Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Markham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the observations made by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Foster. This follows the line of the issues I raised on Monday concerning the impact assessment and the various impacts on small businesses. This amendment is clearly a probing amendment, but it is intended to establish protections for small businesses that may by chance get picked up in one way or another. We must ensure that we do not damage those businesses. As many of us said on Monday, mission creep ends up negatively impacting small businesses, often by chance.

I welcome the broad principle of this amendment, and I hope that further discussions will ensure that those protections, whether they be for individuals or businesses, are pursued.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes, and all other noble Lords, for what I hope people will see as a good debate and a helpful contribution. We hope to make sure the UK is best placed for the best planned events, so I hope this will be taken in the spirit of helpfulness. As ever, my noble friend Lord Holmes brought us to the cutting edge of technology in the need for digital twins, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan set out the perfect example of Queensland for what is happening on that. He was absolutely right to remind us of the dangers from cyber attacks. With my other brief in my science and technology role, I am all too aware of that; it was brought out very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, with his traffic light gizmo example. I would quite like to have one of those for my way home.

What the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was getting to on the infrastructure and accommodation points was in some ways similar to the point we tried to make in our amendments on Monday to enable an Olympic development-type agency. As he said, it is not a championship-type event; it is a much bigger scale. These are all coming at the Bill from different angles to make sure that if this is to be enabling legislation, it is broad enough that when bodies of that scale are needed, this framework legislation is able to do it. I very much take my noble friend Lord Hayward’s point that we need to make sure we do not build overbearing full-time bureaucracies here.

The amendments in my name, and that of my noble friend Lord Parkinson, are trying to make sure that the UK is the best place possible to host these events. That is why we are asking the Secretary of State to make a report within six months on some of the impacts on and barriers to that. Noble Lords are only too aware that the recent changes to employer NI increases the cost of a worker by about £900 per year, and the minimum wage changes add another £1,000 per year to the cost of each worker. These are exactly the type of people needed to man these events and make them happen. Unfortunately, these recent changes and tax increases will have a disproportionate impact.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

When it comes to further consideration of the importance of Amendment 76, to which my noble friend is speaking at the moment, the noble Lords, Lord Mawson and Lord Addington, may well agree that we possibly need to expand on this so that we have the opportunity, not just within six months but within a year, five years and 10 years, to see that there has been an appropriate sporting, social and economic legacy, and indeed a sustainability and environmental legacy. It is really important, because so many commitments are given at the time of hosting a major sporting event. Admirable as it is to have a review after six months, for legacy this is vital. By working together we can learn a lot of lessons that can benefit other host cities around the world for major sporting events. I put that to my noble friend. Does he agree that we can at least look at that before we come to Report?

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

It is a rich conversation, and it is really important that we learn this lesson. One of the things we did not achieve with the London 2012 Games—and it is no one’s fault—was to have someone caring about the legacy and really worrying away on day one when we won those Games.

When we first had that meeting in Bromley-by-Bow in 1999 to worry about all this, we were blue-sky thinking and thought, “How on earth do you make movement on a thing that’s going to be impossible? Paris is going to win—they’re the next one on the list and the IOC has decided already”. Fortunately, through a good friend of mine, Ian Hargreaves, at that time the deputy editor of the Financial Times, I was taken one Saturday morning to meet the architect Richard Rogers at his house in Royal Avenue. I had never met Richard before. We had a conversation to check whether we were mad in pushing this kind of idea. When I shared the thought, he was quiet for about 10 seconds, and I thought, “He thinks we are mad”. But Richard was actually a great risk-taker and had built some amazing things. He said that he thought building a mixed community was the right idea, and that he would like to join us, with his mate Mike Davies, who was just finishing the Millennium Dome at that point. At our second meeting, we began to worry about not only where the venues might go on those 248 hectares but the detail of, for example, the press and broadcast centre. None of us had ever done this before, and we had a conversation about how many journalists there would be; we thought maybe 100 or 200. Richard said he would go away and find out. He had an interesting idea of putting the press centre under the stadium, in a way that only Richard Rogers could have thought of. He came to the next meeting and I asked, “How many is it?” He said, “Andrew, it’s about 100,000”. The press and broadcast centre was a building bigger than Canary Wharf.

During the journey, because no one was at that point owning the legacy, into that building went a massive cable that all the press could use—fantastic value despite its cost—that was then going to be removed in legacy, along with that massive building, at the taxpayer’s expense. Unless a few us—including Gavin Poole who built the Here East development, now a fantastic innovation hub in the middle of the East End of London generating jobs, skills and university investments —had owned that issue of legacy, and the significance of that cable coming into that building, it would all have been lost. My thought to government is this: how do we ensure that on these big events some individual is owning those questions from day one? When Governments put millions of pounds into these things, they need to have longer legs than just six weeks.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords for their interventions, and it shows the richness of this discussion. I agree with my noble friend Lord Moynihan on review timeframes that should be not just six months but longer terms. To the point on legacy from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, I will add my own small contribution. I was chair of London and Continental Railways around 2019 and 2020. For those noble Lords who are not aware, that was the body responsible for all the regeneration around the Stratford area, as an arm of the Department for Transport. We were developing housing on from that accommodation, and it has been a very successful site for affordable housing. One of the legacies is that on the housing and regeneration front it was massively successful.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Markham]

83: After Clause 25, insert the following new Clause—
“Limitation of football banning ordersAfter section 14J of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (offences) insert—“14K Banning orders: protection of freedom of expressionIn relation to sporting events to which the Sporting Events Act 2026 applies, or banning orders that result from offences under the Sporting Events Act 2026, nothing in this Act shall be read, or given effect, in a way which prohibits or restricts expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse that do not incite violence or disorder.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure that behaviour at sporting events which is fleeting, non-violent and part of the charged, emotional atmosphere of live sport does not lead to the imposition of football banning orders.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Noble Lords will notice that I am not my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, who, unfortunately, cannot be here this evening. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lady Davies is also not able to be here. But I would be grateful if the Minister is able to reply to their amendments.

It is my pleasure to introduce this last group: the last lap of the race, which, while not a 100-metre sprint and definitely not a marathon, I think we would all agree has been a well-honed and fast-paced middle-distance 1,500-metre race. It has been a blue-ribbon debate on making sure that we get the best opportunities to bid for the Olympics and the World Cup.

I will move and speak to Amendment 86, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Sater. I know this is an area of great concern. Grass-roots sports participation has been a running theme through all this. Unfortunately, the CQC’s proposed regulations to make all medics at events CQC registered, at a cost of £1,000 and a lengthy registration process, are in danger of destroying a lot of grass-roots sports. We will freely admit—

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

Just to be clear, the noble Lord is moving Amendment 83. Amendment 86 is in this group, and the noble Lord is free to speak to it, but he is moving Amendment 83.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Yes, I am moving Amendment 83 and speaking to Amendment 86 from my noble friend Lady Sater.

As I was saying, there is real concern about the impact of the CQC regulations on these grass-roots sports. If my noble friend Lady Sater was here, she would freely admit that this has been somewhat shoehorned into this debate, but I know that the Minister will understand that, as she participated in the debate on the secondary legislation from the Department of Health and Social Care. There is a real concern that, if volunteers have to spend all this money, they simply will not turn up to events. They will not do them, and that will mean that we will lose a lot of youth football events, rugby tournaments, point-to-point racing and athletics. You name it—we will probably lose it in all this.

We have talked many times about the importance of creating a sporting legacy; that means making sure that these grass-roots events can run. That is why this amendment would require that, within one month of the Bill’s passage, the Secretary of State makes a statement on the impact of these proposals. Clearly, we are not expecting the Secretary of State to do this. This is a probing amendment, but one very much designed to keep this at the top of the agenda. Again, I know that the Minister absolutely understands that, because she participated in the earlier debate, but I am afraid that we—I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—have been fairly disappointed about the CQC’s response to date, and I know that that is true of many of the sports organisations. This amendment is therefore designed to make sure that this is kept at the top of the agenda, because, if you speak to lots of sporting bodies, there is a concern that we are going to lose a lot of grass-roots events through the CQC’s actions.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. While I have not been able to speak to the amendments from my noble friends Lord Young and Lady Davies, and while they are not able to do so either, I am sure that they will be grateful if the Minister could include those amendments in her reply.

[Lord Doyle (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 83. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Markham, is not responsible for its content, but since he moved it, I feel obliged to put my objections to it, in the debate that we are having on this group, on record. I object not just to the specifics; this amendment goes against a core value of sport and the sporting events that we have been discussing very positively over the last couple of days of Committee: the power of sport to bring people together. It cannot be right, therefore, that the language of Amendment 83 states that it is only concerned with insults and abuse that “incite violence or disorder”. Surely that is not the bar that we want to set or the culture that we want sport to promote. After all, in recent years we have seen significant progress on the status of, and pay in, both women’s and disability sport. We have seen initiatives such as Kick It Out in football do great work to tackle discrimination in all forms. We now have a situation where there are more than 50 LGBT supporters’ groups within football through the Pride in Football network.

I mention football because, as in all sports, there is much more to do. However, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton—I am sorry that he is not here to hear me say this—quoted some homophobic language on Second Reading that he thought we should all be relaxed about and not be concerned by, in the way that authorities are, or the way in which banning orders are a necessary tool within sport.

I simply urge the noble Lord to reflect on the real-world impact of chants from the stands or language down the pub. Why is it that in football, which was the example he cited, in the men’s game we have no out gay players and yet in the women’s game we do? Hosting events surely is about coming together, showcasing not just the best of sport but the best of us as a country, where nobody is intimidated out of taking part and all our citizens can enjoy watching it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Markham (Con)]

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

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

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

Amendment 83 withdrawn.

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.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Markham Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

As others have said, it is a pleasure to speak after such an august gathering of former Olympians, sporting legends, relatives and “Flying Fullers”. Of course, it is a pleasure to have the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, back and making his points in his inimitable style. This really is the Lords at its best.

While I am talking about the Lords at its best, I have to add that we saw more sporting legend being created last night in the parliamentary tug of war: two noble Baronesses who are in the Chamber—my noble friend Lady Davies and the noble Baroness, Lady Shah —won against the House of Commons MPs. There has been much talk today about other sporting events that should be included. I think we saw another one last night that should be included in this legislation.

As many have said, sport has been central to our national story. Football, rugby, cricket, tennis, golf, squash, darts, snooker—the list goes on—were all invented in the UK. We built Wimbledon, Twickenham, Lord’s and Wembley: cathedrals of competition; places where the human spirit is tested and celebrated in equal measure. From Roger Bannister breaking the four-minute mile on a track in Oxford, to the golden summer of 2012 when London showed the world how to host the Games with grace and greatness, this nation has a sporting tradition that is the envy of the world. It is precisely because we cherish that tradition that we must get this legislation right. It is in that spirit that the Opposition will approach the Bill.

Like everyone in the Chamber today, we support the purpose of this Bill. We recognise that many of the provisions stem from requirements put in place by UEFA, FIFA, the IOC and other governing bodies, but while supporting the intention of the Bill, we, like the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and my noble friend Lord Hayward, have concerns about the chosen route to get to the final destination. The most fundamental concern is that this is skeleton legislation. I understand the intention behind having such a framework, but there are many things that we do not know.

As others have mentioned, the Bill does not tell us which sporting events will be designated. We have broad criteria, but we do not have the full details. We know the Government have at least two events in mind, the Euros in 2028 and the bid to host the FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2035, but we do not know which other events might be included in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned the men’s Rugby League World Cup. As a rugby supporter, I say to the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Hayward that the Rugby League World Cup has been hosted in the UK seven times. The Rugby World Cup has been hosted quite a few times and will be in the future. That is a frequently regularly occurring event that definitionally would be ruled out by this Bill. I think we would all say that we want these major events to be included in the Bill, and we want the UK to be bidding for them.

The Cricket World Cup is another example, even if it does expose us to being beaten by the Germans, as the noble Lord, Lord Barber, said. As my noble friend Lady Evans, the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, set out, there are also concerns about those sporting sectors and cultural events that will not be covered by the Bill: Wimbledon, the Open and the British Grand Prix, to name just a few. Why do the Government believe that they should not receive the protections that we have seen from ambush marketing, for example?

The Bill states that the event must be of significant international interest and gives a few examples, but it does not set out clearly how these tests will be applied in practice. How large will an event have to be to be considered? How many spectators and visitors will be required? How will the Government determine the scale and reputation of an event? These are all questions that need answering.

Nor do we have an idea about the length of time the regulations could be applied for, the scope and the size of possible event zones or the exceptions to advertising and trading offences. Many of these crucial details will be left entirely to Ministers, despite the concerns set out by many about the impact on local traders, as mentioned by my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Young among others.

A future Secretary of State could designate events that Parliament never contemplated when passing this legislation. We are writing a blank cheque and trusting future Governments of whatever complexion to fill in the amount responsibly. That may be an act of faith, but it is not an act of scrutiny, and, as we all know, scrutiny is what we, the Lords, do best.

The current approach is to pass bespoke legislation when needed, such as the London Olympic Games and Paralympics Games Act 2006, the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2020 and the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020. There are many benefits to this. It allows for greater specificity, with legislation that mirrors the unique requirements of the event and, crucially, it means that Parliament can better scrutinise the Government’s intentions. There is a risk that this vague framework will not be specific enough for individual events, meaning that additional provisions may very well—almost definitely—be needed to be made for those future events, but, as asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, when this happens, what scrutiny will be in place for them?

When it comes to Committee, we will be tabling amendments to probe and clarify the scope and scale of those powers. For example, the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2020 contained a specific exemption from the ticket touting offence for charitable auctions, recognising that legitimate charitable activity is categorically different from commercial touting for profit. Also, as my noble friend Lord Fuller and the noble Lord, Lord Wood, set out, there are legitimate fan-to-fan ticket exchanges that should be considered that add to the access available for spectators to go to see the game. This Bill contains no such provisions. Indeed, every exception is left to the Secretary of State to specify in regulations. That is an unsatisfactory arrangement. Parliament should not leave to regulations what it can and should write into the Bill. We will be pressing for possible exemptions, particularly a charitable exception to be included in the Bill. I was also taken very much by the points made by my noble friend Lady Davies about the importance of free-to-air TV coverage of these events.

There is a notable absence of any time limit on the duration of regulations implementing this framework. Once a designation is made and regulations are laid, Ministers may keep them in place for as long as they see fit. This is novel. Section 16 of the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act stated that the trading offences could begin only 21 days before the Games began and must end five days after the Games ended. The Euro 2020 Act stated that the provisions could be in force only from 1 June to 12 July.

We suggest that the Government consider a maximum time limit for the regulations to be in effect, to ensure that the restrictions put in place are not in place unnecessarily. Many noble Lords have mentioned that the richness of the event is about seeing local traders. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Shah, that I had the privilege—Chelsea lost, so the dubious privilege—of going to the FA Cup final the other day. I thoroughly enjoyed drowning my sorrows with my family afterwards in many of the fine establishments around the area. That added to the richness of the experience for me. We need to think carefully about making sure that this richness can be included or, if it is ruled out, that it is for the minimum time necessary to fit the requirements of the IOC or other bodies.

We must be cognisant of the impact of large sporting events on local communities. Of course they bring enormous benefits, but there are also costs. Competition organisers and local authorities should be duty bound to ensure that full clean-up responsibilities are put in place when major sporting events are held. We will explore this when the Bill comes to Committee.

We cannot consider legislation designed to attract and support major international sporting events without addressing the economic backdrop against which it arrives. As set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, the Government ask us to believe that Britain remains an irresistible destination for the world’s greatest sporting occasions—and so it should be. But the organisers of international events make choices, and they make them based on costs. High levels of taxation, an Employment Rights Act that has imposed new and significant burdens on employers, a national insurance increase that functions as a direct tax on jobs, and a substantial increase in the minimum wage—these are real costs that have to be borne by businesses. These businesses include the events companies, the hospitality sector, the security firms and the thousands of workers in the supply chains that make a major sporting event function. Britain’s attraction as a host depends not only on our sporting heritage and our infrastructure but on the commercial viability of operating here.

The Government cannot simultaneously proclaim this Bill as a statement of ambition for British sport and pursue policies that make Britain a more expensive and more regulated place to do business. The two are in tension, and Ministers have to explain how they intend to resolve it.

Finally, as many noble Lords have mentioned, we must address the question of scrutiny. Regulations implementing this framework will use the affirmative procedure, but only the first time. Any subsequent regulations amending or extending the regime will use the negative procedure. In other words, Parliament will scrutinise the framework once; after that, Ministers can modify it with no requirement for approval. Your Lordships will know that this is a significantly weaker arrangement than that provided for in the Olympic Games Act in 2006, which required the affirmative procedure for all such regulations. There is no principled reason why the standard should be lower for this Bill than it was for that previous legislation. If regulations are significant enough to require parliamentary approval once, they remain significant enough to require it subsequently.

At its heart, the Bill is about protecting fans, maintaining the integrity of access to events and giving our country the best chance of winning the right to hold those competitions. On these aims, the Opposition are united with the Government. But good intentions do not excuse the need for proper scrutiny. We owe it to the fans in the stands, the charities seeking to raise funds and the businesses that make these great occasions possible to get the details right. We will work constructively in Committee to improve the Bill. I look forward to the debates ahead.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Lord Markham Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I too start by declaring my interest as a Chelsea season ticket holder, and while I will not speak too long about Chelsea’s Club World Cup success, I will note that three of the four big European and world tournaments were won by English clubs—I can even say that half of them were won by Chelsea. We can see that we currently have a very successful game. Also, four of the starting 11 were English players and one, Cole Palmer, was the player of the tournament and even had President Trump celebrating alongside him. If only we could teach him to do the Palmer rub, we would really be there.

So we start off in a good position, and I have to add my thanks to the Minister. I think she took some political risk in bringing back amendments to the Lords when everything had obviously passed here already, and opening this up to possible further challenges and ping-pongs. She did that because she thought it would make this a better Bill, and I support everything she was trying to do and the intentions behind that, because I think it has made it a better Bill. While I agree with both my noble friends, the two Lords Moynihan, that there are dangers in the introduction of a regulator, and with my noble friends Lady Brady and Lord Maude that we need to ensure that it is a light-touch regulator, this is an improvement—but there are dangers still out there. I think we all remember the long conversations we had about the risk of UEFA, and we need only to look at the last few days, with the demotion of Crystal Palace, to see that we have to be sure that we are not doing anything here that falls foul of UEFA.

The Minister was at pains to confirm that UEFA was on board with the last version of the Bill. What we see now is, of course, quite a different version in terms of the backstop. It is a better version, particularly with the removal of what we all thought was a fairly crazy pendulum mechanism. However, it allowed the Government to say at the time, keeping to one of the UEFA golden rules or red lines, that a decision has to be a football decision. In the past, it can be said of the pendulum that it was either an FAPL or an English Football League solution. Now that the regulator is able to negotiate to find its own solution, which is very sensible measure that I support, UEFA could argue that we are now imposing a potential government solution. It is the right approach to take, but has the Minister sought similar assurances from UEFA that this new backstop does not fall foul of some of its red lines, and that it is as comfortable with this new version as it was with the old version?

That said, this is a better version, and I thank the fab four Cross-Benchers for bringing together this solution. I am sorry that both the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, are not in their usual places to take their laps of honour. It is a sensible amendment which tries to lead to a negotiated outcome with compromise, rather than the arbitrary pendulum mechanism.

At the same time, it is very sensible—and I know David Kogan was very involved in this—that the regulated board are now responsible for the decision, with the removal of the expert panel, and they are willing to be accountable for that decision. I have known David Kogan for some 15 years and, like others, I truly believe that we have a real expert with deep knowledge of the game and sports rights; he is a valuable addition. As so many of these issues are judgment calls, I feel much better knowing that we have David Kogan’s judgment. We all have to accept that the appointment process was perhaps a bit unfortunate. Can the Minister say where we are with the investigation, and when can we expect an outcome? Obviously, we would all like to get him on board as quickly as possible.

I conclude by thanking the ministerial team, the Bill team and all noble Lords for their work during what has been a long, thoughtful, informative and good process, which has ultimately improved the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords for a constructive and good-natured debate on the amendments made in the other place and for their very kind comments, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Markham, recognising why I took the risk to bring the Bill back, which was to ensure that we get a better Bill. I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Pannick, and noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House, including the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, for their support for changing the backstop mechanism. I am grateful too for the support for, and confidence across your Lordships’ House in, the Government’s preferred candidate.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is right that we need to see the regulator as taking a light-touch approach, and I am grateful to all those involved in helping us get this over the line in a much more match-fit state than it left us. I note the concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Maude of Horsham, Lord Moynihan and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. I will send a transcript of the debate to the chair designate, although I am confident that he is following the debate and is already aware of the need—and their call—to tread lightly.

The noble Lord, Lord Burns, asked how we would incorporate evidence from the “state of the game” report. Under the amended model, it would be explicit that the regulator must use the “state of the game” as the basis for its decision. The regulator must explain in its notice how its solution addresses the evidence from the “state of the game” report. Leagues must also submit supporting evidence alongside their proposals, which the regulator must take into account. The regulator can request additional evidence as well as gathering its own information to ensure it has a wide evidence base for making a decision. This is a more evidence-based and data-driven process than before. We are also proposing an extension of the final proposal stage to allow for more time for the regulator to come to a considered solution based on evidence.

The noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Markham, asked whether UEFA is content with the Bill as it stands. As noble Lords will know and as I have stated previously, UEFA has written to confirm that it is content with the Bill and the FA has confirmed it. Its issues were with the previous Government’s version of the Bill and requiring the regulator to have regard to the Government’s foreign policy, something we have removed and something your Lordships’ House clearly debated at some length.

Past examples of Italy and Spain legislating in relation to football broadcasting without facing repercussions from UEFA should offer reassurance. Italy in 2008 and Spain in 2015 legislated setting out how TV rights are to be sold and how the revenues are to be distributed. Neither association has faced consequences from UEFA. I will return to exactly where we are with the process a bit later.