Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend. I think we would all agree that he has brought some of the more colourful illustrations to his amendments during the passage of the Bill. Perhaps, like me, noble Lords are disappointed that the kebab did not make an appearance today, but in the dying moments the cardboard burger did. That is something to reflect upon.

I will speak to government Amendment 16 and the related charity amendments that have been brought forward on Report. When we began this process, the Bill was deficient when it came to the operations and thus the impact of charities up and down the country. The charitable sector makes such a contribution—socially, of course; psychologically, certainly; and economically, in so many ways, to the general well-being of this nation.

The London Olympics Act of 2006 contained charitable provisions, as did the Commonwealth Games Act of 2020. We have made some good progress. I thank the Minister and all her officials for their detailed discussion between Committee and Report, resulting in these amendments, which set out significant provisions and a real commitment to what could be included in subsequent regulations. It puts charities in a far clearer, far better position. It does not just benefit charities and charitable activity up and down the country; it makes sporting events and this Bill better.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Fuller]

46: After Clause 25, insert the following new Clause—
“Disapplication of guaranteed hours provisions for sporting events(1) This section applies where the appropriate national authority has applied one or more parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event.(2) Where this section applies, the provisions mentioned in subsection (3) do not apply in relation to an employer who employs a worker at an event that is to be treated as forming a part of the sporting event.(3) The provisions are— (a) the following provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996—(i) sections 27BA to 27BZ, and(ii) Schedule A1;(b) Schedule 2 to the Employment Rights Act 2025.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment disapplies the provisions of the Employment Rights Act 2025 which require an employee to give a worker on a zero hours contract guaranteed hours when a worker is working at a sporting event to which the sporting events framework has been applied.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 46, which seeks to ensure that the organisers of the big events can be assured of an adequate supply of flexible labour and human capital to make the tournament a success in the few weeks every decade that the circus rolls into town. As we have seen with the World Cup this week and the Olympics in 2012, a month-long tournament can unite a nation. My grandfather ran in the 1932 Olympics; he was Britain’s fastest man. At that time, the Olympics helped dig America out of its great depression. Sport can do these things; it is why we want these events.

In sport, the favourite does not always win. You sort of have to feel sorry for the French. They had booked their tickets all the way through to Sunday and now they are flying home. There are no guarantees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I am reminded by the Deputy Speaker on the Bench to the left of me that I have 15 minutes, although I do not intend to take that amount.

So there are no guarantees—not in this game. In 2012, there were 70,000 Games makers who contributed 8 million hours. There were many other employees involved in broadcasting, catering, cleaning, merchandising, ticketing, security, bar work and selling ice cream, all the way from Stratford to Portland Bill. Let us say it was 150,000 people in total. We celebrate that because, without those 150,000 people, the Games would not have been a celebration at all.

The problem is that these are temporary events and mobilising that sort of temporary labour is now illegal. The Employment Rights Act means that the ad hoc work that these tournaments need cannot be offered to people without a guarantee. That is incompatible with a Games of uncertainty, which depends on personal performance, individual events and knockout stages.

The only conclusion I can form is that the Government expect the organisers and contractors to underwrite these guarantees to the people selling beer, ice cream, et cetera. But who would sign up to such open-ended liabilities? The Government say they want to sweep away the uncertainty and risk of big events being in this country, but let us be clear: the Employment Rights Act provisions, in so far as labour is concerned, add high costs and regulatory risks that exist nowhere else in the world.

My amendment is intended to be helpful. These events happen only once every decade and they are obviously temporary. We know that the hours cannot be guaranteed, because that is the way they work, so my amendment carves out the ad hoc employment from the Employment Rights Act, but only in so far as events that fall within the Sporting Events Bill, because I want people to take part to support the delivery of the tournament, put their shoulder to the wheel, grow as individuals and make the Games a success.

The Government either want to host these events or they do not. Nobody wants them to host these events more than me, so let us empower our negotiators and give them every chance of success, not hobble them with additional rules and regulations that do not apply elsewhere, potentially damaging the enjoyment and pleasure of going to the game and giving us the agony, once more, of coming second in that penalty shoot-out or tiebreak against other more enterprising nations who will beat us to the podium for the hosting rights. I beg to move.

[Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)]

My Lords, I just inform the House that although I did advise my noble friend that he had 15 minutes, I also advised him that I did not think he would be very popular if he availed himself of the full 15.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

And you were right.

[Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)]

And I was right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

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