Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Blake of Leeds

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

EU-UK Summit: Visa Waiver Agreement

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Blake of Leeds

Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for raising this important issue. Of course, the UK Government recognise the financial and administrative challenges that withholding tax presents for UK artists touring in the EU. I can reassure the noble Baroness that we are carefully considering the most effective ways to help our touring artists to contribute to Europe’s rich cultural landscape, so that we can provide European audiences with a diverse offering and support UK-EU cultural collaboration. I can only repeat that I cannot be more specific about the 19 May summit—but it is a very important issue that she raises.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, it is disappointing that, with 11 days to go before the summit, the Minister cannot yet answer the question that the noble Earl poses on behalf of our creative professionals, particularly when the Government are now admitting what they had previously denied—that they are open to a youth mobility scheme with the European Union. Rather than allowing young people with no job to come to the UK without restriction, would not it be better to prioritise the hard-working creative professionals who want to tour more readily across the continent, bringing joy to our lives as well as value to our economies?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

At the top of my lines, I do have the advice to make sure that we keep the collaborative spirit between us. But can I be frank? We have a summit coming up a week on Monday. Is that not progress from where we were before?

Football Governance Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Blake of Leeds

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am sorry to intervene so early, but the noble Baroness has said something quite stark. The policy of the United Kingdom is very clear in relation to the Russian Federation at the moment. Roman Abramovich was sanctioned because of the UK’s very clear position and the ownership of Chelsea was changed for a brief period. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport owned it on behalf of the nation and oversaw the sale. I understand the Government’s stated reasons for taking this out of the Bill, but should the regulator not be able to take into account the foreign policy issues of the day on something as important as this?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Lord has pre-empted the further comments that I was going on to make. I can address this here. Clearly, in the example that is given regarding Russia, anyone connected to a state that is subject to sanctions would not pass the test. That is a straightforward way of picking up some of the concerns that he has raised.

The intention with all this is to ensure that the test can be applied consistently and remain fair, transparent, robust and focused on whether an individual is suitable to own a football club. Furthermore, the Government have been clear that the independence of the regulator is vital. That is the point I want to stress here and that is why the Government have removed the requirement for the regulator to have regard to His Majesty’s Government’s foreign and trade policy objectives when assessing an owner’s suitability, which is the precise requirement this amendment seeks to include.

Turning to Amendment 191, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and assure him that the intent of his amendment is already achieved in the Bill as drafted. The Bill sets out a number of matters the regulator must take into account when considering an owner or officer’s fitness as part of the owners’ and directors’ test. One of these is whether the owner or officer has been party to civil proceedings. As with all public bodies, the regulator must take into account all relevant matters and must disregard irrelevant matters when it comes to making decisions. That means that the things listed in Clause 37(2) will affect the regulator’s decision only if they are relevant in a specific case. That picks up on the issue of relevance.

In other words, the regulator must treat these things as potentially relevant to its decision, but it must consider the specific facts and context in every case. The noble Baroness, Lady Brady, also picked up on the issue of relevance. For example, the regulator will not be concerned with whether an owner or officer has contested a speeding ticket. However, it will be concerned if a civil court has found that an owner or officer has acted in a seriously dishonest way or if they have a track record of civil cases that cast significant doubt on their integrity. The test is designed to allow the regulator to make a holistic evidence-based assessment of suitability, taking the context into account, as I have mentioned previously.

I turn to Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and Amendment 201 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton. On the latter, I completely agree that an unspent serious criminal conviction is likely to affect whether an individual is suitable to be a club’s custodian. That is why the regulator is already required to take any criminal convictions into account when assessing an owner or officer’s suitability —it does not have a choice: it has to. I reassure my noble friend that we take her comments seriously and are grateful for the way in which she expressed them today.

The Bill does not set out exhaustive details on every element of the fitness test as to what constitutes a pass or fail. Instead, it allows the regulator to make a holistic assessment, which, crucially, is able to take into account any context and relevance. We believe this approach is key. If someone’s criminal history makes them unsuitable, the regulator can fail them on that basis. By comparison, the binary nature of the league’s current tests leads to a less sophisticated assessment of suitability. That is why this test takes a different approach. I reassure noble Lords that the Bill as drafted already requires the regulator to consider any unspent serious criminal convictions, and we fully expect the regulator to treat these as very significant factors in its assessment.

I turn now to Amendments 195 and 198 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

We have already covered this point. We are talking about a private letter to the Government. That is my understanding of the situation. I do not feel qualified to comment further at this stage.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

It is a private letter that has convinced the Government to change the Bill in the way that we are debating here, so I hope the noble Baroness will take that away and hear the repeated request from the Committee to see this letter. It has persuaded them to take out the provision that I am probing with my Amendment 190 and every time we return to this matter, the Committee gets a bit more confused about why the Government have done it and what may or may not be in that letter. I appreciate what she says but I would be grateful if she could let us see it.

I apologise for intervening so early. What the noble Baroness said subsequently was very helpful. Also, the example I gave was not a helpful one because Roman Abramovich was sanctioned and if a person becomes sanctioned, as the noble Baroness went on to say, that individual would indeed be covered. To give her another, necessarily hypothetical example, if an unsanctioned citizen of the Russian Federation, connected to the Russian Government and supportive of their illegal war in Ukraine, wished to become an owner of a football club in this country, the combination of taking out this provision about allowing the regulator to have regard to the foreign policy objectives of the Government of the United Kingdom and the refusal to accept my Amendment 198, which covers links to foreign Governments, means that the regulator would not be able to prevent that person—a Russian citizen connected to the Government of the Russian Federation—becoming an owner of a club? Does she not think that is an unfortunate consequence of the changes the Government have made to the Bill because of this UEFA letter which we have not seen?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

With regard to the UEFA letter, I refer noble Lords back to the comments that my noble friend Lady Twycross made previously. To clarify, we did not in fact say that the letter was the reason for changing the Bill; we said that UEFA’s views more generally were the reason for change. With that, I think I can leave that there. I also want to make the point again that anyone subject to sanctions would not pass the test.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

But somebody who is not subject to sanctions but who is connected to a Government whom the UK is in dispute with would not be covered because of the removal of this provision from the Bill. I am happy if the noble Baroness wants to write on this, but this is an important matter because this is a change to the Bill. I understand the Government’s stated reasons for changing it—we do not want to see football teams in this country unable to take part in international tournaments and we want to make sure that the regulator is independent of government—but I worry that by making the change in the way that we have and by not adding in the additional safeguard such as the one I am proposing through my Amendment 198, we open ourselves to a situation where somebody connected with a foreign Government cannot be taken into account by the regulator. If she is happy to commit to write on that, we would be grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her helpful comments. I am not able to comment further at this moment. I think the detail is probably beyond this discussion and I recognise the comments about going round and over things again.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness but it would be helpful if we could have something in writing on this. As I say, I gave a poor example in the case of Roman Abramovich, but the hypothetical example is one that I would be grateful for an answer to. That would be appreciated. But I am grateful to her for what she said and the reassurances she gave on some of the other amendments that I have tabled in this group on civil offences and so on. I take on board the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, raised about multi-club ownership. I recognise that this is a live and lively debate in the sport. What we were trying to test with Amendment 204 was that the regulator should not be restricted on that basis alone. But with gratitude to the noble Baroness and eagerly awaiting the letter that will follow, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Europe: Arts and Creative Industries

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Blake of Leeds

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for his comments. The backdrop to what we are dealing with is a failing apprenticeship levy for creative industries. The number of students studying music at A-level is down by 45%, which indicates clearly the urgency of this issue. I cannot give him a specific timeline at the moment. Also coming from the great city of Leeds, I know his great commitment in this area and the joint work that has been done across partners in this space. We understand that this issue is urgent, and we are addressing it accordingly.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, many musicians play musical instruments containing materials now covered by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—or CITES—but, as the noble Earl said, this issue affects artists in other disciplines too. The convention obliges musicians to obtain a musical instrument certificate when travelling internationally and to travel through a CITES-designated port. St Pancras station is not so designated, meaning they cannot take the Eurostar, which adds extra cost and hassle and is of course worse for the environment. What progress have the Government made in discussions with Defra about making St Pancras a CITES-designated port so that musicians can use it?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Lord highlights another area I have learned about from this debate. CITES is clearly a critical factor, as is the whole issue around St Pancras and how we can move forward. I do not have the detail that he asks for. I will take it back and report back on progress.