Places of Worship Renewal Fund

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am pleased to answer this Question for Short Debate and, like others, I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis of Banbury, for securing the debate. I thank all other noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate, who, despite the weather, stayed to speak in the debate. I congratulate the noble and learned Baroness, or rather her daughter and son-in-law, on their marriage. I will aim, in the time allowed, to answer as many questions as possible, but I will review Hansard and follow up in writing where I do not.

In May, as noble Lords are aware, I announced the opening of applications for the places of worship renewal fund. The fund will provide upfront capital grants to restore listed places of worship, with funding targeted towards the places that need it most. I was pleased to be able to secure this funding of £92 million for churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and other places of worship, in recognition of the valuable role they play in the hearts of their communities. In many cases, they provide services well beyond their congregations. The example that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, gave in her opening remarks of her local church, St James the Apostle, highlighted this, as did the examples from the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Seccombe, my noble friend Lady Wilcox and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who highlighted the effective monetary value of the social value that is provided.

Since I became Heritage Minister, I have visited places of worship up and down the country, including St Michael le Belfrey in York, Salisbury Cathedral, Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, Grimsby Minster and the Sir Moses Montefiore Synagogue in Grimsby. I have spoken regularly to stakeholders, including the Church of England and the National Churches Trust. I know that wonderful buildings such as these rely on dedicated volunteers to keep the doors open and the lights on. While some larger places of worship may have dedicated fundraising staff, I know that, for the vast majority, it is those same volunteers—including, I have no doubt, many Members of your Lordships’ House, clearly including a number of those who spoke today—who will fundraise with their community and apply for funding for repairs and essential improvements. This scheme is designed with them in mind.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, highlighted the previous Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme. I recognise how much this scheme was valued by those caring for our historic places of worship and I know it supported many transformational projects. However, in the current fiscal environment, we need to look carefully at how funding is targeted to ensure it is delivering against our ambitions. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester said, many churches have not benefited as they could not raise the capital funds up front.

Our evaluation of the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme showed that 80% of those who benefited said they would have completed the works anyway, though in some cases to a different timetable or scope. Our internal analysis on past payments in the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme data also shows that it disproportionately favoured places with less disadvantage, illustrating the point that it was almost impossible for some areas to get the funding to make the essential repairs.

To reassure my noble friend Lady Wilcox, this is not a rebranding exercise. The places of worship renewal fund will target places facing double disadvantage—the highest levels of deprivation and the greatest need for investment. When assessing claims, Historic England, which will manage the fund for the Government, will prioritise eligible applications in these places of greatest need.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, and other noble Lords raised rural churches. Any listed place of worship can apply and applications will be prioritised on the basis of need, as set out on the Historic England website. In areas not served by standard measures of deprivation, additional consideration can be given to those that serve isolated or rural communities or provide the primary or only shared community space in that locality.

My noble friend Lady Wilcox referenced the incredible church in Newport, Wales. In relation to devolution, the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme was a UK-wide VAT rebate scheme. The places of worship renewal fund is for England only, because heritage is devolved. The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Administrations receive Barnett consequentials at the spending review, taking into account any changes to the overall DCMS settlement. We have made them aware that it covers this scheme. It is now for the devolved Administrations to consider whether to set up new arrangements, should they wish to. They have not yet done so, but we have offered to share how DCMS is approaching this. Lottery funding is also available in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and we anticipate that, over the next three years, about £100 million will be distributed for churches across the nations. I appreciate the point made by my noble friend Lady Gill and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that some places of worship are reluctant to take lottery money.

It is only when all eligible projects in or serving the places that face double disadvantage have been funded that other projects will be considered. Second priority will be given to areas with the greatest need, as measured by the index of multiple deprivation. Once eligible projects in these areas have been funded, projects with the greatest need in terms of financial need, urgency of repair or community benefit will be considered.

The places of worship renewal fund will move funding from a retrospective VAT reclaim, as noble Lords have noted, which funded projects that could already raise the money to carry out capital repairs, to a targeted, upfront capital grant. Funding will no longer be awarded on a first come, first served basis. It will go to places that need it most. By enabling applicants to secure funding before major works begin, the places of worship renewal fund will give congregations the confidence and certainty to carry out works.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, questioned the point around active places of worship. An active place of worship is categorised either as one used for worship at least six times a year or as one owned by a charity that cares specifically for historic places of worship that are open to the public a minimum of six times a year. Like the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I would recommend a visit to the Churches Conservation Trust, which is eligible for the new scheme.

My noble friend Lady Wilcox asked whether funding would be sufficient. The places of worship renewal fund will invest £92 million, as I have said. There is also a wider landscape of government funding for the Churches Conservation Trust. The National Lottery is expected to spend over £100 million between 2024 and 2027, and the vital work of parishes and congregations is also key.

This is not the only new funding I have launched. The £60 million heritage at risk capital fund is now open, ready to conserve and repair assets delivering community benefit. The £42 million heritage revival fund is also open, supporting communities themselves to take on the regeneration of historic buildings, getting them back into community use. This sits alongside lottery funding to heritage of around £300 million per annum.

In relation to the points made about whether the Church would fund this and the sustainability of funding, I will allude to different points made by both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. Care of our places of worship is a significant challenge, and in the Government’s view it needs to be a shared endeavour. I will talk to the Church of England about how we, the Church, the lottery and others can work together to support these buildings. My conversations with Church officials, however, suggest that they are willing to have this conversation.

In response to the wider point of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, there is a balance to be struck. These are not simply religious buildings; they are also historic buildings. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, said, they make up almost half of grade 1 listed buildings. Through the places of worship renewal fund, smaller grants will be available for minor targeted interventions.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, my noble friend Lady Wilcox and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and my noble friend Lady Gill have highlighted that simplicity was a feature of the previous scheme. In designing the new competitive application process, we have worked hard with Historic England to take into account the needs of volunteers up and down the country who care for our places of worship.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in designing the scheme we met with a range of stakeholders, as did Historic England, which also ran a working group to design it. Historic England will have dedicated project officers to guide smaller congregations and faith groups through the grant application process. When I was on a recent visit to Grimsby, I met a congregation who were availing themselves of that advice. We feel that means that groups which need extra support will receive it, above all in areas of double disadvantage.

This is the first round of a new scheme. We are monitoring feedback carefully using Historic England intelligence, reviewing social media and listening to our stakeholders to understand whether improvements to the process can be made. I will meet with Historic England to discuss this, and I am happy to meet with any interested Members of your Lordships’ House as well to hear noble Lords’ direct experience. Like all speakers in today’s debate, I recognise how our historic places of worship provide many valuable services to our communities, like food banks, playgroups, and spaces for music, dance and culture. The best way to protect our heritage is to use it, and this is exactly what the funding aims to do. I will write to other noble Lords, including to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, around crime and crime against churches.

The scheme will ensure that heritage buildings, including listed places of worship, stand proud at the centre of our communities and continue to serve their needs for many years to come.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and other noble Lords for their gold medal contributions today—if I am allowed to say that, at this stage at least. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and my noble friend Lord Hayward set out, there are quite often unintended consequences, the sausage being a perfect example of what we would all agree is a disproportionate response. I think all we are talking about here are common-sense provisions in all of this, which I know are very difficult to draft into any sort of amendment, but which at the same time I think we would all agree would be sensible. With that, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

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

I thank the noble Lord for tabling Amendment 58, which would introduce an exception to prohibition on unauthorised association. I understand that this amendment seeks to ensure that a licensed premises’ use of representations in pre-existing advertising material will not breach the prohibition, providing that the use does not suggest that the premises is an official sponsor of, or otherwise commercially associated with, a sporting event to which the unauthorised association provisions have been applied.

I can assure the Committee that a licensed premises’ use, or indeed any wider business use, of pre-existing advertising materials in this way will not breach the prohibition on unauthorised association. That is because the prohibition on unauthorised association applies only where a business uses a representation in a way that is likely to suggest to the public that it has an official association with the event. It is for event owners to agree with athletes and their individual sponsors—in response to the noble Lord, Lord Foster—the types of promotional activity that are to be permitted during an event. That is not for legislation.

I can also provide assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the Bill expressly provides that a business will not breach the prohibition on unauthorised association by providing factual information about the services it provides. The intention of this exception in paragraph 3(4)(b) of Schedule 4 is to enable businesses to factually describe goods sold and services they provide in the course of their normal business, where this is done in accordance with honest business practice. For example, a pub will be able to state that it is screening Euro 2028 matches without breaching the unauthorised association prohibition, provided it does not imply that it has an official association with Euro 2028. A B&B will also be able to state that it is within walking distance of a venue for Euro 2028 without breaching the prohibition.

We want to ensure that local businesses can show their support for major sporting events and we will work with event organisers to ensure that this is the case. The prohibition applies only to activity that would suggest to the public an official association with an event, meaning that there was a realistic chance that everyday members of the public would consider that such an association existed. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, cited the case of Olympic sausages; the example I have been asking officials about as I have gone through it is whether it is likely or unlikely that this Bill would prevent a local bakery selling football-themed cupcakes in support of Euro 2028, and I have been assured that it is not likely that that would happen. So, for the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Yes, I think the idea is that everybody is saying, can we avoid what we can only describe as the cock-up school of history? That is when something goes wrong that is unintended and gets in the way of the enjoyment here. I will take away what the noble Baroness has said, speak to people and see whether it is enough, because we might want to have a go again if it is seen that there is still some danger and we need some more clarity. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and hope that we do not have to return to it—but if we do, we do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for leading the debate on this series of amendments. As she says, it is unavoidably in our minds today in the current heatwave. I am sure that noble Lords are particularly grateful to all the organisers of major sporting events who are working to adapt and tailor their events to the extreme temperatures that we are experiencing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is right to point to the importance of public and sustainable transport options. She is also right that they enhance the experience of people who are attending sporting events, both large and small. I have declared my interest in Formula 1 and my interest in the register of attending the British Grand Prix weekend last year. I did so by train and on the shuttle bus that the organisers at the Silverstone Circuit have been working so hard to make available, so that people can travel there in a sustainable manner. This was part of the broader commitment by Formula 1 to be net zero by 2030. Sports organisations, governing bodies and international bodies are all doing a great deal in order to provide the leadership and the changes that people rightly expect.

Major sporting events can be important focal points and rallying cries. As outlined in the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, they can be catalysts for important change in this area. He and my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke about the experience of the work done in the run-up to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

My noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned water quality. I thought, too, about the extensive debates in Paris about the quality of the water in the River Seine. When hosting these events, there is an important opportunity to bring focus to those discussions. Towards the end of his contribution, my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned ensuring that anything we do here is enabling and not too prescriptive, that it gets the balance right and acknowledges the leadership that many sporting bodies are already providing to try to achieve this. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, are right to raise this: there is merit in looking at what we can do with this legislation to drive that change in a positive way. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Amendment 95, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, refers to the major events strategy. Again, this is an area where it would be helpful to hear some of the Government’s thinking and whether there will there be a section on the environment and sustainability when it comes out.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harlech. Like my noble friend Lord Moynihan, he was unable to be here at Second Reading for constitutional reasons, but I am very glad to have him back in his place in your Lordships’ House. He has provided a strong example of the benefit of having a young, working parent on our Benches, taking part in debates such as this. On behalf of the residents of Islington and north London, he powerfully set out the impact of the celebrations that took place. Sadly, these were not dealt with and cleared up by Islington Council in the manner people would have expected—and certainly the manner that those who pay the large council tax in that borough would want.

I congratulate my noble friend on not reigniting the row that he had with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—who is a staunch Arsenal fan—during the debates on the Football Governance Bill. He has raised a very serious matter in this debate, and he clearly explained the impact that these things have. I hope the Minister will take seriously the concerns that he raised and make sure that the impact of major sporting events, and celebrations such as that, do not cause such hazards, inconvenience and dangers to local residents who are affected.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and my noble friend Lord Whitty for their amendments. As highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, there was clearly considerable consensus during the debate. I will, I hope, add to that a little, but I will probably not go as far as noble Lords would like.

This Government fully agree that environmental sustainability should be, and is, at the heart of planning and delivering the major sporting events that we host, not least—as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out—as we experience the extreme heat of this week. I, for one, am delighted to be in your Lordships’ Committee this afternoon, rather than outside in the extreme temperatures.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her work on the London Assembly and as deputy mayor for the environment and on sustainable travel. It was fascinating to hear from noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Mawson, about their work relating to London 2012. It was a reminder of the true expertise and experience in your Lordships’ House, which the ministerial team in DCMS is keen to make use of. This should not be seen as an issue that is not cross-party. It is our desire, and it is in all our interests, to make sure that we use the expertise and experience in your Lordships’ House. I will set in motion the setting up of a ministerial meeting with people who have been involved in previous bids. Why would the Government not want to benefit from the considerable knowledge that we have?

On the approach taken in the Bill, and to give just one example, we are proud of last year’s Women’s Rugby World Cup, which introduced a dedicated environmental sustainability programme across all eight host venues in England. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, we need to learn from current practice to get the balance right. The sector is already doing a lot.

Amendment 59 relates to sustainable transport. This Government recognise the importance of sustainable travel and are committed to supporting effective transport planning that helps spectators reach major sporting events safely, efficiently and, where possible, by lower-carbon modes of transport. This issue is not about the desirability of those modes of transport in principle but whether these detailed requirements should be mandated in primary legislation.

The Government’s view is that the plans prepared under Schedule 5 retain sufficient flexibility to reflect different venues, events and local transport networks. For those reasons, we do not consider it appropriate to prescribe this level of operational detail in the Bill. Major sporting events already vary significantly in scale, location, venue layout, spectator profile and local transport provision. Requiring admission tickets to confer entitlements to travel on specific public transport services would not always be within the gift of an event organiser or designated body. It may depend on commercial agreements between multiple transport operators, as well as on existing ticketing systems, service capacity and local network coverage.

It could cause unintended consequences for people using trains to commute in a sustainable way. As someone who lives on a train line that covers Wembley, I regularly share trains with people travelling to events. Most recently, when travelling while the Harry Styles concerts were taking place, I felt very underdressed— I lacked the sequins that seemed to be a requirement. In this Government’s view, sustainable transport is better secured through proportionate, locally appropriate event planning, rather than through potentially inflexible statutory requirements, but we agree that using sustainable transport is the aim.

I turn to Amendments 87 and 88, which would require organisers of events to which the Bill’s framework has been applied to publish reports on the environmental impacts associated with the event, and require the Secretary of State and event organises to have regard to climate and environmental objectives when exercising their functions under the Bill. Again, we agree with the spirit of these amendments. This is why the Bill explicitly stipulates that a sporting event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or a part of it in order for the framework to be applied. Social benefit here encompasses environmental and climate impact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

I thank the Minister for raising the point about us maybe sharing some of the knowledge we gained through the Olympics. I certainly would be really willing to do that, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, would as well. Some of us are concerned that, under successive Governments, lessons are not being learned from some of these projects. Some of us care a lot about the future of east London, and I worry that just a mile down the road, at the Royal Docks, we are not learning the lessons and are in danger of building the next phase of poverty in the East End of London, with developments literally with weeds between them. With the Olympic park, we were clear that we were building a mixed community that would connect housing, jobs and skills, health, and a whole range of enterprise and sport together in an integrated development.

I share with the Minister the thought that we need to get better at learning lessons. This Government rightly want to do some major regeneration programmes, which is correct, but I worry that the dots are not being joined here. I worry that if we do not do that then what we are seeing on the Royals will start to happen in lots of other communities across the country. I suspect that a conversation needs to happen—particularly with a new party leader, who may or may not know some of these things about place-making—about how there is an opportunity here that I fear will be missed unless we grab hold of it.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

To confirm, I will set up a meeting with people who have been involved in setting up previous major events. I would not have said that I would without checking with colleagues in the department, so I will try to set that in motion as soon as possible. I thank the noble Lord very much for his offer.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke. On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, I am an Arsenal supporter but I do not take responsibility for every single Arsenal supporter. It is appalling that there was so much waste. I thought he showed great discretion in not mentioning that Islington Council is a Labour council—that was very kind and sweet of him. Sadly, the Greens are only in opposition there, so perhaps by 2028 we might have more sway.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, tabled his Amendment 95 after the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, tabled hers. Had I seen his, I would probably have just supported it, but this has contributed to a debate, so it has been quite useful in that way.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made some very kind comments. After his tabling that regret amendment yesterday on the Climate Change Act, and winning the vote, I really thought I would never speak to him again. But obviously, his kind comments have completely changed my mind. It is a pleasure to agree.

On the difference between the two Mayors of London, Ken Livingstone and Boris, I would just like to say that Ken did all the back-breaking work for the planning and in carrying it through. As for Boris Johnson, to cut any further emissions he put potted plants along the major roads, which was a fairly inadequate way of dealing with carbon emissions. But, you know—that was Boris.

It was fascinating to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, about these different things that happened during the Olympics. I felt quite heavily involved, but I had completely forgotten about the water situation, and all the pre-planning as well, which I did not know anything about. That was all fascinating.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I hope the Conservative Opposition are going to be really heartened by the fact that there was so much support for putting climate change issues into the Bill. Given that we have had support from all around the Chamber, I hope we can do something much more progressive.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that really, this is an obvious thing to do. The Minister knows I have huge respect for her and for her work here, but also at the London Assembly. But the Government have a problem here. With so much unanimity on this issue, the Government have to give way a little bit on this—a bit more than they perhaps want to.

Quite honestly, something that annoys me again and again with this Labour Government is that they talk about climate change, but they just do not get it. They do not see how to apply climate change measures to all the legislation they are putting through. The fact that it was completely left out, especially the transport sustainability issues, I just find astonishing. So, I will be pushing on this. The Government have to be seen to be aware not only of climate change but of the measures we can bring in to improve it.

I do not want to overstate the case, but we are responsible for future generations here. This really matters. I would love to be included in the discussions—although the Minister might not want me there. But if I can be, that would be great. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

That is a very real warning that as changes are made and burdens are put on businesses and employers, they have an impact on not just the economy but our very ability to hold these types of events. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness’s thoughts on this, and I thank all noble Lords again for a really good debate.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Addington, Lord Holmes of Richmond, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Markham, and—although she is not in her place today—the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, for their amendments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Markham, that this has been a really helpful debate, in series of helpful debates on this Bill.

Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, would require digital modelling to be used in planning for certain sporting events, which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also spoke to in the example he gave of Queensland. Although the Government recognise the potential for digital tools to support transport planning for major sporting events, we do not agree that their use should be mandated through primary legislation.

Planning for such events must remain proportionate, flexible and responsive to local circumstances. Existing planning processes already allow event organisers, local authorities, transport operators and safety advisory groups to use digital modelling where that is helpful and appropriate. A city centre venue with established transport links may require a very different planning approach from a temporary venue or one in a less well-connected location.

We should also be cautious about placing specific technologies or methodologies in the Bill. Digital simulation, AI-assisted adaptation and related tools may be valuable, but technology, as noble Lords will be aware, evolves quickly and legislation should not risk becoming outdated. In addition, the proposed data-sharing requirement may raise practical questions around data governance, consistency, ownership, privacy and commercial sensitivity, even where anonymisation is envisaged. More broadly, effective transport planning for major events depends on local knowledge, venue design, crowd profile, policing, security, weather and wider network conditions. Those matters are best addressed through flexible operational planning supported by the transport measures in the Bill as needed, rather than by imposing a rigid statutory template.

On Amendment 76, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, hosting major sporting events is a highly competitive global market, with a number of rival nations investing heavily to attract and secure events. The sector continues to face challenges in delivering these events, with costs rising and consumer expectations continuing to grow. However, we disagree with a requirement to publish a report assessing the impact of the Government’s economic policies on the UK’s ability to attract and host major sporting events. We do not think that is required.

The Government remain committed to continuing to engage across the major events industry—not just sporting events—to better understand how we can support their growth, tackle these challenges, share learnings and support collaboration. Moreover, the UK’s competitive advantage is based not solely on the funding it provides or its wider economic landscape but on the strength of our overall offer. The UK is a proven, innovative and experienced host nation. We provide a stable and trusted environment, strong delivery partners, leading experts and world-class facilities. We have a world-leading reputation for excellence in event delivery because we stage complex events to the highest standards. We should be proud of this and the Bill seeks to build on this reputation. Our future pipeline of sporting events is a strong indicator of that reputation. The Bill is intended to increase regulatory certainty, further enhancing our credibility with event owners.

In June 2025, the Government committed more than £500 million to support the delivery of major sporting events hosted in the UK, including the Grand Départ for the Tour de France, the Tour de France Femmes in 2027 and UEFA Euro 2028, as well as a commitment to support the UK’s bids to host the 2029 World Athletics and World Para Athletics Championships, and the 2035 FIFA Women’s World Cup. I also want to highlight that UK Sport already evaluates the economic impact of major sporting events hosted in the UK, which naturally takes into consideration wider government policies. We will continue to work with UK Sport and partners on how we can maintain and strengthen the United Kingdom’s position globally.

Amendments 77 and 78, on accommodation and infrastructure respectively, were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I would never say the noble Lord has got it “horribly wrong”; however, I would probably say that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, got it right in his analysis.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I do not have favourites, but the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, wins that today. I used the words of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, so my apologies to him as well. The Government do not believe that these amendments are necessary, although I recognise that the concerns the noble Lord raises are to ensure that arrangements and infrastructure are adequate to serve major events, including, as he said, accommodation for athletes, whether that is purpose-built or repurposed. The example from London 2012 given by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, was helpful to illustrate this.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her kind comments. I ask her to encourage some of her colleagues on the ministerial Benches to acknowledge that, on occasions, there are good ideas from the Opposition Benches as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I would say there are on occasion. There is so much expertise in your Lordships’ House with regard to sporting events. I have always felt that where there is a good idea, we should not be partisan, so I would not disagree with the noble Lord.

However, the measures the amendments cover are exactly the type of technical requirements that are already set out in contractual hosting agreements and specified by the event owner. This means that there is a dialogue throughout the bidding process between prospective hosts and the event owner about existing capacity and infrastructure, what is required and where improvements would need to be made. Through this, prospective hosts provide the necessary assurances to the event owner that there is or will be sufficient capacity and infrastructure in place to deliver a successful event. Ahead of this, we would also expect the national governing body to work in collaboration with the relevant local authority that is ultimately responsible for delivering these key elements. As these are already accounted for in the bidding processes, these amendments could potentially place onerous or duplicative requirements on key delivery partners. I am happy to discuss that further with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, should he wish.

Amendments 80, 81 and 82 were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but are also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. We recognise the important intent behind them; taken together, they aim to ensure that the UK maintains its ability to bid for major international events. We also recognise that the amendments aim to increase transparency around the prioritisation of and bidding for sporting events to provide more certainty to the sector. However, in our view, it is not necessary to set this requirement in statute. I reassure your Lordships that the Government are committed to ensuring that the UK continues to build on its already world-leading reputation in this field. At the risk of agreeing too often in one debate with the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I agreed with many of the points he raised in this part of the debate.

There is a pre-existing process which sits behind those events the UK chooses to bid for, which is set out in the Gold Framework, as I have referenced previously. This also sets out the criteria against which events are assessed and prioritised. UK Sport undertakes a horizon-scanning of all the available hosting opportunities, and it undertakes feasibility work alongside formal engagement with the UK event co-ordination group, national governing bodies and local authorities twice a year to develop and agree the UK’s longlist of potential future major sporting event targets.

This hosting target list is also endorsed by DCMS. It is published online and is shared annually with the sector, as well as with cities, regions and nations across the UK, to facilitate event-hosting partnerships. This ensures transparency about our potential targets. It also aims to ensure that there is an ongoing 10-year major event strategic programming list in this regard. There is a balance to be struck, in our view, in ensuring that the UK does not hinder our competitive advantage by giving detailed insights to our potential competitors. UK Sport has also published Making Live Sport Matter, which sets out a series of guiding principles and key objectives for event hosting as the basis of a strategic framework for maintaining the country’s reputation as a world-leading host nation.

On noble Lords’ points around resourcing, UK Sport exists for exactly this purpose: to provide expertise. This includes conducting feasibility studies, including on alternative and sustainable delivery models, and evaluating the annual value of events. It also provides a range of strategic guidance and technical support to the sector. This includes a knowledge transfer programme to enhance and develop the sector’s expertise and develop collaborative and sustainable networks. We also believe it is important to retain the ability to be responsive and effective with public resources, as the requirements of bidding for and delivering major sporting events will change over time.

Amendment 96, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, would create a power for the Secretary of State to

“direct a qualifying person to maintain and share a cyber resilience plan … for a sporting event to which this Act applies”.

The noble Lord gave some powerful examples of the impact that cyber attacks might have, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that it is some bad actors who create the threat, which was also illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Foster. As he says, this is potentially a very real issue. The noble Lord talked about the gizmos in traffic lights and the advantage these may give to getting home. There were those of us at the London Assembly at the time who suspected that Boris already also had that in mind—but I move swiftly on from that.

This amendment would introduce a new statutory power, together with detailed requirements about the content, maintenance and review of cyber resilience plans. The National Cyber Security Centre guidance on cyber security for major events, to which this amendment refers, recognises that cyber security arrangements and requirements will differ according to the scale, location, systems and threat environment of the event in question. Such a legally binding list may not be relevant to every major sporting event.

Finally, there is also a practical challenge of monitoring compliance here. Details of cyber security plans are typically necessarily restricted to event organisers and do not generally involve government oversight. For those reasons, I ask that the noble Lord withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Ultimately, sport is about winning, and it seems pretty clear that, in this group of amendments, my noble friend Lord Hayward won without even having an amendment in the group. That is, perhaps, how sport can go sometimes, as anybody who has played or spectated will very much appreciate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have commented on my amendments, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, who brought up gizmos—you can tell he is a scientist.

I say to the Minister that the wording may not be quite right in the amendments, but I ask her to reflect on the principles, strategies and criteria that any technology, while being technology neutral, would have to meet to achieve these objectives. Would that not be worth considering in a Bill of this type as we put it together at this stage? If we take the point of criteria, for example, you can effectively be technology neutral and largely technology future-proof because you focused on criteria and principles. It will be worth reflecting on whether some of that might be of value in the Bill.

Again, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part, and, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Parkinson. It comes to the heart of this Bill. This is, in effect, an enabling measure. It is agnostic about the events, but it is clear that it is about the major spectator sporting events of the future. It can provide a framework that will help to convince international federations, the IOC or FIFA that we are prepared, willing and ready to host one of those events. It is a pity it is agnostic because, as we heard on the first day in Committee, there are many events that would like to be included in this and, at present, we are unsure whether Wimbledon, the Open Championship et cetera could be covered.

Since the focus is on major events, such as a potential Olympic bid in 15 or 20 years’ time, it is concerning that what appears to have happened here is that we have enabling legislation that will come back to Parliament in the future through statutory instruments. When it comes to spending £10 billion at 2012 prices, that is simply not going to be acceptable to Parliament. We will require primary legislation. We will require a money Bill in order to consider whether that significant public spend is appropriate—even more so when you take the 2012 example, where the original bid was costed at £3.4 billion and it ended up at more than double that, and that is before accounting for the excellent work of the country’s intelligence and security services. I was present at a major debate about whether you included the security services’ work and costed it or you accepted that the security services would be working on something else at the time, so there was no additional cost as they simply switched across to the protection of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Leaving that aside, the important point is we had circa £10 billion-worth of public funding, and there is no way that secondary legislation on a regret Motion in your Lordships’ House is going to be sufficient for parliamentarians to come to a conclusion on that.

That brings me to the second point about the way that international sport is run under fiercely protected autonomy. To take the example of the Olympics, the bid committee is not initially set up by government to bid. The bid committee is the National Olympic Committee, and for us that is the British Olympic Association. The bid committee comes forward with the proposal for a city and it is responsible for preparing the bid documentation, which is known as the candidature file. That is formed by the city that is bidding, in the case of the Olympics, and the Olympic association of the host country. They go to their Government.

On the financing of a major event such as the Olympic Games, the role of the Government is to provide legally binding guarantees regarding, above all, funding. That is what is looked for from the Government: a legally binding guarantee regarding funding, taxation, customs and immigration. I shall take a few minutes to demonstrate this point and bring it to life in the context of what happened in London 2012. The guarantee that the Government provided in support of London 2012 was,

“to provide all necessary financial support to the Games”.

That was clearly made as a commitment by the providers of the public funding package for the Games. It was absolutely right that Parliament questioned that and asked what that guarantee meant.

The applicability of the guarantee in the context of London was confirmed by the Government in three concrete cases, where third parties requested additional assurance in respect of obligations undertaken by the organising committee. The first was Ticketmaster. The arrangement with Ticketmaster required assumption of responsibility for the refund of ticket purchases should the event be cancelled. The Government needed to step in to provide that security. Ticket revenues were a significant element of the organising committee’s budget and its cash flow. In lieu of requiring either that funds be held in escrow against potential refund claims or the provision of a costly letter of credit to support LOCOG’s undertaking to refund, Ticketmaster agreed to provide LOCOG with ticketing funds as received and recognised its obligation to refund as a binding and enforceable contractual obligation. The guarantee from the Government established the Government as the ultimate guarantor of any such shortfall. It is incumbent on a Government to let Parliament know that that is a potential financial requirement and to allow Parliament to decide whether that sort of decision can be taken by the Treasury, in the absence of coming back to Parliament, or by the relevant Minister—in the case of London, the Minister for the Olympic Games.

Another interesting point concerned the London Borough of Greenwich. One of the conditions specified in the grant of planning permission for the use of Greenwich Park required the organising committee to put in place arrangements to provide financial assistance so that the reinstatement of the park after the Games was funded and completed as envisaged in the planning applications. Again, to make sure that everybody was happy in that context, the Government provided the funding support.

In the IOC broadcast refund share agreement pursuant to the host city contract, the IOC made advance payments to LOCOG from the fees paid to the IOC by broadcast rightsholders, but, importantly, if the Games were cancelled fee rebates were due to the broadcasters. These were subject to a written assurance from the Government as the back guarantor.

I mention those three cases because I think they are important. They are significant, given the exposure of the Government and their support for that international event—in this case the Olympic Games. It is essential that, in providing that sort of support for a major international event, where the public are particularly interested in all aspects of it, the Government come back to Parliament and put into a finance measure or primary legislation the requirements that the Government are being asked to make by the International Olympic Committee, which owns the rights to the Games.

I hope the Minister will stand up and say that she accepts my noble friend Lord Parkinson’s request. He put it admirably. I have tried to add colour to it and to explain what it would mean in the practical reality of a major event. I very much hope that, if the Minister cannot accept the wording that my noble friend Lord Parkinson has put into his amendment, we can revisit this. It is of such importance for parliamentary accountability that issues of this nature should be considered in primary legislation or in debates in both Houses, rather than simply in a one-hour debate on a regret Motion.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Holmes of Richmond, for tabling the amendments in this group. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington. We do not believe the amendments are required either.

Amendments 68, 72 and 73, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, are intended to require parliamentary approval before financial assistance under Clause 25 can be given in relation to sporting events. This Government completely agree that scrutiny and transparency when it comes to public spending are vital. However, we do not believe that these amendments are necessary. First, for the avoidance of doubt, the funding power is not intended to lead to spending above and beyond what would have been provided anyway. Rather, it is a legal mechanism intended to ensure that any funding provided to sporting events has a clear statutory underpinning. This is in line with the principles set out in Managing Public Money.

Secondly, I want to be clear that this funding power is in line with established precedent for similar funding powers. Parliament already has responsibility to authorise government expenditure in this area through the supply estimates process, such as allocations for bidding for and staging major sporting events and legacy programmes.

These amendments, however, would go much further, effectively requiring the Government or devolved authorities to seek the approval of the relevant legislature every time they rely on this funding power, be it to fund a smaller-scale, grass-roots event or arts and culture programmes affiliated to sporting events. This has the potential to require parliamentary approval numerous times over the course of each year. To put this in perspective, over the past decade alone the UK secured and delivered almost 150 major sporting events, many with the support of government investment, and that is even before you count related activities. Once we add funding for domestic sporting events to the mix, the potential number of funding cases within scope goes up significantly.

I hope noble Lords understand therefore why the Government’s view is that these amendments are disproportionate and would place an unsustainable burden on Parliament. However, I assure noble Lords that, where financial assistance is provided by relying on this power, it will rightly remain subject to the same existing processes and ministerial accountability as any other spending of public money. Departments are required to produce robust business cases when spending public funds, in line with public Treasury guidance. Where funding needs are significant, this will also require a departmental spending review bid to His Majesty’s Treasury to be subject to even further scrutiny. There are a number of existing mechanisms which provide Parliament with additional ability to scrutinise such funding, including the Public Accounts Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, as well as committees in your Lordships’ House.

Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, would require organisers of major sporting events to publish, and commit to comply with, an environmental, social and governance impact compliance plan before funding can be provided where it exceeds £1 million in aggregate to a single recipient. As I hope I have already made clear, the Government are in full agreement with the point being made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes that, where public money is given in support of a major sporting event, it should be used responsibly, secure value for money for the public purse, and ensure that benefits are shared with local communities. This is something the Government will be thinking about even before we consider funding a major sporting event.

As already noted, the Gold Framework is clear that, where event organisers are seeking government investment, they must demonstrate the social value of these events, including with regard to many of the criteria the noble Lord sets out. Among other expectations, it outlines that event organisers must have meaningful plans in place to generate this positive social impact even before the event has started. Where the Government do decide to support a major sporting event, this requires a robust business case proportionate to the expenditure, in alignment with Green Book and Managing Public Money guidance. These frameworks expect departments to consider environmental, social and distributional impacts, including those set out by the noble Lord, such as through the public sector equality duty and environmental principles policy statement assessments.

Finally, as has already been made clear, Clause 25 already sets out that event funding can be given where needed, subject to conditions. This could absolutely include conditions related to all these areas, where warranted. Furthermore, international federations and event owners often specify their own expectations and requirements with regard to the social and environmental impacts that prospective bidders would be required to meet. For instance, UK bids for World Athletics events are required to comprehensively integrate sustainability to align with the governing body’s mandatory Athletics for a Better World standard, with the Glasgow 2024 World Indoor Athletics Championships having secured a platinum rating, which is the highest rating possible under the standard. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I will be equally brief, but let me preface my remarks by saying that I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, is contributing to this debate. We both have a long history in Lewisham, and Lewisham East in particular. It is a very sporting constituency, as it happens, with Chris Chataway being the first Conservative Member of Parliament for that seat. I was nothing like as eminent as he was when he was a fairly impressive pacemaker in the historic 1954 Bannister run, when he broke the four-minute mile. The noble Baroness is a much-loved mayor in Lewisham, very hard working and very respected, so it is great to see her contribute to a sports debate.

Equally, when the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, acting as Minister at the time just now, spoke of talent transfer, it is important to recognise the outstanding work that the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger, has done in that context in UK sport. Talent transfer has been an absolute pillar of the success of many of our sports in recent years, since we really professionalised elite sport. My friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger, was critically important in that work, and it is a great delight to see her in your Lordships’ House.

I support the comments made about Amendment 86 in the name of my noble friend Lady Sater. It is very important indeed that these CQC regulations remain on the agenda, and I hope the Minister is going to give us some comfort today and say that they should be looked at again in the context of the smaller events, the ones that local authorities run. The noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, was completely right in what she said about the role of local authorities in grass-roots sport. These CQC regulations are really quite critical now to the cost of running those smaller events that are so important in the development of sport. I hope they can be kept under review and looked at again by the Government. My noble friend Lady Sater’s amendment, and the comments made in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, just underline how important it is to be reviewed now so that it does not do irreparable damage to many of the sporting events that we are talking about.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for introducing and speaking to the amendments on behalf of the noble Baronesses, Lady Davies of Devonport and Lady Sater, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton.

Amendment 83, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, would carve out a broad category of criminal conduct from the preventive football banning order regime by seeking to exclude behaviour framed as “expression”, even where that conduct has crossed the threshold into criminality. This carve-out is intended to include conduct at sporting events to which the Bill applies, or banning orders resulting from offences under the Bill. On the latter, to be clear, the offences under the Bill will not be added to the football banning regime. On the former, football banning orders may be imposed only by a court and are a very serious measure. They arise either following conviction for a relevant offence listed in Schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1989 or where the court is satisfied that the individual poses an ongoing risk of involvement in football-related violence or disorder. As the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, said, this amendment is not the bar we want to set. Sport should indeed, as the noble Lord said, be the best of us. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, echoed that sentiment.

Your Lordships’ Committee will recall the disgraceful racist abuse directed at Black England players following the Euro 2020 final. The noble Lord, Lord Doyle, rightly pointed out the lack of out gay male footballers in the sport. That behaviour at Euro 2020 was rightly condemned across your Lordships’ House, and it underpins why the banning order regime was strengthened to include communications offences to ensure that those who engage in such hateful, harmful conduct can be excluded from the game. It would therefore be inappropriate to carve out a category of criminal behaviour from the football banning order regime simply because it is described as “expression”. Parliament has already determined that such conduct can meet the criminal threshold. Weakening that framework risks undermining the ability of courts and police to deal effectively with those who jeopardise safety and enjoyment for the vast majority of decent fans, and indeed for sportspeople.

Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Davies of Devonport—who is not able to be in her place today—proposes, in the context of events to which the framework provisions are applied, a duty to ensure provision of single-sex competitions and facilities. It also sets out that where the rules of a sporting competition are framed by reference to the gender or sex of the participants, that reference must be to biological sex. Any events to which the Bill’s framework will apply must comply with existing legislation and guidance. In the UK, the Supreme Court ruling provides clarity around the definition of sex within the Equality Act on the basis of biological sex. The EHRC’s updated statutory code of practice has been laid before Parliament, providing essential legal clarity for sports providers, national governing bodies and participants around the country. National governing bodies of sport, local authorities and sports organisations also have guidance and policies in place. We will continue to engage closely with our arm’s-length bodies, Sport England and UK Sport, and the wider sporting sector as Parliament considers the updated EHRC guidance.

Amendment 86 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, and introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Markham. I accept the spirit in which this amendment was laid, and I noted the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who also spoke to this amendment, as did the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. This amendment requires a review of the impact of recent regulatory changes that allow the Care Quality Commission to regulate the treatment of disease, disorder and injury—TDDI—at sporting and cultural events. These regulatory changes bring sporting and cultural events in line with other settings where the treatment of TDDI is regulated, such as within hospitals and care homes.

The change means that TDDI health provision at sporting and cultural events will be delivered by professionals with the right set of skills, training and equipment so that the audience and participants receive the right type of help when they need it. It means it will be easier for organisers to pick skilled and safe providers, as they will be listed on the CQC website. As noble Lords are aware, the changes were made following the recommendations by the Manchester Arena inquiry.

During its parliamentary passage, it was clear that Members of both Houses were concerned that this change may have unintended impacts. Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Care have undertaken to work with stakeholders to consider options to mitigate any unintended consequences. The concerns included the impact on events staffed by volunteers, or on specific groups such as search and rescue teams and athletes. Noble Lords who spoke to this also spoke about volunteers, which was a theme in the debate in the Grand Committee I was present at.

This work is ongoing. The Care Quality Commission has met with a broad range of representatives as part of its consultation on this change. DHSC officials are due to meet with chief medical officers from a range of sporting and cultural bodies to discuss this matter further, and I will attempt to clarify when those meetings will take place. Department of Health and Social Care Ministers are in the process of convening a round table with the Peers who spoke during the debate on the statutory instrument on the CQC regulation amendment on 15 April, and I will ask my noble friend Lady Merron to make sure that those who spoke today but were not present at that meeting will be invited. I will also make my noble friend aware of this debate. In the meantime, I ask that the noble Lord withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the noble Lords for their contribution to this debate. As I believe I get almost the last word of the whole Committee stage, I thank everyone. We have had some expert contributions over the two days. We have had Olympic medallists, Games organisers, local government leaders and some keen, if not very able, sports participants: me, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and others.

We have heard it all. We have heard about Olympic sausages, we have heard about gizmos and we have had the gold medal performance, to say the least, of the Minister agreeing with my noble friend Lord Hayward on a few matters. But there has been a large degree of consensus in this whole debate and a lot of passion and enthusiasm, which has been great to see—particularly in the Leeds contribution. It was honestly really heartwarming to see all our enthusiasm in the Chamber for wanting to make sure that Britain is the winner in all this and in sports events. That is absolutely the spirit of all this.

On the specific CQC point, I know the Minister gets it and hears our concern about the real impact this has. We know that these are well-intentioned CQC changes, but they could have a lot of unintended consequences for grass-roots events. So we would be grateful if, as she said, she can keep us informed and keep this at the top of the agenda. With that, I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, to intervene for the first time in Committee on this group of amendments is rather an odd one. I had not looked at it when we started out. I also feel that, if you are bringing a games into a country, you are going into an existing framework of laws and rights. If you bring something into a structure and you are going to bid for it, you should take into account whether you can deal with industrial relations. We have done it a couple of times.

As to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I suggest that you know when you will be working at a games or a championship because you have a schedule of events. It is not a randomised thing. You might have extra time in a championship in one of the big team games, but it is a finite amount of time. We do not play until sudden death. With weather like this and rugby union at the moment, it probably would be death if we played too long.

These amendments are a good probe to get a feel of what is happening, but if you are taking on a project you are taking it on with the risk of industrial relations. Trade unions will flex their muscles, but do they have a right to flex their muscles? Do we have a right to say no? I suggest that there is a real question here. Although it is a valid question to ask, I suspect the answer is that you have to take a few knocks when you are doing this and accept a few uncertainties to get it. If you cannot take some action or make something that will accommodate this, you really are not fit to hold a games.

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

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Fuller, for these amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for speaking to this group. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger, to your Lordships’ House; I look forward to future conversations with her on this Bill and other related matters.

The amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, would have the combined effect of introducing a framework to prevent transport and local authority workers engaging in industrial action during specified periods linked to sporting events. This would include creating offences relating to participation in, and the organisation or inducement of, such action. In their manifesto, the Government committed to repeal the minimum service level legislation and other restrictions on the right to strike, and we did this in the Employment Rights Act 2025—so, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made clear, we have existing laws relating to industrial action.

These amendments seek to reintroduce significant restrictions on the ability of workers to take industrial action. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 demonstrated, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. Instead of banning strike action, the Government want to bring in a new era of industrial relations that is built on collaboration and co-operation across parties. We are committed to establishing a new model for industrial relations fit for the 21st century, including an industrial relations framework that establishes firm expectations on how workers and employers should conduct themselves. This includes engaging with one another and working together in the interests of the workforce, the economy and the wider public. Our industrial relations framework will build on our legislative agenda and provide guidance on how employers, workers and unions can work together to deliver positive and effective industrial relations, including during periods of industrial action.

Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, would mean that the right to guaranteed hours, the right to reasonable notice and the right to payments for shifts moved, cancelled or curtailed at short notice do not apply at major sporting events to which the provisions of the Bill have been applied. The flexibility offered by zero-hours contracts and contracts with a minimum number of hours can benefit both workers and employers, but it is our view that without appropriate safeguards this flexibility can become one-sided. The zero-hours measures in the Employment Rights Act 2025 aim to end one-sided flexibility by ensuring that all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability.

I do not think the noble Lord will be surprised to hear that I disagree with him on this being an appropriate amendment. Any exclusions or exemptions at this stage would pre-empt the Government’s consultation on reforms relating to zero-hours and similar contracts, which is currently open. In this consultation, the Government seek to gather insight through the input of stakeholders, including on potential exclusions and exemptions. We need to ensure that the views of all stakeholders are first taken into account before any decisions on exclusions and exemptions are made. We intend to ensure that all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability so that workers can better plan their lives and finances. We would be keen for sporting event stakeholders to participate in the consultation on reforms relating to zero-hours and similar contracts to inform the development of the policy. On the basis of the points I have made, I hope the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Fuller, will not press their amendments.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their comments. As the noble Lord said, there is an element of risk here, but, as we know, this is a proven risk. In 2012, 2022 and earlier this year, we saw the deliberate targeting of major sporting events by trade unions to exert some political pressure, and I was sorry not to hear criticism from the other two Benches about their doing so. We agree that trade unions have the right to make their protest, but I would hope that noble Lords reflect that targeting games such as these, which try to rise above politics—at a geopolitical level as well—should not be targeted in the way that we have seen in the past.

The risk balance has shifted a bit because of some of the changes the Minister outlined. The changes brought in by the Employment Rights Act 2025 do cause problems, which your Lordships’ House scrutinised well and highlighted as that legislation went through. I see that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, is in his place; he made very strong points from the Cross Benches about some of the perverse effects that Act of Parliament may have. However, even if one accepts the argument the Government were making there, sporting events of this nature are very different. These are temporary, one-off events where people are able to work, as my noble friend Lord Fuller said, in a life-changing way for an event that comes and goes, for which the employment is not there any more.

If we do not make the sort of changes to the Bill we have suggested, we worry that the practical effect will be perverse. Rather than offering more secure work, organisers will simply offer less work and circumvent the guaranteed-hours duty by relying on short fixed-term contracts and outsourced or overseas suppliers, or on asking more of unpaid volunteers, rather than the flexible part-time and casual staff who have made the delivery of previous games such a success. We might return to this in some form on Report. I hope we can keep the discussions on this point going, but for now I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling these amendments. I also thank the noble Lords who spoke to them.

Amendments 2, 5, 6, 61, 65 and 67, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Addington, seek to regulate sports rights provisions. Sporting bodies are free to enter into their own sponsorship and broadcast arrangements. In recent years, through these arrangements, the gambling sector has made a significant financial contribution to sports including football, rugby, horseracing and snooker. Of course, I recognise the strength of feeling in this area, which my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton spoke to and clearly shares. However, I hope noble Lords can appreciate the Government’s desire to balance the sport sector’s commercial freedom with our ongoing efforts to reduce both gambling harm and the shift towards illegal gambling highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I agree with him that any action we take in this area should be proportionate.

We take the relationship between gambling and sport very seriously, particularly given its potential impact on children, young people and the vulnerable. I will come on to soft drinks later but, in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on what this Government are doing on gambling harm, since 2024 we have made a number of significant reforms to gambling regulation with a view to tackling gambling harm, building on the White Paper developed and published by the previous Government. We have introduced a statutory gambling levy, which will provide for the first time independent and sustainable funding for research into and the prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms. This has more than doubled the money from the previous voluntary levy. Each year, 20% of funding will be spent on research to strengthen the evidence base on gambling-related harms, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Foster, is aware. This includes a research fellow within DCMS to look specifically at gambling advertising, bringing together the evidence to see what appropriate steps might be taken. Currently, as the noble Lord is aware, we have no plans to limit gambling advertising further than it is already—clearly, it is already regulated.

We have also introduced online slot stake limits and reforms to marketing rules and we will continue to press operators to improve their self-exclusion schemes. In relation to sport and advertising particularly, we welcome publication of sponsorship codes of conduct from all major sports, as well as the Premier League’s ban on front-of-shirt sponsorship from the start of the 2026-27 season. We have further confirmed that we will consult as soon as possible on the banning of unlicensed sponsorship within sports: in response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I am very keen, as the Minister, for this to start as soon as possible. I will write to him if we can give further detail on when that will come.

The Government are committed to tackling gambling harm and clear that we must be evidence-led in our policy-making. We will consider next steps to further raise standards in consideration of the evolving evidence base.

In the same vein, moving to limit these commercial partnerships without considering the potential significant impact on the sports and broadcast sector would in our view be inappropriate. The existing regulatory framework for gambling advertising and sponsorship is robust. All operators advertising in Great Britain must hold a Gambling Commission licence and abide by advertising codes enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority. Operators found to be in breach of these codes can be referred to the Gambling Commission for further enforcement action, which may include licence reviews or fines. The Commission has taken a range of enforcement actions on the back of referrals from the ASA, including ones resulting in fines for a range of issues where the ASA has found that the behaviour was particularly egregious.

In relation to the point on the prediction market made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, in order to operate in Britain, any prediction market requires a licence from the Gambling Commission. We monitor potential impacts of prediction markets carefully. I do not have a response on the extensive points that the noble Lord made on data, but I am happy to meet him to go through that. Therefore, with full respect for this important subject, I do not believe this amendment is necessary, or that this is the right vehicle for changes to gambling legislation. This is a narrowly defined Bill, aimed at attracting and delivering major sporting events.

I turn now to Amendment 37, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Addington, and the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which deals with the important issue of shielding children and vulnerable people from harmful or age-restricted advertising. This is a priority for this Government. Event owners will have to comply with existing legislation and other regulatory requirements in relation to advertising. While there is no specific definition of advertising that is harmful to children in the existing advertising codes, the codes require that children be protected from advertisements that could cause physical, mental or moral harm. The codes also set out the responsibilities of advertisers in relation to age-restricted advertising such as gambling and alcohol advertising. Both through work related to the statutory gambling levy and wider government efforts, my department will continue to work with a wide range of stakeholders to examine the evidence base on the impacts of young people’s exposure to age-restricted advertising such as alcohol and gambling advertising, taking into account the impact on the advertising, media and sports sectors.

Returning to the advertising provisions in the Bill, the advertising offence is designed primarily to protect event owners’ commercial rights by preventing businesses carrying out unauthorised advertising in a restricted zone. However, any activity by event sponsors must be in accordance with existing legislation and other regulatory requirements, including those regarding protection from harms.

I move on to amendments 41, 44, 47, 48 and 51, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. They would make it an offence to carry out gambling advertising activity in a restricted advertising zone created by regulations under the Bill. These amendments require a court to share certain information with the Gambling Commission following the conviction of a person who committed an offence under the Bill by carrying out gambling advertising activity. They would also prevent any authorisation under the Bill being granted in respect of gambling advertising.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. As it is the first time I have spoken in Committee, I declare my technology interests as adviser to the Crown Estate, Endava plc and Simmons and Simmons LLP, and as non-executive director at Avalanche BVI Inc and the Avalanche Foundation. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, it seems that I am too slow to compete with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who never moved that quick on a rugby field. Nevertheless, he still has some pace when it comes to putting down amendments.

Before I speak to my Amendments 90, 92 and 93 in this group, I commend the remarks of other noble Lords. If this Bill’s purpose is to have a situation where we are well set when we come to bids for mega events such as the Olympic and Paralympic Games, the FIFA men’s and women’s World Cup, and so on, we need to ensure that the Bill includes everything that we can know at this stage. If we take a principles-based approach throughout, that gives us the best opportunity. As my noble friend Lord Parkinson pointed out in the form of my noble friend Lord Markham, we know now that gaps exist because we understand from 2006 the need to put in place an ODA, as it was then. As my noble friend Lord Markham said, these amendments may not be word-for-word perfect, but the principle behind them is sound. We are either doing this Bill to have everything that we know at this stage covered to put us in that pole position to host these events, or we are not. There needs to be a distinction when we are going through the Bill between adding provisions—baubling as the Government might call it—and enabling it to be full to its stated purpose. I believe that much of the debate in this group of amendments goes to that second critical point: to make the Bill as fulsome as it can be to achieve its objectives.

Amendment 90 is very much in that vein. It would exclude registered charities from the provisions of the Bill when they are acting under the restrictions of their charitable status. The amendment clearly sets out that if a charity is engaged in a commercial activity or for commercial reasons has a connection with a third party, that obviously would not be included. It also sets out the potential for government to consider a limit. If it is a mega charity, perhaps the provisions of the Bill should apply. This was an issue which we faced very clearly when we were doing the London Olympic and Paralympic Games. It is a cardinal principle when you are involved with these mega events. You have to protect and defend the rights of the marketing partners without whose funding, support and value in kind these events could not happen. It is in no sense trespassing one centimetre on the right of charitable organisations, of which we have such a flourishing community across the UK, particularly local charities, to pursue their charitable objectives without transgressing the provisions of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that point.

Similarly, Amendment 92 looks to a social value assessment. This is not extending the provisions of the Bill; it is merely intensifying the impact that these events can have. Again, at London 2012, we looked at everything through a social, economic, environmental and cultural lens. The provisions I have set out in proposed Amendment 92 give some illustrations of social value, but they are in no means an exhaustive list. In reality, it does not impose greater restrictions on an event; it enables it to state its value, through commercial and sporting, into that wider social, environmental and inclusion potential—all positive for the games themselves. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my three amendments.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Holmes of Richmond, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury and Lady Grey-Thompson, for these amendments. Amendments 2A, 6A, 58A, 58B and 61A, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, would allow for the establishment of a delivery authority to prepare for and manage the delivery of a sporting event. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, this is question that is worth asking. I am grateful for the opportunity to reply, and I hope I can give the noble Lord some reassurance on this point.

Although we recognise the intent of these amendments, we do not believe they are necessary. The nature and scope of delivery models for major sporting events are determined based on what is appropriate and proportionate to the needs and requirements of each specific event, including funding and the set-up of governance to support oversight. Establishing a delivery authority is one way to do this. Indeed, it is a method that the UK has relied on before, including, as a number of noble Lords noted, for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

However, setting up a delivery authority with the proposed powers has typically been the exception, not the rule, when it comes to delivering the major sporting events that are likely to fall within the scope of the Bill. Similarly, it is rarely necessary for delivery models to be established on a statutory basis. For example, for Euro 2028, a special purpose incorporated company was established by the five relevant football associations to deliver the event—a proportionate approach, not least because Euro 2028 is relying overwhelmingly on existing stadia and infrastructure without the need for bespoke statutory powers.

However, where a different form of oversight is rightly required, the Government can establish an appropriate delivery body subject to appropriate additional parliamentary scrutiny, as the Olympic Delivery Authority regularly was. In the case of London 2012, the delivery authority was created to take on certain powers as a result of a specific set of requirements that it had to deliver. The hosting of those Games required dedicated oversight with powers to co-ordinate different authorities, given the scale of public expenditure required, including significant investment in the construction of infrastructure such as new venues. I understand that we have seen a shift in what the IOC requires. For example, it now encourages hosts to use existing infrastructure.

In the Government’s view, these amendments are not necessary given the very limited eventualities. The requisite ability to establish delivery bodies already exists to a sufficient degree.

Amendments 3 and 4, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Evans of Bowes Park and Lady Grey-Thompson, would enable the devolved Governments to apply the unauthorised association and transport provisions in the Bill. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that we need to get it right. However, I assure your Lordships’ Committee that we have worked closely with the devolved Governments on the provisions in the Bill. Where the provisions are within their devolved competence, we have ensured that they can be applied unilaterally, as is the case with the ticket touting, advertising and trading provisions.

The unauthorised association provisions are reserved and are not within the devolved Governments’ legislative competence. However, they extend UK-wide. The Secretary of State will be able to apply them to events taking place anywhere in the UK, including where no part of the event is taking place in England.

The transport provisions in the Bill relate specifically to transport in England and can be exercised only by the Secretary of State. Transport is devolved, with each Government responsible within their jurisdiction. We explored whether devolved Governments wished to apply the transport provisions in their jurisdictions, and it was confirmed that they were not required.

In England, the provisions are necessary to facilitate the co-ordinated delivery of certain large-scale sporting events that require integrated planning, clear responsibilities and co-ordinated action across boundaries. For UK-wide events, transport planning is co-ordinated through established intergovernmental and operational mechanisms.

Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would insert into the Bill a definition of “sporting event” to include associated events such as qualifying rounds, ceremonies, fan zones, official viewing areas and cultural events. I completely agree with the spirit of this amendment in that major sporting events are often about much more than what happens on the field of play. I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for meeting to discuss this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, what an honour it is to follow such distinguished experts in this field: my noble friend Lord Moynihan—like other noble Lords, I am delighted to have him back—my noble friend Lord Holmes and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It is yet another example, if ever we need it, of how lucky we are to have such a range of expertise in this Chamber.

The points in this debate are very similar to many of the points made on the last groupings. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, while we want this framework agreement to work, is it possible to make it wide enough to cater for all the eventualities that we are talking about? As my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned, there is new technology coming along. They were mentioning AI in the Paris bid—think how much it has moved on from then. There are new rights that need to be taken on board, whether LGBT rights as it was last time or some new rights going forward. There are new funding arrangements that are very likely to be put in place.

I struggle to see how we can set this all up in an all-encompassing framework Bill, and I think I speak for all noble Lords when I say that an hour’s debate on some sort of secondary legislation will not be able to cut it in these instances. I do not believe I can add very much to the expertise that we have heard already but, as others have said, this must leave a sports legacy, so I am thoroughly behind the points that have been made. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s points, because there is a lot to consider here.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for tabling these amendments. I am grateful to him for taking an interest in the Bill, and it is genuinely good to see the noble Lord back and elevated to the Opposition Front Bench, albeit in another department. How could the noble Lord go to another department? The contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, have been noted by a number of speakers today. We are privileged to have the expertise of the noble Lords and the noble Baroness, who have taken part in the process and been part of that work to define the vision required to win bids.

I hope I can give all noble Lords reassurance that legacy matters to this Government and, as a former London Assembly member, I am clear on the physical legacy that this city received from the 2012 Games. On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, as to whether it is wide enough as a framework, we believe that it is and I will go through the amendments in turn. I hope I can give noble Lords some reassurance.

Amendments 8 and 13 seek to ensure that the appropriate national authority will comply with a host city contract or a host nation contract before regulations applying the sporting events framework can be made. There are numerous agreements and contracts to which this could apply and, in our view, it would not be appropriate or necessary to make the time that regulations would be made and brought into force contingent on compliance with them all. The framework is designed to bring into effect commitments made by national Governments at the point of bidding for an event. The regulations applying the sporting events framework are therefore the closest equivalent to complying with a host nation contract, in so far as one exists; they provide the means for Governments to meet their guarantees to event owners.

Compliance with a host nation contract and the creation of regulations to apply the framework are the same stage of the process, so one cannot come before the other. Host city contracts are made by a combination of local authorities and event delivery companies directly with event owners. These relate to local event needs and are signed in advance of the event. It would not be appropriate to make a national authority a signatory of that agreement, when the provisions contained within it are for local delivery and the national authority is not responsible for delivering them.

In some cases, the appropriate national authority may extend provisions in the framework to enable a local authority to fulfil its hosting agreement—for example, to enable the local authority to take enforcement action against unauthorised advertising and trading in a restricted zone. But, as with the host nation contract, any host city contract that relies on this framework would be complied with only at the point when the regulations are made, thereby making this amendment redundant.

On Amendments 18, 20 and 21, I understand that their intent is to further narrow the conditions for applying the framework, requiring an event to be of significant international interest, to bring economic but not social benefits and to have a sporting legacy in the United Kingdom. However, the Government do not agree with this approach. While major sporting events generate international interest and build the UK’s standing around the globe, they also deliver other significant and wide-ranging benefits, as was widely acknowledged during Second Reading. These are not restricted only to economic benefits, nor the sporting legacy of such events, although I agree that that is significant. They bring sport to different communities and demographics; they improve opportunities to increase participation in sport and physical activity; and they generate moments of collective experience that contribute directly to social cohesion and advance our national story.

The Bill is drafted to ensure that these kinds of major sporting events can still be captured by the Bill and that while international interest is one important factor, it is not the only factor on which an event could access these provisions. International interest is a broad category and may be shaped by many factors, including global and regional politics, changing media trends and the diplomatic ambitions of the Government. This amendment would need a highly specific definition of international interest for it to be required as applicable. Those thresholds would be entirely arbitrary, set at a point in time and potentially irrelevant or outdated soon after. What is deemed significant international interest can vary significantly. For instance, particular events may generate extremely high interest in certain parts of the world and relatively little in others. The test of international interest as currently framed provides flexibility to consider a range of factors on a case-by-case basis.

I am happy to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and other noble Lords further on the points raised in this debate. I know and appreciate that all noble Lords taking part in the debate want the Bill to deliver what we intend. However, for the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has participated in the debate, particularly my noble friends in sport, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. I did not live up to their expectations; I was first of the losers, getting only a silver medal at the Olympic Games while they had many gold medals to their names—albeit that I got a silver medal by 0.6 of a second behind the East German eight, who subsequently sued for the damage that the drugs they took during that event had done to them. But that did not prevent them retaining their gold medal. To be honest, all sports men and women know that it is the event on the day and the memory of that event that matter most.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank my noble friend, who has rowed in the Boat Race, for his constructive and very good challenge. We are looking for a way of broadening the Bill in a rational way. He is right to draw the distinction with events that are internationally renowned. As my noble friend Lady Evans says, these are the ones that define our well-earned sporting reputation for being able to host such major events on the global stage. Whether it is done through that or another metric, this is well worth looking at in greater detail as we head to Report.

My noble friend Lord Fuller asked where this all ends, but the question really is: where does this begin? We are promised a major events strategy from DCMS. I understand that the Government have taken the legislative slot that is available and proceeded with the Bill now. They are right to do so, but it is a shame that we did not have that strategy in advance of this Bill. It would have informed some of the debates here and answered some of the questions that noble Lords have raised on cultural events, music events and ticketing provisions that apply there as well. Perhaps the Minister can say a bit more about when we might see that major events strategy, how it is designed to feed into this framework and the thinking that has gone on in her department in drawing up this Bill in advance of that strategy. It is slightly unfortunate that we are discussing it this way around because of the legislative time available.

I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group. If we can work constructively, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan and others suggest, we can take the opportunity to be a bit bolder and help the organisers of major sporting events—which do so much to enhance the soft power and renown of this country—to do so even better in the future.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Lady Evans of Bowes Park and Lady Grey-Thompson, for these amendments and for their time to discuss an important topic. Regarding the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I genuinely appreciate the spirit in which he and others have tabled these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, gave a remarkable list of recurring events that we have in this country and highlighted the value—including the economic value—of events such as Silverstone.

I assure your Lordships’ Committee that the Government are committed to supporting our domestic sports sector and the UK’s sporting calendar, building on the strong partnerships and existing frameworks already in place. This work will be underpinned by the UK-wide major events strategy, which—in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—my department intends to publish within the next 12 months. This will set out our priorities for major events taking place across the UK, covering major events in all sectors—cultural, sporting and business. I hope that the process of undertaking this strategy makes some of those sporting organisations that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, says feel unloved now feel that this puts them front and centre of our minds and priorities at DCMS.

The time-limited provisions in the Bill are designed to attract specific one-off events that require the Government to make commitments to event owners during the bidding process. It is not possible to secure the hosting rights for these events without making such commitments. Global competition to secure these events is only increasing. For the UK to remain competitive against this global competition for the biggest international events, we need to show that we are event ready to meet event owner requirements.

The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, made a point around the Cricket World Cup. The nature of the framework means that we expect particular events to be considered on a case-by-case basis. However, the ICC Cricket World Cup is the type of event that could meet the conditions, depending on the exact circumstances of the event. In contrast, events that are hosted on a recurrent basis in the UK do not generally have the same externally set mandatory requirements as events that hold competitive international bid processes.

As the Bill was developed, we worked closely with some of the biggest recurrent sporting events to understand the demand for these provisions. While there was some interest in the advertising and trading provisions, we found that there was no clear or consistent evidence base on the negative economic impact of the status quo for the inclusion of a breadth of successfully recurring domestic events. Where interest was expressed, we also found that there was insufficient appetite from the sector to fund the enforcement action that would be required of local authorities should these provisions be extended to them. We are continuing the discussions with relevant bodies that have taken place since Second Reading.

No assessment was provided during the discussions prior to Second Reading of the likely enforcement burden. Given that these are criminal offences, enforcement by any organisation other than a public body would not be appropriate or proportionate. None the less, I am genuinely grateful for the constructive ways in which noble Lords have raised points regarding the potential for us going further and for highlighting the importance of recurrent sporting events. They have a significant, cherished and valuable role for the nation.

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, about the London Marathon potentially having 100,000 athletes and accompanying visitors—I will not be taking part and am more likely to be an accompanying visitor—shows the scale of these domestic events. I would welcome further discussion with noble Lords on this matter and will continue to listen to views from the sports sector. Upon reviewing any new evidence, I will consider carefully what steps would be appropriate and practical.

On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, around better facilities for women and girls, the Government’s £400 million investment into grass-roots facilities will continue to support increased participation for women and girls through a place-based approach across the UK over the next four years. We will more than double priority access to grass-roots football pitches for women and girls in England as part of plans to honour the Lionesses’ victory at UEFA Women’s Euro 2025, as well as dedicating flagship sites to the Lionesses. The Football Foundation has also launched the Lionesses HERe to Play fund, providing small grants to create welcoming, safe and accessible facilities for women and girls.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and others also highlighted provision and access for people with disabilities or other protected characteristics, which I look forward to debating in a future group in Committee on Wednesday. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his suggestion.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised the point about how we encourage physical activity and, critically, make sure that we do not just have elites and then the rest who are not fit and healthy. The development of grass-roots sport outside school and how we encourage physical activity is critical for this Government. This year, we are already investing £85 million through the multisport grass-roots facility programme to build and upgrade high-quality grass-roots sports pitches and facilities in the communities across the UK that need them most. This is part of a total package of at least £400 million that will be invested in new and upgraded grass-roots sports facilities in communities right across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hayward issued a useful corrective. Just as there is no such thing as government money but only taxpayers’ money, there is no such thing as free-to-air broadcasting; we pay for it through some means or another. It is a timely reminder in a year when we look again at the BBC’s royal charter and the licence fee model, which pays not just for the BBC but is required for viewing any of our public service broadcasters.

We are in many senses overdue a debate about the listed events regime by which we try to pick those crown jewels of sporting events. We would have had one during the passage of what became the Media Act 2024, but because that was taken in wash-up, we did not have the debate that perhaps was needed then. I hope that as we look at the royal charter for the BBC, we can look at this in some detail. Maybe the Minister can say a bit about that either now or at subsequent stages on the Bill.

This was looked at at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Davies of Devonport, who spoke powerfully about the fact that if public money—taxpayers’ money—is spent on hosting major sporting events, we want as many of those taxpayers as possible to be able to see, benefit and be inspired by them. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, was right about the importance of visibility and prominence, particularly of the Paralympic Games, which has done so much to change people’s perceptions of those with disabilities and brought so many broadcasters and commentators with disabilities on to our screens when so many people are watching with great pride and excitement.

Like the noble Baroness, I share some sadness that the Commonwealth Games will not be broadcast on the BBC this year, for the first time since the Games began in 1950. The live rights have gone to TNT Sports and only highlights will be available on a public service broadcaster—Channel 5. One thinks of seminal moments such as Roger Bannister’s “miracle mile” and the people who will not be able to be inspired by moments such as that.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. It links very much to the debates we need to have over the BBC’s royal charter and paying for our public service broadcasters. Again, this hits at the problem we have in the Bill. We are trying to set up a framework anticipating what the world will look like many years hence in many different ways that have a knock-on effect for sporting life in this country.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their amendments. Amendments 15 and 26 seek to add a further condition to the Bill’s framework, requiring any qualifying sporting event to make live coverage free of charge to the UK public. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, about the importance of having, for example, the Lionesses on the BBC and the Channel 4 coverage of the Paralympics.

I and the Government recognise the intent behind these amendments and are committed to ensuring that major sporting events are as accessible as possible to people across the UK, including where broadcasting is concerned. Indeed, during the debate on the football regulator, one of the discussions we had was about what made a spectator and what made a fan. For most people, it is not watching it live but instead watching it largely on television.

However, unfortunately, these amendments are not ones that the Government can support. The central issue is that they would make the application of this framework dependent on broadcasting arrangements having already been secured on free-to-air—I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, which was repeated by the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Parkinson, that it is not free-to-air but rather it is free-to-air once you have paid your licence fee or an equivalent free-access basis.

Decisions relating to the broadcast coverage of sporting events are commercial matters for broadcasters, event organisers and the holders of broadcasting rights. Those organisations are operationally independent of government, and rightly so. Broadcasting rights provide essential income for national governing bodies and sport broadcasting rights holders, which enables them to invest in their sports, future events and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, grass-roots sports. She cited the example of Wimbledon, but there are other examples from across the piece. This amendment would place tighter controls over their ability to generate much-needed broadcasting revenue for an indefinite period.

There is also a practical concern. The timelines for agreeing broadcasting rights will not always align with the bidding processes and other requirements that this framework is intended to support. Making the framework conditional on those agreements already being in place could therefore create delay, uncertainty and unnecessary rigidity. Other bidding nations may not be subject to such restrictions, potentially making the UK less competitive.

The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that there is a breadth of free-to-air coverage of sporting events for licence fee payers. I agree with all noble Lords who stressed the importance of people seeing sport. The current listed events regime is designed to ensure that sporting events of national significance are available to as wide an audience as possible by prohibiting exclusive broadcasting of the event without prior consent from Ofcom.

In response to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made about people being potentially excluded by dint of their economic circumstances, the listing of events ensures that broadcast rights to that event, if offered, must be made available on fair and reasonable terms to the free-to-air channels received by 95% of the population.

The Government believe that the current listed events regime works well and strikes a perfect balance between encouraging free-to-air access to a number of sporting events for audiences and allowing sports to maximise broadcasting revenue to invest in the growth and development of those sports. I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the ability to talk about having seen major sporting events is a bonding event, which can exclude people who are not able to take part in that. In any event, we would expect broadcasters and sporting rights holders for specific events to think carefully about the balance between generating much-needed revenue and ensuring access to sports coverage for viewers, ensuring the growth and development of the sport.

Amendment 79 seeks to ensure that where the Secretary of State gives financial assistance under Clause 25 in respect of a sporting event, she must require the recipient to take all reasonable steps to ensure that live coverage of that event is made available free of charge, either directly or on a platform accessible without subscription in the United Kingdom. The Government fully recognise the importance of broadcasting certain sporting events to attract significant audience interest and make events as accessible as possible. We appreciate the sentiment that, where public support is involved, sporting events should be as widely available to the public as possible. However, again, this amendment is not one that the Government can accept.

The first reason is one of principle. Clause 25 is a funding power, intended to support the effective delivery of sporting events. It is not a broadcasting regulation power, nor is it intended to be used to direct or shape the outcome of commercial negotiations over media rights. Broadcasting arrangements for sporting events are matters for broadcasters, event organisers or the holders of the broadcasting rights, all of whom are operationally independent of government. It would not be appropriate to use the Bill or this funding power to intervene in those negotiations indirectly through grant conditions.

Secondly, funding decisions, event planning and broadcast rights negotiations do not always proceed to the same timetable. As a result, the amendment could create delay, complication and uncertainty in the use of Clause 25 support.

Thirdly, there is a risk to workability. If organisers or recipients cannot be confident about satisfying such a condition at the relevant point in time, it may make financial assistance harder to administer and could reduce the flexibility that Clause 25 is designed to provide.

For those reasons, I respectfully ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan for introducing this group and thank noble Lords for their contributions. This whole debate shows that it is a complicated area and begs the question whether this is the right Bill for it to be in. At the very least, we need another Bill very quickly to cover all the complications that it brought up and apply it to music and cultural events as well as those brought up here.

The point about FIFA was a very good example, with the US World Cup. It shows how difficult it is to try to create a catch-all Bill when we know how fast the environment is moving, and that FIFA might change its rules, as it has done for this World Cup—let alone when you come to some of the technological advances that my noble friend Lord Holmes brings up, and trying to cater for those today in a Bill when we know just how quickly AI and other technological advances are going.

My own amendments are modest in nature, in terms of trying to enable the charitable resale of tickets. At the same time, I think that they introduce an interesting conundrum. If we are saying that we are very happy for a charity auction to get a good price—and generally we want it to get as good a price as possible—we are saying that we do not mind profiteering in principle as long as it is for a good cause. Again, that brings some interesting complications into this matter.

On our amendments around a genuine resale market, as our amendment tries to show and as that of my noble friend Lord Fuller tries to show, there are genuine and legitimate reasons to want to resell your ticket, and the legitimate platforms have a good role there. It should be legitimate that they charge a reasonable service fee—I think that the 10% mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is probably a reasonable indicator there. But there is a proper function that they can play, and we would much rather that they played those roles rather than driving it under cover to the ticket touts, where you can get the real price gouging, for want of a better word.

Probably what this debate shows, like many of the others tonight, is that it is a very complicated area. To try to get it all into one catch-all Bill becomes more and more complicated. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government are going to cater for this issue and for many of the others.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Addington, and my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lady Keeley for their amendments. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for giving notice of his intention to oppose the question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill. I count myself as among those who were slightly surprised at this, but I appreciate having heard the noble Lord that this is because of his consistent opposition to the many ills associated with the secondary ticket market. However, I do not accept that it is not appropriate for these measures to be in the Bill—but I shall go on to that later.

Amendments 27 and 89 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, would require the Secretary of State to introduce an accessible ticketing quota in regulations, and that related information must be included in a register held by authorised ticket sellers. We are determined that when the UK hosts major events, we lead by example in ensuring they are inclusive and accessible to the widest possible audience. That is why we have worked with UEFA on its approach for Euro 2028, which seeks to put fans first with transparent and accessible ticketing principles. It was interesting to hear the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on accessible ticketing. Noble Lords may be aware of another example, which is in my speaking notes, of UEFA’s track record in this regard for Euro 2024. UEFA partnered with the Kaizen Foundation in Germany for the 10,000 Smiles project, which provided free tickets through sponsorship to children in host cities from underprivileged backgrounds and for children and adults with disabilities up to 21 years old.

Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Markham, introduces an exception to the ticket touting offence for a person selling an event ticket as part of an auction provided that the proceeds go to charity. While I recognise the spirit, the framework approach calls for proportionality to be reconciled with the requirements of event owners and the guarantees provided by Governments. We will do this through introducing appropriate exceptions to the ticket touting offence in regulations on a case-by-case basis. It may not be appropriate to do so where an event has an official charity partner with an exclusive right to raise proceeds through the auction of event tickets. Where this is the case, charities looking to raise money for themselves would be able to apply for authorisation to auction tickets. This request would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Amendment 28A, tabled by my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton, Lady Keeley and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, would require a review of the impact and effectiveness of the ticket touting provisions within 12 months of Royal Assent. The first use of these provisions will be for Euro 2028, with tickets expected to go on sale after the final tournament draw in December 2027. We are committed to an evaluation of the application of provisions in the Bill within 12 to 18 months of Euro 2028. We therefore do not believe that this amendment is workable or necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I would not normally intervene. However, I was clear that we are going to introduce a draft Bill and will introduce legislation in due course, so I feel the noble Lord is going slightly beyond my response. I am happy to sit down and talk to any noble Lord about the ticket touting measures coming up, but I cannot accept that we are not taking it seriously, as the noble Lord suggests.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

That is an extremely important and welcome intervention, but the Minister said “in due course”. Can she commit that that means during this Parliament?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I cannot commit to a timescale, but I have offered to have a meeting where we can discuss that in further detail.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

To fail to commit for the whole of this Parliament, when we have years to run, is disappointing, given the strength of the comments made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers in recent months. It is vital that the Government indicate by the time we get to Report whether they will legislate during this Parliament.

The public have longed to get legislation on to the statute book to protect people from being ripped off and turning up at many concerts, having paid a lot of money to bring their kids down from wherever they live, to find out that they have a forged ticket. That must be stopped. We must have tough legislation. That is why I share with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, the need to legislate on this and why we were so pleased that the Government were willing to come forward with legislation that Parliament could consider. To know that this might not happen in the current Parliament would be deeply disappointing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, in many senses, we have outperformed a World Cup football squad tonight, because we have hit the target ahead of schedule for this first day in Committee, and we have done it without a hydration break.

Let me begin with the two amendments I have tabled in this group. It is an important group on which to end our debate, because it deals with the significant impact of the Bill on the restrictions on commercial interests, small as well as big, a point that my noble friends have rightly accentuated. My Amendment 40 seeks to create an exemption for charities from the advertising offences in the Bill, applying only where a charity is advertising wholly or partly for the purpose of promoting itself or a specified list of charitable services. I hope the Minister will be attracted to it. It is word for word taken from the provisions in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games (Advertising and Trading) Regulations 2021. If it was suitable then, why not for the new framework that we are seeking to set out?

Amendment 55 similarly relates to charitable exemptions. Paragraph 1(2)(d) of Schedule 3 to the Bill states that a “Trading activity” includes

“appealing for money or other property (whether for charitable or other purposes), with the exception of begging”.

That means that the offence of trading in a restricted trading zone applies to charitable fundraising but not to people who are begging. I wonder if the noble Baroness can explain why it has been drawn up in that way. Surely we do not want to restrict people from collecting for good causes where that can be done in a way that is consistent with the sporting event, particularly when we consider that charities historically have been exempted from the advertising offences when we have hosted sporting events of this nature in the past.

I have tried in doing that to follow the example that my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond has taken with his Amendment 39. As he said, that mirrors the approach taken in the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, which provided carve-outs for community and educational uses, and I congratulate him on the way he set that one out.

I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, undersold his Amendment 38 a little. It concerns the impact of exclusive advertising authorisations on small and medium-sized enterprises and, as my noble friend Lord Hayward has done, it is worth drawing the Committee’s attention to what the Government’s own impact assessment says about this, because it is rather revealing. The final stage impact assessment, published by the department, acknowledges candidly that the provisions most likely to affect small and micro-businesses are the trading provisions of this Bill, which could prevent established street and market traders operating as usual in and around restricted zones. It recognises that there may be

“small disproportionate impacts on local traders relative to the broader business community”.

Therefore, it acknowledges that the greatest potential impact will fall on street traders in affected areas—as my noble friend Lord Fuller said, the people who add to and enhance the enjoyment of many people going to sporting events. The impact assessment promises that

“careful consideration will be given to how best to mitigate these impacts when making regulations on a case-by-case basis”.

That is a candid admission, but candour in an impact assessment is not the same as a legal safeguard in the Bill. Amendment 38 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, seeks to translate the Government’s own stated intentions from the impact assessment into an enforceable obligation. I think that one is worth the Minister looking at carefully in her response this evening but perhaps also as we consider all the issues we have looked at today between now and Report. I am grateful to noble Lords for all their amendments in this group.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Addington, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham, Lord Fuller and Lord Holmes of Richmond, for their amendments.

Amendment 38, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would require a designated person to have regard to additional factors related to small and medium or local enterprises when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation. We share the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that such businesses are not unfairly impacted and that they are able to benefit from the sporting event where appropriate.

In the interest of proportionality, we intend to minimise the impacts of the advertising provisions on existing businesses by introducing exceptions to the offences in regulations. These exceptions would be based on existing advertising controls to allow usual advertising on business premises. Businesses within a restricted zone wishing to display advertising that is not subject to an exception may be able to seek authorisation to do so—for example, from the event organiser or local authority. Where an authorisations process is in place and the proposed activity does not undermine commercial sponsors, businesses with an existing licence to advertise should be given precedence.

Before making regulations, the Secretary of State or devolved authority must consult with the relevant authority and any other persons. This could include local businesses. Guidance setting out the advertising restrictions that will be in place must also be made available.

Amendment 39, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, would create an exception to the advertising offence for certain non-commercial entities. We recognise the vital work each of these does for local communities. In most cases, they will not be affected by the advertising provisions in the Bill. I will say more on charities shortly, but I stress that the advertising offence will capture charities and other non-commercial entities only if they are advertising a business, product or service in a restricted zone. Where such entities could be affected, we will look to provide an appropriate exception in regulations. This will ensure that the interest of any charity partner in an event, if there is one, can be taken into account where necessary. Generally, this means providing exceptions in regulations on a case-by-case basis to ensure that they are proportionate, workable and event-specific. Again, guidance will be made available, making clear how non-commercial entities could be affected and the options available to them.

Amendment 40 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, creates an exception to the advertising offence for promoting charities and certain charitable services. We share the spirit of this amendment. However, as this is a UK-wide framework, exceptions must be workable across the four nations. These separate jurisdictions have differing laws defining and regulating charities. To ensure that exceptions related to charities can be applied effectively, these will need to be brought forward in regulations drafted in accordance with local laws, taking into account the interests of any charity partners. Charities will be captured by the offence only where they are promoting a product, business or service. As I stated in relation to a previous group, exceptions will always be provided for advertising certain charitable services—for example, crisis mental health support services such as a hotline. To highlight our intention in this area, the Bill explicitly states that exceptions to the advertising offence could be made for the purpose of promoting charities or services provided by charities.

Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, would remove appealing for money or other property from the definition of “trading activity”. I believe it was this amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, spoke to when she talked about knitted items and proportionality in relation to that. That was a good example and the type of example I have been putting to the Bill team to test. I understand that this amendment is looking to probe why charitable fundraising is within the scope of the trading offence. The trading offence is designed to regulate activity that could disrupt the easy and free movement of spectators and provide a mechanism to control the number of traders, including charity collectors, operating within a restricted zone. For this reason, a number of local authorities already regulate charity collections in public places. Although I am sympathetic to the spirit of this amendment, a blanket exception for charitable fundraising could undermine these objectives. For example, an event may have an official charity partner which may need to be given priority over a fundraising activity in a restricted trading zone.

National Arts Bank

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord John of Southwark—if anybody was in any doubt as to why he took the place designation of Southwark, I think we are clear on it today—on securing this really important debate and thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive contributions today. I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, that it has been quite inspiring. It is a really nice end to my week of parliamentary engagement to have something on which I can actually say, with huge enthusiasm, that I will have a lot of things to think about over coming days, and I will take some of those points back to the department.

Our theatres, galleries, performance venues and arts colleges are the bedrock of our national story. They drive local growth and expand opportunity. The Government are acutely conscious of the severe financial and physical pressures these institutions face, particularly as they navigate historical underinvestment and inflation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I congratulate my noble friend on his own track record of delivering in this area. As his opening contribution made clear, during his tenure leading Southwark Council, he championed many pioneering local partnerships to fund major capital developments, including the Central School of Ballet, Mountview and the Old Vic. These projects show how creative local collaboration and—in my noble friend’s own words—inspired leadership can deliver truly world-class cultural spaces.

It is particularly inspiring to hear of how that can open up arts venues to young people throughout local communities. My noble friend Lady Gill highlighted the contribution that such venues and investment can make to employment. I was pleased that my noble friend Lady Hyde highlighted the benefits to local communities, and it was also useful to hear of northern councils following suit from my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. As she said, this shows that it can be done. It was also inspiring—in a very inspiring debate—to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, on the work of the Lowry and its contribution in Salford. It shows how rich a vein of cultural contribution we have across the country.

My noble friend Lord John’s proposal of a national arts bank is thought-provoking. I can see that a guarantor lender for the arts could have some strong hypothetical benefits, namely unlocking favourable loan rates where commercial lending is not viable. However, it was welcome to hear about new commercial theatres in London from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, reminding us that, occasionally, commercial loans can be a good way forward. As my noble friend Lady Hyde said, most arts organisations—I think she cited theatres—need a mixed model of finance.

I appreciate that the debate has focused on guaranteeing capital, so I want to speak briefly on how the Government are directly investing in the arts. By focusing on direct, non-repayable capital grants rather than debt, we are taking the most direct route to tackling the critical maintenance backlogs that threaten the long-term viability of our cultural estate. As my noble friend Lady Hyde highlighted and others mentioned, this Government are delivering up to £1.5 billion in capital investment over this Parliament to secure and revitalise England’s cultural infrastructure. This historic package is designed to protect more than 1,000 cherished arts venues, museums, libraries and heritage buildings from damage and, in some cases, even closure.

We agree, however, that public funding can be only part of the solution. Our creative and cultural sectors depend upon a mixed funding model, in which private philanthropy, corporate support and individual giving play a vital role alongside earned income. I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, highlight the role of philanthropy in investment in the arts. This Government’s vision is to build an ambitious, long-term partnership with philanthropists to deliver tangible national renewal within our communities.

In relation to whether cultural institutions should accept sponsorship from companies on a case-by-case basis, I share the Secretary of State’s view that boycotting sponsors serves only to damage the cultural sector. Philanthropy and corporate sponsorship are long and valuable traditions in our country’s history of support for culture, and we undermine that at our peril. I would say, however, that decisions on commercial and philanthropic donations are rightly for the staff and trustees of those organisations, which typically have policies in place for donations and ethics.

In April, we launched Our Place to Give, our new plan for growing place-based philanthropy. This represents a fundamental shift towards a partnership model that treats philanthropy as a strategic partner in innovation. Key initiatives from the plan include investing £1 million to strengthen fundraising capacity in places, convening regional philanthropic ambassadors to broker better links between donors and communities and adopting a “think philanthropy” approach across government to ensure that public investment acts as a catalyst for wider giving. I was pleased, as Gambling Minister, that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, mentioned the contributions made by lotto players through the lottery. It all counts towards that mixed model.

While direct grant funding is our primary tool, the Government are actively exploring how to build a modern, resilient funding model for the arts that goes beyond traditional subsidised structures. We have already seen excellent proofs of concept in this space, such as the Arts Council’s Incentivising Touring scheme, which offers repayable grants and has demonstrated how public capital can be recycled to support more productions and wider audiences.

My noble friend Lady Gill, like most noble Lords, highlighted the work by my noble friend Lady Hodge of Barking in her review of Arts Council England. It focused particularly on exploring new ways to bring more funding into our cultural sector through a variety of innovative solutions. The Government confirmed in our response, published earlier this year, that we will consider all these recommendations. This work is being explored with the Arts Council through targeted engagement with financial experts and relevant sector stakeholders to ensure we identify viable high-quality options that fill policy gaps. I would be very happy to talk to noble Lords in greater detail about this in person, if not in a debate in your Lordship’ House—so let us have more debates on DCMS matters.

As we look into these innovative ideas, we will of course proceed responsibly. Any successful new model must satisfy a number of essential conditions. For example, it will require robust governance and sufficient sector capacity to manage repayable instruments. Fundamentally, any future approach must be affordable within our current fiscal constraints and wider budgeting decisions. We must also recognise that a robust financial ecosystem already exists. This includes deploying a portion of the £4 billion secured for priority sectors and exploring how businesses, including those in the creative industries, can secure loans using their intellectual properties, such as copyrights and designs, as collateral. This would give commercial lenders the confidence to back asset-light creative firms, providing an important pathway to finance for creative founders.

Today’s debate has illustrated the depth of expertise and passion for this in your Lordships’ Committee and the passion that I share for making sure that our arts and cultural organisations have the capital funding that they need to succeed and for finding creative solutions to do this. I hope I have demonstrated that this is a passion that the Government share. It is a debate I would be more than happy to continue. I look forward to future discussions, both with my noble friend Lord John and others, to work collaboratively for the shared goal. I have not answered all the questions; I will write to those noble Lords to whom I have not had a chance to respond.

EU-UK Cultural Exchange Arrangements

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Caine of Kentish Town]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in securing better cultural exchange arrangements between the creative sectors of the EU and the UK.

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

The Government recognise the importance of strong cultural exchange between the UK and the EU. On 24 March, the Minister for Creative Industries co-led the first UK-European Commission high-level meeting on culture, with Commissioner Glenn Micallef, building on commitments made at the inaugural UK-EU summit in May 2025 to deepen cultural exchange. We continue to work closely with European partners and industry, including through engagement with the Cultural Exchange Coalition, to support our creative sectors.

[Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. The Brexit deal delivered complex, costly arrangements for touring artists, now made even worse by the recent introduction of digital passports, or carnets, for equipment. In a recent UK Music creators survey, 43% of those who previously toured the EU stated that it is no longer viable for them to do so—a hit to our growing economy and our soft power, repeated across other art forms. Can my noble friend reassure the House that, in keeping with the Government’s manifesto commitment to seek to resolve this issue, it remains a top priority in the current UK-EU reset negotiations, and update the House on what considerations Ministers are giving to stepping up now to help subsidise the cost of the equipment carnets, until a permanent solution is found?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As my noble friend Lord Hanson made clear, the creative industries are a key sector for this Government. Supporting touring artists is a government manifesto commitment and we deeply value and promote the importance of cultural exchange across Europe. We recognise, as I think my noble friend does, that this is a highly complex issue and we continue to work with our European partners to make progress on practical, mutually beneficial solutions. I can assure my noble friend that the department remains committed, as do the Government more widely, to securing improvements for our musicians and artists, and their support staff, working closely with the creative and cultural sectors as we do so.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister give us some idea of what the Government have done about looking into the amount of red tape created by the Brexit deal and whether they have a strategy for cutting through? At the moment, we seem to be benefiting lawyers and administrators, and stopping everybody else doing their jobs.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I think your Lordships’ House will be clear from the previous times we have debated this issue that it is complex. We are working hard on continuing the reset of our relations with European partners. We are fully aware of this and talk regularly to both the creative sector and EU partners about some of the ways we can simplify things. We want to make sure that we have a strong creative sector and that we continue the exchange with the EU. I remind noble Lords that the EU accounted for 44% of UK services exports in the music, performing and visual arts sector, but this is something that we want to promote and encourage further.

[Baroness MacLeod of Camusdarach (Lab)]

My Lords, this matters economically and culturally. Scotland and the wider UK have an internationally respected music sector, but that reputation depends on the development pipeline. If the artist cannot tour, cannot earn and cannot reach audiences beyond their immediate locality, the sector will lose future headliners, future exports and future cultural ambassadors. Can the Minister give an indication of when these obstacles might be removed?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

These are complex negotiations, but we will continue to engage with the EU and member states to explore solutions that improve mobility arrangements for touring across Europe. We welcome the constructive tone of recent UK-EU engagement on cultural mobility, including references in the EU visa strategy to practical flexibilities for touring professionals. We recognise that the 90-day and 180-day limits continue to pose a significant challenge for touring professionals working across multiple EU member states so, as well as working with individual states, we continue to work with partners at a more European-wide level.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope I am not stepping on anyone’s toes but, to pick up the point that my noble friend Lady MacLeod just made, the focus of this discussion tends to be on touring. In fact, as my noble friend indicated, the lives of many musicians depend on their being able to take up employment in the EU—for example, in orchestras or opera companies—and 90 days is simply not enough to fulfil a contract which goes to build the reputations of those musicians and then, as my noble friend said, enhances the reputation of our creative industries overall. Can the Minister be clear about what efforts are being made to make it easier for people to take up contracts overseas, particularly in the EU?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As I mentioned in an earlier response, Minister Murray co-chaired the first UK-European Commission high-level meeting on culture. One priority for his work in this area is ensuring that, working closely with music and arts industry stakeholders, we engage with European counterparts to work through some of the clear obstacles that we would be keen to address in relation to our creative sector being able to access EU countries. The previous question on visas shows that we are actively looking at this, but there are issues that we need to work through.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, we all want to see better cultural exchange, not just with the 27 members of the EU but with 200 countries around the world. Issues of visas, cabotage and carnets are not restricted to the European Union. What work are the Government doing on the broader international stage to make it easier for artists, musicians and others to travel the world, not just to those countries immediately on our doorstep?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The UK has made a number of arrangements with non-EU countries that are possible because we have been outside the EU, as part of our work on that since Brexit, so there are opportunities for broader cultural exchange. One of the successes of this Government’s work on culture is in some of the delegations that have taken place to non-EU countries. There has been huge enthusiasm from our sectors here for that, but also from the countries to which UK delegations have travelled.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of trustees of the Council for Dance, Drama and Musical Theatre. Following on from the noble Lord’s question, can my noble friend give a slightly wider view? What are we going to do to support Ukraine from a cultural perspective, after it has had so many years of dealing with a dreadful war?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a valid and topical point, because in the past week there has been some publicity around some of the destruction wrought on Ukraine’s cultural landmarks. Recently, the UK and the European Commission each committed £250,000 to support cultural heritage protection in Ukraine, aimed at protecting and restoring Ukraine’s cultural landmarks. We have also discussed collaborating on the impact of artificial intelligence in the creative industries with Ukraine, facilitating international cultural collaboration and improving working conditions for creative and cultural professionals. I met the Ukrainian Culture Minister recently and discussed with her how we could work more closely to support them in their cultural recovery.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Why are the Government opposed to a full creative industries mobility scheme with the EU?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We are working through negotiations. I am not going to give a running commentary on negotiations from the Dispatch Box, not least as they are not ones that I am leading myself. We are continuing to engage constructively with EU member states. We are not looking, as I think we made clear in our manifesto, to re-enter a situation where we would have free movement. We committed to that in the manifesto. I am quite clear that in our manifesto we stood on clear red lines in relation to Europe, and those are ones that remain this Government’s policy.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

My Lords, major sporting events matter. They matter to the fans who fill our stadiums and line our streets; they matter to the athletes who train for years for the chance to compete for our country on the world’s biggest stage; they matter to our communities, our local economies and our national story; and they matter because, at their best, they bring people together in a way that few other things can. These events play a unique role in fostering a shared sense of belonging. They generate moments of collective experience that contribute directly to social cohesion and national pride, uniting diverse communities and showcasing the best of our nation on a global stage.

Hosting these events here opens the country as a whole. They serve as a powerful platform to showcase the best of the UK, from sporting prowess to arts and culture, and even the diverse food that defines British cuisine. These world-class occasions become a unique shared celebration of belonging, demonstrating that the UK’s excellence is not confined to sport but encompasses its deep and varied cultural life.

I was privileged enough to be successful in the public ballot to get tickets for a couple of events at the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The excitement of my god-daughters and my niece and nephew in seeing elite sport for the first time and their pride in our country was infectious. It remains one of their strongest memories of their childhoods. The whole country embraced the Olympics. The Games lifted the mood of communities up and down the country and provided an economic boost. It remains one of the lasting legacies of my noble friend the late Baroness Jowell and the type of event we would like to see more of in the UK.

The UK’s record of hosting world-class, major sporting events is one we should all be proud of. Last summer alone, we smashed records, delivering the biggest ever Women’s Rugby World Cup, with unprecedented crowd numbers watching on as the Red Roses lifted the trophy as champions.

As we set out in our manifesto, this Government are committed to continuing to deliver international events like these with pride, seeking new opportunities where we can, to create a legacy to inspire the next generation of talent while promoting exercise and healthy living. We have already secured a fantastic pipeline of events over the coming years. This summer alone will see the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, the European Athletics Championships and the Women’s T20 Cricket World Cup. Next year brings the grand départ for the Tour de France and Tour de France Femmes, and then, together with Ireland, we host the UEFA European Championship in 2028. Last month, we announced that we have commissioned our expert arm’s-length body, UK Sport, to carry out an initial assessment to consider the feasibility of hosting a future Olympic and Paralympic Games in the north in the 2040s.

Major sporting events are an economic success story. They drive economic growth and job creation, acting as a catalyst for inward investment, improving transport connections, and playing a key role in the regeneration of world-class facilities for communities up and down the country to enjoy. For example, this Government are investing up to £557 million into hosting Euro 2028. This investment alone is predicted to deliver £3.2 billion of socioeconomic benefits across the UK, which is a nearly sixfold direct return on investment.

Such landmark occasions leave a lasting legacy, creating unparalleled pathways for people to engage in physical activity and find their own place in the sporting life of the UK. Impact ‘25, the Women’s Rugby World Cup legacy programme, has reached 850 clubs up and down the country since its inception in 2024, and 37,000 women and girls in the last year alone. It has trained more than 3,000 new female coaches and match officials.

The purpose of this Bill is therefore simple but important: to better equip the UK to attract and deliver the biggest international sporting events and ensure that we can continue to deliver these benefits in the years to come. The UK already has a global reputation for excellence in hosting major sporting events. This Bill will bolster that reputation and send a clear message: the UK is event-ready.

Global competition to host major sporting events is fierce and increasing. The UK is a strong player in this field but this Bill gives further confidence that we are ready to uphold our commitments and stay competitive. It will set in statute a framework that enables certain sporting events to benefit from the enhanced commercial protections needed to preserve the integrity of events and, importantly, offset cost to taxpayers. This Bill is built on our foundational principle of a UK-wide approach, co-designed with devolved partners to serve the entire union. Most immediately, these provisions underpin the successful delivery of Euro 2028 and, should the UK’s bid be successful—as I am sure all noble Lords hope it will be—the FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2035.

At its core, the Bill sets out a framework that allows a standard set of measures to be applied to sporting events that meet certain conditions. Ministers here or in each of the devolved Governments will consider which of the measures set out in the Bill are appropriate for any given qualifying event and apply them through regulations. These regulations will set out event-specific details, such as where and when the measures apply.

For an event to be in scope, it must meet three conditions: first, it must take place, at least in part, in the UK; secondly, it must not regularly be held here; and, thirdly, it must either be an event of significant international interest, with the potential to deliver social or economic benefits, or an event of strategic importance in facilitating other such events being held in the UK in the future. In practice, this means those one-off bids for major sporting events that move from host to host, such as the Euros, world cups or Olympic and Paralympic Games—events where enhanced commercial protections are needed to meet the conditions of hosting and where every effort should unashamedly be made to enhance the UK’s competitive advantage. The Bill provides a framework of time-limited provisions that can be applied by the UK and the devolved Governments to events meeting these criteria.

It will put fans first by criminalising the unauthorised resale of tickets for qualifying sporting events. This will help ensure that event organisers have greater control over the onward sale of tickets and that more tickets go directly to genuine supporters rather than to touts seeking to profit from events in the UK that are subsidised by the public purse. Your Lordships will be aware of the Government’s commitment and separate plans to introduce a price cap on the resale of tickets for live events more generally to prevent fans being ripped off by touts. Those measures will preserve a thriving resale market while cracking down on exploitative touts, so that fans do not feel forced into paying vastly inflated prices. I emphasise that we are fully committed to these wider and separate measures and will publish a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in this parliamentary Session.

To ensure that the wider secondary ticketing provisions operate effectively, we want to listen to the live events sector and fans before formally introducing them to Parliament. Doing so will ensure that the legislation is enforceable and future-proof. The tightly drawn ticketing provisions in the Bill are designed to deliver on the specific requirements of major sporting event owners when we are bidding for events that do not normally take place in the UK. These requirements are made clear during bidding processes and involve limiting the sale and resale of tickets to authorised bodies and platforms only.

The Bill also covers powers on advertising and trading. This second aspect will enable the prohibition of unauthorised advertising and trading around event locations by bringing forward time-limited criminal offences. In practice, this means that the Government will be able to put in place restricted advertising and trading zones around places such as competition venues, official fan zones, transport hubs and any areas surrounding them, provided these places are being used for or in connection with the sporting event in question. These provisions are designed to protect commercial investment while minimising the impact on existing businesses. They will also help support the safe movement of spectators.

Thirdly, the Bill will prohibit unauthorised association with a qualifying sporting event through a general prohibition enforceable through the civil courts. Sponsorship is a critical revenue stream for event organisers and owners. If sponsors believe their rights can or will be undermined by rival businesses creating an unauthorised association with the event, the commercial value of sponsoring UK-hosted events diminishes. This provision will help create an attractive offer for sponsors by protecting their investment and commercial rights, helping to shield the taxpayer from increased hosting costs.

Fourthly, the Bill includes provision to manage transport and traffic in relation to a sporting event in England. Effective transport and traffic management is essential to the safe and smooth operation of any major event, and the Bill will ensure that those arrangements can be properly supported.

Separate from these framework powers, the Bill will also create a bespoke funding power to enable the efficient and successful delivery of sporting events across England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This means, for the Secretary of State, a single, dedicated power for the future funding of sporting events in England. It will also provide Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland departments with the power to support sporting events in Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. Financial assistance provided through this provision will be subject to ministerial discretion, alongside the usual processes to ensure that it aligns with the general principles for managing public money. Sufficient funding powers already exist in Wales, so this provision will not apply there.

Taken together, these provisions will help ensure that the United Kingdom remains an attractive host for major sporting events and continues to build on its world-leading reputation in this field. If we get this right, the benefits will be felt far beyond the field of play. They will be felt not just in host towns and cities but across the country—in the businesses and communities that benefit from them, in the young people inspired by them and in our communities across the UK unified by them. I hope your Lordships’ House will welcome this Bill and I look forward to the debate. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords for sharing such well-considered views. I agree with my noble friend Lord Wood of Anfield that it is an honour to speak in a debate with so many sporting stars, a point made by several others. Today’s debate has shown the knowledge and passion in your Lordships’ House for hosting major sporting events in the UK and recognising the many benefits they bring, not least including my noble friend Lady Shah, who spoke passionately about Wembley and the benefits it brings to Brent and the surrounding area. These can be transformative, as my noble friend Lord Barker—sorry, I cannot read my own writing.

[Noble Lords]

Barber.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Yes. Thank you. Huge apologies. They can be transformative, as my noble friend Lord Barber of Chittlehampton said, although, unlike him, I was not alive to see England in the World Cup in 1966. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, mentioned that he was there as well.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said, sport can and does bridge divides. As my noble friend Lady Paul of Shepherd’s Bush said, this is a small but mighty Bill that will establish a framework that enables certain sporting events—I will give a bit more definition on that in due course—to benefit from the enhanced commercial protections needed to preserve the integrity of events and, importantly, offset costs to taxpayers. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, having a framework is a good thing. As noble Lords will be aware, we have taken a UK-wide approach, working closely with the devolved Governments.

I will respond to as many of the questions and points raised as I can, and, where I cannot, I will write to noble Lords and place a copy in the Library. I am also happy to meet noble Lords with an interest in the Bill.

Today’s debate has been far wider than the scope of the Bill. I want to recap on the scope of the Bill and remind noble Lords that an event must meet each of the three conditions set out in it. This legislation is designed to enhance our ability to track one-off bids for sporting events that move from host to host, such as the Euros, the Olympics, the Paralympic Games and—to the delight of my noble friend Lady Nye; I think there were other golf fans as well—the Ryder Cup.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, asked about the impact the Bill could have on events, such as the Tour de France, that cross borders. The legislation has been specifically designed to enhance our ability to attract one-off bids for sporting events that move from host to host. That includes those that cross borders as well as those held wholly or partly in the UK.

Without wanting to pre-empt the outcome of the initial assessment being carried out by UK Sport, which is at an early stage of consideration, in response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on what is meant by “the north”, I reassure her and the House that UK Sport is engaging across the north of England in particular.

A number of the UK’s competitor nations, such as Australia, New Zealand and France, have comparable legislation—I hope that gives some reassurance to noble Lords who doubt the value of a framework such as this—and have seen considerable success in securing hosting rights recently. For example, France secured and hosted the men’s Rugby World Cup in 2023 and the Olympics in 2024.

In defence of the framework approach, which I think was questioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, we are clear that this is the right approach. It is a forward-looking framework designed to attract the best sporting events for years to come. We do not know in advance the relevant event-specific details such as dates and places, or what exceptions might be proportionate for that event, so those event-specific operational details will be set out in the regulations and provisions relating to the event. Our guiding principle has always been to fix as much policy detail in the Bill as possible and to limit secondary legislation to adding event-specific details.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Bonham-Carter, asked about the definition of major and mega events and bid transparency. On the question of what is a major or mega sporting event, the Gold Framework, which is a joint DCMS and UK Sport document, already sets out how we work jointly to support the feasibility assessment process for the bidding for and staging of major and mega sporting events at a UK level, and it provides definitions of mega and major events. I can make sure that a link to that document is sent through to the relevant noble Lords.

Delegated powers—and how they are going to be applied and whether they are justified and proportionate —were raised by, among others, my noble friends Lady Paul, Lady Dacres and Lord Wood of Anfield. The noble Lord, Lord Markham, also raised concerns. The delegated powers in the Bill are tightly drafted. As I said, we fix as much policy as possible on the face of the Bill. Secondary legislation will be limited to applying the provisions to events and overlaying the event-specific operational details required. The affirmative procedure will apply to the first use of the powers by each Government in relation to an event, providing appropriate opportunity for scrutiny, particularly over the types of events to which the provisions are being applied. I have no doubt that we will come back to that in Committee.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, made a clear point about the role of culture alongside major sporting events. London 2012 clearly showed the UK at its best, both in terms of sporting events and the wider cultural offer. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, also highlighted that. I will not go through my detailed glowing comments about the events, because I think those were covered. In relation to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, about whether cultural events which are part of a major sporting event, such as the 2012 Cultural Olympiad, will be within the scope of the Bill, the Bill does not define a sporting event but does make it clear that this includes any opening or closing ceremony. Regulations applying the Bill’s provisions to a sporting event can specify events which should be treated as forming part of the event where they are held in connection with it. That would bring in scope cultural events officially connected to a sporting event, such as the 2012 Cultural Olympiad.

I thank a number of noble Lords, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for their track record over many years of working to support the UK’s efforts to win bids. The noble Baroness raised the important point of legacy programmes. We work closely with our partners to maximise the potential of these sporting events, leaving behind positive legacies, inspiring the next generation of talent while promoting exercise and healthy living. I had not noticed the acronym drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, but I agree that it is probably appropriate.

So many noble Lords mentioned secondary ticketing that I will not list all those concerned, but it is clear that, understandably, this is of great interest to your Lordships’ House. I reassure noble Lords that this Government are fully committed to addressing ticket touting and issues with the secondary ticketing market which prevent so many people attending events. My noble friend Lady Gill said—and I agree—that “predatory” is an appropriate term. My noble friends Lord Mann and Lady Taylor mentioned that this often involves organised crime. However, this is not the right legislative vehicle for all wider secondary ticketing reforms. The time-limited ticketing measures will ensure that tickets can be resold only with authorisation from the event owner or organiser, satisfying the requirements of event owners.

In response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, we do not intend for the offences in the Bill to be ones for which football banning orders can be imposed. Our wider plans will preserve a robust ticket resale market by directly targeting the operating model of ticket touts. They will ensure that genuine fans can resell their tickets safely and securely and recoup their costs when they can no longer attend a live event. This Government are committed to ensuring that the UK is an excellent host and partner. The noble Lord, Lord Markham, portrayed the UK as quite an unattractive destination for sporting events. I do not recognise that. We will meet our commitments while protecting the interests of fans. We are a country that is open for business and for sporting events.

Going back to the point about the transfer of tickets to friends and families, I reassure noble Lords that we are not criminalising the private transfer of tickets between friends, family and associates at face value. I will now—

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

The Bill as worded does do that, because it requires the permission of the initial seller to do so. If the initial seller refuses to allow that to happen and requires the tickets to be returned to them, which is an increasing trend, then, as currently worded, the Bill does do that. That perhaps should be looked at.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Maybe we can come back to that in Committee, as we do not think it does. It is more like the normal practice of people reselling them through, which I have done. I will not mention the brand of theatre, but I regularly end up not being able to attend theatres—I do not know whether the Chief Whip has anything to do with that. It is possible to resell tickets through a variety of means without being prohibited by that, but we will come back to this.

The topic of recurrent sporting events is also something we are going to need to come back to. I am happy to talk to people about it individually. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, and my noble friend Lord Foulkes raised this—like others, I am delighted to see him back in his place—as did my noble friend Lord Bassam and the noble Lord, Lord Markham. The time-limited provisions in the Bill are designed to attract specific, one-off events which require the Government to make commitments to event owners during the bidding process. We do not think that regular events have the same requirements as events which hold competitive international bid processes. I reassure noble Lords that, as the Bill was developed, we worked with some of the biggest recurrent sporting events to understand whether there was a demand for such provisions, and that included the London Marathon.

There was some interest, understandably, in the advertising and trading provisions. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, about some of the issues faced by people on ambush marketing, but we did not find a clear or consistent evidence base for their inclusion, and there was insufficient appetite from the sector to fund the enforcement action required of local authorities. We are clear that, if we are establishing criminal offences, enforcement by any organisation other than a public body would not be appropriate or proportionate. However, I am very happy to meet the noble Baroness to discuss that further and I will ask my office to sort that out.

We will continue to support our domestic sport sector and the UK sporting calendar, building on pre-existing relationships and frameworks. The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, noted the work being done on a UK-wide major events strategy, as I think did a couple of other noble Lords. My department intends to publish it within the next 12 months—apologies, but I am not able to give a more precise timeline for that. This will set out our priorities for major events taking place across the UK, covering major events in all sectors, including cultural, sporting and business. Like others, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord McConnell will be working with DCMS on this area.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, raised a really helpful point on inclusivity. He is absolutely right about the need to ensure that our major events remain inclusive. We intend the major events strategy to support this work but, again, I am happy to talk to the noble Lord in more detail about that.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, talked about something in his contribution which I find really sad: that gay male footballers do not feel able to be honest and open about that. I also welcome his observation about whether young gay men would feel able to play professional football. We welcome the great strides in the environment on inclusiveness at football matches over many years, but we acknowledge that we cannot be complacent in ensuring that our national game is for everyone.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, made a point about the Soft Power Council. It has met multiple times, and its working groups have actively contributed to activity across a range of areas. We look forward to this continuing over the years and months to come. On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, we recognise that the financial landscape for delivering major events across the country can be challenging and we are committed to working with stakeholders from every sector to ensure that events are safe, secure, sustainable and attractive.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is right about our need to ensure that our major events are inclusive and affordable. I have already made that point, but I do not think we have covered affordability, which was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Davies, and by my noble friend Lady Dacres. We anticipate that this too will be included in the major events strategy. We are not clear, however, that we need legislate on that point in this Bill. I look forward, however, to further discussion as the Bill progresses.

There is clearly a range of views across your Lordships’ House on gambling as it relates to sport. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, we do not think that this will prevent customers cashing out on bets on gambling mobile apps while they are in restricted trading zones. I appreciate that my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, raised wider concerns about having a less permissive tone on gambling. Outside this Bill, there are existing measures to limit gambling advertising at sporting venues. We have also announced our intention to consult this year on the banning of sports sponsorship by unlicensed gambling operators. I do not share the scepticism of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the front-of-shirt ban. I think it is significant although, in response to my noble friend Lady Taylor’s point, I do not think it is a panacea. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, is already aware, the Government do not intend to ban gambling advertising at this time. As ever, I would be happy to discuss this topic further with the noble Lord and with any other interested noble Lords from across the House.

Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Fuller and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, raised the issue of how these provisions will affect small businesses and street traders. The Government will always look to ensure that the Bill’s provisions are implemented proportionately, with a view to minimising disruption to existing businesses, in particular street traders. We also fully recognise that people need support in understanding whether they are impacted by the advertising trading provisions and, if that is the case, what options are available to them. In response to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on making sure that people understand the measures, regulations under the Bill must ensure that guidance is made available on the application of the advertising and trading provisions, and we will be able to require that this is shared with those most likely to be affected, such as street traders.

The prohibition on unauthorised associations is not intended to crack down on local businesses—the example of a B&B was given—showing their support for major events. It applies only to activity that is likely to suggest to the public that there is an official association with an event. By this, we mean that there is a realistic chance that everyday members of the public will consider that such an association exists.

I am coming to the end. I want to talk about proportionate enforcement, because noble Lords are concerned about it. The Bill’s focus is on activity that undermines the integrity of a sporting event and the interests of its commercial partners, or that could disrupt the safe movement of spectators. As with the Birmingham Commonwealth Games, we will work with event organisers and local authorities to ensure that enforcement action is proportionate. The enforcement powers in the Bill will provide a sufficient deterrent while ensuring that effective action can be taken when needed.

I will write to my noble friend Lady Nye and others on the way in which we could increase the fine, and I will also write to my noble friend Lady Taylor and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the transport plan. I will definitely write to the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, on the Finance Act, because I do not have that detail to hand, and I will need to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on her point about sponsorship and fossil fuels.

The provisions in this Bill will further reinforce our world-leading reputation for hosting major sporting events. With it, we are sending a clear message that the UK is not just a home for sport but a prepared, professional and fan-focused host, ready to both host and take on the world. In response to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Wood, on Committee timings, such matters are dealt with through the usual channels, but he can always talk to the Chief Whip. I am grateful to all noble Lords for a varied and interesting debate, and I urge them to support the Bill.

Bill read a second time.

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order:

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

Motion agreed.

World Cup Ticket Prices

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with football’s governing bodies about the price of World Cup tickets.

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

My Lords, I would like to take the opportunity of a sporting-related Question to congratulate the Ladies of your Lordships’ House on a very impressive victory in yesterday’s tug-of-war with the other place. I understand that there was another team available, but I am going to move swiftly on.

The Government fully understand fans’ frustrations regarding the cost of tickets for the 2026 World Cup, particularly given current cost of living pressures. However, FIFA and the tournament organisers alone determine ticket pricing and allocation, as these are strictly commercial decisions. While Ministers regularly engage with the domestic football associations on a number of issues, including fan welfare, we expect these national bodies to formally represent the ticketing concerns of British supporters directly to FIFA. We are not party to these discussions, but we were pleased to see a number of lower-price tickets available through national federation fan groups.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, some tickets for this year’s World Cup will cost as much as $6,500, and I am told $10,000 for the final, pricing football fans out of watching games. I remind the House that, in 1966, watching the final cost you just 10 bob. This is an absolute outrage. Given that we have the Sporting Events Bill before us today, will the Government consider taking extra powers, alongside those protecting fans from touts, to ensure that events like the GB-wide Euro 2028 do not become another opportunity for football’s governing bodies to indulge in rampant profiteering at fans’ expense?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Government do and will always work with event owners to ensure that the UK is an excellent host and partner, and that we can meet our commitments at the same time as protecting the interests of fans. We have worked closely with UEFA on its approach to Euro 2028, which seeks to put fans first with transparent ticketing prices. There will not be dynamic pricing for the Euro 2028 games. These principles followed a meeting between the Prime Minister, the DCMS Secretary of State and the UEFA president last November, which discussed the vital importance of ensuring that tickets for the tournament are accessible and affordable.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the current situation in the United States is that individual states are trying to have legal redress on this. The Government are saying that they are quite friendly, but will they make sure that everybody involved in politics is singing from the same hymn sheet? If we bid for something in the future, who knows who will be in power then.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I would like to think that, in this country, whichever Government are in power—obviously, I would hope that they were this Government —would put the fans at the heart of everything they do in relation to sport. Looking at the Benches opposite, I remind your Lordships’ House that not all sides of your Lordships’ House supported the Independent Football Regulator Bill, and I am grateful to all noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their support in making sure that fans are at the heart of everything relating to football.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, I was heartened to hear the Minister at least partially endorse the fact that the price mechanism is a far better way of valuing goods than government diktat. However, does she also agree that the politics of envy, while it may on occasion attract some votes, rarely has good outcomes? Does she also accept that, despite the blandishments of the noble Lord, not everybody can always go to everything? In the words of the immortal Sir Michael Jagger:

“You can’t always get what you want”.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am slightly incredulous. We have a situation where resale tickets are being priced at $2 million. I am not convinced that anybody would buy them at that price, but these are outrageous prices. It goes beyond envy when even the President of the United States is calling the tickets out as overly priced for a major sporting event.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, people who are actually fans are going to America for the World Cup and are being ripped off with their flights, ripped off—and sometimes gazumped—with their hotels, and ripped off with their tickets. Can we do all we can, both internally and internationally, to stop these practices and give the football fans a decent deal?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As I mentioned in response to my noble friend’s questions, representations regarding the interests of fans fall to the respective football associations. My understanding is that the home nations’ football associations are raising matters. We are keen to make sure that all our fans travelling to the World Cup, which noble Lords will be aware goes across three host countries, have a good experience. But, above all, we hope that our home teams do well, and our wish is that they compete against each other in the final.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, the World Cup brings together communities and breaks down barriers, but the reality is that not all UK football fans have reliable broadband or smart TVs for streaming. So will the Government act to fund libraries, community centres and jobcentres, which could be free streaming hubs, particularly in deprived areas of the country, and may encourage other beneficial engagement?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend Lady Hayman suggested that I get up and just repeat her response to the noble Earl, which was “Yes”, but I will not do that. As well as the World Cup being free to air on terrestrial channels—the BBC and ITV have agreed which matches will be screened and those are free to air, so not reliant on good broadband—there will be a number of fan zones up and down the country if people want that more communal approach. I suggest that it might be a distraction for an organisation such as a jobcentre, even if we want people to get through the door, to screen programmes when their staff are trying to work hard to get people back into work.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, the magnificent parade through Highbury and Holloway on Sunday proved that football can and should be a sport for everyone from every background. But, as we have heard, not just ticket prices but accommodation and travel are pricing out ordinary fans. Will my noble friend the Minister consider encouraging employers to ensure that there is flexibility at work so that, when World Cup matches are held during work time, people have the chance to watch them?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend about the parades and, across your Lordships’ House, we all want to congratulate Arsenal on winning the Premier League and offer commiserations on its loss in the Champions League final. Although it is possible for some employers to exercise discretion, it would be a tall order for the Government to say to everyone, including your Lordships’ House, that we should down tools and watch every single match instead of working. But I know that, across the country and across both home countries involved, people are hugely looking forward to the World Cup.

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, not only is there the expense of buying the tickets and paying the fares, but there is also the issue of getting visas. Can the Minister see whether we can sort out the visas to America in particular, because it takes time to get those?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am not aware of any particular issues with visas. That falls firmly within the FCDO’s parameters, and it does most of the liaison with overseas countries on major sporting events. I presume that most people had to buy their flights some time ago, so I assume that most of them would already have gone through that process.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, while wishing the very best success to all the teams from the UK competing in the World Cup, will my noble friend accept that other forms of entertainment are available over the summer?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

In response, and echoing my noble friend Lady Hayman from earlier, absolutely: yes.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Government set up fast courts to prosecute price-gouging and profiteering from the sale of football World Cup tickets?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I have to be clear to my noble friend that this year’s World Cup tickets are allowed to be resold in the US. This year, we are celebrating quite a big anniversary in relation to the independence of the US, and we are not currently able to legislate on ticket resale in the US.

2026 FIFA World Cup: Replica Kit Pricing

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

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

This summer’s World Cup is a brilliant opportunity to unite communities across the country, and we know just how much wearing the team colours means to fans. Unfortunately, while we recognise and share concerns over costs, setting prices remains a matter for manufacturers and the respective football associations. We do encourage them to ensure that kits are affordable, particularly for children. As an independent authority, it is for the Competition and Markets Authority to determine which cases to investigate according to its prioritisation principles, but it has a track record of taking action.

[Lord Walker of Broxton (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister. Many families are now being forced to turn to counterfeit kits because the official versions have become completely unaffordable. This raises serious issues, not only of consumer protection because of poor quality but with many investigations having shown that knock-off kits are produced in unregulated sweatshops where workers face severe exploitation. Therefore, will she consider whether the Government should pressure both the FA and big brand manufacturers to work with them to develop clearer guidance and protocols on supply and profit margins?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We strongly condemn the sale of counterfeit merchandise, which fuels organised crime and bypasses critical safety standards. Buying fake kits directly funds serious criminal networks and deprives grass-roots football of vital investment. Furthermore, fake kit may not be subject to UK safety regulations, with very concerning reports of counterfeit shirts aimed at children being highly flammable. The Intellectual Property Office and the police work tirelessly to disrupt this trade.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, kits always seem to be too expensive for everybody. They have done for a long time, and the club game has suffered from this for a long time as well. It would help if national teams were to publish what revenue they get from this and where it is spent to make sure that people know, because if they are doing something good with that money, at least that is some mitigation.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I hope the noble Lord will be reassured that I asked that specific question as part of my preparation. I was told that the FA puts money from the sale of such kits back into grass-roots football, which I am sure all noble Lords will appreciate. However, that does not detract from the fact that they are prohibitively expensive, which excludes some people from having them. The pricing is part of a multi-year deal between the FA and manufacturers, and the prices reflect consistently high prices internationally. I will ensure through officials at DCMS that the FA has noted the points raised in this debate in your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

My Lords, I speak as a football fan with two small boys who I continually have to provide kits for, even though they are Spurs kits and this season has not been the best. The problem we have is the naked commercialisation of clubs when it comes to not just one kit but multiple kits, plastered with sponsorship from multinational companies, so there is vast revenue coming in from these kits anyway. It is a challenge for spectators and fans to belong to the club, and the clubs like to make the link that they are for the fans. What is the Independent Football Regulator’s view on the price of kits and the multitude of kits?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am not privy to the Independent Football Regulator’s precise views on this, but the Government established the Independent Football Regulator specifically to put hearts back at the centre of how clubs operate. This will include issues around pricing and consultation about a whole range of things. I look forward to seeing how the Independent Football Regulator works in practice, both with the football clubs and leagues, but also representing the interests of fans in this way.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, with no disrespect to my noble friend Lord Walker, England is not the only national team at the World Cup. If my noble friend the Minister is making representations, will she make representations also to the Scottish FA in relation to kits? While she is doing that, will she also ask it to investigate how Celtic managed to steal the Scottish Premier League?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I have really missed responding to my noble friend Lord Foulkes’ questions. It is always good to have a question from him. I did ask how the kits and strips for other home nations compared in pricing with the England kit. I understand, without promoting them specifically, that the adult Adidas strips for other home nations come in at a much more reasonable price. Clearly, it is still a concern when people are outpriced in this way, so I will pass on his comments through the Scotland Office in the same way. I know all noble Lords will wish both home teams all the best in the World Cup.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have been instructed by my ecstatic kids that I need some updated Arsenal kit? Should I go along with what they suggest?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Absolutely. Whichever club noble Lords support—I support a club that has, sadly, been relegated—the joy that was apparent from all supporters, including the Prime Minister, at Arsenal’s victory is just uplifting. Congratulations to them and to all their supporters.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, as a Chelsea fan, I take this opportunity to congratulate Arsenal on winning the Premier League and to commiserate with Spurs on their imminent relegation.

I have to say that I am confused by these exchanges— a retailer inviting government interference on prices, a Conservative doing the same and a Scotchman inviting English interference in Scottish sport. I do not know which way to turn. However, while I appreciate the sentiment of regulating sports shirts, where does this end? We know that the Government are apparently planning to regulate prices in supermarkets on eggs and milk, which has been roundly condemned by retailers. Will that extend to season tickets and Sky Sports subscriptions? It is a dangerous road that the Minister is being invited to travel down.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It is also a road that is full of mythology and misunderstandings about where the Government are going. The Exchequer Secretary was emphatically clear this morning that capping supermarket prices is not something that the Government are considering, although clearly the price of food is of deep concern to many people, given the rising cost of living, and is something that the Government share their concerns on.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As a West Ham fan, I have absolutely nothing to say about football. Following on from my noble friend’s question, does the Minister agree that, rather than inviting the Competition and Markets Authority into ever more marginal consumer pricing questions, the Government’s priority should be serious reform of the competition regime itself? In particular, will the forthcoming competition reform legislation ensure that the CMA supports innovation, investment and growth and does not become a brake on British business?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The CMA does not come under DCMS, as people will understand, but we are keen to make sure that it has the teeth to take action. I have a line somewhere in my brief about the additional powers that we are giving it, and I know that those are intended specifically to give it the teeth to act decisively and provide the challenge as part of the regulatory regime that it operates.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, the production cost of a typical replica football kit is less than 10% of the selling price. Companies such as Nike and Adidas use an opaque network of offshore entities to inflate costs by adding royalty, licensing, marketing and other payments through intragroup transactions—in short, they shift profits. Does the Minister agree that profiteering cannot be tackled without an investigation of profit shifting by companies? If so, when will the Government commission that investigation?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend has raised a number of issues. We are keen, to go back to the initial Question, to urge manufacturers to keep kits affordable. We want to make sure that football remains accessible, but pricing is ultimately a matter for the relevant football association and its manufacturing partners. We are not intending to dictate pricing in this respect, but we urge manufacturers to keep kits affordable to make sure that everyone can enjoy supporting our teams domestically and internationally and that we continue to share the highs and lows of our national sport.

National Museums and Galleries

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to retain universal free entry to the UK’s national museums and galleries.

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

I am sure all noble Lords will agree that our national museums are truly exceptional. I can confirm that we are not considering any changes to free entry for UK nationals and residents. In response to the independent review of the Arts Council by my noble friend Lady Hodge, DCMS is working with the museum sector to explore potential opportunities for charging international visitors at national museums and galleries. This is a highly complex issue that requires detailed work with the sector before any evidence-based decisions are taken.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, it is disappointing that the Government are even considering this. They do not seem to realise what a precious, globally recognised brand universal free entry is. Apart from the negative logistical and financial implications of applying a selective charge, including the lack of universal ID, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, has pointed out, would the Government not rather restore the grant in aid to its real-terms 2010 level? The 18% drop in money since then represents frankly peanuts in the overall economy, yet that funding is vital for the success of our national museums.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We are committed to supporting our national museums and to ensuring that art and culture are accessible, representative and shared across the country. Our £1.5 billion Arts Everywhere package ensures everyone has access to world-class culture. There are no current plans to reduce grant in aid, although I will say that we cannot prejudge spending reviews. We want to enable new income generation for our national museums, and we are going to be working with the museums to explore ideas for how this income could be used.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, as the co-chair of the Arts and Heritage All-Party Parliamentary Group, I will say that several institutions have expressed to me their many and varied concerns about how the introduction of the charging of international visitors might negatively affect not just them but the wider tourism and hospitality economy. I ask the Minister, what assessment are the Government going to make—or have they made any assessment—to allay the concerns about the wider economic consequences that this might have?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We are making sure that we work with the museums on this, not in isolation from them. Last week, for example, officials at DCMS sat down with representatives from all the national museums to talk through how the process might work, in terms of having a working group with the national museums. We are clear that it is a complex matter. It is not, “It’s right to, or it’s wrong to, or we should do this as a point of principle”: we just want to work through the issues with the museums. At the moment, we have been working through the terms of reference for what that working group would be looking at, and we are not planning to come to any conclusions before the autumn.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, the much-anticipated return of the Bayeux Tapestry to the UK, to be exhibited at the British Museum, reminds us of the value of sponsorship, philanthropy, cultural diplomacy, soft power and, on a more practical level, the need for conservation skills, and indeed curatorial ones. How do the Government intend to support such skills going forward? We welcome their curriculum review, but when are we going to see actual action that reverses the years of arts education and these skills being marginalised?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am delighted, as I know the noble Baroness is, that the UK has been able to agree the loan with France of the Bayeux Tapestry. The noble Baroness correctly identified that skills are at the heart of any future policy. Every single conversation I have at every single institution I visit focuses on skills, and I have done a number of round tables around this. This particular area of curatorial skills is one that I know the museums are keen to explore. Getting our young children into museums is the first step in them stepping off on the journey of a career in the sector.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, HMRC’s own definition of free admission requires that the public can enter without pre-booking. Has the department taken legal advice on whether any charging scheme, even a partial one for foreigners, would disqualify museums from Section 33A of VAT relief entirely?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his really constructive engagement with me over the months I have been the Minister for this area. In terms of Section 33A, we are working across government and with the museums to understand the impacts. We will look to find solutions to any operational issues as the discussions take place over the coming weeks and months, and my officials are working with their counterparts in the Treasury.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure my noble friend would agree with me that the introduction of the free entry scheme by the Labour Government in 1997 was one of the glories of that Government’s achievements. It would be an enormous pity if that were to be diluted at this stage—although, of course, we all understand that the income streams museums are able to draw on are diminishing, and that the real-terms value of what they get in public funding has diminished since 2010. Can she expand a little on what other ways of increasing income streams she and her department are discussing with the museum sector to avoid having to put charging back on the agenda?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I agree that it has been an iconic policy. We are just at the very early stages of exploring this. However, we are clear that we should be looking at ways to increase access for all young people from underrepresented groups from the UK. Unfortunately, the most recent DCMS participation survey demonstrated that there are still geographical and economic disparities in terms of who visits our museums.

In terms of other income streams, we had a very interesting debate last week on philanthropy and I think we are going to see some major developments at the National Gallery as a result of that. Most museums are diversifying their economic and events work, and they are all exploring a whole range of ways. The Government have invested considerable amounts of money through our Arts Everywhere funding and schemes such as the museum renewal fund, which we delivered last year and was specifically around bringing resilience to some of our regional and civic museums.

[Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I think we all know that money is very tight and getting tighter. I am trying to understand why the very distinguished trustees, who are charged with governing these great institutions, cannot be trusted to decide themselves on the charging or non-charging policy.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

This has been a national scheme, so we are working with the museums. Most museums would charge for special exhibitions. We are working with the museums to identify how this might work in practice. Clearly, one of the ways would be for museums to take a decision through their trustees.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, I note my interest as a steward of a modestly successful but long-standing private heritage enterprise in Devon. We compete with three national museums and galleries, as well as with well-heeled charities such as the National Trust, for tourists’ visits, both domestic and foreign. Do His Majesty’s Government agree that those institutions should not fear fair competition with privately owned heritage, which is a globally recognised strength of our national culture and identity?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am not sure that there is fear baked into their concerns, but I recognise that there are a large number of museums out there that do charge. Where museums charge, they tend to be quite modestly priced. The issues that we are exploring are broader than that. We will look at the whole range of things and could look at whether there is an issue around competition with other institutions.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to hear that this is a policy under active consideration in Whitehall. As the Minister said, it is a complex matter. As the Government look at this, will she ensure that they look at all the implications and practicalities, such as how we actually identify the nationality of people in a nation without ID cards and the impact on British people of ethnic minority backgrounds and, of course, on the many generous donors and benefactors who have given money, grants and gifts to museums and galleries down the ages on the understanding that they would remain free for everybody, as was the policy that the last Labour Government brought in?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Absolutely: we will be looking at all those things. Indeed, when I spoke to the national museums directly, these were some of the issues that came up.

Charity Giving

Baroness Twycross Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

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

This Government are proud of our incredible culture of giving in the UK and are committed to doing what we can to promote and foster it. While the CAF research shows a fall in overall donations, charitable giving has broadly kept up with inflation over the last decade and the proportion of those who give is the same as the previous year. Published last week, the Government’s plan for growing place-based philanthropy, Our Place to Give, will create stronger enabling conditions to strengthen links between donors and places, build better partnerships, and unlock further philanthropy and giving.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that response. The road map that she mentions is indeed an excellent and most welcome initiative to boost place-based philanthropy, and it is much appreciated by the voluntary and community sector. However, the fall in the amount donated is of great concern to charities, which are under increasing pressure to meet growing demands while their incomes are falling. Will His Majesty’s Government consider introducing policies that promote giving, both from corporates and individuals? Examples might be simplifying gift aid, encouraging payroll giving, or indeed anything that might renew the culture of giving, which, as my noble friend said, has always been so central to life in the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It is important that we focus on how we can support an already incredibly generous public, without playing down the reasons why people might be reluctant to give. We are putting in place measures to tackle the cost of living issues affecting people currently. As for some of the ways that my noble friend mentions, HMRC is providing over £2.5 billion of relief through gift aid and higher rate relief, and reviewing current gift aid claiming processes to try to help charities gain as much as they can through that route. I know my noble friend is interested in payroll giving, which 4,000 UK businesses offer. We are actively supporting ways to encourage more people to give. We will continue to work with the sector to ensure that we maximise funding through personal, public and corporate giving.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, according to the Charities Aid Foundation report, nearly one in three non-donors indicated that they were not engaged with or interested in charities, with an even higher figure for young people. Initiatives such as the Family Volunteering Club show how young people can engage in building relationships with charities through volunteering. Does the Minister agree that more needs to be done, particularly in our schools, to encourage and support a culture of engagement with charities among young people?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The first time I was asked to volunteer was through school, so I know that the noble Baroness makes a valuable point. Volunteers are critical to civil society. We are committed to enabling more people to get involved in working with the voluntary sector and to modernising volunteering through the civil society covenant, which will promote flexible working for modern work-life commitments. The noble Baroness focused on children and young people, and I thought the CAF report made an interesting point. Through our youth strategy, which intersects with this and, helpfully, is led by the same Minister, we are looking at ways to get more young people involved.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister will recognise the role of trustees, not just in helping to raise funds but in undertaking the statutory and regulatory functions within charities—all unpaid and in the spirit of public service. An NCVO report found that 85% of charities are struggling to recruit high-quality trustees. Can the Minister say what the Government can do to support charities in recruiting, training and retaining high-quality trustees? Will she join me in acknowledging the important role of trustees in running charities? I declare an interest as, like many of us, I am a trustee of charities.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Unfortunately, when those of us on the Front Bench took up our roles, we had to give up our trustee roles. I know that noble Lords across the House are committed to working directly with charities and giving their expertise. One of the first things that the Government committed to was the civil society covenant. The civil society council, to be chaired by the NCVO’s chief executive, will meet quarterly in Downing Street to drive forward the covenant’s implementation. I have no doubt that this will be one of the big issues it discusses, but, like everyone in your Lordships’ House, I encourage more people to get involved where they can.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, to turn to the micro level of this, we do not carry change in our pockets now so many charity collections are not going to work. What are the Government doing to make sure people can feel confident about using a card to make payments and making sure with the banks that we are secure when we give spontaneously?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

A huge number of charities now use card readers, and it is shifting quite rapidly. The noble Lord is correct that a lot of people would not necessarily have change. I am not clear, but I will go back and check whether the department has seen a corelation between people not carrying cash and the reported fall in personal donations. It is an interesting point and one made well.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I particularly welcome the Minister’s earlier response referring to place-based donations. Many local charities are quite small, and small charities are the most vulnerable. Can the Minister give us more of an indication as to how small charities can be supported? They are the ones which are most in touch with their local communities and most likely to go to the wall if donations are falling.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

There are two things to say in relation to smaller charities. Some of the measures put in place last year mean that smaller organisations pay less employer contributions. That was done to support smaller organisations. I am happy to arrange a briefing for the right reverend Prelate on the place-based approach to philanthropy, which is around making sure that you can leverage large amounts of money. It is entirely intended to make sure that smaller organisations, as well as larger ones, can benefit from the huge generosity and opportunities that philanthropy offers.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, as the report makes clear, this is the first reduction in giving for five years. If the British public were still giving at the level they were a decade ago, another £12.5 billion would be available to charities across the country. The Minister is right that the British people are a generous lot. However, does she agree that part of the problem is that they balk at paying the extra tax bills that charities are facing through additional employment costs and national insurance contributions? For the National Trust alone, this costs £10 million per year.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Lord will be entirely aware of the difficult decisions this Government had to make on winning the election in 2024. My noble friend Lord Livermore is not here, but I think he would probably refer that back to the Benches opposite. If the noble Lord has not read the report—it is a really interesting read—that was not one of the specific things I recall coming up in it. We would prefer to look at it in a much more positive way and to make the case for people giving. We will continue to do that as a government.

[Baroness Nargund (Lab)]

My Lords, the new Queen Elizabeth Trust has been established to regenerate shared community spaces, reflecting Her late Majesty’s commitment to public service. These spaces could be of enormous benefit to young people, who, according to the Charities Aid Foundation, have the lowest level of charitable engagement of any age group at the moment. Do the Government have any plans to promote youth volunteering, particularly as a means of skills development? If so, does my noble friend the Minister agree that organisations such as the Queen Elizabeth Trust, as well as the King’s Trust, could help mobilise that youth involvement?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Like other noble Lords and my noble friend, I was very pleased to see the announcement of the launch of the Queen Elizabeth Trust over the weekend. Her late Majesty, whose 100th birthday it would have been tomorrow, was exceptional at bringing people together. In response to my noble friend’s question around youth engagement and social action, we recognise that participation in youth social action, including volunteering, builds young people’s skills and increases their confidence. We are supporting the #iwill movement, which aims to increase the scale, sustainability and impact of youth social action and volunteering. I have already referenced the national youth strategy, and this is part of what we are trying to encourage through that.