Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(ca) Schedule (Industrial action provisions) (“the industrial action provisions”),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts industrial action provisions, which would ban strikes by certain workers, including transport workers, when the sporting events framework is applied to a sporting event.

[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 ---

[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.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their comments. As the noble Lord said, there is an element of risk here, but, as we know, this is a proven risk. In 2012, 2022 and earlier this year, we saw the deliberate targeting of major sporting events by trade unions to exert some political pressure, and I was sorry not to hear criticism from the other two Benches about their doing so. We agree that trade unions have the right to make their protest, but I would hope that noble Lords reflect that targeting games such as these, which try to rise above politics—at a geopolitical level as well—should not be targeted in the way that we have seen in the past.

The risk balance has shifted a bit because of some of the changes the Minister outlined. The changes brought in by the Employment Rights Act 2025 do cause problems, which your Lordships’ House scrutinised well and highlighted as that legislation went through. I see that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, is in his place; he made very strong points from the Cross Benches about some of the perverse effects that Act of Parliament may have. However, even if one accepts the argument the Government were making there, sporting events of this nature are very different. These are temporary, one-off events where people are able to work, as my noble friend Lord Fuller said, in a life-changing way for an event that comes and goes, for which the employment is not there any more.

If we do not make the sort of changes to the Bill we have suggested, we worry that the practical effect will be perverse. Rather than offering more secure work, organisers will simply offer less work and circumvent the guaranteed-hours duty by relying on short fixed-term contracts and outsourced or overseas suppliers, or on asking more of unpaid volunteers, rather than the flexible part-time and casual staff who have made the delivery of previous games such a success. We might return to this in some form on Report. I hope we can keep the discussions on this point going, but for now I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- 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 ---

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

9: Clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations made by an appropriate national authority under this section may not have effect for a period that is longer than the specified period.(5B) In subsection (5A), the “specified period” means a period of time that must—(a) begin no earlier than the beginning of the period of 21 days ending immediately before the day on which the sporting event begins, and(b) end no later than the end of the period of 5 days beginning with the day after the day on which the sporting event ends.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would establish a maximum period in which the sporting events framework can be implemented in relation to a particular event.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

I want also to pick up on the points made about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and make it explicitly clear that we are carefully considering its recommendations. We are committed to working constructively with noble Lords across the Chamber to ensure we strike the right balance in the level of scrutiny applied. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will take reassurance from these comments and withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response, particularly the reassurances she has given and the explanation about ticketing powers, transport restrictions and so on. As she rightly said, these are probing amendments, but they are probing with a purpose. The Bill seeks to take some quite sweeping powers, in some cases restricting people’s liberties, the operation of commercial businesses and much more. We want to make sure that where those powers are taken, they are not on the statute book for longer than they need to be. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, these are exceptional measures for extraordinary circumstances. That is important to get right, so we will take another look at the Bill in light of what the Minister has said and make sure we are satisfied that that is the case. We think we are being generous with a 50-day limit; if the Olympic and Paralympic Games can take place within that window, it is hard to envisage a major sporting event that might need longer. We will take that away and look at it further.

On Amendments 11 and 12 and the point about secondary legislation, I am grateful for what the Minister said about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I look forward to hearing what the Government say in detail, ahead of Report, on its concerns about the Bill here. I am not sure I quite agree that Parliament will have the opportunity for a full debate; at the moment, secondary legislation is limited to an hour, and we have heard repeatedly, even today, of the significant issues that need to be looked at each time we are legislating for the hosting of a major sporting event. So, we have some concerns there.

We certainly would be concerned if there was a two-tier structure of the first set of regulations and the subsequent ones, which could be very significant. I hope the Government will continue to look at that ahead of Report, because I am pretty sure we will return to that, certainly given the criticisms of the committee. With that, I thank the Minister for her reply, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 9.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I anticipate that the Minister may say that it is quite difficult to broaden this without being specific. I have one thought, having listened to this debate and been very supportive of what has been said. If, for example, the R&A for the Open golf wanted to avail itself of the benefits of the sporting events framework that we are putting into legislation, would it not be possible to distinguish between the international federations that recognise these events as international events on their calendars?

Take Wimbledon, the marathon or golf’s Open Championship. All are recognised by the relevant international federations and placed on their calendars. If we are looking for a way to put this into legislation, it might be worth considering defining it along those lines, overtly avoiding the problem that everybody might be able to apply for their own event. That would rule out, for example, the Boat Race. I can see significant problems with the transport provisions of the Bill if they were applied to the Boat Race and the whole west of London on Boat Race day. I give that as an example and a helpful contribution that I hope the Minister can take away and consider.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank my noble friend, who has rowed in the Boat Race, for his constructive and very good challenge. We are looking for a way of broadening the Bill in a rational way. He is right to draw the distinction with events that are internationally renowned. As my noble friend Lady Evans says, these are the ones that define our well-earned sporting reputation for being able to host such major events on the global stage. Whether it is done through that or another metric, this is well worth looking at in greater detail as we head to Report.

My noble friend Lord Fuller asked where this all ends, but the question really is: where does this begin? We are promised a major events strategy from DCMS. I understand that the Government have taken the legislative slot that is available and proceeded with the Bill now. They are right to do so, but it is a shame that we did not have that strategy in advance of this Bill. It would have informed some of the debates here and answered some of the questions that noble Lords have raised on cultural events, music events and ticketing provisions that apply there as well. Perhaps the Minister can say a bit more about when we might see that major events strategy, how it is designed to feed into this framework and the thinking that has gone on in her department in drawing up this Bill in advance of that strategy. It is slightly unfortunate that we are discussing it this way around because of the legislative time available.

I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group. If we can work constructively, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan and others suggest, we can take the opportunity to be a bit bolder and help the organisers of major sporting events—which do so much to enhance the soft power and renown of this country—to do so even better in the future.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Lady Evans of Bowes Park and Lady Grey-Thompson, for these amendments and for their time to discuss an important topic. Regarding the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I genuinely appreciate the spirit in which he and others have tabled these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, gave a remarkable list of recurring events that we have in this country and highlighted the value—including the economic value—of events such as Silverstone.

I assure your Lordships’ Committee that the Government are committed to supporting our domestic sports sector and the UK’s sporting calendar, building on the strong partnerships and existing frameworks already in place. This work will be underpinned by the UK-wide major events strategy, which—in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—my department intends to publish within the next 12 months. This will set out our priorities for major events taking place across the UK, covering major events in all sectors—cultural, sporting and business. I hope that the process of undertaking this strategy makes some of those sporting organisations that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, says feel unloved now feel that this puts them front and centre of our minds and priorities at DCMS.

The time-limited provisions in the Bill are designed to attract specific one-off events that require the Government to make commitments to event owners during the bidding process. It is not possible to secure the hosting rights for these events without making such commitments. Global competition to secure these events is only increasing. For the UK to remain competitive against this global competition for the biggest international events, we need to show that we are event ready to meet event owner requirements.

The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, made a point around the Cricket World Cup. The nature of the framework means that we expect particular events to be considered on a case-by-case basis. However, the ICC Cricket World Cup is the type of event that could meet the conditions, depending on the exact circumstances of the event. In contrast, events that are hosted on a recurrent basis in the UK do not generally have the same externally set mandatory requirements as events that hold competitive international bid processes.

As the Bill was developed, we worked closely with some of the biggest recurrent sporting events to understand the demand for these provisions. While there was some interest in the advertising and trading provisions, we found that there was no clear or consistent evidence base on the negative economic impact of the status quo for the inclusion of a breadth of successfully recurring domestic events. Where interest was expressed, we also found that there was insufficient appetite from the sector to fund the enforcement action that would be required of local authorities should these provisions be extended to them. We are continuing the discussions with relevant bodies that have taken place since Second Reading.

No assessment was provided during the discussions prior to Second Reading of the likely enforcement burden. Given that these are criminal offences, enforcement by any organisation other than a public body would not be appropriate or proportionate. None the less, I am genuinely grateful for the constructive ways in which noble Lords have raised points regarding the potential for us going further and for highlighting the importance of recurrent sporting events. They have a significant, cherished and valuable role for the nation.

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, about the London Marathon potentially having 100,000 athletes and accompanying visitors—I will not be taking part and am more likely to be an accompanying visitor—shows the scale of these domestic events. I would welcome further discussion with noble Lords on this matter and will continue to listen to views from the sports sector. Upon reviewing any new evidence, I will consider carefully what steps would be appropriate and practical.

On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, around better facilities for women and girls, the Government’s £400 million investment into grass-roots facilities will continue to support increased participation for women and girls through a place-based approach across the UK over the next four years. We will more than double priority access to grass-roots football pitches for women and girls in England as part of plans to honour the Lionesses’ victory at UEFA Women’s Euro 2025, as well as dedicating flagship sites to the Lionesses. The Football Foundation has also launched the Lionesses HERe to Play fund, providing small grants to create welcoming, safe and accessible facilities for women and girls.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and others also highlighted provision and access for people with disabilities or other protected characteristics, which I look forward to debating in a future group in Committee on Wednesday. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his suggestion.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised the point about how we encourage physical activity and, critically, make sure that we do not just have elites and then the rest who are not fit and healthy. The development of grass-roots sport outside school and how we encourage physical activity is critical for this Government. This year, we are already investing £85 million through the multisport grass-roots facility programme to build and upgrade high-quality grass-roots sports pitches and facilities in the communities across the UK that need them most. This is part of a total package of at least £400 million that will be invested in new and upgraded grass-roots sports facilities in communities right across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their amendments. Amendments 15 and 26 seek to add a further condition to the Bill’s framework, requiring any qualifying sporting event to make live coverage free of charge to the UK public. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, about the importance of having, for example, the Lionesses on the BBC and the Channel 4 coverage of the Paralympics.

I and the Government recognise the intent behind these amendments and are committed to ensuring that major sporting events are as accessible as possible to people across the UK, including where broadcasting is concerned. Indeed, during the debate on the football regulator, one of the discussions we had was about what made a spectator and what made a fan. For most people, it is not watching it live but instead watching it largely on television.

However, unfortunately, these amendments are not ones that the Government can support. The central issue is that they would make the application of this framework dependent on broadcasting arrangements having already been secured on free-to-air—I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, which was repeated by the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Parkinson, that it is not free-to-air but rather it is free-to-air once you have paid your licence fee or an equivalent free-access basis.

Decisions relating to the broadcast coverage of sporting events are commercial matters for broadcasters, event organisers and the holders of broadcasting rights. Those organisations are operationally independent of government, and rightly so. Broadcasting rights provide essential income for national governing bodies and sport broadcasting rights holders, which enables them to invest in their sports, future events and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, grass-roots sports. She cited the example of Wimbledon, but there are other examples from across the piece. This amendment would place tighter controls over their ability to generate much-needed broadcasting revenue for an indefinite period.

There is also a practical concern. The timelines for agreeing broadcasting rights will not always align with the bidding processes and other requirements that this framework is intended to support. Making the framework conditional on those agreements already being in place could therefore create delay, uncertainty and unnecessary rigidity. Other bidding nations may not be subject to such restrictions, potentially making the UK less competitive.

The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that there is a breadth of free-to-air coverage of sporting events for licence fee payers. I agree with all noble Lords who stressed the importance of people seeing sport. The current listed events regime is designed to ensure that sporting events of national significance are available to as wide an audience as possible by prohibiting exclusive broadcasting of the event without prior consent from Ofcom.

In response to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made about people being potentially excluded by dint of their economic circumstances, the listing of events ensures that broadcast rights to that event, if offered, must be made available on fair and reasonable terms to the free-to-air channels received by 95% of the population.

The Government believe that the current listed events regime works well and strikes a perfect balance between encouraging free-to-air access to a number of sporting events for audiences and allowing sports to maximise broadcasting revenue to invest in the growth and development of those sports. I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the ability to talk about having seen major sporting events is a bonding event, which can exclude people who are not able to take part in that. In any event, we would expect broadcasters and sporting rights holders for specific events to think carefully about the balance between generating much-needed revenue and ensuring access to sports coverage for viewers, ensuring the growth and development of the sport.

Amendment 79 seeks to ensure that where the Secretary of State gives financial assistance under Clause 25 in respect of a sporting event, she must require the recipient to take all reasonable steps to ensure that live coverage of that event is made available free of charge, either directly or on a platform accessible without subscription in the United Kingdom. The Government fully recognise the importance of broadcasting certain sporting events to attract significant audience interest and make events as accessible as possible. We appreciate the sentiment that, where public support is involved, sporting events should be as widely available to the public as possible. However, again, this amendment is not one that the Government can accept.

The first reason is one of principle. Clause 25 is a funding power, intended to support the effective delivery of sporting events. It is not a broadcasting regulation power, nor is it intended to be used to direct or shape the outcome of commercial negotiations over media rights. Broadcasting arrangements for sporting events are matters for broadcasters, event organisers or the holders of the broadcasting rights, all of whom are operationally independent of government. It would not be appropriate to use the Bill or this funding power to intervene in those negotiations indirectly through grant conditions.

Secondly, funding decisions, event planning and broadcast rights negotiations do not always proceed to the same timetable. As a result, the amendment could create delay, complication and uncertainty in the use of Clause 25 support.

Thirdly, there is a risk to workability. If organisers or recipients cannot be confident about satisfying such a condition at the relevant point in time, it may make financial assistance harder to administer and could reduce the flexibility that Clause 25 is designed to provide.

For those reasons, I respectfully ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, in many senses, we have outperformed a World Cup football squad tonight, because we have hit the target ahead of schedule for this first day in Committee, and we have done it without a hydration break.

Let me begin with the two amendments I have tabled in this group. It is an important group on which to end our debate, because it deals with the significant impact of the Bill on the restrictions on commercial interests, small as well as big, a point that my noble friends have rightly accentuated. My Amendment 40 seeks to create an exemption for charities from the advertising offences in the Bill, applying only where a charity is advertising wholly or partly for the purpose of promoting itself or a specified list of charitable services. I hope the Minister will be attracted to it. It is word for word taken from the provisions in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games (Advertising and Trading) Regulations 2021. If it was suitable then, why not for the new framework that we are seeking to set out?

Amendment 55 similarly relates to charitable exemptions. Paragraph 1(2)(d) of Schedule 3 to the Bill states that a “Trading activity” includes

“appealing for money or other property (whether for charitable or other purposes), with the exception of begging”.

That means that the offence of trading in a restricted trading zone applies to charitable fundraising but not to people who are begging. I wonder if the noble Baroness can explain why it has been drawn up in that way. Surely we do not want to restrict people from collecting for good causes where that can be done in a way that is consistent with the sporting event, particularly when we consider that charities historically have been exempted from the advertising offences when we have hosted sporting events of this nature in the past.

I have tried in doing that to follow the example that my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond has taken with his Amendment 39. As he said, that mirrors the approach taken in the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, which provided carve-outs for community and educational uses, and I congratulate him on the way he set that one out.

I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, undersold his Amendment 38 a little. It concerns the impact of exclusive advertising authorisations on small and medium-sized enterprises and, as my noble friend Lord Hayward has done, it is worth drawing the Committee’s attention to what the Government’s own impact assessment says about this, because it is rather revealing. The final stage impact assessment, published by the department, acknowledges candidly that the provisions most likely to affect small and micro-businesses are the trading provisions of this Bill, which could prevent established street and market traders operating as usual in and around restricted zones. It recognises that there may be

“small disproportionate impacts on local traders relative to the broader business community”.

Therefore, it acknowledges that the greatest potential impact will fall on street traders in affected areas—as my noble friend Lord Fuller said, the people who add to and enhance the enjoyment of many people going to sporting events. The impact assessment promises that

“careful consideration will be given to how best to mitigate these impacts when making regulations on a case-by-case basis”.

That is a candid admission, but candour in an impact assessment is not the same as a legal safeguard in the Bill. Amendment 38 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, seeks to translate the Government’s own stated intentions from the impact assessment into an enforceable obligation. I think that one is worth the Minister looking at carefully in her response this evening but perhaps also as we consider all the issues we have looked at today between now and Report. I am grateful to noble Lords for all their amendments in this group.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Addington, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham, Lord Fuller and Lord Holmes of Richmond, for their amendments.

Amendment 38, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would require a designated person to have regard to additional factors related to small and medium or local enterprises when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation. We share the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that such businesses are not unfairly impacted and that they are able to benefit from the sporting event where appropriate.

In the interest of proportionality, we intend to minimise the impacts of the advertising provisions on existing businesses by introducing exceptions to the offences in regulations. These exceptions would be based on existing advertising controls to allow usual advertising on business premises. Businesses within a restricted zone wishing to display advertising that is not subject to an exception may be able to seek authorisation to do so—for example, from the event organiser or local authority. Where an authorisations process is in place and the proposed activity does not undermine commercial sponsors, businesses with an existing licence to advertise should be given precedence.

Before making regulations, the Secretary of State or devolved authority must consult with the relevant authority and any other persons. This could include local businesses. Guidance setting out the advertising restrictions that will be in place must also be made available.

Amendment 39, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, would create an exception to the advertising offence for certain non-commercial entities. We recognise the vital work each of these does for local communities. In most cases, they will not be affected by the advertising provisions in the Bill. I will say more on charities shortly, but I stress that the advertising offence will capture charities and other non-commercial entities only if they are advertising a business, product or service in a restricted zone. Where such entities could be affected, we will look to provide an appropriate exception in regulations. This will ensure that the interest of any charity partner in an event, if there is one, can be taken into account where necessary. Generally, this means providing exceptions in regulations on a case-by-case basis to ensure that they are proportionate, workable and event-specific. Again, guidance will be made available, making clear how non-commercial entities could be affected and the options available to them.

Amendment 40 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, creates an exception to the advertising offence for promoting charities and certain charitable services. We share the spirit of this amendment. However, as this is a UK-wide framework, exceptions must be workable across the four nations. These separate jurisdictions have differing laws defining and regulating charities. To ensure that exceptions related to charities can be applied effectively, these will need to be brought forward in regulations drafted in accordance with local laws, taking into account the interests of any charity partners. Charities will be captured by the offence only where they are promoting a product, business or service. As I stated in relation to a previous group, exceptions will always be provided for advertising certain charitable services—for example, crisis mental health support services such as a hotline. To highlight our intention in this area, the Bill explicitly states that exceptions to the advertising offence could be made for the purpose of promoting charities or services provided by charities.

Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, would remove appealing for money or other property from the definition of “trading activity”. I believe it was this amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, spoke to when she talked about knitted items and proportionality in relation to that. That was a good example and the type of example I have been putting to the Bill team to test. I understand that this amendment is looking to probe why charitable fundraising is within the scope of the trading offence. The trading offence is designed to regulate activity that could disrupt the easy and free movement of spectators and provide a mechanism to control the number of traders, including charity collectors, operating within a restricted zone. For this reason, a number of local authorities already regulate charity collections in public places. Although I am sympathetic to the spirit of this amendment, a blanket exception for charitable fundraising could undermine these objectives. For example, an event may have an official charity partner which may need to be given priority over a fundraising activity in a restricted trading zone.