Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Markham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Markham]

2A: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(f) Schedule (Delivery authority provisions) (“the delivery authority provisions”).”

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I start by declaring that, further to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Hayward, if I was ever to win anything significant, it would definitely be by a massive stroke of luck.

The Government’s clearly stated intention for the Bill is to create an event-agnostic framework that can be applied to certain future sporting events without requiring new primary legislation. The Government have been very open in their belief that the Bill will cover all those possible scenarios. Our amendments seek to probe to see whether this is the case. The amendments are made in the spirit of helpfulness, as I know are the other amendments made by my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter.

By way of an example, say we wish to bid for one of the major and very large events, such as the Olympics or the World Cup. The delivery of those events requires significant cross-sector effort, bringing together national governing and representative bodies for the sports, such as the British Olympic Association or the Football Association; local government, including the host cities; and central government departments. We might need to construct new stadia or event spaces, purchase land and improve public transport links, for example.

Hosting such an event would potentially require the creation of a specific body to co-ordinate and oversee the event’s organisation. This is the approach that we are all very familiar with and something that we had to do with the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, with which we created the Olympic Delivery Authority to work alongside the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The ODA was responsible for the redevelopment of the Stratford area, the construction of the sporting ventures, and the infrastructure and transport planning—all things I was very familiar with as a previous chair of the London and Continental Railways, which developed a lot of that work.

The Bill, however, does not provide a mechanism for the Government to create a delivery authority for a sporting event, should it become necessary. If Ministers needed to establish such a body for future events they would require primary legislation. Of course, this is an outcome that we all wish to avoid and it is the Government’s stated intention. If it transpires that bespoke primary legislation is indeed required for a future sporting event, what is the purpose of the Bill that we are trying to pass?

Amendments 2A, 6A, 58A, 58B and 61A, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Parkinson, seek to rectify this shortcoming by creating a mechanism for the Secretary of State to establish a delivery authority if they believe it necessary. In drafting these amendments, I have taken inspiration from the provisions in the 2006 Act, which established the Olympic Delivery Authority, and amended them so that they can be applied generally to any event to which the framework applies. Amendments 58A and 58B seek to allow the Secretary of State to establish transfer schemes to the delivery authority and for the authority to be dissolved by order.

Amendment 61A seeks to insert a new schedule into the Bill. The first part of this proposed new schedule would provide for the establishment of a delivery authority and sets out the authority’s general functions. Those are to

“prepare for the sporting event … make arrangements in preparation for or in connection with the use or management … of premises and other facilities acquired, constructed or adapted in preparation for the sporting event … ensure that adequate arrangements are made for the provision, management and control of facilities for transport in connection with the sporting event, and … ensure the safety of individuals participating in or attending the … event”.

Part 2 of the proposed new Schedule sets out the constitution of a delivery authority, including membership of between seven and 11 people, the appointment of a chair and chief executive, and the procedure for removing members. Part 3 would provide procedural rules of delegation by the authority and seeks for the Secretary of State to require the authority to submit a report on the authority’s progress, which must be laid before Parliament. Part 4 would allow the Secretary of State to provide the authority with financial assistance, if necessary, subject to the affirmative resolution of the Bill.

I am aware that other provisions may be needed in secondary legislation. I will not pretend that we have all the detail behind this right, but we are trying to set out likely scenarios in which we would have to set up such a delivery authority and the things that would need to be considered. We are trying to build those into the framework. We ask the Government to come back more thoroughly on the schedules that would be needed, but we hope these are helpful by way of example.

I hope that the Minister understands the point that I am trying to make. If the Government believe that this Bill, when passed, will never need further primary legislation then it needs to cover all the possible requirements for future events. If we hope to host some major sporting events in the future then we may well need a delivery authority to support such an event. These amendments would allow the Government to do just that. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, my amendment covers a slightly different area. It seeks to ensure that cultural events affiliated with a sporting event are part of the Bill’s scope. We on these Benches support the Bill’s aim to create a legislative framework. However, past experience has shown that cultural events such as the Cultural Olympiad were hard to include and very much seen as an afterthought. Those of us who witnessed and participated in the events in 2012 will argue that they were far from that; they were integral and magnificent—the opening and closing ceremonies, and the cultural coming together across the UK.

The Bill’s current wording refers to events “sporting or otherwise” and

“held in connection with the sporting event”.

This is a probing amendment that seeks assurance from the Minister that this is the case and asks her to consider making the reference to cultural events more explicit.

--- Later in debate ---

The National Cyber Security Centre has published timelines for migration to post-quantum cryptography, setting out key milestones and activities to complete the migration of high-priority systems, services and products to post-quantum cryptography by 2031, and then almost all systems, services and products by 2035. Prescribing post-quantum cryptography standards under a narrowly scoped Bill would create a piecemeal sector by sector approach. These standards are still maturing internationally, and we need to retain flexibility to align with developing standards and emerging international consensus. I would be grateful and delighted, however, to discuss this further with the noble Lord. For the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Markham, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I am grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords and thank the Minister for her comments. I welcome the general support from noble Lords. I hope the Minister can see that this is all brought with the constructive view of making sure that this framework legislation can be comprehensive enough to work.

I must admit that I remain to be convinced. The points raised by my noble friends Lady Evans and Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, are quite serious and need to be covered. At the same time, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, for widening it to include cultural events, which was done very successfully in the Commonwealth Games by Andy Street. It is definitely worth while trying to bring that into this.

I would like to challenge the Minister further, if I may. She said it was not required because it is possible that these delivery bodies will not be required and there are only two examples where they were. However, her very admission of the fact there have been two occasions where they have been required surely makes the point. Why would we not want to put it into enabling legislation? Why would we not have it in place so that it is possible? It is no problem; if you do not need it, you do not need it, so you ignore those bits. However, if we are in the circumstance, which has happened twice before, where you need a delivery body, all of a sudden you need primary legislation. That begs the question: what is the point of having this framework legislation at all?

The whole point is that we are trying to have enabling legislation to cover all those eventualities. Noble Lords must admit that these are very real eventualities as it has happened twice already. I would hope that, unless the Minister can say with absolute 100% certainty that we would not need such delivery bodies in the future, she will reflect on those points before Report and think about embracing such amendments. For now, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 2A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

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

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