Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Rogan Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, I welcome the Bill and the opportunity to debate this important legislation, which will apply to all four nations of our kingdom. In an era when our country is so divided on so many fronts, sport retains an almost unique ability to bring people together. The most memorable recent example of this was in 2012, when London played host to both the Olympic and Paralympic Games. For several weeks, many people, often without even a passing interest in sport in normal times, cheered for those in red, white and blue who made us all so proud.

Sport has always played a huge part in bridging divides in Northern Ireland, as all people from all communities rallied around our sporting heroes. Rory McIlroy, only the sixth man to complete the Grand Slam of all four major golf tournaments, is the current man of the moment and a source of huge cross-community pride. For such a small nation, the list of sporting greats from Northern Ireland over the years is remarkable. They include George Best, Dame Mary Peters, Joey Dunlop, Willie John McBride, Pat Jennings and Alex Higgins. I could go on and on, and I say with confidence that there are lots more to come.

However, Northern Ireland is being held back by a lack of world-class sporting facilities. The Bill before the House today is a sensible measure. As we know, it will create a common legislative framework that can be applied to major sporting events across the United Kingdom. This will include Euro 2028, with games taking place in England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland, but not Northern Ireland. As your Lordships might be aware, Northern Ireland was due to host five games but will no longer do so after His Majesty’s Government announced that they would not be pumping many millions of pounds into the redevelopment of Casement Park, a derelict GAA stadium. I will not go into the details and repeat the arguments around that decision, but I must express my disappointment at the failure of Ministers to advance the case for Northern Ireland’s National Football Stadium at Windsor Park to host these games instead, despite its limited capacity.

A huge opportunity has been wasted. As far as I can tell, those with the power and influence to stand up for Northern Ireland on this issue have swept this under the carpet, as other venues in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland gladly accepted the gifts that they were offered. Windsor Park proudly hosted the 2021 UEFA Super Cup. The cup is contested by the winners of the Champions League and the Europa League and is a huge game in the global football calendar. Why therefore is Windsor Park supposedly not capable of hosting games in Euro 2028?

In recent years, Northern Ireland has successfully hosted the start of the Giro d’Italia, one of the three biggest cycle races in the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Nye, mentioned golf in Scotland. We in Northern Ireland have some of the best golf courses in the kingdom. We hosted two Open Championships, with record crowds on every single day. We have also recently seen the annual North West 200 motorcycle race take place on the Triangle circuit between the towns of Coleraine, Portrush and Portstewart. Public funding was made available for all these, which was warmly welcomed, given the boost to the local economy that each provided. However, what links these events is that they all took place outdoors and the primary infrastructure around them was temporary, meaning that no legacy sporting facilities are left behind for local communities.

The Bill before us today, if enacted, will provide His Majesty’s Government and the devolved Administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast with powers to offer financial assistance to support major sporting events and related legacy or social impact initiatives. On the face of it, this is welcome. However, can the Minister elaborate on how the new powers will differ from those that already exist? Further, if additional finance is to be made available by devolved Administrations, is this money expected to come from their existing coffers, or is there potential for extra funding to be allocated from central government?

Last month, His Majesty’s Government committed to introducing a so-called stadium regeneration accelerator, through which they will work with sporting bodies on priority sports infrastructure development projects in England, such as stadiums, that can help deliver local regeneration and commercial growth. Given that the Bill before us today is UK-wide, why can this welcome initiative not also apply to all four nations of the kingdom?

Under the last Government, I did everything I could to support the development of a north-west regional stadium at the Coleraine Showgrounds by backing a deeply impressive application to the levelling up fund. All the indications were that it would be successful, given the absence of a modern stadium in that part of Northern Ireland, the cross-community benefits that the scheme would bring to a major catchment area, and the boost it would deliver to one of the most economically deprived parts of the United Kingdom. Sadly, the application was rejected, with the money instead funnelled off to marginal seats in England. Perhaps that wrong could be righted if Northern Ireland benefits from this new UK-wide legislation.

Finally, as many contributors have already mentioned, I welcome the provision in the Bill relating to ticket touting, which will apply across the United Kingdom—and not before time. This is an area that previous Governments have shied away from, for reasons that I fail to understand. Ticket prices for major sporting events are already bordering on astronomical, which makes it increasingly difficult for individuals and families to afford to attend them. Making sports tickets touting a criminal offence, backed by criminal and civil financial penalties, is certainly the right move. Like the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Mann, I hope that this initiative is swiftly followed by similarly robust provisions to clamp down on ticket touting for music and other live events, as Ministers have promised and the music industry has long called for.

Telecommunications (Security) Bill

Lord Rogan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th July 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I emailed the clerk, asking to speak after the Minister.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—sorry.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I must admit that I am somewhat baffled by the Minister’s response. The argument on the technical advisory board seems to be, “Oh, we’ve got enough technical advice, so we don’t need one”—but, clearly, it seems that there is a need for this. I quoted providers—I can go into the papers that we have received from them—as saying that real issues arise out of the regulations. These are technical and relate to things such as patches and audit and monitoring issues. There is a feeling that the department is just not listening on those issues, and what is needed is someone who is rather more dispassionate and can advise on the technical issues that are arising—perhaps, if it is seen as a conflict, someone like the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, who can genuinely advise on this kind of thing. It seems to me to be extraordinarily dismissive to say, “We’ve got enough advice. We don’t need a board of this kind”.

In the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, there is a very useful technical advisory board—it is not usable for this purpose because its function is rather different under that Act. When the Minister comes to the point about the judicial commissioners, saying, “Oh, no, they are for an entirely different purpose”, I say that, actually, if you read their function, it is four square with the kind of thing that would be useful under this Bill. They are talking about not technical issues but proportionality, appropriateness and so on—very much the kind of thing that they are dealing with under the 2016 Act.

So I am afraid that I do not buy what the Minister has to say, sadly; I just think that it is pushback based on the thinking that, “Well, the Bill’s the Bill and it’s all drafted, so we don’t really want to do very much with it by way of amendment”. That is the time-honoured government response to this kind of suggested amendment, but I believe that, constructively, both these aspects—a judicial commissioner and a technical advisory board—would make a great difference to the functioning of the Bill and would lead to much better regulations and codes of guidance at the end of the day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this is an interesting and nuanced—to coin a word we used earlier—debate. I am probably the only person here who has had to deal with a national security issue that impacted a consumer brand in real time on television. I must say that 30 days was not an option—30 minutes was not an option. Picking up on the point of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the time is entirely dependent on the nature of the crisis or security breach. My fear is that 30 days becomes a target rather than an injunction.

I think the point here is “no burial”. I assure colleagues and others in this Room that our amendments do not intend to bury the issue either, but to introduce some equivocation in the event that not announcing something makes things more secure than announcing them. The point of this is not to protect the reputation or otherwise of the network, but to protect consumers and the integrity and security of the network. That is the decision Ofcom would need to make. That would be its call. Its default position would be that it needs to be communicated to consumers as quickly as is sensible, unless there is a reason not to communicate it, and it would be up to the network providers to put their position forward. However, there are definitely times when it should not be communicated. At the moment the Bill seems rather unequivocal in its approach.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)]

I call the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Sorry, I have not quite finished.

I would call Amendment 15 a “good manners” amendment. If Ofcom possesses information that the network provider does not, it simply calls for that network to be brought into the loop before the rest of us are. That seems good manners to me—you do not necessarily have to legislate for that, but these days it always helps. I have now finished.

--- Later in debate ---

For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept either of the noble Lords’ amendments, and I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)]

I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lord, until the Minster replied, “nuance” was the word being used in the context of information being provided and required and so on. I am afraid that nuance was completely lost in that response. The response to Amendment 14 was that the NCSC, the Government, the Secretary of State and Ofcom know best and that is it. They have to release the information. They do not believe there are any circumstances where it should not be released. It is all there in the NCSC guidance and well, too bad—tough. That seemed to be just about the Government’s position. That is pretty extraordinary considering that the relationship with the providers is extremely important, particularly in these circumstances where there have been breaches. We have heard from noble Lords during the debate that the timing of giving the information is important but the very fact of giving the information may also be important. I am afraid that is part 1 of a rather depressing response.

Part 2 was almost worse because the amendment being put forward is the mildest possible one. Ofcom must consult the provider in question

“where reasonably practicable to do so.”

As for the idea that this is going to lead to horrendous delay, the Minister really had to scrape away to find a suitably negative response to that amendment. I am afraid that her response in both respects does not engage with the real issues and I think it is grossly unsatisfactory in the circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

Clauses 7 to 12 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)]

We now come to the Question that Clause 13 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say, “Content”—

[A noble Lord]

We need to debate it.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)]

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

Clause 13: Appeals against security decisions of OFCOM

Debate on whether Clause 13 should stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 13 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)]

My Lords, that concludes the work of the Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.

Committee adjourned at 6.52 pm.