Sporting Events Bill [HL]

Committee (1st Day)

Northern Ireland, Scottish and Welsh legislative consent sought. Relevant document: 1st Report from the Delegated Powers Committee .

15:50:00

Clause 1Sporting events framework

Amendment 1

Moved by

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert— “(ca) Schedule (Industrial action provisions) (“the industrial action provisions”),”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment inserts industrial action provisions, which would ban strikes by certain workers, including transport workers, when the sporting events framework is applied to a sporting event.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this first group of amendments in our debates in Committee on the Bill, not least because I was unable to speak at Second Reading. I was physically present but mentally less so, as I had just arrived back on a red-eye flight from the United States—in part, visiting Miami—which was preparing for a major sporting event of its own. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Markham, who spoke for these Benches at Second Reading. I am grateful to the Minister too for the discussions we have had about the Bill, including when I was overseas.

It is a pleasure to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger, to her place. She has joined your Lordships’ House since Second Reading. We look forward to her maiden speech in due course and to her adding her expertise to our scrutiny of sporting measures and much more.

I draw your Lordships’ attention to my register of interests, particularly the hospitality I have received attending sporting events over the past year.

In moving Amendment 1, I will also speak to Amendments 7, 54 and 57, which are also in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Markham. Taken together, these amendments seek to establish provisions relating to industrial action as a core part of the sporting events framework that the Bill ushers in, with the intent of preventing strikes taking place during a sporting event to which the framework conditions have been applied.

Amendment 1 is, very simply, an enabling amendment that would introduce the industrial action provisions. Amendment 7 would ensure that wherever an appropriate national authority applies one or more parts of the framework to a particular event by regulations made under Clause 2, it must at the same time apply the industrial action provisions. It is not an optional extra or something to be applied to some events and not others; rather, it is a mandatory part of the framework itself.

Amendment 54 would insert a new clause requiring that any such regulations specify a period during which these provisions should apply and that this period should be no shorter than the span of the sporting events framework for that particular event. That is to say, it must run from the day that any one of the framework provisions first takes effect to the day that the last provision ceases to have effect.

Amendment 57 would insert the substantive new schedule itself, creating offences for transport workers—covering airports, buses, light rail and passenger railway services—and relevant local authority workers who take strike action during the specified period, alongside offences for organising, permitting or inducing such action. The schedule would create an alternative civil route, allowing the appropriate national authority to impose a financial penalty rather than pursue a prosecution through the courts.

The Committee might ask why all this is necessary. The Government are seeking in the Bill to build a permanent framework so that the United Kingdom does not have to improvise, event by event, each time we play host to a major sporting event and welcome people from across the globe to these shores.

The Bill provides for the protection of ticketing arrangements, advertising rights, trading around venues and commercial rights against unauthorised association, but it does not at present provide protection against one of the most visible and damaging risks to any major event: the disruption caused by industrial action. Noble Lords will recall that the build-up to the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games was repeatedly shadowed by the threat of strike action from the then general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey. Even the then leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, said:

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

In 2022, when Birmingham hosted the Commonwealth Games, ASLEF and the RMT deliberately targeted those hoping to attend by announcing walkouts on the railways either side of the Games. In May this year, staff at Edinburgh and Glasgow airports similarly voted in favour of walking out during the Commonwealth Games, which are due to take place next month. We hope that that has been averted now by a hastily agreed pay deal but, as the unions involved well knew, such a walkout would have had a significant disruptive effect on the operation and commercial viability of those Games. These are not abstract risks; they are, sadly, recurring features of recent experience under Governments of different compositions, both in the UK and in Scotland. A Bill which seeks to create a comprehensive framework for hosting major events, with a reduced role for Parliament in scrutinising them, simply cannot leave this to chance.

Some noble Lords might think the penalties suggested in our amendments too severe. There are fines without an upper limit on summary conviction in England and Wales, a maximum fine of £50,000 in Northern Ireland and of £20,000 on summary conviction in Scotland, and financial penalties of up to £20,000 under the civil route. I want to highlight that directly, because these are not arbitrary figures. These penalties have been deliberately aligned with those the Government have suggested for the ticket touting offence and the advertising and trading offences elsewhere in the Bill. If the Committee accepts that conduct which threatens the commercial integrity of a major sporting event merits fines of this order then I hope it will also agree that we should not treat conduct which threatens to close down the event entirely any less seriously.

I also draw the Committee’s attention to the safeguards built into Amendment 57. This is not a blanket or indefinite restriction on the right to strike. The prohibition applies only for the specified period tied to the duration of the new framework for a particular sporting event. It applies to transport workers nationally since they are, by definition, mobile, but to local authority workers only in the area where the event is being held. Of course, the ban applies only where the national authority has chosen to apply the sporting events framework at all. The schedule also provides a full enforcement code, notice of intention, the right to make representations, a final notice with reasons, and a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, the sheriff or the county court, as appropriate, mirroring the safeguards attached to the ticket touting provisions already in the Bill.

My noble friend Lord Fuller has raised a very important issue about the ability of event organisers to staff these major events effectively. I have added my name to his amendment and look forward to hearing him outline it. I may return with further comments in winding up.

As we heard at Second Reading, this country competes hard and successfully for the privilege of hosting some of the world’s greatest sporting events. Having secured that privilege, we owe it to the athletes, spectators and the millions who tune in to ensure that the events can run smoothly and as planned. I beg to move.

Lord Fuller (Con)My Lords, the premise behind this Bill is that we need to help the organisers of the really big events put on a really good show and ensure that the country itself sweeps away those showstoppers. It recognises that putting on these events requires a national effort. My amendment seeks to ensure that the organisers can be assured of an adequate supply of labour and human capital to make the games, or relevant tournament, a success in the few weeks every decade that the circus rolls into town.

I am reminded that sport is a game of chance. That is why we like it. The uncertainty makes it so alluring. Your favourite does not always win and often there is an upset. That is the whole point. Especially in tournament play, a team’s life can be measured in terms of hours, in the case of a stage 1 knock-out, or weeks if they make it all the way to the final. There are no guarantees in this game.

Back in 2012, one of the key resources for the Olympics was labour. There were 70,000 Games makers. The Minister for Sport at the time, Hugh Robertson, said:

“The 70,000 Games Makers made such a big contribution to London 2012 and the country as a whole. They helped showcase a modern, diverse and fun Britain and warmly welcomed visitors from all over the world”.

Quite.

It was not just the unpaid volunteers and their 8 million hours of effort that made the Games so memorable. On top of that was an army of others who contributed to that success—paid employees involved in broadcasting, catering, cleaning, merchandising, ticketing, security, bar work, selling ice cream and so forth. Shall we say that about 150,000 people in total were engaged to make that event a success over a staggered month, once the Paralympics are taken into account? It might even have been more. We celebrate that and, indeed, without their efforts, there would not have been a celebration at all. People worked around their normal lives to give what time they could, and it worked.

16:00:00

The problem is that mobilising that sort of work is now illegal. The Employment Rights Act ensures that that sort of work cannot be offered to people without a guarantee of the number of hours they will be engaged for. That is incompatible with games of chance and luck. Of course, the Government expect the organisers or other contractors to underwrite the guarantee for those people—the people selling beer, merchandise and ice cream. But as we know, there is not only the uncertainty of the game; the British weather can get in the way, even if results go as expected. Who would sign up to such an open-ended liability?

The Government say they want to clear away all the uncertainty and risks about the tournament coming to town. But let us be clear: the Employment Rights Act’s provisions add significant costs and financial and regulatory risks and undermine the ability to flex the tournament as weather and results progress between the opening and closing ceremonies.

My amendment is intended to be helpful. These events happen so infrequently. They are obviously temporary. We know the hours cannot be guaranteed in advance because that is the way of sport, and a core component of event delivery is people. I want as many people as possible to take part to support the delivery of tournaments, putting their shoulders to the wheel and basking in the reflected glory of success—not least so that, for the paying fans, the experience is everything they want, come to expect and have paid for.

My amendment is strictly reserved to events in the scope of the Bill. There is no compulsion to designate any event, although I note that other noble Lords want to expand the scope of the Bill. To summarise, I am being helpful and realistic. I am replacing chance with certainty for organisers, participants and the fans. I am offering the opportunity for people to serve and reducing the risks of hosting and organising.

Either the Government want to host these nation-building games or they do not. Without labour market flexibility for these temporary events, it cannot happen unless the organisers assume a level of risk that exists nowhere else in the world. That, of course, is a big disincentive to come to the United Kingdom. The truth is that we do not need this Bill. After all, we have built, in the words of the Financial Times , the world’s most admired annual league and a true national asset, the Premier League, without the provisions of this Bill. If the Government want to take it forward and we designate these events, let us give them every chance of success, not hobble them with rules and regulations that will spoil the enjoyment and pleasure of going to the game.

Lord Addington (LD)My Lords, to intervene for the first time in Committee on this group of amendments is rather an odd one. I had not looked at it when we started out. I also feel that, if you are bringing a games into a country, you are going into an existing framework of laws and rights. If you bring something into a structure and you are going to bid for it, you should take into account whether you can deal with industrial relations. We have done it a couple of times.

As to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I suggest that you know when you will be working at a games or a championship because you have a schedule of events. It is not a randomised thing. You might have extra time in a championship in one of the big team games, but it is a finite amount of time. We do not play until sudden death. With weather like this and rugby union at the moment, it probably would be death if we played too long.

These amendments are a good probe to get a feel of what is happening, but if you are taking on a project you are taking it on with the risk of industrial relations. Trade unions will flex their muscles, but do they have a right to flex their muscles? Do we have a right to say no? I suggest that there is a real question here. Although it is a valid question to ask, I suspect the answer is that you have to take a few knocks when you are doing this and accept a few uncertainties to get it. If you cannot take some action or make something that will accommodate this, you really are not fit to hold a games.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab): I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Fuller, for these amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for speaking to this group. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Grainger, to your Lordships’ House; I look forward to future conversations with her on this Bill and other related matters.

The amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, would have the combined effect of introducing a framework to prevent transport and local authority workers engaging in industrial action during specified periods linked to sporting events. This would include creating offences relating to participation in, and the organisation or inducement of, such action. In their manifesto, the Government committed to repeal the minimum service level legislation and other restrictions on the right to strike, and we did this in the Employment Rights Act 2025—so, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made clear, we have existing laws relating to industrial action.

These amendments seek to reintroduce significant restrictions on the ability of workers to take industrial action. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 demonstrated, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. Instead of banning strike action, the Government want to bring in a new era of industrial relations that is built on collaboration and co-operation across parties. We are committed to establishing a new model for industrial relations fit for the 21st century, including an industrial relations framework that establishes firm expectations on how workers and employers should conduct themselves. This includes engaging with one another and working together in the interests of the workforce, the economy and the wider public. Our industrial relations framework will build on our legislative agenda and provide guidance on how employers, workers and unions can work together to deliver positive and effective industrial relations, including during periods of industrial action.

Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, would mean that the right to guaranteed hours, the right to reasonable notice and the right to payments for shifts moved, cancelled or curtailed at short notice do not apply at major sporting events to which the provisions of the Bill have been applied. The flexibility offered by zero-hours contracts and contracts with a minimum number of hours can benefit both workers and employers, but it is our view that without appropriate safeguards this flexibility can become one-sided. The zero-hours measures in the Employment Rights Act 2025 aim to end one-sided flexibility by ensuring that all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability.

I do not think the noble Lord will be surprised to hear that I disagree with him on this being an appropriate amendment. Any exclusions or exemptions at this stage would pre-empt the Government’s consultation on reforms relating to zero-hours and similar contracts, which is currently open. In this consultation, the Government seek to gather insight through the input of stakeholders, including on potential exclusions and exemptions. We need to ensure that the views of all stakeholders are first taken into account before any decisions on exclusions and exemptions are made. We intend to ensure that all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability so that workers can better plan their lives and finances. We would be keen for sporting event stakeholders to participate in the consultation on reforms relating to zero-hours and similar contracts to inform the development of the policy. On the basis of the points I have made, I hope the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Fuller, will not press their amendments.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)I am grateful to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their comments. As the noble Lord said, there is an element of risk here, but, as we know, this is a proven risk. In 2012, 2022 and earlier this year, we saw the deliberate targeting of major sporting events by trade unions to exert some political pressure, and I was sorry not to hear criticism from the other two Benches about their doing so. We agree that trade unions have the right to make their protest, but I would hope that noble Lords reflect that targeting games such as these, which try to rise above politics—at a geopolitical level as well—should not be targeted in the way that we have seen in the past.

The risk balance has shifted a bit because of some of the changes the Minister outlined. The changes brought in by the Employment Rights Act 2025 do cause problems, which your Lordships’ House scrutinised well and highlighted as that legislation went through. I see that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, is in his place; he made very strong points from the Cross Benches about some of the perverse effects that Act of Parliament may have. However, even if one accepts the argument the Government were making there, sporting events of this nature are very different. These are temporary, one-off events where people are able to work, as my noble friend Lord Fuller said, in a life-changing way for an event that comes and goes, for which the employment is not there any more.

If we do not make the sort of changes to the Bill we have suggested, we worry that the practical effect will be perverse. Rather than offering more secure work, organisers will simply offer less work and circumvent the guaranteed-hours duty by relying on short fixed-term contracts and outsourced or overseas suppliers, or on asking more of unpaid volunteers, rather than the flexible part-time and casual staff who have made the delivery of previous games such a success. We might return to this in some form on Report. I hope we can keep the discussions on this point going, but for now I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 2

Moved by

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert— “(f) Schedule (Sports rights provisions) (“the sports rights provisions”).”

Lord Foster of Bath (LD)My Lords, in addition to moving Amendment 2, I will speak to the 11 other amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Addington. I declare my interests as the chair of Peers for Gambling Reform and of Action on Gambling.

Together, my 12 amendments cover just two issues. The first is illegal gambling relating to events covered by the Bill, and the second is ensuring that venues hosting events covered by the Bill are free of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship. The Minister has been taking a very keen and welcome interest in tackling the gambling black market. My first group of amendments, relating to sports data, is, in fact, going to help her, because data is the new gold in sport. While still dwarfed by TV rights, the use and sale of data is increasing dramatically. It is currently estimated to be worth $5 billion globally—an estimate that is expected to increase threefold by 2031.

This data is used in a number of remarkably different ways—from sports teams wanting to understand their players’ performances to event organisers providing fans with knowledge to help them create and choose their fantasy football team, for instance. Crucially, however, it is also used by betting companies to help them manage their risk but also to provide their customers with in-game gambling options using real-time data—data that can, because of latency issues, arrive sooner than from a TV feed. This becomes increasingly important with the rise of gambling on the so-called prediction markets. Therefore, to monetise this value, organisers of events covered by the Bill already sell global data rights to organisations known as aggregators, which gather the data and then sell licences for it. They use things like AI camera systems in the gathering of that data. In the current World Cup, Stats Perform serves as FIFA’s first ever official and exclusive world betting data distributor.

These licences are voluntary and are difficult to enforce. At Second Reading I explained, for example, how relatively easy it is for data scouts to go into stadia where events are taking place, collect data and send it on without having permission. This leads to an economic loss to the sport and to those who have licensed the data to then sell on to betting companies, but it also has significant integrity implications. If data can be manipulated by unscrupulous data suppliers, so can the betting markets themselves. In the other licensing agreements such as broadcasting rights, we are used to understanding how and why we need to protect them and have introduced new legislation over the years to help reduce piracy, but this is less true of data piracy.

16:15:00

My first group of amendments would add to the Bill reference to the licence agreements between betting companies and the relevant event organisers concerning the supply of event data for gambling purposes. Crucially, it would make it unlawful to offer betting products without such a licence. It would also ensure that event organisers that do not wish their data to be used for betting markets can prevent that, and it would improve the integrity of the event. The majority of legal gambling companies that enter licences through authorised means would clearly welcome such a move. I certainly hope that the Minister will also welcome it, as it supports the overall aim of the Bill and helps tackle the gambling black market.

On my second set of amendments in this group, at Second Reading I rehearsed my concern about the ubiquitous link between sports and gambling—a concern that children see as normal the enjoyment of sport being closely linked to gambling on outcomes of sporting events. I shall not repeat those arguments now, nor detail the huge research base showing that harm caused by gambling advertising is ubiquitous, certainly in sport. Suffice it to say, major international sports events organisers are increasingly looking at what to do about it. Many have already taken action. The IOC has always maintained strict, clean venue policies that prohibit all sports betting and gambling sponsorship associations within the Olympic and Paralympic Games. For the current World Cup, FIFA is also enforcing clean venue policies, and bodies that organise Wimbledon and the Masters are among others that do the same. Many individual sporting event bodies that have not yet adopted this approach nevertheless agree that when it comes to decisions on such matters, it will be down to the host country to decide.

The second set of amendments in this group proposes the adoption of a similar clean venue policy in the Bill, so that no gambling advertising is allowed in the restricted advertising zones of the events covered by the Bill. As well as several international sports events bodies, many other countries already have more stringent requirements than we do where sport and gambling advertising intersect. I believe we should be following suit, as proposed by this second set of amendments. I hope the Minister agrees so that, when we host major international sporting events, venues will be free of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship. If she does not, I hope she will at least look at my Amendment 37, which would require that consideration be given to the impacts of age-restricted or harmful advertising when enacting the Bill’s advertising provisions.

Together, my amendments would provide greater protection of sports rights data, measures to tackle gambling black markets and an opportunity to catch up with many other sporting bodies and countries with measures to reduce gambling harm. I beg to move.

Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)My Lords, if no one else wants to follow the noble Lord, I will add my support to the case that he is making. Like him, I raised this at Second Reading, and I agree with every word he has said, so I do not want my noble friend the Minister to think that this a one-man show of someone who has specific views on gambling. We have to be aware of the significant pressure felt by those who get caught up in gambling. Predictive events and things of this kind are difficult to keep on top of, and it is hard to know what the next challenge might be. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord have a deal of validity, whether or not they are exactly what we should be doing, and I hope that the Minister can respond constructively to a genuine concern.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)My Lords, I wanted to allow some time to raise and discuss the important issue of gambling advertising—I was hoping for more discussion of it. I note that I support Amendments 37, 41 and 44. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, has already made the case on gambling very strongly, and it was something I raised at Second Reading, so I will speak chiefly to my Amendments 42, 45, 49 and 52, which are about fossil fuel advertising. They seek to ensure that sporting events covered by the Bill are free from advertising and sponsorship by fossil fuel companies. We could hardly have picked a better day to be debating these amendments, given the heatwave that the UK is currently facing. One significant impact of that heatwave will be on many sporting events. Many people’s intention to do all sorts of physical activity will be, for very good reason, curtailed in the coming week. In the Bill, we are talking about highly valued, important events, and they should not be used as platforms to boost the reputation of damaging industries whose products are driving the events that we are currently experiencing. Sponsorship is not philanthropy. Companies invest in sport because they know their association with trusted institutions improves their public image and strengthens their social licence. With this Bill, we have the opportunity to ensure that the biggest events in this country that we host do not become a vehicle for greenwashing. We note that young people are a significant part of the audience of many of these events, and that they are the people who will have to bear the consequences for the longest time.

As I raised at Second Reading—and it became very much a basis for these amendments—this is not something we are dreaming up. Britain would not be able to claim to be world-leading should the Minister say, “Yes, I entirely agree with you” and adopt all my amendments. France became the first European country to ban advertising for fossil fuel products in 2022. The Hague has introduced a legally binding ban on fossil fuel advertising in public spaces. As I said at Second Reading, a number of councils have already shown leadership. Today, we are seeing leadership arriving in Westminster from the rest of the country; this is a place where we could find some more leadership on that. The UN Secretary-General has called for restrictions on fossil fuel advertising similar to those applied to tobacco.

I move to my next set of amendments, which are related but different. Amendments 43, 46, 50 and 53 are about the advertising of less healthy food. There is a huge and similar kind of contradiction of promoting sport as a route to health and well-being while simultaneously allowing sponsorship from products that undermine those outcomes. These and other amendments seek to ensure that sporting events covered by the Bill are free from advertising and sponsorship for less healthy food and drinks. We are talking here about the major ultra-processed food and fast food brands, which are, sadly, major suppliers of the British diet; we are all paying the price for that.

The gap is that Ofcom does not regulate sports sponsorship deals; we have regulations about junk food advertising, but not about sponsorship. Therefore, Ofcom cannot do anything about watching a sporting event and being bombarded with advertising for McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Budweiser and so-called sports drinks like Powerade. Those brands appear everywhere. We do not see adverts for tap water, though it would be quite nice if we did—let us put that down as a thought. This creates a health halo effect: products are conceived and often advertised as compatible with a healthy, active lifestyle when their nutritional profile is anything but.

Public health bodies and parliamentary research have consistently identified marketing as a key driver of childhood obesity. The Government already have policies on direct advertising to act in this area, and historically we saw the bans of cigarette advertising that had to be continually strengthened. We need to see the same thing for ultra-processed and other unhealthy foods. We have an accepted principle that the marketing of less healthy food to children is a legitimate public policy concern. These amendments address an inconsistency in public policy. Sport should be used to inspire healthy lives, not as a platform to promote the consumption of foods we know will shorten people’s lives and make them less healthy.

Lord Hayward (Con)My Lords, in relation to these proposed amendments, I have sympathy with a number of points, particularly as they relate to gaming. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, made very clear the logic behind what he is asking for in these amendments.

Unfortunately, on the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, while I am extremely sympathetic to the issue of climate change, and I will not buy all sorts of things in plastic or plastic bottles and the like, I worry because we are talking about adding things to an ever-extending list; every time we get to a major sporting event, we will look at whether we should add on other things that operate in other countries.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, just spoke about an established principle, and I think that is a far better route by which we should operate in terms of these international sporting events. In other words, our established principles of advertising as they operate in this country should be the principles by which the major sporting events should operate. We cannot spend our time trying to run ahead of policies we have, whether in relation to age-related matters or food and drink-related products.

I have spoken critically on a number of occasions in this Chamber about Coca-Cola and its sponsorship of major sporting events. However, it is a very difficult road we will go down if we start adding on one thing after another—

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)To make it clear, when I was talking about an established principle, I was talking about the fact that we have restricted advertising of these products—particularly to children. Therefore, it is a question of how far that restriction goes; it is not about doing something new.

Lord Hayward (Con)I thank the noble Baroness for her clarification; I was not absolutely clear on whether she was talking about the established principles or extending the limits in some form or another.

I want to make an observation on a comment the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, made on the last group of amendments. I think I heard him refer to sporting events as ones of “chance” on two occasions. There are a fair number of medallists in this Chamber today who may think, “Well, it wasn’t chance that got me a gold, silver or bronze medal”. Equally, when I refereed rugby, it was very rarely viewed as chance that one team or the other won—though there was the odd chance that the referee might have made an error at the time.

Lord Fuller (Con)I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, that I did not mean chance as in random, because I accept that in sport the harder you work, the luckier you get.

16:30:00

Lord Addington (LD)My Lords, my noble friend is a doughty warrior when it comes to showing us the harms of gambling—and not only the harms but some of the gambling which is, let us face it, a threat to the integrity of sport if it is not regulated very carefully. Nothing destroys a sporting event like not having faith that the outcome is a fair one. Let us remember that.

In the digital world the harms done to individuals by gambling reach further. This is something we cannot forget when we talk about this. I am pretty sure the Minister will not have done. Indeed, if her officials tried, I should imagine they would not last very long. We have to try to get to a situation where we have some understanding of what is happening here, and the difference that makes to the events themselves, even if we are looking only the sporting value.

The use of data in sport is a fascinating story unto itself, but gathering that data and using it is something that we are only just starting. Most of us are discovering a world that is developing, and then this comes up and we say, “Really? That is how you have done it?” Indeed, those with heavy training schedules, especially in the recent past, undoubtedly had a great deal of data controlling what they ate, how long they were out, and what they were doing. I can dimly remember somebody talking about it, and us ignoring it, but there we are—the world moves on.

I hope that when the Minister responds to these amendments, she gives us a full view of what the Government seek to do generally in this field, as well as specifically in this Bill. We have a series of considerations here. With advertising, smoking is the obvious case: it was an accepted part of advertising and it has been removed. How are we working that in? How are we going forward? Is it a general principle we are talking about or specifics? What are the limitations as we move forward? Let us face it: if you have the Olympics at moment, you have Coca-Cola. It is not a health product, I think anybody would agree. It might be much less damaging in some of its forms than others, but it is not a health product and nor are the other soft drinks that go with it.

I hope the Minister will give us some idea of what the Government’s thinking is and where they are going. They may save themselves a little time if they can say which other legislation will affect this. This is a big subject we are touching on with this Bill. An idea of what the overall picture is, and where the Government think they are going, would be an important thing to take away from all this.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)My Lords, this boils down to a question of balance and proportion. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their amendments and for sparking this debate. I know they are sincere and consistent in raising concerns about each of the areas that they have highlighted through their amendments, but I think some of the remedies they are suggesting are disproportionate and too strict.

Not everyone feels the way that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness do about gambling, for instance. Indeed, many people find, without having any gambling problems, that it enhances their enjoyment of sporting events. Many people in this country gamble without developing gambling harms, and it is right that we have protections in place to maintain that. As the Gambling Commission found with its recent advertising campaign advising people on the dangers of a workplace sweepstake—which came across as a bit po-faced to many sports fans—that question of balance always has to be carefully looked at and struck, while maintaining the protections for more vulnerable people.

I veer more towards what my noble friend Lord Hayward outlinedlooking for established principles, rather than a list that we would continue to add to as times and tastes change. I suppose this is one of the problems with a framework Bill, where we are trying to anticipate social mores and debates that might come. Previously, in generations past, we have been able to have these debates each time we have been lucky enough to host a major sporting event, and have had these discussions in the context of the social and political views across the country at the time. So it is a useful debate, but we are not attracted to the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, have tabled in this group.

As we look at these issues, we would like to see greater attention paid to the illegal unlicensed market in gambling, which is a real and growing threat. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, touched on this. Staking with illegal operators is now estimated at £16.6 billion, more than three times its level in 2019 and roughly double what it was just two years ago. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that His Majesty’s Treasury could lose up to £500 million if recent tax changes push more consumers towards unlicensed sites. One in six gamblers—some 2.8 million people—says they are already aware of at least one unregulated brand. Among the under-25s, one in five has used an illegal site already and as many as 420,000 schoolchildren may be engaging with the illegal betting market. Advertising spending by unregulated operators is forecast to exceed £1 billion by 2028—more than half of all gambling advertising expenditure in this country and up from just 16% in 2019.

While we do not agree with all the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, has tabled, we would like to see greater action from the Government on this growing problem in the country. They have recognised this; in February, the Secretary of State announced plans to stop unlicensed operators sponsoring Premier League football clubs and to establish a cross-industry illegal gambling taskforce. The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, who is the Gambling Minister, said at the time:

“We will not hesitate to act where we see people being put at risk”.

Since February, we have still not seen that consultation launched. The industry—including operators, which are asking for tougher action against their unlicensed rivals—is still waiting with bated breath. Can the Minister update us on the important work being done in connection with the major sporting events across the world that we will see this summer as well as for future sporting events that we are lucky enough to host here in the United Kingdom?

Baroness Twycross (Lab)I thank the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling these amendments. I also thank the noble Lords who spoke to them.

Amendments 2, 5, 6, 61, 65 and 67, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Addington, seek to regulate sports rights provisions. Sporting bodies are free to enter into their own sponsorship and broadcast arrangements. In recent years, through these arrangements, the gambling sector has made a significant financial contribution to sports including football, rugby, horseracing and snooker. Of course, I recognise the strength of feeling in this area, which my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton spoke to and clearly shares. However, I hope noble Lords can appreciate the Government’s desire to balance the sport sector’s commercial freedom with our ongoing efforts to reduce both gambling harm and the shift towards illegal gambling highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I agree with him that any action we take in this area should be proportionate.

We take the relationship between gambling and sport very seriously, particularly given its potential impact on children, young people and the vulnerable. I will come on to soft drinks later but, in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on what this Government are doing on gambling harm, since 2024 we have made a number of significant reforms to gambling regulation with a view to tackling gambling harm, building on the White Paper developed and published by the previous Government. We have introduced a statutory gambling levy, which will provide for the first time independent and sustainable funding for research into and the prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms. This has more than doubled the money from the previous voluntary levy. Each year, 20% of funding will be spent on research to strengthen the evidence base on gambling-related harms, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Foster, is aware. This includes a research fellow within DCMS to look specifically at gambling advertising, bringing together the evidence to see what appropriate steps might be taken. Currently, as the noble Lord is aware, we have no plans to limit gambling advertising further than it is already—clearly, it is already regulated.

We have also introduced online slot stake limits and reforms to marketing rules and we will continue to press operators to improve their self-exclusion schemes. In relation to sport and advertising particularly, we welcome publication of sponsorship codes of conduct from all major sports, as well as the Premier League’s ban on front-of-shirt sponsorship from the start of the 2026-27 season. We have further confirmed that we will consult as soon as possible on the banning of unlicensed sponsorship within sports: in response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I am very keen, as the Minister, for this to start as soon as possible. I will write to him if we can give further detail on when that will come.

The Government are committed to tackling gambling harm and clear that we must be evidence-led in our policy-making. We will consider next steps to further raise standards in consideration of the evolving evidence base. In the same vein, moving to limit these commercial partnerships without considering the potential significant impact on the sports and broadcast sector would in our view be inappropriate. The existing regulatory framework for gambling advertising and sponsorship is robust. All operators advertising in Great Britain must hold a Gambling Commission licence and abide by advertising codes enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority. Operators found to be in breach of these codes can be referred to the Gambling Commission for further enforcement action, which may include licence reviews or fines. The Commission has taken a range of enforcement actions on the back of referrals from the ASA, including ones resulting in fines for a range of issues where the ASA has found that the behaviour was particularly egregious.

In relation to the point on the prediction market made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, in order to operate in Britain, any prediction market requires a licence from the Gambling Commission. We monitor potential impacts of prediction markets carefully. I do not have a response on the extensive points that the noble Lord made on data, but I am happy to meet him to go through that. Therefore, with full respect for this important subject, I do not believe this amendment is necessary, or that this is the right vehicle for changes to gambling legislation. This is a narrowly defined Bill, aimed at attracting and delivering major sporting events.

I turn now to Amendment 37, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Addington, and the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which deals with the important issue of shielding children and vulnerable people from harmful or age-restricted advertising. This is a priority for this Government. Event owners will have to comply with existing legislation and other regulatory requirements in relation to advertising. While there is no specific definition of advertising that is harmful to children in the existing advertising codes, the codes require that children be protected from advertisements that could cause physical, mental or moral harm. The codes also set out the responsibilities of advertisers in relation to age-restricted advertising such as gambling and alcohol advertising. Both through work related to the statutory gambling levy and wider government efforts, my department will continue to work with a wide range of stakeholders to examine the evidence base on the impacts of young people’s exposure to age-restricted advertising such as alcohol and gambling advertising, taking into account the impact on the advertising, media and sports sectors.

Returning to the advertising provisions in the Bill, the advertising offence is designed primarily to protect event owners’ commercial rights by preventing businesses carrying out unauthorised advertising in a restricted zone. However, any activity by event sponsors must be in accordance with existing legislation and other regulatory requirements, including those regarding protection from harms.

I move on to amendments 41, 44, 47, 48 and 51, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. They would make it an offence to carry out gambling advertising activity in a restricted advertising zone created by regulations under the Bill. These amendments require a court to share certain information with the Gambling Commission following the conviction of a person who committed an offence under the Bill by carrying out gambling advertising activity. They would also prevent any authorisation under the Bill being granted in respect of gambling advertising.

16:45:00

As I said, event organisers are free to make their own sponsorship decisions. This could include having a gambling company sponsor their event, or indeed deciding not to, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, made clear is already the case in relation to some major sporting events. The advertising offence in the Bill is designed to protect the commercial rights of event organisers and their sponsors. Most importantly, this will help minimise the call on the public purse. There are a number of measures in place to ensure, in our view, that gambling advertising, wherever it appears, is socially responsible.

Amendments 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 50, 52, and 53, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seek to prevent advertising for less-healthy food and drink and fossil fuels being displayed in a restricted advertising zone. I recognise the spirit of these amendments and the underlying ambition to help improve public health outcomes. That is why the Government are already taking action to tackle childhood obesity and reduce children’s exposure to the advertising of less-healthy food.

We want to raise the healthiest generation of children ever. From January this year, the Government have implemented UK-wide restrictions on the advertising of less-healthy food and drink products on TV before 9 pm and paid-for advertising of these products online at any time. Adverts for less-healthy food and drink products during the broadcast of sporting events would be in scope of these restrictions, where relevant. Similarly, we have strong rules relating to the outdoor advertising of foods high in fat, salt and sugar. These rules apply to adverts within restricted zones at sporting events, just as they do to adverts in the rest of the country.

With regard to the advertising by fossil fuel companies, we recognise that combating climate change is a major challenge. That is why this Government are committed to tackling climate change and have restored the UK as an international leader on climate change. Making Britain a clean energy superpower is one of the Government’s five missions: to deliver clean power by 2030 and accelerate to net zero across the economy. However, we do not currently have any plans to restrict fossil fuel advertising. We recognise the strength of feeling the noble Baroness has in this area and, while the Government cannot support these amendments, we remain committed to achieving our goals in these areas through other means.

On the basis of the points I have made, covering a number of important areas, and recognising again that the Bill is tightly framed to develop a framework aimed at securing and delivering major sporting events, I ask that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

Lord Foster of Bath (LD)My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for her support for my remarks. I neither accuse her nor imply anything about who her support will be for the next leader of her party. I merely point out that almost everything she said is word for word what Mr Andy Burnham, now MP, said only two weeks ago.

I am also grateful to others who have spoken. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, subsequently by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and then picked up by the Minister, that we should be basing our decisions on principles: I entirely agree with that remark. But it seems to me there is one principle that we have accepted in this country for a very long time: that public health issues need to be dealt with at public level. The Government have accepted issues around unhealthy food, to put it like that, as a public health issue. They have also accepted, as the Minister has said from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, that gambling has to be treated as a public health issue. Therefore, I genuinely believe that we have got a principle that all noble Lords on all sides could get behind in relation to these amendments.

I genuinely accept that the Minister is keen to keep the Bill as narrow as possible, but she pointed out in her remarks that the Bill is about protecting the rights of the event organisers—her very words. I therefore do not understand why we are placing measures in the Bill to protect rights in terms of ticketing, advertising and so on, yet she is not prepared to put a similar protection for the rights of event organisers in relation to their sports data. It seems that there is an absolute equivalence with all the other rights that we are protecting. Failing to do that in the way I am proposing means that there is a real opportunity for the growth of the black market, which she is keen to prevent. I ask her to look again in detail at this particular issue. It has been very carefully thought through. A lot of people have been engaged in work on this, and I hope that we come back to it at a later stage in our deliberations.

On the black market, we need to be very careful to be alert to the fact that a lot of the growth in the black market is coming from people who have withdrawn themselves from gambling using a programme called GAMSTOP, and suddenly, because of all the advertising for a big event, they want to gamble again. They are not allowed to on the legal market, so they end up going to the black market, which is why we now have advertisements that say “not on GAMSTOP”. It is wrong to allow that to happen. I hope that the Minister will look at that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Amendment 2A

Moved by

2A: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert— “(f) Schedule (Delivery authority provisions) (“the delivery authority provisions”).”

Lord Markham (Con)My Lords, I start by declaring that, further to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Hayward, if I was ever to win anything significant, it would definitely be by a massive stroke of luck. The Government’s clearly stated intention for the Bill is to create an event-agnostic framework that can be applied to certain future sporting events without requiring new primary legislation. The Government have been very open in their belief that the Bill will cover all those possible scenarios. Our amendments seek to probe to see whether this is the case. The amendments are made in the spirit of helpfulness, as I know are the other amendments made by my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter.

By way of an example, say we wish to bid for one of the major and very large events, such as the Olympics or the World Cup. The delivery of those events requires significant cross-sector effort, bringing together national governing and representative bodies for the sports, such as the British Olympic Association or the Football Association; local government, including the host cities; and central government departments. We might need to construct new stadia or event spaces, purchase land and improve public transport links, for example.

Hosting such an event would potentially require the creation of a specific body to co-ordinate and oversee the event’s organisation. This is the approach that we are all very familiar with and something that we had to do with the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, with which we created the Olympic Delivery Authority to work alongside the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The ODA was responsible for the redevelopment of the Stratford area, the construction of the sporting ventures, and the infrastructure and transport planning—all things I was very familiar with as a previous chair of the London and Continental Railways, which developed a lot of that work.

The Bill, however, does not provide a mechanism for the Government to create a delivery authority for a sporting event, should it become necessary. If Ministers needed to establish such a body for future events they would require primary legislation. Of course, this is an outcome that we all wish to avoid and it is the Government’s stated intention. If it transpires that bespoke primary legislation is indeed required for a future sporting event, what is the purpose of the Bill that we are trying to pass?

Amendments 2A, 6A, 58A, 58B and 61A, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Parkinson, seek to rectify this shortcoming by creating a mechanism for the Secretary of State to establish a delivery authority if they believe it necessary. In drafting these amendments, I have taken inspiration from the provisions in the 2006 Act, which established the Olympic Delivery Authority, and amended them so that they can be applied generally to any event to which the framework applies. Amendments 58A and 58B seek to allow the Secretary of State to establish transfer schemes to the delivery authority and for the authority to be dissolved by order.

Amendment 61A seeks to insert a new schedule into the Bill. The first part of this proposed new schedule would provide for the establishment of a delivery authority and sets out the authority’s general functions. Those are to

“prepare for the sporting event … make arrangements in preparation for or in connection with the use or management … of premises and other facilities acquired, constructed or adapted in preparation for the sporting event … ensure that adequate arrangements are made for the provision, management and control of facilities for transport in connection with the sporting event, and … ensure the safety of individuals participating in or attending the … event”.

Part 2 of the proposed new Schedule sets out the constitution of a delivery authority, including membership of between seven and 11 people, the appointment of a chair and chief executive, and the procedure for removing members. Part 3 would provide procedural rules of delegation by the authority and seeks for the Secretary of State to require the authority to submit a report on the authority’s progress, which must be laid before Parliament. Part 4 would allow the Secretary of State to provide the authority with financial assistance, if necessary, subject to the affirmative resolution of the Bill.

I am aware that other provisions may be needed in secondary legislation. I will not pretend that we have all the detail behind this right, but we are trying to set out likely scenarios in which we would have to set up such a delivery authority and the things that would need to be considered. We are trying to build those into the framework. We ask the Government to come back more thoroughly on the schedules that would be needed, but we hope these are helpful by way of example.

I hope that the Minister understands the point that I am trying to make. If the Government believe that this Bill, when passed, will never need further primary legislation then it needs to cover all the possible requirements for future events. If we hope to host some major sporting events in the future then we may well need a delivery authority to support such an event. These amendments would allow the Government to do just that. I beg to move.

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)My Lords, my amendment covers a slightly different area. It seeks to ensure that cultural events affiliated with a sporting event are part of the Bill’s scope. We on these Benches support the Bill’s aim to create a legislative framework. However, past experience has shown that cultural events such as the Cultural Olympiad were hard to include and very much seen as an afterthought. Those of us who witnessed and participated in the events in 2012 will argue that they were far from that; they were integral and magnificent—the opening and closing ceremonies, and the cultural coming together across the UK.

The Bill’s current wording refers to events “sporting or otherwise” and

“held in connection with the sporting event”.

This is a probing amendment that seeks assurance from the Minister that this is the case and asks her to consider making the reference to cultural events more explicit.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)My Lords, Amendments 3 and 4 are in my name. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Although it is a pro bono position, I declare my interest as a board member of the London Marathon Foundation. The purpose of these amendments is very simple. They seek to give the appropriate national authorities, rather than just the Secretary of State, the power to apply the unauthorised association provisions and all the transport provisions that are included in this Bill. Appropriate national authorities, as defined in the Bill, are the Secretary of State or the devolved Administrations. These amendments would widen the scope to designate the five parts of the sporting events framework set out. Their aim is simply to future-proof the Bill so that powers can be conferred by the appropriate authority if there is a reasonable case to do so.

For example, if greater powers were devolved in relation to transport provision then the legislation would enable devolved authorities to apply these powers without needing to change primary legislation again. There simply is nothing more behind them than that. These amendments are part of a package of amendments that I have tabled or signed that seek to extend the scope of the Bill to include major, regular, UK-based events and to ensure greater flexibility in the potential use of the framework provisions. I will explain in more detail my arguments for doing this when we discuss group 6.

17:00:00

Lord Addington (LD)My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on starting with a question that should be asked. When we have done the big games in the past, there were infrastructure measures that had to happen, but they do not seem to be in the Bill. So how do they fit in? It is that simple. I probably should have had my name down somewhere—my fault, sorry. But it is one of the things that we really must get out about how the Bill is going to work. Is it something we tag on to this, or is it something we expect to be smaller secondary legislation, or is it part of the whole that we are doing here?

As I said, we have always had to discuss this before—well, we have done it twice here; the other times, it was Scottish legislation. If we need a proper planning structure to build stuff, how is that fitting in? It does not seem to be that obvious. If the Government have a scheme coming, let us hear about it, because it is one of the things that has been of great benefit. In Birmingham, we learnt how to do it quickly; in London we learned how to do it well with lots of planning. Where do those two structures fit into what is going on here? It is a very reasonable series of questions that have been asked, and I hope the Minister has a very reasonable set of answers.

Most people who are taking part in this wish the project well. There is a lot of nodding going on here, so if we have got that going on, let us find out how that happens. If there are further questions, let us find out what inspires them, and let us see what we can do. This is something which might be very good. Let us confirm it is, or at least that it sounds like it is.

Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)My Lords, I apologise. I did not get in to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I did not want to interrupt.

Lord Addington (LD)I apologise also.

Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)I remind the Chamber of my interests. I am chair of Sport Wales, and I am also part of the Laureus World Sports Academy, which is a group of ex-athletes who come together to raise money to put back into sport.

I have my name on Amendments 3 and 4 but support others in this group. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, I think the Bill is too tightly defined. If we are going to bid for major games in the future, it would be useful to have in this Bill everything that we might possibly need. We have huge experience from various national bodies and organisations in this country—I have previously been a board member of the London Marathon, so I have seen that—and it would make sense to use the expertise that they have.

The noble Lord, Lord Markham, talked about transport. One of the massive successes of the 2012 Games was the transport. It was an incredible experience for disabled people. A huge number of staff were available at various train stations and interchanges. The planning for that started years ahead of the Games, thanks in no small part to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the work he did when he was commissioner at TfL. These are the things that we have to get right. The world of bidding is going to change. If we get the Bill right, it sends a strong message to the international community that we take bidding for major games really seriously and it is something that we want to do.

I joined your Lordships’ Chamber in 2010 when we were considering the then London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill. Although there was a lot of support for it at the time, that Bill was tidying up things that had happened earlier. It makes sense that if we could just slightly widen the scope and think about other measures that are needed, it would save us a lot of hassle and stress in the meantime, and it would make sure that the world knew that we are ready to bid for the biggest sporting events.

Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. As it is the first time I have spoken in Committee, I declare my technology interests as adviser to the Crown Estate, Endava plc and Simmons and Simmons LLP, and as non-executive director at Avalanche BVI Inc and the Avalanche Foundation. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, it seems that I am too slow to compete with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who never moved that quick on a rugby field. Nevertheless, he still has some pace when it comes to putting down amendments.

Before I speak to my Amendments 90, 92 and 93 in this group, I commend the remarks of other noble Lords. If this Bill’s purpose is to have a situation where we are well set when we come to bids for mega events such as the Olympic and Paralympic Games, the FIFA men’s and women’s World Cup, and so on, we need to ensure that the Bill includes everything that we can know at this stage. If we take a principles-based approach throughout, that gives us the best opportunity. As my noble friend Lord Parkinson pointed out in the form of my noble friend Lord Markham, we know now that gaps exist because we understand from 2006 the need to put in place an ODA, as it was then. As my noble friend Lord Markham said, these amendments may not be word-for-word perfect, but the principle behind them is sound. We are either doing this Bill to have everything that we know at this stage covered to put us in that pole position to host these events, or we are not. There needs to be a distinction when we are going through the Bill between adding provisions—baubling as the Government might call it—and enabling it to be full to its stated purpose. I believe that much of the debate in this group of amendments goes to that second critical point: to make the Bill as fulsome as it can be to achieve its objectives.

Amendment 90 is very much in that vein. It would exclude registered charities from the provisions of the Bill when they are acting under the restrictions of their charitable status. The amendment clearly sets out that if a charity is engaged in a commercial activity or for commercial reasons has a connection with a third party, that obviously would not be included. It also sets out the potential for government to consider a limit. If it is a mega charity, perhaps the provisions of the Bill should apply. This was an issue which we faced very clearly when we were doing the London Olympic and Paralympic Games. It is a cardinal principle when you are involved with these mega events. You have to protect and defend the rights of the marketing partners without whose funding, support and value in kind these events could not happen. It is in no sense trespassing one centimetre on the right of charitable organisations, of which we have such a flourishing community across the UK, particularly local charities, to pursue their charitable objectives without transgressing the provisions of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that point.

Similarly, Amendment 92 looks to a social value assessment. This is not extending the provisions of the Bill; it is merely intensifying the impact that these events can have. Again, at London 2012, we looked at everything through a social, economic, environmental and cultural lens. The provisions I have set out in proposed Amendment 92 give some illustrations of social value, but they are in no means an exhaustive list. In reality, it does not impose greater restrictions on an event; it enables it to state its value, through commercial and sporting, into that wider social, environmental and inclusion potential—all positive for the games themselves. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my three amendments.

Baroness Twycross (Lab)I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Holmes of Richmond, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury and Lady Grey-Thompson, for these amendments. Amendments 2A, 6A, 58A, 58B and 61A, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, would allow for the establishment of a delivery authority to prepare for and manage the delivery of a sporting event. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, this is question that is worth asking. I am grateful for the opportunity to reply, and I hope I can give the noble Lord some reassurance on this point.

Although we recognise the intent of these amendments, we do not believe they are necessary. The nature and scope of delivery models for major sporting events are determined based on what is appropriate and proportionate to the needs and requirements of each specific event, including funding and the set-up of governance to support oversight. Establishing a delivery authority is one way to do this. Indeed, it is a method that the UK has relied on before, including, as a number of noble Lords noted, for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

However, setting up a delivery authority with the proposed powers has typically been the exception, not the rule, when it comes to delivering the major sporting events that are likely to fall within the scope of the Bill. Similarly, it is rarely necessary for delivery models to be established on a statutory basis. For example, for Euro 2028, a special purpose incorporated company was established by the five relevant football associations to deliver the event—a proportionate approach, not least because Euro 2028 is relying overwhelmingly on existing stadia and infrastructure without the need for bespoke statutory powers.

However, where a different form of oversight is rightly required, the Government can establish an appropriate delivery body subject to appropriate additional parliamentary scrutiny, as the Olympic Delivery Authority regularly was. In the case of London 2012, the delivery authority was created to take on certain powers as a result of a specific set of requirements that it had to deliver. The hosting of those Games required dedicated oversight with powers to co-ordinate different authorities, given the scale of public expenditure required, including significant investment in the construction of infrastructure such as new venues. I understand that we have seen a shift in what the IOC requires. For example, it now encourages hosts to use existing infrastructure.

In the Government’s view, these amendments are not necessary given the very limited eventualities. The requisite ability to establish delivery bodies already exists to a sufficient degree.

Amendments 3 and 4, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Evans of Bowes Park and Lady Grey-Thompson, would enable the devolved Governments to apply the unauthorised association and transport provisions in the Bill. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that we need to get it right. However, I assure your Lordships’ Committee that we have worked closely with the devolved Governments on the provisions in the Bill. Where the provisions are within their devolved competence, we have ensured that they can be applied unilaterally, as is the case with the ticket touting, advertising and trading provisions.

The unauthorised association provisions are reserved and are not within the devolved Governments’ legislative competence. However, they extend UK-wide. The Secretary of State will be able to apply them to events taking place anywhere in the UK, including where no part of the event is taking place in England.

The transport provisions in the Bill relate specifically to transport in England and can be exercised only by the Secretary of State. Transport is devolved, with each Government responsible within their jurisdiction. We explored whether devolved Governments wished to apply the transport provisions in their jurisdictions, and it was confirmed that they were not required. In England, the provisions are necessary to facilitate the co-ordinated delivery of certain large-scale sporting events that require integrated planning, clear responsibilities and co-ordinated action across boundaries. For UK-wide events, transport planning is co-ordinated through established intergovernmental and operational mechanisms.

Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would insert into the Bill a definition of “sporting event” to include associated events such as qualifying rounds, ceremonies, fan zones, official viewing areas and cultural events. I completely agree with the spirit of this amendment in that major sporting events are often about much more than what happens on the field of play. I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for meeting to discuss this.

17:15:00

I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that the provisions in the Bill as drafted already enable all the scenarios she lists, including the Cultural Olympiad, to be captured where appropriate. The framework is flexible enough to capture all qualifying stages of any sporting event. Clause 24 expressly states that sporting events include the opening and closing ceremonies. In addition, Clause 2 sets out that the framework may be applied to connected events and makes clear that these can be sporting or non-sporting events, such as cultural events, so long as they are held in connection with the main event to which the regulations have been applied. While I recognise the intention behind the amendment and share the view that wider cultural and associated activity can be an important part of a major sporting event, I do not think this amendment is required.

I turn now to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. Amendment 90 would exclude activities undertaken by registered charities to further their charitable purposes from the application of any provision in the Bill. The exclusion would not apply to activity undertaken for commercial purposes in certain circumstances. It would also enable the Secretary of State to define in regulations activity that may fall within the definition of charitable purposes, impose conditions on the availability of the exclusion and require charities to notify enforcement authorities of their reliance on the exclusion.

Although I understand the intention, in our view it would not be appropriate to include such a blanket exception as this could undermine the Bill’s objectives. For example, an event may have an official charity partner that requires priority over fundraising or the auctioning of event tickets, or that has otherwise negotiated exclusive rights that need to be protected. As the noble Lord has sought to achieve with this amendment, we will also need to ensure that any exceptions provided in the Bill for charities do not create a loophole in the framework provisions, for example by enabling advertising for commercial purposes through the backdoor.

However, we will always consider the impact of the Bill’s provisions on charities. This means providing exceptions to charities on a case-by-case basis to ensure they are proportionate, workable and event-specific. I assure your Lordships’ Committee that the Government’s application of provisions in the Bill will never seek to restrict the ability of charities to advertise the vital, life-saving services they provide. An exception will always be provided in regulations for promoting this type of activity, including crisis and mental health support services. I would be very happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, to discuss this and other aspects of the Bill further.

Amendment 92, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, would introduce a duty to produce a social value impact assessment that must be laid in Parliament before the Bill’s framework can be applied to any sporting event. This Government fully agree that our major sporting events should be expected to deliver real benefits to communities across the UK. That is why the Bill explicitly stipulates that a sporting event must be likely to bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom, or a part of it, for the framework to be applied.

I appreciate that the noble Lord wants to understand how we are ensuring this, so let me assure him of the processes we already have in place to assess the potential impact of a sporting event even before we bid for it, as well as to ensure a positive legacy long after the event concludes. I am very aware that the noble Lord has been actively involved in some of these discussions so will be aware of a number of the ways in which we do this already.

The Gold Framework underpins how the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and UK Sport support the bidding for and staging of major and mega sporting events in the UK. It explicitly outlines that, when seeking investment from the Government, event organisers must have meaningful plans in place to generate positive social impact even before the event has started. The framework requires consideration of many of the areas the noble Lord suggests, from accessibility to legacy. It also recognises that engaging local communities is essential to understand impact and maximise the benefits of a major sporting event. This is especially important where potential impacts may not be immediately apparent, as is often the case. Furthermore, exploring and developing the potential of sporting events to maximise their positive legacies is often an ongoing, iterative process that the timeline set out within this amendment would not allow for.

Finally, I acknowledge the noble Lord’s concerns on scrutiny and reassure your Lordships’ Committee that Parliament already has an important role. The Bill is clear that the first time any regulations are made in relation to an event, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring that Parliament is able to scrutinise the application of the framework provisions to that event.

On the noble Lord’s Amendment 93, concerning post-quantum cryptography standards for digital communications, I have to admit that I had to have explained to me what it is and what the amendment meant. If sporting events generally are slightly outside my expertise, this is way outside my expertise; I am going to be honest with noble Lords about that.

As the noble Lord highlighted at Second Reading, this is a technology-neutral Bill. It is also a narrowly scoped Bill to help us successfully deliver major sporting events, with a focus on protecting commercial rights. Where there is a requirement to communicate a decision such as a ticketing authorisation in writing, it is not for the Bill to describe exactly how this should be done, nor, if carried out digitally, the technical standards that must be met from a cyber security perspective. We want to ensure that the framework is sufficiently future-proof, but we do not consider a regulation-making power of this nature to be appropriate or necessary in the context of this Bill.

The National Cyber Security Centre has published timelines for migration to post-quantum cryptography, setting out key milestones and activities to complete the migration of high-priority systems, services and products to post-quantum cryptography by 2031, and then almost all systems, services and products by 2035. Prescribing post-quantum cryptography standards under a narrowly scoped Bill would create a piecemeal sector by sector approach. These standards are still maturing internationally, and we need to retain flexibility to align with developing standards and emerging international consensus. I would be grateful and delighted, however, to discuss this further with the noble Lord. For the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Markham, will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Markham (Con)I am grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords and thank the Minister for her comments. I welcome the general support from noble Lords. I hope the Minister can see that this is all brought with the constructive view of making sure that this framework legislation can be comprehensive enough to work.

I must admit that I remain to be convinced. The points raised by my noble friends Lady Evans and Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, are quite serious and need to be covered. At the same time, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, for widening it to include cultural events, which was done very successfully in the Commonwealth Games by Andy Street. It is definitely worth while trying to bring that into this.

I would like to challenge the Minister further, if I may. She said it was not required because it is possible that these delivery bodies will not be required and there are only two examples where they were. However, her very admission of the fact there have been two occasions where they have been required surely makes the point. Why would we not want to put it into enabling legislation? Why would we not have it in place so that it is possible? It is no problem; if you do not need it, you do not need it, so you ignore those bits. However, if we are in the circumstance, which has happened twice before, where you need a delivery body, all of a sudden you need primary legislation. That begs the question: what is the point of having this framework legislation at all?

The whole point is that we are trying to have enabling legislation to cover all those eventualities. Noble Lords must admit that these are very real eventualities as it has happened twice already. I would hope that, unless the Minister can say with absolute 100% certainty that we would not need such delivery bodies in the future, she will reflect on those points before Report and think about embracing such amendments. For now, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 2A withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed.

Clause 2Application of framework to major sporting events

Amendments 3 to 7 not moved.

Amendment 8

Moved by

8: Clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert— “(2A) Before making regulations under this section, the appropriate national authority must take all necessary steps to comply with any relevant host contract.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment seeks to ensure that the appropriate national authority will comply with a host city contract or a host nation contract before making regulations applying the sporting events framework.

Lord Moynihan (Con)My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, a former chairman of the British Olympic Association from 2005 through 2012, and, throughout those seven years, a member of the International Olympic Committee, which had oversight of the Games. I was very sorry not to be present at Second Reading. I was not a Member of your Lordships’ House at the time, but I am delighted and honoured to be back in a different capacity. I read the Second Reading debate with interest, as well as the Bill and the Explanatory Notes.

Let me say from the outset that I share with the Government the view that every possible assistance should be offered to bring major international sporting events to the United Kingdom, and this Bill can and will send a signal that we are keen to encourage international sporting events to come to the United Kingdom. However, this Bill is event-agnostic. It is seeking to provide a common legislative framework to assist that process, but it is very unclear which events are covered by that process: an issue that I know my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park will address in future amendments.

I support the comments made by my noble friends during the debate on the earlier group of amendments and I contend that there will be a need for primary legislation. Because there will definitely be a need for primary legislation, should we ever bid for the Olympic and Paralympic Games to come to the United Kingdom, or hold a FIFA World Cup here, it is incumbent on the Government at least to accept the principle that there will need to be primary legislation at that time.

I will start with a very important point. There seems to be an underlying theme to the Bill: that it is for the Government to decide whether we host international events. Let us take the Olympic Games. It is for the British Olympic Association, as an independent organisation, to decide whether we will bid for the Olympic Games. On many occasions in the past, the association has held a competition between different cities to encourage one or a number to come forward before choosing the preferred city. Once the association has identified the city, it then sits down with the mayor, as it did with Ken Livingstone in the early years of this century.

There was a major debate about whether the Olympic Games should be in the West End or the East End of London. It was wisely decided—not least because Ken Livingstone urged this point and said it was conditional on his support—that the regeneration of the East End of London could be achieved by hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012. That regeneration, which would have happened anyway at some stage in the future, was accelerated to 2012, because it had to be done by that date. At that point, there was a discussion with the then Government. With the Government’s support, those involved, particularly those from the British Olympic Association, were able to table a request to the International Olympic Committee to host the Games in London in 2012.

The first and most important point is that it should be recognised that the role of the Government in hosting international Olympic events, or international sporting events, is one of support for the bidders for those events. In tabling my amendments, I am reinforcing that point. This is a simple enabling measure. It provides a route for government support to be channelled through secondary legislation. I simply say to the Minister that if, when we host the Olympic Games in the future, the idea is that it is going to be debated on the Floor of your Lordships’ House for one hour, covering all the detail that will be required for what was, in 2012 figures, north of £10 billion of investment, it is inconceivable that Parliament would not sit back and accept that.

At the moment, I just remind the Minister that it would require a statutory instrument as per this Bill to be debated on a regret Motion, and that regret Motion would be limited, as it is at the present time, to an hour in your Lordships’ House. Therefore, if we are going to put all the framework in this Bill into regulations, I really do not believe that that is sufficient time for Parliament to consider all the many issues that will be required if we were to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games in the future.

17:30:00

It is even more important, in that context, to recognise that we have no idea what would then be in the Olympic contract: the contract that is absolutely critical and drawn up by the IOC, not by the Government, with the host city to host the Games. After all, we have hosted the Games three times. We hosted the Games in 1908 and it was another 40 years before we hosted it again. We hosted them after the Second World War because very few countries were in a position to host the Games in the circumstances that were apparent in the world at that time. Then it was another 64 years before we hosted the Games again. It is very rare for one city to host the Games three times. In fact, if we look around the world, we see that the only country that has concertinaed that timetable is Australia, and that was because of the quite unique and outstanding contribution of John Coates, the IOC member who has brought the Games back to Australia again—as I will come to in a moment—in the Gold Coast.

My Amendment 8 really was intended, to begin with, to state:

“Before making regulations under this section, the appropriate national authority must take all necessary steps to comply with any relevant host contract including, but not limited to, passing any primary legislation as is necessary to ensure compliance with the relevant host contract”.

Sadly, I could not persuade the Public Bill Office to table that, on the grounds of exclusive cognisance—and they were absolutely right to point that out, by the way. The point I was making was that it was absolutely necessary also to recognise that we would need primary legislation.

Let me look at a number of cities that have won the right to host the Olympic Games and what they did. In Paris, for 2024, it required national legislation, interestingly enough, for AI mass surveillance, which was a controversial security law that created a legal framework to deploy AI-driven video surveillance algorithms. This technology scanned crowds in public spaces to automatically detect suspicious events or security threats. That was a very detailed provision, and I would argue that, if that was the case in your Lordships’ House or, indeed, in Parliament, there would need to be a very considered debate about it for much longer than was possible in an hour’s debate on a statutory instrument.

They also had significant labour law exemptionsanother law that they introduced. Interestingly enough, they have a sports law in place. This was additional and very specific to the need to host the Olympic Games. They had hypersensitive trademarking alterations to the French sports code to grant the IOC absolute ownership of all Olympic properties. These were debated at length; they needed parliamentary time and that was regarded as important for the IOC to grant the right to Paris to host those Games.

When it came to Japan in Tokyo 2020, they passed an Act on special measures concerning the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Tokyo, along with secondary legislation. I do not doubt for one minute that secondary legislation will also be necessary. They had an Act on human rights reforms under pressure to align with the Olympic Charter’s non-discrimination principles. The Japanese Diet passed the first-ever national law to protect LGBT individuals from unfair discrimination.

We know what happened in London. There was significant legislation brought forward and debated at significant length. That was after a major debate in your Lordships’ House before we bid for the Olympic Games, which was regarded by the International Olympic Committee as absolutely critical to the political support in both Houses for the Games bid. They monitored very carefully the legislation that went through both Houses under the excellent leadership of Tessa Jowell to produce the primary legislation that was specific and necessary for the hosting of the Games, including a whole range of issues from intellectual property protection to security and policing, venue regulations, and tax exemptions, which are not covered by one of the five categories that will come forward. Indeed, on the whole question of the funding of the Games, we hoped they would cost £2 billion to £3 billion when we first discussed the subject. It ended up, if you count all the security requirements, and the dedication of our outstanding security services, at north of £10 billion. The idea that that would not be debated in detail through a finance measure in both Houses is simply unrealistic.

It only needs to be looked at in the context of the Olympic Games; we could also look at FIFA legislation requirements if we had time. However, what I want to discuss is what might possibly be the most important one, which is the fact that in the Gold Coast, they have—we have heard from the Government—the Australian Bill in place. Then they had to produce, after the generalised Bill, similar to the one we have, specific Bills for parliamentary consideration in order to host the Games. They had to have a Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games Arrangements Act 2021. This was the foundational legislation for the 2032 Games. They had to have a planning and development streaming legislation that temporarily overrode overlapping local and state planning controls and they had a major sports facilities amendment Bill. This was all primary legislation over and above an enabling Bill, very similar to the one we that we are debating this evening, that was required for them to satisfy the International Olympic Committee’s requirements under the host city contract. We have no idea what will be in the host city contract if we win in, say, 2036 or 2040 or 2044. We have no idea what AI will look like at that stage. In fact, it will be regarded as a very historical debate that we are having this evening in the context of what legislation might need to be put in place at that stage.

There are a whole range of issues, not least the ones we discussed earlier this evening, around who the major sponsors are. The sponsorship arrangements of the Games are decided by the top sponsors, who are accepted by the IOC as top sponsors around the world, and we cannot impact those top sponsors. If we, as the Government of the day, decided that we did not like those top sponsors, they would say, “Fine, thank you very much indeed, there are plenty of other cities bidding to host the Games”.

My point is that, on this critical amendment—and, indeed, on the set of amendments that were introduced by my noble friend Lord Markham—yes, this is a Bill that sends the right signals: it is a good idea. But it is motherhood and apple pie. It sends all the right signals to the world of sport that we are keen to host these events, but it is not realistic when it comes to the need for primary legislation, which will absolutely be demanded by parliamentarians, even if we do not think it will at this stage.

Finally, I have suggested that we remove the words “must be likely to” leave a sports legacy. If the Government feel that they need to qualify leaving a sports legacy from holding a major international event, we have a serious problem. It is not “must be likely to”: it will leave a sports legacy. If it does not leave a sports legacy, we should not be supporting it. The same is true in the context of the social benefit, which comes under my Amendment 20.

With those introductory remarks to Amendments 8, 13, 18, 20 and 21, I say that I genuinely support the Government in wanting to bring international sporting events to the United Kingdom. However, I am, I hope, realistic in persuading the Committee that this cannot be done simply by statutory instruments that have minimum debate and no opportunity to be amended, and simply go through on a yes/no basis. We will need primary legislation, and the International Olympic Committee and FIFA will welcome the fact that we have primary legislation, because it will show that parliamentarians from all sides of the House in both Chambers are in support of that bid. I beg to move.

Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)My Lords, I strongly support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I think in the excitement of thinking we might have another Olympics and Paralympics, it is easy to forget the huge amount of work in—the reality of—bidding for these Games. For me, 2012 was the best eight weeks of my life, but it is easy to forget that the process of even getting to bidding was a massive risk. A lot of people put their careers on the line in saying that we should bid. Most of the way through bidding for 2012, we were told that there was no point in bothering because it was Paris’s turn; amazingly, we were able to turn that on its head.

When you go to Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, it is easy to forget that legacy at that point was not defined as we look at it now. If a handout amendment is actually a real thing, I think one of the successes of Olympic Park was in looking at it as a mayoral development corporation—I had an amendment to the Localism Bill—and about having the foresight to see what was required and what the park would look like 10, 20 or 50 years beyond the Games. That is why we need to be quite bold with some of the things that we are doing in this Bill. We are way beyond sport for sport’s sake. Certainly, Amendment 20, where the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, would change “is likely to bring” to “will bring”, is really important, because we can do so much through the power of sport.

Back in 2000 Nelson Mandela said:

“Sport has the power to change the world”—

that is quoted everywhere. The bit that gets forgotten is what he said afterwards: that sport inspires, unites the youth and breaks down racial and societal barriers—better than Governments, he said. We should not underestimate the power of sport. We should be thinking about legacy. If we are bidding for anything, we need to build in legacy right at the very beginning, when we are talking about bidding for the Games, because the value for money and the return you can get on it is significant. We should be thinking about schools programmes, which 2012 did brilliantly—coaching, clubs and facilities. An increase in participation is such a tiny part of what we are trying to do. We should be bold and say, “Yes, actually, we demand that there is a really strong legacy as part of anything that we bid for”, so that we stop having these spikes when everyone loves football for a bit or rugby for a bit, and it actually genuinely changes the way we participate.

This group of amendments covers this, with the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, in terms of who we are trying to get to, to be physically active. We should look at these amendments and maybe think of a slightly different form of wording but be really bold in what we want for the United Kingdom and beyond.

Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)It is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and to support all the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan. It is such a pleasure to have him back in your Lordships’ House. The boat is now being steered again. He made so many points that were completely on point. It is worth reiterating that there is only one city on the planet which has hosted the Olympic Games three times in the modern era, from 1896, and that is London. Another city will equal us in two years’ time, and that is similarly impressive. There will be a need to consider future bids, be they in London or in other parts of the United Kingdom.

The points that my noble friend makes are exactly right. The scale of the funding, never mind all the other issues he raised, will be of parliamentary interest, to say the least. He cites some excellent examples from other parts of the world, and he is right to celebrate the sporting ambassador who has stridden across the world for decades: John Coates, who has done so much for sport, not just for Australian sport but for world sport. My noble friend’s points to that end were very well made.

17:45:00

Finally, my noble friend’s comments on AI are particularly pertinent, because the Bill is silent when it comes to AI and emerging technologies. This is at least interesting, because the Government have said they have no interest in bringing forward a cross-sector, cross-economy, cross-society AI Bill. One would imagine that if you wanted to have clarity, consistency and a coherent approach to such an impactful constellation of technologies—already impacting right now—you would want to have a Bill so that, if you came across AI in health, education or sport, you would have a recognisable, consistent and coherent experience.

The Government have decided that they want to take a domain-by-domain specific approach, as they call it. Well, we are in the domain of sport, yet there is nothing in this Bill on AI, which we will come to in future groups of amendments in my name. It is not just AI; all these emerging technologies will have such a profound impact on every element of the organisation, the fan, the spectator, the media partner, and the athlete experience in the run-up to and at competition or Games time. My noble friend was right to raise this, and I would be interested in the Minister’s response on a Bill which seeks to be future-proofed, to set us in great shape to bid for these mega world sporting events. Yet on the positive, enabling and empowering role that all these technologies can play, the Bill is silent at this stage.

Lord Addington (LD)I managed to avoid false starting the two Paralympians this time. We are back to asking whether the Bill is wide enough to enable itself to do what it has to do within the known requirements of hosting an Olympic Games. It probably looks about right for a championship that is using existing infrastructure. Even if the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games want us to use that where we can, you may well have to construct something new and possibly something temporary. All these elements have been in both of those things and at very different scales. But if this is going to be something new, in the case of the Olympics particularly, it seems to change what it wants over time, because it is an evolving thing.

The London Olympics changed the expectation of how much change and benefit you could bring. It actually has been a solid thing, and that was based on many, many hours in Committee—I know because I was there—when the Government of the day said, “Let’s get this right, or at least get a framework, or at least ask, even, as a training exercise, what it would look like”. I think half the time the Government did not expect to have to implement it, but that is merely the observation of somebody who sat there through Committee. So there will have to be something new, and where in the current thinking does it fit in, if we have to do that?

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, enjoyed his little sabbatical, but it is better to have him back. I say that as one who dodged that. But where are we going to get that little bit of interaction? If it is needed, where is the space for it? You cannot know. You can hope and you can prepare the ground, but if we have to do something different, where is the flexibility? I think there would be, shall we say, around the House, a degree of sympathy if you had to change the Bill to bring a little bit of flexibility in here, if it was needed. I do not think too many people would object.

In this debate we are trying to find out whether we need to do something else. If the Olympics change, if the Commonwealth Games change or even if the World Cup changes and we want something else in there and still think it is worth doing, how do we accommodate that? In this Bill, where do the Government say that there is the flexibility to say that this bit will not apply and that we have to do something else? To future-proof the Bill, to an extent, we will have to do that. We got some of the answer to that in a previous debate, but I look forward to hearing how much more thought the Government have put into doing this. It is a real question that we need an answer for, and the Bill probably has to have a degree of flexibility put in at its heart. We want this to succeed. The Bill will have completely failed if we have to go back and redraft something else. We do not want to do that. What is the Minister doing to prevent that?

Lord Markham (Con)My Lords, what an honour it is to follow such distinguished experts in this field: my noble friend Lord Moynihan—like other noble Lords, I am delighted to have him back—my noble friend Lord Holmes and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It is yet another example, if ever we need it, of how lucky we are to have such a range of expertise in this Chamber.

The points in this debate are very similar to many of the points made on the last groupings. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, while we want this framework agreement to work, is it possible to make it wide enough to cater for all the eventualities that we are talking about? As my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned, there is new technology coming along. They were mentioning AI in the Paris bid—think how much it has moved on from then. There are new rights that need to be taken on board, whether LGBT rights as it was last time or some new rights going forward. There are new funding arrangements that are very likely to be put in place.

I struggle to see how we can set this all up in an all-encompassing framework Bill, and I think I speak for all noble Lords when I say that an hour’s debate on some sort of secondary legislation will not be able to cut it in these instances. I do not believe I can add very much to the expertise that we have heard already but, as others have said, this must leave a sports legacy, so I am thoroughly behind the points that have been made. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s points, because there is a lot to consider here.

Baroness Twycross (Lab)I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for tabling these amendments. I am grateful to him for taking an interest in the Bill, and it is genuinely good to see the noble Lord back and elevated to the Opposition Front Bench, albeit in another department. How could the noble Lord go to another department? The contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, have been noted by a number of speakers today. We are privileged to have the expertise of the noble Lords and the noble Baroness, who have taken part in the process and been part of that work to define the vision required to win bids.

I hope I can give all noble Lords reassurance that legacy matters to this Government and, as a former London Assembly member, I am clear on the physical legacy that this city received from the 2012 Games. On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, as to whether it is wide enough as a framework, we believe that it is and I will go through the amendments in turn. I hope I can give noble Lords some reassurance.

Amendments 8 and 13 seek to ensure that the appropriate national authority will comply with a host city contract or a host nation contract before regulations applying the sporting events framework can be made. There are numerous agreements and contracts to which this could apply and, in our view, it would not be appropriate or necessary to make the time that regulations would be made and brought into force contingent on compliance with them all. The framework is designed to bring into effect commitments made by national Governments at the point of bidding for an event. The regulations applying the sporting events framework are therefore the closest equivalent to complying with a host nation contract, in so far as one exists; they provide the means for Governments to meet their guarantees to event owners.

Compliance with a host nation contract and the creation of regulations to apply the framework are the same stage of the process, so one cannot come before the other. Host city contracts are made by a combination of local authorities and event delivery companies directly with event owners. These relate to local event needs and are signed in advance of the event. It would not be appropriate to make a national authority a signatory of that agreement, when the provisions contained within it are for local delivery and the national authority is not responsible for delivering them.

In some cases, the appropriate national authority may extend provisions in the framework to enable a local authority to fulfil its hosting agreement—for example, to enable the local authority to take enforcement action against unauthorised advertising and trading in a restricted zone. But, as with the host nation contract, any host city contract that relies on this framework would be complied with only at the point when the regulations are made, thereby making this amendment redundant.

On Amendments 18, 20 and 21, I understand that their intent is to further narrow the conditions for applying the framework, requiring an event to be of significant international interest, to bring economic but not social benefits and to have a sporting legacy in the United Kingdom. However, the Government do not agree with this approach. While major sporting events generate international interest and build the UK’s standing around the globe, they also deliver other significant and wide-ranging benefits, as was widely acknowledged during Second Reading. These are not restricted only to economic benefits, nor the sporting legacy of such events, although I agree that that is significant. They bring sport to different communities and demographics; they improve opportunities to increase participation in sport and physical activity; and they generate moments of collective experience that contribute directly to social cohesion and advance our national story.

The Bill is drafted to ensure that these kinds of major sporting events can still be captured by the Bill and that while international interest is one important factor, it is not the only factor on which an event could access these provisions. International interest is a broad category and may be shaped by many factors, including global and regional politics, changing media trends and the diplomatic ambitions of the Government. This amendment would need a highly specific definition of international interest for it to be required as applicable. Those thresholds would be entirely arbitrary, set at a point in time and potentially irrelevant or outdated soon after. What is deemed significant international interest can vary significantly. For instance, particular events may generate extremely high interest in certain parts of the world and relatively little in others. The test of international interest as currently framed provides flexibility to consider a range of factors on a case-by-case basis.

I am happy to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and other noble Lords further on the points raised in this debate. I know and appreciate that all noble Lords taking part in the debate want the Bill to deliver what we intend. However, for the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Moynihan (Con)My Lords, I thank everybody who has participated in the debate, particularly my noble friends in sport, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. I did not live up to their expectations; I was first of the losers, getting only a silver medal at the Olympic Games while they had many gold medals to their names—albeit that I got a silver medal by 0.6 of a second behind the East German eight, who subsequently sued for the damage that the drugs they took during that event had done to them. But that did not prevent them retaining their gold medal. To be honest, all sports men and women know that it is the event on the day and the memory of that event that matter most.

18:00:00

The noble Lord, Lord Addington—who, if I may say so, is a close friend in sport—lived through the Committee stage of the legislation and original debate in this House on hosting the games in London in 2012. He rightly said that in many respects this legislation focuses on major championships, but it does not address the needs of hosting either the FIFA World Cup or the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The host city contract is not, if I might be so bold to say to the Minister, a matter for the local authorities; it is written by the International Olympic Committee and is then discussed and signed by the British Olympic Association—the independent organisation—and the local organising committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

It would help if the Minister could simply recognise somewhere in the Bill, which is a framework agreement we are all in support of, that there will be sport-specific primary legislation required for the hosting of the Olympic and Paralympic Games and the FIFA World Cup. The Government need to recognise the truism that there is no exception to the rule in the modern era—and this will get worse as Governments continue to politicise sport. If we recognise this and regard the amendments as a supportive framework covering a number of important issues to send a signal to the world that we want to host international sporting events, I do not think there will be any difficulty. Should the Government continue to resist the amendments, I think we will be returning to them on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

Amendment 9

Moved by

9: 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 the specified period.(5B) In subsection (5A), the “specified period” means a period of time that must—(a) begin no earlier than the beginning of the period of 21 days ending immediately before the day on which the sporting event begins, and(b) end no later than the end of the period of 5 days beginning with the day after the day on which the sporting event ends.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment would establish a maximum period in which the sporting events framework can be implemented in relation to a particular event.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 9 and in doing so, I also speak to Amendments 10, 11 and 12, which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Markham. These four amendments address two related but distinct concerns about the regulation-making powers conferred by Clause 2 of the Bill: first, how long those regulations can remain in force in relation to any particular sporting event; and, secondly, the parliamentary scrutiny to which all such regulations should be subject. Clause 2 allows an appropriate national authority to make regulations to implement the sporting events framework for a particular event. What it does not do is place any limit on the period for which those regulations may be in effect. We believe that is a clear omission. The framework is designed to apply to specific and time-limited events, so it would be strange and, we submit, improper if regulations made for a particular event remained on the statute book indefinitely or for a period bearing no relation to the duration of the event.

Amendment 9 seeks to address this issue by applying the same temporal limit that Parliament has already judged appropriate in comparable legislation. The approach we have taken mirrors precisely the time periods used in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 and the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2020. That is a pre-event period beginning no earlier than 21 days before the event starts, and a post-event tail of no more than 5 days after it ends. Parliament has already, therefore, debated and endorsed this model; it is tried and tested, and I see no reason why we should not adopt it here today. I hope the Minister will agree.

Amendment 10 is a probing amendment to be looked at alongside Amendment 9. It proposes a single flat period of 50 days as an alternative limit. We have tabled this to invite the Committee to discuss whether a straightforward numerical limit would be a preferable way of proceeding. We think 50 days is a generous period; the London Olympic and Paralympic Games, between them, spanned 45 days, the UEFA European Championship runs for approximately one calendar month, and the FIFA World Cup takes 39 days from the first match to the final whistle. A limit of 50 days would therefore give Ministers considerably more time than any of these events actually require in practice; it gives a generous margin, while providing Parliament and the public with the reassurance that exceptional powers do not quietly become permanent fixtures of our regulatory landscape.

I imagine the Minister will cite the need for flexibility in her response, and I understand that this framework needs to be flexible for different types of events. If the sporting event framework cannot be applied, administered and wound down within 50 days, however, I would be interested in hearing what event she has in mind that might require a longer period than this. If flexibility is the key, then Amendment 9 provides the perfect solution.

Amendments 11 and 12 address parliamentary scrutiny of these regulations. As currently drafted, the Bill applies the affirmative procedure only to the first set of regulations which apply to the framework of a given event. Subsequent regulations that may amend, extend or otherwise modify the framework as applied are subject only to the negative procedure. Amendments 11 and 12 would remove that distinction and require all regulations made under Clause 2 to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

The rationale for this is straightforwardthe regulations we are discussing will implement a framework which represents a quite significant infringement on the rights and obligations of businesses, organisers, local authorities and members of the public in connection with major sporting events—as my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned in the previous group in relation to the Olympic Games in Paris, where they took in expansive issues such as AI and facial recognition. Parliament should have the opportunity to properly debate and approve all such regulations, not merely the first wave of them. I hope by the time we get there, this experiment with time-limited guillotines on secondary legislation will not still be in place.

The delegated powers memorandum, published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, justifies the limited use of the affirmative procedure because it is assumed that subsequent regulations will

“contain operational or technical detail or provide for unforeseen changes in how an event is to be delivered. To ensure there is an efficient mechanism to apply or amend such provisions at a later stage of programme delivery, the government considers that the negative procedure is appropriate”.

However, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House has pointed out, there is no limitation placed on the scope of subsequent regulations. The first set of regulations may apply only one aspect of the sporting event framework to an event, but the Government may change their mind; the second set may simply apply the rest of the provisions. Given this, there is no logic in inviting Parliament to agree to the initial regulations applying the framework, while allowing the subsequent and potentially very significant modifications to pass without scrutiny.

If the Government’s argument here is simply one of administrative convenience, I gently suggest that that is not an adequate reason for reducing parliamentary oversight of powers of this nature. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and I beg to move.

Lord Addington (LD)My Lords, once again, if it comes to sporting events, I have a bit of reminiscing to do. I can remember a very good little row we had on the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill about changing local taxation; it was a bedroom tax that some people saw as a way of solving local government finance problems in Birmingham. It was then pointed out that there were only two weeks allowed for this process. I think it would have been quite a high surcharge that would have benefited the hoteliers of Wolverhampton and Coventry if it had been brought in.

If we get an idea about timescale, it becomes very important that it is adequately placed, and that is in the tradition of what we have done. Making sure that that continues to apply means we are taking a new piece of legislation and applying it to a tradition of what we have done in legislation: there are shorter periods needed for things, and these are exceptional circumstances. If we are going to do that, we are fine. Not allowing these things to become permanent is a fair point here, because they are very unusual things. Indeed, the entire premise of the Bill is that we are doing stuff for extraordinary circumstances.

I hope that the Government will give a reply that reassures the noble Lord that his amendment is not necessary, but I think it probably was worth while to give us the idea of the aim of it. These are short-term measures.

Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for introducing this group of amendments, seconded by the noble Lord, Lord Markham. I express my gratitude to all noble Lords taking part today, and say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that I would have been very distraught if such an avid Leeds United supporter had been lost to the Chamber—to be continued, I am sure.

These amendments—which I think are probing, especially Amendments 9 and 10—relate to the maximum period that the framework provisions in the Bill can be applied to a sports event. Amendment 10 would limit to 50 days the maximum period that any regulations applying the framework provisions in the Bill could be in effect. Amendment 9 limits provisions in the Bill to being in effect no more than 21 days before an event begins and five days after an event concludes. We do not consider, as the noble Lord probably predicted, such a blanket approach to be workable in the context of an event-neutral Bill.

Application of the provisions must be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the requirements of each event. These will inevitably have varying geographical and temporal application. The advertising and trading offences are heavily localised and will apply only to places which are used for, or in connection with, a sporting event, and the surrounding areas. The timing of these provisions will correspond with how and when venues are used during the competition period. None the less, where it is practicable to build in time limits—as these amendments seek to do, albeit in a less targeted way—we believe we have already done so. That is why, for example, the Bill already sets clear time limitations on the periods that the advertising and trading offences can be applied. These time limitations build on lessons learned from previous events. The advertising and trading offences in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 could apply for no more than 21 days before the event’s opening ceremony. Under Clauses 8(6) and 11(6), the advertising and trading offences under this Bill can be in place for no more than 10 days before the beginning of a sporting event and end no later than five days after the event concludes. For the majority of locations, we expect the offences will come into effect a day before a place is used for, or in connection with, an event and end on the day that any activity associated with that place finishes.

When it comes to the period during which the ticket touting offence or prohibition on unauthorised association can be applied, the Government do not consider it is appropriate in the context of a framework Bill to limit or prescribe this on the face of the Bill. This could mean that we are unable to deliver on our commitments to event owners and apply the provisions when they are genuinely required. For instance, application of the ticketing offence for each event will be driven predominantly by when tickets to the event are first expected to go on sale or be made available to the public. For some events, this is likely to be over a year in advance of the event taking place—I hope this specifically answers the point that the noble Lord made. As a principle, the Government expect provisions to be in place no longer than is necessary to protect commercial rights and the interests of fans. On top of that, we want to ensure that there is appropriate time to raise awareness of the offence before the event and be clear with the public about what it means for the sale and resale of tickets. The Government expect any prohibition on unauthorised association to be in place no longer than is necessary to prevent the commercial exploitation of an event. We expect this period would correspond with the awarding of host rights and delivery of the event but would be considered on a case-by-case basis in consultation with event owners taking into account lessons learned from previous events.

Finally, any temporary traffic regulation order made under Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for the purposes set out in paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 5 to the Bill can be in place for no more than 28 days before the beginning of a sporting event and end no later than five days after the event concludes. Any temporary traffic regulation notices may remain in effect only for a maximum period of 21 days.

18:15:00

Amendments 11 and 12 would require that all regulations in relation to a sporting event to which the framework provisions in this Bill can be applied be subject to the affirmative procedure. I reassure noble Lords that we have two aims here. The first is to ensure that regulations can be bought forward that enable the effective and safe operational delivery of events. This may, at times and due to unavoidable operational requirements, require regulations to be laid in a short timeframe. The second aim, in line with the spirit of the amendment sought by noble Lords, is to ensure Parliament has sufficient opportunity to debate matters of substance or interest. Under the Bill, the first time the framework provisions are applied to a specific event, Parliament will be able to have a full debate on their suitability, as they will be subject to the affirmative procedure, as we have discussed. Further, as your Lordships will have heard my noble friend the Minister say at Second Reading, we have fixed as much policy as possible on the face of the Bill.

Regulations are intended to overlay event-specific, operational detail to ensure that the offences set out in the Bill are enforceable, workable and proportionate in the context of a particular event. The framework should also be agile: we must be able to respond efficiently and proportionately to accommodate changing operational requirements, such as scheduling changes or unforeseen changes to the use of venues. In these aims, I feel we are generally in alignment.

I want also to pick up on the points made about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and make it explicitly clear that we are carefully considering its recommendations. We are committed to working constructively with noble Lords across the Chamber to ensure we strike the right balance in the level of scrutiny applied. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will take reassurance from these comments and withdraw his amendment.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response, particularly the reassurances she has given and the explanation about ticketing powers, transport restrictions and so on. As she rightly said, these are probing amendments, but they are probing with a purpose. The Bill seeks to take some quite sweeping powers, in some cases restricting people’s liberties, the operation of commercial businesses and much more. We want to make sure that where those powers are taken, they are not on the statute book for longer than they need to be. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, these are exceptional measures for extraordinary circumstances. That is important to get right, so we will take another look at the Bill in light of what the Minister has said and make sure we are satisfied that that is the case. We think we are being generous with a 50-day limit; if the Olympic and Paralympic Games can take place within that window, it is hard to envisage a major sporting event that might need longer. We will take that away and look at it further.

On Amendments 11 and 12 and the point about secondary legislation, I am grateful for what the Minister said about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I look forward to hearing what the Government say in detail, ahead of Report, on its concerns about the Bill here. I am not sure I quite agree that Parliament will have the opportunity for a full debate; at the moment, secondary legislation is limited to an hour, and we have heard repeatedly, even today, of the significant issues that need to be looked at each time we are legislating for the hosting of a major sporting event. So, we have some concerns there.

We certainly would be concerned if there was a two-tier structure of the first set of regulations and the subsequent ones, which could be very significant. I hope the Government will continue to look at that ahead of Report, because I am pretty sure we will return to that, certainly given the criticisms of the committee. With that, I thank the Minister for her reply, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 9.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Amendments 10 to 13 not moved.

Clause 2 agreed.

Clause 3Framework conditions

Amendment 14

Moved by

14: Clause 3, page 2, line 35, leave out “three” and insert “two” Member’s explanatory statement This probing amendment, and others in the name of Lord Addington, seek to challenge the Government’s exclusion of certain sporting events, specifically those events which are regularly held in the UK, but may benefit from the provisions in this Bill.

Lord Addington (LD)My Lords, we have a series of amendments here seeking to challenge the Government’s exclusion of certain sporting events at home from some of the benefits of this Bill. There are some good things here. We saw that they were beneficial—the traffic arrangements and other special things—but why not extend them to events happening only within the country, such as Wimbledon, if we want to make those changes, or to things that happen regularly? Six Nations rugby is an example where we are coping, but we would need new frameworks and structures for anything that would expand it. We also have half an eye on what happens with big cultural events.

We are taking short-term measures for short-term functions which could be expanded and could help. That is the essence of these amendments—trying to push a good idea a little further. The Government have got a good idea here. Let us do something more with it. Let us make sure that every big sporting event—and every cultural event, why not?—has access to the governmental changes that could help it be run better. I could expand on this for a long time, but I would end up repeating myself. It is a good idea. Let us make sure it touches more of the world. I beg to move.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 17, 19 and 22 to 25 in my name, on which I am again grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and support Amendments 14 and 16 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to which I have added my name. These amendments share a simple purpose: to correct what I believe is a significant gap in the Bill. They seek to widen the definition of events to which the framework provisions may apply so that major, regular, UK-based sporting events—those woven into the fabric of our national life—are not excluded from their potential benefits.

That is the problem before us. As drafted, the Bill risks overlooking the very events that define Britain as a global sporting nation and deliver exactly what Ministers say they want this legislation to achieve: economic growth, international prestige and community pride. As I set out at Second Reading, Wimbledon, the Open, the London Marathon and the British Grand Prix are among the most recognisable sporting events in the world, and they are ours. Yet, as things stand, they fall outside the Bill’s scope and the greater protections that it is looking to afford. This is not just surprising; it is a missed opportunity.

I am grateful to many of the major sports organisers across the sector, from cricket to golf and motor racing to tennis and running, that have engaged with me and other noble Lords on this issue and provided clear and compelling arguments as to why regular, established, UK-based events of national and international importance should not be placed at a competitive disadvantage or overlooked by what is supposed to be a framework piece of legislation designed to support the UK’s sports sector. Their message is consistent: while the Bill is welcome, its current scope is too narrow. My amendments attempt to address that gap carefully and proportionately. This is not about opening the floodgates. The extension I propose is explicitly limited to events that are large, regular, UK-based and, crucially, likely to be of “international or national interest” and

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

Following my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s observations, perhaps “likely to” is not the right drafting, but I nevertheless believe they would be a sensible and targeted refinement.

Amendment 25 proposes a further criterion that the Government may wish to consider, recognising something equally important that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, touched on: the role of major UK events in driving participation and sporting legacy. It would require the Government to consider how an event contributes to increasing physical activity, particularly among underrepresented groups—women and girls, disabled people and ethnic minorities. That is not an add-on; it goes to the heart of what sport can and should achieve.

To be clear, these amendments would not place a specific obligation on the Government automatically to extend the provisions in the Bill. They would not create automatic entitlements. What they would do is provide the power to act through the framework set out for iconic homegrown major events where there is a public and agreed interest to do so. That is what future-proofing this Bill should look like.

Let me illustrate the case with one examplethe British Grand Prix, which will take place in just a couple of weeks. It is the largest weekend sporting event in the United Kingdom, expected to attract around 570,000 spectators this year. It is the largest Grand Prix on the international calendar and, in 2025, generated £167 million in economic value over a weekend. By any reasonable measure, this is an event of national sporting significance. But we do not have guaranteed long-term security for it. We cannot and must not assume that we will retain this iconic race and all the wider economic benefits it brings. Silverstone has to work hard year after year to ensure it remains on the racing calendar. We must not forget that there have been moments when the British Grand Prix’s future at Silverstone has been in doubt. If that were to happen again, it would rightly be a matter of national concern—or certainly in my house.

The question is whether we equip the Government with the tools through the framework provisions set out in this Bill to act early or wait until the event is potentially lost and only then consider how we might be able to bring it back. As the Bill stands, I fear the position is closer to the latter. My amendments are strongly focused on allowing the former. I suggest that is the more prudent course.

We see similar issues elsewhere. This summer, we are staging the ICC Women’s T20 Cricket World Cup. We have already seen examples of ambush marketing and breaches of intellectual property and commercial rights for the ICC and its venues. These are not abstract concerns. They have real financial consequences and a real material impact on the current and future value of commercial rights, at the very time when the ECB is working hard to secure greater reinvestment and growth in the women’s game. Again, this is precisely the kind of challenge that the framework is designed to address, but it cannot do so effectively if key UK-based events fall outside its reach.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister and her officials for the constructive discussion we have had since Second Reading, and I welcome the continued engagement that I know they are having with the sector. I hope that, between now and Report, we can continue to work together to ensure that the Bill fully reflects the needs and realities of modern sport in this country. The underlying point is simple: our great homegrown sporting events are not just spectacles but strategic national assets. They contribute to our economy, our global standing and our shared sense of identity. This Bill gives us an opportunity to support them more effectively, but to do so we must ensure that they are not inadvertently left behind. These amendments offer a modest, proportionate and practical way to achieve that. I very much hope the Government will take that opportunity.

18:30:00

Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 19 and 22 to 25 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, to which I have attached my name, and I thank the Minister for sparing time to discuss these. I said when we met that there are a number of sports organisations that are feeling a bit unloved at the moment. These are events that have a global reach and help cement our standing on the world stage.

The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, mentioned the London Marathon. I think I competed in 17 of them—it is quite hard to remember when you get to that many. I know I did one more than my husband. I also commentate on the wheelchair race for the BBC. The marathon is not just the race itself. Anyone who walks up the Embankment at 6.30 pm on the Sunday will see people valiantly keeping going, to try to make it to the finish line. On Westminster Bridge the next morning, you also see the hundreds of people who have competed standing there with their medals, wanting to take a photo in front of Big Ben.

Beyond that, the impact is quite significant. It puts London on the map as a city, and it brings a huge amount of tourism. People stay in London for days afterwards, thanks to the many good deals that the marathon has negotiated with various restaurants and different companies around the city. We need to think about this in a slightly different way. That is positive chemistry and association that you cannot buy. It is because people feel amazingly good about putting themselves through 26.2 miles around the city.

I will speak briefly to Amendment 25, because it is really important. Mostly, athletes will mention something they saw at another event that inspired them to do sport. That is probably because they are asked about it a lot. But we cannot underestimate this—it is not just about people seeing these moments in time and doing sport. They will do lots of other things, and 2012 was a brilliant example of that, such as people who have gone into the creative industries because of what they saw.

The Minister talked about wanting to change the health of our nation, which is incredibly important. To quote a bunch of statistics, Women in Sport has said that 80% of women in the UK are not fit enough to be healthy. That has a massive impact on jobs, pensions, life—everything. It means hitting frailty at an earlier age. ukactive has said that we have a generation of children who are more likely to die before their parents because of inactivity. This is really worrying, and we have to do something quite radical.

It is not necessarily the Bill’s responsibility to do that; we need some joined-up government. We need to look at physical literacy in primary schools and progression steps. We also need to look at the cost of the pathway for athletes who aspire to compete at the highest level. SportsAid data, which is probably a little bit out of date now, shows the average cost of the pathway for a teenage athlete is £10,000 a year. I imagine that is significantly higher now. There are a lot of families who cannot afford that, but what we can do is broaden the base of participation.

I am particularly interested in Amendment 25 and what we can do to encourage more disabled people to be active. Activity Alliance has said that disabled people not only find it hard to be physically active but that they are actually quite worried about how it is perceived if they are physically active, so we need to look at this in a different way. I was not a product of special education—thank goodness, because it meant I actually received an education, when a lot of children who went through special ed did not. As much as the world has moved on in many ways, that was actually really good for enabling disabled children to be physically active. Mainstreaming, which is much better for education, has actually made some of those things much harder. I receive emails at least monthly, often weekly, about how disabled children in schools are not able to take part in PE.

That is not a problem for this Bill—it is an issue for the Department for Education. But unless we are more explicit about what we are trying to do and how we are trying to change some of these stubborn inequalities, we are never going to move it on. In Wales we are incredibly lucky that we have the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act, which gives us a very useful framing for what we are trying to do to encourage young people to be active. The Sport England campaign, This Girl Can, was ground-breaking. For the first time, it showed real women doing sport—as opposed to Olympians or Paralympians, who look slightly different. But we cannot expect just an advertising campaign to radically change what we do, so any way we can think differently about developing a fit and healthy nation that truly stays engaged in physical activity is really worth exploring in more detail.

Lord Hayward (Con)My Lords, I echo the comments of my colleagues across the Chamber in relation to this set of amendments, although I tend to disagree—or will clarify—in relation to one of the amendments. This is an enabling Bill. Surely, therefore, it should provide the opportunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has said, for major sporting events which wish to make use of the Bill—whether it is the RFU, the LTA or whoever—to be able to come forward and say to a Government, “We wish to use this Bill for the following reasons”. Surely that is the objective of this legislation.

The point has been made a number of times already that sporting frameworks change, and we cannot guarantee that the Olympic Games, European Championships, et cetera, will be the same in 15 or 20 years’ time, or whenever it may happen to be. Structures of international competition change. If ever there was an example of one—and I am surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, did not refer to it—it is the announcement in the last few days that the London Marathon is going to move from one day to two, with the objective of having 100,000 participants. It is about the level of attraction from around the world. Most people look at the London Marathon and say, “Oh, it’s just the London Marathon”. It is not; it is part of an international body of marathons, a set group of them. If there are 100,000 participants next year, we are going to have many hundreds of thousands of visitors. There are transport and all sorts of other implications. Surely, if this legislation is anything, it should be available to that sort of sporting evolution, because it is so positive both for this nation and for fitness in general.

I wish to make a brief observation in relation to the amendments, where they cite certain categories of people. I just ask, for reasons most people in this Chamber would recognise and which I identified at Second Reading, that where there is specific identification of women, girls, the disabled and ethnic minorities, we either use the classifications of the Equality Act or just stop at

“removing barriers to physical activity”.

I speak, as I identified on previous occasions, as the founder chairman of the world’s first gay rugby club, a structure that now has 100 clubs around the world and an international structure where we compete on a regular basis. Certainly, I know only too well the difficulties and the challenges associated with bidding and with organising international competitions, with people coming from other parts of the world.

We had the European championships in Birmingham less than a year after the Commonwealth Games. The competition, the Union Cup, was the largest sporting competition in the Midlands after the Commonwealth Games over the following 12 months. There are international competitions all the way down—they restructure and they reorganise. But I ask that we remove barriers to physical activity for underrepresented groups and stop at that point, rather than trying to cite specific examples, because we risk excluding some groups or others, and I know that is not the intention of those who have proposed these amendments.

Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hayward. Were I to imagine myself—as I never would—on the Bishops’ Bench, in approaching this set of amendments I would be very much reminded of the parable of the prodigal son.

The Bill rightly sets out a whole raft of provisions for mega sporting events that come to the United Kingdom on occasion. Events already listed by my noble friend Lady Evans, such as Wimbledon, the British Grand Prix, and so on, do their thing year in, year out, staging world-class events which are far greater than sporting celebrations and competitions, with economic, social and cultural benefit which goes far beyond, for example, Wimbledon, SW19.

In asserting the principles in the Bill that have to be in place when it comes to international bids, it seems odd that at least some of these provisions would not be available to those extraordinarily impactful sporting events that are the very fabric not only of our sporting nation but of our culture. I ask the Minister to consider, if not implementing these amendments, the essence behind them and to how it could be threaded into the Bill. Further to my noble friend Lord Hayward’s comments on frameworks, why would the Government not want that to be available to the sporting events that wish to avail themselves of some parts of it? Ambush marketing is ambush marketing, whether it is targeted at the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games or the Wimbledon Championships every year.

Lord Fuller (Con)My Lords, my noble friend Lady Evans and I have a lot in common—we both support Norwich City Football Club, and we show our allegiance to it—but I disagree with her in her amendments. I did not contribute to the last debate, but it is safe to say that it confirmed what I think we all know: that, while this may be an enabling Bill, if we actually capture one of these global events, we will need to have specific legislation anyway. If that is the case, we will not be doing any more than virtue signalling in the Bill. The conclusion that all the noble Lords have made is that the Bill is incomplete and half-full. I will not say that it is half-baked, but there is plenty more work to be done on it.

However, if the Bill is incomplete, I do not think that it is the right thing at all to extend it in scope to other events, because the mission creep brings politics into sport. Of course, it is very difficult to keep it there, but it brings politics into sport by law. It will prevent somebody who is interested in public discourse from having an opinion and gives them leverage over the event. It will sanitise so much of the activity that goes on around the game. It will make unlawful things that are part and parcel of what we do—certain trade, advertisements and things such as that; it stops innovation—for Wimbledon, the rugby union, the rugby league, the Grand Prix, the Open, the Test match, Premier League and, if we listen to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, cultural events such as the Proms and Taylor Swift. Where does this end?

I am concerned that, however well-intentioned it is, it could backfire. My noble friend Lady Evans talked about a gap to be filled. I see it a different way; I see this creating a chasm between the fans and the men in blazers, who want this for their own narrow purposes. We have grown the well-trusted and well-organised events of global repute that we host without the benefits of the Bill. While it is an enabling Bill and has very important new rules for traffic wardens, I am not sure that having more traffic wardens is enough in and of itself.

Lord Hayward (Con)I thank my noble friend for giving way, but just for clarification, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, my noble friend Lady Evans, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and I made absolutely clear that it is not a case of the Bill encompassing these competitions; it is the sporting authorities asking that they might make use of some of the facilities of the Bill.

18:45:00

Lord Fuller (Con)We are ending up in a mission creep by introducing new offences for individuals—we will talk about ticketing later on. I realise I have a minority view, but I want to express it, and I should do. There is a misdirection with all these amendments that by putting them on a list, the Government can keep them here. I just do not think that is a reasonable assertion. The organising bodies, such as the British Automobile Racing Club, the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club at Wimbledon have to work hard, need to live off their wits and need to want to keep these events here. By putting them on a list and bringing them within scope, it will potentially upset the events that we know and love by bringing them into the political space. I just think that that is the wrong thing to do.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)My Lords, maybe I can set my noble friend Lord Fuller’s mind to rest. Along with colleagues in the shadow DCMS team, I have spoken to a number of the major sporting bodies, which are keen, as some of our noble friends said, to avail themselves of some of the opportunities of the Bill if the scope could be broadened to allow them to do so. That is the key test: where they wish to do so. My noble friends are right, as we have been throughout the Bill, to talk about some of the restrictions and burdens that come with it, but it is very clear that there is an appetite in the sporting world beyond the one-off events—such as the Olympic, Paralympic or Commonwealth Games, which we host from time to time—for some of our major sporting events that happen on a more regular basis to be included in the framework and for us not to be playing second fiddle.

At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, challenged us to be a bit bolder in the Bill, and this has been a very good group of amendments and debate that have encouraged us to do that. We heard a huge number of examples of the major sporting events, which bring delight to people across this country and across the world on a regular basis. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and particularly my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park, for bringing their amendments, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to see if we can be bolder and give those advantages to many other sporting organisations as well. My noble friend Lady Evans described these events as the ones that that define Britain as a major sporting power. It would be unthinkable to imagine some of them disappearing from our calendars.

I pay tribute to my noble friend’s work with the London Marathon Foundation. As my noble friend Lord Hayward noted, it is marvellous to see that the London Marathon will extend to two days next year, including many more people. Of course, it is competing with so many other marathons around the world. People come to these shores because they want to run on the streets of London and because it is such a well-organised marathon, but we are competing constantly with the potential for people to go to other cities and parts of the world.

There would be consternation in my house if Formula 1 did not include a race in the United Kingdom. The UK is one of only two nations to have hosted a Grand Prix every year since Formula 1 began in 1950, and for that not to be the case is unthinkable. I am glad that Silverstone is secure through its current contract until at least 2034, but that requires hard work by the organisers. There is constant competition. This is a sport whose global popularity is increasing. We have to keep on our toes and make sure that we continue to deliver the brilliant events that people are expecting. As my noble friend said, the British Grand Prix attracts more than 500,000 people annually, generates £100 million in local economic impact each year and contributes to a wider Formula 1 ecosystem in the UK that is worth over £12 billion annually. When one thinks of how many of the teams are based in the United Kingdom, the supply chains and R&D that ripples from that, just to take one sport for as an example, we can see the benefits. The key question is how we can broaden the Bill, if possible, to allow those that wish to do so to take advantage of some of that boldness—

Lord Moynihan (Con)I anticipate that the Minister may say that it is quite difficult to broaden this without being specific. I have one thought, having listened to this debate and been very supportive of what has been said. If, for example, the R&A for the Open golf wanted to avail itself of the benefits of the sporting events framework that we are putting into legislation, would it not be possible to distinguish between the international federations that recognise these events as international events on their calendars?

Take Wimbledon, the marathon or golf’s Open Championship. All are recognised by the relevant international federations and placed on their calendars. If we are looking for a way to put this into legislation, it might be worth considering defining it along those lines, overtly avoiding the problem that everybody might be able to apply for their own event. That would rule out, for example, the Boat Race. I can see significant problems with the transport provisions of the Bill if they were applied to the Boat Race and the whole west of London on Boat Race day. I give that as an example and a helpful contribution that I hope the Minister can take away and consider.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)I thank my noble friend, who has rowed in the Boat Race, for his constructive and very good challenge. We are looking for a way of broadening the Bill in a rational way. He is right to draw the distinction with events that are internationally renowned. As my noble friend Lady Evans says, these are the ones that define our well-earned sporting reputation for being able to host such major events on the global stage. Whether it is done through that or another metric, this is well worth looking at in greater detail as we head to Report.

My noble friend Lord Fuller asked where this all ends, but the question really is: where does this begin? We are promised a major events strategy from DCMS. I understand that the Government have taken the legislative slot that is available and proceeded with the Bill now. They are right to do so, but it is a shame that we did not have that strategy in advance of this Bill. It would have informed some of the debates here and answered some of the questions that noble Lords have raised on cultural events, music events and ticketing provisions that apply there as well. Perhaps the Minister can say a bit more about when we might see that major events strategy, how it is designed to feed into this framework and the thinking that has gone on in her department in drawing up this Bill in advance of that strategy. It is slightly unfortunate that we are discussing it this way around because of the legislative time available.

I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group. If we can work constructively, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan and others suggest, we can take the opportunity to be a bit bolder and help the organisers of major sporting events—which do so much to enhance the soft power and renown of this country—to do so even better in the future.

Baroness Twycross (Lab)I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Lady Evans of Bowes Park and Lady Grey-Thompson, for these amendments and for their time to discuss an important topic. Regarding the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I genuinely appreciate the spirit in which he and others have tabled these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, gave a remarkable list of recurring events that we have in this country and highlighted the value—including the economic value—of events such as Silverstone.

I assure your Lordships’ Committee that the Government are committed to supporting our domestic sports sector and the UK’s sporting calendar, building on the strong partnerships and existing frameworks already in place. This work will be underpinned by the UK-wide major events strategy, which—in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—my department intends to publish within the next 12 months. This will set out our priorities for major events taking place across the UK, covering major events in all sectors—cultural, sporting and business. I hope that the process of undertaking this strategy makes some of those sporting organisations that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, says feel unloved now feel that this puts them front and centre of our minds and priorities at DCMS.

The time-limited provisions in the Bill are designed to attract specific one-off events that require the Government to make commitments to event owners during the bidding process. It is not possible to secure the hosting rights for these events without making such commitments. Global competition to secure these events is only increasing. For the UK to remain competitive against this global competition for the biggest international events, we need to show that we are event ready to meet event owner requirements.

The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, made a point around the Cricket World Cup. The nature of the framework means that we expect particular events to be considered on a case-by-case basis. However, the ICC Cricket World Cup is the type of event that could meet the conditions, depending on the exact circumstances of the event. In contrast, events that are hosted on a recurrent basis in the UK do not generally have the same externally set mandatory requirements as events that hold competitive international bid processes.

As the Bill was developed, we worked closely with some of the biggest recurrent sporting events to understand the demand for these provisions. While there was some interest in the advertising and trading provisions, we found that there was no clear or consistent evidence base on the negative economic impact of the status quo for the inclusion of a breadth of successfully recurring domestic events. Where interest was expressed, we also found that there was insufficient appetite from the sector to fund the enforcement action that would be required of local authorities should these provisions be extended to them. We are continuing the discussions with relevant bodies that have taken place since Second Reading.

No assessment was provided during the discussions prior to Second Reading of the likely enforcement burden. Given that these are criminal offences, enforcement by any organisation other than a public body would not be appropriate or proportionate. None the less, I am genuinely grateful for the constructive ways in which noble Lords have raised points regarding the potential for us going further and for highlighting the importance of recurrent sporting events. They have a significant, cherished and valuable role for the nation.

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, about the London Marathon potentially having 100,000 athletes and accompanying visitors—I will not be taking part and am more likely to be an accompanying visitor—shows the scale of these domestic events. I would welcome further discussion with noble Lords on this matter and will continue to listen to views from the sports sector. Upon reviewing any new evidence, I will consider carefully what steps would be appropriate and practical.

On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, around better facilities for women and girls, the Government’s £400 million investment into grass-roots facilities will continue to support increased participation for women and girls through a place-based approach across the UK over the next four years. We will more than double priority access to grass-roots football pitches for women and girls in England as part of plans to honour the Lionesses’ victory at UEFA Women’s Euro 2025, as well as dedicating flagship sites to the Lionesses. The Football Foundation has also launched the Lionesses HERe to Play fund, providing small grants to create welcoming, safe and accessible facilities for women and girls.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and others also highlighted provision and access for people with disabilities or other protected characteristics, which I look forward to debating in a future group in Committee on Wednesday. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his suggestion.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised the point about how we encourage physical activity and, critically, make sure that we do not just have elites and then the rest who are not fit and healthy. The development of grass-roots sport outside school and how we encourage physical activity is critical for this Government. This year, we are already investing £85 million through the multisport grass-roots facility programme to build and upgrade high-quality grass-roots sports pitches and facilities in the communities across the UK that need them most. This is part of a total package of at least £400 million that will be invested in new and upgraded grass-roots sports facilities in communities right across the country.

19:00:00

I would also like to reassure noble Lords that I genuinely accept that the suggestions they are making are to make sure that the Bill is future-proofed. I appreciate the spirit in which these amendments have been laid in this group, but, with the assurances and reassurances that I have provided, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment and that other noble Baronesses and noble Lords will not press theirs.

Lord Addington (LD)My Lords, it just goes to show that, if you are speaking on a lot of amendments, you should try to get your mind on the right one. I thank everybody who has taken part. This has actually been a very good debate in terms of the policy going forward, with possibly one exception, but I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is getting to know his colleagues very well. We have established a consensus that there are a lot of good things proposed in the Bill, such as the idea you must preserve certain things because they are a good unto themselves economically, culturally and socially. I wish I had tried to match the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, with a list of events, because hers was pretty impressive—I have a few in there as well.

There are some very good ideas here, although possibly not the whole list. Certain things about traffic on a regular basis probably going through might be extremely useful. An event structure, if it comes up and if we eventually get round to it—and who knows what is coming in the next 12 months—might be an interesting thing to bring in. As the noble Baroness said, people are not saying this is a bad Bill. They are saying it is a good Bill and asking, “Can we actually take some of its benefits and push them out to somewhere else?”

The traffic issue is one that really catches my mind, getting people to and from events, and if you have traffic controls, making sure that there is something in place before the big events happen. This is probably happening in other ways, but this is a nice regular way of doing it. If the Government are prepared to engage on that, even on a long-term basis, and say they will use some of the capacity, that would be something which would make people’s lives easier, you would get more out of it and you would ensure economic potential. That is rough; there are variations.

The idea is that some sporting legacy and encouragement should go through. That is the thing the Olympics got wrong. We had a wonderful event but we had no physical sporting legacy, certainly not towards grass-roots level. There are a couple of veterans here of the committee that looked at it. It is the thing we failed to do. With all that success, this is what we failed to do, because we know it does not happen by osmosis. You have to have some actual involvement. I hope we will go back to this later on in the Bill. But that is one of the things that we have got wrong that we know about. I hope that the Minister, in further discussions on the Bill and going forward in this area, takes on board what has been said, because there is much here that we would like to expand on.

Irritating a Government by saying “Yes, we agree with you and can we have a bit more please?” is actually one of the nicer ways of irritating a Government. Every now and then, we manage to do it to all Governments—may this Government have more of it. This is something we are engaging in to get the best out of. Generally speaking, it has been a very positive debate, and I will withdraw my amendment. I hope we will address this again at a later stage, with more information. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

Amendment 15

Moved by

15: Clause 3, page 2, line 35, leave out “three” and insert “four” Member’s explanatory statement This probing amendment, and others in the name of Baroness Bonham-Carter, adds a condition for Sporting Events to be covered by this Bill, to make the sporting event free to air.

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)In moving Amendment 15 I shall speak also to Amendments 26 and 79. We on these Benches think that we should consider events that are in scope of this Bill as part of the free-to-air listed events regime for audiences in the UK, so that those who wish to follow a sporting event but cannot obtain a ticket due to cost or availability can still follow the event without incurring extra costs and potentially having to pay for a subscription; and, secondly and really importantly, because it will encourage and expand the audience for such events. Watching a sport you do not know can spark interest and participation. There are more chances that this will happen if the event is not behind a paywall.

The Minister mentioned the Lionesses. Thanks to the BBC championing and broadcasting women’s football free to air, enabling the public to watch the Lionesses’ triumphant journey in both European and world tournaments, there are new audiences in stadiums, as well as on screens; and, most importantly, it has inspired women and girls to take up the sport. Similarly, there is the legacy of Channel 4 and the Paralympics, and I refer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said earlier about encouraging and enabling disabled kids to get involved in sport.

It is in the power of the DCMS to review listed events—the “crown jewels”, as they are known. The amendment I am proposing would create an opportunity to revise the list, and this follows a concerning trend where fans’ rights to enjoy events on free-to-air television have been gradually eroded. For the first time, the finals of the Champions League—football is the sport of the day—Europa League and Conference League were all behind a paywall. If the Government intend to host such great sporting events in the UK, as we have been discussing today, the British public deserve the right to be able to watch them.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to follow the Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, who is very much the leader of your Lordships’ House in this space. I am here having signed Amendments 15 and 26 to show cross-party support, so I will be brief. As the noble Baroness set out, we have seen a gradual erosion of people’s access. We often discuss access to the right to participate in sport, but there is also the access to being part of the whole sporting experience and to view major events live. Free-to-air broadcast is what keeps major sporting events genuinely public, rather than turning them into elite viewing that is available only to those who can afford subscription television or other sources. If access depends on payment, watching sport becomes unevenly distributed, with lower-income households at a clear disadvantage. In practice, that particularly excludes, or risks excluding, many children and young people from the shared experience of watching major sporting events with their peers and their communities. Free-to-air coverage ensures that money is not a barrier to participation in what is a common cultural space, where sport is experienced collectively rather than privately. That broad access is something that gives sport extra public value, and that is why it is important to protect it as something that belongs to everyone, not just those who can pay.

Lord Hayward (Con)My Lords, I disagree with the proposed amendments for a number of different reasons; first, because the terminology “free to air” is a complete misdescription. You have to pay £180 for your TV licence. It therefore is not free—that is, for the 88% of the population who choose to pay for their TV licence. The number of people who choose not to pay for a TV licence has been rising for many years. I say 88% because the latest figures published say that 12.5% of all viewers do not pay for a television licence.

Secondly, there is the question of competition. The essence of sport is competition. It is a very odd state of affairs whereby one says that broadcasters can compete but, by the way, we will restrict the competition in certain fields. We were debating in the previous set of amendments the question of assisting people who face disadvantages in society. Again, it is a very odd state of affairs whereby one broadcaster might be willing to pay much larger sums to broadcast a particular event, and in that process guarantee substantial funds to the underrepresented groups, but they are not allowed to because the event concerned is a crown jewel. So not only do you lose out because the broadcasting may be inferior; the funding might be inferior as well.

Thirdly, my concern is that the crown jewels were a product of a different technological era. Sport is now broadcast on a whole range of different platforms, and none of us in this Chamber knows what the platforms are going to be in five or 10 years’ time. Therefore, to decree in this piece of legislation that you can have certain sporting events, and I noticed that it suggested that they might be extended only on—I will use the jargon although I have indicated that I do not agree with it—a free-to-air basis, when multiple levels of platforms will probably be available in a few years’ time does not recognise the changing technological world in which we live and which the sporting world will have to adapt to.

Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 26. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, makes an interesting reference to free-to-air. As well as not knowing what platforms are going to be available, we do not know even what events there are going to be. The Olympics and Paralympics are going to change radically in the next few cycles, not least because of the impact of global warming. In quite good timing, there was an article this morning online on the Broadcast Sport website which talked about the changing world of events. Rights holders have more choices about where to go to put their events on, and they can ask for more money. It has been estimated that FIFA is going to make about £3 billion from organising the World Cup. Where is that money going to go? If you look at something closer to home such as Wimbledon, it puts a considerable amount of money back into the grass roots, which is incredible.

How people watch is going to change as well. The same article on Broadcast Sport was saying that even if you are watching a live event, you are probably checking your phone at least 10 times during that event to see what else is going on and what other comments are being made. We should be looking at how we make available these major sporting events. A number of people are disappointed that the Commonwealth Games is not going to be readily available, certainly on BBC TV. Everything that Team Wales does is going to be shown on S4C. There will be two hours’ live coverage a day, which is amazing—in Welsh, which is really important in terms of continuing to develop the Welsh language. I am sure there will be lots of other home country athletes competing who will be seen within those time slots. I do not think we can underestimate the importance of being able to watch the Games.

If we look back through history—we have been talking about this today—when the BBC covered the Sydney Paralympics in 2000, one of the decisions behind putting the Games on at teatime was so that schoolchildren could watch the Games. That developed a much better understanding of disability and the Paralympics. It got an age group of children watching sport that they probably would not have been able to see before. Whether it is free to air or however we define that, it is important that the public in the widest possible sense are able to watch these events in real time without spending some quite significant sums sometimes on monthly fees.

19:15:00

Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Broadcasting is such a critical part of the sporting experience. For most people broadcast is the sporting experience. When Andy Murray was performing so fabulously on Centre Court at Wimbledon, I believe there were 15,000 seats available, yet millions could enjoy and experience that extraordinary event from the edge of their sofa. This is another area where the Bill is unfortunately silent when it comes to innovation. I believe there are solutions which can offer new paths forward to enable spectators to enjoy their favourite sport and these events through various media.

I will give two examples. I declare a previous interest in that I was deputy chair of Channel 4 Television at the time. When Emma Raducanu went all the way through to the final and won the US Open, we were able to do a deal at 24 hours’ notice with Amazon, which was the rights holder at the time, to have the US Open on Channel 4 free to air. But it is not free to air, as my noble friend Lord Hayward points out. It is a domestic UK broadcaster which was not a rights holder, but because of thinking differently, getting into discussions and a broader relationship with Amazon, it was able to secure those rights without in any sense cannibalising the rights that Amazon had paid for. A similar deal was done with England men’s cricket when it was in India that winter. I give just those two examples because they illustrate that there has to be flexibility and innovation in terms of both the deals that can potentially be done and the various media by which spectators are able to enjoy and support these tremendous events.

Lord Addington (LD)My Lords, very briefly, after so many events going on, free-to-air means not hidden behind a paywall. It is something you do not have to make a very big payment to. Okay, there is the licence fee. To the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I say, “Yes, touché. Well done, good point”. But the fact of the matter is that if you do not have to specifically pay to see them, people can get to these great sporting events and, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has just pointed out, you create a national memory of them, something which you can refer back to. It is the water-cooler moment that does not go away. It is a point of bonding which you do not get anywhere else.

I hope that when the Minister responds she will give us some idea about how we are going to carry on with this, because it is a changing world. The first time I discussed this, we knew it was going to be on X number of channels, and Sky was only just starting to come into it. But we have been able to watch, at least in the form of highlights. What is the defence? It is a big deal. We must make sure, for these huge events, especially when national teams or the big games come up, that we respond across the board so that people can come down. I hope the Minister can say something reassuring on this because, let us face it, it is one of the reasons why it is worth bidding in the first place. It is now beyond those who go and buy tickets and has been for a long time.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hayward issued a useful corrective. Just as there is no such thing as government money but only taxpayers’ money, there is no such thing as free-to-air broadcasting; we pay for it through some means or another. It is a timely reminder in a year when we look again at the BBC’s royal charter and the licence fee model, which pays not just for the BBC but is required for viewing any of our public service broadcasters.

We are in many senses overdue a debate about the listed events regime by which we try to pick those crown jewels of sporting events. We would have had one during the passage of what became the Media Act 2024, but because that was taken in wash-up, we did not have the debate that perhaps was needed then. I hope that as we look at the royal charter for the BBC, we can look at this in some detail. Maybe the Minister can say a bit about that either now or at subsequent stages on the Bill. This was looked at at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Davies of Devonport, who spoke powerfully about the fact that if public money—taxpayers’ money—is spent on hosting major sporting events, we want as many of those taxpayers as possible to be able to see, benefit and be inspired by them. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, was right about the importance of visibility and prominence, particularly of the Paralympic Games, which has done so much to change people’s perceptions of those with disabilities and brought so many broadcasters and commentators with disabilities on to our screens when so many people are watching with great pride and excitement.

Like the noble Baroness, I share some sadness that the Commonwealth Games will not be broadcast on the BBC this year, for the first time since the Games began in 1950. The live rights have gone to TNT Sports and only highlights will be available on a public service broadcaster—Channel 5. One thinks of seminal moments such as Roger Bannister’s “miracle mile” and the people who will not be able to be inspired by moments such as that.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. It links very much to the debates we need to have over the BBC’s royal charter and paying for our public service broadcasters. Again, this hits at the problem we have in the Bill. We are trying to set up a framework anticipating what the world will look like many years hence in many different ways that have a knock-on effect for sporting life in this country.

Baroness Twycross (Lab)I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their amendments. Amendments 15 and 26 seek to add a further condition to the Bill’s framework, requiring any qualifying sporting event to make live coverage free of charge to the UK public. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, about the importance of having, for example, the Lionesses on the BBC and the Channel 4 coverage of the Paralympics.

I and the Government recognise the intent behind these amendments and are committed to ensuring that major sporting events are as accessible as possible to people across the UK, including where broadcasting is concerned. Indeed, during the debate on the football regulator, one of the discussions we had was about what made a spectator and what made a fan. For most people, it is not watching it live but instead watching it largely on television.

However, unfortunately, these amendments are not ones that the Government can support. The central issue is that they would make the application of this framework dependent on broadcasting arrangements having already been secured on free-to-air—I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, which was repeated by the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Parkinson, that it is not free-to-air but rather it is free-to-air once you have paid your licence fee or an equivalent free-access basis.

Decisions relating to the broadcast coverage of sporting events are commercial matters for broadcasters, event organisers and the holders of broadcasting rights. Those organisations are operationally independent of government, and rightly so. Broadcasting rights provide essential income for national governing bodies and sport broadcasting rights holders, which enables them to invest in their sports, future events and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, grass-roots sports. She cited the example of Wimbledon, but there are other examples from across the piece. This amendment would place tighter controls over their ability to generate much-needed broadcasting revenue for an indefinite period.

There is also a practical concern. The timelines for agreeing broadcasting rights will not always align with the bidding processes and other requirements that this framework is intended to support. Making the framework conditional on those agreements already being in place could therefore create delay, uncertainty and unnecessary rigidity. Other bidding nations may not be subject to such restrictions, potentially making the UK less competitive.

The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that there is a breadth of free-to-air coverage of sporting events for licence fee payers. I agree with all noble Lords who stressed the importance of people seeing sport. 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 exclusive broadcasting of the event without prior consent from Ofcom.

In response to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made about people being potentially excluded by dint of their economic circumstances, the listing of events ensures that broadcast rights to that event, if offered, must be made available on fair and reasonable terms to the free-to-air channels received by 95% of the population.

The Government believe that the current listed events regime works well and strikes a perfect balance between encouraging free-to-air access to a number of sporting events for audiences and allowing sports to maximise broadcasting revenue to invest in the growth and development of those sports. I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the ability to talk about having seen major sporting events is a bonding event, which can exclude people who are not able to take part in that. In any event, we would expect broadcasters and sporting rights holders for specific events to think carefully about the balance between generating much-needed revenue and ensuring access to sports coverage for viewers, ensuring the growth and development of the sport.

Amendment 79 seeks to ensure that where the Secretary of State gives financial assistance under Clause 25 in respect of a sporting event, she must require the recipient to take all reasonable steps to ensure that live coverage of that event is made available free of charge, either directly or on a platform accessible without subscription in the United Kingdom. The Government fully recognise the importance of broadcasting certain sporting events to attract significant audience interest and make events as accessible as possible. We appreciate the sentiment that, where public support is involved, sporting events should be as widely available to the public as possible. However, again, this amendment is not one that the Government can accept.

The first reason is one of principle. Clause 25 is a funding power, intended to support the effective delivery of sporting events. It is not a broadcasting regulation power, nor is it intended to be used to direct or shape the outcome of commercial negotiations over media rights. Broadcasting arrangements for sporting events are matters for broadcasters, event organisers or the holders of the broadcasting rights, all of whom are operationally independent of government. It would not be appropriate to use the Bill or this funding power to intervene in those negotiations indirectly through grant conditions.

Secondly, funding decisions, event planning and broadcast rights negotiations do not always proceed to the same timetable. As a result, the amendment could create delay, complication and uncertainty in the use of Clause 25 support.

Thirdly, there is a risk to workability. If organisers or recipients cannot be confident about satisfying such a condition at the relevant point in time, it may make financial assistance harder to administer and could reduce the flexibility that Clause 25 is designed to provide.

For those reasons, I respectfully ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, not to press their amendments.

19:30:00

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)I thank everyone for taking part in this debate—except possibly the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, who is making me have to think of a different way of saying “free to air”. I am, of course, disappointed but actually not surprised by the Minister’s response. She has given me valuable time but I hope we can explore this further.

To pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, the crown jewels debate got cut off at the knees. We have charter renewal coming up. I totally respect what everyone says about the future and things changing every day, but we need to discuss this because it is important that we share these things. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, that the paywall is the paywall and means that things become niche rather than shared; that is the thing we are really trying to overcome here. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

Amendments 16 to 26 not moved.

Clause 3 agreed.

Clause 4 agreed.

Clause 5Ticket touting regulations

Debate on whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill.

Lord Moynihan (Con)My Lords, it may seem surprising that I oppose Clause 5 standing part of this Bill, given the fact that I have argued many times in your Lordships’ House for taking tough action against the abuse of the secondary market in ticketing. The reason I do is that I think this is in the wrong Bill. Going back to 19 November, just last year, the Government announced that they would introduce new rules to prohibit tickets for concerts, theatre, comedy, sports and other live events being resold for more than their original cost. They made a significant policy announcement that the British Government would introduce new rules to ban ticket touting. They then said they would introduce a Bill in this Session. They did not. They introduced a draft Bill that would make it illegal to resell a ticket at more than its original cost, cap service fees, make it illegal to resell more tickets than you are entitled to buy, place obligations on resale platforms, and empower the Competition and Markets Authority to impose tough fines. Whether we get the legislative timetable for that is yet to be seen.

In this Bill, for potentially three or four events in the next 10 years, there is very tough action, which I support in principle but it should apply to all sports, cultural, arts and music events, and it should be in primary legislation, as promised by the Government. It is simply inconsistent to put some extremely tough and onerous measures—which I fully support—in this Bill for three or four major sporting events that might take place over the next 10 or 15 years and not fulfil their clear obligation to the country to introduce primary legislation as soon as possible to cover this in detail.

We are in danger of having a series of different restrictions on secondary market sales. The original one covered football and was brought in for a completely different reason—it was about segregation of football fans. More recently, we have had further legislation in an excellent Private Member’s Bill, which was introduced in the last Session. There is no reference in this legislation as to how that would be implemented with major international events that we are trying to attract to this country.

Then there is the London 2012 Act, which had the full support of the House at the time. It looked specifically at relevant legislation for hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in this country and criminalised the abuse that we saw in the secondary market for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. I am in no doubt at all that the technology that will be used in ticket touting in years to come will change rapidly. By the time we next host the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, we will need to consider in detail legislation that will be very different from this Bill.

It is inconsistent not to introduce primary legislation to cover this in detail for cultural events, music events and festivals, as well as the overwhelming majority of sporting events that are not covered by this Bill, but just for the three or four international events that we are trying to attract to this country over the next 10, 15 or 20 years. It is that inconsistency which concerns me most of all and is why I object to Clause 5 standing part of the Bill.

Very briefly, and less relevantly, because it would be appropriate for me to put my arguments forward on the significant abuse of the secondary market another time, it is sad that the CMA is the nominated enforcement agency here. I recommend that the Government seriously consider removing it. It has prosecuted no one. It has done very little. It has looked into all sorts of cases and achieved far less than National Trading Standards, whose work has led to people being jailed. National Trading Standards is on a £13 million budget—a very small budget—but has been particularly effective. It has taken down social websites and been really effective in this area. I regret that the Government feel that the CMA will be more appropriate.

Next, if we are talking about specific international events then I am concerned about FIFA. When it came to the World Cup that we are enjoying at present, FIFA decided not to take specific measures in the host nation contract with the US, Canada and Mexico, partially, no doubt, because of the interests of President Trump, who has no appetite to ban touting in the US. But at the same time, FIFA has now set up its own retail site and is taking 15% off the seller and 15% from the buyer. How that fits with this legislation is an interesting question, particularly if it changes its approach to ticket touting in the future. I have no doubt whatever that FIFA will want to protect that source of income post the current World Cup.

It is important that DCMS is seen to be very even-handed in considering this important issue. It is taking very tough action in this Bill but, as I have mentioned, for potentially three or four events and not for the world of sports and the world of music. Those involved in those industries are desperately keen to see tough action taken, as the Government promised, but there is little evidence that they are going to pursue that. Yet Eric Baker, CEO of StubHub and Viagogo, has been publicly professing how happy he is that he has kicked the can down the road and educated the Government, which is why the Bill is not currently before Parliament. I hope that is incorrect. I hope there is no evidence to that effect and that what he is saying publicly is erroneous. As I understand it, he has had five meetings with the department, yet there have been no meetings for those who, quite rightly and understandably, feel very strongly that very tough action should be taken against the abuse of the secondary market, which is what I am focused on here.

Finally, we should make sure that football is included in this. It is an Olympic sport and would need to be covered by this legislation, clearly. There could not be separate legislation for football if we were trying to attract an international sporting event, either a FIFA or IOC event. We should also be very cautious about how it applies to debentures and hospitality. Unpicking that for touting will be a significant challenge.

I want to state on record that I am absolutely in favour of the direction that the Government have taken in this Bill, but I think it is in the wrong place. It is in the wrong Bill at the wrong time, and it should be more appropriately introduced before Parliament as the Government promised. Parliament should be allowed to determine what that should look like, and then the decision of Parliament should be implemented in the context of this legislation moving forward.

Lord Fuller (Con)My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 31. I wish to associate myself with the words of my noble friend Lord Moynihan. This is an unnecessary provision in the wrong Bill. At Second Reading, I posed the question: what is so bad about somebody who has bought a ticket to the match but suddenly finds they cannot go and offers it for sale to friends on Facebook that justifies a 50 grand fine? You have a spare ticket. Perhaps mum has fallen over at home so you cannot go. Perhaps the girlfriend you had planned to go with is now seeing somebody else. Perhaps you have gone down with some sort of food poisoning or perhaps even gramps, who you had planned to sit next to, has died. It happens. In all those circumstances, there are draconian penalties for moving on that ticket. The ticketing activities are enumerated in Schedule 1: selling an event ticket, offering for sale an event ticket, exposing for sale an event ticket or advertising that the ticket is available for purchase.

The £50,000 fine is a level of punishment that outweighs the typical criminal penalties for shoplifting, burglary and serious breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. I am not sure there is an equivalence between passing on a ticket and negligently permitting an employee to fall to his death from height. How have we found ourselves in a situation where the state ranks the desire to cut your losses as worse than all these crimes? It is two-tier justice.

Why are we compounding the sadness of the girl whose boyfriend does not want to go to the game with her any more? We are going after the wrong people. Can we not just get a sense of perspective and materiality here and recognise that somebody who buys six tickets for them and their rellies is not a member of a crime family? My amendment would limit it to six tickets for an event and provide a carve-out to the penalties in the Bill—the abuses that my noble friend has referred to.

At Second Reading, I explained that the organisers and selected ticket agents have not done enough to stop the bots and their industrial hoovering up of the tickets. We all want to ensure that real fans get a fair shot at going to the game; that is common ground. The truth is that the sellers have not tried hard enough to stop this. The truth, as my noble friend has just alluded to, is that the status quo suits them just fine. They can carry on as they are, clutching pearls, pretending to be concerned by the bots while trousering all the cash and filling the cash box on day one. This Bill, if passed, means that they do not even have to try to fix this problem. We are letting them off the hook by law.

There are all sorts of technical ways of matching claimants to people. If we cannot authenticate individuals, the economic basis of society—whether for banking, passport applications or driving licences—cannot proceed. This is a problem that has been solved. Indeed, if it had not been, the hated ID card scheme would be even more dead in the water than it is today.

I went to a wedding last weekend, and a lady I met—I was with my wife, but there was another lady—told me that she had been banned from Tinder for having two profiles, an A one and a B one. She was banned for life. If Tinder can see through multiple personalities, it should not be so difficult for Ticketmaster. If Tinder can suss out the dupes and the fakes, why can agencies such as Ticketmaster—others are available—not do so? It is a simple question and one that needs to be answered by the Government before they go after the jilted girlfriend or the grieving son.

My approach would be to ensure that the organisers go the extra mile to authenticate ticket purchasers in the secondary market. The Government’s solution is victim blaming, going after the little guy—the buyer whose mum fell over at home and has a black eye. The Bill has this the wrong way around. Why should we go to the millions of fans when the organisers have the tools to sort it out, if only they could be bothered? Instead, we are being asked to give them the legal cover not to bother to fix this scourge at source. It is just not good enough.

19:45:00

My amendment would exempt those with six tickets or fewer in a single transaction for a single event who then seek to move them on for whatever reason. It would absolve them from committing an offence. Buying six tickets is not an industrial-scale activity. It strikes the right balance between individual freedoms and the reality of the world, where things change all about us—especially if you need to buy these tickets so many months in advance.

Rather than ban resales except back to the organisers—as has just been mentioned, we can see with FIFA’s World Cup what happens when you do that; FIFA has questions to answer, but this Bill would prevent those questions being asked by law—we should regulate the secondary market. An integral part is to provide the assurance that the ticket being offered is not a fake. This is a market problem that has been solved. If somebody wants to sell on a ticket, the potential purchaser can ask the seller via a website or API for certain details—say a combination of the seat number and serial number. The organiser responds as to whether it is an authentic combination or not. In the jargon, it is called interoperability.

Rather than the monopoly preferred by the organisers, who would want a monopoly, two individuals who meet on Facebook or peer-to-peer platforms such as StubHub—which provide much-needed liquidity to all manner of ticketed events—could be assured between themselves and we could streamline a regulated process. Let us regulate rather than ban the secondary market, while placing the onus on the organisers to enforce identity checks at the outset to stop the bots.

I know the Minister does not like this, but let us examine her stated alternative preference. It is to allow the purchaser to surrender the tickets back to the organiser for monopoly resale to someone else. Where are the safeguards to prevent that organiser selling them on at more than the original face value and acting as a state-sponsored ticket tout?

I asked the organiser of an event in scope, and he explained that you should be able to surrender your ticket back to the organisers for resale as little as 30 minutes before the game. That is lunacy. All it does is encourage hopefuls to hang around the turnstiles and then be disappointed with 10 minutes to go when suddenly there are no tickets to buy. It is the perfect recipe to charge the entrance—exactly the behaviour that we want to prevent but which this cack-handed legislation will aid and abet.

All this Bill does is give FIFA, the Olympics, UEFA and, if we accept some of the amendments from my noble friend Lady Evans, other less illustrious event organisers a state-sponsored monopoly to do what they want on tickets at the expense of the fan and the family member who is unable to go to the game. Why are the peer-to-peer sites such as StubHub or your Facebook friends to be banned instead of being encouraged to participate in a regulated market-based authentication process? Why can the Government not get their story straight about how the mechanics of ticket surrender might work? How would we prevent state-sponsored monopolies and other unintended consequences, such as charging the turnstiles? Why are we criminalising the little guy while providing statutory air cover for the organisers to repeat the World Cup ticket fiasco with empty stadiums and disappointed fans?

This Government are not learning or explaining how this will work. Once again, they are on the side of big business, not the fan or the single family member who has to move on that ticket because his girlfriend is not his girlfriend any more.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 28A. The Bill usefully sets out that regulations in relation to ticket touting will be brought in for sporting events. But a number of organisations, including UK Music, are understandably asking the Government to completely fulfil their manifesto commitment. In this sense, I am coming to the issue from a similar place to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, although I disagree with his remedy. It is right that we should do this because we need to end exploitative ticket touting across all types of events. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and I have been on the same side on this for many years.

Like many on these Benches, I am delighted at the progress that has been made on ticket touting for sports events, but I am puzzled about the wait for legislation covering music and other events. What makes it more puzzling is that music and sports events often take place in the same venues. This week, my wife will go to listen to Harry Styles; a few weeks ago, I could have gone to the same Wembley venue to watch the cup final. So I am sure that the Minister will understand why there is a measure of disappointment, particularly among music fans, event organisers and performers, none of whom derive any benefit from the current situation.

According to YouGov research commissioned by O2, online ticket touts are costing UK music fans at least £145 million a year. For some time, UK Music has been calling for legislation that includes a resale price cap to prohibit someone from reselling a ticket for more than the original ticket value, service fee limits to ensure that price caps cannot be undermined by inflated fees or hidden charges placed on consumers, and volume limits to make it unlawful to buy more tickets for an event than one individual is permitted to buy on the primary market. Taken together, those measures would create transparency for ticket purchasers and create a more level playing field for consumers.

My amendment 28A would simply require the Secretary of State to review the ticket touting provisions in Clauses 5 and 6 within 12 months of the Act coming into force and report to Parliament on their effectiveness. This review would provide an important opportunity to assess whether similar protections should be extended to the music sector and music events. I am conscious that a draft Bill is to be published in this Session, but I am also conscious that these things have a habit of slipping and falling foul of other priorities. We have yet to see the terms of the wider legislation, so can we better understand why sport has come forward first, and what makes the challenges of policing this area different or more complex for music?

Music fans face many of the same challenges as sports fanstickets being acquired in bulk and resold at inflated prices, and genuine fans being priced out of events. The draft Bill, announced in the King’s Speech, means that music fans will continue to face inflated resale prices and unfair ticketing practices while they wait for reform. If the ticket touting provisions prove effective in the sporting context, the review should urgently consider whether comparable measures should be applied to music events, ensuring greater fairness and consumer confidence in protections. I have tabled this amendment to try to achieve a speedier route to having equity across all sporting, cultural and music events, because those who support those events—music fans, sports fans, or whatever—deserve that equality of consideration.

Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)My Lords, it is pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and to take part in this group. I am physically and actually right behind my noble friend Lord Moynihan on these issues: it is a good provision, but it is the wrong position. It offers a solution that is fine for those critically important but few events that it will cover, but, for the vast majority, it is a tantalisingly close yet elusive solution across the rest of sport, music, culture, et cetera.

“World in Motion”, 1990; “Football’s Coming Home”, Euro 96: music and sport have always been inextricably linked, yet the Bill has not only missed the opportunity to bind these together with effective ticket touting provisions, it has also unfortunately set out a solution for the very few—which, understandably, is extraordinarily frustrating for the many. The provision is also unfortunate because it is very analogue and does not seem to speak to ticketing, touting and abuse as they are today—never mind how they will be in five, 10, 15 or 20 years’ time, when thinking about an Olympic Games and Paralympic Games bid in the 2040s.

I will speak to Amendments 27, 89, and all the amendments in my name in this group. I will start with Amendment 89, which proposes an accessible ticketing duty on all these events. For this, I use “accessible” in the broadest sense of the word. This goes to discussions that we have had in earlier groups around ensuring that we get the right principles threaded into this legislation. When we were putting together the ticketing strategy for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, all the weight of history was on us: all the rules, structures and expectations of what had gone before at all the previous 29 Olympic Games. Of course, there was a lot of good and a lot to follow in that, but, equally, we were the first people to be delivering an Olympic Games and a Paralympic Games in London in 2012. We not only took that incredibly seriously but took it for what it was: a once-in-a-generation opportunity. So we should seek to test, stretch and develop those principles that have been set out in all the documentation and history from previous Games. Ticketing was a clear example of this, and it is one that I brought out in my amendment. We wanted hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren to have the opportunity to come to the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and not pay a penny for their tickets, but we were also fundamentally committed to the value of the Games, the sports and the event. So we had a key principle: no free tickets. That is completely the way to structure these things. You do not drive engagement, fans and greater inclusion by thinking that you just need to give away free tickets. The way to structure it is to have tickets available to schoolchildren, as was the case in London 2012.

My amendment is broader. It would make tickets available to local organisations, to disabled people and to other groups—the list is not exhaustive—and have the face-value price of those tickets paid out of a portion of the most expensive tickets for those events. It worked effectively and inclusively at London 2012, and those people who were paying for the highest-priced tickets were delighted that part of what they were paying for was to enable hundreds of thousands of young people to come and experience Olympic and Paralympic sport, often for the first time in their lives, and certainly for the first time in their lives at London 2012. Taking a principle developed there, it would make sense to thread an accessible ticketing duty into this Bill.

On the tickets themselves, as I say, this is currently an extraordinarily analogue Bill at a time when tickets have become extraordinarily complex, more enabling and potentially exclusive in digital token form on digital ledger technologies. We have the ability to do so much more with tickets. First, we can drive out fraud and touting through having the tickets in an immutable form. Secondly, we can attach whatever we choose to that ticket. Say that somebody has particular access needs, food allergies or whatever it might be—you can put that in as part of the digital token representation of their ticket. We can make the ticket so much more powerful, inclusive and connected to the event. It could potentially drive fan engagement: tokens, merch, exclusive benefits, interviews with the players or interviews with the competitors. Whatever you choose, that is all available with ticketing technology that exists today, yet the Bill is silent on this.

20:00:00

If only to take away the uncertainty for all those organisations involved with digital assets and token representations of tickets, I believe that there should be clarity on the face of the Bill as to the nature, acceptability, use and function of digital tokens as ticket representations. Just imagine the role that that could play in terms of driving out touting: you would have a real-time digital record of the whole thing and the history of that token. Touting would be impossible without it being clearly visible, thus creating the opportunity to do something about it and to do something about it through smart contract technology, not even necessarily involving human intervention to catch that moment.

Finally, I think we need AI monitoring across this whole area. We have come a long way since the days when your man in the sheepskin jacket approached with a bunch of tickets for whatever sport or music event he might be trying to pile on to you. So much of this is an online experience—or an online exclusion, because the tickets disappear before even the fastest human hand can get anywhere near them. All this activity is entirely able to be captured in real time by effective AI monitoring systems, setting the technology to solve for the technologies; and yet the Bill says nothing as to this opportunity. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)My Lords, I tried to add my name to Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, but I was slightly too late for the printing of the Marshalled List. I think there is something important in this amendment in terms of thinking about who is able to have access to major games.

If you look at the 2012 programme, there was a massive commitment right from the start to no free tickets—the sponsors paid for them. It was not just the joy on the children’s faces when they got to go and experience the events, but it was something that they will remember for the rest of their lives. It was also tied into the school programmes that were being run at the same time. As I have said before, 2012 was also the only time that I have ever been able to go and watch a sporting event where I was able to sit with more than one member of my family. With the ticketing, if someone could not sit in a high stand or needed to be at the end of a row, they also thought about how they linked that up to accessible toilets; those are all really important things. I think Wembley Stadium is the only place I have ever visited that actually understood some of those issues as well. I think there are 147 accessible toilets at Wembley Stadium, which other venues should definitely aspire to. Other things that you could do include “Pay your age”, which 2012 did really well.

As a spectator who is a disabled person—the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, mentioned smarter ticketing—you are constantly having to explain what you need, where you want to sit and who you want to sit with or check whether you actually have a guaranteed accessible seat. Again, it is about showing the world what we do and what we care about. We should be looking at ticket touting wider than this, because it is an issue not just for the events that this Bill may cover.

Another issue in this group of amendments, which I also mentioned in my meeting with the noble Baroness the Minister, relates to thinking about disabled people not just as spectators. I was commentating on a major event in a new-build venue, and it turned out that the commentator’s position was not wheelchair accessible, so I was not able to do my job properly. I spent half the time commentating in a completely different position. As a commentator, it helps if you can have some interaction with the other people that you are commentating with, so we had to move to a venue quite a considerable distance away to be able to do the last event that I was commentating on. There should be something in here about a guarantee of what accessibility means—perhaps not necessarily on the face of the Bill but just an understanding that we can do so much better. If we are going to be building new venues, whether it is for the Olympics, the Paralympics or more football clubs, we should make sure that disabled people have the ability to access events in a fair and equitable way.

I support the other amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. He has more experience on this than anyone else in the Chamber from his work at LOCOG and beyond, and we should be listening to the things that he is asking for.

Lord Addington (LD)My Lords, I have four amendments in this group, but the main thing about the amendments on ticket touting is that everybody agrees that something should be done. There is one principal disagreement going on here. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is basically saying, “Do not do it here; do it properly somewhere else” and lots of the rest of us are saying, “No, do it here, get it done and carry it on”. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, agreed with that. From my Benches, we tried to get an amendment down that included this and we did not actually hit the target; we were told that we were out of scope of the Bill, so I salute his drafting—I take it that it is his; if it is not, he can just take the compliment.

However, when we go through this, we have got a lot of other issues here, such as disability accessibility. I do not know how many dozen times I have discussed that, and we still do not have it right. I hope the Minister will be able to say something reassuring about an ongoing process for that.

Just to refer back to my amendments, I said to myself, “Oh yes, that was it—National Trading Standards, yes, good idea, I thought I had an original point there, but the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, used it in his first sentence”. We have something here that says, “It isn’t working. Can we know what will be done?” The small series of options that we have in this Bill is actually managing to annoy people, oddly, because they are not big enough and they are not going far enough, and we do not have anything else that is immediately coming. We have a pocket of legislation around this Bill, which we have not seen even in draft, and that is one of the problems here. I hope that the Minister can start a process that could be finished by Report, when we get an idea of what we are going to get on ticket touting and where it is going to come in, if we are not going to do it here—and this would have been an opportunity to bring in everything under this Bill, so we had something that would actually work.

There are some other smaller amendments. A charity auction for a ticket is not ticket touting—yes, I would hope that that would be the case. But to have some clarity around some of the issues that we have raised, is the maximum penalty enough? One of the amendments in my name suggests

“leave out ‘£20,000’ and insert ‘an amount not exceeding 10% of the person’s annual global turnover’”.

Some of these organisations are so big that £20,000 would basically be the cost of doing business.

Could we have an idea of the whole picture? At the moment, the Government by doing a nice thing in this Bill are annoying everyone, oddly. I do not envy the Minister in her response. The Government may well have good intentions, but the old cliché that this might well be the thing that paves the road to hell might well be true with this.

Lord Markham (Con)I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan for introducing this group and thank noble Lords for their contributions. This whole debate shows that it is a complicated area and begs the question whether this is the right Bill for it to be in. At the very least, we need another Bill very quickly to cover all the complications that it brought up and apply it to music and cultural events as well as those brought up here.

The point about FIFA was a very good example, with the US World Cup. It shows how difficult it is to try to create a catch-all Bill when we know how fast the environment is moving, and that FIFA might change its rules, as it has done for this World Cup—let alone when you come to some of the technological advances that my noble friend Lord Holmes brings up, and trying to cater for those today in a Bill when we know just how quickly AI and other technological advances are going.

My own amendments are modest in nature, in terms of trying to enable the charitable resale of tickets. At the same time, I think that they introduce an interesting conundrum. If we are saying that we are very happy for a charity auction to get a good price—and generally we want it to get as good a price as possible—we are saying that we do not mind profiteering in principle as long as it is for a good cause. Again, that brings some interesting complications into this matter.

On our amendments around a genuine resale market, as our amendment tries to show and as that of my noble friend Lord Fuller tries to show, there are genuine and legitimate reasons to want to resell your ticket, and the legitimate platforms have a good role there. It should be legitimate that they charge a reasonable service fee—I think that the 10% mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is probably a reasonable indicator there. But there is a proper function that they can play, and we would much rather that they played those roles rather than driving it under cover to the ticket touts, where you can get the real price gouging, for want of a better word.

Probably what this debate shows, like many of the others tonight, is that it is a very complicated area. To try to get it all into one catch-all Bill becomes more and more complicated. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government are going to cater for this issue and for many of the others.

Baroness Twycross (Lab)I thank the noble Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham and Lord Addington, and my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lady Keeley for their amendments. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for giving notice of his intention to oppose the question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill. I count myself as among those who were slightly surprised at this, but I appreciate having heard the noble Lord that this is because of his consistent opposition to the many ills associated with the secondary ticket market. However, I do not accept that it is not appropriate for these measures to be in the Bill—but I shall go on to that later.

Amendments 27 and 89 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, would require the Secretary of State to introduce an accessible ticketing quota in regulations, and that related information must be included in a register held by authorised ticket sellers. We are determined that when the UK hosts major events, we lead by example in ensuring they are inclusive and accessible to the widest possible audience. That is why we have worked with UEFA on its approach for Euro 2028, which seeks to put fans first with transparent and accessible ticketing principles. It was interesting to hear the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on accessible ticketing. Noble Lords may be aware of another example, which is in my speaking notes, of UEFA’s track record in this regard for Euro 2024. UEFA partnered with the Kaizen Foundation in Germany for the 10,000 Smiles project, which provided free tickets through sponsorship to children in host cities from underprivileged backgrounds and for children and adults with disabilities up to 21 years old.

Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Markham, introduces an exception to the ticket touting offence for a person selling an event ticket as part of an auction provided that the proceeds go to charity. While I recognise the spirit, the framework approach calls for proportionality to be reconciled with the requirements of event owners and the guarantees provided by Governments. We will do this through introducing appropriate exceptions to the ticket touting offence in regulations on a case-by-case basis. It may not be appropriate to do so where an event has an official charity partner with an exclusive right to raise proceeds through the auction of event tickets. Where this is the case, 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.

Amendment 28A, tabled by my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton, Lady Keeley and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, would require a review of the impact and effectiveness of the ticket touting provisions within 12 months of Royal Assent. The first use of these provisions will be for Euro 2028, with tickets expected to go on sale after the final tournament draw in December 2027. We are committed to an evaluation of the application of provisions in the Bill within 12 to 18 months of Euro 2028. We therefore do not believe that this amendment is workable or necessary.

20:15:00

Amendment 29, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, would introduce a defence to the ticket touting offence mirroring that included under the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020. The difference is that the offence in that Act did not criminalise the resale of tickets where carried out at face value and not in the course of business. That meant that a person advertising a ticket on behalf of someone else had to determine whether or not the ticket was being sold above face value to avoid being found guilty of the offence. This consideration is redundant under this Bill, which applies to all activity that is carried out in a public place, including on an online platform.

Amendments 30 and 32, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, seek to further define what is meant by an “unauthorised ticketing activity”. The majority of activity this amendment seeks to regulate is already prohibited under the offence. The definition of touting in the Bill is intentionally broad. It includes where a person carries out an unauthorised ticketing activity in a public place, in the course of business, or with a view to any person making a profit. Major sporting event owners require strict controls over the resale of tickets. That is why the ticket touting offence in the Bill permits public resale only where it has been authorised by the event owner or organiser. In reality, we expect that major sporting event owners will put in place an official resale platform for such tickets. The amendments also introduce provisions on surge pricing. Businesses are already required by law to give fans clear and accurate price information before purchase, free from undue pressure or other manipulative tactics that could influence their decision.

Amendment 31, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, seeks to exempt anyone buying six or fewer tickets for an event in a single transaction. This amendment would create a significant loophole in the ticket touting offence. A person could buy six tickets at a time and resell without limitation, potentially making significant profits from events funded in part by the taxpayer. These events should be affordable and accessible to all. Enabling people to buy up significant numbers of tickets with the intention to sell these at a significantly increased value would undermine this objective. The Bill does not ban the transfer or sale of legitimately purchased tickets to friends or family. It may, however, in my view, be the so-called jilted girlfriend who gets to go.

Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Markham, would require any person authorised to carry out ticketing activities to establish a mechanism through which tickets can be transferred or sold to another person. The Bill does not, as I have already stated, prohibit the private transfer of tickets between friends and family where this is carried out at face value, and we expect event organisers to put in place mechanisms to facilitate this. We expect, and would seek assurances up front, that an official resale platform would be made available so that people can legally resell tickets.

Amendments 34 and 35, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seek to create a power to specify in regulations technical standards for distributed ledger ticketing records. We share the noble Lord’s objective to ensure that the sale and distribution of electronic tickets for major sporting events are safe and secure. Indeed, that is why we are putting in place a criminal offence for the unauthorised sale and resale of tickets. However, it is up to event organisers to decide what systems and processes they put in place for their ticketing operations, and to ensure that these meet any relevant legal requirements and technical standards.

The noble Lord’s Amendment 64 would require guidance published on ticketing to include provisions related to AI-assisted enforcement and evidential standards for enforcement in the digital environment. We recognise that companies are continually investing in technology to ensure that tickets reach genuine fans. In particular, we fully support advances in technological solutions that disrupt criminal activity online. However, it is not for the Government to prescribe technical standards for the use of technology in a piecemeal way.

Amendment 36, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would enable the maximum level of financial penalty imposed directly for breach of the ticket touting offence to be no more than 10% of the person’s annual global turnover. Enforcement authorities, including local weights and measures authorities in Great Britain, can impose a financial penalty as an alternative to prosecution and have discretion to determine the level of financial penalty up to £20,000. This enables local authorities to impose penalties without having to go through the courts.

The Bill also enables local weights and measures authorities and the Competition and Markets Authority to use the enforcement powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. This already allows the Competition and Markets Authority to directly levy fines of up to 10% of global turnover where the collective interests of consumers have been harmed.

Amendment 62, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would remove the ability of the Competition and Markets Authority to enforce a ticket touting offence in the Bill and would instead confer enforcement powers on National Trading Standards. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also made this point. I am not aware of any examples of National Trading Standards being provided with powers to directly enforce offences beyond those available to local trading standards authorities, which receive funding for priority projects from National Trading Standards. In fact, I think the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made a point about power going to the Competition and Markets Authority, not National Trading Standards.

As I hope I have already made clear, local trading standards authorities are empowered under this Bill to take decisive action without having to rely on the Competition and Markets Authority or the courts. This complements the Competition and Markets Authority’s enhanced enforcement powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, which focuses on interventions with high-impact results, such as changing market behaviour or deterring those who might otherwise breach the law.

To answer the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill, we believe that Clause 5 is integral to the framework provisions within this Bill, and to delivering the requirements of major sporting event owners in relation to ticketing. The clause is designed to ensure that the period over which the ticketing provisions apply can be tailored to the requirements of different events. It does not prescribe a maximum period that the ticket touting offence can apply, as this will vary between events to ensure that the period for which the offence is enforced is proportionate to the particular sporting event. The clause also requires regulations to specify the part or parts of the United Kingdom to which the provisions apply.

I appreciated the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, making it really clear that his opposition to the measures in the Bill was related to a desire for wider ticketing reforms. In response, I say that I think we are in agreement that this Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for wider ticketing reforms. The noble Lord is right that the time limit provisions in the Bill apply only to major sporting events that meet the necessary conditions and are specifically designed to enable public resale only where it has been authorised by the event owner. However, any delay to this Bill by including significant additional provisions outside the current scope puts at risk our ability to deliver commitments made to UEFA for Euro 2028. Pre-legislative scrutiny of the wider secondary ticketing reforms will ensure we take into account the views of experts in the live events sector, helping to deliver legislation that is enforceable, effective and future-proof.

On the point made by the noble Lord related to StubHub, I was not aware of the comments, but I have a brief response from the department. It says that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised a departmental meeting with StubHub and the department met with stakeholders from all areas of the live events sector, including StubHub and Viagogo in order to understand the full ticketing landscape. However, the department is clear that these meetings did not impact the decision to publish the Bill in draft in this Session, and it is committed to doing that.

Before I conclude, I am keen to touch on the Government’s wider position of the touting of tickets, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. As noble Lords are aware, we have committed to bring forward a resale price cap, including a cap on the level of service fee that can be charged and limits on the number of tickets individuals can resell. We are fully committed to introducing these measures. Work to prepare this legislation is happening at pace, but we need to get it right; that is why we intend to publish the Bill in draft in this Session.

Recognising the interest in these matters, I commit to hosting an all-Peers session on this matter in the coming weeks, with relevant officials, so noble Lords can get clarity on where we are and where we are planning to go. I will endeavour to do this before the Summer Recess. In the meantime, I respectfully ask all noble Lords not to press their amendments and to be content for this clause to stand part of the Bill.

Lord Moynihan (Con)My Lords, I thank the Minister for her quite extensive, albeit rapid-fire response. Many of us will read it in greater detail and come back with any questions after we have had that opportunity. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that, while we might have disagreed on my recommendation that we oppose Clause 5 becoming part of the Bill, he at least recognises that it is effectively a probing amendment. The reason I put it down in those terms was that there were many good amendments that were already tabled on this subject. I wanted to highlight a really important point: by simply placing it on the face of this Bill, given the Government’s commitments, we lacked consistency across the country.

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)That is my point exactly, and that is why this is an important debate to have had this evening. I congratulate the noble Lord on his observations and comments.

Lord Moynihan (Con)I am grateful for that intervention: I echo everything he said: everything he said, in terms of detail, is to be supported.

The second point is thiswe have to be incredibly careful, in discussing this subject, about the autonomy of world sport. We are looking at major sporting events and we are seeking to encourage UEFA, FIFA or the IOC to award the right to host those events in this country. We are not telling UEFA, the IOC or FIFA what to do; that is not the way world sport works. I hear in the response from the Minister, “We expect them to do this”, “We expect them to do that” and “We expect them to do otherwise”. We can expect as much as we want: it is UEFA, or the event organiser, that decides.

What I was pleased to hear, in that context, was that this is clearly drafted with the agreement of UEFA for the Euros 2028, in the same way that there was unique legislation introduced for London 2012 to reflect what the IOC wanted. That is why the contribution from my noble friend Lord Holmes was so valid. The IOC listened carefully to what LOCOG—the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games—had discussed in great detail. They had discussed the need to criminalise the secondary market from selling tickets, to criminalise touting, so they could totally control the ticketing operation for London 2012, which they did highly successfully, not least because it allowed them to make tickets available to schools as my noble friend Lord Holmes said. They looked holistically at the overall ticketing for that event, unlike FIFA for the World Cup in the United States at the present time.

It is incredibly important to recognise that, when we are talking about appropriate arrangements for ticketing in the Bill, we are talking about sitting down and listening to what the organisers of these major international events want, in association with the organising committee, and putting in place appropriate legislation for that. It would be very different if we hosted the Olympic Games in the future. We would need to come back with event-specific legislation—a point I keep making. It can be easily remedied on the face of the Bill, and all these issues could be put to one side if the Government recognised that, in addition to this framework, they will require, possibly, event-specific legislation to host major international events here—as I desperately hope they will—in the future.

My concern was that we are being tough on touting on the face of this Bill for a small number of events that the Bill relates to. We may have found a way, in government, to talk tough and do nothing for the vast majority of people who are really concerned in this country about the abuse of the secondary market, and about the need for the Government to legislate. To bring forward a draft Bill, having said they were definitely going to legislate, with no commitment to implement legislation in a future session of this Parliament is not what the arts world, the music world, the sporting world, and the likes of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and myself—

20:30:00

Baroness Twycross (Lab)I would not normally intervene. However, I was clear that we are going to introduce a draft Bill and will introduce legislation in due course, so I feel the noble Lord is going slightly beyond my response. I am happy to sit down and talk to any noble Lord about the ticket touting measures coming up, but I cannot accept that we are not taking it seriously, as the noble Lord suggests.

Lord Moynihan (Con)That is an extremely important and welcome intervention, but the Minister said “in due course”. Can she commit that that means during this Parliament?

Baroness Twycross (Lab)I cannot commit to a timescale, but I have offered to have a meeting where we can discuss that in further detail.

Lord Moynihan (Con)To fail to commit for the whole of this Parliament, when we have years to run, is disappointing, given the strength of the comments made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers in recent months. It is vital that the Government indicate by the time we get to Report whether they will legislate during this Parliament.

The public have longed to get legislation on to the statute book to protect people from being ripped off and turning up at many concerts, having paid a lot of money to bring their kids down from wherever they live, to find out that they have a forged ticket. That must be stopped. We must have tough legislation. That is why I share with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, the need to legislate on this and why we were so pleased that the Government were willing to come forward with legislation that Parliament could consider. To know that this might not happen in the current Parliament would be deeply disappointing.

Lord Hayward (Con)My noble friend emphasises the importance of tackling touts in a broad piece of legislation that does not cover just these events. Could he also emphasise, as my noble friend Lord Fuller raised, ensuring the obligation of those selling the tickets to maximise the controls to avoid touting?

Lord Moynihan (Con)I absolutely endorse that comment. As my noble friend, who has sat with me on this subject many times over the past five years, will know, ever since the Waterson report and many others, I have sought to table and introduce legislation—sometimes successfully—to give far greater clarity and visibility on tickets and to make sure that when people sell tickets, they follow the conditions that the organiser of the event has brought forward. If the organiser has set the condition that it should not be sold on the secondary market, it should not be. We have needed legislation to be introduced in order to achieve that.

I am absolutely tough on this subject, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, knows. I have the privilege of co-chairing the All-Party Group on Ticket Abuse. We have to take action on this. I really hope that, following the Minister’s response, she will be able to go away and consider before Report an absolute commitment that this Government will honour their word and introduce legislation not during this Session but during this Parliament.

Clause 5 agreed.

Clause 6Persons granting ticketing authorisations

Amendment 27 not moved.

Clause 6 agreed.

Clause 7Exceptions to the ticket touting offence

Amendment 28 not moved.

Clause 7 agreed.

Amendment 28A not moved.

Schedule 1Ticket touting provisions

Amendments 29 to 36 not moved.

Schedule 1 agreed.

Clause 8Advertising regulations

Amendment 37 not moved.

Clause 8 agreed.

Clause 9Persons granting advertising authorisations

Amendment 38

Moved by

38: Clause 9, page 6, line 22, at end insert— “(5) Where the regulations designate a person to grant advertising authorisations in relation to a sporting event, the regulations must require that person, in determining whether to grant an authorisation, to have regard to—(a) the impact of any proposed exclusive authorisation on small and medium-sized enterprises trading in or near the restricted advertising zone,(b) the desirability of ensuring that local and small businesses have a reasonable opportunity to benefit from the sporting event,(c) whether any proposed exclusive arrangement is proportionate to the legitimate commercial interests of the event organiser, and(d) whether there has been reasonable and proportionate communication with small and medium-sized enterprises trading in or near the restricted advertising zones, of any exclusive authorisations.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would ensure that, in the case of exclusive advertising rights for a certain sporting event, small and medium-sized companies are not unfairly harmed.

Lord Addington (LD)My Lords, this is really a probing amendment to try to get at some of the hardy perennials, shall we say, when dealing with Bills that take on big sporting events. That is, when you have a big sporting event, you have a big advertising structure and restrictions being imposed on the local traders, which the local traders think are not fair. It sometimes gets slightly absurd. I cannot help but remember—but I am trying to forget—the Olympic kebab van that operated in the East End of London and which was restricted by the Olympic Games. It became a case of why they did not know and why there was not some smaller operation to lessen the impact on their business.

In the rest of the group, we have amendments dealing charitable situations. The situation here is about how we are going to make it a little easier for small and medium-sized businesses to operate properly within these structures. What are the duties on those organising the big events to let them know what is going to happen and mitigate any harms to them?

This amendment is a way of trying to find out the Government’s thinking on this, because it is one of those things that comes back and niggles again and again when you have a big event. I hope we can at least find out what the Government’s thinking is about how we are going to make sure that we make life a little bit easier for these small units, which should be beneficiaries, so that they actually get some benefit from this. That is all I am trying to do here. I beg to move.

Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on this group of amendments. I will speak to the two amendments in my name. The first, Amendment 39, is incredibly straightforward and simply seeks to exclude charities from the restricted advertisement zone, as set out in the Bill. It replicates the wording from the London 2012 Act of 2006. I am very interested in the Minister’s response to that wording.

My second amendment in this group, Amendment 63, seeks a retrospective on the enforcement action to assure it from an equality and inclusion perspective. It simply sets out equality enforcement assessments so that the data is there and can be reviewed, s actions can be taken where there are disparities, and there can be learnings in real time for that event and for other events that will be hosted across the country. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)My Lords, I wonder whether I could briefly help out the noble Lord, Lord Addington. There was also a case in 2012 when a lady decided to do knitting patterns of the mascots and made a Games maker. It is incredibly important that the rights and brand of these major events are protected. I think I am right in saying that they issued her a warning for knitting one and trying to sell it at her local church. They then recognised the importance of stepping back from that, because they became hugely popular, were a lot of fun and did not impact anybody.

However, a line has to be drawn between what we are seeing quite a lot with FIFA in terms of ambush marketing versus somebody just doing something that is quite nice. There is some merit in these amendments to make sure that local businesses are protected and are able to carry out their day-to-day work without threat of legal action.

Lord Fuller (Con)My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 56 in the group. The Bill unashamedly tries to snare and capture the large global events that can make a national impact in our country, but national impact and national scale also have local effects. One of the purposes of hosting these big events is to transform the local economies, drive investments and spread love and enjoyment in the local communities that act as hosts. It is naive to think that this is front and centre of the organisers’ minds. The promoters of the global events line up their sponsors, sports rights and big global brands, and there are pallet loads of merchandise to shift. We know that money follows sport, and the Bill makes sport all about the money by law. I am concerned about the powers to designate zones around stadiums or other undefined places—which might be fan zones, I suppose—where local trading will be made illegal.

At Second Reading, I gave the example—and it was on “Yesterday in Parliament” actually, which I was very pleased about; that was my first time—I gave the example of the 10-minute walk from Twickenham station to the Allianz Stadium down Whitton Road, where every type of food is available, from licensed food vans to stalls set up in front gardens, where the enterprising home owners have demolished their garden walls. There is not just food; there are old boys selling tat, and there is the little guy with his roadside kebab van and the youth club, with its pop-up gazebo, frying chicken wings. It is all part of the grittiness, but all these places have a licence. The way in which the Bill bans this trading means that little of the money will be assimilated in the local economy. That is not right, because the people who are hosting these events should have a right to expect that some of the benefits will be retained locally.

I accept there needs to be some sort of control, so that it does not become a scrum—Twickenham to one side—and we need to have minimum hygiene standards and sensible limits, so we do not get overwhelmed. That is why, over decades, a series of local licensing decisions by the local authority has evolved. It is tried and tested, it has public safety and hygiene at its heart and it has allowed an ecosystem of local traders to flourish. The Bill casts all that aside. Even if you have licence, you will be excluded from participating in a whole-community effort to host a big event. The local little doers will be cast to the wilderness. How does this help the local economy? Why have we got it in for the Cubs and Scouts who are trying to raise money for the jamboree?

My amendment is simple. It would protect the ability of the local council to ensure that at least some of the benefits of hosting an event are retained locally and are not outsourced to national firms or multinational burger corporates. I want to ensure that local flavours are part of the mix and that fans are not just force-fed cardboard burgers and gassy lager served in soulless stadium concourses. Under my proposal, it would be up to the council to strike the right balance between the local needs and the rights holders in exchange for issuing licences. In a local territory, the council will hold some of the cards. The Bill gives the organisers all the cards, and that is no good. It is an affront to the bloke who prefers a cheap kebab to an overpriced burger or a bucket hat to a baseball cap, or the fan who fancies ale rather than lager. If the council gets it wrong, there are elections to sort that out.

At Second Reading, I was grateful that the thoughtful noble Lord, Lord Mann—who is not in his place—supported the principle of locals being able to get in on the act. He was on the side of the working man, the local charity, the youth group and its pop-up gazebo. I say: let us empower them all. They collectively, over decades, have created so many different rituals and traditions associated with going to the game, more so than the game itself. Families, groups of fans, clubs and societies work with the community in a sort of foreplay that heightens the pleasure of the big event itself. I know that the Minister would not want to deny fans their pleasure, so I ask her to accept my amendment, so that everybody gets to enjoy themselves in the way that they want to, but, most importantly, so that some of the benefits are retained in the community, which is potentially so inconvenienced by the disruptions of hosting it. The economic benefits must be retained locally.

20:45:00

Lord Hayward (Con)My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lord Fuller in his expression of concern about the impact on small businesses. Sadly, many noble Lords will know me as a statistician who spends all his time looking at opinion polls and numbers in one direction or another and then commenting on them. I have spent inadequate time looking at the impact assessment, to which no reference has been made yet in these debates. Despite my apparent facility for statistics, all I can say about the impact assessment is that my head hurts. I found it incredibly difficult to comprehend page after page of low-impact, central-impact and high-impact estimates.

I will comment on one section. I could comment on others, but I address my comments overall. I find it very difficult to understand the impact that each of the different events would have in terms of positives and negatives, because they are aggregated in a very odd way. Page 41 of the impact assessment refers to the impact on street traders. It says:

“The low estimate reflects that 50% of traders will be able to continue to trade due to potential mitigations”.

Therefore, 50% of the traders will not be able to continue trading—and that is the low estimate. It goes on to say:

“The central estimate reflects the likelihood that 75% of traders in the affected area will be unable to trade while the provisions are in place. The high estimate serves as an upper bound where all traders operating in areas where prohibitions apply are unable to trade”.

We are therefore talking about a very substantial impact on businesses. We debated earlier the duration under which these provisions would apply, but we are talking about potentially every single street trader in those relevant areas. There are pages identifying the numbers of traders affected, whether it be at the Everton stadium, the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, at Hampden Park in Glasgow or wherever you choose to name. There are numbers and numbers of street traders. That is their livelihood. If these events are running for several weeks, which is likely to be the case, they are losing their livelihood for that period.

I therefore share my noble friend Lord Fuller’s concerns about the impact that is identified—but identified in such a complex way that it is incredibly difficult to understand what we are talking about.

Lord Fuller (Con)My noble friend has painted a picture and enumerated it with examples of sports stadiums. Under the Bill, there is to be a zone cast around the stadium where trading will be banned. But there are other provisions that have other events; for example, fan zones. Has my noble friend considered that fan zones could be in town centres? Town centres could be sterilised from trading. Has he considered that the net may be cast much further than just street traders, to other organisations too?

Lord Hayward (Con)I thank my noble friend for that intervention and for identifying other areas. I tried to make it clear that I had taken only one element of one page of an impact assessment. It was on page 41. The impact assessment is over 90 pages long, with central, low and high estimates in all sorts of different categorisations There is no overall assessment of cost potential for any small or large business or the impact on the economy.

There is lots of explanation that tells us how wonderful it is going to be week in, week out, because of the benefits of sport. That is right—we have all recognised that—but there is an indistinct identification of the potential costs to some small and very small businesses, and we really should recognise the potential implications for all concerned.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)My Lords, in many senses, we have outperformed a World Cup football squad tonight, because we have hit the target ahead of schedule for this first day in Committee, and we have done it without a hydration break.

Let me begin with the two amendments I have tabled in this group. It is an important group on which to end our debate, because it deals with the significant impact of the Bill on the restrictions on commercial interests, small as well as big, a point that my noble friends have rightly accentuated. My Amendment 40 seeks to create an exemption for charities from the advertising offences in the Bill, applying only where a charity is advertising wholly or partly for the purpose of promoting itself or a specified list of charitable services. I hope the Minister will be attracted to it. It is word for word taken from the provisions in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games (Advertising and Trading) Regulations 2021. If it was suitable then, why not for the new framework that we are seeking to set out? Amendment 55 similarly relates to charitable exemptions. Paragraph 1(2)(d) of Schedule 3 to the Bill states that a “Trading activity” includes

“appealing for money or other property (whether for charitable or other purposes), with the exception of begging”.

That means that the offence of trading in a restricted trading zone applies to charitable fundraising but not to people who are begging. I wonder if the noble Baroness can explain why it has been drawn up in that way. Surely we do not want to restrict people from collecting for good causes where that can be done in a way that is consistent with the sporting event, particularly when we consider that charities historically have been exempted from the advertising offences when we have hosted sporting events of this nature in the past.

I have tried in doing that to follow the example that my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond has taken with his Amendment 39. As he said, that mirrors the approach taken in the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, which provided carve-outs for community and educational uses, and I congratulate him on the way he set that one out.

I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, undersold his Amendment 38 a little. It concerns the impact of exclusive advertising authorisations on small and medium-sized enterprises and, as my noble friend Lord Hayward has done, it is worth drawing the Committee’s attention to what the Government’s own impact assessment says about this, because it is rather revealing. The final stage impact assessment, published by the department, acknowledges candidly that the provisions most likely to affect small and micro-businesses are the trading provisions of this Bill, which could prevent established street and market traders operating as usual in and around restricted zones. It recognises that there may be

“small disproportionate impacts on local traders relative to the broader business community”.

Therefore, it acknowledges that the greatest potential impact will fall on street traders in affected areas—as my noble friend Lord Fuller said, the people who add to and enhance the enjoyment of many people going to sporting events. The impact assessment promises that

“careful consideration will be given to how best to mitigate these impacts when making regulations on a case-by-case basis”.

That is a candid admission, but candour in an impact assessment is not the same as a legal safeguard in the Bill. Amendment 38 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, seeks to translate the Government’s own stated intentions from the impact assessment into an enforceable obligation. I think that one is worth the Minister looking at carefully in her response this evening but perhaps also as we consider all the issues we have looked at today between now and Report. I am grateful to noble Lords for all their amendments in this group.

Baroness Twycross (Lab)I thank the noble Lords, Lord Addington, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham, Lord Fuller and Lord Holmes of Richmond, for their amendments.

Amendment 38, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would require a designated person to have regard to additional factors related to small and medium or local enterprises when determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation. We share the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that such businesses are not unfairly impacted and that they are able to benefit from the sporting event where appropriate.

In the interest of proportionality, we intend to minimise the impacts of the advertising provisions on existing businesses by introducing exceptions to the offences in regulations. These exceptions would be based on existing advertising controls to allow usual advertising on business premises. Businesses within a restricted zone wishing to display advertising that is not subject to an exception may be able to seek authorisation to do so—for example, from the event organiser or local authority. Where an authorisations process is in place and the proposed activity does not undermine commercial sponsors, businesses with an existing licence to advertise should be given precedence.

Before making regulations, the Secretary of State or devolved authority must consult with the relevant authority and any other persons. This could include local businesses. Guidance setting out the advertising restrictions that will be in place must also be made available.

Amendment 39, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, would create an exception to the advertising offence for certain non-commercial entities. We recognise the vital work each of these does for local communities. In most cases, they will not be affected by the advertising provisions in the Bill. I will say more on charities shortly, but I stress that the advertising offence will capture charities and other non-commercial entities only if they are advertising a business, product or service in a restricted zone. Where such entities could be affected, we will look to provide an appropriate exception in regulations. This will ensure that the interest of any charity partner in an event, if there is one, can be taken into account where necessary. Generally, this means providing exceptions in regulations on a case-by-case basis to ensure that they are proportionate, workable and event-specific. Again, guidance will be made available, making clear how non-commercial entities could be affected and the options available to them.

Amendment 40 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Markham, creates an exception to the advertising offence for promoting charities and certain charitable services. We share the spirit of this amendment. However, as this is a UK-wide framework, exceptions must be workable across the four nations. These separate jurisdictions have differing laws defining and regulating charities. To ensure that exceptions related to charities can be applied effectively, these will need to be brought forward in regulations drafted in accordance with local laws, taking into account the interests of any charity partners. Charities will be captured by the offence only where they are promoting a product, business or service. As I stated in relation to a previous group, exceptions will always be provided for advertising certain charitable services—for example, crisis mental health support services such as a hotline. To highlight our intention in this area, the Bill explicitly states that exceptions to the advertising offence could be made for the purpose of promoting charities or services provided by charities.

Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, would remove appealing for money or other property from the definition of “trading activity”. I believe it was this amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, spoke to when she talked about knitted items and proportionality in relation to that. That was a good example and the type of example I have been putting to the Bill team to test. I understand that this amendment is looking to probe why charitable fundraising is within the scope of the trading offence. The trading offence is designed to regulate activity that could disrupt the easy and free movement of spectators and provide a mechanism to control the number of traders, including charity collectors, operating within a restricted zone. For this reason, a number of local authorities already regulate charity collections in public places. Although I am sympathetic to the spirit of this amendment, a blanket exception for charitable fundraising could undermine these objectives. For example, an event may have an official charity partner which may need to be given priority over a fundraising activity in a restricted trading zone.

21:00:00

Equally, well-established businesses may use such an exception to circumvent the restrictions on advertising and trading, leveraging the opportunity to raise funding for their charity partners while at the same time providing them with significant amounts of brand exposure. That being said, we agree that we should support charitable fundraising where appropriate. Charities that are seeking to raise money for themselves may be able to apply for authorisation to undertake fundraising activity in a restricted trading zone, and priority should be given to charities already operating in areas affected by the restrictions.

Amendment 56, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, would provide an exception to the trading offence for activity carried out in accordance with a trading licence. I recognise the need to protect those traders operating in locations that may be affected by the restrictions. These provisions ensure the safe and effective flow of spectators around event locations while protecting commercial rights. This means considering the impact of existing traders on spectator management.

We will seek to minimise the impact on existing businesses that trade from a fixed location, including street traders licensed by the local authority operating in an assigned pitch. Such traders would be able to apply for authorisation to continue trading and, where feasible, these traders should be prioritised. If this is not possible, we expect event organisers to work with local authorities to consider whether alternative trading arrangements can be put in place. Further exceptions to the trading offence may be brought forward in regulations on a case-by-case basis.

In relation to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I would be very happy to discuss the impact assessment process further. I know that the noble Lord is one of those who reads all these documents and it would be useful to have that discussion as we progress. That is not to say that I assume that other noble Lords do not read those documents—I have just realised that I might have implied that.

Amendment 63, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, would require enforcement authorities to publish an equalities report, with details on what this encompasses set out, within six months of an event concluding. I want to provide reassurance that we expect punitive measures to be used only as a last resort. As with previous events, this Government will work with event organisers and enforcement authorities to ensure that enforcement activity prioritises intentional and persistent breaches of the law. This will include ensuring that appropriate training is in place for enforcement officers.

Only public authorities can be designated enforcers under the Bill. As the noble Lord will know, all public authorities are subject to the public sector equality duty in exercising their functions. For major sporting events, we expect enforcement authorities to gather and share intelligence about breaches and associated enforcement activity to support ongoing proportionate implementation of the framework provisions.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss these important areas and am very happy to meet any noble Lord who wishes to do so as we progress. But I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Addington (LD)My Lords, it is nice to end on something like agreement. I thank the Minister for her reply. It seems to me that we are accepting that there is a potential problem here and just about finding a solution. I must admit that the impact assessment is the sort of document I look at, cower, then drop. So, I will possibly take the sage-like advice of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and buy him a beer to get a good interpretation of it next time.

There has been a problem here. I see that the Government are trying to move towards dealing with it. But it is also a case of trying to make sure that those people who are going to be affected by it know, so that they can start to take mitigating measures themselves. I am not absolutely sure whether the Minister covered that well enough in her reply. Okay, this is the start of a process, not the end, but I think that we should have a look at this, because it is an irritant: it is a bit of grit that is not producing pearls.

We should try to get rid of it and do the best we can. We have enough information and experience now to be able to do something better than what we have at the moment. Let us have a look and see how we can get round to it.

I look forward to having further discussions with the Minister on this in future because I think we can make something better than we have at the moment. With that caveat, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 38 withdrawn.

Clause 9 agreed.

Clause 10Exceptions to the advertising offence

Amendment 39 not moved.

Clause 10 agreed.

Amendment 40 not moved.

Schedule 2Advertising provisions

Amendments 41 to 53 not moved.

Schedule 2 agreed.

Clauses 11 to 13 agreed.

Amendment 54 not moved.

Schedule 3Trading provisions

Amendments 55 and 56 not moved.

Schedule 3 agreed.

Amendment 57 not moved.

Clauses 14 to 16 agreed.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 9.07 pm.