Young People: Gambling Harm

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 23rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an important debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for securing it and all noble Lords who took part. I also thank noble Lords from across the House for their kind words.

Let me be clear: this Government are fully committed to ensuring that the protections are robust to shield children and young people from gambling-related harm. Over the past two years, important progress has been made to strengthen protections to reduce the risk of gambling-related harm for young people.

I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—and, I hope, with all noble Lords’ support—that we will always follow the evidence in the policy-making process in this area. We know that the digital world moves faster than traditional regulation; this is why we introduced a £2 online slots stake limit for 18 to 24 year-olds—a targeted intervention aimed at young people, who are particularly vulnerable to unaffordable losses. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said, harmful gambling appears higher among boys and young men.

The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, asked about the definition of age. I think we are clear on what categorises children and young people within gambling policy, but I am happy to discuss that with him if he thinks that we do not have it clear enough.

In the land-based sector we have rolled out Think 25, replacing Think 21. We believe that this will minimise underage in-person betting among children, which has remained at about 1% since its introduction. We recently consulted on raising the statutory age limit for category D cash-out slot-style machines from 16 to 18. Legislation will build on the sector’s voluntary commitment to ensure that land-based venues further protect children and young people from gambling-related harm. A response to that consultation will be published in due course.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Foster, spoke about the impact and potential impacts of advertising on children and young people. The Government recognise those concerns, which is why we have existing robust protections in place to ensure that advertising does not exacerbate harm among children and young people. The ASA requires that online operators use all available tools to exclude under-18s and vulnerable groups from advertising exposure and, since October 2025, has prohibited influencers with more than 100,000 under-18 followers from promoting gambling, to ensure that it is not marketed as a risk-free lifestyle choice. I hope that will be music to the ears of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. The Government’s planned social media ban for under-16s will also help to reduce exposure to gambling adverts on social media.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, highlighted issues around illegal gambling, which was also mentioned by a number of other noble Lords. While licensed operators are subject to strict advertising rules, illegal operators present a very different challenge. This is not a matter I take lightly, which is precisely why I personally established the Illegal Gambling Taskforce in January this year and have chaired it. It includes an illegal advertising subgroup. I hosted the most recent meeting of the taskforce last week. By bringing together industry platforms, regulators and the Government, we are collectively identifying ways to clamp down on illegal advertising and ensure that exposure is reduced for young people. I will provide an update on our progress later in the year.

The noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, raised the question of loot boxes. We recognise the close links between gaming and gambling, especially through loot box mechanics that can imitate gambling. Alongside the independent research on skins gambling that we published last year, we have also commissioned independent research to assess the effectiveness of the industry guidance on loot boxes. We have engaged relevant government departments, regulators and industry to consider the results and will publish the report and set out our next steps in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Norton, raised a particular point about skins gambling. There are currently no licensed operators that offer skins gambling, meaning that any websites doing so may be operating illegally. The Gambling Commission is clear that, where products amount to illegal gambling, it will take swift action.

The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, talked about evolving products. I absolutely recognise that this is fast-moving. DCMS and the Gambling Commission are working together to understand the market, including evolving products, and monitor developments closely.

The noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Addington, raised education and how children might be taught about odds in school. Since 2020, children have been taught about the risks relating to gambling as part of the relationships, sex and health curriculum. The Gambling Commission publishes an annual survey on children’s exposure to and involvement in all types of gambling to help us monitor gambling-related harm.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, asked what progress has been made in ratifying the Macolin convention. I am delighted to say that we are making progress with the ratification of the Macolin convention —the Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions. The explanatory memorandum laid by the FCDO is undergoing scrutiny by the Lords International Agreements Committee. Ratifying the convention will demonstrate UK leadership and our commitment to working with international colleagues to tackle match fixing.

The noble Lords, Lord Herbert and Lord Evans, raised points around the importance and financial significance of gambling to horseracing, and the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, in particular, raised financial risk assessments. We support the recent announcement by the Gambling Commission about implementing FRAs for online gambling through a carefully phased approach, working with the sector in an implementation phase. This was a decision for the Gambling Commission, which has met stakeholders throughout the recent pilot process to ensure that implementation is focused on protecting consumers. The Government have encouraged the commission to continue and increase engagement with the gambling industry. Successful implementation is vital, and this requires engagement from all interested parties.

The vast majority of customers will never require an FRA. People who place an occasional bet or even regularly spend hundreds of pounds would be unlikely to need a check. I am happy to meet any Peer to discuss FRAs, as is the Gambling Commission. We can arrange that subsequently. The noble Lord, Lord Herbert, also talked about publishing data and measuring the impact of FRAs. The Government will work with the Gambling Commission to ensure successful implementation. There will be a significant implementation phase that will involve key stakeholders, including the horseracing sector and operators’ implementation groups. I will raise the point about what data can be released with the Gambling Commission. Where it can, we are encouraging it to do so.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, raised important points about how we need to be proportionate in our response to gambling. I reassure the noble Baroness that we understand the importance of striking the right balance between acting on problem or harmful gambling and ensuring that there are no unintended consequences for those who enjoy a casual bet and do not suffer gambling harm. As I said earlier, we are determined to follow the evidence in how we implement gambling-related policies.

I thank again the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for bringing this important debate before your Lordships’ House. I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. Today’s debate has demonstrated our shared determination to protect children and young people from gambling-related harm. We have built a strong foundation over these past two years to ensure that those most at risk, including young people, are protected from gambling harm. We have committed to reviewing a range of selected policy measures through the Gambling Act review evaluation to ensure that they had the intended impact. We also look forward to any future evaluations to understand the impact of our measures and inform future policy-making. We will continue to work closely with the Gambling Commission, the industry, and health and education partners to keep pace with emerging risks and to do everything we can to protect children and young people from gambling harms.

National Youth Strategy

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 23rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made regarding the implementation of the National Youth Strategy and associated funding programmes.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

Youth Matters: Your National Youth Strategy is a 10-year cross-government plan backed by over £500 million in DCMS funding. We are moving forward with delivering it. We are mobilising our enrichment expansion programme and have launched a delivery partner competition for the Youth Matters fund. Eight Young Futures hubs are operational, and we announced a £10 million match-funded investment in partnership with the King’s Trust to increase access to trusted adults for young people.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer and the work that she and her department are doing in this important area. Can she reassure the House that the Government fully appreciate the value of funding for national youth organisations such as police and fire cadets, the Jewish Lads’ and Girls’ Brigade, Scouts, Guides and so on? They create the local opportunities for safe, evidence-based enrichment programmes that are led by trusted adults, particularly at a time of rising waiting lists for these activities, and they have a proven ability to deliver in disadvantaged and faith-based communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Having seen at first hand the importance of the Fire Cadets when I was working for the Mayor of London, I know, and the department and the Secretary of State know, that uniformed youth organisations provide impactful opportunities for young people nationwide. We have provided over £24 million since 2022 to expand their provision. Following discussions with my noble friend at the beginning of the year—and proving the value of Oral Questions—we are currently providing £1.2 million in transitional funding to build their long-term sustainability and resilience. These organisations remain a valued part of the youth sector, and we will share eligibility criteria for future funding streams in due course.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have announced a policy. That is great, but we have had other policies in this area before. What guidance can we get so that the Government are tapping into those established organisations—we have heard about the uniformed officers, but there are also the national governing bodies in sports—which have an incentive to ensure that these things continue to run? What are the Government doing to ensure that those who are already in the field have a guarantee that for the next few years they will get extra help?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As I said, we will publish the criteria in due course, but I assure the noble Lord that we worked with young people and sector experts in co-producing the strategy Youth Matters. Those voices from the sector were at the heart of how we created the strategy and they will be part of the conversation going forward.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

Given that the uniformed groups, particularly the cadets, are a major force for good in this country and expose young people in disadvantaged communities to some of the most committed professional people on the planet, what reassurances can the Minister give us that the Government will look at the long-term financial viability of cadets based in the community and in schools? I declare my interest as chair of a cadet health check team and that yesterday my daughter became a serving member of the RAF.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I congratulate the noble Lord on his daughter’s success in her career and wish her all the best for the future. We recognise the role that uniformed youth groups can play. That is why we are providing £1.2 million of transitional funding. We will publish criteria for future funding soon. We anticipate that these organisations will be eligible for our future funds. Like the noble Lord, we know how important the uniformed youth organisations are— and not just in an ethereal, theoretical sense. Up and down the country, the adults running some of these organisations are working with young people who need that trusted adult to take forward and mentor them.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, what steps is the Minister’s department taking to encourage arts organisations and the creative industries to work with not just schools but youth organisations and FE colleges?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I might need to come back to my noble friend with some of the detail. We are clear that, when we talk about arts everywhere for everyone, that is also within all parts of our infrastructure in the department. I look forward to having a longer conversation with my noble friend about that.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

I thank the Minister for her response and support both the questions that have been asked and this valuable work. My question is the other way around. Are His Majesty’s Government giving any thought to how common resources are offered to these valuable and diverse youth organisations—for example, in safeguarding or mental health provision among our teenage and young adult population?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will have to write to the right reverend Prelate on this, but we are clear that having a rich breadth of activities is crucial to supporting young people’s mental health. As I alluded to in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, some of these organisations are working with children and young people who do not have a trusted adult elsewhere. Throughout the thread of our work, we are looking at how we can support young people in every way, but I will need to come back to the right reverend Prelate on those specifics.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to her place and start by declaring an interest. Macclesfield is a long way from the sea, but we are very fortunate to have a wonderful sea cadet unit, TS Ardent. My two children had 10 years of fun and frolics on the water. By happy coincidence, the president of TS Ardent is the admiral and noble Lord, Lord West, who does a fantastic job and is very popular with the students and sea cadets. The previous Government set up the uniformed youth fund, which came to an end in March. In November 2024, the Department for Education also ended its £1.1 million grant to the cadet expansion programme. The national youth strategy highlights the Government’s ambition to expand in-school and community-based cadet forces by 30% by 2030, with £70 million of funding from the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister confirm that this target and funding will remain in place despite the £5 billion black hole in the defence investment plan?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

If I was being ungenerous, I would refer to previous black holes that have been a matter of debate from this Bench. We are investing a significant amount of funding in and behind the strategy. We have over £400 million to improve access to enriching activities and youth work and for refurbishing or building up to 250 youth facilities. We have £22.5 million for a new programme to create brilliant enrichment offers in up to 400 schools. We are investing £15 million in youth workers, volunteers and other trusted adults. We are investing in rebuilding local youth services and establishing a network of 50 Young Futures hubs. We have £5 million to improve youth infrastructure at local and regional levels. That is before you even get to the funding coming through the dormant assets scheme. We are funding this. When you look at how important some of these activities are, including the sea cadets—my brothers were sea cadets in a landlocked county as well—you have to put the money behind it. We are doing that. The previous Government did not.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that one of the most widening experiences for children is to experience other cultures and countries? One of the most effective things to broaden the minds of youngsters is therefore exchange visits with other countries—perhaps predominantly in Europe because it is closer, but with any country. What are the Government doing to expand the exchange visit programme?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I benefited from an exchange, although I admit that I hated my French exchange. We are supporting this in a number of ways—through Erasmus and exchange programmes. We are pushing the Erasmus scheme beyond the university route, which I am delighted that we are doing. Unlike my French exchange, I had a good experience when I was a student studying abroad. It not only enriches people’s studies but gives young people the opportunity to understand the importance of speaking languages—I answered a Question last week about minority languages in this country.

Performing Artists and Musicians: Access to the EU

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made on securing better access to the EU for performing artists and musicians.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, securing better access to the EU for our creative and cultural sectors is a priority for this Government. We remain committed to pursuing practical, mutually beneficial improvements with the European Commission and member states and welcome the Commission’s recent commitment in its visa strategy to explore practical flexibilities for touring artists. We continue to pursue improvements that will enable UK artists, performers and crews to build audiences and seize opportunities across Europe, supporting growth across our industries.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. Dancers, actors, artists and musicians are having a dire time of it in terms of touring in the EU. For example, 85% of musicians have had a significant loss of income and more than 40% have had a total loss. For young musicians and groups, touring is no longer viable at all. Despite the Minister’s assurances, I hear from the creative industries, from people dealing with Europe and from across the channel that the perception is that this is not a high priority for the department or the Government. I would like to challenge the Minister to say a bit more about that and why she would dispute it, if she does. I was assured by the outgoing Prime Minister, and other Members of this House have assured us, that this is a very important aspect of touring that affects people’s income and the whole reputation of our culture.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Helping touring artists is a manifesto commitment. We continue to engage with the EU and member states to determine how best to improve arrangements for touring across the European continent. We know that there can be additional practical barriers for those at the start of their careers who often have fewer resources, as the noble Lord will be aware. Following his appointment, the Prime Minister reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to building a closer, more ambitious relationship with the European Union, based on shared interests and practical co-operation. To be clear, I can reassure the noble Lord that, in his first call with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the Prime Minister agreed that UK and EU teams should work closely towards a UK-EU summit later this year.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, in the light of the cancellation of the summit on 22 July—today—and the fact that this matter has been raised by many noble Lords on many occasions, can the Minister give us some reassurance that it will be on the agenda when the EU-UK summit takes place later this year?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I cannot write the agenda before a date is set, but this is a priority for the Government. In March, when Minister Murray co-chaired the first UK-European Commission high-level meeting on culture with Commissioner Micallef, he made sure that this was discussed. It marked a step forward since the UK-EU summit and brought together UK and commission representatives to discuss common priorities. This is one of our manifesto commitments, and it remains a commitment of this Government.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, this problem, as we have heard, has gone on for many years now, despite the protestations of the Government that they are doing all they can. Is it not now time for the Government to take a much more ambitious approach to our relationships with the EU and start negotiating our return to the single market, which would solve this problem?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The only thing I would add to what I said previously is to repeat that, when the new Prime Minister spoke following his appointment, he reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to building a closer, more ambitious relationship with the European Union. Part of this will be to make sure that we have the summit later this year, if at all possible.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my registered interest on this matter. Does the Minister accept that this issue has been festering for all the 10 years since the disastrous Brexit vote and that successive Governments have so far failed to bring forward new initiatives to crack it? What new initiative will be forthcoming from this Government that might at last make a difference?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I reject the term “festering” in relation to what this Government have done. Helping touring artists and addressing issues around co-operation with Europe remain a priority. I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding the House of why we ended up leaving the EU in the first place, which was not because of anything that this Government did but was down to the previous one.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, UK talent that performs overseas is nurtured via the music and dance scheme—a long-standing programme to help students overcome financial barriers and to support our next generation of brilliant performing artists and musicians. Can the Minister confirm that funding for this scheme will continue?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We are hugely keen to make sure that creative careers are accessible for everyone. I do not have the detail of the exact scheme to which the noble Earl refers, but I will write to him.

[Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted, as I know many noble Lords are, about the coming of the Bayeux Tapestry to this country. It is to be celebrated. What can be learned from this loan to build better co-ordination with our nearest neighbours across the arts and heritage sectors?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I saw the Bayeux Tapestry last week, and it was one of the most amazing experiences of not just my career in your Lordships’ House but my entire life. Obviously, the process goes back to discussions that took place over a number of years, including under the previous Government. We can learn from it about working closely with colleagues in Europe from the very top, because it is clear that the President of France is as engaged in this as senior people in this Government. It is basically a gesture celebrating and building on our shared heritage. I urge all noble Lords to make sure that they go along and see this incredible tapestry when it is open to the public.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

My Lords, income from overseas tours often helps cathedrals sustain music programmes, scholarships and outreach work in rural and disadvantaged communities. Have the Government assessed the impact that barriers to European touring are having on the long-term sustainability of these opportunities for young people?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am not clear whether we have done that assessment, so I will look into it. I am happy to talk to the right reverend Prelate about that and the contribution this makes to the congregations, choirs and performers involved, as well as the opportunity for our young people.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps the most intractable problem is that of work for artists in Europe, whether temporary or permanent. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, this is affecting not just musicians but dancers and actors, who often fall at the first hurdle because they do not possess an EU passport. For many artists, a position in Europe has been an essential part of their career development. Will the Government ensure that this, alongside all the other concerns, will be on the agenda at the next UK-EU summit?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I do recognise how some creative professionals have found it more difficult to take up opportunities in Europe, as practical barriers, including whether they have an EU passport, can have a disproportionate impact. That is why we are working with the European Commission and member states. The Government remain 100% committed to resolving this issue and to improving opportunities for UK artists of all ages to access European audiences and develop international experiences, recognising the cultural and economic value that those exchanges bring.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister will know, the European entry system is proving a great difficulty for EU performing artists and musicians, and particularly for British colleagues going over to the EU. Will she look at this and see whether we can ameliorate the situation to make their travel easier?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness is referring to the entry/exit system. It is an EU scheme and its implementation is primarily the responsibility of the European Commission and participating member states. However, the Government recognise that there has been some disruption—in some cases, considerable disruption—and we continue to work closely with EU member states and industry to understand the impact of the EES and advocate for the use of flexibilities that minimise disruption for UK citizens, including performers.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

That the Bill be now read a third time.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Sporting Events Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, before the formal Third Reading of the Sporting Events Bill, I will now make a short statement on the position regarding legislative consent. As noble Lords will know, the Bill affects the whole of the United Kingdom. We are seeking consent from each of the devolved legislatures and have been engaging constructively with the devolved Governments throughout the Bill’s passage. We will continue to work alongside the devolved Governments to ensure that final positions are reached in relation to legislative consent before the final amending stage in the second House. We will have more to say in the other place, and we will of course keep noble Lords updated on this. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

A privilege amendment was made.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, this Bill seeks to establish a framework that enables certain sporting events to benefit from the enhanced commercial protections needed to preserve the integrity of events and, importantly, offset costs to taxpayers. These provisions will help ensure that the United Kingdom remains an attractive host for major sporting events and continues to build on its world-leading reputation in this field.

On Report, I committed to further engagement with noble Lords and our outstanding recurrent sporting events sector over the summer. I understand the views of your Lordships’ House on this matter and am committed to properly assessing all the considerations and possible unintended consequences before determining appropriate next steps. I reiterate that the environment will be a clear consideration as this Government develop a major events strategy to be published in the spring.

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed during highly constructive debates and, through their time and expertise, have sought to strengthen the Bill. Specifically, I thank the Opposition and Liberal Democrat Front Benches, as well as the noble Baronesses, Lady Evans of Bowes Park and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for their constructive approach and engagement. I also thank my officials for their considerable support and patience during the Bill’s passage. I am grateful for the engagement with the Bill and its broad support across your Lordships’ House. As I have said before, if we get this right, the benefits will be felt far beyond the field of play. I beg to move.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this was a Bill where the only disagreement we had was that we did not think the Government were brave enough with their own ideas. It does not often happen that we actually get through to a position, and I think we did. Just to remind ourselves, we did it by those on this side of the House working together in a constructive manner. I hope we can remember that in future and make sure that when we have some agreement, bringing it forth in a coherent manner means we get something better. I hear what the Government have said on this. I take heart from it, but I ask them to remember that they can be braver when they have a good idea. I am not often going to say this, but on this occasion I am.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, the more astute among your Lordships will have realised that this is the first time I have taken part on this Bill. I do so because, unfortunately, my noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, who led from these Benches on the Bill, cannot be here today. They both send their apologies. It therefore falls upon me to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Official Opposition today.

We have broadly welcomed this legislation while highlighting a few areas where we have concerns and others where we have seen room for improvement. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said at Second Reading that she wished the Government would be bolder, as noted just now by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, with the scope of the sporting events framework. While the Government have not yet fully taken her advice, it is welcome that your Lordships’ House has done so by adopting the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. The changes we made here last week strengthen the Bill and will, if the Government follow through on their promise to continue the debates we have had about them in good faith, enable many of the most well-loved sporting events in this country to benefit from this legislation. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place, the new Government will agree with the amendments made here or, if they wish to make some modest changes to them, will keep them in both spirit and substance.

I want to record our thanks to a number of noble Lords who have made this such a constructive process. My noble friends Lady Evans of Bowes Park, Lord Moynihan and Lord Fuller, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, brought their considerable experience and expertise to the Bill’s proceedings. I also thank the Minister, all the officials and the Bill team who have supported her for their willingness to meet noble Lords across your Lordships’ House throughout the passage of the Bill. I know that noble Lords found their discussions genuinely useful, and I am grateful that some of the concerns raised by the Opposition and others were listened to. This is a Bill that we hope will boost the ability of the United Kingdom to host major sporting events. It leaves this House in a better state than when it was introduced, and I hope it moves through another place in the same spirit.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords.

BBC Royal Charter: Gaelic Broadcasting

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness MacLeod of Camusdarach (Lab)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and I declare an interest as a member of the development board of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig, a Gaelic college on the island of Skye.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are clear about the vital role of Gaelic broadcasting: the BBC belongs to all of us and must reflect every community it serves. Charter review aims to put the BBC on a sustainable financial footing so that it can continue to deliver wide public value, including through the provision of Gaelic broadcasting. Alongside this, proposals detailed in the media Green Paper aim to ensure the long-term sustainability of public service media, including through minority-language broadcasting.

[Baroness MacLeod of Camusdarach (Lab)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. It certainly is a step forward. Gaelic is one of the UK’s indigenous languages, and it is much older than English. It is fighting for its life, although the number of Gaelic speakers is increasing, and Gaelic broadcasting is pivotal in that role. Although MG Alba was created by legislation at Westminster, there has been no UK funding since the Lord Speaker left the other House. S4C in Wales is funded by the licence fee, with £22 million for programmes and £96 million in cash. BBC Alba gets no cash from the licence fee, only £10 million in kind from the BBC and another £15 million from the Scottish Government. All Gaelic broadcasting is asking for is parity of esteem. It is not a big ask for a priceless gain. I hope the Minister will carry on agreeing.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend on how important our UK languages are. Keeping them alive is part of not just our history but our culture for the future, and it should matter to all of us. The Government recognise the valuable contribution that providers of minority-language broadcasting have and their vital role in the preservation of our national heritage. The Government are considering the most appropriate arrangements for providing sustainable funding for minority-languages broadcasting as part of the charter review. MG Alba’s total budget stands at an estimated £420 per Gaelic speaker, including both BBC and Scottish Government spend. This compares to an equivalent of £260 per Welsh speaker for S4C. That is not to minimise the importance of it but to show that there is investment in this space.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, in supporting the noble Baroness’s plea on behalf of the Gaelic language, and as a one-time board member of S4C, there was never a time when S4C had the certainty of adequate future funding. Is the Minister aware that S4C has called for more medium-term funding through a multi-year funding settlement that allows for inflation and for protection from outside cuts? Will the Minister give serious consideration to such an approach, and thereby provide fair funding for both Welsh and Gaelic broadcasting services?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As I made clear, we want the charter review to put broadcasting on a sustainable financial footing. I will speak to my colleague Ian Murray about the points the noble Lord raises. We are clear that minority languages are a minority only to people who do not speak them. For those who do, minority languages are such an important aspect of our cultural life, and it is important that minority-language broadcasting is funded from the centre and open to all.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady MacLeod, has made a vital point. Gaelic as an indigenous language is not just an integral part of the culture of these islands but the means of expression of two of the greatest poets of the 20th century, Sorley MacLean and Iain Crichton Smith. There is a statutory duty on the BBC to fund Welsh, which is quite right, but there is no similar statutory duty for Scots Gaelic. The last Government set up the Islands Forum, to ensure that the voice of Gaelic speakers was heard at the heart of Westminster. This Government abolished it. The Lord Speaker, when he was Scottish Secretary, ensured increased broadcasting funding for Gaelic. This Government have not yet made that commitment. Will the Government stand behind Gaelic speakers, whose contribution to our culture is so important?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord on the importance of Gaelic speakers to our national culture. However, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to minority-language broadcasting models and how they are funded. The Scottish and UK Governments have a role to play to help ensure that relevant institutions and organisations have adequate funding so that they can deliver for audiences. We are considering, through charter review, how we can provide more certainty to Gaelic broadcasting and MG Alba.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, I wish the noble Baroness every success in her campaign to secure funding for Gaelic-language broadcasting. It is a very good campaign. Can the Minister say how the new charter will protect the local independent production sector in Wales from centralisation, as the BBC shifts small services to digital-first formats?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

That is a very detailed question and I may have to write to the noble Baroness. Through the charter review, we are trying to make sure that we have a really broad and healthy sustainable model for the future, and it must support the smaller local organisations as well as national organisations. We are keen to make sure that works. I am happy to talk to the noble Baroness about that point.

[The Lord Bishop of Newcastle]

My Lords, from my time in New Zealand, I saw at first hand the benefit of intentional government investment in Māori-language broadcasting for younger audiences. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that Gaelic-language broadcasting remains accessible and relevant to younger audiences and is not merely retained as a residual service?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am not sure that describing it as a residual service does justice to the work of the people working in Gaelic-speaking broadcasting. Historically, we have been clear that this must be for every part of the population that speaks the language. What has happened in Wales—we have had an increase in both Welsh and Gaelic speakers over the last couple of decades—demonstrates the power of investment in making sure that people have got access to the language in every part of the culture, and that must include young people and children.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, another language in Scotland is Scots. Indeed, Burns wrote roughly half his poetry in in Scots, not least “Address to a Haggis”. Can the Minister tell us whether there will be money directed at the preservation of Scots as a language as well in this process?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It is interesting, because I put that point to my officials. Noble Lords will need to wait and see as part of the charter review, but if people are campaigning for Scots to get similar recognition, please encourage them to get involved in the discussions around the charter review.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

In supporting my noble friend Lady MacLeod, and as a fellow Celt, I offer the example that Irish-language broadcasting in Northern Ireland is primarily funded by the BBC and the Irish Language Broadcast Fund, which is managed by Northern Ireland Screen and financially supported by DCMS, part of our own Government. Is there a potential solution for Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland in that model?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I think there is, potentially, but we need to make sure that we do not assume that a one-size-fits-all approach works across the piece. I am happy to take suggestions back to the department and to speak to my colleague Ian Murray from the other place about this. We are keen to make sure that all minority languages get what works for that particular area, rather than assuming that one size fits all. On Northern Ireland and Irish-language broadcasting, which works on a cross-border basis, we are keen to continue to support that from DCMS as well.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, unlike S4C, MG Alba does not have statutory designation as a public service broadcaster, which leaves it more vulnerable to budgetary pressures from the BBC. Only last month, the BBC announced cuts of £500 million and 550 jobs. Is this something that the Government will look at as part of the royal charter review to address the vulnerability that MG Alba and Gaelic broadcasting faces?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It is an interesting point. There is a statutory basis for Welsh broadcasting. Without undermining what we are trying to do in Wales, I refer noble Lords back to the fact that the budget per Gaelic speaker is considerably higher. A statutory basis on its own is not enough protection, but we will try to work through all these questions and make sure that we look at the models that work in different areas as part of our work in DCMS.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, recognising the significant national event taking place this evening, I will also endeavour to keep my remarks brief and I have no intention of taking this Report into extra time. However, as we commence today’s debate on the Sporting Events Bill, it is only fitting that we acknowledge this momentous occasion and the commendable efforts of the England team. I join the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and your entire Lordships’ House in wishing our national team the very best of luck this evening, wherever the players might have been born.

Amendments 2, 3, 4, 23 to 28, 36, 39 and 40, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, seek to regulate sports’ rights provisions and gambling advertising. I thank the noble Lord for coming to the department to discuss his position in more detail. While it is not appropriate for the Government to intervene in commercial sponsorship and advertising arrangements, we will not hesitate to take steps where necessary to ensure that these arrangements are socially responsible. As the noble Lord noted, FIFA and the Olympics and Paralympics have their own restrictions. The Government have already implemented a number of reforms in this space. Just today, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, we launched our consultation on banning unlicensed sponsorship within sports and other sectors. This Government are also committed to tackling illegal gambling through the Gambling Commission and our Illegal Gambling Taskforce, with our most recent task force meeting taking place yesterday.

Regarding the sharing of sports data with unlicensed operators, this Government have no reason to believe that it is currently a significant issue. However, if needed, we will not hesitate to consider this further through our task force. I would be happy to continue discussing this with the noble Lord, Lord Foster, including on the additional information he gave today.

Amendment 20 would require regard to be given to the protection of children and vulnerable persons from harmful or age-restricted advertising when applying the advertising provisions to an event. The advertising offence in the Bill is designed to protect event owners’ commercial rights by preventing unauthorised advertising in a restricted zone. The Advertising Standards Authority has many rules to help protect children from harmful or age-restricted advertising. Advertisers should ensure that adverts do not include anything likely to result in physical, mental or moral harm to children, or anything that encourages unsafe practices. On top of that, products such as alcohol and gambling should not be promoted irresponsibly; they should always be promoted responsibly. Adverts must not, for example, link them to social success nor encourage recklessness.

Amendment 21 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would require advertising in a restricted zone to comply with local authority policies, including those related to the climate and the environment. The noble Baroness gave some powerful examples of the impact of climate change on current sporting events. I assure the noble Baroness that any advertising activity undertaken in a restricted zone will have to be in accordance with existing legislation and other regulatory requirements, including local authority policies. Advertisers will also need to consider the Committee of Advertising Practice and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice codes’ rules on environmental claims. With these points in mind, I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, and I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his contribution. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I find it strange, given that the IOC always requires a sustainability requirement in its plans, that this is not included in the Bill before us today.

There is no question that I desperately hope the England team will do infinitely better tonight than I have done. Despite all my training and my workup before this performance, the Minister has just provided a stonewall to me, and I have lost at this stage. But there are always other rounds, and I look forward to those. With that, I wish the team the very best of luck. I will enjoy watching it tonight, hopefully in an arena that has no advertisements, no marketing and no advertising. I hope that they do better than I did. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

I support all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 13, in the name of my noble friend Lady Evans. She made an eloquent speech but, really, she covered the issue in three words: opportunity, not obligation.

“It’s coming home”, my Lords. These events are already here, year in, year out, delivering sporting, economic, social and place-based growth, one might say. The very definition of a framework and enabling legislation is opportunity, not obligation.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, on Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Markham, I am sure that your Lordships’ House will be pleased to hear that the Bill already goes further than the amendment proposed. Within the provisions in the Bill, advertising and trading provisions can be in place for no more than 10 days before the beginning of an event and no later than five days after the event concludes. I hope that these clear limitations in the Bill will reassure noble Lords.

Amendments 7, 50 and 51, tabled in my name, seek to ensure that all regulations applying the framework provisions are subject to the affirmative procedure, except in urgent cases in which the “made affirmative” resolution procedure would be used. In bringing forward these government amendments, we have listened to the concerns of the House, noting Amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, and the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. These amendments ensure that Parliament can debate regulations, while preserving flexibility to accommodate unforeseen and last-minute changes. I hope the amendments tabled in my name reassure noble Lords of the importance we place on ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, while providing some flexibility to accommodate unforeseen changes.

Amendments 10, 11, 12 and 13 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and the noble Baronesses, Lady Evans of Bowes Park and Lady Grey-Thompson. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, summed it up when he said that we have a huge number of events in this country already. However, this Government recognise there is more we can do to support the whole major events sector. I can confirm today the Government’s intention for the major events strategy to be published by the spring.

Throughout the Bill’s passage, a number of noble Lords have raised the question of whether the remit of the Sporting Events Bill could be extended to include recurrent major events in the UK. I am hugely grateful for the time noble Lords have taken to talk me through the rationale of how this could support our fabulous events, from Wimbledon to the British Grand Prix at Silverstone and the London Marathon. As the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, indicated, these discussions have been hugely constructive. I have also heard directly from event organisers who are keen to explore this further, and we are continuing discussions between event organisers, officials and Ministers over the summer.

I recognise the strength of feeling on this. It is not always the case that a Government Minister is told to expand the scope of a Bill, and we recognise that the sentiment behind this is one of support for events in this country. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the Government see merit in exploring the idea further. As my noble friend Lord Foulkes said, we are committed to continuing the conversation over the summer with noble Lords and event organisers. However, I regret that, at this point, I cannot commit to a specific outcome for these discussions. There are a number of considerations we need to work through carefully, particularly around how proportionate it would be to potentially restrict fair competition for small businesses on an ongoing basis and, for instance, who would enforce regulations.

I understand there is concern that events such as the Rugby League World Cup or the Women’s T20 World Cup would be out of scope. Noble Lords will appreciate that the nature of the framework means that we expect particular events to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I reassure your Lordships’ House that we expect both cricket and Rugby League World Cups to be exactly the type of events that could meet the conditions. I recognise noble Lords’ good intent in relation to this matter, but I am keen that we get this right and make sure that any potential unintended consequences are considered before we make a decision in this regard.

On Amendments 41 and 42, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, the Government fully agree that, when it comes to public funds, transparency and accountability are non-negotiable. However, these amendments are unnecessary. There are already robust mechanisms in place. The supply and appropriation legislation enables Parliament to debate and approve spending plans, including allocations for major sporting events. As an accounting officer, the DCMS Permanent Secretary is accountable to Parliament to ensure departmental spending on major sporting events meets the Managing Public Money principles of regularity, propriety, value for money and feasibility.

Over the past decade, the United Kingdom has secured and delivered almost 150 major sporting events, many with the support of government investment. Therefore, requiring such scrutiny could place a disproportionate burden on parliamentary resources and risk delaying the provision of urgent financial assistance. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that response and for the time she has made available to noble Lords from across the House on the other amendments we have discussed, including with many of the sporting bodies that are involved. It is for the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Evans to decide what to do on their amendment.

For my part, we would be inclined in normal circumstances to take the Minister’s word for it, for she is a woman of her word who has worked hard on this. However, we find ourselves in unusual circumstances where she, the Secretary of State and the Sports Minister in another place may be in different positions by the time the Bill heads to the Commons. So, your Lordships’ House would be well advised to put something in the Bill to reflect the cross-party, cross-House support we have had on this issue and the strength of feeling, and to leave that as a work in progress. I will leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but reiterate that we will support him if he chooses to divide on this important issue. I thank the Minister for her answers to the amendments I moved and beg leave to withdraw Amendment 6.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

7: Clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out subsections (6) and (7) and insert—
“(6) Regulations under this section are subject to—(a) the affirmative resolution procedure, or(b) the made affirmative resolution procedure, if the regulations contain a statement by the appropriate national authority making them that the authority considers it necessary for the regulations to be made urgently.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendments to clause 27, provide for regulations under clause 2 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure except in urgent cases where such regulations will instead be subject to the made affirmative resolution procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, am very glad that my noble friend Lord Harlech has returned to this issue on Report. He cannot be the only Islington resident who was dismayed by the aftermath of the parade he mentioned, but I am sure he has given it far greater thought from a legal and legislative perspective than any other resident, and I am sure all other residents of the borough will be grateful to him for returning to this in such a dogged and forensic manner. I hope the Minister will take that on board and will be able to give him some further thoughts today and in the meeting that he seeks.

As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, it is a question of what is appropriate for this Bill. While I appreciate the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, as we heard in Committee, many international federations and event organisers now expect very high environmental commitments from those bidding to host major sporting events. If our national associations want to apply for such events, they will have to comply with these ever more ambitious sustainability and environmental requirements. I am still not convinced that this Bill is the right place to write them in, but I agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of public transport from an environmental aspect as well as from an accessibility point of view in making it easier for more people to get to these sporting events.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendments 14 and 48 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Boycott, and my noble friend Lord Whitty. The Government fully agree that environmental sustainability should be considered at every stage in the planning and delivery of our major sporting events. I note the example shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. We genuinely recognise that there is an issue that needs to be dealt with, and this debate is clearly in the context of an extended heatwave.

The Bill explicitly provides that, for the framework to be applied, a sporting event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or to a part of it. Your Lordships’ House may be pleased to know that social benefit here encompasses consideration of environmental and climate impacts where relevant. I will, of course, be delighted to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others to discuss this further.

I have shared throughout the Bill’s passage the important measures in place to integrate sustainability into our major sporting events from the outset: from the Gold Framework guiding organisers bidding for government funding to non-negotiable requirements in our spending processes. However, I have heard the strong concerns and valuable insights raised across the House and recognise that there is always room to do more, especially on matters as important as our environment.

That is why I am pleased to be able to give a firm commitment today that, as noted by my noble friend Lord Whitty, the environment will be a clear and stated consideration as the Government develop a major events strategy—not only for major sporting events but for all major events hosted across the country. Should the evidence gathered suggest that we can do more when it comes to major sporting events, we will be guided by that data to reflect on how and where we go further. In the meantime, I am happy to confirm that sustainability will be a key consideration in the community programme for Euro 2028, the first event that this Bill will support.

As well as taking steps to reduce the event’s impact on the environment, the Euros’ community programme will actively seek opportunities to build climate resilience into its broader ambition to support communities. I appreciate noble Lords’ interest in the adaptation reporting power. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has recently consulted on how best to target these powers, and is in touch with all relevant departments, although we are clear that the decision to apply it should remain at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

I turn now to Amendment 35, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Major sporting events vary significantly in scale, location, venue layout, spectator profile and the transport networks serving them. An appropriate requirement in one case may be unnecessary, disproportionate or impractical in another. We believe that the most effective approach to tackling transport concerns would be through collaborative, integrated planning and delivery tailored to the specific needs of each event.

On Amendment 47, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, there is no doubt that the cleanliness of the environments in which we hold our major sporting events is vital. I will be very happy to meet with the noble Lord; I met with a number of noble Lords who took up the offer that was made in the Chamber and in my all-Peers letter. I am sorry that the noble Lord and I have not yet met up, but I will make sure that my office gets in touch with him so that we can meet before Third Reading.

Going back to the cleanliness point raised today and in Committee by the noble Lord, this is why, as set out in Committee, local authorities have a duty to support this under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That is in addition to measures such as the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse statutory guidance. Also, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 confers powers to help them tackle persistent, unreasonable behaviour negatively affecting communities. Adding to those duties would require local authorities to substantively alter their operational approach; as set out in the new burdens doctrine, this requires proper assessment given the potential for significant additional costs, ultimately borne by the taxpayer. We believe that a holistic approach is more appropriate.

In light of these reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, will withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

15: Clause 6, page 4, line 15, leave out “a person” and insert “one or more persons”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is to make clear that more than one person may be designated to grant ticketing authorisations.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak first to Amendments 15, 22, 29 and 34 tabled in my name. These are minor and technical and make it clear that, where appropriate, more than one person may be designated in regulations to grant ticketing, advertising, trading and unauthorised association authorisations under the Bill. This would ensure the necessary flexibility to enable, for example, both the event owner and the local organising committee to grant authorisations if required.

Amendments 16, 37 and 38, also tabled in my name, make it clear that the power to create exceptions to the ticket-touting offence could apply to activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes. The amendments also clarify the definition of a charity as applied to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and they provide that charitable purposes are defined in accordance with the relevant legislation. We are listening to the concerns raised by your Lordships’ House about the potential impact on charities. However, in our view a blanket exception could undermine the objectives of the framework or create unintended loopholes. These amendments signal our clear intention to make exceptions, in regulations, to the ticket-touting offence for charities, where appropriate.

Amendment 32, also in my name, seeks to address concerns about the impact of the trading offence on those with an existing licence to trade in a restricted zone—noting Amendment 31 in this group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. We agree that the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly street traders holding a licence from the local authority, should be mitigated. While we need to be able to control trading activity in areas of high spectator footfall, it is right that we introduce additional protections for existing traders in those areas. This amendment means a designated authorising person, such as an event organiser or local authority, must take into account whether a person has any existing trading licences when determining whether or not to grant a trading authorisation. If an existing trader cannot be accommodated in their usual spot, we will work with organisers and local authorities to consider alternative trading arrangements in that limited period. We must be able to meet our commitments to event owners. That is why it would not be appropriate to introduce a blanket exception for all licensed traders, as the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to provide.

I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured by the changes we have made to address the concerns raised. I beg to move.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 17 in this group, but before I speak to it, I thank the Government for many of their amendments. They have clearly listened to the problems raised. Generally speaking, this has been a Bill of good relationships. We had a meeting on Amendment 17 and the Minister brought officials in, but I made it clear that we think more should be done about ticket touting. Ticket touting is when somebody gets in between the person who provides an event and the person who buys the ticket. They put extra costs in, and they take the money away. The person providing the event does not get anything out of it and the person going to the event gets extra costs.

The amendment here is to put limitations on how much you can take out. It may be a difficult thing and there may be big players involved, saying, “But we’re providing a service”. They are not, actually. They are just giving the ticket out, and there are cheaper ways of doing it. I hope the Minister can give us something more here. We have Third Reading, and I hope we can get a little more out of it. I think we should get something more solid in the Bill; it is a major opportunity. Unless we start saying that we are going to do something about ticket touting, we will be involved in consultation for ever. For a long time it has been just a bit more consultation and, oh, they are providing a service. Is it a real service? I am not sure it is. I hope the Minister will have had some damascene conversion and will accept my amendments or give me something like them. If not, I am afraid I will have to call a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I welcome the movement the Government have shown on these issues, particularly in tabling Amendments 16, 37 and 38, which respond to amendments that my noble friend Lord Markham and I tabled in Committee, attempting to put exemptions for charities from a number of offences into the Bill. While I might have preferred to go about it that way, I welcome that the Government have specified that charities can be exempted from the ticket touting offence. My noble friend Lord Holmes is absolutely right about the profound benefits that charities bring in so many ways.

It is also very welcome that the Government have tabled Amendment 32 in response to concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Fuller about businesses carrying out trading activities in accordance with existing trading licences. That is an important consideration to ensure that the application of the trading provisions is fair and proportionate.

I wonder whether the Minister and her officials in the department have spoken to the Advertising Association. It has been in touch with me since Committee about some concerns that advertising firms still have, particularly about the way the Bill does not explain sufficiently—to them, at least—how the new framework will work in practice for existing advertisers and media owners. If the department has not been in contact with the Advertising Association, it would certainly be a very good idea to do so, as the Bill heads to another place, because advertisers do such an important job in sustaining the climate for sporting events big and small across these islands.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I will first speak to Amendments 15, 22, 29 and 34 tabled in my name. These are minor and technical and make clear that, where appropriate, more than one person may be designated in regulations to grant ticketing, advertising, trading and unauthorised association authorisations under the Bill. This would ensure the necessary flexibility to enable, for example, both event owner and local organising committee to grant authorisations if needed.

I am very grateful to noble Lords including the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson, Lord Holmes and Lord Addington, among others, for acknowledging the changes we have made to improve the Bill based on direct discussions and discussions during earlier stages of the Bill. On the specific question relating to the Advertising Association raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, officials did speak to it ahead of the Bill’s introduction. I will ask them to engage again with the organisation concerned to make sure we are hearing its concerns directly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

No.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Okay, I will carry on. With apologies to your Lordships’ House, I just had a moment where I asked myself, “Honestly, am I reading the right bit of paper?” I am pleased to have the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, confirm, in the spirit of the debate so far, that it appears I am not reading the wrong speech. It is a big group.

We must be able both to read our speeches coherently and to meet our commitments to event owners. That is why it would not be appropriate, in this Government’s view, to introduce a blanket exception for all licensed traders, as the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, seeks to provide. I hope that he will be reassured by the changes we have made to address the concerns raised and I commend the amendments in my name to the House.

On Amendments 17 and 19, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the ticketing offence in the Bill ensures that tickets can be publicly sold or resold only with authorisation from an event owner or organiser. This means that tickets will be available only on official channels. As I noted in Committee, we are determined that major sporting events hosted in the UK are inclusive and accessible to the widest possible audience. That includes developing ticketing strategies that put fans, fairness and transparency first. We have worked closely with UEFA to ensure that these principles are at the heart of the approach to Euro 2028. Tickets for the event will go on sale after the final tournament draw in December 2027.

The noble Lord’s Amendment 17 would require a report on the effectiveness of the provisions before they have been applied to regulations, and before tickets have gone on sale. We have, however, committed to evaluate the application of the Bill’s provisions within 12 to 18 months of Euro 2028. We have also committed to bring forward a price cap on the resale of tickets for all live events, including on the level of service fee that can be charged, and limits on the number of tickets that individuals can resell.

As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, noted, I hosted a briefing session yesterday to update noble Lords on this work and I look forward to providing a further update in the autumn. In response to the noble Lord, I stress and underline that the Government really want to address the considerable issues in the secondary ticketing market. I hope that noble Lords attending that meeting were reassured by the session that the Government are committed to ensuring that we have strong measures in place, at the very earliest opportunity, to tackle the secondary ticketing market. This is a clear manifesto commitment and, as set out in the King’s Speech, we intend to publish the draft Bill in this second Session for pre-legislative scrutiny.

Work to prepare this legislation is happening now and I ask noble Lords to have confidence that we intend publication to be absolutely as soon as possible, within what remains of this second Session. For example, had the noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked me whether I would anticipate that it will be early in the new year, I would say that I cannot commit to this, but hope it will be the case.

Amendment 18, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, unfortunately defeats the aim of preventing unauthorised resale and profiteering. It would create a significant gap in protections and leave us unable to meet commitments to major sporting event owners. The noble Lord suggested that the Bill was criminalising people who wanted to give away tickets or sell them at face value to friends and family. This is not the intention, and it is not the intention within the Bill to criminalise the private transfer of tickets at face value between friends, family and associates. That is why the offence applies only to activity that is carried out in a public place in the course of business, or with a view to making profit.

I turn to Amendment 31, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. As I previously outlined, we are committed to mitigating the impact on SMEs but are clear that we must be able to meet our commitments to event owners. That is why it would not be appropriate to introduce a blanket exception for all licensed traders, as the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to do. We believe that my Amendment 32 strikes the appropriate balance. I hope that I have provided the necessary assurances to noble Lords, and that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

Amendment 15 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

16: Clause 7, page 4, line 34, at end insert “(including, for example, activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that ticket touting regulations may provide for activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes to be exempt from the ticket touting offence.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

22: Clause 9, page 6, line 6, leave out “a person” and insert “one or more persons”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to make clear that more than one person may be designated to grant advertising authorisations.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

29: Clause 12, page 8, line 33, leave out “a person” and insert “one or more persons”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to make clear that more than one person may be designated to grant trading authorisations.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

32: Schedule 3, page 34, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
“(4) In determining whether or not to grant an authorisation under this paragraph, a designated authorising person—(a) must have regard to any existing trading licences, and(b) may have regard to—(i) any agreements entered into (whether by the appropriate national authority or another person) for the purposes of the sporting event, and(ii) any other matters that the person considers relevant.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to require existing trading licences to be taken into account by a designated authorising person when determining whether to grant a trading authorisation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

34: Clause 15, page 10, line 31, leave out “a person” and insert “one or more persons”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to make clear that more than one person may be designated to grant association authorisations.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

37: Clause 24, page 16, line 39, at end insert “(see section 3 of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005) (asp 10))”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a drafting refinement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on this trio of amendments, which reflect the important discussions we had in Committee on sporting legacy. Those debates were enriched by the considerable number of Olympian and Paralympian Members of your Lordships’ House. Supporting grass-roots sports and sporting legacy is one of the most important lessons from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

My Amendment 49 and the consequential Amendments 52 and 53 in this group attempt to press the Government on when they will publish their major events strategy. Because of the purposes of this Bill, the amendment reflects sporting events, but this is something eagerly awaited by a number of sectors: sports, culture, arts and many more that host, or seek to host, major events. The Government have said that they will publish the strategy but have not given a clear indication of when, which has slightly affected some of our debates. I do not know whether the Minister is able to say any more on this.

I particularly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, says in Amendment 45. It is a particular shame that the Commonwealth Games to be held soon will not be broadcast and readily available for people on the BBC, for the first time since 1954. I hope the Government will consider how such an impact can be avoided for future sporting events.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 43, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which concerns the infrastructure for major sporting events. As I set out in Committee in more detail, I reassure your Lordships’ House that this is exactly the type of technical requirement already set out in contractual hosting agreements and specified by event owners. As part of the bidding process, prospective hosts will have to provide the necessary assurances to event owners that there will be sufficient capacity and infrastructure in place.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked whether there were sufficient powers if further infrastructure is required to host an event. In the case of London 2012, a delivery authority was established with significant powers as a result of a very specific set of requirements, including significant investment in the construction of infrastructure such as new venues. In the Government’s view, this is not going to be required for every major sporting event. We therefore do not believe it is necessary or proportionate to include prescriptive requirements in relation to infrastructure and accommodation in the Bill.

I assure the noble Lord that we will consider event requirements on a case-by-case basis. We recognise that, when the Government are required to make commitments which go beyond the common requirements set out in the Bill, or in circumstances such as the establishment of a delivery authority, it may require further primary legislation to support event delivery.

On Amendment 44, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the Bill explicitly provides that, for the framework to be applied, a sporting event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or part of it. This would encompass supporting community participation and the growth of grass-roots sport. I am pleased to confirm that the first event this Bill will support, UEFA Euro 2028, will prioritise grass-roots participation as part of the Government-backed community programme, catalysing the growth of a more inclusive game, boosting pride and fostering togetherness across the country. In any case, the Bill already allows us to set funding conditions which could, of course, support grass-roots investment where warranted.

On Amendment 45, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, accessibility and inclusion already underpin major sporting events’ funding. It is a core objective of the Gold Framework and a non-negotiable criterion within our public funding processes. While we are committed to doing more to improve accessibility, we also need to strike a balance between protecting the independence of our media and ensuring that broadcasting revenue can be invested back into the growth of our sports. There is also a matter of practicality: event planning and broadcasting rights negotiations do not always proceed on the same timetable.

Finally, on Amendments 49, 52, and 53, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, as I set out earlier, we are committed to publishing a major events strategy that spans events in all sectors, not just sport. I am pleased to confirm that this will be published by spring next year. It is right that we commit time to fully work this through, in collaboration with those in the industry, to ensure it accurately reflects the opportunities and challenges they face. Of course, it is also right that there continue to be specific strategies for particular issues such as the Gold Framework that underpin our strategy for major sporting events. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her reply and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his amendment. I should have commented on it, because it is a sensible suggestion.

We are at the start of a positive dialogue about building. The Government had a good idea on which they should have been bolder. These are all things that would have strengthened the Bill if there were in it but are probably not essential. Having heard what the Minister said, and liking the thinking if not all the words, I have no hesitation in withdrawing my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, I do not think a worker on a special event should have any fewer rights than a worker on any other occasion.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, as we reach the final moments of play on Report, I am pleased to turn to Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. It is clear that, in some circumstances, zero-hours contracts and contracts guaranteeing a minimum number of hours can benefit both employers and workers. However, without the appropriate safeguards, the flexibility they provide can operate disproportionately in favour of employers, leaving workers with greater uncertainty over their working patterns and income.

Any exclusions or exemptions introduced at this stage risk pre-empting the outcome of the Government’s ongoing consultation on reforms to zero-hours and similar contracts. Through this consultation, the Government are seeking evidence and views from stakeholders on reforms to zero-hours and similar contracts, including whether any exclusions or exemptions may be appropriate. It is important that the views of all stakeholders are fully considered before any decisions are taken on potential exclusions or exemptions.

The Government’s objective is to ensure that all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability, enabling workers to better plan their lives and finances. We encourage stakeholders from the sporting events sector to engage with the consultation and help inform the development of the policy.

I also note, in response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that nobody would have believed she would have encouraged the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, to speak longer than necessary, given the circumstances.

With that, I will blow the final whistle on my remarks but I look forward to continuing commentary and debate, both on the Bill and on tonight’s match. I know all noble Lords wish the England team the best of luck and hope, indeed, that football is coming home. On the basis of the points I have made, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I regret to say that the VAR review has said that we may need to go to extra time on this. This is a serious matter which gets to the heart of how serious we are about hosting these events. We need to encourage participation by individuals and everybody else to give opportunity to millions. I am really sorry, but I am not satisfied with the answers that have been given. I intend to divide the House and then we can all go and watch the game. Come on, England.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

50: Clause 27, page 21, line 24, at end insert—
“(7A) Where regulations under this Act are “subject to the made affirmative resolution procedure”—(a) if the regulations are made by the Secretary of State— (i) the statutory instrument containing them must be laid before Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after being made, and(ii) the regulations cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament;(b) if the regulations are made by the Welsh Ministers—(i) they are subject to the Senedd confirmation procedure (see section 37D of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019), and(ii) they cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the regulations are made unless, during that period, the regulations are confirmed by a resolution of the Senedd;(c) if the regulations are made by the Scottish Ministers—(i) section 30 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 does not apply to the regulations,(ii) the Scottish statutory instrument containing them must be laid before the Scottish Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after being made, and(iii) the regulations cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of the Scottish Parliament;(d) if the regulations are made by a Northern Ireland department—(i) they must be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly as soon as reasonably practicable after being made, and(ii) they cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which they are made unless, during that period, the regulations are approved by a resolution of the Assembly.(7B) In calculating the period of 40 days—(a) in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State, no account is to be taken of any time during which—(i) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or (ii) either House of Parliament is adjourned for more than four days;(b) in the case of regulations made by the Welsh Ministers, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Senedd is—(i) dissolved, or(ii) in recess for more than four days;(c) in the case of regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Scottish Parliament is—(i) dissolved, or(ii) in recess for more than four days;(d) in the case of regulations made by a Northern Ireland department, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Northern Ireland Assembly is—(i) dissolved,(ii) in recess for more than 4 days, or(iii) adjourned for more than 6 days.(7C) If regulations cease to have effect as a result of subsection (7A) that does not—(a) affect the validity of anything previously done under the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to clause 2.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 7, Schedule 1, Clauses 8 to 10, Schedule 2, Clauses 11 to 13, Schedule 3, Clauses 14 to 16, Schedule 4, Clause 17, Schedule 5, Clause 18, Schedule 6, Clauses 19 to 30, Title.

Motion agreed.

Arts Education

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Caine of Kentish Town]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to their commitment in their response to the recommendations from the independent review of Arts Council England, published on 26 March, when they intend to establish the advisory group to help ensure strategic alignment across government-funded programmes to support arts education.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Department for Education and DCMS are working in partnership to ensure strategic alignment across government-funded programmes, including the Arts Council, to support arts education and enrichment in schools and communities. Minister Gould at the Department for Education and Minister Murray at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are working closely, together with officials, on a cross-departmental basis to establish the advisory group to ensure all children everywhere can benefit from strong arts education and enrichment. We are positive we will make strong progress on this recommendation in the near future.

[Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her positive reply and look forward to a speedy establishment. Does she agree with me that if it had been in place then one example—the serious omission by the curriculum review which has now informed the new national curriculum of not addressing screen arts qualifications in a society and economy that creates and consumes ever more with and through screens—would have been spotted? Given that absence and omission, what can DCMS do now to press addressing that issue with DfE before the group is established?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The curriculum and assessment review considered media literacy and preparing young people for life and work. The revised curriculum will strengthen media literacy through English and citizenship, enabling pupils to critically engage with content through different media channels. Schools can continue to offer GCSEs in media studies and film studies. DCMS supported its creative and cultural sectors, including the screen sectors, to contribute to the independent curriculum and assessment review’s call for evidence. We will continue to work closely with the Department for Education to support our sectors to respond to the consultation on the draft national curriculum.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Question. Is the Minister aware that the Department for Education is cutting the strategic priorities grant in higher education that supports media and journalism? It is also excluding them from new maintenance grants and the lifelong learning entitlement—all this while Skills England has just identified media and journalism as a key occupational shortage area. Would she agree that this is the type of strategic misalignment we do not want if we are to battle misinformation and support the Government’s impressive creative industries sector plan?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My strategic misalignment was to get answers that relate to music and arts education but not to journalism. I am happy to write to the noble Baroness on this issue.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, we need a full debate on the important Hodge review, but, out of the many recommendations, do the Government support the recommendation that the government indemnity scheme, which saves a lot of money, could nevertheless be made more effective to allow more items to be shown more widely across the country? I am referring here to normal loans, not the Bayeux Tapestry.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Like many noble Lords, I went through the British Museum’s queuing system to get my tickets for the tapestry; clearly, it is exceptional, including the indemnity scheme around it. The Government will be responding in detail to all the commitments within the Hodge review. I look forward to the noble Earl, now that he is back in his place, securing a debate on the Arts Council review led by my noble friend.

[The Lord Bishop of Winchester]

My Lords, I hope noble Lords will indulge me if I associate all the Lords spiritual with the remarks that have been made about Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He was indeed a man of great Christian faith, generous heart and broad sympathies, and we all pay tribute to him. I may be the only Member of the House who played him once at water polo, and it was a delightful experience.

I thank the Minister for her Answer. Given the emphasis in the review on arts education, and given the significant contribution that arts and humanities make more broadly—spiritually, culturally and socially—there is growing evidence that leading AI companies are increasingly recruiting graduates in English, philosophy, history, theology and other humanities for work on ethics, model alignment, communications and public trust. Given the increasing threat that these subjects are under, they seem to be viewed as an easy target for cuts in higher education, with Exeter University being the latest example. Could the Minister outline what plans the Government have not only to safeguard arts and humanities education at all levels but to promote them as the significant asset they are?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As an arts graduate, I entirely associate myself with the comments made by the right reverend Prelate. We are clear that arts education is important. That is why it was at the heart of the independent curriculum and assessment review, encouraging creative arts education and opening access to art, design, dance, drama and music to every child anywhere. On the right reverend Prelate’s points regarding DfE policy, I will highlight his question to my noble friend Lady Smith. However, I am clear that, like DCMS, DfE is committed to a strong arts education at every stage throughout young people’s education.

[Baroness Hodge of Barking (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her statement on the progress being made in setting up the group. Does she agree that there is a woeful underfunding of cultural and creative education in our schools? Schools cannot afford the buses to take children to museums, they cannot afford to pay for professional teachers and they cannot afford to buy the musical instruments. In undertaking our review, we lit on the role of trusts, foundations and philanthropy. If we are to make an urgent impact on what is available to children in schools, we need to bring in those trusts, foundations and philanthropists to help us to fund those facilities in schools. What discussions have Ministers had with trusts, foundations, and philanthropic institutions and individuals to ensure that they contribute to bringing a good creative education to our children urgently?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Philanthropy is a significant way that we can harness the power of giving. My noble friend may be aware that Minister Peacock in the other place, who is responsible for philanthropy, recently published a philanthropy strategy and plan for how we can get place-based strategy. We are aware that it is often a barrier for schools to access the arts and trips to museums. We want to explore every avenue we can to make sure children can get to museums. Indeed, the Southeastern Railway that goes to Hastings provided 1,066 tickets for schoolchildren from the Battle of Hastings countryside to access the exhibition.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, applications open in the autumn for the next round of the Arts Council’s national portfolio investment programme. I particularly welcome that it will be a five-year window, which was one of the recommendations from the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge. There were many other important recommendations in her report. Will the Government work to make sure that as many as possible can be implemented before the decisions are made for that 2028 to 2033 funding window?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Arts Council has produced details of a new portfolio process, following guidance that we published in September, with decisions by July 2027 for funding commencing from April the following year. Some of this work has to be done in tandem. We are trying to work through the recommendations as quickly as possible, focusing on the most significant first. I appreciate that people and organisations want certainty. If there are any organisations that the noble Lord is aware of that have concerns, I ask him to please direct them my way.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report by Freedom in the Arts which has exposed a toxic culture of boycotts and hatred in the arts, especially against Jewish-themed performances and artists, including, for example, harassment of the wholly admirable Dame Maureen Lipman, who now needs security? What can the Government do to ensure that the reputation of British culture is restored and kept open for all legal performances?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Baroness highlights a topic that will be the subject of a debate later in the week in Grand Committee. I am happy to meet the noble Baroness to talk through the issues she raises. I encourage any noble Lord who wants to sign up to the Grand Committee debate on Thursday to do so by 5 pm today.

Live Music

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Brennan of Canton for initiating this important debate and all noble Lords for their valuable contributions. It is clear from the number of speakers how much passion and expertise there is among noble Lords for music. I may struggle to respond to all the points and questions during the debate but will follow up in writing where required. Unlike my noble friend Lady Hyde of Bemerton, however, I will not use lyrics to make my point. I think the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, might have got a few in as well.

There can be no doubt among noble Lords of my noble friend Lord Brennan’s passion, talent and expertise, both as a performer and as a staunch advocate for the music sector over many years. I have been told we cannot encourage him to use any excess time to entertain us in your Lordships’ House, but hopefully we will find another time in the near future.

To quote my noble friend, I agree that everyone’s lives are enriched when they gather with others to enjoy live music. The sheer joy brought by our country’s performers from popular music, through folk, country, rock and jazz to some of the foremost classical performers is unparalleled. This Government are committed to protecting one of our country’s most valued and valuable sectors.

As my noble friend Lady Dacres said, British music has changed not just this country but other countries around the world. That reflects what my noble friend Lady Gill said about the richness and diversity of music within our rich and diverse country.

I commend my noble friend Lord Brennan for his recent work chairing the fan-led review of live and electronic music, launched in the other place by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which the Government warmly welcome and which I thoroughly enjoyed looking through. Fans and music lovers are at the heart of our live music ecosystem. The Government will be responding to the report’s recommendations shortly, alongside our upcoming music plan, which I will come on to. I can commit to my noble friend, however, that we do not intend to let his report and the views of fans gather dust.

As many noble Lords mentioned, music is a fundamental part of our nation’s life, with human experience sparking inspiration. As my noble friend Lord Brennan said, there is a benefit to our general well-being and our mental well-being. It is also a universal language that connects us across generations, backgrounds and communities. It is vital that all fans, wherever they live, have access to live music. Whether it is thousands gathering for a mega stadium gig, as I did last night at Wembley to hear Shania Twain and Harry Styles—I was fortunate enough to be there—or neighbours packing out a local pub to hear a local band, live music fosters a powerful sense of community in all its forms, bringing different generations together in shared spaces. It deepens local pride, connects our communities and gives a powerful voice to our national story, not least to Wales, as my noble friend Lady Wilcox of Newport said.

I welcomed the example given by my noble friend of the importance and value of music in her hometown of Newport. Those points were echoed by my noble friend Lady MacLeod’s description of the festival in Skye. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, music strengthens our society.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and my noble friends Lady Wilcox, Lady Gill and Lady MacLeod, reflected on the positive economic impacts of live music. The music industry makes an incredible contribution to our economy; a record-breaking £8 billion in GVA in 2024 generated £4.8 billion in export revenues and supported over 220,000 jobs across the country. The suggestion that we use it to finance the defence plan is an interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, which I will pass on. Indeed, the Government’s industrial strategy explicitly identifies our creative industries as one of eight priority growth-driving sectors, fully backed by our 10-year creative industries sector plan to support long-term growth.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, asked what the Government would do to work with the private sector. To fulfil our ambitions for the UK to be the best place in the world to create and invest in music, we are delivering on our commitment to a dedicated music plan. We will soon set out how this Government are working hand in hand with the industry to unlock talent, empower entrepreneurs and give our creative businesses the definitive conditions they need to thrive. We are backing this commitment with a landmark investment, our new £30 million music growth package, which more than doubles previous government funding for the music industry.

My noble friend Lord Brennan highlighted support for grass-roots music and a number of noble Lords spoke about the importance of strengthening our grass-roots infrastructure. We have this at the heart of our music growth package, alongside boosting domestic touring and expanding international exports. Ultimately, this will support at least 40,000 creators and professionals across the UK over the next three years. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and my noble friends Lady Dacres and Lord Watson of Invergowrie also mentioned grass roots. Alongside government investment, there is a vital role for industry here, too. We are actively backing the live music sector’s £1 voluntary ticket contribution, led by the LIVE Trust, to ensure that success at the top is reinvested into the grass-roots spaces that forge our global headliners. In relation to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I agree. We recognise the significant role played by charities and, indeed, the LIVE Trust is one of the foremost examples that the noble Baroness shared.

My noble friend Lord Brennan of Canton and other noble Lords asked what will happen if the industry fails to adopt the voluntary levy at scale. While we welcome the significant progress made by the LIVE Trust, we have been absolutely clear that we are prepared to explore legislative options if necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of our world-leading live music.

Noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Keeley, raised creative education for our young people. The Government are committed to ensuring that every child has access to a quality creative education, with £13 million over three years for the National Centre for Arts and Music Education and our £37.8 million music and dance scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to the Every Child Can programme. DCMS is rebuilding opportunities through that £132.5 million programme, which will ensure that every young person has something to do, somewhere to go and someone who cares. That obviously includes access to music education—a point made by my noble friend Lady Keeley. The Government are committed to revitalising arts education, including music, through reform of the national curriculum. Arts Council England supports national youth music organisations to help talented young people from less privileged backgrounds access high-quality music and dance training.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about strengthening the agent of change in planning policy to better protect grass-roots music venues from noise complaints. The Government are currently consulting on strengthening the National Planning Policy Framework to ensure consistent application of the agent of change principle by local authorities.

Noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Hyde and Lady Gill and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, all raised issues arising post Brexit, including European touring. Helping touring artists is a manifesto commitment. The UK and European Commission have jointly committed to supporting UK-EU cultural exchange, specifically recognising the vital activities of touring artists at the inaugural UK-EU summit. It is very good to have the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, back to continue the debate on EU touring, artists and other matters that he has championed over the years.

Following the Prime Minister’s resignation, we have agreed with the EU that it will not be possible to go ahead with the summit on 22 July. We will, however, continue to discuss options with the EU for the summit to take place at the next and earliest opportunity. The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, asked a range of EU-related questions. The only thing that I can say to the noble Baroness in this context is: please watch this space. I hope we will continue to discuss that and I hope I will be able to come back with some firm commitments at a later date.

My noble friend Lady Gill raised AI—I apologise if other noble Lords raised it. We are backing the sector with targeted investment while building safeguards around AI. We remain firmly committed to protecting creators while supporting AI innovation. We are launching a consultation on digital replicas later this year, establishing a taskforce on AI labelling and launching a working group for smaller creative organisations to drive progress.

Noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Brennan, raised secondary ticketing. We are tackling industrial-scale ticket touting head-on. Through our upcoming secondary ticketing legislation, we will destroy the touts’ business model once and for all, protecting hard-working fans from being ripped off. We are working at pace—a phrase I do not like, but I have said it out loud now—and I will continue to push for this to be published at the earliest stage, not least for the purpose of my response in the Sporting Events Bill. We are working at pace to publish a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in this Session to ensure that our measures are truly effective and, more importantly, enforceable and future-proof.

I appreciate the wealth of expertise illustrated in today’s debate and the commitment to making sure that our fantastic, world-class live music sector is supported. I look forward to future discussions, with my noble friend Lord Brennan and others, to take forward this agenda.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is going to sum up, because we have time.

Oh. Can we not use the remaining seven minutes for more points? I had such an incredible point to make.

Media Green Paper

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, there is much to be commended in the Green Paper, not least adding on-demand rights to the listed events regime which we have been discussing in the Sporting Events Bill. As the Government recognise, some of the questions in there are thorny ones which will need careful consideration, not least how we ensure greater prominence for trusted news sources in our increasingly crowded media environment.

When this Urgent Question was taken in another place last week, one of the Labour members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee urged the Secretary of State to consider “reining in GB News”—a question that the Secretary of State rather sidestepped. Can the Minister provide a bit more reassurance that that is not the Government’s direction of travel? Do the Government consider GB News a trusted news source?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting point. The whole idea of prominence is to ensure that people know the difference between trusted sources of news and opinion, and that is where the prominence issue comes in by looking at ways we can make sure that such sites come further up in the searches that people make. On the specific question, I would say it would depend whether the item on a particular news programme was opinion purporting to be fact or more factual.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome the Green Paper, which rightly recognises the severe financial challenges facing our PSBs, vividly exposed by the recent devastating cuts at the BBC. We have long proposed on these Benches that the BBC World Service should be fully funded directly from an FCDO budget, freeing up millions of pounds per year. The World Service is so important both for underpinning soft power and for the security implications of guaranteeing a source of trusted news in a polarised world. Will the Minister take this on board and tell us what conversations her department is having with the Foreign Office on this really important matter?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

One of the real strengths of the BBC is that it is such a trusted source of news, and that is behind a lot of the issues within this. On the ongoing discussions with the FCDO, I am happy to meet the noble Baroness to discuss that. As she is aware, another Minister in the department deals with this. The Secretary of State has referred to the BBC’s overseas coverage as

“a light on the hill”,—[Official Report, Commons, 16/4/26; col. 992.]

and somewhere that people go to, so we do recognise the real importance of the World Service.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Green Paper because, frankly, Rome is burning. Two of the UK’s greatest, most respected and historic achievements are threatened by the globalisation of media—a lively, challenging and diverse press, which we have had for centuries, and an unmatched tradition of public service broadcasting, encompassed by Channel 4 and ITV, as well as the BBC, which we have had for almost a century. For over a century, through those means, we have created a very effective national debating chamber and brilliantly captured our national culture, talent and capability. Does the Minister accept that radical measures will be needed to arrest these trends?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Government are fully behind the BBC, both at the present time and as a future source of trusted news and content. Through the charter review process, a lot of these conversations are happening and we are looking in particular at how we can ensure that the funding model is sustainable while being fair and affordable for households. We are clear that,, if we can get sustainable funding and make sure that we get the prominence regime on the internet as well as on television screens, then we should go a long way to ensuring a strong future for our press and media. I would probably draw back a little from saying Rome is burning. There is so much good practice out there that we should celebrate, but I appreciate that we need to see the warning signs of what might come down the road, which is where the paper comes from.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, the Green Paper is really welcome. If this is got right, then digital switchover will mean many more people in this country will get sufficient media and digital understanding to be able to use what they need to improve their lives, so this is much bigger than many people have been thinking. I welcome that and hope that the department will fully involve those who are really concerned about digital inclusion in the consultation so that we get it right for everyone.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The intention is to make sure we get it right for everyone. If people have not read the Green Paper, it is worth the read; I thought it was a really interesting document. A striking point made in the paper is about information being part of public infrastructure, and recognising that is critical. In terms of the switchover from digital terrestrial television to the internet provision, there is a question about whether that should be in 2034 or in the decade afterwords. It is not just critical for people and their news; it is also about how people get jobs and apply for pretty much anything. The world is now online, and we need to do what we can to make sure we listen to those people as part of this process.

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, none of us underestimates how hard it will be to preserve and protect the place of what we must now call public service media in this new world, but I would contend that it is impossible to understand our world at the moment if we do not understand the place of faith in the affairs of the world. It is impossible to understand our own nation’s culture, literature and law without understanding the place of faith; I do not think we can understand ourselves without it. But I notice that, in the Green Paper, there is little or perhaps no mention of the place of faith, which has always been such an important part of the public service broadcasting economy. I wonder whether the Minister would like to mention—I know how difficult it is—what steps are being taken to make sure this is preserved.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will feed the right reverend Prelate’s point back. I think it is a really interesting point. I know that having knowledge of the Bible and Bible stories meant that I was much better equipped to understand literature. I think there is that cultural aspect, as well as the faith aspect, to it. The main thrust of the paper was around making sure nobody was left behind in the move towards digital, but I will feed those points back.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, a trusted source of news that everyone can rely on is good for society, but we should not kid ourselves that that is what currently exists. Levels of trust in the BBC and other mainstream broadcasters are not universal across all demographic groups. The cause of that is the failings of the broadcasters and that is what pushes these people in search of other sources of information—not all of which is bad, I must add. Before any decision is made on giving greater prominence to broadcasters, will the Minister require them, especially the BBC, to publish a breakdown of their audience trust scores by demographic group, using a modern model, such as that deployed by More in Common or Yonder, that goes deeper than just age and socioeconomic groups? Will she demand from the BBC especially that, for any prominence to be awarded, it must first improve its performance among those groups?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really interesting point. I hope the noble Baroness will take part in the consultation, but I will feed that back. We are clear that a free and fair media is essential to our democracy; part of that is people actually accessing information, and that trust piece has to go beyond just the surface level. I will feed the points back.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, the Green Paper does not simply propose that the prominence regime be confined to public service media, including public broadcasters; it suggests that it should also be extended to news publishers. Therefore, if some news publishers are going to be included in the prominence regime and given various privileges, and social media companies will have to promote the content of those news publishers, how are those news publishers going to be selected? Can the Minister assure the House that this is not a Trojan horse for forcing some news publishers to bend the knee to a state-approved press regulator, such as Impress?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

This is entirely why we have a consultation period that runs to 31 August. As part of the consultation, we will work and engage with relevant parties to determine the criteria that we use. We will decide the criteria for a trustworthy news provider in an open and transparent manner. On protecting media freedom, this is not about censorship or people having to take a different view; this is about making sure that the general public—and we as the part of the general public with a particular interest in news—can understand what is more likely to be high-quality content, and ensuring that that comes further up the search mechanisms.