Sporting Events Bill [Lords]

Debate between Rebecca Paul and Nusrat Ghani

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 4th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak today on behalf of the official Opposition, and I refer Members to my entry in the Members’ Register of Financial Interests.

As I made clear at Second Reading, Britain has a world-class sporting heritage and a renowned reputation for hosting major events. From the Olympics and the Paralympics to Wimbledon, the Open and the British grand prix, these occasions bring pride to our country, support jobs and inspire future generations. That is why the Opposition support a permanent legislative framework to help Britain host such events, and why we have sought to work constructively with the Government on maximising the opportunity.

The result of that can be seen in the Bill before us today. It has benefited considerably from scrutiny, particularly the work of Lord Parkinson, Lord Markham and Baroness Evans in the other place. One of their most significant achievements was extending the framework to major recurring sporting events. Under the Bill as originally drafted, international tournaments visiting Britain could benefit, whereas established fixtures such as Wimbledon and the London marathon could not. Thanks to Conservative peers working alongside Lord Addington and others, the Lords voted to remove that exclusion. I welcome the Government’s subsequent acceptance of the principle, albeit with additional conditions introduced.

Several of our other amendments address practical concerns raised in Committee. New clause 8 and amendment 10 would give genuine charitable ticket auctions the protection they deserve. A charity auctioning donated tickets for a good cause should not be treated in the same way as a professional ticket tout, and neither should it have to depend on exemptions that Ministers might grant later. We have also proposed safeguards for ordinary supporters who need to resell tickets, stronger parliamentary scrutiny of financial assistance, and an assessment of how the Government’s economic policies affect Britain’s ability to attract major sporting events.

Those are important issues, and I hope the Government will give them proper consideration, but today I want to focus on our proposals for two major improvements to the Bill. The first concerns industrial action and is set out in amendment 6, alongside amendment 7, new clause 7 and new schedule 1. Taken together, these provisions would establish new protections against industrial action disrupting major sporting events. As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) explained in Committee, there is little point putting elaborate protections in place for ticketing, advertising, trading and commercial rights if an event can nevertheless be brought to a standstill by industrial action.

We saw the risk of disruption to the Birmingham Commonwealth games in 2022, when rail strikes were announced around the period of the games. More recently, threatened action at Scottish airports raised concerns ahead of the Glasgow Commonwealth games. We should remember the enormous economic consequences of transport disruption. Last year’s London underground strikes cost Transport for London an estimated £20 million to £25 million in lost fares alone, with the wider economic impact estimated at £230 million.

Major sporting events take years to secure and organise. Spectators travel from across the world, businesses invest in preparation, and our international reputation depends on delivering what we have promised, yet all of that can be jeopardised by industrial action at precisely the wrong moment. Our amendments would make restrictions on industrial action by specified transport and local authority workers a mandatory part of the framework during the relevant period. These protections should not be an optional extra applied to some events but not others. The Government rejected similar proposals in Committee, citing workers’ rights, but surely we must also consider the rights of spectators, athletes and businesses who have invested their time and money in such events. The Minister has yet to explain how the Government intend to protect major sporting events from this very real risk, and I hope she will do so today.

I will move on to our second substantial proposal, which concerns fairness, safety and the protection of women’s sport. This is advanced through amendment 8, supported by amendment 9 and new schedule 2. Given its importance, I want to devote the remainder of my contribution to these provisions.

At the Paris Olympics in 2024, something shocking happened. It was in a women’s boxing match between Angela Carini of Italy and Imane Khelif of Algeria. After taking heavy blows to the face, Angela signalled for the referee to stop the fight. Just 46 seconds after the contest began, Khelif was declared the winner. Angela fell to her knees in tears, her Olympic dreams shattered, but this was not a fair fight—it was not a fair competition. Angela was fighting a man, and it was obvious to anyone with eyes, yet arguably even more shocking than the fight itself was the response. There was more criticism and ridicule of Angela for not shaking his hand in the ring, and for crying, than of a man punching a woman in the face repeatedly. As often happens, the feelings of a man were being prioritised over fairness and the safety of a woman.

What I observed was cowardice on a huge scale. Even Members of this House disgustingly celebrated this televised male violence against a woman, which cheated her out of the competition. Sport is played with our bodies. Men, on average, are much stronger and faster—biology matters. Angela and many other women who have been forced to compete against men have been put at risk of harm. This should never happen again in a sporting event anywhere. Our amendments would at least help to ensure that it cannot happen on British soil.

Thankfully, there has been some progress. In March this year the International Olympic Committee announced that, from the Los Angeles Olympics in 2028, eligibility for women’s competition will be determined through a one-time, non-invasive genetic test via a cheek swab. This will apply across Olympic sports, with the IOC explicitly recognising the importance of fairness and safety. Following the controversies of Paris, this is a welcome step towards restoring confidence in women’s sport.

In this country, we do not accept cheating, we do not accept women being treated as second-class citizens and we respect the law, which is very clear on this matter. That is so important, because sporting organisations, even after the For Women Scotland case, are still failing to ensure that the women’s category does not include males. They continue to turn a blind eye or come up with spurious reasons why they can sidestep the law.

Take table tennis and squash here in England. Both governing bodies now recognise the importance of biological sex in determining eligibility for women’s competitions, but both operate a two-tier system. Table Tennis England restricts its women’s category at nationally ranked competitions to female players, yet allows males to compete in women’s categories at local level. England Squash similarly excludes males from its female category in regulated competitions but permits their participation in recreational competitions. Both organisations accept the need for fairness at higher levels while sacrificing the integrity of the female category further down, but surely fairness matters to women at the grassroots just as much as it does to elite athletes. Why should a woman playing in her local league be entitled to any less consideration than a national champion? Do these organisations not realise that cheating a young girl out of her rightful podium place at grassroots level means that she is more likely to give up any dreams of progressing further?

Consider FIFA, which governs the women’s world cup. Its gender verification regulations date back to 2011, place responsibility largely on national football associations and expressly rule out routine testing. FIFA announced a review of the rules years ago, yet we are still waiting for a clear, updated approach. The consequences of these differing standards are already apparent. Zambia’s Barbra Banda was withdrawn from the 2022 women’s Africa cup of nations on gender eligibility grounds, yet subsequently competed at the 2023 women’s world cup and was named the BBC’s women’s footballer of the year in 2024. A once-in-a-lifetime sex screen would ensure that no male competes in such events.

Take the most recent announcement by the London marathon, which is considering allowing male pacemakers into the elite women’s race next year. The organisers say that it is to help women shatter the world record, but is it? In the words of the famed Olympian, Baroness Davies of Devonport:

“So do they have cheetahs to pace make for men’s races? Or just other men maybe?”

Even if the London marathon’s intentions are entirely honourable, the organisers will be changing a single-sex race into a mixed-sex one, thereby opening the door for male competitors to participate and win. It is exactly this type of thing that our amendments would prevent for such major sporting events.

What would the protections in our new schedule 2 actually do? First, it would require the Secretary of State, before applying the sporting events framework, to be satisfied that organisers will ensure that competitors in single-sex events compete against those of the same biological sex. It would also require single-sex accommodation, changing and washing facilities, and toilets for competitors and officials. These protections would extend to spectators and staff, ensuring access to appropriate single-sex toilets, changing and washing facilities. New schedule 2 also seeks to prevent financial assistance from being provided to sporting events, or to associated legacy and social impact programmes, where the required protections are not observed.

The Opposition do not believe that any male should be competing in women’s sport, and we do not support any sporting organisation benefiting from the Bill or getting taxpayer support if they do not respect the law. The Minister may once again tell us that existing legislation is sufficient. We have already heard that argument in Committee, and we remain unconvinced. I suspect the female athletes losing podium places to biological men feel the same. 

I know many sensible Labour Members entirely agree with us on this, and there may even be a couple of Lib Dems who do, but none of the Greens do. Today, I am asking those Members and the Government more broadly to be brave and do the right thing. Backing amendment 8 and the single-sex protections that it would help establish would ensure that women’s sport was protected at these sporting events, and that only females could compete. If Members are still feeling a bit yellow about it, they should do it for their daughters, their wives and their mums. This is about ensuring that female athletes can compete fairly, that sportswomen have access to appropriate facilities, and that the sporting organisations benefiting from this framework are held to the highest standards.

This Bill offers a rare opportunity to strengthen Britain’s position as a leading host of major sporting events. We support that ambition and welcome the improvements made during the Bill’s passage, and we have put forward a number of reasonable amendments, but we can and must go further. After all, what is the point of putting on a world-class competition if no one can get to it, and if the games are rigged from the start?

Puberty Blockers

Debate between Rebecca Paul and Nusrat Ghani

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I frankly cannot believe that we are here again. When the Pathways clinical trial was paused earlier this year, I felt that there had finally been—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Forgive me—there is a five-minute time limit, which is the only way that I can incorporate all the Back Benchers who wish to contribute.

[Rebecca Paul]

Yesterday, even the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care conceded—the second one to do so—that he is “uneasy” and even “uncomfortable”. I suggest that his discomfort is nothing next to the lifelong damage that the trial will potentially do to an extremely vulnerable cohort of children, whom we should be protecting. That funny feeling in his stomach—[Interruption.] Oh, he has left. That feeling is his good judgment trying to be heard—he will not hear this if he has left—and it is not too late for him to listen to it. I agree with what one of my hon. Friends said yesterday: he is a good man who is being placed under intolerable pressure on this issue. But he needs to find his courage.

The number of children and young people presenting to the NHS with gender distress increased dramatically in the years after 2009, with an exponential rise from around 2014. What is behind the increase among Gen Z is unclear, but the reasons are likely to be multifaceted. It is speculated that the factors may include 24/7 internet access, the increased acceptance of trans identities, or even peer social and cultural influences. Over the past 20 years, groups such as Stonewall and Mermaids have called for better access to treatment and more rights for trans people. Large corporates have gone big on diversity and inclusion to boost their brands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for that excellent question. I obviously always respect and listen to different clinicians, but what is happening with this debate is that one set of clinicians with one view is being listened to. Let me remind everyone about lobotomies. Lots of very respected people came out for lobotomies; in fact, the person behind the idea won a Nobel prize. I think we would all agree that those clinicians got that wrong, so it is incumbent upon us in this House to always question. It is absolutely right that we listen to clinicians, but unfortunately we are seeing only one set of clinicians with one set of opinions being listened to here.

A Finnish study was published in April that looked at more than 2,000 adolescents and young adults who had been referred to gender services. It found that medical interventions did not reduce psychiatric problems and may even be associated with worsening mental health. How many times have we heard it said that puberty blockers offer a pathway towards improved mental health and reduced psychiatric distress for those struggling with gender identity? I have lost count. But there is hard evidence that not only says different; it says the opposite. I would be keen to understand from the Minister and the Secretary of State whether that study was taken into account before deciding to go ahead with the trial.

I want to point out that children and young people who grow up to be same-sex attracted are over-represented in this cohort, and that is something we need to think about. If we look at the case of Keira Bell, she was a lesbian struggling with her sexuality, and instead of people saying, “It’s okay to find other women attractive—there’s nothing wrong with that. You do not need to change your body,” they said, “Ah! You’ve got gender dysphoria.” They put her on puberty blockers, and then she went on to testosterone shots. She then had her breasts removed in a double mastectomy, and then she detransitioned. This is a deeply homophobic approach to healthcare. Those on the other side of the argument think they have the progressive position. I am sorry, but you are repeating mistakes that have been made historically—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Obviously, I have not said anything, so I am not repeating anything. No “yous” and “yours”.

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Rebecca Paul and Nusrat Ghani

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I rise to speak against new clauses 1 and 20, and in support of new clause 106, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). First, it is important for me to say that I fully support women’s reproductive rights. I think that we generally get the balance right here in the UK, and protecting that is a hill I would die on. However, I am disturbed by new clauses 1 and 20, which would decriminalise abortion up to birth. If they become law, fully developed babies up to term could be aborted by a woman with no consequences.

The reason we criminalise late-term abortion is not about punishment; it is about protection. By providing a deterrent to such actions, we protect women. We protect them from trying to perform an abortion at home that is unsafe for them, and from coercive partners and family members who may push them to end late-term pregnancies. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who has tabled new clause 1. We share many of the same objectives on other topics, but in this case I think she is trying to solve a very real issue—the increased number of prosecutions—with the wrong solution.

These amendments are driven by the case of Carla Foster, among others. Carla Foster is a mum who was prosecuted under UK law for carrying out an illegal abortion in May 2020, during the covid pandemic. She carried out the abortion at 32 to 34 weeks of pregnancy after receiving the relevant drugs through the pills-by-post scheme introduced during lockdown. This is a terrible case that harshly demonstrates the flaws with the current process, but the issue here is not the criminalisation of abortion after 24 weeks; it is the fact that Carla Foster was given the pills without checking how far along she was in the first place. She was failed by people here in Parliament who voted to allow those pills to be sent out by mail during lockdown without an in-person consultation. That was an irresponsible decision; and one that might have been forgiven in the light of a global pandemic if it had remained temporary. However, in March 2022 the scheme was made permanent.

If we want to protect women from knowingly or unknowingly acquiring abortion pills after 24 weeks of pregnancy and inducing an abortion at home, we must put an end to the situation in which those pills can be acquired without a face-to-face consultation at which gestational age verification by medical professionals can take place. These drugs are dangerous if not used in the right way, as we saw when Stuart Worby spiked a pregnant woman’s drink with them, resulting in the miscarriage of her 15-week-old baby. Make no mistake: the pills-by-post scheme enabled that evil man and his female accomplice to commit that crime.

It is also important to note that prior to the pills-by-post scheme, only three women had been convicted for an illegal abortion over the past 160 years, demonstrating the effectiveness of the safeguard. However, since that scheme was introduced—according to Jonathan Lord, who was medical director of Marie Stopes at the time—four women have appeared in court on similar charges within an eight-month period. Criminalisation of abortion after 24 weeks is not the problem; the pills-by-post scheme is.

If new clause 1 passes while the pills-by-post scheme remains in place, here is what will happen. More women will attempt late-term abortions at home using abortion pills acquired over the phone, and some of those women will be harmed. Many of them will not have realised that they are actually going to deliver something that looks like a baby, not just some blood clots—that is going to cause huge trauma for them. Many of those women genuinely will not have realised how far along they are, due to implantation bleeding being mistaken for their last period, and on top of all of this, some of the babies will be alive on delivery.

We in this place need to get away from this terrible habit of only considering issues through a middle-class lens. What about women who are being sexually exploited and trafficked? What about teenage girls who do not want their parents to find out that they are pregnant?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call David Smith.