Sporting Events Bill [HL] (Second sitting)

Debate between Edward Morello and Stephanie Peacock

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for those points, and the constructive way in which he made them. Towards the end of my contribution, I outlined why we have taken a different approach for recurrent versus itinerant events. Recurrent events are most likely to be subject to marketing activity to exploit the public interest and excitement at particular times. I have obviously chosen not to give examples, because it would not be fair on the companies, as it was perfectly legitimate when they did the marketing stunts and campaigns. I will certainly take that request away. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman about further guidance, but we are in regular conversation with the sector, and we are always happy to have those conversations.

Amendment 34 agreed to.

Amendments made: 35, in clause 14, page 10, line 9, at beginning insert “specify”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 79.

Amendment 36, in clause 14, page 10, line 11, at beginning insert

“in the case of a non-domestic sporting event, specify”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 79.

Amendment 37, in clause 14, page 10, line 13, at end insert—

“(2A) In the case of a domestic sporting event, the period specified in accordance with subsection (2)(a) must—

(a) begin no earlier than 28 days before the day on which the sporting event begins, and

(b) end no later than 7 days after the day on which the sporting event ends.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)

This amendment would place restrictions on the period during which the unauthorised association provisions may apply to a domestic sporting event.

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Exceptions to the prohibition on unauthorised association

Amendment made: 38, in clause 16, page 11, line 14, at end insert

“(including, for example, activities carried out by a small or micro business)”.—(Stephanie Peacock.)

This amendment would clarify that regulations applying the unauthorised association prohibition to a sporting event may provide for an exception for activities carried out by a small business or micro business.

Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

Unauthorised association provisions

Amendments made: 66, in schedule 4, page 38, line 39, leave out

“was made before the relevant commencement date”

and insert “is made”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 76.

Amendment 67, in schedule 4, page 39, line 5, leave out “a” and insert “the”.

This amendment makes a drafting clarification.

Amendment 68, in schedule 4, page 39, line 5, at end insert—

“(8A) In the case of a non-domestic sporting event, the application mentioned in sub-paragraph (8)(a) must have been made before the relevant commencement date.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 76.

Amendment 69, in schedule 4, page 39, line 7, leave out

“trade mark or design before the determination of”

and insert “representation unless”.

This amendment and Amendment 70 clarify that in a case where paragraph 1(9) of Schedule 4 applies, the court may not grant relief, or make an order under paragraph 4(4), in relation to a representation that involves the use of a trade mark or design, unless the application for registration of the trade mark or design is refused, withdrawn or abandoned.

Amendment 70, in schedule 4, page 39, line 8, at end insert

“is refused, withdrawn or abandoned”.

See my explanatory statement to Amendment 69.

Amendment 71, in schedule 4, page 39, line 8, at end insert—

“(9A) Nothing in this paragraph prevents, or provides grounds for declaring invalid, the registration of—

(a) a trade mark under the Trade Marks Act 1994;

(b) a design under the Registered Designs Act 1949.”

This amendment would ensure that the prohibition on unauthorised association does not prevent, or provide grounds for declaring invalid, the registration of a trade mark or design.

Amendment 72, in schedule 4, page 39, line 33, at beginning insert “Subject to sub-paragraph (1A),”.

See my explanatory statement to Amendment 76.

Amendment 73, in schedule 4, page 39, line 35, leave out

“before the relevant commencement date”.

See my explanatory statement to Amendment 76.

Amendment 74, in schedule 4, page 39, line 38, leave out

“before the relevant commencement date”.

See my explanatory statement to Amendment 76.

Amendment 75, in schedule 4, page 39, line 39, leave out from “right” to end of line 40.

See my explanatory statement to Amendment 76.

Amendment 76, in schedule 4, page 39, line 40, at end insert—

“(1A) In the case of a non-domestic sporting event—

(a) the trade mark mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) must be registered before the relevant commencement date;

(b) the design mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) must be registered before the relevant commencement date;

(c) the intellectual property right mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(c) must subsist immediately before the relevant commencement date.”

This amendment, together with Amendments 72 to 75, would mean that in the case of a domestic sporting event, the prohibition on unauthorised association is not breached by the use of a registered trade mark or design (whenever the trade mark or design is registered), or the exercise of an intellectual property right (whenever the right subsists).

Amendment 77, in schedule 4, page 40, line 1, leave out “(1)(a)” and insert “(1A)(a)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 76.

Amendment 78, in schedule 4, page 42, line 23, leave out from “to” to end of line 24 and insert

“be read in accordance with sub-paragraph (1A);”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 79.

Amendment 79, in schedule 4, page 42, line 28, at end insert—

“(1A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(d), references to the relevant protection date—

(a) in the case of a domestic sporting event, are to the day on which the specified period begins;

(b) in any other case, are to the date specified in the regulations as required by section 14(2)(b).”—(Stephanie Peacock.)

This amendment would mean that, in the case of a domestic sporting event, the relevant protection date is the first day of the period during which the unauthorised association provisions apply to the event.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17

Transport regulations

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 17, page 11, line 27, at end insert—

“17A Rural event impact assessments

(1) Before making regulations under section 2(2) which apply the transport provisions to a sporting event, the Secretary of State must ensure that a rural event impact assessment has been carried out where the event is to take place wholly or partly in a rural area.

(2) For the purposes of this section, an event is to be treated as taking place in a rural area where the Secretary of State considers that—

(a) the event takes place in an area in which there are limited alternative routes for road users;

(b) the closure, restriction or diversion of roads in connection with the event is likely to result in materially longer journeys for persons living, working or carrying on a business in the area; or

(c) such other criteria as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State are met.

(3) A rural event impact assessment must assess the likely effect of the sporting event, including any proposed traffic restrictions, road closures or diversions, on—

(a) the availability of alternative routes;

(b) the length and accessibility of alternative routes;

(c) access for carers;

(d) persons who require access to employment and who may suffer financial loss as a result of being unable to arrive at their place of employment;

(e) local businesses, including small and micro-businesses;

(f) residents and persons who ordinarily travel through or within the affected area; and

(g) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) The assessment must identify and consider measures for mitigating any adverse effects identified under subsection (3), including measures designed to—

(a) maintain reasonable access for residents and businesses,

(b) prioritise access for carers and persons providing essential care,

(c) minimise disruption to persons travelling to or from employment,

(d) minimise disruption to small and micro-businesses,

(e) take account of the absence or limited availability of alternative routes in rural areas, or

(f) provide reasonable access for emergency and essential services.

(5) The Secretary of State must not make regulations under section 2(2) applying the transport provisions to a sporting event to which this section applies unless the rural event impact assessment has been considered and determined to be acceptable by an independent person or body appointed or designated by the Secretary of State.

(6) The person or body appointed or designated under subsection (5) must be independent of the sporting event organiser.

(7) Before an assessment is determined to be acceptable under subsection (5), the independent person or body must have regard to representations from—

(a) each local authority whose area is likely to be materially affected by the event,

(b) any mayor of a combined authority or other directly elected mayor whose area is likely to be materially affected by the event, where the Secretary of State considers that consultation with that mayor is appropriate, and

(c) such other persons or bodies as may be specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe criteria for determining—

(a) which local authorities and mayors are to be consulted for the purposes of subsection (7),

(b) the matters to be considered by an independent person or body in determining whether an assessment is acceptable,

(c) the form and content of a rural event impact assessment, and

(d) the measures which may be regarded as appropriate mitigation measures for the purposes of subsection (4).

(9) Where a local authority or other relevant public authority has already put in place measures which address the matters required to be considered under this section, the rural event impact assessment may take those measures into account and need not require equivalent measures to be put in place again, provided that the independent person or body is satisfied that those measures are adequate having regard to the likely impact of the event.

(10) Where a sporting event is recurring, the Secretary of State may by regulations provide for a rural event impact assessment to cover more than one occurrence of the event, provided that the assessment is reviewed where there is a material change in—

(a) the scale or nature of the event,

(b) the proposed traffic restrictions, road closures or diversions,

(c) the affected road network, or

(d) the circumstances of the affected communities.

(11) Regulations under this section—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and

(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would require a rural event impact assessment before transport regulations apply to sporting events in rural areas likely to cause significant disruption due to limited alternative routes. The assessment would consider impacts on residents, carers, workers, small businesses and essential services, with mitigation measures approved by an independent person or body.

It is wonderful to have an opportunity to say something other than “abstain”. Amendment 20 would require a rural event impact assessment before transport restrictions are put in place for a major sporting event. While this might seem niche, it is a direct result of something that recently happened in Dorset.

Road closures for sporting events can cause disruption anywhere, but in rural areas the consequence can be very serious. There is often no alternative route, and a diversion that may add 20 minutes in a city can add hours in the countryside. I have received several examples from constituents who struggled with road closures during a recent sporting event in Dorset. In one case, carers were repeatedly given conflicting instructions about how to reach a vulnerable resident. Despite assurances that they would be allowed through, they were stopped and diverted several times. As a result, my constituent’s father was left in bed in his own faeces for several hours.

This amendment would simply require organisers and the Government to consider those impacts before transport restrictions are imposed. It would look at access for carers and emergency services, and the effect on local businesses and workers, ensure that arrangements for access to affected areas are effective, and allow essential carers and emergency services to reach those they support, whether realistic alternatives exist or not. It should also require independent scrutiny and consultation with affected local authorities.

This is not about preventing events from happening—far from it. Major sporting events bring real benefits to rural areas. It is about ensuring that proper planning prevents unnecessary disruption. I hope that the Government will support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello]

These amendments are about ensuring lasting benefits for communities hosting major sporting events. Events such as the London 2012 Olympics have shown the potential for sporting events to bring investment and improve local infrastructure. We should ensure that communities hosting future events have the same opportunity.

Amendment 18 would allow the use of Government funding to improve local roads, repair potholes, maintain pavements and renew road markings in areas affected by major sporting events. Amendment 19 focuses on mobile phone coverage and capacity. Large events put enormous pressure on local networks, leaving residents and businesses struggling to get signal when demand increases. The amendments would ensure that public and private investment in major sporting events benefits the wider area, not just the venue itself. Better roads and more reliable mobile coverage can improve daily life, support local businesses and help communities to prepare to host future events.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for tabling these important amendments, which aim to ensure that the Bill’s funding power can be used to deliver lasting benefits to communities affected by one-off sporting events.

As I set out in debate on the previous group, that power neither creates additional funding nor establishes a new route for securing public money; it simply provides the legal underpinning for the lawful delivery of funding that has already been agreed through existing processes and against existing criteria. Amendment 18 seeks to ensure that funding can be channelled into improving potholes, pavements, footways and road markings, while amendment 19 would ensure that the power may be used to improve mobile communications, infrastructure and network capability.

In both cases, the hon. Member’s objective is clear: to secure benefits for local communities that endure beyond the sporting event. The Government fully recognise the importance of that objective. Indeed, that is precisely why we invest in legacy programmes, which may include the types of infrastructure improvements envisioned in the amendments. Although the amendments are well-intentioned, they risk going beyond the intended scope of the funding power. As made clear in the explanatory notes to the Bill, clause 25 is intended to support the operational delivery of sporting events and associated activities. Elements of the amendments would push that power beyond its proper limits, as their link to enabling sporting events or related activity is tenuous.

However, if any improvements in the areas highlighted in the amendments are necessary for the event to take place, clause 25 is broad enough to allow for that, making the amendments redundant. Given the wide range of issues that sporting events may contend with, we have deliberately not been prescriptive on the specific forms of support that may be provided under the power. The amendments would cut across that principle by singling out particular categories of support without clear evidence for doing so. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 18 and not to press amendment 19 to a vote.

[Edward Morello]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 14

Fees

“(1) Where regulations under section 2(1) apply the advertising provisions or the trading provisions to a domestic sporting event, a relevant authority may require the event organiser to pay fees to the authority in connection with some or all of the relevant costs incurred by the authority in relation to the event.

(2) In imposing such a requirement, a relevant authority must have regard to the need to secure that the total amount of fees paid does not exceed the relevant costs incurred by the authority in relation to the event.

(3) ‘Relevant authority’ means—

(a) a local authority;

(b) an enforcement authority.

(4) ‘Relevant costs’ means—

(a) where the relevant authority is an enforcement authority, the costs incurred by the authority in connection with enforcing the advertising offence or the trading offence;

(b) where the relevant authority is a local authority, the costs incurred by the authority in exercising its functions in relation to the advertising offence or the trading offence.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)

This amendment 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.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

Advertising offence: exceptions for newspapers and periodicals

“(1) The advertising offence does not apply to an advertising activity carried out in a restricted advertising zone if that activity consists of selling, distributing or providing a current newspaper or periodical.

(2) The exception in subsection (1) does not apply to the selling, distribution or provision of a current newspaper or periodical—

(a) in the street if the selling, distribution or provision is done in a manner that causes undue interference or inconvenience to persons using the street;

(b) if the version of the newspaper or periodical sold, distributed or provided has been created for the purpose of sale, distribution or provision only to, or principally to, members of the public who are in, or in the vicinity of, a restricted advertising zone; or

(c) which is accompanied by any item if the whole or principal purpose of including that item is to promote a product, service or business specifically to members of the public who are in, or in the vicinity of, a restricted advertising zone.”—(Mr French.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the former Minister for her contribution; she makes a really important point. That is why, as the Minister for Sport, I set up the women’s sport taskforce, and I am happy to invite her to attend one of the taskforce’s meetings. It would be very useful if she could share the expertise that she obviously gathered when she did the job that I currently do.

Through that taskforce, we are looking at practical ways to support women in sport. I will give just one example from our grassroots funding; we want to double priority slots. The hon. Member for West Dorset also gave some really good examples from the women’s rugby world cup. I was delighted to attend four matches at that tournament, but I also visited a grassroots rugby event just up the road from me in West Yorkshire. I did so with my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), who was then the Foreign Secretary and is now the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, as the event was in her constituency. We went to see at first hand the effect that the women’s rugby world cup was having on getting girls into rugby.

Consequently, I totally take the point that the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling made, and I appreciate that we want to see the dial on diversity and inclusion move more quickly, which is why we are doing things in that regard through our allocation of money for grassroots funding. However, I am happy to write to her and indeed to continue the conversation.

I will bring my comments to a conclusion by addressing some of the other points that the hon. Member for West Dorset made. As I have said, we welcome the intention behind the new clause. However, we respectfully suggest that the Bill already provides the right framework to secure the benefits he seeks to achieve without imposing additional statutory tests that might reduce flexibility. Of course, the first major sporting event that we hope to use this Bill for is Euro 2028. We have already established that there will be £45 million of social impact, with £23 million being given by the UK Government.

I do not recognise the picture that the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—painted of our approach to grassroots sport. We have put £400 million into grassroots sport and £500 million into major sporting events, with £250 million going in through Sport England.

On the PE premium, there are certainly examples of where it works well, but sadly too many kids are not active. Indeed, 50% are not meeting the chief medical officer’s guidelines. That is why we make no apologies for taking a different view. Of course, however, that issue falls outside the scope of the debate that we are having today.

[Edward Morello]

I thank the Minister for her comments, and the shadow Minister and all other Members who contributed. Given the perilous state of community sports in my constituency and across the UK, it is incumbent upon us to drive as much money as possible down to those grassroots clubs and community centres, so the Liberal Democrats would like to divide the Committee on new clause 13.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Morello and Stephanie Peacock

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

I recognise the vital role that football clubs like Wealdstone FC play in the community. While stadium negotiations are primarily a matter for clubs and local authorities, I understand the importance of securing a future at Grosvenor Vale, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how we can best support the club for the future.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Over the last 24 years, 174 grassroots rugby clubs have disappeared. Such clubs are vital and feed our professional teams with talent and fans. While attendance and broadcast figures are improving at the top level, Premiership clubs still owe the Government massive amounts of money in covid loans and carry £340 million in debt. What assessment has the Department made of the long-term financial stability of both grassroots and premiership rugby?

[Stephanie Peacock]

The governance of rugby union is a matter for the Rugby Football Union, which is independent of Government, but the Government monitor the financial situation of rugby union closely. The DCMS continues to work with the RFU and I am happy to discuss that further with the hon. Gentleman.

Six Nations Rugby Championship: Viewing Access

Debate between Edward Morello and Stephanie Peacock

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for her contribution, and I pay tribute to her for her work. We have talked about this issue many times. She is absolutely right about the span of rugby throughout the year. I was really lucky to be cheering on the Red Roses at Twickenham a few months ago with my former boss Sylvia Heal, a former Member of this House; I look forward to doing so again in the coming months. I will come on in a moment to some of the points that my hon. Friend raised.

I am aware of reports relating to the broadcasting of the Six Nations from 2026 onwards, which is obviously why the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds secured this timely debate. It should be emphasised that this is a live issue, and it would not be appropriate to comment on every single stage of ongoing commercial negotiations, as I am sure Members will appreciate. However, I recently met Six Nations Rugby to discuss the issue further. It was clear to me that Six Nations Rugby understands the strength of feeling among rugby fans on this issue and appreciates the significant cultural and financial contribution that the Six Nations makes to each nation’s rugby union’s governing body, including the RFU. The Government recognise the importance of broadcasting sporting events such as the Six Nations to attract significant audience interest.

The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds proposed changes to the so-called listed events regime that, in his view, would protect free-to-air coverage of the Six Nations. As he outlined, the Broadcasting Act 1996 gives the Secretary of State the power to draw up a list of sporting events of national interest. The broadcast rights to such events must be offered to the main free-to-air terrestrial broadcasters on “fair and reasonable terms”. 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 the exclusive broadcasting of the event without the prior consent of Ofcom.

As colleagues will know, the Six Nations is listed under the Act as a group B protected event, which means that although highlights must be offered to free-to-air broadcasters, full live coverage does not need to be made available to them. Listing does not guarantee that an event will be broadcast live or on a free-to-air channel. Rights holders are not required to sell rights for listed events, and free-to-air broadcasters are not obliged to purchase them. Conversely, the example of the Six Nations demonstrates that putting an event in group B does not prevent a rights holder from selling full live coverage rights to a free-to-air broadcaster or broadcasters.

The Government believe that the current list of events works well and strikes an appropriate balance between access to sporting events and allowing sports to maximise broadcasting revenue. We therefore have no plans to review the list at this time. When discussing the Six Nations, it is important to consider that broadcasting income is a significant revenue stream for rugby union and is important to the financial sustainability of all home nations unions. The current Six Nations broadcasting rights are said to be worth £90 million a year—a significant revenue stream for the six rugby governing bodies.

The previous Government loaned premiership clubs £124 million as part of the sport survival package to keep elite-level rugby union alive during the pandemic, and championship clubs were loaned £5 million. We are supporting rugby union authorities to improve the financial sustainability of the sport. Indeed, I recently met the RFU to discuss the future of rugby union.

[Edward Morello]

The Minister makes valid points about the contribution that the Government have made. However, the RFU has lost £30 million and overseen three premiership clubs going bust, so I question whether the Government are doing enough to scrutinise the governing bodies of the game in England.

[Stephanie Peacock]

That is, of course, a matter for the RFU. I took note of the hon. Gentleman’s earlier intervention; if it is helpful, I am happy to write to him about the specific points that he raised.

I welcome the recent progress that the game has made on funding distribution and other issues. We will continue to work with the RFU, with representatives of premiership and championship clubs and with the wider sport sector to support the ongoing sustainability of elite and community-level rugby. More broadly, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport provides the majority of direct support for grassroots sport through our arm’s length body Sport England, which invests over £250 million of national lottery and Government money annually. Sport England has awarded £30,859,000 to the RFU—one of its long-term system partners—for the 2022-2027 period, to support men’s and women’s grassroots rugby union. DCMS has also provided over £28 million of investment to support England’s hosting of the 2025 women’s rugby world cup, including £14.5 million to support the legacy of that tournament through improvements to facilities and greater opportunities for women and girls at all levels.

Despite that support, the RFU is independent of Government and is responsible for the regulation of rugby union at all levels. Given the financial difficulties facing rugby union, it is right that the RFU and the Six Nations consider the trade-offs between visibility, access to games, maximising revenue and protecting our cultural heritage.