Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to the Sporting Events Bill. My noble friend Lord Addington will be leading on this from our Benches and may occasionally hand me the baton. We welcome this Bill, which creates a legislative framework that will attract international sporting events to the UK, as the Minister said. It will provide the opportunity to inspire future generations of athletes, create unforgettable experiences, boost visitor numbers and the economy and exercise our soft power through sports. We on these Benches welcome and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on his role as ministerial adviser on soft power and major events. We look forward to working with him.

The legislative framework is useful and will assist with the organising of those events that we have already secured—the Minister mentioned Euro 2028. It will also help when bidding to host future events, but should there also be a clear bidding framework for putting together such bids, or at least a commitment to increase transparency surrounding bids? That would be a strong sign for the sports industry of more positive intentions from the Government.

This Bill can be useful not just for sporting events; I can also see it being utilised for cultural ones. The Edinburgh Festival could benefit, as well as all-year events such as the City of Culture. It is my understanding that the Government intend to set out a strategy for major events that will include culture. Can the Minister tell us the timeline for this?

As she mentioned, London hosted the wonderful 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, and I join her in paying tribute to the great Tessa Jowell. Alongside the Games was the Cultural Olympiad. Danny Boyle’s opening ceremony—a beautiful, brilliant spectacular— was a showcase for our great creative industries and ended memorably with our monarch meeting James Bond and then jumping out of a helicopter. It was not just about the Olympic arena. Across the nation, people got together to engage in cultural activities; in all, 621 productions and projects resulted in 13,000 performances and events at 1,270 venues across the UK. However, the legislation passed for those Games did not include their cultural element. For the sporting events that fall under this legislation, will the Minister consider including affiliated cultural events? There appears to be scope, and I think she was suggesting this in her opening remarks, but we would like to make this clearer in legislation.

Then there is the group A of listed sporting events, the crown jewels protected for free-to-air TV. This Bill has been created with sporting events of significant interest in mind—events that we believe should also be free to air. Group A should be expanded. There was joy, and of course sorrow, for those able to see the UEFA final last weekend. Should it not have been something that everyone could access to watch for free? What about the Glasgow Commonwealth Games happening this July? We on these Benches believe there should be no need for special pleading from the Prime Minister—just add this to the Bill.

Then there are infrastructure, transport and security. Some of these considerations have made it into the Bill, which is a positive step and again welcomed by these Benches. But built environment intervention seems to be missing: athletes’ accommodation, as well as facilities for visitors, restaurants, parks and access to accommodation at an appropriate price range. These would drive opportunities to boost the tourist economy and are needs that we think should be considered within the framework and the Bill.

We are glad to see consideration of advertising and branding. This is important for interconnected reasons: a good legal framework protects sports organisations from unauthorised branding and marketing, but also, as the Minister said, makes deals for official sponsors more appealing. It also limits the unauthorised use of marketing for activities, usually online, that could cause harm. My noble friend Lord Foster will elaborate on this topic and, noble Lords will not be surprised to hear, on gambling. There is also the matter of the use of trademarks—more on this from my noble friend Lord Addington.

Finally, and I think this has happened again today, some concern has been expressed in the House about having to wait for a draft ticketing Bill. Does this Bill not provide an opportunity to discuss how we can create a strong anti-touting ticket system across the board, with proper enforcement? Does the Minister not agree that we should seize this opportunity now, rather than have to wait another year for a different Bill? We look forward to working with the Government on this Bill.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I start by declaring that, further to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Hayward, if I was ever to win anything significant, it would definitely be by a massive stroke of luck.

The Government’s clearly stated intention for the Bill is to create an event-agnostic framework that can be applied to certain future sporting events without requiring new primary legislation. The Government have been very open in their belief that the Bill will cover all those possible scenarios. Our amendments seek to probe to see whether this is the case. The amendments are made in the spirit of helpfulness, as I know are the other amendments made by my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter.

By way of an example, say we wish to bid for one of the major and very large events, such as the Olympics or the World Cup. The delivery of those events requires significant cross-sector effort, bringing together national governing and representative bodies for the sports, such as the British Olympic Association or the Football Association; local government, including the host cities; and central government departments. We might need to construct new stadia or event spaces, purchase land and improve public transport links, for example.

Hosting such an event would potentially require the creation of a specific body to co-ordinate and oversee the event’s organisation. This is the approach that we are all very familiar with and something that we had to do with the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, with which we created the Olympic Delivery Authority to work alongside the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The ODA was responsible for the redevelopment of the Stratford area, the construction of the sporting ventures, and the infrastructure and transport planning—all things I was very familiar with as a previous chair of the London and Continental Railways, which developed a lot of that work.

The Bill, however, does not provide a mechanism for the Government to create a delivery authority for a sporting event, should it become necessary. If Ministers needed to establish such a body for future events they would require primary legislation. Of course, this is an outcome that we all wish to avoid and it is the Government’s stated intention. If it transpires that bespoke primary legislation is indeed required for a future sporting event, what is the purpose of the Bill that we are trying to pass?

Amendments 2A, 6A, 58A, 58B and 61A, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Parkinson, seek to rectify this shortcoming by creating a mechanism for the Secretary of State to establish a delivery authority if they believe it necessary. In drafting these amendments, I have taken inspiration from the provisions in the 2006 Act, which established the Olympic Delivery Authority, and amended them so that they can be applied generally to any event to which the framework applies. Amendments 58A and 58B seek to allow the Secretary of State to establish transfer schemes to the delivery authority and for the authority to be dissolved by order.

Amendment 61A seeks to insert a new schedule into the Bill. The first part of this proposed new schedule would provide for the establishment of a delivery authority and sets out the authority’s general functions. Those are to

“prepare for the sporting event … make arrangements in preparation for or in connection with the use or management … of premises and other facilities acquired, constructed or adapted in preparation for the sporting event … ensure that adequate arrangements are made for the provision, management and control of facilities for transport in connection with the sporting event, and … ensure the safety of individuals participating in or attending the … event”.

Part 2 of the proposed new Schedule sets out the constitution of a delivery authority, including membership of between seven and 11 people, the appointment of a chair and chief executive, and the procedure for removing members. Part 3 would provide procedural rules of delegation by the authority and seeks for the Secretary of State to require the authority to submit a report on the authority’s progress, which must be laid before Parliament. Part 4 would allow the Secretary of State to provide the authority with financial assistance, if necessary, subject to the affirmative resolution of the Bill.

I am aware that other provisions may be needed in secondary legislation. I will not pretend that we have all the detail behind this right, but we are trying to set out likely scenarios in which we would have to set up such a delivery authority and the things that would need to be considered. We are trying to build those into the framework. We ask the Government to come back more thoroughly on the schedules that would be needed, but we hope these are helpful by way of example.

I hope that the Minister understands the point that I am trying to make. If the Government believe that this Bill, when passed, will never need further primary legislation then it needs to cover all the possible requirements for future events. If we hope to host some major sporting events in the future then we may well need a delivery authority to support such an event. These amendments would allow the Government to do just that. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, my amendment covers a slightly different area. It seeks to ensure that cultural events affiliated with a sporting event are part of the Bill’s scope. We on these Benches support the Bill’s aim to create a legislative framework. However, past experience has shown that cultural events such as the Cultural Olympiad were hard to include and very much seen as an afterthought. Those of us who witnessed and participated in the events in 2012 will argue that they were far from that; they were integral and magnificent—the opening and closing ceremonies, and the cultural coming together across the UK.

The Bill’s current wording refers to events “sporting or otherwise” and

“held in connection with the sporting event”.

This is a probing amendment that seeks assurance from the Minister that this is the case and asks her to consider making the reference to cultural events more explicit.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 3 and 4 are in my name. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Although it is a pro bono position, I declare my interest as a board member of the London Marathon Foundation.

The purpose of these amendments is very simple. They seek to give the appropriate national authorities, rather than just the Secretary of State, the power to apply the unauthorised association provisions and all the transport provisions that are included in this Bill. Appropriate national authorities, as defined in the Bill, are the Secretary of State or the devolved Administrations. These amendments would widen the scope to designate the five parts of the sporting events framework set out. Their aim is simply to future-proof the Bill so that powers can be conferred by the appropriate authority if there is a reasonable case to do so.

For example, if greater powers were devolved in relation to transport provision then the legislation would enable devolved authorities to apply these powers without needing to change primary legislation again. There simply is nothing more behind them than that. These amendments are part of a package of amendments that I have tabled or signed that seek to extend the scope of the Bill to include major, regular, UK-based events and to ensure greater flexibility in the potential use of the framework provisions. I will explain in more detail my arguments for doing this when we discuss group 6.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury]

15: Clause 3, page 2, line 35, leave out “three” and insert “four”
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment, and others in the name of Baroness Bonham-Carter, adds a condition for Sporting Events to be covered by this Bill, to make the sporting event free to air.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

In moving Amendment 15 I shall speak also to Amendments 26 and 79. We on these Benches think that we should consider events that are in scope of this Bill as part of the free-to-air listed events regime for audiences in the UK, so that those who wish to follow a sporting event but cannot obtain a ticket due to cost or availability can still follow the event without incurring extra costs and potentially having to pay for a subscription; and, secondly and really importantly, because it will encourage and expand the audience for such events. Watching a sport you do not know can spark interest and participation. There are more chances that this will happen if the event is not behind a paywall.

The Minister mentioned the Lionesses. Thanks to the BBC championing and broadcasting women’s football free to air, enabling the public to watch the Lionesses’ triumphant journey in both European and world tournaments, there are new audiences in stadiums, as well as on screens; and, most importantly, it has inspired women and girls to take up the sport. Similarly, there is the legacy of Channel 4 and the Paralympics, and I refer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said earlier about encouraging and enabling disabled kids to get involved in sport.

It is in the power of the DCMS to review listed events—the “crown jewels”, as they are known. The amendment I am proposing would create an opportunity to revise the list, and this follows a concerning trend where fans’ rights to enjoy events on free-to-air television have been gradually eroded. For the first time, the finals of the Champions League—football is the sport of the day—Europa League and Conference League were all behind a paywall. If the Government intend to host such great sporting events in the UK, as we have been discussing today, the British public deserve the right to be able to watch them.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to follow the Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, who is very much the leader of your Lordships’ House in this space. I am here having signed Amendments 15 and 26 to show cross-party support, so I will be brief.

As the noble Baroness set out, we have seen a gradual erosion of people’s access. We often discuss access to the right to participate in sport, but there is also the access to being part of the whole sporting experience and to view major events live. Free-to-air broadcast is what keeps major sporting events genuinely public, rather than turning them into elite viewing that is available only to those who can afford subscription television or other sources. If access depends on payment, watching sport becomes unevenly distributed, with lower-income households at a clear disadvantage. In practice, that particularly excludes, or risks excluding, many children and young people from the shared experience of watching major sporting events with their peers and their communities. Free-to-air coverage ensures that money is not a barrier to participation in what is a common cultural space, where sport is experienced collectively rather than privately. That broad access is something that gives sport extra public value, and that is why it is important to protect it as something that belongs to everyone, not just those who can pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

I thank everyone for taking part in this debate—except possibly the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, who is making me have to think of a different way of saying “free to air”. I am, of course, disappointed but actually not surprised by the Minister’s response. She has given me valuable time but I hope we can explore this further.

To pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, the crown jewels debate got cut off at the knees. We have charter renewal coming up. I totally respect what everyone says about the future and things changing every day, but we need to discuss this because it is important that we share these things. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, that the paywall is the paywall and means that things become niche rather than shared; that is the thing we are really trying to overcome here. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.