Sport and Recreational Facilities

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Moynihan]

To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to improve access to sport and recreational facilities and opportunities (1) during, and (2) outside of, school hours.

[The Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Morgan of Cotes) (Con)]

The cross-government School Sport and Activity Action Plan sets out how we will help young people live healthy, active lives. We will publish more details of our ambitious plans later this year. The Chancellor recently announced a £500 million Youth Investment Fund, which will be spent on youth centres and youth workers, but I am very keen that there are also activities, including sports activities, that help to build the character and resilience, as well as the fitness and well-being, of our young people.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Secretary of State, and no one could be more delighted than I am that responsibility for sport is now in this House—sport has come home. My noble friend will be aware that more than 33% of our medallists at the Olympic Games came from the independent sector, which represents 7% of our children. Given that there is so much sporting talent to be identified and developed in the state sector, will she launch a new strategy, with her colleagues in education, to ensure that all independent schools—not just those which already demonstrate that best practice but all independent schools that are in receipt of charitable status—continue to build school sports partnerships with the state sector, local clubs and the community as part of their public benefits requirement?

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that my department works with the Department for Education. From my previous experience, I think that learning goes both ways. Of course, the independent sector may have the facilities to support others, but I also know that, equally, there are some fantastic maintained schools, funded by the state, that offer a wonderful sporting experience. However, I am sure there is more to be done. I am just about to see the Secretary of State for Education, so I shall certainly mention it. Briefly, the noble Lord mentioned the Olympic Games and I am sure that as we turn into 2020, when the Tokyo Games are happening, all noble Lords will want to wish our Olympic and Paralympic athletes the very best in their preparations.

Football Association and Bet365

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

I apologise, but I cannot give a definite date—but there is a clear sense of urgency.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, this Urgent Question reflects how much has changed since this third-party contract was signed in, I believe, 2014-15 and was rolled forward in 2017. When the Secretary of State and the Minister for Sport sit down next week with the FA, will they urgently review what changes to the Gambling Act are necessary? In the meantime, will they also approach Bet365, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Forsyth as stimulating demand. That company has revenues of £3 billion. The conditionality attached to this contract is that people have either to place a bet or to put £5 into a new account 24 hours before kick-off. Could the Government ask Bet365 immediately to rescind those two conditions, which stimulate demand?

Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL]

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Moynihan]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“( ) for the purpose of ensuring access for disabled people at all facilities and in the vicinity of all facilities at the Games, or”

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 1 and 6 on accessibility, standing in my name on the Marshalled List. I thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for signing these amendments. I will also address Amendment 5 in my name on the social charter and briefly speak to government Amendment 4 on reporting.

It may be helpful to your Lordships if I briefly update the House on progress made on the amendments I have tabled, not least because it could shorten matters and simplify the debate. I am conscious that I have asked for considerable detail on accessibility to be placed in the Bill; I will address this first. My objective is for the Government to take seriously all the issues raised so far on accessibility, both in Committee and at Second Reading before that. It has never been clear to me that, despite good words, previous Commonwealth Games have followed to the letter the modern-day accessibility norms that one would expect, particularly for disabled athletes and spectators, and I think we will hear more of that during the debate today.

If I can persuade the Minister that the issues I have raised can be referred back to the Games committee as part of the report that the Minister has brought into the legislation in a new government amendment, I hope I will be satisfied that that process is the best way forward. At the moment, unless we had a letter or some form of outline detail as to what the House was looking for, the amendment could be interpreted as a little thin and capable of not engendering the sort of detailed analysis that we in your Lordships’ House would be looking for.

This has been an important issue to me for many years. Indeed, back in 1988, as Minister for Sport, I convened a working party that published a report called Building on Ability. That was the first—albeit gradual—policy shift by the Sports Council towards the mainstreaming of disability sport. We are now nearly 30 years on from that. It should be at the heart of hosting any mega sporting event in this country that we put the interests of those with disabilities at the forefront of our thinking from the day we begin constructing the various facilities to the end of the closing ceremony.

On accessibility, I appreciate that there are now, fortuitously and rightly, a number of Acts on the statute book, including the Equality Act 2010, and that as a public body the organising committee is already bound to comply with a number of statutory requirements, not least in that Act. However, I hope the organising committee goes further and draws up a comprehensive accessibility strategy, and that in drawing it up it will listen carefully to what noble Lords on all sides of the House have said during the passage of this Bill through Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

In addressing the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I want to reassure the House that, in developing the strategy, the organising committee will consider the lessons learned from previous Games, including formal knowledge transfer through the Commonwealth Games Federation as well as lessons from other major sporting events.

[Lord Moynihan]

Before the Minister leaves that point, can he also ask the organising committee, when it is in the process of developing this welcome accessibility strategy, to take fully into account the points made on the Floor of the House today, and the letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which I am sure will be of assistance to it in developing that strategy?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

Can I come to that later? I certainly will bear that in mind.

My officials have made the Birmingham Organising Committee and the Commonwealth Games Federation aware of the issues raised by the noble Baroness. We take this very seriously, we do not want similar concerns raised about the Birmingham Games and we would be happy to continue engaging with the noble Baroness on this matter. Further, in developing this strategy, the organising committee will establish a disability forum, which will include disability specialists, charities and regional organisations, to ensure that venues and services are designed, operated and delivered so that everyone has a positive Games experience. The organising committee is happy to listen to the views of noble Lords as this strategy is developed. Once it is available, the strategy will be published on the committee’s website, and a copy will be placed in the Library.

Recognising the strength of feeling in the House, the Government also wish to place accessibility on the face of the legislation. That is why the Government have brought forward Amendments 3, 4, 10 and 11, which require the organising committee to report annually on the details of what it has done to ensure Games events are accessible to disabled people. This report will be laid before Parliament. I will come to those amendments later.

I turn to subsection (3) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, on accessibility relating to the list of designated sporting events, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. We want as many people as possible to experience the Games. The organising committee is looking to maximise the audience by exploiting a range of platforms. As the Commonwealth Games is a listed event, broadcasting rights must already be offered to the qualifying free-to-air terrestrial broadcasters on fair and reasonable terms. There is nothing to prevent free-to-air channels bidding successfully to show live coverage of group B events, as with the BBC’s live coverage of the Gold Coast Games and ITV’s forthcoming exclusive coverage of all 48 matches at this year’s Rugby World Cup. Indeed, the Commonwealth Games has been in group B since the list was compiled in 1998 and has had excellent live coverage for many years on free-to-air television. We believe that group B is the correct listing for the Games, helping to enable extensive free-to-air coverage for the nation and allowing the organising committee to agree live free-to-air coverage as it sees fit.

Further, reconsidering which group the Commonwealth Games sits in would not be appropriate at this time. The organising committee is already in the middle of a competitive commercial process with potential rights holders. These negotiations may not be concluded until next year. Any changes to the listed events regime during this process could significantly and detrimentally affect those negotiations. Finally, contrary to the drafting of this amendment, Ofcom does not hold the responsibility for amending the listed events regime; that power rests with the Secretary of State. The organising committee would be very happy to discuss its approach in all these areas with interested Peers. I hope that I have been able to further reassure noble Lords of the organising committee’s strong commitment to accessibility and to delivering a truly integrated and inclusive Games in 2022.

I turn to Amendment 5, on a charter for the Games. I make it clear that I agree with the spirit of this amendment, which highlights a range of important matters, but we do not consider it necessary to put the charter on the face of the Bill. As I have said before, the organising committee is merely the custodian of the Games for the next three years. It is the role of the Commonwealth Games Federation to set the level of expectation from a host city. That is why the federation is working with hosts of the Games to support delivery of its vision, mission and values.

As I will come to discuss, the Government will require the organising committee to report on what it has done to ensure that its delivery of the Games promotes the values of the Commonwealth Games Federation. As such, the values of the federation provide an important foundation for the government amendment on reporting and represent a further mechanism to ensure the organising committee upholds and delivers on these important values. In promoting these values, the organising committee is wholly committed to protecting human rights, tackling corruption and promoting sustainability.

Indeed, I am pleased to confirm that the organising committee is developing a Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games social values charter, which will be published in due course. The charter will include policies on equality, human rights and anti-corruption, and objectives on legacy delivery, reflecting the values of the Commonwealth Games Federation. Such a charter will underline the committee’s commitment to delivering a Games which builds on the matters set out in noble Lords’ amendments. I know that the organising committee would again be happy to engage further with Peers on this.

As I mentioned earlier—my noble friend Lord Moynihan also mentioned this, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, alluded to it as well—the organising committee is already required to comply with the Equality Act 2010, the Bribery Act 2010, the Fraud Act 2006, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and other health and safety legislation, the Human Rights Act and the Public Services (Social Value) Act. In addition, the organising committee will include a requirement in all its contracts for suppliers to comply with its social values charter, once published. Recently, the organising committee also agreed a modern slavery statement, which will be published on its new website. I hope I have demonstrated that many of the issues in Amendment 5 are covered by existing statute or are already being proactively considered by the organising committee.

I hope that my noble friend Lord Moynihan recognises that the organising committee is already taking great strides in this area—for example, with the development of a social value charter. The requirement that I have outlined will ensure that the committee reports on what it has done to promote the values of the Commonwealth Games Federation. Therefore, we think the Government’s amendment is a good compromise on the issue. However, I am pleased to give the further reassurance to my noble friend that I shall write to the organising committee to stress the importance of ensuring that it addresses all the issues raised by noble Lords in this debate, including the accessibility guidance issued by the International Paralympic Committee, in preparing its statutory report. Going a little further in that respect speaks also to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.

I am grateful also for Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which I consider is addressed by the government amendments. I think he alluded to the fact that he agrees with that, so I shall spare the House some words.

The government amendments will place a statutory requirement on the organising committee to report annually on its functions and the progress made towards delivery of the Games, and for the report to be laid before Parliament. This will ensure that there is a single source of information about what the organising committee has done to prepare, addressing the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. The amendments also reflect a number of other matters that this House and the Government consider important. I want quickly to mention some of them because they refer to comments made by noble Lords.

As I explained earlier in responding to my noble friend Lord Moynihan on the charter, we will require the organising committee to report on what it has done to ensure delivery of Commonwealth Games Federation values—I gave some additional reassurance on that. As the report will be laid in Parliament, noble Lords will be able to hold the organising committee to account on those values.

On accessibility, to address points raised by noble Lords in their amendments, it will be a statutory requirement of the organising committee to report on what it has done to ensure that Games events are accessible for disabled people, whether competitors, spectators or officials. Having those annual reports will allow noble Lords and others to look at progress made before the Games. It will not just be a question of waiting for the Games to happen and seeing whether something is wrong; proactive steps can be taken.

On sustainability, the Games partners are committed to embedding sustainability. I acknowledge the interest expressed in that—the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned it. The organising committee is in the process of developing a Games-wide sustainability plan. When this is published, I will place a copy in the House Library.

On legacy, as I said in the House previously, in delivering this event we must maximise the benefits for the city, the region, the country and the wider Commonwealth. There was agreement across the House that this was extremely important, which is why the Government have brought forward a requirement for the organising committee to report on the steps taken to maximise the Games benefits. However, responsibility does not sit solely with the organising committee. All Games partners will be working together to make sure that there is a lasting legacy from the Games that starts benefiting the people of Birmingham now. Games partners will develop a cross-partner legacy plan which will be published in due course and a copy will be made available.

The government amendment requires a final report to be produced by the organising committee after the Games. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan asked what we could do in that regard. I can confirm that the Government will carefully consider who will be best placed to report on the impact of the Games and how, because it is our ambition that the positive effects of the Games are lasting. Both noble Lords were right to point out that the organising committee will not be around to do it. That is a commitment from the Government.

As for keeping the public updated on Games preparations, the organising committee will launch a new website this Saturday, marking three years to go. It will include information on sports and venues, when people can sign up to volunteer at the Games and apply for tickets, and the plans I have outlined. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is satisfied that there are considerable plans and mechanisms in place to ensure that the organising committee communicates appropriately and effectively and that he will not press his amendment.

I believe that Amendments 3, 4, 10 and 11 in my name strengthen the Bill and address the House’s desire that information on Games delivery is available and accessible. In light of my reassurance to my noble friend Lord Moynihan, I hope he will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, 24 hours ago I was in Smackover, Arkansas, talking to a 10 year-old, Ramsey Wilson, who could not quite understand why I was leaving to go to London to participate in this debate. She parted by saying, “I hope you get some of what you want”.

I hope that the House is as grateful to the Minister as I am, because the accessibility strategy is very welcome. The disability forum, of which I was unaware, is an important step towards making that accountable to experts in the field. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her contribution, both in writing to me immediately after the last debate and this afternoon on the Floor of the House. The commitment the Minister has given that accessibility will be taken into account, particularly in drafting the accessibility strategy, is very welcome.

On the charter, while it would have been my preference to see that in the Bill—it would send a signal to all future mega events—again, the Minister has given significant commitments that the Government place a high priority on human rights, anti-corruption, fighting modern slavery and the legacy to be delivered. I believe that this is not quite the Commonwealth Games Federation’s responsibility; I think it is the organising committee’s responsibility to translate that into action, as it was in London 2012. To have a 2022 social values charter, however, and for that commitment to be made and supported so strongly by the Government today is another important step in the right direction. I was very pleased to hear the Minister report to the House that all these issues will be considered in detail by the organising committee. We do not always get quite as much as we seek in responses from government on such important issues in sport, so that is exceptionally welcome.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in nodding his assent to what the Minister was saying, echoes my view that it is appropriate to have some forum that gives due consideration to the success or otherwise of legacy post the winding up of the organising committee. It is a welcome commitment made by the Minister. Perhaps the Commonwealth Games Federation could play a role in assisting the Minister in identifying the most appropriate format for that work to be done in, because that federation has a lot to gain from learning the lessons of Birmingham for future cities that will host the Commonwealth Games.

For all those reasons I am exceptionally grateful to my noble friend the Minister for meeting me and for taking into account and responding so positively to the many issues raised by noble Lords on all sides of the House. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, I would just like to thank the Minister for listening when these issues were raised, I think by me. The Delegated Powers committee report on that raised a real point and the Government have responded, so thank you.

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, in echoing the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I want to say as a former member of the DPRRC that I particularly welcome the Written Ministerial Statement that the Minister has offered today. I thank him for listening so carefully to the arguments made in Committee.

Amendment 12 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his speech. Of course, I am slightly disappointed that I could not get everything, but half a loaf is better than no bread, and there is some validity in the noble Lord’s statement about some of the other powers in the Bill. I would have preferred the affirmative procedure, but on this occasion we might let it go.

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, I also welcome the Minister’s announcement on the affirmative procedure for compensation claims. We looked at this in some detail in Committee and I am very grateful to him for responding so positively. I am disappointed that the negative procedure will continue to apply for Games locations and advertising. Will the Minister’s department continue to engage with the Advertising Association? It has been proactive in having constructive discussions with the department on this Bill, and I know it is disappointed about the negative procedure continuing in this context. However, it has made some useful points and it would be useful for those discussions to continue in another place.

Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL]

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 5, proposed by my noble friend Lord Rooker. We can look back at what happened at previous Commonwealth Games, both during the Games and thereafter when all the athletes had gone home, and we can draw various conclusions, but, however you describe it, inevitably with a Games of this sort an element of faith and optimism, and indeed speculation, is at the heart of a commitment of a city and a surrounding region to host the Games. I certainly welcome that, and it is welcomed across the political spectrum and, indeed, across the region.

I should say, “Well done”, to the local authority. There are sundry events being prepared, one of which is the Commonwealth Social in the heart of the city on 27 July, details of which I have with me should anyone wish to take a look. It is obviously part of a plan to make sure that people are increasingly aware of the Games and the benefits they bring—even though timings have been foreshortened, as my noble friend has already pointed out—so that everyone can be part of them.

At the heart of it all is not only the statement of faith, as I said, but the balance between central and local government. That is what I like about this amendment: the responsibility is shared. The Bill itself makes it pretty plain—although not as plain as we might have wished—that it is a shared responsibility: the costs will fall roughly 75% to central government and 25% to local government. It sounds like a bargain, but the money still has to be found, even if it is 25%. The figures I have seen—these are probably a bit inaccurate now—show that the total is £778 million, of which £594 million falls to central government and £184 million to Birmingham City Council and its “key partners”.

That is the balance of responsibility. The money has to be found and the legacy assured; otherwise, the whole balance of advantage in holding the Games is much diminished. Amendment 5 spells this out pretty clearly: the key responsibility is that of the Secretary of State, but in collaboration with the organising committee, and, as it says in Clause14(3)(b), the relevant local authority—or authorities; there are a number involved—for,

“an area that includes any place where the regulations would have effect”.

It seems a common-sense amendment. I hope the Government will support it, although I doubt they will like every detail of the wording. It seems consistent with the spirit of everyone involved in the Games and their preparation: this is a partnership and requires a prescribed legacy.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 7, 8 and 17 are in my name. I can deal with Amendment 7 rapidly since the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has eloquently covered the key elements of the legacy plan, obviously having focused on it during his brief holiday. The only aspect that I hope can be covered in somewhat greater detail is the sporting legacy plan, not least for the people of Birmingham and its vicinity.

In that context, it might be worth focusing on the work done by the four UK Chief Medical Officers, including the guidelines they published recently, which could be used as a case study by the Commonwealth Games organising committee for people living in the Birmingham area. This is the first time we have had physical activity guidelines produced and represents the first guidelines for the early years—the under-fives—as well as around sedentary behaviour, which evidence now shows to be an independent risk factor for ill-health.

I hope that physical activity can be encouraged across the whole of the population. This could be a very useful case study. Under-fives are recommended to engage in 180 minutes of activity—three hours—each day once a child is able to walk; children and young people—five to 18 year-olds—should have at least 60 minutes or up to several hours per day of moderate to vigorous physical activity; and adults and older people should have 150 minutes—two and a half hours—each week of moderate to vigorous physical activity. It is simply not happening in the country at large. This is an opportunity to use the Commonwealth Games as a catalyst for running out the case study in Birmingham. It is important to add that sports legacy element to the clause. The urban regeneration legacy was such a success in London; the sports legacy plan was not such a success, certainly not nationwide. I hope that we have learned from that and will apply the lessons learned to Birmingham.

In Amendment 8 I propose that the Games legacy plan and any revision should be laid before both Houses of Parliament. This is just to avoid fungibility—the good words disappearing into the ether and no action. Being accountable is critical to see action, and that is why I have tabled this amendment to the request from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for a legacy plan.

I will speak for a little longer about Amendment 17. Noble Lords will be pleased to learn that many of my other amendments are much shorter. I hope I have the understanding of the House if I focus on something that I think is critical: a charter for the Games that addresses human rights protections, anti-corruption protections and sustainable development standards. The genesis of this is the work that the International Olympic Committee has already done and published in its guidelines. The guidelines have been worked on closely by the city of Paris, which is hosting the 2024 Olympic Games. It is a move by the International Olympic Committee to incorporate human rights principles in its host city contract, which could help prevent major abuses by future Olympic hosts. The revised host city contract, which has been developed with recommendations from a coalition of leading rights-transparency and athletes’ organisations, was finalised in 2017 and will be applied to the 2024 Summer Olympics. For the first time the International Olympic Committee has included an explicit reference to the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights, which outline the human rights responsibilities of all the businesses associated with the Games, as well as references to anti-corruption standards and the importance of protecting and respecting human rights and ensuring that any violation of human rights is remedied.

The fact that those Games are happening in Paris should not preclude the organising committee here in the UK from taking a lead. I praise the organising committee, as I do the Commonwealth Games Federation, for working hard already at virtually all the key elements that are required to make Birmingham a leader in this sector—one that could embody a charter, working closely with government, which is why it is in this legislation. It is vital that the Government have a role, along with the trade unions, employer federations, employees and athletes. If the Government are increasingly investing significant sums in mega sporting events, which effectively they have been doing since the Olympic Games in London in 2012 and are now doing on this occasion, which I warmly welcome, there is a responsibility that goes with that investment. I believe that having a charter in the legislation, supported by the Government in active dialogue with the organising committee, can be beneficial.

In an ideal world, this should really go back to the very start of the bidding process. A charter should cover the life cycle phases of the vision, the concept and the legacy of the Games because human rights are integral from the outset and all relevant stakeholders should contribute to that vision. International human rights standards should apply and the responsibilities of everyone involved need to be clear. The rights of children and the rights of athletes should be specifically recognised and protected. I also believe that in the charter the rights of vulnerable people should be recognised and protected. We will come later to the importance of looking after the interests of everyone involved with the Games, not least by ensuring by law access for disabled folk to be able to go to each and every one of the venues and, indeed, any associated venue.

In the second part of the life cycle of the Games, there is the bidding, planning and then the design of the Games, and human rights guarantees should be included as part of the bid. Ongoing stakeholder engagement should continue throughout the life cycle of the Games. Supporting infrastructure must be subject to the same standards as event infrastructure, which is not always the case. Expectations should be communicated across government and contractors. Access to land and resources should be based on due process. On income generation, it is vital to raise significant funding. Hosting the event should support local economies and suppliers, and that should be stated in the charter. Sponsors should be subject to human rights due diligence, as should broadcasters. In my view, sponsors and broadcasters should identify human rights risks. I work closely with all parties on this through the all-party group, which is really focusing on this and has done a huge amount of work to take this charter forward. I hope that human rights can be embedded in supply contracts. The issues in supply chains should be monitored and resolved and all supply chain sources should be disclosed, including the international supply chain sources associated with the Games. A grievance mechanism should be put in place for supply chain grievances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have been listening to him with great interest; he has a very specialist knowledge of these matters. The one thing that concerns me is the obligation contained in the elements he has quite properly outlined. These Games are taking place in rather a concertinaed fashion, because of the history, which we need not dwell on. What he suggests, ideal though it may be, will be a considerable burden on an organisation that might be quite stretched. I do not know what he has in mind regarding who should be directly responsible or, indeed, the resources necessary to ensure that these obligations are implemented, but perhaps, before he sits down, he might illuminate the matter.

[Lord Moynihan]

I will, with great pleasure. The noble Lord—a greater expert on sport than I will ever be, both on and off the track—makes an important point. I tabled this amendment because the organising committee in Birmingham is already doing this. The work is significantly advanced and would need to be co-ordinated into a charter, but no more than that because every step I have outlined is actively being considered or has already been implemented by the organising committee.

In answer to his first question, it would be for the Secretary of State to require the organising committee to bring all of these points together in the form of a charter. That is the process that I have advocated. I do not think it would be onerous, or that additional people would need to be employed. I have been more than impressed by the very significant work that Birmingham has already committed to this, and it would well reflect the work that the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sport, Modern Slavery and Human Rights has done in co-ordination with the organising committee and, indeed, all other relevant parties.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 11 in my name. It is intended to ensure that the Games are held in a way consistent with our obligations under the UN sustainable development goals, first, by ensuring that both the Secretary of State and the organising committee have due regard to the goals, and secondly, by legislating for the Secretary of State to prepare a report outlining how Her Majesty’s Government believe the Games can promote the goals.

For those unfamiliar with the SDGs, 17 global goals cover ambitious aims such as ending hunger, poverty and inequality. Each goal is broken down into a set of targets, with 169 indicators. The SDGs were agreed to in 2015 by each member state of the UN, with a target of each being achieved by 2030. Unlike previous UN goals, the SDGs are universal, meaning that all countries, including the UK, must meet the targets domestically.

I am sure some noble Lords will ask how the goals are connected to the Games. However, if we examine the specific targets, I am sure the Committee will agree that they are inextricably linked. For example, as part of the ninth goal, the UK must ensure that the new infrastructure is both reliable and resilient. On this goal, the amendment would allow the Secretary of State to report on how exactly the base in Perry Barr will be of a high enough quality to be reused for housing after the Games. This was touched on earlier by my noble friend Lord Rooker.

Meanwhile, as part of the 12th goal, the UK must reduce food waste. On this goal, the amendment would allow the Secretary of State to report on how the outlets at Alexander Stadium will cut down on refuse and waste.

In keeping with the spirit of the Commonwealth and the vision of the Games, Amendment 11 will ensure that the Birmingham Games are remembered not only for athletic feats but for their lasting legacy. I would be grateful if the Minister took the opportunity to explain to the House how he intends the Games to achieve this.

In conclusion, the points eloquently made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and my noble friends Lord Grocott and Lord Rooker, went into a lot of detail and depth, and I fully support their comments. In a previous life I was involved in the GMB trade union and we worked on the site of the 2012 Olympics. Construction-wise, it was one of the safest large events for decades, either in the UK or worldwide, and the unions worked with construction companies, LOCOG and others to create the framework that allowed that to happen. I fully support the comments made earlier.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moynihan]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“( ) for the purpose of ensuring access for disabled people at all facilities and in the vicinity of all facilities at the Games, or”

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 2 and speak to Amendment 12, both standing in my name. I hope that, in the spirit of bipartisanship, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, and his colleagues will continue purring to the sound of the proposal I will try to encourage the Minister to adopt as an amendment to the Bill. It has a similar back-cloth to the last amendment, inasmuch as if the Government of the day see objectives as being of critical importance, it sends the strongest possible signal to place them in the Bill.

If substantial public funding is invested in hosting the Commonwealth Games here in the United Kingdom, in Birmingham, it should be possible to reflect in the Bill the importance attached to that objective. The two amendments I will speak to now reinforce that point. They are about disability access and the priority that should be attached to disabled people in hosting and running the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham.

I go back to the Paralympics and reflect briefly on a Games that transformed our respect for those with disabilities, because it left the whole nation focusing on their abilities, not their disabilities. That was in part because of the remarkable work done by the organising committee; above all, it was due to the athletes themselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, a wonderful personality with incredible ability and a rare talent, was critical as the face of the Paralympics for many people. She has continued to campaign, alongside my noble friend Lady Young of Hornsey and others, to ensure that that remarkable achievement during the Paralympic Games caused a generational change and had significant television coverage. This is not always the case around the world but was vital, as has been the coverage of women’s sport this summer. Thank heavens that at last we now know names, there is sponsorship coming in and television coverage is giving priority to the importance of women’s sport.

In this simple amendment I ask the Minister to reflect on making regulations to ensure that the access of disabled athletes and spectators to sports events and venues, including technical specifications, training for accessibility—making sure the volunteers and everybody can respond positively to those who may require assistance—and events requirements are all built into venue design, the planning of the Games and the whole approach that the Commonwealth Games organising committee has made to date to support equity, dignity and functionality.

I referred to the finest document that I have read on the subject—the 2013 Accessible Guide: An Inclusive Approach to the Olympic & Paralympic Games. If, when we come back to further consideration of the Bill, the Minister wants to amend that to a better, more up-to-date document, I am open to his suggestions. However, I hope that he will give due consideration to ensuring access for disabled people at and in the vicinity of all the facilities of the Games, and give them the priority they deserve by placing that condition for the funding of the Games firmly in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, I touched on the issue of disability in the previous group of amendments and this is an opportunity to file it down. After his speech the noble Lord can be forgiven for not zoning in on that one small amendment.

The Commonwealth Games make it even more important that the disability aspect is done well because the para events are taking place at the same time as the main Games and are integrated into them to a far greater extent. It is worth remembering that. It means that spectators will not have to come back for a para event but will see a wheelchair race after watching something else. It sends the message that it is a normal and accessible part of the Games—that, no matter how wonderful it is by itself, it is a part of the norm of sport.

As both categories of events are taking place at the same time, the challenge of providing more facilities, camps and so on will add more pressure. Some indication that the community have taken this on board and is doing something about it would be reassuring to anyone who will need to use the facilities. For para athletes the idea that they are not excluded and that they can get around with good planning and organisation is well worth taking away and is a genuine legacy unto itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The partners organising the Commonwealth Games have a very different motivation. Apart from us, they include the Commonwealth Games Federation and local authorities—I think that those are most of the partners. They have a very clear motivation to make sure that these integrated Games—I repeat that, deliberately, they have the biggest para representation ever—work well. I suggest that the motivation of a Premiership football club is somewhat different.

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving the Committee a comprehensive review of the importance with which the organising committee and the Government view this key area. I am only disappointed that, having said that he is doing absolutely everything that I have asked for in this amendment, and that indeed he has gone further, even to the point of saying “any other purpose”, he has not gone one step further and recognised that “any other purpose” should be very clearly defined where possible, as it is as important to the Government and the organising committee as it is for disability access and the interests of disabled sports men and women.

That said, I am sure that between now and Report we will have the opportunity to reflect on whether we can put this in the Bill in a form that will be acceptable to the Government. It will set an excellent precedent for future mega sports events not just in this country but internationally, which I think will be to the benefit of sport.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The only thing I would say to that is that I think we all agree. This is really a question of signing the importance. “Any other purpose” includes accessibility and many other things. The trouble is that that might be what my noble friend thinks is the most important thing to sign but many other noble Lords might have other priorities. The whole point of including the words,

“any other purpose connected to … the Games”,

is that it covers everything and individuals’ personal priorities are not put on the face of the Bill. I ask him to reflect on that.

[Lord Moynihan]

I do not want to get into too great a debate with my noble friend on this subject. Suffice it to say that this is not a personal preference; it is an amendment tabled for the consideration of the whole Committee and, ultimately, the House. If the House felt that it was of significance—if that were the view of the House; not my personal preference—that would be the opportunity for it to be considered outside the generic phrase “any other purpose” and put on the face of the Bill. Not only would it then be capable of being implemented—the Minister has set out very ably and in significant detail how it can be implemented—but it could go further, sending a signal of the importance that we attach to disability access and to disabled athletes, and sending a further signal to future holders of Commonwealth Games and mega sporting events. However, for the time being, I am happy to withdraw the amendment and I look forward to further discussions with the Minister.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord Moynihan]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“( ) for the administration of betting licensing, or”

[Lord Moynihan]

In moving Amendment 3, I shall also speak to Amendment 15. I inform the Committee immediately that these amendments do not arise from personal preference but are strongly supported by the Sports and Recreation Alliance, which does so much good work for sport and recreation in this country, and believes it is now important to create a sporting events betting licence scheme. It believes this is an important issue, not just for the Commonwealth Games as a precedent—which it would be—but for sports events more widely.

As a representative body for the sports sector, the Sport and Recreation Alliance supports measures to ensure that games such as the Commonwealth Games have control over the use of their product in order to protect their integrity and to receive fair payment. This is not a first. Other countries such as France and Australia have introduced legislative protection to enable this. I believe a similar approach should be adopted in the UK for the Commonwealth Games. I know that the Government were supportive of looking into this in greater detail. Indeed, the Sports Business Council was established, co-chaired by the then Minister for Sport. Last year, it considered a paper on betting and its relationship to sport, and agreed to look into further policy options along the lines set out. However, the council has not met since. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform the Committee when it intends to meet and, indeed, whether it will meet in the context of the Commonwealth Games. This is an important issue. It is critical to increasing the funding that would come directly to the organising committee; it needs to be looked at very carefully in that context.

I believe the strong support for sports betting rights across the UK is worthy of the Committee’s reflection; many sports bodies, which will be delivering athletes to these Games, believe it right and fair that they should have greater control over how bets are made on their products, and how they can secure a fair return to the organising committee as a result. Independent Gambling Commission figures demonstrate that this is an area of considerable activity and growth. I hope the Minister, in his response, can shed some light on the work that has been done by the Sports Business Council, whether this will be looked upon favourably by the organising committee and whether the Government take the view that the work initiated should be taken forward to its conclusion—to the benefit of the organising committee and the funding of the Games. I beg to move.

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, I received a briefing on this subject from the Sports and Recreation Alliance. The future of sports betting is an interesting topic. I will be interested to hear what the Government have to say at this time. This Bill may not be the best vehicle, but a quick report on the Government’s thinking would be very helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and to my noble friend for raising this issue. As far as I was concerned, the question was whether this issue was appropriate for the Bill rather than some of the more general questions that have been asked in connection with it.

I will not go through my entire argument but, to be succinct, we do not think this is the right Bill to create a new regulatory regime to regulate betting on the Games, which would be administered by the organising committee. We know that sports betting is a popular entertainment, and preventing competitions being manipulated is essential for upholding public trust in betting and the integrity of sport. However, we have an effective regulator in the Gambling Commission, which also has a dedicated sports betting intelligence unit to uphold betting integrity, and it often receives information from gambling operators about, for example, suspicious betting patterns and suspected criminal betting. We do not think that removing that from the commission for the Games is correct or in line with what the Bill is about. I have mentioned before the operational requirements to produce a good Games.

I understand that there were wider questions. My noble friend asked about the Sports Business Council. That was established as a forum to engage with sport as an economic sector and it met several times over the course of 2017 and 2018. Since then the Sports Minister has changed at least once—perhaps twice, I cannot remember—and the other joint chair, Richard Scudamore, has also moved on. However, the department will renew that engagement in due course with the aim of providing the best platform for the sport and physical activity sectors to grow. This is one of the issues that we will certainly pursue through the policy channels in DCMS, and my noble friend is very welcome to continue along that line.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about a sports betting right—in other words, a return to sport for the use of their intellectual property rights. I know that some of our sports are interested in exploring this, particularly those with high-profile professional competitions. Again, however, this is not something that the Government are actively pursuing at the moment, and it is certainly not in the scope of the Bill. At the moment we think that the current risk-based regimes for what type of bets operators can offer is proportionate and effective. There are issues such as the fact that limiting bets would not remove all possibility of manipulating a competition. Anyway, sport is international, and overseas operators not offering services to British customers would not be subject to Gambling Commission rules. I am very happy to continue discussions on this outside the Chamber, and I am sure the Sports Minister will be as well. However, I do not think the Bill is the right place for this suggestion, and I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Moynihan]

I am grateful to my noble friend. This was a probing amendment, but it was an important one. We are talking about something in the order of £13 billion of total betting on sport, excluding horseracing and greyhound racing. Governments around the world are increasingly looking favourably on the sport betting rights approach. Under French law, organisers of sports competitions have commercial exploitation rights over their competitions and not only they but the events they organise benefit. Through that, the sportsmen and women who participate may benefit too. However, I fully accept that the complexity of this would be significant and, given the time it would take for the House to get it right for the Commonwealth Games, it is unlikely to be deliverable.

With gratitude to the Minister for saying that he will continue to look at this, and having clarified that the work that has been done has not been lost but is being actively pursued in the department, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moynihan]

13: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Match-fixing
(1) The Secretary of State must direct the Organising Committee to prepare a match-fixing prevention plan within 3 months of this section coming into force.(2) The Organising Committee must publish this plan within 3 months of receiving a direction under subsection (1).”

[Lord Moynihan]

In moving Amendment 13, I will speak also to my Amendment 14, on match fixing and anti-doping. We have heard much today from the Government and from my noble friend Lord Coe that a successful Games is a clean Games. The sad truth is that, if you look at the final total of positives from Beijing 2008, the completion of the retests was 86. There have now been 116 positive tests from London 2012, making it the worst Olympics in history. That was under the overall framework of the World Anti-Doping Agency and the excellent agency, UK Anti-Doping, which has followed the World Anti-Doping Agency, but without any legislative backing whatever in this country.

First, one reflects that the appalling figure of 116 positives in London is, frankly, a number that covers the dopey dopers—anybody who gets caught at an international event is a fool. Those who take drugs and think carefully about cheating fellow athletes may do so by taking steroids in the winter when they are going through intensive training programmes and building body muscle. They can carry that body muscle through to the Games, by which time any trace of a performance-enhancing substance is out of their system. Actually to carry that into a Games classifies you as one of the dopey dopers, and yet we are seeing these numbers go up and up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan]

I am grateful to my noble friend for updating us on this. One takeaway point from this afternoon’s Committee is that a whole range of issues are important in the context of legislation. I hope that one day a governance of sport Bill will be brought before the House, because we should be covering that whole range of issues in some detail. In my view, this is one that requires government legislation.

If I am not mistaken, the report argued for criminalisation in certain circumstances, particularly of the entourage. It seems wholly illogical to say that if you are an athlete who knowingly takes a cocktail of drugs to cheat a fellow clean athlete out of a livelihood and a competition, you go away without any recourse to legal action, but if your doctor or coach has done it, they should face criminal sanctions. That is utterly illogical—to me, at least—but no doubt over a drink later my noble friend will explain the logic behind the conclusion in that report. I may be mistaken if he is referring to a different report.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. We have had cross-party support to look into this in great detail on many occasions. His comments this afternoon were no exception and my noble friend’s response is exactly what I was looking for. I am very grateful to him for going into such detail. It is an issue that sport feels passionately about. It is a pity that the Olympians were not asked because, whenever I asked them, an overwhelming majority of Olympians in this country wanted the criminalisation of those who would, as I said, knowingly cheat fellow athletes out of selection or success.

I conclude with a comment from the outgoing director-general of the World Anti-Doping Agency, David Howman, a few years ago. He stated:

“I think, now, organised crime controls at least 25 per cent of world sport in one way or another … Those guys who are distributing drugs, steroids and”,


human growth hormone,

“and EPO and so on, are the same guys who are corrupting people, the same guys who are paying money to people to fix games. They’re the same bad guys”.

If it is a matter of that scale, however excellent the work we are doing—I am not critical of the work undertaken in this country to address it—it is a matter for this House and one day it will be a matter for legislation in line with a growing number of countries facing this challenge.

However, in the spirit of this afternoon’s approach to the Bill and the amendments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moynihan]

16: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Visa and immigration rules
The Secretary of State must provide by regulations for an expedited process for the administration of visas for—(a) spectators holding tickets to any Games sporting events; and(b) athletes participating in any sporting events, competitions and other activities organised, convened, authorised or recognised by the Organising Committee.”

[Lord Moynihan]

This short amendment requests that the Government focus on visa and immigration rules for elite tournaments, not least given the possibility that this event will be under a different visa system from the current one, if the Brexit negotiations head in a somewhat more predictable direction than they have to date.

The focus of this amendment is to simplify the visa process for spectators holding tickets to sporting events due to be hosted in the United Kingdom, but specifically the Commonwealth Games, and to make it easier for athletes to get visas and/or work permits to compete in elite tournaments such as the Commonwealth Games. It would give a power to require the allocation of a certain number of visa and/or work permits to athletes, sports clubs, teams, associations or leagues.

I add one rider: we need to be very careful in our approach to visa and immigration rules and human rights issues. At the World Cup in Russia, a significant number of young boys were boarding a flight in Nigeria with a visa. I am trying to think of a polite word, given my anger towards the people who would do this, but those around them felt that the easiest way to get them into Russia was to acquire a one-way ticket from Nigeria under a simplified visa system. Fortunately, that plane was stopped, but in any visa and immigration relaxation for tournaments, we must pay attention to the human rights dimension in countries coming to compete at our Commonwealth Games. With that unfortunate reality one of the consequences of a more relaxed visa system, I beg to move.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Let me say straightaway that my earlier remarks about human rights and the Games partners having agreed with the Commonwealth Games Federation to abide by a human rights plan bear testament to the fact that we take this matter seriously.

My noble friend’s amendment would provide an expedited process for the administration of visas for spectators and athletes at the 2022 Games. We share his desire to ensure a smooth process for these applications, but I am confident that, through our work with UK Visas and Immigration and its experience from other mega sporting events, the amendment is unnecessary. We have significant experience of managing visa processes for major sporting events using existing legislation—for example, the rugby and cricket World Cups, the World Athletics Championships, Glasgow 2014 and, of course, London 2012, where there were about three times the number of athletes and officials from about three times the number of countries.

We will have robust plans in place for the Games for each category in my noble friend’s amendment without the need for new primary legislation. Let me take them in turn. For athletes, as part of the hosting requirements for the Games, the UK Government have already committed to the Commonwealth Games Federation that we will ensure that entry to the UK will be facilitated for those persons in possession of a valid passport and Commonwealth Games accreditation to carry out their Games functions in accordance with the United Kingdom’s visa system and requirements. That was in the bid commitment.

It is of course also important to ensure that a balance is struck—that we meet the operational requirements of staging an event of this nature while, none the less, protecting the integrity of our borders appropriately. For spectators, under current rules, individuals can apply for a standard visitor visa if they want to visit the UK for leisure. In line with the approach taken for other major sporting events we have hosted, we do not consider it proportionate to put in place a bespoke process for spectators. Nevertheless, we will work closely with UK Visas and Immigration to ensure that visas are processed promptly for the Games. We understand the significance of the extra requirements, based on our experience of other sporting events.

I hope noble Lords will be reassured that we are already working with the Home Office and UK Visas and Immigration to ensure that a robust plan will be in place for the prompt processing of visas for Birmingham. I am very willing to meet my noble friend or other interested Peers to discuss our approach. With that reassurance and the UK Government’s commitment in the bid to facilitate the entry to the UK of Commonwealth Games-accredited persons, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan]

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that comprehensive explanation. I am more than happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has gone through a list of every element of ticketing in previous events that went wrong or is being questioned, the Olympics probably being the biggest example. All the amendments carry a fair bit of weight. Amendment 23, in my name, is rather more modest. We have established that we can run this big multi-Games event successfully without unbound ticket touting. The ticketing system may not be perfect—we certainly have not had such a system yet—but we can remove touting from the process.

As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, we are a little half-hearted about our attitude to ticket touting and regulation of the secondary ticketing market. There are many examples of us having one rule here and another rule there, with various things going on. It is a confusing picture; different sports having different rules due to public disorder at past events adds to that confusion. My amendment merely suggests an overall review so that we have a model for this event and others. Our model largely seems to remove the secondary ticketing market. Is that good? Do we want to expand it? Other sports might be taken into account, for example. What are we doing? At the moment, we are probably not only benefiting from a few shady companies but restricting legal ones, as well as confusing the general public. Having different rules for different sporting events is silly and absurd, to be perfectly honest.

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the speeches of both noble Lords. This matter has taken us many hours of parliamentary debate, the Government’s argument being that we should not criminalise ticket touting on the secondary market. Yet we criminalise it for the Olympics and now we are criminalising touting for the Commonwealth Games. An equally popular event in the music world, or the sporting world outside those two, is not criminalised. My noble friend will no doubt demonstrate the logic of that.

While we may not make significant progress on this subject in this Bill, it is still wholly unacceptable that modern-day ticket touts can use bots to store 100, 200 or 300 sets of credit card details, pop them into their computer and sweep the market while you and I are putting in our names and addresses to take our families to some event that we really want to go to. They sweep that market and 20 seconds later there are no tickets left, but three hours later those tickets you wanted are available at massively inflated prices on the secondary market, to no benefit to the organisers of the sporting event, the sports men and women, the organisers of the musical or theatrical event or the people who enjoy the arts. That absolutely has to be addressed.

I am not arguing, nor have I ever argued, against a secondary market. It is good to see secondary markets established where you can sell at face value plus the costs of undertaking the transaction, so that if you cannot go because you are unwell or your family have not been able to make it, at least there is a market where you can sell to a true fan to ensure that the ticket is put to good use. I think I am right in reflecting that that was put in place in football principally because of the segregation problems that were much greater 20 years ago than today but nevertheless were seen to be important from the Home Office perspective in the context of the secondary market.

Outside the criminalisation proposal here today, I am pleased to see that we are making some progress on the secondary market, the availability of tickets and stopping the likes of Viagogo ripping off true fans. It continues to do so, and the reference to the CMA moving forward with contempt of court legal proceedings is to be really welcomed. Viagogo has simply failed to provide accurate information to potential theatregoers, concertgoers and sports fans—for example, displaying inaccurate claims about the number of tickets left on the site and a whole range of additional points. This is a subject I need to come back to.

I support the proposal that has come through, but I really find it difficult to understand why we need primary legislation to criminalise the modern-day touts for the Commonwealth Games, but for equally large, major sporting events and great arts events in this country we do not believe it is appropriate to criminalise the very same touts. As I said, no doubt my noble friend the Minister will be able to enlighten me.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, before I turn to the specific amendments tabled—and particularly the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—I say that the touting provision in this Bill sits within the Government’s broader strategy on the secondary ticketing market. We are determined to crack down on unacceptable behaviour in the ticketing market and have put in place a range of legislative measures in this area—including the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and last year’s anti-bots regulations, following the enabling provisions in the Digital Economy Act 2017—backed up by robust enforcement. Judging from recent announcements by the CMA, which was mentioned earlier, and others, this is clearly bearing fruit. I pick up from what Peers have mentioned that this message is getting through.

With regard to Amendments 18 to 22, I share noble Lords’ desire to ensure that a robust and comprehensive ticketing strategy is in place for the Games. Over 1 million tickets will be available for Games events across 11 days of elite sport. We want to make sure that as many people as possible of all ages, including from local communities in Birmingham and the West Midlands, can experience the Games at an affordable price. I hope I can reassure the Committee that the organising committee shares our ambition for an affordable and accessible ticketing strategy.

Fairness for the public is an imperative in ticket pricing, distribution plans and availability. Within this, the organising committee will consider the way in which those in communities in Birmingham and the West Midlands can be part of the Games. I remind noble Lords that there will also be a number of non-ticketed, free events at the Games, such as the marathon and the cycling road race and time trial. We should recognise that the organising committee is at an early stage in developing its ticketing strategy, but it is building on the lessons learned from London 2012 and Glasgow 2014. The ticketing strategy will be finalised in 2020, with tickets to be ready for sale in 2021.

Before I continue, I will pick up on a number of points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in particular. For example, how will the OC ensure that tickets for the general public are allocated fairly, and will communities get special access to tickets? I say again: fairness for the public is an imperative in ticket pricing, distribution plans and availability. The detailed plans will be developed and finalised in 2020. Pricing research and benchmarking will inform plans to ensure that tickets are attractive to local communities.

How can the Government ensure that tickets bought through an authorised resale facility will not be at inflated prices? This is an important question. It is up to the organising committee to develop and implement a ticket return and exchange process, including authorising ticket vendors for the resale of tickets for Games events. It is committed to ensuring that tickets are affordable and accessible. I can give a further reassurance that, under the Bill, people who want to pass on their tickets to family and friends for face value or less can do so without falling foul of the law, provided that this is not done in a public place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington]

I oppose Clause 24 standing part of the Bill. This is the fault of the Delegated Powers Committee because its most recent report, the 58th report of the current Session, starts with the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill. As an aside, the two other Bills dealt with in the report have a combined total of two and a half lines compared to the rest of the document, and so there is a fair bit of meat on this bone.

The clause reflects the practice of previous Games. Transport is a key factor and if you mess it up—I refer to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Coe, about what will happen to the legacy if you get the Games wrong—it will be like getting blood from a stone. We must get it right. Transporting people around the Games is an important factor. In the Bills for the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games we knew who we were giving transport to. In this Bill we merely have a person.

I probably would not have picked this up but the committee did. The report states:

“In the absence of any explanation justifying why it is needed, we consider the delegation of this power to the Secretary of State to be inappropriate”.


What is a person going to do? Where are they coming in? What is the structure behind this? If you want to mess stuff up, mess up transport and see people and bands not getting there on time. We have just discussed tickets. If you cannot turn up, it does not matter who has got the ticket. Although I am sure a great deal is being done, knowing what is going on is important. I hope the Government come through on this.

Amendment 24 is in the same vein but it will not be so important once we have dealt with this. Knowing who will be in charge of transport is an important consideration and we should have that knowledge now.

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend in sports. I declare an interest that, until I was recently rotated off, I was a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which considered this Bill.

I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has said because the transport plan and its operations for the London 2012 Games was critically important. The purpose of this plan allows whoever is appointed to draw it up to make traffic regulation orders that can affect the lives of local people for a considerable amount of time, not only during the Games but before and after. It allows the restriction and prohibition of the uses of certain roads.

It is necessary—I am supportive of it—but significant powers go along with the plan that can infringe individual rights and the rights of those who go about their normal lives without any accountability to Parliament. Historically, with the London Olympic Games, the Olympic Delivery Authority was on the face of the Bill—Sir John Armitt was responsible for that—and there was transparency and accountability. He received a great number of representations. Some noble Lords may recall that there was concern about closing off a number of lanes so that members of the International Olympic Committee and their families could travel in style to the Games rather than take the Jubilee line, which was a much wiser decision than for those of us on the British Olympic Association. There was a great deal of interest and concern and it needed accountability.

Similarly, in the legislation for the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, the Organising Committee of the 2008 Commonwealth Games was on the face of the Bill. Here, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has said, that has not been specified. No reason is given in the Explanatory Memorandum as to why it has not been possible to specify in the legislation the body which has to exercise the functions of the “directed person”, nor why such a broad discretion is conferred on the Secretary of State to decide who is to exercise those functions. Clause 24 simply refers to the Secretary of State directing a person “to prepare a Games transport plan” without any limits on who that person may be.

There has been a red thread in much of what I have said today—accountability and transparency—and in this Bill the delegation of the power of the Secretary of State is inappropriate unless there is a clear explanation as to why it is needed.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I have taken note of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan in respect of their amendment and on Clause 24, which cover the Games transport plan. I hope to provide reassurance that the amendment is not required but that Clause 24 is.

Effective transport provision for an event of this scale and profile requires detailed planning and co-ordination. A well understood and supported transport plan is therefore essential—a point made by both noble Lords and I hope I can provide a detailed explanation to reassure them—and that is why Clause 24 provides for the Secretary of State to direct “a person”. By this it is meant a body corporate to prepare a Games transport plan. It is an integral measure. The plan will set out a strategic approach to the planning and co-ordination of transport to support the Games. It will cover the transportation of spectators, athletes and the Games family, while at the same time ensuring that any disruption to local residents and regular transport users is kept to a minimum.

We have put this in the Bill as statutory footing to give the transport plan appropriate authority and weight. Indeed, without a statutory plan, transport partners would be reliant on voluntary arrangements which could impact on the effectiveness of Games transport planning. Such a direction from the Secretary of State must be in writing. To ensure adequate consultation with key stakeholders before preparing or revising this plan, the person directed will be required to consult the bodies listed in the Bill. Further, the plan will be published for consultation to ensure that residents and businesses are given the opportunity to share their views. We will write to interested Peers when this is published.

We believe it is important to give local traffic authorities a clear indication of the expectations in relation to the Games transport plan. That is why this clause also places a requirement on local traffic authorities for roads affected by the plan to exercise their functions with a view to securing the implementation of the plan. The Bill also enables the Secretary of State to revoke a direction to prepare a transport plan. This is a safeguard that, while unlikely to be called on, will enable the Government, in our role of providing Games assurance, to react quickly and flexibly to any unforeseen circumstances.

We recognise the difference in approach from previous Games in London and Glasgow. This reflects the transport infrastructure and expertise that already exists across Birmingham and the region and, importantly, the unique circumstances under which the Games were awarded. We expect that the person best placed to take on the responsibility of producing the transport plan would be a local authority or combined authority. The views of local partners will strongly factor into the Secretary of State’s decision. I have, none the less, listened carefully to the issues raised by both noble Lords in this debate and in the report of the DPRRC, and I reassure the Committee that I will give this matter further consideration ahead of Report.

I would like to highlight that it is the strong view of Games partners that a statutory plan, alongside a requirement on local traffic authorities to implement it, will provide a clear framework for the delivery of Games transport.

[Lord Moynihan]

I do not want the Minister to think I am not completely in favour of the transport plan or not completely in favour of everything he set out about functions. I simply do not understand, however, why nobody appears to know who will produce the transport plan and why, if it is a group of local authorities, we cannot be more specific about that and put it in the legislation so that there is transparency and accountability.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

All the points my noble friend has raised are fine, but we have not quite got to the point where every decision has been made. I have been trying to make the point that getting the transport right is very important. Lessons have been learned from other Games. I hope I have made the point that we have got to a particular point in planning and it is important that we follow through on it, but we are not at the stage of being able to give every single detail.

I highlight that it is the strong view of Games partners that the statutory plan, alongside the requirement on local traffic authorities to implement it, will provide a clear framework for the delivery of Games transport operations, facilitate co-operation and minimise the risk of disruption and disagreement around activities required for the Games.

I shall use this opportunity to provide greater detail on Games-time transport preparations. As noble Lords may know, hosting the Games is accelerating the development of public transport infrastructure improvements that will benefit the city and wider region. They include the development of the new Sprint rapid bus routes mentioned earlier, and improvements to University and Perry Barr railway stations, subject to the necessary approvals. Games partners are also developing a communications plan to promote the use of public transport and to ensure that Birmingham 2022 will be a public transport Games. All venues and live events will be accessible by public transport and additional temporary services will be available to alleviate pressure on the transport network.

Turning to Amendment 24, I am confident that the measures in the Bill and the wider upgrades and developments to the public transport network will deliver on the intention of the Games transport plan. I reassure the Committee that the Government will carefully consider how best to report on the Games’ outcomes, including the transport provisions, following their successful conclusion. With the extra information that I have given, as far as I can, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will not press Amendment 24 and that the Committee will agree that this clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, this is a case of great minds thinking a somebody-else thought. I have an amendment in this group to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has added his name and it was inspired by exactly the same desire for information and reports. Primarily, there is a need for regulations to be approved by the affirmative procedure. We have done something similar before, so why do we not do it now? If a precedent has been set, we should follow it. We are all in favour of this legislation going through and going through well, and I refer back to the arguments about making sure that people know what is going on. The affirmative procedure was appropriate when something very similar was done in the past, so let us use it again. The hour is getting late. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—my noble friend in sport—wants to contribute. As he was on the committee, he might have more insight into this matter but, as far as I can see, there is an open and shut case here.

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, I just add that similar provisions were included in the London Olympics Act and the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Act. Speaking personally, the affirmative procedure is applicable because the range of matters caught both in trading and advertising is very broad; it is not limited to activities connected to the Games. This is exactly the sort of parliamentary process that should require the affirmative resolution, and that is why we used it for the London Olympic Games and the Glasgow Commonwealth Games.

Paragraph 16 of Schedule 2—the third paragraph that has been spoken to—is of equal significance. It is about property damaged during the exercise of the lawful function under the Bill. There is a right to be compensated and provision for consequential loss, but these are not administrative details. There will be important issues such as who is responsible for payment of compensation, what the appeal route is—does it go to court?—and what the grounds for appeal are, on law or on fact. These are really important issues for people living in the vicinity of the Games, who will be impacted by the use of these powers. Therefore, the question for the Committee is whether the affirmative procedure is applicable and appropriate. Having studied it at length both on the Delegated Powers Committee and subsequently, I firmly believe that this is a classic case where the affirmative procedure should be followed. We are talking about the rights of individuals and the impact of the Games on those individuals.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, as we come to the last group, I do not think we will have a massive falling out on this subject—it would destroy the overall very satisfactory progress that we have all made in this Committee. I thank noble Lords for their contributions during the afternoon. They were admirably succinct and provide an excellent example for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who will join us on Report.

We have listened with interest to the points that noble Lords have made in debating the parliamentary procedure for the regulation-making powers for advertising and trading, and in debating the amendments tabled by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, has requested that the draft affirmative procedure should apply to the regulations concerning advertising and trading. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan seek the same, unless the Secretary of State considers that, due to urgency, it is necessary for the negative procedure to apply. The regulations will specify the Games locations and the periods when restrictions will be in place and will make provision about the “vicinity” of Games locations.

Noble Lords also seek to apply the draft affirmative procedure to the regulations, under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2, concerning the payment of compensation in certain circumstances following enforcement action. We have carefully considered the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We are very grateful to the members of that committee, including my noble friend Lord Moynihan, and will respond to them in writing before Report.

Although it is right that the regulations should be placed before Parliament—I appreciate noble Lords’ interest in debating these regulations, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan explained why they are important —there are a number of reasons, which some noble Lords might not have appreciated, why the negative procedure provides a suitable level of scrutiny.

I appreciate the consideration of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan that there might be certain circumstances where regulations may need to be made as a matter of urgency due to operational requirements and therefore the negative procedure may be more suitable, but we still consider that all the regulations, whether urgent or not, should be subject to the negative procedure.

Noble Lords will be aware that the affirmative procedure was, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, used for the regulation-making powers for the Olympics and the Glasgow Games, but it is also true that the delegated powers in the Bill are not as broad as their predecessors and there is more detail in the Bill. For example, we have included definitions of trading and advertising in the Bill, whereas in London this was specified in the regulations. Unlike for London, we have defined “Games location” in the Bill. The advertising and trading offences will be able to apply only in, and in the vicinity of, a Games location. In contrast, the London Act 2006 provided that the regulations shall specify or provide criteria for determining the places in respect of which the regulations will apply. London did not stipulate any trading exceptions, whereas in this Bill we have included a number of exceptions and a power to provide more exceptions in the regulations. Existing exceptions cannot be removed, so there will be no broadening of the offence.

I assure noble Lords that a proportionate approach will be taken to these delegated powers, and it is in all our interests that advertising and trading restrictions apply only when and where necessary. This is not about imposing a blanket advertising ban or restricting all outdoor trading across Birmingham or the West Midlands. A Games location will be specified in regulations only where it is necessary for the advertising and/or trading restrictions to apply in, or in the vicinity of, that Games location to deliver a successful Games.

Defining “vicinity” is not as simple as providing a set distance from a Games location in relation to which the offence applies, as location-specific consideration needs to be given to spectator routes and nearby transport hubs. We have also sought to ensure that the periods for restrictions will be in place only when necessary. However, as a—dare I say it?—backstop, we have specified a maximum of 38 days for such restrictions, and we expect this to be much less in many cases; for example, for Games locations in use for only a few days.

In relation to paragraph 16 of Schedule 2, the schedule includes a power to bring forward regulations about compensation to supplement paragraph 15, which makes provision about a person’s entitlement to compensation in certain circumstances. Here, we consider that the negative procedure is appropriate. I would argue to my noble friend Lord Moynihan that these regulations will set out the administrative processes that need to be followed—for example, to whom a claim for compensation should be made, the timeframes for claims, the appeal processes and so on. This type of procedural detail is well suited to regulations and will enable government to ensure further discussion with relevant enforcement agencies in advance. In the London Act, how much compensation could be paid was included in regulations, but we have included it in this Bill.

I have listened carefully to the points raised and I respect the recommendations of the DPRRC, on which I will reflect further over the coming days. However, given the extra detail in the Bill, the maximum time limit of 38 days—come what may—and the lack of any Henry VIII powers at all, we believe that the negative power is not unreasonable. I respectfully ask the noble Lord to reflect on my arguments and, in the meantime, to withdraw his amendment.

Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL]

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, under the impressive leadership of president Thomas Bach, the International Olympic Committee has added human rights protections, anti-corruption and sustainable development standards to host city contracts, aligning the IOC with UN guiding principles on business and human rights. The French Government are collaborating with the trade unions and employer federations to introduce a charter for Paris 2024.

Through the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, myself and others are undertaking through the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sport, Modern Slavery and Human Rights—for which I declare an interest as vice-chairman—I hope that together we can ensure that the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham can use the IOC guidelines as clear, practical steps necessary to document a mega sporting event charter which can have a lasting legacy for future Commonwealth and Olympic Games. I define a “mega sporting event” as one which requires primary legislative support.

CWG can set standards for not only 2022 but beyond and the organising committee, under the leadership of Ian Reid is already meeting the objectives set out by the IOC. Its contents should include the many rights which need to be protected throughout the life cycle of a mega sporting event and the key practices which should be embedded at each phase, from vision, concept and legacy through bidding, planning and design, income generation, sustainable sourcing, construction, delivery and operations, completion and legacy.

After all is said and done, the Bill is in fact a request to restrict these everyday rights for local communities, individuals and businesses for the duration of the Games in order to ensure their successful and smooth running. That request, enshrined in this legislation, is necessary and deserving of the support of your Lordships, but should be granted only after detailed scrutiny of the consequences. We saw in London how delicate this balance of rights and responsibilities can be. The Committee stage will allow us the opportunity to explore this further, to the benefit of the rights of all parties involved in Birmingham, not least the athletes, and the success of the Games.

My second observation is that there are a number of key issues regarding parliamentary scrutiny to be analysed in Committee. As we meet, I am drawing to the end of my time on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—I declare my interest there—and so today I speak in a personal capacity and not as a member of the committee, which has yet to meet to deliberate on this Bill. However, I draw the attention of the House to four key parts of the Bill which I believe move away from best practice as set out in the London Olympics Acts.

The first relates to Clause 12, which covers regulations concerning advertising in Games locations. On occasions this was perceived to be a heavy weapon in the hands of the London organising committee. This Bill makes it an offence for a person to carry out Games location advertising. The expression “Games location advertising” is defined to meet the doing of something,

“in, or in the vicinity of, a specified Games location at any time during a specified period”.

The “specified” here is subject to the regulations made by the Secretary of State. “In the vicinity of” a Games location has no precise meaning. Here again it will be for the Secretary of State to clarify this in regulations for particular cases.

All the regulations in this clause are subject to the negative resolution procedure, yet these issues were considered of such importance during the London Games that the affirmative procedure applied in respect of the equivalent advertising regulations made under the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006. Given the width of the powers and the breadth of scope, and the significant impact that the exercise of the powers is liable to have—for example, prohibiting by means of a criminal offence a wide range of advertising in the affected areas; it covers all advertising, such as fliers for plumbers put through doors—I believe that it should be for this House to consider in greater detail any exercise of powers and therefore that they should be subject to the affirmative procedure. Regulations concerning trading in Games locations, set out in Clause 15, lead me to a similar conclusion.

Thirdly, Clause 24 confers a power on the Secretary of State to direct a person to prepare a Games transport plan. The provisions in Clauses 24 to 26 broadly replicate transport provisions contained in the London Olympics Act and the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Act. However, in London and Glasgow it was for named entities: the Olympic Delivery Authority and the organising committee of the 2008 Commonwealth Games. I await with interest to learn from the Minister why it is not possible for the name of the body responsible to be explicit on the face of the legislation for these Commonwealth Games, given the far-reaching impact that this legislation confers on the body responsible.

Finally, under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 we reach the issue of compensation for damage to property—a particularly important matter for local communities. We have heard about the importance that should be attached to local communities. The Government justify the scope of the powers and, again, the use of the negative procedure on the basis that the regulations deal with matters of procedural detail. However, it is clear that the regulations go much further than procedural detail. They include the power to determine which body or person is to have the function of determining claims for compensation and whether there is to be a right of review or appeal. As with the London Games legislation, given the width of scope and the fact that they affect the determination of the rights of individuals in the vicinity of the Games, I believe that the affirmative procedure should be adopted.

I move to some brief reflections on what is not in the Bill. In so doing, I declare my interests as the chairman of the British Olympic Association during the London Olympic Games and as a member of the London organising committee under the excellent chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Coe.

The Games have the potential to shine a spotlight on the city of Birmingham and on the country at large. Just as the whole country effectively became an Olympic village during the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012, so the same must be the goal for everyone involved with CG 2022 in Birmingham. However, these Games—as great a festival of sport as I am sure they will be—form only half the story. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, emphasised, the tougher assignment for all concerned is the legacy: sporting and in the form of urban regeneration; an economic boost, not a white elephant cost; and the importance of raising the bar for the communities that will volunteer, be enthused and live with the abiding memories of a great sporting event well beyond the Games.

That is all the more important when we pause to reflect that the level of participation in sport in this country is at an all-time low. This is the least active generation ever. Proactive measures are required by government—measures to promote active lifestyles, to tackle growing obesity and to respond to the growing incidence of mental health issues among the young. Too many young people are deprived of the opportunity to use the language and participation of sport as a means to communicate in society and to find a way to escape the escalator to crime. In the independent sector of education, prospectuses are frequently replete with quality sports facilities. At inner-city state schools, the costs of insurance, the challenges associated with travel to sports grounds and the low priority given to sport and recreation lead literally thousands of inner-city primary and secondary schools to be deprived of sporting opportunities for their pupils, to the detriment of the children and society together. Bringing the Games to Birmingham can be a catalyst to change this spiral of decline.

I will briefly mention the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. He deserves our thanks for all the work he has done with Yuvraj Raninder Singh of Patiala, president of the National Rifle Association of India and vice-president of the International Shooting Sport Federation. Both have worked hard to seek to ensure that shooting at Bisley was one of the sports on the 2020 CWG programme. Their ability to identify financial support to the value of nearly £800,000 left little financial contribution necessary for the Games committee. While I am very supportive of the decision to include women’s cricket, beach volleyball and para table tennis, I hope, as a strong supporter of shooting, that my noble friend the Minister will give us his views on the decision not to include shooting in the programme.

A number of issues covered in the proposed legislation can be strengthened with the characteristic all-party support that exists on sport. I have long campaigned through the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Ticket Abuse, on which I declare an interest as co-chair. If we can legislate a blanket ban with criminal sanctions against modern-day touting and associated crime at CWG 2022, surely we can add a schedule covering other major events where the public deserve the same protection against unscrupulous abuse in the secondary ticket market.

Committee stage will provide us with this opportunity as it will allow us to focus on the governance of sport at the Commonwealth Games 2022. It will allow us to focus on the steps taken by the Government and the Games organisers together to: ensure access for disabled people to all the facilities; promote sport for the disabled; protect the facilities to ensure a lasting legacy to the local communities; provide for the prevention of match-fixing, bribery and corruption; provide clear, unequivocal anti-doping provisions; ensure visa and immigration rules; allow for the ability of athletes under the age of 18 to enter legally binding contracts; introduce a sporting event betting licence, and a right for the Commonwealth Games as a precedent; and look at these critical governance issues in the context of a potential post-Brexit Britain.

I welcome this Bill, which will stimulate much-needed debate. I look forward to working in Committee to find ways to strengthen the Bill and, through it, send a signal not just to Birmingham but to the rest of the county and future holders of mega sporting events that we can build on the success of Birmingham 2022 and establish a modern framework for the role of Governments in mega sporting events around the world.

Theatre Tickets: London

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I completely agree with the noble Baroness. As I said, the Arts Council specifically is looking at trying to increase the diversity not only of audiences but of people who work in the industry. For example, we will imminently announce the Youth Performance Partnerships, a scheme for five regional hubs for performance and drama. It will reach up to 10,000 young people over the next three academic years.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Ticket Abuse. Given the lead this House has taken in delivering effective consumer protection legislation against unscrupulous ticket touts, will my noble friend the Minister do everything possible to promote face-value exchanges for ticketing to address the continuing blatant disregard of the law by companies such as Viagogo?

Sport: Drugs

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for raising this vitally important area of key sports policy.

Your Lordships may recall that at the time of the London Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012, Tina and Chris Dear set up the Matthew Dear Foundation. Tina Dear focused on the fact that any parent with a child who takes anabolic steroids should be aware that the drugs can be highly dangerous and addictive. Long-term use can lead to aggressive behaviour, mood swings, liver or kidney tumours, strokes, heart attacks, or worse. Tina Dear knows just how devastating the drugs can be. Her son Matthew was 17 when the young cadet started taking steroids in an attempt to “bulk up” and become a Royal Marine, but within weeks, he was dead. While the post-mortem was inconclusive, Tina believed that the muscle-building drugs, which he bought illegally, caused his brain to swell. He died just three months before he could take the selection test.

There have been many such deaths: drugs taken to enhance performance without proper medical supervision, taken through drug rings around body-building gymnasiums. Tina Dear said:

“It just makes you realise that the message needs to be put out there that these drugs are dangerous. A lot of these youngsters who take steroids don’t see them as drugs—they think they’re some kind of supplement and don’t see them as dangerous. It’s important to raise awareness and show these youngsters they can still achieve the body they want the healthy, natural way, without steroids”.


The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has highlighted the importance of that issue. Tina and her husband now run the Matthew Dear Foundation, which does vitally important work for hundreds of young people who have suffered as a result of taking a range of performance-enhancing drugs.

I will pick up on one of the points the noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned, by looking at the academic work that has been done to emphasise just how serious this issue has become. The use of anabolic-androgenic steroids—AASs, as they are called—by professionals and recreational athletes is increasing, not just in this country but worldwide. The underlying motivations are, as the noble Lord said, mainly performance enhancement and body image. AAS-using athletes frequently present with psychiatric symptoms and disorders, mainly somatoform and eating disorders, but also mood and schizophrenia-related disorders. They are also unfortunately linked to psychotic behaviour the length and breadth of this country. In fact, AAS use is no longer limited to a small number of athletes, bodybuilders or weightlifters, but currently extends to the general population, including young people, probably because of the highly competitive nature of school and college sport. In the States, Welder and Melchert reported that over half a million high school students have taken AASs for non-medical purposes. This raises serious concerns regarding the numerous adverse effects of these substances.

There are many such cases. The facts, as evidenced by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, are that steroids have increasingly become the key issue for young men, who have gained access to them over the internet. The council has gone so far as to call for a ban on their sale from the hundreds of overseas websites that deliberately target users across Britain. Chief drugs adviser Professor Les Iversen says:

“At the moment, information is much too easily available. The material available online is often contaminated”,


which of course is dangerous in its own right. If you search online, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has, and I did earlier today once again, you will see endless offers. As Professor Iversen says, a ban on importation,

“would have a considerable dampening effect on demand”.

I understand that it may be difficult to enforce, but it would act as a simple deterrent.

These steroids are manufactured to mimic the effect of the male hormone testosterone, and are taken to increase muscle mass and athletic performance. As I said, they can be highly addictive, and many of the performance-enhancing substances can also have serious side-effects, including infertility, an increased risk of prostate cancer, splayed teeth, high blood pressure, heart attacks and strokes, and tumours. They can also cause mood swings and hallucinations.

Even here, figures from the Crime Survey for England and Wales, published by the Home Office, estimate that 50,000 people in the UK use steroids to train harder and quickly build muscle. But researchers quite rightly claim that the real number could be far higher, because many people do not openly admit to using them. The real growth has come in young users who want to improve their body image, and steroids sit in the legal grey area between a medicine and a banned recreational drug.

Again, that point of body image was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, when he referred to the 2018 season of “Love Island”, which featured, as he mentioned, Frankie Foster, a former rugby player, now a fitness coach and a star on the show, who was previously banned for 18 months from his sport for having tested positive for steroids. Television has a vital role to play, and a responsibility. It must understand that the impact this programme unwittingly has to date is to develop role models not to inspire good example, but in this case to damage lives.

To come back to sport, the rugby union point is important, and it is the area where we have the highest number of image and performance-enhancing drugs—IPED—cases. UKAD is doing excellent work in this area. It recognises that a key area in the anti-doping landscape is the risk and vulnerability surrounding young athletes transitioning to senior sport from the amateur ranks. Of course, many of those in transition are in higher education or universities, and too often, university gyms are the breeding grounds for banned performance-enhancing drugs. Many are unsupervised, with poor educational programmes, easy access to the drugs, a near total absence of spot testing, a lack of education and poor medical advice. They are the breeding grounds for far too many young people who want to migrate into the professional ranks of sport. They are also exceptionally dangerous, because in many respects, the lack of education means that the opportunity to access contaminated drugs is increased.

UKAD has a very good programme, called the Clean Sport Accreditation Scheme, which recognises higher and further education institutions that meet a set of minimum standards towards their anti-doping obligations. But only three universities are currently fully accredited, with an additional 25 colleges and universities in the accreditation process. I ask the Minister—not necessarily in his response, but following this debate—to look at whether more work can be done and more funding supported and directed towards this initiative, because there is a need to prioritise the work that UKAD is doing with universities in this area.

I have often argued—and I take this opportunity again to make the point—that using performance-enhancing drugs in sport should be a criminal offence, and should apply as a criminal offence only in circumstances where an athlete knowingly takes a prohibited substance with the intention of enhancing his or her performance, or where a member of an athlete’s entourage encourages or assists an athlete in taking such a substance. Both the criminal offence and any sporting sanctions should apply simultaneously. This aims to enhance drug-free sport and create an awareness among young people that, if they start taking performance-enhancing drugs, they face potential criminal sanctions. It also would create a level playing field among athletes and would move English law into line with other European countries and fully recognise—as many people on all sides of this House recognise—that doping in sport to achieve competitive advantage through cheating is no different to defrauding a fellow athlete and should be covered by the same criminal sanctions as those applicable to fraud.

Finally, I ask the Minister wherever possible to highlight the importance of clean athletes being party to this debate. Beckie Scott, athlete committee chair for the World Anti-Doping Agency—WADA—claimed recently that she was bullied by Olympic movement officials at the meeting that saw WADA controversially reinstate Russia. It is vital that there be no opportunity, ever, for bullying members of athletes’ commissions at whatever level—governing bodies, the International Olympic Committee or indeed WADA. I hope the Minister can fully support Beckie Scott and, through her, all athletes who want to participate fully and to be listened to in this critically important debate.

Breaching of Limits on Ticket Sales Regulations 2018

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations will be an important addition in our efforts to stamp out unacceptable behaviour in the ticketing market. I know that the activities of the secondary ticketing market are of interest to many noble Lords, including those here today. The Government recognise that the process of distributing and buying tickets can often be a cause for public frustration and concern. Many of us have experienced the frustration of waiting for tickets to go on sale for our favourite events, our fingers hovering over the keyboard in the final countdown, only to find that all the tickets seem to have been mysteriously snapped up in seconds.

What is even more frustrating is seeing tickets reappear on secondary sites almost instantaneously, often at a huge mark-up in price. There is evidence that this is largely caused by the use of software or bots to automate the ticket purchasing process on the primary market to circumvent limits on the maximum number of tickets that can be purchased. This issue was specifically addressed by Professor Waterson in his independent review of consumer rights provisions relating to online ticket sales, which reported in May 2016. His view, which the Government share, was that ticket sellers should adopt strategies to prevent automated ticket purchasing by bots, although he also noted that there was some uncertainty over the existing legal position on their use. This instrument clarifies the law in this area by making it a criminal offence to purchase more tickets than the maximum permitted for a recreational, sporting or cultural event in the United Kingdom where the purchase is made electronically through the use of software designed for this purpose and where the intent is to obtain financial gain.

While the regulations apply to events in the United Kingdom, they cover activity to obtain tickets in any jurisdiction. The intended offence will be summary only, with a maximum punishment of an unlimited fine in England and Wales, and an exceptional summary maximum in Scotland, as magistrates’ courts in Scotland do not have the power to impose unlimited fines. The relevant section of the Digital Economy Act 2017 was not commenced in Northern Ireland because of the ongoing suspension of the Northern Ireland Executive, but it is the intention for it to be commenced and for this instrument to apply to events in Northern Ireland once legislative consent is able to be secured.

These regulations will, we hope, significantly improve the current situation, in which so many tickets for an event can disappear within seconds of their going on sale. They should be seen alongside other measures to address unacceptable behaviour in the ticketing market, such as the ticket information requirements set out in the recently strengthened Consumer Rights Act 2015; the enforcement work of National Trading Standards, the Competition and Markets Authority and the advertising industry’s own regulator, the Advertising Standards Authority; and the adoption by event organisers and ticketing agencies of innovative technological solutions such as blockchain and ticketless tickets. I hope noble Lords will agree that these regulations are a necessary additional tool in helping fans improve their chances of securing tickets at reasonable prices.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I want to make a few comments, which I hope the Minister will respond to at the conclusion of our short debate. I very much welcome this important step in continuing the fight against abuse in the ticketing market, in particular the secondary ticketing market. Only earlier today I received representations from a man whose wife and eight year-old daughter received tickets from viagogo, only to discover, having paid a significant amount of money, that once again viagogo has flouted the law and the tickets are illegal. They are due to go to the event tomorrow evening, and the eight year-old girl is desperately looking forward to it. It is appalling that this sort of crime continues to occur. The advice he has been given is that his wife should go to the window next door and buy another set of tickets which might—but only “might”—be available that evening and claim the money back in time. There was no response to the many calls he made to viagogo. That is just one example and those of us who are interested in this subject know that there are many others, on a day-by-day basis, in particular involving viagogo and others in the secondary market.

I am very grateful to the Minister and I know he is very supportive of the work that has been done on this. The principal concern for us this evening is to focus on enforcement. It has been brought to the attention of the All-Party Group on Ticket Abuse, of which I am co-chair, that the current legislation could be interpreted in such a way that only the police have an enforcement power under this instrument. While it is desirable for the police to have that power, the majority of enforcement in respect of ticket legislation is undertaken by trading standards, specifically the National Trading Standards cybercrime unit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions. It is clear that this is an issue that is close to the heart, or at least the interests, of many of us. I will respond to some of the specific issues that have been raised, although the statutory instrument itself is very narrow. Most of the issues that have been raised are outside its purview. Nevertheless, they are interesting and deserve an answer.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I have spent many happy hours debating the subject with him. Sometimes I have come off best although normally I have come off worst, but we are pleased that he is pleased with this statutory instrument: it is a beginning. I pay tribute to his knowledge and expertise in this; he certainly helped to improve the Digital Economy Act last year.

The noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord Griffiths and Lord Faulkner, among others, talked a lot about enforcement. Of course, I recognise the need for proper enforcement and therefore I welcome the Competition and Markets Authority’s recent announcement, as part of its enforcement investigation, that it had secured commitments from three of the largest ticketing platforms on additional information to be provided about tickets being resold through their platforms, and that it has notified another, more recalcitrant secondary ticketing platform of its intention to pursue court action if it does not fall into line and address the CMA’s concerns satisfactorily.

As I think was mentioned, we are giving approximately £15 million annually to National Trading Standards for national and cross-boundary enforcement. I welcome, therefore, its announcement at the end of last year that its officers had conducted raids at a number of properties across the UK, resulting in four people being arrested on suspicion of breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. In addition, the Advertising Standards Authority has recently taken action against the four main secondary ticketing websites, banning the misleading presentation of pricing information on their websites. If the sites fail to comply with this requirement properly, the Advertising Standards Authority will ask trading standards to take further enforcement action on this matter. I think this enforcement work demonstrates that the matter is being taken seriously by the enforcement bodies and that we are prepared to go after those who flout the law or abuse the ticketing market.

I recognise the issue that my noble friend Lord Moynihan raised of the bots themselves, as opposed to the platforms, being based abroad. Of course, that is an issue that is common to many online crimes: if they are not within our jurisdiction, we have to co-operate with our partners abroad. We will do that where it is possible to do so and, of course, as I said before, if they have entities in this country then we will pursue them through enforcement action. I believe there is a Swiss site I referred to earlier for which that is being contemplated at the moment.

Lastly, and this applies also to online gambling, if foreign sites or people are committing offences, one of the ways of looking at that is through the payment mechanisms. Payment providers do not like dealing with people who are committing crime, so that is an issue we could look at. My noble friend Lord Moynihan referred specifically to viagogo, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, or it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, talked about what my honourable friend the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries said about viagogo.

As I said, the enforcement agencies are committed to investigating breaches of consumer law and we welcome the CMA’s announcement last month that it had secured commitments from three of the top sites, and notified a fourth that it will pursue court action. We should also welcome the Advertising Standards Authority’s announcement at the end of May that it has referred viagogo to National Trading Standards for non-compliance with its rulings. We also welcome FIFA’s decision to file a complaint against viagogo and to protect fans by warning that it will cancel any World Cup tickets identified as having been purchased through the Switzerland-based website. My honourable friend the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries was clear that her advice to fans is not to buy tickets for the World Cup from viagogo.

[Lord Moynihan]

Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that the Government are of the view that trading standards do not lack powers in connection with bots under current legislation?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I do not think they lack powers with regard to bots that are based in this country, but the noble Lord’s point, I believe, was that the actual ticket-purchasing software that is based abroad is in the same position. The offence applies to bots if the activity takes place. It is the enforcement that is more difficult. The offence applies as long as it is to buy tickets for events in the UK.

UK Sport: Elite Sport Funding

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare two interests, one as president of British Water Ski and Wakeboard and the other as chairman of the British Olympic Association from 2005 to 2012, covering the Beijing and London Olympic cycles—when, after much negotiation with government, we secured funding for eight years and beyond. A very important point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who I congratulate on securing this debate: a four-year cycle for a sport will never deliver what you wish. The reality is that you need to plan for a good 20 years. We need to make sure that secure funding is in place for sports over that sort of period rather than the quadrennial cycle.

I would like to make a very few comments. First, in essence, I hope that UK Sport will consider turning the existing pyramid upside down and allowing those sports which have no programme funding to have something that athletes can aspire to by allocating some funds to every Olympic and Paralympic sport and thus rewarding success. It is neither logical nor right that badminton, which medalled in Rio, or wheelchair rugby, which missed out on a medal by one goal in the final match, should have all their funding withdrawn after analysis by a so-called intelligence unit of UK Sport. They simply analyse using their computers and do not understand that to secure success, a wider participation base is essential and funding needs to be put in place. I repeat that it is not just for that four-year cycle, depending on the outcome of a final, but over a much longer period.

Secondly, I hope that UK Sport can look closely at the amount of money going into the English Institute of Sport. It seems in some ways to be unconnected with what is needed by each sport. Those in receipt of funding pay for the services of the EIS, which could in my view be made to work far better at a more reasonable cost. I hope that a review of the EIS can be high on Dame Kath Grainger’s priorities.

Thirdly, the short-termism culture of the current funding model, which I have mentioned, fails to recognise the potential of the unfunded sports. More and more is going into the successful sports which carry our medal haul. I recognise the extraordinary contribution they have made and the remarkable success they continue to have worldwide. I value that but we have now moved to the position whereby five sports had more than 50% of the total four-year funding for Rio. That is funded by the organisation UK Sport which is mandated to promote sport the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. I believe that there should be one pyramid which should connect and encourage participation at the base and provide services and the support structure needed right the way through to medal success at the top.

I hope that more and more sports men and women move away from the feeling that many sports had post Rio: that they had nothing to aim for because their national programmes were no longer funded and were demoralised as a result. UK Sport will of course argue that national governing bodies should do more, but for many this creates an almost impossible situation for the governing bodies. For those who seek to achieve their potential, there can be no future when there is no resource to assist them. Team sports have been particularly badly hit, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned. Young men and women from ethnic communities and disadvantaged groups tend to be attracted to team sports where they find friendships and all the characteristics of well-being and togetherness. But local authority sports facilities being very expensive to hire is impacting on the ability of local groups to meet and train.

UK Sport has cut the funding for international representation. I want to put on the record that I feel this is a very important point. We need to make sure that we have good international representation in all international bodies and that our top administrators attend congresses. However, that is impossible if a sport is not in receipt of UK Sport performance funding. This comes despite more than a decade of welcoming such an involvement and encouraging sports to do so. It may not be possible for many sports to attend the international congresses of their sports, particularly those that have had a complete cut in funding. For example, squash has been working hard—admirably so—to be recognised as an Olympic sport. Having a seat at the top table of international squash helps us enormously in making the case that squash, which is a very popular sport in this country, should be an Olympic sport. A presence at the top table of sport is vital not just for those who benefit most by their medal tally, but for those five sports as well as the other sports and Paralympic sports that are funded. We should be looking at supporting international representation across the board.

I totally accept that sponsorship and private sector support is critical; it should be sought. This is an area where UK Sport can help. It can sit down and work with governing bodies—all governing bodies, not just the Olympic and Paralympic ones—to achieve more funding through sponsorship. When I was chairman of the British Olympic Association, we had the FTSE 100 initiative where we linked companies directly to individual sports, many of which still benefit from the sponsorship they received at that time. It was a huge pity that when it came to the Olympic Games in London in 2012, when we raised over £1 billion in LOCOG, there was not a single meeting between all our governing bodies in sports and LOCOG to introduce them to the sponsors that were new to sport. We lost that opportunity.

In conclusion, as president of British Water Ski, I want to make one very interesting point. British Water Ski and Wakeboard came off the agenda in 2012 when UK Sport stopped funding non-Olympic sports. It was told that it should rely on talent programme funding from Sport England, which is doing a very good job now in developing participation, but the talent funding programme is about to go. That is a classic example of the base of the pyramid, and the top of the pyramid for a few sports, being very strong, but there is no consistent ladder to climb, which is the only way to secure long-term success in the medal tables. I hope that UK Sport can engage more with non-Olympic sports and urge the Commonwealth Games Federation to bring water skiing onto the agenda for when it returns to the UK. With the support of the Commonwealth Games Foundation, I am sure that that will be the case.

In conclusion, more needs to be done to deliver a one-stop shop, introducing all the difficult and relevant skills necessary to link participation with excellence in a single, unique and coherent strategy.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Lord Moynihan Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Moynihan]

31: Schedule 1, page 124, line 14, at end insert—
“( ) The references in sub-paragraph (1) to a body or association that is responsible for eliminating doping in sport are to be read as references to UK Anti-Doping (UKAD), its successor bodies or a body designated by the Secretary of State.( ) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by the affirmative resolution procedure specify—(a) the relationship between UKAD and other sporting bodies and associations, and (b) the powers and responsibilities of UKAD,under this paragraph.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, the objectives of Amendment 31, on doping in sport, are simple, and they build on considerable exchanges that have taken place at Second Reading and, more recently, in Committee. The first part of the amendment seeks to recognise the United Kingdom Anti-Doping agency—UKAD—and its successor bodies as the main body responsible for eliminating doping in sport in this country. The second part focuses on bodies which are not currently affiliated with or under the control and influence of UKAD and allows the Secretary of State to designate those bodies and to make regulations by the affirmative resolution procedure to outline the relationship between UKAD and other sporting bodies and the powers and responsibilities of UKAD.

I recently had the opportunity to discuss the amendment before the House with a range of individuals from the world of sport. At the most recent meeting, along with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I had the opportunity to meet Emma Drake, a lead lawyer for sport on data protection; Tim Payton from the national governing bodies; Jonathan Taylor, the legal counsel to the United Kingdom Anti-Doping authority; and Alison Faiers from the ECB. They responded to us both a couple of days later by setting out possible changes to the current wording in the Bill and suggesting that UK Anti-Doping be named specifically in the Bill, while retaining flexibility in case of a successor body. Secondly, they said that included for the first time in primary legislation should be a reference to the role of the UK national anti-doping policy. This particularly emphasises the accountability of UKAD to Parliament and its responsibility for implementing and monitoring compliance with the policy. Thirdly, they suggested that we retain a clear reference to the fact that other sports governing bodies that are not subject to the UK national anti-doping policy should be able to rely on a condition in the clause itself, which is precisely what I sought to do before bringing this latest amendment to your Lordships’ House.

It is important to place on record the role of UKAD. It co-ordinates the UK intelligence-led, risk-based testing programme across more than 40 key sports in accordance with the international standard for testing and investigations. It is at the centre of our anti-doping programme in this country, and is very important in the management of highly sensitive personal data—this Bill is about the management of that personal data. When it comes to dealing with highly sensitive personal data, it should be recognised as the body responsible for anti-doping in this country. It already has a broad remit and can test any UK or non-UK athlete staying, training, residing, entering a competition or named as a member of a team participating in a competition at any level within the United Kingdom. Those athletes are eligible for testing as part of UKAD’s national anti-doping programme. UKAD is recognised by the Government and by the DCMS. It is paid for by us as taxpayers and undertakes a vital role in keeping sport clean in this country.

Meanwhile, the Bill is very important because of the context in which data falls as far as sports men and women. The data we are talking about is twofold for the success of an anti-doping policy. First is the whereabouts test. Every athlete who competes internationally and is part of the national register testing pool has to provide, every day, a 60-minute time slot to be tested without prior notice. That is a major request. Under employment law, you are entitled to go on holiday and your whereabouts not be known by your employer. In sport, the data required extends throughout every day of the year: wherever you are, you are duty-bound to notify your governing body or UKAD of your whereabouts. That seems to me a major issue of privacy. If we are asking athletes to give up that right, as we are in this Bill, to have an effective anti-doping policy—which I fully support—that should be taken very seriously indeed.

The second point is the principle of strict liability. All athletes are solely responsible for any banned substance, regardless of how it got there or whether or not it was the intention of an athlete to cheat. Under the anti-doping programme, you are effectively guilty until proven innocent. The fact that athletes have to adhere to those two requirements of data management makes it incumbent on this House to ensure that the situation under which someone could be tested, or under which UKAD can operate, is very clearly defined in the Bill. Regrettably, I do not believe that it is at the moment.

The issue is even more important because it is about the making and breaking of careers and reputations. Only today, in a different context internationally, we had news that the UCI is investigating Chris Froome’s case under its anti-doping rules. Here it was strict liability again. However, it was also a case where he did not break the rules in terms of performance enhancing substances. His highly sensitive records were made public; he was given a TUE—a therapeutic use exemption—for asthma, but the level at which he tested was above the level recognised by the UCI as acceptable. That is the test being applied. It is headline news. The fact that he is a part of that doping policy has meant that his career, his profile and potentially his future are under the microscope. That is because he signed up to that anti-doping policy. It is the same anti-doping policy that would occur here. Indeed, UKAD was heavily involved in another case earlier this year, as noble Lords will know, with regard to Bradley Wiggins and the famous jiffy bag in June 2011. It said it was hampered by a lack of accurate medical records being available for British cycling, yet his whole career and reputation is under the spotlight as a result of that incident.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)]

My Lords, I am not quaking in my boots when addressing an amendment from my noble friend, first, because he is a helpful man and, secondly, because I am getting quite used to it, to be quite honest, particularly after the Digital Economy Bill.

As we heard, my noble friend’s amendment would restrict the provision in the Bill that allows anti-doping bodies to process sensitive personal data without consent to just UK Anti-Doping. It would permit other bodies to process sensitive data only if allowed by the Secretary of State. This House agrees, I think, how important sport is and that it can only continue to be successful if it is, and is seen to be, clean. It should therefore come as no surprise when I say that the Government remain fully committed to combating doping and protecting the integrity of sport. We are at one with the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, on that.

At the moment, a large number of organisations, both domestic and international, work to prevent and eliminate doping in sport in this country in accordance with agreed international standards. UKAD, as the UK’s national anti-doping organisation, plays a vital role. But we must recognise that other bodies, some of which have been mentioned, also have important roles to play, including in particular sports’ national governing bodies. The amendment would see UKAD as the only body with automatic responsibility for processing sensitive data for the purposes of preventing doping in the UK. Other bodies would have a role only if named by the Secretary of State.

I am not convinced that this is a positive change for a number of reasons. First, it is not immediately clear to me why such an amendment is needed. UKAD’s role, and that of other sporting bodies, is set out in the national anti-doping policy, and this arrangement is largely seen to be effective, not just here in the UK but internationally. But we can never be complacent, and that is why my honourable friend the Minister for Sport, Tracey Crouch, has already commissioned a review of UKAD. That review is looking closely at UKAD’s functions, efficiency and effectiveness and has consulted widely. The findings of this review will be published early next year and will inform the revision of the UK national anti-doping policy, which will also take account of the recently published review of the criminalisation of doping. As part of this policy revision process, the Government will consult all relevant stakeholders, and will no doubt welcome discussions with my noble friend Lord Moynihan.

In addition, the arrangement outlined in my noble friend’s amendment would appear to present a number of risks. As he mentioned, the World Anti-Doping Code and the UNESCO convention set a clear framework that allows major events organisers and international federations to conduct their own anti-doping activities. Their ability to test cannot, without risking a breach of the convention, be contingent on them having obtained prior authorisation by a national Government.

Sports bodies change regularly as new sports are recognised and new bodies gain funding and manage competitions. A new round of designations would be required every time a new sporting body came into being or organised competitions or an old body changed its name. Under the system proposed by my noble friend, even a short delay in doing so could allow a drugs cheat to escape sanction by challenging the validity of the data processing undertaken by a sports body weeks, months or even years prior. That is not least because the Secretary of State’s decision to designate a body would itself be subject to judicial review. This could turn a relatively straightforward process of designation into a lengthy process of review, consultation and litigation. Similarly, if international bodies wanted to hold competitions in this country, they would, on the face of it, need to be officially designated by the Secretary of State. In a competitive marketplace, this could discourage organisers of major events from bringing their events to the UK.

To summarise, the Government believe that my noble friend’s amendment will put the UK’s status as a leading destination for clean sport at risk. It will create uncertainty in the sporting world and will be out of step with the recognised international framework that is already in place. It is widely understood that UKAD is the recognised body in the UK with responsibility for enforcing anti-doping rules. But the Bill must not be used as a tool to limit interventions by internationally recognised sporting bodies, such as the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Football Association and the Rugby Football Union. They, like UKAD, should be allowed to set and enforce anti-doping rules in sports. The fact that these bodies are not governed entirely by UKAD’s rules does not make their need to process data without consent for anti-doping purposes any less important. We are clear on that, the World Anti-Doping Code is clear on that, and the bodies themselves are clear on that.

Indeed, I have a statement from four of our leading sports bodies: the Football Association, the Rugby Football Union, the England and Wales Cricket Board, and the British Horseracing Authority. They are not speaking with different voices. This is a joint quote, which they have authorised me to announce. They say:

“We welcome further discussion with all parties on this issue but do not believe that this Amendment, that has not been discussed with or subject to any consultation with our organisations, is the right way to proceed today”.


In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who asked about the horseracing authority, I am afraid he should direct his question to my noble friend Lord Moynihan, because it is his amendment that would change the current system. Therefore, while I understand the desire of my noble friend to assist in the fight against doping, which we all support, I do not believe that the Bill is the proper vehicle to achieve it; nor do I believe that my noble friend’s amendment would in fact achieve it.

Let me be clear: if my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, want to keep talking about anti-doping in general, I am very happy to do so, as is my honourable friend the Minister for Sport; I have already said that. But the Government have spent a great deal of time working with UKAD and sports bodies to design paragraph 23 of Schedule 1, and I have heard nothing in the debates in Committee and today that would suggest that we should alter our view before the review of UKAD is complete. On that basis, I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed. I will respond to the Minister first. I was disappointed that he did not respond to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which I also touched on, namely, that it was important, if at all possible, to take away this amendment and consider it in greater detail so that the Government could bring it back at Third Reading. The Government have decided not to do so, and in so doing they have argued the following points.

The first was that there has been inadequate consultation—for example, no discussion between the BHA and myself. If I may respond to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, I had a conference call with, I think, four BHA people last Friday to discuss in detail the consequences of the proposed amendment. It was a constructive and helpful discussion. It was very important to them that they did not come under the umbrella of UKAD, and they would not. Amendment 31 says very specifically that the references are,

“to be read as references to … UKAD … , its successor bodies or a body designated by the Secretary of State”.

They asked me whether that would be a cumbersome process, and I said, “Certainly not”. The Secretary of State could respond to a letter pretty much immediately by saying, “Continue the good work that you’re doing”. That would be absolutely fine under the amendments I have tabled to Schedule 1.

This would apply to any organising group that exercises authority in anti-doping in this country outside UKAD, which covers the wide majority. Indeed, UKAD can test any athlete in this country, if it so wishes, at any level of competition. But there are organisations which will operate outside UKAD, for example the international federations and the International Olympic Committee. The other organisations which the noble Lord mentioned operate within UKAD in any event. Organisations such as the Football Association and the Rugby Football Union have a relationship with it to continue its good work, not least because those are Olympic sports, so they are covered in any event by the phrase,

“a body designated by the Secretary of State”.

I want further to assist my noble friend the Minister by suggesting that, instead of simply leaving it at that, every single point that he made could be covered by the regulations that he is being asked to bring forward under the Bill. There would be no uncertainty; there would be complete clarity, and we would have the opportunity to address those points in detail prior to that secondary legislation coming forward.

Why was it important to amend a general catch-all clause on sport to deal with these issues? It was important so that the BHA knew its position and could continue the good work with minimum bureaucracy, simply by a letter recognising that it continues the good work. I have heard nobody—not from the Bill team, which I met, not the policy advisers from DCMS and not the BHA, which I had a long conference call with last Friday—mention that there is anybody who seeks to change the way in which the BHA does excellent work in this area. It would simply be recognised on the face of the secondary legislation and so it should be—

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

Does my noble friend not accept, then, that if the situation is exactly the same as now, he is proposing a new process which will possibly be subject to litigation and achieve exactly the same status that we have today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan]

First, there is no evidence whatever that it is subject to litigation. If the Secretary of State—

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am sorry to interrupt again. Of course there has not been any litigation because the system that my noble friend proposes has not been put in place.

[Lord Moynihan]

But there are no grounds for litigation. If the BHA is doing good work in anti-doping then, in the context of this paragraph, all that is being done is for that to be recognised within the legislation and by the Secretary of State in designating the BHA to continue its good work. Who would wish to litigate on that? Nobody is changing any relationship between the BHA, and those who work within it, and the excellent anti-doping policy that it currently runs. I am sure the Government would not want to change that.

The reason why this should be on the face of the Bill and in the secondary legislation—the regulations—is that this is of serious importance. We are asking athletes to give up a lot of personal data, and we should protect them when giving up personal data. It is important and right for an anti-doping policy that they should do so, but its importance should be recognised and my noble friend the Minister did not even mention it in his response. It is about the data management.

I conclude by saying simply this, and I will happily give way to my noble friend the Minister. If he is prepared, as I hope he is, to follow the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which I fully support, on improving the wording of the amendment, I stand absolutely ready to find consensus with all governing bodies, the Government, the Bill team and everybody else who is interested in the subject, including all Members of your Lordships’ House, in order to find an improved amendment. I think the amendment works perfectly satisfactorily, and I have just tried to explain that to my noble friend and the House, but I am sure it could be improved by further discussions. Is my noble friend the Minister willing to take it away and bring it back at Third Reading? If he is, I will happily give way.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I have to be very clear about what we are doing, particularly as this is the first group on our first day on Report. To be absolutely clear, I am not content to return to this issue at Third Reading of the Data Protection Bill because we have heard nothing that would suggest to us that paragraph 23 would benefit from further consideration at this time. I have to repeat that the wording on the face of the Bill was drawn up—this is a quote from the governing bodies that I mentioned—

“in close consultation with the sports governing bodies and the Sport and Recreation Alliance and we support the original wording as the right way forward”.

[Lord Moynihan]

I hear what the Minister said. We have had many discussions with different members of governing bodies and others who have argued that this provision could be improved. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and I sat opposite UKAD and governing bodies last Monday, so what the right hand in some of these governing bodies is doing is clearly not what the left hand is doing. I think this amendment is a significant improvement that protects the rights of individual athletes. That is what we should be doing in this Bill because it is about data management. Regretfully, because I hoped that the Minister would take this away and come back with a consensus on something better, I wish to test the opinion of the House.