EU-UK Cultural Exchange Arrangements

Lord Addington Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

World Cup Ticket Prices

Lord Addington Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, when it comes to being part of the wind-up on a Bill like this, you are trying to look at some of the central themes. I think that, maybe with one or two exceptions, noble Lords are in favour of this Bill. Anybody who has done any of the many Acts we have talked about, such as those for the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games, will know that a great deal of what happens has to be repeated, at least in principle, every time. It might have been quite exciting to do it once, but that was probably enough for one lifetime. So the Bill is a good thing.

It is such a good thing that most of us are asking why it does not apply to a wee bit more. The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, will, undoubtedly, be up for the challenge, but it is quite important that, today, we ask why there is this limitation. Why does it not bring in cultural events? What about the big regular events?

Transport is the one that really gets me. I know the gritty fullness of the experience at Twickenham. Have you ever tried to get a late train out of London from there? I can tell you, some planning is needed there. And that is ignoring the burger I was once foolish enough to try to eat on the way in.

If we are going to look at this properly then we have to look at it in the round. The Bill is definitely written for the current world of big international sporting events. They are funded by big sponsorship deals. There is a little list in Clause 1(2), running from paragraphs (a) to (e). Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) are all about the preservation of rights and sponsorship, and what is going on. These are the things around which, when we did the Acts for the Commonwealth Games and the Olympics, we got absurdities.

My noble friend Lord Foster did his usual job of picking out a particularly good little absurdity about sausages being arranged in the shape of rings. You could have got quite creative, with the odd black or red pudding in there—you could have done quite a lot with that. I remember that, during the passage of the Olympics Bill, the Olympic kebab shop, operating somewhere down in the East End, objected to being removed. It was serving the staff from three scrapyards that were about to be destroyed, but that does not really matter. There were always these little things going on, and local communities always feel hard done by.

I hope that, at the very least, we can put something into the Bill that says that you have a duty to explain how this happens whenever you get to the affected group, or put greater emphasis on that, because it is an irritation that we can do without having to suffer again and again. If a little bit of compensation is required for one of these big sponsorship deals, then why not? Let us have a look at that.

We are talking about championships here. Championships are different from Games because the teams are not all based in the same place. The teams and the participating athletes for a Games should be, by design, in one place—a village. We do not have anything about infrastructure planning on that scale in the Bill. I say this with a degree of temerity because people who have experienced living in such villages are in this Chamber today. I am still breathing so I cannot have done too much wrong, but how do you put them together?

In this country we have excellent experience. We have a magnificent planning process. With the Olympic Games, half the bid was about getting that structure in place, planning for what might happen and doing it really well. That raised the bar. Disability access was brilliant. It was mainly the Lords which did this. We sat down and made sure that everything was as good as it could be. We had a Minister saying, “I can do no more, I have given you everything that you want”. That was in the Moses Room. I hope that we can look at what is required for that.

The other example was when Birmingham stepped in at the last minute and created a village out of student accommodation. It was refurbed for the Games and then went back to being student accommodation. We have done it both ways. Glasgow has not been involved in that. When you do not have a ready-made village, you cut down on the number of events. Rugby sevens is not in the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow this time because they cannot afford to accommodate the teams. Fortunately, they have kept the one team sport that really needs it—it is its big showcase—netball. I hope that we can look at putting in that infrastructure, which can be part of legacy, and ensure that it really does work.

We have had fun today with thorny things such as ticketing and ticket touting. We started at Oral Questions with the problems of America and its models for the current World Cup; it is facing legal challenge from its own internal states over this issue. So I hope that we do not get too enthusiastic about this model and that FIFA does learn. We need a process where people know what they are buying. In the States, what have they got out of this? They have empty hotels, because people cannot afford to get there, meaning that potentially some of the economic benefits will not be available. We must have a good long hard look at this and ensure that people know that when they are buying, they can spend on travel, on nights out, et cetera, and that it is not some sort of “I went there, slept in the airport and got back” hair-shirt event. If we do that, we will not get as many people going and the economic benefits to the community will be far fewer. Let us look at this in the round.

One of the things that we learned from London was that the one thing that we did not do was encourage more people to play sport. It was the big failure, albeit the only real failure. “People will be inspired by watching you”—no, people get used to watching very good sport on TV. You encourage people to play by creating events around it, getting people involved—especially young people. You create the habit of being involved in sport, particularly outside the educational establishment. That is how to keep people involved. We have proved it many times. I hope that we can look at where we can encourage that to happen through local organisations and sports clubs and take those to the events that are taking place and that people are watching. It goes with the education programme. We must involve and encourage. You do not do it just by flicking on a TV screen. We have proven that.

I think everything else has been covered by other noble Lords. There is a tendency when you have a little time left merely to go through all the points that were made and praise everybody, but that is the Minister’s job and not mine.

There is a great deal of enthusiasm for the basic principle, but there are a couple of big questions. The Minister said that this is the start of a process and that other things will happen in respect of culture. If we are not going to do it here, where are we going to do it? What is the framework for this? Let us be brave. Let us ask for a timescale that is not “soon” or “possibly in the near future”. The questions about cultural activity and what we are doing about domestic events—whether we will learn from this and take some of them on—really need to be asked.

Will we get a better definition? The noble Lord, Lord Mann, raised this. What is an international sporting event? Is it something we bid for? Another thing he raised was something I overheard one of his colleagues talking about in the House, and that I thought I should raise: the Rugby League World Cup. It happens fairly frequently here. Surely that is big enough, and with enough nations involved, to qualify. If not, we need to know, because if the benefit is very small and potentially never happening—you can get outbid on anything you bid for; we are in a strong position at the moment, but somebody else might get better at it—the question is, will that apply to everything we are doing here with an international element? We need to know these things.

Very few Bills in which I have been involved in this House have had this degree of a wind behind them. We wish it well, and we wish its aims well. But I hope the Government will be flexible enough and confident enough to accept constructive criticism for what it is. We want this Bill to work; let us see whether we can make it work just that little bit better.

2026 FIFA World Cup: Replica Kit Pricing

Lord Addington Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Charity Giving

Lord Addington Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Class Inequality in the Arts

Lord Addington Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We are working with the DWP and Skills England to define and develop the growth and skills offer, and that also includes working with the DfE on how we make sure that as many children as possible can access specialist and general music and dance education. We recognise it is important to revitalise arts education, which is why there was a focus on this in the reformed national curriculum.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the report suggests that something that sounds like institutionalised snobbery exists and that we should deal with things such as apprenticeships. Does the Minister have any idea how, in a sector dominated by freelancers and micro-businesses, we can make apprenticeships, or anything like them, more attractive to those employers?

UK Streaming and Cinema Sector

Lord Addington Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Government want a copyright regime that values and protects human creativity, can be trusted and unlocks innovation. As I mentioned, expert working groups and a parliamentary working group have been convened and stakeholders will continue to be engaged as Ministers consider all options. I have been told that I can confidently say that we will publish a full report, economic impact assessment and consultation response by 18 March. I look forward to future debates covering the outcome of that process.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, will the Government accept that if we as a nation are to continue to be as successful in this area as we have been, we must look to the training set-up for those who are creating the content? How are the Government encouraging people to take up careers in this, especially at level 4 and 5 qualifications? Will the higher education sector actually take part in providing these services?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Is that related to AI or content generally?

[Lord Addington (LD)]

Content.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

In relation to the screen workforce and skills, we are investing across the skills pipeline: there is £10 million for the National Film and Television School expansion, and we are scaling up the British Film Institute Film Academy and delivering short stories through the growth and skills levy. We are keen that young people and people throughout their careers can access opportunities to be part of what we consider to be one of the jewels in Britain’s creative crown.

In-game Purchases: Protections for Children

Lord Addington Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I have not referred to them as gambling lite. The law is clear that loot boxes are not currently legally considered gambling, for the reasons that the noble Baroness outlined. The grey market is not a legal market, and the Gambling Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority, where appropriate, take action on illegal gambling in whatever form it takes.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, we have talked about this quite often before. The fact of the matter is that, even if loot boxes are not to the technical definition of gambling, they are close enough. The Government sound as if they are hiding behind pedantry here. Can we take some action that stops this compulsive behaviour being pushed on to children?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

This is about making sure that children are safe. The Government are committed to ensuring that games are enjoyed safely and responsibly by everyone, including children. The Government maintain the view that loot boxes should not be purchased by children, unless enabled by a parent or guardian, and that is our clear position. All players should have access to spending controls and transparent information. This is why we have funded detailed academic research into the implementation of loot box guidance, which, as I mentioned earlier, will be published in the near future.

Draft Statutory Guidance on the Meaning of “Significant Influence or Control”

Lord Addington Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Debbonaire said that the Bill originated as a Tory proposal when she was a shadow Minister. I do not think she had joined your Lordships’ House a year ago when we were going through this Bill and had the marvellous sight of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who had moved the Bill for the Tory party prior to the election, turning handstands to say why it was not suitable, why we really did not need it and why all sorts of changes had to be introduced before it could make any progress—the text for, “We don’t really want it to make any progress at all”. I understand that that was not always personal on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and that there were forces behind him, shall we say. In many cases, they were influenced by connections with Premier League football clubs.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, whom I hugely respect, particularly in sporting matters—I am loath even to question his motives—that I wonder why he is doing this. Is it not rerunning some of our debates a year ago, when there was opposition to the Bill per se? I am not suggesting that he is acting on behalf of anyone else—he is well capable of speaking for himself—but it seems to me that, when he gave the Leeds United example, that was personal. He unpicked the layers, almost like an onion, of who controls the club, and I understand why there were questions there: but that seems to be more about Leeds United than about the Bill and this guidance.

I cannot understand why the noble Lord thinks the guidance is unclear. Paragraph 2.7 talks about

“significant influence or control … For example, absolute decision or veto rights”

relating to eight examples. It is quite clear. We can look too closely at what “significant influence or control” actually means: it is usually quite clear, and those involved know whether they have that. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, talked about effectively turning people away from football because of the test they will have to meet. I suggest that, if people are not prepared to be open and transparent about what they are doing and perhaps why they are doing it, they will not be any loss to football, because there is more to that than just the financial terms.

I will make one last point. The noble Lord cited his own football club, which I think I am right in saying was not a Premier League club at this time last year, when the Bill was going through. But it seemed that the main thrust was about Premier League clubs, rather than EFL clubs. If we are declaring our interests, I declare that I am a proud part-owner and season ticket holder at AFC Wimbledon, further down the pyramid. The noble Lord said, “We didn’t think the guidance was about existing owners; it was about new owners hoping to come into the game”. Well, I did not get that impression when we had the discussions a year ago. Look at the clubs at level 2—Reading, Cardiff City and Sheffield Wednesday, which he mentioned—which could not get rid of owners who were really dragging those clubs down. It is not just about the Premier League; it is about clubs at a lower level that may have aspirations to get to the Premier League. There are more mundane examples than the high-fliers that hope to be the Arsenals of this world. So, again, like my noble friend Lord Hunt, I am not sure what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is seeking to achieve, other than to undermine the force of the Act.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, when I saw that we were going to pray against the Bill, I thought, “Oh, this is interesting”, because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is good at this. He casts the fly across the water and drags it out to see what will rise and bite. Well, this trout is biting—not at the fly but at the line. The Bill is going through and we will have precedent and case law very quickly on how this is operating. We will have to let the regulator get on with it.

I agree with the noble Lord on one point: the ownership of these national bodies is incredibly complicated. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, has just mentioned it. If you think this is complicated, look down the chain. The origins of many of these institutions go back to the Victorian period, and they have been through many evolutions, changes and traumatic experiences along the way, wrapped around them. There is a great mess about these institutions, which is why they get into so much trouble and why we need the regulator.

You will have to have a series of general terms, which will be defined by experience, case law and the attitude of the regulators. I hope the current regulator is a success. Let us face it, the regulator has not exactly arrived to universal fanfare, but I hope it is a success and we set a precedent for how this should be done, because we need that. It is too complicated to get the definitions and clarity the noble Lord seeks here. I know he opposed the regulation of this sport and is worried about other bits. I happen to disagree with him on this; I may agree with him on something else tomorrow, but on this I disagree with him. We should let the regulator get on with it and observe. We have other things coming in the “state of the game” report, and the Government cannot look away from this. We have to make sure that it happens independently. I hope that we just let the regulator get on with it because, let us face it, we have talked about this enough.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for speaking when the Front Benches have started speaking—I was going to stand up, but the noble Lord, Lord Addington, jumped up far too quickly.

When it comes to football, I want to use a phrase that the late Bishop of Southwark, Roy Williamson, applied to me. We had been working hard to get the Holy Trinity Church restored; it was a very poor congregation and fundraising was really very difficult, but we managed to do it. He came to open this amazing refurbished place, with the organ returned to its great glory. The church was full, and he said, “Your vicar, John Sentamu, can almost be compared to a Yorkshire terrier—never letting go, or only doing so in order to get a firmer grip”. That is how I see the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan: when it comes to football, he is like a Yorkshire terrier. He does it not wanting to control or anything but just because he loves football, and he knows a lot about football. He is doing this with an honest attitude. I do not think he is doing it to prevent regulations and all that is happening. But because he is like a terrier, I think this is the moment he needs to let go.

This stands on a three-legged stool. The first is what we passed here in your Lordships’ House—an Act of Parliament, the primary legislation. If you go there, you discover that the Secretary of State has power to do what he has just done. He is not doing it out of any reason other than that the Act that we passed gave him that power. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said exactly the same thing.

Secondly, there is the regulator, with powers given, again, by an Act of Parliament. The third leg is guidance—but I always look at guidance not as the key driver of things, which is why it cannot be clearly defined on every occasion. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, guidance always has to be understood in context. You cannot simply talk about what happens to my little club, which is not in paradise. York City Football Club is climbing up slowly, but it fell out of League Two a long time ago. You cannot say to the people of York City that paragraph 1.6 should not apply to them, when it says that

“regulated football clubs will be required to submit and publish a personnel statement identifying all owners. The definition of ownership, including the concept of significant influence or control, will ensure this statement publicly identifies the correct persons as owners, providing transparency to fans and the wider public”.

That will also apply to my little York City Football Club. Therefore, I do not see those phrases needing to be more precise.

This three-legged stool of the Act, the regulator and the guidance provided by the Secretary of State will, I am sure, make even my little club of York City feel emboldened that it actually knows who really owns it and who those people are. I think this is a good thing. I beseech the highly admired noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that this is the time to drop the Motion. He can continue to be keen on football, but this is not the time—otherwise, you are going to play a game that is not going to take you anywhere.

Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025

Lord Addington Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I know we are talking about English football in this debate, but I want to put on record my congratulations to the Scottish team for their epic victory last night and their qualification for the World Cup. Well done to them.

I have a brief question for the Minister about what a future process for expanding the remit of the regulator might be. During the passage of the Bill, she set out the Government’s reasons—she reiterated them just now—for not including the women’s game in the scope of the regulatory regime at this stage. Hence, it is not covered in the SI we are discussing. She mentioned the five-year review but say that in 18 months’ time, those involved in running women’s football and the clubs approach the regulator and say they would like the women’s game to be included within the regulator’s remit? If the regulator agrees with that request, what will the process be to take that forward?

Will the Government simply agree and table a revised SI to be debated again, to include the women’s game within the scope of the regime, or will Ministers and DCMS officials be more actively engaged in the process if they believe the status quo that they have argued for until now remains a sensible position? Or will they say they have to wait for five years? It would be useful to know whether the Government have given any thought to what process might be able to take place if something happens before the review.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, these regulations do not surprise anybody. They are more or less what the Act said, so congratulations on bringing clarity. The question about the women’s game is reasonable; I was going to ask something similar. It is an ongoing question. If the women’s game, which is expanding at a phenomenal rate, has any of the problems that the men’s game had—hopefully, the warning shock from this might help—it is a decent thing to ask how it is to be brought in.

It is good to get the regulator functioning at the moment. We put a great deal of time into it. It was one occasion when I agreed with Governments led by three Conservative Prime Ministers and one Labour Prime Minister. We needed this, we should have it, and we should have it operational.

The review is the most important bit of this Act, as it stands. Will the Minister like to expand a little more on the scope and how it could be expanded? What do the Government envisage? We are doing something new. We are pretty sure the existing system has failed a lot of fans and communities by threatening their clubs, Sheffield Wednesday being only the last example. We could go on for ever, and the number of near misses is great, but we should not be going through the near miss of losing your club on a periodic basis. Only a few have gone, but it is almost wondrous that there have not been more casualties.

Having said that, we wish this instrument well; after all the hours we spent debating it, we can do nothing else. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an idea of the ongoing process because this is a first step, and a pretty bold first step. It certainly was not welcomed with open arms by the top tier of professional football. How is it going to develop? Also, the question about the women’s game is a genuine one; I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, on asking it.

Before I sit down, let me, as a rugby fan who cheers for Scotland, say well done to those who kick the round ball; thank God they did not follow the example of their union colleagues.