BBC Royal Charter: Gaelic Broadcasting

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I think there is, potentially, but we need to make sure that we do not assume that a one-size-fits-all approach works across the piece. I am happy to take suggestions back to the department and to speak to my colleague Ian Murray from the other place about this. We are keen to make sure that all minority languages get what works for that particular area, rather than assuming that one size fits all. On Northern Ireland and Irish-language broadcasting, which works on a cross-border basis, we are keen to continue to support that from DCMS as well.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, unlike S4C, MG Alba does not have statutory designation as a public service broadcaster, which leaves it more vulnerable to budgetary pressures from the BBC. Only last month, the BBC announced cuts of £500 million and 550 jobs. Is this something that the Government will look at as part of the royal charter review to address the vulnerability that MG Alba and Gaelic broadcasting faces?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It is an interesting point. There is a statutory basis for Welsh broadcasting. Without undermining what we are trying to do in Wales, I refer noble Lords back to the fact that the budget per Gaelic speaker is considerably higher. A statutory basis on its own is not enough protection, but we will try to work through all these questions and make sure that we look at the models that work in different areas as part of our work in DCMS.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I thought those were very interesting amendments. I am sorry that I had not read them, but they are interesting and worth considering by the Government.

I want to speak to Amendment 21. I begin by thanking Freddie Daley, whose work with Cool Down and Badvertising has helped to shape this amendment. His research has highlighted the growing tension between local fossil-fuel advertising bans and major sporting events. I know that the Government are not proposing a national ban on fossil-fuel advertising, even though I think they ought to. However, that argument was rejected in Committee and I am not trying to reopen that debate.

This amendment takes a different approach. It is saying that, where a host city or local authority has adopted climate, environmental or advertising policies that restrict fossil-fuel advertising, major sporting events should respect those policies. After all, the Bill is about creating a framework for hosting major sporting events. It should not become a way to bypass decisions that have already been made by local authorities.

We have a very useful example. In 2027, Edinburgh will host the Grand Départ of the Tour de France. Edinburgh City Council has already voted to ban high-carbon advertising, including fossil-fuel advertising, across council-owned spaces. Sheffield has adopted a similar policy, and other local authorities have done the same or are considering doing so. Athletes should not become moving adverts for fossil-fuel companies as they race past Edinburgh Castle and through the city’s streets. These councils have made democratic decisions about the kind of places they want to be. If they have decided that fossil-fuel advertising has no place on their streets and public spaces, why should an international sporting event be treated any differently?

I do not need to repeat the reasons we brought in Committee on why this matters. This year’s Tour de France has already had to shorten a stage because of extreme heat, for the first time. Here in the UK, running races have been cancelled this week and other sporting events and transport are affected. Climate change is already changing how major sporting events are organised, yet sports, including cycling, continue to provide a valuable advertising platform for fossil-fuel companies, and these adverts are no accident. Fossil-fuel companies do not sponsor cycling because they sell bikes; they do it because it allows them to associate their brands with healthy lifestyles, beautiful places and active travel, rather than with the filthy emissions that are driving our climate emergency.

Sports such as football and cycling were once full of tobacco sponsorship. As the evidence of harm grew, public attitudes changed; the rules changed and the sport adapted. Today, that relationship feels completely out of step with the values that sport represents. I believe we are beginning to see the same shift in attitudes towards fossil-fuel advertising. If sporting events are allowed to sidestep local advertising bans, they risk becoming one of the last remaining routes for fossil-fuel companies to advertise in cities that have deliberately chosen to restrict that advertising. We should not be asking cities to choose between hosting world-class sporting events and sticking to their climate commitments. This amendment would make sure that they do not have to.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, as this is my first opportunity, I am sure that we all want to send our best wishes for good luck to the England football team in their major sporting event this evening—particularly to the midfielder Elliot Anderson who, like all the best people, comes from Whitley Bay.

Although I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I made clear my views in Committee that the amendments we considered then and have looked at again today do not meet the test of proportionality that is important here. My view remains unchanged on that. I completely understand the concerns the noble Lord set out, but we must of course set that against the fact that many sporting events rely on sponsorship from gambling companies, a perfectly legal activity in this country. We must consider carefully how further restrictions on gambling sponsorship could affect British sport: for instance, the English Football League, whose title partner is SkyBet, or the England and Wales Cricket Board, which has been forced to relax its own restrictions this very month because of a paucity of other commercial sponsors. We need to look at this carefully and with a cool head.

In Committee, I expressed my concern, however, at the scale of illegal and unlicensed gambling. This is much more likely to lead to societal problems because the companies involved do not incorporate the necessary protections and safeguards, and have far less care for their consumers. In Committee, I pressed the Minister on the consultation, which the Government announced earlier this year, on banning unlicensed gambling sponsorship and advertising. This very morning, I was pleased therefore to see that she has published a Written Ministerial Statement announcing that consultation, and I look forward to hearing the views of those connected to it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

6: Clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations made by an appropriate national authority under this section may not apply the advertising provisions and the trading provisions for a period that is longer than the specified period.(5B) In subsection (5A), the “specified period” means a period of time that must—(a) begin no earlier than the beginning of the period of 21 days ending immediately before the day on which the sporting event begins, and(b) end no later than the end of the period of 5 days beginning with the day after the day on which the sporting event ends.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would establish a maximum period in which the advertising and trading provisions of the sporting events framework can be implemented in relation to a particular event. This is consistent with the approach taken in Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 and the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2020.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, on Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Markham, I am sure that your Lordships’ House will be pleased to hear that the Bill already goes further than the amendment proposed. Within the provisions in the Bill, advertising and trading provisions can be in place for no more than 10 days before the beginning of an event and no later than five days after the event concludes. I hope that these clear limitations in the Bill will reassure noble Lords.

Amendments 7, 50 and 51, tabled in my name, seek to ensure that all regulations applying the framework provisions are subject to the affirmative procedure, except in urgent cases in which the “made affirmative” resolution procedure would be used. In bringing forward these government amendments, we have listened to the concerns of the House, noting Amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, and the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. These amendments ensure that Parliament can debate regulations, while preserving flexibility to accommodate unforeseen and last-minute changes. I hope the amendments tabled in my name reassure noble Lords of the importance we place on ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, while providing some flexibility to accommodate unforeseen changes.

Amendments 10, 11, 12 and 13 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and the noble Baronesses, Lady Evans of Bowes Park and Lady Grey-Thompson. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, summed it up when he said that we have a huge number of events in this country already. However, this Government recognise there is more we can do to support the whole major events sector. I can confirm today the Government’s intention for the major events strategy to be published by the spring.

Throughout the Bill’s passage, a number of noble Lords have raised the question of whether the remit of the Sporting Events Bill could be extended to include recurrent major events in the UK. I am hugely grateful for the time noble Lords have taken to talk me through the rationale of how this could support our fabulous events, from Wimbledon to the British Grand Prix at Silverstone and the London Marathon. As the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, indicated, these discussions have been hugely constructive. I have also heard directly from event organisers who are keen to explore this further, and we are continuing discussions between event organisers, officials and Ministers over the summer.

I recognise the strength of feeling on this. It is not always the case that a Government Minister is told to expand the scope of a Bill, and we recognise that the sentiment behind this is one of support for events in this country. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the Government see merit in exploring the idea further. As my noble friend Lord Foulkes said, we are committed to continuing the conversation over the summer with noble Lords and event organisers. However, I regret that, at this point, I cannot commit to a specific outcome for these discussions. There are a number of considerations we need to work through carefully, particularly around how proportionate it would be to potentially restrict fair competition for small businesses on an ongoing basis and, for instance, who would enforce regulations.

I understand there is concern that events such as the Rugby League World Cup or the Women’s T20 World Cup would be out of scope. Noble Lords will appreciate that the nature of the framework means that we expect particular events to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I reassure your Lordships’ House that we expect both cricket and Rugby League World Cups to be exactly the type of events that could meet the conditions. I recognise noble Lords’ good intent in relation to this matter, but I am keen that we get this right and make sure that any potential unintended consequences are considered before we make a decision in this regard.

On Amendments 41 and 42, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, the Government fully agree that, when it comes to public funds, transparency and accountability are non-negotiable. However, these amendments are unnecessary. There are already robust mechanisms in place. The supply and appropriation legislation enables Parliament to debate and approve spending plans, including allocations for major sporting events. As an accounting officer, the DCMS Permanent Secretary is accountable to Parliament to ensure departmental spending on major sporting events meets the Managing Public Money principles of regularity, propriety, value for money and feasibility.

Over the past decade, the United Kingdom has secured and delivered almost 150 major sporting events, many with the support of government investment. Therefore, requiring such scrutiny could place a disproportionate burden on parliamentary resources and risk delaying the provision of urgent financial assistance. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that response and for the time she has made available to noble Lords from across the House on the other amendments we have discussed, including with many of the sporting bodies that are involved. It is for the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Evans to decide what to do on their amendment.

For my part, we would be inclined in normal circumstances to take the Minister’s word for it, for she is a woman of her word who has worked hard on this. However, we find ourselves in unusual circumstances where she, the Secretary of State and the Sports Minister in another place may be in different positions by the time the Bill heads to the Commons. So, your Lordships’ House would be well advised to put something in the Bill to reflect the cross-party, cross-House support we have had on this issue and the strength of feeling, and to leave that as a work in progress. I will leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but reiterate that we will support him if he chooses to divide on this important issue. I thank the Minister for her answers to the amendments I moved and beg leave to withdraw Amendment 6.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendments 14 and 48 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Boycott, and my noble friend Lord Whitty. The Government fully agree that environmental sustainability should be considered at every stage in the planning and delivery of our major sporting events. I note the example shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. We genuinely recognise that there is an issue that needs to be dealt with, and this debate is clearly in the context of an extended heatwave.

The Bill explicitly provides that, for the framework to be applied, a sporting event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or to a part of it. Your Lordships’ House may be pleased to know that social benefit here encompasses consideration of environmental and climate impacts where relevant. I will, of course, be delighted to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others to discuss this further.

I have shared throughout the Bill’s passage the important measures in place to integrate sustainability into our major sporting events from the outset: from the Gold Framework guiding organisers bidding for government funding to non-negotiable requirements in our spending processes. However, I have heard the strong concerns and valuable insights raised across the House and recognise that there is always room to do more, especially on matters as important as our environment.

That is why I am pleased to be able to give a firm commitment today that, as noted by my noble friend Lord Whitty, the environment will be a clear and stated consideration as the Government develop a major events strategy—not only for major sporting events but for all major events hosted across the country. Should the evidence gathered suggest that we can do more when it comes to major sporting events, we will be guided by that data to reflect on how and where we go further. In the meantime, I am happy to confirm that sustainability will be a key consideration in the community programme for Euro 2028, the first event that this Bill will support.

As well as taking steps to reduce the event’s impact on the environment, the Euros’ community programme will actively seek opportunities to build climate resilience into its broader ambition to support communities. I appreciate noble Lords’ interest in the adaptation reporting power. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has recently consulted on how best to target these powers, and is in touch with all relevant departments, although we are clear that the decision to apply it should remain at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

I turn now to Amendment 35, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Major sporting events vary significantly in scale, location, venue layout, spectator profile and the transport networks serving them. An appropriate requirement in one case may be unnecessary, disproportionate or impractical in another. We believe that the most effective approach to tackling transport concerns would be through collaborative, integrated planning and delivery tailored to the specific needs of each event.

On Amendment 47, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, there is no doubt that the cleanliness of the environments in which we hold our major sporting events is vital. I will be very happy to meet with the noble Lord; I met with a number of noble Lords who took up the offer that was made in the Chamber and in my all-Peers letter. I am sorry that the noble Lord and I have not yet met up, but I will make sure that my office gets in touch with him so that we can meet before Third Reading.

Going back to the cleanliness point raised today and in Committee by the noble Lord, this is why, as set out in Committee, local authorities have a duty to support this under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That is in addition to measures such as the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse statutory guidance. Also, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 confers powers to help them tackle persistent, unreasonable behaviour negatively affecting communities. Adding to those duties would require local authorities to substantively alter their operational approach; as set out in the new burdens doctrine, this requires proper assessment given the potential for significant additional costs, ultimately borne by the taxpayer. We believe that a holistic approach is more appropriate.

In light of these reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, will withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I welcome the movement the Government have shown on these issues, particularly in tabling Amendments 16, 37 and 38, which respond to amendments that my noble friend Lord Markham and I tabled in Committee, attempting to put exemptions for charities from a number of offences into the Bill. While I might have preferred to go about it that way, I welcome that the Government have specified that charities can be exempted from the ticket touting offence. My noble friend Lord Holmes is absolutely right about the profound benefits that charities bring in so many ways.

It is also very welcome that the Government have tabled Amendment 32 in response to concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Fuller about businesses carrying out trading activities in accordance with existing trading licences. That is an important consideration to ensure that the application of the trading provisions is fair and proportionate.

I wonder whether the Minister and her officials in the department have spoken to the Advertising Association. It has been in touch with me since Committee about some concerns that advertising firms still have, particularly about the way the Bill does not explain sufficiently—to them, at least—how the new framework will work in practice for existing advertisers and media owners. If the department has not been in contact with the Advertising Association, it would certainly be a very good idea to do so, as the Bill heads to another place, because advertisers do such an important job in sustaining the climate for sporting events big and small across these islands.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

I am very grateful to noble Lords including the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson, Lord Holmes and Lord Addington, among others, for acknowledging the changes we have made to improve the Bill based on direct discussions and discussions during earlier stages of the Bill. On the specific question relating to the Advertising Association raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, officials did speak to it ahead of the Bill’s introduction. I will ask them to engage again with the organisation concerned to make sure we are hearing its concerns directly.

--- Later in debate ---

Have I read the wrong bit? No?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

No.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Okay, I will carry on. With apologies to your Lordships’ House, I just had a moment where I asked myself, “Honestly, am I reading the right bit of paper?” I am pleased to have the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, confirm, in the spirit of the debate so far, that it appears I am not reading the wrong speech. It is a big group.

We must be able both to read our speeches coherently and to meet our commitments to event owners. That is why it would not be appropriate, in this Government’s view, to introduce a blanket exception for all licensed traders, as the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, seeks to provide. I hope that he will be reassured by the changes we have made to address the concerns raised and I commend the amendments in my name to the House.

On Amendments 17 and 19, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the ticketing offence in the Bill ensures that tickets can be publicly sold or resold only with authorisation from an event owner or organiser. This means that tickets will be available only on official channels. As I noted in Committee, we are determined that major sporting events hosted in the UK are inclusive and accessible to the widest possible audience. That includes developing ticketing strategies that put fans, fairness and transparency first. We have worked closely with UEFA to ensure that these principles are at the heart of the approach to Euro 2028. Tickets for the event will go on sale after the final tournament draw in December 2027.

The noble Lord’s Amendment 17 would require a report on the effectiveness of the provisions before they have been applied to regulations, and before tickets have gone on sale. We have, however, committed to evaluate the application of the Bill’s provisions within 12 to 18 months of Euro 2028. We have also committed to bring forward a price cap on the resale of tickets for all live events, including on the level of service fee that can be charged, and limits on the number of tickets that individuals can resell.

As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, noted, I hosted a briefing session yesterday to update noble Lords on this work and I look forward to providing a further update in the autumn. In response to the noble Lord, I stress and underline that the Government really want to address the considerable issues in the secondary ticketing market. I hope that noble Lords attending that meeting were reassured by the session that the Government are committed to ensuring that we have strong measures in place, at the very earliest opportunity, to tackle the secondary ticketing market. This is a clear manifesto commitment and, as set out in the King’s Speech, we intend to publish the draft Bill in this second Session for pre-legislative scrutiny.

Work to prepare this legislation is happening now and I ask noble Lords to have confidence that we intend publication to be absolutely as soon as possible, within what remains of this second Session. For example, had the noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked me whether I would anticipate that it will be early in the new year, I would say that I cannot commit to this, but hope it will be the case.

Amendment 18, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, unfortunately defeats the aim of preventing unauthorised resale and profiteering. It would create a significant gap in protections and leave us unable to meet commitments to major sporting event owners. The noble Lord suggested that the Bill was criminalising people who wanted to give away tickets or sell them at face value to friends and family. This is not the intention, and it is not the intention within the Bill to criminalise the private transfer of tickets at face value between friends, family and associates. That is why the offence applies only to activity that is carried out in a public place in the course of business, or with a view to making profit.

I turn to Amendment 31, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. As I previously outlined, we are committed to mitigating the impact on SMEs but are clear that we must be able to meet our commitments to event owners. That is why it would not be appropriate to introduce a blanket exception for all licensed traders, as the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to do. We believe that my Amendment 32 strikes the appropriate balance. I hope that I have provided the necessary assurances to noble Lords, and that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)]

And I was right.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

Arts Education

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Philanthropy is a significant way that we can harness the power of giving. My noble friend may be aware that Minister Peacock in the other place, who is responsible for philanthropy, recently published a philanthropy strategy and plan for how we can get place-based strategy. We are aware that it is often a barrier for schools to access the arts and trips to museums. We want to explore every avenue we can to make sure children can get to museums. Indeed, the Southeastern Railway that goes to Hastings provided 1,066 tickets for schoolchildren from the Battle of Hastings countryside to access the exhibition.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, applications open in the autumn for the next round of the Arts Council’s national portfolio investment programme. I particularly welcome that it will be a five-year window, which was one of the recommendations from the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge. There were many other important recommendations in her report. Will the Government work to make sure that as many as possible can be implemented before the decisions are made for that 2028 to 2033 funding window?

Live Music

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, for this very well-timed debate as we head into the peak summer season of live music across the nation, which brings investment, jobs and joy to so many people. We had a powerful reminder of that on the Tube this weekend: I was on my way back from the Bad Bunny concert in Tottenham and ran into fans who were coming from Take That at West Ham, Harry Styles at Wembley and Lily Allen at the O2. Like a series of rivers eddying, we all met. It could have been a hot and bothered day on the Underground, but everyone was in such good heart. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, said, music is good for the soul.

The lady who sat next to us at Bad Bunny had come all the way from Italy, especially to see him and Harry Styles earlier in the week, and my noble friend Lord Vaizey will be pleased to know that my parents travelled to KOKO just last night—they are much cooler than me. As the noble Lord said, Harry Styles’s record-breaking 12-night residency at Wembley is estimated to have brought more than £1 billion to our economy. By my calculation, with just another 40 nights we can close the funding gap in the defence investment plan.

Music makes a huge contribution to our economy, so how can we help it to do more? Well, we can celebrate it. I know that the Minister is as enthusiastic as I am for the UNESCO Living Heritage inventory. Will she ensure that lots of live music and cultural practices are enrolled on that, from sea shanties to short pipes, from Eisteddfodau to evensong?

We have heard a lot about the pipeline—artists, venues and the classroom—as the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, rightly pointed out. Music venues are closing, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, at a rate of two a week. Of the 34 venues Oasis played at the start of their career, only 11 remain. If Manchesterism is to mean anything, it must surely be about arresting that decline.

The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, mentioned that, when the Government introduced the voluntary levy, they would look at whether it reached 50% of venues by this summer. In fact, the deadline was this Tuesday. Can the Minister say whether the Government will begin that assessment, and if they will make it public? Will they look in earnest at the agent of change proposals that have been advanced repeatedly by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, and by others?

Will the Government look again at the impact of their tax hikes? The Music Venue Trust’s annual report shows that the Government’s changes to national insurance and business rates shrank the workforce in grass-roots music venues by 19%—that is 6,000 jobs. Will they protect artists themselves? At a lunch earlier this week with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, and others, we heard how AI is already making it harder for songwriters and musicians. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said, there is no substitute for real music.

I hope the noble Baroness will listen to the many good ideas that have come from this debate to help ensure that music continues to move our soul, our economy and our culture.

Media Green Paper

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Taken together, these proposals set out a vision for a future TV and media policy in which everyone can access world-leading public service broadcasting content, including children’s and news programming, away from the misinformation and disinformation that has defined too many of our online lives. This Government will ensure that no matter where people access their TV, they are given access to high-quality programming that informs, educates and entertains, and this Green Paper is the next stage of our ambition”.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, there is much to be commended in the Green Paper, not least adding on-demand rights to the listed events regime which we have been discussing in the Sporting Events Bill. As the Government recognise, some of the questions in there are thorny ones which will need careful consideration, not least how we ensure greater prominence for trusted news sources in our increasingly crowded media environment.

When this Urgent Question was taken in another place last week, one of the Labour members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee urged the Secretary of State to consider “reining in GB News”—a question that the Secretary of State rather sidestepped. Can the Minister provide a bit more reassurance that that is not the Government’s direction of travel? Do the Government consider GB News a trusted news source?

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

The noble Lord makes an interesting point. The whole idea of prominence is to ensure that people know the difference between trusted sources of news and opinion, and that is where the prominence issue comes in by looking at ways we can make sure that such sites come further up in the searches that people make. On the specific question, I would say it would depend whether the item on a particular news programme was opinion purporting to be fact or more factual.

Places of Worship Renewal Fund

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend Lady Prentis of Banbury, for securing this debate and congratulate her for the way she set it out. I also congratulate Matilda and James on what sounds like a splendid wedding. As their example shows, we are discussing places that record some of the most important moments in people’s lives and link us, in many cases, to 1,000 years of history of those who have also been through such moments. They are, in urban and rural areas, often the last community venues, providing not just religious services but support to the community in so many ways. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said, they are part of our civic infrastructure. The survey by the National Churches Trust has tried to put a figure on this, showing that £55 billion of social value is delivered just through churches, let alone the other places of worship of all faiths and denominations to which these schemes apply.

I am grateful to all noble Lords for speaking, and we of course send our best wishes to all the ordinands this Petertide. Liturgically, this is perhaps not the best timing for the debate, but it is a timely one to be having. These buildings, of all faiths and none, are looked after by volunteers; they are not rewarded—in this life anyway—for their service. Not every parish can rely on a former Attorney-General to help them get their head round new schemes. The old scheme had many advantages, and we have heard chiefly about its simplicity and reliability. When I was a Minister, though, I was always open to ideas. The scheme was good for those who had the money to carry out the work, but lots of churches said they wanted something that would enable them to carry out the work in the first place. I am therefore open to ideas that allow that, as the new fund does.

As others have said, however, the way that the change has been brought about is regrettable, in many ways. Initially, there was the halving of the amount available and a bit of uncertainty about whether it would continue and when, which led to a very tight window for people to be applying, certainly in this first tranche of the scheme. That of course puts further burdens on volunteers, particularly those without the resources or the professional background that would help them get their head around it. There was also a bit of a lack of consultation among the users of the scheme, which is an important point. Debates such as this are a great way for feedback to be received by the Minister and her officials in relation to those who are using the scheme to deliver that public good. However, we recognise that we are where we are, and the Government have provided clarity about the scheme for the rest of this Parliament.

I will focus, therefore, on how we can make the new scheme work best. As we have heard, it is competitive. Perhaps the Minister can say how the Government will ensure that we do not have winners and losers. Previously, there was a scheme to which everyone could apply. The cap in the old scheme was only ever met once—last year, when the amount was halved. Before that, people applying knew that they were very likely to get the money back. How do we make sure there is that reliability and dependability in the new scheme? How do we make it as user-friendly as possible, through generous deadlines, clear guidance and simple forms for the volunteers to fill in?

The new scheme focuses on areas of deprivation. There has been a lot of interest, but also a lot of head-scratching among those who are trying to work it out around the country. How can we make sure that the datasets that the scheme is based on are reliable? In particular, the Community Needs Index scores an area as more affluent if it has an asset such as a church, so how do we make sure that the methodology does not count against the places with a church that are in most need? Will the Minister work with Historic England to make sure that feedback from these early tranches is fed into the user experience?

The new system is England-only, whereas the old one was UK-wide. Will the Government work with the devolved authorities to make sure that there is support in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where, because of the different denominations, particularly of churches, there are a greater number of religious buildings needing to be looked after and saved? Will the Minister recognise that not everyone can avail themselves of the National Lottery Heritage Fund? Some faith groups and denominations do not like to apply to that particular heritage fund because it involves an element of gambling. That is why this scheme is so important.

Will this scheme be evaluated? In talking about the reasons for this scheme previously, the Minister said that eight out of 10 churches said that they would have carried on the work anyway. Of course they would, because, if the roof is falling down, you have to fix it, whether you get the tax back or not. The evaluation and the analysis are really important here. Can the evaluation of this scheme be done in conversation and consultation with users to understand some of the nuances which I think might have been lost in drawing up the current one? There might be a blend of the two schemes that would help give the grants and the tax back.

I should declare an interest: I am a trustee of the Churches Conservation Trust. In fact, I have just come from a meeting of the trustees of that secular charity that looks after 350 churches across the country. It was the biggest user of the old scheme. In effect, the ending of the tax arrangements now means a tax bill in the region of £300,000 for a charity that is funded by both church and state to look after these buildings for the good of the community. I know the Minister has been generous with her time with the chairman and chief exec of the charity, and has visited a CCT church in Rugby: I hope she will continue with the open-door approach that she has.

As we have a bit of time in hand before the hour is done, I shall draw out a bit more on the point that noble Lords have made about the work that these churches do for people of all faiths and none. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is very welcome to visit a CCT church to see the range of things that we do there: art exhibitions, recording studios, model railway exhibitions, CAMRA beer festivals, and even medieval jousting. I note that his party wants a network of cold spaces in this period of heat. There are not many places colder than a church, I can tell him. We have this network that can be used by people of all faiths and none. And of course, they are engines of training for the heritage skills that we need to repair buildings, including the one we are sitting in at the moment. I hope that the Minister will take the feedback that has been given by users of the scheme to the department to make sure that we have a scheme that really thanks and understands the custodians of these buildings who are delivering such a social good.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for leading the debate on this series of amendments. As she says, it is unavoidably in our minds today in the current heatwave. I am sure that noble Lords are particularly grateful to all the organisers of major sporting events who are working to adapt and tailor their events to the extreme temperatures that we are experiencing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is right to point to the importance of public and sustainable transport options. She is also right that they enhance the experience of people who are attending sporting events, both large and small. I have declared my interest in Formula 1 and my interest in the register of attending the British Grand Prix weekend last year. I did so by train and on the shuttle bus that the organisers at the Silverstone Circuit have been working so hard to make available, so that people can travel there in a sustainable manner. This was part of the broader commitment by Formula 1 to be net zero by 2030. Sports organisations, governing bodies and international bodies are all doing a great deal in order to provide the leadership and the changes that people rightly expect.

Major sporting events can be important focal points and rallying cries. As outlined in the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, they can be catalysts for important change in this area. He and my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke about the experience of the work done in the run-up to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

My noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned water quality. I thought, too, about the extensive debates in Paris about the quality of the water in the River Seine. When hosting these events, there is an important opportunity to bring focus to those discussions. Towards the end of his contribution, my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned ensuring that anything we do here is enabling and not too prescriptive, that it gets the balance right and acknowledges the leadership that many sporting bodies are already providing to try to achieve this. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, are right to raise this: there is merit in looking at what we can do with this legislation to drive that change in a positive way. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Amendment 95, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, refers to the major events strategy. Again, this is an area where it would be helpful to hear some of the Government’s thinking and whether there will there be a section on the environment and sustainability when it comes out.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harlech. Like my noble friend Lord Moynihan, he was unable to be here at Second Reading for constitutional reasons, but I am very glad to have him back in his place in your Lordships’ House. He has provided a strong example of the benefit of having a young, working parent on our Benches, taking part in debates such as this. On behalf of the residents of Islington and north London, he powerfully set out the impact of the celebrations that took place. Sadly, these were not dealt with and cleared up by Islington Council in the manner people would have expected—and certainly the manner that those who pay the large council tax in that borough would want.

I congratulate my noble friend on not reigniting the row that he had with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—who is a staunch Arsenal fan—during the debates on the Football Governance Bill. He has raised a very serious matter in this debate, and he clearly explained the impact that these things have. I hope the Minister will take seriously the concerns that he raised and make sure that the impact of major sporting events, and celebrations such as that, do not cause such hazards, inconvenience and dangers to local residents who are affected.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and my noble friend Lord Whitty for their amendments. As highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, there was clearly considerable consensus during the debate. I will, I hope, add to that a little, but I will probably not go as far as noble Lords would like.

This Government fully agree that environmental sustainability should be, and is, at the heart of planning and delivering the major sporting events that we host, not least—as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out—as we experience the extreme heat of this week. I, for one, am delighted to be in your Lordships’ Committee this afternoon, rather than outside in the extreme temperatures.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her work on the London Assembly and as deputy mayor for the environment and on sustainable travel. It was fascinating to hear from noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Mawson, about their work relating to London 2012. It was a reminder of the true expertise and experience in your Lordships’ House, which the ministerial team in DCMS is keen to make use of. This should not be seen as an issue that is not cross-party. It is our desire, and it is in all our interests, to make sure that we use the expertise and experience in your Lordships’ House. I will set in motion the setting up of a ministerial meeting with people who have been involved in previous bids. Why would the Government not want to benefit from the considerable knowledge that we have?

On the approach taken in the Bill, and to give just one example, we are proud of last year’s Women’s Rugby World Cup, which introduced a dedicated environmental sustainability programme across all eight host venues in England. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, we need to learn from current practice to get the balance right. The sector is already doing a lot.

Amendment 59 relates to sustainable transport. This Government recognise the importance of sustainable travel and are committed to supporting effective transport planning that helps spectators reach major sporting events safely, efficiently and, where possible, by lower-carbon modes of transport. This issue is not about the desirability of those modes of transport in principle but whether these detailed requirements should be mandated in primary legislation.

The Government’s view is that the plans prepared under Schedule 5 retain sufficient flexibility to reflect different venues, events and local transport networks. For those reasons, we do not consider it appropriate to prescribe this level of operational detail in the Bill. Major sporting events already vary significantly in scale, location, venue layout, spectator profile and local transport provision. Requiring admission tickets to confer entitlements to travel on specific public transport services would not always be within the gift of an event organiser or designated body. It may depend on commercial agreements between multiple transport operators, as well as on existing ticketing systems, service capacity and local network coverage.

It could cause unintended consequences for people using trains to commute in a sustainable way. As someone who lives on a train line that covers Wembley, I regularly share trains with people travelling to events. Most recently, when travelling while the Harry Styles concerts were taking place, I felt very underdressed— I lacked the sequins that seemed to be a requirement. In this Government’s view, sustainable transport is better secured through proportionate, locally appropriate event planning, rather than through potentially inflexible statutory requirements, but we agree that using sustainable transport is the aim.

I turn to Amendments 87 and 88, which would require organisers of events to which the Bill’s framework has been applied to publish reports on the environmental impacts associated with the event, and require the Secretary of State and event organises to have regard to climate and environmental objectives when exercising their functions under the Bill. Again, we agree with the spirit of these amendments. This is why the Bill explicitly stipulates that a sporting event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or a part of it in order for the framework to be applied. Social benefit here encompasses environmental and climate impact.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

68: Clause 25, page 19, line 11, at the beginning insert “Subject to subsection (4A),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another to Clause 25 in the name of Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay would require Parliamentary consent before financial assistance can be granted.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 68, I will also speak to Amendments 72 and 73, all of which are much shorter than my previous amendment, which was just dispatched with.

The amendments in this group, which my noble friend Lord Markham has signed as well, are intended to prevent the financial assistance provisions in Clause 25 of the Bill becoming a blank cheque that successive Governments could fill out as they see fit. To do this, our amendments require that, before the appropriate national authority grants financial assistance in connection with a sporting event, the appropriate legislature must approve that assistance by resolution. This means in practice that, if the Secretary of State wants to help fund a particular event, the House of Commons must agree to any financial commitment. When the appropriate national authority is the Scottish Ministers, the Scottish Parliament must approve the funding, and where it is a Northern Ireland department, the Northern Ireland Assembly must give its consent.

It is a long-established principle that financial measures must be subject to approval by Parliament. Erskine May says in paragraph 33.2 that the “basic constitutional principle” of financial procedure is that

“the Crown requests money, the Commons grant it, and the Lords assent to the grant”.

It continues:

“In more modern terms, the Government presents to the House of Commons its detailed requirements for the financing of the public services; it is for the Commons, acting on the sole initiative of Ministers … to authorise the relevant expenditure”.


That is the crucial point: the Government must come to Parliament, specifically another place, with proposals for the sums to be spent on each object of expenditure, and those must be detailed requirements.

Of course, there are many Bills presented to Parliament which grant the Crown a more open-ended authorisation of expenditure, but, when those Bills are considered, Members of both Houses usually pass them knowing the object of the expenditure for which they are authorising, and the sums they are authorising. The impact assessment or a briefing or explanatory note from the Government would contain the Government’s estimate of how much the measures in that Bill would be likely to cost the public purse.

The Bill before us is not a usual piece of legislation, in the sense that it seeks to create a framework for future sporting events. We do not know to exactly which events the Bill will be applied in future, nor how much financial assistance the Government of the day might wish to grant those events. Clause 25 is an open-ended financial commitment, which potentially spans many decades into the future.

It is possible, without necessarily even looking many decades into the future, to envisage a Prime Minister who is fiscally less disciplined than others. I want to make sure that we are future-proofing the Bill for all eventualities.

Of course, the Bill is not accompanied by a detailed assessment of how much money the Government propose to spend as a result of Clause 25. That is not surprising. In fact, it is perfectly understandable. The very nature of an open-ended framework Bill such as this means that it is unknowable. But, if the Government are not able to tell us how much the Bill will cost in the long term, it is not just reasonable but a clear requirement to ensure that legislative consent is required for each instance of financial assistance granted under it. That will help us to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of each measure and, I hope, guarantee that fiscal probity is baked into the legislation.

All that our amendments seek to do is apply a very sound constitutional principle that the appropriation of public money should be agreed to by the House of Commons, elected by the people. I hope that the Minister and other noble Lords will agree. I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and to agree with everything that he said. I will build on his blank cheque, which was perfectly positioned phraseology. My Amendment 71 seeks to build on that in order to get the most from the moolah. If we are going to put financial assistance in place, as we do and will, it is only right and proper to make the most of that funding, to not restrict the funding and to not put issues around it that would make it less likely for us to win these major and mega sporting events. But we need to put in conditionality that will benefit the bid itself, the event and local communities and other organisations, not just at the event time but, if correctly put in place, for years and perhaps decades to come.

In no sense am I suggesting that the wording I have set out is exhaustive or covers all the issues at hand. I seek to demonstrate a sense of the threads of E, S and G running through this funding. It has to be right that local communities benefit directly from these events, because for mega events such as the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, they put up with a lot: the bid process, the extensive build process, Games time and a significant deconstruct of all the overlay and temporary venues. They deserve, and must have, an upside during that process, at the event time and, indeed, post event. It is not just the sport that should benefit. The local community is hosting these events as well and must be included in the upside and benefits that come from that.

In my other proposed subsections, I quite rightly set out to put everything around pay gap reporting, minimum wage, procurement and supply chain in the Bill. There is so much positive impact that can be driven through the procurement and supply chain process. It is worth, at least at a principles-based level, having something in the Bill to send out the signals as to what kinds of events we want to stage in this nation: not to limit the bid, not to control and not to affect the flexibility that one needs when a governing body is bidding, but rather to enhance, sharpen and add to the bid, and to the Games and the championships experience, and to have a sense that the stadia, community, part of a city and part of our country can look forward, post Games and post event—not looking back at something that has happened in the past but taking things forward that would not have happened and would not be part of that local community were it not for the staging of that event or that Games.

It is right that we seek to get the maximum and think about what we want to say about the funding put into these events. Criteria and principles seem a perfectly acceptable way of doing this. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response and to all noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendments. It was a useful discussion and I will look carefully at what the noble Baroness said as we move to the next stage of the Bill. As I said in opening, this is not an ordinary Bill. It is not normal for Parliament to be presented with a piece of legislation that permits completely open-ended financial commitments, so this is an important area for us to look at carefully.

For instance, when Parliament was considering what became the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, the Mayor of London and the Government had already by that point entered into a memorandum of understanding, setting out how the Games would be funded were we to win the bid. Parliament, therefore, was aware of both the event for which it was legislating and approximately what the financial liability would be. My noble friend Lord Moynihan set out in great detail—adding, as he says, colour and practical reality—the complexities of the agreements and guarantees that are required when we host events of this scale.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, that cross-party support is so important. That is why we are broadly supportive of this legislation and of the Government’s ambitions in this area. But having a proper debate in Parliament, where all the parties can get their concerns off their chest and reach a resolution, is an important part of securing that cross-party agreement. My noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond in his Amendment 71 sets out just some of the many areas that Members of Parliament in both Houses will rightly want to raise when we look at these things.

At one point in her response, the Minister talked about making a departmental funding bid to the Treasury. That is fine, but it is an internal scrutiny in Government, not a role for the elected House. This was a probing amendment, as everything is in Committee, but it is probing a very important matter, so I think we ought to look at this in more detail on Report. But, with gratitude to the Minister and all those who have spoken, for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to add to this briefly. I have been sitting and listening to what has been said, and the one thing I have not heard about is working and liaising with local government. At the end of the day, it is at the forefront of providing the facilities noble Lords are talking about. Over the years, underfunding has meant that swimming pools have been closed and other sports events have not been able to function. There needs to be recognition that we in this Committee and those higher up can say what we would like to see, but we have to work with local government because it has the routes into the community and the grass-roots organisations. Those volunteers—the parents noble Lords are talking about—have the reach and their first port of call is local government.

I just wanted to add that to the debate so we can bear that in mind. We cannot do this in isolation. We must involve local government.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, this very helpful debate has, in many senses, continued the discussion we had thanks to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Moynihan, on day one in Committee, about the huge importance of leaving a legacy when we host a major sporting event. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, spoke very powerfully about that on Monday as well. The huge importance of our grass-roots sports organisations is clear once again. They do so much—not just when we are hosting these major events but particularly when the spotlight is shone on them—to get young people and people of all ages more active and more physically fit, helping improve their health and helping the pipeline of elite sports people for the future.

The Saturday morning football teams, the local cricket clubs and the swimming squads that meet in leisure centres up and down the land are the real heartbeat of the sporting culture in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, is absolutely right: three-quarters of grass-roots sports clubs depend on affordable, local, publicly funded leisure facilities to provide opportunities for people to get involved, try new sports and get more active. They certainly deserve our support. That is why it is sad to see the Government, in other departments, looking at watering down the role for Sport England in the planning system in protecting grass pitches and sports facilities. I do not know whether the Minister, when she comes to respond, can say a bit more about this review of the planning system and the role of Sport England. It has drawn concern from the Lioness, Jill Scott, and organisations such as Fields in Trust, and I hope their words of warning will be heeded.

Noble Lords are right to mention the sadness, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan put it, quoting the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, about that aspect of the last time this country hosted the Olympic and Paralympic Games. That summer of 2012 was one of the highlights of this century for this country, but that was a part of the process that we did not get as right or make as successful as we all wanted, in spite of great initiatives such as the Sport England’s Places People Play programme and the initiative the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, mentioned, with which he was associated at the time. There is a real opportunity when we host future major sporting events to make sure that we are driving forward that grass-roots legacy and driving the improvements we all want to see for future generations. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, it has been a real privilege to be part of the debate today and, with my own background, I have really enjoyed the rich contributions from around the Chamber. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the other noble Lords who have supported these amendments, especially referencing the importance they rightly attach to grass-roots sport, community participation and the legacy of major sporting events.

Taken together, these four amendments seek to enable expectations to be set around investment in grass-roots sport, including community projects and facilities, as well as in climate resilience, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has raised again. I know we had opportunities to discuss this earlier, and I probably will not dwell as much on that aspect as a result with these amendments. The amendments would also ensure that any funding under Clause 25 could be made conditional on such investment.

I said I was particularly pleased to be involved because, as a former local government leader, I recognise and completely understand the comments about the importance of local partnerships. As my noble friend Lady Dacres rightly stressed, we need to make sure that local government is at the centre of these plans. That runs throughout the Government’s approach in this regard. I emphasise that the Government are fully committed to maximising the positive legacy of major sporting events and, of course, this includes protecting and upgrading world-class facilities. But they are not just for elite athletes; they have to be accessible to local communities afterwards, and I think we have heard a great deal about that.

Picking up on the points that were made, DCMS, I am very pleased to say, is developing a national plan for physical activity that will demonstrate commitment to place-based working, embedding physical activity into local systems to strengthen the ties. We cannot look at this in isolation: it is leisure, health, civil society—all the benefits coming together. Of course, I have discussed this a great deal with the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, who emphasised detail. Details matter, particularly in the setting up of local partnerships.

We have clear principles in place to do this. The Gold Framework outlines that when seeking investment from the Government, event organisers must “have “meaningful plans” in place to generate a positive “social impact” even before the event has started. This includes considering how the event could lead to improvements in sporting facilities and infrastructure, as well as helping to tackle environmental issues. Critically, the Gold Framework is clear that the best legacy programmes are developed through engagement with the communities that they are meant to support. Picking up on the well-made points from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, this is what enables us to target funding where it is truly needed.

Participation, obviously, is the key thread running through all these principles. For example, we are investing £23 million into delivering legacy initiatives for the UEFA Euro 2028, which this Bill will help us to deliver, featuring the largest-ever community programme for a Euros tournament. It is obviously a multi-city hosting model; this also means that it is committed to supporting locally led legacy programmes, directly engaging diverse communities in design and delivery. The plans will be delivered by local stakeholders in both England and Ireland—the two host countries—to harness the power of sport and culture, bringing communities together and inspiring positive change. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, we talk a lot about the issue of volunteers, and why we are not attracting as many as before. This is all part of the strategy that the Government are bringing forward.

The current system works: it recognises that one size does not fit all, and provides flexibility that these amendments, in our view, would not. We need to continue to be able to be guided by evidence in any provision of public funding, as we have been doing, to allow us to maximise the benefits of our world-leading sporting events for the diverse communities we serve throughout the UK—of course, sport is a devolved matter for Wales and Scotland. The Sporting Events Bill will increase the UK’s prospects of hosting even more events, and with it the potential to generate more lasting socio- economic benefits for athletes and communities across the UK.

Where needed, Clause 25 of the Bill already sets out that event funding can be given subject to conditions: these could include conditions relating to supporting these important areas where warranted. The Government are already doing what we can regardless: for example, we are investing £400 million across the next four years into new and upgraded grass-roots sports facilities, promoting health, well-being and community cohesion. Some of that money has been used to upgrade clubhouses and pitches, but reducing our carbon footprint and improving overall durability is also absolutely fundamental. We are funding the Sports Grounds Safety Authority, providing evidence-based guidance to help ensure that both physical structures and fan welfare are protected during volatile climate events.

I just want to reference—because I am very proud of it—the bringing of the Grand Départ to Yorkshire. It was one of the proudest things that I have been involved in, and legacy was a thread running through it. I live on the edge of Leeds, and I know that it was scouts going round schools who found Lizzie Armitstead, who was not a cyclist then but a runner. The scouts went to the school and discovered her talent in cycling. That was first-hand, real experience of how this can work. Most important was the parallel event running alongside the Grand Départ, with thousands of people volunteering. They kept the route open for all the amateurs to go along afterwards for the whole day. Those events, and indeed all cycling events in Yorkshire, are now flooded with participants. It can be done.

There are many other examples of positive models. I have referred just to one that I am familiar with and am very proud of, but there are examples all over the country. We need to look at those examples with great positivity and recognise the incredible benefits they bring to a wide selection of communities, and the pride from families seeing their kids participating. There is a huge amount to be positive about in the approach that the Government are taking.

I hope, with the comments I have made, that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will feel able to withdraw his amendment at this point in the proceedings.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(ca) Schedule (Industrial action provisions) (“the industrial action provisions”),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts industrial action provisions, which would ban strikes by certain workers, including transport workers, when the sporting events framework is applied to a sporting event.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this first group of amendments in our debates in Committee on the Bill, not least because I was unable to speak at Second Reading. I was physically present but mentally less so, as I had just arrived back on a red-eye flight from the United States—in part, visiting Miami—which was preparing for a major sporting event of its own. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Markham, who spoke for these Benches at Second Reading. I am grateful to the Minister too for the discussions we have had about the Bill, including when I was overseas.

It is a pleasure to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger, to her place. She has joined your Lordships’ House since Second Reading. We look forward to her maiden speech in due course and to her adding her expertise to our scrutiny of sporting measures and much more.

I draw your Lordships’ attention to my register of interests, particularly the hospitality I have received attending sporting events over the past year.

In moving Amendment 1, I will also speak to Amendments 7, 54 and 57, which are also in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Markham. Taken together, these amendments seek to establish provisions relating to industrial action as a core part of the sporting events framework that the Bill ushers in, with the intent of preventing strikes taking place during a sporting event to which the framework conditions have been applied.

Amendment 1 is, very simply, an enabling amendment that would introduce the industrial action provisions. Amendment 7 would ensure that wherever an appropriate national authority applies one or more parts of the framework to a particular event by regulations made under Clause 2, it must at the same time apply the industrial action provisions. It is not an optional extra or something to be applied to some events and not others; rather, it is a mandatory part of the framework itself.

Amendment 54 would insert a new clause requiring that any such regulations specify a period during which these provisions should apply and that this period should be no shorter than the span of the sporting events framework for that particular event. That is to say, it must run from the day that any one of the framework provisions first takes effect to the day that the last provision ceases to have effect.

Amendment 57 would insert the substantive new schedule itself, creating offences for transport workers—covering airports, buses, light rail and passenger railway services—and relevant local authority workers who take strike action during the specified period, alongside offences for organising, permitting or inducing such action. The schedule would create an alternative civil route, allowing the appropriate national authority to impose a financial penalty rather than pursue a prosecution through the courts.

The Committee might ask why all this is necessary. The Government are seeking in the Bill to build a permanent framework so that the United Kingdom does not have to improvise, event by event, each time we play host to a major sporting event and welcome people from across the globe to these shores.

The Bill provides for the protection of ticketing arrangements, advertising rights, trading around venues and commercial rights against unauthorised association, but it does not at present provide protection against one of the most visible and damaging risks to any major event: the disruption caused by industrial action. Noble Lords will recall that the build-up to the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games was repeatedly shadowed by the threat of strike action from the then general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey. Even the then leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, said:

“This is a celebration for the whole country and must not be disrupted”.


In 2022, when Birmingham hosted the Commonwealth Games, ASLEF and the RMT deliberately targeted those hoping to attend by announcing walkouts on the railways either side of the Games. In May this year, staff at Edinburgh and Glasgow airports similarly voted in favour of walking out during the Commonwealth Games, which are due to take place next month. We hope that that has been averted now by a hastily agreed pay deal but, as the unions involved well knew, such a walkout would have had a significant disruptive effect on the operation and commercial viability of those Games.

These are not abstract risks; they are, sadly, recurring features of recent experience under Governments of different compositions, both in the UK and in Scotland. A Bill which seeks to create a comprehensive framework for hosting major events, with a reduced role for Parliament in scrutinising them, simply cannot leave this to chance.

Some noble Lords might think the penalties suggested in our amendments too severe. There are fines without an upper limit on summary conviction in England and Wales, a maximum fine of £50,000 in Northern Ireland and of £20,000 on summary conviction in Scotland, and financial penalties of up to £20,000 under the civil route. I want to highlight that directly, because these are not arbitrary figures. These penalties have been deliberately aligned with those the Government have suggested for the ticket touting offence and the advertising and trading offences elsewhere in the Bill. If the Committee accepts that conduct which threatens the commercial integrity of a major sporting event merits fines of this order then I hope it will also agree that we should not treat conduct which threatens to close down the event entirely any less seriously.

I also draw the Committee’s attention to the safeguards built into Amendment 57. This is not a blanket or indefinite restriction on the right to strike. The prohibition applies only for the specified period tied to the duration of the new framework for a particular sporting event. It applies to transport workers nationally since they are, by definition, mobile, but to local authority workers only in the area where the event is being held. Of course, the ban applies only where the national authority has chosen to apply the sporting events framework at all. The schedule also provides a full enforcement code, notice of intention, the right to make representations, a final notice with reasons, and a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, the sheriff or the county court, as appropriate, mirroring the safeguards attached to the ticket touting provisions already in the Bill.

My noble friend Lord Fuller has raised a very important issue about the ability of event organisers to staff these major events effectively. I have added my name to his amendment and look forward to hearing him outline it. I may return with further comments in winding up.

As we heard at Second Reading, this country competes hard and successfully for the privilege of hosting some of the world’s greatest sporting events. Having secured that privilege, we owe it to the athletes, spectators and the millions who tune in to ensure that the events can run smoothly and as planned. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the premise behind this Bill is that we need to help the organisers of the really big events put on a really good show and ensure that the country itself sweeps away those showstoppers. It recognises that putting on these events requires a national effort. My amendment seeks to ensure that the organisers can be assured of an adequate supply of labour and human capital to make the games, or relevant tournament, a success in the few weeks every decade that the circus rolls into town.

I am reminded that sport is a game of chance. That is why we like it. The uncertainty makes it so alluring. Your favourite does not always win and often there is an upset. That is the whole point. Especially in tournament play, a team’s life can be measured in terms of hours, in the case of a stage 1 knock-out, or weeks if they make it all the way to the final. There are no guarantees in this game.

Back in 2012, one of the key resources for the Olympics was labour. There were 70,000 Games makers. The Minister for Sport at the time, Hugh Robertson, said:

“The 70,000 Games Makers made such a big contribution to London 2012 and the country as a whole. They helped showcase a modern, diverse and fun Britain and warmly welcomed visitors from all over the world”.


Quite.

It was not just the unpaid volunteers and their 8 million hours of effort that made the Games so memorable. On top of that was an army of others who contributed to that success—paid employees involved in broadcasting, catering, cleaning, merchandising, ticketing, security, bar work, selling ice cream and so forth. Shall we say that about 150,000 people in total were engaged to make that event a success over a staggered month, once the Paralympics are taken into account? It might even have been more. We celebrate that and, indeed, without their efforts, there would not have been a celebration at all. People worked around their normal lives to give what time they could, and it worked.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Fuller, for these amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for speaking to this group. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger, to your Lordships’ House; I look forward to future conversations with her on this Bill and other related matters.

The amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, would have the combined effect of introducing a framework to prevent transport and local authority workers engaging in industrial action during specified periods linked to sporting events. This would include creating offences relating to participation in, and the organisation or inducement of, such action. In their manifesto, the Government committed to repeal the minimum service level legislation and other restrictions on the right to strike, and we did this in the Employment Rights Act 2025—so, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made clear, we have existing laws relating to industrial action.

These amendments seek to reintroduce significant restrictions on the ability of workers to take industrial action. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 demonstrated, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. Instead of banning strike action, the Government want to bring in a new era of industrial relations that is built on collaboration and co-operation across parties. We are committed to establishing a new model for industrial relations fit for the 21st century, including an industrial relations framework that establishes firm expectations on how workers and employers should conduct themselves. This includes engaging with one another and working together in the interests of the workforce, the economy and the wider public. Our industrial relations framework will build on our legislative agenda and provide guidance on how employers, workers and unions can work together to deliver positive and effective industrial relations, including during periods of industrial action.

Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, would mean that the right to guaranteed hours, the right to reasonable notice and the right to payments for shifts moved, cancelled or curtailed at short notice do not apply at major sporting events to which the provisions of the Bill have been applied. The flexibility offered by zero-hours contracts and contracts with a minimum number of hours can benefit both workers and employers, but it is our view that without appropriate safeguards this flexibility can become one-sided. The zero-hours measures in the Employment Rights Act 2025 aim to end one-sided flexibility by ensuring that all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability.

I do not think the noble Lord will be surprised to hear that I disagree with him on this being an appropriate amendment. Any exclusions or exemptions at this stage would pre-empt the Government’s consultation on reforms relating to zero-hours and similar contracts, which is currently open. In this consultation, the Government seek to gather insight through the input of stakeholders, including on potential exclusions and exemptions. We need to ensure that the views of all stakeholders are first taken into account before any decisions on exclusions and exemptions are made. We intend to ensure that all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability so that workers can better plan their lives and finances. We would be keen for sporting event stakeholders to participate in the consultation on reforms relating to zero-hours and similar contracts to inform the development of the policy. On the basis of the points I have made, I hope the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Fuller, will not press their amendments.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their comments. As the noble Lord said, there is an element of risk here, but, as we know, this is a proven risk. In 2012, 2022 and earlier this year, we saw the deliberate targeting of major sporting events by trade unions to exert some political pressure, and I was sorry not to hear criticism from the other two Benches about their doing so. We agree that trade unions have the right to make their protest, but I would hope that noble Lords reflect that targeting games such as these, which try to rise above politics—at a geopolitical level as well—should not be targeted in the way that we have seen in the past.

The risk balance has shifted a bit because of some of the changes the Minister outlined. The changes brought in by the Employment Rights Act 2025 do cause problems, which your Lordships’ House scrutinised well and highlighted as that legislation went through. I see that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, is in his place; he made very strong points from the Cross Benches about some of the perverse effects that Act of Parliament may have. However, even if one accepts the argument the Government were making there, sporting events of this nature are very different. These are temporary, one-off events where people are able to work, as my noble friend Lord Fuller said, in a life-changing way for an event that comes and goes, for which the employment is not there any more.

If we do not make the sort of changes to the Bill we have suggested, we worry that the practical effect will be perverse. Rather than offering more secure work, organisers will simply offer less work and circumvent the guaranteed-hours duty by relying on short fixed-term contracts and outsourced or overseas suppliers, or on asking more of unpaid volunteers, rather than the flexible part-time and casual staff who have made the delivery of previous games such a success. We might return to this in some form on Report. I hope we can keep the discussions on this point going, but for now I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

9: Clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations made by an appropriate national authority under this section may not have effect for a period that is longer than the specified period.(5B) In subsection (5A), the “specified period” means a period of time that must—(a) begin no earlier than the beginning of the period of 21 days ending immediately before the day on which the sporting event begins, and(b) end no later than the end of the period of 5 days beginning with the day after the day on which the sporting event ends.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would establish a maximum period in which the sporting events framework can be implemented in relation to a particular event.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

I want also to pick up on the points made about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and make it explicitly clear that we are carefully considering its recommendations. We are committed to working constructively with noble Lords across the Chamber to ensure we strike the right balance in the level of scrutiny applied. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will take reassurance from these comments and withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response, particularly the reassurances she has given and the explanation about ticketing powers, transport restrictions and so on. As she rightly said, these are probing amendments, but they are probing with a purpose. The Bill seeks to take some quite sweeping powers, in some cases restricting people’s liberties, the operation of commercial businesses and much more. We want to make sure that where those powers are taken, they are not on the statute book for longer than they need to be. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, these are exceptional measures for extraordinary circumstances. That is important to get right, so we will take another look at the Bill in light of what the Minister has said and make sure we are satisfied that that is the case. We think we are being generous with a 50-day limit; if the Olympic and Paralympic Games can take place within that window, it is hard to envisage a major sporting event that might need longer. We will take that away and look at it further.

On Amendments 11 and 12 and the point about secondary legislation, I am grateful for what the Minister said about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I look forward to hearing what the Government say in detail, ahead of Report, on its concerns about the Bill here. I am not sure I quite agree that Parliament will have the opportunity for a full debate; at the moment, secondary legislation is limited to an hour, and we have heard repeatedly, even today, of the significant issues that need to be looked at each time we are legislating for the hosting of a major sporting event. So, we have some concerns there.

We certainly would be concerned if there was a two-tier structure of the first set of regulations and the subsequent ones, which could be very significant. I hope the Government will continue to look at that ahead of Report, because I am pretty sure we will return to that, certainly given the criticisms of the committee. With that, I thank the Minister for her reply, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 9.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

We are ending up in a mission creep by introducing new offences for individuals—we will talk about ticketing later on.

I realise I have a minority view, but I want to express it, and I should do. There is a misdirection with all these amendments that by putting them on a list, the Government can keep them here. I just do not think that is a reasonable assertion. The organising bodies, such as the British Automobile Racing Club, the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club at Wimbledon have to work hard, need to live off their wits and need to want to keep these events here. By putting them on a list and bringing them within scope, it will potentially upset the events that we know and love by bringing them into the political space. I just think that that is the wrong thing to do.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, maybe I can set my noble friend Lord Fuller’s mind to rest. Along with colleagues in the shadow DCMS team, I have spoken to a number of the major sporting bodies, which are keen, as some of our noble friends said, to avail themselves of some of the opportunities of the Bill if the scope could be broadened to allow them to do so. That is the key test: where they wish to do so. My noble friends are right, as we have been throughout the Bill, to talk about some of the restrictions and burdens that come with it, but it is very clear that there is an appetite in the sporting world beyond the one-off events—such as the Olympic, Paralympic or Commonwealth Games, which we host from time to time—for some of our major sporting events that happen on a more regular basis to be included in the framework and for us not to be playing second fiddle.

At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, challenged us to be a bit bolder in the Bill, and this has been a very good group of amendments and debate that have encouraged us to do that. We heard a huge number of examples of the major sporting events, which bring delight to people across this country and across the world on a regular basis. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and particularly my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park, for bringing their amendments, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to see if we can be bolder and give those advantages to many other sporting organisations as well. My noble friend Lady Evans described these events as the ones that that define Britain as a major sporting power. It would be unthinkable to imagine some of them disappearing from our calendars.

I pay tribute to my noble friend’s work with the London Marathon Foundation. As my noble friend Lord Hayward noted, it is marvellous to see that the London Marathon will extend to two days next year, including many more people. Of course, it is competing with so many other marathons around the world. People come to these shores because they want to run on the streets of London and because it is such a well-organised marathon, but we are competing constantly with the potential for people to go to other cities and parts of the world.

There would be consternation in my house if Formula 1 did not include a race in the United Kingdom. The UK is one of only two nations to have hosted a Grand Prix every year since Formula 1 began in 1950, and for that not to be the case is unthinkable. I am glad that Silverstone is secure through its current contract until at least 2034, but that requires hard work by the organisers. There is constant competition. This is a sport whose global popularity is increasing. We have to keep on our toes and make sure that we continue to deliver the brilliant events that people are expecting. As my noble friend said, the British Grand Prix attracts more than 500,000 people annually, generates £100 million in local economic impact each year and contributes to a wider Formula 1 ecosystem in the UK that is worth over £12 billion annually. When one thinks of how many of the teams are based in the United Kingdom, the supply chains and R&D that ripples from that, just to take one sport for as an example, we can see the benefits. The key question is how we can broaden the Bill, if possible, to allow those that wish to do so to take advantage of some of that boldness—

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I anticipate that the Minister may say that it is quite difficult to broaden this without being specific. I have one thought, having listened to this debate and been very supportive of what has been said. If, for example, the R&A for the Open golf wanted to avail itself of the benefits of the sporting events framework that we are putting into legislation, would it not be possible to distinguish between the international federations that recognise these events as international events on their calendars?

Take Wimbledon, the marathon or golf’s Open Championship. All are recognised by the relevant international federations and placed on their calendars. If we are looking for a way to put this into legislation, it might be worth considering defining it along those lines, overtly avoiding the problem that everybody might be able to apply for their own event. That would rule out, for example, the Boat Race. I can see significant problems with the transport provisions of the Bill if they were applied to the Boat Race and the whole west of London on Boat Race day. I give that as an example and a helpful contribution that I hope the Minister can take away and consider.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank my noble friend, who has rowed in the Boat Race, for his constructive and very good challenge. We are looking for a way of broadening the Bill in a rational way. He is right to draw the distinction with events that are internationally renowned. As my noble friend Lady Evans says, these are the ones that define our well-earned sporting reputation for being able to host such major events on the global stage. Whether it is done through that or another metric, this is well worth looking at in greater detail as we head to Report.

My noble friend Lord Fuller asked where this all ends, but the question really is: where does this begin? We are promised a major events strategy from DCMS. I understand that the Government have taken the legislative slot that is available and proceeded with the Bill now. They are right to do so, but it is a shame that we did not have that strategy in advance of this Bill. It would have informed some of the debates here and answered some of the questions that noble Lords have raised on cultural events, music events and ticketing provisions that apply there as well. Perhaps the Minister can say a bit more about when we might see that major events strategy, how it is designed to feed into this framework and the thinking that has gone on in her department in drawing up this Bill in advance of that strategy. It is slightly unfortunate that we are discussing it this way around because of the legislative time available.

I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group. If we can work constructively, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan and others suggest, we can take the opportunity to be a bit bolder and help the organisers of major sporting events—which do so much to enhance the soft power and renown of this country—to do so even better in the future.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Lady Evans of Bowes Park and Lady Grey-Thompson, for these amendments and for their time to discuss an important topic. Regarding the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I genuinely appreciate the spirit in which he and others have tabled these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, gave a remarkable list of recurring events that we have in this country and highlighted the value—including the economic value—of events such as Silverstone.

I assure your Lordships’ Committee that the Government are committed to supporting our domestic sports sector and the UK’s sporting calendar, building on the strong partnerships and existing frameworks already in place. This work will be underpinned by the UK-wide major events strategy, which—in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—my department intends to publish within the next 12 months. This will set out our priorities for major events taking place across the UK, covering major events in all sectors—cultural, sporting and business. I hope that the process of undertaking this strategy makes some of those sporting organisations that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, says feel unloved now feel that this puts them front and centre of our minds and priorities at DCMS.

The time-limited provisions in the Bill are designed to attract specific one-off events that require the Government to make commitments to event owners during the bidding process. It is not possible to secure the hosting rights for these events without making such commitments. Global competition to secure these events is only increasing. For the UK to remain competitive against this global competition for the biggest international events, we need to show that we are event ready to meet event owner requirements.

The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, made a point around the Cricket World Cup. The nature of the framework means that we expect particular events to be considered on a case-by-case basis. However, the ICC Cricket World Cup is the type of event that could meet the conditions, depending on the exact circumstances of the event. In contrast, events that are hosted on a recurrent basis in the UK do not generally have the same externally set mandatory requirements as events that hold competitive international bid processes.

As the Bill was developed, we worked closely with some of the biggest recurrent sporting events to understand the demand for these provisions. While there was some interest in the advertising and trading provisions, we found that there was no clear or consistent evidence base on the negative economic impact of the status quo for the inclusion of a breadth of successfully recurring domestic events. Where interest was expressed, we also found that there was insufficient appetite from the sector to fund the enforcement action that would be required of local authorities should these provisions be extended to them. We are continuing the discussions with relevant bodies that have taken place since Second Reading.

No assessment was provided during the discussions prior to Second Reading of the likely enforcement burden. Given that these are criminal offences, enforcement by any organisation other than a public body would not be appropriate or proportionate. None the less, I am genuinely grateful for the constructive ways in which noble Lords have raised points regarding the potential for us going further and for highlighting the importance of recurrent sporting events. They have a significant, cherished and valuable role for the nation.

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, about the London Marathon potentially having 100,000 athletes and accompanying visitors—I will not be taking part and am more likely to be an accompanying visitor—shows the scale of these domestic events. I would welcome further discussion with noble Lords on this matter and will continue to listen to views from the sports sector. Upon reviewing any new evidence, I will consider carefully what steps would be appropriate and practical.

On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, around better facilities for women and girls, the Government’s £400 million investment into grass-roots facilities will continue to support increased participation for women and girls through a place-based approach across the UK over the next four years. We will more than double priority access to grass-roots football pitches for women and girls in England as part of plans to honour the Lionesses’ victory at UEFA Women’s Euro 2025, as well as dedicating flagship sites to the Lionesses. The Football Foundation has also launched the Lionesses HERe to Play fund, providing small grants to create welcoming, safe and accessible facilities for women and girls.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and others also highlighted provision and access for people with disabilities or other protected characteristics, which I look forward to debating in a future group in Committee on Wednesday. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his suggestion.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised the point about how we encourage physical activity and, critically, make sure that we do not just have elites and then the rest who are not fit and healthy. The development of grass-roots sport outside school and how we encourage physical activity is critical for this Government. This year, we are already investing £85 million through the multisport grass-roots facility programme to build and upgrade high-quality grass-roots sports pitches and facilities in the communities across the UK that need them most. This is part of a total package of at least £400 million that will be invested in new and upgraded grass-roots sports facilities in communities right across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hayward issued a useful corrective. Just as there is no such thing as government money but only taxpayers’ money, there is no such thing as free-to-air broadcasting; we pay for it through some means or another. It is a timely reminder in a year when we look again at the BBC’s royal charter and the licence fee model, which pays not just for the BBC but is required for viewing any of our public service broadcasters.

We are in many senses overdue a debate about the listed events regime by which we try to pick those crown jewels of sporting events. We would have had one during the passage of what became the Media Act 2024, but because that was taken in wash-up, we did not have the debate that perhaps was needed then. I hope that as we look at the royal charter for the BBC, we can look at this in some detail. Maybe the Minister can say a bit about that either now or at subsequent stages on the Bill.

This was looked at at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Davies of Devonport, who spoke powerfully about the fact that if public money—taxpayers’ money—is spent on hosting major sporting events, we want as many of those taxpayers as possible to be able to see, benefit and be inspired by them. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, was right about the importance of visibility and prominence, particularly of the Paralympic Games, which has done so much to change people’s perceptions of those with disabilities and brought so many broadcasters and commentators with disabilities on to our screens when so many people are watching with great pride and excitement.

Like the noble Baroness, I share some sadness that the Commonwealth Games will not be broadcast on the BBC this year, for the first time since the Games began in 1950. The live rights have gone to TNT Sports and only highlights will be available on a public service broadcaster—Channel 5. One thinks of seminal moments such as Roger Bannister’s “miracle mile” and the people who will not be able to be inspired by moments such as that.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. It links very much to the debates we need to have over the BBC’s royal charter and paying for our public service broadcasters. Again, this hits at the problem we have in the Bill. We are trying to set up a framework anticipating what the world will look like many years hence in many different ways that have a knock-on effect for sporting life in this country.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their amendments. Amendments 15 and 26 seek to add a further condition to the Bill’s framework, requiring any qualifying sporting event to make live coverage free of charge to the UK public. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, about the importance of having, for example, the Lionesses on the BBC and the Channel 4 coverage of the Paralympics.

I and the Government recognise the intent behind these amendments and are committed to ensuring that major sporting events are as accessible as possible to people across the UK, including where broadcasting is concerned. Indeed, during the debate on the football regulator, one of the discussions we had was about what made a spectator and what made a fan. For most people, it is not watching it live but instead watching it largely on television.

However, unfortunately, these amendments are not ones that the Government can support. The central issue is that they would make the application of this framework dependent on broadcasting arrangements having already been secured on free-to-air—I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, which was repeated by the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Parkinson, that it is not free-to-air but rather it is free-to-air once you have paid your licence fee or an equivalent free-access basis.

Decisions relating to the broadcast coverage of sporting events are commercial matters for broadcasters, event organisers and the holders of broadcasting rights. Those organisations are operationally independent of government, and rightly so. Broadcasting rights provide essential income for national governing bodies and sport broadcasting rights holders, which enables them to invest in their sports, future events and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, grass-roots sports. She cited the example of Wimbledon, but there are other examples from across the piece. This amendment would place tighter controls over their ability to generate much-needed broadcasting revenue for an indefinite period.

There is also a practical concern. The timelines for agreeing broadcasting rights will not always align with the bidding processes and other requirements that this framework is intended to support. Making the framework conditional on those agreements already being in place could therefore create delay, uncertainty and unnecessary rigidity. Other bidding nations may not be subject to such restrictions, potentially making the UK less competitive.

The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that there is a breadth of free-to-air coverage of sporting events for licence fee payers. I agree with all noble Lords who stressed the importance of people seeing sport. The current listed events regime is designed to ensure that sporting events of national significance are available to as wide an audience as possible by prohibiting exclusive broadcasting of the event without prior consent from Ofcom.

In response to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made about people being potentially excluded by dint of their economic circumstances, the listing of events ensures that broadcast rights to that event, if offered, must be made available on fair and reasonable terms to the free-to-air channels received by 95% of the population.

The Government believe that the current listed events regime works well and strikes a perfect balance between encouraging free-to-air access to a number of sporting events for audiences and allowing sports to maximise broadcasting revenue to invest in the growth and development of those sports. I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the ability to talk about having seen major sporting events is a bonding event, which can exclude people who are not able to take part in that. In any event, we would expect broadcasters and sporting rights holders for specific events to think carefully about the balance between generating much-needed revenue and ensuring access to sports coverage for viewers, ensuring the growth and development of the sport.

Amendment 79 seeks to ensure that where the Secretary of State gives financial assistance under Clause 25 in respect of a sporting event, she must require the recipient to take all reasonable steps to ensure that live coverage of that event is made available free of charge, either directly or on a platform accessible without subscription in the United Kingdom. The Government fully recognise the importance of broadcasting certain sporting events to attract significant audience interest and make events as accessible as possible. We appreciate the sentiment that, where public support is involved, sporting events should be as widely available to the public as possible. However, again, this amendment is not one that the Government can accept.

The first reason is one of principle. Clause 25 is a funding power, intended to support the effective delivery of sporting events. It is not a broadcasting regulation power, nor is it intended to be used to direct or shape the outcome of commercial negotiations over media rights. Broadcasting arrangements for sporting events are matters for broadcasters, event organisers or the holders of the broadcasting rights, all of whom are operationally independent of government. It would not be appropriate to use the Bill or this funding power to intervene in those negotiations indirectly through grant conditions.

Secondly, funding decisions, event planning and broadcast rights negotiations do not always proceed to the same timetable. As a result, the amendment could create delay, complication and uncertainty in the use of Clause 25 support.

Thirdly, there is a risk to workability. If organisers or recipients cannot be confident about satisfying such a condition at the relevant point in time, it may make financial assistance harder to administer and could reduce the flexibility that Clause 25 is designed to provide.

For those reasons, I respectfully ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that intervention and for identifying other areas. I tried to make it clear that I had taken only one element of one page of an impact assessment. It was on page 41. The impact assessment is over 90 pages long, with central, low and high estimates in all sorts of different categorisations There is no overall assessment of cost potential for any small or large business or the impact on the economy.

There is lots of explanation that tells us how wonderful it is going to be week in, week out, because of the benefits of sport. That is right—we have all recognised that—but there is an indistinct identification of the potential costs to some small and very small businesses, and we really should recognise the potential implications for all concerned.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, in many senses, we have outperformed a World Cup football squad tonight, because we have hit the target ahead of schedule for this first day in Committee, and we have done it without a hydration break.

Let me begin with the two amendments I have tabled in this group. It is an important group on which to end our debate, because it deals with the significant impact of the Bill on the restrictions on commercial interests, small as well as big, a point that my noble friends have rightly accentuated. My Amendment 40 seeks to create an exemption for charities from the advertising offences in the Bill, applying only where a charity is advertising wholly or partly for the purpose of promoting itself or a specified list of charitable services. I hope the Minister will be attracted to it. It is word for word taken from the provisions in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games (Advertising and Trading) Regulations 2021. If it was suitable then, why not for the new framework that we are seeking to set out?

Amendment 55 similarly relates to charitable exemptions. Paragraph 1(2)(d) of Schedule 3 to the Bill states that a “Trading activity” includes

“appealing for money or other property (whether for charitable or other purposes), with the exception of begging”.

That means that the offence of trading in a restricted trading zone applies to charitable fundraising but not to people who are begging. I wonder if the noble Baroness can explain why it has been drawn up in that way. Surely we do not want to restrict people from collecting for good causes where that can be done in a way that is consistent with the sporting event, particularly when we consider that charities historically have been exempted from the advertising offences when we have hosted sporting events of this nature in the past.

I have tried in doing that to follow the example that my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond has taken with his Amendment 39. As he said, that mirrors the approach taken in the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, which provided carve-outs for community and educational uses, and I congratulate him on the way he set that one out.

I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, undersold his Amendment 38 a little. It concerns the impact of exclusive advertising authorisations on small and medium-sized enterprises and, as my noble friend Lord Hayward has done, it is worth drawing the Committee’s attention to what the Government’s own impact assessment says about this, because it is rather revealing. The final stage impact assessment, published by the department, acknowledges candidly that the provisions most likely to affect small and micro-businesses are the trading provisions of this Bill, which could prevent established street and market traders operating as usual in and around restricted zones. It recognises that there may be

“small disproportionate impacts on local traders relative to the broader business community”.

Therefore, it acknowledges that the greatest potential impact will fall on street traders in affected areas—as my noble friend Lord Fuller said, the people who add to and enhance the enjoyment of many people going to sporting events. The impact assessment promises that

“careful consideration will be given to how best to mitigate these impacts when making regulations on a case-by-case basis”.

That is a candid admission, but candour in an impact assessment is not the same as a legal safeguard in the Bill. Amendment 38 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, seeks to translate the Government’s own stated intentions from the impact assessment into an enforceable obligation. I think that one is worth the Minister looking at carefully in her response this evening but perhaps also as we consider all the issues we have looked at today between now and Report. I am grateful to noble Lords for all their amendments in this group.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Addington, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham, Lord Fuller and Lord Holmes of Richmond, for their amendments.

Amendment 38, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would require a designated person to have regard to additional factors related to small and medium or local enterprises when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation. We share the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that such businesses are not unfairly impacted and that they are able to benefit from the sporting event where appropriate.

In the interest of proportionality, we intend to minimise the impacts of the advertising provisions on existing businesses by introducing exceptions to the offences in regulations. These exceptions would be based on existing advertising controls to allow usual advertising on business premises. Businesses within a restricted zone wishing to display advertising that is not subject to an exception may be able to seek authorisation to do so—for example, from the event organiser or local authority. Where an authorisations process is in place and the proposed activity does not undermine commercial sponsors, businesses with an existing licence to advertise should be given precedence.

Before making regulations, the Secretary of State or devolved authority must consult with the relevant authority and any other persons. This could include local businesses. Guidance setting out the advertising restrictions that will be in place must also be made available.

Amendment 39, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, would create an exception to the advertising offence for certain non-commercial entities. We recognise the vital work each of these does for local communities. In most cases, they will not be affected by the advertising provisions in the Bill. I will say more on charities shortly, but I stress that the advertising offence will capture charities and other non-commercial entities only if they are advertising a business, product or service in a restricted zone. Where such entities could be affected, we will look to provide an appropriate exception in regulations. This will ensure that the interest of any charity partner in an event, if there is one, can be taken into account where necessary. Generally, this means providing exceptions in regulations on a case-by-case basis to ensure that they are proportionate, workable and event-specific. Again, guidance will be made available, making clear how non-commercial entities could be affected and the options available to them.

Amendment 40 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, creates an exception to the advertising offence for promoting charities and certain charitable services. We share the spirit of this amendment. However, as this is a UK-wide framework, exceptions must be workable across the four nations. These separate jurisdictions have differing laws defining and regulating charities. To ensure that exceptions related to charities can be applied effectively, these will need to be brought forward in regulations drafted in accordance with local laws, taking into account the interests of any charity partners. Charities will be captured by the offence only where they are promoting a product, business or service. As I stated in relation to a previous group, exceptions will always be provided for advertising certain charitable services—for example, crisis mental health support services such as a hotline. To highlight our intention in this area, the Bill explicitly states that exceptions to the advertising offence could be made for the purpose of promoting charities or services provided by charities.

Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, would remove appealing for money or other property from the definition of “trading activity”. I believe it was this amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, spoke to when she talked about knitted items and proportionality in relation to that. That was a good example and the type of example I have been putting to the Bill team to test. I understand that this amendment is looking to probe why charitable fundraising is within the scope of the trading offence. The trading offence is designed to regulate activity that could disrupt the easy and free movement of spectators and provide a mechanism to control the number of traders, including charity collectors, operating within a restricted zone. For this reason, a number of local authorities already regulate charity collections in public places. Although I am sympathetic to the spirit of this amendment, a blanket exception for charitable fundraising could undermine these objectives. For example, an event may have an official charity partner which may need to be given priority over a fundraising activity in a restricted trading zone.

EU-UK Cultural Exchange Arrangements

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As I mentioned in an earlier response, Minister Murray co-chaired the first UK-European Commission high-level meeting on culture. One priority for his work in this area is ensuring that, working closely with music and arts industry stakeholders, we engage with European counterparts to work through some of the clear obstacles that we would be keen to address in relation to our creative sector being able to access EU countries. The previous question on visas shows that we are actively looking at this, but there are issues that we need to work through.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, we all want to see better cultural exchange, not just with the 27 members of the EU but with 200 countries around the world. Issues of visas, cabotage and carnets are not restricted to the European Union. What work are the Government doing on the broader international stage to make it easier for artists, musicians and others to travel the world, not just to those countries immediately on our doorstep?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The UK has made a number of arrangements with non-EU countries that are possible because we have been outside the EU, as part of our work on that since Brexit, so there are opportunities for broader cultural exchange. One of the successes of this Government’s work on culture is in some of the delegations that have taken place to non-EU countries. There has been huge enthusiasm from our sectors here for that, but also from the countries to which UK delegations have travelled.

National Arts Bank

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, for securing this debate and for outlining it so powerfully. I congratulate him too on the impressive record that he and his colleagues in Southwark were able to rely on. I am a Southwark resident myself—in fact, it was the strong cultural offering of the borough that attracted me to the area—so I have the benefit of seeing some of the fruits of his hard labour.

The noble Lord mentioned Mountview, the Central School of Ballet and the Old Vic in his opening speech. There are too many cultural venues in the borough to mention, but I will single out two that are celebrating significant anniversaries this year: the Southbank Centre, Europe’s, largest arts centre, which turns 75 this year, and Theatre Peckham, closer to where I live, which turns 40. I congratulate him on the pioneering work that he did and agree that other parts of the country could look to Southwark as a model.

I am glad that they will be able to think about culture much more proactively because of the concession the Government made during the passage of the then English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. In your Lordships’ House, we added culture as an area of strategic competence, which I hope will encourage more local authorities, particularly the metro mayoralties, to look seriously at this area.

The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, mentioned the work of the Theatres Trust as an arm’s-length body. The Government are looking at the planning system and the role that bodies such as the Theatres Trust have. Is the Minister able to say any more at this point on the powers they have on planning? I hope that they will be able to continue their work in encouraging local authorities to think about theatres and other cultural venues.

I am proud of the record of the previous Conservative Government. I had the pleasure of serving in the final three years as Arts Minister. In addition to securing a modest increase in the last Arts Council investment programme, I am proud that we expanded, and then made permanent, the tax reliefs available to theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries, which support them in innovative work and particularly in touring them around the country. However, the noble Lord is right that the capital needs of our cultural sector are pressing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, and others said, our cultural infrastructure is creaking. The noble Baroness, Lady Hyde of Bemerton, mentioned the figures by SOLT and UK Theatre for theatres alone.

A game-changer for our cultural life in this country was of course the creation of the National Lottery by the Conservative Government of John Major. That brought a huge influx of investment into our culture and heritage. We saw that first wave of lottery investment at the turn of the last century: everybody’s boiler, roof and building are now leaking and need fixing at the same time. There is a pressing backlog of work for our cultural sector. These are the unsexy things to fundraise for. It is much easier to get a new wing of something built than it is to replace a boiler, to improve the lavatories, and so on. Our cultural sector wants to take a lead in being more environmentally sustainable, and brilliant organisations such as the Theatre Green Book are helping them to do that. They want to be proactive in the changes that they make to their buildings.

The previous Government had a series of funds—the museum estate and development fund, the cultural development fund, the towns fund, the UK shared prosperity fund and the levelling-up fund—all of which gave grants to cultural organisations around the country to help them do some of that work. I had the pleasure of visiting some of the beneficiaries, including one in Southwark—the Old Operating Theatre, near London Bridge—where a grant of £157,000 helped it replace the Georgian skylight that looks down on the old operating table at St Thomas’ Church, part of what is now St Thomas’ Hospital.

The noble Lord and other noble Lords who have spoken today are right: we need to look at innovative ideas in the round. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, singled out the success stories of @sohoplace and the Bridge Theatre. As I understand it, the Bridge Theatre benefited, in part, from Section 106 money. Part of the development done in that part of London allowed the creation of a brilliant new theatre, thanks to the brilliant pioneering work of people such as Nick Hytner, Nick Starr and Nica Burns in the case of @sohoplace. We should be looking at organisations such as Figurative, which are looking at new funding models for arts and culture, and cultural leaders such as Sir Vernon Ellis, who is looking in great detail at how we can encourage more place-based giving.

As noble Lords have said, we should all be reading very well-thumbed copies of the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge of Barking. I am very glad the Government have accepted all her recommendations. There are many good ideas in there. We have heard some of them. On the idea that the Arts Council could be given more powers to have a trading arm to benefit from some of the investment that it gives, would that require a change in its royal charter? If so, I do not know whether the Minister can say anything on how the Government might implement these recommendations, but we hope to see these ideas bearing fruit soon.

I was struck in the noble Baroness’s report by the French example of the loi Aillagon, brought in by Jean-Jacques Aillagon, who was the Culture Minister of France in 2003, which gives generous tax deductions of up to 60% for French corporations that make donations. When I was Arts Minister here, we saw a work by Gustave Caillebotte saved for the French nation—a £43 million painting going to the Musée d’Orsay—thanks to a donation from LVMH, a corporation. It was able to claim 90% of that back in tax relief, a very generous allowance that unlocks philanthropy.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, that we need to be much bolder in the face of boycotts. Like many, I regret the departure of Baillie Gifford from literary festivals. At the Hay Festival, I am afraid to say, two Labour politicians from both Houses were among those who pulled out. We all need to be strong in the face of boycotts and stand up and thank those companies that are generous with their money in support of arts and culture in our country.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, was right: we benefit here from a mixed model of funding. It is not quite the subsidised model of the European continent and not quite the philanthropy of the United States, but a blend of both. When I was Arts Minister, people were very clear with me that individuals and businesses will give, but only if the Government are seen to be doing their part as well. Does the Minister agree that we benefit from that mixed model? Clearly, the innovative thinking in Southwark has done so, and I am very glad that we have been able to have this debate to look at new ideas to encourage people in other parts of the country, too.