Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, like everyone else, I congratulate the Government and the Minister on bringing forward the Bill at this time. It seems extremely apposite, with the World Cup just in play. It is a privilege to take part in a debate that, as others have observed, features some of our Olympian and Paralympian heroes.

I cannot but make reference to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. It is good to see him back in his usual position, causing his usual amount of trouble. I reassure him that Hearts are now the second favourite team in Brighton.

I pay tribute to all the other speakers. I particularly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barber. I see that he is Lord Barber of Chittlehampton. Having heard what he said about cricket, and with my own particular love of the game, I think he should now be known as Lord Barber of Delivery—and I am more than happy to come out of my cricketing retirement to test his outside edge.

This is a simple set of measures, but it will, potentially, be of enormous long-term benefit to UK sport, tourism, hospitality and so on, making life easier for those who plan and manage large sporting events. The UK, as many have said, has an enviable reputation for the way in which it puts on a show whenever we bid and win major international events such as the Olympics, Paralympics and football competitions such as the Euros for both men and women. I am delighted that the Bill begins to address issues such as ticket touting, which many of us in the Chamber have, over the years, raised in different ways and under different guises.

It is right, too, that the Government are tackling unauthorised association issues and that they make transport planning for major events simpler and easier. It has always been a puzzle to me, like many, that, each time we stage something such as the Commonwealth Games, as they have in Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham and so on, or the Olympics, new legislation is required, leaving the planners with uncertainties until Parliament is finished with the Bill. It is pleasing to note that the Euro 2028 planning will be made simpler and more straightforward as a consequence of this legislation.

As the Minister set out, the Bill will make it easier to bid for future events, such as the FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2035. I do not need persuading of the economic benefits that hosting major sporting events can bring. I live in Brighton, and we are familiar with hosting such events. When I was council leader, we took the wise decision to host the Tour de France, and we were the first city to do so. We have since played host to the Rugby World Cup, the Women’s Euros in 2022 and the Women’s Rugby World Cup in 2025.

The boost to the local economy of all those events has been enormous. The single stage of the Tour de France alone was worth a net £10 million in 1994, not to mention the added value that it gave to the profile of the city as a desirable destination, with a value-added spend into local hospitality industries. More recently, it is estimated that the Birmingham Commonwealth Games brought roughly £1.2 billion of additional economic output and £80 million of social value. This, along with the soft power benefits that others have referred to and a sense of social cohesion, better trade, and a health and well-being legacy, brings enormous side benefits.

For that reason, I too welcome the recent announcement by the Government of a scoping and strategic assessment by UK Sport of the potential to host an Olympic and Paralympic Games in the north in the 2040s. As we found in 2012, the economic and social benefits far outweigh the costs. The regenerative potential of major sports is enormous, and the Government are to be congratulated on seeing this and putting in place the Bill and other measures to tap into that potential.

Unsurprisingly, for this reason the Bill has been widely welcomed. Its powers seem proportionate and will enable greater flexibility in the planning of major events. This is all a long way from the planning and preparation behind the 1966 World Cup. As I recall, a major competition event of this sort was done on a government grant of some £500,000 that Denis Howell, the Sports Minister, managed to extract from a reluctant Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. Howell’s only major obstacle was that games could not be played on Sundays because of the strict Sunday observance laws at the time. Surely Denis Howell would be rubbing his hands now if he had sight of this Bill.

I have a few minor gripes, and I hope the Minister can put my mind at rest on some points. Lawyers at Lewis Silkin have questioned why the Bill, while understandably focused on mega events that we compete for internationally, does not also cover large and regular events such as the London Marathon, the Six Nations, the Open and Wimbledon. I might add several other regional marathons, the London to Brighton cycle ride and other cycling competitions. The lawyers argue that it leaves a gap as these events collectively bring in enormous value to the UK and are regularly targeted by ambush marketeers. They have a point. They suggest that there is a case for adding provisions to cover the unauthorised association provisions that impact on regularly held, nationally significant competitions.

I also wonder whether, with a bit of tweaking to the Bill’s Long Title, it could cover music events too. UK Music’s Tom Kiehl has suggested that the ticket touting provisions, for example, could be extended to cover music venues. It does seem a bit odd taking measures to counter ticket touts at football and sporting events while leaving music events entirely unprotected. It is somewhat illogical. Why use a Bill to consult on these provisions for other issues such as music when provisions have already been published in an actual piece of legislation? Perhaps the Minister can explain this. On the face of it, the ticket touting offence seems pretty all-embracing, properly capturing ticket platforms and marketplaces. It also applies to businesses that operate from outside the UK but where the offence relates to people in the UK. These conditions seem entirely replicable to musical events.

I support the advertising, trading and unauthorised association measures in the Bill that target illicit commercial behaviour ripping off the sporting event by association with its brand. My only concern here will be how effectively the relevant offences will be policed, given the resources currently available to weights and measures authorities, the CMA and the other enforcement agencies. Perhaps the Minister can advise us whether additional money will be made available to carry out that work.

Finally, I think the transport measures should work. I presume they draw on the experience of the bespoke legislation that worked well for the Olympics, Paralympics and Commonwealth Games. I must say that such powers would have made Brighton hosting a Tour de France section back in 1994 much easier, the route passing as it did through multiple local authorities from Dover to Brighton. The Bill makes it clear who exactly has responsibility over transport issues, and this is most welcome.

Like others, I celebrate the introduction of this Bill and look forward to further constructive engagement on some of the areas that have been usefully raised this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I too am a supporter of Queens Park Rangers, although perhaps a slightly more steadfast one than the previous speaker.

I want to raise an issue that at first blush does not appear to be within scope of this Bill but, for reasons I will set out, I believe is: namely, the overuse of football banning orders. Football banning orders were originally introduced by the Football Spectators Act 1989 for the purposes of preventing violence and disorder at football matches. This was a targeted measure intended to be used sparingly, since it imposes such wide-ranging restrictions on a person’s liberty, preventing them, as it does, attending football matches and using public transport on match days, drinking at pubs near football stadiums and even, in certain circumstances, travelling abroad. Breaches of these orders, which can be imposed for as long as 10 years, carry serious consequences, up to and including being sent to prison.

Predictably, subsequent Acts of Parliament have hugely extended the football banning order regime. The Football (Offences) Act 1991, the football spectators Act in 2000 and the Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Act 2026 have all added numerous offences to Schedule 1 to the 1989 Act, which sets out the criminal offences that can result in banning orders, with each edition lowering the threshold.

Recent statistics lay bare the direction of travel. As of 1 June 2025, there were 2,439 football banning orders in force in England and Wales—an increase of 12% on the previous 12 months. Those figures are taken from a recent article in the Law Society Gazette, which raised the alarm about the overuse of these orders:

“Behaviour that is fleeting, non-violent and often part of the charged, emotional atmosphere of live sport—momentary lapses of judgement, reactive shouting or ill-considered gestures—is being treated with a level of seriousness that risks losing all sense of proportion: individuals of good character with no previous convictions suddenly face a criminal record and permanent implications for employment, immigration status, travel and reputation. This trend uncomfortably blurs the line between maintaining public safety and over-policing the ordinary realities of live sport”.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I was the Minister who took the 2000 legislation through your Lordships’ House. That legislation was widely praised at the time as a way of tackling the outrageous behaviour of England fans travelling across Europe during the Euro 2000 competition. It changed for ever the attitude of football fans in this country and it helped to reverse the tide of racism that had been partly engendered by that. The noble Lord should think long and hard before he starts to seek to “liberalise”, as he might put it, that piece of legislation.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I would not dispute that there were serious problems that football banning orders were originally designed to address. My point is that they are now being used far more extensively than intended in the legislation that the noble Lord took through this House, for much more trivial misdemeanours —nothing like travelling abroad in order to cause violence and disorder at games overseas.

I declare an interest. The Free Speech Union, the organisation I run, is currently defending a young football fan who is being prosecuted for calling some Chelsea fans “rent boys” at a match earlier this season. This was in the context of an exchange of insults between rival fans, and none of the Chelsea fans complained. It is unlikely, to put it mildly, that any of them were caused harassment, alarm or distress, which is what he has been charged with.

Nevertheless, the prosecutor has informed the court that, if our member is convicted, she will be seeking a banning order. His hearing is not due to take place until September 2027 and, in the meantime, he has been banned from his team’s stadium for the duration of the 2026-27 season and told that, if he wants to keep his season ticket, he has to continue to pay for it, at over £1,000 a year, and cannot resell his seat or pass it on to a friend or family member. The club, meanwhile, which is a Premier League club, is allowed to resell his seat—and, to judge from the fact that it was occupied for the remainder of the last season, is already doing so.

This is a disproportionate punishment for behaviour which, to quote from the Law Gazette, was

“fleeting, non-violent …part of the charged, emotional atmosphere of live sport”,

and a “momentary lapse of judgement”. He has never been in trouble with the police before. Yet, in addition to not being able to watch his beloved team for the whole of next season, he faces the prospect of a five-year banning order if he is convicted. Even the noble Lord would not, I am sure, regard that as a proportionate penalty for a momentary lapse of judgment.

Why do I think that an amendment raising the banning order threshold is within scope of this Bill? For one, it is perfectly possible that the new criminal offences created by the Bill will be added to Schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1989. Could a street trader selling unauthorised merchandise outside a Wembley match, or a food vendor without a clean-zone licence, end up being banned from attending football matches?