Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Holmes of Richmond

Report stage
Wednesday 15th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend. I think we would all agree that he has brought some of the more colourful illustrations to his amendments during the passage of the Bill. Perhaps, like me, noble Lords are disappointed that the kebab did not make an appearance today, but in the dying moments the cardboard burger did. That is something to reflect upon.

I will speak to government Amendment 16 and the related charity amendments that have been brought forward on Report. When we began this process, the Bill was deficient when it came to the operations and thus the impact of charities up and down the country. The charitable sector makes such a contribution—socially, of course; psychologically, certainly; and economically, in so many ways, to the general well-being of this nation.

The London Olympics Act of 2006 contained charitable provisions, as did the Commonwealth Games Act of 2020. We have made some good progress. I thank the Minister and all her officials for their detailed discussion between Committee and Report, resulting in these amendments, which set out significant provisions and a real commitment to what could be included in subsequent regulations. It puts charities in a far clearer, far better position. It does not just benefit charities and charitable activity up and down the country; it makes sporting events and this Bill better.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I welcome the movement the Government have shown on these issues, particularly in tabling Amendments 16, 37 and 38, which respond to amendments that my noble friend Lord Markham and I tabled in Committee, attempting to put exemptions for charities from a number of offences into the Bill. While I might have preferred to go about it that way, I welcome that the Government have specified that charities can be exempted from the ticket touting offence. My noble friend Lord Holmes is absolutely right about the profound benefits that charities bring in so many ways.

It is also very welcome that the Government have tabled Amendment 32 in response to concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Fuller about businesses carrying out trading activities in accordance with existing trading licences. That is an important consideration to ensure that the application of the trading provisions is fair and proportionate.

I wonder whether the Minister and her officials in the department have spoken to the Advertising Association. It has been in touch with me since Committee about some concerns that advertising firms still have, particularly about the way the Bill does not explain sufficiently—to them, at least—how the new framework will work in practice for existing advertisers and media owners. If the department has not been in contact with the Advertising Association, it would certainly be a very good idea to do so, as the Bill heads to another place, because advertisers do such an important job in sustaining the climate for sporting events big and small across these islands.

Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Holmes of Richmond

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.