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.

Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

Anna Sabine Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. Let us be honest: for far too long, tech companies have profited obscenely from addictive algorithms and harmful content aimed at children here in Britain. These are not British companies, but they have become absurdly powerful—probably more powerful than any Government. Generations of young people are paying the price, and we have a mental health crisis. We can all see that.

This is not random; it is happening for a reason. Social media has become almost unavoidable for people growing up. They are not making a choice. As one of my colleagues said, there is no choice—they have to be on it. Young people in the UK spend an average of more than four hours a day on social media. That means that most of their free time is spent staring at a screen. We also have a mental health crisis—I think they are linked. This is fundamentally changing what life looks like, and how young people see themselves, build friendships and form opinions and world views.

The consequences are apparent all around us. The incredible rise in diagnosed and undiagnosed anxiety is just startling. I had no experience of it until becoming an MP and visiting schools, where I was absolutely blown away by conversations with teachers and parents. The scale is off the charts. It is much more common among girls and people with a disability. Young people regularly describe feeling like they have no control over what they see online. Again, there is no choice here. They are being sent these things for hours and hours every day and deep into the night.

In the Government’s consultation this summer, nine in 10 parents backed a social media ban for under-16s. Two thirds of young people agreed that under-16s should not be allowed to use at least some social media platforms. That is not surprising at all, given what I have seen in schools in the last couple of years. Every time I visit schools in Plymouth, teachers tell me about the impact it is having, describing levels of mental health distress unlike anything ever seen before.

Students themselves tell me they want help getting off these platforms. I always ask for a show of hands: “If no one else was on this platform, would you miss it?” For most people, the answer is no—they are only on it because everyone else is on it. They do not want to be on it. I acknowledge that some would disagree with that, including around 400 of my constituents who signed this petition, but they are in the minority.

We know from whistleblowers inside these social media companies that they have known for years and years that these harms were coming. It is not as though they did nothing about it; they have done something about it—they have deliberately hidden it, over and over again. Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen told our colleagues in the US Congress that the company’s leadership knew how to make platforms safer but refused to act,

“because they have put their astronomical profits before people.”

There is no reason to think that any of these companies will do anything different ever again. They are companies—they are trying to make money.

We cannot put the wellbeing of our nation at the mercy of profit-making organisations, especially ones that reward addiction and exploitation. I am delighted that this year the Government announced decisive action to protect children from social media. I am extremely grateful for the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and the Minister for Artificial Intelligence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), for getting that over the line.

I am also extremely grateful to Labour colleagues who signed a letter I organised to the then Prime Minister urging him to take action. A week after that, he did indeed launch the consultation, which has now led to this decision from Government, so I thank everyone who signed that letter. Government now have to implement, and the question is how they do it.

There is a duty to protect children, and I am so pleased that we are finally going to do that. There is also a duty to allow children access to the benefits of the internet and the online world. Many of my colleagues have spoken very eloquently about that today. How do we do that? A 15-year-old who wants to go on YouTube to learn French or learn the guitar should be able to do that, so there is a challenge for Government on how they do a ban. Am I suggesting that they should just trust the tech companies? No. But surely there is a world in which we are nuanced enough for Government to get a legally binding, written assurance from platforms to provide services that are not included in the ban. Surely there is a world where we are agile enough to be able to react and say, “You said you were going to do this. You have not done what you said you were going to do. You are now included in the ban,” without having to do primary legislation.

I am super conscious that I grew up benefiting from YouTube. I learned the guitar on YouTube. I do not know how I would have learned it otherwise. I would have had to pay for many lessons. I do not think it is fair to tell the next generation that they cannot have those opportunities, so there is a challenge for Government. It is not as simple as just enacting this ban. It is about working out how we carry on giving access to those platforms. Those are tough conversations with big companies.

On age verification, there are countless ways to verify someone’s age without handing over sensitive personal information. I know that some parts of the political agenda argue that any online regulatory action from the Government creates a privacy problem. The burden should not be on Government to do that. The burden should be on the tech companies themselves to find and implement solutions. They know all our information anyway. Those tech companies 100% know our ages. They have some of the brightest engineers in the world. Parliament and Government should set the rules, and they should comply with them.

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

Does the hon. Member have any examples of how the age of a child could be proved if that child had never been on social media? How would a tech company that, theoretically, would not know their information, be able to verify the child’s age without effectively using some form of digital ID by the back door?

[Fred Thomas]

I take the hon. Member’s point. The scale of what those companies know about us—whether we want to acknowledge that or not—really does not correspond to whether we have put our age into an online form or not. We can live in a world where we pretend they do not know that about us and our children, or we can live in the real world where they do know it, and we should just acknowledge that. It is not an invasion of privacy to acknowledge that because it has already happened. To get away from that would be a much bigger debate—not about restricting some aspects of social media for under-16s, but a much bigger conversation around the internet. I am not saying that I endorse it, but frankly that ship has sailed.

I know people have concerns about the experience in Australia. Clearly, many young people are still using social media. I accept that no system is going to be perfect. Young people will find a way around restrictions. That happens with alcohol. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), who is not in her place just now, alluded to the fact that young people still drink alcohol illegally. They smoke cigarettes, do other activities like not wear a seatbelt, and they probably break the law or get around restrictions in some way. That does not mean that we should just throw bans out the window.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank all hon. Members in this Chamber; I found myself nodding along extensively during other Members’ contributions.

I absolutely support banning children from accessing harmful social media. The Liberal Democrats have long called for decisive action in this space. The Government joined us in those calls earlier this year, announcing proposals for a social media ban, but it has been many months since the initial announcement, and we are still not entirely sure what to expect. That uncertainty over what a possible ban will look like may be driving many of the concerns of those who signed this petition. What we know so far is that the Government have plans for an Australian-style ban; not only is that vague, but the Liberal Democrats have concerns that an Australian-style ban will ultimately fail in its role to reduce the harms faced by children online.

As we have heard from other hon. Members, after a few months of the Australian ban, early data suggests that it has had a limited impact on prohibiting young people from accessing social media. On top of that, the Molly Rose Foundation found that among children aged 12 to 15 who had social media accounts before the ban came in, more than half said that the ban had made no difference to their online safety. I would add that, while my children are too old to be affected by the ban, I was often a very busy and tired single mother while they were being raised and using social media, and I totally understand the points being made about the possible unfairness and social justice issues with a blanket ban.

This is important because, as we know, the message of this petition is not that children should keep access to harmful content; it is that a ban could cut young people off from safe spaces. For vulnerable children, online communities can often be a lifeline. A blanket ban risks cutting children off from that support. If the Australian evidence is anything to go by, the Government’s proposals could take away those positives without making the online world any safer.

A few weeks ago, I met pupils from a local primary school, Peasedown St John, here in Parliament, and they shared similar concerns. In the Q&A session with a class of six and seven-year-olds, the first question was: “Are you going to ban social media?” When I asked what they thought, they told me, in six and seven-year-old terms, that they wanted inappropriate content restricted, but that they still wanted to use educational platforms. Even at that age, they recognise that different platforms carry different levels of harm, and I must admit that I agree with them.

This is exactly the nuanced approach the Liberal Democrats have been calling for. Unlike an Australia-style ban, the Liberal Democrats would assess and regulate platforms based on the harms they cause, with film-style age ratings reflecting that harm. Platforms that cause the most harm would be closed to children—but, if a tech company did the work to redesign the platform, removing addictive algorithms and harmful content, that form of social media could possibly be accessible. Unlike a fixed ban, that would give tech companies a reason to change. It would preserve safe spaces for young people to talk online and make safety part of the design of these platforms rather than an afterthought.

While we are considering safe spaces, I appreciated the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) that there has been a deterioration in alternative spaces—practical, real-life spaces—for young people to go to over the past 10 or 20 years. I notice that the excellent campaign group Make Space for Girls has been making the point that specifically for young women and girls—particularly as the nights draw in—it is unclear where they will be going to spend their time. The hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) also made the point that rural communities particularly face this challenge. As someone who represents a semi-rural community, I know that many young people simply do not have anywhere to go if they are not going to be on their phones. I am not saying that that makes it right that they are on their phones, but it poses a challenge when that phone use is suddenly cut off.

The Liberal Democrats are also clear that protecting children online should not come at the expense of privacy. Several constituents have asked me to attend this debate; again, they are not in favour of children accessing harmful content, but their concern is that a ban may effectively require a form of digital ID to be enforceable. The Liberal Democrats have always criticised plans for mandatory digital ID, and we will properly scrutinise any regulation of social media to make sure both that it is effective and that it safeguards personal privacy.

I am wholeheartedly in support of a ban on harmful social media, but I think that this debate has allowed us to raise important questions about what a ban should look like. I will therefore finish with a few questions for the Minister. Do the Government believe that the best way forward is still a harms-based approach to banning social media? Can we still expect to see a ban by spring 2027? If so, could the Minister lay out exactly what we can expect to see, and confirm that any regulation will always prioritise privacy and that the House will have the opportunity to scrutinise any proposals?

[Dr Arthur]

Surely any legislation should prioritise the safety of children rather than privacy?

[Anna Sabine]

The hon. Member is absolutely right—that was poorly worded. I should have said, “Alongside the safety of children, we should be prioritising privacy.” I thank him for allowing me to make that clarification.

Finally, on 8 September, the Government also announced legislation to enforce device and app-level restrictions to stop children taking and sharing nude photos of themselves. Could the Minister tell us when we will see that come into force?

The Liberal Democrats want to protect young people from online harm. We believe that the only way to do that successfully is through a harms-based ban on social media. I hope that the Government will today agree.

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 [HL] (First sitting)

Anna Sabine Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

It is fair and proportionate that financial beneficiaries of the provisions should pay for additional burdens of enforcement, rather than British taxpayers. That provision is deliberately broad: it will allow enforcement authorities and event organisers to agree the details, such as how and when payments are made, on a case-by-case basis. Guidance to the sector will, however, emphasise that that applies only to additional unfunded burdens and does not replace existing regulatory and enforcement arrangements; neither should enforcement authorities use this provision for an event, as a wronged party, to cover prosecution costs. This new clause will provide the mechanism for local authorities and other enforcement authorities to recover the costs of the regulatory services they provide for recurrent events.

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

I intend to press to a vote all the amendments relating to the additional condition to be met in the case of domestic sporting events set out by Government amendment 30. I also want to speak to Government amendment 28 and press that to a vote.

In the other place, Liberal Democrat colleagues pushed for the Bill’s scope to be extended so that the sporting events framework could be applicable to all major domestic events. That amendment received great support from the industry, with bodies including the England and Wales Cricket Board, Formula 1, the Lawn Tennis Association, the Football Association, the London Marathon and the Rugby Football Union signing our letter to push for this amendment, which was voted through.

I was pleased that the Minister accepted that amended scope on Second Reading. However, I am concerned that these Government amendments will not deliver it. I understand the Government’s intention—not every premier league match should receive the specific benefit of this Bill—but Government amendment 28 will remove “national interest” from the sporting events framework. That will significantly change the intended scope that the Liberal Democrats pushed through in the other place. This matters in particular for women’s sports and emerging sports, where a national profile has to be built before they can attract international attention. I am seeking clarification: can the Minister confirm that major national events such as Wimbledon will remain covered by the provisions in this Bill?

[Mr French]

This group of Government amendments is part of the changes the Government seek to make in relation to the application of the sporting events framework. I am grateful to the Minister and her officials for taking the time to discuss these, and her thinking behind them, last week. As we have heard, they include changes that define a domestic sporting event; mean that the sporting events framework could be applied to a sporting event only if it is likely to be of significant international interest; provide for an additional condition that must be met in the case of domestic sporting events; provide that regulations under clause 2 that relate to a domestic sporting event cease to have effect after a certain period of time; and mean that transport provisions cannot be applied to a domestic sporting event.

The Minister has assured me that there is broad support among stakeholders for these tweaks that the Government are seeking to make. But they also include new clause 14, which

“would insert a new clause after clause 21 (maximum penalty amounts etc) which would enable a certain bodies to charge fees in connection with certain costs which are incurred by those bodies in relation to the advertising offence or the trading offence.”

The Minister may be aware that the Sport and Recreation Alliance wrote in last night—I suspect to a number of MPs on this Committee—because it is concerned that that sets a precedent where the victim of an offence will be required to pay for the enforcement of that offence.

The Minister will be aware of the concerns in the sporting world for major events around the Home Office’s ongoing engagement with the police—for example, about how costs are split and tried to be forced on to more sporting bodies. We are concerned about that. I am particularly keen to hear what reassurance the Minister can provide the Committee that that precedent will not open the door to further charges being placed on the ability of sporting bodies to host major and domestic events. More broadly, I am pleased that the Government have seen sense and agreed with the spirit of the changes made in the other place. However, I understand the comments made by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset; I am keen to hear the Minister’s response and what assurance she can provide the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I appreciate the Minister’s comments, and particularly her reference to the amendments tabled since the debate in the other place. We will take the Government’s words in good faith and will not seek a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 25, in clause 2, page 2, line 32, at end insert—

“‘domestic sporting event’ means a sporting event which is of a kind that is regularly held wholly or partly in the United Kingdom”.—(Stephanie Peacock.)

The amendment defines “domestic sporting event”.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Framework conditions

Amendment made: 26, in clause 3, page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) This section has effect for the purposes of section 2(3).”—(Stephanie Peacock.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30.

[Anna Sabine]

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 3, page 2, line 35, leave out “two” and insert “three”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 16.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 16, in clause 3, page 3, line 3, at end insert—

“(3A) The third 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 17, in clause 25, page 19, 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.

Clause stand part.

Clause 4 stand part.

[Anna Sabine]

Any sporting event falling under this Bill, and especially any sporting event receiving financial support from the Government, should be free to air. Sport is a huge part of our culture. We will get to the topic of tickets later in this debate, but the reality is that it is expensive to see sport live. We can all agree that being able to watch England play football at the world cup should be free for everyone to watch on TV. Our amendments would ensure that everyone can watch a sporting event that falls under the Bill and that, especially when Government funding is going towards that event, it is free to do so.

Public service broadcasters have pioneered free-to-air coverage and have demonstrated that it has significant social value. Televising the Lionesses, for example, has been huge for girls, who are increasingly taking up football after watching it on live TV. Research by the Women’s Sport Trust shows that whether sport is free-to-air has a direct impact on how many people are watching women’s sports. These amendments would ensure not only that every fan can watch their team play, but that emerging sports funded by the Government or provided for through the Bill are accessible for all to see.

[Mr French]

Clause 3 sets out the conditions that must be satisfied before the framework can be applied to a sporting event. The event must take place wholly or partly in the United Kingdom and must meet either the significance or the strategic priorities.

To meet the significance priorities, the sporting event must be likely to be of significant international or national interest, the sporting event organiser must have asked for the framework to be applied and the event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the whole or part of the UK. This clause sets out the criteria that may be taken into account in determining whether a sporting event is likely to be of significant national or international interest. They include the scale and reputation of the event, the number of people expected to attend the event from outside the UK, and the amount of media coverage expected outside the UK.

To meet the strategic priority, it must be proven that hosting the sporting event will improve the UK’s chance of securing hosting rights for events that meet the significance priorities. I think all Members will recognise the international challenges when bidding for such events. That is something that goes across parties and will often involve successive Governments, with one Government starting the bid and then another Government hosting the event.

Clause 4, which is entitled “Restrictions on application of framework”, sets out safeguards to ensure that powers over sporting events respect the devolved authorities. Before applying provisions that fall within the legislative responsibility of a devolved authority, the Secretary of State must obtain the relevant devolved authority’s consent. At the same time, the clause sets out that devolved authorities may only make regulations covering matters within their own legislative competence. Where ticket touting provisions are applied, the event must also take place at least partly within the relevant devolved territory.

Amendments 15 and 16, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would require all sporting events hosted under the Bill to be made free to air. Understandably, that has raised a number of concerns among sporting bodies. Before I get into the details of why the amendments would not just upset the apple cart but risk cutting the apple tree down completely, I will start by disagreeing with the terminology “free to air”. As my noble Friend Lord Hayward pointed out in Committee in the other place, we must pay £180 each year for a television licence. These events are therefore never free to air.

Secondly, a review of the listed events regime is probably better placed to achieve the expansion of sports coverage—I do agree with the intentions of the proposal—than a blanket ban, which would be likely to have unintended consequences because of the complexities of global broadcast deals. At a glance, it may well look like an attractive proposition, designed to appeal to Liberal Democrats across the home counties. However, although we all agree that we want as many people as possible to enjoy major sporting events, good intentions and good headlines do not make good policy. These amendments would risk doing real damage to the very sports that they are meant to support.

Broadcasting revenue is an essential source of funding for British sport. It does not simply benefit the elite clubs and athletes at the top of the game. That revenue flows down the sporting pyramid, supporting community clubs, grassroots facilities and the next generation of—we hope—world-beating British sporting talent. The Liberal Democrats should be under no illusion about the scale of the financial risk that they are proposing. For example, the Premier League’s current domestic broadcast deals with Sky and TNT Sports are estimated to be worth £6.7 billion over four years, and the English Football League’s deal with Sky is worth another £1 billion over five years. Those agreements demonstrate the enormous value that broadcasters place on live sport, and the income that British sport stands to lose if we undermine the commercial model that supports it.

The question for the Liberal Democrats is simple: if their amendments put that income at risk, who will replace it? Where will the money come from to support sports clubs, maintain facilities and give young people the opportunity to participate in sport? I appreciate that their amendments start with major events hosted under the framework for which the Bill provides, but once the precedent is set and the likes of UEFA cannot sell their broadcast rights at market value, the effects will begin to pass from the international competitions to the feeder domestic competitions. What will the impact be on participation if that happens? I can answer for them: it will begin to fall, and once it does, it will be incredibly difficult to recover. It is all very well to demand that sporting events be made free to air. That is popular—I understand it—but someone still has to pay for the rights to broadcast them. If broadcasters cannot justify the cost of acquiring those rights, the financial consequences will not be confined to the boardrooms of elite sport; they will be felt throughout sport, including the community clubs and grassroots organisations that rely on this investment.

The Liberal Democrats should recognise that the current system already delivers significant benefits beyond elite sport. In the 2024-25 financial year, UK sports invested a record £213.2 million of broadcast revenues into sport under the voluntary code of conduct. The Premier League, meanwhile, invested £1.6 billion into the wider game in the previous broadcasting cycle. Those figures matter. They demonstrate that commercial broadcasting agreements can generate substantial investment across British sport. We should be looking at how to build investment in sport, not introducing blanket restrictions that risk undermining it at any level. That is particularly important when grassroots sport is already facing significant financial pressures under this Government. The Liberal Democrats should not seek to add further uncertainty to the financial foundations of British sport through amendments that could jeopardise the broadcasting revenue upon which it depends.

Let me be clear once again: I want more people watching major sporting events—I want children to be inspired by our greatest athletes, families to enjoy the biggest occasions and British sport to reach the widest possible audience—but we must recognise that accessibility and financial sustainability are not mutually exclusive. We can encourage wider access without imposing a blanket requirement that risks diminishing the value of the rights that help fund our sports.

The answer is to review the listed events regime, make the most of the commercial broadcasting agreements, encourage investment in grassroots sports and ensure that the success of our biggest sporting events benefits communities across the country. Broadcasting revenues are an essential part of that sporting ecosystem, without which it would wither away. These amendments offer a superficially appealing solution that is undoubtedly popular, without adequately addressing the clear consequences.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset for tabling amendments 15 to 17 and for her thoughtful points. The amendments seek to add a further condition that the Secretary of State and devolved Governments must consider to be met in order for the provisions of the Bill to be applied to a sporting event or an event to rely on the funding power. In either case, the additional condition is that live coverage of the event must be made available free of charge to the public in the United Kingdom, either directly or through an Ofcom-licensed platform accessible without subscription.

The Government recognise the intent behind the amendments and are committed to ensuring that major sporting events are as accessible as possible to people across the United Kingdom, but we cannot accept them. Decisions relating to the broadcast coverage of sporting events, and particularly to those recurrent events delivered wholly independently of Government, are key commercial matters for broadcasters, event organisers and the holders of the broadcasting rights. Broadcasting rights provide essential income for national governing bodies and sport broadcasting rights holders, which enables them to invest in their sports and future events; indeed, the shadow Minister outlined in detail some of the relevant figures. The amendments would place tighter controls on their ability to generate much-needed broadcasting revenue, and could negate the wider economic benefits that the Bill provides for.

The current listed events regime is designed to ensure that sporting events of national significance are available to as wide an audience as possible, by prohibiting their exclusive broadcasting without prior consent from Ofcom. In any event, we would expect broadcasters and sporting rights holders of specific events to think carefully about the balance between generating much-needed revenue and ensuring access to coverage for viewers, ensuring the growth and development of the sport.

Clause 3 sets out the conditions that a sporting event must meet before the Bill’s framework provisions can be applied to it. We have had a thorough debate on this matter already, and I hope the Committee agrees that it is not necessary to revisit those points.

Clause 4 ensures that the Bill operates coherently across the United Kingdom while respecting devolved competence and territorial scope. The clause makes it clear that the Secretary of State cannot make regulations applying provisions on ticketing, advertising and trading to a sporting event in an area of devolved competence without the devolved authority’s consent. Similarly, the devolved authorities may exercise these powers only where the matter falls within their legislative competence. Where ticketing provisions are applied, the event in question must take place at least partly within the territory of the devolved authority making the regulations. The clause is an important part of ensuring coherence when applying the powers in a Bill that will ultimately strengthen our ability to secure and host world-class events throughout the UK.

[Anna Sabine]

I do not represent a home county, and I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Online Safety

Anna Sabine Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

When the last Prime Minister gave tech giants three months to voluntarily implement technology that would prevent children from taking and sharing nude images, the Lib Dems were clear that we should not rely on the good will of companies that have repeatedly put profit before children’s safety, and I am pleased to see today that the Government agree with us. The need for action cannot be clearer. In 2024, 91% of online child sexual abuse reports involved self-generated content from children online, and last year there was an 8% rise in child sexual abuse image offences across the UK. These are not just statistics; they are real children being exploited online.

This is a serious problem that urgently demands serious legislation. That is why the Lib Dems welcome today’s announcement of primary legislation that will require device-level and app-level protections for children online. However, this House has heard the phrase “as soon as possible” many times before. I hear what the Secretary of State is saying about a timetable for legislation, but what she said earlier slightly hinted that what the tech giants were doing might affect the progress of the legislation, so I seek reassurance that legislation will be ploughing forward regardless of what those companies are doing.

The Lib Dems are supportive of legislation to protect children from abuse online, but protection cannot come at the expense of privacy. Any legislation that is brought in must be accompanied by guarantees that technology will be highly effective and preserve privacy. Can the Secretary of State confirm that that will be the case?

Too often, the Government have left tech companies to mark their own homework. I am glad that today they have decided enough is enough, but this announcement could have been made three months ago. If we truly want to protect our children, we need a Government who act before harm is done, not a Government who wait until it is too late. I hope that will be the case going forward, as the Secretary of State has intimated.

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support for these measures. She asks me a number of questions. Will the legislation be developed regardless of the action taken by companies? Yes, it will—my officials have begun drawing up that legislation today. Both she and the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) raised specific issues. We will want to discuss those issues with Opposition parties and colleagues on the Government Benches to ensure that our response is right, and privacy is one of those issues. It is not our intention to ignore or sideline the privacy concerns, and we believe that it is perfectly possible to do this without encroaching on privacy in any way.

There is a particular challenge around end-to-end encrypted services, which the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) will be aware of. I would welcome cross-party discussion about that; we have a number of potential solutions that we are currently exploring, so it would be good to discuss the matter further with her.

Finally, the hon. Lady heard what I said about acting quickly and more decisively. Many colleagues will know that before I came to this place, I worked with children and young people. Keeping children safe is the first and most basic responsibility of any Government, and I am very pleased to hear such broad consensus on that across the House.

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Sabine Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Frontier AI is supercharging misinformation online, but we still cannot get to grips with harms much closer to home. There are campaigners in the Public Gallery today, including Tulisa Contostavlos, who was the target of a fabricated story following an undercover tabloid sting, and is proof of the damage that an unregulated press can do. Such examples are why the Lib Dems want the full implementation of Leveson 1 and the commissioning of Leveson 2. Will the Secretary of State meet me and Tulisa to discuss finally getting proper regulation of the press?

[Lisa Nandy]

I would be delighted to offer the hon. Lady that meeting. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Tulisa, whom I have admired for many years for the way in which she has taken such a dreadful experience and used it to help others. Mr Speaker, can I also take this moment to acknowledge the absolutely tragic death of Professor Jason Arday, which happened since the House last met? There is an ongoing inquest and an ongoing investigation by the University of Cambridge. While the Government would not wish to undermine in any sense those ongoing inquiries, I want to reassure the House, and the many families who have been affected by the sort of practices that the hon. Lady references over many years, that we are not neutral when it comes to protecting our citizens.

Media Green Paper

Anna Sabine Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The Green Paper rightly recognises the severe financial challenges facing our public service broadcasters, which have been vividly exposed by recent devastating cuts at the BBC. The Liberal Democrats have long proposed that the BBC World Service should be fully funded directly from Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office budgets, protecting its vital global footprint while freeing up £221 million a year to be reinvested at home. Will the Secretary of State take on board our proposals? What urgent conversations has she had with her Foreign Office colleagues to make that a reality?

Turning to online spaces, the proposal to highlight trusted news sources on social media is welcome, but unfortunately this is just a sticking plaster over the fundamental issue that big social media platforms are already rigged against truth, fairness and impartiality. The real threat to our democracy are the harmful platforms themselves, which use algorithms deliberately engineered to amplify foreign disinformation while systematically choking out trusted journalistic sources. Should the Secretary of State not be focusing the full weight of her Department, and that of her colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, on cleaning up social media platforms once and for all, rather than fighting a losing battle against bad actors on systems that are built to work against us?

[Lisa Nandy]

The hon. Lady rightly talks about online regulation. She will know that that is primarily the responsibility of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, but my colleague the Secretary of State and I work very closely together on that. We must ensure that we both take action to deal with the scourge of misinformation and disinformation online, which she rightly talks about, but that we give people access to news they can genuinely trust and that that news is much more readily available. The two things should be seen together.

I apologise, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) also asked me about Ofcom. She will know that we recently appointed a new chair of Ofcom. We believe that Ofcom must do more to act decisively and quickly in this space.

On the BBC World Service, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) will know that the Government have already stepped in, with the support of the FCDO, to ensure it continues to be funded, but colleagues across the House will have seen recently the funding cuts that were announced at the BBC.

The hon. Lady rightly says that one of the pressures on such broadcasters is the fact that they are currently trying to broadcast through two distinct channels, so it is important that the Government grip that issue. She will know that the charter review is running in parallel to this process. We wanted to look at it all in the round. It is our intention, through the charter review, to ensure that the BBC is adequately funded and that it goes on not just to survive, but to thrive until well into the latter part of this century. She will also know that we recently announced that through that process we will put the BBC on a permanent charter, so that it exists for all of us forever.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Sabine Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I would also like to start by congratulating the England football team on their win yesterday. While fans are rightly excited to finally see England bring it home this summer, some world cup tickets this year have surged to over £24,000. Fans should not be forced to choose between remortgaging their homes or missing out on supporting their country. Will the Minister therefore support the Liberal Democrats’ call for an international fans charter to safeguard supporters against unfair ticket pricing?

[Ian Murray]

It is well documented that there have been issues with tickets for this world cup. My hon. Friend the Sport Minister has been having meetings about tickets for Euro 2028, which will take place in this country. It is really important, whether it is sport, music or festivals, that fans are not ripped off by ticket touts, who make huge profits out of ordinary fans who just want to watch their favourite sports or bands. The hon. Member did congratulate England on winning yesterday, but I am disappointed that she did not also congratulate Scotland for their wonderful win on Sunday morning.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Sabine Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Thousands of people across the country—although possibly not the Arts Minister—are very excited for the world cup this summer, but that excitement is being ruined by the prospect of fans, not football, coming home. Under new US border directives, fans face having their social media history weaponised against them, with the threat of being turned away at the gates for as little as sharing an unflattering meme of President Trump. Will the Secretary of State urgently meet with US counterparts to ensure British fans are not denied entry at the border, and will she demand that the US embassy picks up the tab for tickets and travel for any fan unfairly denied entry?

[Lisa Nandy]

In the notes that I was given, it says that security and safety arrangements for major international sporting events are a matter for the host authorities. That is true, but the Government can play a role. I reassure the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) that I will personally ensure that we as a Government are involved to ensure that fans are not deterred from being able to participate in what should be a really positive experience.