Sporting Events Bill [HL] (Second sitting)
Louie French ExcerptsTuesday 20th October 2026
(1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Sporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Sporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 19 October 2026 - (19 Oct 2026)
Stephanie Peacock
Sponsorship is a critical revenue stream for sporting event owners. If sponsors believe that their rights can be undermined by rival businesses creating an unauthorised association with the event, the commercial value of UK-hosted events diminishes. These provisions protect against inventive marketeers seeking to benefit financially from such events without making the necessary commitments. Clause 14 requires regulations for an event to specify the time period when the unauthorised association provisions apply. Opportunities to exploit major sporting events commercially begin as soon as those events are awarded to the UK. We must therefore put these provisions in place as soon as is practicable.
However, proportionality is important. The Bill includes protection for business activities that may create an unauthorised association with an event. They would protect the use of a company or domain name provided that the business had used it before the date set in regulations and it continues to be used in the same way. That date could be before the regulations are made, such as when the UK is publicly announced as the host. Regulations must also designate one or more persons to undertake enforcement. There will usually be only one designated enforcer, but the Bill provides flexibility for joint enforcement rights, which might be needed where commercial rights are exercised by an event owner and a local organising committee.
Clause 15 requires regulations to designate one or more persons to grant authorisation to associate with an event. In practice, that is likely to be an event owner or organiser. This is how official partners will be able to legally associate with an event. Clause 16 enables regulations to specify further exceptions to the prohibition beyond those already in schedule 4 to ensure proportionality and protect honest business use.
Amendment 38 in my name makes it clear that the power to create further exemptions to regulations may be used to exempt small and microbusinesses. This approach maintains flexibility to apply an exemption for small and microbusinesses in regulations, ensuring that we can satisfy individual event requirements. That said, I am clear that local businesses should be able to benefit from these events. Exemption or not, I want event owners to know that I do not consider that a local bakery selling football-themed cupcakes during Euro 2028, for example, is likely to suggest to everyday members of the public that the business has an official association with the event.
Schedule 4 sets out the scope of the prohibition on unauthorised association, exceptions and remedies and relief available to enforcers. Businesses will be prevented from engaging in the unauthorised use of a representation, such as marketing and selling Euro 2028-themed products in a way likely to suggest to members of the public that there is an official association. If there is a breach, an enforcer can seek remedies through the civil courts. The courts will be able to grant any relief that is available to enforce a property right, including damages or an injunction. They will also be able to make orders related to goods and documents that create an unauthorised association.
To protect the use of existing intellectual property rights, there are exceptions for the use of a registered trademark or design, or any other intellectual property right, provided that that right existed before the unauthorised association provisions come into force. That means that anyone who has an existing intellectual property right will be unaffected by these provisions.
As I have touched on already, there are also exceptions for continued business activity and providing certain types of factual information when providing goods or services. That would enable a hospitality venue to announce that it was screening an event, for example. There are a number of other exceptions, including reporting on and sharing information about a sporting event. Where there is a breach, a court will have a number of options to make it right. For example, following an application, a court may order that goods are surrendered to an enforcer or that infringing branding is removed. As a last resort, a court could order that goods or documents be destroyed.
Amendments 66 to 70, tabled in my name, are technical amendments that clarify when enforcement action can be taken against the use of a trademark or design that someone has submitted for registration. They make it clear that enforcement action can be taken only if the application is subsequently refused, withdrawn or abandoned. For itinerant events, the application must have been submitted before the unauthorised association provisions come into force. Amendment 71 provides clarity and assurance for event organisers, businesses and regulatory authorities about the registration and revocation of trademarks and designs. It ensures that the unauthorised association prohibition does not prevent a person from registering a trademark or design, or provide grounds for declaring a registered trademark or design to be invalid.
I now turn to amendments 34 to 37 and 72 to 79, tabled in my name. With the inclusion of recurrent events, we have carefully considered additional proportionate safeguards for businesses in respect of these events, given they may take place year in, year out. First, the amendments establish clear time limits within which provisions can be applied to domestic events: no more than 28 days before a domestic event begins and no more than seven days after it ends. That is the period in which events are most likely to be commercially exploited. Secondly, the amendments introduce blanket protections for the use of intellectual property rights. For example, that means that a business using a registered trademark or design before or after the unauthorised association provisions are applied to a recurrent event will not be captured.
Finally, the amendments set out how activity carried out by a business before the unauthorised association provisions begin to apply—and continued in the same way after—will not be affected. That would ensure, for example, that Wimbledon farmers’ market can continue to operate unaffected. These provisions will ensure that recurrent event organisers can take action against what matters: big businesses carrying out marketing activity to exploit the public interest and excitement surrounding an event to which they have made no contribution. There have been recent examples of activity that, had these powers been in place and applied to recurrent events, would likely not have been permitted. It would, of course, not be appropriate to name those large, well-known companies, because at the time, those marketing stunts and campaigns were not restricted. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Welcome back, everyone. Clauses 14 to 16 and schedule 4, as the Minister outlined, incorporate issues around unauthorised association regulations. Again, I think that most of the amendments the Government have tabled are about trying to ensure that there is a proportionate approach to the regulations and how they will impact other traders and different communities. That is a principle that the Opposition will not necessarily oppose.
The Minister may be aware, however, that representations were made last night by the Sport and Recreation Alliance raising concerns about amendment 76 in particular and what it sees as an unlevel playing field between domestic events and international events. The domestic events that we are talking about today clearly make a significant economic contribution, and there are significant concerns around unauthorised association with their brands and trademarks. The request—and I think it is a fair one—from the sports bodies, as part of the briefing paper, is for the Government to publish guidance alongside the Bill. Will the Minister consider publishing such additional guidance to reassure the sports bodies that they can mitigate some of the concerns in the briefing paper?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for those points, and the constructive way in which he made them. Towards the end of my contribution, I outlined why we have taken a different approach for recurrent versus itinerant events. Recurrent events are most likely to be subject to marketing activity to exploit the public interest and excitement at particular times. I have obviously chosen not to give examples, because it would not be fair on the companies, as it was perfectly legitimate when they did the marketing stunts and campaigns. I will certainly take that request away. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman about further guidance, but we are in regular conversation with the sector, and we are always happy to have those conversations.
Amendment 34 agreed to.
Amendments made: 35, in clause 14, page 10, line 9, at beginning insert “specify”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 79.
Amendment 36, in clause 14, page 10, line 11, at beginning insert
“in the case of a non-domestic sporting event, specify”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 79.
Amendment 37, in clause 14, page 10, line 13, at end insert—
“(2A) In the case of a domestic sporting event, the period specified in accordance with subsection (2)(a) must—
(a) begin no earlier than 28 days before the day on which the sporting event begins, and
(b) end no later than 7 days after the day on which the sporting event ends.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would place restrictions on the period during which the unauthorised association provisions may apply to a domestic sporting event.
Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Exceptions to the prohibition on unauthorised association
Amendment made: 38, in clause 16, page 11, line 14, at end insert
“(including, for example, activities carried out by a small or micro business)”.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would clarify that regulations applying the unauthorised association prohibition to a sporting event may provide for an exception for activities carried out by a small business or micro business.
Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Unauthorised association provisions
Amendments made: 66, in schedule 4, page 38, line 39, leave out
“was made before the relevant commencement date”
and insert “is made”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 76.
Amendment 67, in schedule 4, page 39, line 5, leave out “a” and insert “the”.
This amendment makes a drafting clarification.
Amendment 68, in schedule 4, page 39, line 5, at end insert—
“(8A) In the case of a non-domestic sporting event, the application mentioned in sub-paragraph (8)(a) must have been made before the relevant commencement date.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 76.
Amendment 69, in schedule 4, page 39, line 7, leave out
“trade mark or design before the determination of”
and insert “representation unless”.
This amendment and Amendment 70 clarify that in a case where paragraph 1(9) of Schedule 4 applies, the court may not grant relief, or make an order under paragraph 4(4), in relation to a representation that involves the use of a trade mark or design, unless the application for registration of the trade mark or design is refused, withdrawn or abandoned.
Amendment 70, in schedule 4, page 39, line 8, at end insert
“is refused, withdrawn or abandoned”.
See my explanatory statement to Amendment 69.
Amendment 71, in schedule 4, page 39, line 8, at end insert—
“(9A) Nothing in this paragraph prevents, or provides grounds for declaring invalid, the registration of—
(a) a trade mark under the Trade Marks Act 1994;
(b) a design under the Registered Designs Act 1949.”
This amendment would ensure that the prohibition on unauthorised association does not prevent, or provide grounds for declaring invalid, the registration of a trade mark or design.
Amendment 72, in schedule 4, page 39, line 33, at beginning insert “Subject to sub-paragraph (1A),”.
See my explanatory statement to Amendment 76.
Amendment 73, in schedule 4, page 39, line 35, leave out
“before the relevant commencement date”.
See my explanatory statement to Amendment 76.
Amendment 74, in schedule 4, page 39, line 38, leave out
“before the relevant commencement date”.
See my explanatory statement to Amendment 76.
Amendment 75, in schedule 4, page 39, line 39, leave out from “right” to end of line 40.
See my explanatory statement to Amendment 76.
Amendment 76, in schedule 4, page 39, line 40, at end insert—
“(1A) In the case of a non-domestic sporting event—
(a) the trade mark mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) must be registered before the relevant commencement date;
(b) the design mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) must be registered before the relevant commencement date;
(c) the intellectual property right mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(c) must subsist immediately before the relevant commencement date.”
This amendment, together with Amendments 72 to 75, would mean that in the case of a domestic sporting event, the prohibition on unauthorised association is not breached by the use of a registered trade mark or design (whenever the trade mark or design is registered), or the exercise of an intellectual property right (whenever the right subsists).
Amendment 77, in schedule 4, page 40, line 1, leave out “(1)(a)” and insert “(1A)(a)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 76.
Amendment 78, in schedule 4, page 42, line 23, leave out from “to” to end of line 24 and insert
“be read in accordance with sub-paragraph (1A);”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 79.
Amendment 79, in schedule 4, page 42, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(d), references to the relevant protection date—
(a) in the case of a domestic sporting event, are to the day on which the specified period begins;
(b) in any other case, are to the date specified in the regulations as required by section 14(2)(b).”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would mean that, in the case of a domestic sporting event, the relevant protection date is the first day of the period during which the unauthorised association provisions apply to the event.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17
Transport regulations
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 17, page 11, line 27, at end insert—
“17A Rural event impact assessments
(1) Before making regulations under section 2(2) which apply the transport provisions to a sporting event, the Secretary of State must ensure that a rural event impact assessment has been carried out where the event is to take place wholly or partly in a rural area.
(2) For the purposes of this section, an event is to be treated as taking place in a rural area where the Secretary of State considers that—
(a) the event takes place in an area in which there are limited alternative routes for road users;
(b) the closure, restriction or diversion of roads in connection with the event is likely to result in materially longer journeys for persons living, working or carrying on a business in the area; or
(c) such other criteria as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State are met.
(3) A rural event impact assessment must assess the likely effect of the sporting event, including any proposed traffic restrictions, road closures or diversions, on—
(a) the availability of alternative routes;
(b) the length and accessibility of alternative routes;
(c) access for carers;
(d) persons who require access to employment and who may suffer financial loss as a result of being unable to arrive at their place of employment;
(e) local businesses, including small and micro-businesses;
(f) residents and persons who ordinarily travel through or within the affected area; and
(g) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) The assessment must identify and consider measures for mitigating any adverse effects identified under subsection (3), including measures designed to—
(a) maintain reasonable access for residents and businesses,
(b) prioritise access for carers and persons providing essential care,
(c) minimise disruption to persons travelling to or from employment,
(d) minimise disruption to small and micro-businesses,
(e) take account of the absence or limited availability of alternative routes in rural areas, or
(f) provide reasonable access for emergency and essential services.
(5) The Secretary of State must not make regulations under section 2(2) applying the transport provisions to a sporting event to which this section applies unless the rural event impact assessment has been considered and determined to be acceptable by an independent person or body appointed or designated by the Secretary of State.
(6) The person or body appointed or designated under subsection (5) must be independent of the sporting event organiser.
(7) Before an assessment is determined to be acceptable under subsection (5), the independent person or body must have regard to representations from—
(a) each local authority whose area is likely to be materially affected by the event,
(b) any mayor of a combined authority or other directly elected mayor whose area is likely to be materially affected by the event, where the Secretary of State considers that consultation with that mayor is appropriate, and
(c) such other persons or bodies as may be specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe criteria for determining—
(a) which local authorities and mayors are to be consulted for the purposes of subsection (7),
(b) the matters to be considered by an independent person or body in determining whether an assessment is acceptable,
(c) the form and content of a rural event impact assessment, and
(d) the measures which may be regarded as appropriate mitigation measures for the purposes of subsection (4).
(9) Where a local authority or other relevant public authority has already put in place measures which address the matters required to be considered under this section, the rural event impact assessment may take those measures into account and need not require equivalent measures to be put in place again, provided that the independent person or body is satisfied that those measures are adequate having regard to the likely impact of the event.
(10) Where a sporting event is recurring, the Secretary of State may by regulations provide for a rural event impact assessment to cover more than one occurrence of the event, provided that the assessment is reviewed where there is a material change in—
(a) the scale or nature of the event,
(b) the proposed traffic restrictions, road closures or diversions,
(c) the affected road network, or
(d) the circumstances of the affected communities.
(11) Regulations under this section—
(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and
(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require a rural event impact assessment before transport regulations apply to sporting events in rural areas likely to cause significant disruption due to limited alternative routes. The assessment would consider impacts on residents, carers, workers, small businesses and essential services, with mitigation measures approved by an independent person or body.
It is wonderful to have an opportunity to say something other than “abstain”. Amendment 20 would require a rural event impact assessment before transport restrictions are put in place for a major sporting event. While this might seem niche, it is a direct result of something that recently happened in Dorset.
Road closures for sporting events can cause disruption anywhere, but in rural areas the consequence can be very serious. There is often no alternative route, and a diversion that may add 20 minutes in a city can add hours in the countryside. I have received several examples from constituents who struggled with road closures during a recent sporting event in Dorset. In one case, carers were repeatedly given conflicting instructions about how to reach a vulnerable resident. Despite assurances that they would be allowed through, they were stopped and diverted several times. As a result, my constituent’s father was left in bed in his own faeces for several hours.
This amendment would simply require organisers and the Government to consider those impacts before transport restrictions are imposed. It would look at access for carers and emergency services, and the effect on local businesses and workers, ensure that arrangements for access to affected areas are effective, and allow essential carers and emergency services to reach those they support, whether realistic alternatives exist or not. It should also require independent scrutiny and consultation with affected local authorities.
This is not about preventing events from happening—far from it. Major sporting events bring real benefits to rural areas. It is about ensuring that proper planning prevents unnecessary disruption. I hope that the Government will support the amendment.
Mr French
I am grateful to the hon. Member for tabling amendment 20, which raises an important point about the impact that major sporting events can have on our rural communities. I am very sorry to hear about his constituent’s issues.
Major sporting events can bring significant benefits to local economies, supporting businesses, creating jobs and attracting visitors to areas that might not otherwise receive that level of attention. However, we must also recognise that in rural areas, the transport arrangements needed to accommodate an event can have a disproportionate impact on those who live and work nearby. Where there are few alternative routes, road closures and traffic restrictions can make it difficult for residents to go about their daily lives; for carers, as we have heard, to reach those who depend on them; and for local businesses and essential services to operate normally. It is right that those impacts are properly considered when transport regulations are being developed in consultation with local people.
Organisers and the relevant authorities should seek to minimise disruption whenever possible, while recognising that some restrictions may be necessary to ensure the safe and successful delivery of a major event. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to ensure that the genuine concerns of rural communities are taken into account when these arrangements are made. Does she believe that existing processes are sufficient to achieve this, or that the Bill already provides sufficient safeguards in this respect? Ultimately, we all want to see major sporting events succeed, but that success should not come at the unnecessary expense or suffering of the communities that host them.
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Whenever we plan major sporting events, we want to do it with consultation and in collaboration. We would have that ongoing conversation. I will come on to outline the reserve backstop power if that simply cannot happen. He provided a hypothetical, which is hard to comment on—I can speak to him in slower time outside Committee—but we have a backstop power if we cannot get agreement.
Schedule 5 contains a reserve backstop power for the Secretary of State. That exists for a straightforward reason: if essential temporary traffic measures are needed for an event, and a local traffic authority has been asked to act but has failed to do so within the period set out in the schedule, there must be a way to ensure that the measures will still be put in place. The backstop is not the normal way of working; it is a fall-back to protect delivery where necessary. Taken together, schedule 5 provides the framework, and the clause helps that framework work properly across local boundaries. They are practical and proportionate provisions, with consultation, consent and clear limits built in.
Mr French
I echo the comments of the Minister, who outlined why the clause and schedule 5 need to work together. As we have heard, it is important that neighbouring authorities seek to work together to ensure that sport and transport regulators and major sporting events are joined up.
We have all seen, in various host cities, the new phenomenon of athlete lanes to ensure that participants and spectators can get between venues. That is vital. In 2012, I remember one lane of the Blackwall tunnel was shut. That was quite controversial in the build-up to the games, but in my memory at least, it worked fairly well to allow London 2012 to go ahead in great fashion for the country, as we all know.
My only real question for the Minister on this clause is to do with her comments about ensuring that local authorities have their say and are consulted. Does she have any thoughts about how a local authority would then consult local residents? That picks up on the earlier amendment 20 about ensuring that local residents can have their say. We all recognise that if someone lives next to a major sporting stadium, they will get disrupted once or twice a year, or more if there are more fixtures, as with a football club. For the likes of Wimbledon, people have a fortnight of pain. How would that work in terms of consulting residents who are perhaps not used to the more regular disruption during a major championship?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s comments. It is for local authorities to consider how they speak to their local residents. For example, in my area of Barnsley, sadly, we are not hosting any Euro 2028 matches, but I know that my local council has area forums, which divide into much smaller areas than just the borough of Barnsley. They provide a mechanism for residents to meet councillors directly. That is broader consultation.
At the very beginning of this morning’s sitting, I listed the host cities for Euro 2028. They will all consider not just the benefits, but how they work with local residents to ensure not only that they can take part fully, but that as much of the disruption as possible is mitigated. I hope and expect that local authorities will talk to residents in a meaningful way.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 18
Enforcement of offences
Stephanie Peacock
This group deals with the supplementary and general clauses, which broadly relate to the enforcement of offences under the Bill, as well as two minor and technical Government amendments, which I will turn to first.
Amendment 41 has been introduced at the request of the Welsh Government, following our close engagement as the Bill has developed. It ensures that if the Senedd wishes in future to change how the powers operate in Wales, it can do so through its own legislation where the matter is devolved. The amendment simply makes the Bill work properly within the Welsh devolution settlement, and it aligns with several recent Acts that confer concurrent powers.
Amendment 44 is a technical amendment to clause 24 that addresses an omission in the Bill by including district councils in the definition of “local authority” in England. The Bill gives all relevant local authorities a voice in shaping the regulations that provide exceptions to the advertising and trading offences. The amendment will require the Secretary of State to consult any relevant district councils in England before exception regulations are made. That is important, as those authorities play a role in licensing street traders, providing consent for advertising and engaging with local businesses.
Clause 19 provides for the liability of internet service providers in relation to the ticketing, advertising and trading offences and the prohibition on unauthorised association. In line with the UK Government’s existing approach to intermediary liability, it ensures that an internet service provider will not incur liability by storing or hosting user-generated information if, when the information was provided, the provider did not know that it constituted an infringement and, upon finding out, promptly removed it or disabled access to it.
Clause 20 provides that where a ticketing, advertising or trading offence under the Bill is committed by a body corporate with the consent of an officer of that body, or is attributable to neglect on their part, both the individual and the company will be liable to have proceedings brought against them.
Mr French
On internet service providers and what the Minister has just said, how does she envisage this working for social media companies? Say that, in the middle of Euro 2028, a load of illegal black-market sites suddenly appeared. How would the Government look to enforce the legislation?
Stephanie Peacock
That is a very good point. If I may write to the hon. Gentleman, I would be very happy to do so.
Clause 20 has also been drafted to capture Scottish partners and partnerships. It also clarifies that where a ticketing offence is committed by a body corporate or Scottish partnership outside the part of the UK where the offence applies, an officer or partner can be found guilty only if they are a UK national or habitually resident in the UK.
Clause 21 enables the Secretary of State or a devolved Government to increase the maximum level of fixed penalty for the advertising and trading offences up to £1,000. A devolved Government can increase the maximum level in their jurisdiction only, and the Secretary of State may increase the level UK-wide with consent. The Secretary of State will also be able to increase the maximum fixed penalty above £1,000, and the maximum financial penalty for the ticketing offence, to reflect changes in the value of money over time, such as inflation. Regulations under the clause are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Clause 22 requires regulations that apply the advertising and trading provisions to make guidance or other information available on the way in which those provisions will be applied to a specific event. That will ensure that those who could be affected understand the impact of the provisions and the potential options available to them. We expect the guidance to be made available no less than six months before an event, with local authorities and other delivery partners playing an important role in ensuring that it reaches those who are most likely to be affected.
Clause 22 also provides that regulations that apply the ticketing, unauthorised association and transport provisions may make provision for guidance or other information about their application. Regulations under the clause may specify who is responsible for providing that guidance or information, such as an event organiser or a local authority, and any matters that should be included, such as mitigations available at a local level. Regulations may also require the guidance or other information to be shared with persons of a specified description, such as street traders or advertisers with an existing licence in an affected area.
Clause 23 makes consequential amendments to schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act and part 1 of schedule 15 to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. That is to enable enforcement authorities under clause 18 to use the investigatory and enforcement powers in schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act to enforce the ticketing, advertising and trading offences. The clause also amends the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act to enable the Competition and Markets Authority, local weights and measures authorities in Great Britain and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland to use the enforcement powers in part 3 of that Act for ticketing offences, as infringements that harm the collective interests of UK consumers.
Clause 24 is an interpretation clause: it simply serves to define terms used in this part of the Bill. None of the definitions presented in this clause are unusual or controversial. They include terms such as “local authority”, “advertising” and “trading licences”, and are included simply to provide clarity and precision.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 20 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Consequential amendments
Amendment made: 41, in clause 23, page 15, line 36, at end insert—
“(A1) In Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (general restrictions on legislative competence of Senedd Cymru)—
(a) in paragraph 9(8)(b) (exceptions to restrictions relating to reserved authorities), insert at the appropriate place—
‘the Sporting Events Act 2026;’;
(b) in paragraph 11(6)(b) (exceptions to restrictions relating to Ministers of the Crown), insert at the appropriate place—
‘the Sporting Events Act 2026;’.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would provide for the restrictions on the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru under paragraphs 8(1)(c) and 11(1)(a) of Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 to be disapplied in relation to the concurrent powers conferred by the Sporting Events Act 2026.
Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Interpretation
Amendments made: 42, in clause 24, page 17, line 20, at end insert—
“‘domestic sporting event’ has the meaning given in section 2(7);”.
This amendment provides for a definition of “domestic sporting event”.
Amendment 43, in clause 24, page 17, line 23, at end insert—
“‘the event organiser’, in relation to a sporting event, means the person responsible for organising the event;”.
This amendment provides for a definition of “the event organiser”.
Amendment 44, in clause 24, page 17, line 29, at end insert—
“(ia) a district council;”.
This amendment would alter the definition of local authority, in relation to England, so that it covers district councils.
Amendment 45, in clause 24, page 17, line 42, at end insert—
“‘micro business’ means a business with fewer than 10 staff;”.
This amendment provides for a definition of “micro business”.
Amendment 46, in clause 24, page 17, line 44, at end insert—
“‘non-domestic sporting event’ means a sporting event which is not a domestic sporting event;”.
This amendment provides for a definition of non-domestic sporting event.
Amendment 47, in clause 24, page 18, line 10, at end insert—
“‘public authority’ means a person who exercises functions of a public nature;”.
This amendment provides for a definition of public authority.
Amendment 48, in clause 24, page 18, line 10, at end insert—
“‘small business’ means a business with at least 10 but fewer than 50 staff;”.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This provides for a definition of “small business”.
Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Power to give financial assistance
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 5, in clause 25, page 19, line 36, at end insert—
“(4A) The power under subsection (1) may only be exercised if the appropriate national legislature has approved the financial assistance by resolution.”
Amendment 6, in clause 25, page 19, line 41, at end insert—
“‘the appropriate national legislature’ means—
(a) in relation to England, the House of Commons;
(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Parliament;
(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Northern Irish Assembly.”
Clause stand part.
Mr French
Clause 25 will give the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland Departments the power to provide financial assistance for sporting events and connected purposes, such as legacy programmes and social initiatives, in their respective territories. Potential recipients will include public bodies, national governing bodies and organisations established to deliver sporting events. Assistance may take different forms such as grants, loans, guarantees or indemnities, and will be provided subject to conditions and contracts.
Amendments 4 to 6 would prevent the financial assistance provisions in clause 25 from becoming a blank cheque for successive Governments to fill out as they see fit. It is a well-established principle that financial measures must be subject to approval by Parliament. Paragraph 33.2 of “Erskine May” says 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, first to authorise the relevant expenditure”.
Hon. Members who know their history understand that the role of Parliament developed gradually. Our ancient predecessors in the Saxon Parliament were involved in financial matters such as the setting of Danegeld, and after a rebellion by the barons, Magna Carta was sealed by King John at the beginning of the 13th century. Clauses 12 and 14 of Magna Carta limited the King’s ability to levy certain forms of taxation without first summoning a council, or Parliament, to establish common consent.
I will stop the history lesson there, because it will get the deputy leader of the Conservative party quite excited at the thought that I am trying to steal his crown, and I will not detain the Committee with a further elaborate history of Parliament—there are much more eloquent and qualified people to do that. The point I am making, which the Government must remember, is that they must come to us in this place with their proposals for the expenditure; it is then up to us, as representatives of those who will be most affected by taxation, to give our collective consent.
The provisions of this Bill deliberately circumvent not only that established precedent, but the legitimacy and primacy of this place. We do not know exactly which events the Bill will be applied to in future or how much financial assistance the Government of the day may wish to grant those events. Clause 25 is an open-ended financial commitment that potentially spans many decades into the future. It is not unreasonable to imagine a Prime Minister who comes in without standing in a general election, who has no fiscal discipline and who leaves a multibillion-pound black hole that needs filling. Whether that be the current Prime Minister or previous Prime Ministers, we want to make sure that we have future-proofed the Bill for all eventualities and all Governments.
Unsurprisingly, the Bill is not accompanied by a detailed assessment of how much the Government propose to spend as a result of clause 25. The nature of an open-ended framework Bill such as this one means that that is unknowable. If the Government cannot tell us how much the Bill will cost in the long term—though we know the estimated cost of the Euros in 2028—it is reasonable and necessary to make sure that legislative consent is required for each instance of financial assistance granted under it. That will help us ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of each measure and, we hope, guarantee that fiscal probity is baked into the legislation. All my amendment seeks is to apply a sound and long-standing constitutional principle that the appropriation of public money should be agreed by the House of Commons, which is elected by our constituents. I hope that the Minister and the Committee agree. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
I will speak to clause 25 and then respond to the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
Clause 25 introduces a bespoke funding power for sporting events held in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. It provides a legal mechanism to ensure that support for sporting events has a clear statutory underpinning through a single dedicated power to fund an event and its associated activities. It will remove the current piecemeal reliance on powers from multiple other Acts such as the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937 or section 50 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. It will provide greater clarity and transparency on the legal basis for providing financial assistance, and will ensure that we can support the efficient and successful delivery of sporting events and their associated activities, an objective that has broad cross-party support.
In practice, the Secretary of State will have a single, dedicated power for future funding of sporting events in England, while Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland Departments will be able to do the same for Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. The Welsh Government have confirmed that they do not require an equivalent power. Crucially, we know what it costs to deliver a sporting event from the ground up, and recognise that the magic of such events often goes far beyond the playing field. That is why the clause will enable us to fund not only the operational delivery of sporting events themselves but associated activities, whether they are feasibility assessments, cultural Olympiads or legacy programmes to maximise benefits for local communities. Where appropriate, the clause also enables us to attach conditions to funding, whether by requiring repayment with interest or post-event impact assessments.
The Government fully agree that, when it comes to public money, transparency and accountability are non-negotiable, but amendments 4 to 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, are unnecessary. Clause 25 is not intended to create a blank cheque. I appreciate his enthusiastic defence of his amendments and the history that he drew upon, but the clause is a legal mechanism to ensure that support for sporting events has a clear statutory underpinning. Robust mechanisms are already in place. The supply and appropriation legislation enables Parliament to debate and approve spending plans, including allocations for major sporting events. That is in addition to scrutiny by parliamentary Committees, including the Public Accounts Committee and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Any such spending is also subject to the usual accounting officer responsibilities. In the case of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport spending, the Department’s permanent secretary is accountable to Parliament and must ensure that spending accords with the “managing public money” principles of regularity, propriety, value for money and feasibility.
Over the past decade, the United Kingdom has secured and delivered almost 150 major sporting events, many with the support of Government investment. Requiring such scrutiny, especially without thresholds, could place a disproportionate burden on parliamentary resources and risk delaying the provision of urgent financial assistance where needed. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to withdraw the amendment.
Mr French
Dr Allin-Khan, I am sure you will be delighted to know that I will not come in with another chapter of Saxon or parliamentary history. However, the Opposition remain concerned about oversight and the role of Parliament in dictating and determining how much money is spent on sporting events. That is not to say we are not in favour of such events; we just believe that Parliament has a role to play in scrutinising any future funding commitments. I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Morello
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 14
Fees
“(1) Where regulations under section 2(1) apply the advertising provisions or the trading provisions to a domestic sporting event, a relevant authority may require the event organiser to pay fees to the authority in connection with some or all of the relevant costs incurred by the authority in relation to the event.
(2) In imposing such a requirement, a relevant authority must have regard to the need to secure that the total amount of fees paid does not exceed the relevant costs incurred by the authority in relation to the event.
(3) ‘Relevant authority’ means—
(a) a local authority;
(b) an enforcement authority.
(4) ‘Relevant costs’ means—
(a) where the relevant authority is an enforcement authority, the costs incurred by the authority in connection with enforcing the advertising offence or the trading offence;
(b) where the relevant authority is a local authority, the costs incurred by the authority in exercising its functions in relation to the advertising offence or the trading offence.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would insert a new clause after clause 21 (maximum penalty amounts etc) which would enable a certain bodies to charge fees in connection with certain costs which are incurred by those bodies in relation to the advertising offence or the trading offence.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4
Advertising offence: exceptions for newspapers and periodicals
“(1) The advertising offence does not apply to an advertising activity carried out in a restricted advertising zone if that activity consists of selling, distributing or providing a current newspaper or periodical.
(2) The exception in subsection (1) does not apply to the selling, distribution or provision of a current newspaper or periodical—
(a) in the street if the selling, distribution or provision is done in a manner that causes undue interference or inconvenience to persons using the street;
(b) if the version of the newspaper or periodical sold, distributed or provided has been created for the purpose of sale, distribution or provision only to, or principally to, members of the public who are in, or in the vicinity of, a restricted advertising zone; or
(c) which is accompanied by any item if the whole or principal purpose of including that item is to promote a product, service or business specifically to members of the public who are in, or in the vicinity of, a restricted advertising zone.”—(Mr French.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr French
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 4 would ensure that Parliament has a proper say over the scope of restrictions being imposed, rather than leaving too much discretion in the hands of Government. It would provide a specific exemption to the advertising offence for the sale, distribution and provision of current newspapers and periodicals within restricted advertising zones, subject to sensible safeguards against abuse.
This measure is not without precedent. It draws on the Birmingham Commonwealth Games (Advertising and Trading) Regulations 2021, which included exemptions of this kind. We have now also seen the Scottish Parliament take a similar approach in the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2026, which incorporates exemptions into primary legislation instead of relying on secondary legislation and regulations. As the Opposition have argued in this place and the other place throughout its passage, this framework Bill often contains insufficient detail about the circumstances in which exemptions from the advertising offence should apply.
As I am sure the Committee would agree, newspapers and periodicals have a significant role, and their ordinary sale and distribution should not inadvertently fall foul of restrictions that are designed to prevent unauthorised commercial advertising around major sporting events. The safeguards in new clause 4 are also important. It would not create a blanket exemption for publications specifically produced to target spectators in restricted advertising zones, nor would it permit promotional inserts designed principally to advertise products or businesses to those attending the event. The new clause seeks therefore to strike a sensible balance between protecting legitimate newspaper distribution and preserving the effectiveness of advertising restrictions.
Ultimately, if Parliament is to approve a framework that could be applied to a wide range of major sporting events, it should also have a meaningful role in defining the exemptions to the offences that the framework creates. No Government should be given such broad powers to determine that through secondary legislation later. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response, and I hope that the Minister will explain why the exemptions should not be set out clearly in the Bill itself.
Stephanie Peacock
The shadow Minister raises an important point about the proportionality of advertising measures when it comes to the sale of newspapers and periodicals in a restricted zone. I reassure him that the Bill already provides a broad power to narrow the scope of the advertising offence through regulations.
In keeping with precedent, our intention is to bring forward an exemption in regulations for newspapers, magazines and periodicals, as was the case for London 2012 and the Birmingham Commonwealth games. We believe that regulations are the best place for that, as we must make sure that the Bill works in tandem with existing laws across the UK. That approach ensures that all exemptions are relevant, proportionate and applied in a way that reflects specific event requirements, local circumstances and consultation with affected stakeholders.
On that basis, and as we are aligned in all but the mechanics by which the outcome is secured, I hope that the shadow Minister will withdraw the motion. As we discussed in our conversation last week, it is a balance between having too much in the Bill and it being a framework Bill allowing powers to be switched on and off depending on the event. It is about being event-ready when we are bidding for events, but not being too prescriptive. I totally hear the shadow Minister’s points—we intend to do just that through regulations.
Mr French
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 7
Review of Government’s economic policies on the hosting of major sporting events
“Within the period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament, a report assessing the impact of His Majesty’s Government’s economic policies on the ability of the United Kingdom to attract and host major sporting events.”—(Mr French.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr French
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 7 would require a review of the Government’s economic policies on the hosting of major sporting events within six months of the passage of the Bill. As the Committee should be well aware, hosting major sporting events is not simply a question of having world-class venues, passionate supporters and a strong sporting heritage; it is also about whether the country remains an attractive and competitive place to do business.
Under this Labour Government, businesses are facing higher employment costs, including an increase in employer national insurance contributions and the national living wage. Many venues, hospitality businesses and other organisations involved in delivering major sporting events are also contending with higher business rates, energy bills and wider operating costs.
As the Minister will know, major sporting events require significant investment—often years in advance and from successive Governments. Organisers need confidence that the costs of employing staff, operating venues and delivering events will remain manageable. If the United Kingdom continues to become a more expensive place to host these events—as it has done over the past two years under this Government—international organisers may, given the competitive landscape, simply take their business elsewhere.
The Government should not underestimate what is at stake. Major sporting events bring visitors to our towns and cities, support jobs across hospitality and tourism, generate income for local businesses and showcase Britain to the world. Like the Olympics, they can also inspire the next generation to participate in sport, leaving a lasting legacy well beyond the final whistle. The Government cannot reasonably claim to want the economic benefits of hosting these events while ignoring the impact that their own decisions and tax policies may have on our ability to secure them.
The new clause would not prescribe a particular economic policy or prevent the Government from pursuing their wider objective. It would simply require the Government to assess the consequences of their decisions and consider whether they were making Britain more or less competitive as a destination for major sporting events. That should be a matter of basic probity. We should be looking at the cumulative impact of taxation, employment costs, business rates and other economic pressures, rather than considering each in isolation. To do that would be naive and self-defeating, and would undermine the entire purpose of the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will recognise the merit of the new clause. If we want Britain to remain a leading destination for major sporting events, we need to understand the barriers that the Government may be creating and take those findings seriously.
Stephanie Peacock
New clause 7 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of the Government’s economic policies on the United Kingdom’s ability to attract and host major sporting events. The UK is a trusted, innovative and highly experienced host nation, offering a stable and trusted environment, strong delivery partners, leading experts, world-class facilities and an economy that is showing strong international resilience in the face of global challenges—that matters. It is one reason why the UK continues to be such an attractive place to host major events. We have a world-leading reputation not just for excellence in event delivery, with a proven track record of staging complex events to the highest standard, but for our economic stability. The Chancellor’s approach to the public finances—delivering good growth in every postcode, underpinned by stable public finances and fiscal discipline—has been endorsed by the International Monetary Fund and is already yielding results.
Our future pipeline of sporting events is clear evidence of that global reputation. Despite growing international competition, we have continued to secure major events: the grand départ of the Tour de France and the Tour de France Femmes in 2027 and UEFA Euro 2028. We have submitted competitive bids for the World Para Athletics in 2029 and of course the 2035 FIFA women’s world cup, and the feedback from event owners continues to highlight their strong desire to host here.
I have heard at first hand about the challenges facing the sector—especially rising costs and high consumer expectations—and I am committed to tackling them. I reassure the Committee that the Government are working closely with the sector, not just in sport but across the major events industry, to understand how best we can support their growth, respond to shared challenges and encourage greater collaboration across sectors. We know that the UK’s competitive advantage does not rest solely on the levels of funding that it provides or the wider economic landscape, but on the strength of our overall offer.
I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup will withdraw his new clause.
Mr French
I appreciate the Minister’s comments. This is probably one of the few occasions we have not agreed today. The broader landscape for businesses that would need to be involved and to host events is extremely challenging—I am sure that her inbox is similar to mine in that regard. The introduction of the hospitality tax, the tourism tax and the like are significant pressures on businesses that would normally be in a position to benefit from hosting such tournaments.
That does not diminish our brand. As the Minister rightly highlights, we have a successful track record of delivering major events—I am not seeking to talk down the country in that regard—but the Opposition have serious concerns about the economic impact of this Government’s policy on the ability to host events in the future. We will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr French
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 8 would require the Government to publish their major sporting events strategy within three months of the passing of the Act. The new clause seeks to answer a fundamental question about why we are here: where does this begin? The Minister will know that her Department promised this House and the sectors it represents a major events strategy. That strategy has yet to appear.
How can the Government and this Department establish a cohesive, multi-sector major events strategy if one of those sectors already has a plan in place? I appreciate that this is being rushed through because of Euro 2028, but the sporting sector will now have an advantage over other sectors. Those other sectors will have to circumnavigate the plans already in place for sport. We want all the sectors that DCMS covers to be able to benefit from a major events strategy, but by proceeding in the way they have, the Government are going to make that all the more difficult in agreeing on one, holistic strategy with competing interests.
The Government have made their decision, however, and I understand that instead of having a major events strategy or Bill for all the sectors they seek to represent, the Government have taken the legislative slot available to them and have proceeded with this Bill now. They are not necessarily wrong to do so, but they could have done so in a more strategic way. Regardless, we are here now, and my new clause is designed to ensure that the Government, who have delayed countless announcements and strategies over the past two years, cannot do so again on this sporting strategy.
The Minister in the House of Lords promised that it was
“the Government’s intention for the major events strategy to be published by the spring.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2026; Vol. 858, c. 652.]
Unfortunately, intentions are not good enough for some of the only remaining growth industries after this Government’s hammering of businesses. To ensure that there is no more dither or delay to this long-promised strategy, the new clause would ensure that the Government must bring it forward in accordance with their own timeline. I hope the Minister agrees that it will simply enable her and other Ministers to ensure that the strategy is prioritised within her Department and that it will be published without unnecessary delay.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for tabling the new clause and for recognising the importance of the upcoming UK national events strategy. We have committed to publishing the strategy by spring 2027, as he outlined. As a Government, we are committed to supporting the whole events ecosystem, from community events to major events, spanning culture, sport, live music, ceremonial and business events. The strategy will recognise the importance of events in driving economic growth, telling our national story and projecting the best of the UK across the world. Events connect communities, bring people together and create a unique sense of pride in place. The strategy must be created in partnership with our world-leading events industry, the devolved Administrations and local government to consider how we can work collaboratively to capitalise on these opportunities. I am happy to brief the hon. Member in more detail if he would like to arrange a time for us to discuss it.
I welcome the important work of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee to shine a light on issues impacting the major events sector. From its evidence, I heard at first hand the importance of a more joined-up approach across Government and working collaboratively with industry on the implementation of different regulations and laws. The evidence that the Committee heard, however, did not include a universal call for more legislative powers to support the safe and successful delivery of events.
Over the summer, I convened two roundtables with the events industry and ministerial colleagues from the Home Office, the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which reflects the commitment of the Government to working collaboratively with the events sector. My officials convened more than 60 stakeholders from across industry in Sheffield last month to seek further feedback on their priorities for the strategy. It is vital that we do this collaboratively and in partnership with industry and national and local government partners.
I hope that the hon. Member will recognise that the timing of this Bill is driven by the need to respond to time-critical legal and commercial guarantees required to host major sporting events such as Euro 2028. It would not be right to limit the level of engagement with industry to tie the timing of the strategy to the Bill. We look to the business managers in the Commons as to when the Bill will proceed to Report, but it is eminently possible that we will have Royal Assent by the end of this year or early next year. I know that the hon. Member’s new clause seeks the publication of a major sporting events strategy within three months of Royal Assent. Given that I have committed to spring 2027, I hope that we will be aligned on that. I therefore respectfully ask that he withdraw the new clause.
Mr French
I have heard the Minister and I take her at her word. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Strategy for bidding for the FIFA World Cup
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, publish a feasibility study and bidding plan for the United Kingdom to bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2042.
(2) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed and each subsequent year until the 2042 FIFA World Cup is allocated, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before Parliament to update on the progress of the bidding plan.”—(Anna Sabine.)
This new clause creates a duty on the Government to prepare a UK bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2042.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Anna Sabine
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We all know what happened the last time England hosted the world cup. Not only does hosting the world cup appear to result in English victory, but it boosts the economy, brings fans together and inspires people around the country. We see the framework in the Bill as an opportunity to give fans what they want: the world cup hosted right here in the UK in 2042. To make that a reality, we need a proactive strategy, and that is what the new clause would provide: a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a feasibility study and a bidding plan.
Anna Sabine
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Some 30% of children aged 11 to 17 spend their own money on gambling, and up to 2.7% of adults could be considered problem gamblers. Behind those figures are real people whose mental health, finances, family life and relationships are being harmed. The Liberal Democrats have long been calling for reforms to protect people from gambling harms, and we believe that the events covered by the Bill should be free of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship. This new clause is the right thing to do, as it will help prevent the harms that gambling is causing by keeping adverts out of major events hosted in the UK.
Mr French
I will declare an additional interest, given the nature of the new clause: I am also the shadow gambling Minister, and in that capacity I attend a number of events with the racing community throughout the year.
The new clause seeks to prevent gambling, advertising, marketing and sponsorship at sports events covered by the Bill. I understand the intention behind it, but we believe that it is short-sighted and would strip sports of vital sponsorship funding. When I think about how the Bill might work in future, I think of the likes of the grand national, which could qualify. Preventing regulated gambling advertising would have a huge impact on the sport of racing, and particularly on the grand national.
We have previously had a Westminster Hall debate about gambling advertising, and there are of course legitimate concerns about the exposure of children and young people to it. Responsible gambling must remain a priority, but I do not believe that a blanket prohibition on gambling sponsorship at major sporting events is the right approach, especially given that the rise of illegal black market sponsorship throughout social media poses a greater threat to all consumers, and particularly to younger people.
As we have heard, sponsorship plays an important role in funding sport at every level. Commercial partnerships provide revenues for clubs, competitions and governing bodies, helping to support the events that millions of people enjoy and the wider sporting structures on which grassroots participation depends.
Gambling companies are among the commercial partners that contribute to that funding. Removing their ability to advertise or sponsor designated events would have serious financial consequences not only for major competitions, but potentially for the wider sporting economy and broadcasters as organisers seek to replace that income from other sources. In recent weeks, Betfred has withdrawn its long-term sponsorship of rugby league, leaving serious questions about where that funding will come from in future, especially for the women’s game.
Edward Morello
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 13 would ensure that major sporting events that receive Government funding or special statutory support deliver a lasting benefit for community sport. If public money is being used to support a major sporting event, some of that benefit should reach local schools, grassroots clubs and community facilities. In West Dorset, that could mean better facilities, more opportunities for children to play a sport and more support for local clubs.
We have seen this model work through the legacy funding for women’s rugby following the women’s rugby world cup. After the Red Roses’ historic world cup win, £14.55 million was allocated to support the legacy of women’s rugby. The number of girls playing age-grade rugby has increased by 35%. That funding has also helped clubs improve their changing facilities, many of which were built when rugby was predominantly played by men and do not provide the facilities that women and girls need. Improving those facilities can make a real difference to whether people feel able to take part.
The same approach could help to support other groups who face barriers to sport, including disabled people, children in deprived areas and young people who lack access to equipment or local facilities. The new clause would make sure that major sporting events leave a lasting benefit to local communities. I hope that the Government will support it.
Mr French
I am sympathetic to the intentions behind new clause 13, and I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset for tabling it. The new clause, as we have heard, seeks to ensure that major sporting events receiving Government financial assistance or special statutory support deliver a lasting benefit for community sport itself. The hon. Gentleman outlined a number of concerns and challenges that grassroots sports clubs face, and we want to increase participation across the country.
Major sporting events should be about more than what happens over a few days or weeks of competition. They offer an opportunity to inspire the next generation, encourage people to become more active and strengthen the sporting infrastructure that communities rely on long after the final whistle. As we have heard, that is particularly important for children and young people in deprived communities and for groups with traditionally lower levels of participation. We should be asking how the excitement generated by major events can translate into more opportunities for people to take part in sport in their communities.
However, we must also recognise that hosting major sporting events is a significant undertaking. Organisers face substantial costs and complex commercial and logistical challenges, as we have already discussed today. Any requirement attached to Government support must therefore be proportionate, realistic and tailored to the nature of the event. We should avoid creating unnecessary bureaucracy or deterring organisers from bringing major competitions to this country.
Nevertheless, where public money or statutory support is provided, it is reasonable to ask what lasting benefits will be delivered in return. That could include partnerships with local clubs, opportunities for schoolchildren to participate, investment in community facilities or programmes designed to reach those who are currently least active. The important thing is that those commitments are meaningful and achievable, rather than simply box-ticking exercises.
That is why, when in government, the Conservative party invested more than £1.5 billion in grassroots, school and elite sports, from an unprecedented £400 million investment in grassroots sport to £300 million in emergency funding to support community sports clubs and grassroots organisations. But perhaps the programme that we Conservatives should be most proud of is the PE and sport premium, introduced to help inspire a generation after the London Olympics. That was worth around £600 million between 2023 and 2025 alone, and it has totalled almost £3.5 billion paid directly to schools since its introduction in 2013.
This Government, on the other hand, have, I am afraid to say, cut funding, with £57 million cut from the opening school facilities fund, £35 million cut from investment in grassroots cricket, £11 million cut from the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme and £25 million cut in real terms from grassroots sports investment compared with the previous Conservative Government.
I would welcome the Minister’s views on how the Government intend to ensure that the benefits of major sporting events extend beyond the events themselves and reach the communities that need them most, given that the Government she serves in continue to cut funding for grassroots sport.
Anna Sabine
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset for tabling new clause 13. In my constituency of Frome and East Somerset, we have loads of fantastic community sporting groups. I recently visited the Frome Flyers and the Somer Valley Strikers, two women’s walking football clubs in my constituency that represent everything that is great about local community sport.
Community groups could benefit enormously from increased funding, and that is exactly what the new clause would deliver. As my hon. Friend said, there are clear examples of major international events leaving lasting community benefits when local funding is built in, particularly for women and girls and disadvantaged groups in sport. This Bill is our chance to make sure that international events do more than bring a few weeks of business to a host area; they should leave a lasting legacy for the people who live there. The new clause simply makes sense, and I hope that the Government will support it.
Stephanie Peacock
These Government amendments and the final clauses provide the practical provisions needed to ensure the Bill is implemented effectively and operates as intended. Amendments 49 to 53 have been developed following engagement with the devolved Governments and demonstrate the Government’s commitment to ensuring that this UK-wide framework operates effectively while respecting the responsibilities of the devolved institutions. It is right that where consequential changes are needed within devolved competence, the relevant devolved Government should be able to make those changes directly.
Without these amendments, the UK Government could be required to make consequential regulations on behalf of a devolved Government, even where the use of the framework otherwise engages only devolved matters. The powers are therefore practical, proportionate and consistent with the devolution settlements. They will allow each Government to take responsibility for the operation of the framework within its own area of competence. A devolved authority may make only provision that is within its devolved competence, and the power may be used where the change is consequential on the Bill. Where regulations amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure in the relevant legislature.
Government amendment 54 is a consequential drafting change that ensures that the de-hybridising provision captures regulations made via the affirmative procedure. Government amendment 55 seeks to remove the privilege amendment inserted in the Lords. Parliamentary procedure requires such an amendment where a Bill originating in the Lords has financial implications, to recognise the Commons’ primacy in matters relating to taxation and charges on public funds.
Turning to the final provisions, clause 26 gives the Secretary of State a standard power to make consequential changes to existing legislation where necessary as a result of the Bill, with appropriate parliamentary scrutiny attached. Clause 27 sets out the general provisions that apply to the Bill’s regulation-making powers, including providing detail on the procedures that will govern regulations made under the Act. Clause 28 provides that the Bill extends across the United Kingdom, reflecting its purpose of supporting the delivery of major sporting events in all four nations. Clause 29 provides for commencement two months after Royal Assent. Finally, clause 30 gives the Act its short title: the Sporting Events Act 2026. These are sensible and necessary amendments and provisions.
Mr French
I will be very brief because I appreciate that this is the last part of the Bill. I recognise the points that the Minister made, and working together and ensuring the accountability of the devolved Administrations is vital for all major sporting events, not least the 2028 UEFA European championship. They are going to be across a number of the British Isles, which is a great thing for the whole of the United Kingdom to hopefully partake in and benefit from. Going forward, we would like to see some detail on some of the queries we have raised today. I appreciate the Minister’s offer to follow up with a meeting to talk through some of the various aspects within the Bill that we have discussed. His Majesty’s official Opposition have tried to approach the Bill in a manner that I hope is respected and understood by the Government. We have tried to improve it rather than delay or stop it for the sake of it. We think that the Bill can help deliver major sporting events for the country and the whole UK to benefit from going into the future.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful for the way in which His Majesty’s Opposition have approached the Bill and the Bill Committee. I am happy to continue the conversation with the shadow Minister if he would like. I made an offer to talk about the event strategy, but I am indeed happy to talk about the broader major events and, indeed, the roll-out of the Euros. There were some specific questions put to me about unofficial resale and how the Competition and Markets Authority will enforce that, but I am happy to write to him on some of those specific points. I thank him for the constructive way in which he has approached this.
Amendment 49 agreed to.
Amendments made: 50, in clause 26, page 20, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations made by a devolved authority under this section may contain only provision which is within devolved competence in relation to the devolved authority.”
See my explanatory statement to Amendment 49.
Amendment 51, in clause 26, page 20, line 13, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) Regulations under this section may amend, repeal or revoke provision made by—
(a) an Act passed—
(i) before this Act, or
(ii) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act, or
(b) devolved primary legislation passed or made before this Act.”
See my explanatory statement to Amendment 49.
Amendment 52, in clause 26, page 20, line 17, leave out from “section” to end of line 18 and insert
“that amend, repeal or revoke provision made by an Act or devolved primary legislation are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
See my explanatory statement to Amendment 49.
Amendment 53, in clause 26, page 20, line 20, at end insert—
“(5) Section 24(3) (meaning of ‘within devolved competence’) applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of Part 1.
(6) In this section—
‘devolved authority’ means—
(a) the Scottish Ministers,
(b) the Welsh Ministers, or
(c) a Northern Ireland department;
‘devolved primary legislation’ means—
(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(b) a Measure or Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(c) Northern Ireland legislation.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
See my explanatory statement to Amendment 49.
Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Regulations
Amendment made: 54, in clause 27, page 23, line 1, after “If” insert “a statutory instrument, or”.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment makes a consequential change to the de-hybridising provision in subsection (12).
Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 28 and 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Short title
Amendment made: 55, in clause 30, page 23, line 15, leave out subsection (2).—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would remove the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.
Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)
Louie French Excerpts(1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Copies of the written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. This shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. A Member who has put their name on the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first. For debates on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the current debate by bobbing. Please bob on each occasion on which you wish to speak during proceedings.
At the end of a debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. They will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment in a group, that is at the Chair’s discretion. I remind Members that the selection list shows how amendments and new clauses have been grouped for debate. Any Divisions on amendments and new clauses take place in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper.
Clause 1
Sporting events framework
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(f) Schedule (Delivery authority provisions) (“the delivery authority provisions”).”
Mr French
I am pleased to open the first day of the Committee on the Sporting Events Bill for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. As always, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the widespread engagement I have undertaken with stakeholders, including at events, while shadowing the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
I appreciate that some of these amendments were moved in the other place and defeated, but we remain of the view that there is a need for a mechanism to enable the creation of a delivery authority for major events such as the world cup or the Olympics, with a northern bid mooted. In a desperate bid to stay in Downing Street, the former Prime Minister, Mr Starmer, included in his final King’s Speech a commitment to introducing a sporting events Bill. Luckily for us, even stopped clocks are right twice a day. As hon. Members will know, in years gone by His Majesty’s Government have introduced event-specific legislation for major sporting events, including the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 and the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020.
We agree that this Bill is a welcome step towards a coherent framework that will enable one of the UK’s best exports to be even better. However, it was the Government’s intention that this framework should be used only for sporting events that do not regularly take place and that are likely to attract significant international interest and bring social and economic benefits to the UK. Thankfully, the Government were defeated in the other place, and we will now consider the framework as applicable to regular sporting events such as the British grand prix at Silverstone or golf’s original championship, the Open. These events already make vast contributions to the country, both economically and socially, and should be given the support framework to continue to do so.
Hon. Members will know that primary legislation created the Olympic Delivery Authority to work alongside the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, and it was responsible for the redevelopment of the Stratford area, the construction of the sporting venues, and the infrastructure and transport planning. That required, as indeed will many of these events, significant cross-sector efforts bringing together national governing and representative bodies such as the British Olympic Association or the Football Association, local government, including the host cities, and central Government Departments. There may also be a need, as there was for 2012, to build new stadiums, purchase land and improve transport links so that spectators can get there. As it stands, new primary legislation would be required if there was a need to establish such a body for an international event. That undermines the aim of the Bill, which is to have a permanent framework for major sporting events to ensure their most efficient delivery.
These amendments, new clauses and new schedule would create a mechanism for the Secretary of State to establish a delivery authority if they believe it necessary, depending on the event itself. They would not compel the Secretary of State to create a delivery authority, but they would give the Secretary of State the ability to do so without undertaking the whole process that this Bill aims to avoid.
Under new clause 1, a delivery authority would:
“(a) prepare for the sporting event,
(b) make arrangements in preparation for or in connection with the use or management before, during or after the sporting events of premises and other facilities acquired, constructed or adapted in preparation for the sporting event,
(c) ensure that adequate arrangements are made for the provision, management and control of facilities for transport in connection with the sporting event, and
(d) ensure the safety of individuals participating in or attending the sporting event.”
Moreover, our proposals would set out the constitution of any delivery authority that a Secretary of State may create. That includes a membership of between seven and 11 people, the appointment of a chair and chief executive, and the procedure for removing members. Part 2 of the new schedule would provide procedural rules for delegation by such authorities, and it would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the authority’s progress. Finally, part 3 would allow the Secretary of State to provide the authority with financial assistance, if necessary, by resolution of the House.
I hope the Minister understands why we have tabled these amendments. If she believes that, once enacted, the Bill will negate the need for any further primary legislation, surely it must try to cover the likely requirements of future events. Some of these events, particularly the largest irregular events, will require a delivery authority to support them in delivering for our country. That is why I commend these amendments to the Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank all hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for taking part.
The UK is a world leader when it comes to hosting major sporting events, and the economic and social benefits of these occasions are felt across the country. This framework Bill has a range of powers, including on ticketing, transport, advertising, trading and unauthorised association. This will help to improve our competitiveness when bidding for major sporting events, helping to bring more iconic sporting moments to the UK. The Bill will enhance our competitive advantage, showing international event owners that we understand what is needed to host global sporting moments and that we are event-ready.
The Government amendments seek to refine the Bill following its amendment in the other place to ensure that, where there is strong evidence of need, the Bill can also be applied to support our brilliant and important domestic sporting events, as we will discuss later in Committee.
The 2028 UEFA European championship will be the first major sporting event to benefit from this Bill, with games hosted across Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Birmingham, London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Dublin. The tournament is projected to bring a sixfold return on public investment. Forty per cent of tickets will be offered in the most affordable categories, and the Government-backed community programme will prioritise grassroots participation in communities across the country. The tournament shows that major sporting events do far more than entertain; they drive economic growth, foster national pride and inspire young people. The Bill will ensure these benefits are felt for generations to come.
The shadow Minister’s amendments seek to place on the face of the Bill a model for a dedicated delivery body. While the Government recognise the intent of these amendments, we do not believe they are needed. First, setting up a delivery authority with the proposed powers has typically been the exception, not the rule, when it comes to delivering major sporting events. In fact, the last time a bespoke delivery authority was set up on a statutory basis was more than 20 years ago for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. The Olympic Delivery Authority was granted powers that corresponded to specific objectives, including to support the massive undertaking of building new venues, ensuring public transport readiness and overseeing land procurement.
Conversely, a special-purpose incorporated company was established by the five relevant football authorities to deliver Euro 2028. That is an appropriate approach, not least because the tournament overwhelmingly relies on existing stadia and infrastructure, without the need for bespoke statutory powers. On the rare occasion that a delivery authority is warranted, its nature and scope must similarly be determined by what is targeted and proportionate for the specific needs and requirements of an event in order to maximise effectiveness, efficiency and value for money. As such, although many of the shadow Minister’s recommendations are eminently sensible, the amendments would unfortunately take away from the flexibility we need by prescribing a fixed model in legislation, and particularly one with more sweeping powers than may be warranted in every scenario. Where greater oversight is required, the Government already have the requisite ability to establish an appropriate delivery body that is subject to appropriate additional parliamentary scrutiny—the Olympic Delivery Authority was regularly subject to such scrutiny.
For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Mr French
I appreciate the Minister’s comments. The Opposition have set out our position and our concerns. We absolutely understand the Minister’s point regarding Euro 2028. The amendment was primarily aimed at the likes of the Olympics. In light of the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(f) Schedule 6 (‘the industrial action provisions’)”.
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.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) Where an appropriate national authority applies one or more of the parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event by regulations under this section, the appropriate national authority must also apply the industrial action provisions.”
This amendment requires the appropriate national authority to apply the industrial action provisions when they apply one or more other parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event.
New clause 5—Industrial action regulations—
“(1) This section applies in relation to regulations under section 2 which apply the industrial action provisions.
(2) The regulations must specify the period during which the industrial action provisions apply.
(3) The period in subsection (2) must not be shorter than the minimum period.
(4) In subsection (2), the ‘minimum period’ means the period—
(a) beginning on the day on which any part of the sporting events framework is applied and has effect in relation to a sporting event, and
(b) ends on the day on which all provisions of the sporting events framework cease to apply to the sporting event.”
This new clause defines the minimum period in which the appropriate national authority must apply the industrial action provisions.
New schedule 2—Industrial action provisions—
“Part 1
Offences
Industrial action transport offences
1(1) It is an offence for a transport worker to engage in any industrial action at any time during the specified period.
(2) It is an offence for any person to—
(a) arrange for any industrial action to be carried out by a transport worker,
(b) permit the carrying out of such action, or
(c) induce a transport worker to engage in industrial action,
at any time during the specified period.
(3) In this paragraph, a ‘transport worker’ means an employee of a transport service anywhere in the United Kingdom.
(4) The following are to be considered as transport services for the purposes of this paragraph—
(a) airport operation services;
(b) bus services;
(c) light rail services;
(d) passenger railway services.
(5) In this paragraph—
‘airport operation services’ has the same meaning as in section 88 of the Civil Aviation Act 2012;
‘bus services’ has the same meaning as in section 162 of the Transport Act 2000;
‘light rail services’ means passenger railway services provided on or in respect of any of the following light rail systems known at the time this Act comes into force as—
(a) Blackpool Tramway;
(b) Docklands Light Railway;
(c) Edinburgh Trams;
(d) Glasgow Subway;
(e) London Trams;
(f) London Underground;
(g) Manchester Metrolink;
(h) Nottingham Express Transit;
(i) Sheffield Supertram;
(j) Tyne & Wear Metro;
(k) West Midlands Metro;
‘passenger railway services’ means—
(a) services for the carriage of passengers by railway by a person providing services—
(i) under a franchise agreement within the meaning of section 23(3) of the Railways Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”),
(ii) under, or secured under, the duty in section 30(1) of the 1993 Act,
(iii) under an agreement to which one of the persons listed in section 24A(4)(a) of the 1993 Act is a party, or
(iv) under, or secured under, section 173(1) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, or
(b) the refuelling of any locomotive or other rolling stock used for the services mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) by the person providing those services.
(6) Services relating to the following are not passenger railway services for the purposes of this paragraph—
(a) a train operation service using a railway which the Office of Rail and Road determines in accordance with regulation 2A(1) of the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 is a heritage, museum or tourist railway that operates on its own network;
(b) a train operation service that starts or terminates outside Great Britain.
(7) In this paragraph—
‘services for the carriage of passengers by railway’ has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the 1993 Act (see section 82(2) of that Act);
‘locomotive’, ‘network’, ‘rolling stock’, ‘station’, ‘track’ and ‘train’ have the meanings given by section 83(1) of the 1993 Act, but in applying the definitions in that subsection, references to ‘railway’ in the definitions are to be treated as having the meaning given in sub-paragraph (d);
‘railway’ has the meaning given by section 67(1) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 but includes a “tramway” within the meaning of that section;
Industrial action local authority offences
2(1) It is an offence for a relevant local authority worker to engage in any industrial action at any time during the specified period.
(2) It is an offence for any person to—
(a) arrange for any industrial action to be carried out in a relevant local authority area, or
(b) permit the carrying out of such action,
at any time during the specified period.
(3) In this paragraph—
‘relevant local authority worker’ means an employee of a relevant local authority;
‘relevant local authority’ means any local authority which has responsibility for the provision of one or more services in an area in which a specified sporting event, or an event that is part of the sporting event, is to be held;
‘relevant local authority area’ means the geographical area in which a relevant local authority has jurisdiction;
‘specified period’ means the ‘minimum period’ specified in regulations under section (Industrial action regulations).
Part 2
Enforcement
Penalties on conviction
3(1) A person guilty of an offence under this Schedule is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;
(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding £50,000.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this Schedule in Scotland is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20,000;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.
Power to impose financial penalties
4(1) The appropriate national authority may impose a financial penalty on a person if the appropriate national authority is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has committed an offence under this Schedule in relation to the sporting event.
(2) The amount of the penalty is to be decided by the appropriate national authority, but must not be more than £20,000.
(3) Only one financial penalty may be imposed in respect of the same conduct.
(4) No financial penalty may be imposed in respect of any conduct if—
(a) the person has been convicted of an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct,
(b) criminal proceedings for an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct have been instituted against the person and the proceedings have not been concluded, or
(c) criminal proceedings for an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct have been concluded and the person has not been convicted.
(5) A person may not be convicted of an offence under this Schedule if a financial penalty has been imposed under this paragraph in respect of the same conduct.
Notice of intention to impose financial penalty
5(1) Before imposing a financial penalty on a person under paragraph 4, an appropriate national authority must give the person a notice (a “notice of intention”) stating that the authority proposes to do so.
(2) The notice of intention must be given before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the first day on which the authority has sufficient evidence that the person has committed an offence under part 1 of this Schedule.
(3) The notice of intention must set out—
(a) the amount of the proposed financial penalty,
(b) the reasons for proposing to impose the financial penalty, and
(c) information about the right to make representations under paragraph 6.
Right to make representations
6(1) A person who is given a notice of intention may make written representations to the appropriate national authority which gave the notice about the proposal to impose a financial penalty.
(2) Any representations must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice of intention was given to the person.
Final notice
7(1) After the end of the period mentioned in paragraph 6(2) the appropriate national authority must—
(a) decide whether to impose a financial penalty on the person, and
(b) if it decides to do so, decide the amount of the penalty.
(2) If the authority decides to impose a financial penalty on the person, it must give a notice to the person (a ‘final notice’) imposing that penalty.
(3) The final notice must require the penalty to be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was given.
(4) The final notice must set out—
(a) the amount of the financial penalty (which may be less than the amount specified in the notice of intention, but cannot be more),
(b) the reasons for imposing the penalty,
(c) information about how to pay the penalty,
(d) the period for payment of the penalty
(e) information about rights of appeal, and
(f) the consequences of failure to comply with the notice.
Withdrawal or amendment of notice
8(1) The appropriate national authority may at any time—
(a) withdraw a notice of intention or final notice, or
(b) reduce an amount specified in a notice of intention or final notice.
(2) The power in sub-paragraph (1) is to be exercised by giving notice to the person on whom the notice was given.
Appeals
9 (1) A person to whom a final notice is given may appeal against—
(a) the decision to impose the penalty;
(b) the amount of the penalty.
(2) The appeal may be made—
(a) in England and Wales, to the First-tier Tribunal;
(b) in Scotland, to the sheriff;
(c) in Northern Ireland, to a county court.
(3) An appeal under this paragraph must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the final notice is given to the person.
(4) If a person appeals under this paragraph, the final notice is suspended until the appeal is finally determined, withdrawn or abandoned.
(5) An appeal under this paragraph—
(a) is to be a re-hearing of the appropriate national authority’s decision, but
(b) may be determined having regard to matters of which the authority was unaware.
(6) On an appeal under this paragraph the First-tier Tribunal or the court may quash, confirm or vary the final notice.
(7) The final notice may not be varied under sub-paragraph (6) so as to make it impose a financial penalty of a greater amount than the appropriate national authority could have imposed.
Recovery of financial penalty
10(1) This paragraph applies if a person fails to pay the whole or any part of a financial penalty which has been imposed on a person in accordance with this Schedule.
(2) In England and Wales the appropriate national authority which imposed the penalty may recover the penalty or part on the order of the county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.
(3) In Scotland the penalty may be enforced in the same manner as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff of any sheriffdom in Scotland.
(4) In Northern Ireland the authority which imposed the financial penalty may recover the penalty or part on the order of a county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.
(5) In any proceedings relating to a financial penalty, a certificate that—
(a) purports to be signed by or on behalf of the person with responsibility for the financial affairs of the authority which imposed the penalty, and
(b) states that payment of the financial penalty was, or was not, received by a date specified in the certificate, is evidence of the facts stated.
Proceeds of financial penalties
11 Where a relevant enforcement authority imposes a financial penalty under paragraph 4, it may use the proceeds for the purposes of any of its functions.
No protection if union induces industrial action
12 Where industrial action is prohibited during a specified period under this Schedule, an act done by a trade union to induce or attempt to induce a person to engage in industrial action is not protected from any proceedings in tort.
Part 3
Interpretation
13 In this Schedule—
‘industrial action’ means action taken by workers against their employer in furtherance of a trade dispute;
‘specified period’ means the ‘minimum period’ specified in the regulations as required by section [Industrial action regulations];
‘strike’ means any concerted stoppage of work;
‘trade dispute’ has the meaning given by section 244 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.”
This new Schedule establishes the industrial action provisions, referred to in Amendments 7, 8 and NC5, and sets out penalties for breaching them.
Mr French
The amendments, new clause and new schedule in this group are designed to make sure that maliciously timed strikes do not undermine the entirety of a major sporting event, as defined by the Bill. Any event covered by the framework established by the Bill is, by the definitions in clause 3, likely to be of
“significant international or national interest”
or
“likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or a part of it.”
Industrial action during such an event would wholly undermine the objectives of the Bill.
Amendment 7 would ban strikes by certain workers, including transport workers, when the framework is applied to a sporting event. Amendment 8 would require the “appropriate national authority” to apply the industrial action provisions when it applies one or more other parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event. New clause 5 defines the minimum period in which the appropriate national authority must apply the industrial action provisions. New schedule 2 sets out the industrial action provisions referred to in amendments 7 and 8 and new clause 5, and sets out the penalties for breaching those provisions.
Taken together, the amendments seek to establish provisions related to industrial action as a core part of the sporting events framework established by the Bill. I am sure that Labour Members may sit upright a little when they hear these amendments, but I assure them that the amendments have been tabled in the spirit of the Bill and its intended outcome. They would apply only to sporting events operating under the framework.
However, in the mind of the Opposition, the amendments are not optional extras or measures to be applied to some events and not others. They would form a mandatory part of the framework itself. Through the Bill, the Government seek to establish a permanent framework so that the United Kingdom does not have to improvise or pass new primary legislation every time we host a major event and welcome people from across the world to our country. As it stands, the Bill provides for the protection of ticketing arrangements, advertising rights, trading around venues and commercial rights, under the provisions on unauthorised association. Crucially, the Bill does not protect against one of the most visible and damaging risks to any major event: the disruption caused by strikes.
Hon. Members will know the damage that such actions cause. Last September’s tube strikes caused near-total shutdown, costing Transport for London an estimated £20 million to £25 million in lost fare revenue alone, and imposing an estimated £230 million of direct cost to the wider economy, equivalent to 700,000 lost working days. Those impacts included workers unable to reach physical workplaces, lost productivity and hits to hospitality and high street spending. We cannot risk that affecting the United Kingdom’s ability to host a major sporting event such as the world cup or the Olympics.
Even the Foreign Secretary, the then leader of the Labour party, said ahead of the 2012 Olympic games,
“This is a celebration for the whole country and must not be disrupted.”
I am sure hon. Members will also remember the 2022 Commonwealth games, when ASLEF and the RMT deliberately targeted those hoping to attend by announcing walkouts on the railways either side of the games. More recently, in May this year, staff at Edinburgh and Glasgow airports voted in favour of walking out during the Commonwealth games in an effort to force a new pay deal. As the unions involved well knew, such a walkout would have had a significant disruptive effect on the operational and commercial viability of those games. Unfortunately, these are not hypothetical risks. They are a recurring and increasing phenomenon under Governments of different colours. The Bill must therefore make sure it cannot be left to chance.
The punishments for breaches would be comparable to those the Government have drafted for the ticket touting, advertising and trading offences elsewhere in the Bill. I hope the Committee will agree that any conduct that threatens the integrity of major sporting events hosted across the United Kingdom ought to be penalised, and that we should not treat conduct, including politically motivated strike action, that threatens to close down events entirely any less seriously.
There are, of course, limits to the provisions I seek to include in the Bill. The ability to prevent strikes would apply only for the specified period tied to the duration of the new framework in relation to a particular sporting event, on which I have also tabled amendment 9. It would apply to transport workers nationally, since they are mobile by definition, but also to local authority workers only in the area where an event is being held. It would apply only where the national authority has chosen to apply the sporting events framework. New schedule 2 would provide for a full enforcement code, notices of intention, the right to make representations, a final notice with reasons, and the right of appeal as appropriate. All of that mirrors the safeguards attached to the ticket touting provisions already in the Bill.
The Committee will know just how valuable major sporting events are, not just to the economy but to our society as a whole. They drive investment into the country and grassroots sports. We cannot let that be undermined by unions playing politics or holding the Government to ransom over pay deals. When we have secured a major event, we owe it to the athletes, the spectators and the millions who tune in to ensure that these events can run smoothly as planned.
Stephanie Peacock
Amendments 7 and 8, new clause 5 and new schedule 2, tabled by the shadow Minister, would prevent transport and local authority workers from engaging in industrial action linked to sporting events during specified periods. That includes creating offences relating to participation in and organisation or inducement of such action.
As the Committee will be aware, the Government repealed the minimum service legislation and a number of other restrictions on the right to strike via the Employment Rights Act 2025. The amendments would reintroduce a significant restriction on the ability of workers to take industrial action, and the Government have been clear that we will not support such restrictions. The Government do not consider it right to arbitrarily determine that certain sporting events should strip workers of their right to take industrial action. Events in the UK must operate in conjunction with our employment legislation and must not seek to carve out core components of employment rights.
We are committed to establishing a new model for industrial relations that is fit for the 21st century, and that includes a new industrial relations framework that establishes expectations for how workers and employers should conduct themselves, engage with one another and work together in the interests of the workforce, the economy and the wider public. Before I sit down, I declare an interest as a member of a trade union. On the basis of the points I have made, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 7.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(c) the single sex protections provisions.”.
New schedule 3—The Single Sex Protection Provisions—
“Protections for participants in major sporting events
1(1) Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (2), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of the sporting event will—
(a) provide that all competitors in the sporting event compete against those of the same biological sex in the interests of fairness and safety;
(b) provide that all competitors and officials in the sporting event are able to use—
(i) single sex accommodation based on their biological sex;
(ii) single sex changing and washing facilities based on their biological sex;
(iii) single sex toilets based on their biological sex.
Protections for spectators of major sporting events
2 (1) Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (2), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of the sporting event will—
(a) provide that all spectators, or any person attending the sporting event are able to use—
(i) single sex toilets based on their biological sex;
(ii) single sex changing and washing facilities where necessary based on their biological sex.
Interpretation
3 In the application of this Schedule to a sporting event by regulations under section (2), references to ‘single sex’ means sex as defined in the Equalities Act 2010.”.
This new Schedule, with Amendments 13 and 14, add single-sex protection provisions to the framework to ensure the provision of single-sex competitions and facilities at major sporting events.
Clause stand part.
Mr French
Clause 1 will introduce a common legislative framework for major sporting events held in the UK. The framework covers five aspects of sporting events: ticket touting, advertising, trading, unauthorised association and transport. The legislative provisions for those five aspects are set out in schedules 1 to 5.
Amendments 13 and 14 and new schedule 3, all of which are in my name, would add single sex protection provisions to the framework. They propose establishing a duty to ensure provision of single-sex competitions and facilities for major sporting events taking place under the framework established by the Bill. They also set out that where the rules of a sporting competition are framed by reference to the gender or sex of the participants, that reference must be to biological sex.
The noble Minister, Baroness Twycross, attempted to argue that these amendments were not necessary when they were tabled in the other place because
“events to which the Bill’s framework will apply must comply with existing legislation and guidance.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 732.]
Unfortunately, although the law has been clear for some time, there are still organisations, including those the Minister has responsibility for—thankfully only a few—that are not complying with the law as clarified by the April 2025 judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers.
We have all heard of the inspirational case of the eight female nurses who successfully appealed against the County Durham and Darlington NHS foundation trust’s policy and management’s dismissal of their concerns. An employment tribunal found that the trust violated the nurses’ dignity and created a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment, and upheld the claims of harassment and indirect sex discrimination. That was almost a year after the law had been clarified.
These cases continue to arise despite the law being clear. If the noble Minister was right, they no longer would and the law would be sufficient. Even though it has now been more than 18 months since the decision in the For Women Scotland case was handed down and the law clarified, some organisations are dragging their feet in undertaking their legal duty to protect women’s and girls’ spaces, particularly in a sporting context.
Across the world, sports governing bodies are coming around to biological reality. In March 2026, the International Olympic Committee banned trans and intersex athletes from competing in female events at the 2028 summer Olympics and future Olympic games. The IOC president stated that the new policy was “based on science” and made because
“it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category.”
However, domestic governing bodies have been hamstrung by the Government, who delayed publishing updated guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In fact, the Minister for Women told the EHRC that it must “tone down” its guidance, which is designed to protect women and girls and single-sex spaces.
That is why my amendments are essential. Any organiser of a major sporting event would have it before them as part of the framework that all competitors in a sporting event must compete against those of the same biological sex, where designated, in the interests of fairness and safety, and that all competitors and officials in the sporting event must be able to use single-sex accommodation, single-sex changing and washing facilities and single-sex toilets based on their biological sex.
The amendments would also mean that all spectators, or any person attending the sporting event, could use single-sex toilets based on their biological sex and single-sex changing and washing facilities, where necessary, based on their biological sex. That is necessary because neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats are able to commit to protecting single-sex spaces for women and girls. We know that girls already spend an average of 90 minutes less per week than boys playing sport and that the drop-out rate for girls at 14 is twice that of boys. Moreover, more than twice the number of girls feel uncomfortable changing for physical education compared to boys.
Respondents to the 2024 BBC elite British sportswomen study who were not comfortable with transgender participation in elite women’s categories outnumbered those who were by 10 to one. Comments included:
“It makes it too much of an unfair playing field, regardless of what sport you are competing in”
and
“Putting them in women's sport is literally like going back in time and putting women at the bottom of the pile again and having to rebuild women back up again.”
That is why the Conservative party is fully committed to ensuring that women and girls have safe single-sex spaces that encourage their participation in sport from a young age and throughout their lives. We want to make sure that there can be no wiggle room for misinterpretations or clever loopholes. In doing so, we will safeguard the integrity of women’s and girls’ sports so that they have a chance to take part on a level playing field after years of exclusion and preferential treatment against them. Women who play sport must be able to compete in a fair and safe sporting environment. My amendments would make sure that that would be the case.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 1 introduces the framework provisions in the Bill, designed to help the UK deliver its commitments to event owners and ensure that we remain a credible and competitive host of major sporting events. Delivering such commitments usually requires time-consuming, event-specific legislation. This Bill changes the game: any of the framework provisions can be applied, as needed, to any qualifying sporting event through secondary legislation.
The framework provisions will help to protect commercial rights and the experience of fans by criminalising the unauthorised resale of tickets and by preventing unauthorised advertising and trading around sporting events. The provisions will ensure that we can deliver on our obligations to event owners and protect commercial investment by preventing unauthorised association with an event, ultimately maintaining the UK’s position as an attractive host of the biggest events. Finally, provisions to manage transport and traffic in England will help us ensure that fans get to events safely, efficiently and reliably. Taken together, those provisions signal the UK’s commitment to hosting excellence, and ensure that we are ready to welcome the world.
I now turn to amendments 13 and 14 and new schedule 3, tabled by the shadow Minister. I understand that his intent is to ensure that the Bill’s framework provisions can be applied only when major sporting events ensure single-sex competition, facilities and accommodation. Any events to which the Bill’s framework will apply must comply with existing legislation and guidance. The legislation applicable here is the Equality Act 2010, which sets out how people are protected from discrimination. It also sets out certain circumstances where people can be treated differently due to their sex, which, as clarified by the Supreme Court, means biological sex, and the provision of facilities and sport are included in that.
Organisers and facility owners may lawfully restrict changing spaces, toilets, and accommodation to biological sex, where proportionate, to achieve a legitimate aim such as privacy and dignity. The law is clear: to ensure fairness or safety in sport competitions designated as women’s competitions, participation is determined based on biological sex. That would apply to all events in scope of the Bill as they are all competitive sporting events. An explicit statutory duty in the Bill is therefore unnecessary.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I intend to press to a vote all the amendments relating to the additional condition to be met in the case of domestic sporting events set out by Government amendment 30. I also want to speak to Government amendment 28 and press that to a vote.
In the other place, Liberal Democrat colleagues pushed for the Bill’s scope to be extended so that the sporting events framework could be applicable to all major domestic events. That amendment received great support from the industry, with bodies including the England and Wales Cricket Board, Formula 1, the Lawn Tennis Association, the Football Association, the London Marathon and the Rugby Football Union signing our letter to push for this amendment, which was voted through.
I was pleased that the Minister accepted that amended scope on Second Reading. However, I am concerned that these Government amendments will not deliver it. I understand the Government’s intention—not every premier league match should receive the specific benefit of this Bill—but Government amendment 28 will remove “national interest” from the sporting events framework. That will significantly change the intended scope that the Liberal Democrats pushed through in the other place. This matters in particular for women’s sports and emerging sports, where a national profile has to be built before they can attract international attention. I am seeking clarification: can the Minister confirm that major national events such as Wimbledon will remain covered by the provisions in this Bill?
Mr French
This group of Government amendments is part of the changes the Government seek to make in relation to the application of the sporting events framework. I am grateful to the Minister and her officials for taking the time to discuss these, and her thinking behind them, last week. As we have heard, they include changes that define a domestic sporting event; mean that the sporting events framework could be applied to a sporting event only if it is likely to be of significant international interest; provide for an additional condition that must be met in the case of domestic sporting events; provide that regulations under clause 2 that relate to a domestic sporting event cease to have effect after a certain period of time; and mean that transport provisions cannot be applied to a domestic sporting event.
The Minister has assured me that there is broad support among stakeholders for these tweaks that the Government are seeking to make. But they also include new clause 14, which
“would insert a new clause after clause 21 (maximum penalty amounts etc) which would enable a certain bodies to charge fees in connection with certain costs which are incurred by those bodies in relation to the advertising offence or the trading offence.”
The Minister may be aware that the Sport and Recreation Alliance wrote in last night—I suspect to a number of MPs on this Committee—because it is concerned that that sets a precedent where the victim of an offence will be required to pay for the enforcement of that offence.
The Minister will be aware of the concerns in the sporting world for major events around the Home Office’s ongoing engagement with the police—for example, about how costs are split and tried to be forced on to more sporting bodies. We are concerned about that. I am particularly keen to hear what reassurance the Minister can provide the Committee that that precedent will not open the door to further charges being placed on the ability of sporting bodies to host major and domestic events. More broadly, I am pleased that the Government have seen sense and agreed with the spirit of the changes made in the other place. However, I understand the comments made by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset; I am keen to hear the Minister’s response and what assurance she can provide the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful for the contributions from the hon. Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup and for Frome and East Somerset, and for the time they spent last week discussing the matter. As I acknowledged in my opening remarks, the Government have listened, and we acknowledged that we needed to go further. As I set out, certain conditions will need to be met in order for recurrent events to receive the protections: they must be wholly or partly held in the United Kingdom, be of significant international interest and be likely to bring social or economic benefits.
Stephanie Peacock
For those itinerant events, there are transport provisions in the Bill, but this group of amendments relates to recurrent events. We have exempted them from the transport provisions, having been in consultation and conversation with both the event organisers and local authorities, because they already have transport plans in place. I absolutely acknowledge that sporting events at any level can cause challenges, particularly with transport—I have seen that in my own area of Barnsley—so perhaps I can pass on my hon. Friend’s comments to the relevant Transport Minister. I hope that I have answered hon. Members’ points.
Amendment 22 agreed to.
Amendments made: 21, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, after “section” insert
“in relation to a sporting event”.
This amendment contains a drafting refinement.
Amendment 23: in clause 2, page 2, line 12, leave out from “if” to end of line 13 and insert
“—
(a) the first and second conditions in section 3 are met, and
(b) in the case of a domestic sporting event, the third condition in that section is also met.”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 30.
Amendment 24: in clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (2) may not apply the transport provisions to a domestic sporting event.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would mean that the transport provisions cannot be applied to a domestic sporting event.
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 9, in 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 50 days.”
This amendment sets the maximum period in which the sporting events framework could be implemented in relation to a particular event.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (b).
This amendment would ensure that all regulations applying the sporting events framework are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause stand part.
Mr French
I will start with what clause 2 seeks to achieve, which is the application of the framework to major sporting events. The clause establishes how the sporting events framework can be applied to individual sporting events. It will give the Secretary of State and the relevant devolved Governments powers to apply ticket touting, advertising and trading provisions, while the Secretary of State can also apply unauthorised association and transport provisions. However, those powers can be used only where the event meets the conditions set out in clause 3. Regulations made under the clause can also cover connected events, such as cultural events, that are held in connection with the main sporting event; the clause also establishes the scrutiny procedures for such regulations.
Amendment 9, which is in my name, would set a
“maximum period in which the sporting events framework could be implemented in relation to a particular event.”
As it stands, there is no limit to the time for which regulations made under the Bill can be in effect. We think that that is a clear omission. As designed, the framework applies to specific and time-limited events. It therefore seems strange, if not wrong, for those regulations to extend beyond the life of the event that they are there to regulate.
Amendment 9 proposes a single flat period of 50 days as a sensible time limit for the powers. As hon. Members may know, the London Olympic and Paralympic games spanned 45 days, the UEFA European championship runs for approximately one month and the FIFA world cup takes about 39 days from the first match to the final whistle. Our amendment’s balanced approach gives organisers a generous margin within which to operate, while also giving Parliament and the public reassurance that those powers will not accidentally remain in place beyond the event’s needs.
I am sure that the Minister will echo the comments of the Minister in the other place and say that they understand the need for flexibility. However, further to the question that my noble Friend Lord Parkinson asked the Lords Minister, I would be interested to know what event the Minister has in mind that may require a longer period, particularly as she has now tabled Government amendment 31, which provides a time limit for domestic sporting events. Can she explain to the Committee why one event would need a time limit but the others would not, given that they are covered or set to be covered by the same framework? If flexibility is key, I hope that my amendment will help to provide the solution. I hope the Committee agrees that it would help to dovetail the intentions of the Bill and the practicalities of regulation alongside the practical realities that occur once an event has finished.
Amendment 10, which is in my name, would ensure that all regulations applying to the sporting event framework are subject to the affirmative procedure of both Houses. As drafted, the Bill stipulates that the affirmative procedure applies only to the first set of regulations establishing the framework for a particular event; any subsequent regulations that amend, extend or otherwise modify that framework would be subject only to the negative procedure.
My amendment would remove that distinction, ensuring that all regulations made under clause 2 are subject to affirmative procedures. The principle is straightforward; we are talking about a framework that could have significant implications for the rights and obligations of businesses, event organisers, local authorities and members of the public in connection with major sporting events.
As my noble Friend Lord Moynihan highlighted in the other place, the arrangements for the Olympic games in Paris extended to issues such as artificial intelligence and facial recognition. These matters warrant proper parliamentary scrutiny, not simple notification after the fact. I hope the Committee agrees that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate and approve all regulations made under the clause, not just the first set.
I agree with my noble Friend Lord Parkinson, who said:
“I hope by the time we get there, this experiment with time-limited guillotines on secondary legislation will not still be in place.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 490.]
That was such an eloquent comment—I should be clear that it was his, not mine.
In its delegated powers memorandum, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport argues that the subsequent regulations are likely to contain operational or technical detail or address unforeseen changes in how an event is delivered. On that basis, it considers the negative procedure appropriate to ensure an effective mechanism for making changes during the delivery of an event.
However, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has rightly pointed out, there is no restriction on the scope of those subsequent regulations. The first set may apply only one aspect of the framework to an event, with a later set introducing the remaining provisions. Alternatively, subsequent regulations could make significant changes to arrangements already in place.
It is difficult to see the logic in requiring Parliament to approve the initial application of the framework while allowing subsequent regulations, potentially making equally significant changes, to proceed without the same level of scrutiny, or indeed any scrutiny. If the Government’s argument is ultimately one of administrative convenience, I would suggest to the Minister and the Committee that that is not sufficient justification for reducing parliamentary oversight of powers with such potentially far-reaching consequences.
I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 2 provides the mechanism by which the framework established in the Bill can be applied to individual events. Major sporting events differ in scale, in geography and in the specific operational challenges they present. It is therefore right that the Bill does not seek to impose a one-size-fits-all regime in every case.
Clause 2 will enable the framework to be tailored to the circumstances of a particular event, applying only those provisions that are necessary and proportionate. There is no appetite to put measures in place that are not needed. This is a practical approach, but it is also responsible; the power is not open-ended. Regulations may be made only where the conditions in the framework are met, and all regulations made using the powers under clause 2 will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
The clause also provides important clarity about the way the Bill operates across the UK, because it has been developed in close collaboration with our colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is right that we look to ensure that every corner of the UK can benefit from this legislation. Devolved authorities will be able to apply provisions relating to ticketing, advertising and trading to events taking place in their territory.
Of course, when it comes to ticketing, we appreciate that a UK-wide approach is most desirable; I will say more about that when we come to clause 5. Only the Secretary of State will have the power to apply provisions concerning unauthorised association as this is a reserved matter. The transport measures apply to roads and areas in England only and can be applied by the Secretary of State; the Bill does not contain equivalent measures for the devolved nations as transport is a devolved matter and the devolved Governments were content that they already had adequate provision. Transport co-ordination across the UK will continue through close engagement with the devolved Governments and delivery partners, ensuring that arrangements reflect the different legal and operational frameworks in each nation while supporting coherent UK-wide delivery of major events.
In short, clause 2 will provide the Bill with both its practical effect and its necessary flexibility. It will also ensure that flexibility is balanced by safeguards. Regulations may be made only where the framework conditions are satisfied. Having carefully considered the points made in the other place, we introduced amendments to ensure that each use of the powers in the clause for an event must be subject to debate.
Mr French
I appreciate the Minister’s comments, and particularly her reference to the amendments tabled since the debate in the other place. We will take the Government’s words in good faith and will not seek a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 25, in clause 2, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“‘domestic sporting event’ means a sporting event which is of a kind that is regularly held wholly or partly in the United Kingdom”.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
The amendment defines “domestic sporting event”.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Framework conditions
Amendment made: 26, in clause 3, page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) This section has effect for the purposes of section 2(3).”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30.
Anna Sabine
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 3, page 2, line 35, leave out “two” and insert “three”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 16.
Anna Sabine
Any sporting event falling under this Bill, and especially any sporting event receiving financial support from the Government, should be free to air. Sport is a huge part of our culture. We will get to the topic of tickets later in this debate, but the reality is that it is expensive to see sport live. We can all agree that being able to watch England play football at the world cup should be free for everyone to watch on TV. Our amendments would ensure that everyone can watch a sporting event that falls under the Bill and that, especially when Government funding is going towards that event, it is free to do so.
Public service broadcasters have pioneered free-to-air coverage and have demonstrated that it has significant social value. Televising the Lionesses, for example, has been huge for girls, who are increasingly taking up football after watching it on live TV. Research by the Women’s Sport Trust shows that whether sport is free-to-air has a direct impact on how many people are watching women’s sports. These amendments would ensure not only that every fan can watch their team play, but that emerging sports funded by the Government or provided for through the Bill are accessible for all to see.
Mr French
Clause 3 sets out the conditions that must be satisfied before the framework can be applied to a sporting event. The event must take place wholly or partly in the United Kingdom and must meet either the significance or the strategic priorities.
To meet the significance priorities, the sporting event must be likely to be of significant international or national interest, the sporting event organiser must have asked for the framework to be applied and the event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the whole or part of the UK. This clause sets out the criteria that may be taken into account in determining whether a sporting event is likely to be of significant national or international interest. They include the scale and reputation of the event, the number of people expected to attend the event from outside the UK, and the amount of media coverage expected outside the UK.
To meet the strategic priority, it must be proven that hosting the sporting event will improve the UK’s chance of securing hosting rights for events that meet the significance priorities. I think all Members will recognise the international challenges when bidding for such events. That is something that goes across parties and will often involve successive Governments, with one Government starting the bid and then another Government hosting the event.
Clause 4, which is entitled “Restrictions on application of framework”, sets out safeguards to ensure that powers over sporting events respect the devolved authorities. Before applying provisions that fall within the legislative responsibility of a devolved authority, the Secretary of State must obtain the relevant devolved authority’s consent. At the same time, the clause sets out that devolved authorities may only make regulations covering matters within their own legislative competence. Where ticket touting provisions are applied, the event must also take place at least partly within the relevant devolved territory.
Amendments 15 and 16, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would require all sporting events hosted under the Bill to be made free to air. Understandably, that has raised a number of concerns among sporting bodies. Before I get into the details of why the amendments would not just upset the apple cart but risk cutting the apple tree down completely, I will start by disagreeing with the terminology “free to air”. As my noble Friend Lord Hayward pointed out in Committee in the other place, we must pay £180 each year for a television licence. These events are therefore never free to air.
Secondly, a review of the listed events regime is probably better placed to achieve the expansion of sports coverage—I do agree with the intentions of the proposal—than a blanket ban, which would be likely to have unintended consequences because of the complexities of global broadcast deals. At a glance, it may well look like an attractive proposition, designed to appeal to Liberal Democrats across the home counties. However, although we all agree that we want as many people as possible to enjoy major sporting events, good intentions and good headlines do not make good policy. These amendments would risk doing real damage to the very sports that they are meant to support.
Broadcasting revenue is an essential source of funding for British sport. It does not simply benefit the elite clubs and athletes at the top of the game. That revenue flows down the sporting pyramid, supporting community clubs, grassroots facilities and the next generation of—we hope—world-beating British sporting talent. The Liberal Democrats should be under no illusion about the scale of the financial risk that they are proposing. For example, the Premier League’s current domestic broadcast deals with Sky and TNT Sports are estimated to be worth £6.7 billion over four years, and the English Football League’s deal with Sky is worth another £1 billion over five years. Those agreements demonstrate the enormous value that broadcasters place on live sport, and the income that British sport stands to lose if we undermine the commercial model that supports it.
The question for the Liberal Democrats is simple: if their amendments put that income at risk, who will replace it? Where will the money come from to support sports clubs, maintain facilities and give young people the opportunity to participate in sport? I appreciate that their amendments start with major events hosted under the framework for which the Bill provides, but once the precedent is set and the likes of UEFA cannot sell their broadcast rights at market value, the effects will begin to pass from the international competitions to the feeder domestic competitions. What will the impact be on participation if that happens? I can answer for them: it will begin to fall, and once it does, it will be incredibly difficult to recover. It is all very well to demand that sporting events be made free to air. That is popular—I understand it—but someone still has to pay for the rights to broadcast them. If broadcasters cannot justify the cost of acquiring those rights, the financial consequences will not be confined to the boardrooms of elite sport; they will be felt throughout sport, including the community clubs and grassroots organisations that rely on this investment.
The Liberal Democrats should recognise that the current system already delivers significant benefits beyond elite sport. In the 2024-25 financial year, UK sports invested a record £213.2 million of broadcast revenues into sport under the voluntary code of conduct. The Premier League, meanwhile, invested £1.6 billion into the wider game in the previous broadcasting cycle. Those figures matter. They demonstrate that commercial broadcasting agreements can generate substantial investment across British sport. We should be looking at how to build investment in sport, not introducing blanket restrictions that risk undermining it at any level. That is particularly important when grassroots sport is already facing significant financial pressures under this Government. The Liberal Democrats should not seek to add further uncertainty to the financial foundations of British sport through amendments that could jeopardise the broadcasting revenue upon which it depends.
Let me be clear once again: I want more people watching major sporting events—I want children to be inspired by our greatest athletes, families to enjoy the biggest occasions and British sport to reach the widest possible audience—but we must recognise that accessibility and financial sustainability are not mutually exclusive. We can encourage wider access without imposing a blanket requirement that risks diminishing the value of the rights that help fund our sports.
The answer is to review the listed events regime, make the most of the commercial broadcasting agreements, encourage investment in grassroots sports and ensure that the success of our biggest sporting events benefits communities across the country. Broadcasting revenues are an essential part of that sporting ecosystem, without which it would wither away. These amendments offer a superficially appealing solution that is undoubtedly popular, without adequately addressing the clear consequences.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset for tabling amendments 15 to 17 and for her thoughtful points. The amendments seek to add a further condition that the Secretary of State and devolved Governments must consider to be met in order for the provisions of the Bill to be applied to a sporting event or an event to rely on the funding power. In either case, the additional condition is that live coverage of the event must be made available free of charge to the public in the United Kingdom, either directly or through an Ofcom-licensed platform accessible without subscription.
The Government recognise the intent behind the amendments and are committed to ensuring that major sporting events are as accessible as possible to people across the United Kingdom, but we cannot accept them. Decisions relating to the broadcast coverage of sporting events, and particularly to those recurrent events delivered wholly independently of Government, are key commercial matters for broadcasters, event organisers and the holders of the broadcasting rights. Broadcasting rights provide essential income for national governing bodies and sport broadcasting rights holders, which enables them to invest in their sports and future events; indeed, the shadow Minister outlined in detail some of the relevant figures. The amendments would place tighter controls on their ability to generate much-needed broadcasting revenue, and could negate the wider economic benefits that the Bill provides for.
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 their exclusive broadcasting without prior consent from Ofcom. In any event, we would expect broadcasters and sporting rights holders of specific events to think carefully about the balance between generating much-needed revenue and ensuring access to coverage for viewers, ensuring the growth and development of the sport.
Clause 3 sets out the conditions that a sporting event must meet before the Bill’s framework provisions can be applied to it. We have had a thorough debate on this matter already, and I hope the Committee agrees that it is not necessary to revisit those points.
Clause 4 ensures that the Bill operates coherently across the United Kingdom while respecting devolved competence and territorial scope. The clause makes it clear that the Secretary of State cannot make regulations applying provisions on ticketing, advertising and trading to a sporting event in an area of devolved competence without the devolved authority’s consent. Similarly, the devolved authorities may exercise these powers only where the matter falls within their legislative competence. Where ticketing provisions are applied, the event in question must take place at least partly within the territory of the devolved authority making the regulations. The clause is an important part of ensuring coherence when applying the powers in a Bill that will ultimately strengthen our ability to secure and host world-class events throughout the UK.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 5 deals with the important issue of ticketing. It is integral to the framework provisions in the Bill, and in particular to delivering the requirements of major sporting event owners when we seek and secure events hosted in the UK. The ticketing provisions in the Bill are time-limited and designed to ensure that tickets can be resold only with the authorisation of an event owner or organiser.
Clause 5 provides that any regulations applying the Bill’s ticketing measures must specify the period for which those measures apply. That will ensure that the provisions can be applied in a way that reflects the circumstances of each event, including the point at which tickets are expected to go on sale. The clause also requires regulations to specify the part or parts of the United Kingdom to which the provisions will apply. That is important, given that these provisions fall within devolved competence.
We expect the effectiveness of the provisions to be significantly reduced if there is inconsistency in their application, or gaps in territorial coverage that could be exploited. That is precisely why clause 5 is so important. It provides a mechanism by which the Secretary of State may apply the provisions on a UK basis where the consent of the devolved Governments has been secured. The Government’s strong preference is, of course, for a coherent UK-wide approach. Such an approach will provide greater certainty for event organisers, stronger protection for fans and a more effective basis for enforcement.
Clause 6 is a practical, functional element of the Bill. Regulations applying the ticketing provisions to an event will need to designate one or more persons to grant authorisation for ticketing activity, such as the sale and resale of tickets. Only a person who is suitable can be designated to grant authorisations. In effect, that means someone who has the primary right to sell tickets to an event, which we expect would include only an event owner or organiser. The event owner or organiser could then determine who is authorised, based on commercial arrangements.
As unauthorised public resale will be a criminal offence, the Government expect that accessible authorised channels will be made available for the resale of tickets where people can no longer attend an event. Conditions may be imposed on an event owner or organiser who can authorise ticket sales—for example, to require them to maintain a register of platforms that can legally sell tickets.
Before I conclude, it is worth touching on our manifesto commitment to ban ticket touting, with a nod to new clauses 10 and 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset, which we will consider later. We understand and share the objectives that underpin those new clauses, which is why the Secretary of State affirmed on Second Reading our intention to treat the Bill as a priority and ensure that we get it on the statute book.
We will introduce a price cap on the resale of tickets for all live events, including those captured under the Bill, and there will be strict obligations on ticket resale platforms to ensure compliance. That will ensure that, regardless of the event, fans are treated fairly and can have confidence in the operation of the ticketing market. Fans should take further confidence from the fact that UEFA has already confirmed that there will be no dynamic pricing for Euro 2028, and that more than 40% of tickets will be available in the most affordable categories.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Exceptions to the ticket touting offence
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 6—Exception for charitable auctions—
“(1) The ticket touting offence does not apply in relation to the sale of an event ticket in an auction conducted—
(a) by a charity, or
(b) by a person other than a charity, provided that the proceeds of the event ticket’s sale are given to a charity.
(2) In subsection (1), ‘charity’ has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Charities Act 2011.”
Clause stand part.
Mr French
As we are debating ticket touting regulations, particularly in relation to football, it is probably right that I disclose that I attended the FIFA world cup in a private capacity and bought my own ticket, just in case we get a mention of FIFA.
Clause 7 allows regulations to specify activities that are exempt from the ticket touting offence. In doing so, it gives the appropriate national authority the flexibility to accommodate legitimate activities that should not be prohibited. My amendment 11 and new clause 6 are relatively small changes that would enable the charitable resale of tickets.
I am sure the Committee will agree that a charity auction for a ticket is not ticket touting and should never be treated as such. I understand that the noble Minister in the other place recognises that fact, but she has asserted that
“it would not be appropriate to include such a blanket exception as this could undermine the Bill’s objectives.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 476.]
I am not sure which objective my amendments would undermine. One of the premises under which the Government have brought forward the Bill is that major sporting events are both an economic and a social good for the United Kingdom. Charities are key vessels for delivering social good, so why are the Government intent on hamstringing good causes and charities, and why are they prioritising FIFA’s ability to resell tickets at a hugely inflated price, instead of the money going towards a good cause or charity?
The problem is that there is confusion among the Government. In one part of the Bill, which we will debate later today, they say that profit is wrong and that ticket resale sites such as Viagogo and StubHub should not be able to make significant profits from the services that they offer—in fact, they should not be allowed to provide those services in this context. However, the Bill as it stands eliminates the ability of charities to auction off a ticket to generate funds for a good cause. Instead, the noble Minister has said that
“charities looking to raise money for themselves would be able to apply for authorisation to auction tickets. This request would be considered on a case-by-case basis.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 552.]
How impractical! Do the Government really expect a local charity or a good cause to be able to navigate an as-yet-undefined application process, and to compete against the likes of UEFA or FIFA and their international infrastructure, simply to auction a ticket to a sporting event in aid of a chosen charitable cause? It is ridiculous to expect the vast majority of charities, which are often small, to be able to do that. In practice, it creates a ban on auctions taking place, which will be to the detriment of charities. That is why I have tabled amendment 11 and new clause 6.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 7 deals with the important issue of exceptions to the ticket touting offence, which ensures that proportionality, where required and appropriate, can be applied to the way the offence operates. It is important to clarify that the offence does not prohibit the transfer of tickets at face value between friends, family and associates. Clause 7 enables regulations applying the ticketing provision to specify exceptions to the offence, which may include activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes, including the auctioning of tickets to raise money. This ensures that the Secretary of State or a devolved authority can consider what is proportionate and right for each event.
Although I note that no exception was provided in the legislation for London 2012 or Birmingham 2022, I have asked my officials to discuss this issue further with UEFA before we bring forward regulations next year. I am confident that we can agree on an approach that supports the work of our fantastic charity sector, particularly local charities in our host cities, which speaks to the points made by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. His amendment 11 and new clause 6 would put on the face of the Bill an exception to the ticket touting offence where a ticket is sold by auction and the proceeds go to charity.
I fully recognise the spirit of the hon. Member’s amendments, and we listened carefully to the concerns raised in the other place about the potential impact of the legislative framework on charitable fundraising. That is precisely why the Government introduced amendments to make it clear that the ability to create exemptions to the ticket touting offence can be used, but through regulations. In relation to activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes, we believe that what is needed is not a wholesale exception but a proportionate approach. The amendment tabled by the Government in the other place sends a clear signal of intent. Where it is appropriate to do so, exceptions for charities can and will be made in regulations. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw amendment 11 and new clause 6.
Mr French
I beg to move amendment 12, in schedule 1, page 24, line 20, at end insert—
“(4A) It is not an offence under this paragraph for a person (‘A’) to advertise that an event ticket is available for purchase from another person (‘B’) unless A knows, or ought to know, that B is touting an event ticket.”.
This amendment mirrors a defence in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 to ensure that the offence of advertising that an event ticket is available for purchase does not apply strict liability.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 56.
Amendment 3, in schedule 1, page 26, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) An authorisation under this paragraph must include a secondary ticketing condition.
(2B) A ‘secondary ticketing condition’ is a condition that requires a person granted a ticketing authorisation under this paragraph to have and maintain a mechanism through which an event ticket can be transferred or sold to another person.”.
Government amendments 57 to 60.
Schedule 1.
Mr French
Amendment 12 mirrors one of the defences in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020, which ensures that the offence of advertising that an event ticket is available for purchase does not apply strict liability. That means that it would not be an offence under the Bill for a person to advertise that an event ticket is available for purchase from somebody else, unless that first person already knows, or would be reasonably expected to know, that the second person is in fact touting a ticket to an event. This is a rather small and simple change that would improve the protections for those who would, under the current drafting, be inadvertently guilty of committing a crime.
It is unreasonable to expect everybody in the first person’s shoes to know the entirety of the story of the second person and how they came about the ticket. If somebody is knowingly advertising a touted ticket, of course they should face the full and proper penalties provided for in the Bill. I hope the Minister and the Committee will agree that the amendment would make a small and simple change to avoid trapping unsuspecting persons in a legal mess because they have been misled or did not know about somebody else’s actions.
Amendment 3 would add a requirement for any person granted a ticketing authorisation under the relevant paragraph to have and maintain a mechanism through which an event ticket can be transferred or sold to another person. The principle behind the amendment is straightforward: people who purchase tickets to major sporting events should not be left out of pocket if their circumstances change and they are no longer able to attend.
Life happens. As MPs, we all know that. People fall ill, family commitments change and work or travel arrangements can fall through. It cannot be right that a fan who has paid good money for a ticket should have no reasonable means of transferring it to somebody else. We of course recognise the importance of protecting fans from ticket touting, excessive resale prices and fraudulent activity. Those are legitimate concerns. However, there is a clear distinction between organised touting for profit and an ordinary supporter who simply wishes to recover the cost of a ticket they can no longer use.
As Lord Fuller said in the other place, not only does the Bill as drafted prevent the honest sale or transfer of a ticket, but it fines someone £50,000 “for trying it”. In my view, that is unacceptable. Under this Government, a person might get less of a punishment for burglary. A properly managed transfer or resale mechanism can help to protect consumers, give organisers greater oversight of who holds a ticket, and reduce the incentive for fans to turn to unofficial platforms or the black market, where the risk of fraud may be considerably greater.
This part of the Bill is seemingly stuck in the past as it fails to consider the ways fans can be protected from scammers with modern techniques, including proving identity and interoperability, which automatically validates and authenticates tickets. It is my understanding that the resale sector is calling for that, but the ticket sales and distribution companies are refusing to engage with it. Will the Minister speak to her ministerial colleagues in her Department and the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, and update me on discussions that the Government are having with the sector about introducing interoperability between ticket distribution companies and resale sites? That would hopefully allow resale companies to prevent ghost ticketing, and would facilitate a regular exchange between consenting adults—no more fake tickets sold and no more disappointed fans. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that her colleagues do that, and will she write to me after the Committee? If the Government’s aim is to protect consumers—I am sure it is—fans who no longer need their ticket must be able either to resell it or transfer it with little difficulty. The Bill currently allows fans only to sell their tickets back to the organisers, and there is then no cap on the resale value.
Stephanie Peacock
We will set it out in regulations. It depends on what event it is. I anticipate that those examples would be included, but it will be for this House to decide when it debates the regulations for each event.
It will be an offence to sell, offer to sell, expose for sale or advertise that a ticket to an event is available for purchase in certain circumstances. That includes where such activity is carried out in a public place, including a secondary ticketing platform or online marketplace, whether or not there is an intention to make a profit. To prevent abuse, selling an event ticket includes the giving away of such a ticket to someone who pays, or agrees to pay, for other goods or services. That includes event tickets included as part of an offer when purchasing other goods or services.
The penalty levels are designed to ensure that there is a sufficient deterrent to the ticketing offence. A person found guilty of the ticketing offence on summary conviction in England and Wales is subject to an unlimited fine; in Northern Ireland, to a fine of no more than £50,000; and in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding £20,000. On conviction on indictment in Scotland, they would be subject to a fine. The variations in penalty reflect differences in the judicial systems and legal frameworks across the UK. As an alternative to prosecution, enforcement authorities will be able to impose financial penalties without having to go through the courts.
As ticketing offences are not confined to the UK, we must be able to deter ticket touts acting outside our borders. That is why a UK national, an individual habitually resident in the UK, a body incorporated under UK law or a partnership in Scotland can commit an offence whether or not they are in the UK, or a part of the UK where the offence has been applied. It is also an offence for a non-UK person to carry out ticketing activity in the course of business outside of the UK, or in any part of the UK where the offence has not been applied, provided that the UK connection condition is met. That is crucial to ensure we can take action against activity that affects UK interests. Someone has a UK connection if they have a place of business or carry out business in the UK, or if they direct their activity to people in the UK. Enforcement authorities will have the power to impose a financial penalty of up to £20,000 as an alternative to prosecution. While the level of penalties is at the discretion of the enforcement authority, they can be of no more than £20,000. The process for imposing a financial penalty is clearly laid out: there will be the right to appeal to a first-tier tribunal, and penalties may be recovered through existing civil procedures.
Government amendment 56 addresses a drafting omission by providing that the Bill’s reference to the sale of an event ticket also includes reference to giving an event ticket as a prize, which is the long-standing intention of the provision and ensures that we can satisfy our hosting commitments. It prevents businesses from looking to gain exposure by giving away event tickets as prizes, unless they are authorised to do so—for example, they could be an official sponsor. Ultimately, the amendment will ensure that large businesses cannot exploit their considerable reach and public profile to benefit commercially from the interest and excitement surrounding an event to which they have made no contribution.
Government amendments 57 to 60 ensure that, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a financial penalty imposed by an enforcement authority for a ticket touting offence can be recovered without having to seek an order from the county court. This provides flexibility to accommodate different arrangements for the recovery of unpaid financial penalties, and it makes it clear that such penalties are treated as if they were payable under an order of the county court. This approach aligns with recent legislation, such as the Employment Rights Act 2025, and reduces the potential administrative burden for the enforcement authorities associated with the recovery of unpaid financial penalties.
Amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, seeks to create a defence for the ticket touting offence that mirrors the provision in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020. However, the position in this Bill is different, and that matters. Under the 2020 Act, someone could publicly sell a ticket at face value, provided that they were not acting as a business. As a result, to avoid committing an offence, someone advertising a ticket on behalf of another person had to determine whether the ticket was being sold above face value or in the course of business. A person could avoid liability if they did not know, and had no reason to know, that the ticket was being sold in the course of business for profit.
That may sound reasonable in theory, but in practice it created difficulty. If that defence was raised, enforcement authorities had to prove that the person advertising the ticket knew, or ought to have known, that it was being sold commercially or for profit. That introduced uncertainty, complexity and a clear opportunity for evasion. Under this Bill, the rule is clear. It applies to all public resale activity, including resale on online platforms. If a ticket is to be resold publicly, it must be authorised by the event owner or organiser.
Amendment 3, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, would require any person authorised to carry out ticketing activities to establish a mechanism for tickets to be transferred or resold. The Bill already gives us the ability to place conditions on those who sell or authorise the sale of tickets. That power could be used to include a requirement to provide an authorised resale platform, so the Bill already gives us the means to secure the outcome that the amendment seeks. We will seek assurances from event organisers at the outset that there will be an official resale platform, so that people who can no longer attend can resell tickets legally and safely.
I also want to reassure the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that we are not currently aware of any major itinerant sporting event organisers that do not operate an official ticketing resale platform. Regardless, the Bill ensures that fans can transfer spare tickets to friends, families and associates at face value, or advertise them through private social media channels. For those reasons, I commend Government amendments 56 to 60 to the Committee, and I kindly ask the hon. Member not to press amendments 3 and 12 to a vote.
Mr French
I appreciate the Minister’s comments. As I say, we were hoping to stop a situation in which an innocent member of the public shares a Facebook post that says, “X person has a ticket for sale for this game. Are you interested?”, but is then accidentally caught up in the Bill’s provisions and faces significant penalties. I have listened to the Minister’s comments, but the Opposition still have concerns, so I will look to press amendment 12 to a vote.
Likewise, on amendment 3, we want fans to have the opportunity to resell tickets if they are no longer attending. I also listened carefully to the Minister’s comments on the amendment, and I appreciate them, but our overall concern is that we will end up with a structure where the event organiser effectively has a monopoly that removes fans’ ability to transfer tickets easily. We are slightly concerned about what that could mean for ticket resale prices, if there is not a cap on the likes of FIFA being able to push up prices on fans, so we will also push amendment 3 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephanie Peacock
Perhaps I could write to my hon. Friend on that point, or perhaps come back to him later in Committee.
The ambition of the Bill is to establish an effective legislative environment for sporting events held in the UK, but as I said on Second Reading, I am equally clear that we must protect small businesses. Government amendments 45, 48, 61 and 62 help to do so by addressing the impact on those who are already permitted to advertise in a restricted zone. That means that authorising decisions are required to take into account whether an applicant is already permitted to advertise. That is an important safeguard.
We are acutely aware of the practical effect that these restrictions could have, especially for advertising space owned by a small business such as an independent local newsagent. That is why a decision to authorise is required to take into account whether an applicant is a small business or microbusiness. A microbusiness is defined as one with fewer than 10 staff, and a small business as one with at least 10 but fewer than 50 staff. That definition is widely used and provides a clear and consistent basis for decision making.
Mr French
Clause 8 requires regulations to identify the restricted advertising zones and the periods during which advertising restrictions apply. These zones must relate to event venues, locations used in connection with the event or their surrounding areas. For events involving devolved authorities, these zones must remain in their jurisdictions. The clause sets out that restrictions may begin no earlier than 10 days before the event and must end no later than five days afterwards. It allows regulations to address fixed penalty notices for offences and how advertising restrictions apply to locations such as airspace and waterways.
Clause 9 allows regulations to designate one or more persons to authorise advertising that would otherwise be prohibited. The designated person may be the authority making the regulations or another suitable representative appointed by the authority. That enables legitimate advertising by sponsors and other approved parties within restricted advertising zones. We all understand why that is so important when bidding for major international tournaments. It is normally a requirement that sporting bodies have for those international competitions. Designations of a representative may include conditions such as maintaining a register of granted advertising authorisations and making that available to the public, or reporting back to the appropriate national authority.
Clause 10 allows regulations to exempt specified types of advertising from the advertising offence. Exceptions may relate to the purpose, location, person or method of advertising, and may cover cases of charity promotion, event-authorised advertising and certain electronic communications. Existing lawful advertising arrangements may also be taken into account. Before creating exceptions, the relevant authority must consult the local authorities in which the restricted advertising zone would be and any other appropriate persons, which is appropriate given the impact that major events have on local communities.
I want to reiterate the question asked by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, because I had also written it down. What does the Minister think the relationship will be like for existing sponsorships, particularly of athletes? In football and athletics, it is often shoe sponsorship—Nike, Adidas and so on. How will those existing sponsorships or advertising deals, which are a key source of revenue for all athletes, be impacted by the regulations? I am happy to have the answer in writing if the Minister does not have it with her.
The group of Government amendments to clauses 8 to 10 and schedule 2 relating to advertising at sporting events requires the designated authorising person to take into account existing advertising licences when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation. The amendments also require the designated authorising person to take into account whether a person is a small or micro business when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation. Government amendments 45 and 48 define a small business as having between 10 and 50 members of staff, and a micro business as having fewer than 10. The amendments seem entirely sensible to us. I appreciate that there were concerns shared from across the House, but the Minister and I had a conversation last week in private and the amendments appear sensible.
Stephanie Peacock
I will speak briefly to the hon. Gentleman’s point about unauthorised associations and restrictions. An unauthorised association will apply only to commercial activity likely to suggest to the public that a person has an official connection with an event, such as an official sponsor rather than a competing team or athlete. It is for the event owners to determine and enforce their own policies and procedures regarding athlete sponsorship and associated promotional activity. I am happy to write to the Committee to clarify that point if that would be helpful.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Advertising provisions
Amendments made: 61, in schedule 2, page 31, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
“(4) In determining whether or not to grant an authorisation under this paragraph, a designated authorising person—
(a) must have regard to any existing advertising licences, and
(b) may have regard to—
(i) any agreements entered into (whether by the appropriate national authority or another person) for the purposes of the sporting event, and
(ii) any other matters that the person considers relevant.”
This amendment would require existing advertising licences to be taken into account by a designated authorising person when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation.
Amendment 62, in schedule 2, page 31, line 29, at end insert—
“(4A) In determining whether or not to grant an authorisation under this paragraph in respect of a person or description of person, a designated authorising person must also have regard to whether the person is, or the description of person includes, a small or micro business.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would require a designated authorising person to take into account whether a person is a small or micro business in determining whether or not to grant an advertising authorisation.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11
Trading regulations
Mr French
I appreciate the Minister’s comments today, and when we discussed the issue last week during the pre-Committee briefing. The Government are rightly seeking to balance the commitments required to host major international sporting events with the rights of existing local traders. Those are not easy to balance, and unfortunately, I am sure that there will be disputes when we get to such events in the future. However, even though I have concerns about what enforcement may look like, I appreciate what the Government seek to do.
The Government amendments define a non-domestic sporting event, and mean that where regulations apply the trading provisions to a non-domestic sporting event, they must, in certain circumstances, require specified public authorities to take reasonable steps to mitigate any adverse impacts on already licensed traders. Once amended, the Bill will also provide that, in the case of a domestic sporting event, the trading offence does not apply to trading activities carried out in accordance with a trading licence granted by a local authority. Moreover, the amendments provide that the conditions that may be imposed on a designated authorising person include requiring them to arrange for their authorisation decisions to be reviewed and to define a public authority for the framework.
Following my discussions with the Minister last week, I am pleased that the amendments have been tabled. They will affect locally based traders that operate from the same location throughout the year, such as the long-standing independent food seller and, as the Minister said, burger vans—saying this might get me cancelled by the Conservative party, but I am more of a hot dog guy—[Interruption.] Yes, I should resign; I am sorry! It also means that alternatives are proactively explored to help traders who cannot remain in situ because of the legal commitments required to host the likes of the European championship or the world cup. On the face of it, the amendments are sensible, particularly given the Government’s concession in allowing domestic but recurring events to apply to use the framework.
Amendment 32 agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Persons granting trading authorisations
Amendment made: 33, in clause 12, page 9, line 10, at end insert—
“(d) arrange for a decision to grant, or to refuse to grant, a trading authorisation to be reviewed.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would provide that the conditions which may be imposed on a designated authorising person include requiring the person to arrange for their authorisation decisions to be reviewed.
Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Trading provisions
Amendments made: 63, in schedule 3, page 35, line 28, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 65.
Amendment 64, in schedule 3, page 35, line 33, at end insert—
“(4A) In determining whether or not to grant an authorisation under this paragraph in relation to a non-domestic sporting event, a designated authorising person must have regard to any existing trading licences.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 65.
Amendment 65, in schedule 3, page 36, line 9, at end insert—
“(3) In the case of a domestic sporting event, paragraph 1(1) does not apply in relation to a trading activity which is carried out in accordance with a trading licence granted by a local authority.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment would provide that, in the case of a domestic sporting event, the trading offence does not apply to trading activities carried out in accordance with a trading licence granted by a local authority.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Rachel Hopkins.)
Draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026
Louie French Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Desmond. This statutory instrument extends an existing power in the Digital Economy Act 2017 that enables data sharing between public authorities and energy suppliers. The changes will enable the reduction or cancellation of customers’ debt to their energy supplier in certain circumstances.
The regulations will specifically permit the sharing of information to support the delivery of a debt relief scheme, amend the list of fuel poverty measures to enable specified persons to disclose information to energy suppliers for the reduction or cancellation of customers’ debt, and amend the 2018 regulations to add the Department for Energy, Security and Net Zero and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—that last one might need updating—to the list of specified persons that may share information. I hope that Ministers will make sure that this Committee is not a waste of time, and that we will not find ourselves here again soon, making another regulation to add other Departments to that list.
Members will know that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition have long criticised the Government’s broader energy policy. We are clear that consumer debt is rising because impossible net zero targets, such as achieving full clean power by 2030, have driven up energy bills across the country. We reiterate our calls for the Government to take a serious approach that tackles the root cause of high energy prices, rather than raising taxes to pay for temporary solutions.
The Government should therefore adopt our cheap power plan to scrap the carbon tax on electricity generation from gas, as well as removing VAT on domestic energy bills, maximising extraction of our oil and gas resources in the North sea, and committing to reliable, secure power generation from gas and nuclear. Although the regulations have noble intentions, they do nothing to address the underlying problems and costs for consumers. They simply paper over the cracks of a Labour Government already failing to deliver on the promises they made to the public.
Oral Answers to Questions
Louie French Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Making sport more accessible should be the ultimate goal of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and that is why we continue to urge the Government to stop raising taxes on sports clubs and to ensure that all sports, and especially female sports, champion fairness and safety. The Conservative party is clear: all UK sports and their governing bodies must follow the law when it comes to biological sex and ensure that there is a level playing field for female athletes to compete. Will the Government match the Conservative party’s commitment to women’s sport and remove public funding from sports bodies that refuse to follow the law?
Stephanie Peacock
We have always been clear that national sporting governing bodies will set their own policies for who can participate. It is incredibly important that we prioritise fairness, safety and competition, while balancing the need for inclusion and ensuring that everyone can participate.
Sporting Events Bill [Lords]
Louie French ExcerptsThursday 3rd September 2026
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Sporting Events Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 3–R–I Marshalled list for Report - (13 Jul 2026)
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also put on record, because the Secretary of State has not, my delight that my old club, the London Broncos, won silverware at the weekend. London beating the north at their own sport—it was a fantastic sight to watch—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is really enjoying that! But let me start seriously by saying that the Bill is a welcome step in the right direction for major sporting events across the UK. I thank hon. Members from across both Houses for their contributions to the debates on the Bill so far, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) for his fantastic championing of DCMS over many years—I know he will continue to do that—and for putting up with me for the past 12 months.
As we all know, major sporting events make a substantial social and economic contribution to our country and, more often than not, the journey from bidding stage to delivery spans across Governments, so it is vital that we get this right and seek to work constructively wherever possible. It is notable that the turquoise goal hangers have not even turned up for this major debate, despite making references in the press about hosting events in the future—it is not the first time that has happened, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In an increasingly competitive international bidding environment, the Bill should help the UK to attract more events and allow those we already stage to be more successful. I am therefore pleased that the Government have accepted some of the amendments made in the other place, particularly by expanding the scope of the Bill to a wider range of major sporting events, including those taking place on a regular basis. The objective of the Bill should be to streamline the bidding and delivery aspects of hosting major sporting events. That is a principle that we can support, because as Conservatives we believe fundamentally that Britain succeeds when the Government get out of the way. I could provide many sporting examples to highlight that point, but in the interests of time I will highlight just three.
First, although football is not without its issues—we have discussed that on many occasions—our domestic football competitions such as the premier league and the English football league continue to lead the world in attracting investment and fans from across the world. We should never apologise for that success, nor forget why British football continues to deliver billions of inward investment and champion our soft power across the world. The success of football across the UK, but particularly in England, also means that we are well placed for future bids with our stadiums and supporting infrastructure such as training bases. The recent example of the Barcelona men’s team training at St George’s Park highlights again what a fantastic facility it is. It will continue to support new and existing coaches and, I hope, further success on the pitch for England’s national teams.
I would also like to put on record my thanks to our football associations for their ongoing leadership work both at home and overseas in very challenging circumstances, as we have sadly seen again this summer with the ongoing FIFA saga. Such diplomatic skills will continue to be vital for any future bids to host competitions, and I thank officials for their ongoing work.
Secondly, I will briefly mention Formula 1, and the commercial vision and leadership that, like the premier league, continues to put the UK at the top of the international podium. Formula 1’s success embodies the very best of international competition and sports science, creating fantastic jobs and investment across Britain that stretches far beyond the grand prix weekend, as I saw again on a recent visit to the Formula 1 media centre in Biggin Hill.
The third example is the national lottery, one of the greatest Conservative legacies, which has allowed UK Sport, with the support of lottery players, to transform our athletic success across multiple sports. Gone are the days when a more state-controlled approach to sport saw us languish in the middle tables. This is another area where we will seek to continue to work constructively with the Government to ensure that funding for sport is maximised.
From the premier league to Formula 1, the Open, the London marathon, Wimbledon and beyond, our nation’s sporting heritage is rich and continues to lead the world. In fact, I cannot see why events like the British grand prix at Silverstone, the Open or the London marathon were excluded from the remit of the Bill in the first place. These events provide an incredible return on investment for this country, with independent assessments already anticipating that Euro 2028 will generate over £3.2 billion of social economic benefits for the UK and Ireland between 2028 and 2031. That is the equivalent of approximately £5.74 of benefit for every £1 invested.
It is therefore welcome that the Government have accepted the amendments in the other place to allow the benefits of the Bill and the subsequent framework to be extended to events that already benefit this country. However, as the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) set out, and many noble Lords made clear throughout the passage of the Bill in the other place, there are still serious questions that need to be addressed on the Government’s approach to major events.
First, why have the Government tabled a Bill to support hosting major sporting events when their own major events strategy, which has been promised, is still unpublished? Does the Minister not see that the Bill should be part of that strategy and that they are at risk of putting the cart before the horse?
Secondly, the Bill fails to address major fiscal and regulatory concerns outlined by organisers of major events. They include proposals by the Home Office to charge for policing services, the implementation of Martyn’s law, increasing employment costs, higher business rates and the Care Quality Commission’s new regulations.
On CQC regulation, I know the sporting events sector has already had discussions with the Department of Health and Social Care and the CQC on an exemption for those who provide medical services for athletes, performers and officials, but, as we have seen for the past two years, Ministers have failed to grasp the nettle and provide urgent clarity to the sector. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister please now make sure that they or their ministerial colleagues provide confirmation and clarity on the introduction of the exemption as soon as possible, so that major sporting events are not negatively delayed or impacted by unintended consequences?
We have also heard from our constituents about the increased costs for businesses under successive Labour Governments. That is no different for those who host major sporting events. The Prime Minister might be able to afford his Everton season ticket, but there are many out there who will no longer be able to afford to watch their beloved teams thanks to the increased costs being piled on to clubs across the country. We have heard already about the impact of changes to events that are televised on national TV for free. This is an ongoing challenge that sports are facing; it is having direct consequences for fans across the country, whether they seek to watch sport in person or at home.
Not only have the Government saddled organisers with more costs in the form of minimum wage increases, national insurance increases, business rates increases and energy costs; now the Home Office is threatening to increase the cost of policing these kinds of events. A joined-up Government approach would see a guarantee that our major sporting events benefit from policing services in the same way as every other sector of the economy, and ensure that they are not forced to pay again for public services that they have already paid for through high levels of taxation. Will the Secretary of State commit to making sure that no extra police charges will be imposed on sporting events, and to making sure that if the Government proceed in this way, an impact assessment of the ability of those events to swallow such costs is published as soon as possible?
More broadly, this Government’s words on sports are not being matched by their actions, as we have seen and heard today. I hope that the new Prime Minister changes direction on this, because we all know that having a good strategy is one thing—and this Bill will make it easier to deliver such events—but the country will miss out if we do not address some of the sporting cuts that have been made over the past two years, particularly at the grassroots. It is future generations that will miss out on being inspired if we do not host such events. Since this Labour Government came in two years ago, they have cut £57 million from the opening school facilities fund, £127 million a year from the primary school PE and sport premium, £35 million from investment in grassroots cricket, £11 million from the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme, and £25 million in real terms from grassroots sports investment, compared with the previous Conservative Government. This is not a good record, and it is our sports and our grassroots facilities that are paying the price.
While in government, the Conservative party invested more than £1.5 billion in grassroots, school and elite sports, including an unprecedented £400 million investment in grassroots sport and £300 million of emergency funding to support community sports clubs and grassroots organisations. Perhaps the programme we Conservatives should be most proud of is the PE and sport premium; introduced to help inspire a generation after the London Olympics, it was worth £600 million between 2023 and 2025 alone, and has totalled almost £3.5 billion, directly for schools, since we introduced it in 2013. This summer of sport was built on the legacy of the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics, the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth games, the 2015 rugby world cup, the 2019 cricket world cup, the 2020 men’s Euro final and the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games, to name just a few of the incredible events that have taken place. However, if the Government continue down this path of not funding sport properly, I am afraid there will be less money for future generations and the future stars we so need. As I have said, I sincerely hope that the Government help this Department to change the direction that we have seen it take over the past two years.
To conclude, this Bill is a welcome move for elite sport and major international events, and we will work constructively to try to improve it as it passes through the Commons. However, this Labour Government must change direction. They must reduce costs for all levels of sport; otherwise, we will lose our seat at the top table of international sport, and the next generation will not benefit from hosting such major, incredible events.
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and his point goes to the heart of this Bill. The process should be collaborative and should work for local people. That speaks to the point I was going to come on to make, which is that event-specific regulations—they will set out which provisions will be applied to an event, including information such as the time period and how the provisions apply to the local area—will be subject to parliamentary debate and scrutiny through the statutory instrument process.
Moving on to some of the specifics in the Bill, the ticketing provisions are designed to ensure that tickets can be resold only with the authorisation of the event owner or organiser. This measure will clamp down on ticket touts who seek to exploit sports fans and profiteer from major sporting moments. We saw such legislation work effectively at London 2012, and this Bill will make that the baseline for major sporting events. Where needed, local trading standards authorities and the Competition and Markets Authority will be able to enforce the Bill. While it does not prohibit official reselling of tickets at above face value, we will bring in further legislation in this area. The Secretary of State was clear in her remarks about the draft legislation being there so that we can get this right, but she was also clear that the issue should be a high priority for this Session.
The Bill will introduce time-limited restricted zones around competition venues, fan zones and transport hubs to prevent aggressive ambush marketing and unauthorised street trading. Without those protections, the women’s Euros in 2022 faced persistent street trading and unauthorised advertising blimps. In contrast, the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games used these powers to swiftly resolve more than 50 advertising and trading infringements, protecting official sponsors and keeping spectator routes safe. The Bill will empower local authorities to undertake enforcement at future events.
The Bill ensures that the interests of those with an existing trading licence are taken into account when a determination is made on an application to trade in a restricted zone, but we are absolutely determined to make sure that the Bill is as strong as possible on protecting small businesses. We will work across the House to make sure that it delivers on that.
The Bill will prohibit unauthorised association. That will prevent businesses from falsely suggesting to the public that they have an official connection with an event in order to gain exposure. Weak controls around unauthorised association make sponsoring an event less appealing and allow businesses to benefit without giving financial support. The Bill sets out controls to prevent that from happening; it gives the power to enforce the provisions to designated enforcers, which are likely to be event owners or organisers. Protections will have been built in to ensure proportionality, and to help ensure that small businesses can once again benefit from major events on their doorstep. It is our intention to make sure that small businesses benefit from major events, and I am very keen to work with Members across the House to deliver this.
Mr French
We are willing to work constructively on this issue. Can we also ensure that there is significant flexibility for events such as Wimbledon, just to name one? A lot of residents who live nearby suffer the parking stress that we heard about from colleagues. During such events, people normally hire out driveways, which helps with parking capacity. Will there be enough flexibility in the legislation to allow that kind of thing to carry on?
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important and valid point, and I look forward to continuing the conversation with him in Bill Committee, when we can pick up on that point. I will touch on recurrent events in a moment, but first I will touch briefly on transport.
The Bill enables integrated, cross-boundary transport plans and temporary traffic powers in England for local traffic authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) raised this important point. I assure him that plans will be collaborative, and will have to work with local people. A good example is the games route network used in Birmingham 2022, which ensured that spectators could move safely and efficiently, while minimising disruption to local residents and businesses.
National Youth Strategy
Louie French Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this important debate.
We all recognise that this issue is increasingly important to our constituents across the country. I spend a lot of time discussing it as both the local MP in Old Bexley and Sidcup and a shadow Minister. I have had the pleasure of having young people on work experience with me this week to keep me on my toes. It has been a busy week.
In 2022, the previous Government allocated £560 million over three years to fund the national youth guarantee, ensuring that young people aged between 11 and 18 in England had access to regular clubs and activities, something to do after school, experiences away from home and opportunities to volunteer. As part of that, we allocated £300 million to youth facilities, improving and developing 300 of them. We established the National Citizen Service; this Government cancelled it, but more than 750,000 young people participated in it and it had a 93% satisfaction rate—something this Government could only dream of.
As the Government well know, youth charities, like all employers, are subject to national insurance contributions, and the increase in contributions requires them to find additional funds. According to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, these changes could cost the charity sector an additional £1.4 billion a year. For smaller charities with limited reserves and core funding, that will seem like an insurmountable challenge. As has been mentioned, this has led to a reduction in provision.
Youth work has huge economic benefits. Research has shown that every £1 of Government investment in youth work has a social return on investment of between £3.20 and £6.40. Moreover, it saves around £500 million annually by preventing antisocial behaviour, knife crime and associated criminal justice costs. As a Government, we established the youth investment fund, which delivered £300 million over approximately three years. This Government scrapped it, and announced a new national youth strategy, which analysis shows cuts the funding by around £50 million each year over the life of the strategy.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and I hosted a roundtable with those from the enrichment sector—it is great to see some of them in the audience today. The renewed national focus on enrichment is welcome and timely, but access to enrichment remains uneven, and Government funding cuts will only make that worse. We agree with those we heard from yesterday that the challenge is how we ensure that fantastic youth enrichment provision is accessible for as many young people as possible across the country.
As others have said, enrichment is not an optional extra; it is a vital way in which young people learn fundamental life skills that often cannot be taught in traditional learning environments. I have seen some of the Duke of Edinburgh work in one of my local schools, with pupils putting up tents and camping. The Duke of Edinburgh’s award celebrates a milestone next week—70 years—and I am sure that many Members will be there to support that tradition.
Jim Shannon
Those opportunities allow many young people to enjoy camping—unlike the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who is not really a camper. Those who get the thrill of camping for the first time will always want to do it. My oldest boy did it, and now he goes camping every summer with his wife and the children. That is just an example of people acquiring something that lasts.
Mr French
I thank the hon. Gentleman for one of his famous interventions. I am pleased that his son enjoys camping; I am not sure I am as sold on a camping holiday in this weather. He is right that it teaches young people key life skills that they can take forward for the rest of their lives.
We all know the crisis we have, with more than 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. A good enrichment offer is a key way of reversing the alarming increase we have seen in recent years. The Government’s national youth strategy has some noble aims, including halving the participation gap in enrichment activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers, and giving half a million more young people access to a trusted adult outside of the home by 2035—I believe passionately in the power of role models, and I would love to go on about it longer, but I am looking at the time, so I will not.
The warm words in the strategy are all well and good, but the funding must match them. Governments of all colours make big announcements, but the funding does not always match them. That is my concern: that the money being put forward is not enough to deliver the objectives.
Government can often be siloed, so I hope that the Minister will also commit to making a concerted effort to ensure that policies and programmes across Government are put into practice in a more holistic and strategic way in this area. There ought to be an understanding of the need for funding pots and programmes for enrichment to complement one another, to work in tandem, and not to duplicate efforts or to compete with other Departments’ aims. Will the Minister therefore urge colleagues in the Department for Education to reverse the 22% cut to school PE funding and reverse the cut to the opening schools facilities fund, which would help many youth clubs to have somewhere to provide their services?
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I call the Minister, hopeful that Harpreet Uppal will have a couple of minutes at the end to wind up.
Future of British Horseracing
Louie French Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and highlight that I have visited and met a number of trainers in my two years as shadow Minister, as well as with the APPG. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing this important debate. No one can doubt the passion with which he speaks for British horseracing, racing more widely, and his constituents, who have raised concerns about the future of Kempton Park racecourse and the sport more broadly. Dare I say that he might have a future in commentary, given the opening of today’s debate? So watch out, Ruby Walsh! It was very impressive.
Like my hon. Friend, I enjoyed the King George and seeing Harry Redknapp being the winning owner. In fact, I have enjoyed going to Kempton over the years. It means a great deal to a large number of people—not just the community immediately around the racecourse, but the wider London and south-east community, which sees Kempton Park as one of its home courses, alongside Lingfield, which is slightly closer to where I live in south-east London.
I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns about the development proposals that might come forward and this Government’s weakening of green-belt protections, an issue that I have raised on several occasions as the shadow Sports Minister. We are talking today about the impact that this might have on British horseracing, but the concern is felt across all of British sport. In particular, part of the broader concern around the impact on planning protections is the future of Sport England. If we are going to continue to have great British sports, we must ensure that future and current generations have somewhere to go and watch sports, whether that is at the elite level, as we are talking about today, or the grassroots. I hope the Government listen carefully to that concern. It is not just a Department for Culture, Media and Sport issue, but a local government one. The concern is felt across this House and across a number of sports.
More broadly, today’s debate is about the future of British horseracing as a whole. I enjoyed the contributions from a number of Members who I know care passionately about the sport and work very hard as part of the APPG. Horseracing is one of Britain’s greatest sporting success stories. It is woven into our national identity and remains one of our most successful global sporting exports. It is also of enormous economic importance, particularly to our rural economy. British horseracing contributes around £4.1 billion to the UK economy every year, supports more than 85,000 jobs and generates around £300 million annually in tax revenues for the Treasury. More than 500 training yards and 660 stud farms support rural communities across the country. More than 5 million racegoers attended Britain’s 59 racecourses last year, with attendances increasing by 5% year on year.
The industry’s value extends far beyond those headlines, as we all know. It supports hotels, pubs, restaurants and countless small businesses across the country. It provides opportunities for people from every background, with institutions such as the National Horseracing College, which we have heard about, and the British Racing School. British breeding attracts significant international investment, and our welfare standards are rightly regarded as the best anywhere in the world. In fact, since 2000, British horseracing has invested £63 million into veterinary research, which has helped to reduce fatal injuries on the racecourse by around a third. Alongside a number of Members who have spoken, I have had the privilege of visiting some horseracing facilities across the country.
As the shadow Minister with responsibility for sport and gambling, I recognise the unique relationship between horseracing and betting. Unlike almost any other sport, horseracing’s finances are fundamentally intertwined with a well-regulated betting industry. Media rights, sponsorship and the horserace betting levy contribute around £350 million every year to British horseracing. I smiled when listening to some Members argue that we should have tighter regulations on gambling but who then also complained about a reduction in funding for horseracing. For me, that position is classic—it is a certain party trying to look both ways. I do not think that most people in racing recognise that position, and we have to be honest about the trade-offs at play. We support evidence-led, proportionate regulation that protects the most vulnerable people while allowing the 22.5 million adults in Britain who bet each month to do so safely.
Today, the Gambling Commission has announced that following a protracted pilot period, there will be a phased introduction of affordability checks over the course of an implementation period of an unspecified length. That has already caused huge concern. We had hoped that the Government and the Gambling Commission would reflect seriously on this issue, but unfortunately, that has not been the case.
On a number of occasions, I have raised my concerns about the lack of Government oversight of the decision made by the arm’s length body, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden). It seems a complete dereliction of duty from the Government, and DCMS in particular, to have allowed the Gambling Commission to go ahead without bringing the plans back to Parliament following the pilot. It is deeply concerning to me as a shadow Minister, and it is deeply offensive to this House, whose elected Members would like to scrutinise these decisions on behalf of the British public. It is disappointing that this decision has gone ahead, and there will be severe financial consequences and implications for the sport of horseracing and jobs in this country.
We can look at a variety of aspects of this issue. There is an element of intrusion into the lives of people who just want to bet safely with their well-earned money in a safe environment. I think we can all see the risk of consequences. I remember a debate in this place during the last Parliament. I was one of the few Members in the room without a horse track in their constituency, or any ministerial or shadow ministerial responsibilities, but I raised the same concerns about the impact of such a policy on British horseracing. Let us consider the amount of money that is spent in a week at Cheltenham or Aintree. We could see these regulations being triggered very quickly, which would lead to more and more people being driven to the illegal black market. That should be a concern for every single Member of this House; regardless of their perspective on gambling and horseracing, that is the biggest threat to gamblers and to people suffering from addiction in this country. Because of the potential unintended consequences, we must not continue with this policy.
I find it completely unacceptable for Members to stand up in this place and advocate for British horseracing and for safe, regulated gambling in this country, but then to continue to put in the way hurdles and obstacles that drive the black market in this country. Enough is enough. We have to be honest about the decisions we are making as policymakers, and we have to be honest that the Government are ducking decisions and allowing the Gambling Commission to make them without the scrutiny that there should be from this elected House. Around 120,000 horseracing bettors could face enhanced financial checks, and the majority are expected simply to refuse them, which will reduce betting turnover and cut levy income for the sport, all while moving those punters into the black market, which is growing significantly under this Government.
The previous Conservative Government made it clear that these checks should only proceed if they can be delivered entirely frictionlessly, yet following the Gambling Commission’s pilot, decisions were delayed and independent analysis was not fully published. More concerningly, this policy has now been signed off for implementation without key stakeholders in horseracing and betting being able to see that vital evidence, such as NatCen’s independent review of the pilot. The Gambling Commission is now operating beyond its remit, and it must be brought to task by this House or by the Government. I hope that the Minister will agree that like other policies introduced from the gambling White Paper in 2023, this decision needs to have full and proper parliamentary scrutiny.
I appreciate that the Minister and the Department are very busy with another race that is currently under way to decide who will be the future Prime Minister, as well as, perhaps, the race to be the future Member of Parliament for Clacton—I understand that has been set off while we have been in this Chamber. However, the fact that this decision has been taken unilaterally by the Gambling Commission shows a clear abdication of duty by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I believe, sadly, that DCMS has failed to grasp and deal with the necessary details in this case.
The situation is quite simple. The checks being proposed have been proven by the Gambling Commission’s pilot not to be “fully frictionless”, which had been promised by Ministers in this Government as well as in the previous Government. Evidence suggests that illegal betting has expanded dramatically in recent years, as more and more burdens and taxes have been placed on the regulated market, directly resulting in significant migration away from it.
I have said a number of times that I have no problem with bashing the bookies, but I want that to be done in the most traditional sense—that is, by those who have a bet on the horse that they want to win—and not by the Government continuing to drive this underground, illegal, black market trade, which we know is fuelling some very dodgy characters overseas. As we know, illegal operators pay no UK tax. They make no contribution to horseracing. They provide none of the consumer protections required of licensed operators and they create serious integrity risks for the sport. The Treasury is already estimated to be losing around £300 million annually because of this illegal activity, and that figure is only likely to increase because of punitive tax rises by this Labour Government and the introduction of these financial checks.
The Government cannot claim that they have not been warned—I have spent the best part of two years warning them that this will only get worse, and I know that there are Labour Members in this House who share my concerns. If we generally want consumers to remain protected, we should encourage them to stay within the regulated market rather than unintentionally pushing them elsewhere. The horseracing industry also needs and deserves clear engagement from the Government, so I hope that the Minister will answer a number of questions, all of which are fairly straightforward.
Will the Minister commit to stronger engagement with the British Horseracing Authority and the wider industry, regardless of who is in No. 10? Will she ensure that the “Anti-Gambling Commission” publishes a full update on the financial risk assessment pilot before any further decisions are made? Will she require that the Gambling Commission publishes an implementation timeline for these intrusive checks? Will she also say what steps will be taken to ensure that answers from credit reference agencies will be consistently given with results, and that there will be no discrepancies between agencies’ recommendations? Finally, will she work across Government to ensure that British horseracing continues to receive the scrutiny and support deserved by an industry that contributes billions to our economy, sustains tens of thousands of jobs and forms such an important part of British sporting heritage? I urge the Government to heed my words today and to do all they can to support British horseracing traditions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing this vital debate on the future of horseracing. There have been many valuable contributions and I will try to respond to all the points that were made to me. Of course, I am not the Gambling Minister—that is Baroness Twycross, who sits in the other place—but I will also ensure that she writes to Members about some points.
The focus of this debate is the future of Kempton Park, and I know that the hon. Member is deeply concerned about the long-term option agreement on the racecourse land, which runs until 2028, as well as the local anxieties around potential housing development on green-belt and floodplain land. He made a couple of points about the national planning policy framework. Where the NPPF seeks to support the development of land connected to railway stations, that does not grant automatic permission or remove appropriate local oversight. I have asked my office to reach out to my counterpart in MHCLG, who I am sure will meet him—the hon. Member for Spelthorne will appreciate that planning is an issue for local authorities and MHCLG. I know that the Gambling Minister, who I spoke to earlier today, will be happy to meet him, but this particular point on planning is for MHCLG.
The hon. Member showed in his speech that he is a strong advocate for his constituency and the industry. He shared examples such as the many emails and the public meeting at the Magpie pub. Clearly, this issue is of real concern to his constituents, and I recognise the significance of the track—I think he said that it dates back to 1878.
Although the developer has stated that a planning application is not imminent this year, the Government fully recognise the immense sporting and cultural value of this historic venue. Kempton Park is home, of course, to the iconic King George VI Chase on Boxing day. That legendary steeplechase and mid-season highlight of the jumps calendar is fiercely defended by leading trainers and racing fans alike, some of whom have joined us in the Public Gallery.
The hon. Member illustrated that point very powerfully in his opening remarks. I draw his attention to the fact that there are 40 examples of racecourses represented on the national heritage list for England, with grandstands, pavilions and racing stables included. I encourage the hon. Member to submit an application to Historic England if he would like a specific part of Kempton Park racecourse to be considered for listing.
I reiterate that, although any specific development proposal remains a matter for local government and the independent planning process, we completely understand how much this internationally famous racecourse means to the heritage of British racing and the local community. I am sure the hon. Member for Spelthorne will appreciate where these decisions lie, but after this debate I will write to him and set up these meetings, as I have committed to doing.
His Majesty’s Government recognise the significant contribution that racing makes to British culture and its particular importance to the British economy, as has been rightly mentioned. It plays a central role to the livelihood of many different communities. I am well aware, from my time as the shadow Minister for Gambling, of the strength of support on both sides of the House for horseracing, as well as some of the concerns and challenges faced by the sector.
British horseracing is a world-class industry; it is the envy of the global sporting community, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) rightly highlighted. It was a joy to see him in his home city last week. Flagship events such as Royal Ascot, the Cheltenham festival, Goodwood or York are major international attractions. We have two Members here from Doncaster, my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher); it is important to recognise the 250th anniversary of the St Leger festival. It was a delight to join my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central in 2023 on the day that His Majesty the King attended. I have been pleased to go to the St Leger on more than one occasion, and would be delighted to go back. Being just down the road from my constituency, I know just how important Donny racecourse is.
Beyond the glamour of some of the elite festivals, horseracing is an economic powerhouse. It is our nation’s second largest spectator sport, contributing more than £4 billion annually to the economy and supporting approximately 85,000 jobs, many of which are vital to the sustainability of our rural communities. As the Minister for Tourism, I am aware of Britain’s reputation as a global leader in horseracing and breeding. Indeed, it is promoted worldwide as part of the GREAT Britain and Northern Ireland campaign, demonstrating the role that sport plays in soft power.
I recognise the concerns of industry and Members that have been raised about the introduction of financial risk assessments. The Gambling Commission today announced its intention to implement these assessments through a careful, phased approach. The commission outlined that the recent pilot demonstrated that these assessments can successfully identify individuals in severe financial distress without intruding on the overwhelming majority of customers.
Crucially, the pilot showed that, for those that did reach the threshold for assessment, checks can be undertaken without friction in 97% of cases. We must remember that it affects only 0.5% of customers. However, I fully appreciate the concerns put to me. The policy was established in the 2023 White Paper under the previous Government and has been in force for three years, subject to a two-year pilot and a phased implementation. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), and others have raised concerns and put questions to me, and I recognise that he has taken a keen interest in the subject. On 16 November 2023, he put a written question to the then Gambling Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), under the previous Government. In his reply, that Minister talked about how the current system was inconsistent and how they wanted to bring some uniformity.
A point was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton about where the policy is set. The policy is set by Government; it started under the previous Government and has continued under this Government. The Gambling Minister, who sits in the other place, is responsible for that, and its implementation is for the Gambling Commission. Having spoken to the Gambling Minister, I know she has met the Gambling Commission and put many of these questions to them. I am sure that the Gambling Commission would meet any Member of this House; I can set up those meetings if that would be welcome. I have heard the points that Members have put to me, and I will take them back to the Gambling Minister.
Mr French
I think we are beyond this “he said, she said” about what happened in previous Parliaments. The commitment from the previous Government was clear that these checks must be frictionless. The Minister also said at the time that the checks should be frictionless, but she has acknowledged in her comments that they are not completely frictionless, so why are we proceeding with something that is against what the previous Government and this Government have said is their policy?
Stephanie Peacock
I recognise the point made by the shadow Minister. I quoted him in recognising his consistency on this issue, and I noted that he put questions on this to the previous Government. Around 97% have been frictionless in the pilot. Obviously, it has not yet been rolled out, but it will be, and it will be kept under close consideration.
The hon. Member also put another couple of questions to me. I understand that the evidence will be published in due course and the implementation timeline will be published after the summer. If he would like to meet the Gambling Minister, I am sure she will meet him and other hon. Members who are interested.
Horseracing holds a unique position as the only sport in receipt of a direct, Government-mandated levy, which is paid by bookmakers at 10% of gross profits and is projected to return £110 million to the sport this year. Following a comprehensive review of the levy, a written statement to the House in March outlined that there will not be legislative changes to its rate or scope at this time.
In last year’s Budget, the Chancellor announced that British horseracing was specifically carved out of the increase to gambling duty, which affected overseas racing and other forms of betting. We recognise that bookmakers already contribute through the 10% levy and we want to acknowledge the valuable role the sport plays in British culture. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who is no longer in his place, raised the unintended consequences with me. I will ensure that the Gambling Minister writes to him, and I will reflect those concerns to the Treasury.
As announced last week in our response to the consultation on fees, on-course bookmakers will now be charged on the basis of gross gambling yield rather than days of operation. That removes a significant financial disincentive for bookmakers to attend smaller race meetings and will result in a fee reduction for 44% of operators in this category.
I am incredibly encouraged by the proactive and ambitious steps that the racing sector is taking to innovate. The British Horseracing Authority’s work on Project Beacon and Project Pace shows exactly the kind of forward-thinking strategy needed to protect and grow the sport.
Members have raised valid points about the risk of consumers moving to the unlicensed illegal gambling market. The Government recognise that that threat exists. We are taking action in this space, including providing an additional £26 million funding over three years to enable the Gambling Commission to increase its enforcement activity. The illegal gambling taskforce, chaired by Baroness Twycross, is actively considering what more can be done to tackle those threats and will meet again later this month.
We are also committed to ensuring that the licensed sector is not placed at a commercial disadvantage. To support that, we will soon launch a consultation on banning unlicensed gambling sponsors in sport and will continue to work across Government to crack down on illegal advertising.
Finally, I want to touch on the issue at the heart of the sport—the welfare of the animals. Over the last 20 years, British racing has invested more than £47 million in veterinary research and education, with funding from the levy board and more recently the Racing Foundation. To build on that progress, the levy board is committing £3.7 million to disease surveillance, veterinary science and education programmes starting this year.
Oral Answers to Questions
Louie French Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The successful bid to host the Euros in 2028 made under the previous Conservative Government has enormous potential to economically and culturally benefit the UK, giving fans lifelong memories as football comes home. But to deliver a truly lasting legacy, the Government must commit to protect pitches, properly fund grassroots sports and stop taxing clubs into oblivion. I ask the Minister again: will the Government finally U-turn on their proposed watering down of Sport England’s crucial role in protecting grassroots pitches?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that the Euros should be a cross-party endeavour that commands the support of the whole House and that it will have significant economic benefits for the UK; we believe that it will generate socioeconomic benefits of £3.2 billion across the UK. He is also right to say that there has to be a legacy for young people growing up in this country to have the opportunity to access sport. We have learned the lessons from the way in which the last Conservative Government squandered the legacy of the London 2012 Olympics and refused to cascade those benefits across the country. We are ensuring that we are investing in grassroots sport. He will know that the Sports Minister and I recently announced £400 million of investment to that end.
Mr French
The Secretary of State criticises the previous Conservative Government, but national sports bodies are fully aware that this Labour Government have cut sports funding, and increased regulation and taxes on clubs, and are putting at risk sports pitches across the country. Alongside these major own goals, the ongoing Whitehall ruck over how PE is funded risks reducing participation rates even further. This Labour Government have already cut millions from the likes of the opening schools facilities fund, and are overseeing huge uncertainty for the schools games organisers network. What discussions is the Secretary of State having with other Departments to ensure that children can continue playing sport, both at school and in their community?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Member will know that after the vandalism of the last Conservative Government, where sports, art, music, dance and drama—all those things that give young people the opportunities to live a richer, larger life—were downgraded on the curriculum and shamefully branded as Mickey Mouse subjects by a number of leading members of his Government, we have put them back at the centre of the curriculum. I think he referred to school sport partnerships, which we are strongly committed to. I have had discussions with the Health Secretary and the Education Secretary to ensure that we continue to fund those—it is something that the Prime Minister feels strongly about—to make sure that every young person has the opportunity to participate in sports.
Voluntary Groups and Community Centres
Louie French Excerpts(7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms McVey. For transparency reasons, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and note that I am the honorary president of a local Royal British Legion branch and patron of the Bexley Neighbourhood Watch Association.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) for securing this debate. I am also grateful for the contributions from all Members this morning. They have been varied, but as a former councillor myself, I recognise many of them. Across the United Kingdom, our communities are supported by an estimated 166,000 voluntary organisations. The majority are small organisations that are close to the ground, but which often have the biggest impact on people’s lives. Throughout my time as the shadow Minister, I have had the immense pleasure of meeting a variety of these groups; I am sure I will meet many more after this debate.
As a Member proudly representing my home community of Old Bexley and Sidcup, I have the immense privilege of working with many fantastic groups which include the Brownies, Guides, Scouts, faith-based groups, amateur sports clubs, u3a Sidcup, the Friends of Danson Park, Friends of Foots Cray Meadows, Discover Welling, and many more that I will get into trouble for not mentioning. Bexley is also home to a number of fantastic community centres that continue to serve our communities throughout the year, from the various clubs and youth zone at Blackfen community library to the wide variety of clubs that use our church halls, or even the amateur wrestling group at Falconwood community centre. Bexley’s community hubs have everything on offer and are supported by over £1 million of investment by Bexley’s Conservative council.
Returning to the national picture, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations represents more than 17,000 charities, social enterprises, community groups and organisations. I understand that 92% of its members are charities with an income of less than £1 million; most have an income of less than £30,000. In response to the Chancellor’s first Budget in 2024, it said that the changes the Government had brought in would:
“intensify the ‘triple squeeze’ charities face from increasing costs, reduced funding, and higher demand.”
In fact, the NCVO wrote to the Chancellor to urge her to reimburse charities for those costs, as she committed to do for public sector organisations. That has not happened, and the 2025 spending review provided no respite from the increased pressures caused by this Chancellor. When Labour Members and Ministers say that they support civil society—and I have no doubt that many of them do have that passion in their community—the voluntary sector is right to ask why, as we have heard from Labour Members, it is being hit with higher employment costs at the very moment when it is trying to recruit staff, keep buildings open and meet rising demand, when it already provides more than £14 billion of public services on behalf of both central and local government. In a very stark contrast to this Government, the previous Conservative Government knew very well that communities need practical support—not just warm words read out by Ministers in this place.
That is why, in the face of the coronavirus pandemic, we Conservatives pledged £750 million to make sure that voluntary, community and social enterprises could continue their vital work of supporting the country. In my community of Bexley, I saw this work in action first hand, with an army of community champion volunteers coming forward to support the elderly and those most in need across the community. Bexley was also one of the first areas in the country to launch a dedicated pot of funding, which supported pubs, amateur sports clubs and other groups that contribute so much to our way of life.
The last Conservative Government went further, beyond the coronavirus outbreak, and in 2021 we established a £150 million community ownership fund to help communities to take ownership of assets at risk of closure and, with voluntary and community organisations, bid for match funding for the purchase and renovation of local community assets. That is exactly the kind of support that helps save a pub, village hall or clubhouse, or a variety of other community buildings, before they are lost forever. This Government closed that fund.
The youth investment fund was established in 2022 and received more than £300 million of capital and revenue grants from the previous Conservative Government. However, for all the warm words from this Government, The Guardian reported last year that they have spent less on youth work than the Conservatives did. In 2023, the previous Conservative Government announced a community organisations cost of living fund, with a further £76 million for charities and community organisations carrying out vital work to help vulnerable groups. You guessed it, Ms McVey: this Government closed that fund as well.
While we were in office, the Conservative party backed our voluntary groups, whereas this Government keep piling on the pressure and leaving many across the country at breaking point. That is by no means an exhaustive list of the support we provided, but almost £1.3 billion in funding and support over just the last four years from the previous Conservative Government is now at risk, thanks to the decisions taken by this Government. We have all heard from our local groups that since the election life is tougher than it used to be, and that they are facing a triple squeeze thanks to this Government’s actions. Costs increased—thanks to the Chancellor. Funding reduced—thanks to the Chancellor. Facing even higher demand—thanks to the Chancellor.
Our voluntary sector across the nation, and the local organisations that all Members meet, deserve better than this Government and Chancellor. If this Government and the Minister are serious about supporting voluntary organisations, why is her Chancellor increasing their taxes? Why is the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero stopping cheap energy that could help to alleviate the cost pressures they are facing to keep the lights on? Who in this Government is actually on the side of voluntary organisations?
In closing, I look forward to hearing the Minister, who I have a lot of respect for, explaining what her Department is doing to champion these vital groups within Government. What conversations have Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had with the Treasury regarding the additional costs that charities and voluntary groups are facing across the country? Surely, even the most tribal Labour MPs must see that their Government have made life harder for voluntary organisations and community groups across the country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Louie French Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On behalf of those on this side of the House, I congratulate everyone at Team GB for an incredible winter Olympics performance. Like many across the House, I was glued to the excellent coverage during recess, and was pleased to see online that the Sport Minister was in Milan supporting the team. We all know that the true value of Team GB’s success is their ability to inspire the next generation of athletes, so what steps is the Secretary of State taking to secure the legacy of these games in both the elite and grassroots facilities required for sports to succeed?
Lisa Nandy
The Sport Minister has just told me that more than 4,000 people have expressed an interest in the skeleton following Team GB’s fantastic performance, which really shows the power of these games. It was an absolute privilege to be out in Milan cheering on Team GB during the most successful winter Olympics ever.
The shadow Minister is absolutely right; we now must ensure that the lasting legacy of the games is in bringing forward the next generation. As well as committing future funding so that our athletes can succeed and we can bring people through from grassroots sport, as we have just discussed, one thing I discussed with the team in Milan was recognising in our honours system the people who helped those incredible athletes to get to where they were along the journey. It must not be just about the people who have succeeded and won medals; it is about time—it is long overdue—that our honours system recognised the ordinary men and women in grassroots sport who have helped people go on to do extraordinary things.
Mr French
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and I am sure we all echo her comments. She will be aware of the widespread concerns regarding the Government’s plans to water down the powers of Sport England and the much-needed protection for grassroots pitches. Before Christmas, leading sports figures led by former Lioness Jill Scott and Fields in Trust wrote an open letter highlighting their concerns for people’s health and wellbeing and for sport more generally if the Government allow pitches across the country to be concreted over. What action is the Secretary of State’s Department taking to try to force the Government to U-turn on this bad policy decision?
Lisa Nandy
This Government believe that we need a much more sensible and lighter-touch system of regulation in this country. In principle, that is something that Members on both sides of the House should be able to agree with. What we do not want is a reduction in the grassroots facilities that are available to communities. The Sport Minister has been working with the Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), and Sport England—they met recently to discuss this—to ensure that we proceed in a sensible way that sees no reduction in the amount of facilities that are available.