Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments standing in my name in this group are ones I have tabled before and, in tabling them again, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, showing that I am the chairman of both Peers for Gambling Reform and the charity Action on Gambling.

I have brought these two groups of amendments back today because I had a very useful meeting with the Minister, for which I am grateful, and I was able to explain in a little more detail their purpose. This is an opportunity to see if the Minister has decided whether the Government may, in one form or another, be rather more supportive of those amendments.

As I say, I have two groups of amendments. One relates to the need, I believe, to ensure that all sporting venues where the activities covered by this Bill take place are clear of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship. I will not rehearse all the arguments I have used before; suffice it to say that many major international sporting bodies believe it is the right thing to do. That is what is happening currently with the World Cup, as FIFA does not allow advertising in its stadia. The same is true for the Olympics, the Paralympics and many others. The organisations firmly believe that, among many other reasons, it would be wrong in particular to allow children to grow up believing that the only way you can enjoy a sporting event is by participating in betting on it.

I genuinely believe this is something we should be adopting for all sporting activities in this country, and certainly for international sporting events, on which a lot of gambling ends up taking place. Even though FIFA does not have advertising in the various venues, worldwide, gambling on the games currently taking place is believed to total half a trillion dollars—and that is just the World Cup. Gambling is very big business and it causes a great deal of harm to children and many other people. Tomorrow, the Gambling Commission will be publishing statistics, and we will be able to see how big that problem is in this country.

The second group of amendments relates to the unlicensed use of sports data. Sports data is increasingly valuable. Sports clubs use it to help with their training practices and so on, but it is also very useful for gambling organisations and, indeed, gambling syndicates that are trying to get money off the gambling companies. At the moment, sporting bodies enter into voluntary agreements with various companies that choose to do this work, allow those companies to collect the data and then, through licences, sell it on to other bodies, including gambling companies. That brings them in quite a lot of money. Unfortunately, those licences are currently very difficult to police, and there are all sorts of difficulties with taking action against people who act illegally or use unlicensed data.

This is a very big issue. I have in front of me a printout of a gambling website called LSports. LSports is not licensed to use data from this country, and yet it does. Indeed, it claims to cover 100 different sports, 3 million different fixtures in 15,000 leagues and 2,500 markets around the world. These people illegally—or at least, without a licence—use data which they claim in their advertisements is used by companies in this country such as Sky Bet and Betfred. I am deeply worried that these organisations are scraping data—denying money coming into sports organisations in this country—to feed into gambling companies that use it for all sort of purposes. Even more worrying is that in all their feeds, they include advertisements for illegal gambling websites: ones in this country and others that can be accessed around the world. This includes the largest illegal website in the world, 1XBET, which is supported by the Putin regime and helps fund it. We should not be supporting opportunities like that.

I turn to something even worse, and which is deeply worrying. I have another set of printouts, concerning a company that provides livestreams of major sporting events, including the current World Cup. The live feeds it provides to people, who choose for a variety of reason to get coverage of those events on its feeds, are absolutely full of illegal gambling websites.

The Minister is rightly desperately keen to do something about illegal gambling. I want to do so too, but I also want to do something about the harm that gambling in this country causes. The solution is very simple, and that is what my amendment effectively provides. It says that we should make it illegal for anybody to use the data from companies if they do not have a licence; it is a very simple solution that would make it much easier to bring prosecutions against people who do not have one.

So, I have two groups of amendments: one would make venues gambling advertisement free, and the second would stop people being able to use sports data without a licence. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I thought those were very interesting amendments. I am sorry that I had not read them, but they are interesting and worth considering by the Government.

I want to speak to Amendment 21. I begin by thanking Freddie Daley, whose work with Cool Down and Badvertising has helped to shape this amendment. His research has highlighted the growing tension between local fossil-fuel advertising bans and major sporting events. I know that the Government are not proposing a national ban on fossil-fuel advertising, even though I think they ought to. However, that argument was rejected in Committee and I am not trying to reopen that debate.

This amendment takes a different approach. It is saying that, where a host city or local authority has adopted climate, environmental or advertising policies that restrict fossil-fuel advertising, major sporting events should respect those policies. After all, the Bill is about creating a framework for hosting major sporting events. It should not become a way to bypass decisions that have already been made by local authorities.

We have a very useful example. In 2027, Edinburgh will host the Grand Départ of the Tour de France. Edinburgh City Council has already voted to ban high-carbon advertising, including fossil-fuel advertising, across council-owned spaces. Sheffield has adopted a similar policy, and other local authorities have done the same or are considering doing so. Athletes should not become moving adverts for fossil-fuel companies as they race past Edinburgh Castle and through the city’s streets. These councils have made democratic decisions about the kind of places they want to be. If they have decided that fossil-fuel advertising has no place on their streets and public spaces, why should an international sporting event be treated any differently?

I do not need to repeat the reasons we brought in Committee on why this matters. This year’s Tour de France has already had to shorten a stage because of extreme heat, for the first time. Here in the UK, running races have been cancelled this week and other sporting events and transport are affected. Climate change is already changing how major sporting events are organised, yet sports, including cycling, continue to provide a valuable advertising platform for fossil-fuel companies, and these adverts are no accident. Fossil-fuel companies do not sponsor cycling because they sell bikes; they do it because it allows them to associate their brands with healthy lifestyles, beautiful places and active travel, rather than with the filthy emissions that are driving our climate emergency.

Sports such as football and cycling were once full of tobacco sponsorship. As the evidence of harm grew, public attitudes changed; the rules changed and the sport adapted. Today, that relationship feels completely out of step with the values that sport represents. I believe we are beginning to see the same shift in attitudes towards fossil-fuel advertising. If sporting events are allowed to sidestep local advertising bans, they risk becoming one of the last remaining routes for fossil-fuel companies to advertise in cities that have deliberately chosen to restrict that advertising. We should not be asking cities to choose between hosting world-class sporting events and sticking to their climate commitments. This amendment would make sure that they do not have to.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, as this is my first opportunity, I am sure that we all want to send our best wishes for good luck to the England football team in their major sporting event this evening—particularly to the midfielder Elliot Anderson who, like all the best people, comes from Whitley Bay.

Although I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I made clear my views in Committee that the amendments we considered then and have looked at again today do not meet the test of proportionality that is important here. My view remains unchanged on that. I completely understand the concerns the noble Lord set out, but we must of course set that against the fact that many sporting events rely on sponsorship from gambling companies, a perfectly legal activity in this country. We must consider carefully how further restrictions on gambling sponsorship could affect British sport: for instance, the English Football League, whose title partner is SkyBet, or the England and Wales Cricket Board, which has been forced to relax its own restrictions this very month because of a paucity of other commercial sponsors. We need to look at this carefully and with a cool head.

In Committee, I expressed my concern, however, at the scale of illegal and unlicensed gambling. This is much more likely to lead to societal problems because the companies involved do not incorporate the necessary protections and safeguards, and have far less care for their consumers. In Committee, I pressed the Minister on the consultation, which the Government announced earlier this year, on banning unlicensed gambling sponsorship and advertising. This very morning, I was pleased therefore to see that she has published a Written Ministerial Statement announcing that consultation, and I look forward to hearing the views of those connected to it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

14: Clause 3, page 3, line 8, leave out “or economic” and insert “, economic, environmental and climate”

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I want first to congratulate the Minister on the speed at which she is going through her responses to us. It is absolutely admirable. I will try to be brief. I have two amendments in this group and have seconded Amendment 48 from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which I will mention briefly while not trying to upstage him.

On Amendment 14, when we debated climate duty amendments in Committee, the Minister said that there was no need to mention the environment or climate in the Bill because those were already captured by the term “social … benefits” in Clause 3. I have to admit that I find this rather difficult to follow. If the Government agree that environmental and climate impacts are important, and the Minister said that they agreed with the spirit of the amendments, I simply do not see why they cannot be named explicitly in the Bill. It seems quite a leap to suggest that climate and environmental considerations are somehow covered by “social”. These are significant issues in their own right. They deserve to be recognised as such and not left to this implication, which even I think is vague.

We have heard that sporting events can have a considerable environmental footprint, but they also have the opportunity to leave a positive legacy through cleaner transport, more sustainable infrastructure and better environmental standards. If, as the Minister suggested in Committee, environmental and climate benefits are already intended to form part of these decisions, I really hope that the Government will see no difficulty in making that clear in the Bill. I ask them, “Please, please. Just do it, please”—they have been so conciliatory to other Peers.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Was that begging too much? I am trying to get progress here.

On Amendment 35, on transport plans, this is from Fran James, founder of the Football and Climate Change Newsletter:

“I welcome that at Committee stage the Minister was clear that the Government support the principle of sustainable transport and want spectators to reach major sporting events safely, efficiently and, where possible, by lower-carbon modes of transport … With that agreement, the question before us is whether that principle should be reflected on the face of the Bill. I believe that it should … This amendment recognises that every event, venue and transport network will be different … It ensures that environmental sustainability, climate mitigation and climate resilience are considered when transport plans are drawn up … We know that spectator travel is one of the biggest environmental impacts of major sporting events. At the Birmingham Commonwealth Games, spectator travel accounted for more than half of the event’s carbon footprint. At EURO 2024, fan travel made up an even larger proportion of emissions … But we also know that this can be done successfully. EURO 2024 demonstrated what effective low-carbon transport planning can achieve. Around 81% of fans travelled to venues by public transport, hundreds of thousands of additional rail journeys were made possible through inter-venue travel arrangements, and fewer than 5% of fans travelled by car … Climate change is already affecting transport infrastructure. The Government’s own transport adaptation strategy acknowledges that extreme heat, flooding and other climate impacts are creating risks for our networks … A major sporting event concentrates thousands of people into particular places at particular times, meaning that a single climate-related disruption can quickly become a major problem … This is why resilience needs to be considered at the planning stage … It’s not new either. FIFA’s hosting requirements for the Women’s World Cup 2031 and 2035 require hosts to encourage low-carbon transport infrastructure. A key indicator in the Paris 2024 sustainability strategy was the proportion of venues accessible by active travel or public transport. UEFA delivered EURO 2024 under its Environmental, Social and Governance strategy … This amendment aims to give the UK a clear statutory basis for the standards that major sporting bodies already expect … The Climate Change Committee’s latest assessment of UK climate risk highlights that flooding, subsidence, wind and heat are increasing threats to the transport system, and that climate change impacts will increasingly pose risks to the operation of major events … Requiring the person preparing a transport plan to have regard to resilience is a practical way to address that risk, without losing the flexibility planners need … The climate crisis is shaping the future of sport whether we acknowledge it or not. Our transport plans need to reflect that reality”.


That is the amendment that I really would have liked to divide the House on, but in view of the pressure on us all to finish the Bill as quickly and efficiently as possible, I will not do so. But I bitterly resent that it has not yet been taken up by the Government, because it is so important and obvious that I do not understand why they do not accept it.

On Amendment 48, from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, we already know that climate change is changing sport. The extreme heat this summer has disrupted major sporting events and there are always concerns for athletes and spectators. Ignoring those realities does not make them disappear. It really is time for the Government’s strategy to catch up. I beg to move.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree pretty much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has already said. As somebody who was present 60 years ago at every England match in the World Cup, including the final and the somewhat controversial Argentina game, I do not want to hold up the House for very long, but, as she said, I have tabled Amendment 48. I have engaged with the Minister, and I thank her for what she has said and for the meeting that she and her staff held with me yesterday.

It was not quite the explicit endorsement of what Amendment 48 requires that I was hoping for, but I think I can reasonably deduce that the Minister is saying that, when the major events strategy emerges, it will be clear that environmental sustainability, including explicitly climate change mitigation and adaptation, will be referred to there, and that the work the Government are already doing will appear in their approach to major sporting events. I do not know why that cannot be made explicit in the Bill and, as one who very much supported the Climate Change Act’s provisions at the time, I am assuming that I can stretch the Minister’s words to say that what they are doing will, in effect, be what is required by the Climate Change Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this group. I accept that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, is a very sensible one, and every council ought to think along those lines. However, I am incredibly disappointed at the lack of support for environmental and climate change measures from this side of the Chamber. It is very disturbing, given that we have so many pieces of information that we can slot together now to say that we are in danger. The Government often talk about climate change, but somehow it does not percolate through. It is a sort of amorphous mass that they talk about, but they do not see how it interacts with everyday events. Luckily, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, understand that. I do not understand why the Government do not. I would be very happy to meet with the Minister to discuss this, because I have been ranting this week and last week—stop nodding—on this issue. I cannot see why the Labour Government are so oblivious to the danger we are in. This needs to be in everything; it is not explicit enough to say it is part of social benefits. I absolutely despair, but I do withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.