Sporting Events Bill [HL] (Second sitting)

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 14, page 10, line 8, leave out “specify”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 79.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 35 to 37.

Clause stand part.

Clause 15 stand part.

Government amendment 38.

Clause 16 stand part.

Government amendments 66 to 79.

Schedule 4.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dorset for tabling amendment 20, and I recognise the importance of protecting rural communities from avoidable disruption during major sporting events. I echo the shadow Minister’s comments about the terrible situation in which his constituent’s father found himself.

I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, and I will outline why. However, I am happy to take some of the points that have been raised across the Committee on this issue and reflect them to the relevant Transport Minister, or perhaps a Minister in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Of course, the Bill deals specifically with major events, but I appreciate that lots of sporting events of different levels cause disruption to local areas.

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

Will the Minister outline the type and scale of events that are likely to meet the threshold for implementing a transport plan, or for organisation or local authority applications to apply?

[Stephanie Peacock]

The transport plan is England-only. In our conversations with the devolved nations, they decided that they did not need the power as they were already well equipped. The transport plan is England-only and applies to itinerant events, which are the big major events like Euro 2028. We have chosen to exempt the transport provisions for recurrent events because we believe that, where such events are already established, they have well-established relationships with local authorities and transport authorities.

Of course, that does not mean that they go without challenges, as has been outlined by a number of members of the Committee, so I am really happy to reach out to the relevant Transport Minister—I believe it is my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather)—and reflect some of those points. I have seen those challenges with smaller sporting events in my own constituency, and I recognise that sporting events of every level can cause disruption. I am very happy to take both those points away.

I will respond in a little bit more detail to amendment 20, which the hon. Member for West Dorset outlined so thoughtfully. We believe the Bill provides a proportionate framework within which local impacts can be considered, and we want the event to take into account the affected road network and the characteristics of the area. The issues identified in amendment 20 include alternative routes and access for residents, carers, businesses and emergency services. They are—or should be—already considered by local authorities, highways authorities, event organisers and transport planners to establish planning and traffic management arrangements.

Where secondary legislation is proposed for a particular event, those impacts would also be considered through the usual policy and regulation-making process. The amendment would duplicate existing arrangements for ensuring that impacts are considered, while adding cost, delay and uncertainty. It would also risk giving an external body a veto, in effect, over the use of transport provisions, even though the Secretary of State, as decision maker, is already accountable to Parliament and subject to the usual public law duties and challenge.

The Government’s approach provides flexibility for both rural and urban areas, allowing those closest to the affected communities to shape mitigation. It is quite hard to justify the additional statutory protection for rural communities when this applies to communities of all kinds, although I appreciate that the challenges the hon. Gentleman outlined are often unique to rural areas. For those reasons, we cannot support amendment 20, but I have very much heard the points he has made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider schedule 5.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Clause 17 and schedule 5 work together to provide a practical transport framework for major sporting events where extra co-ordination is needed. The basic point is straightforward: major sporting events can place real pressure on local roads and transport networks, and those impacts do not stop at local authority boundaries.

Schedule 5 provides the framework for dealing with such impacts, allowing transport plans to be prepared, reviewed and revised, where needed, and it provides for temporary road traffic measures to support the safe and effective operation of an event. That framework is practical and proportionate. It requires consultation with the relevant authorities, including local traffic authorities, local authorities and the police so that local knowledge is built from the start. The powers are also temporary and time-limited. They are there to deal with a specific transport impact of a major sporting event, not to create a permanent change in how local roads are managed.

Clause 17 complements that framework; it recognises that some events will affect more than one local traffic authority area, and that effective traffic management may therefore require authorities to work across boundaries. The clause allows regulations applying schedule 5 to designate one or more local traffic authorities for the purpose of paragraph 3. In practice, that ensures that the temporary traffic arrangements can operate in a joined-up way where an event affects more than one area. However, I will be clear about the safeguard: a local traffic authority may be designated only with its consent. This is not about taking powers away from local authorities, or about overriding them; it is about enabling co-operation on an agreed basis, where that is needed to manage the real-world impacts of major sporting events.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

When one authority consents, but a neighbouring authority does not—I have the River Trent as a genuine administrative boundary between Nottingham city and Nottinghamshire county council—what are the provisions? In that scenario, the county might say yes, but the city no. If that is not clear, will the Minister consider the matter further?

[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]

I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 18, page 11, line 35, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) a Northern Ireland department;”.

This amendment would provide for any Northern Ireland department to be an enforcement authority for the purposes of Part 1.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Schedule 6.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I have said that offences under the Bill are aimed at deterring action. However, where that is not the case, careful consideration has been given to the manner of enforcement. The clause provides for enforcement of the ticket touting, advertising and trading offences in the Bill. It sets out who can undertake the enforcement action, such as local trading standards authorities in England, Scotland or Wales, the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, or the Competition and Markets Authority in respect of the ticketing offence.

Enforcement roles and responsibilities, however, may vary between events and it is appropriate for a Bill of this nature to provide flexibility. That is why regulations can set out additional enforcers on a case-by-case basis, provided that they are public authorities. For events that involve complex operational planning or significant public funding, it may be more appropriate to confer enforcement responsibility on a local organising committee that has been established as a time-limited non-departmental public body to deliver an event.

Clause 18 provides for the use of investigatory powers under schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. That is a well-established suite of investigatory powers that trading standards officers in particular will be familiar with. The clause also provides for the use of powers available under part 3 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 in relation to the ticketing offence. The use of enforcement powers should be proportionate and tailored to the local context. That is why regulations can impose additional conditions on their use under the clause—for example, introducing additional safeguards. To support cross-boundary enforcement and mutual aid arrangements, a local weights and measures authority in England and Wales may enforce an offence in a part of England and Wales outside that authority’s area. Similarly, a local weights and measures authority in Scotland may enforce an offence in a part of Scotland outside that authority’s area.

I want to say a brief word about funding, because I know how important that is. These are time-limited offences, and enforcement costs are expected to be low. Costs will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and for itinerant events, they may be factored into the event budget, which is typically split between central Government and host city authorities. We addressed the funding position as it applies to recurrent events earlier.

Schedule 6 sets out the investigatory and enforcement powers available to enforcement officers in relation to ticketing, advertising and trading offences. Most of the powers are familiar. They are based on powers available under schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act and are used by enforcement officers in other contexts. A small number of additional powers are drawn from previous sporting events legislation to ensure that enforcement can be timely, proactive and proportionate.

Paragraph 2 makes clear when seizure and detention powers may be used in relation to offences under the Bill: to prevent an offence from taking place, to stop it continuing, or to secure goods or documents as evidence. Paragraph 3 provides additional search and seizure powers in public places where an enforcement officer reasonably suspects that a person has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offence. It is intended to deal in particular with itinerant traders who are not operating from premises. These are targeted powers. They do not allow an officer to search a person, and items may be seized only when that is reasonably necessary to stop or prevent an offence from being committed or to preserve evidence.

Schedule 6 provides for powers to deal with unauthorised advertising where seizure may not be practical or effective. In those cases, there will be temporary powers to conceal, deface or destroy infringing advertisements, so that prompt action can be taken—for example, where a billboard can be covered rather than removed. As under the Consumer Rights Act, it will also be an offence to obstruct or impersonate an enforcement officer. Finally, the schedule provides for compensation where property is damaged as a result of unlawful enforcement action or where unreasonable force is used. Regulations must also provide a mechanism for resolving disputes about entitlement to compensation or the amount payable.

It is vital that the Bill works effectively across all parts of the United Kingdom. That is why, at the request of officials in Northern Ireland, we have introduced Government amendment 39 to enable enforcement of the ticketing, advertising and trading offences to be undertaken by any Northern Ireland Department, rather than just the Department for the Economy. That simply ensures that the Bill operates effectively in Northern Ireland.

Clause 18 maintains flexibility for an enforcement authority to designate other public authorities as enforcers in regulations. That flexibility helps ensure that enforcement arrangements can be tailored appropriately to each jurisdiction and event.

Amendment 39 agreed to.

Amendment made: 40, in clause 18, page 12, line 27, leave out subsection (10).—(Stephanie Peacock.)

This amendment is consequential on 47.

Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 19

Exceptions for internet service providers

Question proposed, That clause 19 stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 20 to 22 stand part.

Government amendment 41.

Clause 23 stand part.

Government amendment 44.

Clause 24 stand part.

[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

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 25, page 19, line 17, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (4A),”.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello]

These amendments are about ensuring lasting benefits for communities hosting major sporting events. Events such as the London 2012 Olympics have shown the potential for sporting events to bring investment and improve local infrastructure. We should ensure that communities hosting future events have the same opportunity.

Amendment 18 would allow the use of Government funding to improve local roads, repair potholes, maintain pavements and renew road markings in areas affected by major sporting events. Amendment 19 focuses on mobile phone coverage and capacity. Large events put enormous pressure on local networks, leaving residents and businesses struggling to get signal when demand increases. The amendments would ensure that public and private investment in major sporting events benefits the wider area, not just the venue itself. Better roads and more reliable mobile coverage can improve daily life, support local businesses and help communities to prepare to host future events.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for tabling these important amendments, which aim to ensure that the Bill’s funding power can be used to deliver lasting benefits to communities affected by one-off sporting events.

As I set out in debate on the previous group, that power neither creates additional funding nor establishes a new route for securing public money; it simply provides the legal underpinning for the lawful delivery of funding that has already been agreed through existing processes and against existing criteria. Amendment 18 seeks to ensure that funding can be channelled into improving potholes, pavements, footways and road markings, while amendment 19 would ensure that the power may be used to improve mobile communications, infrastructure and network capability.

In both cases, the hon. Member’s objective is clear: to secure benefits for local communities that endure beyond the sporting event. The Government fully recognise the importance of that objective. Indeed, that is precisely why we invest in legacy programmes, which may include the types of infrastructure improvements envisioned in the amendments. Although the amendments are well-intentioned, they risk going beyond the intended scope of the funding power. As made clear in the explanatory notes to the Bill, clause 25 is intended to support the operational delivery of sporting events and associated activities. Elements of the amendments would push that power beyond its proper limits, as their link to enabling sporting events or related activity is tenuous.

However, if any improvements in the areas highlighted in the amendments are necessary for the event to take place, clause 25 is broad enough to allow for that, making the amendments redundant. Given the wide range of issues that sporting events may contend with, we have deliberately not been prescriptive on the specific forms of support that may be provided under the power. The amendments would cut across that principle by singling out particular categories of support without clear evidence for doing so. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 18 and not to press amendment 19 to a vote.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I share the hon. Member’s enthusiasm for the United Kingdom hosting the FIFA world cup in 2042. As we have not hosted the tournament since 1966, this Government are absolutely keen to see it return here one day.

We know that major sporting events, especially world cups, have a unique power to foster social cohesion, spark regional pride and unite divided communities. That is why the Government committed in our manifesto to hosting major international and cultural events with pride. It is why this Government have backed the bid for the 2035 FIFA women’s world cup to be hosted in the UK. Hosting on home turf would be a monumental moment in our sporting history, driving growth and leaving a lasting legacy for women’s sport and football more broadly.

However, it is important that we follow appropriate processes to select which events we back. The new clause would effectively legislate for preferential treatment and an expectation of public expenditure on one particular event. As much as I would love to commit today to launching that bid, we will perhaps save it for another day. I cannot accept the new clause, but I share the hon. Member’s enthusiasm and the sentiment behind it.

[Anna Sabine]

On that basis, and with much enthusiasm in return, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Prohibition of ticket touting and regulation of resale platforms

“(1) A person commits an offence if the person resells, or offers to resell, a ticket for a major sporting event at a price exceeding the original cost.

(a) For the purpose of subsection (1), the original cost of a ticket is the original ticket price plus any unavoidable fees, including service charges.

(2) A person operating a ticket resale platform must not charge service fees exceeding a statutory cap prescribed by regulations.

(3) A person commits an offence if the person resells, offers to resell, or lists for resale a number of tickets exceeding the number they were entitled to acquire in the initial primary market sale for that event.

(4) A person who operates a ticket resale platform has a legal duty and strict obligation to—

(a) monitor listings on the platform, and

(b) enforce compliance with subsections (1), (2), and (3) to ensure the rules are adhered to on the platform.

(5) The Competition and Markets Authority may impose a financial penalty on any person or ticket resale platform found to be breaching the provisions of this section, up to an amount not exceeding 10% of their annual global turnover.”—(Anna Sabine.)

This new clause implements ticket touting protections by making it illegal to resell major sporting event tickets above original cost, capping resale platform service fees, placing legal duties on resale platforms to monitor and enforce compliance on their sites, and empowering the Competition and Markets Authority to enforce penalties of up to 10% of global turnover.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Sabine]

No fan should miss out on watching their favourite team play, but at the moment that is the reality every single time tickets come on sale. I am sure many of us know the heartbreak of waiting in an online queue for hours with no luck, only to see tickets pop up minutes later on resale sites at extortionate prices because bots and serial bulk buyers got there first.

Every year, fans lose £145 million to greedy touts. It is clear that the system is broken and is not working for the everyday fan. Labour promised in its manifesto and in the King’s Speech to tackle ticket touting, which we welcome—and yet here is a Bill with the framework to deliver that, and the Government are choosing to kick the can down the road.

Fans should not have to wait for change. That is why the Liberal Democrats want to make it illegal to resell tickets above face value. We want to ban surge pricing and cap resale platform fees at 10%. The Sporting Events Bill is the perfect vehicle to make those changes, and that is what new clauses 10 and 11 would do. I urge the Government to back them.

[Stephanie Peacock]

When I addressed clause 5, I noted our commitment to specific ticket touting legislation that will go further than the amendments tabled by the hon. Member. We know that for too long the joy of attending live events has been marred by unfair practices in the secondary ticketing market, most notably the systematic activities of ticket touts.

The Government are fully committed to tackling industrial-scale touting once and for all, improving transparency around pricing practices and putting more money into fans’ pockets through the ticket tout banning Bill. That Bill will introduce a price cap on the resale of tickets for all live events, including those captured under this Bill, to ensure that genuine fans can recoup their costs when they can no longer attend an event. It will also provide strict obligations on ticket resale platforms to ensure compliance.

The time-limited ticket provisions in this Bill are designed to satisfy event owner requirements. The Bill is therefore not an appropriate vehicle for wider reform of the secondary ticketing market. These are significant issues and are best addressed through the planned dedicated legislation. When it comes to surge pricing, businesses are already required by law to provide fans with clear and accurate pricing information before purchase and to ensure that fans are free to make decisions without undue pressure or manipulative practices that might distort their choices. I know that hon. Members will have heard the words of the Secretary of State on Second Reading about how committed this Government are to introducing the legislation.

[Anna Sabine]

I thank the Minister for her comments and I hear what she says, but in the absence of planned, timed legislation to take the matter forward, we would like to press the new clauses to a vote, starting with new clause 10.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

For those reasons, we cannot support new clause 12. As I said earlier, the rise of the illegal black market and advertising to young people are the greatest concerns to the Conservative party.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset for tabling the new clause, which would prohibit gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship at major sporting events. The Government support the sporting sector’s commercial freedoms and right to enter into sponsorship arrangements. The licensed gambling sector has provided vital financial support to sports through these arrangements, which are constructed within a robust regulatory framework that ensures that advertising is socially responsible and does not promote excessive or harmful gambling.

In 2024, we welcomed the introduction of the sponsorship codes of conduct across all major sports, which promote social responsibility, support reinvestment in the sports and strengthen safeguards for children. Sporting bodies have reviewed how the codes are working in practice, and the Government welcome their ongoing commitment to reviewing and strengthening the codes. We also welcomed the Premier League’s ban on front-of-shirt gambling sponsorship, which will help to reduce the prominence of gambling advertising in football. Advertising remains one of the clearest ways in which licensed operators can distinguish themselves from the illegal providers that pose a threat to British consumers, which is why the Government recently consulted on banning unlicensed gambling sponsorship and physical advertising within sports and other sectors.

The Government recognise that the relationship between sport and gambling must be handled with care, particularly because of the impact it can have on children, young people and vulnerable people. We will consider the fullest possible range of evidence before taking any further policy steps. Any additional restrictions must be thoroughly evaluated to avoid unintended consequences. We continue to support the sporting sector’s commercial freedoms while working with the Advertising Standards Authority, the Gambling Commission, the Betting and Gaming Council and sporting bodies to further raise standards. Let me be clear: the purpose of the Bill is neither to alter the regulation of gambling advertising nor to limit the benefits sponsorship arrangements can bring to the sector. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.

[Anna Sabine]

I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their comments, but we respectfully disagree. The Liberal Democrats would like to press our new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset for tabling this important amendment. I fully recognise the issue that he raises, and the Government share his commitment to maximising the positive legacy of the major sporting events that we support. However, we do not believe that the new clause is necessary, as the Bill already provides for the outcomes that he seeks to achieve while retaining the flexibility to adapt our approach to the specific event in question. I will outline some of the reasons why.

First, the likelihood of bringing social and economic benefits to the United Kingdom or part of it is already one of the criteria for consideration when considering whether the framework can be applied to a major sporting event. That would encompass the sort of community participation and wider local benefit that the hon. Member is seeking to secure. Secondly, clause 25 of the Bill is also clear that funding can be given subject to conditions, which could include requirements relating to these important issues, where appropriate.

More broadly, the vast majority of major sporting events that could fall within the scope of the Bill would already have social impact embedded within them from the outset. In the case of itinerant events, the gold framework is clear that when seeking investment from the Government, event organisers must have meaningful plans in place to generate positive social impact for communities around the country, including to drive up levels of physical activity and participation.

Also, many recurring events already support significant community engagement. To give just a few examples, Wimbledon annually contributes nearly £50 million to the work of the Lawn Tennis Association, the London Marathon Foundation has distributed over £120 million in grant funding since its inception in 1981, and the British grand prix generates more than £100 million annually for the local economy.

Critically, the evidence is clear that the best legacy programmes are developed through engagement with the communities they are meant to support, enabling us to target support and funding where they are truly needed. That is why we think the current system works; it recognises that one size does not fit all and provides flexibility that the new clause would reduce.

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill’s focus on legacy and, of course, the Minister’s genuine enthusiasm for women participating in sport. As a former Minister for Sport, I know how great major sporting events can be for people and for our country. However, they do not automatically ensure more female participation, more women coaches and more women on boards. A good example is that a football competition might result in five new 5G pitches, but if subsequently those pitches are booked out for 90% of the time by boys and men, that will not move the diversity and inclusion dial or do anything about the gender gap. Therefore, it would be very good to hear how the Minister will actually address those issues. If she does not feel that it is appropriate to respond in complete detail today, I would be more than happy to have a chat with her later, or of course she could write to me.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the former Minister for her contribution; she makes a really important point. That is why, as the Minister for Sport, I set up the women’s sport taskforce, and I am happy to invite her to attend one of the taskforce’s meetings. It would be very useful if she could share the expertise that she obviously gathered when she did the job that I currently do.

Through that taskforce, we are looking at practical ways to support women in sport. I will give just one example from our grassroots funding; we want to double priority slots. The hon. Member for West Dorset also gave some really good examples from the women’s rugby world cup. I was delighted to attend four matches at that tournament, but I also visited a grassroots rugby event just up the road from me in West Yorkshire. I did so with my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), who was then the Foreign Secretary and is now the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, as the event was in her constituency. We went to see at first hand the effect that the women’s rugby world cup was having on getting girls into rugby.

Consequently, I totally take the point that the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling made, and I appreciate that we want to see the dial on diversity and inclusion move more quickly, which is why we are doing things in that regard through our allocation of money for grassroots funding. However, I am happy to write to her and indeed to continue the conversation.

I will bring my comments to a conclusion by addressing some of the other points that the hon. Member for West Dorset made. As I have said, we welcome the intention behind the new clause. However, we respectfully suggest that the Bill already provides the right framework to secure the benefits he seeks to achieve without imposing additional statutory tests that might reduce flexibility. Of course, the first major sporting event that we hope to use this Bill for is Euro 2028. We have already established that there will be £45 million of social impact, with £23 million being given by the UK Government.

I do not recognise the picture that the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—painted of our approach to grassroots sport. We have put £400 million into grassroots sport and £500 million into major sporting events, with £250 million going in through Sport England.

On the PE premium, there are certainly examples of where it works well, but sadly too many kids are not active. Indeed, 50% are not meeting the chief medical officer’s guidelines. That is why we make no apologies for taking a different view. Of course, however, that issue falls outside the scope of the debate that we are having today.

[Edward Morello]

I thank the Minister for her comments, and the shadow Minister and all other Members who contributed. Given the perilous state of community sports in my constituency and across the UK, it is incumbent upon us to drive as much money as possible down to those grassroots clubs and community centres, so the Liberal Democrats would like to divide the Committee on new clause 13.

--- Later in debate ---

Power to make consequential provision

[Stephanie Peacock]

I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 26, page 20, line 11, after “State” insert “or a devolved authority”.

This amendment and Amendments 50 to 53 enable the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, or a Northern Ireland department to by regulations make provision that is consequential on this Act. Such regulations may only contain provision which is “within devolved competence” (see clause 24(3)).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 50 to 53.

Clause stand part.

Government amendment 54.

Clauses 27 to 29 stand part.

Government amendment 55.

Clause 30 stand part.

[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.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I would like to conclude the Committee by putting some thanks on the record. Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for your chairship and for taking the whole Bill through Committee today. I thank all Committee members for their contributions to the Bill and for giving up their time to serve on the Committee. I thank all the stakeholders who have engaged with us along the way. We look forward to continuing to work with them as we implement the Bill. Their views have been vital in shaping the Bill before us today.

I thank the DCMS officials who have worked incredibly hard on the Bill, and the civil servants and officials from across the Government. I thank Thomas Williams from my private office, who has supported the Bill, and I am ever grateful to my head of office, Sam, and my parliamentary team. I thank the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset, the Parliamentary Private Secretary and the Whips. I look forward to seeing the Bill progress through Parliament, and I appreciate the constructive debate that we have had today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.