Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

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.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I speak in place of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She is unable to be here today as she is hosting something that was set up months ago. As a former archaeologist, I am so annoyed by the Government’s attempt to do this. In fact, I have to warn noble Lords that I am going to be annoyed all day, because some of this Bill is absolutely appalling. I therefore very much support Amendment 48. I do not know whether we will vote on it, but I will certainly be there in the Content Lobby if we do.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I tabled my Amendment 50 before the Government tabled their own Amendment 49 in this group. Both seek, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, to leave out Clause 41. It is fair to say that that was the part of the Bill that caused the most concern among heritage groups. We heard in Committee about the concerns raised by bodies including the National Trust, the Heritage Alliance and the Government’s own heritage adviser, Historic England. I am pleased to say that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, who responded to the debate in Committee and is a man who cares about both our heritage and innovation, very sensibly listened to that chorus of disapproval and undertook to look at this matter again in discussion with other Ministers.

I was therefore very pleased when I saw the government amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, has tabled in this group, which responds to the concerns raised in Committee, both in this House and in another place, and in the representations made by heritage bodies. I also welcome the fact that she and the Heritage Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, have met heritage groups directly to discuss this and other aspects of the Bill. That is very welcome, and I understand that it is the first of a number of round tables that they will hold on this issue.

Heritage and the construction of new infrastructure are sometimes held up to be in competition, which of course they are not. As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, knows, for instance, from his time as chairman of the Heritage Railway Association, a proper celebration of our past can help to inspire and drive the innovation of the future. As we heard in Committee, if development is done in a way that respects the past and the vernacular of local communities, it then has greater support from those communities and is a much speedier and more welcome thing.

Having seen the government amendment, I will not press my Amendment 50 here on Report. I am glad that the Government have listened to the concerns raised in these debates.

TV Licence Non-payment: Women

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The Simple Payment Plan does help people pay the television licence fee at present. As I say, we are looking at all the ways in which the BBC might receive its funding in the future, taking into account the declining number of people paying for a licence, but looking at all options to make sure that it has the revenue it needs to continue doing the work for which it is much admired.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the Government have known for some time about this injustice of the prosecution of a majority of women rather than men. Why are they not doing something about it faster, and when will the BBC review actually report?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The Government consulted on decriminalisation of TV licence evasion in 2020, and we published our response in 2021. The appropriate time to make this decision is as part of the BBC funding model review, when we can look at the way we can get the sustainable funding for the corporation that everyone wants to see.

Young Female Racing Drivers

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

Can I encourage my noble friend not to get too involved in trying to run Formula 1 but instead to concentrate on drivers in London—ordinary Londoners who want to drive their kids to school in the morning, who want to drive their teenage sons and daughters to sports fields in the evening and who perhaps want to drive their elderly parents to the doctor or a hospital—by knocking on the head the bonkers plan of the Mayor of London to penalise everybody who wants to drive on any street in London?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Nonsense!

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My noble friend’s point will, I am sure, have been heard on the Benches opposite, and I am sure that they will pass on to the Mayor of London the strong views in this House and from drivers across the capital about his policies.

Repatriation of Cultural Objects

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, many museums do that; it is the job of museums to explain the context of items. In my experience, museums are very keen to continue filling in that, in all its complexity. In the case of the Benin bronzes, which were taken in a raid in February 1897, it points out the role of the British Empire at the time. I should also point out that that raid brought about the end of slavery in Benin, showing the full complexity of matters in the past.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, as an ex-archaeologist, I would like to point out that we do not own the Elgin marbles. I thought that Lord Elgin paid for them, but apparently there is no proof of that, so they are looted. It is a national embarrassment. I was in Greece this summer and saw the Parthenon and there is a vast gap where the marbles should be. It is time to send them back.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, as I have said in response to previous questions on the matter, the Acropolis Museum is a marvellous museum where you are able to see the Parthenon in the background. However, more people see the Parthenon sculptures in the British Museum annually within a great sweep of human civilisation. They were legally acquired by the museum in 1801 and the trustees are right in their assertion of that fact.