Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Addington Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Either the Government want to host these nation-building games or they do not. Without labour market flexibility for these temporary events, it cannot happen unless the organisers assume a level of risk that exists nowhere else in the world. That, of course, is a big disincentive to come to the United Kingdom. The truth is that we do not need this Bill. After all, we have built, in the words of the Financial Times, the world’s most admired annual league and a true national asset, the Premier League, without the provisions of this Bill. If the Government want to take it forward and we designate these events, let us give them every chance of success, not hobble them with rules and regulations that will spoil the enjoyment and pleasure of going to the game.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, to intervene for the first time in Committee on this group of amendments is rather an odd one. I had not looked at it when we started out. I also feel that, if you are bringing a games into a country, you are going into an existing framework of laws and rights. If you bring something into a structure and you are going to bid for it, you should take into account whether you can deal with industrial relations. We have done it a couple of times.

As to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I suggest that you know when you will be working at a games or a championship because you have a schedule of events. It is not a randomised thing. You might have extra time in a championship in one of the big team games, but it is a finite amount of time. We do not play until sudden death. With weather like this and rugby union at the moment, it probably would be death if we played too long.

These amendments are a good probe to get a feel of what is happening, but if you are taking on a project you are taking it on with the risk of industrial relations. Trade unions will flex their muscles, but do they have a right to flex their muscles? Do we have a right to say no? I suggest that there is a real question here. Although it is a valid question to ask, I suspect the answer is that you have to take a few knocks when you are doing this and accept a few uncertainties to get it. If you cannot take some action or make something that will accommodate this, you really are not fit to hold a games.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Fuller, for these amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for speaking to this group. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger, to your Lordships’ House; I look forward to future conversations with her on this Bill and other related matters.

The amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, would have the combined effect of introducing a framework to prevent transport and local authority workers engaging in industrial action during specified periods linked to sporting events. This would include creating offences relating to participation in, and the organisation or inducement of, such action. In their manifesto, the Government committed to repeal the minimum service level legislation and other restrictions on the right to strike, and we did this in the Employment Rights Act 2025—so, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made clear, we have existing laws relating to industrial action.

These amendments seek to reintroduce significant restrictions on the ability of workers to take industrial action. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 demonstrated, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. Instead of banning strike action, the Government want to bring in a new era of industrial relations that is built on collaboration and co-operation across parties. We are committed to establishing a new model for industrial relations fit for the 21st century, including an industrial relations framework that establishes firm expectations on how workers and employers should conduct themselves. This includes engaging with one another and working together in the interests of the workforce, the economy and the wider public. Our industrial relations framework will build on our legislative agenda and provide guidance on how employers, workers and unions can work together to deliver positive and effective industrial relations, including during periods of industrial action.

Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, would mean that the right to guaranteed hours, the right to reasonable notice and the right to payments for shifts moved, cancelled or curtailed at short notice do not apply at major sporting events to which the provisions of the Bill have been applied. The flexibility offered by zero-hours contracts and contracts with a minimum number of hours can benefit both workers and employers, but it is our view that without appropriate safeguards this flexibility can become one-sided. The zero-hours measures in the Employment Rights Act 2025 aim to end one-sided flexibility by ensuring that all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability.

I do not think the noble Lord will be surprised to hear that I disagree with him on this being an appropriate amendment. Any exclusions or exemptions at this stage would pre-empt the Government’s consultation on reforms relating to zero-hours and similar contracts, which is currently open. In this consultation, the Government seek to gather insight through the input of stakeholders, including on potential exclusions and exemptions. We need to ensure that the views of all stakeholders are first taken into account before any decisions on exclusions and exemptions are made. We intend to ensure that all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability so that workers can better plan their lives and finances. We would be keen for sporting event stakeholders to participate in the consultation on reforms relating to zero-hours and similar contracts to inform the development of the policy. On the basis of the points I have made, I hope the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Fuller, will not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend is a doughty warrior when it comes to showing us the harms of gambling—and not only the harms but some of the gambling which is, let us face it, a threat to the integrity of sport if it is not regulated very carefully. Nothing destroys a sporting event like not having faith that the outcome is a fair one. Let us remember that.

In the digital world the harms done to individuals by gambling reach further. This is something we cannot forget when we talk about this. I am pretty sure the Minister will not have done. Indeed, if her officials tried, I should imagine they would not last very long. We have to try to get to a situation where we have some understanding of what is happening here, and the difference that makes to the events themselves, even if we are looking only the sporting value.

The use of data in sport is a fascinating story unto itself, but gathering that data and using it is something that we are only just starting. Most of us are discovering a world that is developing, and then this comes up and we say, “Really? That is how you have done it?” Indeed, those with heavy training schedules, especially in the recent past, undoubtedly had a great deal of data controlling what they ate, how long they were out, and what they were doing. I can dimly remember somebody talking about it, and us ignoring it, but there we are—the world moves on.

I hope that when the Minister responds to these amendments, she gives us a full view of what the Government seek to do generally in this field, as well as specifically in this Bill. We have a series of considerations here. With advertising, smoking is the obvious case: it was an accepted part of advertising and it has been removed. How are we working that in? How are we going forward? Is it a general principle we are talking about or specifics? What are the limitations as we move forward? Let us face it: if you have the Olympics at moment, you have Coca-Cola. It is not a health product, I think anybody would agree. It might be much less damaging in some of its forms than others, but it is not a health product and nor are the other soft drinks that go with it.

I hope the Minister will give us some idea of what the Government’s thinking is and where they are going. They may save themselves a little time if they can say which other legislation will affect this. This is a big subject we are touching on with this Bill. An idea of what the overall picture is, and where the Government think they are going, would be an important thing to take away from all this.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, this boils down to a question of balance and proportion. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their amendments and for sparking this debate. I know they are sincere and consistent in raising concerns about each of the areas that they have highlighted through their amendments, but I think some of the remedies they are suggesting are disproportionate and too strict.

Not everyone feels the way that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness do about gambling, for instance. Indeed, many people find, without having any gambling problems, that it enhances their enjoyment of sporting events. Many people in this country gamble without developing gambling harms, and it is right that we have protections in place to maintain that. As the Gambling Commission found with its recent advertising campaign advising people on the dangers of a workplace sweepstake—which came across as a bit po-faced to many sports fans—that question of balance always has to be carefully looked at and struck, while maintaining the protections for more vulnerable people.

I veer more towards what my noble friend Lord Hayward outlined: looking for established principles, rather than a list that we would continue to add to as times and tastes change. I suppose this is one of the problems with a framework Bill, where we are trying to anticipate social mores and debates that might come. Previously, in generations past, we have been able to have these debates each time we have been lucky enough to host a major sporting event, and have had these discussions in the context of the social and political views across the country at the time. So it is a useful debate, but we are not attracted to the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, have tabled in this group.

As we look at these issues, we would like to see greater attention paid to the illegal unlicensed market in gambling, which is a real and growing threat. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, touched on this. Staking with illegal operators is now estimated at £16.6 billion, more than three times its level in 2019 and roughly double what it was just two years ago. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that His Majesty’s Treasury could lose up to £500 million if recent tax changes push more consumers towards unlicensed sites. One in six gamblers—some 2.8 million people—says they are already aware of at least one unregulated brand. Among the under-25s, one in five has used an illegal site already and as many as 420,000 schoolchildren may be engaging with the illegal betting market. Advertising spending by unregulated operators is forecast to exceed £1 billion by 2028—more than half of all gambling advertising expenditure in this country and up from just 16% in 2019.

While we do not agree with all the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, has tabled, we would like to see greater action from the Government on this growing problem in the country. They have recognised this; in February, the Secretary of State announced plans to stop unlicensed operators sponsoring Premier League football clubs and to establish a cross-industry illegal gambling taskforce. The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, who is the Gambling Minister, said at the time:

“We will not hesitate to act where we see people being put at risk”.


Since February, we have still not seen that consultation launched. The industry—including operators, which are asking for tougher action against their unlicensed rivals—is still waiting with bated breath. Can the Minister update us on the important work being done in connection with the major sporting events across the world that we will see this summer as well as for future sporting events that we are lucky enough to host here in the United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on starting with a question that should be asked. When we have done the big games in the past, there were infrastructure measures that had to happen, but they do not seem to be in the Bill. So how do they fit in? It is that simple. I probably should have had my name down somewhere—my fault, sorry. But it is one of the things that we really must get out about how the Bill is going to work. Is it something we tag on to this, or is it something we expect to be smaller secondary legislation, or is it part of the whole that we are doing here?

As I said, we have always had to discuss this before—well, we have done it twice here; the other times, it was Scottish legislation. If we need a proper planning structure to build stuff, how is that fitting in? It does not seem to be that obvious. If the Government have a scheme coming, let us hear about it, because it is one of the things that has been of great benefit. In Birmingham, we learnt how to do it quickly; in London we learned how to do it well with lots of planning. Where do those two structures fit into what is going on here? It is a very reasonable series of questions that have been asked, and I hope the Minister has a very reasonable set of answers.

Most people who are taking part in this wish the project well. There is a lot of nodding going on here, so if we have got that going on, let us find out how that happens. If there are further questions, let us find out what inspires them, and let us see what we can do. This is something which might be very good. Let us confirm it is, or at least that it sounds like it is.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise. I did not get in to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I did not want to interrupt.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I apologise also.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government have decided that they want to take a domain-by-domain specific approach, as they call it. Well, we are in the domain of sport, yet there is nothing in this Bill on AI, which we will come to in future groups of amendments in my name. It is not just AI; all these emerging technologies will have such a profound impact on every element of the organisation, the fan, the spectator, the media partner, and the athlete experience in the run-up to and at competition or Games time. My noble friend was right to raise this, and I would be interested in the Minister’s response on a Bill which seeks to be future-proofed, to set us in great shape to bid for these mega world sporting events. Yet on the positive, enabling and empowering role that all these technologies can play, the Bill is silent at this stage.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I managed to avoid false starting the two Paralympians this time. We are back to asking whether the Bill is wide enough to enable itself to do what it has to do within the known requirements of hosting an Olympic Games. It probably looks about right for a championship that is using existing infrastructure. Even if the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games want us to use that where we can, you may well have to construct something new and possibly something temporary. All these elements have been in both of those things and at very different scales. But if this is going to be something new, in the case of the Olympics particularly, it seems to change what it wants over time, because it is an evolving thing.

The London Olympics changed the expectation of how much change and benefit you could bring. It actually has been a solid thing, and that was based on many, many hours in Committee—I know because I was there—when the Government of the day said, “Let’s get this right, or at least get a framework, or at least ask, even, as a training exercise, what it would look like”. I think half the time the Government did not expect to have to implement it, but that is merely the observation of somebody who sat there through Committee. So there will have to be something new, and where in the current thinking does it fit in, if we have to do that?

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, enjoyed his little sabbatical, but it is better to have him back. I say that as one who dodged that. But where are we going to get that little bit of interaction? If it is needed, where is the space for it? You cannot know. You can hope and you can prepare the ground, but if we have to do something different, where is the flexibility? I think there would be, shall we say, around the House, a degree of sympathy if you had to change the Bill to bring a little bit of flexibility in here, if it was needed. I do not think too many people would object.

In this debate we are trying to find out whether we need to do something else. If the Olympics change, if the Commonwealth Games change or even if the World Cup changes and we want something else in there and still think it is worth doing, how do we accommodate that? In this Bill, where do the Government say that there is the flexibility to say that this bit will not apply and that we have to do something else? To future-proof the Bill, to an extent, we will have to do that. We got some of the answer to that in a previous debate, but I look forward to hearing how much more thought the Government have put into doing this. It is a real question that we need an answer for, and the Bill probably has to have a degree of flexibility put in at its heart. We want this to succeed. The Bill will have completely failed if we have to go back and redraft something else. We do not want to do that. What is the Minister doing to prevent that?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, what an honour it is to follow such distinguished experts in this field: my noble friend Lord Moynihan—like other noble Lords, I am delighted to have him back—my noble friend Lord Holmes and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It is yet another example, if ever we need it, of how lucky we are to have such a range of expertise in this Chamber.

The points in this debate are very similar to many of the points made on the last groupings. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, while we want this framework agreement to work, is it possible to make it wide enough to cater for all the eventualities that we are talking about? As my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned, there is new technology coming along. They were mentioning AI in the Paris bid—think how much it has moved on from then. There are new rights that need to be taken on board, whether LGBT rights as it was last time or some new rights going forward. There are new funding arrangements that are very likely to be put in place.

I struggle to see how we can set this all up in an all-encompassing framework Bill, and I think I speak for all noble Lords when I say that an hour’s debate on some sort of secondary legislation will not be able to cut it in these instances. I do not believe I can add very much to the expertise that we have heard already but, as others have said, this must leave a sports legacy, so I am thoroughly behind the points that have been made. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s points, because there is a lot to consider here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 9 and in doing so, I also speak to Amendments 10, 11 and 12, which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Markham. These four amendments address two related but distinct concerns about the regulation-making powers conferred by Clause 2 of the Bill: first, how long those regulations can remain in force in relation to any particular sporting event; and, secondly, the parliamentary scrutiny to which all such regulations should be subject.

Clause 2 allows an appropriate national authority to make regulations to implement the sporting events framework for a particular event. What it does not do is place any limit on the period for which those regulations may be in effect. We believe that is a clear omission. The framework is designed to apply to specific and time-limited events, so it would be strange and, we submit, improper if regulations made for a particular event remained on the statute book indefinitely or for a period bearing no relation to the duration of the event.

Amendment 9 seeks to address this issue by applying the same temporal limit that Parliament has already judged appropriate in comparable legislation. The approach we have taken mirrors precisely the time periods used in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 and the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2020. That is a pre-event period beginning no earlier than 21 days before the event starts, and a post-event tail of no more than 5 days after it ends. Parliament has already, therefore, debated and endorsed this model; it is tried and tested, and I see no reason why we should not adopt it here today. I hope the Minister will agree.

Amendment 10 is a probing amendment to be looked at alongside Amendment 9. It proposes a single flat period of 50 days as an alternative limit. We have tabled this to invite the Committee to discuss whether a straightforward numerical limit would be a preferable way of proceeding. We think 50 days is a generous period; the London Olympic and Paralympic Games, between them, spanned 45 days, the UEFA European Championship runs for approximately one calendar month, and the FIFA World Cup takes 39 days from the first match to the final whistle. A limit of 50 days would therefore give Ministers considerably more time than any of these events actually require in practice; it gives a generous margin, while providing Parliament and the public with the reassurance that exceptional powers do not quietly become permanent fixtures of our regulatory landscape.

I imagine the Minister will cite the need for flexibility in her response, and I understand that this framework needs to be flexible for different types of events. If the sporting event framework cannot be applied, administered and wound down within 50 days, however, I would be interested in hearing what event she has in mind that might require a longer period than this. If flexibility is the key, then Amendment 9 provides the perfect solution.

Amendments 11 and 12 address parliamentary scrutiny of these regulations. As currently drafted, the Bill applies the affirmative procedure only to the first set of regulations which apply to the framework of a given event. Subsequent regulations that may amend, extend or otherwise modify the framework as applied are subject only to the negative procedure. Amendments 11 and 12 would remove that distinction and require all regulations made under Clause 2 to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

The rationale for this is straightforward: the regulations we are discussing will implement a framework which represents a quite significant infringement on the rights and obligations of businesses, organisers, local authorities and members of the public in connection with major sporting events—as my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned in the previous group in relation to the Olympic Games in Paris, where they took in expansive issues such as AI and facial recognition. Parliament should have the opportunity to properly debate and approve all such regulations, not merely the first wave of them. I hope by the time we get there, this experiment with time-limited guillotines on secondary legislation will not still be in place.

The delegated powers memorandum, published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, justifies the limited use of the affirmative procedure because it is assumed that subsequent regulations will

“contain operational or technical detail or provide for unforeseen changes in how an event is to be delivered. To ensure there is an efficient mechanism to apply or amend such provisions at a later stage of programme delivery, the government considers that the negative procedure is appropriate”.

However, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House has pointed out, there is no limitation placed on the scope of subsequent regulations. The first set of regulations may apply only one aspect of the sporting event framework to an event, but the Government may change their mind; the second set may simply apply the rest of the provisions. Given this, there is no logic in inviting Parliament to agree to the initial regulations applying the framework, while allowing the subsequent and potentially very significant modifications to pass without scrutiny.

If the Government’s argument here is simply one of administrative convenience, I gently suggest that that is not an adequate reason for reducing parliamentary oversight of powers of this nature. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and I beg to move.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, once again, if it comes to sporting events, I have a bit of reminiscing to do. I can remember a very good little row we had on the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill about changing local taxation; it was a bedroom tax that some people saw as a way of solving local government finance problems in Birmingham. It was then pointed out that there were only two weeks allowed for this process. I think it would have been quite a high surcharge that would have benefited the hoteliers of Wolverhampton and Coventry if it had been brought in.

If we get an idea about timescale, it becomes very important that it is adequately placed, and that is in the tradition of what we have done. Making sure that that continues to apply means we are taking a new piece of legislation and applying it to a tradition of what we have done in legislation: there are shorter periods needed for things, and these are exceptional circumstances. If we are going to do that, we are fine. Not allowing these things to become permanent is a fair point here, because they are very unusual things. Indeed, the entire premise of the Bill is that we are doing stuff for extraordinary circumstances.

I hope that the Government will give a reply that reassures the noble Lord that his amendment is not necessary, but I think it probably was worth while to give us the idea of the aim of it. These are short-term measures.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for introducing this group of amendments, seconded by the noble Lord, Lord Markham. I express my gratitude to all noble Lords taking part today, and say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that I would have been very distraught if such an avid Leeds United supporter had been lost to the Chamber—to be continued, I am sure.

These amendments—which I think are probing, especially Amendments 9 and 10—relate to the maximum period that the framework provisions in the Bill can be applied to a sports event. Amendment 10 would limit to 50 days the maximum period that any regulations applying the framework provisions in the Bill could be in effect. Amendment 9 limits provisions in the Bill to being in effect no more than 21 days before an event begins and five days after an event concludes. We do not consider, as the noble Lord probably predicted, such a blanket approach to be workable in the context of an event-neutral Bill.

Application of the provisions must be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the requirements of each event. These will inevitably have varying geographical and temporal application. The advertising and trading offences are heavily localised and will apply only to places which are used for, or in connection with, a sporting event, and the surrounding areas. The timing of these provisions will correspond with how and when venues are used during the competition period. None the less, where it is practicable to build in time limits—as these amendments seek to do, albeit in a less targeted way—we believe we have already done so. That is why, for example, the Bill already sets clear time limitations on the periods that the advertising and trading offences can be applied. These time limitations build on lessons learned from previous events. The advertising and trading offences in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 could apply for no more than 21 days before the event’s opening ceremony. Under Clauses 8(6) and 11(6), the advertising and trading offences under this Bill can be in place for no more than 10 days before the beginning of a sporting event and end no later than five days after the event concludes. For the majority of locations, we expect the offences will come into effect a day before a place is used for, or in connection with, an event and end on the day that any activity associated with that place finishes.

When it comes to the period during which the ticket touting offence or prohibition on unauthorised association can be applied, the Government do not consider it is appropriate in the context of a framework Bill to limit or prescribe this on the face of the Bill. This could mean that we are unable to deliver on our commitments to event owners and apply the provisions when they are genuinely required. For instance, application of the ticketing offence for each event will be driven predominantly by when tickets to the event are first expected to go on sale or be made available to the public. For some events, this is likely to be over a year in advance of the event taking place—I hope this specifically answers the point that the noble Lord made. As a principle, the Government expect provisions to be in place no longer than is necessary to protect commercial rights and the interests of fans. On top of that, we want to ensure that there is appropriate time to raise awareness of the offence before the event and be clear with the public about what it means for the sale and resale of tickets. The Government expect any prohibition on unauthorised association to be in place no longer than is necessary to prevent the commercial exploitation of an event. We expect this period would correspond with the awarding of host rights and delivery of the event but would be considered on a case-by-case basis in consultation with event owners taking into account lessons learned from previous events.

Finally, any temporary traffic regulation order made under Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for the purposes set out in paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 5 to the Bill can be in place for no more than 28 days before the beginning of a sporting event and end no later than five days after the event concludes. Any temporary traffic regulation notices may remain in effect only for a maximum period of 21 days.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

14: Clause 3, page 2, line 35, leave out “three” and insert “two”
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment, and others in the name of Lord Addington, seek to challenge the Government’s exclusion of certain sporting events, specifically those events which are regularly held in the UK, but may benefit from the provisions in this Bill.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, we have a series of amendments here seeking to challenge the Government’s exclusion of certain sporting events at home from some of the benefits of this Bill. There are some good things here. We saw that they were beneficial—the traffic arrangements and other special things—but why not extend them to events happening only within the country, such as Wimbledon, if we want to make those changes, or to things that happen regularly? Six Nations rugby is an example where we are coping, but we would need new frameworks and structures for anything that would expand it. We also have half an eye on what happens with big cultural events.

We are taking short-term measures for short-term functions which could be expanded and could help. That is the essence of these amendments—trying to push a good idea a little further. The Government have got a good idea here. Let us do something more with it. Let us make sure that every big sporting event—and every cultural event, why not?—has access to the governmental changes that could help it be run better. I could expand on this for a long time, but I would end up repeating myself. It is a good idea. Let us make sure it touches more of the world. I beg to move.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 17, 19 and 22 to 25 in my name, on which I am again grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and support Amendments 14 and 16 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to which I have added my name. These amendments share a simple purpose: to correct what I believe is a significant gap in the Bill. They seek to widen the definition of events to which the framework provisions may apply so that major, regular, UK-based sporting events—those woven into the fabric of our national life—are not excluded from their potential benefits.

That is the problem before us. As drafted, the Bill risks overlooking the very events that define Britain as a global sporting nation and deliver exactly what Ministers say they want this legislation to achieve: economic growth, international prestige and community pride. As I set out at Second Reading, Wimbledon, the Open, the London Marathon and the British Grand Prix are among the most recognisable sporting events in the world, and they are ours. Yet, as things stand, they fall outside the Bill’s scope and the greater protections that it is looking to afford. This is not just surprising; it is a missed opportunity.

I am grateful to many of the major sports organisers across the sector, from cricket to golf and motor racing to tennis and running, that have engaged with me and other noble Lords on this issue and provided clear and compelling arguments as to why regular, established, UK-based events of national and international importance should not be placed at a competitive disadvantage or overlooked by what is supposed to be a framework piece of legislation designed to support the UK’s sports sector. Their message is consistent: while the Bill is welcome, its current scope is too narrow. My amendments attempt to address that gap carefully and proportionately. This is not about opening the floodgates. The extension I propose is explicitly limited to events that are large, regular, UK-based and, crucially, likely to be of “international or national interest” and

“likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or a part of it”.

Following my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s observations, perhaps “likely to” is not the right drafting, but I nevertheless believe they would be a sensible and targeted refinement.

Amendment 25 proposes a further criterion that the Government may wish to consider, recognising something equally important that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, touched on: the role of major UK events in driving participation and sporting legacy. It would require the Government to consider how an event contributes to increasing physical activity, particularly among underrepresented groups—women and girls, disabled people and ethnic minorities. That is not an add-on; it goes to the heart of what sport can and should achieve.

To be clear, these amendments would not place a specific obligation on the Government automatically to extend the provisions in the Bill. They would not create automatic entitlements. What they would do is provide the power to act through the framework set out for iconic homegrown major events where there is a public and agreed interest to do so. That is what future-proofing this Bill should look like.

Let me illustrate the case with one example: the British Grand Prix, which will take place in just a couple of weeks. It is the largest weekend sporting event in the United Kingdom, expected to attract around 570,000 spectators this year. It is the largest Grand Prix on the international calendar and, in 2025, generated £167 million in economic value over a weekend. By any reasonable measure, this is an event of national sporting significance. But we do not have guaranteed long-term security for it. We cannot and must not assume that we will retain this iconic race and all the wider economic benefits it brings. Silverstone has to work hard year after year to ensure it remains on the racing calendar. We must not forget that there have been moments when the British Grand Prix’s future at Silverstone has been in doubt. If that were to happen again, it would rightly be a matter of national concern—or certainly in my house.

The question is whether we equip the Government with the tools through the framework provisions set out in this Bill to act early or wait until the event is potentially lost and only then consider how we might be able to bring it back. As the Bill stands, I fear the position is closer to the latter. My amendments are strongly focused on allowing the former. I suggest that is the more prudent course.

We see similar issues elsewhere. This summer, we are staging the ICC Women’s T20 Cricket World Cup. We have already seen examples of ambush marketing and breaches of intellectual property and commercial rights for the ICC and its venues. These are not abstract concerns. They have real financial consequences and a real material impact on the current and future value of commercial rights, at the very time when the ECB is working hard to secure greater reinvestment and growth in the women’s game. Again, this is precisely the kind of challenge that the framework is designed to address, but it cannot do so effectively if key UK-based events fall outside its reach.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister and her officials for the constructive discussion we have had since Second Reading, and I welcome the continued engagement that I know they are having with the sector. I hope that, between now and Report, we can continue to work together to ensure that the Bill fully reflects the needs and realities of modern sport in this country. The underlying point is simple: our great homegrown sporting events are not just spectacles but strategic national assets. They contribute to our economy, our global standing and our shared sense of identity. This Bill gives us an opportunity to support them more effectively, but to do so we must ensure that they are not inadvertently left behind. These amendments offer a modest, proportionate and practical way to achieve that. I very much hope the Government will take that opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

I would also like to reassure noble Lords that I genuinely accept that the suggestions they are making are to make sure that the Bill is future-proofed. I appreciate the spirit in which these amendments have been laid in this group, but, with the assurances and reassurances that I have provided, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment and that other noble Baronesses and noble Lords will not press theirs.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it just goes to show that, if you are speaking on a lot of amendments, you should try to get your mind on the right one. I thank everybody who has taken part. This has actually been a very good debate in terms of the policy going forward, with possibly one exception, but I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is getting to know his colleagues very well. We have established a consensus that there are a lot of good things proposed in the Bill, such as the idea you must preserve certain things because they are a good unto themselves economically, culturally and socially. I wish I had tried to match the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, with a list of events, because hers was pretty impressive—I have a few in there as well.

There are some very good ideas here, although possibly not the whole list. Certain things about traffic on a regular basis probably going through might be extremely useful. An event structure, if it comes up and if we eventually get round to it—and who knows what is coming in the next 12 months—might be an interesting thing to bring in. As the noble Baroness said, people are not saying this is a bad Bill. They are saying it is a good Bill and asking, “Can we actually take some of its benefits and push them out to somewhere else?”

The traffic issue is one that really catches my mind, getting people to and from events, and if you have traffic controls, making sure that there is something in place before the big events happen. This is probably happening in other ways, but this is a nice regular way of doing it. If the Government are prepared to engage on that, even on a long-term basis, and say they will use some of the capacity, that would be something which would make people’s lives easier, you would get more out of it and you would ensure economic potential. That is rough; there are variations.

The idea is that some sporting legacy and encouragement should go through. That is the thing the Olympics got wrong. We had a wonderful event but we had no physical sporting legacy, certainly not towards grass-roots level. There are a couple of veterans here of the committee that looked at it. It is the thing we failed to do. With all that success, this is what we failed to do, because we know it does not happen by osmosis. You have to have some actual involvement. I hope we will go back to this later on in the Bill. But that is one of the things that we have got wrong that we know about. I hope that the Minister, in further discussions on the Bill and going forward in this area, takes on board what has been said, because there is much here that we would like to expand on.

Irritating a Government by saying “Yes, we agree with you and can we have a bit more please?” is actually one of the nicer ways of irritating a Government. Every now and then, we manage to do it to all Governments—may this Government have more of it. This is something we are engaging in to get the best out of. Generally speaking, it has been a very positive debate, and I will withdraw my amendment. I hope we will address this again at a later stage, with more information. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Broadcasting is such a critical part of the sporting experience. For most people broadcast is the sporting experience. When Andy Murray was performing so fabulously on Centre Court at Wimbledon, I believe there were 15,000 seats available, yet millions could enjoy and experience that extraordinary event from the edge of their sofa. This is another area where the Bill is unfortunately silent when it comes to innovation. I believe there are solutions which can offer new paths forward to enable spectators to enjoy their favourite sport and these events through various media.

I will give two examples. I declare a previous interest in that I was deputy chair of Channel 4 Television at the time. When Emma Raducanu went all the way through to the final and won the US Open, we were able to do a deal at 24 hours’ notice with Amazon, which was the rights holder at the time, to have the US Open on Channel 4 free to air. But it is not free to air, as my noble friend Lord Hayward points out. It is a domestic UK broadcaster which was not a rights holder, but because of thinking differently, getting into discussions and a broader relationship with Amazon, it was able to secure those rights without in any sense cannibalising the rights that Amazon had paid for. A similar deal was done with England men’s cricket when it was in India that winter. I give just those two examples because they illustrate that there has to be flexibility and innovation in terms of both the deals that can potentially be done and the various media by which spectators are able to enjoy and support these tremendous events.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, after so many events going on, free-to-air means not hidden behind a paywall. It is something you do not have to make a very big payment to. Okay, there is the licence fee. To the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I say, “Yes, touché. Well done, good point”. But the fact of the matter is that if you do not have to specifically pay to see them, people can get to these great sporting events and, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has just pointed out, you create a national memory of them, something which you can refer back to. It is the water-cooler moment that does not go away. It is a point of bonding which you do not get anywhere else.

I hope that when the Minister responds she will give us some idea about how we are going to carry on with this, because it is a changing world. The first time I discussed this, we knew it was going to be on X number of channels, and Sky was only just starting to come into it. But we have been able to watch, at least in the form of highlights. What is the defence? It is a big deal. We must make sure, for these huge events, especially when national teams or the big games come up, that we respond across the board so that people can come down. I hope the Minister can say something reassuring on this because, let us face it, it is one of the reasons why it is worth bidding in the first place. It is now beyond those who go and buy tickets and has been for a long time.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hayward issued a useful corrective. Just as there is no such thing as government money but only taxpayers’ money, there is no such thing as free-to-air broadcasting; we pay for it through some means or another. It is a timely reminder in a year when we look again at the BBC’s royal charter and the licence fee model, which pays not just for the BBC but is required for viewing any of our public service broadcasters.

We are in many senses overdue a debate about the listed events regime by which we try to pick those crown jewels of sporting events. We would have had one during the passage of what became the Media Act 2024, but because that was taken in wash-up, we did not have the debate that perhaps was needed then. I hope that as we look at the royal charter for the BBC, we can look at this in some detail. Maybe the Minister can say a bit about that either now or at subsequent stages on the Bill.

This was looked at at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Davies of Devonport, who spoke powerfully about the fact that if public money—taxpayers’ money—is spent on hosting major sporting events, we want as many of those taxpayers as possible to be able to see, benefit and be inspired by them. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, was right about the importance of visibility and prominence, particularly of the Paralympic Games, which has done so much to change people’s perceptions of those with disabilities and brought so many broadcasters and commentators with disabilities on to our screens when so many people are watching with great pride and excitement.

Like the noble Baroness, I share some sadness that the Commonwealth Games will not be broadcast on the BBC this year, for the first time since the Games began in 1950. The live rights have gone to TNT Sports and only highlights will be available on a public service broadcaster—Channel 5. One thinks of seminal moments such as Roger Bannister’s “miracle mile” and the people who will not be able to be inspired by moments such as that.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. It links very much to the debates we need to have over the BBC’s royal charter and paying for our public service broadcasters. Again, this hits at the problem we have in the Bill. We are trying to set up a framework anticipating what the world will look like many years hence in many different ways that have a knock-on effect for sporting life in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I tried to add my name to Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, but I was slightly too late for the printing of the Marshalled List. I think there is something important in this amendment in terms of thinking about who is able to have access to major games.

If you look at the 2012 programme, there was a massive commitment right from the start to no free tickets—the sponsors paid for them. It was not just the joy on the children’s faces when they got to go and experience the events, but it was something that they will remember for the rest of their lives. It was also tied into the school programmes that were being run at the same time. As I have said before, 2012 was also the only time that I have ever been able to go and watch a sporting event where I was able to sit with more than one member of my family. With the ticketing, if someone could not sit in a high stand or needed to be at the end of a row, they also thought about how they linked that up to accessible toilets; those are all really important things. I think Wembley Stadium is the only place I have ever visited that actually understood some of those issues as well. I think there are 147 accessible toilets at Wembley Stadium, which other venues should definitely aspire to. Other things that you could do include “Pay your age”, which 2012 did really well.

As a spectator who is a disabled person—the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, mentioned smarter ticketing—you are constantly having to explain what you need, where you want to sit and who you want to sit with or check whether you actually have a guaranteed accessible seat. Again, it is about showing the world what we do and what we care about. We should be looking at ticket touting wider than this, because it is an issue not just for the events that this Bill may cover.

Another issue in this group of amendments, which I also mentioned in my meeting with the noble Baroness the Minister, relates to thinking about disabled people not just as spectators. I was commentating on a major event in a new-build venue, and it turned out that the commentator’s position was not wheelchair accessible, so I was not able to do my job properly. I spent half the time commentating in a completely different position. As a commentator, it helps if you can have some interaction with the other people that you are commentating with, so we had to move to a venue quite a considerable distance away to be able to do the last event that I was commentating on. There should be something in here about a guarantee of what accessibility means—perhaps not necessarily on the face of the Bill but just an understanding that we can do so much better. If we are going to be building new venues, whether it is for the Olympics, the Paralympics or more football clubs, we should make sure that disabled people have the ability to access events in a fair and equitable way.

I support the other amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. He has more experience on this than anyone else in the Chamber from his work at LOCOG and beyond, and we should be listening to the things that he is asking for.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I have four amendments in this group, but the main thing about the amendments on ticket touting is that everybody agrees that something should be done. There is one principal disagreement going on here. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is basically saying, “Do not do it here; do it properly somewhere else” and lots of the rest of us are saying, “No, do it here, get it done and carry it on”. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, agreed with that. From my Benches, we tried to get an amendment down that included this and we did not actually hit the target; we were told that we were out of scope of the Bill, so I salute his drafting—I take it that it is his; if it is not, he can just take the compliment.

However, when we go through this, we have got a lot of other issues here, such as disability accessibility. I do not know how many dozen times I have discussed that, and we still do not have it right. I hope the Minister will be able to say something reassuring about an ongoing process for that.

Just to refer back to my amendments, I said to myself, “Oh yes, that was it—National Trading Standards, yes, good idea, I thought I had an original point there, but the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, used it in his first sentence”. We have something here that says, “It isn’t working. Can we know what will be done?” The small series of options that we have in this Bill is actually managing to annoy people, oddly, because they are not big enough and they are not going far enough, and we do not have anything else that is immediately coming. We have a pocket of legislation around this Bill, which we have not seen even in draft, and that is one of the problems here. I hope that the Minister can start a process that could be finished by Report, when we get an idea of what we are going to get on ticket touting and where it is going to come in, if we are not going to do it here—and this would have been an opportunity to bring in everything under this Bill, so we had something that would actually work.

There are some other smaller amendments. A charity auction for a ticket is not ticket touting—yes, I would hope that that would be the case. But to have some clarity around some of the issues that we have raised, is the maximum penalty enough? One of the amendments in my name suggests

“leave out ‘£20,000’ and insert ‘an amount not exceeding 10% of the person’s annual global turnover’”.

Some of these organisations are so big that £20,000 would basically be the cost of doing business.

Could we have an idea of the whole picture? At the moment, the Government by doing a nice thing in this Bill are annoying everyone, oddly. I do not envy the Minister in her response. The Government may well have good intentions, but the old cliché that this might well be the thing that paves the road to hell might well be true with this.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

38: Clause 9, page 6, line 22, at end insert—
“(5) Where the regulations designate a person to grant advertising authorisations in relation to a sporting event, the regulations must require that person, in determining whether to grant an authorisation, to have regard to—(a) the impact of any proposed exclusive authorisation on small and medium-sized enterprises trading in or near the restricted advertising zone,(b) the desirability of ensuring that local and small businesses have a reasonable opportunity to benefit from the sporting event,(c) whether any proposed exclusive arrangement is proportionate to the legitimate commercial interests of the event organiser, and(d) whether there has been reasonable and proportionate communication with small and medium-sized enterprises trading in or near the restricted advertising zones, of any exclusive authorisations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that, in the case of exclusive advertising rights for a certain sporting event, small and medium-sized companies are not unfairly harmed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this is really a probing amendment to try to get at some of the hardy perennials, shall we say, when dealing with Bills that take on big sporting events. That is, when you have a big sporting event, you have a big advertising structure and restrictions being imposed on the local traders, which the local traders think are not fair. It sometimes gets slightly absurd. I cannot help but remember—but I am trying to forget—the Olympic kebab van that operated in the East End of London and which was restricted by the Olympic Games. It became a case of why they did not know and why there was not some smaller operation to lessen the impact on their business.

In the rest of the group, we have amendments dealing charitable situations. The situation here is about how we are going to make it a little easier for small and medium-sized businesses to operate properly within these structures. What are the duties on those organising the big events to let them know what is going to happen and mitigate any harms to them?

This amendment is a way of trying to find out the Government’s thinking on this, because it is one of those things that comes back and niggles again and again when you have a big event. I hope we can at least find out what the Government’s thinking is about how we are going to make sure that we make life a little bit easier for these small units, which should be beneficiaries, so that they actually get some benefit from this. That is all I am trying to do here. I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on this group of amendments. I will speak to the two amendments in my name. The first, Amendment 39, is incredibly straightforward and simply seeks to exclude charities from the restricted advertisement zone, as set out in the Bill. It replicates the wording from the London 2012 Act of 2006. I am very interested in the Minister’s response to that wording.

My second amendment in this group, Amendment 63, seeks a retrospective on the enforcement action to assure it from an equality and inclusion perspective. It simply sets out equality enforcement assessments so that the data is there and can be reviewed, s actions can be taken where there are disparities, and there can be learnings in real time for that event and for other events that will be hosted across the country. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

I welcome the opportunity to discuss these important areas and am very happy to meet any noble Lord who wishes to do so as we progress. But I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it is nice to end on something like agreement. I thank the Minister for her reply. It seems to me that we are accepting that there is a potential problem here and just about finding a solution. I must admit that the impact assessment is the sort of document I look at, cower, then drop. So, I will possibly take the sage-like advice of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and buy him a beer to get a good interpretation of it next time.

There has been a problem here. I see that the Government are trying to move towards dealing with it. But it is also a case of trying to make sure that those people who are going to be affected by it know, so that they can start to take mitigating measures themselves. I am not absolutely sure whether the Minister covered that well enough in her reply. Okay, this is the start of a process, not the end, but I think that we should have a look at this, because it is an irritant: it is a bit of grit that is not producing pearls.

We should try to get rid of it and do the best we can. We have enough information and experience now to be able to do something better than what we have at the moment. Let us have a look and see how we can get round to it.

I look forward to having further discussions with the Minister on this in future because I think we can make something better than we have at the moment. With that caveat, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 38 withdrawn.