'll come on to a bit more definition about 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 says, having a framework is a good thing. We have also, as noble Lords be aware, taken a UK wide approach, working closely with the devolved government. Our response as many of the questions and points raised as I can and where I can't. I write to noble Lords and place a copy in the library. I'm also very 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 wanted to recap the scope in order of the bill, and to remind noble Lords that in the context of this bill, an event must meet each of the three conditions set out on the face of the Bill. This legislation is designed to enhance our ability to attract those one off bid for sporting events, which move from host to host, such as the euros, Olympics and Paralympic Games. And, I'm sure, to the delight of my noble friend Baroness Nye, I think there were other golf fans as well.

The Ryder Cup, the noble Lady, Baroness Grey-Thompson, also asked about the impact the Bill could have on events such as the tour de France, which cross borders. The legislation has been specifically designed to enhance our ability to attract those one off bids for those sporting events which move from host to host. This includes those which cross borders as well as those where the event is held wholly or partly in the UK. Also, in response to the noble Lady, Baroness Gray Thompson, without wanting to pre-empt the outcome of the initial assessment being carried out by UK sport, which is an early stage of consideration.

In response to the noble Lords question about what is meant by the North, I wanted to reassure the noble Lady and this House that UK sport is engaging across the north of England in in particular, a number of UK competitor nations such as Australia, New Zealand and France have comparable legislation and 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 host hosting rights.

Recently. For example, France has secured and hosted the men's Rugby World Cup in 2023 and men's Rugby World Cup in 2023 and the Olympics in 2024. In defence of the framework approach, which I think Lord Lord Fuller questioned, but was also questioned to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Markham. We're clear that this is the right approach. We think it's a forward looking framework designed to attract the best sporting events for years to come. We don't know in advance the relevant event specific details, such as dates and places, and what exceptions might be proportionate for that event.

And so these event specific operational details will be set out in the regulations provisions to the event. Our guiding principle has always been to fix as much policy detail on the face of the Bill as possible, and to limit secondary legislation to adding event specific details in relation to the definition of major and mega events and bid transparency, which was raised particularly by the noble Lady, Baroness Gray Thompson and the noble Lady, Baroness Bonham-Carter, in relation to the question of what is a major 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 mega sporting events at a UK level, and provides definitions of mega and major events, and I can make sure a link to that document is sent through to.

The relevant noble Lords in relation to delegated powers and how they're going to be applied, or whether they're justified and proportionate raised, among others, by my noble friend Baroness Paul, my noble friend Baroness Dacres, and my noble friend Lord Wood of Anfield, and concerns raised about this as well by the noble Lord, Lord Markham. The delegated powers in the bill are tightly drafted. We fix as much policy, as I said, on the 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 event to which the provisions being applied. And I have no doubt we will come back to that in committee. The noble Lady, Baroness Bonham-Carter, made a clear point about the role of culture in May, alongside major sporting events and the role of cultural events. And if I use the example of London 2012, it clearly showed the UK at its best, both in terms of sporting events but also in terms of the wider cultural offer.

And I think the noble Lady, Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, also highlighted that I won't go through the details of my glowing comments around the event, because I think those were covered in relation to the noble Lady. Baroness Bonham Carter's question 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 doesn't define a sporting event, but does make it clear this excludes any opening or closing ceremony regulations, applying the bill's provision to sporting events to specify events which should be treated as forming part of the event where they are held in connection with the event.

So that would bring in scope cultural events officially connected to a sporting event such as the 2012 Cultural Olympiad. I'd like to thank a number of noble Lords from across your Lordships House, not least the noble Lady, Baroness Gray Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for their track record of working over many years to support the UK's efforts to win bids. The noble Lady raised the important point of legacy programs. We work closely with our partners to maximise the potential of sporting events, leaving behind positive legacies, inspiring the next generation of talent while promoting exercise and healthy living.

I hadn't noticed the acronym that was drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, but I agree with him. It's probably appropriate. So many Lords mentioned secondary ticketing that I am not going to list all noble Lords concerned, but it is clear that this is a understandably of great interest to your Lordships House. I wanted to reassure noble Lords that this government is fully committed to addressing ticket touting and issues with secondary ticketing ticketing market the market which prevents so many people attending events, as my noble friend Baroness Gill said, and I agree with her that predatory is an appropriate term.

And as my noble friend Lord Mann and my noble friend Baroness Taylor said, this is often involving organised crime. However, this is not the right legislative vehicle for all wider secondary ticketing reforms. The time limited ticketing messaging measures will ensure that tickets can only be resold with authorisation from the event owner or organiser, satisfying the requirements of event owners. In response to the point raised by the noble Lord Young of Acton. We do not intend for the offence in this Bill to be offences 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 genuine fans can resell their tickets safely and securely, and recoup their costs when they can no longer attend a live event. This government is committed to ensuring the UK is an excellent host and partner. I do not recognise the negative portrayal made by the noble Lord, Lord Markham of of how he portrayed quite an unattractive picture of the UK as a as a destination for sporting events and I don't recognise that we will meet our commitments while protecting the interests of our fans.

We. We are a country that is open to. For business and open for sporting events. Going back to the point about transfer of tickets to friends and families, I want to reassure noble Lords that we're not criminalising the private transfer of tickets between friends, family and associates at face value. I'll now move to the topic of recurring sport.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The bill has worded does do that because it requires the permission because it requires the permission of the initial seller to do so, and if the initial seller refuses to allow that to happen and requires the tickets to be returned to them, which is an increasing trend, as the bill is currently worded, it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the bill is currently worded, it does do that, and that perhaps should be looked at. I think maybe we can come back

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think maybe we can come back to that at committee. We don't think it does. I think it's more like the normal practice of people reselling them through which I've done with, I won't mention the brand of of theatre, but I regularly sort of end up not being able to attend theatres. I don't know whether the chief Whip's got anything to do with that, but it is possible to resell tickets through a variety of means without sort of being prohibited by that.

But we'll come back to that in terms of the topic of recurrent sporting events, I think this is also something we're going to need to come back to, and I'm happy to talk to people about it individually. The noble Lady, Baroness Evans of both parks and my noble friend Lord Foulkes, who I'm delighted, like others back in his place, raised this, as did the. My noble friend Lord Basham, and the noble Lord, Lord Markham. The time limited provisions in this 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. Just to reassure noble Lords, 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 this did include the London Marathon. There was some interest, understandably, in the advertising and trading provisions, and I'd agree with the noble Lady, Baroness Evans, about some of the issues faced by people about ambush marketing.

But what we didn't find was that there was clear or consistent evidence base for their inclusion and 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. But I am very happy to meet the noble Lady to discuss that further, and I'll ask my office to sort that out. We'll continue to support our domestic sport sector and the UK sporting calendar, building on pre-existing relationships and frameworks.

The noble Lady, Baroness Bonham-Carter, asked around and I think a couple of other people also apologies. A couple of other noble Lords also noted the work being done on a UK wide major event strategy, which my Department intends to publish within the next 12 months. And apologies, I'm not able to give a more precise timeline on that. This will set out our priorities for major events taking place across the UK, covering major events in all sectors cultural, sporting and business.

Like others, I'm 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, and it's absolutely right about the need to make sure that our major events remain inclusive. We intend for the major event strategy to support this work, but again, I'm very happy to talk to the noble Lord in more detail about that. I think the noble Lord, Lord Heywood, in his contribution in the noble Lords contribution, talked around the.

I find it really sad that gay male footballers don't feel able to. To be honest and open about that. So I'd also like to welcome the noble Lords observation about whether young gay men would feel able to play professional football. We welcome the great strides in the environment, inclusiveness at football matches over many years, but acknowledge that we can't be complacent in ensuring that our national game is for everyone. The noble Lady, Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, made a point around the Soft Power Council.

It has met multiple times and its working groups have actively contributed to activity across a range of areas, and we look forward to this continuing over the years and months to come. In terms of the points, I think alluding to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, we recognise that financial landscape for delivering major events across country can be challenging, and we are committed to working with stakeholders from every sector to ensure events are safe, secure and sustainable and attractive.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is right about our need to ensure our major events are inclusive and affordable, so I've already made that point. The affordability point. I don't think we've covered a point also made by the noble Lady, Baroness Davis, and my noble friend Baroness Dacres. We do anticipate that this be included as well in the major events strategy. We aren't clear, though, that we need to legislate in this bill on that point, but I do look forward to further discussion on this as the bill progresses.

There's 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 don't think this will prevent customers from place on cashing out on bets on gambling mobile apps while they are in restricted trading zones. Appreciating that, my noble friend Baroness Taylor of Bolton and the noble Lord, Lord foster, both raised concerns more widely about gambling with a less permissive. Tone. Outside of this bill, there are existing measures to limit gambling advertising at sporting venues.

We've also announced our intention to consult this year on the banning of sports sponsorship by unlicensed gambling operators. I do not share the noble Lady, Baroness Bennett, skepticism of the front of shirt ban. I think it's significant, although in response to my noble friend Baroness Taylor's point, I. I don't think it's a it's a it's a panacea. However, as a noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath is already aware, the government doesn't have an intention of banning gambling advertising at this time.

As ever, I'd be very happy to discuss this topic further with the noble Lord and any other interested other noble Lords from across the House. Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Lord, Lord Heywood, have raised how these provisions will affect small businesses and street traders. The traders. The government will always look to ensure that the Bill's provisions are implemented proportionately, with a view to minimising disruption on existing businesses, in particular street traders. My Lords, we also fully recognise that people need support in understanding whether they're impacted by the advertising trading provisions and if that is the case, what options are available to them.

In response to the noble Lord? Lord Addington's point on making or 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 this as shared with the. We will able to require that this is shared with those most likely to be affected, such as street traders on unauthorised associations. These aren't intended to crack down on local businesses showing their support for major events or.

The example was given of A, B and B. The prohibition only applies to activity. That's likely to suggest the public that there is an official association with an event. By this, we mean that there's a realistic chance that everyday members of the public will consider that such an association exists. If I I'm coming to the end, and I do want to talk about proportionate enforcement, because I think noble Lords were concerned about it. The focus of the bill is 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.

So, as with the Birmingham Commonwealth Games, we will work with event organisers and local authorities to ensure enforcement action is proportionate. We think that the enforcement powers in the Bill will provide a sufficient deterrent, while ensuring effective action can be taken when needed. I'm going to write to my noble friend Baroness Nye's another, on the way in which we could increase the fine, and I'm going to also write to my noble friend, Baroness Taylor noble Lord Addington, on the transport plan.

Noble Baroness Evans, I'm definitely going to write to you on the Finance Act, because I do not have that detail to hand, and I will need to write to Baroness Bennett on her point around sponsorship and fossil fuels. My Lords, the provisions in this Bill will further reinforce our world leading reputation for hosting major sporting events, and with it, we think we're 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 noble Lord Lord Wood's point on timings for the Committee stage, I have to say that such matters are dealt with through the usual channels, but you can always talk to the Chief Whip. I'm grateful to all noble Lords for a varied and interesting debate. I urge all noble Lords to support this Bill, and I beg to move. The question is that this bill be now read a second time, as many of our opinion will say, content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it.

I beg to move the commitment motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The question is that this motion be agreed to, as many of the opinion will say, content. The contrary not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the House will now adjourn.
14:30
None Portrait Oral questions: Cabinet Manual: guidelines for government formation in the event of no Commons majority for a single party Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page