Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this first group of amendments in our debates in Committee on the Bill, not least because I was unable to speak at Second Reading. I was physically present but mentally less so, as I had just arrived back on a red-eye flight from the United States—in part, visiting Miami—which was preparing for a major sporting event of its own. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Markham, who spoke for these Benches at Second Reading. I am grateful to the Minister too for the discussions we have had about the Bill, including when I was overseas.

It is a pleasure to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger, to her place. She has joined your Lordships’ House since Second Reading. We look forward to her maiden speech in due course and to her adding her expertise to our scrutiny of sporting measures and much more.

I draw your Lordships’ attention to my register of interests, particularly the hospitality I have received attending sporting events over the past year.

In moving Amendment 1, I will also speak to Amendments 7, 54 and 57, which are also in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Markham. Taken together, these amendments seek to establish provisions relating to industrial action as a core part of the sporting events framework that the Bill ushers in, with the intent of preventing strikes taking place during a sporting event to which the framework conditions have been applied.

Amendment 1 is, very simply, an enabling amendment that would introduce the industrial action provisions. Amendment 7 would ensure that wherever an appropriate national authority applies one or more parts of the framework to a particular event by regulations made under Clause 2, it must at the same time apply the industrial action provisions. It is not an optional extra or something to be applied to some events and not others; rather, it is a mandatory part of the framework itself.

Amendment 54 would insert a new clause requiring that any such regulations specify a period during which these provisions should apply and that this period should be no shorter than the span of the sporting events framework for that particular event. That is to say, it must run from the day that any one of the framework provisions first takes effect to the day that the last provision ceases to have effect.

Amendment 57 would insert the substantive new schedule itself, creating offences for transport workers—covering airports, buses, light rail and passenger railway services—and relevant local authority workers who take strike action during the specified period, alongside offences for organising, permitting or inducing such action. The schedule would create an alternative civil route, allowing the appropriate national authority to impose a financial penalty rather than pursue a prosecution through the courts.

The Committee might ask why all this is necessary. The Government are seeking in the Bill to build a permanent framework so that the United Kingdom does not have to improvise, event by event, each time we play host to a major sporting event and welcome people from across the globe to these shores.

The Bill provides for the protection of ticketing arrangements, advertising rights, trading around venues and commercial rights against unauthorised association, but it does not at present provide protection against one of the most visible and damaging risks to any major event: the disruption caused by industrial action. Noble Lords will recall that the build-up to the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games was repeatedly shadowed by the threat of strike action from the then general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey. Even the then leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, said:

“This is a celebration for the whole country and must not be disrupted”.


In 2022, when Birmingham hosted the Commonwealth Games, ASLEF and the RMT deliberately targeted those hoping to attend by announcing walkouts on the railways either side of the Games. In May this year, staff at Edinburgh and Glasgow airports similarly voted in favour of walking out during the Commonwealth Games, which are due to take place next month. We hope that that has been averted now by a hastily agreed pay deal but, as the unions involved well knew, such a walkout would have had a significant disruptive effect on the operation and commercial viability of those Games.

These are not abstract risks; they are, sadly, recurring features of recent experience under Governments of different compositions, both in the UK and in Scotland. A Bill which seeks to create a comprehensive framework for hosting major events, with a reduced role for Parliament in scrutinising them, simply cannot leave this to chance.

Some noble Lords might think the penalties suggested in our amendments too severe. There are fines without an upper limit on summary conviction in England and Wales, a maximum fine of £50,000 in Northern Ireland and of £20,000 on summary conviction in Scotland, and financial penalties of up to £20,000 under the civil route. I want to highlight that directly, because these are not arbitrary figures. These penalties have been deliberately aligned with those the Government have suggested for the ticket touting offence and the advertising and trading offences elsewhere in the Bill. If the Committee accepts that conduct which threatens the commercial integrity of a major sporting event merits fines of this order then I hope it will also agree that we should not treat conduct which threatens to close down the event entirely any less seriously.

I also draw the Committee’s attention to the safeguards built into Amendment 57. This is not a blanket or indefinite restriction on the right to strike. The prohibition applies only for the specified period tied to the duration of the new framework for a particular sporting event. It applies to transport workers nationally since they are, by definition, mobile, but to local authority workers only in the area where the event is being held. Of course, the ban applies only where the national authority has chosen to apply the sporting events framework at all. The schedule also provides a full enforcement code, notice of intention, the right to make representations, a final notice with reasons, and a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, the sheriff or the county court, as appropriate, mirroring the safeguards attached to the ticket touting provisions already in the Bill.

My noble friend Lord Fuller has raised a very important issue about the ability of event organisers to staff these major events effectively. I have added my name to his amendment and look forward to hearing him outline it. I may return with further comments in winding up.

As we heard at Second Reading, this country competes hard and successfully for the privilege of hosting some of the world’s greatest sporting events. Having secured that privilege, we owe it to the athletes, spectators and the millions who tune in to ensure that the events can run smoothly and as planned. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the premise behind this Bill is that we need to help the organisers of the really big events put on a really good show and ensure that the country itself sweeps away those showstoppers. It recognises that putting on these events requires a national effort. My amendment seeks to ensure that the organisers can be assured of an adequate supply of labour and human capital to make the games, or relevant tournament, a success in the few weeks every decade that the circus rolls into town.

I am reminded that sport is a game of chance. That is why we like it. The uncertainty makes it so alluring. Your favourite does not always win and often there is an upset. That is the whole point. Especially in tournament play, a team’s life can be measured in terms of hours, in the case of a stage 1 knock-out, or weeks if they make it all the way to the final. There are no guarantees in this game.

Back in 2012, one of the key resources for the Olympics was labour. There were 70,000 Games makers. The Minister for Sport at the time, Hugh Robertson, said:

“The 70,000 Games Makers made such a big contribution to London 2012 and the country as a whole. They helped showcase a modern, diverse and fun Britain and warmly welcomed visitors from all over the world”.


Quite.

It was not just the unpaid volunteers and their 8 million hours of effort that made the Games so memorable. On top of that was an army of others who contributed to that success—paid employees involved in broadcasting, catering, cleaning, merchandising, ticketing, security, bar work, selling ice cream and so forth. Shall we say that about 150,000 people in total were engaged to make that event a success over a staggered month, once the Paralympics are taken into account? It might even have been more. We celebrate that and, indeed, without their efforts, there would not have been a celebration at all. People worked around their normal lives to give what time they could, and it worked.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her clarification; I was not absolutely clear on whether she was talking about the established principles or extending the limits in some form or another.

I want to make an observation on a comment the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, made on the last group of amendments. I think I heard him refer to sporting events as ones of “chance” on two occasions. There are a fair number of medallists in this Chamber today who may think, “Well, it wasn’t chance that got me a gold, silver or bronze medal”. Equally, when I refereed rugby, it was very rarely viewed as chance that one team or the other won—though there was the odd chance that the referee might have made an error at the time.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, that I did not mean chance as in random, because I accept that in sport the harder you work, the luckier you get.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hayward. Were I to imagine myself—as I never would—on the Bishops’ Bench, in approaching this set of amendments I would be very much reminded of the parable of the prodigal son.

The Bill rightly sets out a whole raft of provisions for mega sporting events that come to the United Kingdom on occasion. Events already listed by my noble friend Lady Evans, such as Wimbledon, the British Grand Prix, and so on, do their thing year in, year out, staging world-class events which are far greater than sporting celebrations and competitions, with economic, social and cultural benefit which goes far beyond, for example, Wimbledon, SW19.

In asserting the principles in the Bill that have to be in place when it comes to international bids, it seems odd that at least some of these provisions would not be available to those extraordinarily impactful sporting events that are the very fabric not only of our sporting nation but of our culture. I ask the Minister to consider, if not implementing these amendments, the essence behind them and to how it could be threaded into the Bill. Further to my noble friend Lord Hayward’s comments on frameworks, why would the Government not want that to be available to the sporting events that wish to avail themselves of some parts of it? Ambush marketing is ambush marketing, whether it is targeted at the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games or the Wimbledon Championships every year.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Evans and I have a lot in common—we both support Norwich City Football Club, and we show our allegiance to it—but I disagree with her in her amendments. I did not contribute to the last debate, but it is safe to say that it confirmed what I think we all know: that, while this may be an enabling Bill, if we actually capture one of these global events, we will need to have specific legislation anyway. If that is the case, we will not be doing any more than virtue signalling in the Bill. The conclusion that all the noble Lords have made is that the Bill is incomplete and half-full. I will not say that it is half-baked, but there is plenty more work to be done on it.

However, if the Bill is incomplete, I do not think that it is the right thing at all to extend it in scope to other events, because the mission creep brings politics into sport. Of course, it is very difficult to keep it there, but it brings politics into sport by law. It will prevent somebody who is interested in public discourse from having an opinion and gives them leverage over the event. It will sanitise so much of the activity that goes on around the game. It will make unlawful things that are part and parcel of what we do—certain trade, advertisements and things such as that; it stops innovation—for Wimbledon, the rugby union, the rugby league, the Grand Prix, the Open, the Test match, Premier League and, if we listen to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, cultural events such as the Proms and Taylor Swift. Where does this end?

I am concerned that, however well-intentioned it is, it could backfire. My noble friend Lady Evans talked about a gap to be filled. I see it a different way; I see this creating a chasm between the fans and the men in blazers, who want this for their own narrow purposes. We have grown the well-trusted and well-organised events of global repute that we host without the benefits of the Bill. While it is an enabling Bill and has very important new rules for traffic wardens, I am not sure that having more traffic wardens is enough in and of itself.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for giving way, but just for clarification, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, my noble friend Lady Evans, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and I made absolutely clear that it is not a case of the Bill encompassing these competitions; it is the sporting authorities asking that they might make use of some of the facilities of the Bill.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

We are ending up in a mission creep by introducing new offences for individuals—we will talk about ticketing later on.

I realise I have a minority view, but I want to express it, and I should do. There is a misdirection with all these amendments that by putting them on a list, the Government can keep them here. I just do not think that is a reasonable assertion. The organising bodies, such as the British Automobile Racing Club, the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club at Wimbledon have to work hard, need to live off their wits and need to want to keep these events here. By putting them on a list and bringing them within scope, it will potentially upset the events that we know and love by bringing them into the political space. I just think that that is the wrong thing to do.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, maybe I can set my noble friend Lord Fuller’s mind to rest. Along with colleagues in the shadow DCMS team, I have spoken to a number of the major sporting bodies, which are keen, as some of our noble friends said, to avail themselves of some of the opportunities of the Bill if the scope could be broadened to allow them to do so. That is the key test: where they wish to do so. My noble friends are right, as we have been throughout the Bill, to talk about some of the restrictions and burdens that come with it, but it is very clear that there is an appetite in the sporting world beyond the one-off events—such as the Olympic, Paralympic or Commonwealth Games, which we host from time to time—for some of our major sporting events that happen on a more regular basis to be included in the framework and for us not to be playing second fiddle.

At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, challenged us to be a bit bolder in the Bill, and this has been a very good group of amendments and debate that have encouraged us to do that. We heard a huge number of examples of the major sporting events, which bring delight to people across this country and across the world on a regular basis. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and particularly my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park, for bringing their amendments, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to see if we can be bolder and give those advantages to many other sporting organisations as well. My noble friend Lady Evans described these events as the ones that that define Britain as a major sporting power. It would be unthinkable to imagine some of them disappearing from our calendars.

I pay tribute to my noble friend’s work with the London Marathon Foundation. As my noble friend Lord Hayward noted, it is marvellous to see that the London Marathon will extend to two days next year, including many more people. Of course, it is competing with so many other marathons around the world. People come to these shores because they want to run on the streets of London and because it is such a well-organised marathon, but we are competing constantly with the potential for people to go to other cities and parts of the world.

There would be consternation in my house if Formula 1 did not include a race in the United Kingdom. The UK is one of only two nations to have hosted a Grand Prix every year since Formula 1 began in 1950, and for that not to be the case is unthinkable. I am glad that Silverstone is secure through its current contract until at least 2034, but that requires hard work by the organisers. There is constant competition. This is a sport whose global popularity is increasing. We have to keep on our toes and make sure that we continue to deliver the brilliant events that people are expecting. As my noble friend said, the British Grand Prix attracts more than 500,000 people annually, generates £100 million in local economic impact each year and contributes to a wider Formula 1 ecosystem in the UK that is worth over £12 billion annually. When one thinks of how many of the teams are based in the United Kingdom, the supply chains and R&D that ripples from that, just to take one sport for as an example, we can see the benefits. The key question is how we can broaden the Bill, if possible, to allow those that wish to do so to take advantage of some of that boldness—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, it may seem surprising that I oppose Clause 5 standing part of this Bill, given the fact that I have argued many times in your Lordships’ House for taking tough action against the abuse of the secondary market in ticketing. The reason I do is that I think this is in the wrong Bill. Going back to 19 November, just last year, the Government announced that they would introduce new rules to prohibit tickets for concerts, theatre, comedy, sports and other live events being resold for more than their original cost. They made a significant policy announcement that the British Government would introduce new rules to ban ticket touting. They then said they would introduce a Bill in this Session. They did not. They introduced a draft Bill that would make it illegal to resell a ticket at more than its original cost, cap service fees, make it illegal to resell more tickets than you are entitled to buy, place obligations on resale platforms, and empower the Competition and Markets Authority to impose tough fines. Whether we get the legislative timetable for that is yet to be seen.

In this Bill, for potentially three or four events in the next 10 years, there is very tough action, which I support in principle but it should apply to all sports, cultural, arts and music events, and it should be in primary legislation, as promised by the Government. It is simply inconsistent to put some extremely tough and onerous measures—which I fully support—in this Bill for three or four major sporting events that might take place over the next 10 or 15 years and not fulfil their clear obligation to the country to introduce primary legislation as soon as possible to cover this in detail.

We are in danger of having a series of different restrictions on secondary market sales. The original one covered football and was brought in for a completely different reason—it was about segregation of football fans. More recently, we have had further legislation in an excellent Private Member’s Bill, which was introduced in the last Session. There is no reference in this legislation as to how that would be implemented with major international events that we are trying to attract to this country.

Then there is the London 2012 Act, which had the full support of the House at the time. It looked specifically at relevant legislation for hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in this country and criminalised the abuse that we saw in the secondary market for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. I am in no doubt at all that the technology that will be used in ticket touting in years to come will change rapidly. By the time we next host the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, we will need to consider in detail legislation that will be very different from this Bill.

It is inconsistent not to introduce primary legislation to cover this in detail for cultural events, music events and festivals, as well as the overwhelming majority of sporting events that are not covered by this Bill, but just for the three or four international events that we are trying to attract to this country over the next 10, 15 or 20 years. It is that inconsistency which concerns me most of all and is why I object to Clause 5 standing part of the Bill.

Very briefly, and less relevantly, because it would be appropriate for me to put my arguments forward on the significant abuse of the secondary market another time, it is sad that the CMA is the nominated enforcement agency here. I recommend that the Government seriously consider removing it. It has prosecuted no one. It has done very little. It has looked into all sorts of cases and achieved far less than National Trading Standards, whose work has led to people being jailed. National Trading Standards is on a £13 million budget—a very small budget—but has been particularly effective. It has taken down social websites and been really effective in this area. I regret that the Government feel that the CMA will be more appropriate.

Next, if we are talking about specific international events then I am concerned about FIFA. When it came to the World Cup that we are enjoying at present, FIFA decided not to take specific measures in the host nation contract with the US, Canada and Mexico, partially, no doubt, because of the interests of President Trump, who has no appetite to ban touting in the US. But at the same time, FIFA has now set up its own retail site and is taking 15% off the seller and 15% from the buyer. How that fits with this legislation is an interesting question, particularly if it changes its approach to ticket touting in the future. I have no doubt whatever that FIFA will want to protect that source of income post the current World Cup.

It is important that DCMS is seen to be very even-handed in considering this important issue. It is taking very tough action in this Bill but, as I have mentioned, for potentially three or four events and not for the world of sports and the world of music. Those involved in those industries are desperately keen to see tough action taken, as the Government promised, but there is little evidence that they are going to pursue that. Yet Eric Baker, CEO of StubHub and Viagogo, has been publicly professing how happy he is that he has kicked the can down the road and educated the Government, which is why the Bill is not currently before Parliament. I hope that is incorrect. I hope there is no evidence to that effect and that what he is saying publicly is erroneous. As I understand it, he has had five meetings with the department, yet there have been no meetings for those who, quite rightly and understandably, feel very strongly that very tough action should be taken against the abuse of the secondary market, which is what I am focused on here.

Finally, we should make sure that football is included in this. It is an Olympic sport and would need to be covered by this legislation, clearly. There could not be separate legislation for football if we were trying to attract an international sporting event, either a FIFA or IOC event. We should also be very cautious about how it applies to debentures and hospitality. Unpicking that for touting will be a significant challenge.

I want to state on record that I am absolutely in favour of the direction that the Government have taken in this Bill, but I think it is in the wrong place. It is in the wrong Bill at the wrong time, and it should be more appropriately introduced before Parliament as the Government promised. Parliament should be allowed to determine what that should look like, and then the decision of Parliament should be implemented in the context of this legislation moving forward.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 31. I wish to associate myself with the words of my noble friend Lord Moynihan. This is an unnecessary provision in the wrong Bill. At Second Reading, I posed the question: what is so bad about somebody who has bought a ticket to the match but suddenly finds they cannot go and offers it for sale to friends on Facebook that justifies a 50 grand fine?

You have a spare ticket. Perhaps mum has fallen over at home so you cannot go. Perhaps the girlfriend you had planned to go with is now seeing somebody else. Perhaps you have gone down with some sort of food poisoning or perhaps even gramps, who you had planned to sit next to, has died. It happens. In all those circumstances, there are draconian penalties for moving on that ticket. The ticketing activities are enumerated in Schedule 1: selling an event ticket, offering for sale an event ticket, exposing for sale an event ticket or advertising that the ticket is available for purchase.

The £50,000 fine is a level of punishment that outweighs the typical criminal penalties for shoplifting, burglary and serious breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. I am not sure there is an equivalence between passing on a ticket and negligently permitting an employee to fall to his death from height. How have we found ourselves in a situation where the state ranks the desire to cut your losses as worse than all these crimes? It is two-tier justice.

Why are we compounding the sadness of the girl whose boyfriend does not want to go to the game with her any more? We are going after the wrong people. Can we not just get a sense of perspective and materiality here and recognise that somebody who buys six tickets for them and their rellies is not a member of a crime family? My amendment would limit it to six tickets for an event and provide a carve-out to the penalties in the Bill—the abuses that my noble friend has referred to.

At Second Reading, I explained that the organisers and selected ticket agents have not done enough to stop the bots and their industrial hoovering up of the tickets. We all want to ensure that real fans get a fair shot at going to the game; that is common ground. The truth is that the sellers have not tried hard enough to stop this. The truth, as my noble friend has just alluded to, is that the status quo suits them just fine. They can carry on as they are, clutching pearls, pretending to be concerned by the bots while trousering all the cash and filling the cash box on day one. This Bill, if passed, means that they do not even have to try to fix this problem. We are letting them off the hook by law.

There are all sorts of technical ways of matching claimants to people. If we cannot authenticate individuals, the economic basis of society—whether for banking, passport applications or driving licences—cannot proceed. This is a problem that has been solved. Indeed, if it had not been, the hated ID card scheme would be even more dead in the water than it is today.

I went to a wedding last weekend, and a lady I met—I was with my wife, but there was another lady—told me that she had been banned from Tinder for having two profiles, an A one and a B one. She was banned for life. If Tinder can see through multiple personalities, it should not be so difficult for Ticketmaster. If Tinder can suss out the dupes and the fakes, why can agencies such Ticketmaster—others are available—not do so? It is a simple question and one that needs to be answered by the Government before they go after the jilted girlfriend or the grieving son.

My approach would be to ensure that the organisers go the extra mile to authenticate ticket purchasers in the secondary market. The Government’s solution is victim blaming, going after the little guy—the buyer whose mum fell over at home and has a black eye. The Bill has this the wrong way around. Why should we go to the millions of fans when the organisers have the tools to sort it out, if only they could be bothered? Instead, we are being asked to give them the legal cover not to bother to fix this scourge at source. It is just not good enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I wonder whether I could briefly help out the noble Lord, Lord Addington. There was also a case in 2012 when a lady decided to do knitting patterns of the mascots and made a Games maker. It is incredibly important that the rights and brand of these major events are protected. I think I am right in saying that they issued her a warning for knitting one and trying to sell it at her local church. They then recognised the importance of stepping back from that, because they became hugely popular, were a lot of fun and did not impact anybody.

However, a line has to be drawn between what we are seeing quite a lot with FIFA in terms of ambush marketing versus somebody just doing something that is quite nice. There is some merit in these amendments to make sure that local businesses are protected and are able to carry out their day-to-day work without threat of legal action.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 56 in the group. The Bill unashamedly tries to snare and capture the large global events that can make a national impact in our country, but national impact and national scale also have local effects. One of the purposes of hosting these big events is to transform the local economies, drive investments and spread love and enjoyment in the local communities that act as hosts. It is naive to think that this is front and centre of the organisers’ minds. The promoters of the global events line up their sponsors, sports rights and big global brands, and there are pallet loads of merchandise to shift. We know that money follows sport, and the Bill makes sport all about the money by law. I am concerned about the powers to designate zones around stadiums or other undefined places—which might be fan zones, I suppose—where local trading will be made illegal.

At Second Reading, I gave the example—and it was on “Yesterday in Parliament” actually, which I was very pleased about; that was my first time—I gave the example of the 10-minute walk from Twickenham station to the Allianz Stadium down Whitton Road, where every type of food is available, from licensed food vans to stalls set up in front gardens, where the enterprising home owners have demolished their garden walls. There is not just food; there are old boys selling tat, and there is the little guy with his roadside kebab van and the youth club, with its pop-up gazebo, frying chicken wings. It is all part of the grittiness, but all these places have a licence. The way in which the Bill bans this trading means that little of the money will be assimilated in the local economy. That is not right, because the people who are hosting these events should have a right to expect that some of the benefits will be retained locally.

I accept there needs to be some sort of control, so that it does not become a scrum—Twickenham to one side—and we need to have minimum hygiene standards and sensible limits, so we do not get overwhelmed. That is why, over decades, a series of local licensing decisions by the local authority has evolved. It is tried and tested, it has public safety and hygiene at its heart and it has allowed an ecosystem of local traders to flourish. The Bill casts all that aside. Even if you have licence, you will be excluded from participating in a whole-community effort to host a big event. The local little doers will be cast to the wilderness. How does this help the local economy? Why have we got it in for the Cubs and Scouts who are trying to raise money for the jamboree?

My amendment is simple. It would protect the ability of the local council to ensure that at least some of the benefits of hosting an event are retained locally and are not outsourced to national firms or multinational burger corporates. I want to ensure that local flavours are part of the mix and that fans are not just force-fed cardboard burgers and gassy lager served in soulless stadium concourses. Under my proposal, it would be up to the council to strike the right balance between the local needs and the rights holders in exchange for issuing licences. In a local territory, the council will hold some of the cards. The Bill gives the organisers all the cards, and that is no good. It is an affront to the bloke who prefers a cheap kebab to an overpriced burger or a bucket hat to a baseball cap, or the fan who fancies ale rather than lager. If the council gets it wrong, there are elections to sort that out.

At Second Reading, I was grateful that the thoughtful noble Lord, Lord Mann—who is not in his place—supported the principle of locals being able to get in on the act. He was on the side of the working man, the local charity, the youth group and its pop-up gazebo. I say: let us empower them all. They collectively, over decades, have created so many different rituals and traditions associated with going to the game, more so than the game itself. Families, groups of fans, clubs and societies work with the community in a sort of foreplay that heightens the pleasure of the big event itself. I know that the Minister would not want to deny fans their pleasure, so I ask her to accept my amendment, so that everybody gets to enjoy themselves in the way that they want to, but, most importantly, so that some of the benefits are retained in the community, which is potentially so inconvenienced by the disruptions of hosting it. The economic benefits must be retained locally.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lord Fuller in his expression of concern about the impact on small businesses. Sadly, many noble Lords will know me as a statistician who spends all his time looking at opinion polls and numbers in one direction or another and then commenting on them. I have spent inadequate time looking at the impact assessment, to which no reference has been made yet in these debates. Despite my apparent facility for statistics, all I can say about the impact assessment is that my head hurts. I found it incredibly difficult to comprehend page after page of low-impact, central-impact and high-impact estimates.

I will comment on one section. I could comment on others, but I address my comments overall. I find it very difficult to understand the impact that each of the different events would have in terms of positives and negatives, because they are aggregated in a very odd way. Page 41 of the impact assessment refers to the impact on street traders. It says:

“The low estimate reflects that 50% of traders will be able to continue to trade due to potential mitigations”.


Therefore, 50% of the traders will not be able to continue trading—and that is the low estimate. It goes on to say:

“The central estimate reflects the likelihood that 75% of traders in the affected area will be unable to trade while the provisions are in place. The high estimate serves as an upper bound where all traders operating in areas where prohibitions apply are unable to trade”.


We are therefore talking about a very substantial impact on businesses. We debated earlier the duration under which these provisions would apply, but we are talking about potentially every single street trader in those relevant areas. There are pages identifying the numbers of traders affected, whether it be at the Everton stadium, the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, at Hampden Park in Glasgow or wherever you choose to name. There are numbers and numbers of street traders. That is their livelihood. If these events are running for several weeks, which is likely to be the case, they are losing their livelihood for that period.

I therefore share my noble friend Lord Fuller’s concerns about the impact that is identified—but identified in such a complex way that it is incredibly difficult to understand what we are talking about.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My noble friend has painted a picture and enumerated it with examples of sports stadiums. Under the Bill, there is to be a zone cast around the stadium where trading will be banned. But there are other provisions that have other events; for example, fan zones. Has my noble friend considered that fan zones could be in town centres? Town centres could be sterilised from trading. Has he considered that the net may be cast much further than just street traders, to other organisations too?

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that intervention and for identifying other areas. I tried to make it clear that I had taken only one element of one page of an impact assessment. It was on page 41. The impact assessment is over 90 pages long, with central, low and high estimates in all sorts of different categorisations There is no overall assessment of cost potential for any small or large business or the impact on the economy.

There is lots of explanation that tells us how wonderful it is going to be week in, week out, because of the benefits of sport. That is right—we have all recognised that—but there is an indistinct identification of the potential costs to some small and very small businesses, and we really should recognise the potential implications for all concerned.