Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I agree with his highlighting of concerns about the greed and denial of principles that have been associated with too many major sporting events recently. That is something I will come back to. It is important that this Bill acknowledges those risks and dangers and considers what kind of events we will be hosting.

I start by saying what a pleasure it is to take part in what has already been a very rich and informed debate. Major international sporting events are important to so many individuals: for pure joy, for engagement in social activities, and for—we hope, at least—encouraging physical activity of their own. Of course, they are also important in providing communities with new facilities, infrastructure and opportunities.

However, we know that major events have not always lived up to their promises or the hopes people held. This Bill is a real opportunity to make sure that future events do just that. The Green Party and I broadly welcome the Bill. It is sensible not to have to keep creating a different piece of legislation for each individual event, and this is a practical measure that is clearly heading in broadly the right direction.

I want to associate myself with a number of points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, such as culture being included in the Bill—certainly cultural events associated with sporting events—but I think we could also ask broader questions. We have seen so much depletion of the cultural life of this country, driven by austerity, by Brexit, by educational suppression of creative subjects, and in some cases by a desire to discourage individual critical thinking. It is important that we look to international inspiration and international support to grow that.

I also share the noble Baroness’s concern that we are not going far enough on anti-ticket-touting or ensuring that events are protected for free-to-air TV. This is still important to so many people. Even though much of what people watch now is through the internet and social media, there are still a lot of people we cannot leave behind.

I very much agree and associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. An amendment to ensure that we build in “inclusive by design” is something we should see. I would further comment, reflecting on earlier debates in your Lordships’ House, that those who are attacking diversity, equity and inclusion measures for ideological reasons should listen to the noble Lord’s speech to understand how important it is that these measures continue.

I want to pick up on the immensely powerful and important speech—as we all expected—from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and her point about soft power. As she stressed, the nature of the event, how it turns out, and its outcomes for individuals, communities and society are important not only on their own terms but to how Britain is regarded around the world. In that context, the UK Soft Power Council has, unfortunately, not met for seven months. A recent PoliticsHome article described it as “drifting towards oblivion”. That is disturbing, and perhaps the Minister can comment on that.

I come now to some specific points concerning amendments that I may consider tabling to this Bill, depending on the Minister’s response. The first relates to Schedule 2, “Advertising provisions”. We have already ensured that we remove tobacco sponsorship from sport because of its impact on public health. Should we not also consider preventing fossil fuel companies advertising and sponsoring major sporting events? This has been called for by the UN Secretary-General, who has said there should indeed be restrictions similar to those applied to tobacco. Various countries have made progress in this area. France has already banned fossil fuel products advertising from 2022. The Hague has introduced a legally binding ban on fossil fuel advertising in public spaces from 2025. Of course, many local communities around these islands—including Edinburgh and Sheffield, to mention two that I know about—have already taken action on this.

We can look back to the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics for lessons that we might learn. Public health in the UK is so poor. Surely, if we are going to put significant public investment into these sporting events, as we inevitably will, we need to make sure they do not do significant damage to public health. There should surely be restrictions on the nature of the products being advertised or, indeed, forcibly sold at these venues.

I note that major sponsors at London 2012 were McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Cadbury and Heineken. That was subject at the time to criticism from a number of senior medical officials; indeed, the London Assembly passed a motion calling for a ban on junk food sponsors. We saw a real problem whereby food sellers were forced to prominently display Coca-Cola advertising and products, with very limited space for alternative products. This, of course, is a product linked to high blood pressure, heart disease and obesity. Surely, the Bill should be looking to address some of those issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, has already given us a sneak preview, and I will not go on at length as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Foster, will be discussing this, but the issue of gambling sponsorship and advertising has to be considered. This is, of course, a huge issue when it comes to football. I am afraid I am not going to celebrate the very modest measure whereby next season, there will be a voluntary ban on advertising on the front of shirts. That is what you might call the minimum possible we think we can get away with. The economic costs of gambling to the country are very well known and I am sure will be rehearsed later. I note that Italy, for example, banned most gambling advertising through a “Dignity Decree” in 2018.

My final point concerns sustainability standards. Again, London 2012 unfortunately did not live up to many of the promises made before the Games on waste reduction targets, resource use and use of renewable energy. Also, they failed to use locally grown food and fair trade products, in part, again, because of the influence of those sponsors and contracted suppliers.

Surely, we should be thinking back to the soft power point. We should be ensuring that we produce genuinely “world-leading” events—a phrase popular on both the Government and Opposition Benches in this place. Paris sought to host the lowest carbon Olympic Games ever; it did not always live up to this. Surely, we can do better than Paris in future events. Yes, international bodies are starting to mandate those standards, but we can surely demand that the events we cover under this Bill go further.