Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

60: Schedule 5, page 42, line 35, at end insert—
“(9) A plan under sub-paragraph (1) where the event is expected to attract 50,000 or more attendees on a single day must include—(a) a digital simulation model of anticipated crowd and traffic flows, validated against comparable event data,(b) accessible route modelling specifying the routing available to attendees with mobility impairments,(c) a real-time adaptation protocol that enables the relevant authority to implement AI-assisted adjustments to transport operations during the event, and(d) a post-event data-sharing obligation requiring anonymised crowd and transport flow data to be provided to relevant local authorities within six months of the event's conclusion for legacy infrastructure planning purposes.”Member's explanatory statement
The amendment requires digital twin modelling, which is now standard practice in infrastructure planning and was used, for example, in preparatory work for Euro 2024 in Germany.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to move Amendment 60 and to speak to Amendment 96 in my name. I look forward to the other amendments in this group.

This amendment continues a theme that I began on day one of our Committee debate on the Bill: the singular lack of anything in the Bill to take advantage of all the technologies, if human-led, that have such an incredible impact for the betterment of these major and mega sporting events when we bid and bring them to the United Kingdom.

Amendment 60 in essence just seeks to put in the Bill a digital twin to be part of the transport planning for major events involving 50,000 or more spectators. This would enable a variety of technologies to be deployed to drive a far better experience for spectators, all those involved with the event, and, equally importantly, all those who are not involved but are in the locality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I would say there are on occasion. There is so much expertise in your Lordships’ House with regard to sporting events. I have always felt that where there is a good idea, we should not be partisan, so I would not disagree with the noble Lord.

However, the measures the amendments cover are exactly the type of technical requirements that are already set out in contractual hosting agreements and specified by the event owner. This means that there is a dialogue throughout the bidding process between prospective hosts and the event owner about existing capacity and infrastructure, what is required and where improvements would need to be made. Through this, prospective hosts provide the necessary assurances to the event owner that there is or will be sufficient capacity and infrastructure in place to deliver a successful event. Ahead of this, we would also expect the national governing body to work in collaboration with the relevant local authority that is ultimately responsible for delivering these key elements. As these are already accounted for in the bidding processes, these amendments could potentially place onerous or duplicative requirements on key delivery partners. I am happy to discuss that further with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, should he wish.

Amendments 80, 81 and 82 were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but are also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter. We recognise the important intent behind them; taken together, they aim to ensure that the UK maintains its ability to bid for major international events. We also recognise that the amendments aim to increase transparency around the prioritisation of and bidding for sporting events to provide more certainty to the sector. However, in our view, it is not necessary to set this requirement in statute. I reassure your Lordships that the Government are committed to ensuring that the UK continues to build on its already world-leading reputation in this field. At the risk of agreeing too often in one debate with the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I agreed with many of the points he raised in this part of the debate.

There is a pre-existing process which sits behind those events the UK chooses to bid for, which is set out in the Gold Framework, as I have referenced previously. This also sets out the criteria against which events are assessed and prioritised. UK Sport undertakes a horizon-scanning of all the available hosting opportunities, and it undertakes feasibility work alongside formal engagement with the UK event co-ordination group, national governing bodies and local authorities twice a year to develop and agree the UK’s longlist of potential future major sporting event targets.

This hosting target list is also endorsed by DCMS. It is published online and is shared annually with the sector, as well as with cities, regions and nations across the UK, to facilitate event-hosting partnerships. This ensures transparency about our potential targets. It also aims to ensure that there is an ongoing 10-year major event strategic programming list in this regard. There is a balance to be struck, in our view, in ensuring that the UK does not hinder our competitive advantage by giving detailed insights to our potential competitors. UK Sport has also published Making Live Sport Matter, which sets out a series of guiding principles and key objectives for event hosting as the basis of a strategic framework for maintaining the country’s reputation as a world-leading host nation.

On noble Lords’ points around resourcing, UK Sport exists for exactly this purpose: to provide expertise. This includes conducting feasibility studies, including on alternative and sustainable delivery models, and evaluating the annual value of events. It also provides a range of strategic guidance and technical support to the sector. This includes a knowledge transfer programme to enhance and develop the sector’s expertise and develop collaborative and sustainable networks. We also believe it is important to retain the ability to be responsive and effective with public resources, as the requirements of bidding for and delivering major sporting events will change over time.

Amendment 96, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, would create a power for the Secretary of State to

“direct a qualifying person to maintain and share a cyber resilience plan … for a sporting event to which this Act applies”.

The noble Lord gave some powerful examples of the impact that cyber attacks might have, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that it is some bad actors who create the threat, which was also illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Foster. As he says, this is potentially a very real issue. The noble Lord talked about the gizmos in traffic lights and the advantage these may give to getting home. There were those of us at the London Assembly at the time who suspected that Boris already also had that in mind—but I move swiftly on from that.

This amendment would introduce a new statutory power, together with detailed requirements about the content, maintenance and review of cyber resilience plans. The National Cyber Security Centre guidance on cyber security for major events, to which this amendment refers, recognises that cyber security arrangements and requirements will differ according to the scale, location, systems and threat environment of the event in question. Such a legally binding list may not be relevant to every major sporting event.

Finally, there is also a practical challenge of monitoring compliance here. Details of cyber security plans are typically necessarily restricted to event organisers and do not generally involve government oversight. For those reasons, I ask that the noble Lord withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Ultimately, sport is about winning, and it seems pretty clear that, in this group of amendments, my noble friend Lord Hayward won without even having an amendment in the group. That is, perhaps, how sport can go sometimes, as anybody who has played or spectated will very much appreciate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have commented on my amendments, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, who brought up gizmos—you can tell he is a scientist.

I say to the Minister that the wording may not be quite right in the amendments, but I ask her to reflect on the principles, strategies and criteria that any technology, while being technology neutral, would have to meet to achieve these objectives. Would that not be worth considering in a Bill of this type as we put it together at this stage? If we take the point of criteria, for example, you can effectively be technology neutral and largely technology future-proof because you focused on criteria and principles. It will be worth reflecting on whether some of that might be of value in the Bill.

Again, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part, and, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 68, I will also speak to Amendments 72 and 73, all of which are much shorter than my previous amendment, which was just dispatched with.

The amendments in this group, which my noble friend Lord Markham has signed as well, are intended to prevent the financial assistance provisions in Clause 25 of the Bill becoming a blank cheque that successive Governments could fill out as they see fit. To do this, our amendments require that, before the appropriate national authority grants financial assistance in connection with a sporting event, the appropriate legislature must approve that assistance by resolution. This means in practice that, if the Secretary of State wants to help fund a particular event, the House of Commons must agree to any financial commitment. When the appropriate national authority is the Scottish Ministers, the Scottish Parliament must approve the funding, and where it is a Northern Ireland department, the Northern Ireland Assembly must give its consent.

It is a long-established principle that financial measures must be subject to approval by Parliament. Erskine May says in paragraph 33.2 that the “basic constitutional principle” of financial procedure is that

“the Crown requests money, the Commons grant it, and the Lords assent to the grant”.

It continues:

“In more modern terms, the Government presents to the House of Commons its detailed requirements for the financing of the public services; it is for the Commons, acting on the sole initiative of Ministers … to authorise the relevant expenditure”.


That is the crucial point: the Government must come to Parliament, specifically another place, with proposals for the sums to be spent on each object of expenditure, and those must be detailed requirements.

Of course, there are many Bills presented to Parliament which grant the Crown a more open-ended authorisation of expenditure, but, when those Bills are considered, Members of both Houses usually pass them knowing the object of the expenditure for which they are authorising, and the sums they are authorising. The impact assessment or a briefing or explanatory note from the Government would contain the Government’s estimate of how much the measures in that Bill would be likely to cost the public purse.

The Bill before us is not a usual piece of legislation, in the sense that it seeks to create a framework for future sporting events. We do not know to exactly which events the Bill will be applied in future, nor how much financial assistance the Government of the day might wish to grant those events. Clause 25 is an open-ended financial commitment, which potentially spans many decades into the future.

It is possible, without necessarily even looking many decades into the future, to envisage a Prime Minister who is fiscally less disciplined than others. I want to make sure that we are future-proofing the Bill for all eventualities.

Of course, the Bill is not accompanied by a detailed assessment of how much money the Government propose to spend as a result of Clause 25. That is not surprising. In fact, it is perfectly understandable. The very nature of an open-ended framework Bill such as this means that it is unknowable. But, if the Government are not able to tell us how much the Bill will cost in the long term, it is not just reasonable but a clear requirement to ensure that legislative consent is required for each instance of financial assistance granted under it. That will help us to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of each measure and, I hope, guarantee that fiscal probity is baked into the legislation.

All that our amendments seek to do is apply a very sound constitutional principle that the appropriation of public money should be agreed to by the House of Commons, elected by the people. I hope that the Minister and other noble Lords will agree. I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and to agree with everything that he said. I will build on his blank cheque, which was perfectly positioned phraseology. My Amendment 71 seeks to build on that in order to get the most from the moolah. If we are going to put financial assistance in place, as we do and will, it is only right and proper to make the most of that funding, to not restrict the funding and to not put issues around it that would make it less likely for us to win these major and mega sporting events. But we need to put in conditionality that will benefit the bid itself, the event and local communities and other organisations, not just at the event time but, if correctly put in place, for years and perhaps decades to come.

In no sense am I suggesting that the wording I have set out is exhaustive or covers all the issues at hand. I seek to demonstrate a sense of the threads of E, S and G running through this funding. It has to be right that local communities benefit directly from these events, because for mega events such as the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, they put up with a lot: the bid process, the extensive build process, Games time and a significant deconstruct of all the overlay and temporary venues. They deserve, and must have, an upside during that process, at the event time and, indeed, post event. It is not just the sport that should benefit. The local community is hosting these events as well and must be included in the upside and benefits that come from that.

In my other proposed subsections, I quite rightly set out to put everything around pay gap reporting, minimum wage, procurement and supply chain in the Bill. There is so much positive impact that can be driven through the procurement and supply chain process. It is worth, at least at a principles-based level, having something in the Bill to send out the signals as to what kinds of events we want to stage in this nation: not to limit the bid, not to control and not to affect the flexibility that one needs when a governing body is bidding, but rather to enhance, sharpen and add to the bid, and to the Games and the championships experience, and to have a sense that the stadia, community, part of a city and part of our country can look forward, post Games and post event—not looking back at something that has happened in the past but taking things forward that would not have happened and would not be part of that local community were it not for the staging of that event or that Games.

It is right that we seek to get the maximum and think about what we want to say about the funding put into these events. Criteria and principles seem a perfectly acceptable way of doing this. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. But, when you have spent many years at the other end of the telescope of these large events and have responsibilities for building the kit, enabling it all to work and making sure that it integrates in those communities, the detail really matters. One of the things we managed to achieve with the London Olympics—which was in no small part to do with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, Lord Coe and others—was to get cross-party support for this very big event, which we knew would probably go through different Governments and Mayors of London, and actually I think we achieved that. It was a very big and long event—and, by the way, we are still building out the Olympic Park today, so it was a big thing.

It is really important that, while there needs to be responsibility for large amounts of taxpayers’ money— I absolutely get that—if we are serious about these events, there also needs to be responsibility among our political parties to get cross-party agreement very early on.

That needs to happen not only at a national level. One or two of our colleagues in east London who were involved in the Labour councils there—I mention in particular my colleague Paul Brickell, who was a Labour councillor in Newham and ended up playing the lead role in regeneration as executive director—spent a lot of time building working relationships with the five Labour boroughs surrounding the Olympic Park, which when we began had a long history of being at war with each other. There was a lot of detailed work over cups of tea to build the relationships that support events such as this.

So, although I am in favour of being very careful about the money and get all of that, if we are serious about going for these events, there is a responsibility across our political parties to build working relationships early on and come to an agreement, so that those of us on the leading edge with day-to-day responsibility to make fast decisions tomorrow will not be held up by politics being played out on them somewhere else.