National Youth Strategy

Lord Addington Excerpts

Thursday 23rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

Young People: Gambling Harm

Lord Addington Excerpts

Thursday 23rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Foster for bringing this subject before us. It is a difficult one. We all know why it is a difficult one. If you are taking money out of somebody’s pocket for gambling, it is not there for other subjects. It can become an addiction and destroy their life. If we forget that, we forget why we are concerned about it. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made the secondary but very important point that sport is threatened and potentially destroyed by gambling. The whole essence of sport is threatened. The World Cup could have been made an irrelevance by a betting conspiracy. All that excitement, all that adrenaline, all that bringing together, all that positiveness could have been ruined by one betting scandal. Cricket came close at one point.

Racing is the most experienced bit of this. I live in the village of Lambourn. The amount of energy that goes into stopping illegal interference through gambling in racing is massive and has gone on for a long time. I know people who have been involved in this, hopefully all coming out on the right side of the law, but accusations have gone to the police. It can pervert things. What are we doing to stop betting behaviour becoming endemic and uncontrolled in the young? That is the question we are asking ourselves here. We had only one voice saying that this is not a problem, but the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is used to being by herself.

What are we doing to get in? There is PSHE and GambleAware. Do we do enough in other bits? I have often guarded against this when it comes to education, but are we teaching people that at the roulette table, it is not that you will win big once in a while? The odds that you will win are always pretty bad on every single turn. Gambling is there because somebody expects to make money from you and normally does—that is why they are still there.

This is something that I do not think we get across enough. There is a difference between playing cards for a few pennies but then suddenly realising, “Oh, I’m going to lose if I play against somebody else”, and going to one of these big, organised sites that are always at your pocket, always telling you that you might win big when we know that, the vast majority of times, you will not. That is why they are doing it. They are saying to you, “Yes, here’s a gamble that gives you a small buzz”, but it will take your money off you consistently. Kevin Keegan’s father may have won big to give him football boots. If he had not bet on the horses regularly, he might have got him new ones earlier.

We have to make sure that we get information about the damage into the young and their parents. There are age barriers over these new formats that people do not understand. Are we making sure that people understand the inherent dangers? My noble friend and I have often talked about loot boxes. I have met distinguished games designers who think they destroy the essence of many of the challenging and more complicated games out there, ones with some intellectual content: “Spend some money and you might get the thing you need to carry on with your activity—but you probably won’t, so you’d better buy a few more”. Then you have lots of wasted product, but the essence is there. What are the Government doing to inform those involved, those who are at risk and those who influence them that this activity will take money off you and give it to somebody else? No matter what the buzz is, that is the answer. Unless we get that established, we will miss the essence of it because that is what it is about. That is why it happens.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I have retabled Amendments 6, 8, 9, 41 and 42 to press the Government a little further on how parliamentary accountability will be guaranteed in the application of the new framework. Amendment 6 would introduce a maximum period for which the framework can be applied. Amendments 8 and 9 would ensure that all regulations applying the framework, or modifying the application of it, are subject to the affirmative procedure. I am grateful to the Minister, in tabling her Amendment 7, for taking on board the points that I and others made in Committee, and the criticisms of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House.

Amendments 41 and 42 are consequential and would ensure that financial assistance can be provided by an appropriate national authority only if the corresponding legislature has approved that financial assistance by positive resolution. In Committee I cited Erskine May to highlight the importance of this matter, and those words still stand. If the Minister is not willing to accept these amendments today, this is something the Government should continue to consider when the Bill heads to another place.

The most important amendments in this group are Amendments 10 to 13 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock—a full house of political and non-political Benches. The amendments have also attracted cross-sector support from sporting bodies: the Sport and Recreation Alliance, the Lawn Tennis Association, the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club for Wimbledon, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Football Association, the R&A for the Open Championship, the Rugby Football League and the Rugby Football Union. I am pleased to see my noble friend Lord Caine sitting behind me; he was a non-exec and a board member for the Rugby League World Cup in 2021. These bodies have been joined by UK Athletics, the London Marathon and Silverstone—the host of the British Grand Prix.

I draw your Lordships’ attention to my register of interests. I was one of more than 570,000 people who attended the Formula 1 events at Silverstone just a few days ago—the largest ever event in Formula 1. Unlike so many other host nations that hold Grands Prix, Silverstone does so without state funding. All those sporting bodies do a tremendous job delivering huge sporting events that bring great delight to those who watch them, inspire people to become more active and involved in sport, and contribute so much to our economy here in the UK. So I hope the Minister will accept the amendments that noble Lords have put forward, and I look forward to hearing them speaking for their amendments.

These amendments may not be perfectly drafted, but if we can put them in the Bill they could be improved in another place. It would be very important to broaden the Bill—as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, said at Second Reading, that would make the Bill a bit bolder in a very important way. If the Government are not minded to support these amendments, these Benches certainly will. I understand that the Government see Amendments 10 to 13 as a connected package. I look forward to the debate, and I beg to move.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for reading out the list of groups that have backed these amendments; I was always terrified that I was going to miss one or two of them. We will take it as read that the noble Lord got it right. I congratulate Ulysse Abbate in my Whips’ Office for helping me with the drafting of these amendments. He helped me to put down the smallest number of words I have ever put in, to the best effect.

Basically, the Government have a very good idea here. Expand it to fit in a few more events that are part of our sporting and cultural heritage. They have done something good here. Enjoy it. You do not often get this much support for a government idea to do something. If they cannot embrace this, they should have a little generosity of spirit and say, “Yes, it’s good”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, has put the cherry on the cake with her amendment, which says that events will be included but only if they ask for it. That is reasonable. One or two may want to stay out; I imagine that most will not, but allowing them that is good.

All of us, even those who do not regard the beautiful game as their most beautiful game—I am afraid that is me—wish England well tonight. I could expand on this at considerable length, but I would like to leave this Chamber with as many friends as I came in with, so I will sit down.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 13 is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Foulkes. I will also speak in support of Amendments 10 to 12, to which I have added my name. Although it is an unpaid position, I declare my interest as a board member of the London Marathon Foundation.

As we have heard, these amendments have a simple aim: to address what many of us in this House believe is a significant gap in the Bill, which we have covered in our previous debates. Taken together, they seek to widen the definition of events to which the framework provisions may apply so that major established UK sporting events—events woven into the fabric of our national life—are not excluded from the potential benefits that the framework can provide. My amendment seeks to address this gap in a proportionate way by allowing a sporting event organiser to request that the Secretary of State apply provisions—maybe one or maybe a number—from the sporting events framework to their event. This amendment is deliberately modest. It would place no obligation on the Government to extend the framework automatically, and it would create no automatic entitlement. In other words, these amendments would simply create an opportunity, not an obligation.

I am grateful for the support of the co-signatories of my amendment and those of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I am afraid I will repeat the list of sporting organisations that supported our amendments, because it shows how they are wanted across the sector. We are grateful for the support expressed by the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, the ECB, the FA, the London Marathon, Silverstone, the R&A, the Rugby Football League, the Rugby Football Union, the Sport and Recreation Alliance and UK Athletics, all of which have written in support of our amendments.

As they state, the Bill “establishes enabling legislation”. Any use of the provisions in the sporting framework would still require the agreement of the Secretary of State following a request from the relevant body, and that decision would then be subject to affirmative approval in Parliament. Opportunities for primary legislation in this area do not arise often, so we truly believe it is sensible to include these powers now so that, if a compelling case were made in future, Governments would be able to act quickly and effectively. As the sporting organisations themselves have made clear:

“We envisage that any request submitted by a sporting event would be accompanied by supporting evidence explaining both the challenges faced and the benefits that would result from the provisions being applied”.


I thank the Minister and her officials for their engagement on this issue. I know that they have also had constructive discussions across the sector. I recognise that the Government are sympathetic to the arguments for extending the framework to major regular UK sporting events that are likely to be of international interest and to bring significant social and economic benefits to the United Kingdom or part of it. For that reason, we had hoped with fingers crossed that the Government might have been in a position to bring forward their own amendment at this stage, but unfortunately that has not proved possible.

I believe this gap must be addressed before the Bill leaves the House. I hope the Government will be able to accept these amendments or commit to bringing forward their own at Third Reading. If not, I will support the noble Lord, Lord Addington, if he calls a Division. I am grateful that the Government, as my noble friend said, have agreed that my Amendment 13 is complementary, so that this debate can continue in the Commons.

This is ultimately a question of future-proofing the Bill. These amendments would not guarantee support for any event or require the Government to exercise these powers. They would simply ensure that Ministers can respond where there is a demonstrable public interest in doing so. Our world-class regular UK sporting events generate billions for the economy, attract international audiences, showcase the best of us and inspire participation across the country. This Bill provides an opportunity to support those events more effectively, but to do so we must ensure that they are not left outside the framework it creates. These amendments offer a modest, proportionate and practical means of achieving that objective, and I hope that, along with an England win tonight, the Government feel able to accept them.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

10: Clause 3, page 2, line 35, leave out “three” and insert “two”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Addington, would remove the requirement for events covered by the Sporting Events Framework to not be regularly hosted in the UK.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has clearly been reading over my shoulder at some point. I am afraid that, if we knew we were dealing with the same team, with the same leadership, maybe we would have considered not voting. I feel a little churlish—but only a little. We have got other amendments here which agree the affirmative procedure, which is welcome—I should have said that earlier. But we need something in the Bill. If something were to come back at Third Reading, I would not be pressing this to a vote. But we have not received that assurance, so I am afraid I must beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

11: Clause 3, page 2, line 38, leave out subsection (3)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Addington, would remove the requirement for events covered by the Sporting Events Framework to not be regularly hosted in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I shall be brief. I have signed Amendment 48, which it seems to me should be in the Bill, especially as we are living through what we are living through right now. A UK government report in 2025 exploring the financial implications of climate change on grass-roots sports estimated that climate-related disruptions already cost grass-roots sport in the UK £320 million annually. Some £200 million of that goes in repairs and maintenance, and £120 million goes in lost revenue from cancelled matches. Every age group is affected. On 19 July 2022, when the temperature soared to 37 degrees, a 23 year-old playing cricket in Durham ended up in an ice bath in hospital because he was hit by the heat. We suffer from heat in this country just as much as people in hotter countries because we are not used to it.

What is important now is to use sport. The FIFA World Cup is the most watched event in history. At the moment, 14 of the stadiums face climate risks. By 2050, 90% of host stadiums could face dangerous heat and 11 host stadiums could face completely unplayable conditions. It is a real risk, but football itself is starting to adapt. We are seeing cooling breaks, heat protocols and schedule changes. The reality is that this hits the highest levels down to the grass roots. Pitches are damaged, seasons are disrupted, water scarcity affects maintenance and community clubs face rising costs from climate-related damage. This is about the future of the entire football system, not to mention other sports, because it is local parks, schools, amateur clubs, academies and national leagues. It is the all the things we want to foster in a country that prides itself on community groups and, especially, on football.

Sport has a unique role to play in helping to drive climate action, because it can, on a practical level, do all sorts of things. Emotionally, sport, particularly football, is one of our most powerful storytelling platforms. Already, 86% of fans of the big clubs say they want clubs to speak out on climate action, and 91% say they would feel even prouder of their clubs if they took proper action.

We know what to do. We just need to move fast. We need investment in sports grounds. We need to protect people from future climate change. We need public information, shade and trees. This is stuff we know. This will improve the quality of life for everybody, and sport is a brilliant way through. Quite honestly, if sport does not give that kind of message, what kind of message does it give? It is meant to represent the health and the best of this country. Everyone will be watching this football match. We need to act on this, because it tells the right story that our Government ought to be telling.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this is an interesting set of amendments. I think the most appealing one in the context of the Bill is from the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. There is a general principle that might be better addressed in other legislation that goes further. I will be interested to hear what the Government have to say, but I think this is the start of the process, not the end of it. We shall see.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 18 on ticketing before alighting briefly on Amendment 31 on trading. Previously I have highlighted the iniquity of not being able to trade a ticket with a Facebook friend if you have been jilted by the person you planned to go with or if in the months between buying the tickets for yourself and Grandpa, he has died. It happens. Not only preventing that sale but fining someone £50,000 for trying it is two-tier justice. You get less for burglary.

If you have bought half a dozen tickets or fewer for a game, you get to go with your family. It does not make you part of a crime family, yet this is what the Government are saying. The Bill purports to support the fan but it criminalises those whose plans have changed while failing to go after the organisers who could do so much more to sort out ticket abuse. This part of the Bill is stuck in the past in that it fails to consider the modern ways in which fans can be protected from scammers with new techniques such as proving identity and interoperability, which automatically validates and authenticates tickets. That prevents ghost ticketing and facilitates a regulated exchange between consenting adults.

The organisers of these events have not tried hard enough to stop the bots because it suits them to carry on just as they are. They can sell out and bank the cash on day one. We all want to ensure that the fans get a fair shot at going to the game—that is common ground—but rather than sorting the problem of the bots that stand in the way of the fans at source and ensuring that multiple bunches of tickets cannot be hoovered up, this Bill gives the organisers a free pass to do what they like. It is the ultimate unintended consequence.

I have previously given the example of the FIFA World Cup ticketing fiasco—outrageous prices, empty stadiums, ghost ticketing, the 15% resale fees from a monopoly supplier and no regulated secondary market. It encourages fans to hang around the turnstiles, which is a recipe for disaster and not in the best interests of fans. If the Bill is enacted, it would aid and abet these activities and prevent the Government intervening. We would be giving FIFA the legal right to do what it wants. Let us remind ourselves: this is the organisation that rescinded a red card under pressure from President Trump, who did not think it was a foul when he did not even watch the game. These are the people being given carte blanche. It is wrong.

Nobody wants the Olympics or the World Cup more than I do, so why are the peer-to-peer sites such as StubHub or your Facebook friends to be banned instead of encouraged to participate in regulated secondary markets? Why are we handing the organisers a monopoly for their favourite chums? Why cannot anyone get their story straight on how the mechanics of ticket surrender will work?

I ask the Minister, who I know has her lines, to concede that my previous warnings about FIFA and the World Cup ticketing have proved me right. Life has not worked out as she expected because the organisers are not the good chaps she thought; they are just in it for themselves. I invite the Minister to agree and to accept my proposal in Amendment 18 to focus more on the organisers who sell the tickets rather than the innocent families who want to go to the game and buy six tickets or fewer.

I move briefly on to trading in my Amendment 31 in this group. The whole purpose of these big events is to transform local economies. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and I made the strong case in the public interest for local traders and businesses to have some sort of economic benefit. At that stage our pleas fell on stony ground, but I am pleased now with the government amendment that says that local licensed traders will be given priority. At last, the Government have agreed with me that fans should be given the choice of consuming good local food and beer in local streets, served by local people, rather than being force-fed dismal cardboard burgers, gassy lager and overpriced tat in stadium concourses. We are agreed. We got there and, on that basis, I am happy not to move my Amendment 31.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

17: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to bring forward proposals on unauthorised ticketing activity(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must carry out and lay before Parliament a review on—(a) the operation and effectiveness of the ticket touting provisions in this Act, in particular the operation of Schedule 1, and(b) the integrity, affordability and availability of ticketing at sporting events to which this Act applies.(2) The review under subsection (1) should in particular consider whether the ticket touting provisions in this Act have prevented persons from—(a) reselling, or offering to resell, an event ticket at a price exceeding its face value amount;(b) reselling, or offering to resell, more event tickets than the person was entitled to purchase in the primary sale;(c) charging, through a ticket resale platform, a buyer a service fee, or a seller a combined commission and service fee, exceeding 10% of the face value amount;(d) charging a purchaser in the primary market a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;(e) engaging in surge pricing;(f) operating a ticket resale platform that displays incorrect material information about an event ticket, or that fails to take reasonable steps—(i) to verify that a listed ticket exists,(ii) to prevent listings above face value or in excess of a seller’s entitlement, or(iii) to remove non-compliant listings. (3) Within six months of the day on which the review under subsection (1) is laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must publish draft legislation setting out proposals to improve the ticket touting provisions in this Act, including provision to remedy any deficiencies and shortcomings found in the relation to the points mentioned in subsection (2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a review of the ticket touting provisions in this Act and publish draft legislation to remedy any shortcomings in the effectiveness of the ticket touting provisions in this Act.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I appreciate that the Government think that they are doing something, but we have been waiting too long. I think we need something in the Bill to encourage this. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

43: After Clause 25, insert the following new Clause—
“Infrastructure strategy for major sporting events(1) Regulations under section 2 which apply the sporting events framework to a sporting event may require the appropriate national authority to publish, or require another person to publish, an infrastructure strategy for the sporting event. (2) An infrastructure strategy is a document setting out—(a) an assessment of the infrastructure needs of persons attending or participating in the sporting event,(b) the steps to be taken to ensure that sufficient infrastructure is available to meet those needs at a range of price points, and(c) any measures proposed to prevent excessive pricing of infrastructure in connection with the sporting event. (3) In this part, reference to infrastructure includes—(a) accommodation;(b) internet services;(c) energy infrastructure;(d) water infrastructure;(e) waste services;(f) health services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to ascertain how the Government will make proper provision of various infrastructure forms when hosting the major sporting event.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, we come to a little triumvirate of amendments standing in my name. To take them in order, we start with the infrastructure requirements for providing any games or championship. I will not go over old ground, but I would like some assurance from the Minister about what process the Government expect to follow to make sure we get the infrastructure right. There are certain models, such as the London Olympic Games, when a great deal of infrastructure was put in; but then, with the Birmingham and Glasgow Commonwealth Games, we did not have to do much. If building has to be done, what is the process for getting assurances on it?

Then we come to what I think is my favourite of the three amendments: on getting some benefit down to grass-roots sports. This is inspired by our experience during the London Olympics, because the one thing we did not do was encourage people to play sport. We learned how to build lovely things and how to watch sport, but we did not get people to play. We thought that just watching and having a good example would be enough—it is not. There are other examples where we have been more successful, such as in championships. There is a great deal of competition between netball and rugby union regarding which has been most successful in encouraging back people who had had some training but fell out of the sport. Basically, it needs a targeted approach. What are we doing to make sure that grass-roots sports benefit directly from this activity? That is the question we are raising here.

Then we come to the thorny question of broadcasting. What are we doing to make sure that people can actually watch an event, particularly if it is one of ours, and particularly if the Government have put in money, time and energy. What are we doing to make sure that people who cannot get tickets can still watch? I could have used the term “free to air”, but I would be pulled up on it: “Ah, but you need to pay the licence fee to get it on the BBC”. I am referring to something that is not hiding behind a paywall. Are we making sure that people notice these events and can feel included, even if they are not actually there, and can obtain some benefit from them?

I hope that the Minister will have positive, reassuring answers on these amendments, so that we can take them forward for future events. I doubt very much that she will inspire me to vote again, but I hope I will get positive answers. I look forward to her reply.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

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

Amendment 43 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his points, which we supported in Committee and support still. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and my noble friend Lady Morris for their refereeing and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

58: Schedule 4, page 37, line 26, at end insert—
“(5A) The provisions of sub-paragraph (1) are not breached by the use of a representation by the holder of a premises licence under the Licensing Act 2003, Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 and the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 if—(a) the representation is used solely for the purpose of indicating to members of the public that the licensed premises will be screening or broadcasting the sporting event,(b) the use of the representation does not suggest, expressly or by implication, that the licensed premises is an official sponsor of, or otherwise commercially associated with, the sporting event or its organiser, or(c) the representation has previously been used for a continued amount of time, independently of the sporting event taking place.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that, in the case of a sporting event being hosted in an area where a small or medium-sized enterprise’s (SME) pre-existing advertising may conflict with an advertising provision as laid out in this Bill, that SME is protected proportionately.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee—I had not quite got myself in the right position to start proceedings. This is a probing amendment that looks at some of the minor problems that arise when a big Bill such as this comes out. The amendment probably refers more than it should to licensed premises, but it is a way of finding out how the Government perceive we should proceed. For those small firms that are making a living and are affected by this, what happens next if we take on the structures in the Bill? This has been one of the small niggles we have had about these Bills and processes. Let us see if we can get it right or at least give certainty to those affected. I beg to move.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, at Second Reading, I raised the example of the butcher in Weymouth who, during the 2012 Paralympics and Olympics, was threatened with a £20,000 fine because he displayed in his shop window five strings of sausages in the shape of the five Olympic rings. He eventually got around this by changing the circles into squares, but it was a rather ludicrous example of the extremes to which some of the arrangements can go.

We are in a bit of difficulty, because before us we have a framework Bill which refers to lots of regulations to come, but we do not know what they will be. Yet at the same time, we all want to ensure that particularly SMEs can share in the benefit of hosting the sorts of events covered by the Bill. We therefore need to ensure that the regulations on association are flexible enough to protect the sponsors, who have paid a lot of money, but not be overly zealous in how we treat our small businesses, particularly those where the event is taking place.

Although my noble friend’s amendment relates to licensed premises, it could equally apply to all others. I want to test with the Minister a couple of questions. I am genuinely delighted that the impact assessment and Explanatory Memorandum, on pages 19 and 20, already give many exceptions that the Government are planning to introduce and which presumably will be picked up in the regulations. However, there are one or two areas where they do not go as far as many of the major sporting bodies have already gone. In 2012, many of our athletes were upset at not being allowed in any way, shape or form to thank the various people who had sponsored them over many years—an example could be one of my noble friend’s licensed premises supporting a particular athlete. They were not allowed to do so because of the tight restrictions: there was no way there could be any link between that unofficial sponsor and the individual athlete.

Equally, there were very strong regulations concerning what words could and could not be used. There was a whole list: you could not use “champion”; you could not even mention “London”, let alone “2012”. I am delighted that the IOC has, through changes to rule 40, made significant relaxations that now allow, for example, under certain circumstances, an athlete to thank their unofficial sponsor and the unofficial sponsor to refer to the athlete they have supported. There are various conditions around that.

However, there have also been changes to the language. The butcher I referred to earlier would now be allowed, under the IOC rules, to say “champion banger” or “gold medal sausage”. So, significant changes have taken place. Will the Minister ensure that relaxations and flexibilities such as those already introduced by the IOC for the Olympic and Paralympic Games will be covered by the regulations that will follow for each of the events covered by the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 58 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I share the thought that leadership, people and relationships early on in these large projects really matter. Words are all fine but, unless we think about these things together very early on and lay the foundation stones correctly, the costs, not just commercially and financially but also in terms of sustainability and all the issues we are rightly worrying about in this Chamber this evening, get lost. Some £323 million of taxpayers’ money, let alone the carbon and other costs of all that, is a very big cost for some of us not getting that relationship together earlier, as it should have been. I just throw that in because learning by doing, the practicality of these big projects, really matters.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I just want to make a few comments on this. The idea that we would not have some sort of ongoing environmental impact built into one of these assessments is unthinkable, to be perfectly honest. The exact wording used in any of these might not be the one that has come through, but there should be something in there. There has been in previous projects and should continue to be. I hope the Minister will stand up and say, “Yes, it’s here, it will go in, here is the assurance”, because without it we have missed a trick and gone backwards on ourselves.

I remember the arguments about the roof. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, might think I was being flippant because, as someone who was consistently raising this, I stood up and said, “If you’re that bothered, I’ll have your ticket”. We can go on about such things, but let us remember that it was about the Games. It should be in here, but we need make sure it is the norm, because if it is exceptional then we are going backwards. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us that assurance when she speaks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, the point about cyber is really important. At Second Reading I referred to my involvement in the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Prior to the Games I had the opportunity of visiting the transport management hub, a group that, among other things, had put gizmos in all the traffic lights throughout London so that they could change the lights at a moment’s notice to enable traffic to move through. A cyber attack on that would have brought the whole of London to a standstill.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, raised this as an important issue, but he did not point out that this is a reality for sports organisations already. The latest research shows that 84% of the major sporting bodies around the world report that they have had at least one cyber attack recently, and 57% say they have had more than one. This is a very real issue. I look forward to the Minister’s response. It is vital that we have it included, ideally on the face of the Bill.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will briefly run through the amendments in my name. One of the things about the Bill that we do not really like is the fact that there is nothing on infrastructure. It may be implied. My Amendment 78 is trying to put some infrastructure in there.

Amendment 77 is about the accommodation. Much of what we are talking about and much of the reference in the last debate about the legacy from London has been to do with accommodation of athletes, et cetera. If we do not get that in a games bid, suddenly it loses one of the big attractions when it comes to renovation, especially on the model of the London Games. I hope we get some reference in there. Championships may be different. They are different things with different structures. In Birmingham we had a thing about repurposing and borrowing the accommodation that was used, and in London we created new stuff. I hope we get a few thoughts on that.

The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter are about having a strategy towards a bidding process and making sure we have the capacity to intervene and get on with it. Even if it is seen that we have the capacity here, you have to organise it and bring it together. What are the Government thinking about to bring that latent capacity together and make sure it is always there? There are opportunities here. In most of the discussion on the Bill, I have not heard, “Oh no, we don’t want to bid; it’s a horrible inconvenience that will ruin my day”. I remember certain protests about the 2012 bid down in Greenwich being the best ones.

If we are assuming that it is going to be a good thing, where is the capacity? What are we doing to draw it together? There is a series of suggestions here, to be treated as probing amendments at the moment, about how we can do this and about infrastructure. Please can we have some thoughts on this? It is a very important part of this process going forward. If we do not bring it in, I think this is a Bill for a championship as opposed to a games. It fits better for a championship, when you are using sites and moving around the country, as opposed to a games. I hope the Government can say that I have got it all horribly wrong and missed something here. I wait to be informed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that helpful and affirmative intervention in relation to the points I am trying to make.

In broad terms, I do not want to see a structure that is required by government. One needs the capacity to respond quickly, in the right way, at the right time. That is how cities operate when they are trying to attract smaller international competitions of one form or another.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

That would be a perfectly acceptable response: that there is a capacity, that they will make sure they have the capacity to look at this and that there will be a strategy going forward. This is about clarification and finding out what happens here. As I read it, the Bill works perfectly well for a championship—it does not read so well for something for which you have to do a lot of construction work. I am trying to find out the Government’s thinking.

To back up the original point from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, here we must pay attention to the cyber and online world, as it is becoming an increasing part of it. His first amendment is a good tool—use it, because you will be expected to in future. The snappy video is being replaced by the plan. We are trying to get out of this important group of amendments what the Government are going to do, the limitations of the Bill—we have found some today—and what will be set down to the bidding structure that currently exists. Where the two overlap, we should find out what does not have to be done and what does.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that clarification, which is important for understanding the directions in which this Bill should go, and what we believe it should achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. But, when you have spent many years at the other end of the telescope of these large events and have responsibilities for building the kit, enabling it all to work and making sure that it integrates in those communities, the detail really matters. One of the things we managed to achieve with the London Olympics—which was in no small part to do with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, Lord Coe and others—was to get cross-party support for this very big event, which we knew would probably go through different Governments and Mayors of London, and actually I think we achieved that. It was a very big and long event—and, by the way, we are still building out the Olympic Park today, so it was a big thing.

It is really important that, while there needs to be responsibility for large amounts of taxpayers’ money— I absolutely get that—if we are serious about these events, there also needs to be responsibility among our political parties to get cross-party agreement very early on.

That needs to happen not only at a national level. One or two of our colleagues in east London who were involved in the Labour councils there—I mention in particular my colleague Paul Brickell, who was a Labour councillor in Newham and ended up playing the lead role in regeneration as executive director—spent a lot of time building working relationships with the five Labour boroughs surrounding the Olympic Park, which when we began had a long history of being at war with each other. There was a lot of detailed work over cups of tea to build the relationships that support events such as this.

So, although I am in favour of being very careful about the money and get all of that, if we are serious about going for these events, there is a responsibility across our political parties to build working relationships early on and come to an agreement, so that those of us on the leading edge with day-to-day responsibility to make fast decisions tomorrow will not be held up by politics being played out on them somewhere else.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments that I assumed would not be needed. I assumed that we would have a series of debates about this. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, did a forensic job on the basic principles of where taxation comes from and how money is raised, going through. If the amendments are not needed, can the Minister tell us when she expects the interaction between the public system and Parliament on where the money comes from? That is a fairly reasonable question. If they have a structure behind what we are debating, we should know. I hope this is just a classic probing amendment, because that is what you should have at this point. We should know where we are going.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, that unless you get a commitment that everybody is prepared to buy into, there is no point doing anything, because it all needs a long-term plan. That is absolutely true, and if you start messing about with that, we just will not have any of these events, because no organising body in its right mind will come within a mile of us.

We have to have a degree of long-term planning. To get the benefits from events, we have to accept that even if Government A do something in a way that Government B do not particularly like when they come along, they will have to accept it and go along with it. Do not let your version of excellence be the enemy of the good on this.

I hope that, when the Minister responds, she will tell us exactly when these debates are to take place, what the structure will be going forward and what the spirit behind them is. The point is reasonable. I hope that there is an equally reasonable answer.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

69: Clause 25, page 19, line 15, at end insert—
“(1A) The appropriate national authority may, in connection with a sporting event, set expectations as to the investment to be made by relevant organisations in—(a) grassroots sporting venues or organisations, and(b) participation in sport at grassroots level, including community sporting projects and facilities.(1B) Financial assistance under subsection (1) may, in particular, be given subject to conditions requiring the recipient to make, or to secure that another person makes, investment of a kind mentioned in subsection (1A).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in Lord Addington’s name, enables the appropriate national authority to set expectations on event organisers and others who benefit commercially from a sporting event to invest in grassroots sport and community participation, and to make financial assistance under Clause 25 conditional on such investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I feel rather sorry for the Minister, because this amendment is once again going back to lessons learned from previous sporting events, particularly from the London Olympics. Although it was a success in many ways, one thing it did not do was encourage more people to play sport. This is universally accepted. When the committee on which I served, as did the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan —he might have led it, I cannot remember: it is a long time ago now—looked at this to find out what happened, the idea that it is just a straightforward inspiration for sport does not work. You have to do a bit more to encourage people to play sport.

There are good examples in world championships for rugby union and netball: there is argument about who devised the model first. You have a great spike in interest, but you must prepare the grass-roots clubs for people turning up who have not played. This is one of the cases when I found out just how old I am. Advertising for the Rugby World Cup totally missed me, because it was aimed at those aged 18 to 25. It was encouraging those with recent skills to get back to being involved in the game. But you had to make sure the clubs were ready for them. You have to have the grass roots ready to receive and you have to help them to do it. Big gestures from the boys at the top do not help with participation unless you have somewhere coming through where you can do it.

As has been said, these are probing amendments, but the Government need ideas. What are we actually going to do? We have this big sporting event, and we can use the models that the sports themselves have devised and take them further. That might help. I am not saying how it should be done—it may be greater capacity for playing facilities, training or coaching—but we have to make sure that we get people playing the sports. That is what this is about. This is an accepted failure from something which, other than that, was a success. We just did not do that one thing.

There is no point in someone watching something happen on television and saying, “Isn’t it marvellous?”, if we do not find out whether we have the capacity to do it, or even to start that process. We have to get them out and playing. That is what I would like, and it is what I am trying to get at: what is the Government’s thinking about getting a proper sporting legacy at grass-roots level that will give us the capacity to start finding champions? Unless we go down the route of testing everyone at the age of 14 to see who our champions are and saying, “The rest of you, just sit down and watch. There’s a box here. You press a button and watch other people”, because that is not what it is about, or it should not be.

Amendments 74 and 75 merely follow on from the spirit of Amendment 69. Can the Government tell us their thinking about encouraging people to correct the one big failure of something that has changed our whole debate about this issue—that is, the Olympics—by getting people playing sport? I beg to move.

Amendment 70 (to Amendment 69)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, when we have these debates we tend to follow this pattern: we talk about great things and wonderful events; we talk about the volunteers coming in and helping out and how wonderful it all was. But this amendment was not about that. It was about the second teams: it was about getting participation up and getting people to turn up. It is about making sure you have people playing the sport. Local government has its role, but it is all about facilitating people to do their own stuff. The Government have lots of initiatives, but we are not as good at this as we used to be, and there has been a cultural shift.

Many of our own sports have added to this. Rugby union turned pro, and great, famous clubs got rebranded and lost eight teams on a Saturday. Just think what that did to the local sporting economy. The Government have to get back to grass-roots sports, because that is where the infrastructure is to expand from: namely, from the volunteers. One can do all sorts of things, like redo a clubhouse, but unless we take advantage of that, and encourage them, we are going to miss.

There have been lots of examples about good volunteers, and we could have another amendment about that, because we know that volunteers quite like to do a finite, one-off project, and then they stop and have a rest. Somebody running a small club is a different type of volunteer: they turn up, as part of a lifetime’s commitment almost, to make sure that every new generation of children or junior players get coached properly, that somebody fills out the forms and that there is a secretary and a treasurer—that all that stuff happens.

With this amendment, I was trying to ensure that this goes down through sports, and maybe it needs to be done on a sport-by-sport basis, and some sports will be doing it anyway. When we talk about great examples, we miss the point. It is about making sure that we have something that goes down to the people who are already there—a little shot in the arm to help them carry on—because we are missing this. Parliament tends to do that. We forget about this when we talk about sport. We think about big, exciting events; most sport is not big and exciting. I know because I have played in it.

I understand the Minister’s answer, which could have come from anyone else, because they do not quite get what we are talking about. The noble Lord, Lord Doyle, started saying, “Yeah, we tried: it was all big and exciting, but we didn’t manage it”. This is because we do not go to where the actual volunteers are. The idea was to make sure we got some support, some structure, some help going down to the volunteers. Until we do that, we will continue to struggle, and then local government will say, “Oh, well, you’re not using that facility, so we can shut it down”—that is the negative side—and a few people will determinedly fight it, but they will always have the argument coming against them.

[Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I mention local government because they are part of that grass-roots nexus for local people. They are the ones to whom our local grass-roots organisations will turn in order to try to get that extra money, that extra funding, so that they can run a boxing club, for example, or facilitate other groups. They are at the core. These are the volunteers, to whom the noble Lord referred, with a lifelong commitment to helping young people. This is why we need to remember how important local government is to ensure that we can funnel those extra funds, and ensure that they reach the right people, the right groups and the underprivileged young people who really want to take part in those sports.

In addition, local authorities are closer to what local young people want to do and see. That is why, for example, you will see skateboarding parks, because that is now an Olympic sport, and BMXing is another great, accessible Olympic sport. That is why it is important to remember local government, because it reaches the people in local areas who give their lives to make sure that they are engaging and encouraging young people to take part in these sports that the noble Lord is referring to.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I do not disagree with any of that. I would just say that it is not a core activity, so it tends to become a secondary choice and there is pressure on local government. If you come through and give a boost, local government might be able to deliver. Local governments provide pitches for some sports, whereas they do not get involved with other sports. It is about culture, and it is a very varied picture. It can be important: many people play football on local government pitches, but rugby union and cricket clubs tend to own their own grounds or have long-term leases. There is a cultural mix that goes down there. So, local government is important, but we need to go down to the grass-roots club that, for example, runs four teams. As I once suggested to one of our governing bodies, you must remember to write to local government and tell it what you want; that will improve the relationship. There is a struggle there, but we are getting off the topic.

I think we should have another look at this, because we are still not making sure that we engage with those people on the ground. I hope that the Government will, shall we say, have a little bit more robustness in their answer. The Minister can only read out what is in front of her, but we are going down here to get the Government to give us a better answer on this one. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)]

Before the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment, we need to give the noble Baroness the opportunity to indicate what she wants to do with her amendment to his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 86 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sater. I am very grateful to her for tabling it and to the noble Lord, Lord Markham, for speaking to it, because I think this is very helpful to keep the discussion on the CQC live. I understand where we have got to with the new guidance that is coming out on the back of the Manchester bombings. It is completely understandable. It has elicited very strong views in the sector. I thank the CQC for the meeting, but I think many of us have probably come away from that more confused than we were at the start. A better explanation of the plan would have helped.

As the noble Lord, Lord Markham, said, on what is an individual, what would happen when a parent steps in at an event? I think of a local rugby event; if there is a doctor there and they are asked to step in, they may not be covered by insurance. It has set a lot of hares running within the sector, which I do not think necessarily needed to happen. I also realise that the consultation is ongoing. The big events—I spoke to the London Marathon—will be fine, because they are already set up to deal with this, but I am thinking of the smaller events. I know there is a cut-off or a line at 200 people, but lots of very local events would have more than 200 people taking part. Yes, they are run under the auspices of a national governing body, but unless we get this absolutely right there is a real risk that volunteers will not continue to step up to run these events.

Yes, there will be risk assessments, but they might not have access to threat assessments. You could end up in an unforeseen circumstance and end up in court for something you have done. While we are waiting for case law, which could take several years, there could be a very big detrimental effect of volunteers stepping back, so understanding the impact is very important. I certainly think it is important to keep this discussion going, and more clarity on this would be really helpful as we go forward.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, on Amendment 83. As I said earlier, this amendment is just basically wrong—end of.

On Amendment 86, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It conforms with my experience that you have to be flexible; you have to understand about local events, and you have to keep the structure going. Clarity is required here about what is wanted, so I hope we step towards that clarity or at least find out when it is coming. That is one thing about Bills in Parliament: you do get a chance to pin a Minister down for a worthwhile answer. I hope we have assurances on both of these.

[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.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Either the Government want to host these nation-building games or they do not. Without labour market flexibility for these temporary events, it cannot happen unless the organisers assume a level of risk that exists nowhere else in the world. That, of course, is a big disincentive to come to the United Kingdom. The truth is that we do not need this Bill. After all, we have built, in the words of the Financial Times, the world’s most admired annual league and a true national asset, the Premier League, without the provisions of this Bill. If the Government want to take it forward and we designate these events, let us give them every chance of success, not hobble them with rules and regulations that will spoil the enjoyment and pleasure of going to the game.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend is a doughty warrior when it comes to showing us the harms of gambling—and not only the harms but some of the gambling which is, let us face it, a threat to the integrity of sport if it is not regulated very carefully. Nothing destroys a sporting event like not having faith that the outcome is a fair one. Let us remember that.

In the digital world the harms done to individuals by gambling reach further. This is something we cannot forget when we talk about this. I am pretty sure the Minister will not have done. Indeed, if her officials tried, I should imagine they would not last very long. We have to try to get to a situation where we have some understanding of what is happening here, and the difference that makes to the events themselves, even if we are looking only the sporting value.

The use of data in sport is a fascinating story unto itself, but gathering that data and using it is something that we are only just starting. Most of us are discovering a world that is developing, and then this comes up and we say, “Really? That is how you have done it?” Indeed, those with heavy training schedules, especially in the recent past, undoubtedly had a great deal of data controlling what they ate, how long they were out, and what they were doing. I can dimly remember somebody talking about it, and us ignoring it, but there we are—the world moves on.

I hope that when the Minister responds to these amendments, she gives us a full view of what the Government seek to do generally in this field, as well as specifically in this Bill. We have a series of considerations here. With advertising, smoking is the obvious case: it was an accepted part of advertising and it has been removed. How are we working that in? How are we going forward? Is it a general principle we are talking about or specifics? What are the limitations as we move forward? Let us face it: if you have the Olympics at moment, you have Coca-Cola. It is not a health product, I think anybody would agree. It might be much less damaging in some of its forms than others, but it is not a health product and nor are the other soft drinks that go with it.

I hope the Minister will give us some idea of what the Government’s thinking is and where they are going. They may save themselves a little time if they can say which other legislation will affect this. This is a big subject we are touching on with this Bill. An idea of what the overall picture is, and where the Government think they are going, would be an important thing to take away from all this.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, this boils down to a question of balance and proportion. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their amendments and for sparking this debate. I know they are sincere and consistent in raising concerns about each of the areas that they have highlighted through their amendments, but I think some of the remedies they are suggesting are disproportionate and too strict.

Not everyone feels the way that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness do about gambling, for instance. Indeed, many people find, without having any gambling problems, that it enhances their enjoyment of sporting events. Many people in this country gamble without developing gambling harms, and it is right that we have protections in place to maintain that. As the Gambling Commission found with its recent advertising campaign advising people on the dangers of a workplace sweepstake—which came across as a bit po-faced to many sports fans—that question of balance always has to be carefully looked at and struck, while maintaining the protections for more vulnerable people.

I veer more towards what my noble friend Lord Hayward outlined: looking for established principles, rather than a list that we would continue to add to as times and tastes change. I suppose this is one of the problems with a framework Bill, where we are trying to anticipate social mores and debates that might come. Previously, in generations past, we have been able to have these debates each time we have been lucky enough to host a major sporting event, and have had these discussions in the context of the social and political views across the country at the time. So it is a useful debate, but we are not attracted to the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, have tabled in this group.

As we look at these issues, we would like to see greater attention paid to the illegal unlicensed market in gambling, which is a real and growing threat. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, touched on this. Staking with illegal operators is now estimated at £16.6 billion, more than three times its level in 2019 and roughly double what it was just two years ago. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that His Majesty’s Treasury could lose up to £500 million if recent tax changes push more consumers towards unlicensed sites. One in six gamblers—some 2.8 million people—says they are already aware of at least one unregulated brand. Among the under-25s, one in five has used an illegal site already and as many as 420,000 schoolchildren may be engaging with the illegal betting market. Advertising spending by unregulated operators is forecast to exceed £1 billion by 2028—more than half of all gambling advertising expenditure in this country and up from just 16% in 2019.

While we do not agree with all the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, has tabled, we would like to see greater action from the Government on this growing problem in the country. They have recognised this; in February, the Secretary of State announced plans to stop unlicensed operators sponsoring Premier League football clubs and to establish a cross-industry illegal gambling taskforce. The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, who is the Gambling Minister, said at the time:

“We will not hesitate to act where we see people being put at risk”.


Since February, we have still not seen that consultation launched. The industry—including operators, which are asking for tougher action against their unlicensed rivals—is still waiting with bated breath. Can the Minister update us on the important work being done in connection with the major sporting events across the world that we will see this summer as well as for future sporting events that we are lucky enough to host here in the United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on starting with a question that should be asked. When we have done the big games in the past, there were infrastructure measures that had to happen, but they do not seem to be in the Bill. So how do they fit in? It is that simple. I probably should have had my name down somewhere—my fault, sorry. But it is one of the things that we really must get out about how the Bill is going to work. Is it something we tag on to this, or is it something we expect to be smaller secondary legislation, or is it part of the whole that we are doing here?

As I said, we have always had to discuss this before—well, we have done it twice here; the other times, it was Scottish legislation. If we need a proper planning structure to build stuff, how is that fitting in? It does not seem to be that obvious. If the Government have a scheme coming, let us hear about it, because it is one of the things that has been of great benefit. In Birmingham, we learnt how to do it quickly; in London we learned how to do it well with lots of planning. Where do those two structures fit into what is going on here? It is a very reasonable series of questions that have been asked, and I hope the Minister has a very reasonable set of answers.

Most people who are taking part in this wish the project well. There is a lot of nodding going on here, so if we have got that going on, let us find out how that happens. If there are further questions, let us find out what inspires them, and let us see what we can do. This is something which might be very good. Let us confirm it is, or at least that it sounds like it is.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise. I did not get in to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I did not want to interrupt.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I apologise also.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government have decided that they want to take a domain-by-domain specific approach, as they call it. Well, we are in the domain of sport, yet there is nothing in this Bill on AI, which we will come to in future groups of amendments in my name. It is not just AI; all these emerging technologies will have such a profound impact on every element of the organisation, the fan, the spectator, the media partner, and the athlete experience in the run-up to and at competition or Games time. My noble friend was right to raise this, and I would be interested in the Minister’s response on a Bill which seeks to be future-proofed, to set us in great shape to bid for these mega world sporting events. Yet on the positive, enabling and empowering role that all these technologies can play, the Bill is silent at this stage.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I managed to avoid false starting the two Paralympians this time. We are back to asking whether the Bill is wide enough to enable itself to do what it has to do within the known requirements of hosting an Olympic Games. It probably looks about right for a championship that is using existing infrastructure. Even if the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games want us to use that where we can, you may well have to construct something new and possibly something temporary. All these elements have been in both of those things and at very different scales. But if this is going to be something new, in the case of the Olympics particularly, it seems to change what it wants over time, because it is an evolving thing.

The London Olympics changed the expectation of how much change and benefit you could bring. It actually has been a solid thing, and that was based on many, many hours in Committee—I know because I was there—when the Government of the day said, “Let’s get this right, or at least get a framework, or at least ask, even, as a training exercise, what it would look like”. I think half the time the Government did not expect to have to implement it, but that is merely the observation of somebody who sat there through Committee. So there will have to be something new, and where in the current thinking does it fit in, if we have to do that?

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, enjoyed his little sabbatical, but it is better to have him back. I say that as one who dodged that. But where are we going to get that little bit of interaction? If it is needed, where is the space for it? You cannot know. You can hope and you can prepare the ground, but if we have to do something different, where is the flexibility? I think there would be, shall we say, around the House, a degree of sympathy if you had to change the Bill to bring a little bit of flexibility in here, if it was needed. I do not think too many people would object.

In this debate we are trying to find out whether we need to do something else. If the Olympics change, if the Commonwealth Games change or even if the World Cup changes and we want something else in there and still think it is worth doing, how do we accommodate that? In this Bill, where do the Government say that there is the flexibility to say that this bit will not apply and that we have to do something else? To future-proof the Bill, to an extent, we will have to do that. We got some of the answer to that in a previous debate, but I look forward to hearing how much more thought the Government have put into doing this. It is a real question that we need an answer for, and the Bill probably has to have a degree of flexibility put in at its heart. We want this to succeed. The Bill will have completely failed if we have to go back and redraft something else. We do not want to do that. What is the Minister doing to prevent that?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 9 and in doing so, I also speak to Amendments 10, 11 and 12, which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Markham. These four amendments address two related but distinct concerns about the regulation-making powers conferred by Clause 2 of the Bill: first, how long those regulations can remain in force in relation to any particular sporting event; and, secondly, the parliamentary scrutiny to which all such regulations should be subject.

Clause 2 allows an appropriate national authority to make regulations to implement the sporting events framework for a particular event. What it does not do is place any limit on the period for which those regulations may be in effect. We believe that is a clear omission. The framework is designed to apply to specific and time-limited events, so it would be strange and, we submit, improper if regulations made for a particular event remained on the statute book indefinitely or for a period bearing no relation to the duration of the event.

Amendment 9 seeks to address this issue by applying the same temporal limit that Parliament has already judged appropriate in comparable legislation. The approach we have taken mirrors precisely the time periods used in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 and the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2020. That is a pre-event period beginning no earlier than 21 days before the event starts, and a post-event tail of no more than 5 days after it ends. Parliament has already, therefore, debated and endorsed this model; it is tried and tested, and I see no reason why we should not adopt it here today. I hope the Minister will agree.

Amendment 10 is a probing amendment to be looked at alongside Amendment 9. It proposes a single flat period of 50 days as an alternative limit. We have tabled this to invite the Committee to discuss whether a straightforward numerical limit would be a preferable way of proceeding. We think 50 days is a generous period; the London Olympic and Paralympic Games, between them, spanned 45 days, the UEFA European Championship runs for approximately one calendar month, and the FIFA World Cup takes 39 days from the first match to the final whistle. A limit of 50 days would therefore give Ministers considerably more time than any of these events actually require in practice; it gives a generous margin, while providing Parliament and the public with the reassurance that exceptional powers do not quietly become permanent fixtures of our regulatory landscape.

I imagine the Minister will cite the need for flexibility in her response, and I understand that this framework needs to be flexible for different types of events. If the sporting event framework cannot be applied, administered and wound down within 50 days, however, I would be interested in hearing what event she has in mind that might require a longer period than this. If flexibility is the key, then Amendment 9 provides the perfect solution.

Amendments 11 and 12 address parliamentary scrutiny of these regulations. As currently drafted, the Bill applies the affirmative procedure only to the first set of regulations which apply to the framework of a given event. Subsequent regulations that may amend, extend or otherwise modify the framework as applied are subject only to the negative procedure. Amendments 11 and 12 would remove that distinction and require all regulations made under Clause 2 to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

The rationale for this is straightforward: the regulations we are discussing will implement a framework which represents a quite significant infringement on the rights and obligations of businesses, organisers, local authorities and members of the public in connection with major sporting events—as my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned in the previous group in relation to the Olympic Games in Paris, where they took in expansive issues such as AI and facial recognition. Parliament should have the opportunity to properly debate and approve all such regulations, not merely the first wave of them. I hope by the time we get there, this experiment with time-limited guillotines on secondary legislation will not still be in place.

The delegated powers memorandum, published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, justifies the limited use of the affirmative procedure because it is assumed that subsequent regulations will

“contain operational or technical detail or provide for unforeseen changes in how an event is to be delivered. To ensure there is an efficient mechanism to apply or amend such provisions at a later stage of programme delivery, the government considers that the negative procedure is appropriate”.

However, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House has pointed out, there is no limitation placed on the scope of subsequent regulations. The first set of regulations may apply only one aspect of the sporting event framework to an event, but the Government may change their mind; the second set may simply apply the rest of the provisions. Given this, there is no logic in inviting Parliament to agree to the initial regulations applying the framework, while allowing the subsequent and potentially very significant modifications to pass without scrutiny.

If the Government’s argument here is simply one of administrative convenience, I gently suggest that that is not an adequate reason for reducing parliamentary oversight of powers of this nature. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and I beg to move.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, once again, if it comes to sporting events, I have a bit of reminiscing to do. I can remember a very good little row we had on the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill about changing local taxation; it was a bedroom tax that some people saw as a way of solving local government finance problems in Birmingham. It was then pointed out that there were only two weeks allowed for this process. I think it would have been quite a high surcharge that would have benefited the hoteliers of Wolverhampton and Coventry if it had been brought in.

If we get an idea about timescale, it becomes very important that it is adequately placed, and that is in the tradition of what we have done. Making sure that that continues to apply means we are taking a new piece of legislation and applying it to a tradition of what we have done in legislation: there are shorter periods needed for things, and these are exceptional circumstances. If we are going to do that, we are fine. Not allowing these things to become permanent is a fair point here, because they are very unusual things. Indeed, the entire premise of the Bill is that we are doing stuff for extraordinary circumstances.

I hope that the Government will give a reply that reassures the noble Lord that his amendment is not necessary, but I think it probably was worth while to give us the idea of the aim of it. These are short-term measures.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for introducing this group of amendments, seconded by the noble Lord, Lord Markham. I express my gratitude to all noble Lords taking part today, and say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that I would have been very distraught if such an avid Leeds United supporter had been lost to the Chamber—to be continued, I am sure.

These amendments—which I think are probing, especially Amendments 9 and 10—relate to the maximum period that the framework provisions in the Bill can be applied to a sports event. Amendment 10 would limit to 50 days the maximum period that any regulations applying the framework provisions in the Bill could be in effect. Amendment 9 limits provisions in the Bill to being in effect no more than 21 days before an event begins and five days after an event concludes. We do not consider, as the noble Lord probably predicted, such a blanket approach to be workable in the context of an event-neutral Bill.

Application of the provisions must be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the requirements of each event. These will inevitably have varying geographical and temporal application. The advertising and trading offences are heavily localised and will apply only to places which are used for, or in connection with, a sporting event, and the surrounding areas. The timing of these provisions will correspond with how and when venues are used during the competition period. None the less, where it is practicable to build in time limits—as these amendments seek to do, albeit in a less targeted way—we believe we have already done so. That is why, for example, the Bill already sets clear time limitations on the periods that the advertising and trading offences can be applied. These time limitations build on lessons learned from previous events. The advertising and trading offences in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 could apply for no more than 21 days before the event’s opening ceremony. Under Clauses 8(6) and 11(6), the advertising and trading offences under this Bill can be in place for no more than 10 days before the beginning of a sporting event and end no later than five days after the event concludes. For the majority of locations, we expect the offences will come into effect a day before a place is used for, or in connection with, an event and end on the day that any activity associated with that place finishes.

When it comes to the period during which the ticket touting offence or prohibition on unauthorised association can be applied, the Government do not consider it is appropriate in the context of a framework Bill to limit or prescribe this on the face of the Bill. This could mean that we are unable to deliver on our commitments to event owners and apply the provisions when they are genuinely required. For instance, application of the ticketing offence for each event will be driven predominantly by when tickets to the event are first expected to go on sale or be made available to the public. For some events, this is likely to be over a year in advance of the event taking place—I hope this specifically answers the point that the noble Lord made. As a principle, the Government expect provisions to be in place no longer than is necessary to protect commercial rights and the interests of fans. On top of that, we want to ensure that there is appropriate time to raise awareness of the offence before the event and be clear with the public about what it means for the sale and resale of tickets. The Government expect any prohibition on unauthorised association to be in place no longer than is necessary to prevent the commercial exploitation of an event. We expect this period would correspond with the awarding of host rights and delivery of the event but would be considered on a case-by-case basis in consultation with event owners taking into account lessons learned from previous events.

Finally, any temporary traffic regulation order made under Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for the purposes set out in paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 5 to the Bill can be in place for no more than 28 days before the beginning of a sporting event and end no later than five days after the event concludes. Any temporary traffic regulation notices may remain in effect only for a maximum period of 21 days.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

14: Clause 3, page 2, line 35, leave out “three” and insert “two”
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment, and others in the name of Lord Addington, seek to challenge the Government’s exclusion of certain sporting events, specifically those events which are regularly held in the UK, but may benefit from the provisions in this Bill.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, we have a series of amendments here seeking to challenge the Government’s exclusion of certain sporting events at home from some of the benefits of this Bill. There are some good things here. We saw that they were beneficial—the traffic arrangements and other special things—but why not extend them to events happening only within the country, such as Wimbledon, if we want to make those changes, or to things that happen regularly? Six Nations rugby is an example where we are coping, but we would need new frameworks and structures for anything that would expand it. We also have half an eye on what happens with big cultural events.

We are taking short-term measures for short-term functions which could be expanded and could help. That is the essence of these amendments—trying to push a good idea a little further. The Government have got a good idea here. Let us do something more with it. Let us make sure that every big sporting event—and every cultural event, why not?—has access to the governmental changes that could help it be run better. I could expand on this for a long time, but I would end up repeating myself. It is a good idea. Let us make sure it touches more of the world. I beg to move.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 17, 19 and 22 to 25 in my name, on which I am again grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and support Amendments 14 and 16 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to which I have added my name. These amendments share a simple purpose: to correct what I believe is a significant gap in the Bill. They seek to widen the definition of events to which the framework provisions may apply so that major, regular, UK-based sporting events—those woven into the fabric of our national life—are not excluded from their potential benefits.

That is the problem before us. As drafted, the Bill risks overlooking the very events that define Britain as a global sporting nation and deliver exactly what Ministers say they want this legislation to achieve: economic growth, international prestige and community pride. As I set out at Second Reading, Wimbledon, the Open, the London Marathon and the British Grand Prix are among the most recognisable sporting events in the world, and they are ours. Yet, as things stand, they fall outside the Bill’s scope and the greater protections that it is looking to afford. This is not just surprising; it is a missed opportunity.

I am grateful to many of the major sports organisers across the sector, from cricket to golf and motor racing to tennis and running, that have engaged with me and other noble Lords on this issue and provided clear and compelling arguments as to why regular, established, UK-based events of national and international importance should not be placed at a competitive disadvantage or overlooked by what is supposed to be a framework piece of legislation designed to support the UK’s sports sector. Their message is consistent: while the Bill is welcome, its current scope is too narrow. My amendments attempt to address that gap carefully and proportionately. This is not about opening the floodgates. The extension I propose is explicitly limited to events that are large, regular, UK-based and, crucially, likely to be of “international or national interest” and

“likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or a part of it”.

Following my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s observations, perhaps “likely to” is not the right drafting, but I nevertheless believe they would be a sensible and targeted refinement.

Amendment 25 proposes a further criterion that the Government may wish to consider, recognising something equally important that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, touched on: the role of major UK events in driving participation and sporting legacy. It would require the Government to consider how an event contributes to increasing physical activity, particularly among underrepresented groups—women and girls, disabled people and ethnic minorities. That is not an add-on; it goes to the heart of what sport can and should achieve.

To be clear, these amendments would not place a specific obligation on the Government automatically to extend the provisions in the Bill. They would not create automatic entitlements. What they would do is provide the power to act through the framework set out for iconic homegrown major events where there is a public and agreed interest to do so. That is what future-proofing this Bill should look like.

Let me illustrate the case with one example: the British Grand Prix, which will take place in just a couple of weeks. It is the largest weekend sporting event in the United Kingdom, expected to attract around 570,000 spectators this year. It is the largest Grand Prix on the international calendar and, in 2025, generated £167 million in economic value over a weekend. By any reasonable measure, this is an event of national sporting significance. But we do not have guaranteed long-term security for it. We cannot and must not assume that we will retain this iconic race and all the wider economic benefits it brings. Silverstone has to work hard year after year to ensure it remains on the racing calendar. We must not forget that there have been moments when the British Grand Prix’s future at Silverstone has been in doubt. If that were to happen again, it would rightly be a matter of national concern—or certainly in my house.

The question is whether we equip the Government with the tools through the framework provisions set out in this Bill to act early or wait until the event is potentially lost and only then consider how we might be able to bring it back. As the Bill stands, I fear the position is closer to the latter. My amendments are strongly focused on allowing the former. I suggest that is the more prudent course.

We see similar issues elsewhere. This summer, we are staging the ICC Women’s T20 Cricket World Cup. We have already seen examples of ambush marketing and breaches of intellectual property and commercial rights for the ICC and its venues. These are not abstract concerns. They have real financial consequences and a real material impact on the current and future value of commercial rights, at the very time when the ECB is working hard to secure greater reinvestment and growth in the women’s game. Again, this is precisely the kind of challenge that the framework is designed to address, but it cannot do so effectively if key UK-based events fall outside its reach.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister and her officials for the constructive discussion we have had since Second Reading, and I welcome the continued engagement that I know they are having with the sector. I hope that, between now and Report, we can continue to work together to ensure that the Bill fully reflects the needs and realities of modern sport in this country. The underlying point is simple: our great homegrown sporting events are not just spectacles but strategic national assets. They contribute to our economy, our global standing and our shared sense of identity. This Bill gives us an opportunity to support them more effectively, but to do so we must ensure that they are not inadvertently left behind. These amendments offer a modest, proportionate and practical way to achieve that. I very much hope the Government will take that opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

I would also like to reassure noble Lords that I genuinely accept that the suggestions they are making are to make sure that the Bill is future-proofed. I appreciate the spirit in which these amendments have been laid in this group, but, with the assurances and reassurances that I have provided, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment and that other noble Baronesses and noble Lords will not press theirs.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it just goes to show that, if you are speaking on a lot of amendments, you should try to get your mind on the right one. I thank everybody who has taken part. This has actually been a very good debate in terms of the policy going forward, with possibly one exception, but I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is getting to know his colleagues very well. We have established a consensus that there are a lot of good things proposed in the Bill, such as the idea you must preserve certain things because they are a good unto themselves economically, culturally and socially. I wish I had tried to match the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, with a list of events, because hers was pretty impressive—I have a few in there as well.

There are some very good ideas here, although possibly not the whole list. Certain things about traffic on a regular basis probably going through might be extremely useful. An event structure, if it comes up and if we eventually get round to it—and who knows what is coming in the next 12 months—might be an interesting thing to bring in. As the noble Baroness said, people are not saying this is a bad Bill. They are saying it is a good Bill and asking, “Can we actually take some of its benefits and push them out to somewhere else?”

The traffic issue is one that really catches my mind, getting people to and from events, and if you have traffic controls, making sure that there is something in place before the big events happen. This is probably happening in other ways, but this is a nice regular way of doing it. If the Government are prepared to engage on that, even on a long-term basis, and say they will use some of the capacity, that would be something which would make people’s lives easier, you would get more out of it and you would ensure economic potential. That is rough; there are variations.

The idea is that some sporting legacy and encouragement should go through. That is the thing the Olympics got wrong. We had a wonderful event but we had no physical sporting legacy, certainly not towards grass-roots level. There are a couple of veterans here of the committee that looked at it. It is the thing we failed to do. With all that success, this is what we failed to do, because we know it does not happen by osmosis. You have to have some actual involvement. I hope we will go back to this later on in the Bill. But that is one of the things that we have got wrong that we know about. I hope that the Minister, in further discussions on the Bill and going forward in this area, takes on board what has been said, because there is much here that we would like to expand on.

Irritating a Government by saying “Yes, we agree with you and can we have a bit more please?” is actually one of the nicer ways of irritating a Government. Every now and then, we manage to do it to all Governments—may this Government have more of it. This is something we are engaging in to get the best out of. Generally speaking, it has been a very positive debate, and I will withdraw my amendment. I hope we will address this again at a later stage, with more information. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Broadcasting is such a critical part of the sporting experience. For most people broadcast is the sporting experience. When Andy Murray was performing so fabulously on Centre Court at Wimbledon, I believe there were 15,000 seats available, yet millions could enjoy and experience that extraordinary event from the edge of their sofa. This is another area where the Bill is unfortunately silent when it comes to innovation. I believe there are solutions which can offer new paths forward to enable spectators to enjoy their favourite sport and these events through various media.

I will give two examples. I declare a previous interest in that I was deputy chair of Channel 4 Television at the time. When Emma Raducanu went all the way through to the final and won the US Open, we were able to do a deal at 24 hours’ notice with Amazon, which was the rights holder at the time, to have the US Open on Channel 4 free to air. But it is not free to air, as my noble friend Lord Hayward points out. It is a domestic UK broadcaster which was not a rights holder, but because of thinking differently, getting into discussions and a broader relationship with Amazon, it was able to secure those rights without in any sense cannibalising the rights that Amazon had paid for. A similar deal was done with England men’s cricket when it was in India that winter. I give just those two examples because they illustrate that there has to be flexibility and innovation in terms of both the deals that can potentially be done and the various media by which spectators are able to enjoy and support these tremendous events.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, after so many events going on, free-to-air means not hidden behind a paywall. It is something you do not have to make a very big payment to. Okay, there is the licence fee. To the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I say, “Yes, touché. Well done, good point”. But the fact of the matter is that if you do not have to specifically pay to see them, people can get to these great sporting events and, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has just pointed out, you create a national memory of them, something which you can refer back to. It is the water-cooler moment that does not go away. It is a point of bonding which you do not get anywhere else.

I hope that when the Minister responds she will give us some idea about how we are going to carry on with this, because it is a changing world. The first time I discussed this, we knew it was going to be on X number of channels, and Sky was only just starting to come into it. But we have been able to watch, at least in the form of highlights. What is the defence? It is a big deal. We must make sure, for these huge events, especially when national teams or the big games come up, that we respond across the board so that people can come down. I hope the Minister can say something reassuring on this because, let us face it, it is one of the reasons why it is worth bidding in the first place. It is now beyond those who go and buy tickets and has been for a long time.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I tried to add my name to Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, but I was slightly too late for the printing of the Marshalled List. I think there is something important in this amendment in terms of thinking about who is able to have access to major games.

If you look at the 2012 programme, there was a massive commitment right from the start to no free tickets—the sponsors paid for them. It was not just the joy on the children’s faces when they got to go and experience the events, but it was something that they will remember for the rest of their lives. It was also tied into the school programmes that were being run at the same time. As I have said before, 2012 was also the only time that I have ever been able to go and watch a sporting event where I was able to sit with more than one member of my family. With the ticketing, if someone could not sit in a high stand or needed to be at the end of a row, they also thought about how they linked that up to accessible toilets; those are all really important things. I think Wembley Stadium is the only place I have ever visited that actually understood some of those issues as well. I think there are 147 accessible toilets at Wembley Stadium, which other venues should definitely aspire to. Other things that you could do include “Pay your age”, which 2012 did really well.

As a spectator who is a disabled person—the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, mentioned smarter ticketing—you are constantly having to explain what you need, where you want to sit and who you want to sit with or check whether you actually have a guaranteed accessible seat. Again, it is about showing the world what we do and what we care about. We should be looking at ticket touting wider than this, because it is an issue not just for the events that this Bill may cover.

Another issue in this group of amendments, which I also mentioned in my meeting with the noble Baroness the Minister, relates to thinking about disabled people not just as spectators. I was commentating on a major event in a new-build venue, and it turned out that the commentator’s position was not wheelchair accessible, so I was not able to do my job properly. I spent half the time commentating in a completely different position. As a commentator, it helps if you can have some interaction with the other people that you are commentating with, so we had to move to a venue quite a considerable distance away to be able to do the last event that I was commentating on. There should be something in here about a guarantee of what accessibility means—perhaps not necessarily on the face of the Bill but just an understanding that we can do so much better. If we are going to be building new venues, whether it is for the Olympics, the Paralympics or more football clubs, we should make sure that disabled people have the ability to access events in a fair and equitable way.

I support the other amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. He has more experience on this than anyone else in the Chamber from his work at LOCOG and beyond, and we should be listening to the things that he is asking for.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I have four amendments in this group, but the main thing about the amendments on ticket touting is that everybody agrees that something should be done. There is one principal disagreement going on here. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is basically saying, “Do not do it here; do it properly somewhere else” and lots of the rest of us are saying, “No, do it here, get it done and carry it on”. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, agreed with that. From my Benches, we tried to get an amendment down that included this and we did not actually hit the target; we were told that we were out of scope of the Bill, so I salute his drafting—I take it that it is his; if it is not, he can just take the compliment.

However, when we go through this, we have got a lot of other issues here, such as disability accessibility. I do not know how many dozen times I have discussed that, and we still do not have it right. I hope the Minister will be able to say something reassuring about an ongoing process for that.

Just to refer back to my amendments, I said to myself, “Oh yes, that was it—National Trading Standards, yes, good idea, I thought I had an original point there, but the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, used it in his first sentence”. We have something here that says, “It isn’t working. Can we know what will be done?” The small series of options that we have in this Bill is actually managing to annoy people, oddly, because they are not big enough and they are not going far enough, and we do not have anything else that is immediately coming. We have a pocket of legislation around this Bill, which we have not seen even in draft, and that is one of the problems here. I hope that the Minister can start a process that could be finished by Report, when we get an idea of what we are going to get on ticket touting and where it is going to come in, if we are not going to do it here—and this would have been an opportunity to bring in everything under this Bill, so we had something that would actually work.

There are some other smaller amendments. A charity auction for a ticket is not ticket touting—yes, I would hope that that would be the case. But to have some clarity around some of the issues that we have raised, is the maximum penalty enough? One of the amendments in my name suggests

“leave out ‘£20,000’ and insert ‘an amount not exceeding 10% of the person’s annual global turnover’”.

Some of these organisations are so big that £20,000 would basically be the cost of doing business.

Could we have an idea of the whole picture? At the moment, the Government by doing a nice thing in this Bill are annoying everyone, oddly. I do not envy the Minister in her response. The Government may well have good intentions, but the old cliché that this might well be the thing that paves the road to hell might well be true with this.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

38: Clause 9, page 6, line 22, at end insert—
“(5) Where the regulations designate a person to grant advertising authorisations in relation to a sporting event, the regulations must require that person, in determining whether to grant an authorisation, to have regard to—(a) the impact of any proposed exclusive authorisation on small and medium-sized enterprises trading in or near the restricted advertising zone,(b) the desirability of ensuring that local and small businesses have a reasonable opportunity to benefit from the sporting event,(c) whether any proposed exclusive arrangement is proportionate to the legitimate commercial interests of the event organiser, and(d) whether there has been reasonable and proportionate communication with small and medium-sized enterprises trading in or near the restricted advertising zones, of any exclusive authorisations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that, in the case of exclusive advertising rights for a certain sporting event, small and medium-sized companies are not unfairly harmed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this is really a probing amendment to try to get at some of the hardy perennials, shall we say, when dealing with Bills that take on big sporting events. That is, when you have a big sporting event, you have a big advertising structure and restrictions being imposed on the local traders, which the local traders think are not fair. It sometimes gets slightly absurd. I cannot help but remember—but I am trying to forget—the Olympic kebab van that operated in the East End of London and which was restricted by the Olympic Games. It became a case of why they did not know and why there was not some smaller operation to lessen the impact on their business.

In the rest of the group, we have amendments dealing charitable situations. The situation here is about how we are going to make it a little easier for small and medium-sized businesses to operate properly within these structures. What are the duties on those organising the big events to let them know what is going to happen and mitigate any harms to them?

This amendment is a way of trying to find out the Government’s thinking on this, because it is one of those things that comes back and niggles again and again when you have a big event. I hope we can at least find out what the Government’s thinking is about how we are going to make sure that we make life a little bit easier for these small units, which should be beneficiaries, so that they actually get some benefit from this. That is all I am trying to do here. I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on this group of amendments. I will speak to the two amendments in my name. The first, Amendment 39, is incredibly straightforward and simply seeks to exclude charities from the restricted advertisement zone, as set out in the Bill. It replicates the wording from the London 2012 Act of 2006. I am very interested in the Minister’s response to that wording.

My second amendment in this group, Amendment 63, seeks a retrospective on the enforcement action to assure it from an equality and inclusion perspective. It simply sets out equality enforcement assessments so that the data is there and can be reviewed, s actions can be taken where there are disparities, and there can be learnings in real time for that event and for other events that will be hosted across the country. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

I welcome the opportunity to discuss these important areas and am very happy to meet any noble Lord who wishes to do so as we progress. But I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it is nice to end on something like agreement. I thank the Minister for her reply. It seems to me that we are accepting that there is a potential problem here and just about finding a solution. I must admit that the impact assessment is the sort of document I look at, cower, then drop. So, I will possibly take the sage-like advice of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and buy him a beer to get a good interpretation of it next time.

There has been a problem here. I see that the Government are trying to move towards dealing with it. But it is also a case of trying to make sure that those people who are going to be affected by it know, so that they can start to take mitigating measures themselves. I am not absolutely sure whether the Minister covered that well enough in her reply. Okay, this is the start of a process, not the end, but I think that we should have a look at this, because it is an irritant: it is a bit of grit that is not producing pearls.

We should try to get rid of it and do the best we can. We have enough information and experience now to be able to do something better than what we have at the moment. Let us have a look and see how we can get round to it.

I look forward to having further discussions with the Minister on this in future because I think we can make something better than we have at the moment. With that caveat, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 38 withdrawn.

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.