Sporting Events Bill [Lords]

Anna Sabine Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

Trying to speak in Parliament after developing vocal cord paralysis feels like a major sporting event. Let us see how I get on.

In the last 15 years, we have seen four separate acts of Parliament passed to deliver four separate events. Each of those Bills essentially repeated the same core provisions from scratch through bespoke legislation. This Bill is therefore a welcome change that will make it easier for the Government to deliver major events. But, for the Lib Dems, there are a few areas where we think the Bill could be taken further.

First, on the scope of the Bill, I am glad that the Government accepted a Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place so that the legislation now applies to world-famous domestic events that happen every year in the UK, but that was not the only area where the Bill’s scope did not go far enough. The Bill is also limited by applying only to sporting events. Major sporting events bring in hundreds of millions of pounds to the economy, but the music industry is in a different ballpark. In 2024, music contributed a record £8 billion to the UK’s economy, and last year 24.7 million music tourists attended live events. The reality is that music and cultural events are large international events. They face the same issues the sporting events do, but they are not covered by the Bill.

Simply, the problems that the Bill aims to address do not stop with sports. Let us look at Eurovision 2023: a major international event that saw organisers having to improvise ticketing and trading arrangements locally rather than relying on a national framework that would have provided a clear and easy solution to the problems that arise from organising large events. If the Bill’s framework is good enough for sport, why cannot the Government extend it to other music and cultural events?

I hugely welcome the fact that the Bill takes action on the outrageous ticket sales practices that we have seen in recent years, and I understand that the Government promise further ticket touting reforms later—but when the harm is happening now, and we have the legislative architecture available, why are we delaying action? How many people across this House, how many of our constituents, must pay extortionate prices to see their favourite artists and bands before the Government decide that change needs to happen?

It is not only ticket prices that are blocking fans from watching their favourite sports teams, however. For a long time, public service broadcasters pioneered free-to-air coverage, but sporting events that have always been free-to-air are increasingly being locked behind a paywall. Just a few months ago we saw the implications of that, with fans locked out of watching the champions league final.

The Lib Dems support free-to-air sports on all occasions, and especially when events such as those provided for in this Bill are paid for by the public. Currently, the Bill makes no promises that public money means public access to sports on TV. My colleagues in the other place tabled an amendment to make free-to-air coverage a condition of financial assistance through this Bill, and I intend to push for that again.

One final area that I will be pushing on in Committee is grassroots support. Big events should never hollow out local businesses or grassroots sports and culture. The Lib Dems therefore seek clarification from the Government that commercial deals under the frameworks of this Bill will treat small and medium-sized enterprises fairly and ensure that grassroots organisations see a tangible benefit from large sporting events in the UK.

For the Lib Dems, this Bill is not simply about making international events easier to host; it is an opportunity to make them more accessible, more affordable and more enjoyable for the very people who make British sporting and other culture what it is. That is what I will be pushing for as this Bill passes through this House.

Sporting Events Bill [HL] (Second sitting)

Anna Sabine Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Mr French]

I have heard the Minister and I take her at her word. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9 

Strategy for bidding for the FIFA World Cup

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, publish a feasibility study and bidding plan for the United Kingdom to bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2042.

(2) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed and each subsequent year until the 2042 FIFA World Cup is allocated, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before Parliament to update on the progress of the bidding plan.”—(Anna Sabine.)

This new clause creates a duty on the Government to prepare a UK bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2042.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Anna Sabine]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We all know what happened the last time England hosted the world cup. Not only does hosting the world cup appear to result in English victory, but it boosts the economy, brings fans together and inspires people around the country. We see the framework in the Bill as an opportunity to give fans what they want: the world cup hosted right here in the UK in 2042. To make that a reality, we need a proactive strategy, and that is what the new clause would provide: a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a feasibility study and a bidding plan.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I share the hon. Member’s enthusiasm for the United Kingdom hosting the FIFA world cup in 2042. As we have not hosted the tournament since 1966, this Government are absolutely keen to see it return here one day.

We know that major sporting events, especially world cups, have a unique power to foster social cohesion, spark regional pride and unite divided communities. That is why the Government committed in our manifesto to hosting major international and cultural events with pride. It is why this Government have backed the bid for the 2035 FIFA women’s world cup to be hosted in the UK. Hosting on home turf would be a monumental moment in our sporting history, driving growth and leaving a lasting legacy for women’s sport and football more broadly.

However, it is important that we follow appropriate processes to select which events we back. The new clause would effectively legislate for preferential treatment and an expectation of public expenditure on one particular event. As much as I would love to commit today to launching that bid, we will perhaps save it for another day. I cannot accept the new clause, but I share the hon. Member’s enthusiasm and the sentiment behind it.

[Anna Sabine]

On that basis, and with much enthusiasm in return, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Prohibition of ticket touting and regulation of resale platforms

“(1) A person commits an offence if the person resells, or offers to resell, a ticket for a major sporting event at a price exceeding the original cost.

(a) For the purpose of subsection (1), the original cost of a ticket is the original ticket price plus any unavoidable fees, including service charges.

(2) A person operating a ticket resale platform must not charge service fees exceeding a statutory cap prescribed by regulations.

(3) A person commits an offence if the person resells, offers to resell, or lists for resale a number of tickets exceeding the number they were entitled to acquire in the initial primary market sale for that event.

(4) A person who operates a ticket resale platform has a legal duty and strict obligation to—

(a) monitor listings on the platform, and

(b) enforce compliance with subsections (1), (2), and (3) to ensure the rules are adhered to on the platform.

(5) The Competition and Markets Authority may impose a financial penalty on any person or ticket resale platform found to be breaching the provisions of this section, up to an amount not exceeding 10% of their annual global turnover.”—(Anna Sabine.)

This new clause implements ticket touting protections by making it illegal to resell major sporting event tickets above original cost, capping resale platform service fees, placing legal duties on resale platforms to monitor and enforce compliance on their sites, and empowering the Competition and Markets Authority to enforce penalties of up to 10% of global turnover.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Anna Sabine]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 11—Prohibition on fee-gouging and surge pricing—

“(1) In relation to any sporting event designated under this Act, no person may—

(a) charge, through a ticket resale platform, a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;

(b) charge a purchaser in the primary market a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;

(c) engage in surge pricing.

(2) In this section—

‘primary market’ refers to ticketing activities with an authorisation granted under Schedule 1, paragraph 3; and

‘surge pricing’ means when prices are adjusted rapidly and frequently in response to changing demand.”

This new clause caps transaction fees for primary sales and secondary resale platforms at 10% and bans surge pricing for every sporting event designated under the Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Sabine]

No fan should miss out on watching their favourite team play, but at the moment that is the reality every single time tickets come on sale. I am sure many of us know the heartbreak of waiting in an online queue for hours with no luck, only to see tickets pop up minutes later on resale sites at extortionate prices because bots and serial bulk buyers got there first.

Every year, fans lose £145 million to greedy touts. It is clear that the system is broken and is not working for the everyday fan. Labour promised in its manifesto and in the King’s Speech to tackle ticket touting, which we welcome—and yet here is a Bill with the framework to deliver that, and the Government are choosing to kick the can down the road.

Fans should not have to wait for change. That is why the Liberal Democrats want to make it illegal to resell tickets above face value. We want to ban surge pricing and cap resale platform fees at 10%. The Sporting Events Bill is the perfect vehicle to make those changes, and that is what new clauses 10 and 11 would do. I urge the Government to back them.

[Stephanie Peacock]

When I addressed clause 5, I noted our commitment to specific ticket touting legislation that will go further than the amendments tabled by the hon. Member. We know that for too long the joy of attending live events has been marred by unfair practices in the secondary ticketing market, most notably the systematic activities of ticket touts.

The Government are fully committed to tackling industrial-scale touting once and for all, improving transparency around pricing practices and putting more money into fans’ pockets through the ticket tout banning Bill. That Bill will introduce a price cap on the resale of tickets for all live events, including those captured under this Bill, to ensure that genuine fans can recoup their costs when they can no longer attend an event. It will also provide strict obligations on ticket resale platforms to ensure compliance.

The time-limited ticket provisions in this Bill are designed to satisfy event owner requirements. The Bill is therefore not an appropriate vehicle for wider reform of the secondary ticketing market. These are significant issues and are best addressed through the planned dedicated legislation. When it comes to surge pricing, businesses are already required by law to provide fans with clear and accurate pricing information before purchase and to ensure that fans are free to make decisions without undue pressure or manipulative practices that might distort their choices. I know that hon. Members will have heard the words of the Secretary of State on Second Reading about how committed this Government are to introducing the legislation.

[Anna Sabine]

I thank the Minister for her comments and I hear what she says, but in the absence of planned, timed legislation to take the matter forward, we would like to press the new clauses to a vote, starting with new clause 10.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Anna Sabine]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Some 30% of children aged 11 to 17 spend their own money on gambling, and up to 2.7% of adults could be considered problem gamblers. Behind those figures are real people whose mental health, finances, family life and relationships are being harmed. The Liberal Democrats have long been calling for reforms to protect people from gambling harms, and we believe that the events covered by the Bill should be free of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship. This new clause is the right thing to do, as it will help prevent the harms that gambling is causing by keeping adverts out of major events hosted in the UK.

[Mr French]

I will declare an additional interest, given the nature of the new clause: I am also the shadow gambling Minister, and in that capacity I attend a number of events with the racing community throughout the year.

The new clause seeks to prevent gambling, advertising, marketing and sponsorship at sports events covered by the Bill. I understand the intention behind it, but we believe that it is short-sighted and would strip sports of vital sponsorship funding. When I think about how the Bill might work in future, I think of the likes of the grand national, which could qualify. Preventing regulated gambling advertising would have a huge impact on the sport of racing, and particularly on the grand national.

We have previously had a Westminster Hall debate about gambling advertising, and there are of course legitimate concerns about the exposure of children and young people to it. Responsible gambling must remain a priority, but I do not believe that a blanket prohibition on gambling sponsorship at major sporting events is the right approach, especially given that the rise of illegal black market sponsorship throughout social media poses a greater threat to all consumers, and particularly to younger people.

As we have heard, sponsorship plays an important role in funding sport at every level. Commercial partnerships provide revenues for clubs, competitions and governing bodies, helping to support the events that millions of people enjoy and the wider sporting structures on which grassroots participation depends.

Gambling companies are among the commercial partners that contribute to that funding. Removing their ability to advertise or sponsor designated events would have serious financial consequences not only for major competitions, but potentially for the wider sporting economy and broadcasters as organisers seek to replace that income from other sources. In recent weeks, Betfred has withdrawn its long-term sponsorship of rugby league, leaving serious questions about where that funding will come from in future, especially for the women’s game.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset for tabling the new clause, which would prohibit gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship at major sporting events. The Government support the sporting sector’s commercial freedoms and right to enter into sponsorship arrangements. The licensed gambling sector has provided vital financial support to sports through these arrangements, which are constructed within a robust regulatory framework that ensures that advertising is socially responsible and does not promote excessive or harmful gambling.

In 2024, we welcomed the introduction of the sponsorship codes of conduct across all major sports, which promote social responsibility, support reinvestment in the sports and strengthen safeguards for children. Sporting bodies have reviewed how the codes are working in practice, and the Government welcome their ongoing commitment to reviewing and strengthening the codes. We also welcomed the Premier League’s ban on front-of-shirt gambling sponsorship, which will help to reduce the prominence of gambling advertising in football. Advertising remains one of the clearest ways in which licensed operators can distinguish themselves from the illegal providers that pose a threat to British consumers, which is why the Government recently consulted on banning unlicensed gambling sponsorship and physical advertising within sports and other sectors.

The Government recognise that the relationship between sport and gambling must be handled with care, particularly because of the impact it can have on children, young people and vulnerable people. We will consider the fullest possible range of evidence before taking any further policy steps. Any additional restrictions must be thoroughly evaluated to avoid unintended consequences. We continue to support the sporting sector’s commercial freedoms while working with the Advertising Standards Authority, the Gambling Commission, the Betting and Gaming Council and sporting bodies to further raise standards. Let me be clear: the purpose of the Bill is neither to alter the regulation of gambling advertising nor to limit the benefits sponsorship arrangements can bring to the sector. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.

[Anna Sabine]

I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their comments, but we respectfully disagree. The Liberal Democrats would like to press our new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I am sympathetic to the intentions behind new clause 13, and I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset for tabling it. The new clause, as we have heard, seeks to ensure that major sporting events receiving Government financial assistance or special statutory support deliver a lasting benefit for community sport itself. The hon. Gentleman outlined a number of concerns and challenges that grassroots sports clubs face, and we want to increase participation across the country.

Major sporting events should be about more than what happens over a few days or weeks of competition. They offer an opportunity to inspire the next generation, encourage people to become more active and strengthen the sporting infrastructure that communities rely on long after the final whistle. As we have heard, that is particularly important for children and young people in deprived communities and for groups with traditionally lower levels of participation. We should be asking how the excitement generated by major events can translate into more opportunities for people to take part in sport in their communities.

However, we must also recognise that hosting major sporting events is a significant undertaking. Organisers face substantial costs and complex commercial and logistical challenges, as we have already discussed today. Any requirement attached to Government support must therefore be proportionate, realistic and tailored to the nature of the event. We should avoid creating unnecessary bureaucracy or deterring organisers from bringing major competitions to this country.

Nevertheless, where public money or statutory support is provided, it is reasonable to ask what lasting benefits will be delivered in return. That could include partnerships with local clubs, opportunities for schoolchildren to participate, investment in community facilities or programmes designed to reach those who are currently least active. The important thing is that those commitments are meaningful and achievable, rather than simply box-ticking exercises.

That is why, when in government, the Conservative party invested more than £1.5 billion in grassroots, school and elite sports, from an unprecedented £400 million investment in grassroots sport to £300 million in emergency funding to support community sports clubs and grassroots organisations. But perhaps the programme that we Conservatives should be most proud of is the PE and sport premium, introduced to help inspire a generation after the London Olympics. That was worth around £600 million between 2023 and 2025 alone, and it has totalled almost £3.5 billion paid directly to schools since its introduction in 2013.

This Government, on the other hand, have, I am afraid to say, cut funding, with £57 million cut from the opening school facilities fund, £35 million cut from investment in grassroots cricket, £11 million cut from the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme and £25 million cut in real terms from grassroots sports investment compared with the previous Conservative Government.

I would welcome the Minister’s views on how the Government intend to ensure that the benefits of major sporting events extend beyond the events themselves and reach the communities that need them most, given that the Government she serves in continue to cut funding for grassroots sport.

[Anna Sabine]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset for tabling new clause 13. In my constituency of Frome and East Somerset, we have loads of fantastic community sporting groups. I recently visited the Frome Flyers and the Somer Valley Strikers, two women’s walking football clubs in my constituency that represent everything that is great about local community sport.

Community groups could benefit enormously from increased funding, and that is exactly what the new clause would deliver. As my hon. Friend said, there are clear examples of major international events leaving lasting community benefits when local funding is built in, particularly for women and girls and disadvantaged groups in sport. This Bill is our chance to make sure that international events do more than bring a few weeks of business to a host area; they should leave a lasting legacy for the people who live there. The new clause simply makes sense, and I hope that the Government will support it.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset for tabling this important amendment. I fully recognise the issue that he raises, and the Government share his commitment to maximising the positive legacy of the major sporting events that we support. However, we do not believe that the new clause is necessary, as the Bill already provides for the outcomes that he seeks to achieve while retaining the flexibility to adapt our approach to the specific event in question. I will outline some of the reasons why.

First, the likelihood of bringing social and economic benefits to the United Kingdom or part of it is already one of the criteria for consideration when considering whether the framework can be applied to a major sporting event. That would encompass the sort of community participation and wider local benefit that the hon. Member is seeking to secure. Secondly, clause 25 of the Bill is also clear that funding can be given subject to conditions, which could include requirements relating to these important issues, where appropriate.

More broadly, the vast majority of major sporting events that could fall within the scope of the Bill would already have social impact embedded within them from the outset. In the case of itinerant events, the gold framework is clear that when seeking investment from the Government, event organisers must have meaningful plans in place to generate positive social impact for communities around the country, including to drive up levels of physical activity and participation.

Also, many recurring events already support significant community engagement. To give just a few examples, Wimbledon annually contributes nearly £50 million to the work of the Lawn Tennis Association, the London Marathon Foundation has distributed over £120 million in grant funding since its inception in 1981, and the British grand prix generates more than £100 million annually for the local economy.

Critically, the evidence is clear that the best legacy programmes are developed through engagement with the communities they are meant to support, enabling us to target support and funding where they are truly needed. That is why we think the current system works; it recognises that one size does not fit all and provides flexibility that the new clause would reduce.

Sporting Events Bill [Lords]

Anna Sabine Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 4th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Strategy for bidding for the FIFA World Cup—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, publish a feasibility study and bidding plan for the United Kingdom to bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2042.

(2) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed and each subsequent year until the 2042 FIFA World Cup is allocated, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before Parliament to update on the progress of the bidding plan.”

This new clause creates a duty on the Government to prepare a UK bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2042.

New clause 3—Prohibition on fee-gouging and surge pricing—

“(1) In relation to any sporting event designated under this Act, no person may—

(a) charge, through a ticket resale platform, a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;

(b) charge a purchaser in the primary market a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;

(c) engage in surge pricing.

(2) In this section—

“primary market” refers to ticketing activities with an authorisation granted under Schedule 1, paragraph 3; and

“surge pricing” is ”dynamic pricing”; when prices are adjusted rapidly and frequently in response to changing demand.”

This new clause caps transaction fees for primary sales and secondary resale platforms at 10% and bans surge pricing for every sporting event designated under the Act.

New clause 4—Prohibition of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship—

“(1) A person must not, in connection with a relevant sporting event—

(a) carry out, arrange, or permit advertising or marketing for a gambling business, facility, or brand, or

(b) enter into, give effect to, or display any sponsorship arrangement involving a gambling business.

(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the advertising provisions in Schedule 2 have been applied to the event under paragraph (2)(1).

(3) In this section—

“gambling business” means a business providing facilities for gambling within the meaning of section 5 of the Gambling Act 2005 (and includes a gambling brand); and

“relevant sporting event” means a sporting event in relation to which any part of the sporting events framework applies under section (2).”

This new clause prevents gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship at sporting events covered by this Bill.

New clause 6—Assessment of framework conditions—

“(1) Before making regulations under section 2 in relation to a domestic sporting event, the appropriate national authority must consult—

(a) the Competition and Markets Authority;

(b) persons who appear to the appropriate national authority to represent the interests of consumers who may wish to attend the sporting event;

(c) persons who appear to the appropriate national authority to represent businesses that would be affected by the application of the sporting events framework, including operators of secondary ticketing platforms;

(d) such other persons as the appropriate national authority considers appropriate.

(2) As part of the consultation under subsection (1), the appropriate national authority must—

(a) identify the parts of the sporting events framework proposed to be applied and explain why their application is considered appropriate;

(b) explain the basis on which it considers that each condition in section 3 applicable to the sporting event is met;

(c) set out the evidence, criteria or metrics relied upon;

(d) assess the likely effects of the proposed regulations on consumers, affected businesses and competition; and

(e) invite views on the matters set out in paragraphs (a) to (d).”

This new clause would require the appropriate national authority to consult the Competition and Markets Authority, consumers and affected businesses, and assess the potential impacts on competition and consumer choice before applying the sporting events framework to a domestic sporting event.

New clause 7—Industrial action regulations—

“(1) This section applies in relation to regulations under section 2 which apply the industrial action provisions.

(2) The regulations must specify the period during which the industrial action provisions apply.

(3) The period in subsection (2) must not be shorter than the minimum period.

(4) In subsection (2), the “minimum period” means the period—

(a) beginning on the day on which any part of the sporting events framework is applied and has effect in relation to a sporting event, and

(b) ends on the day on which all provisions of the sporting events framework cease to apply to the sporting event.”

This new clause defines the minimum period in which the appropriate national authority must apply the industrial action provisions.

New clause 8—Exception for charitable auctions—

“(1) The ticket touting offence does not apply in relation to the sale of an event ticket in an auction conducted—

(a) by a charity, or

(b) by a person other than a charity, provided that the proceeds of the event ticket’s sale are given to a charity.

(2) In subsection (1), “charity” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Charities Act 2011.”

New clause 9—Review of Government’s economic policies on the hosting of major sporting events—

“Within the period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament, a report assessing the impact of His Majesty’s Government’s economic policies on the ability of the United Kingdom to attract and host major sporting events.”

Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

“(da) Schedule 4A (“the sports rights provisions”).”

Amendment 6, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

“(f) Schedule 6 (“the industrial action provisions”)”.

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.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

“(f) Schedule 6 (“the single sex protections provisions”).”

Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

“(c) the sports rights provisions.”

Amendment 9, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

“(c) the single sex protections provisions.”

Amendment 7, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

“(2A) Where an appropriate national authority applies one or more of the parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event by regulations under this section, the appropriate national authority must also apply the industrial action provisions.”

This amendment requires the appropriate national authority to apply the industrial action provisions when they apply one or more other parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event.

Amendment 1, in clause 3, page 3, line 28, at end insert—

“(6A) The fourth condition is that the live coverage of the sporting event is made available—

(a) free of charge to all persons in the United Kingdom with access to a television or internet-connected device, or

(b) on a platform licensed by Ofcom which is accessible without subscription to members of the public in the United Kingdom.”

This amendment adds a condition for Sporting Events to be covered by this Bill, to include making the sporting event free to air.

Amendment 10, in clause 7, page 5, line 2, at end insert—

“(c) section (Exception for charitable auctions)”

Amendment 13, in clause 26, page 21, line 17, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (4A),”

Amendment 2, page 21, line 19, leave out from “event” to end of line 20 and insert —

“(i) that takes place wholly or partly in a relevant part of the United Kingdom, and

(ii) the live coverage of which is made available—

(A) free of charge to all persons in the United Kingdom with access to a television or internet-connected device, or

(B) on a platform licensed by Ofcom which is accessible without subscription to members of the public in the United Kingdom.”

This amendment would require that any event receiving financial support from the UK Government must be broadcast free to air as a condition of that support.

Amendment 14, page 21, line 36, at end insert—

“(4A) The power under subsection (1) may only be exercised if the appropriate national legislature has approved the financial assistance by resolution.”

Amendment 15, page 21, line 41, at end insert—

“the appropriate national legislature” means—

(a) in relation to England, the House of Commons;

(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Parliament;

(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Northern Irish Assembly.”

New schedule 1—Industrial Action Provisions—

“Part 1

Offences

Industrial action transport offences

1 (1) It is an offence for a transport worker to engage in any industrial action at any time during the specified period.

(2) It is an offence for any person to—

(a) arrange for any industrial action to be carried out by a transport worker,

(b) permit the carrying out of such action, or

(c) induce a transport worker to engage in industrial action, at any time during the specified period.

(3) In this paragraph, a “transport worker” means an employee of a transport service anywhere in the United Kingdom.

(4) The following are to be considered as transport services for the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) airport operation services;

(b) bus services;

(c) light rail services;

(d) passenger railway services.

(5) In this paragraph—

“airport operation services” has the same meaning as in section 88 of the Civil Aviation Act 2012;

“bus services” has the same meaning as in section 162 of the Transport Act 2000;

“light rail services” means passenger railway services provided on or in respect of any of the following light rail systems known at the time this Act comes into force as—

(a) Blackpool Tramway;

(b) Docklands Light Railway;

(c) Edinburgh Trams;

(d) Glasgow Subway;

(e) London Trams;

(f) London Underground;

(g) Manchester Metrolink;

(h) Nottingham Express Transit;

(i) Sheffield Supertram;

(j) Tyne & Wear Metro;

(k) West Midlands Metro;

“passenger railway services” means—

(a) services for the carriage of passengers by railway by a person providing services—

(i) under a franchise agreement within the meaning of section 23(3) of the Railways Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”),

(ii) under, or secured under, the duty in section 30(1) of the 1993 Act,

(iii) under an agreement to which one of the persons listed in section 24A(4)(a) of the 1993 Act is a party, or

(iv) under, or secured under, section 173(1) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, or

(b) the refuelling of any locomotive or other rolling stock used for the services mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) by the person providing those services.

(6) Services relating to the following are not passenger railway services for the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) a train operation service using a railway which the Office of Rail and Road determines in accordance with regulation 2A(1) of the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 is a heritage, museum or tourist railway that operates on its own network;

(b) a train operation service that starts or terminates outside Great Britain.

(7) In this paragraph—

“services for the carriage of passengers by railway” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the 1993 Act (see section 82(2) of that Act);

“locomotive” , “network”, “rolling stock”, “station”, “track” and “train” have the meanings given by section 83(1) of the 1993 Act, but in applying the definitions in that subsection, references to “railway” in the definitions are to be treated as having the meaning given in sub-paragraph;

“railway” has the meaning given by section 67(1) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 but includes a “tramway” within the meaning of that section.

Industrial action local authority offences

2 (1) It is an offence for a relevant local authority worker to engage in any industrial action at any time during the specified period.

(2) It is an offence for any person to—

(a) arrange for any industrial action to be carried out in a relevant local authority area, or

(b) permit the carrying out of such action, at any time during the specified period.

(3) In this paragraph—

“relevant local authority worker” means an employee of a relevant local authority;

“relevant local authority” means any local authority which has responsibility for the provision of one or more services in an area in which a specified sporting event, or an event that is part of the sporting event, is to be held;

“relevant local authority area” means the geographical area in which a relevant local authority has jurisdiction;

Part 2

Enforcement

Penalties on conviction

3 (1) A person guilty of an offence under this Schedule is liable—

(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;

(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding £50,000.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this Schedule in Scotland is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20,000;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

Power to impose financial penalties

4 (1) The appropriate national authority may impose a financial penalty on a person if the appropriate national authority is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has committed an offence under this Schedule in relation to the sporting event.

(2) The amount of the penalty is to be decided by the appropriate national authority, but must not be more than £20,000.

(3) Only one financial penalty may be imposed in respect of the same conduct.

(4) No financial penalty may be imposed in respect of any conduct if—

(a) the person has been convicted of an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct,

(b) criminal proceedings for an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct have been instituted against the person and the proceedings have not been concluded, or

(c) criminal proceedings for an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct have been concluded and the person has not been convicted.

(5) A person may not be convicted of an offence under this Schedule if a financial penalty has been imposed under this paragraph in respect of the same conduct.

Notice of intention to impose financial penalty

5 (1) Before imposing a financial penalty on a person under paragraph 4, an appropriate national authority must give the person a notice (a “notice of intention”) stating that the authority proposes to do so.

(2) The notice of intention must be given before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the first day on which the authority has sufficient evidence that the person has committed an offence under part 1 of this Schedule.

(3) The notice of intention must set out—

(a) the amount of the proposed financial penalty,

(b) the reasons for proposing to impose the financial penalty, and

(c) information about the right to make representations under paragraph 6.

Right to make representations

6 (1) A person who is given a notice of intention may make written representations to the appropriate national authority which gave the notice about the proposal to impose a financial penalty.

(2) Any representations must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice of intention was given to the person.

Final notice

7 (1) After the end of the period mentioned in paragraph 6(2) the appropriate national authority must—

(a) decide whether to impose a financial penalty on the person, and

(b) if it decides to do so, decide the amount of the penalty.

(2) If the authority decides to impose a financial penalty on the person, it must give a notice to the person (a “final notice”) imposing that penalty.

(3) The final notice must require the penalty to be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was given.

(4) The final notice must set out—

(a) the amount of the financial penalty (which may be less than the amount specified in the notice of intention, but cannot be more),

(b) the reasons for imposing the penalty,

(c) information about how to pay the penalty,

(d) the period for payment of the penalty

(e) information about rights of appeal, and

(f) the consequences of failure to comply with the notice.

Withdrawal or amendment of notice

8 (1) The appropriate national authority may at any time—

(a) withdraw a notice of intention or final notice, or

(b) reduce an amount specified in a notice of intention or final notice.

(2) The power in sub-paragraph (1) is to be exercised by giving notice to the person on whom the notice was given.

Appeals

9 (1) A person to whom a final notice is given may appeal against—

(a) the decision to impose the penalty;

(b) the amount of the penalty.

(2) The appeal may be made—

(a) in England and Wales, to the First-tier Tribunal;

(b) in Scotland, to the sheriff;

(c) in Northern Ireland, to a county court.

(3) An appeal under this paragraph must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the final notice is given to the person.

(4) If a person appeals under this paragraph, the final notice is suspended until the appeal is finally determined, withdrawn or abandoned.

(5) An appeal under this paragraph—

(a) is to be a re-hearing of the appropriate national authority’s decision, but

(b) may be determined having regard to matters of which the authority was unaware.

(6) On an appeal under this paragraph the First-tier Tribunal or the court may quash, confirm or vary the final notice.

(7) The final notice may not be varied under sub-paragraph (6) so as to make it impose a financial penalty of a greater amount than the appropriate national authority could have imposed.

Recovery of financial penalty

10 (1) This paragraph applies if a person fails to pay the whole or any part of a financial penalty which has been imposed on a person in accordance with this Schedule.

(2) In England and Wales the appropriate national authority which imposed the penalty may recover the penalty or part on the order of the county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.

(3) In Scotland the penalty may be enforced in the same manner as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff of any sheriffdom in Scotland.

(4) In Northern Ireland the authority which imposed the financial penalty may recover the penalty or part on the order of a county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.

(5) In any proceedings relating to a financial penalty, a certificate that—

(a) purports to be signed by or on behalf of the person with responsibility for the financial affairs of the authority which imposed the penalty, and

(b) states that payment of the financial penalty was, or was not, received by a date specified in the certificate, is evidence of the facts stated.

Proceeds of financial penalties

11 Where a relevant enforcement authority imposes a financial penalty under paragraph 4, it may use the proceeds for the purposes of any of its functions.

No protection if union induces industrial action

12 Where industrial action is prohibited during a specified period under this Schedule, an act done by a trade union to induce or attempt to induce a person to engage in industrial action is not protected from any proceedings in tort.

Part 3

Interpretation

13 In this Schedule—

“industrial action” means action taken by workers against their employer in furtherance of a trade dispute;

“specified period” means the “minimum period" specified in the regulations as required by section [Industrial action regulations];

“strike” means any concerted stoppage of work;

“trade dispute” has the meaning given by section 244 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.”

This new Schedule establishes the industrial action provisions, referred to in Amendments 6,7 and NC7, and sets out penalties for breaching them.

New schedule 2—The single sex protection provisions—

“Protections for participants in major sporting events

1 (1) Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (2), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of a sporting event will—

(a) provide that all competitors in the single-sex sporting event compete against those of the same biological sex in the interests of fairness and safety;

(b) provide that all competitors and officials in the sporting event are able to use—

(i) single sex accommodation based on their biological sex;

(ii) single sex changing and washing facilities based on their biological sex;

(iii) single sex toilets based on their biological sex.

Protections for spectators of major sporting events

2 (1) Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (2), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of a sporting event will—

(a) make facilities available onsite, so that all spectators and staff, or any person attending the sporting event are able to use—

(i) single sex toilets based on their biological sex;

(ii) single sex changing and washing facilities where necessary based on their biological sex.

(2) In this section, "onsite" means a place specified or described in the regulations as required by section 11(2)(a).

Accessible facilities

3 (1) Nothing in paragraphs 1 or 2 requires that self-contained toilet, changing or washing facilities to be restricted to persons of one sex only.

(2) Self-contained facilities may be used by persons of either sex, together with any carer or assistant, provided that appropriate arrangements are made to ensure the privacy and dignity of users.

Financial Assistance

4 Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (26), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of the sporting event and the organisers of associated legacy programmes and social impact initiatives comply with regulations under paragraphs (1), (2) and (3).

Interpretation

5 In the application of this Schedule to a sporting event by regulations under section (2), references to “single sex” means sex as defined in the Equality Act 2010.”

This new Schedule, with Amendments 8 and 9, add single-sex protection provisions to the framework to ensure the provision of single-sex competitions and facilities at major sporting events, as well as at associated events. Provides for an exemption for self-contained facilities, including for disabled people. It would also prevent relevant authorities providing funding for events that do not comply with single sex protections as defined in the Equality Act 2010.

Amendment 11, in schedule 1, page 26, line 20, at end insert—

“(4A) It is not an offence under this paragraph for a person (“A”) to advertise that an event ticket is available for purchase from another person (“B”) unless A knows, or ought to know, that B is touting an event ticket.”

This amendment mirrors a defence in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 to ensure that the offence of advertising that an event ticket is available for purchase does not apply strict liability.

Amendment 12, page 28, line 7, at end insert—

“(2A) An authorisation under this paragraph must include a secondary ticketing condition.

(2B) A “secondary ticketing condition” is a condition that requires a person granted a ticketing authorisation under this paragraph to have and maintain a mechanism through which an event ticket can be transferred or sold to another person.”

Amendment 5, in schedule 4, page 45, line 20, at end insert—

“Schedule 4A

SPORTS RIGHTS PROVISIONS

1 (1) A sporting event betting licence is a licence issued by a sporting event controlling body which allows a gambling business to make use of information or data derived from or relating to a specified sporting event in the places, at the times and for the purposes specified in the licence.

(2) A sporting event betting licence must—

(a) provide for the sharing of information between the sporting event controlling body and the gambling business for the purpose of protecting and supporting integrity in sports and betting services; and

(b) state any fee payable by the gambling business to the sporting event controlling body in respect of the facilities for gambling in relation to the sporting event.

(3) A sporting event betting licence may prohibit betting on a particular contingency or class of contingencies in relation to a sporting event if the sporting event controlling body considers that betting on the contingency may expose the relevant sporting event or class of sporting event to unmanageable integrity risks.

(4) A sporting event betting licence takes effect, and may be terminated, in accordance with its terms.

2 (1) It is an offence for a gambling business to offer facilities for gambling in relation to a sporting event unless it is licensed to do so by the relevant sporting event controlling body through a sporting event betting licence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable—

(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;

(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding £50,000.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph in Scotland is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20,000;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

(4) Where a gambling business has been found guilty of an offence under this paragraph in England and Wales, the offence may also be investigated and the gambling business prosecuted by the Gambling Commission under section 28 of the Gambling Act 2005 as if the offence were an offence under that Act.

(5) Where a gambling business has been found guilty of an offence under this paragraph, the conduct constituting the offence is actionable by the relevant sporting event controlling body, which may seek—

(a) an injunction, or in Scotland an interdict, requiring the provision of those facilities to cease;

(b) damages.”

[Anna Sabine]

As we have said before, the Liberal Democrats welcome this Bill. We recognise that the Euros, the world cup and the Olympics have huge positive implications, such as boosting our economy and bringing people together. Making these events easier for the UK to deliver is therefore the right thing to do.

On Second Reading, I emphasised my disappointment that the Bill did not include cultural or music events—industries that also bring billions into the UK’s economy, and events that encounter many of the same problems as sporting events. I have met Ministers, and I understand their position that cultural events are not within the scope of the Bill. However, I did not want to let debate on the Bill close without emphasising again that this is a missed opportunity to support cultural and music events.

There are other areas in which the Bill could be stronger, the first of which is free-to-air sports. This year, for the first time since the champions league began in 1992, supporters could not watch the final without paying. This is the latest in a long line of events that have gone behind a paywall. Meanwhile, the BBC’s coverage of the Lionesses has inspired a generation of girls to pick up a football, and Channel 4’s Paralympics coverage has shown disabled children what is possible. Free-to-air coverage works, and amendments 1 and 2 would ensure that any event covered by this Bill or backed by public money would be available to all. As well as that, new clause 2 proposes a bidding framework to bring football home, making sure that the Government can host the 2042 world cup. The Liberal Democrats have also long argued that gambling advertising has no place in sport. New clause 4 would ban gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship from the events that are covered by this legislation.

All those amendments matter to sport, which is why I have continued to push for them during the passage of the Bill. However, the amendment I wish to push to a Division today deals with ticket touting. The Labour party manifesto says:

“Access to music, drama and sport has become difficult and expensive because of ticket touting. Labour will put fans back at the heart of events by introducing new consumer protections on ticket resales.”

That is a pledge to act, in black and white. Elsewhere, the Government have pledged to bring forward legislation that will ban ticket resales at above face value. The commitment is clear, but this Bill contains a framework for implementing all of those promises, and the Government have chosen not to act this time.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I am sure the hon. Lady agrees that it is really good that the scope of this Bill was extended to include more major events, not just one big-ticket item. However, it now creates a two-tier ticketing system; it places restrictions on the sale of tickets to only a few sporting events, while music events and other cultural events are waiting for a solution that has been promised but not come. Does the hon. Lady agree that that puts in stark perspective the urgent need for the ticket touting Bill to come forward as quickly as possible?

[Anna Sabine]

It would be very unwise to disagree with the hon. Member on any issue relating to this area; yes, I totally agree with her. The issue of ticket sales really needs clarification.

Every year, fans lose £145 million from tickets being resold at eye-watering prices. Every time the Government delay reforming ticket sales, more and more money is lost and—more importantly—another eager fan misses out on watching their team play. The Government keep promising further legislation down the line, but the Liberal Democrats are calling for action to be taken now, which is why we have tabled new clause 1. This new clause does what the Government have promised and what this Bill fails to do: it stops tickets being resold at above face value. It would mean that no more fans are priced out by an algorithm and no more touts profit at the expense of the people who love sport, and also live music and theatre. The Government say that they back reform; today, they can prove it. I hope this House will vote to support new clause 1.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Vince.