Ofcom

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again this week, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing this important debate on the role and effectiveness of Ofcom. I also welcome the shadow Secretary of State to her place, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul). I do not think we have faced each other across the Chamber, so it is great to see her here today.

The range of issues raised today shows how important Ofcom’s work is to people’s everyday lives, whether that means getting a phone signal, staying connected, having a broadband connection that works, knowing that their children are safer when they pick up a phone or go online, or, of course, having their post delivered. Ofcom’s decisions affect people all across our country. As the UK’s independent regulator for the communication industries, Ofcom’s principal duty is to further the interests of citizens and consumers, promoting competition where appropriate. Ofcom helps to ensure that people can access reliable communication services, that broadcasters meet appropriate standards and, increasingly, that people, particularly children, are protected from online harm.

Given that Ofcom’s responsibilities have never been wider or more significant, it is understandable that today’s debate has covered a number of topics, and I will attempt to speak to each of them in turn. I am pleased to be responding to this debate on behalf of the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Online Safety, and I will relay the issues raised in this debate to him directly.

As the shadow Minister rightly pointed out, broadcasting is probably what Ofcom is most well known for, and that is where I will begin. Broadcasting regulation has existed in the UK for 100 years. Since its creation in 2003, Ofcom has had the vital role of regulating the UK’s broadcast media, helping to ensure that TV and radio audiences are protected from harmful material. Through legislation, Parliament requires Ofcom to draft and keep up to date the broadcasting code, which sets out clear rules and guidance including the protection of children and ensuring that the broadcast of news remains accurate and impartial. Through the Government’s media Green Paper, we are considering how to ensure that Ofcom continues to have the right powers to protect audiences and regulate TV services into the future. All Ofcom-licensed broadcasters are subject to the broadcasting code and are Ofcom-regulated. When it comes to news, that means that news in whatever form is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality. When broadcasters may have breached the broadcasting code, we of course expect Ofcom to investigate promptly without fear or favour.

I am sure that hon. Members will not expect me to comment on ongoing cases, but a question was raised about politicians presenting television programmes. Ofcom’s broadcasting code sets out that politicians may not

“be used as a newsreader, interviewer or reporter in any news programmes unless, exceptionally, it is editorially justified.”

The Government have expressed concerns about the blurring of fact and polemic and about politicians presenting programmes that could reasonably be interpreted as news or current affairs. There is a clear rationale for strengthening these rules. We are currently considering a range of options to tackle this issue and will set out more information and a decision in due course.

I will take away the point that a couple of Members made about communication regarding complaints to Ofcom. A number of people gave examples of Members of Parliament writing to Ofcom and not feeling that they got an acceptable letter or communication back. I will certainly take that to the Media Minister.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) spoke about prominence measures—[Interruption.] I thought she was going to intervene; I am about to answer some of her questions. Our “Watch this space” Green Paper sets out two distinct prominence regimes to safeguard UK media online. The first is prominence for trustworthy news. In an era of infinite online information, quality journalism is vital to holding power, including the Government, to account. We want social media platforms to make reporting from high-quality news providers easy to discover. This is not about censorship; it is about defending a free, pluralistic press across the political spectrum. We have not finalised the criteria for trustworthy news and will continue to engage with the sector as we develop proposals.

The second is prominence for wider public service media content on video sharing platforms. From children’s programmes to culture, that content reflects our national story. Our preference remains for sector-led, voluntary agreements on fair commercial terms. The consultation closed on 31 August. Officials are currently analysing the responses, and no final decisions have been made on the regulators.

A number of Members spoke about postal services. Under the Postal Services Act 2011, Ofcom is an independent regulator responsible for postal services. That includes regulating Royal Mail as the UK’s designated universal service provider, and mandates that major parcel companies including Amazon Logistics, DPD, DHL, Evri, Parcelforce and Yodel must have clear complaints procedures, accessible contact channels, defined timelines and trained staff. The Government do not have a role in its regulatory decisions on postal services.

The Government have been clear that Royal Mail’s performance has been unacceptable for too long. The Minister for the Future of Work was in the Chamber earlier this week during a debate on Royal Mail performance —indeed, I think an hon. Member said that there have been three such debates this week. We value Ofcom’s role as the independent regulator, but that independence must go hand in hand with accountability for the outcomes it delivers. Business Ministers recently met the regulator, and they agreed that more needs to be done to tackle persistent service issues. Ofcom is currently concluding its investigation into the company’s 2025-26 performance. We will continue to press Ofcom and Royal Mail to ensure that our constituents receive the service they are entitled to.

A number of questions were put to me on additional powers for Ofcom. The Government expect Ofcom to use the full range of its existing tools to secure better outcomes for postal services. The Secretary of State reaffirmed the importance of Ofcom’s role as the independent regulator in an appearance at the Business, Innovation Science and Trade Committee on 20 October. He was clear that the Government would be pragmatically considering any future requests for additional powers where they are needed.

[Vikki Slade]

Can the Minister confirm whether those powers might include compensation and a formal complaints system? It seems quite ridiculous that when someone’s mail is not going anywhere, the only thing they might get is more stamps.

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Lady makes an incredibly interesting point, and I will certainly reflect that to the relevant Department. She will appreciate that I cannot be drawn on even the creative policy ideas that she puts to me today, but she has put that on the record, and I will make sure that the relevant Department hears about it.

Online safety is one of the defining issues of our time. The internet has changed how we live, learn and connect, often for the better, but there are clear challenges and dangers that come alongside that. I would like to quote the Secretary of State on this issue:

“This is not the first time in history that new forms of technology have upended society. But what is unique to this moment is that that technology has been developed almost exclusively in the private sphere – so I want to be clear that there is a central role for government in shaping that technology for good.”

Through the Online Safety Act, Parliament gave Ofcom the responsibility of delivering that, and it is right that this House asks how it is progressing. The Government have asked Ofcom to publish a clear enforcement strategy and present it to Parliament so that its priorities and outcomes can be properly scrutinised. Additionally, Sir Ian Cheshire, the Ofcom chair, is reviewing Ofcom’s enforcement capability, and we will consider his findings carefully. If more changes are needed, we will not hesitate to act.

Ofcom’s role will grow further with our decision to ban social media companies from offering their services to under-16s—a decision shaped by the more than 116,000 responses to our consultation. Enforcing both the Act and the ban must be Ofcom’s top priority, including robust action against circumvention. The first social media regulations will be laid before Parliament by the end of the year. I am sure that the Media Minister would be happy to meet hon. Members to discuss this further, and particularly the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, who raised a number of points on this. I will ask him to reach out to every Member who has attended the debate, and, if Members would like to, I am sure he would be happy to meet them.

Moving on to issues around telecoms, there was a specific question on the closure of the PSTN. That is on track for 31 January 2027. Hon. Members spoke about the difficulties that some of their constituents face in getting a reliable broadband connection, and they are right to raise that. National coverage matters, and I have seen that in my area of Barnsley. Ofcom’s regulatory regime has facilitated significant investment and growth in the fixed telecoms market. As of January 2026, gigabit broadband coverage stands at 88%. Ofcom’s telecoms access review, published in March this year, provides a stable regulatory framework for the coming years, and continues to support competition and investment across the sector. This infrastructure is critical to households and businesses alike and underpins the delivery of essential public services.

The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole raised a number of concerning issues in her constituency around connectivity, particularly around rural broadband. I will ask officials to look into the specific points she raised. The Government are committed to ensuring at least 99% gigabit broadband coverage by 2032, including in rural areas.

[Dr Huq]

I am grateful to and have a lot of time for the Minister—she has helped me sort many constituency issues. The issue of broadband is not just a rural thing. In my seat, Ealing Central and Acton, which is in London in zones 2 and 3, we have appalling broadband. We have been told that fast fibre will be rolled out, and it would be great if the Minister looked into that. Also, is the distinction between news and current affairs being looked at? It is something that seems to have been invented in the last 10 years for GB News.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will reflect my hon. Friend’s second question to the Media Minister, but she is absolutely right that broadband is not just a rural issue. When I was the shadow Media Minister, I did a visit to central London that explained some of the issues around broadband connectivity. We want the whole of the UK to be connected.

The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole raised the issue of scam calls and texts. I have seen tragic and difficult cases of that in my area of Barnsley. Ofcom’s work to tackle scam calls and fraudulent text messages is an important part of its consumer protection role. It has introduced measures to block calls originating from abroad from using UK mobile numbers and to disrupt scam mobile messages. Those will come into effect in 2027. Alongside the Government’s 2025 telecoms fraud charter and wider fraud strategy, those measures will help to protect consumers. Of course, criminals continue to adapt their tactics, and we expect Ofcom to continue using its powers effectively as the threat evolves. The hon. Lady gave a specific example from the USA; I will raise that with the Media Minister and ask officials to write to her.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) spoke in detail and with great experience about the issue of spectrum. Spectrum policy should not be considered in isolation from the Government’s wider objectives for growth, resilience and national capability. The Government sets the strategic direction for spectrum principally through the statement of strategic priorities, while Ofcom independently carries out its statutory functions. Our approach is clear: spectrum management should support investment, competition and innovation while helping to ensure the connectivity and services that the UK relies on are resilient. We keep both our approach to spectrum and the wider regulatory framework under review to ensure that they remain fit for a rapidly changing communications market. My hon. Friend asked a number of other questions; I will make sure she gets a letter from the Media Minister—he is going to be busy following this debate.

It has been a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Government on this important issue. In conclusion, Ofcom’s responsibilities have never been broader or more important. From supporting growth and investment to promoting competition, protecting consumers, strengthening network resilience and implementing online safety regulation, it occupies a central place in the UK’s regulatory landscape. I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate and to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole for securing it.

Rugby League Clubs

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on securing this debate. He is a constituency neighbour of mine, and, as a fellow Yorkshire MP, I know how important rugby league is to his area. He is such a champion for the sport, both in this place—as he has shown this morning—and beyond.

For over 130 years, rugby league has made a huge contribution to our society. Week in, week out, local people come together to support their clubs, their children’s teams and the players. Rugby league clubs are places where thousands of people play sport and get active every week. My hon. Friend spoke passionately about the impact of rugby league in post-industrial towns such as those we represent. He was right to say that I am very proud to represent Barnsley South in Parliament. We have fantastic grassroots teams in Barnsley, such as the Dearne Valley Bulldogs and the Dodworth Miners. This week, the Dodworth Miners under-12s became the first junior rugby league team ever from Barnsley to win a league and cup double, and I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating them.

We see such teams all across the north of England, and the vital role that they play is reflected in the interest in today’s debate. We know that community sport, and especially sports such as rugby league, can play a major role in building confidence and teamwork, supporting the life skills of future generations and improving community cohesion. The social value generated by community sport and physical activity is vast—in excess of £122 billion a year—and every £1 spent on sport by rugby league community clubs generates a social return of more than £4. Such figures underscore the vital role that sports such as rugby league can play in driving positive public health and societal outcomes. That is why the Government believe that someone’s access to sport should never be determined by their postcode, background or gender.

[Jon Trickett]

The Minister is right to raise gender. It is fair to say that in the dim and distant past, rugby league was kind of a male sport, but now there are women’s teams all over the country, including in universities. We are very proud that Featherstone Rovers has one of the most successful women’s rugby league teams in the country. I thank her for giving me the opportunity to celebrate their success.

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes a really important point. That is why, as Sports Minister, I have set up the women’s sport taskforce. I will say more about women’s sport later in my speech.

The single biggest thing most likely to get a child active in sport is watching it live. If kids cannot watch their rugby heroes, they are far less likely to pick up a rugby ball. My hon. Friend is a huge champion for his local club, Featherstone Rovers. Featherstone Rovers has been at the heart of its local community for many years, and the uncertainty since it entered administration has hit the town hard. I commend the collective efforts of my hon. Friend, the local community and the RFL to revive the club.

Indeed, I met my hon. Friend to discuss this issue earlier in the year. As he mentioned, I understand that Wakefield council has set out proposals to provide £500,000 of emergency funding, match-funded by the RFL’s resilience fund, in a bid to get the team back on the field by 2027. Under those proposals, the likely scenario is that the RFL will take control of the ground and lease it to an ownership group.

On Pride in Place funding, power is being put in local hands through the resident-led Featherstone neighbourhood board, which is working with the local council and, of course, the constituency MP, my hon. Friend. Although spending choices rest locally with that board, I am fully supportive of local communities choosing to use the funding to protect and revitalise vital sporting institutions such as Featherstone Rovers, and I will raise that with the relevant Minister from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

I have seen at first hand the importance and impact of rugby league, having taken part in the Yorkshire versus Lancashire match at the Labour party conference at Everton stadium. I was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), who is in attendance today, and I am pleased to report a Yorkshire win. It was a great opportunity to showcase the sport and to learn more about its work with Community Integrated Care, a registered charity that supports people with learning disabilities, autism, mental health needs and dementia. It was a great opportunity to talk to the RFL, and I look forward to meeting members again soon.

Sport England has committed £15.7 million to rugby league up to 2029. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth, that support is already delivering on the ground, funding new facilities at Hemsworth Dragons and pitch maintenance at Rycroft Hammers. Nationally, we are directing £400 million into upgrading grassroots sports facilities, deliberately prioritising the areas with the highest levels of deprivation and inactivity. My hon. Friend highlighted the RFL’s bid for funding the sport, facilities and community programme. I cannot make spending commitments today, but I would be happy to discuss that further with him and the RFL.

My hon. Friend made an important point about broadcasting, and I have heard his concerns. Under the listed events regime, the Challenge cup final remains protected on free-to-air television, but I acknowledge the concerns raised before the world cup. The Secretary of State expressed that she was disappointed. There was a last-minute agreement that the BBC would carry highlights, but I appreciate concerns that that did not go anywhere near far enough. We must help sports rights holders to strike the right balance between broadcasting revenue that keeps clubs solvent and ensuring that matches remain accessible to the public.

On the subject of watching England play, this time last year I was pleased to be cheering on England at Wembley as they played in the Ashes. The team are now down under to compete in the world cup. I wish them all the very best as they prepare for their final pool game in two days’ time.

The value of rugby league goes well beyond the 80 minutes on the pitch. Through our £330,000 investment in Rugby League Cares, current and former players are in our schools and towns having open and honest conversations with young men about mental health, isolation and loneliness. My hon. Friend was right to mention the social impact of the sport. Over the summer, I was delighted to go to the home of the Castleford Tigers to meet Rugby League Cares and Men in Sheds, seeing at first hand the powerful role that sport, including rugby league, plays in tackling social isolation and loneliness.

I have heard my hon. Friend’s concerns about honours, which he has put on the record. I know that the Secretary of State is on the record as sharing those concerns. We have all witnessed the extraordinary bond between the late, great Rob Burrow and Sir Kevin Sinfield—a reminder of the loyalty, courage and compassion that define the rugby league family. We are seeing the same spirit drive the growth of the women’s game, through initiatives such as RugBees and the inspiring expansion of the wheelchair super league. Just a few weeks ago, the Secretary of State visited Leigh Sports Village to support Sinfield during a leg of his “7 in 7” endurance challenge, in which he ran seven ultramarathons in seven days. Sinfield’s runs raise awareness and funds for motor neurone disease in honour of his former teammate and close friend, Rob Burrow.

I thank my hon. Friend once again for securing this debate and for standing up so effectively for his community and his sport. I look forward to working closely with him and the RFL in our coming meeting to ensure that rugby league gets the fair treatment, support and long-term investment it so richly deserves.

Question put and agreed to.

Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on securing this debate. He is a strong champion for his constituents, local employers and our brewing traditions. For decades, our heritage policies have focused on physical buildings and monuments, and we are expanding that by recognising living heritage: the crafts, skills and community traditions passed down through generations. This debate is a brilliant way to illustrate that. My hon. Friend made a strong case for the heritage, and explained the traditions associated with cask ale brewing with colour and detail. The support for this debate is reflected by the attendance and contributions from hon. and right hon. Members from across the House today. I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) originally applied for and championed this debate.

Following the ratification of the 2003 UNESCO convention, we launched the nationwide search to document our living history, and the upcoming launch of the domestic inventories will be an important milestone. We have heard a strong argument for the inclusion of cask ale, led by the Campaign For Real Ale, the Craft Beer Channel and grassroots supporters and amplified today by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter and by hon. and right hon. Members from across the House. Cask Ale Culture has been formally submitted and is currently being assessed by an independent panel.

Alongside living traditions, DCMS continues to protect physical pub heritage. More than 12,000 listed buildings in England are current or former pubs. Through our arts everywhere fund and our £200 million investment in heritage to 2030, we are helping communities to restore and safeguard historical venues. We have heard from right hon. and hon. Members—I will not attempt to list them all—speaking about their local brewers, including Allanwater Brewhouse in Stirling and the Dancing Duck in Derby, and the sheer number of pubs—I believe it was 132—that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) quoted.

To answer one of the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter, next year, DCMS will launch a public consultation on safeguarding living heritage to identify the practical steps needed to keep these traditions alive. I encourage the brewing industry and the pub sector to take part. Cask ale protects skilled jobs, strengthens communities and preserves practical crafts. It is a vital living tradition.

My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the proposed closure of Marston’s brewery in Burton upon Trent, which I know he raised directly with the Prime Minister during Prime Minister’s questions. Carlsberg Britvic’s proposal is a blow to the workforce, the local community and the identity of Burton upon Trent and the surrounding area. Brewing is part of the fabric the area, and with more than 300 potential job losses and workers facing uncertainty, the Government stand ready to support them through Jobcentre Plus and the rapid response service. We will ensure that tailored support is available to help people to find new opportunities and to protect their livelihoods. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will remain in close contact with Carlsberg Britvic throughout the consultation process.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I welcome the work that the Government are doing, but has the Secretary of State dragged in the chief executive of Carlsberg? This seems to be a pattern of behaviour, happening not just in Burton, but in Wolverhampton as well. It seems intent on closing down all its cask ale breweries.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I was about to answer the right hon. Member’s question. Of course, that would be for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I will speak to Ministers directly following this debate. While this debate is not on that particular issue, I absolutely recognise that it is integral to the right hon. Member’s area and the surrounding area. I will speak to DEFRA Ministers directly.

The right hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) rightly highlighted the closure of Banks’s brewery. Of course, that announcement comes alongside Molson Coors proposing the closure of Sharp’s brewery in Rock. Both companies have pointed to the decline in cask ale demand. I totally hear the points that the right hon. Member made. UK cask ale volumes have halved in less than 10 years. I think we heard a statistic from my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter about cask ale sales accounting for 5% of the market today compared with 50% in the 1990s. We are seeing a decline, but there are some positive signs. Industry data reveals a 50% increase in young adults aged 18 to 25 regularly drinking cask ales in pubs. We want that renewed interest to grow, and we heard a number of examples of how we might do that, including the Hemel Old Town Beer festival mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor), or the local festival that the shadow Minister mentioned—I wish him luck in judging the competition.

Pubs and hospitality venues are essential social infrastructure. They combat loneliness, bring generations together and provide places to bring people together in our communities.

[Phil Brickell]

On the occasion of the then Mayor of Greater Manchester, now the Prime Minister, visiting my constituency, I was proud to host him in Blackedge’s Brewery Tap on Market Street in Westhoughton. Recognising that he understands the value of cask ale and local independent businesses and breweries, would the Minister perhaps persuade his good offices to see what they can do to support the cask ale business and breweries to continue this fine tradition?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important point. As he illustrates, and from the visit that the Prime Minister made when he was the Mayor of Manchester, I am sure that he will be very supportive. I do not want to speak for him, but I will reflect it to his Parliamentary Private Secretary.

I see the importance of pubs in my area and my constituency of Barnsley South. I take this opportunity to thank and pay tribute to Dan at the Cross Keys pub in Darfield, who has made the pub a brilliant community hub. As he moves on, I wish him and the team the very best. It is just one of the brilliant pubs that Barnsley has to offer.

I attended the British Beer and Pub Association dinner and awards evening earlier this month and had the privilege of meeting John Longden, the chief executive officer of Pub is The Hub. I join Members from across the House in paying tribute to him and the work that he has done. As many Members will know, Pub is The Hub is a not-for-profit that helps rural and remote pubs to diversify their businesses and to provide essential local community services. The evening saw brewers, pub operators, suppliers and patrons celebrate the industry, with awards presented to extraordinary community champions.

To support pubs and venues directly, the Government have launched a £10 million hospitality grant. Over £3 million of that funding has been awarded to Pub is The Hub to support its work. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announced a £210 million funding package for our high streets, including £125 million for derelict buildings and £65 million for community ownership. The Government have previously supported pubs through alcohol duty reforms, including introducing and expanding draught relief for products below 8.5% alcohol by volume and cutting duty on qualifying draught drinks in February 2025.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for a very comprehensive and helpful response to our questions. What is important is not just the craft, but the tourism potential. Do the Government recognise that there is tourism potential for the economy to grow and create jobs and prosperity?

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As the Tourism Minister, I absolutely echo and agree with the point that he is making. I was about to say that pubs were included in the recent announcement on additional business rate support, which is 15% in 2026-27 and will be 20% from April. That will save the average pub £1,100 a year. Members would not expect me to anticipate the Budget tomorrow, and we look forward to hearing the Chancellor in the Chamber tomorrow afternoon.

The sector relies on skilled people. We see industry taking the lead with the launch of the British Beer and Pub Association Academy, opening its doors to degree apprentices to build the next generation of pub leaders and brewing managers. The Government want to back them, and this Government are transforming the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy in England. We are fully funding apprenticeships for eligible young people under 25 and offering a £2,000 hiring payment to non-levy-paying small businesses that recruit young apprentices. Backed by £1 billion, that investment will support 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships by March 2029, helping to train the next generation of brewers, coopers and cellar staff.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for highlighting the rich brewing history of Carlisle, from the historic state management scheme to its independent brewers. She and a number of other Members asked whether the Government have considered extending a guest beer arrangement model to England, akin to the guest beer provision in the Scottish pub code. Ministers are giving it their consideration and DEFRA colleagues regularly discuss market access and competition with industry representatives. We will continue to listen to brewers and publicans on how best to sustain consumer choice, but given the interest in those policy areas, I will make sure I speak to the relevant Ministers following this debate.

I end by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter and all Members from across the House for bringing this debate to the House. I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to safeguard the brewing future.

Sporting Events Bill [HL] (First sitting)

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Mr French]

I am pleased to open the first day of the Committee on the Sporting Events Bill for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. As always, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the widespread engagement I have undertaken with stakeholders, including at events, while shadowing the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

I appreciate that some of these amendments were moved in the other place and defeated, but we remain of the view that there is a need for a mechanism to enable the creation of a delivery authority for major events such as the world cup or the Olympics, with a northern bid mooted. In a desperate bid to stay in Downing Street, the former Prime Minister, Mr Starmer, included in his final King’s Speech a commitment to introducing a sporting events Bill. Luckily for us, even stopped clocks are right twice a day. As hon. Members will know, in years gone by His Majesty’s Government have introduced event-specific legislation for major sporting events, including the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 and the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020.

We agree that this Bill is a welcome step towards a coherent framework that will enable one of the UK’s best exports to be even better. However, it was the Government’s intention that this framework should be used only for sporting events that do not regularly take place and that are likely to attract significant international interest and bring social and economic benefits to the UK. Thankfully, the Government were defeated in the other place, and we will now consider the framework as applicable to regular sporting events such as the British grand prix at Silverstone or golf’s original championship, the Open. These events already make vast contributions to the country, both economically and socially, and should be given the support framework to continue to do so.

Hon. Members will know that primary legislation created the Olympic Delivery Authority to work alongside the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, and it was responsible for the redevelopment of the Stratford area, the construction of the sporting venues, and the infrastructure and transport planning. That required, as indeed will many of these events, significant cross-sector efforts bringing together national governing and representative bodies such as the British Olympic Association or the Football Association, local government, including the host cities, and central Government Departments. There may also be a need, as there was for 2012, to build new stadiums, purchase land and improve transport links so that spectators can get there. As it stands, new primary legislation would be required if there was a need to establish such a body for an international event. That undermines the aim of the Bill, which is to have a permanent framework for major sporting events to ensure their most efficient delivery.

These amendments, new clauses and new schedule would create a mechanism for the Secretary of State to establish a delivery authority if they believe it necessary, depending on the event itself. They would not compel the Secretary of State to create a delivery authority, but they would give the Secretary of State the ability to do so without undertaking the whole process that this Bill aims to avoid.

Under new clause 1, a delivery authority would:

“(a) prepare for the sporting event,

(b) make arrangements in preparation for or in connection with the use or management before, during or after the sporting events of premises and other facilities acquired, constructed or adapted in preparation for the sporting event,

(c) ensure that adequate arrangements are made for the provision, management and control of facilities for transport in connection with the sporting event, and

(d) ensure the safety of individuals participating in or attending the sporting event.”

Moreover, our proposals would set out the constitution of any delivery authority that a Secretary of State may create. That includes a membership of between seven and 11 people, the appointment of a chair and chief executive, and the procedure for removing members. Part 2 of the new schedule would provide procedural rules for delegation by such authorities, and it would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the authority’s progress. Finally, part 3 would allow the Secretary of State to provide the authority with financial assistance, if necessary, by resolution of the House.

I hope the Minister understands why we have tabled these amendments. If she believes that, once enacted, the Bill will negate the need for any further primary legislation, surely it must try to cover the likely requirements of future events. Some of these events, particularly the largest irregular events, will require a delivery authority to support them in delivering for our country. That is why I commend these amendments to the Committee.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank all hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for taking part.

The UK is a world leader when it comes to hosting major sporting events, and the economic and social benefits of these occasions are felt across the country. This framework Bill has a range of powers, including on ticketing, transport, advertising, trading and unauthorised association. This will help to improve our competitiveness when bidding for major sporting events, helping to bring more iconic sporting moments to the UK. The Bill will enhance our competitive advantage, showing international event owners that we understand what is needed to host global sporting moments and that we are event-ready.

The Government amendments seek to refine the Bill following its amendment in the other place to ensure that, where there is strong evidence of need, the Bill can also be applied to support our brilliant and important domestic sporting events, as we will discuss later in Committee.

The 2028 UEFA European championship will be the first major sporting event to benefit from this Bill, with games hosted across Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Birmingham, London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Dublin. The tournament is projected to bring a sixfold return on public investment. Forty per cent of tickets will be offered in the most affordable categories, and the Government-backed community programme will prioritise grassroots participation in communities across the country. The tournament shows that major sporting events do far more than entertain; they drive economic growth, foster national pride and inspire young people. The Bill will ensure these benefits are felt for generations to come.

The shadow Minister’s amendments seek to place on the face of the Bill a model for a dedicated delivery body. While the Government recognise the intent of these amendments, we do not believe they are needed. First, setting up a delivery authority with the proposed powers has typically been the exception, not the rule, when it comes to delivering major sporting events. In fact, the last time a bespoke delivery authority was set up on a statutory basis was more than 20 years ago for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. The Olympic Delivery Authority was granted powers that corresponded to specific objectives, including to support the massive undertaking of building new venues, ensuring public transport readiness and overseeing land procurement.

Conversely, a special-purpose incorporated company was established by the five relevant football authorities to deliver Euro 2028. That is an appropriate approach, not least because the tournament overwhelmingly relies on existing stadia and infrastructure, without the need for bespoke statutory powers. On the rare occasion that a delivery authority is warranted, its nature and scope must similarly be determined by what is targeted and proportionate for the specific needs and requirements of an event in order to maximise effectiveness, efficiency and value for money. As such, although many of the shadow Minister’s recommendations are eminently sensible, the amendments would unfortunately take away from the flexibility we need by prescribing a fixed model in legislation, and particularly one with more sweeping powers than may be warranted in every scenario. Where greater oversight is required, the Government already have the requisite ability to establish an appropriate delivery body that is subject to appropriate additional parliamentary scrutiny—the Olympic Delivery Authority was regularly subject to such scrutiny.

For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

[Mr French]

I appreciate the Minister’s comments. The Opposition have set out our position and our concerns. We absolutely understand the Minister’s point regarding Euro 2028. The amendment was primarily aimed at the likes of the Olympics. In light of the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

The amendments, new clause and new schedule in this group are designed to make sure that maliciously timed strikes do not undermine the entirety of a major sporting event, as defined by the Bill. Any event covered by the framework established by the Bill is, by the definitions in clause 3, likely to be of

“significant international or national interest”

or

“likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or a part of it.”

Industrial action during such an event would wholly undermine the objectives of the Bill.

Amendment 7 would ban strikes by certain workers, including transport workers, when the framework is applied to a sporting event. Amendment 8 would require the “appropriate national authority” to apply the industrial action provisions when it applies one or more other parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event. New clause 5 defines the minimum period in which the appropriate national authority must apply the industrial action provisions. New schedule 2 sets out the industrial action provisions referred to in amendments 7 and 8 and new clause 5, and sets out the penalties for breaching those provisions.

Taken together, the amendments seek to establish provisions related to industrial action as a core part of the sporting events framework established by the Bill. I am sure that Labour Members may sit upright a little when they hear these amendments, but I assure them that the amendments have been tabled in the spirit of the Bill and its intended outcome. They would apply only to sporting events operating under the framework.

However, in the mind of the Opposition, the amendments are not optional extras or measures to be applied to some events and not others. They would form a mandatory part of the framework itself. Through the Bill, the Government seek to establish a permanent framework so that the United Kingdom does not have to improvise or pass new primary legislation every time we host a major event and welcome people from across the world to our country. As it stands, the Bill provides for the protection of ticketing arrangements, advertising rights, trading around venues and commercial rights, under the provisions on unauthorised association. Crucially, the Bill does not protect against one of the most visible and damaging risks to any major event: the disruption caused by strikes.

Hon. Members will know the damage that such actions cause. Last September’s tube strikes caused near-total shutdown, costing Transport for London an estimated £20 million to £25 million in lost fare revenue alone, and imposing an estimated £230 million of direct cost to the wider economy, equivalent to 700,000 lost working days. Those impacts included workers unable to reach physical workplaces, lost productivity and hits to hospitality and high street spending. We cannot risk that affecting the United Kingdom’s ability to host a major sporting event such as the world cup or the Olympics.

Even the Foreign Secretary, the then leader of the Labour party, said ahead of the 2012 Olympic games,

“This is a celebration for the whole country and must not be disrupted.”

I am sure hon. Members will also remember the 2022 Commonwealth games, when ASLEF and the RMT deliberately targeted those hoping to attend by announcing walkouts on the railways either side of the games. More recently, in May this year, staff at Edinburgh and Glasgow airports voted in favour of walking out during the Commonwealth games in an effort to force a new pay deal. As the unions involved well knew, such a walkout would have had a significant disruptive effect on the operational and commercial viability of those games. Unfortunately, these are not hypothetical risks. They are a recurring and increasing phenomenon under Governments of different colours. The Bill must therefore make sure it cannot be left to chance.

The punishments for breaches would be comparable to those the Government have drafted for the ticket touting, advertising and trading offences elsewhere in the Bill. I hope the Committee will agree that any conduct that threatens the integrity of major sporting events hosted across the United Kingdom ought to be penalised, and that we should not treat conduct, including politically motivated strike action, that threatens to close down events entirely any less seriously.

There are, of course, limits to the provisions I seek to include in the Bill. The ability to prevent strikes would apply only for the specified period tied to the duration of the new framework in relation to a particular sporting event, on which I have also tabled amendment 9. It would apply to transport workers nationally, since they are mobile by definition, but also to local authority workers only in the area where an event is being held. It would apply only where the national authority has chosen to apply the sporting events framework. New schedule 2 would provide for a full enforcement code, notices of intention, the right to make representations, a final notice with reasons, and the right of appeal as appropriate. All of that mirrors the safeguards attached to the ticket touting provisions already in the Bill.

The Committee will know just how valuable major sporting events are, not just to the economy but to our society as a whole. They drive investment into the country and grassroots sports. We cannot let that be undermined by unions playing politics or holding the Government to ransom over pay deals. When we have secured a major event, we owe it to the athletes, the spectators and the millions who tune in to ensure that these events can run smoothly as planned.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Amendments 7 and 8, new clause 5 and new schedule 2, tabled by the shadow Minister, would prevent transport and local authority workers from engaging in industrial action linked to sporting events during specified periods. That includes creating offences relating to participation in and organisation or inducement of such action.

As the Committee will be aware, the Government repealed the minimum service legislation and a number of other restrictions on the right to strike via the Employment Rights Act 2025. The amendments would reintroduce a significant restriction on the ability of workers to take industrial action, and the Government have been clear that we will not support such restrictions. The Government do not consider it right to arbitrarily determine that certain sporting events should strip workers of their right to take industrial action. Events in the UK must operate in conjunction with our employment legislation and must not seek to carve out core components of employment rights.

We are committed to establishing a new model for industrial relations that is fit for the 21st century, and that includes a new industrial relations framework that establishes expectations for how workers and employers should conduct themselves, engage with one another and work together in the interests of the workforce, the economy and the wider public. Before I sit down, I declare an interest as a member of a trade union. On the basis of the points I have made, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 7.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

Clause 1 will introduce a common legislative framework for major sporting events held in the UK. The framework covers five aspects of sporting events: ticket touting, advertising, trading, unauthorised association and transport. The legislative provisions for those five aspects are set out in schedules 1 to 5.

Amendments 13 and 14 and new schedule 3, all of which are in my name, would add single sex protection provisions to the framework. They propose establishing a duty to ensure provision of single-sex competitions and facilities for major sporting events taking place under the framework established by the Bill. They also set out that where the rules of a sporting competition are framed by reference to the gender or sex of the participants, that reference must be to biological sex.

The noble Minister, Baroness Twycross, attempted to argue that these amendments were not necessary when they were tabled in the other place because

“events to which the Bill’s framework will apply must comply with existing legislation and guidance.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 732.]

Unfortunately, although the law has been clear for some time, there are still organisations, including those the Minister has responsibility for—thankfully only a few—that are not complying with the law as clarified by the April 2025 judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers.

We have all heard of the inspirational case of the eight female nurses who successfully appealed against the County Durham and Darlington NHS foundation trust’s policy and management’s dismissal of their concerns. An employment tribunal found that the trust violated the nurses’ dignity and created a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment, and upheld the claims of harassment and indirect sex discrimination. That was almost a year after the law had been clarified.

These cases continue to arise despite the law being clear. If the noble Minister was right, they no longer would and the law would be sufficient. Even though it has now been more than 18 months since the decision in the For Women Scotland case was handed down and the law clarified, some organisations are dragging their feet in undertaking their legal duty to protect women’s and girls’ spaces, particularly in a sporting context.

Across the world, sports governing bodies are coming around to biological reality. In March 2026, the International Olympic Committee banned trans and intersex athletes from competing in female events at the 2028 summer Olympics and future Olympic games. The IOC president stated that the new policy was “based on science” and made because

“it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category.”

However, domestic governing bodies have been hamstrung by the Government, who delayed publishing updated guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In fact, the Minister for Women told the EHRC that it must “tone down” its guidance, which is designed to protect women and girls and single-sex spaces.

That is why my amendments are essential. Any organiser of a major sporting event would have it before them as part of the framework that all competitors in a sporting event must compete against those of the same biological sex, where designated, in the interests of fairness and safety, and that all competitors and officials in the sporting event must be able to use single-sex accommodation, single-sex changing and washing facilities and single-sex toilets based on their biological sex.

The amendments would also mean that all spectators, or any person attending the sporting event, could use single-sex toilets based on their biological sex and single-sex changing and washing facilities, where necessary, based on their biological sex. That is necessary because neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats are able to commit to protecting single-sex spaces for women and girls. We know that girls already spend an average of 90 minutes less per week than boys playing sport and that the drop-out rate for girls at 14 is twice that of boys. Moreover, more than twice the number of girls feel uncomfortable changing for physical education compared to boys.

Respondents to the 2024 BBC elite British sportswomen study who were not comfortable with transgender participation in elite women’s categories outnumbered those who were by 10 to one. Comments included:

“It makes it too much of an unfair playing field, regardless of what sport you are competing in”

and

“Putting them in women's sport is literally like going back in time and putting women at the bottom of the pile again and having to rebuild women back up again.”

That is why the Conservative party is fully committed to ensuring that women and girls have safe single-sex spaces that encourage their participation in sport from a young age and throughout their lives. We want to make sure that there can be no wiggle room for misinterpretations or clever loopholes. In doing so, we will safeguard the integrity of women’s and girls’ sports so that they have a chance to take part on a level playing field after years of exclusion and preferential treatment against them. Women who play sport must be able to compete in a fair and safe sporting environment. My amendments would make sure that that would be the case.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Clause 1 introduces the framework provisions in the Bill, designed to help the UK deliver its commitments to event owners and ensure that we remain a credible and competitive host of major sporting events. Delivering such commitments usually requires time-consuming, event-specific legislation. This Bill changes the game: any of the framework provisions can be applied, as needed, to any qualifying sporting event through secondary legislation.

The framework provisions will help to protect commercial rights and the experience of fans by criminalising the unauthorised resale of tickets and by preventing unauthorised advertising and trading around sporting events. The provisions will ensure that we can deliver on our obligations to event owners and protect commercial investment by preventing unauthorised association with an event, ultimately maintaining the UK’s position as an attractive host of the biggest events. Finally, provisions to manage transport and traffic in England will help us ensure that fans get to events safely, efficiently and reliably. Taken together, those provisions signal the UK’s commitment to hosting excellence, and ensure that we are ready to welcome the world.

I now turn to amendments 13 and 14 and new schedule 3, tabled by the shadow Minister. I understand that his intent is to ensure that the Bill’s framework provisions can be applied only when major sporting events ensure single-sex competition, facilities and accommodation. Any events to which the Bill’s framework will apply must comply with existing legislation and guidance. The legislation applicable here is the Equality Act 2010, which sets out how people are protected from discrimination. It also sets out certain circumstances where people can be treated differently due to their sex, which, as clarified by the Supreme Court, means biological sex, and the provision of facilities and sport are included in that.

Organisers and facility owners may lawfully restrict changing spaces, toilets, and accommodation to biological sex, where proportionate, to achieve a legitimate aim such as privacy and dignity. The law is clear: to ensure fairness or safety in sport competitions designated as women’s competitions, participation is determined based on biological sex. That would apply to all events in scope of the Bill as they are all competitive sporting events. An explicit statutory duty in the Bill is therefore unnecessary.

[Mr French]

As I outlined, respectfully, the Government have lost trust on this issue. That is why we want to see it included in the Bill, so I will push this to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Application of framework to major sporting events

[Stephanie Peacock]

I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert “(but see subsection (3A))”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 24.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 21, 23 to 31, 42 and 43.

Government new clause 14—Fees.

[Stephanie Peacock]

As the Bill passed through the other place, we heard a strong case from peers and sporting bodies alike that a small number of our world-class recurrent events could face the same delivery, commercial protection and hosting challenges as itinerant events in the future. The Government have heard and agree with the intent.

Domestic sporting events, as referred to in the Bill, contribute significant economic and social value to the UK. However, the Bill, as currently amended, is too broad in scope, with “domestic appeal” potentially covering the majority of the professional sporting calendar. Without safeguards to ensure that the framework is applied in a proportionate way, the clause risks giving eligibility for protections to an extremely large pool of events and having a disproportionately wide effect on local businesses and communities.

Even restricting the scope of “domestic sporting event” rightly requires clarity on how the Government will extend the provisions to events that currently operate independently of our operational support. That is why we have brought forward this package of Government amendments. Amendment 28 removes the addition of “national” interest; as I have set out, national interest could be deemed to have an extremely broad interpretation such as frequently held seasonal competitions. There are already two framework conditions. The first is that the sporting event must be held wholly or partly in the United Kingdom. The second is that the sporting event must be of significant international interest and be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the UK—or the event must be of “strategic value”, helping us secure other events that meet those criteria.

Government amendments 23 and 30 introduce a third framework condition that must also be met by recurrent events, referred to in the Bill as “domestic sporting events”. Those are defined under Government amendment 25 as

“a sporting event which is of a kind that is regularly held wholly or partly in the United Kingdom”.

The third condition requires organisers of domestic sporting events to apply to the appropriate national authority requesting that the framework be applied. The event organiser must set out evidence that it is appropriate to apply the framework to its event. The Secretary of State or devolved Governments may then consider such events on a case-by-case basis, notably considering such matters as the prominence of the event within its field of sport and the frequency of such events. That is a necessary distinction for a cohort of domestic sporting events that currently are both numerous and run independently of Government.

The independent events are not routinely subject to Government evaluation that could otherwise inform a decision to extend the provisions. The amendment places the responsibility on an event to articulate the case for inclusion and evidence that provisions of the Bill will support their enduring economic and social value. The requirement to make an application was an amendment from the other place, which we have further refined in this way. That allows the Government to ensure that they are satisfied that the application of framework provisions would be appropriate and proportionate.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

The Minister well knows that Trent Bridge is in my constituency of Rushcliffe. What category would an event such as the Ashes fall into? It is an internationally significant event, but it is a roaming event that goes to different locations. Would it fall into a different category?

[Stephanie Peacock]

Any sporting event can apply and must meet the evidence-based threshold. On Royal Assent, we will publish the application process. I am happy to follow up in writing with my hon. Friend, but the event will be able to apply and make a case. That will then be on a case-by-case basis.

A further safeguard to ensure the proportionality of applying these measures is set out in amendment 31, which adds a sunset provision that ensures that regulations applying provisions to recurrent events may not run past five years. That will ensure that no event should benefit from these provisions in perpetuity without adequate assurance that the criteria are still met and that the event still warrants these benefits. That does not limit the potential duration of access to these provisions, but it does introduce points of parliamentary review. When we debate the detail of the framework provisions later in group 12, I will set out additional safeguards that the Government consider necessary to ensure their application to domestic events is workable and proportionate.

I turn to Government amendment 24. After extensive exploration, the Government believe that the Bill’s transport provisions do not and would not offer additional provisions to domestic sporting events. They have clear event ownership and engage with the relevant local authorities on the transport planning required. Existing legislation meets the needs of time-limited events, with powers for local authorities to appropriately accommodate their transport requirements. Extension of the provision would not materially add to the Government’s support of them. We do not exclude this lightly, but we will not pursue legislation that we believe is not materially useful.

Finally, I turn to new clause 14. As the Committee has heard, great care has been taken to ensure that the application of the framework provisions to recurrent events is proportionate and workable. In this context, we are mindful of the potential burden on enforcement authorities who could be called on to carry out enforcement of the advertising and trading offences under the Bill. We have listened to the views of local authorities on that point; that is why new clause 14 introduces a mechanism for enforcement authorities to recover from event organisers the additional costs they have incurred in connection with enforcing the advertising and trading offences for recurrent events.

Local authorities will be able to require an event organiser to cover the additional costs that it has incurred in exercising functions related to the advertising and trading offences for recurrent events. That includes activities associated with applying the provisions to an event, such as the costs of administering an authorisation process and engagement with local businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

This group of Government amendments is part of the changes the Government seek to make in relation to the application of the sporting events framework. I am grateful to the Minister and her officials for taking the time to discuss these, and her thinking behind them, last week. As we have heard, they include changes that define a domestic sporting event; mean that the sporting events framework could be applied to a sporting event only if it is likely to be of significant international interest; provide for an additional condition that must be met in the case of domestic sporting events; provide that regulations under clause 2 that relate to a domestic sporting event cease to have effect after a certain period of time; and mean that transport provisions cannot be applied to a domestic sporting event.

The Minister has assured me that there is broad support among stakeholders for these tweaks that the Government are seeking to make. But they also include new clause 14, which

“would insert a new clause after clause 21 (maximum penalty amounts etc) which would enable a certain bodies to charge fees in connection with certain costs which are incurred by those bodies in relation to the advertising offence or the trading offence.”

The Minister may be aware that the Sport and Recreation Alliance wrote in last night—I suspect to a number of MPs on this Committee—because it is concerned that that sets a precedent where the victim of an offence will be required to pay for the enforcement of that offence.

The Minister will be aware of the concerns in the sporting world for major events around the Home Office’s ongoing engagement with the police—for example, about how costs are split and tried to be forced on to more sporting bodies. We are concerned about that. I am particularly keen to hear what reassurance the Minister can provide the Committee that that precedent will not open the door to further charges being placed on the ability of sporting bodies to host major and domestic events. More broadly, I am pleased that the Government have seen sense and agreed with the spirit of the changes made in the other place. However, I understand the comments made by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset; I am keen to hear the Minister’s response and what assurance she can provide the Committee.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful for the contributions from the hon. Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup and for Frome and East Somerset, and for the time they spent last week discussing the matter. As I acknowledged in my opening remarks, the Government have listened, and we acknowledged that we needed to go further. As I set out, certain conditions will need to be met in order for recurrent events to receive the protections: they must be wholly or partly held in the United Kingdom, be of significant international interest and be likely to bring social or economic benefits.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson referred to Wimbledon, an event that attracts clear international interest. I have been watching the tournament for 30 years, and there are players from all across the world. I hope the Minister can reassure us that that is precisely the type of event that will be protected under the Bill.

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend has done my job for me: I was just coming on to that point. The event must also be of strategic value to help us secure other events, but, to answer his specific question: yes, we would anticipate Wimbledon, the Open, Silverstone and the London marathon being the sorts of events that would be protected. I discussed this matter with the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset last week, and as I outlined in answer to an earlier intervention, a wide range of events can apply, but they must meet an evidential threshold to receive those powers. It is worth noting that they may not want all of the powers in the Bill; they may simply want some of them.

In answer to the shadow Minister’s point about new clause 14, I have outlined the reasons why we included it. There is a balance to be struck, but we do not believe that the burden should fall on British taxpayers.

[James Naish]

I have a small point that I do not think is covered in this clause, but maybe the Minister can confirm that. For people in my constituency, which has three international venues close by, parking and the cost of parking enforcement are very important. Will the Minister consider support for local authorities that take on that extra burden when major events come to town?

[Stephanie Peacock]

For those itinerant events, there are transport provisions in the Bill, but this group of amendments relates to recurrent events. We have exempted them from the transport provisions, having been in consultation and conversation with both the event organisers and local authorities, because they already have transport plans in place. I absolutely acknowledge that sporting events at any level can cause challenges, particularly with transport—I have seen that in my own area of Barnsley—so perhaps I can pass on my hon. Friend’s comments to the relevant Transport Minister. I hope that I have answered hon. Members’ points.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Amendments made: 21, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, after “section” insert

“in relation to a sporting event”.

This amendment contains a drafting refinement.

Amendment 23: in clause 2, page 2, line 12, leave out from “if” to end of line 13 and insert

“—

(a) the first and second conditions in section 3 are met, and

(b) in the case of a domestic sporting event, the third condition in that section is also met.”

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 30.

Amendment 24: in clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert—

“(3A) Regulations under subsection (2) may not apply the transport provisions to a domestic sporting event.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)

This amendment would mean that the transport provisions cannot be applied to a domestic sporting event.

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert—

“(5A) Regulations made by an appropriate national authority under this section may not have effect for a period that is longer than 50 days.”

This amendment sets the maximum period in which the sporting events framework could be implemented in relation to a particular event.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

I will start with what clause 2 seeks to achieve, which is the application of the framework to major sporting events. The clause establishes how the sporting events framework can be applied to individual sporting events. It will give the Secretary of State and the relevant devolved Governments powers to apply ticket touting, advertising and trading provisions, while the Secretary of State can also apply unauthorised association and transport provisions. However, those powers can be used only where the event meets the conditions set out in clause 3. Regulations made under the clause can also cover connected events, such as cultural events, that are held in connection with the main sporting event; the clause also establishes the scrutiny procedures for such regulations.

Amendment 9, which is in my name, would set a

“maximum period in which the sporting events framework could be implemented in relation to a particular event.”

As it stands, there is no limit to the time for which regulations made under the Bill can be in effect. We think that that is a clear omission. As designed, the framework applies to specific and time-limited events. It therefore seems strange, if not wrong, for those regulations to extend beyond the life of the event that they are there to regulate.

Amendment 9 proposes a single flat period of 50 days as a sensible time limit for the powers. As hon. Members may know, the London Olympic and Paralympic games spanned 45 days, the UEFA European championship runs for approximately one month and the FIFA world cup takes about 39 days from the first match to the final whistle. Our amendment’s balanced approach gives organisers a generous margin within which to operate, while also giving Parliament and the public reassurance that those powers will not accidentally remain in place beyond the event’s needs.

I am sure that the Minister will echo the comments of the Minister in the other place and say that they understand the need for flexibility. However, further to the question that my noble Friend Lord Parkinson asked the Lords Minister, I would be interested to know what event the Minister has in mind that may require a longer period, particularly as she has now tabled Government amendment 31, which provides a time limit for domestic sporting events. Can she explain to the Committee why one event would need a time limit but the others would not, given that they are covered or set to be covered by the same framework? If flexibility is key, I hope that my amendment will help to provide the solution. I hope the Committee agrees that it would help to dovetail the intentions of the Bill and the practicalities of regulation alongside the practical realities that occur once an event has finished.

Amendment 10, which is in my name, would ensure that all regulations applying to the sporting event framework are subject to the affirmative procedure of both Houses. As drafted, the Bill stipulates that the affirmative procedure applies only to the first set of regulations establishing the framework for a particular event; any subsequent regulations that amend, extend or otherwise modify that framework would be subject only to the negative procedure.

My amendment would remove that distinction, ensuring that all regulations made under clause 2 are subject to affirmative procedures. The principle is straightforward; we are talking about a framework that could have significant implications for the rights and obligations of businesses, event organisers, local authorities and members of the public in connection with major sporting events.

As my noble Friend Lord Moynihan highlighted in the other place, the arrangements for the Olympic games in Paris extended to issues such as artificial intelligence and facial recognition. These matters warrant proper parliamentary scrutiny, not simple notification after the fact. I hope the Committee agrees that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate and approve all regulations made under the clause, not just the first set.

I agree with my noble Friend Lord Parkinson, who said:

“I hope by the time we get there, this experiment with time-limited guillotines on secondary legislation will not still be in place.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 490.]

That was such an eloquent comment—I should be clear that it was his, not mine.

In its delegated powers memorandum, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport argues that the subsequent regulations are likely to contain operational or technical detail or address unforeseen changes in how an event is delivered. On that basis, it considers the negative procedure appropriate to ensure an effective mechanism for making changes during the delivery of an event.

However, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has rightly pointed out, there is no restriction on the scope of those subsequent regulations. The first set may apply only one aspect of the framework to an event, with a later set introducing the remaining provisions. Alternatively, subsequent regulations could make significant changes to arrangements already in place.

It is difficult to see the logic in requiring Parliament to approve the initial application of the framework while allowing subsequent regulations, potentially making equally significant changes, to proceed without the same level of scrutiny, or indeed any scrutiny. If the Government’s argument is ultimately one of administrative convenience, I would suggest to the Minister and the Committee that that is not sufficient justification for reducing parliamentary oversight of powers with such potentially far-reaching consequences.

I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Clause 2 provides the mechanism by which the framework established in the Bill can be applied to individual events. Major sporting events differ in scale, in geography and in the specific operational challenges they present. It is therefore right that the Bill does not seek to impose a one-size-fits-all regime in every case.

Clause 2 will enable the framework to be tailored to the circumstances of a particular event, applying only those provisions that are necessary and proportionate. There is no appetite to put measures in place that are not needed. This is a practical approach, but it is also responsible; the power is not open-ended. Regulations may be made only where the conditions in the framework are met, and all regulations made using the powers under clause 2 will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

The clause also provides important clarity about the way the Bill operates across the UK, because it has been developed in close collaboration with our colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is right that we look to ensure that every corner of the UK can benefit from this legislation. Devolved authorities will be able to apply provisions relating to ticketing, advertising and trading to events taking place in their territory.

Of course, when it comes to ticketing, we appreciate that a UK-wide approach is most desirable; I will say more about that when we come to clause 5. Only the Secretary of State will have the power to apply provisions concerning unauthorised association as this is a reserved matter. The transport measures apply to roads and areas in England only and can be applied by the Secretary of State; the Bill does not contain equivalent measures for the devolved nations as transport is a devolved matter and the devolved Governments were content that they already had adequate provision. Transport co-ordination across the UK will continue through close engagement with the devolved Governments and delivery partners, ensuring that arrangements reflect the different legal and operational frameworks in each nation while supporting coherent UK-wide delivery of major events.

In short, clause 2 will provide the Bill with both its practical effect and its necessary flexibility. It will also ensure that flexibility is balanced by safeguards. Regulations may be made only where the framework conditions are satisfied. Having carefully considered the points made in the other place, we introduced amendments to ensure that each use of the powers in the clause for an event must be subject to debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

Clause 3 sets out the conditions that must be satisfied before the framework can be applied to a sporting event. The event must take place wholly or partly in the United Kingdom and must meet either the significance or the strategic priorities.

To meet the significance priorities, the sporting event must be likely to be of significant international or national interest, the sporting event organiser must have asked for the framework to be applied and the event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the whole or part of the UK. This clause sets out the criteria that may be taken into account in determining whether a sporting event is likely to be of significant national or international interest. They include the scale and reputation of the event, the number of people expected to attend the event from outside the UK, and the amount of media coverage expected outside the UK.

To meet the strategic priority, it must be proven that hosting the sporting event will improve the UK’s chance of securing hosting rights for events that meet the significance priorities. I think all Members will recognise the international challenges when bidding for such events. That is something that goes across parties and will often involve successive Governments, with one Government starting the bid and then another Government hosting the event.

Clause 4, which is entitled “Restrictions on application of framework”, sets out safeguards to ensure that powers over sporting events respect the devolved authorities. Before applying provisions that fall within the legislative responsibility of a devolved authority, the Secretary of State must obtain the relevant devolved authority’s consent. At the same time, the clause sets out that devolved authorities may only make regulations covering matters within their own legislative competence. Where ticket touting provisions are applied, the event must also take place at least partly within the relevant devolved territory.

Amendments 15 and 16, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would require all sporting events hosted under the Bill to be made free to air. Understandably, that has raised a number of concerns among sporting bodies. Before I get into the details of why the amendments would not just upset the apple cart but risk cutting the apple tree down completely, I will start by disagreeing with the terminology “free to air”. As my noble Friend Lord Hayward pointed out in Committee in the other place, we must pay £180 each year for a television licence. These events are therefore never free to air.

Secondly, a review of the listed events regime is probably better placed to achieve the expansion of sports coverage—I do agree with the intentions of the proposal—than a blanket ban, which would be likely to have unintended consequences because of the complexities of global broadcast deals. At a glance, it may well look like an attractive proposition, designed to appeal to Liberal Democrats across the home counties. However, although we all agree that we want as many people as possible to enjoy major sporting events, good intentions and good headlines do not make good policy. These amendments would risk doing real damage to the very sports that they are meant to support.

Broadcasting revenue is an essential source of funding for British sport. It does not simply benefit the elite clubs and athletes at the top of the game. That revenue flows down the sporting pyramid, supporting community clubs, grassroots facilities and the next generation of—we hope—world-beating British sporting talent. The Liberal Democrats should be under no illusion about the scale of the financial risk that they are proposing. For example, the Premier League’s current domestic broadcast deals with Sky and TNT Sports are estimated to be worth £6.7 billion over four years, and the English Football League’s deal with Sky is worth another £1 billion over five years. Those agreements demonstrate the enormous value that broadcasters place on live sport, and the income that British sport stands to lose if we undermine the commercial model that supports it.

The question for the Liberal Democrats is simple: if their amendments put that income at risk, who will replace it? Where will the money come from to support sports clubs, maintain facilities and give young people the opportunity to participate in sport? I appreciate that their amendments start with major events hosted under the framework for which the Bill provides, but once the precedent is set and the likes of UEFA cannot sell their broadcast rights at market value, the effects will begin to pass from the international competitions to the feeder domestic competitions. What will the impact be on participation if that happens? I can answer for them: it will begin to fall, and once it does, it will be incredibly difficult to recover. It is all very well to demand that sporting events be made free to air. That is popular—I understand it—but someone still has to pay for the rights to broadcast them. If broadcasters cannot justify the cost of acquiring those rights, the financial consequences will not be confined to the boardrooms of elite sport; they will be felt throughout sport, including the community clubs and grassroots organisations that rely on this investment.

The Liberal Democrats should recognise that the current system already delivers significant benefits beyond elite sport. In the 2024-25 financial year, UK sports invested a record £213.2 million of broadcast revenues into sport under the voluntary code of conduct. The Premier League, meanwhile, invested £1.6 billion into the wider game in the previous broadcasting cycle. Those figures matter. They demonstrate that commercial broadcasting agreements can generate substantial investment across British sport. We should be looking at how to build investment in sport, not introducing blanket restrictions that risk undermining it at any level. That is particularly important when grassroots sport is already facing significant financial pressures under this Government. The Liberal Democrats should not seek to add further uncertainty to the financial foundations of British sport through amendments that could jeopardise the broadcasting revenue upon which it depends.

Let me be clear once again: I want more people watching major sporting events—I want children to be inspired by our greatest athletes, families to enjoy the biggest occasions and British sport to reach the widest possible audience—but we must recognise that accessibility and financial sustainability are not mutually exclusive. We can encourage wider access without imposing a blanket requirement that risks diminishing the value of the rights that help fund our sports.

The answer is to review the listed events regime, make the most of the commercial broadcasting agreements, encourage investment in grassroots sports and ensure that the success of our biggest sporting events benefits communities across the country. Broadcasting revenues are an essential part of that sporting ecosystem, without which it would wither away. These amendments offer a superficially appealing solution that is undoubtedly popular, without adequately addressing the clear consequences.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset for tabling amendments 15 to 17 and for her thoughtful points. The amendments seek to add a further condition that the Secretary of State and devolved Governments must consider to be met in order for the provisions of the Bill to be applied to a sporting event or an event to rely on the funding power. In either case, the additional condition is that live coverage of the event must be made available free of charge to the public in the United Kingdom, either directly or through an Ofcom-licensed platform accessible without subscription.

The Government recognise the intent behind the amendments and are committed to ensuring that major sporting events are as accessible as possible to people across the United Kingdom, but we cannot accept them. Decisions relating to the broadcast coverage of sporting events, and particularly to those recurrent events delivered wholly independently of Government, are key commercial matters for broadcasters, event organisers and the holders of the broadcasting rights. Broadcasting rights provide essential income for national governing bodies and sport broadcasting rights holders, which enables them to invest in their sports and future events; indeed, the shadow Minister outlined in detail some of the relevant figures. The amendments would place tighter controls on their ability to generate much-needed broadcasting revenue, and could negate the wider economic benefits that the Bill provides for.

The current listed events regime is designed to ensure that sporting events of national significance are available to as wide an audience as possible, by prohibiting their exclusive broadcasting without prior consent from Ofcom. In any event, we would expect broadcasters and sporting rights holders of specific events to think carefully about the balance between generating much-needed revenue and ensuring access to coverage for viewers, ensuring the growth and development of the sport.

Clause 3 sets out the conditions that a sporting event must meet before the Bill’s framework provisions can be applied to it. We have had a thorough debate on this matter already, and I hope the Committee agrees that it is not necessary to revisit those points.

Clause 4 ensures that the Bill operates coherently across the United Kingdom while respecting devolved competence and territorial scope. The clause makes it clear that the Secretary of State cannot make regulations applying provisions on ticketing, advertising and trading to a sporting event in an area of devolved competence without the devolved authority’s consent. Similarly, the devolved authorities may exercise these powers only where the matter falls within their legislative competence. Where ticketing provisions are applied, the event in question must take place at least partly within the territory of the devolved authority making the regulations. The clause is an important part of ensuring coherence when applying the powers in a Bill that will ultimately strengthen our ability to secure and host world-class events throughout the UK.

[Anna Sabine]

I do not represent a home county, and I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 6 stand part.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Clause 5 deals with the important issue of ticketing. It is integral to the framework provisions in the Bill, and in particular to delivering the requirements of major sporting event owners when we seek and secure events hosted in the UK. The ticketing provisions in the Bill are time-limited and designed to ensure that tickets can be resold only with the authorisation of an event owner or organiser.

Clause 5 provides that any regulations applying the Bill’s ticketing measures must specify the period for which those measures apply. That will ensure that the provisions can be applied in a way that reflects the circumstances of each event, including the point at which tickets are expected to go on sale. The clause also requires regulations to specify the part or parts of the United Kingdom to which the provisions will apply. That is important, given that these provisions fall within devolved competence.

We expect the effectiveness of the provisions to be significantly reduced if there is inconsistency in their application, or gaps in territorial coverage that could be exploited. That is precisely why clause 5 is so important. It provides a mechanism by which the Secretary of State may apply the provisions on a UK basis where the consent of the devolved Governments has been secured. The Government’s strong preference is, of course, for a coherent UK-wide approach. Such an approach will provide greater certainty for event organisers, stronger protection for fans and a more effective basis for enforcement.

Clause 6 is a practical, functional element of the Bill. Regulations applying the ticketing provisions to an event will need to designate one or more persons to grant authorisation for ticketing activity, such as the sale and resale of tickets. Only a person who is suitable can be designated to grant authorisations. In effect, that means someone who has the primary right to sell tickets to an event, which we expect would include only an event owner or organiser. The event owner or organiser could then determine who is authorised, based on commercial arrangements.

As unauthorised public resale will be a criminal offence, the Government expect that accessible authorised channels will be made available for the resale of tickets where people can no longer attend an event. Conditions may be imposed on an event owner or organiser who can authorise ticket sales—for example, to require them to maintain a register of platforms that can legally sell tickets.

Before I conclude, it is worth touching on our manifesto commitment to ban ticket touting, with a nod to new clauses 10 and 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset, which we will consider later. We understand and share the objectives that underpin those new clauses, which is why the Secretary of State affirmed on Second Reading our intention to treat the Bill as a priority and ensure that we get it on the statute book.

We will introduce a price cap on the resale of tickets for all live events, including those captured under the Bill, and there will be strict obligations on ticket resale platforms to ensure compliance. That will ensure that, regardless of the event, fans are treated fairly and can have confidence in the operation of the ticketing market. Fans should take further confidence from the fact that UEFA has already confirmed that there will be no dynamic pricing for Euro 2028, and that more than 40% of tickets will be available in the most affordable categories.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Exceptions to the ticket touting offence

[Mr French]

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 7, page 5, line 1, at end insert—

“(c) section (Exception for charitable auctions)”.

[Mr French]

As we are debating ticket touting regulations, particularly in relation to football, it is probably right that I disclose that I attended the FIFA world cup in a private capacity and bought my own ticket, just in case we get a mention of FIFA.

Clause 7 allows regulations to specify activities that are exempt from the ticket touting offence. In doing so, it gives the appropriate national authority the flexibility to accommodate legitimate activities that should not be prohibited. My amendment 11 and new clause 6 are relatively small changes that would enable the charitable resale of tickets.

I am sure the Committee will agree that a charity auction for a ticket is not ticket touting and should never be treated as such. I understand that the noble Minister in the other place recognises that fact, but she has asserted that

“it would not be appropriate to include such a blanket exception as this could undermine the Bill’s objectives.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 476.]

I am not sure which objective my amendments would undermine. One of the premises under which the Government have brought forward the Bill is that major sporting events are both an economic and a social good for the United Kingdom. Charities are key vessels for delivering social good, so why are the Government intent on hamstringing good causes and charities, and why are they prioritising FIFA’s ability to resell tickets at a hugely inflated price, instead of the money going towards a good cause or charity?

The problem is that there is confusion among the Government. In one part of the Bill, which we will debate later today, they say that profit is wrong and that ticket resale sites such as Viagogo and StubHub should not be able to make significant profits from the services that they offer—in fact, they should not be allowed to provide those services in this context. However, the Bill as it stands eliminates the ability of charities to auction off a ticket to generate funds for a good cause. Instead, the noble Minister has said that

“charities looking to raise money for themselves would be able to apply for authorisation to auction tickets. This request would be considered on a case-by-case basis.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. 552.]

How impractical! Do the Government really expect a local charity or a good cause to be able to navigate an as-yet-undefined application process, and to compete against the likes of UEFA or FIFA and their international infrastructure, simply to auction a ticket to a sporting event in aid of a chosen charitable cause? It is ridiculous to expect the vast majority of charities, which are often small, to be able to do that. In practice, it creates a ban on auctions taking place, which will be to the detriment of charities. That is why I have tabled amendment 11 and new clause 6.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Clause 7 deals with the important issue of exceptions to the ticket touting offence, which ensures that proportionality, where required and appropriate, can be applied to the way the offence operates. It is important to clarify that the offence does not prohibit the transfer of tickets at face value between friends, family and associates. Clause 7 enables regulations applying the ticketing provision to specify exceptions to the offence, which may include activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes, including the auctioning of tickets to raise money. This ensures that the Secretary of State or a devolved authority can consider what is proportionate and right for each event.

Although I note that no exception was provided in the legislation for London 2012 or Birmingham 2022, I have asked my officials to discuss this issue further with UEFA before we bring forward regulations next year. I am confident that we can agree on an approach that supports the work of our fantastic charity sector, particularly local charities in our host cities, which speaks to the points made by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. His amendment 11 and new clause 6 would put on the face of the Bill an exception to the ticket touting offence where a ticket is sold by auction and the proceeds go to charity.

I fully recognise the spirit of the hon. Member’s amendments, and we listened carefully to the concerns raised in the other place about the potential impact of the legislative framework on charitable fundraising. That is precisely why the Government introduced amendments to make it clear that the ability to create exemptions to the ticket touting offence can be used, but through regulations. In relation to activities carried out by charities for charitable purposes, we believe that what is needed is not a wholesale exception but a proportionate approach. The amendment tabled by the Government in the other place sends a clear signal of intent. Where it is appropriate to do so, exceptions for charities can and will be made in regulations. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw amendment 11 and new clause 6.

[Mr French]

I appreciate the Minister’s comments. However, we remain concerned that the measure is far too complicated for small charities to navigate and therefore I wish to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Major sporting events should be accessible to genuine supporters, and their ticketing arrangements should reflect the realities of everyday life. We should not create a system in which tickets become worthless to the person who purchased them simply because they can no longer attend. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how the Government intend to ensure that ticketholders have a practical and secure means of transferring or reselling tickets, while maintaining appropriate safeguards against exploitation and excessive fees.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will speak first to schedule 1, and then I will speak to the hon. Gentleman’s amendments. Schedule 1 sets out the scope and detail of the ticketing offence and the enforcement measures available. Principally, it sets out the criminal ticketing offence, which will apply only in the part or parts of the United Kingdom that have been specified in the regulations. As this is a devolved area of competence, the Secretary of State can apply the ticketing offence to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland only with their consent.

An event ticket is defined as anything that is or claims to be a ticket to the sporting event in question, including any opening or closing ceremonies or connected events, such as official cultural programmes, where those events are specified in regulations.

[James Naish]

During the 2012 games, there were a considerable number of test events, and also dress rehearsals for the opening and closing ceremonies and warm-up events. Would they be covered by the schedule?

[Stephanie Peacock]

We will set it out in regulations. It depends on what event it is. I anticipate that those examples would be included, but it will be for this House to decide when it debates the regulations for each event.

It will be an offence to sell, offer to sell, expose for sale or advertise that a ticket to an event is available for purchase in certain circumstances. That includes where such activity is carried out in a public place, including a secondary ticketing platform or online marketplace, whether or not there is an intention to make a profit. To prevent abuse, selling an event ticket includes the giving away of such a ticket to someone who pays, or agrees to pay, for other goods or services. That includes event tickets included as part of an offer when purchasing other goods or services.

The penalty levels are designed to ensure that there is a sufficient deterrent to the ticketing offence. A person found guilty of the ticketing offence on summary conviction in England and Wales is subject to an unlimited fine; in Northern Ireland, to a fine of no more than £50,000; and in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding £20,000. On conviction on indictment in Scotland, they would be subject to a fine. The variations in penalty reflect differences in the judicial systems and legal frameworks across the UK. As an alternative to prosecution, enforcement authorities will be able to impose financial penalties without having to go through the courts.

As ticketing offences are not confined to the UK, we must be able to deter ticket touts acting outside our borders. That is why a UK national, an individual habitually resident in the UK, a body incorporated under UK law or a partnership in Scotland can commit an offence whether or not they are in the UK, or a part of the UK where the offence has been applied. It is also an offence for a non-UK person to carry out ticketing activity in the course of business outside of the UK, or in any part of the UK where the offence has not been applied, provided that the UK connection condition is met. That is crucial to ensure we can take action against activity that affects UK interests. Someone has a UK connection if they have a place of business or carry out business in the UK, or if they direct their activity to people in the UK. Enforcement authorities will have the power to impose a financial penalty of up to £20,000 as an alternative to prosecution. While the level of penalties is at the discretion of the enforcement authority, they can be of no more than £20,000. The process for imposing a financial penalty is clearly laid out: there will be the right to appeal to a first-tier tribunal, and penalties may be recovered through existing civil procedures.

Government amendment 56 addresses a drafting omission by providing that the Bill’s reference to the sale of an event ticket also includes reference to giving an event ticket as a prize, which is the long-standing intention of the provision and ensures that we can satisfy our hosting commitments. It prevents businesses from looking to gain exposure by giving away event tickets as prizes, unless they are authorised to do so—for example, they could be an official sponsor. Ultimately, the amendment will ensure that large businesses cannot exploit their considerable reach and public profile to benefit commercially from the interest and excitement surrounding an event to which they have made no contribution.

Government amendments 57 to 60 ensure that, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a financial penalty imposed by an enforcement authority for a ticket touting offence can be recovered without having to seek an order from the county court. This provides flexibility to accommodate different arrangements for the recovery of unpaid financial penalties, and it makes it clear that such penalties are treated as if they were payable under an order of the county court. This approach aligns with recent legislation, such as the Employment Rights Act 2025, and reduces the potential administrative burden for the enforcement authorities associated with the recovery of unpaid financial penalties.

Amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, seeks to create a defence for the ticket touting offence that mirrors the provision in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020. However, the position in this Bill is different, and that matters. Under the 2020 Act, someone could publicly sell a ticket at face value, provided that they were not acting as a business. As a result, to avoid committing an offence, someone advertising a ticket on behalf of another person had to determine whether the ticket was being sold above face value or in the course of business. A person could avoid liability if they did not know, and had no reason to know, that the ticket was being sold in the course of business for profit.

That may sound reasonable in theory, but in practice it created difficulty. If that defence was raised, enforcement authorities had to prove that the person advertising the ticket knew, or ought to have known, that it was being sold commercially or for profit. That introduced uncertainty, complexity and a clear opportunity for evasion. Under this Bill, the rule is clear. It applies to all public resale activity, including resale on online platforms. If a ticket is to be resold publicly, it must be authorised by the event owner or organiser.

Amendment 3, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, would require any person authorised to carry out ticketing activities to establish a mechanism for tickets to be transferred or resold. The Bill already gives us the ability to place conditions on those who sell or authorise the sale of tickets. That power could be used to include a requirement to provide an authorised resale platform, so the Bill already gives us the means to secure the outcome that the amendment seeks. We will seek assurances from event organisers at the outset that there will be an official resale platform, so that people who can no longer attend can resell tickets legally and safely.

I also want to reassure the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that we are not currently aware of any major itinerant sporting event organisers that do not operate an official ticketing resale platform. Regardless, the Bill ensures that fans can transfer spare tickets to friends, families and associates at face value, or advertise them through private social media channels. For those reasons, I commend Government amendments 56 to 60 to the Committee, and I kindly ask the hon. Member not to press amendments 3 and 12 to a vote.

[Mr French]

I appreciate the Minister’s comments. As I say, we were hoping to stop a situation in which an innocent member of the public shares a Facebook post that says, “X person has a ticket for sale for this game. Are you interested?”, but is then accidentally caught up in the Bill’s provisions and faces significant penalties. I have listened to the Minister’s comments, but the Opposition still have concerns, so I will look to press amendment 12 to a vote.

Likewise, on amendment 3, we want fans to have the opportunity to resell tickets if they are no longer attending. I also listened carefully to the Minister’s comments on the amendment, and I appreciate them, but our overall concern is that we will end up with a structure where the event organiser effectively has a monopoly that removes fans’ ability to transfer tickets easily. We are slightly concerned about what that could mean for ticket resale prices, if there is not a cap on the likes of FIFA being able to push up prices on fans, so we will also push amendment 3 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Clauses 9 and 10 stand part.

Government amendments 61 and 62.

Schedule 2.

Government amendments 45 and 48.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Sponsorship is a critical revenue stream for sporting event owners. Clause 8 protects these commercial rights by preventing advertisers from ambushing an event to compete for brand exposure against official sponsors. Advertising activity as defined in schedule 2 is:

“anything done wholly or partly for the purpose of promoting a product, service or business specifically to members of the public…who are in a restricted advertising zone, or…who are watching or listening to a broadcast of the sporting event.”

The clause ensures that advertising restrictions are applied flexibly and proportionately, reflecting operational requirements. Regulations must make clear the places and periods to which the restrictions apply. A place may be specified only if it is being used for the sporting event itself, is used in connection with it—such as a fanzone or transport hub—and is in the vicinity of those locations, such as key spectator routes.

Proportionality is the underlying principle here, as it is across the Bill. The clause limits restrictions to no earlier than 10 days before or later than five days after the event, restricting advertising zones and covering activity in the airspace above it and on waterways close enough to the zone to be seen from within it. This ensures that the provisions are effective in practice. The Government will work closely with local authorities, event organisers, businesses and community groups to minimise the impact on existing businesses and local communities where these regulations are applied.

Clause 9 deals with advertising authorisations. The clause provides a clear mechanism to allow advertisers—for example, a media owner operating in a restricted advertising zone—to apply for permission to continue advertising activity while the restrictions are in place. We have made it clear in the Bill that the power to grant authorisations should be exercised only by a suitable body. In practice, that means a public body or a time-limited private body, such as a local organising committee, set up to deliver a major sporting event.

Clause 10 enables exceptions to the advertising offence to be set out in event-specific regulations. Among other things, exceptions may apply to activities carried out for a specified purpose, which could mean selling or distributing a newspaper, or by a specified description of a person such as an event organiser or sponsor, or in connection with existing advertising law. We will come back to that point later in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Naish]

The Minister will be acutely aware that for a lot of athletes, sponsorship is a key form of income. How will that type of sponsorship be covered in the regulations?

[Stephanie Peacock]

Perhaps I could write to my hon. Friend on that point, or perhaps come back to him later in Committee.

The ambition of the Bill is to establish an effective legislative environment for sporting events held in the UK, but as I said on Second Reading, I am equally clear that we must protect small businesses. Government amendments 45, 48, 61 and 62 help to do so by addressing the impact on those who are already permitted to advertise in a restricted zone. That means that authorising decisions are required to take into account whether an applicant is already permitted to advertise. That is an important safeguard.

We are acutely aware of the practical effect that these restrictions could have, especially for advertising space owned by a small business such as an independent local newsagent. That is why a decision to authorise is required to take into account whether an applicant is a small business or microbusiness. A microbusiness is defined as one with fewer than 10 staff, and a small business as one with at least 10 but fewer than 50 staff. That definition is widely used and provides a clear and consistent basis for decision making.

[Mr French]

Clause 8 requires regulations to identify the restricted advertising zones and the periods during which advertising restrictions apply. These zones must relate to event venues, locations used in connection with the event or their surrounding areas. For events involving devolved authorities, these zones must remain in their jurisdictions. The clause sets out that restrictions may begin no earlier than 10 days before the event and must end no later than five days afterwards. It allows regulations to address fixed penalty notices for offences and how advertising restrictions apply to locations such as airspace and waterways.

Clause 9 allows regulations to designate one or more persons to authorise advertising that would otherwise be prohibited. The designated person may be the authority making the regulations or another suitable representative appointed by the authority. That enables legitimate advertising by sponsors and other approved parties within restricted advertising zones. We all understand why that is so important when bidding for major international tournaments. It is normally a requirement that sporting bodies have for those international competitions. Designations of a representative may include conditions such as maintaining a register of granted advertising authorisations and making that available to the public, or reporting back to the appropriate national authority.

Clause 10 allows regulations to exempt specified types of advertising from the advertising offence. Exceptions may relate to the purpose, location, person or method of advertising, and may cover cases of charity promotion, event-authorised advertising and certain electronic communications. Existing lawful advertising arrangements may also be taken into account. Before creating exceptions, the relevant authority must consult the local authorities in which the restricted advertising zone would be and any other appropriate persons, which is appropriate given the impact that major events have on local communities.

I want to reiterate the question asked by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, because I had also written it down. What does the Minister think the relationship will be like for existing sponsorships, particularly of athletes? In football and athletics, it is often shoe sponsorship—Nike, Adidas and so on. How will those existing sponsorships or advertising deals, which are a key source of revenue for all athletes, be impacted by the regulations? I am happy to have the answer in writing if the Minister does not have it with her.

The group of Government amendments to clauses 8 to 10 and schedule 2 relating to advertising at sporting events requires the designated authorising person to take into account existing advertising licences when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation. The amendments also require the designated authorising person to take into account whether a person is a small or micro business when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation. Government amendments 45 and 48 define a small business as having between 10 and 50 members of staff, and a micro business as having fewer than 10. The amendments seem entirely sensible to us. I appreciate that there were concerns shared from across the House, but the Minister and I had a conversation last week in private and the amendments appear sensible.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will speak briefly to the hon. Gentleman’s point about unauthorised associations and restrictions. An unauthorised association will apply only to commercial activity likely to suggest to the public that a person has an official connection with an event, such as an official sponsor rather than a competing team or athlete. It is for the event owners to determine and enforce their own policies and procedures regarding athlete sponsorship and associated promotional activity. I am happy to write to the Committee to clarify that point if that would be helpful.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Schedule 2

Advertising provisions

Amendments made: 61, in schedule 2, page 31, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—

“(4) In determining whether or not to grant an authorisation under this paragraph, a designated authorising person—

(a) must have regard to any existing advertising licences, and

(b) may have regard to—

(i) any agreements entered into (whether by the appropriate national authority or another person) for the purposes of the sporting event, and

(ii) any other matters that the person considers relevant.”

This amendment would require existing advertising licences to be taken into account by a designated authorising person when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation.

Amendment 62, in schedule 2, page 31, line 29, at end insert—

“(4A) In determining whether or not to grant an authorisation under this paragraph in respect of a person or description of person, a designated authorising person must also have regard to whether the person is, or the description of person includes, a small or micro business.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)

This amendment would require a designated authorising person to take into account whether a person is a small or micro business in determining whether or not to grant an advertising authorisation.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11

Trading regulations

[Stephanie Peacock]

I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 11, page 8, line 19, at end insert—

“(7A) Subsection (7B) applies where, in the case of a non-domestic sporting event, persons are prevented from carrying out a trading activity that they would otherwise be entitled to carry out in accordance with a licence granted by a local authority were it not for the trading provisions being applied by the regulations.

(7B) Where this subsection applies, the regulations must include provision requiring specified public authorities to take whatever steps the public authority considers reasonable for mitigating any adverse impacts caused to such persons as a result of their being prevented from carrying out the trading activity.”

This amendment would mean that, where regulations apply the trading provisions to a non-domestic sporting event, then in certain circumstances the regulations must require specified public authorities to take reasonable steps to mitigate any adverse impacts that applying the trading provisions to the event will have on licensed traders.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Government amendments 33, 40, 46 and 47.

Clauses 12 and 13 stand part.

Government amendments 63 to 65.

Schedule 3.

[Stephanie Peacock]

This group deals with restrictions to trading, which the Bill defines as selling, offering or exposing an item for sale, providing or offering to provide a service for gain or reward, providing public entertainment for gain or reward, and appealing for money or other property. Such restrictions are required to protect commercial rights when enabling the safe and easy flow of spectators in and around event locations.

Clause 11 mirrors much of clause 8, which deals with advertising restrictions in respect of trading. It requires regulations applying trading restrictions to specify where they apply and for how long. A place may be included in a restricted trading zone only if it is used for, or in connection with, a sporting event or if it is in the vicinity of such a place. Again, that limits restrictions only to locations where they are needed. The clause sets the same limits on timing as those that apply to advertising—no earlier than 10 days before an event and no later than five days after. In most cases, it is more likely that restrictions apply from the day before a venue is in use to the day the activity concludes.

The clause also enables regulations to clarify when a person is to be treated as doing something in, or being in part of, a restricted trading zone. That means, for example, that the trading offence may be applied to waterways or airspace, helping to ensure that event-specific requirements and local circumstances can be properly taken into account. Regulations may provide further detail about giving fixed penalty notices, such as their form, payment and fine levels, while also allowing that approach to be disapplied where appropriate. Importantly, trading restrictions must be underpinned by proportionality, and there are distinctions between how that is applied in relation to one-off events and recurrent events, as I will discuss. However, in common, they ensure that trading provisions meet the needs of sporting events while minimising disruption to those living and working nearby.

Government amendments 32, 40, 46 and 47 do just that. For itinerant events, where traders with an existing licence granted by a local authority are unable to trade as usual, due to the application of the regulations, those regulations must confer a duty on specified public authorities to take reasonable steps to mitigate any adverse impacts on such traders. In practice, that would establish a clear expectation that options are proactively explored, such as alternative trading arrangements, for those unable to continue trading inside a restricted zone.

Government amendment 33 introduces further safeguards. It makes clear that a condition imposed on a designated authorising person in regulations, such as a local authority or event organiser, may include a requirement to put in place a review process. That would allow an applicant dissatisfied with a trading authorisation decision to request a review.

Clause 12 provides the mechanism to authorise trading activity that would otherwise be an offence under the Bill. Regulations may designate one or more suitable persons, such as a local authority or non-departmental public body, to grant authorisations for trading activity. However, only a public body would be suitable for that role. Those with an existing trading licence may be able to apply for authorisation. For itinerant events, it is right that the authorising person must continue to take into account whether somebody has an existing trading licence when determining an application to trade. The important matter of exceptions to the trading offence is dealt with in schedule 3, covering premises adjoining a highway and included on the face of the Bill to ensure that deliveries and services provided to local residents and businesses are unaffected by the restrictions.

Clause 13 enables further exceptions to the trading offence to be set out in regulations and tailored to the needs of each event. There is precedent for that. The Bill sets out that such exceptions may include providing a public service, facility or amenity, such as a public toilet or ATM; providing a transport service, such as taxis and private hire services; and providing services relating to motor vehicles, such as a petrol station.

The Bill also provides for the necessary safeguards to ensure that exceptions take account of local circumstances and event-specific needs. The Secretary of State must consult the relevant local authorities for each area in a restricted trading zone, along with any other person the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult, such as event organisers and local businesses.

Government amendments 63 to 65 ensure that there will be no disproportionate impact from trading restrictions arising from recurrent events. It is right that we take a different approach here and go as far as possible to protect existing traders who operate in their vicinity. For recurrent events, the Bill will now provide a blanket exception to the trading offence for traders in a restricted zone who already hold a licence granted by the local authority. That is an important protection. It means that locally based traders who operate from the same location throughout the year, such as a long-standing independent food seller, will have greater certainty and a fair opportunity to continue to benefit from the economic activity that domestic sporting events can bring.

As there is no such exception for itinerant events, Government amendment 64 makes it clear that, for those events, existing trading licences must be taken into account when applications for authorisation are determined. That is an important safeguard designed to help ensure that existing traders, especially those licensed by the local authority, can continue to operate at itinerant events wherever possible.

Schedule 3 accompanies clauses 11 to 13 and sets out the detailed framework for the trading offence, along with provision for authorised trading and the issuing of fixed penalty notices. Those measures will help ensure that major sporting events can be delivered safely and smoothly, while protecting spectators and supporting a consistent, well-managed event environment. The schedule creates a time-limited criminal offence of carrying out trading activity or arranging for, or permitting, such activity in a relevant public part of a restricted trading zone, unless it is authorised or an exception applies.

To ensure proportionality, the trading restrictions apply only in what the Bill defines as a “relevant public part”. That includes highways, publicly accessible buildings used for sporting events, buildings generally used as carparks or transport hubs, or any place other than a building that is accessible to the public.

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.

Information Commissioner’s Office: Transition to Information Commission

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Written Statements

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

Today I am pleased to announce that on 30 of September 2026, the Information Commission will take over all the functions and responsibilities of the Information Commissioner’s Office to become the UK’s independent data protection regulator.

This marks an important milestone in the modernisation of the UK’s data protection regulator. In an increasingly data-driven economy, the regulator sits at the heart of the UK’s data and digital landscape, playing a vital role in maintaining public trust, upholding high standards of data protection, and ensuring personal data is used responsibly to deliver economic and social benefits.

The transition to the Information Commission is designed to ensure that the regulator is equipped to meet future challenges and seize opportunities. The ICO currently operates as a corporation sole, with powers and responsibilities vested in one individual, the Information Commissioner. From 30 September, those functions will transfer to the Information Commission, a body corporate with non-executive and executive members, and with collective responsibility for decision making.

This change has purpose and value. The new governance model will bring together a broader range of skills, experience and perspectives at the top of the organisation, strengthening accountability, resilience and decision making, and ensure that the regulator is well placed to navigate rapid technological change, increasingly complex data-driven services, and evolving public expectations around transparency and accountability.

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (Commencement No. 9 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2026

To give effect to the transition, the Government have made regulations commencing, on 30 September, the sections of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 that abolish the Information Commissioner’s Office and transfer all its regulatory and other functions to the new Information Commission. In July, the Government announced the appointment of seven new non-executive members to the Information Commission: Laurie Benson, Maggie Carver, Stephen Cohen, Sukhvinder Kaur-Stubbs, Gary Kildare, Hilary Newiss and Scott McPherson. Together with the interim chief executive, Paul Arnold, they will assume their roles on 30 September and lead the organisation into its next chapter.

The new board brings expertise from across business, technology, regulation, governance and public service. It will help shape the commission’s strategic direction, support delivery of its ambitious agenda, and ensure the organisation remains focused on serving in the public interest.

Above all, this transition represents a new beginning for the regulator. The Information Commission must be an organisation that people trust, and trust starts with strong leadership, clear accountability and the right culture. The new governance structure provides strong foundations for an organisation that is open, accountable and resilient, capable of regulating with rigour and independence while building public confidence in the responsible use of data for years to come.

I congratulate all the newly appointed members on their roles. The Government have also launched a public appointments campaign to recruit a new chair of the Information Commission, who will play a vital role in shaping its future direction and ensuring its success.

[HCWS337]

Draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The regulations, which were laid before the House in draft on 6 July, make three targeted amendments. They improve information-sharing powers in the Digital Economy Act 2017 to support people living in fuel poverty.

First, the amendments enable specified public authorities to share information with energy suppliers for the purpose of identifying and supporting people living in fuel poverty who are experiencing energy debt. Secondly, the amendments, laid by the then Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on 6 July, specify that Department under the existing fuel poverty objective, enabling the Government Department responsible for data policy to support work assisting people living in fuel poverty, including the national data library kickstarter project. Following the machinery of government changes announced in July, that responsibility is transferring to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Any technical changes needed to reflect the transfer will be made separately and will not affect how these measures operate. A third technical measure clarifies that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero can rely on the fuel poverty objective, in accordance with the transfer of relevant functions to it in 2023.

Taken together, these practical and proportionate amendments will help to ensure that support reaches the right households at the right time. The information needed to identify households in difficulty is often held by different organisations. Properly governed data sharing can bring that information together, allowing public authorities and energy suppliers to identify need more accurately and target assistance more effectively.

The first amendment fills a specific gap in the existing framework. The current fuel poverty power supports households that cannot afford to keep their homes adequately warm, but it does not expressly cover households with outstanding energy debt. The change will help to ensure that households facing both fuel poverty and energy debt can be identified and supported, rather than falling through the gaps in existing arrangements. Although the two groups frequently overlap, fuel poverty and energy debt are not identical. The amendment therefore enables information sharing for the specific purpose of identifying and supporting households that are fuel-poor and that experience energy arrears.

The statutory instrument will provide the necessary legislation to enable the Government to support a future energy debt relief scheme. The precise design of any scheme remains under development by the Government and Ofgem, and the draft regulations do not themselves establish or fund such a scheme. They provide the legal data-sharing basis that would allow an appropriately designed scheme to operate effectively. If such a scheme proceeds, it is estimated to reduce the administrative burdens involved in identifying eligible households and providing further support to families in need. The proposal that the regulations would deliver received strong support in the consultation, with 98% of respondents supporting the proposed information-sharing arrangements.

The second amendment specifies the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology as a public authority that may share information with certain other public authorities for the existing fuel poverty objective, which will enable it to support fuel poverty initiatives such as the national data library kickstarter project. It will test ways to identify households in need by securely linking information such as earnings, benefits and energy use. That responsibility will transfer to DCMS when the machinery of government changes take place through the usual process. It will mean that, in effect, DCMS will have that function, which is more efficient than withdrawing the process and starting it again.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister clarify how many people are within scope of benefiting from the regulation and what the total cost will be, in terms of the savings they will get?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman was a little bit late in arriving, but I did say that the scheme is the responsibility of the relevant Department. These regulations provide the legal framework for the data sharing.

I now turn to the third amendment, which concerns the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Its predecessor Department—the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—was able to share information with certain other public bodies under the fuel poverty objective, and the relevant functions were transferred to DESNZ in 2023, but the relevant secondary legislation was not consequentially amended at that time. This amendment corrects that omission in the interests of certainty.

Those measures sit alongside the Government’s broader action to tackle affordability. We have cut VAT on electricity bills, expanded the warm home discount to around 6 million households, and are delivering the warm homes plan and fuel poverty strategy to reduce bills, improve energy efficiency and help to lift up to 1 million households out of fuel poverty by 2030. These regulations help to ensure that support is targeted more effectively and reaches those who need it most.

I recognise that Members will rightly expect assurances about privacy, proportionality and the potential for scope creep. These regulations do not create a general data-sharing power. Information may be shared only by specified bodies, for specified purposes and within the existing statutory framework. All sharing remains subject to the UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, restrictions on reuse and onward disclosure. Bodies sharing data should have regard to the statutory code of practice, including recording information-sharing agreements on a public register. Those safeguards are integral to the operation of these powers. Responsible data use and public trust must go together.

The regulations will help public authorities to identify households experiencing fuel poverty or energy debt and ensure that support can reach them more efficiently. They make limited, targeted changes to existing powers, while retaining strong privacy and transparency safeguards. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

It is a pleasure to conclude this debate. I am grateful to Members for their contributions and for the broad consensus that households facing fuel poverty and energy debt should receive support quickly, fairly and effectively.

At its heart, this draft statutory instrument makes three targeted changes. First, it enables information sharing to support households experiencing energy debt. Secondly, it enables the Department responsible for data policy to participate in information sharing under the fuel poverty objective, including through work associated with the national data library. Thirdly, it provides certainty for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, following the machinery of government changes in 2023. Taken together, the three measures will help to ensure that support reaches the households that need it most.

I will pick up briefly on a few different points. On the name of the Department, we will not be coming back here. That is the whole reason why we have not withdrawn this and done it all again: this is the most efficient way of doing it—[Interruption.] I will give way if the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire wishes to intervene.

[Steve Barclay]

When I was reading the draft regulations, I was confused, because I thought they mentioned a Department that had been scrapped. It seems odd to bring in a change in the law for a Department that the Government have already scrapped.

[Stephanie Peacock]

The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of this House and understands how changes to the machinery of government work. We could withdraw it and bring everyone back in a few months’ time, but the most efficient way to do it is to proceed with the Department as it is; the powers will come to DCMS later. I am sure he is aware of that from his time in government. That is also the answer to the question from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted for her point. It is absolutely right that we should take learnings from this. Indeed, towards the end of my speech, I spoke about some of the protections and some of the detail.

The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire asked me some questions about who is in scope and who will benefit from the scheme. Again, had he been listening to my contribution, he would have heard—I will repeat my comments—that the precise design of any scheme remains in development by the Government and Ofgem. The draft regulations do not themselves establish or fund such a scheme; they provide the legal data-sharing basis to allow an appropriate design scheme to operate effectively.

As much as all the points are incredibly important—data poverty, fuel poverty and debt poverty, which I see in my own constituency—we are not in Committee to debate them; we are here to debate data sharing. That is what we have done, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

2. What steps she is taking to help make sports more accessible for poorer families.

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

Everyone, regardless of background, should have access to quality sporting opportunities. Sport England targets investment towards deprived communities and places with the greatest need. For example, 50% of the awards from its £160 million movement fund have gone to areas ranked in the top 25% for greatest need.

[Mr Forster]

Four of my constituents—Ethan, Harrison, Jude and Lukas—who train at the Martial X Academy in Woking have been selected to represent their country in next month’s martial arts world championships. As well as wishing them well, I hope that the Minister will take steps to ensure that the costs that they are having to pay to compete—over £1,000 each—is reduced in future to enable young athletes to represent their country.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I congratulate Ethan, Harrison, Jude and Lukas on their selection to represent England at the martial arts world championships. I am sure that the whole House will want to wish them good luck next month. The Government are committed to ensuring that people, whatever their postcode, can access quality facilities and enjoy the sports that they love. On international representation specifically, the Government directly support Olympic and Paralympic pathways. For other international opportunities, parents should contact the relevant governing bodies or SportsAid for support and advice. Via Sport England, we provide over £60 million of funding to SportsAid, whose backing the best programme helps talented young athletes overcome financial barriers.

[Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)]

This summer, Denbigh Town football club did itself proud as the host of four UEFA under-19 championship games, including a Spain versus Germany match that saw record attendance of almost 2,000 spectators. Thanks to significant investment in Central Park, including a £300,000 Cymru Football Foundation grant funded by this Government, not only is the club now match fit to host international games, but it has top-class facilities all year round for the whole community. Does the Minister agree that the inspiration and opportunities that that brings to children from all walks of life are immeasurable? How are the Government ensuring that facilities like those are available across the country?

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend talks about the investment from the Government and the football foundation into Central Park. She is right; we know that the thing that is most likely to get young people active in sport is watching live sport. That is why we are so committed to investing in our community facilities.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I know that the Minister cares deeply about increasing sporting participation, so she must be as disappointed as I am that the Government’s rhetoric just does not match the facts. School sport funding has been cut; business rates rises mean that clubs and facilities are raising their participation fees, some by as much as 85%, making them less accessible for the poorest; local authorities are shutting their facilities; and the UK ranks near the bottom of EU expenditure on sport and physical activity. The Government say that this is important, but how can we believe them when existing facilities are shutting faster than they can invest in new ones?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for all the work that her Committee does and for its report in the last year on this very issue. On school sport, £1 billion will go in over the next few years. There has been a change: it is revenue, it is capital and it is primary and secondary. However, we have to acknowledge that under the current system, not enough young people are getting active. We are investing £400 million into community facilities, but as our new Prime Minister has said, we absolutely want to go further and do more on sport.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

Does the Minister recognise the disproportionate impact that the removal of the school sport premium will have on children in small rural schools? Is that a conversation that she is having with the Department for Education?

[Stephanie Peacock]

As my hon. Friend will have heard in my answer to the Chair of the Select Committee, we make no apologies for changing the system. Not enough young people are getting active. As a former secondary school teacher, I know how important that is. I am happy to speak to my hon. Friend and, of course, I speak regularly to the Schools Minister about this issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Making sport more accessible should be the ultimate goal of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and that is why we continue to urge the Government to stop raising taxes on sports clubs and to ensure that all sports, and especially female sports, champion fairness and safety. The Conservative party is clear: all UK sports and their governing bodies must follow the law when it comes to biological sex and ensure that there is a level playing field for female athletes to compete. Will the Government match the Conservative party’s commitment to women’s sport and remove public funding from sports bodies that refuse to follow the law?

[Stephanie Peacock]

We have always been clear that national sporting governing bodies will set their own policies for who can participate. It is incredibly important that we prioritise fairness, safety and competition, while balancing the need for inclusion and ensuring that everyone can participate.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

3. What steps she is taking to ensure that her Department’s funding for culture reaches communities in all parts of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

5. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of an overnight visitor levy on rural and coastal communities.

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

I have had discussions with ministerial colleagues across Government and spoken to mayors and a range of tourism representatives. The Government are committed to giving powers to local areas to enact an overnight levy, and we will work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and HM Treasury on developing the policy.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Rural and coastal communities are particularly reliant on seasonal tourism. If Members look at my registered interests, they will see that I used to run one of those businesses. Do the Government not understand that it is already tough enough out there, without them thinking up a new tax on holidays? Instead of ploughing on regardless, will the Government commit to publishing an independent assessment on the impact on businesses before any new tax is introduced?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I was in Blackpool last week discussing the issue with representatives of the sector and I visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency a few years ago, so I know how important tourism is to coastal communities up and down the country. Introducing a levy will be up to local areas, and it will make sense for those areas to invest the funds generated in improving the local tourism offer, as many have already committed to doing.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

Hotels in my constituency are largely in favour of an overnight visitor levy, on the proviso that the money is ringfenced for tourism purposes, not lost to the black hole of local authority or strategic authority finances. What reassurances can the Minister give hotels in my constituency?

[Stephanie Peacock]

As I just outlined, it will of course make sense for those funds to be reinvested in local tourism, but that will be a decision for local areas. That is why we are working closely with the Treasury and MHCLG, so that local areas can be empowered to make the decisions that are right for their areas.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

I welcome the new shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), and the new shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), to their places. May I take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of State and her team for their constructive engagement with me over the last year?

However—there is always a “however” with me —on Tuesday the new Prime Minister committed the Government to bringing in a new holiday tax. On Wednesday, he told the House that he was helping businesses by cutting taxes, yet we all know that business rates and national insurance are increasing, which is destroying over 100,000 jobs in tourism and hospitality alone. In what crazy Labour universe is it possible for the Prime Minister to claim that he is cutting taxes when the Government are actually increasing them and bringing in entirely new taxes?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I pay tribute to him for all his work as the shadow Secretary of State and as a Minister before that. It has been a pleasure to work with him, and I look forward to continuing to do so.

Of course, there is more than one tax; we are cutting taxes, but we are also introducing an overnight levy. As I have outlined, we are working across Government, with the tourist sector and with mayors to make sure we get that right for local areas. It of course makes sense for that money to be reinvested in the tourism sector, but that will be up to local areas to decide.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)]

I think rural and coastal communities can be encouraged by the success of the city visitor charge in Manchester, where we have raised £10 million for investment in advertising, tourism and cleaning the city. Will the Minister join me in rejecting the scaremongering and reminding people that this is a purely permissive measure? It is up to local areas to do it if they want.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is an excellent champion for his city of Manchester. He shares a really important example. It is right to caution against scaremongering. It is absolutely right that local areas have the powers to make the decisions themselves.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

7. What steps she is taking to support lidos.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

8. What steps her Department is taking to support the tourism industry.

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

Tourism drives economic growth and jobs across the country, including the Isle of Wight, and over the summer months the Great British summer savings scheme provided a temporary VAT cut for eligible businesses, to encourage visits to tourist attractions during the school holidays. At the same time, Visit Britain’s “Starring GREAT Britain” campaign is promoting film and TV locations, to inspire global audiences to explore a wide range of regions across Great Britain.

[Joe Robertson]

Growth in tourism requires an increase in visitor numbers so that more money is spent on the high street, not a new tax. Oxford Economics says that the cost of the overnight visitor levy will be around £1.8 billion in reduced spending, and a decrease in tax receipts, not an increase. Will the Minister confirm that the visitor economy growth strategy will consider the harm caused by the new tourism tax, and say when it will be published?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I know is a huge champion for his constituency, and indeed on this subject. We are committed to increasing visitor numbers—he will have heard my answer to the previous question on the overnight levy, and there is a strong case for any money raised to be reinvested in tourism. As I said, I was in Blackpool last week speaking to tourism industry leaders and businesses, and far from the doom and gloom that the hon. Member alludes to, I witnessed a great deal of hope, hard work and dynamism.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have had a good debate about the overnight stay levy and short lets, but on Warwick Way in my constituency I have seen real harm to communities because of unregulated short lets. Does the Minister agree that for the tourism industry to be a real success, hotels cannot be undermined by short lets, and that getting the registration scheme in place and the Treasury to investigate where there might be breaches of HMRC rules are important steps forward in ensuring that?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been a strong champion on this issue. It was a delight to visit her constituency earlier this year to talk and to see at first hand the problem that it creates. As the Secretary of State has outlined, this Government are committed to that register, and we know the difference it will make to communities such as my hon. Friend’s and those up and down the country.

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Minister.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The visitor economy is worth £147 billion, supporting millions of jobs, but this Government have hammered the sector with higher taxes and they now plan a holiday tax. Perhaps there is some hope, however, as on Monday the Prime Minister told the House that he wants to go further than business rate relief for pubs and music venues. Will the Minister urge him to take up Conservative policy and scrap business rates for those venues as well as for restaurants, cafes, hotels and leisure attractions, and support that vital sector?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place and look forward to working with him in the coming months. He will have heard that the review of business rates for pubs and hotels announced just a few weeks ago by the Chancellor has been welcomed by a number of people, including the CEO of UKHospitality, who said it was a “positive move”. Under this Government we have seen the biggest investment in the tourism sector: the £6.3 billion Universal Studios investment at Bedford. It was a pleasure to be there a few weeks ago.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

9. What steps her Department is taking to improve digital inclusion in Newcastle-under-Lyme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)]

T3. Nearly 60 years ago, a Labour Government designated Milton Keynes a new town. Today, we are one of the fastest growing cities in the United Kingdom. Millions are also drawn to attractions such as Bletchley Park, the MK Gallery and our international festival. I cannot think of a better candidate to be the UK city of culture. Does the Minister agree with me that culture and economic growth go hand in hand? Will she meet me and my Milton Keynes colleagues to discuss the merits of our bid?

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

My hon. Friend is a great champion for his city. It was a pleasure to do a sporting visit to his constituency earlier this year. We have a really strong shortlist for the city of culture—and indeed for the town of culture. I look forward to visiting those on the final shortlist in the near future.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

T2. In my Oxfordshire constituency, Challow and Childrey cricket club’s partnership with local state school King Alfred’s Academy is providing cricket opportunities to students who may not otherwise have access to the sport. However, affordability and perceptions of cricket mean that a participation gap remains between state-funded schools and independent schools. What further steps can the Government take to improve opportunities to participate in sport?

[Stephanie Peacock]

Cricket is incredibly popular, and I know how important it is in my own constituency—I visited Worsbrough to see the England and Wales Cricket Board’s schools programme in action. Programmes like that are incredibly important for getting people, and in particular young people, involved and active in sport.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

T4. This summer, 1.5 million people attended London Pride, a celebration of love, freedom and diversity. At the same time, though, discussions on GB News compared Pride and LGBT people to bestiality and even paedophilia. There have now been 12,000 complaints to Ofcom about this. Does the Minister agree that these sorts of comments have no place on an apparent news channel? Will she assure me and those who have complained that Ofcom will be effective in challenging hate speech on television?

Sporting Events Bill [Lords]

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to all hon. Members across the House who have contributed to today’s debate, which has shown cross-party recognition of the importance of major sporting events and their ability to showcase the very best of our country. I will speak about the Bill, its importance and its provisions, and will address some of the wider points raised in the debate.

The UK is an undisputed world leader when it comes to hosting major sporting events, and the benefits of these occasions are felt right across the country. We all fondly remember the London 2012 Olympics, as the Secretary of State and many others have said in this debate. Events such as these bring huge benefits and opportunities. The London Olympics and Paralympics brought £14 billion of trade and investment benefit to the UK, alongside the regeneration of 500 acres of east London, and 400,000 Londoners participated in grassroots sports in the three years following the games. In my area of South Yorkshire, the Olympic legacy park in Sheffield is another testament to the transformative power these international events can have. It stands as the only Olympic legacy park in a city that has not hosted the games.

More recently, the 2022 Birmingham Commonwealth games contributed over £1 billion to the UK economy, and events such as the 2025 women’s rugby world cup, the 2026 women’s cricket world cup and the recent outdoor European athletics championships—it was the first time the UK had hosted the championships—have brought, and will bring, their own legacy benefits. Of course, we note the huge success of the Glasgow Commonwealth games, and the fact that Glasgow really stepped up to host those games at the last minute.

Looking ahead, the grand départ of the Tour de France and the Tour de France Femmes in 2027, and a potential world athletics championships in 2029, will inspire the next generation and bring live sport to communities across the country. Indeed, we expect the Tour de France stages to be the most accessible major sporting event Great Britain has ever hosted, bringing £150 million in economic benefits across the country.

This Government are committed to not only hosting major sporting events, but making sure that the benefits are felt far beyond the field of play. As I have said in this House before, inactivity is the story of inequality, and that is why this Government are investing at least £400 million in community sports facilities across the country over the next four years, and it is why we are determined that major events should support greater grassroots participation. I understand the power of sport to inspire in every postcode. That point was made powerfully by my hon. Friends the Members for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker), and for Dartford (Jim Dickson).

This legislation will strengthen our ability to bid successfully for major sporting events, and it will ensure that we are ready to create more moments like London 2012 or Birmingham 2022. France and Australia already have similar legislative frameworks, and France’s recent success in hosting the Olympic and Paralympic games and the rugby world cup demonstrates the value of having these protections in place. I will briefly run through the Bill’s provisions and how they will be enforced, but before I do, it is worth noting that this legislation is only one component of our broader national ambition.

As I recently announced to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, we are developing a major event strategy, to be published in the near future. For the first time, we will have a comprehensive strategy that unites sport, culture, arts and business events under a single strategic framework designed to simplify and drive growth. I recognise the points that the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), has raised, and the work her Committee has done. In particular, I have heard her calls on business events. Since I appeared in front of her Select Committee, I have convened more than one cross-Government meeting, and I am committed to ensuring that the Government do better in this area.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), asked why we were, in his words, putting the cart before the horse and not publishing the strategy before this Bill. That is because we have legal deadlines to meet for Euro 2028. If we were not debating this ambitious Bill, we would be debating a Euro 2028 Bill, similar to the one for the Commonwealth games that he took through the House.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

I am privileged to represent Hampden Park in Glasgow, which will be one of the stadiums that hosts Euro 2028. It is a huge opportunity, and it attracts investment, as the Minister has said. Does she agree that when we have these major sporting events, it is important that the right legislation is in place for the communities around the stadium, and that the Government work with the council and police to ensure that there is no antisocial behaviour, littering or other disruption to those communities?

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and his point goes to the heart of this Bill. The process should be collaborative and should work for local people. That speaks to the point I was going to come on to make, which is that event-specific regulations—they will set out which provisions will be applied to an event, including information such as the time period and how the provisions apply to the local area—will be subject to parliamentary debate and scrutiny through the statutory instrument process.

Moving on to some of the specifics in the Bill, the ticketing provisions are designed to ensure that tickets can be resold only with the authorisation of the event owner or organiser. This measure will clamp down on ticket touts who seek to exploit sports fans and profiteer from major sporting moments. We saw such legislation work effectively at London 2012, and this Bill will make that the baseline for major sporting events. Where needed, local trading standards authorities and the Competition and Markets Authority will be able to enforce the Bill. While it does not prohibit official reselling of tickets at above face value, we will bring in further legislation in this area. The Secretary of State was clear in her remarks about the draft legislation being there so that we can get this right, but she was also clear that the issue should be a high priority for this Session.

The Bill will introduce time-limited restricted zones around competition venues, fan zones and transport hubs to prevent aggressive ambush marketing and unauthorised street trading. Without those protections, the women’s Euros in 2022 faced persistent street trading and unauthorised advertising blimps. In contrast, the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games used these powers to swiftly resolve more than 50 advertising and trading infringements, protecting official sponsors and keeping spectator routes safe. The Bill will empower local authorities to undertake enforcement at future events.

The Bill ensures that the interests of those with an existing trading licence are taken into account when a determination is made on an application to trade in a restricted zone, but we are absolutely determined to make sure that the Bill is as strong as possible on protecting small businesses. We will work across the House to make sure that it delivers on that.

The Bill will prohibit unauthorised association. That will prevent businesses from falsely suggesting to the public that they have an official connection with an event in order to gain exposure. Weak controls around unauthorised association make sponsoring an event less appealing and allow businesses to benefit without giving financial support. The Bill sets out controls to prevent that from happening; it gives the power to enforce the provisions to designated enforcers, which are likely to be event owners or organisers. Protections will have been built in to ensure proportionality, and to help ensure that small businesses can once again benefit from major events on their doorstep. It is our intention to make sure that small businesses benefit from major events, and I am very keen to work with Members across the House to deliver this.

[Mr French]

We are willing to work constructively on this issue. Can we also ensure that there is significant flexibility for events such as Wimbledon, just to name one? A lot of residents who live nearby suffer the parking stress that we heard about from colleagues. During such events, people normally hire out driveways, which helps with parking capacity. Will there be enough flexibility in the legislation to allow that kind of thing to carry on?

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important and valid point, and I look forward to continuing the conversation with him in Bill Committee, when we can pick up on that point. I will touch on recurrent events in a moment, but first I will touch briefly on transport.

The Bill enables integrated, cross-boundary transport plans and temporary traffic powers in England for local traffic authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) raised this important point. I assure him that plans will be collaborative, and will have to work with local people. A good example is the games route network used in Birmingham 2022, which ensured that spectators could move safely and efficiently, while minimising disruption to local residents and businesses.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that Peel Land is hoping to support a bid for the Ryder cup to come to the Hulton Park site in my Bolton West constituency. I have serious reservations about the infrastructure at that site, and many of my constituents have grave concerns, predominantly about road traffic. In particular, the Westhoughton Chequerbent roundabout is chock-a-block with traffic at all times of the day. Will the Minister meet me to hear our concerns, and make sure that any putative bid at a future date addresses the infrastructure concerns that I raised with the Prime Minister earlier in the year ,when he was in his previous role as Mayor of Greater Manchester?

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point on behalf of the people he represents, and I would be absolutely delighted to meet him to discuss it further.

As the Secretary of State mentioned, we are well aware of the concerns about recurrent domestic events, and we recognise the opportunities available. We will seek to address this issue during the passage of the Bill, and I welcome the comments from those on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) made an important point regarding Silverstone, and I can assure her that both the Secretary of State and I are passionate about it too, having been there with the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston). The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), made an important point on this issue too, and I welcome the comments from the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), about working with us on recurrent events. I look forward to doing that in Committee.

I welcome the fact that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), broadly supports the Bill. I appreciate her point about music events, and she asks why they were not included. The Bill was originally designed for biddable events, which is why music events were not included. Indeed, that is why some of the recurrent events were not initially included. However, we have heard the points made in this House and the other place, and we will work with people to get this right.

The whole of the UK stands to benefit from major sporting events, and we are committed to seeing the reward shared across the four nations. From the inception of the Bill, we have worked closely with devolved partners to ensure that it serves the whole Union, and we will continue to work with each devolved Government to ensure that, where appropriate, legislative consent motions are secured.

I would like to cover some of the broader points, which were mainly put to me by the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham. I do not want to overstate it, but I pay tribute to him for all the work that he has done, both on the Opposition Front Bench and as a Minister before that. He put various questions to me, and I will touch briefly on some of them. He mentioned the 3 pm blackout, which exists to protect ticket sales for lower leagues in the football pyramid. As a former Minister for Sport, he will know that it is an issue for the Football Association, but we support the current situation, as we recognise the importance of this for the lower leagues. He raised a point about alcohol, and he is absolutely right. We debated this during the passage of the Football Governance Bill, and there are of course different views. The ban was originally introduced to protect fans, but I recognise the debate that is taking place. It is an issue for the Home Office, so I will reflect the points he makes to the relevant Minister.

Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) mentioned the Commonwealth games coverage. Ultimately, the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham will know, as a former Minister, that this was a decision for Commonwealth Sport as the rights holder, and there is a balance between accessibility and commercial considerations. I know he was in attendance at the Commonwealth games, and I think that TNT did a very good job of making it accessible. There was also work on radio, with S4C and the BBC, and free-to-air highlights on Channel 5. However, I do acknowledge the point that the fact the BBC did not cover it means there was not so much wider awareness, but he will appreciate that that issue is independent of Government.

The Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee made a point about deaf athletes and the deaf Olympics. UK Sport has met those involved, as have I as the Minister, and I would like to assure both the Select Committee and the House, as well as anyone watching our proceedings, that we absolutely have not forgotten the issue. I wrote to the Select Committee earlier this year, and this is something that I and the Secretary of State care very much about. I will update both the House and the Select Committee on that issue.

Major sporting events can change lives, transform communities and inspire people to get involved in sport. This Bill will make sure we are ready to secure more of these incredibly important global events and bring their power to communities across the UK. We will champion fans, protect commercial rights and give organisers the reassurance they need to come to our country and cement the UK as a world leader in this space, so I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

National Youth Strategy

Stephanie Peacock Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

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

Of course. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this important debate, and I am grateful to all those who contributed to what is an important conversation. We heard some brilliant contributions that highlighted just how important it is to support young people across the country. This generation is the most connected but most isolated one, and our national youth strategy aims to tackle that and the challenges associated with it. Members made a number of points on spaces, places and funding, which I will address throughout my contribution.

A specific point put to me was around the importance of providing streamlined funding, particularly access to both revenue and capital funding. The Government have merged some funding regimes, and I am happy to write to Members with more details. The shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) not only made important points but paid tribute to their work experience students. I add my thanks to those students for their contributions.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) put two specific points to me, including one about GoWild Outdoors in his constituency and the changes to school sport. I understand the concerns about the decision to replace the existing PE and sport premium for primary schools; however, despite sustained investment through that premium for more than a decade, fewer than half of children get the 60 active minutes a day recommended by the chief medical officer, and persistent inequalities remain for girls and people from disadvantaged communities. That is simply not good enough.

The Government are determined to close those gaps in participation, which is why we have committed more than £1 billion in funding for PE and school sport over the next three years. That includes £580 million for a new PE and school sport partnerships network to replace the PE and sport premium, alongside investment in improvements to school sport facilities and transitional support for primaries. That change includes secondary and primary, and capital and revenue funding. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that further, if it would be helpful. He also asked about the overnight levy. That policy is led by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but of course, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Treasury have significant interest in it, and I work closely with my ministerial colleagues. The consultation on that is yet to be published, but I will happily write to him on that point in due course.

I will now take the opportunity to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Duke of Edinburgh’s award. Over the last seven decades, the award has changed the lives of countless young people; I saw that in action and at first hand when I visited Barnsley academy in Kendray in my constituency. We know the transformative power the award can have on young people: learning new skills, developing confidence and making friends are just a few of the benefits of completing the DofE award.

I am delighted to be attending the parliamentary reception for the 70th anniversary next week; it is great to see that some representatives join us today. I thank the teachers, volunteers and all those who have worked hard to achieve the award across the country. Just a few months ago, I visited Centrepoint just outside of the centre of Barnsley, which is working with homeless young people on their Duke of Edinburgh’s awards. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) referenced, more than six million hours of volunteering is phenomenal, and just one of the contributions made by the Duke of Edinburgh’s award.

As the Minister with responsibility for youth, I am proud of the conversations that the Government have had and continue to have with young people. Last month, I signed the power of youth charter to demonstrate our commitment to youth empowerment. That sends the clear message that we are listening and will act, and illustrates the importance that we place on youth voice, which was raised by a number of Members. We always said that our youth strategy would be not about young people, but made with and by young people. We wanted to know what mattered, and we listened. The voices of young people are right at the heart of the decisions that we made.

The Government’s landmark national youth strategy is ambitious, long term and cross cutting. “Youth Matters” radically transforms how we work, to give every young person somewhere to go, someone who cares and a community that they feel part of. We have been clear about what that means: by 2035, we want to halve the participation gap in enriching activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers, and for half a million people to have access to a trusted adult outside their home. We have the ambition to halve the participation gap because we do not believe that a young person’s background should determine the opportunities that they get. We are fiercely committed to breaking down barriers, and are working across Government and with partners to make that a reality.

[David Williams]

On closing that gap, research shows that for every £1 a year spent on a young person in a place such as Stoke-on-Trent or Kidsgrove, £10 a year is spent on a young person in inner London. I welcome all the investment via the national youth strategy, but how can we use the strategy to close the gap, to make sure that we lift young people from Stoke and Staffordshire up to those levels?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I totally appreciate my hon. Friend’s point. Under the previous Government, my area of Barnsley saw some of the worst cuts in the country, but despite that, the then Labour council invested in the youth zone and free transport for under-18s. I know that the challenges in Stoke will be similar to those in Barnsley, and of course there will be pockets of deprivation in London and other areas. We want to ensure that every young person, whatever their postcode, gets the support they need. Obviously, this is in the context of 73% cuts in England over the last so many years. That will not be reversed overnight, but we have an ambition to work towards reversing it.

The strategy is backed by £500 million of DCMS funding. That will include funding for new builds, refurbishments and capital equipment, so that organisations can improve or expand their services. I have seen the impact of schemes like that, from the reopening of the Double Six Youth Club in Sheffield, to Eloquent Dance in Birmingham.

The second ambition is increasing access to trusted adults—my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) spoke about this—because we know how important it is for young people to have someone in their corner. As the Minister responsible for youth but also civil society and sport, I often hear about the fantastic work of youth workers, volunteers, sports coaches and many others. I have also seen that at first hand in places such as East Bierley Community Sports Association in Kirklees, which I visited a few weeks ago and which is just down the road from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield. In the interest of time, I will not mention any more, but I have seen so many.

However, as many as one in five young people still does not have a trusted adult outside the home to talk to. We want to change that. Our recent joint investment with the King’s Trust of £10 million will expand young people’s access to a trusted adult. That money will be matched with corporate and philanthropic investment, bringing the total to £20 million to build young people’s skills and tackle youth unemployment. We will follow that with £15 million, over the next three years, for youth workers, volunteers and others who work closely with young people. An additional £5 million will help organisations to spread good practice, improve data and build strong local partnerships.

Expanding enrichment is a key aim of our strategy. Young people have told us that they want more in-person opportunities, whether that be through arts and culture, sports, volunteering, or being outdoors in nature. We know that those experiences are invaluable for wellbeing, belonging, school attendance and future employment opportunities. That is especially true for disadvantaged young people. Those who attend after-school clubs achieve, on average, a two-points-higher total score in their key stage 2 assessments in English, maths and science at the end of primary school. That is the value of enriching activities, and that is why the Government recently published the enrichment framework to give every school and college the tools to offer high-quality enrichment. That framework is for all pupils, to ensure that access is not limited because of who someone is or where they are from.

Building on the enrichment framework, my Department will invest £22.5 million to support up to 400 schools to meet the benchmarks. That will help them to listen to the pupils in their school about what they really want, and to act on it. We will work with schools in some of the most deprived areas of England to ensure that where young people live is not a barrier anymore. We have also announced Every Child Can—an investment of £132.5 million of dormant assets funding to fund opportunities across the five key categories of enrichment. That includes ensuring that every school has access to a library.

When talking about enrichment, I think of organisations in my own area, such as the Barnsley Youth Choir, which is giving hundreds of young people amazing experiences, opportunities and skills, Beat the Street, whereby primary schools get together and get kids more active, or our brilliant new Base71 Youth Zone.

A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), spoke about cross-Government work. We have a Young Futures ministerial group. Delivering for young people is a shared responsibility; we are not doing that alone. Across Government, we are working with incredible partners that are delivering on the ground and galvanising action—uniformed youth organisations, the Duke of Edinburgh’s award of course, and many others. We are working closely with local authorities and developing a network of up to 50 youth hubs. We have already opened eight pilot hubs, and the learnings will inform the remainder of the programme. That includes how we align with other Government initiatives such as the Young Futures panels and the Department for Work and Pensions youth hubs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons), who of course is the chair of the all-party group, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), as well as others, spoke about strengthening the statutory duty on local authorities to provide a sufficient youth offer. We are already taking steps to address that. Our local outcomes framework outlines key priorities and accountability for local government. We will explore reviewing the statutory duty, but we must ensure that any change is properly funded in order to empower, not burden, local authorities.

Every time a young person discovers their passions and pushes themselves outside their comfort zone, that has an impact far beyond the youth club or sports pitch. It is a step towards them becoming a more resilient, positive and connected adult, and it is a powerful reminder of our nation’s story—one that has produced world-famous musicians, actors, athletes, inventors and entrepreneurs. They all started as a young person who was told that they could reach their potential. This Government are ensuring that young people hear that same message again.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield and all other Members who contributed to the debate.