Lords Chamber

Monday 22nd June 2026

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
None Portrait Oral questions: Decline in scholarships available for the study of history at masters level Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Labour)
-

Order Paper. >> My Lords, a study of history is of immense value as it helps
14:59
15:00
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton Portrait Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Labour)
-
-
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her constructive reply. Minister for her constructive reply. I should declare an interest as the founder of the Accomplishment Scholarship in History at Queen's Scholarship in History at Queen's College, Oxford. This year is the 250th anniversary of one of the huge achievements of the enlightenment. This particular 250th anniversary does not require a party in Washington or a new ballroom at the white House. And it's British. I'm talking about the publication of the first volume of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon's masterpiece.

Since then, Britain has produced a succession of brilliant world leading historians Macaulay Carlile, Trevelyan A.j.p. Taylor, C.V. Wedgwood, Eric Hobsbawm, Simon Schama, Bettany Hughes, Antony Beevor, Peter Frankopan and our esteemed our esteemed colleague on the benches opposite the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, to name but a few. The educational pipeline to this greatness has come under severe pressure from funding reasons in the last few years, and it's essential that we steward history as a discipline through these challenging times.

Does the Minister agree that history is a foundational subject? I think does. Does she agree that it's the cornerstone of a civil society, and will she ensure that government actively promotes the study of history in UK universities so that it can and will stand on the sunlit uplands? I'm thinking of the malverns on a summer day as a beacon to the world for decades to come.
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:40
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
>> To the fact that victims may. >> Apologies for the confusion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Apologies for the confusion. It's a. It's one of those days. It's all right. First of all, can I welcome the noble Lady to her new role? I wish you every success in holding the government to account and raising those issues, and I hope that she enjoys the new role and does it as successfully as possible. Can I also thank the noble Lady Baroness Casey for her report and for her continued interest and comments on this? The central point that the noble Lady, Baroness Cash has raised is around the ethnicity and nationality of grooming gang offenders.

We haven't yet got a reliable picture. She's right because the underlying data has been incomplete and inconsistent. That's why the former Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castleford and Normanton and Beth Cooper has written to all chief constables setting clear expectation that suspect ethnicity data must be recorded. But I say to her that she's right. We need to do more. And that's why we will legislate to mandate collection as soon as possible. The Police Reform White Paper that we published earlier this year said in January that we would set out our intention to create a framework to mandate data, and this will be taken forward through the upcoming police reform bill.

I can't give her introduction dates for the police reform bill, but when it comes, it's been announced in this session of Parliament, it will be done, and that will be done as part of the bill's proposals.
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:50
15:52
None Portrait AMDT: 1 Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-

of my noble friend Lord Markham, in this group. Taken together, these amendments seek to establish provisions relating to industrial action as a core part of the Sporting events framework that the Sporting events framework that the Bill ushers in with the intent of preventing strikes taking place during a sporting event to which during a sporting event to which the framework conditions have been applied. Amendment one is very simply an enabling amendment to simply an enabling amendment to introduce the industrial action provisions.

Amendment seven ensures that wherever an appropriate national authority applies one or more parts of the framework to a particular event by regulations made under clause two, it must at the same time apply these industrial actions provisions. It is not an optional extra, but it is something to be applied to some events and not others. But it's a mandatory part of the framework itself. Amendment 54 inserts a new clause requiring that any such regulations specify a period during which these provisions should apply, and that this 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 any one of the framework provisions first takes effect to the day the last provision ceases to have effect. And finally, amendment 57 inserts the new substantive new schedule itself. This creates offences for transport workers covering airports, buses, light rail and passenger railway services, and for relevant local authority workers who take strike action during the specified period, alongside offences for organising, permitting or inducing such action. The schedule also creates an alternative civil route, allowing the appropriate national authority to impose a financial penalty rather than pursue a prosecution through the courts.

And the committee might ask why all of this is necessary? Well, because the government is seeking in this bill to build a permanent framework so that the United Kingdom doesn't have to improvise event by event. Each time that 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 for the protection of advertising rights and trading around venues, and for the protection of commercial rights against unauthorised association.

But the Bill does not at present provide protection against one of the most visible and damaging risks to any major event. That is, the disruption caused by industrial action. Noble Lords will recall that in the build up to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, these were shadow 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 I quote, 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 unions 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 Airport 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.

So 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, and 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 that we've suggested in our amendments to severe fines, with an upper limit on summary conviction in England and Wales, a maximum of £50,000 in Northern Ireland, £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 that the government have suggested for the ticket touting offence elsewhere, and the advertising and trading offences 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 the committee will also agree that we shouldn't treat conduct which threatens to close down the event entirely. Any less seriously, I should 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 only to local authority workers in the area where the event is being held. And of course, the ban only applies 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 which are 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've added my name to his amendment, but look forward to hearing him outline it and may return with further comments in winding. But my Lords, 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, the spectators and the millions who tune in to ensure that the event can run smoothly and as planned.

I beg to move.
15:58
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed clause one, >> Amendment proposed clause one, page one. Line ten at end. Insert the words printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List. 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 show stoppers. It recognises that putting on these events requires a national effort. Now, 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.

And I'm reminded that sport is a game of chance. That's why we like it. It's what the uncertainty makes it so alluring. The favourite doesn't always win, and often there's an upset. That's the whole point now, especially in tournament play, a team's life can be measured in terms of hours. In the case of a stage one knockout or weeks. If you make it all the way to the final. My Lords, there are no guarantees in this game. Now. Back in 2012, one of the key resources for the Olympics was Labour.

There were 70,000 games makers there. Minister for sport at the time, Hugh Robertson, said the 70,000 games makers made such a big contribution to London 2012 and a country as a whole. They helped showcase a modern, diverse and fun Britain and warmly welcomed visitors from all over the world. Quite. But it wasn't just the unpaid volunteers and their 8,000,000 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 were taken into account, it might even have been more. And we celebrate that. And indeed, without their efforts, there wouldn't have been a celebration at all. People worked around their normal lives to give what time they could, and it worked.

The problem is that mobilising that sort of work today is now illegal. The Employment Rights Act ensures that the sort of work cannot be offered to people without a guarantee of the number of hours they will be engaged for. And, my Lords, that is incompatible with games of chance and luck. Of course, the government expects the organisers or other contractors to underwrite the guarantee for those people the people selling beer, merchandise and ice cream. But as we know, not only the uncertainty of the game, but 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 says they want to clear away all the uncertainty risks about the tournament coming to town. But let's be clear the Employment Rights Act provisions add significant costs, financial and regulatory risks and undermine the ability to flex the tournament as weather and results progress between the opening and closing ceremonies. So my amendment is intended to be helpful. These these events happen so infrequently.

They're obviously temporary. We know the hours can't be guaranteed in advance because that's the way of sport and the core component of event delivery are people. Now, I want as many people as possible to take part in the support, the delivery of tournaments, putting their shoulder to the wheel and bask in the reflected glory of success, not least for the paying fans, the experience is everything they want come to expect and are paid for. So my amendment is strictly reserved only to events within the scope of the bill.

There's no compulsion to designate any event, although I note that other noble Lords want to expand the scope of the Bill. But to be summarised, I'm being helpful and realistic and replacing chance with certainty for both organisers, participants and the fans. I'm offering the opportunity for people to serve, and we're reducing the risks of hosting and organising. My Lords, either the government wants to host these nation building games or they don't. But without labour market flexibility for this sort of temporary events, it can't happen unless the organisers assume a level of risk that exists nowhere else in the world, which, of course is a big disincentive to come to the United Kingdom.

The truth is, we don't need this bill. After all, we have built the world's most admired annual league and a true national asset, which is, in the words of the Financial Times, the Premier League, without the provisions of these bills. But if the government wants to take it forward and we do designate these events, then let's give them every chance of success, not hobble them with rules and regulations that will spoil the enjoyment and the pleasure of going to the game.
16:03
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Now it's to intervene for the first time in this Committee stage on this. These amendments is a rather an odd one, because it's one I hadn't looked to have a look at when we started this out. That's fair enough. But I also feel that if you are going to a games, a set of things into a country, you are going into a framework of law and rights that exists. You know? So I think bringing something in this structure, if you're going to bid for it, you should be taking into account whether you actually can deal with your industrial relations.

And we've done it a couple of times. As to the noble Lord Fuller things, I would suggest to him that you do know when you're going to be working in a games or a championship, because you have a schedule of events. It is not a randomised thing. And if you might have extra time in a championship in one of the big team games is a finite amount of time. We don't play till sudden death. And with weather like this in rugby union at the moment, it probably would be death if we played today.

But my Lords, if we're going through, I would suggest that these amendments. I think it is a good pro good feel about what's happening. But literally, if you are going into an going to taking on a project, you are taking it on with the risk of industrial relations. OK? Trade unions are flex their muscles. They will do. But do they have a right to flex their muscles? Do we have a right to say no? I would suggest that there is a real question here.

And although it is a valid question to ask, I would suspect the answer is you have to take a few knocks when you're doing this and a few uncertainties to get it. And if you can't take some action or make something that will accommodate something that will accommodate this, you really aren't fit to hold.
16:05
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Lord Markham Lord Fuller for these amendments, and the noble Lord Lord Addington for speaking to this group. I'd also like to join the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and welcoming the noble Lady Baroness Kramer to your Lordships' House. I look forward to future conversations with her on this bill before us, but also other related matters. Turning first to the amendments from Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, these amendments have the combined effect of introducing a framework that would prevent transport workers and local authority workers from engaging in industrial action during specified periods linked to sporting events.

This would include creating offences relating to the participation in and the organisation or inducement of such action. The government committed in its manifesto to repeal the minimum service level legislation and other restrictions on the right to strike, and did this in the Employment Rights Act 2025. So, as a noble Lord Lord Addington made clear, we do have existing laws relating to industrial action. These amendments seek to reintroduce significant restrictions on the ability of workers to take industrial action as a period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 demonstrated bureaucratic hurdles and make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes.

Instead of banning strike action, the government wants to bring in a new area of industrial relations that is built on collaboration and cooperation across parties. We're 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 employers should conduct themselves. This includes engagement 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.

My Lords, turning now to amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Fuller, this amendment 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 would not apply at major sporting events for 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 without appropriate safeguards.

It is our view that this flexibility can become one sided. The zero hours measures in the Employment Rights Act 2025 aim to end one sided flexibility by ensuring all jobs provide a baseline level of security and predictability. I do not think the noble Lord be surprised to hear that I disagree with him, that this would be 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 seeks to gather insight through the input of stakeholders, including on potential exclusion 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 workers can better plan their lives and finances. We would be keen for sporting events 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 withdraw their amendment.
16:09
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
I am grateful to the Minister >> I am grateful to the Minister and to the Lord Addington for their comments. As Lord Addington said, comments. As Lord Addington said, there is an element of risk here, but as we know, the risk. This is a proven risk we saw in 2012, in 2022 and earlier this year, the deliberate targeting of major sporting events by trade unions to exert some political pressure. And I'm sorry, sorry not to hear criticism from the other two benches about about their doing so.

We agree trade unions have the right to make make their protests, but I would hope noble Lords would reflect that. Targeting games like these, which try at a geopolitical level as well to rise above politics, shouldn't be targeted in the way that we've we've seen in in the past, and the risk balance has shifted a bit because of some of the changes that noble Lady, the Minister outlined, the changes that were brought in by the Employment Rights Act of 2025 does cause problems which your Lordships' House scrutinised well and highlighted as that bill went through.

But even if one takes a. I see the noble Lord Lord Sentamu in his place, who was very strong from the crossbenches about some of the perverse effects that that act of Parliament may have. But even if one accepts the argument that the government was making their. Sporting events of this nature are very different. There. These are temporary one off events where people are able to. To work in. As my noble friend Lord Fuller says, a a life changing way for an event that comes and goes and for which the employment isn't there anymore.

And if we don't make the sorts of changes we've suggested to this bill, we worry that the practical effect will be perverse. Rather than offering more secure work, organisers will simply offer less work and circumvent the guarantees our guaranteed hours duty by relying on short, fixed term contracts on outsourced or overseas suppliers, or asking more of unpaid volunteers, rather than on the sort of flexible, part time and casual staff who have made the delivery of previous games such a success.

So I think we might return to this in some form if report, and I hope maybe we can keep the discussions on this point going. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment one.
16:11
None Portrait AMDT: 2 Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-

Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment two Lord Foster of Bath. Sir, I move amendment two and I'll speak to the 11 other I'll speak to the 11 other amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Addington. And I declare my interest as the chairman of Pearson Gambling Reform and as the Chair of Action on gambling. My Lords, together my 12 amendments cover just two issues. The first, tackling illegal gambling relating to events covered by the Bill, and secondly, ensuring that venues hosting events covered by the Bill are free of gambling, advertising, marketing and sponsorship.

Now the noble Lady, the Minister has been taking a very keen and welcome interest in tackling the gambling black market and my first group of amendments relating to sports data, I believe are in fact going to help her. Because, my Lords data is the new gold in sport. While still dwarfed by TV rights, the use and sale of data is increasing dramatically. It's currently estimated globally to be worth $5 billion, and by 2031 is estimated to have increased threefold.

And this data is used in a remarkable number of different ways, from sports teams wanting to understand their players performances to event organisers providing fans with knowledge to help them even create their and choose their fantasy football team, for instance. But crucially, it is also used by betting companies to both 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 the latency issues, arrive sooner than from a TV feed, and this becomes increasingly important with the rise of gambling on the so-called prediction markets.

So to monetise this value, organisers of events covered by the bill already sell global data rights to organisations known as aggregators, who gather the data and then sell licences for it. And they use things like AI camera systems in the gathering of that data. In the current World Cup 2026, stats perform serve as FIFA's first ever official and exclusive world betting data distributor. But my Lords, these licences are voluntary and they're difficult to enforce. And 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.

And this leads to both an economic loss to the sport and those that have licensed the data to then sell on to betting companies. But it also has significant integrity implications because if data can be manipulated by unscrupulous data suppliers, then so can the betting markets themselves. In the other licensing agreement, 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. So my first group of amendments adds into the bill reference to the license agreements between betting companies and the relevant events organisers in relation to the supply of event data for gambling purposes. And, crucially, it makes it unlawful to offer betting products without such a licence. And it also ensures that event organisers, who do not wish their data to be used for betting markets, can do so, and it improves the integrity of the event.

The majority of legal gambling companies who enter licences through authorised means will clearly welcome such a move, and I certainly hope the Minister will also welcome it as it supports the overall aim of the Bill and helps tackle the gambling black market. Moving on to my second set of amendments in this group at Second Reading, I rehearse my concern about the ubiquitous link between sports and gambling concerns that mean children see as normal the enjoyment of sport being closely linked to gambling on outcomes within sporting events.

I will repeat those arguments now, nor detail the huge research base that shows that harm caused by gambling advertising is ubiquitous, certainly in sport, and, suffice it to say, major international sports events organisers are increasingly looking at what to do about it. Many have already taken action. The I o 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 who do the same, and many of individual sporting event bodies that not yet have adopted this approach nevertheless agree that when it comes to decisions on such matters, it will be down to the host country to decide. So quite simply, my Lords, the second set of amendments in this group proposes the adoption of a single similar clean venue policy in the Bill so that no gambling advertising is allowed in the restricted advertising zones of the events covered by this 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 noble Lady, the Minister agrees, so that when we host major international sporting events, the venues will be free of gambling, advertising, marketing and sponsorship. And my Lords, if she doesn't and I hope that's not the case. If she doesn't, I hope she will at least have a look at my other amendment, amendment 37, which would require the consideration of the impacts of age restricted or harmful advertising when enacting the advertising provisions of the Bill.

Together, my Lords, 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. And I beg to move. Amendment two.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment proposed clause one, page one, line 12, and insert

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the words as printed on the Marshalled List. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If nobody. Lord.
16:19
16:20
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
as I rise, I note that I've supported amendments 37, 41 and 44. supported amendments 37, 41 and 44. But what I will chiefly speak to, because I think the noble Lord Lord Foster of Bath has already made the case on gambling very strongly. And case on gambling very strongly. And it was something I also raised in Second Reading is my amendments 42, Second Reading is my amendments 42, 45, 49 and 52, which are about fossil fuel advertising. They seek to ensure that sporting events to ensure that sporting events covered by this act 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 heat wave that the UK is currently facing, and one of the impacts, of course, of that heat wave will be significant impacts on many sporting events, many people's intention to do all sorts of physical activity is going to be for very good reason, curtailed in the coming week. This 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 its 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 they are the people who are going to have to wear the consequences. For the longest period of time, as I raised at the Second Reading, and became very much a basis for this amendments, this is not something we're dreaming up.

Britain would not be able to claim to be world leading. Should the noble Lady, the Minister, go, yes, I entirely agree with you and adopt all of 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, and as I spoke at Second Reading, a number of councils have already shown leadership. We are seeing today leadership arriving in Westminster from the rest of the country.

This is a place where we could also find some more leadership for that. The UN secretary General has called for restrictions on fossil fuel advertising, similar to those applied to tobacco. Now I move, secondly, to the second group of amendments that I have in this, which is about related but different about healthy, the advertising of less healthy food. This is amendments 43, 46, 50 and 53. There is a huge contradiction, a 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 amendments and others seek to ensure that sporting events covered by the act 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, and we are all bearing the price for that. The gap is that Ofcom doesn't regulate sports sponsorship deals. We have regulations about junk food advertising, but not about sponsorship.

So Ofcom can't do anything about watching a sporting event and being bombarded with advertising for McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Budweiser and sports drink companies like so-called sports drinks like Powerade. Those brands appear everywhere. We don't see adverts for tap water. Might be a nice idea if we did, but let's put that down as a thought. This creates, when we do this sponsorship, a health halo effect. Products are conceived and indeed often advertised as being 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 has policies in terms of direct advertising to act in this area, as indeed we saw the historically, we saw originally bans on cigarette advertising that then had to be strengthened and strengthened and strengthened. We need to see the same thing helping with ultra processed and other unhealthy foods. We have an accepted principle that marketing of less healthy food to children is a legitimate public policy concern.

This addresses a inconsistency in public policy. This set of amendments. Sport should be used to inspire healthy lives, not as a platform to promote consumption of foods that we know are going to shorten people's lives and make them less healthy.
16:26
Lord Hayward Portrait Lord Hayward (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, in relation to these proposed amendments, I have proposed amendments, I have sympathy with a number of the points, particularly as it relates to gaming, and I think Lord foster has made very clear his logic behind what he is asking for in terms of these amendments. But unfortunately, Baroness Bennett, although I'm extremely sympathetic to the issue of climate change and won't by all sorts of things in plastic and plastic bottles and the like, I worry because what we're talking about here is an ever extended list of we'll add on this and we'll add on that, and we'll add on another thing, which every time we get to a major sporting event, we will look at whether we should add on other things which operate in other countries.

Baroness Bennett just used the words 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 can't spend our time trying to run ahead of policies that we have, whether it's in relation to age related matters, certain products in terms of eating or drink.

I've spoken on a number of occasions in this chamber being highly critical of Coca-Cola and their sport, their sponsorship of major sporting events. But as I say, it's a very difficult process, a difficult road we're going to go down. If we start adding on one thing after another.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the noble Lady. Sits down. I just wish to make

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sits down. I just wish to make it clear that when I was talking about an established principle, I was talking about the fact that we have restricted advertising of have restricted advertising of these products, particularly to children. So therefore it's a question of how far that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question of how far that restriction goes. It's not doing something new. I thank the noble Lady for that clarification, because I wasn't clarification, because I wasn't absolutely clear about what she was talking about, whether she was talking about the established principles or extending the limits in some form or another. Can I, just, before I sit down, make an observation about something that Lord Fuller made comment that Lord Fuller made in the last group of amendments. I think I heard him refer to the sporting events as ones of chance.

On two occasions during his contribution. I think there are a fair number of medallists in this chamber today who may actually think, well, it wasn't chance that got me a gold or a silver or a bronze medal. And equally, when I refereed rugby, it was very rarely viewed as chance that one team or the other one, although there was the odd chance that the referee might have made an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

error at the time. Never like. To reassure the noble Lord Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To reassure the noble Lord Lord Hayward that I didn't mean chance as in random, because I do accept

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that in sport, the harder you work, the luckier you get. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, my noble friend who is a doughty warrior when it comes to a doughty warrior when it comes to showing up the harms of gambling not only for the harms of gambling, but also something gambling, which,
16:29
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
let's face it, is a threat to the integrity of sport. If it is not integrity of sport. If it is not regulated very carefully, there is nothing much else that can destroy a sporting event than not having a sporting event than not having faith in the result. And the outcome is a fair one. And let's just remember that before we go through also that the harms that are being done by gambling to individuals, and the fact that in the digital world, those harms reach further.

It is something which we can't forget when we talk about this. And I hope, and I'm pretty sure the Minister will not have done, and indeed, if our officials tried, I shall imagine they wouldn't last very long. You've got to try and get to a situation where we have some understanding of what is happening here, and what difference that makes to the events themselves. Even if you're only looking at the sporting value and the fact that data, the use of data in sport is something which is a fascinating story unto itself, but actually gathering that data and using it is something which we are only just starting to get the, shall we say.

Most of us are discovering a world that is developing, and then it comes up and we go, really? That's how you've done it. And indeed, those with heavy training schedule, especially of the recent past, undoubtedly have 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 would hope when the Minister comes to answer these amendments, that she gives us a fairly full view of what the government is seeking to do generally in this field, as well as specifically in this bill.

We've got a series of considerations here. Advertising generally, things that we are able to. Smoking has got to be the the obvious one. The fact that it was an accepted part of advertising and it's been removed, and how we're actually working that in how we're going forward, whether it is a general principle we're talking about or specifics, how what are the limitations as we as we move forward? And let's face it, if you have the Olympics at the moment, you have Coca Cola, not a health product.

I think anybody would agree it might be much less damaging in some of its forms to you than it than in others. But it's not a health product, nor are the other soft drinks that go with it. I would hope that the Minister will actually be able to give us some idea of what their thinking is and where they're going. And also, you may well be saving yourself a little time now or the government time, if you can say what other bits of legislation are going to affect this, because this is a big subject.

We're catching on on this bill and we're touching on and I an idea of actually what the overall picture is and where the government has actually thought they're going is be a very important thing to take away from this.
16:33
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
I think this really boils down >> I think this really boils down to a question of balance and, and proportion. And I thank the noble Lord, Lord foster and the noble Lord, Lord foster and the noble Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle for their amendments and 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 do think some of the remedies they are suggesting are disproportionate and too strict.

Not not everybody feels the way that they do about gambling, for instance. And indeed, many people in find without having any gambling problems, that it enhances their enjoyment of sporting events. Many people gambling gamble in this country without developing gambling harms, and it's right that we have the protections in place to maintain that. But as the I think the Gambling Commission found with its recent advertising campaign advising people on the dangers of a workplace sweepstake, which came across as a bit a bit po faced to many sports fans, that question of balance is is one that always has to be carefully looked at and and struck whilst maintaining the protections for more vulnerable people.

I veer more to what my noble friend Lord Heywood outlined in the explore, looking for established principles rather than a list that we would continue to add to as times and tastes change. And I suppose this is one of the problems with a framework bill where we are trying to anticipate social laws and debates that might come in generations past. Previously, we've been able to have these debates each time we've been lucky enough to host a major sporting event and have these discussions in the context of social and political views across the country at the time.

So it is it is a useful debate here, but we are not attracted to the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord foster or the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, have tabled in this group. What we would like to see more of while, though, while we look at these issues, is a greater attention to the illegal unlicensed market in gambling, which is a real and growing threat. And the liberal Lord foster touched on it in his remarks as well. 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 itself has warned that His Majesty's Treasury could lose up to £500 million if recent tax changes push more consumers towards unlicensed sites. 1 in 6 gamblers, some 2.8 million people say they are already aware of at least one unregulated brand, and among the under 25, 1 in 5 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, up from just 16% in 2019. So whilst we don't agree with all of 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. And the government itself recognised this. In February this year, the Secretary of State announced plans to stop unlicensed operators sponsoring Premier League football clubs and to establish a cross-industry illegal gambling task force.

The noble Baroness is, of course, the gambling Minister, and she said at the time that the government will not hesitate to act. Where we see people being put at risk. But since February we still haven't seen that consultation launched and the industry, including operators themselves, who are asking for tougher action against their unlicensed rivals, are still waiting with bated breath. So perhaps when she rises, the noble Baroness, the Minister, could update us on the important work that is being done then, both in connection with the major sporting events that we're seeing across the world this summer, but also for future sporting events that we are lucky enough to host here in the United Kingdom.
16:37
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
Thank you. I'd like to thank the >> Thank you. I'd like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Addington and the noble Lady Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle for tabling these amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and a number of noble Lords who spoke to them. Turning first to amendments two,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Turning first to amendments two, five, six, 61, 65 and 67, tabled by the noble Lords. Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Addington, which seek to regulate sports rights provisions. My Lords sporting bodies are free to enter into their own sponsorship and broadcast own sponsorship and broadcast arrangements, and in recent years, through these, the gambling sector has made a significant financial contribution to sports, including football, rugby, horse racing and snooker. Of course, I recognise the strength of feeling noble Lords have in this area and my noble friend Baroness Taylor of Bolton also spoke to this point and clearly shares that strength of feeling.

But I hope that noble Lords can appreciate the government's desire to balance the sports sector's commercial freedom, together with our ongoing efforts to reduce gambling harm and indeed to reduce the the shift towards illegal gambling that was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. And I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that any action we take in this area should be proportionate. The relationship between gambling sport, however, is something we take very seriously, particularly given its potential impact on children, young people and the vulnerable.

I'll come on to soft drinks later. But in response to noble Lord Lord Addington question on what this government is doing in relation to gambling harm since 2024, we've 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 provides for the first time independent and sustainable funding for the research, prevention and treatment of gambling related harms.

This has more than doubled the money compared to the previous voluntary levy. Each year, 20% of the funding will be spent on research to strengthen the evidence base on gambling related harms. As I believe the new Labour Lord, Lord foster is aware, this includes a research fellow within DCMs to specifically look at gambling, advertising and bringing together the evidence to see what appropriate steps might be there. But at. Currently, as the noble Lords also aware, we don't have any plans to limit gambling advertising.

We've also. Further than it already is because 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 2020 627 season. We have further confirmed that we will consult as soon as possible on the banning of unlicensed sponsorship within sports in response to noble Lord Lord Parkinson's question.

I'm very keen as a government Minister for this to start as soon as possible. I will write to the noble Lord to confirm if we can give further detail on when that will come. My Lords, the government is committed to tackling gambling harm and clear that we must be evidence based in an 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 that resulted 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 don't have a response on the extensive points that the noble Lord made on data, but I'm happy to meet the noble Lord to go through that. Therefore, with full respect for this important subject, I don't believe this amendment is necessary or that this is the right vehicle for changes to gambling legislation. This is a narrowly defined rule, my Lords, aimed at attracting and delivering major sporting events.

Turning now to amendment 37, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Addington and the noble Lady Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, which deals with the important issues keeping 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 do require that children be protected from advertisements that cause that could cause physical, mental or moral harm.

The codes also set out the responsibilities of advertisers in relation to age, restricting 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 regarding the impact of young people's exposure to age restricted advertising, such as alcohol and gambling, taking into account the impact on the advertising, media and sport sectors. Returning to the advertising provisions in this bill.

The advertising offence is designed primarily to protect event owners commercial rights by preventing businesses from 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. Moving on to amendments 41, 44, 47, 48 and 51, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Addington and the noble Lady Baroness Bennett, these would make it an offence to carry out gambling advertising activity in restricted advertising zone created by regulations under the Bill.

These amendments would 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 to gambling advertising. My Lords, as I said, event organisers are free to make their own decisions. This could include having a gambling company sponsor their event or indeed deciding not to. As the noble Lord, Lord foster made clear, as is already the case in relation to some major sporting events, the advertising offence in this Bill is designed to protect the commercial rights of event organisers and sponsors.

Most importantly, this is going to help minimise the call on the public purse and there are a number of measures in place to ensure, in our view, that gambling advertising, wherever it appears, is socially responsible. Turning to amendments 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 50, 52 and 53, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Bennett Amanda Castle, which seek to prevent advertising for less healthy food and drink and fossil fuels being displayed in the restricted advertising zone. I recognise the spirit of these amendments and the underlying ambition to help improve public outcomes.

That is why the government is already taking action to tackle childhood obesity and reduce children's exposure to less healthy food advertising. We want to raise the healthiest generation of children ever. From January this year, the government has implemented UK wide restrictions on the advertising of less healthy food and drink products on TV before 9 p.m. and paid for advertising of these products online at any time. Adverts for less healthy food and drink products during the broadcasts of sporting events would be in scope.

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 for adverts in the rest of the country. With regard to the advertising by fossil fuel companies, we do recognise that combating climate change is a major challenge, and that is why this government is committed to tackling climate change and has 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 don't 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 support these amendments, we remain committed to achieving our goals in these areas through other means. On the basis I've made covering a number of important areas and recognising, again that this bill is a tightly framed bill to develop a framework aimed at securing and developing and delivering major sporting events.

I'd ask that the noble Lords and the noble Lady withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their amendments. I thank all noble Lords who've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank all noble Lords who've taken part. Can I thank the noble Lady Baroness Taylor of Bolton for Lady Baroness Taylor of Bolton for her support for my remarks? I accuse her, imply nothing about who accuse her, imply nothing about who her support will be for the next leader of her party. I merely point out that almost everything she said out that almost everything she said is word for word. What Mr. Andy Burnham, now MP, said only two weeks ago.

But my. My Lords, I. I'm also grateful to others who've spoken. And if I can just refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Heywood, and subsequently the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and then built up, picked up by the noble Lady, the Minister, that we should be basing our decisions on principles. I entirely agree with that remark, but it does seem to me there is one principle that we've accepted in this country for a very long time, and that is the principle of accepting public
16:48
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
health issues needed to be dealt with at a public level. And given that the government has accepted issues around unhealthy food, to issues around unhealthy food, to put it like that as a public health issue, they have also accepted, the Minister has said it from the Minister has said it from the despatch box on a number of occasions, that gambling has to be treated as a public health issue, treated as a public health issue, and therefore, I genuinely do believe that we have got a principle that all noble Lords on all sides could get behind in relation to these amendments.

Can I also just say that I genuinely do accept that the Minister is keen to keep the the Bill as narrow as possible, but she has pointed out in her remarks just now that this bill is about protecting the rights of the event organisers. Her very works. Now, I therefore do not understand why we're placing in the Bill measures to protect rights in terms of ticketing, in terms of advertising and so on. And yet she's not prepared to put a similar protection for the right of event organise sports data.

Seems to me there's an absolute equivalence with all the other rights that we're protecting, and failing to do that in the way I'm proposing means that there is a real opportunity that we will have a growth of the black market, which she is keen to protect and to prevent. So I do ask her to look again in detail at this particular issue. It's been very carefully thought through. A lot of people have been engaged in work on this, and I think we would I would hope we'd be able to come back to it at a later stage in our in our deliberations.

Can I also just say on the black market that I think we need to be very careful to be alert to the fact that a lot of that growth in the black market is coming from people who have withdrawn themselves from gambling using a program called GameStop. And suddenly, because of all the advertising for a big event, they suddenly want to gamble again. They're not allowed to on the legal market. So they end up going to the black market, which is why we have advertisements now that say, not on GameStop.

My Lords, there's something wrong with allowing that to happen. And again, I hope the noble Lady will look at that. But I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn, and the amendment is from the supplementary sheet.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment two. A Lord Parkinson. Thank you. Well, I would like to start by declaring it further to start by declaring it further to the comments made by my noble friend, Lord Heywood. If I was to ever win anything significant, it
16:51
None Portrait AMDT: 2A Lord Markham (Conservative)
-

ever win anything significant, it would definitely be by a massive stroke of luck. My my my Lords, the. The government clearly stated intention for this bill is to create an event agnostic framework which can be applied to certain future sporting events without requiring new primary legislation to that event. The government have been very open in their belief that the Bill will cover all those possible scenarios. So our our amendments seek to probe this to see if this really is the case.

And again, these these amendments are made in the in the spirit of helpfulness, as I know, the other amendments made by by my noble friends and Baroness Bonham-Carter are made as well. So. So 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 sport, such as British Olympic Association, 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. Potentially hosting such an event will require the creation of a specific body to coordinate and oversee the events organisation. This, of course, is the approach that we're all very familiar with. Something that we had to do in terms of the London Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games Act in 2006, where we created the Olympic Delivery Authority to work alongside the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games.

The Oda was responsible for the redevelopment of the Stratford area, the construction of the sporting ventures and the infrastructure and the transport planning. All things I was very familiar with as as a latter chair of the London and Continental Railways that did the development of a lot of that that that work, this bill, this 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 did need to establish such a body of future event, then they would require primary legislation.

And of course, this is an outcome that we all wish to avoid and is, of course, the government's stated intention. So if it if it transpires that bespoke primary legislation is indeed required for future sporting venues, then what would be the purpose of this bill that we're trying to pass here today? So so our our amendments and the amendments made in in my name and my noble friend Lord Parkinson. Amendments two, a six, a 58, A 58 B and 61 A 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 have taken inspiration from the provisions in 2006 act, which established the Olympic Olympic Delivery Authority and amended them so they can be applied generally to any event to which the framework applies. Amendments 58AM58B Allow the Secretary of State to establish transfer schemes to delivery authority, and for the authority to be dissolved by order. Amendment 61 A inserts a new schedule into the bill. The first part of this new schedule provides for the establishment of a delivery authority and sets out the authority's general functions.

Those are to prepare for the sporting event, to make arrangements in the preparation for or in connection with the use or management of the premises and other facilities required, constructed or adapted and prepare in preparation for the sporting event and to ensure that adequate arrangements are made for the provision, management and control of facilities for transport in connection with the sporting event and to ensure the safety of people participating in or attending the event. Part two sets out the Constitutional Delivery Authority, including membership of between 7 and 11 people, the appointment of chair and chief executive, and the procedure from removing members.

Part three provides the procedural rules and delegation by authority, and permits the Secretary of State to require the authority to submit a report on the authority's progress, which must be laid before Parliament. Part four allows the Secretary of State to provide the authority with financial assistance should be necessary. Subject to affirmative resolution of the Bill. I'm aware that other provisions may be needed in secondary legislation, and I won't pretend that we've got right all the detail behind this. But what we're trying to do in here is set out.

Actually, you know, they're very likely scenarios where we will have to set up such a delivery authority and these things will need to be considered. So we're trying to build those into the framework right now, and obviously would seek to ask the government to actually, you know, come back more thoroughly on on what schedules really are needed. But these are hopefully helpful in way of example, I hope the Baroness May Minister understands the point I'm trying to make, that if the government really do believe this bill is passed, it will never need specific primary legislation.

The bill needs to cover all the possible requirements for future events. If we hope to host some major sporting events in the future, we may very well need a delivery authority to support the event, and these amendments allow the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government to do just that. I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause one,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause one, page one. Line 12 at end. Insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I wish to speak to my amendment, which covers a slightly different which covers a slightly different area, in that it seeks to ensure that cultural events affiliated with the sporting event are part of
16:57
16:58
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Portrait Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to speak very briefly to amendments three very briefly to amendments three and four in my name, and I'm grateful for the support of the noble Baroness Baroness noble Baroness Baroness Grey-Thompson before I do. Although it's a pro bono position, I declare my interest as a board member of the London Marathon Foundation. My Lords, the purpose of these amendments is very simple to give the appropriate national authorities, rather than just the Secretary of State, the power to apply the unauthorised association provisions and or the transport provisions included in this Bill.

Appropriate national authorities, as defined in the Bill, are the Secretary of State or the devolved administrations. So 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. So, for example, if greater powers were involved in relation to transport provision going forward, 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 I have tabled or signed, which aim 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. And I'll explain more of my. And I will explain in more detail my arguments for doing that. When we discuss Group three, sorry. Group six.
17:00
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I congratulate the noble Lord Offord, starting with asking a Offord, starting with asking a question that should be asked. It's a case of we're going on when we've done the big games in the past. There are other things, the infrastructure, things that have had to happen, and they don't seem to be on the face of the bill. So how do they fit in? It's that simple. My Lords, I probably should have had my name down somewhere in it. My fault. Sorry, but it is one of the things that we have really got to get out about how this bill is going to work.

Is it something we tag on to this, or is it something we expect to be a, say, a smaller secondary piece of legislation going through, or is it part of the whole that we're doing here? Because, as we said, we've always had to discuss this before and, well, always the twice we've done it in the bills here, because the other times it's been Scottish legislation. When are we going to get the idea from the government that if you need proper planning structure to build stuff, how is that fitting in? Because it doesn't seem to be that obvious.

Now, if the government have got a scheme that's coming out, let's hear about it, because it is one of the things that has been a great benefit. I mean, as in Birmingham, we learned how to do it quickly, and London we learned how to do it well with lots of planning. Do those two structures, where do they fit in to? What's going on here, my Lords? It is a very, very reasonable series of questions that have been asked. I hope the Minister has a very, very reasonable set of answers here and ones which take it away because most people, most people who are taking part in this wish the project well.

And we got a lot of nodding going on here. So if we've got that going on, just how that happens, if there are further questions about, you know, what inspires them and let's see what we can do. But because this is something which actually might be a very good thing, let's confirm it is, or at least let's confirm that it sounds like it is.
17:02
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord. >> I apologise. >> I didn't. >> Get him to speak before the noble Lord Lord Addington and noble Lord Lord Addington and didn't want to interrupt, so apologies, I apologise. OK. Can I remind the chamber of my interest? remind the chamber of my interest? I'm Chair of Sport Wales. I'm also part of the Laureus World Sports Academy, which is a group of ex-athletes that come together to raise money to put back into sport. I have my name on amendments three and four, but do support others in this group.

And like the noble Lady Baroness Limb Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, I do think this bill is slightly too tightly defined, because if we're going to be bidding for major games in the future, I think it would be useful to have in this bill everything that we might possibly need. And, you know, we have huge experience from various national bodies and organisations in this country. Previously been a board member of the London Marathon, so have seen that. And it would make sense to me to use the expertise that they have.

The noble Lord Lord Markham talks about transport. One of the things that was a massive success of the 2012 games was the transport actually for disabled people. It was an incredible experience, probably slightly more complicated. There was a huge number of staff available at various train stations and interchanges, but actually the planning for that started years and years ahead of the games. And thanks in no small part to the noble Lords Minister Lord Hendy for the work he did when he was Commissioner TfL.

But these are the things that we've got to get right. The world of bidding is going to change and what we're expected to do. And I think if we get this bill right, it's sends a really strong message to the international community that we take bidding for major games really seriously, and this is something that we want to do. I only joined you Lordships chamber in 2010, when we were doing the Olympic and Paralympic Games Amendment bill, and although there was a lot of support for that at the time, that bill was tidying up things that had happened earlier.

So to me, it makes sense if we could just slightly widen the scope and think about other things that are needed, it would save us a lot of hassle and stress in the meantime, and it would just make sure that the world knows that we are ready to bid for the biggest sporting events.
17:04
Lord Holmes of Richmond Portrait Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-
-
Hello my friend Baroness Grey-Thompson, and it's the first Grey-Thompson, and it's the first time I've spoken in committee. I declare my interest as advisor to the Crown Estate, Endava plc, Simmons and Simmons LLP and as Non-Executive director at avalanche BVI Inc and the Avalanche Foundation. My Lords, like my friend Baroness Grey-Thompson, it seems that we are too slow to compete with Lord Addington who never moved that quick on a rugby field. I'm advised, but nevertheless, he's still got some pace when it comes to putting down amendments.

I'd like to speak to my amendment 90, 92 and 93 in this group, but before doing that, I'd like to commend the remarks of other noble Lords when it comes to the need to ensure that 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 Games and Paralympic Games, the FIFA Men's and Women's World Cup and so on, we need to ensure that if that's the stated aim, then the bill needs to have everything that we can know at this stage that we need to enable that.

If we take a principles based approach throughout, that gives us the best opportunity. But as my noble friend Lord Parkinson's pointed out in the form of Lord Markham, there are gaps which exist, which we know now, because we understand from 2006 the need to put in place as it was then, an Oda, but to have the principles as set out in those amendments. As Lord Markham said, they may not be word for word perfect, but the principle behind them is sound.

We're 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're not. And there needs to be a distinction when we're going through this bill to adding provisions bobbling, as the government might call it, and enabling the bill to be full to the purpose of which it is stated to be. 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 to exclude charities, 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 is in commercial reasons because of a connection with a third party, that obviously wouldn't be included. It also sets out potential for the government to consider a limit for if it's a mega charity, perhaps the provisions of the bill should apply.

But this was an issue which we faced very clearly when we were doing the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, because it's an absolute cardinal principle. When you're involved with these mega events, you have to protect and defend the rights of the marketing partners without whose funding and indeed support and value in kind. These events could not happen, but it is in no sense trespassing on their rights. One centimetre to enable charities of which we have such a flourishing community of charitable organisations, particularly local charities across the UK, to enable them 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 isn't extending the provisions of the bill, it's merely intensifying the impact that these events can have. Again, at London 2012, we look through everything through a social and economic and environment, an environmental, a cultural lens. The provisions I've set out in the proposed amendment 92 give some illustrations of social value, but they are in no means an exhaustive list.

It doesn't in reality, impose greater provisions or restrictions upon an event. It enables it to really state its value right across, through commercial, through sporting, but into that wider social, environmental and inclusion potential all positive for the games itself. I look forward to the Minister's response to my three amendments.
17:10
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
I'd like to thank the noble Lords. Lord Parkinson of Whitley Lords. Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham, Lord Holmes of Richmond and the noble Ladies Baroness Evans of Bowes Park and Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury for these amendments, and the noble Lady, Baroness Grey-Thompson as well. Amendments two A six, A 58, a 58 B and 61 a tabled by the noble Lords. Lord Parkinson 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 a question that is worth asking and I'm grateful for the opportunity to apply, and I hope I can give the noble Lords the noble Lord some reassurance on on this point. For while we recognise the intent of these amendments, we don't believe that they're 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 setup of governance to support oversight.

Establishing a delivery authority is one way to do this, and indeed, it is a method the UK has relied on before, including as noble Lords, 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 likely to fall within the scope of this bill. Similarly, it's 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 relevant five football associations to deliver the event a proportionate approach, not least 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, my Lords, the Delivery Authority was created to take on certain powers as a result of a specific set of requirements.

It had to deliver. The hosting of these games required dedicated oversight with powers to coordinate different authorities. Given the scale of public expenditure required, including significant investment in infrastructure infrastructure such as new venues. I understand that we've seen a shift in what the IOC require. For example, they're now encouraging hosts to use existing infrastructure in the government's views. These amendments are not necessary given the very limited eventualities, the requisite ability to establish delivery bodies already exists to a sufficient degree.

Amendments three and four, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Evans of Bowes Park and also the noble Lady Baroness Grey-Thompson, would enable the devolved governments to apply the unauthorised Association of Transport provisions in the Bill. I do agree with the noble Lady Baroness Grey-Thompson that we need to get it right. I can assure the House that your Lordships' House, however, that we have worked closely with the devolved governments on the provisions in this bill where the provisions are within their devolved competence, we have ensured that these can be applied unilaterally, as is the case with the ticket touting advertising and trading provisions.

The unauthorised association provisions are, however, reserved and are not within the devolved governments legislative competence. However, they do extend UK wide. The Secretary of State will be able to apply them to events taking place anywhere in the UK, including where no no part of the event is taking place in England. My Lords of Transport provisions in the Bill relate specifically to transport in England and can only be exercised by the Secretary of State for transport. Is devolved government responsible within their jurisdictions? We have explored whether devolved governments wish to apply the transport provision their jurisdictions, and it was confirmed that these were not required in England.

The provisions are necessary to facilitate the coordinated delivery of certain large scale sporting events, which require integrated planning, clear responsibilities and coordinated action across boundaries. For UK wide events. Transport planning is coordinated through established intergovernmental and operational mechanisms in relation to amendment 66, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury and the noble Lord Lord Addington. This 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, and I'd like to thank the noble Lady and the noble Lord for meeting to discuss this. I hope I can reassure the noble Lady that the Bill's provisions 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 two also sets out that the framework may be applied to connected events and makes clear that these can be sporting on non-sporting events, such as cultural events, so long as it is held in connection with the main event to which the regulations have been applied. So while I recognise the intention behind the amendment, the 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.

Turning now to those amendments tabled by the noble Lord Lord Holmes of Richmond, beginning with amendment 90, which 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 the commercial purposes in certain circumstances. It would also enable the Secretary of State to define a regulations activity, which may or may not fall within the definition of charitable purposes and impose conditions on the availability of the exclusion, and require charities to notify enforcement authorities of their reliance on the exclusion.

My Lords, whilst I understand the intention, it would not be appropriate in our view, to include such a blanket exception. This could undermine the bill's objectives. For example, an event may have an official charity partner which requires priority over fundraising or the auctioning of event tickets, or which has otherwise negotiated exclusive rights which 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 back door.

However, we'll also always consider the impact of the bill's provision on charities. This means providing exceptions to charities on a case by case basis to ensure their proportionate, workable and event specific. I want to assure your Lordships' House that the government's application of provisions in this bill will never seek to restrict the ability of charities to advertise vital life saving services they provide. An exception will always be provided in regulations promoting this type of activity, including crisis and mental health support services.

I'd be very happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, to discuss this and other aspects of the Bill further. My Lords, now turning to amendment 92, also tabled in the noble Lord, Lord Holmes name, which 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. My Lords, this government fully agrees 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, in order for the framework to be applied. I appreciate the noble Lord wants to understand how we're ensuring this. So first, let me assure the noble Lord of the processes we already have in place to assess the potential impacts of a sporting event, even before we bid for it, as well as to ensure a positive legacy long after the event concludes.

I'm very aware that the noble Lord has been actively involved in some of these discussions. So I'm also aware that the noble Lord will be aware of a number of these ways in which we do this already. Already, the gold framework under pills underpins how the Department for culture, Media and Sport and UK sport supports 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 in order to understand, impact and maximise the benefits of a major sporting event. This is especially important where potential impact may not be immediately apparent, as is often the case. Furthermore, exploring and developing the potential of sporting events to maximise the positive legacies is often an ongoing iterative process at the timeline set out within this amendment would not allow for.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the noble Lords concerns on scrutiny and reassure your Lordships House that Parliament already has an important role here. The Bill is clear that the first time any regulations are made in relation to these will be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring Parliament is able to scrutinise the application of the framework provisions to that event. Turning to the noble Lords Amendment 93 concerning post-quantum cryptography standard for digital communications, I have to admit I had to have this explained to me as to what it is and what the amendment meant.

It is. If sporting events generally are slightly outside my expertise, this is way outside my expertise. I'm 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 cybersecurity perspective.

Of course, we want to ensure that the framework is sufficiently future proofed, but we do not consider a regulation making power of this nature to be appropriate or necessary. In the context of this bill. My Lords, 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 2025 2035. Sorry, not 2025.

That would be going back in time. Prescribing post-quantum cryptography standards under a narrowly scoped bill would, in our view, create a piecemeal, sector by sector approach. These standards are still maturing internationally, and we need to retain flexibility, in our view, to align with developing standards and emerging international consensus. I'd be really grateful and delighted, however, to discuss this matter further with the noble Lord and for the reasons I've set out, I hope the noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
17:22
Lord Markham Portrait Lord Markham (Conservative)
-
-
I'm grateful for the contribution made by all noble Lords, and thank the noble Baroness, the. The Minister, for her, for her comments and generally welcome the. I think the general support from. I think the general support from. From noble Lords and the constructive. I hope the noble Baroness, the Ministers can see that this is all brought with a constructive view of making sure that this framework legislation really can be comprehensive enough to work, and I. I must admit, I from my part, I think, you know, I I'm remain to be convinced.

I think the points raised by my noble friend Baroness Evans and Baroness Gray and Greg Thompson and noble Lord Holmes. You know, there are some quite serious points there that need to be covered. At the same time, I also thank noble Baroness Bonham-Carter for for widening it to include the cultural events, which of course was done very successfully in the Commonwealth Games by Andy Street and definitely worthwhile trying to bring into this. But I think to try and really challenge the.

The noble Baroness Minister further, if I may, she said that that it's not required because it's possible that these delivery bodies won't be required. And there are only two examples where they were required. But by her very admission, the fact that there have been two occasions when there have been required surely makes the point that why wouldn't we want to put it into enabling legislation? Why? Why wouldn't we have it there in place? So it is possible because it's no problem if you don't need it, you don't need it.

So you just ignore those bits of it. But if we're in the circumstance, which has happened twice before, where you did need a delivery body, then all of a sudden you need to have primary legislation. Which begs the question of what's the point of having this framework legislation at all? So if the whole point is we're trying to have enabling legislation here to cover all those eventualities, and I think all noble Lords must admit that these are very real eventualities, because they've happened twice already.

So I, I would hope that unless the noble Baroness, the Minister, can say with absolute 100% certainty that we wouldn't need such delivery bodies in the future, that she will reflect on those points before Report stage, and maybe think about embracing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

such amendments. But for now, I beg to withdraw. Is it your Lordships.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships. Pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause one The question is that clause one stand part of the Bill, as many of that opinion say, content the contrary not content. The contents contrary not content. The contents have it in clause two, amendments three and four. Baroness Evans of Bowes Park not moved. Amendments five and six. Lord Foster of Bath not moved. Amendment six A and seven. Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay not moved.

Amendment eight Lord Moynihan.
17:25
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> My interest as a former chairman of the British Olympic Association from 2005 through 2012, a member of from 2005 through 2012, a member of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and throughout those seven years a member of the Olympic Committee which had oversight of the games. My Lords, I was very sorry not to have been present at Second Reading. I was not a member of your Lordships House at the time, but I'm delighted and honoured to be back in a different capacity.

I read with interest Second Reading and as well as the Bill and the explanatory notes, and 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 will send a signal and can send a signal that we are keen to encourage international sporting events to come to the United Kingdom. But this bill is event agnostic and is seeking to provide a common legislative framework to assist that process, and it's very unclear which events are covered by that process and which I know my noble friend Baroness Evans of Bowes Park will address in future amendments.

My contention is to support the comments made by my noble friends during the recent debate on the recent set of amendments, and to contend that there will be need for primary legislation, and because there would definitely be need for primary legislation should we ever bid for the Olympic and Paralympic Games to come to the United Kingdom, and indeed, a FIFA World Cup to be held here, then it is, I think, incumbent on the government to at least accept the principle that there will need to be primary legislation at that time.

Let me start by saying that one very important point there sort of seems to be an underlying theme to this bill that it is for the government to decide on whether we host international events. Let's just take the Olympic Games. It is for the British Olympic Association, as an independent organisation, to decide whether or not we will bid for the Olympic Games. It has in many, on many occasions in the past had a competition between different cities to encourage one city to come forward or number of cities to come forward, and then to choose which is the preferred city.

It then sits down once it has identified the city with the mayor, as it did in the early years of this century, and sat down with Ken Livingstone. And there was a major debate about whether the Olympic Games should be in the West End of London or the East End of London. And it was wisely decided, not least because Ken Livingstone urged this point and said it was conditional on his support. The regeneration of the East End of London could be achieved by hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012 and 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 government and with that, with the government's support involved, particularly from the British Olympic Association, were able to table a request to the International Olympic Committee to host the Games in London 2012. So I think the first and most important point is that it should be recognised that the role of government in hosting international Olympic events or international sporting events is actually one of support for the bidders for those events. And in tabling the amendments that I'm putting forward today, I'm reinforcing that point.

This is a simple enabling measure. It provides a route for government support to be channelled through secondary legislation. And I simply say this to the Minister that if the idea that when we host the Olympic Games in the future is going to be debated in one hour on the floor of your Lordships House and cover all the detail that will be required for what will, in 2012, figures have been north of £10 billion worth of investment is just inconceivable that Parliament would sit back and accept that.

And at the moment, I just remind the noble Baroness, 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. And 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.

Now it is even more important in that context to recognise that we have no idea what will then be in the Olympic contract, the contract that is absolutely critical and drawn up by the IOC, not by the government but by the IOC, with the host city to host the games. After all, we've hosted the games twice. In 2008, it was another 40 years before we hosted it again. We hosted it after the Second World War, because very few countries were in a position to be able to host that in the games.

In the circumstances that were apparent in the world at that time. And then it was another 64 years before we hosted it again. It is very rare for one city to host the games three times. In fact, if we look around the world, the only country that has concertinaed that timetable is Australia. And that is because the quite unique and outstanding contribution of John Coates, the IOC member who has brought the games back to Australia again, as I'll come to in a moment in the Gold Coast.

So my amendment number eight really was intended to begin with to state that 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. But the point I was making, 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. So let me just look at a number of of countries or rather, cities that have won the right to host the Olympic Games. And what they did in Paris for 2004, there was 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.

And 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 very considered debate about it for much longer than was possible within an hour of a Statutory Instrument. They also had significant labour law exemptions, another law that they introduced, and interestingly enough, they have a sports law in place.

So this was additional and very specific to the needs to host the Olympic Games. They had a hypersensitive trademarking alteration to the French sports code to grant the IOC absolute ownership over all Olympic properties. These were debated at length. They needed parliamentary time, and that was regarded as important for the IOC to grant the rights for Paris to host those games. When it came to Japan in Tokyo 2020, they passed the Act on Special measures concerning the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Tokyo, along with secondary legislation, and I don't doubt for one minute the 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, LGBT, sorry LGBT and individuals from unfair discrimination. But as we know what happened in London, there was significant legislation brought forward and debated at significant length. And 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 support politically in both houses, to the games bid.

And they monitored very carefully the legislation that went through both houses under the excellent leadership of Tessa Jowell, to produce the legislation that was specific and necessary, the primary legislation for the hosting of the games, including a whole range of issues from intellectual property protection to security and policing, venue regulations, tax exemptions which are not covered by one of the five categories that will come forward. Indeed, the whole question about the funding of the games, we hoped that the games would cost 2 to 3 billion.

I remember when we first discussed the subject, it ended up, if you count all the security requirements and the dedication of our outstanding security services to north of 10 billion, the idea that that would not be debated in detail through a finance measure in both houses is just simply unrealistic. And it only needs to be looked at in the context of the Olympic Games. We could also look at the FIFA legislation requirements if we had time. But what I want to do is to come to possibly the the most important one, which is the fact that in the Gold Coast they have.

And we've heard from the government, the Australian bill in place. But then they had to produce after the generalised bill, similar to the one we have. They had to provide specific bills for parliamentary consideration in order to host the games. They had to have a Brisbane Olympic and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paralympic Games Arrangement Act in 2021. This was the foundational

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This was the foundational legislation for the 2032 games. They had to have a planning and development streaming legislation development streaming legislation that temporally overrode overlapping local and state planning controls. And they had a planning controls. And they had a major Sports Facilities Amendment bill. These are all primary over bill. These are all primary over and above an enabling bill, very similar to the one that we're debating this evening that was required for them to satisfy the International Olympic Committee's requirements under the host city contract.

And we have no idea what will be in the host city contract if we win in, say, 2036 or 20 40 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're having this evening in the context of what legislation may need to be put in place at that stage. There are a whole range of issues, not least on. We've discussed some of those earlier this evening, who the major sponsors are, because the sponsorship arrangement of the games is 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 a government of the day, decided we didn't like those sponsors. They were so fine. Thank you very much indeed. There were plenty of other cities bidding to host the games. So my point is on this critical amendment and indeed on the set of amendments under that were introduced by by my noble friend and Lord Markham. Yes. This is a bill that sends the right signals. It is a good idea, but it is it is motherhood and American pie.

It sends all the right signals out 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 don't think it will at this stage. And finally have suggested that we remove the words must be likely to leave a sports legacy. I mean, really, if the government feel that they need to qualify, leaving a sports legacy from holding a major international event, we have a serious problem.

If not, must be likely to it. It will leave a sports legacy and if it doesn't leave a sports legacy, then we shouldn't be supporting it. And the same with the social, the, the, the context of the social benefit, which is under my amendment 20. So with those introductory remarks to amendments eight, 13, 18, 20 and 21, I genuinely support the government in wanting to bring international sporting events to the United Kingdom. But I am, I hope, realistic in persuading the committee that this cannot be done simply by Statutory Instruments which 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 and both chambers are in support of that bid.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause two, page two, line ten. At the end,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page two, line ten. At the end, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. I strongly support the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I strongly support the amendments. In the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. And I think in the excitement of thinking think in the excitement of thinking we might have another Olympics and Paralympics, it's very easy to forget the huge amount of work and forget the huge amount of work and the reality of bidding for these games. I'd have to say 2012 was the best eight weeks of my life. But
17:40
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
it's also easy to forget that the process even getting to bidding was process even getting to bidding was a massive risk. And, you know, a lot of people put their careers on the line in terms of saying, the line in terms of saying, actually, we bid, you know, most of the way through bidding for 2012, we were told there's no point in bothering because it's Paris's turn. And we were amazingly able to turn that on its head. And I think it's also when you go and look at Olympic Park, a Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, it's easy to forget that legacy at that point wasn't defined as we look at it now.

And if a handout amendment is is actually a real thing, I think one of the successes of Olympic Park was that it was looking at as a mayoral development corporation. I had an amendment in the localism bill, but it was having the foresight to see what was required and what the park would look like ten, 20, 50 years beyond the games. And I think that's why we need to be quite bold with some of the things that we're doing with within this bill. We are way beyond sport for sport's sake.

And certainly amendment 20, which is Lord Moynihan changing, likely to bring to will bring is really important because we can do so much through the power of sport. Nelson Mandela, back in 2000, said sport has the power to change the world that is quoted everywhere. The bit that gets forgotten is the bits, he said afterwards. In terms of the fact that sport inspires, unites the youth, break down racial and societal barriers, he does say better than governments, but actually it's that the power of sport.

We shouldn't underestimate it. For me, I think we should be thinking about legacy. If we're bidding for anything, we need to build in legacy right at the very beginning when we're talking about bidding for games, because the value for money and the return you can get on it is significant. So we should be thinking about schools programmes, which 2012 did brilliantly. You know, coaching clubs, facilities, participation is such a tiny part. An increase in participation is such a tiny part of what we're trying to do.

So I think we should be bold and say, yes, actually, we do demand that there's a really strong legacy. Part of anything that we bid for so that we go away from these spikes. And, you know, everyone loves football for a bit and they love rugby for a bit. It actually genuinely changes the way we participate. And a Group six of amendments covers it. In terms of the noble Lady Evans, of both in terms of actually, who are we trying to get to, to be physically active? So, you know, I think these are the group amendments we should look at and think maybe a slightly different form of wording, but but actually be really bold in what we want for the United Kingdom and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beyond. Hello my friend Baroness Grey-Thompson in D to support all Grey-Thompson in D to support all the amendments in my noble friend Lord Moynihan. Such a pleasure to have him back in your Lordships have him back in your Lordships house. The boat is now being house. The boat is now being steered again. My Lords, he made so many points that were completely on many points that were completely on point. It's worth reiterating there's only one city on the planet which has hosted the Olympic Games in the modern era.

And from that, I mean, from 1896, there's only one city that's hosted the Olympic Games three times. That is London. Another city will equal us in two years time. And that is similarly
17:43
Lord Holmes of Richmond Portrait Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-
-
impressive. So there will be need to consider future bids, be they in London, be they in other parts of London, be they in other parts of the United Kingdom. And the points my noble friend makes are exactly my noble friend makes are exactly right. The scale of the funding, never mind all of the other issues never mind all of the other issues he raised, will be at least more than a little of parliamentary than a little of parliamentary interest. And he cites some excellent examples from other parts of the world.

And he's right to celebrate the sporting ambassador, who has strode across the world for decades in John Coates, who has done so much for sport, not just for Australian sport, but for world sport. And my noble friends. Comments to that end were very well made. Finally, his comments on AI are particularly pertinent because the bill is silent when it comes to AI, silent when it comes to emerging technologies. And 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.

Now, one would imagine if you wanted to have clarity, consistency, a coherent approach to such an impactful constellation of technologies already impacting right now, one would imagine that you'd want to have a bill, which, if you came across AI in health, in education, in sport, you would have a recognisable, consistent, coherent experience. The government have decided they want to take a domain by domain specific approach, as they call it. Well, we're in the domain of sport, and yet there is nothing in this bill on AI which you will come to in future groups of amendments.

In my name, it is AI, but it is all these emerging technologies which will have such a profound impact on every element of the organisation of the fan, the spectator, the media partner, the athlete experience in the run up to and at competition or games time. My noble friend was right to raise this in his comments, and I'd be interested in the Minister's response. For a bill which seeks to be future proofed, to set us in great shape to bid for these mega world sporting events.

And yet that positive, enabling, empowering role that all these technologies can play silent in the bill at this stage.
17:47
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Well, having managed to avoid false starting the two Paralympians false starting the two Paralympians this time. Looking at this, this we're back to. The thing about. Is we're back to. The thing about. Is this bill wide enough to enable itself to do what it has to do itself to do what it has to do within the within the known requirements of hosting an Olympic Games. It might, should we say no? Let's put it this way. It probably looks like it's about right for a championship or closer to that is using existing infrastructure.

Even if the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games wants us to use where we can. But you may well have to construct something new and possibly something temporary. There were all these elements have been in both of those things and very different scales. But if this is going to be something new, and also the case of the Olympics particularly seems to change what it wants over time, because it's an evolving thing. We expect the, well, the London Olympics change the expectation of how much change and benefit you could bring.

It actually has been a solid thing, and that was based on hours. And I know my Lords, because I was there many, many hours in committee when the government of the day effectively said, let's get this right, or at least get some framework, or at least I think even as a training exercise, what would it look like? I think half the time the government didn't expect to actually have to implement it, but that's merely an observation of somebody who's sat there through the Committee stage, going down this.

So there will have to be something new. And where in the current thinking does it fit in if we have to do that? Because the point is the Lord Moynihan and well, I hope he enjoyed his little sabbatical, but it's better to have him back here. You know, I say as one who dodged that, but my Lords, you know, where are we going to get that little bit of interaction? Where is it if it's needed, where is the space for it? Because you can't know.

You can hope you can prepare the ground. But if we have to do something different, where is the flexibility? And my Lords, I think there would be, shall we say, around the House, a degree of sympathy if you had to change it to bring a little bit of flexibility in here, if there is needed to, or something that's going forward. And I don't think too many people would object. So what we're trying to do and with these debates is to find out if you need to do something else.

If the Olympics changes, Commonwealth Games changes. That's even a World Cup changes. So it wants a little something else in there and we still think it's worth doing. How do we accommodate that? It's, shall we say, would the where does the government in this bill say there is the flexibility to say this bit won't apply. We have to do something because to future proof it to an extent to do that. Now that answer is one which we got some of in the previous debate, but I look forward to hearing how much how much more thought the government have gone into doing this, because it is a real question.

It is one we do need an answer for, and it is probably one that actually has to have a degree of flexibility at its heart put in there. We want this to succeed, but unless we have to go back. Well, this bill will affect completely failed if we have to go back and redraught something else, we don't want it to do that. What are you doing to prevent that?
17:51
Lord Markham Portrait Lord Markham (Conservative)
-
-
Sir, I'd like to start by saying what an honour it is to follow such distinguished experts in this field. Of course, my noble friend Lord Moynihan. Like others, I'm delighted to have him back. My noble friend Lord Holmes, and noble Baroness Grey Thompson again, if ever we need it. It's just yet another example of how lucky we are to have such a range of expertise in this in this chamber. And and of course, the points that have arisen in in this debate are very similar to many of the points in the in the last groupings.

And that is really, again, as as Lord Addington says, you know, whilst we want this framework agreement to to work, is it really possible to make it wide enough that it can cater for all the eventualities that we're talking about? Again, as my noble friend, Lord Moynihan mentioned, you know, there's new technology that is coming along. You know, they're mentioning AI in the Paris bid and think how much it's moved on from now. There's new rights that need to be taken on board, whether it's LGBT last time or some new rights going forward.

There's new funding arrangements that are very likely to be put in place. And so I, I, I have to say, I really 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 to say that an hour's debate under some sort of secondary legislation just isn't going to be able to cut it in these in these instances. So I, I really don't believe I can add very much to the expertise that we've heard already.

I will just say that, like others, this must leave a sports legacy so thoroughly, thoroughly behind those points there. But I really look forward to hearing the noble barrister, the minister's points, because there really is a lot to consider here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for tabling these amendments. I'm really grateful for amendments. I'm really grateful for him taking interest in this bill, and it is genuinely good to see the noble Lord back and elevates the opposition front bench, albeit another department. How could you go to another department, obviously.
17:53
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-
-
go to another department, obviously. So I think between the noble Lord and the noble Lady Baroness Grey-Thompson and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes has been noted by a number of speakers today in the debate. We're really privileged to have the expertise of so of the noble Lords and Baroness who've actually taken part in the process and been part of that work, to define the vision that is required to win bids. And I hope I can give all noble Lords reassurance that legacy matters to this government.

And as a former London Assembly member, I'm very clear of the physical legacy that this city received from the 2012 games in relation to the noble Lord Lord Addington question as to whether it is wide enough as a framework, we believe it is, and I will go through the amendments in turn, and I hope that I can give noble Lords some reassurance, telling first Amendments eight and 13, which seek to ensure that the appropriate national authority will comply with the host city contract or host nation contract before regulations.

Applying the Sporting events framework can be made. There are numerous agreements and contracts this could apply to, 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 all of them. 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 the host nation contract.

Insofar as one exists, they provide the means for governments to meet their guarantees to prevent owners compliance with the 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 assigned in advance of the event. It would not be appropriate to make a national authority a signatory of that agreement, where 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 their 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 which relies on this framework would only be complied with at the point when the regulations are made, thereby making this amendment redundant. My Lords, turning now to amendments 18, 20 and 21.

I understand their intent is to further narrow the conditions for applying the framework, requiring an event to be of significant international interest, bring economic but not social benefits, and have a sporting legacy. In the United Kingdom. However, the government doesn't agree with this approach. Whilst major sporting events do generate international interest and build the UK standing around the globe, they also deliver other significant wide ranging benefits. As was widely acknowledged during this bill. Second Reading. These aren't restricted to only economic benefits nor the sporting legacy of such events, although I would 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 generation 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 whilst 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. My Lords, those thresholds would be entirely arbitrary, set at a point in time and potentially relevant 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 is currently framed, provides flexibility to consider a range of factors on a case by case basis.

I'd be very happy to talk to the noble Lord and other noble Lords. Further on the points raised in this debate, I know and appreciate that all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate today want the Bill to deliver what we intend. However, for the reasons I have set out, I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, can I thank everybody who participated in the debate, particularly my noble friends in particularly my noble friends in sport Baroness Grey-Thompson and Lord Holmes? I have to say that I Lord Holmes? I have to say that I didn't live up to their expectations. I was, first of the losers, only getting a silver medal losers, only getting a silver medal at the Olympic Games whilst they had many gold medals to their names, had many gold medals to their names, albeit I got a silver medal by 0.6 of a second to the East German eight, who were subsequently sued the West German government for the damage that the drugs that they took during that event had done to them, but that didn't stop them from retaining their gold medal.

And to be honest with you, all, sportsmen and women know that it's the event on the day and the memory of that event that matters most anyway. Lord Addington noble Lord Lord Addington, who is also, if I might say so, a close friend in sport and lived through all the committee stages of the legislation. Indeed, the original debate that took place for hosting the Games in London 2012, which took place in this House, rightly said that in many respects what this legislation does is it focuses on major championships.

It doesn't address the needs of hosting either a FIFA World Cup or the London Olympic and Paralympic Games. The host city contract is not. If I might be bold enough to say so to the noble Baroness, the Minister, a matter for the local authorities. The host city contract is written by the International Olympic Committee,
18:00
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
and that is then discussed and signed by the British Olympic Association, an independent Association, an independent organisation, and the London Organising Committee, Olympic Games. I think what would help if the I think what would help if the noble Baroness Meyer Minister could just simply take this thought away, to recognise somewhere in this bill, which is the framework agreement which we're all in support of, that there will be sports specific primary legislation required for the hosting of the Olympic and Paralympic Games and the FIFA World Cup, and as long as the government recognise that which is a truism without a shadow of a doubt, there is no there's no exception to that rule in the modern era, and it will get worse in the future as governments politicise sport even more so that will have to happen.

And so if we simply recognise that and regard this as a supportive framework that covers a number of issues that are important, to send a signal to the world that we want to host international sporting events, then I don't think there will be any difficulty. But should the government continue to resist the amendments, then I think we will be returning to them and Report stage, and in the meantime,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg leave to withdraw. Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? It is this amendment be withdrawn? It is if I leave withdrawn. Amendment nine Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nine Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I rise to move amendment nine, and in doing so speak also to amendments ten, 11 and 12, which stand in my name, and that of my noble friend Lord Markham. These noble friend Lord Markham. These four amendments address two related but distinct concerns about the regulating regulation making powers
18:01
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
conferred by clause two 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 two of the Bill allows an appropriate national authority to appropriate national authority to make regulations implementing the sporting events framework in relation to a particular event. relation to a particular event. What it does not do is place any limit on the period for which those regulations may be in effect.

We think that a clear omission the framework is designed to apply to specific and time limited events. 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 nine seeks to address this 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 of 2020 and the UEFA European Championship Scotland Act of the same year.

That is a pre-event period beginning no earlier than 21 days before the event starts, and a post-event tale of no more than five 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 shouldn't adopt it here today. I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will agree. Amendment ten is a probing amendment to be looked at. Alongside this, it proposes a single flat period of 50 days as an alternative limit.

We've 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. 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, a generous margin, whilst providing Parliament and the public with the reassurance that exceptional powers do not quietly become permanent fixtures of our regulatory landscape.

I imagine the noble Baroness, the Minister, will cite the need for flexibility in response, and I do understand that this framework needs to be flexible for different types of event. If the sporting event framework cannot be applied, administered and wound down within 4050 days, however, I'd be interested in hearing what event she has in mind that might require a longer period than this. And if flexibility is the key, then our amendment nine provides the perfect solution. I turn now to amendments 11 and 12, which address parliamentary scrutiny of these regulations.

The Bill, as currently drafted, applies the affirmative procedure only to the first set of regulations, which apply to the framework for a given event. Subsequent regulations which 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 two to be subject to the affirmative procedure. The rationale for this is straightforward. The 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 the noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned in our debate on the previous group in relation to the Olympic Games in Paris, they took in such expansive issues as AI and facial recognition. Parliament should have the opportunity properly to debate and approve all such regulations, not merely the first wave of them. And I hope that by the time we come there, this experiment with time limited guillotines on secondary legislation will not be still 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, and I quote, 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 its mind, and 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 would 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.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Clause two. Page two, line 18 at end. Insert the words printed 18 at end. Insert the words printed on page three of the Marshall Amendment nine.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment nine. My Lords, stand up only to sort of. One. Again, if it comes to of. One. Again, if it comes to sporting events, I have a bit of reminiscing to do on this. I can remember a very good little row we had on the Commonwealth Games Bill about changing local taxation. It was a bedroom tax. So description. There was some people saw as a way of solving local government finances problems in Birmingham. It
18:07
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
was then pointed out that this was only two weeks was allowed for this only two weeks was 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 time scale, it becomes idea about time scale, it becomes very important that it is adequately placed and that is in the tradition of what we've done, making sure that that continues to apply means that we are taking a new legislation and applying it to a tradition of we are doing in legislation.

They are shorter periods of things. These are exceptional circumstances. If we're going to do that, we're fine. But not allowing them to become permanent, I think is a fair point here because they are very unusual things indeed. The entire premise of the bill is you are doing stuff for extraordinary circumstances, and I would hope that the government could give a reply that that reassures the noble Lord that his amendment is not necessary. But I think it probably was worthwhile to make give us get us the idea

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that that was the aim of it. These are short term measures. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Can I thank the noble. Lord Parkinson. For introducing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For introducing. This group of amendments seconded by Lord Markham? And can I seconded by Lord Markham? And can I just add my comments to express my gratitude to the noble Lords taking part today, and particularly to say to Lord Moynihan, I would have been very distraught if such an avid Leeds United supporter had been had been, had been lost to the to the chamber. To be continued, I'm sure. So just following on from these amendments, I think probing amendments, to be fair, especially amendments nine and ten, around the maximum period that the framework provisions in the bill can be
18:10
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
applied to a sports event. Amendment ten would limit the maximum period that any regulations applying the framework provisions applying the framework provisions in the Bill could be in effect to 50 days. Amendment nine limits provisions in the Bill to being in provisions in the Bill to being in effect, no more than 21 days before effect, no more than 21 days before an event begins and five days after an event concludes. We do not an event concludes. We do not consider that, as he probably predicted, that 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 individual event.

These will inevitably have varying geographical and temporal application. The advertising and trading offences are heavily localised and will only apply to places which are being 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. Nonetheless, 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 advertising and trading offences that 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 to no more than 21 days before the event's opening ceremony under clause 86 and clause 116. The advertising and trading offences under this Bill can be in place for no more than ten 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 being 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 does 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 predominantly driven by when tickets to the event are first expected to go on sale, or to be made available to the public for some events, this is likely to be over a year in advance of the event taking place, and I hope this answers the point that the the noble Lord made as a principle. The government expects 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 an appropriate time to raise awareness of the offence before the event, and to be clear with the public about what it means for the sale and resale of tickets. The government expects any prohibition on unauthorised association to be in place no longer than is necessary to prevent the commercial exploitation of the 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 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 two, one of schedule five 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 only remain in effect for a maximum period of 21 days. Turning to amendments 11 and 12, which 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 would like to reassure noble Lords that we have two aims here. The first is to ensure that regulations can be brought forward, which 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 time frame. The second, in line with the spirit of the amendment being sought by noble Lords here, is to ensure Parliament has sufficient opportunity to debate matters of substance or interest under the Bill as currently drafted 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've discussed further.

As you 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 on the face of 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.

My Lords, in these aims, I feel we are generally in alignment. I would also particularly pick up on the the points about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, making it explicitly clear that we are carefully considering the recommendations made by the Committee, and we are committed to working constructively with noble Lords across the House to ensure we strike the right balance in the level of scrutiny applied and for these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will take reassurance from those comments and ask that he is able to withdraw his amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her response, particularly the response, particularly the reassurance she's given in the explanation on ticketing powers, transport restrictions and so on. transport restrictions and so on. As she rightly said, these were probing amendments, but they're probing with a purpose. The bill probing with a purpose. The bill seeks to take some quite sweeping powers, in some cases restricting people's liberties, the operation people's liberties, the operation of commercial businesses and and much more.

We want to make sure that where those powers are taken, they aren't on the statute book for longer than they need to be. As the noble Lord Lord Addington says, these are exceptional measures for extraordinary circumstances, and
18:17
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
that is important to get right. So we will take another look at the we will take another look at the bill in light of what the noble Baroness has said, and make sure that we are satisfied that that is that we are satisfied that that is the case. But as I say, this is the we think we're being generous with we think we're being generous with the 50 day limit. And, you know, if an Olympic and Paralympic Games can an Olympic and Paralympic Games can take part, take place in within that window, then it's hard to envisage a major sporting event that might need longer.

But we will take that away and look at it further on amendments 11 and 12 and the point about secondary legislation. I'm grateful for the word, she says about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and look forward to hearing what the government says in detail ahead of Report stage on its concerns about the bill here. I'm not quite sure that I agree Parliament will have the opportunity for a full debate. At the moment, secondary legislation is limited to an hour and we've heard repeatedly, even today, what significant issues need to be looked at each time.

We're legislating for the hosting of a major sporting event. So we have some concerns there, and we're certainly would be concerned if there's this two tier structure of the first set of regulations and the subsequent ones, which could be very significant. So I do hope that the government will continue to look at that one ahead of Report stage, because I'm pretty sure we will return to that. Certainly, given the criticisms of the the committee. But with that and thanks to the Minister for her reply.

I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment nine.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships amendment nine be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments ten, 11 and 12. Lord Parkinson not moved. 12. Lord Parkinson not moved. Amendment 13 Lord Moynihan not moved. Question is at clause two stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content contrary not content for content contrary not content for contents have it in clause three.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 14 Lord Addington. Amendments. In this. My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments. In this. My amendments in this group so that he can actually try and remember exactly which group we're in. Six exactly which group we're in. Six thank you very much. Thinking one thank you very much. Thinking one ahead, my Lords, we are here trying ahead, my Lords, we are here trying to. He said, having completely lost
18:20
18:20
None Portrait AMDT: 14 Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-

traffic arrangements, other special things, but things that are only happening within the country. For happening within the country. For instance, Wimbledon, why aren't we extending that to there if we want to expand that tournament to make changes? Was the thinking that came round here or even the regular round here or even the regular things happening here? Six Nations rugby is one that, OK, we're coping, but we have to have new frameworks, we have new structures. The only thing that expands here, also the case of half an eye here is quite literally, my Lords, looking actually at what happens on big cultural events here as well.

These are things where we have taken short term measures here for short term functions, which could be expanded and could help. That was the essence of these amendments, trying to make sure that we actually take a good idea and push it a little further. The government have, I think, got a good idea here. Let's do something more with it. Let's make sure we actually are making sure that every big sporting event or cultural event, why not cultural events as well, actually has access to the infrastructure change, the government mental changes which could help them run it better.

I could expand this for a long time, but I realised I'd end up repeating myself over and over again. It's a good idea. Let's make sure it touches more of the world. My Lords, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Three. Page two. Line 35. Leave out three and insert two.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out three and insert two. My Lords, Lords, I rise to speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 17, 19, 22, 23, 24 and 25 in my name. And again, I'm grateful for the support of the grateful for the support of the noble Baroness Baroness Grey-Thompson and to provide my support to amendments 14 and 16, in the name of the noble Lord Lord Addington, to which I've 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 sporting
18:23
18:23
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Portrait Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Conservative)
-
-
that deliver exactly what Ministers have said. They want this legislation to achieve economic growth, international prestige and community pride. As I set out at Second Reading, Wimbledon, the open, Second Reading, Wimbledon, the open, the London Marathon, the British Grand Prix these are among the most recognisable sporting events of the recognisable sporting events of the world and they are ours. Yet as things stand, they fall outside the bill's scope and the greater bill's scope and the greater protections that it is looking to afford.

My Lords, this is not just surprising, it's also a missed opportunity. I'm very grateful to many of the major sports organisers across the sector, from cricket to golf, motor racing to tennis and running, who've engaged with me and other noble Lords on this issue and I believe have 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 sports sector.

Their message is consistent. While the bill is welcome, its current scope is too narrow. My amendments attempt to address that gap, but do so 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, are likely to be of international or national interest and are likely to bring social and economic benefits to the UK or part of it. Although, following the observations of my noble friend Lord Moynihan, perhaps likely to is not the right drafting, but nevertheless I still believe that these amendments would be a sensible and targeted refinement.

Amendment 25 proposes a further criterion that the government may wish to consider recognising something equally important, something the noble Baroness Baroness Grey-Thompson touched on the role of major UK events in driving participation and sporting legacy. Amendment 25 would require the government to also consider how an event contributes to increasing physical activity, particularly among under-represented groups, women and girls, disabled people and ethnic minorities. This isn't an add on. It goes to the heart of what sport can and should achieve.

But I'd also like to be clear about one point these amendments don't place a specific obligation on government to automatically extend the provisions in the bill. They don't create automatic entitlements, but what they do do is provide the power to act through the framework set out for iconic home grown major events where there is a public and agreed interest to do so. That, I believe, is what future proofing this bill should look like. My Lords, let me illustrate with a case the case with one example the British Grand Prix, which will take place in just a couple of weeks.

It's the largest weekend sporting event in the United Kingdom, expected to attract around 570,000 spectators this year. It's the largest grand prix on the international calendar, and in 2025 it generated £167 million in economic value over a weekend. By any reasonable measure, this is an event of national sporting significance. But my Lords, we don't have guaranteed long term, long term security for the British Grand Prix. We can't and mustn't assume that we will retain this iconic race and all the wider and economic benefits it brings.

Silverstone have to work hard year after year to ensure it remains on the racing calendar, and we mustn't forget that there have been moments in the past where the British Grand Prix's future Silverstone has in fact been in doubt. If that were. If that were to happen again, it would be a matter of national concern, or it certainly would be in my House, and rightly so. The question is, do we equip government with the tools through the framework provisions set out in this bill to act early, or do we 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 focussed on allowing the former, and I would suggest that is the more prudent course. We see similar issues elsewhere. This summer we're staging the ICC women's Cricket World Cup. We've already seen examples of ambush marketing and breaches of intellectual property and commercial rights for the ICC and its venues, and these aren't abstract concerns. They have real financial consequences with 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.

And again, this is precisely the kind of challenge the framework is designed to address. But it can't do so effectively if key UK based events fall outside its reach. I was extremely grateful to the Minister and her officials for the constructive discussion we had since Second Reading, and I welcome the continued engagement that I know she and her officials are having with the sector. I do 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, because the underlying point is simple.

Our great home grown sporting events are not just spectacles, they are 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 they are not inadvertently left behind. I believe these amendments offer a modest, proportionate and practical way to achieve that. My Lords, I very much hope the government will take that opportunity.
18:29
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
To amendments 1922, 23, 24 and 25. In the name of noble Lady, Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, which I've attached my names to, and I thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for her time to discuss these. I said when we met, I think there are a number of sports organisations that are feeling a bit unloved at the moment, and these are events that have a global reach and help cement our standing on the world stage. And the noble Lady, Baroness Evans, mentioned London Marathon.

I think I competed in 17 of them. It's quite hard to remember when you get to that money. I know I did one more than my husband, but and I commentate on on the wheelchair race for for the BBC. But it's not just the race itself. Any of you who walk up the embankment at 6:30 on the Sunday evening and see people valiantly keeping going to try and make it to the finish line, you see Westminster Bridge the next morning, the hundreds of people who have competed, standing there with their medals, wanting to take a photo in front of Big Ben.

And beyond that, the. The impact is quite significant. It puts London on the map as a city. It brings a huge amount of tourism. People stay in London for days afterwards, thanks to, you know, the many sort of good deals that the marathon has negotiated with various restaurants and and different companies around the city. And I think we need to think about this in a slightly different way, because that's kind of positive kind of chemistry. It's positive association that you can't buy.

You know, it's because people feel really just amazingly good about putting themselves through 26.2 miles around the city. I do want to very briefly talk to amendment 25, because I think this is really important. Most mostly athletes will mention something that they saw at another event that inspired them to do sport. That's probably because they're asked about it a lot, but actually, we can't underestimate it's not just about people seeing these moments in time and doing sport. They'll do lots of other things.

In 2012 was a brilliant example of that, of people who've gone into creative industries because of of what they saw. And the noble Lady. The Minister talked about wanting to change the health of our nation. And I think this is something that is incredibly important. I'm going to quote a bunch of statistics. Women in sport have said that 80% of women in the UK are not fit enough to be healthy. That has massive impact on jobs, pensions, life, everything, you know, hitting frailty.

At an earlier and earlier age, UK active have said that we've got a generation of children that are more likely to die before their parents because of inactivity. And this is really worrying because I think we do have to do something quite radical. It's not necessarily this bill's responsibility to do that. We need some some joined up government. We need to be looking at physical literacy in primary schools, progression steps. We need to be looking at the cost of the pathway for for athletes who aspire to compete at the highest level, sports a data which probably a little bit out of date now shows the average cost of pathway for a teenage athlete is £10,000 a year.

Imagine that's significantly higher. Now, you know, there's a lot of families that can't afford that. But what we can do is we can broaden the base of participation. And I'm particularly interested with this amendment 25 what we can do to encourage more disabled people to be active activity Alliance have said that disabled people not only find it hard to be physically active, they're actually quite worried about how it's perceived if they are physically active. So we need to look at this in a different way.

And, you know, as much as the world's moved on in many ways, and I was not a product of special education, thank goodness, because it meant I actually received an education. A lot of children who went through special ed didn't, but actually that was really good for getting an enabling disabled children to be physically active and mainstream, which is much better for education, has actually made some of those things much harder. I receive emails at least monthly, often weekly, where disabled children in schools are not able to take part in PE.

Again, that's not a problem for this bill. It's a it's an issue for the Department for education. But actually, unless we're more explicit about what we're trying to do and about how we're trying to change some of these stubborn inequalities, we are never going to move on. And I think we're incredibly lucky that in Wales we have the Well-Being of Future Generations Act, which gives us a very useful framing for what we're trying to do to encourage young people to to be active. And the Sport England campaign, this girl cam was groundbreaking for the first time.

It showed real women doing sport as opposed to Olympians and Paralympians who look slightly different. But we can't expect just an advertising campaign to radically change what we do. So I think anything where we can think differently about developing a fit and healthy nation that truly, you know, stays engaged in physical activity is something that I think is really worth exploring in more detail.
18:34
Lord Hayward Portrait Lord Hayward (Conservative)
-
-
Echo the comments of my colleagues across the chamber in relation to the set of amendments, although I tend to disagree or although I tend to disagree or clarify in relation to one of the amendments, this is an enabling bill, surely, therefore, it should provide the opportunity for major sporting events, as Lord Addington has said, who wish to make use of the bill to be able to come forward, whether it's the RFU or the LTA or whoever it may happen to be, to 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 on a number of occasions already this afternoon that sporting frameworks change, and we cannot guarantee that the Olympic Games or Fifas European Cups, or whatever it may happen to be, will be the same in 20 years time or 15 years time or whatever it may happen to be. Structures of international competition change. And if ever there was an example of one and surprised that Baroness Grey-Thompson didn't refer to it, and that is the announcement in the last few days that the London Marathon is actually going to move from one day to two days with the objective of, I think, 100,000 participants alone.

Now, if there are 100,000 participants, the level of attraction from around the world, and most people look at the London Marathon say, oh, well, it's just the London Marathon. It isn't. It's part of an international body of international marathons, a set group of them. But if we're going to have 100,000 competitors next year, we are going to have many hundreds of thousands of visitors. And there are transport implications and all sorts of other implications. And 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.

Can I now just make a brief observation in relation to the amendments, where they cite certain categories of people? Can I just ask for reasons that most people in this chamber would recognise, and I identified in Second Reading, there is specific identification of women, girls, disabled, ethnic minorities. You could either use the classifications of the Equalities Act or just stop at removing barriers to physical activity. I speak as I did, as I identified from previous occasions, as the founder chairman of the world's first gay rugby club, a a structure that has 100 clubs around the world, now has an international structure where we compete on a regular basis.

And certainly I know only too well the difficulties and the challenges associated with bidding and organising international competition, with people coming from other parts of the world. We had the European Championships in Birmingham less than a year after the Commonwealth Games, and we were the competition. The Union Cup was the largest sporting competition in the Midlands after the Commonwealth Games over the next 12 months. So there are international competitions all the way down. They restructure, they reorganise.

But specifically, could I just 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 another. And I know that's not the intention of those who have proposed those amendments. Very good. Excellent.
18:39
Lord Holmes of Richmond Portrait Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord. Pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Heywood. Were I noble friend Lord Heywood. Were I to imagine myself as I never would on the bishops bench. In approaching this set of amendments, I feel I'd be very much reminded of the parable of the prodigal son, because the Bill is rightly setting out a whole raft of provisions for mega sporting events that come to the United Kingdom on occasion, whilst events already rightly listed by my noble friend Baroness Evans, Wimbledon, the British Grand Prix and so on, year in, year out, do their thing.

Stage world class events that are far greater than sporting celebrations and competitions with economic, social and cultural benefit which goes far beyond, for example, a Wimbledon SW19. So in asserting the principles in the Bill that have to be in place when it comes to international bids, it seems at least odd that at least some of these provisions wouldn't be available to those extraordinarily impactful sporting events that are the very fabric not only of our sporting nation, but our culture.

I would ask the Minister to consider, if not these amendments, to consider the essence behind them and to how that could be threaded into the bill itself. And to my noble friend Lord Heywood's comments as a framework, why wouldn't the government want that to be available to those sporting events that wish to avail themselves of some parts of it? Because ambush marketing is ambush marketing, whether that's targeted at the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, or it's targeted at the Wimbledon Championships every year.
18:41
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> My Lords. >> The noble Baroness, my noble friend Baroness Evans and myself have a lot in common. They're both have a lot in common. They're both supporters of Norwich City Football Club, and we show our allegiance to them. But I disagree with her in her amendments. I didn't contribute to the last debate. Safe to say that it confirmed what I think. We all know that whilst this may be an enabling bill, if we do actually capture one of these global events, we're going to need to have specific legislation anyway.

And if that's the case, we're sort of not really doing any more than virtue signalling in this bill. The conclusion I think all noble Lords have made is the bill is incomplete. It's half full. I'm not going to say it's half baked, but there's plenty more work to be done. On to it. But if it is incomplete, I don't think it's the right thing at all to extend it in scope to other events, because the mission creep brings politics into sport.

Now, of course, sport is very difficult to keep them there, but it brings politics into sport by law. It prevents somebody who's interested in public discourse from having an opinion and gives them leverage over the event. It sanitises so much of the activity that goes on around the game. It makes unlawful things which are part and parcel of what we do, certain trade, you know, advertisements and things like that. It stops innovation. And I just don't think that it's right that Wimbledon rugby union, rugby league, the Grand Prix, the open, the test match, Premier League and I and I and if we listen to the noble Lord Lord Addington cultural events, the Proms, Taylor Swift, where does this end? And I'm really concerned that, however well intentioned this is, it could even.

It could really backfire because the noble Lady, Baroness Evans, my noble friend, talks about a gap, a gap to be filled. I see it a different way. I see this creating a chasm between the fans, our well trusted and well organised global events or events that we host of global repute. Put it this way who you know which which we have grown without the benefits of this bill, you know, and it's going to sort of create a a chasm between the fan and the men in blazers who want this thing for their own narrow purposes.

And whilst it's an enabling bill, and whilst it has very important new rules for traffic wardens, I'm not sure that having more traffic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wardens is enough in and of itself. It's a good way. And noble. Friend for giving way. But I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend for giving way. But I think just for clarification, Lord Addington, Baroness Evans and I have made absolutely clear. I think have made absolutely clear. I think Baroness Grey-Thompson did as well, that it is not a case of the bill encompassing these competitions, it's the sporting authorities asking that they might make use of some of the facilities of the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think we're ending up in a in a mission creep by introducing new a mission creep by introducing new offences for individuals who might want. And we're going to talk about ticketing later on. You see what. I think there's a misdirection at the heart of these amendments. And I realise I have a minority view. But, realise I have a minority view. But, you know, I think I want to express it and I should do. There's a misdirection with all these events, these amendments that somehow by putting them on a list, the government can keep them here.

And I just don't think that's a reasonable assertion. It requires the organising bodies. It was a British motor racing club, the England Tennis and Croquet Club at Wimbledon. They've got to work hard. They need to live off their wits. They need to really want to keep these events here. And let's not prevent let's not pretend that by putting him on a list and potentially bringing with this scope, it's not going to it's going to potentially upset the events which we know and love by bringing them into the political space.

And I just think that's the wrong thing to do.
18:46
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
Maybe I can set my noble friend Lord Fuller's mind at rest, along with colleagues in the shadow DCMS with colleagues in the shadow DCMS team, have spoken to a number of the major sporting bodies who are keen. As some of our noble friends have said, to avail themselves of some of the opportunities of this bill if the scope could be broadened to allow them to do so. And I think that that is the key test. You know, where they where they wish to do.

So, my noble friends, right as we have been throughout this bill to talk about some of the restrictions, burdens that come with it. But it's very clear that there is appetite there in the sporting world beyond the one off events like the Olympic and Paralympic Games or the 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 this framework, and not to be playing second fiddle here, I think it was it was it was the Baroness noble Baroness Brady Grey Thompson, who at Second Reading challenged us to be a bit bolder in this bill.

And I, I think this has been a very good group of amendments and debate encouraging us to do that, that we've 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. And I'm grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Addington, and particularly my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park, for bringing the amendments that they have with the support of the Liberal Baroness, Lady Grey Thompson, to see if we can be bolder and give those advantages to many other sporting organisations as well.

My friend Lady Evans described these events as the ones that define Britain as a major sporting power, and it would be unthinkable to imagine some of them disappearing from from our calendars. I pay tribute to the noble friends, work with the London Marathon Foundation, and, as the noble Lord Lord Hayward noted, it's marvellous to see that the London Marathon is going to two days next year, including many more people. But of course it is competing with so many other marathons that are around the world.

People come to these shores because they want to run on the streets of London, and because it's 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, and there would be consternation in my house, too, if the Formula One did not include race. Here in the United Kingdom. The UK is one of only two nations to have hosted a grand prix every year since Formula One began in 1950, and it would be unthinkable if that weren't the case.

I'm glad that Silverstone is secure through its current contract until at least 2034, but that requires hard work by the organisers. Constant competition. This is a sport whose global popularity is increasing. We have to keep on our toes. We have to make sure that we continue to deliver the brilliant events that people are expecting. And as the hon. Friend says, the British Grand Prix attracts more than half a million people annually, generates £100 million in local economic impact each year and contributes to a wider formula one ecosystem in the UK that is worth over £12 billion annually.

When one thinks of how many of the teams are based here in the United Kingdom, the supply chains, the R&D that ripples from that. Just to take one sport by example, we see the benefits here. So I think the key thing is, is how we can broaden this bill, if possible, to allow those that wish to do so, to take advantage of some of that boldness. My. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I anticipate that noble Baroness, Minister, may say that it's quite difficult to broaden this without difficult to broaden this without being specific. Just one thought. Having listened to this debate and being very supportive of what has being very supportive of what has been said, if, say, for example, the RNA for the open golf wanted to the RNA for the open golf wanted to avail themselves of the benefits of the sporting events framework which we're putting into legislation, we're putting into legislation, would it not be possible to distinguish between the International Federations who recognise these events as international events on their calendars, to be able to avail themselves of of the benefits of the sporting events framework? In other words, take Wimbledon or take the marathon or take the open golf championship.

All of those are recognised by the relevant International Federations and are placed on their calendars. So if we're looking for a way to put this into legislation, it might be worth considering defining it along those lines and therefore avoiding the problem that everybody might be able to apply to for their own event. So that would rule out, for example, the boat race. And I can see significant problems with the transport provisions of this bill if it was applied to the boat race in the whole of the west of London on Boat Race day.

So I just give that as an example, as a helpful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contribution, which I hope the Minister will be able to to take away and consider. Thank my noble friend, who of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank my noble friend, who of course has roads in the the boat race, but for his constructive. I race, but for his constructive. I think that is a very good challenge. What we're looking for here is a What we're looking for here is a way of, of, of broadening the bill in a in a rational way. He's right to draw the distinction between to draw the distinction between those events that are internationally renowned. That is, you know, as noble friend Lady Evans says, these are the ones that define our sporting reputation and our well earned reputation for being able to host major events like this on the global stage.

So whether it's through that or another metric, I do think this is well worth looking at in greater detail as we head into into Report stage. My noble friend Lord Lord Fuller asked, where does this all end? But actually the question really is where does this begin? We we are promised a major sporting events or major events strategy from DCMS, and I understand the government has taken the legislative slot that's available and proceeded with the bill now, and it's right to do so.

But it's a shame in many ways. We haven't had that strategy in advance of this bill, because that would have helped to inform some of the debates here and answer some of the questions that noble Lords have raised on cultural events, music events and ticketing provisions that apply there as well. So perhaps the noble Baroness, the Minister, can, when she rises, say a bit more about when we might see that major events strategy, how that is designed to feed into this framework and the thinking that's gone on in her department, drawing up this bill in advance of of that strategy.

Because it is slightly unfortunate we're discussing it this way round because of the legislative time available. But I do thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group. I think if we can work constructively as a noble friend, Lord Moynihan and others suggest, then we can take that opportunity to be a bit bolder and help the organisers of major sporting events that do so much to enhance the soft power and renown of this country. To do that, even better in the future.

Thank you.
18:54
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
I'd like to thank the noble Lord >> I'd like to thank the noble Lord Lord Addington, the noble Lady's Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Baroness Evans of Bowes Park and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park and Baroness Grey-Thompson for the amendments, as well as their time to discuss an important topic in response to the point raised by the noble Lord Lord Addington. I really, genuinely appreciate the spirit in which he and others have put forward these amendments. The noble Lady, Baroness Evans, listed a truly remarkable list of events that we have in this country on a recurring basis, and she rightly highlighted the value, including the economic value of events such as Silverstone.

I'd like to reassure your Lordships House that the government is committed to supporting our domestic sport sector and the UK sporting calendar, building on the strong partnerships and existing frameworks that are already in place. This work will be underpinned by the UK wide major Event strategy, which, in response to noble Lord Lord Parkinson's question 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 the process of a undertaking this strategy make some of those sporting organisations that noble Lady Baroness Grey-Thompson feels, feels, feel unloved, feel that this puts in front and centre in the minds of and our priorities. At DCMS. The time limited provisions in this Bill are designed to attract specific one off events which 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, and we know that global competition 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. And in response to the noble Lady Baroness Evans point around the Cricket World Cup, the nature of the framework means that we expect particular events will be considered on a case by case basis. However, we do expect 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 don't generally have the same externally set set mandatory requirements as those events which hold competitive international bid processes.

As the bill was developed, we work 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 through those discussions 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 to reassure your Lordships' House continuing discussion with relevant bodies, which has taken place since Second Reading. Nor was any assessment provided during the discussions that were had prior to the Second Reading of the likely enforcement burden. We are clear that, given these a criminal offences enforcement by any organisation other than the public body would not be appropriate or proportionate. Nonetheless, I am genuinely grateful for the constructive ways in which noble Lords have raised points regarding the potential for going further and for highlighting the importance of a current sporting events.

They have a significant, cherished and valuable role for the nation. The noble Lord Lord Heywood's point around the London Marathon potentially having 100 000 athletes, albeit I won't be one of the ones that's going to be taking part and accompanying visitors, which are more likely to take part in shows. The scale of these domestic events. I'd welcome further discussion with noble Lords on this matter, and we'll 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 in relation to the points raised by the noble Lady Baroness Grey-Thompson around facilities for women and girls.

The government's £400 million investment into grassroots facilities will continue to support increased participation for women and girls through a place based approach, place based approach across the UK. Over the next four years, we will more than double priority access to grassroots 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 for Lionesses. Finally, 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.

Baroness Grey-Thompson, the noble Lord, Lord Heywood and others also highlighted provision and access for people with disabilities or other protected characteristics, which I look forward to debating at within a future group. I think it's coming up at the next Committee stage on Wednesday, and I'd like to thank the Lord Lord Moynihan for his suggestion as well. I think the point raised by Baroness Grey-Thompson about the development of how do we encourage physical activity and the absolute critical way in which we make sure that we don't just have elite.

And then the rest who aren't healthy and aren't fit and healthy. So I think for this government, the development of grassroots sport outside of school and how we encourage physical activity is, is critical. And we are already investing £85 million through the multi-sport Grassroots facility programme this year to build an upgrade. High quality grassroots sports pitches and facilities and communities across the UK that need it most. And this is part of a total package of at least £400 million to be invested in new and upgraded grassroots sports facilities in communities right across the country.

I'd also like to reassure noble Lords and I. I genuinely accept that the suggestions noble Lords are making are. In order to make sure the Bill is future proofed and I do appreciate the spirit in which these amendments have been laid in this group. But with the assurances and reassurances I hope I have provided. I hope that noble Baroness and the noble Lord will withdraw their amendments.
19:01
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, it just goes to show, if you are speaking on a lot of amendments, try and get your mind amendments, try and get your mind on the right one when I start anyway. But I thank everybody who's taken part. This has actually been a very, very good debate in terms of actually, what is the policy forward here, with possibly one exception, but I'm sure the noble Lord Hall is getting to know his colleagues very well. We have established that we've got a consensus that there are a lot of good things in this in this bill proposed the idea that you've got to preserve certain things because they are good unto themselves economically, culturally, socially.

And I wish I had actually tried to match the Baroness Evans for a list of events, because that was pretty impressive. I have a few in there as well, but there are some very good ideas in here. Possibly not the whole list of ideas in here, but certain things about traffic and a regular basis probably going through might be something that would be extremely useful and an event structure if it comes up, and if we eventually get around to it, and who knows what is coming in the next 12 months might be an interesting thing to bring in.

But there is, as the noble Baroness said, these are not people saying that this is a bad bill. They are saying it's a good bill. Can we actually take some of its benefits and push them out to somewhere else? If the government is prepared to engage on that, or at least in some well, even in a long term basis, saying that we will use some of these the some of the capacity here, the traffic coming is one that really catches my mind about getting people to and from.

And indeed, possibly if you've got traffic controls, making sure that the big events there is something in place before they happen, it's probably happening in other ways, but this is a nice regular way of doing it. That would probably be something which would make people's lives easier, and you would get more out of it, and you'd ensure their economic potential. That is rough. There are variations around here. The idea that, you know, some sporting legacy and encouragement should go through. It's the thing the Olympics got wrong.

We had a wonderful event and we had no, you know, physical sporting legacy, certainly not towards grassroots level. I can remember there were a couple of veterans of the committee that looked at it. It's the thing we failed to do with all that success. This is what we failed to do because we know it doesn't happen by osmosis. You have to have some actual involvement down there. We'll hopefully go back to this later on this bill, but that is one of the things that we have got wrong and we know about.

I would hope that the Minister, in further discussions on this 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 upon now, 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 government, and we've managed to do it to all governments I've come up with every now and again. May you have more of this.

But just to say that this is something which we are engaging in to get the best out of, generally speaking, it's been a very positive debate and I will withdraw my amendment. But do do hope that we will actually address this again at a later stage with more information. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
19:05
None Portrait AMDT: 15 Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (Liberal Democrat)
-

Lordships. President. Withdraw >> Lordships. President. Withdraw amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 15 Baroness Bonham-Carter. Amendment 15 Baroness Bonham-Carter. I move to amend to move amendment 15 and will be talking to 26 and 79. 15 and will be talking to 26 and 79. My Lords, 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 first, 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 having to pay, potentially having to pay for a subscription.

Second, really important, it will encourage and expand the audience for such events. Watching a sport you do not know can spark interest but also participation. There are more chances that this will happen if the event. If this. If the event is not behind a paywall, my Lords, as the noble Baroness the Minister mentioned before, she mentioned the Lionesses. Well, thanks to the BBC's championing and broadcasting of women's football free to air, enabling the public to watch the Lionesses triumphant journey in both Europe and world, European and world tournaments.

There are new audiences in stadiums as well as on screens and most importantly, to inspired women and girls to take on the sport similarly. Similarly, the legacy of channel four and the Paralympics and I refer back to what the noble Baroness Grey-Thompson said earlier about enabling, 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 creates an opportunity for a revision of 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, isn't it? The Champions League, Europa League and Conference League were all behind a paywall. My Lords, if the government intends to host such events, such great sporting events, as we've been discussing today in the UK, then the British public deserves the right to be able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

watch them. The only. Wishes to move for a moment, I presume. Right amendment proposed presume. Right amendment proposed clause three, page two. Line 35.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Read out three and insert for my Lords. I rise. With great pleasure to follow the noble Lady Baroness Bonham-Carter, who's very much your Bonham-Carter, who's very much your Lordships House leader in this space. I'm here having signed
19:08
19:09
Lord Hayward Portrait Lord Hayward (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, I rise to disagree with >> My Lord, I rise to disagree with the proposed amendments for a number of different reasons. First of all, because the terminology of all, because the terminology free to air is a complete misdescription, you actually have to pay £180 for your TV licence. It therefore is not free. That is for 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 is rising and has been rising for many years, and the reason I said 88% is because the latest figures published so that 12.5% of all viewers who do not pay for a television licence.

Then there comes the question of competition. Sport is the essence of sport is competition. So it's a very odd state of affairs whereby one says that broadcasters can compete but will, by the way, will restrict the competition in certain fields. And we were debating in the last set of amendments, the question of assisting people who face disadvantages in society. It's a very odd state of affairs, again, whereby one broadcaster might be willing to pay much larger sums to to broadcast a particular event and in that process guarantee substantial funds to the underrepresented groups.

But they're not allowed to because the the event concerned is a crown jewel. So not only do you lose out because the broadcasting may be inferior, but you can lose out because the funding would be inferior as well. And 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 will know what the platforms are going to be in 5 or 10 years time, and therefore, to decree in this piece of legislation that you can only have certain sporting events.

And I noticed that it suggested that they might be extended, but you can only have certain sporting events on, and I'll use the jargon, although I've indicated I don't agree with it. Free to air bases when actually multiple levels of platforms will probably be available in a few years time. Really, I think does not recognise the changing technology in which we are in a technological world in which we live, and which the sporting world will have to adapt to.
19:12
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
Speak to. 26 and the noble Lord Lord Hayward makes an interesting Lord Hayward makes an interesting reference to free to air and as well as we don't know what platforms are going to be available, platforms are going to be available, we don't even know what events are going to be. You know, Olympics and Paralympics is is going to change radically in the next few cycles, not least because of the impact of global warming. But and probably quite good timing. There was an article this morning online on sport broadcast website, which talked about the changing world of events.

Rights holders have more choices about where they can go to put their events and, you know, ask for more money. It's been estimated that the World Cup, FIFA is going to make about £3 billion from organised event where that money is going to go. But actually, if you look at something close to home like Wimbledon, they give a considerable amount of money away and put back into the grassroots, which is is absolutely incredible. But in terms of how people watch, that's going to change as well.

So the same article on sports broadcast was saying that even if you're watching a live event, you're probably checking your phone at least ten times during that event. Or even if you're watching it on, on broadcast to check what else is going on and what other comments are being made. But I think there is something that we should be looking at in terms of how we make available these major sporting events. And if I look at the Commonwealth Games this year, and I think a number of people are disappointed that it's not going to be readily available, certainly on BBC TV, everything that Team Wales does is going to be shown through S4, and there'll be two hours of live coverage a day, which is amazing in Welsh, which is really important in terms of continue to develop the Welsh language.

I'm sure there'll be lots of other home country athletes competing that will be be seen within in those those time slots. But actually the importance of being able to watch the games is I don't think we can underestimate it. And one of the things that can we look back to history. We've been talking a little bit about that today. When BBC covered the Sydney Paralympics in 2000, one of the decisions to put in the games on at teatime was actually so school children could watch the games, and that kind of developed actually much better understanding disability, a much better understanding of Paralympics.

And it got an age group of children watching sport that they probably wouldn't have been able to see before. So whether it's free to air or how we define that, I do think it's important that the public, in the widest possible sense, are able to watch these events without spending, you know, some some quite significant sums, sometimes on monthly fees to be able to ensure that we can actually see these events in, in, in real time.
19:15
Lord Holmes of Richmond Portrait Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-
-
It's a pleasure to follow my >> It's a pleasure to follow my friend Baroness Grey-Thompson. Broadcasting is such a critical Broadcasting is such a critical part of the sporting experience for most people, broadcast is the most people, broadcast is the sporting experience. If you think about when Andy Murray was performing so fabulously on Centre Court at Wimbledon, I believe there were 15,000 seats available, yet millions could enjoy an experience. That extraordinary event from the edge of their sofas.

This is another area where the Bill is unfortunately silent when it comes to innovation, because I believe there are solutions which can, if not resolve but offer new paths forward to enable spectators to enjoy their favourite sports and these events through various media. I give but two examples and I declare a previous interest. I was deputy chair of channel four television at the time. If we consider. 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, who were the rights holders at the time, to have the US open on channel four free to air, but it's not free to air.

As my noble friend Lord Heywood points out, it is a domestic UK broadcaster who weren't a rights holder. But because of thinking differently and getting into discussions and a broader relationship with Amazon, we're able to secure those rights without in any sense cannibalising the rights that Amazon had paid for. A similar deal was done with the England men's cricket when it was down in India that winter, and I only give those two examples because they illustrate that there has to be flexibility, innovation, both in terms of the deals that can potentially be done, and innovation in terms of the various media by which spectators are able to enjoy and support these tremendous events.
19:18
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, very briefly, after so many events going on, let me say many events going on, let me say fruit away. You're actually talking about not being hidden behind a paywall. Now, there may be other points you can put here, but it's something you don't have to make a very big payment through. OK. The licence fee Lord Hayward, I'd say yes. Touche. Well done. Good point. But the fact of the matter is that if you don't have to actually pay to see it, people can get to these great sporting events.

And as the Lord Holmes has just pointed out, you create a national memory, often something which you can refer back to. It's the water cooler moment that doesn't doesn't go away. It's something you can refer back to. It is a point of bonding, which you don't get anywhere else. Now, I would hope that when the Minister responds, they will give us some idea about how we're going to carry on with this, because it's a changing world. And OK, when the first time I discussed this, we knew it was going to be an X number of channels and Sky were only just starting to come in as players.

But it has been something that we have actually been able to see, at least in highlights form or what form of defence is going on here, because it is a big deal, making sure that these huge things, especially when national teams or the big games come up, that you can actually respond to across the board, you know, and make sure that people come down. I would hope that the Minister can say something reassuring on this, because, let's face it, it is one of the reasons why it's worth bidding for something in the first place, because it is now beyond those who go and buy tickets and has been for a long time.

I hope the Minister will be able to say something reassuring.
19:20
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, the noble friend Lord >> My Lords, the noble friend Lord Hayward issues a useful corrective. Just as there's no such thing as government money, only taxpayers money. There is no such thing as free to air broadcasting. We pay for it through some means or another, and it's a timely reminder in a year when we look again at the the BBC's Royal Charter and the licence fee model, which pays not just for the BBC but is required

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for viewing any of our public Service broadcasters. I think we are, in many senses overdue a debate about this. The listed events regime, by which we try and pick those crown jewels of sporting pick those crown jewels of sporting events, we, I think, would have had one during the passage of the what became the Media Act 2024. But became the Media Act 2024. But because that was taken in wash up, we didn't have the. That perhaps we didn't have the.

That perhaps was needed then. And I hope as we look at the Royal Charter for the BBC, we can look at this in in some detail, and maybe the noble Baroness, the Minister can can say a bit about that, either now or in subsequent stages on, on, on this bill. This was looked at in Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Davies of Devonport, who spoke powerfully about the, the, the need for if public money, taxpayers money is being spent on hosting major sporting events, then we want as many of those taxpayers as possible to be able to see and benefit and be inspired by them.

The noble Baroness Goldie Grey-Thompson was right about the importance of the visibility and prominence of, particularly the Paralympic Games, which has done so much to change people's perceptions of those with disabilities and brought in so many broadcasters and commentators with disabilities onto onto our screens. When so many people are watching with great pride and excitement. And like I share some sadness that the Commonwealth Games this year, for the first time, is not going to be broadcast on the BBC for the first time since the games began in 1950.

The live rights have gone to TNT and only highlights will be available on a public service broadcaster on on on channel five and. One thinks of the sort of seminal moments, like the sort of Roger Bannister's Miracle Mile and so much one thinks of the. The people will not be able to be inspired by by by that. So I look forward to the Minister's response on on this. And I do think it links very much to the debates that we need to be having over the BBC's Royal Charter and paying for our public service broadcasters.

And again, this hits at the problem we have in this bill. We are trying to set up a framework, anticipating what the world is going to look like many years hence, in so many different ways that have a knock on effect for, for, for sporting life in this country. I look forward to hearing what she says.
19:23
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lady Baroness Bonham-Carter and Baroness Bennett Bonham-Carter and Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and the noble Lord Lord Addington for their amendments in this group. Turning first to amendments 15 and 26, which seeks to add a further condition to the bill's framework requiring any qualifying sporting event to make qualifying sporting event to make live coverage free of charge to the UK public. I would agree with the noble Lady Baroness Bonham-Carter that what just about the importance of how we had, for example, the lioness on the BBC and the channel four coverage of the Paralympics and I recognise that the government recognises the intent behind this amendment and is committed to ensuring 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 about spectators and what made a spectator and what made a fan, and actually for most people it is watching it, watching it not live, but watching it on largely on television. So the government recognises the intent behind these amendments. However, unfortunately, these amendments are not ones 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 a free to air.

And I do take the noble Lord. Lord Heywood's point, repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that actually it's not free to air. It is free to air once you've 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. These organisations are operationally independent of government and we believe, rightly so. Broadcasting rights provide essential income for national governing bodies and sport broadcasting rights holders, which events enables them to invest in their sports and future events.

And as the noble Lord, noble Lady Baroness Grey-Thompson said, also in grassroots sports. She cited the example of Wimbledon, but there's other examples from across across the piece. This amendment would place tighter controls over their ability to generate much needed broadcasting revenue for an indefinite period of time. There's also a practical concern, my Lords, the timelines for agreeing broadcasting rights won't 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 is absolutely committed to ensuring that there's a breadth of free to air coverage of sporting events for licence fee payers, and I would agree with all noble Lords who stress 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 Baroness Bennett made around people being potentially excluded by dint of their economic circumstances, the listening event assures 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 believes that the current listed events regime works well and strikes appropriate balance between encouraging free to air access to a number of sporting events for audiences, allowing sports to maximise broadcasting revenue, to invest in the growth and development of sports.

And I do note the noble Lord, Lord Arlington's point, which was the ability to be able to talk about having seen major sporting events, is a bonding event, and it can exclude people if they're not able to take part in that. In any event, my Lords, we'd expect broadcasters and sporting rights holders as 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.

My Lords, if I move now to amendment 79, this amendment seeks to ensure that where the sector 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 recognises the importance of broadcasting sporting events to attract significant audience interest and make events 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. It is 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, sporting events and matters for broadcasters, event organisers or the holding holders of the broadcasting rights, all of whom are operationally independent of government.

It would not be appropriate to use this 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 on 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.

This 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 Ladies Baroness Bonham-Carter and Baroness Bennett, and the noble Lord Lord Addington to withdraw their amendments.
19:30
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury Portrait Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I thank everyone except possibly >> I thank everyone except possibly Lord Hayward, who is going to make me have to think of a different way me have to think of a different way of saying free to air. For taking part in this, in in this debate. I'm of course disappointed, but actually not surprised. The noble Baroness Minister has has given me valuable time. So as I say, I'm not totally surprised by her response, but I hope we can explore this further.

And can I pick up on what the noble Lord Parkinson said? Which is this what? You know, the crown jewels is a debate that did get sort of cut off at the knees, didn't it? And we have got charter renewal coming up. And I do think, and I totally respect what everyone says about, you know, the future and things change every day. But I do think this is something we need to discuss, because I really do think it's important that we share these things.

And, you know, the paywall, Lord Hayward is the paywall. And it just does mean that things become niche rather than shared. And that's the thing we are really trying to to overcome here,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think. But I now beg leave to withdraw the motion. Lordships Baroness Murphy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships Baroness Murphy. Withdraw amendment by leave. Withdrawn. Member 16 and 17. Lord Withdrawn. Member 16 and 17. Lord Addington not moved. Amendment 18. Lord Moynihan not moved. Amendment 19. Baroness Evans Not moved. Amendments 2021. Lord Moynihan not Amendments 2021. Lord Moynihan not moved. Just a second. Amendments 22 to 25. Baroness Evans not moved 26. Baroness Bonham-Carter not moved. My Lords, the question is that clause three stand part of the Bill. As many as are led him to say content the contrary, not content.

The contents have it. the question is that clause four stem part of the bill, as many as. Are that content so contrary, not content. The contents have it. We now count clause five Lord Moynihan.
19:32
None Portrait CL 5 S/P Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-

My Lords, it may seem surprising that I oppose clause five stand that I oppose clause five stand part of this bill, given the fact that I've argued many times in your that I've argued many times in your Lordships House on taking tough action against the abuse of the secondary market in ticketing. The reason I do is that I think that this is in the wrong bill. If you go back to the 19th of November, just last year, the government announced that it would be introducing new rules to prohibit tickets for concerts, theatre, comedy, sports and other live events from being resold for more than their original cost.

It made a significant policy announcement that the British government would introduce new rules to ban ticket touting. It then said it would introduce a bill in this session. It didn't. It 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 sell more tickets than you're entitled to by place obligations on resale platforms, and empower the competition and markets authorities to impose tough fines. Whether we get the legislative timetable for that is yet to be seen.

What this bill does for potentially 3 or 4 events in the next ten years is put on the face of the bill, very tough action that I support in principle, but it should also apply to all sports events and cultural and arts and music events, and should be in primary legislation as promised by the government that they would introduce. And it's simply inconsistent. To put it on the face of this bill, some extremely tough and onerous. And yet I fully support it.

It's fully supported, a set of measures on the face of the bill, but it's wrong to do that for 3 or 4 events that might take place, major sporting events over the next 10 or 15 years and not fulfil its clear obligation to the country to introduce primary legislation as soon as possible. To cover this in detail. Now, we're in danger of having a series of different restrictions on secondary market sales, one that covers football. That was the original one, and that was originally brought in for a completely different reason.

It was about segregation of football fans. And that was introduced. And in fact, more recently, we've had further legislation in an excellent private member's bill, which was introduced in the last session, and there's no relevance or reference in this legislation to how that would be implemented moving forward to major international events that we are trying to attract come to this country. Then we had the London 2012 act, which looked specifically at relevant legislation for the hosting of the Olympic and Paralympic Games in this country, criminalising the abuse that we saw in the secondary market with the full support of the House at the time for the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Now, I am no doubt at all that the technology that will be used in ticket touting in years to come will change rapidly. And by the time we next host the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and we will need to consider in detail legislation that will be very different to that. That's on the face of this bill. So I think it's inconsistent not to introduce primary legislation to cover this in detail for cultural events, for music events, for festivals, as well as for the overwhelming majority of sporting events which are not covered by this bill, but just the 3 or 4 international events that we're trying to attract to this country over the next ten, 15, 20 years is covered by this bill.

And it's that inconsistency which concerns me most of all, and which is why I have put down my name, to objecting to clause five, standing part of the bill very briefly and less relevant, because it would be appropriate for another time for me to put my arguments forward as to the significant abuse of the secondary market. I do think it's sad that the CMA isn't the nominated enforcement agency here. It. I would recommend that the government seriously consider removing it as the enforcement agency.

It's prosecuted. No one is done very little. It's looked into all sorts of cases, and it has achieved far less than the national trading standards which have has led to people being jailed. And yet the National Trading standards is on a £13 million budget, a very small budget, but it's been particularly effective. It's taken down social websites. It has been really effective in this area. And I regret that the government feel that the CMA would be more appropriate.

The next point I'd like to make is that if we're talking about specific international events, I'm concerned that FIFA, who when it came to the World Cup that we're enjoying at the present time, decided not to take specific measures in the host nation contract with the US and with Canada and Mexico, partially, no doubt, because the interests of President Trump, who has no appetite to ban touting in the US. But at the same time, FIFA have now set up their own retail site and they are taking 15% off the seller and 15% from the buyer.

And how that fits with this legislation is an interesting question, particularly if they change their approach to ticket touting in the future. I have no doubt whatsoever that FIFA are going to want to protect that source of income post the current World Cup. I would also add that I think it is important that the DCMS is seen to be very evenhanded in considering this important issue. On the face of this bill, they're taking very tough action. But as I've mentioned, it's for potentially 3 or 4 events, not for the world of sport and not for the world of music, which those involved in those industries are desperately keen to see tough action taken, as the government promised.

But there's little evidence that they're going to pursue that. And yet Eric Baker, CEO of StubHub and Viagogo, has been publicly professing how happy he is that he's kicked the can down the road and educated the government. And that's why the bill is not currently before Parliament. I hope that's incorrect. I hope there's no evidence to that effect and that he is saying what he's saying publicly is erroneous. He's had, as I understand it, five meetings with the department, and yet there's been no meetings for those who, quite rightly and understandably feel very strongly that there should be very tough action taken against the abuse of the secondary market.

And it is the abuse of the secondary market that I'm focussed on here. And then I finally think that we should make sure that football is included in this. It's an Olympic sport and it would need to be covered by this legislation. Clearly, there couldn't be separate legislation for football if we were trying to attract an international sporting event, either FIFA or IOC event, and we should be very cautious as well about how it applies to debentures and to hospitality. I'm picking that for touting will be a significant challenge.

So I want on record to state that I am absolutely in favour of the direction that the government have taken on the face of this bill, but I think it's in the wrong place. It's in the wrong bill at the wrong time, and it should be more appropriately introduced before Parliament, as the government have promised it will, and then allow Parliament to determine what that should look like and then implement the decision of Parliament in the context of this legislation moving forward.

I beg to move.
19:40
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
The question is clause five stand part of the Bill? >> My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment number 31 and to begin amendment number 31 and to begin with, I totally wish to associate myself with with the words of my noble friend Lord Moynihan. This is an unnecessary provision in the wrong bill, because at Second Reading I posed the question, what is so bad that somebody who has bought a ticket to the match and suddenly finds they can't go and offers it to for sale to friends on Facebook, justifies a 50 grand fine.

So you've got a spare ticket. Perhaps mum's fallen over at home so you can't go. Perhaps the girlfriend you planned to go with is now seeing somebody else. Or perhaps you've gone down with some sort of food poisoning. Or perhaps even Gramps he had planned to sit next to has died. And it happens. And in all those circumstances, there are draconian penalties for moving on that ticket. For ticketing activities enumerated in schedule one. Selling an event ticket offering for sale, an event ticket, exposing for sale, an event ticket or advertising the ticket is available for purchase.

£50,000. My Lords, is a level of punishment that outweighs the typical criminal penalties for shoplifting, burglary, serious breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act, so I'm 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 the situation where the state ranks the desire to cut your losses as worse than all these crimes? It is two tier justice. And why are we compounding the sadness of the girl whose boyfriend doesn't want to go to the game with her anymore? We're just going after the wrong people.

Can we just get a sense of perspective and materiality here and recognise that somebody who buys six tickets for them and their rellies isn't a member of a crime family, because my amendment limits the six tickets for an event and provides a carve out to the penalties in this bill. The abuses that my noble friend has referred to at Second Reading, I explained that the organisers and selected ticket agents haven't done enough to stop the bots and their industrial hoovering up of the tickets, and we all want to ensure that real fans get a fair shot at going to the game.

That's common ground, but the truth is the sellers haven't tried hard enough to stop this. And the truth, as my noble friend has just alluded, 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 whilst trousering all the cash and filling the cash box on day one. And this bill, if passed, means they don't even have to try and fix this problem. We're letting them off the hook by law.

Now, there are all sorts of technical ways of matching claimants to people, and if we can't authenticate individuals, then the economic basis of society, whether for banking, passport application or driver's licences, can't proceed. My Lord, this is a problem that has been solved. And indeed, if it hadn't have been, then the hated ID card scheme would be even more dead in the water than it is today. Now, my Lords, I went to a wedding last weekend and the lady who I met, I was with my wife, but there was another lady told me how she'd been banned from Tinder for having two profiles and a one and a B1 banned for life.

She was. And if Tinder can see through multiple personalities, it shouldn't be so difficult for Ticketmaster to be honest. And if Tinder can suss out the dupes and the fakes, why can't these agencies like Ticketmaster, others are available. It's a simple question, and one that needs to be answered by government before they go after the jilted girlfriend or the grieving son, because 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 got a black eye. See the bills got this the wrong way round. 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're being asked to give them the legal cover, not to bother to fix this scourge at source. It's just not good enough. 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, 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, and especially if you need to buy these tickets so many months in advance. So rather than ban resales except back to the organisers, and we can see, as has just been mentioned to FIFA World Cup, what happens when you do that? My Lords, FIFA's FIFA has questions to answer, but this bill would prevent those questions from being asked by law.

Instead, we should regulate the secondary market, and an integral part is to provide the assurance that the ticket being offered isn't a fake. And this is a market problem that's been solved. If somebody wants to sell on a ticket, then 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, and the organiser responds as to whether it's an authentic combination or not. In the jargon, it's called interoperability.

So rather than the monopoly preferred by the organisers, who would want a monopoly, wouldn't they? Two individuals who meet on Facebook can be assured between themselves or peer to peer platforms like StubHub, which provide much needed liquidity to all manner of ticketed events, could streamline a regulated process. So let's regulate rather than ban the secondary market, whilst placing the onus on the organisers to enforce identity checks at the outset to stop the boats. I know the Minister doesn't like this, but let's examine her stated preference.

Alternative preference 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 from selling them on at the original face value, and not acting as a state sponsored ticket out? I asked the organiser of an event in scope and he explained you should be able to send your ticket back to the organisers for resale as little as 30 minutes before the game. My Lords, this is lunacy.

All that does is encourage hopefuls to hang around the turnstiles and then be disappointed. Ten minutes to go when suddenly there aren't any tickets to buy. The perfect recipe to charge the entrants 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 moments from my noble friend Baroness Evans, the less lustrous events a state sponsored monopoly to do what they want on tickets at the expense of the fan and the family member who's unable to go to the game.

Why are the peer to peer sites like StubHub or your Facebook friends to be banned? Instead of being encouraged to participate in a market based authentication process regulated, why can't the government get its story straight about how the mechanics of tickets surrender might work? How to prevent state sponsored monopolies and other unintended consequences like charging the turnstiles. Why are we criminalising the little guy whilst providing statutory air cover for the organisers to repeat the World Cup ticket fiasco with empty stadiums? Disappointed fans? And yet this government just isn't learning or explaining how this will work.

And once again, they're on the side of big business, not the fan or the single family member who just has to move on that ticket because his girlfriend isn't his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

girlfriend anymore. My Lords, I rise to move my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to move my amendment to 28 a. The bill usually sets out regulation. The clauses sets out regulation. The clauses set out that regulations in relation to ticket touting will be brought in for sporting events. But brought in for sporting events. But a number of organisations, including UK music and others, are understandably asking the
19:49
Lord Bassam of Brighton Portrait Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour)
-
-
understandably asking the government to completely fulfil its manifesto commitment. And in this sense, I'm coming to the issue from a similar place to my noble friend Lord Moynihan, although I disagree with his remedy. And it's right that we should do this because we need to end exploitative ticket touting across all types of events and enable Lord Moynihan and I have been on the same side on this for many years. So like many on on these benches, I'm delighted that the progress that's been made on ticket touting for sports events, but I'm puzzled about the wait for legislation covering music and other events.

And what makes it more puzzling is that music and sports events, of course, can often take place in the same venues. This week my wife goes 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'm. I'm sure that the noble Baroness Sater Minister will understand why there is a measure of disappointment, particularly amongst music fans, event organisers and performers, none of whom derive any benefit from the current situation.

Now, according to YouGov research commissioned by O2 about online ticket touts suggests that it's costing the UK music fans at least £145 million a year, and UK music have for some time been calling for legislation that includes a resale price cap prohibiting someone from reselling a ticket for more than the original ticket value, the 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.

Now, I Lord Oates. Taken together, those measures would create transparency for ticket purchases and create more of a level playing field for consumers. My amendment 28 A would require, quite simply, the Secretary of State to review the ticket touting provisions in clauses five and six within 12 months of the act coming into force and to report to Parliament on their effectiveness. This review will 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'm also conscious that these things have a habit of slipping and fall 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 for policing this area for music different or more complex? Music fans face many of the same challenges as sports fans. Tickets being acquired in bulk, 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 and unfair ticketing practices while they wait for reform.

If the ticket touting provisions prove effective in the sporting context, the review should consider urgently whether comparable measures should be applied to music events, ensuring greater fairness and consumer confidence in protections. While I simply move this to try and achieve a more speedy route to having equity across all events sporting, cultural, music, whatever it happens to be, because I think those who support those events and music fans and sports fans or whatever, deserve that equality of consideration, I beg to move.
19:53
Lord Holmes of Richmond Portrait Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Soames a pleasure. >> My friend Lord Bassam and to take part in this group. I'm very much physically and actually right much physically and actually right behind my noble friend Lord Moynihan on these issues. It's a good provision. It's the wrong position. It offers a solution which is fine generally for those few critically important but few events that it will cover. And for the vast, vast majority that tantalisingly close and yet elusive solution for everybody else across the rest of sport, music, culture, etc.

My Lords, World in Motion, 1990. Football's Coming Home, Euro 96. Music and sport have always been inextricably linked, and yet the opportunity to bind this together with effective ticket touting provisions has not only been missed by this bill, but unfortunately has set out a solution for the very, very, very few, which understandably is extraordinarily frustrating for the many. It's also unfortunate in that it's a very analogue provision, which doesn't really seem to speak to ticketing and touting and abuse as it is today.

Never mind how this will be in five, ten or 15 or 20 years time. When thinking about a 2040s Olympic Games and Paralympic Games bid, I'd like to speak to amendment 2789 and all the amendments in my name in this group. And I'll start with amendment 89, proposing an accessible ticketing duty on all of these events. For this thing, accessible in the broadest sense of the word. And this goes to discussions that we've had in earlier groups around ensuring that we get the right principles threaded into this legislation, because when we were putting together the ticketing strategy for London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, there was obviously all of the weight of history, all of the rules and the structures and the expectations of what had gone before.

All of those previous 29 Olympic Games. And there was a lot of good and a lot to follow in that. Of course there was. But equally, we were the first people to be delivering an Olympic Games and Paralympic Games in London in 2012. And not only did we take that incredibly seriously, but we took it as it was a once in a generation opportunity, so we should seek to test, to stretch, to develop those principles that are being set out in all of the documentation and all of the history from previous games.

Ticketing was a clear example of this, and this is one which I brought out in my amendment. We wanted hundreds of thousands of school children 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 of the sport of the event. So we had a key principle no free ticket. And that is completely the way to structure these things.

You don't drive engagement fans greater inclusion by thinking that you just give away free tickets. The way to structure it is to have tickets available to school children, as was the case in London 2012. Broader in my amendment to local organisations for disabled people and other groups. The list is not exhaustive in my amendment and to have those tickets face value price paid out of a portion of the most expensive tickets for those events. It worked effectively at 2012.

It worked inclusively, and those people who were paying the highest priced tickets were delighted that that was part of what they are paying for, enabling hundreds of thousands of young people to come and experience Olympic and Paralympic sport, often for the first time in their lives, certainly for the first time in their lives at London 2012. So in terms of taking a principle developed there, it would make sense to thread an accessible ticket duty ticketing duty into this bill.

Moving on to the whole case of the tickets themselves. And as I say, it's currently an extraordinarily analogue bill at a time where tickets themselves have become extraordinarily complex and incredibly more enabling and potentially exclusive in digital token form on digitally digital ledger technologies. The ability to do so much more with that ticket, firstly, to drive out fraud and touting through it being in immutable form. Second, to attach whatever you choose to that ticket, say somebody has particular access needs, put that as part of that digital token that represented representation of their ticket.

Say they have food allergies, whatever it might be, it can make the ticket so more powerful, so more inclusive, and so more connected to the event, potentially drive fan engagement tokens, merch, exclusive benefits, interviews with the players, interviews with the competitors, whatever you choose, that is all available with ticketing technology, which exists today. And yet the bill is silent on this, if only to take away the uncertainty for all those organisations involved with digital assets and token representations of tickets.

I believe the Bill should state on its face clarity as to the nature, the acceptability and the use and the function of digital tokens as ticket representations. And just to imagine the role that that could do 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 impossible without it being clearly visible, and thus 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've come a long way since the man in the sheepskin jacket with a bunch of tickets for whatever sport or music event he might be trying to pile onto you. So much of this is being an online experience or an online exclusion, because the tickets disappear before even the fastest human hand can get anywhere near them. But all of 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 response.
20:02
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
I tried to add my name to amendment 27, the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. But I was slightly too late for the printing slightly too late for the printing of the Marshalled List, and I do think there's something important in this amendment in terms of thinking who is able to have access to major games. So if you look at the 2012 programme, absolutely massive commitment right from the start, no free tickets, sponsors paid for them. And it's not just the joy on the children's faces where they get to go and experience it.

It was something they'll remember for the rest of their lives, but it absolutely ties or tied into the school programs that were being run at the same time. And I think it's also important, you know, I've said it before, 2012 was the only time that I've ever been able to go and look at a watch, a sporting event where I was able to sit with more than one member of my family. And what they did in ticketing was, you know, also, if people couldn't sit in high stands, if somebody needed to be in end row thinking, how about they link that up to accessible toilets, all really important things.

And I think Wembley Stadium is the only place I've ever visited that actually understood some of those issues as well. I think there's 147 accessible toilets at Wembley Stadium, which, you know, other venues should definitely aspire to. I think there's some other things that you could do around this in terms of pay your age, which 2012 did really well. But also the other thing, as somebody who's a spectator and the noble Lord Holmes mentioned about smarter ticketing, you know, you're constantly having to explain as a disabled person what you need, where you want to sit, who you want to sit with, whether you've got actually a guaranteed accessible seat.

And I think that could just be something again, it's about showing the world what we do and, and what we care about. I do think there's something in that we should be looking at ticket touting wider than this, because it's not going to be an issue just for the events that this bill may cover. But I also think there's something in this group of amendments looking at, and again, I've mentioned it before. I mentioned in meeting with the noble Lady, the Minister, thinking about disabled people, not just as spectators.

I was commentating on on a major event in a new build venue. And it turns out actually the commentator's position was not wheelchair accessible, so I wasn't really able to do my job properly, spent half the time commentating in a completely different position. One of the things about a commentator is you actually need. It helps if you can have some interaction with the other people that you're commentating with. And then 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.

So it's something in here about a guarantee of what accessibility means, maybe not on necessarily the face of the bill, but actually just an understanding that we can do so much better. And if we are going to be building new venues, whether it's for Olympics, Paralympics or, you know, we're just more football clubs actually making sure that disabled people have the ability to access events in a fair and equitable way. And I support the other amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes.

He has more experience on this than I think anyone else in the chamber from his work in Locog and beyond. And we should be listening to the things that he's asking for.
20:05
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I have four amendments in this group, but the main thing about, well, an amendment, amendments on ticket touting is the fact that everybody agrees something should be done. Now, something should be done. Now, there's two one principle disagreement going on here. Lord Moynihan saying basically don't 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. No. The Lord Bassam agreed that and certainly I received I, we we, we try and from my benches to try and get an amendment down that included this.

And we didn't actually hit the target. We were told that we were we were out of scope of the bill. So I salute his drafting. I take it as his. If it's not just take the compliment, but also when we go through this, we've got a lot of other issues here. The disability, accessibility. My Lords, I don't know how many dozen times I have discussed that and we still haven't got it right going through. I hope the Minister would be able to say something reassuring on that about an ongoing process.

And just referring back to my amendments. Well, oh yes, that was it. National training standards? Yes. Good idea. I thought I had an original point there. Never Lord Moynihan use it in the first sentence. We've got something here that says it isn't working. Can we know that what will be done? And this and the small series of solutions we've got in this bill are actually managing to annoy people oddly, because they're not big enough or they're not going far enough, and we haven't got anything else that's immediately coming.

The fact we've got a sort of pocket of legislation around this bill, which we haven't seen, at least in draft, it's one of the problems here. I would hope the Minister can start a process which hopefully will be finished by report. When we get an idea of what actually we're going to get on ticket touting and where it's going to come in if we're not going to do it here. And this would have been an opportunity to bring in everything under this bill, we would have something that will actually work.

There are some other smaller amendments. I mean, let me say that a charity auction for a ticket and you're not ticket touting. I mean, yes, I would hope that would be the case, but some clarity around some of the issues we've raised here is the is the maximum penalty enough? I have one of the amendments standing in my name says 200 £0. We're saying 10% of the turnover of that group. Some of these organisations are so big. We're taking on this at £20,000 would basically be the cost of doing business.

Could we actually just have an idea of what the whole picture is going? Because at the moment the government, by doing a nice thing for this bill, is annoying everyone. Oddly, I don't envy the minister's chance to respond because I think the government may well have good intentions. But the old cliche. But these being the roads, the thing that pays the road to hell might well be true on this.
20:09
Lord Markham Portrait Lord Markham (Conservative)
-
-
So I think my noble friend Lord Moynihan, for introducing this group and the contributions made by other noble Lords, I think this whole debate shows that it is a complicated area and does beg. The question is, you know, is this the right bill for it to be in? Or at the very least, we do need another bill very, very quickly to cover all the complications brought up and, of course, apply to music events and cultural events, as well as just just the ones brought up here.

And I think in the FIFA was a very, very good example of, of the US World Cup here just shows how difficult it is to try and create a catch all bill when we know how fast the environment is moving. And FIFA might change their rules as they have done for this World Cup, let alone when you come on to the. Some of the technological advances that my. 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, are, are going on in terms of some of the my, my own amendments, I, I will accept that quite modest in nature in terms of the trying to enable the charitable resale of tickets. But at the same time, I do think they actually introduce an interesting conundrum, because if we're saying that we're very happy for a charity auction to get a good price, and generally we want them to get as good a price as possible, then we're saying, actually, we don't mind profiteering in principle as long as it's for a good cause.

Which again, just brings some interesting complications into this, into this whole matter. And I think in terms of our amendments around a genuine resale market, I think as our amendment tries to show and as as Lord Fuller's amendment tries to show, my noble friend Lord Lord Fuller, there are genuine reasons to to want to resell your tickets. Very legitimate. And the legitimate platforms have a good role in there. And it should be legitimate that they make a reasonable service fee.

I think the 10% mentioned by by, by Lord Addington is probably a reasonable indicator there. But there is a proper function. Those complain. I think we would much rather that they play those roles rather than drive it undercover to the ticket touts where you know you can get the real price gouging form to, for want of a better word. But I think probably what this debate shows, like many of the others tonight, is it is a very complicated area.

And just trying to get this all into one one bill, catch all bill, I, I just think becomes more and more complicated. So I look forward to hearing from the the noble Baroness, the Minister, on how they're going to cater for this and many of the other issues raised.
20:12
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
Thank you. I'd like to thank the noble Lords. Lord Holmes of Richmond. Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham, Lord Addington Bay, Lord Markham, Lord Addington and my noble friends. Lord Arbuthnot Brighton Lord Stevenson about Macara and Baroness Keeley for their amendments. I'd also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for giving notice of his intention to oppose the question. That clause five stand part of this bill. I count myself among those who were slightly surprised at this, but I do appreciate having heard the noble Lord that this was because of his consistent opposition to the many ills associated with secondary ticket market.

I don't, however, accept that it's not appropriate for these measures to be in the bill, but I'll go on to that a bit later on in my remarks. 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. My Lords were determined that when the UK hosts major events, we lead by example, ensuring that they are inclusive and accessible to the widest possible audience.

That's why I work with UEFA on its approach for Euro 2028, which seeks to put fans first with transparent and accessible ticketing principles. It was really interesting to hear the examples given by Lord Holmes on accessible ticketing. Noble Lords may be aware of another example, which is in my speaking notes, which is of UEFA's track record in this regard for Euro 2024, UEFA partnered with the Kaizen Foundation in Germany for the ten 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 Lord Lords Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Markham, introduced an exception to the ticket touting offence for a person selling an event ticket as part of an auction, provided the proceeds go to charity. While I recognise the spirit, the framework approach calls for proportionality to be reconciled with requirements of event owners and the guarantees provided by government. 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 audition tickets. This request would be considered on a case by case basis. Moving to amendment 28 A tabled by My Noble Friends Lord Arbuthnot, Brighton Baroness Keeley and Lee Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, which would require a view of the impact and effectiveness of the ticket touting provisions within 12 months of Royal Assent.

The first use of these provisions, My Lords, will be for Euro 2028, with tickets expected to go on sale after the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

final tournament draw in December 2027. We are committed to an evaluation of the application evaluation of the application provisions in the bill within 12 to 18 months of Euro 2028. We 18 months of Euro 2028. We therefore don't believe that this provision is either workable or provision is either workable or necessary. Amendment 29, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, Lord Parkinson and would introduce Lord Parkinson and would introduce a defence to the ticket touting offence mirroring that included under the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020.

The difference is, the offence in that act did not criminalise the resale of tickets were carried out at face value and not in the course of business. That meant a person advertising 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. My Lords 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 profit. Major sporting events owners require strict controls over the resale of tickets. That is why the ticket touting offence in this bill only permits public resale, where it has been authorised by the event owner organiser.

In reality, we expect major sporting event owners will put in place an official resale platform for such tickets. My Lords, the amendment also introduces 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 should be affordable and accessible at 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. This bill does not ban, 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, which 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. My Lords, the Bill doesn't, as I've 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 upfront that an official resale platform would be made available so that people can legally resell tickets. Turning to amendments 34 and 35, towed by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, which seek to create a power to specify in regulations technical standards for distributed ledger ticketing records. We share the objectives of the noble Lord to ensure that the sale and distribution of electronic tickets for major sporting events is 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 ticket operations, and to ensure that these may meet any relevant legal requirements and technical standards. Amendment 64 in the noble Lords name would require guidance published on ticketing to include provisions related to AI assisted enforcement and evidential standards for enforcement in 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 to disrupt criminal activity online.

However, it is not for the government to prescribe technical standards for the use of technology in a piecemeal way. My Lords, Amendment 36, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Addington, which 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. Moving on, my Lords to amendment 62, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Addington, this would remove the ability of the Competition and Markets Authority to enforce a ticket touting offence in the Bill and instead confer enforcement powers upon national trading standards, a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.

I am not aware of any examples of national trading standards being provided with powers to directly enforce offences beyond those which are available to local trans apologies. Just on the point that I was referencing noble Lord Lord Moynihan, I'm not sure you made exactly the same point. You made the point about the Competition and Markets Authority. Not that they should. The power should go to national trading standards. Going back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington's amendment, I'm not aware of any examples of national trading standards being provided with powers to directly enforce offences beyond those which are available to Local Trading Standards authorities, which receive funding priority projects from National Trading Standards.

As I hope I've 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 for the courts. It complements the Competition and Markets Authority 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 five should stand part of the Bill, my Lords, clause five is integral to the framework provisions within this Bill and to delivering the requirements of major sporting event owners in relation to ticketing.

The clauses 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 ticket touting offence can apply as a surveyor between events, to ensure the period to which the offence is in force is proportionate to particular sporting event. The clause also requires regulations to specify the part or parts of the United Kingdom to which the provisions apply. I did appreciate the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, making it really clear that his opposition to the measures within this bill were related to a desire for wider ticketing reforms, and in response to the noble Lords, I think we're in agreement that this bill isn't appropriate vehicle necessarily for the wider ticketing reforms.

And he is right. The noble Lord is right that the time limited provisions of the bill only apply to major sporting events, which meet the necessary conditions, and are specifically designed to enable public resale only where it's been authorised by the event owner. However, any delay to this bill by including significant additional provisions outside of 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 and the live events sector, helping to deliver legislation that is enforceable, effective and future proof.

I did want to say something briefly about the point made by the noble Lord on comments related to StubHub. I wasn't aware of the comments, but I have got a brief response. So I hadn't seen the comments. But I have got a response from the department. Lord Moynihan raised a departmental meeting with StubHub. The department has met with stakeholders from all areas of live events sector, including StubHub and Viagogo, in order to understand the full ticketing landscape. However, we are clear that these meetings did not impact the published decision, did not impact the decision to publish a bill in draft in this session, and we are committed to doing that.

Before I conclude, I was keen to touch on the government's wider position on the touting of tickets, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. As noble Lords are aware, we've committed to bring forward a resale price cap, including a cap on the level of service fee that can be reached, that can be charged and limits on the number of tickets individuals can resell. We're fully committed to introducing these measures worked by. This legislation is happening at pace, but we do need to get it right, and that's why we intend to publish the bill in draft in this session.

My Lords, recognising the interest in these matters, I. I wanted to commit to hosting an all peer session on this matter in coming weeks with relevant officials, so that noble Lords can get a bit more clarity on where we are and where we're planning to go with this, and I will endeavour to do this before the summer recess. In the meantime, I respectfully ask all noble Lords to withdraw their amendments and be content for this clause to stand part of the Bill.
20:25
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
Can I thank the Minister for her quite extensive, albeit rapid, fire quite extensive, albeit rapid, fire response? Many of us will read it in greater detail and and come back in greater detail and and come back with any questions after we've had that opportunity. Can I just say to the noble Lord Lord Bassam, that whilst we might have disagreed on my recommendation that I opposed clause five partial Bill, I hope he at least recognises that it is effectively a probing amendment, and the reason why I put it down in in those terms was because there were many good amendments that were already tabled on this subject, and I wanted to highlight the really important point that by placing it simply on the face of this bill, given the government's commitments, that we lacked consistency across the country.

And yes, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And that's why I think this is an important debate to have this evening. And I congratulate the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

evening. And I congratulate the noble Lord for his observations and comments. I'm grateful for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for that intervention. And can I say that I echoed everything that he said. I think everything he said in terms think everything he said in terms of detail was to be supported. And the second point I'd like to make the second point I'd like to make is this, that I think we've got to be incredibly careful in discussing this subject about the autonomy of world sport. We're talking about major sporting events, and we are seeking to encourage UEFA or FIFA or the IOC to award the right to host those events in this country.

We're not telling UEFA or the IOC or FIFA what to do. That is not the way world sport works. And when I hear in the response from the noble Baroness, the Minister, we expect them to do this. We expect them to do that. We expect them to do otherwise. We can expect as much as we want. It's what UEFA, the event organiser, decide, and what I was pleased to hear in that context is that this is clearly drafted with the agreement of UEFA for the euros 2028, in the same way as there was unique legislation introduced for London 2012 to reflect what the IOC wanted and IOC wanted.

And having listened carefully, and that's why the noble Lord, Lord Holmes is. Contribution this evening was so valid to what locog the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, had discussed in great detail, and they had discussed the need to criminalise the secondary market, from selling tickets to criminalise touting so that they could totally control the ticketing operation for London 2012, which they did highly, successfully, and not least because it allowed them to make available tickets to schools.

As my noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and my noble friend Lord Holmes said, and looked holistically at the overall ticketing for that event. Unlike FIFA for the World Cup in the United States at the present time. So I think it's incredibly important to recognise that when we're talking about appropriate arrangements for ticketing in this bill, we're actually 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.

And it will be very different if we host the Olympic Games in the future, and we will need to come back with event specific legislation, a point I keep making and it can be easily remedied on the face of the bill, and all these issues can be put to one side. If the government recognised that, in addition to this framework, there will require possibly event specific legislation to host major international events here, as I desperately hope they will in the future.

So my concern was that we are being tough on touting from the face of this bill for a small number of events that this bill relates to, and 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 the need for the government to legislate and to bring forward a draft bill this time when having having said that, they were definitely going to legislate with no commitment to actually implement legislation in a future session of this Parliament is not what the arts world and the music world and the sporting world,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and the Knights of the noble Lord Bethell and myself. Lord sits down. I wouldn't normally do this. However, I was normally do this. However, I was really clear that we are going to introduce a draft bill and we will be introducing legislation in due course. So I do feel that it's slightly going beyond what I responded, and I'm really happy to sit down and talk to any noble Lord sit down and talk to any noble Lord that wants to talk about the ticket touting measures that were coming up, but I can't accept that we're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not taking it seriously, which the Lord suggests. An important and welcome intervention. But the noble intervention. But the noble Baroness, the Minister, said in due course, can she commit to the committee this evening that that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee this evening that that means during this Parliament. July the 19th. Commit to a timescale, but I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commit to a timescale, but I have offered to have a meeting where we can discuss that in further detail. To commit to the whole of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To commit to the whole of this Parliament when we've got years to run, is disappointing, given the strength of the comments that have been made by the Prime Minister and indeed other Ministers in recent months, I think it is vitally important that by the time we get to a Report stage, the government can give an indication as to whether they are going to legislate during this Parliament or not, because the public have longed for getting legislation on the face of, of, of the statute book in order to protect people from being ripped off and turning up for many concerts, having paid a lot of money to bring their kids down from from wherever they live and find out that they've got a forged ticket and that must be stopped.

And we must take tough legislation. And that's why I share with the noble Lord Lord Bassam the need to legislate on this, and why we were so pleased that the government was willing to come forward with legislation which Parliament could consider, and not to know that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

might happen during the current Parliament is something which will be deeply disappointing. Yes, I know, my friend, for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I know, my friend, for giving way. He's emphasising the. Importance of tackling tax in a broad piece of legislation covering broad piece of legislation covering not just these events, but could he also please emphasise the issue that Lord Fuller raised, which is ensuring the obligation of those who are selling the tickets to maximise the controls, to avoid tainting?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely can endorse that comment. And as my noble friend who comment. And as my noble friend who sat with me on this subject many times over the past five years will know. Ever since the Waterson report and many other reports, I have sought to table and to introduce and sometimes successfully introduce legislation that gives far greater clarity and that gives far greater clarity and visibility on the tickets, on the tickets, and to make sure that when people do sell tickets, they follow the conditions that the organiser of the event has brought forward.

So if a condition that the organiser has said this should not be sold on the secondary market, it should not be sold on the secondary market, and we've needed legislation to be introduced in order to achieve that. I'm absolutely a tough on this subject, as the noble Lord Lord Bassam knows, and I had the privilege of chairing or co-chairing the all party group on ticket abuse. We have to take action on this, and I really hope that thanks to the noble Baroness, the Minister's response, she will be able to go away and consider before a Report stage an absolute commitment that this government will honour its word and introduce legislation.

I'm not even going to say during this session, during

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this Parliament, I beg to. My Lords. The question is that clause five

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that clause five stand part of the bill. As many as that of you will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 27. Lord Holmes not moved. The question is that not moved. The question is that clause six stand part of the bill. As many as that will say content. The contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 28. Lord Parkinson not moved. The question is that clause seven stand part of the bill.

As many as that of people say content of the contrary, not content. the contents have it. Amendment 28 a Lord Bassam look not moved. Amendment 29 Lord Pearson not moved. Amendment 30 Lord Addington not moved. Amendment 31 Lord Fuller not moved. Amendment 32 Lord Addington not moved. 33. Lord Parkinson not moved. Amendment 34 and 35 not moved. En bloc Lord Holmes not moved en bloc amendment 36. Lord Addington not moved. Thank you. The question is that schedule one be the first schedule to the bill.

As many as that. When you say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 37. Lord Foster not moved. The question is that clause stand part of the bill. As many as that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it in clause nine. Amendment 38.
20:35
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Addington my Lords, this is well, it's merely a probing well, it's merely a probing amendment. Try and get out. Get out, shall we say, dealing with some of the hardy perennials. When you were dealing with the bills that actually take on big sporting events, that is, you've got a big sporting event, you've got a big advertising structure, you've got restrictions going on being imposed on the local traders. And the local traders think it's not fair. And sometimes it gets slightly absurd.

I cannot, but I'm trying to forget the Olympic. I think it was kebab van that operated in the East End of London that was restricted by the Olympic Games. I mean, it just became a case of why didn't they know? Or how didn't you take advantage something down or wasn't some. Some smaller sort of some small operation to lessen the impact on their business going down and through. And in the rest of the group, I see we've got amendments dealing with charitable situations here and going through.

So I think we've got a situation here of how are we going to make it a little easier for the small and medium sized businesses to operate properly within these structures? What are the duties on those organising the big events to actually let them know what's going to happen and to mitigate any harms to them? It's only a way of trying to find out what the government's thinking is on this, because it is one of those things which comes back and niggles again and again.

When you have a big event, hopefully we can find out what the government's thinking is, at least tonight as we carry on about how we're going to make sure that these small units around, which should be Marshalled List.
20:37
20:38
20:39
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment 56 briefly in this group. amendment 56 briefly in this group. And of course, the the bill before us unashamedly tries to snare and us unashamedly tries to snare and capture the truly large global events that can make a national impact in our country. But national impact, national scale also has local effects. And one of the purposes of hosting one of these big events is to is to transform the local economies, drive investments, and spread love and enjoyment in the local communities that acts as hosts.

So, my Lords, it's naive to think this is front and centre of the organisers mind. The promoters of the truly global events have lined up their sponsors, their sports rights, big global brands. There's pallet loads of merchandise to shift and we know that money follows sport. And this bill, in my view, makes sport all about the money by law. And I'm concerned about the powers to designate zones around stadiums or other undefined places, which might be fan zones, I suppose, where trading local trading will be made illegal.

Now at Second Reading I gave the example and it was on yesterday in Parliament actually, which I was very pleased about my first time I. I gave the example of that ten minute walk from Twickenham station to the Alliance Stadium down Witham Road, where every type of food is available, from licensed food vans and stalls set up in front gardens where the enterprising homeowners had demolished the garden walls. Not just food, but there's old boys selling tat and the little guy with his roadside kebab van and the youth club with their pop up gazebo throwing chicken wings.

It's all part of the grittiness, but all these places have got a licence now. The way in which this bill bans this trading, then the little of the money will be assimilated in the local economy. And that's not right, because the people who are hosting these events should have a right up to expect some of the benefits will be retained locally. Now, I do accept there needs to be some sort of control so it doesn't become a scrum. Twickenham to one side and we need to have minimum hygiene standards and sensible limits so we don't get overwhelmed.

And that's why over decades, a series of local licensing by the local authority has evolved. It's tried and tested. It's got public safety and hygiene at its heart, and it's allowed an ecosystem of local traders to flourish. But this bill costs all that aside, even if you've got a licence, you'll be excluded from participating in a whole community effort to host a big event. The local little doers are going to 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? So my amendment is really simple. It protects the ability of the local council to ensure that at least some of the benefits of hosting an event are retained locally, not outsourced to national firms or multinational burger corporates. I want to ensure that local flavours are part of the mix, and fans aren't just force fed cardboard burgers, gassy lager served in soulless stadium concourses.

Under my proposal, it'll be up to the council to strike the right balance between the local needs and the rights holders in exchange for issuing licenses in a local territory. The Council council will hold some of the cards. This bill gives the organisers all the cards and that's no good. It's an affront to the bloke who prefers a cheap kebab to an overpriced burger, a bucket hat to a baseball cap, or the fan who fancies a. Or rather than lager.

Well, if the council gets it wrong, well, there are elections to sort that one out. And the Second Reading I was grateful to the. The thoughtful, noble Lord, the Lord man who isn't in his place, supported the principle of locals being able to get in on the act. You see, he was on the side of the working man, the local charity, the youth group and their pop up gazebo. And I say, let's empower them all. They collectively over decades have created so many different rituals and traditions, traditions associated with going to the game more so than the game itself.

Families, groups of fans, clubs and societies. They. They work with the community in a sort of full play that heightens the pleasure of the big event itself. And I know the noble Lady wouldn't want to deny fans their pleasure, so I ask her to accept my amendment. So everybody gets to enjoy themselves in the way that they want to, but most importantly, that some of the benefits are retained in the community who have who potentially are so inconvenienced by the disruptions of hosting it.

But the economic benefits must be retained locally.
20:45
Lord Hayward Portrait Lord Hayward (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, can I follow friend Lord Fuller in relation to his expression of concern about the expression of concern about the impact on small businesses? Sadly, many people in this House will know me as a statistician who spends all his time looking at opinion polls, numbers in one direction or another, and then commenting on them. I have spent inadequate time looking at the impact assessment to which there's been no reference made. I think, as yet at any point during these debates, and despite my apparent facility for statistics, all I can say about the impact assessment is that my head hurts.

I find it incredibly difficult to comprehend. Page after page of low impact central impact, high impact estimates. But I'll therefore comment in particular on one section. I could comment on a number of other sections, but I do 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're aggregated in a very odd way. But I'm quoting here from page 41 of the impact assessment, and it refers to the impact on straight street traders.

And it says, and I quote, the low estimate reflects that 50% of traders will be able to continue to trade due to potential mitigations. Therefore, that actually means that 50% of the traders won't be able to continue trading. And that's the low estimate. It then goes on to say the central estimate reflects that. The likelihood that is, that 75% of traders in the affected area will be 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 the areas where prohibitions are applied apply are unable to trade. We are therefore talking about a very substantial impact on businesses. We have debated earlier on this evening or this afternoon, the duration under which these provisions would apply, but we are talking about potentially every single trader in that street trader in those relevant areas. And there are pages identifying the numbers of traders affected, whether it's been the Everton Stadium, the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, whether it be in Glasgow, at Hampden Park or wherever you choose to name.

There are numbers after numbers after numbers of street traders. That's their livelihood and if these are events are running for several weeks, which is likely to be the case, they are losing their livelihood for that period of time. I therefore share Lord Fuller concerns about the impact that is identified, but identified in such a complex way, it is incredibly difficult to understand what we're actually talking about. I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I'm grateful to my noble friend for giving way, what he's done is paint a picture and he's enumerated it with a set of enumerated it with a set of examples of sports stadiums. And there is to be a part of this bill, there is to be a part of this bill, a zone cast around the stadium where trading will be banned. But there are other provisions that there are other provisions that have other, other events, for example, fan zones.

And I'm just really concerned, and I just wonder whether my noble friend has considered this angle. Fan zones could be in town centres and essentially town centres could be sterilised from trading. And I just wonder whether he's considered the net may be cast much further than organisations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do I thank my my noble friend for that intervention and identifying other areas in my identifying other areas in my comments I may. I tried to make clear that I had only taken one clear that I had only taken one element of one page of an impact assessment. I said it was on page assessment. I said 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.

So I think what there is not, as far as I could identify, is an overall assessment in terms of costs, potential for any small business or any large business, and an impact on the economy. There's lots of explanation that tells us how wonderful it's going to be week in, week out because of the benefits of sport. That is right. We've all recognised that. But what there is indistinct. What there is here is an indistinct identification of the potential costs to some.

Small and very small businesses, and I think we really should recognise the potential implications for all concerned.
20:50
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. >> Well, my Lords, in many senses we have outperformed a World Cup football squad tonight because we've hit the target ahead of we've hit the target ahead of schedule for this first day of committee. And we've done it without a hydration break. Let me begin with the two amendments I have tabled in this group, and it is an important group on which to end our debate on this first day of committee, because it deals with the significant impacts of of this bill on the restrictions on commercial interests, small as well as big, a point that a noble friends have rightly accentuated in their contributions.

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 noble Baroness Carr 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 then why not for the the new framework that we are seeking to set out? Amendment 55 similarly relates to charitable exemptions.

Paragraph one, subsection two of section schedule three to the to. The bill states that a trading activity includes, and I quote, appealing for money or other property, whether for charitable or other purposes, with the exception of begging. So 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 Lady can explain why it's been drawn up in that way. Surely we don't want to restrict people from collecting for, for for good causes where that can be done in a way that's consistent with the, the sporting event, particularly when we consider that charities historically have been exempted from the advertising offences.

When we've hosted sporting events of this nature in the past. In doing that, I've tried 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 of 2006, which provided carve outs for community and educational uses and congratulate him for the way he set that one out. I thought perhaps actually the noble Lord Lord Addington undersold his amendment 38 little.

It concerns the impact of exclusive advertising authorisations on small and medium sized enterprises, and as my noble friend Lord Heywood has done, I think it's 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 from operating as usual in and around restricted zones.

It recognises that there may be, and I quote, the impact assessment small disproportionate impacts on local traders relative to the broader business community. So it acknowledges that the greatest potential impact will fall on street traders in affected areas. As my noble friend Lord Fuller says, you know, the the people who add to and enhance the enjoyment of so many people going to sporting events. The impact assessment promises that careful consideration will be given on 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 isn't the same as a legal safeguard on the face of the Bill and what the noble Lord Lord Addington Amendment 38 seeks to do is translate the government's own stated intentions from the impact assessment into an enforceable obligation. So I do think that one is worth looking at carefully, both by the Minister and her response this evening. But perhaps, as we consider all of the issues we've looked at today between now and Report stage, I'm grateful to noble Lords for all of their amendments Lords for all of their amendments in this group.
20:55
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lords. Lord Addington, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, Lord Markham, Lord Fuller and Lord Holmes of Richmond Fuller and Lord Holmes of Richmond for their amendments. Amendment 38, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Addington, requires a designated person to have regard to additional factors related to small and medium or local enterprises, where determining whether to grant an advertising authorisation. We share the noble Lords intention to ensure 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 impact 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 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 authorisation process is in place and the proposed activity does not undermine commercial sponsors.

Businesses with an existing licence advertised should be given precedent before making regulations. A Secretary of State or devolved authority must consult with the relevant authority and other any other person or persons. Apologies. This could include local businesses guidance. Setting out the advertising restrictions will 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 won't be affected by the advertising provisions in the bill. I'll say more on charities shortly, but I want to stress that the advertising offence will only capture charities and other non-commercial entities if they're 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 the interests of any charity partner, if there is one to an event can be taken into account where necessary.

Generally, this means providing exceptions in regulations on a case by case basis to ensure that their proportionate, workable and event specific 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 Lord Markham, creates an exception to the advertising offence for promoting charities and 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 exceptions related charities can be applied effectively. These would be need to be brought forward in regulations drafted in accordance with local laws, while taking into account the interests of any charity partners. Charities will only be captured by the offence 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 Lord, Lord Parkinson and Lord Markham, would remove appealing for money or other property from the definition of trading activity, and I believe it was this amendment that the Baroness, Baroness Grey Thompson, spoke in relation to the knitted items and proportionality in relation to that, which was a really good example and the type of example I've been putting to the bill team as well, just sort of testing that kind of example.

I understand this amendment is looking to provide charitable fundraising is within scope of the trading offence. The trading offence is designated to designed to. 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 place. While I'm sympathetic to the spirit of this amendment, a blanket exception for charity charitable fundraising could undermine these objectives.

For example, an event may have an official charity partner which may need to be given priority over fundraising activity in a restricted trading zone. 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 a significant amount 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 able to apply, 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 the 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 who 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. This is not possible. We expect event organisers will 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 noble Lord. Lord Heywood's comments, I'd be very happy to discuss the impact assessment process further. I, I, I know he's the noble Lord is among one of those who reads all these documents, and I think it would be useful to have that discussion as we progress.

That isn't to say that I'm assuming that other noble Lords don't read those documents. Sorry, I just realised I've inferred that amendment 63, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Holmes of Richmond. It requires enforcement authorities to publish an equalities report with details on what this encompasses. Set out within six months of a of an event. Concluding, I want to provide reassurance that we expect punitive measures only to be used as a last resort. As for previous events, this government will work with event organisers and enforcement authorities to ensure enforcement activity prioritises intentional and persistent breaches of the law.

This would include ensuring that appropriate training is in place for enforcement officers. Only public authorities can be designated as enforcers under the bill, as the noble Lord will know, all public authorities are subject to the public sector equality, duty and 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 I'm very happy to meet any noble Lord who wishes to do so as as we progress, but would ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
21:03
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. Well, it's nice to end >> My Lords. Well, it's nice to end on something of like agreement. I thank the Minister for her reply. It seems to me that we're accepting there is a potential problem here, just about what are the solutions now, it's a case of the impact assessment, which I must admit is a sort of document I look at, cower, then drop. So I possibly I will take the noble Lord Heywood's sage like advice there, and possibly buy him a beer to get a good interpretation of it next time.

But there has been a problem here. I see the government is trying to move towards dealing with it, but it's also the case of actually trying to make sure those people who are going to be affected by it know, so they can start to say some mitigation themselves. I'm not absolutely sure if the Minister covered that well enough in her reply. OK, it's the start of a process. It's not the end, but I think we should have a look at this because it's an irritant.

It's a bit of grit that isn't producing pearls, to be perfectly honest here. So we should try and get rid of it and do the best we can. We have enough information now. We have enough experience to be able to do something that is better than what we have at the moment. Let's have a look and let's see how we can get around to it. And I look forward to having further discussions with the Minister on this in the future, because I think it is something where we can make something better than we have at the moment.

And with with that caveat, I beg leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment withdrawn that the amendment withdrawn amendment is by leave withdrawn? The question is that clause nine stand part of the bill. As many as stand part of the bill. As many as that, say content Of the contrary, not content. the contents have it. Amendment 39. Lord Holmes not moved, Amendment 39. Lord Holmes not moved, not moved. The question is that clause ten stand part of the bill. clause ten stand part of the bill.

As many as that people say content contrary not content. The contents have it. amendment 40. Lord Parkinson not moved. Amendment 41. Lord Foster not moved. Amendments 42 and 43 not moved. En bloc Baroness Bennett not moved. Amendment 44. Lord Foster Not moved. Amendments 45 and 46 not moved. En bloc Baroness Bennett amendments 47 and 48. Lord Foster not moved en bloc amendments 49 and 50 Baroness Bennett not moved en bloc amendment 51. Lord Foster not moved. Amendments 52 and 53 not moved en bloc Baroness Bennett.

The question is that schedule two be the second schedule to the bill. As many as that opinion will say content Of the contrary, not content. the contents have it. The question is that clauses 11 to 13 stand part of the bill. En bloc as many as that will say content. The contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 54. Lord Parkinson not moved. Amendment 55. Lord Parkinson not moved. Amendment 56 Lord Fuller not moved. The question is that schedule three be the third schedule to the bill.

As many as that opinion will say content. Content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 57. Lord Parkinson not moved. The question is that clauses 14 to 16 stand part of the bill. En bloc as many as that content. The contrary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not content. The contents have it, my Lords, I beg to. Move that the House be resumed. The question is that the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House be resumed. As many as that opinion will say content. The contrary not will say content. The contrary not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that the House will now adjourn. House will now adjourn.
14:00
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
I should say from this Dispatch Box that the government too is immensely sad on the events in in Bedford last Friday. Our sympathies Bedford last Friday. Our sympathies are wholly with the relatives of the deceased driver and with all of the deceased driver and with all of those affected by the accident. My Secretary of State for transport is making a statement later in the other place in respect of the spend on consultants. This consultant spend in this in the 2526 financial year is for a fundamentally different purpose than any money previously spent on consultancy.

For HS2, the company was not in control of the contracts that it had let. It was not in control of what work had been done. The. The effort to find out what work had been done for the money that's spent. Roughly two thirds of the original budget has been spent, and only a third of the work has been done is testimony to the way in which the project was managed. Getting control of it means finding out what was done. And that's what this money has been spent on.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

When we have a realistic timetable and budget to complete the works on this much delayed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

railway line. The recent statement by the Secretary of State for transport in Secretary of State for transport in the other place, said that the work that mark wild as the new chief that mark wild as the new chief executive, Mike Brown as the new chair of the new board. The project
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:49
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page